by Trinnau
Telecomtodd wrote:For what it's worth, I agree that the switch seems to be the focal point for the accident investigators. However, to the points made that PTC would have prevented this one are just wrong. Assuming the loco rolled over a transponder, got its TSR and applied full braking, both trains had no chance. Even if it was traveling at only 32 MPH (which several folks question), the time to hit the brakes once the train went through the switch and moved to the siding was so slight that it would not have mattered much. Add that the crash location's track has curvature so it couldn't see the freight from afar, it being 2:38 AM, and that #47 could have been traveling faster than 32 MPH all adds up to disaster. So no, PTC would not have mattered.Without knowing why this happened I can't explain how PTC would have prevented this. However, this is exactly one of the things PTC is supposed to prevent under law - in this case to prevent at-speed train-on-train collisions. So based purely on that, PTC likely would have prevented this collision (or at least mitigated it to a far lower speed). For example, if signals were at stop because a hand-throw switch was open, PTC wouldn't have let them past the signal - they wouldn't have even gotten to the switch. The scenario you describe would have needed someone to open the switch right in front of the train - which amounts to something else entirely. So again, it is indeed likely this is another PTC-preventable incident.
However, one point to note is how fast it was really traveling...because if it hit that switch at higher speed, I'm surprised the whole train didn't derail.
The questions should be about how that switch is actuated (manual or remote), whether it was manually locked out (obviously not) or whether a sensor failed and dispatch didn't realize the switch hadn't moved. Or someone simply didn't move the switch at all...