link

(for educational purposes only)

"Canada Train Crash Injures 26

MIRAMICHI, New Brunswick (AP) -- A passenger train slammed into two parked boxcars in eastern Canada on Sunday, leaving 26 people hospitalized with mostly minor injuries, officials said.

The collision occurred north of Moncton, New Brunswick, when a Via Rail train from Montreal carrying 127 passengers and 14 crew members ran into the unoccupied boxcars, Via spokeswoman Catherine Kaloutsky said. She said 26 people were taken to hospitals but that none of the injuries were considered life-threatening.

``The extent of the injuries so far are bumps, bruises and burns,'' said Sonya Green-Hache, spokeswoman for Miramichi Regional Hospital, where most of the injured were taken.

Snow covering a dirt road leading to the accident site hindered rescuers. They used snowmobiles to transport some of the injured to waiting rescue vehicles, witnesses said.

Jim Harris, a spokesman for the Canadian Transportation Safety Board, said two of the train's engines and five cars derailed."

-- Rachel Gibson (rgibson@hotmail.com), January 30, 2000

Answers

This sounds like a rare type of accident. Most train accidents are derailments or accidents at grade crossings. Did the system "know" that the boxcars were stopped on the track? Were there any other accidents of this type during the last 5 years?

Has anyone head about malfunction grade crossing signals? I did see one report about malfunctioning signals and repair crews working on them but do not know if the signals were failing to signal for actual trains or were signaling for non existent trains.

-- Moe (Moe@3stooges.gom), January 30, 2000.

For U.S. train accident info, try this site:

http://www.ntsb.gov/Publ ictn/R_Acc.htm

I thought I saw a few similar to the one posted here, but it is a long page.

-- Steve Baxter (chicoqh@home.com), January 30, 2000.

There are several rear-end collisions on this page, Steve. Here's the text of the first one I found:

REAR-END COLLISION/DERAILMENT CONRAIL HUMMELSTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA SEPTEMBER 29, 1997

On September 29, 1997, about 5:45 p.m. eastern daylight time, eastbound Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail) train PIBE-8, consisting of 2 locomotive units and 136 cars, passed a stop and proceed signal at 30 mph and struck the rear locomotive unit of eastbound Conrail train ENS-103, consisting of 5 locomotive units. Train ENS-103 was stopped at signal 1081E (milepost 104.2 at control point [CP] Tara) in Hummelstown, Pennsylvania. Each train was crewed by a conductor and an engineer. .... Weather conditions were clear, with bright sunlight and a temperature of 650 F.

The train ENS-103 crew went on duty at 2:30 p.m. at Enola Yard near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. The crew picked up five locomotive units at the diesel shop and began a trip to Oak Island Yard in Newark, New Jersey. According to event recorder data, the train had been halted at a stop signal at 1081E for 28 minutes when the rear-end collision occurred.

Train PIBE-8 departed Harrisburg about 4:15 p.m. en route to Allentown, Pennsylvania. As the train approached signal 1061E, the signal was displaying a stop and proceed (red over red signal aspect) indication.1 The engineer stated that both he and the conductor observed and called the signal as "approach medium" (yellow over green signal aspect).2 The engineer said the train was traveling about 10 mph when he and the conductor observed the signal; the engineer then allowed the train to increase speed to about 30 mph, which would have been an appropriate response to an approach medium signal. He stated that as train PIBE-8 came around the lefthand curve, he observed train ENS-103 stopped at CP Tara. The train PIBE-8 engineer put his train into emergency braking but was unable to stop short of train ENS-103.

Postaccident tests revealed that signal 1061E, located about 2 miles west of signal 1081E, was coded to display a stop and proceed signal. The tests also confirmed that the signals were properly wired. Postaccident inspection of signal 1061E revealed that the stop and proceed signal was out of focus. Rusty water was found in the signal lens. When viewed from the track, the signal was partially obscured by tree foliage.

On October 1, 1997, National Transportation Safety Board investigators, with representatives of the Federal Railroad Administration, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, the United Transportation Union, and Conrail, used a locomotive to replicate the preaccident events. In sunny conditions, the test locomotive traveled eastbound toward signal 1061E at the same time of day that the incident occurred. Signal 1061E was set to display a stop and proceed signal.

When the test locomotive had moved to within about 1,500 feet of signal 1061E, the signal could not be clearly distinguished by persons on the locomotive. As the locomotive approached the signal more closely, the top aspect of the signal appeared to be yellow and the bottom aspect appeared to be green. Eventually, as the locomotive moved still closer to signal 1061E, the signal aspect could not be distinguished at all. Persons on the test locomotive variously reported seeing yellow, red, and green aspects.

The out-of-focus condition of signal 1061E, in combination with the late afternoon sun shining on the signal face and the water in the lens, probably made the signal aspect appear to the train PIBE-8 train crew to be yellow over green instead of its actual display, which was a red over red aspect. The result was a "phantom signal." A phantom signal is defined by the Association of American Railroads Signal Manual as "an aspect displayed by a light signal, different from the aspect intended, caused by a light from an external source being reflected by the optical system of the signal."

This head-on collision bellow was in part due to cold weather: http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/1998/RAB9806.htm

"Probable Cause

The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of this accident was the failure of the brake cylinder hose fittings to maintain air in the brake cylinder during extreme cold weather and the failure of the crew to apply the hand brakes to the separated train. Contributing to the cause of the accident was Union Pacific management dispatching trains in this territory with tonnage near the tensile strength of the couplers. "

-- (helping@home.com), January 30, 2000.

My GUESS is that the passenger train was erroneously diverted -- i.e. switched -- during the course of its travel onto a siding where the boxcars were parked. Area is remote, and no-one leaves empty boxcars sitting on active rails for any reason, much less abandons them in the middel of nowhere.

>"<

-- Squirrel Hunter (nuts@upina.cellrelaytower), January 30, 2000.

I just caught the latest on CBC Newsworld. They said the Via Rail train was shunted onto a side track, possibly because a switch was left in the wrong position. 40 injured.

-- Steve Baxter (chicoqh@home.com), January 30, 2000.