snell@utzoo.UUCP (Richard Snell) (02/11/86)
As you may well have read, a VIA rail train crashed head on into a freight
train at a combined speed of some 200km/hour a few days ago in MBAlberta.
Extrordinarily, some 100 people survived this, with (current estimates) some
30-50 people being killed. Of the freight train crew of 3, seems that only
the conductor survived.
Initial investigations indicate.
1. The freight may have ignored 2 signals not to proceed (it is not known yet
if drinking was involved...).
2. Freight trains share tracks throughout the system with passenger trains.
3. The accident occurred just after the passenger train left double tracks
for the single tracks which proceed through the mountains.
4. Freight trains in Canada do not run on schedules.
They simply proceed as signal
lights dictate. Only passenger trains have schedules.
So, a few questions arises (among many...)
and this may have been discussed on the net but I am a fairly new reader of
this group
1. Does Amtrak share tracks with freights?
2. Do American freights run on schedules?
3. Are there shut off levers (as on many (ALL?) subway systems) which throw
the break on immediately if a train runs a red light? (Otherwise, with
should the engineer have a heart attack, for instance,
the train would just keep rolling). The press is not yet indicating
whether such a system was in place on the freight, but it appears the
engineer was alone at the time of the accident.
--
Name: Richard Snell
Mail: Dept. Zoology, Univ. Toronto
Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1A1
UUCP: {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!snellcb@hlwpc.UUCP (Carl Blesch) (02/13/86)
> As you may well have read, a VIA rail train crashed head on into a freight > train at a combined speed of some 200km/hour a few days ago in Alberta. > > Extrordinarily, some 100 people survived this, with (current estimates) some > 30-50 people being killed. Of the freight train crew of 3, seems that only > the conductor survived. > > Initial investigations indicate. > > 1. The freight may have ignored 2 signals not to proceed (it is not known yet > if drinking was involved...). > 2. Freight trains share tracks throughout the system with passenger trains. > 3. The accident occurred just after the passenger train left double tracks > for the single tracks which proceed through the mountains. > 4. Freight trains in Canada do not run on schedules. > They simply proceed as signal > lights dictate. Only passenger trains have schedules. Thanks for the info, as sketchy as it may be. The few press accounts I've seen here in New Jersey had no reasons for the accident. The New York Times did note one thing unrelated to the accident, however, which I experienced once when I rode VIA cross country. It said that freight trains have the right of way over passenger trains, and that since most of the lines are single track, the passenger trains spend a lot of time in sidings, and end up running as much as a half-day late! I found this true when I rode VIA Rail in 1980 -- we'd pull into a siding when nary a freight train was in sight, wait a half an hour, and finally a freight train would go by and we'd proceed. Very aggravating! Going west, we were five hours late into Vancouver, and coming back east, we were four hours late into Winnipeg (we missed our air connection back to Chicago by five minutes as a result!). In the good 'ole days, passenger trains ALWAYS had the right of way over freights. I imagine that the situation has changed in Canada because VIA is a "guest" on the freight railroads, and the railroads are going to care about their own traffic first. In the states, the freight railroads jerked Amtrak around like this during Amtrak's first few years of existence, but then Amtrak set up an incentive plan that rewarded freight roads for getting Amtrak trains through on time. I believe this plan worked . . . > So, a few questions arises (among many...) > and this may have been discussed on the net but I am a fairly new reader of > this group > > 1. Does Amtrak share tracks with freights? Yes, as I noted above. As a rule, Amtrak contracts the freight railroads to run its trains. In the northeast, Amtrak owns some of its own lines (most notably the Washington-Boston Northeast Corridor), and runs its own show (Amtrak employees run the trains). > 2. Do American freights run on schedules? I think most are "extras", but there are some scheduled freights. I believe there are some "high-speed" piggyback or containerized trains that run on schedules. > 3. Are there shut off levers (as on many (ALL?) subway systems) which throw > the break on immediately if a train runs a red light? Some railroads had these, if they still don't. I believe the New York Central did at one time. > (Otherwise, with > should the engineer have a heart attack, for instance, > the train would just keep rolling). Engines have "dead-man" controls. I know that the E- and F-unit diesels had foot pedals that the engineer had to keep depressed continuously. If the engineer let up on the pedal, emergency brakes would be applied. I'm not sure the pedal system is in use today, but some variation is. On GO Transit in your neck of the woods, for example, the engineer has to be in contact with some part of the controls regularly (the throttle or brake lever, for example). If he/she hasn't touched the controls for 30 seconds, an alarm buzzes in the cab, telling him/her to touch the controls at least briefly to confirm that he/she is still alive. If no contact is made, on go the brakes! Carl Blesch
