Loaded no crew train runs into stopped broken down empty. Have to wonder if communications was lost to loaded train? Could it be that the Aurora Borelis messed up coms to train or maybe the GPS signals were compromised?
Automated Rio Tinto iron ore train derails in WA - ABC News
22 cars and 3 locomotives damaged; pictures show a pretty good pileup.
The plot thickens: the out-of-control train was apparently the empty, dispatched as a 'recovery train' for a stalled loaded consist. Precisely how the empty train was going to assist the loaded one in the absence of human workers is not yet clear. In my opinion a complete consist was dispatched in order to have rapid response without human tinkering, ECP brake testing, etc. associated with cutting power off a standing empty train. Again, this is something I expect to see clarified within a reasonably short time.
Sending additional POWER to assist the stalled train I understand. Sending a full size empty train to assist the stalled one I look in askance.
Obviously whatever technological mechanisms Rio Tinto thought they had in place to pull off the coupling and then moving of the stalled loaded train FAILED and not by a little bit. The stalled train, being loaded, would have been the immovable object.
What is not stated was the coupling to have been done under autonomous 'control' or was some form of remote control to have been used in bringing the two TRAINS together in a safe manner in order for the combined trains to begin their move toward the destination of the stalled loaded train.
Would the Sun Spots storm that brought the Northern Lights to the many 'unusual' locations over the weekend have disrupted what ever control technology that Rio Tinto has been using for their autonomous operations?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
On another site, it was said there were employees working on the disabled train. They were warned in advance to evacuate the area.
Our PTC will provide a 2 minute warning if the GPS signal is lost. If the engineer does not acknowledge the warning and take action, after the time out the system will initiate penalty braking to stop the train. At least that's what's supposed to happen.
I would expect their automated train should do the same if it lost communication or GPS.
I've heard a few instances where our EMS auto throttle would not release auto control when manual control was requested by the engineer. They had to bring the train to a stop to disengage the auto throttle control. It's rare, it's not supposed to happen, but it has.
Jeff
Euclid My guess is that only the stalled train was set up for; and had been running with autonomous operation. But there would be no program for autonomously operating the slowly approaching rescue train. So that train was being operated by remote control. For some reason, the remote control operator lost control.
I don't believe that they are set up for over the road remote control operation, except for initiating a command to stop. Even if it is, loss of communication should cause a remotely operated train to stop.
The LEADER energy management system used in the US makes up part of the automation package that Rio Tinto uses.
jeffhergert Euclid My guess is that only the stalled train was set up for; and had been running with autonomous operation. But there would be no program for autonomously operating the slowly approaching rescue train. So that train was being operated by remote control. For some reason, the remote control operator lost control. I don't believe that they are set up for over the road remote control operation, except for initiating a command to stop. Even if it is, loss of communication should cause a remotely operated train to stop. The LEADER energy management system used in the US makes up part of the automation package that Rio Tinto uses. Jeff
I heard, and don't know for a fact, that DPU's operate at their last commanded setting for some period of time after communications with the head end is lost.
On CSX when I was working - it was against the Train Handling Rules for power WITH TRAIN to assist another train. The power had to be cut off from its own train in order to assist a stalled train - head end or rear end assist - it didn't matter. Only the power was to do the assisting.
Euclid jeffhergert Euclid My guess is that only the stalled train was set up for; and had been running with autonomous operation. But there would be no program for autonomously operating the slowly approaching rescue train. So that train was being operated by remote control. For some reason, the remote control operator lost control. I don't believe that they are set up for over the road remote control operation, except for initiating a command to stop. Even if it is, loss of communication should cause a remotely operated train to stop. The LEADER energy management system used in the US makes up part of the automation package that Rio Tinto uses. Jeff Were both trains originally operating in autonomous mode, and then were stopped when the leading train had a failure of some sort? If so, at that point, both trains would be stopped. I assume the second train was stopped some distance short of the first train by detecting the fouling first train ahead. Then they decided to move the trailing train ahead to tie onto the leading train to pull (or push) it into a siding to clear the mainline. So in that process, once the two trains were initially stopped, they had to move the following train ahead to couple with the leading train. How would they control the following train when moving it up to the leading train? If they don’t have the ability to move the second train by remote control, how could they move it other than by sending another crew out to handle the second train?
Jeff,
Continuing my thoughts from previous post:
Autonomous operation? What could go worng?
On Rio Tinto's website, automation section, it appears the only remote control objects are some land rovers and drones. Trains and heavy trucks are automated in use, with some override capability, probably to stop a vehicle/train that has alarmed for certain malfunctions. Although their info is limited and simplistic, other than local remote control (assumed) for loading/unloading and switching cars and locomotives in/out for maintenance, there appears no remote operation of trains.
