http://news.sympatico.ctv.ca/h..._derailment/3a7e1fa4
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Bad deal. Staff Sergeant Wilkie wasn't much help, was he? It sure looks like it happened at speed. I wonder why the engine crew was killed. That doesn't often happen if the train simply derails without striking anything.
Tom
on this stretch train travel at about 50 km/h...will not make any comments or assumption as to what/why/how can this happen...will probably learn that fast enough.
But what is striking is that the engine (F40) lost both of her trucks...also the state of the cab do explain why the 3 engineer did not survive.
1 of the engine trucks stayed on tracks...
Attachments
Images (3)
As a fellow rail my prayers and condolences go out to the engineers and their families. Engine on its side, top of the cab crushed at the windshield, not much protection for the crew in that situation.
Greg
There is usually a crew of two on the VIA engines, in this case the third person was a trainee, hope he wasn't at the throttle.... It will be interesting to see what the cause of the accident was. It looks like the cab hit a metal fence which explains the damage.
Very sad for all involved. I also am interested in what caused this tragedy.
Quick update from the investigation...data from the black box revealed that the train was going 67 mph..instead of 15 mph while going over a cross switch.
67 mph --- is it because they did not know they were changing tracks and were doing the normal speed.. sounds like a lack of communication.
Originally Posted by bluestrain:
67 mph --- is it because they did not know they were changing tracks and were doing the normal speed.. sounds like a lack of communication.
look like it...specially since the switch used is rarely used...but due to congestion on this day it was...also most switches on this stretch are rated for 45mph...the one used is rated 15mph....
What a terrible accident.
So I'm guessing that the engine just sits on top of the trucks? and maybe the forward momentum of the engine with the trucks turned was enough to cause the seperation?
Jim
Whether they ordinarily made a diverging movement at this point or not, there should have been an advance signal indication that they were going to change tracks. The aspect on that advance signal and on the one at the control point should also have provided the crew with the speed at which the diverging movement should be made.
Curt
Yup, if the update is true about the unusual switching movement, that would explain the accident. Complacency, inattention to a signal that is an unexpected change in the day-to-day habit, and too much speed...those are the reasons for most railroad accidents. Very sad.
Well, the speed explains the accident.
No, the engine does not sit on the trucks by gravity and a center pin, like freight cars do. Locomotive trucks are attached and it takes a lot of really hard shock to detach them. Same for passenger cars. Normally, engines and passenger car trucks remain attached, even if there is a complete rollover during the wreck. Freight cars are held against the center plate of the bolster by gravity only, (with a few exceptions).
Tom
Originally Posted by juniata guy:
The aspect on that advance signal and on the one at the control point should also have provided the crew with the speed at which the diverging movement should be made.
Curt
True, Curt, if the signal system was designed for speed signaling. However, if the signal system displayed route signaling aspects, it would only have informed them that they were entering a block where they were would proceed on a diverging route somewhere within that block. (There could also have been another turnout within the same block with a higher permissable speed.) Either way, they derailed the leading locomotive unit, the direct cause being lateral force overcoming vertical force due to excessive speed through the turnout, with the root cause being ignorance or inattention.
It's a bad deal, a sad deal, no matter what was the root cause.
Whether they ordinarily made a diverging movement at this point or not, there should have been an advance signal indication that they were going to change tracks. The aspect on that advance signal and on the one at the control point should also have provided the crew with the speed at which the diverging movement should be made.
Curt
Also, doesn't Via rail have cab signalling as well?
Originally Posted by Number 90:
Originally Posted by juniata guy:
The aspect on that advance signal and on the one at the control point should also have provided the crew with the speed at which the diverging movement should be made.
Curt
True, Curt, if the signal system was designed for speed signaling. However, if the signal system displayed route signaling aspects, it would only have informed them that they were entering a block where they were would proceed on a diverging route somewhere within that block. (There could also have been another turnout within the same block with a higher permissable speed.) Either way, they derailed the leading locomotive unit, the direct cause being lateral force overcoming vertical force due to excessive speed through the turnout, with the root cause being ignorance or inattention.
It's a bad deal, a sad deal, no matter what was the root cause.
Spoken like a true Railroad official??? Never a chance there could have been a Signal Malfunction. We lost a fellow friend due to a Signal Malfunction and the next day all the officials involved in the investigation had decided it was the Engineers fault. Later that day ours Division Rules Examiner investigated the signal at the exact same time of the wreck and it changed from Stop and Proceed to Clear. This was due to water that had leaked into the Signal Head and the angle of the sun that created a phantom aspect. This Signal was fairly new and should have never leaked.
Well, Forest, you're right...I am a retired railroad official. I should have included the possibility of a false signal aspect in my comments. However, signal failure is very rare. We'll have to see what the Canadian investigators turn up.