sef@drutx.UUCP (FarleighSE) (02/14/86)
>Engines have "dead-man" controls. I know that the E- and F-unit diesels >had foot pedals that the engineer had to keep depressed continuously. >If the engineer let up on the pedal, emergency brakes would be applied. >I'm not sure the pedal system is in use today, but some variation is. >On GO Transit in your neck of the woods, for example, the engineer has >to be in contact with some part of the controls regularly (the throttle >or brake lever, for example). If he/she hasn't touched the controls >for 30 seconds, an alarm buzzes in the cab, telling him/her to touch the >controls at least briefly to confirm that he/she is still alive. If >no contact is made, on go the brakes! > >Carl Blesch > Burlington Northern removed their Deadman controls a number of years ago. It seems that the Engineers were overriding the system (putting a brick on the pedal?). So the management of BN (means Better'n Nothin') decided to remove the Deadmans throttle altogether. About two years ago one of the many BN wreaks could have been avoided if the Deadman's throttle was installed and used. It seems that instead of BN's management addressing the problem of their many times stoned crew defeating the saftey device they opt'ed to remove the saftey device. Scott E. Farleigh AT&TIS
msb@lsuc.UUCP (Mark Brader) (02/15/86)
This accident rated several days of heavy news coverage in Canada. Here's a more detailed summary, assembled from recent issues of the Toronto Star, for the benefit of interested foreigners. Then, I comment on some points mentioned in other articles. The passenger train, VIA Rail #4 "Super Continental", was really two trains joined end to end. It consisted of 2 engines, baggage car, coach, observation car, 2 sleeping cars, another engine, steam generator car, baggage car, coach, dining car, sleeping car, steam generator car. (VIA Rail's passenger stock is still steam heated. Some engines are fitted with steam generators, while separate steam generator cars are used with others.) Tickets had not been checked for passengers boarding in Jasper and Hinton. The best estimate seems to be that 80 passengers survived and 19 were killed; 13 crew survived and 5 were killed including both enginemen. There were many injuries among the survivors, and 8 had to be taken 150 miles to Edmonton (nearest major city hospital). The freight consisted of 3 engines, 35 grain cars, 7 cars carrying large pipes, 46 open hopper cars full of sulfur, 20 cars of ethylene dichloride (that makes 118), and a caboose. It was a mile and a half long. The two enginemen were killed; the other crew member survived. The speed limit for passenger trains is 70 mph and for freights 50. Both trains were going at least 45 mph, and passengers said that there was no warning such as heavy braking before the collision. The engines and the front parts of both trains were terribly damaged and ended up in a pile 30-40 feet high, then spilled diesel fuel ignited in a fireball. This accounts for most of the deaths, of course. Fortunately, the sulfur cars were far enough back not to burn, though most of them derailed and ended up crosswise; the last 31 cars of the freight, thus including all the chemical cars, stayed on the track. (All of the passenger cars were derailed and several landed on their side.) Water bombers were called in to help extinguish the fire. The freight train, which was westbound, received a yellow-and-red caution signal, followed 2.7 miles later by a triple-red stop signal. The signals are controlled by CTC from Edmonton and failure has been ruled out, which leaves human error by the enginemen. The double track ran out 250 feet after the train ran past the stop signal, and the collision occurred just 300 feet after that. (Early articles did not know whether the Edmonton CTC board shows an indication when a train passes a stop signal, and I did not see this point mentioned again, but it would have been too late in any case.) Even if, as it now appears, the accident is entirely CN's fault, under the arrangements imposed on VIA, it is VIA that will bear the financial brunt of the wreck. Some say 3 to 5 million dollars (~2 to 3.5 million American), some say even more. Both VIA and CN are government-owned, but they have been separate bodies since 1978; they are analogous to Amtrak and ConRail in function and origins. (But CN, which was formed in the 1920's, is hardly likely to ever be sold off; and VIA has much less freedom to negotiate financial matters than does Amtrak, as shown by the topic of this paragraph.) Richard Snell (snell@utzoo.UUCP) writes: | Extrordinarily, some 100 people survived this ... There is nothing really extraordinary about a 78% survival rate in a crash like this. Actually, it is somewhat surprising that it wasn't higher; this would be because of the fireball. We ARE talking about steel passenger cars. I have at hand a short article