They stress that their automation across all spectrums of their operation is for the "safety" of their people. Uh huh.
Not all of their rail operations are automated (yet) the last I knew. They have some routes that still have manned trains. I don't know if the route that has autonomous trains is also used by regular manned trains outside of terminal areas.
Here's a video about setting up the auto haul (autonomous) system. Read some of the comments, including some by the poster who made the video - one of which you have to click on the unseen replys.
BaltACD On CSX when I was working - it was against the Train Handling Rules for power WITH TRAIN to assist another train. The power had to be cut off from its own train in order to assist a stalled train - head end or rear end assist - it didn't matter. Only the power was to do the assisting.
I had an experience of being on an Amtrak train where the locomotive was used to push a disabled NCTD Coaster train out of the way with the train I was riding on still coupled. I had another experience where the Amtrak train I was riding on was coupled to another Amtrak train beacuse the ditch light on my drain had failed.
Having said that, I can see the logic behind the CSX rule.
Erik_Mag BaltACD On CSX when I was working - it was against the Train Handling Rules for power WITH TRAIN to assist another train. The power had to be cut off from its own train in order to assist a stalled train - head end or rear end assist - it didn't matter. Only the power was to do the assisting. I had an experience of being on an Amtrak train where the locomotive was used to push a disabled NCTD Coaster train out of the way with the train I was riding on still coupled. I had another experience where the Amtrak train I was riding on was coupled to another Amtrak train beacuse the ditch light on my drain had failed. Having said that, I can see the logic behind the CSX rule.
Passenger oprators have different requirements than do freight operators. Passengers would not respond favorably if the locomotive supplying HEP (lights & heat/cooling) to the cars was cut away and the occupied cars were left without HEP.
The engines of freight carriers ARE NOT HEP equipped. When Amtrak has an engine failure and freight power is brought to the 'rescue' - the Amtrak engine will stay couple to the train to supply HEP even if the engine is not able to supply traction power.
Understood, doesn't surprise me that freight and passenger trains would have different rules.
Passenger train locomotives typically have a lot of tractive effort to spare in comparison with what's needed to get the train moving. Freight train locomotives may have very little tractive effort to spare and thus would be of little help in assisting another freight train if still coupled to their train.
Erik_MagUnderstood, doesn't surprise me that freight and passenger trains would have different rules. Passenger train locomotives typically have a lot of tractive effort to spare in comparison with what's needed to get the train moving. Freight train locomotives may have very little tractive effort to spare and thus would be of little help in assisting another freight train if still coupled to their train.
Passenger service locomotives are geared much differently than are freight locomotives. Passenger engines are geared for speed, freight engines are geared for pulling power. Today's AC traction freight engines no longer have the 'Short Time' ratings that their DC traction predecessors.
In the days of railroad operated passenger service - the B&O would use manned helpers to assist the large passenger train consists over the mountains West of Cumberland. The E type passenger engines the B&O operated had minimum continuous speeds in the neighborhood of 25 MPH - if the train on the grade was moving at less than MCS the power would be navigating the Short Time ratings. The grades of Sand Patch, 17 Mile and Cranberry would have the E units operting in the Short Time area when being opeated in the 8th notch attacking the grades. Helpers both steam and diesel, over the years would allow the E units to be operated at lower throttle settings and thus stay out of Short Time rating.
The Short Time ratings are based on the amperes the traction motors are consuming - the more they are stressed, the more amperes they consume. At MCS and above the traction motors can dissipate the heat generated by the amperes being used 'forever'. Once the traction motors drop below MCS, the increased amperes being handled generate more heat in the traction motors than the cooling system can dissipate and damage the traction motors.
21st Century Amtrak train sizes are only a fraction of the size of the trains the B&O was operating in the days of railroad passenger service.
The apparent fault for the collision is that the loaded train did not stop in time as it approached the malfunctioning train, which was stopped. If there was a plan, it failed. But if there was a plan, what could it have been?
You seem to have it backwards. The loaded train was disabled by a mechanical failure according to the articles I have seen. An empty rescue train was sent to push the loaded train to get it where they wanted it.
You wouldn't see loaded and empty trains travelling in the same direction on these tracks, as the loadout for the empties feeds loaded trains to the dump at the port. There is no reason for an empty train to be travelling to the port. The empty rescue train was sent specifically to assist the stalled loaded train.
The loaded train that was following the empty train was intended to rescue the empty train which was standing still. The loaded train was in autonomous mode when it struck the stationary empty train.