about a British Rail derailment in 1983 where a 14-car train including sleeping cars derailed at 60-65 mph, causing NO serious injuries at all. Now, that was not a collision, but still... | (it is not known yet if drinking was involved...). Still isn't, and may never be known. It is, however, worth observing that there were two men in that engine, both of whom should have been checking the signals. | Freight trains share tracks throughout the system with passenger trains. This is true on almost all lines in the world. Most of the CN mainline, including the accident area, gets only one passenger train each way daily. | Only passenger trains have schedules. True but irrelevant. Schedules only tell you where a train is theoretically supposed to be, and you don't use them to decide whether to proceed. These decisions are made by dispatchers, who know where the trains really are. In this case, their signal to the freight was ignored. Carl Blesch (cb@hlwpc.UUCP) writes: > The New York Times did note one thing unrelated to the accident, however, > which I experienced once when I rode VIA cross country. It said that > freight trains have the right of way over passenger trains, and that > since most of the lines are single track, the passenger trains spend a > lot of time in sidings, and end up running as much as a half-day late! > ... > In the good 'ole days, passenger trains ALWAYS had the right of way > over freights. I imagine that the situation has changed in Canada > because VIA is a "guest" on the freight railroads, and the railroads > are going to care about their own traffic first. ... The last may be true to some extent, but there is another consideration. Freights are a good deal longer than they were in the good ol' days, and many of them are simply too long for the sidings. So they HAVE to take precedence in these cases. My understanding is that passenger trains do take precedence where possible, but I could be wrong. You're right about the disgraceful arrival record of the VIA transcontinentals, anyway. This has been the subject of a number of news reports. | Are there shut off levers (as on many (ALL?) subway systems) which throw | the break on immediately if a train runs a red light? > > Some railroads had these, if they still don't. I believe the New York > Central did at one time. My understanding is that automatic train stopping is very rare outside of subway systems, both because of the expense in installation and track maintenance (the positioning of the tripper with respect to the rail has to stay accurate), and because one would want all locomotives including visiting ones to be equipped. In Britain they have an "Automatic Warning System" that gives an audible indication of whether the signal you just passed was green or something else, and requires you to acknowledge if not green or else the train stops. But this is not fitted on minor lines, and does not provide special protection for overrunning reds. And British Rail is a (fairly) unified government-owned system for the whole country, which is far from the situation here. | (Otherwise, | should the engineer have a heart attack, for instance, | the train would just keep rolling). > > Engines have "dead-man" controls. I know that the E- and F-unit diesels > had foot pedals that the engineer had to keep depressed continuously. > If the engineer let up on the pedal, emergency brakes would be applied. > I'm not sure the pedal system is in use today, but some variation is. It was the pedal system on these trains. And of course, an irresponsible driver can override this by weighting the pedal. (I am NOT suggesting that this happened.) I don't think that were will be much more of great significance. If there is, I'll post again. Mark Brader
cb@MITRE-BEDFORD.ARPA (Christopher Byrnes) (02/18/86)
>1. Does Amtrak share tracks with freights? Generally, yes. Even the NEC has some freight traffic on it (despite Amtrak's efforts to get rid of it). There are some lines which see no freight traffic (the Hudson tubes) but even on Amtrak-owned lines the need for freight revenue (and political considerations) keep the freight trains running. Naturally Amtrak has to share the track when it is owned by a private railroad. >2. Do American freights run on schedules? It varies from railroad to railroad. Some railroads run almost all their trains (except for a few extras) on a schedule. Others have no schedule (I think the DT&I is an example), everything runs on train orders. Neither method has prevented accidents. >3. Are there shut off levers (as on many (ALL?) subway systems) which throw > the break on immediately if a train runs a red light? (Otherwise, with > should the engineer have a heart attack, for instance, > the train would just keep rolling). The press is not yet indicating > whether such a system was in place on the freight, but it appears the > engineer was alone at the time of the accident. I don't know of any large railroad which has the type of shutoff levers that subways have. Transit systems generally have restricted rights of way, so they would have more success maintaining that kind of equipment against vandalism. Railroads typically don't have the traffic density that a transit line has, so in most cases