If the empty train was the 'stalled' train - it would have been on an ascending grade area - otherwise it could have used gravity to drift down a descending grade.
The Rio Tinto loaded trains are normally 30K, 40K or 50K tons? If the stalled empty train is on a ascending grade - that means the loaded train coming to rescue it is thereby on a DESCENDING grade with the load of its train making it even harder to control.
DUMB DUMB DUMB
My experience (pre PSR, pre DPU) has no relation to Rio Tinto. In the territories I have worked - loaded and empty coal trains normally had the same power complement. Two units for each train. Normally engine failures happened on LOADED trains and the fix was to have an empty train give up one of their units at a meeting point. If a empty train had an issue with one engine, then other engine would be sufficient to take the train to destination.
I have no idea how Rio Tinto operates their autonomous operations. I do know that trying to safely handle tonnage moving downgrade is a difficult undertaking.
Grades are pesky things - both up and down.
EuclidHere is what I think happened: The loaded train was some considerable distance from the empty train when the empty train malfunctioned and stopped. They had workers onsite after the empty train malfunction. So, intending to use the loaded train to move the empty train, they allowed the loaded train to approach at track speed because there was no reason to slow it down until it got close. I assume they have some type of block system that either includes wayside signals or at least keeps trains properly separated for the autonomous operation. So the plan was to let the loaded train move in to the area and be stopped by the block system due to the presence of the stationary malfunctioning train. Then to move it ahead to couple to the stopped train, they would have put a human operator onto the loaded train to bring it ahead and make the joint. For some reason, the automatic block system failed to perform its function, so the train headed right into the stalled train at track speed.
This accident is why you don't have complete trains assist each other - no matter if the trains are manned or autonomous. Two COMPLETE trains are difficult to handle in the confined quarters necessitated by their coupling.
I think we need to go back to the story in the original post:
"The Office of the National Rail Safety Regulator (ONRSR) said it received a report about a collision between a loaded ore train and a recovery train.
"The recovery train is reported to have collided with the ore train it was sent to recover after it was disabled by a mechanical failure," a spokesman said in a statement."
"loaded ore train" and "recovery train"
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Actually, if I understand what they intended to do, it might have worked. They just made the coupling a little too fast.
I assume they don't use EOT devices.
BaltACD This accident is why you don't have complete trains assist each other - no matter if the trains are manned or autonomous. Two COMPLETE trains are difficult to handle in the confined quarters necessitated by their coupling.
I beg to differ, provided that you have a good engineer and the combined power is enough to move both trains.
This happens sometimes on one of our hills in the mountains west of Jasper. Why make the conductor tie down your train and clog things up for even longer when you can keep it and still push the stalled guy ahead of you?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuOl5kvxZxs&t=384s
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
BaltACD Two COMPLETE trains are difficult to handle in the confined quarters necessitated by their coupling.
I mean, we do it in yards all the time.
This soudns like a failure of the automation system at first glance? If it was, it will be buried quickly.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
zugmann BaltACD Two COMPLETE trains are difficult to handle in the confined quarters necessitated by their coupling. I mean, we do it in yards all the time. This soudns like a failure of the automation system at first glance? If it was, it will be buried quickly.
I haven't seen any yards where you are handling 30K, 40K tons or more downgrade to a coupling.
Suspect it was a failure of automation caused by incompetence of design and implemention of failed logic.
Suspect that no matter who hit whom that procedures for this kind of problem will be changed significantly. Surely this is not the first instance and what failed this time?
I've been boycotting this thread (and will probably go back to boycotting this thread) to help keep my blood pressure in a sensible range.
For the last time: the empty train hit the loaded one, not the other way around. Is that a clear enough statement for Ron to finally, finally get it? THE EMPTY TRAIN IS THE ONE THAT WAS DISPATCHED. THE LOADED TRAIN WAS THE ONE THAT STALLED AND NEEDED HELP. THE EMPTY TRAIN HIT IT.
It seems that multiple people have told him this, and he keeps bouncing back 'confirming' what they said by repeating the same inanity about the loaded train hitting an empty one.
We need to wait for the report to hear precisely how the system failed. (Or whether there were 'employees working on the stalled train' that got early radio warning that a collision was coming...)
It was not a simple failure: the speed of impact was obviously substantial, locomotives first, so any sensors or any systems that consider a point on the locomotive to be the 'front' of a train were obviously not doing their collective job. I have seen no evidence at all that the empty train was under RCO guidance of the 'usual' kind (which is I believe technically limited to short range in the United States by specific intent) and it might be well to review what the response of a RCO system to any loss of connectivity is (as it specifically has been designed to relate to what may be a very heavy consist being moved at the time).
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.