they feel they don't need it. A transit train has a much shorter stopping distance. There are example of "failsafe" signaling systems which have been used by railroads. Examples are signal gates or "smashboards" which are dropped across the tracks when something like a drawbridge is raised. Hopefully the engineer will notice when they drive through the gate. More drastic systems such as derails are used very carefully, you don't want a system which causes more accidents then it solves. I'm surprised the dispatcher didn't notice that one of the trains in the accident was on the wrong track. Most engines have a "deadman's" throttle, which requires that the engineer keep his foot on it. This is suppose to catch engineers who drop dead or fall asleep, causing the train to stop. I'm not sure effective any of these devices would be in stopping a fully loaded freight train from running into another track where a passenger train has the right of way. Christopher Byrnes cb@Mitre-Bedford.ARPA ...decvax!linus!bccvax!cb.UUCP
Swenson.PA@xerox.ARPA (02/19/86)
>2. Do American freights run on schedules? There are several different methods in common use of controlling the movement of trains on mainline tracks, as contrasted with yards. In very high traffec areas in the east, there are other systems using manual blocks & block operators. I am not familiar with these. Time Table & Train Order. The employees have a timetable, which lists all scheduled trains. The dispatcher can modify the timetable by issuing Train Orders, which are delivered to the trains involved by operators at various stations. Frequently only passenger trains are listed, with all freights running "Extra". On lines with no passenger trains, the timetable may only list the stations, miles to a specifice point, signal systmes in use, facilities at each station, number of tracks, etc. Timetable, Train Order & Automatic Block. The Timetable & Train Order system is supplimented with Automatic Block Signals. The signals provide added safety, but do NOT authorize train movements. Traffic Control Systems. TCS systems, such as CTC, Centralized Traffic Control, provide for operation by signal indicatiion which superseeds the timetable. The timetable is still used for passenger trains and also contains the other information listed above. Here the dispatcher has a track diagram in front of him which displays current train position, and has control of certain signals, usually the signals at each end of each siding, and usually also control of the siding switches. The dispatcher operates the signals & switches directly. TCS is useful on multiple track as well as signal track, since it enables the DS to easilly run trains in the same direction around each other, enabling a faster train to pass a slower one. Allowable speed. I think that the ICC rule is still in force which limits freight trains to 49 mph and passenger trains to 59 mph unless some form of block signaling is in use, and all trains are limited to 79 mph unless cab signals or some form of train stop system are in use. >3. Are there shut off levers (as on many (ALL?) subway systems) which throw > the break on immediately if a train runs a red light? (Otherwise, with > should the engineer have a heart attack, for instance, > the train would just keep rolling). The press is not yet indicating > whether such a system was in place on the freight, but it appears the > engineer was alone at the time of the accident. Cab signals provode the engineer with a current look at ths signals governing the block he/she is in. Cab signals are usually supplimented with speed limit control, which will prevent the train from exceeding the appropriate speed limit for the signal indication. Typical speed limits are 30 mph when running under "approach" signals (yellow) and 15 mph running under "stop & proceed" signals (red). Intermittent train stop usually sounds an alarm when the train passes a restricting signal, and unless the engineer acknowleges it, will stop the train. Many cab signal & train stop systems have been removed over the last 2 decades, since they are expensive to mantain and limit flexibility of locomotive assignment. (One time when I was riding the California Zephyr, the Western Pacific, D&RGW, Burlington streamliner, and a tunnel fire closed the WP Feather River Canyon line so the CZ was running over SP between Alazon (Winnemuca, Nevada) and Sacramento, Calif, the CZ had it's own 3 unit engine but the lead engine was a SP engine because the SP engine had train stop and the WP engines did not, and the lead engine was required to be equiped with train stop equipment.) Except for cab signals, none of the signaling equipment would do much to prevent a collision when one train improperly, presumably in violation of the rules, goes from a siding onto the main line, or fouls the main line, or goes from multiple track to single track, in front of a train moving in the other direction. About the only thing I know of that would help in these situations would be a derail operated by the signal system which would derail the improper move. The general opinion appears to be that derails on high speed lines would cause more dammage than the accident. Bob Swenson Former student of Railroading