Tragic derailment of corridor train

justalurker66 wrote: The two key facts that should have been caught on camera are the exact signal indications visible to the crew and the positioning of the switches..

Justalurker we agree on something, however too all those who were wondering if a camera was equipped even though VIA has said that the rebuilds will receive cameras it seems 6444 was passed over and had not received its camera prior to the accident. The latest photo on the net shows 6444 in January 2012 and there is no visible cab-cam, what a shame. http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected] ... /lightbox/

This would have definitely helped in the investigation.

There is a photo of the front truck on the TSB website showing it OFF rail, and extreme damage to wheel tread and flange surfaces.

So that 2-300 meters ahead of the wreck site happened off rail, not "on rail" as was thought earlier.

It must have squirted out of that wreck like a 40,000 lb bullet.

litz wrote:There is a photo of the front truck on the TSB website showing it OFF rail, and extreme damage to wheel tread and flange surfaces.

So that 2-300 meters ahead of the wreck site happened off rail, not "on rail" as was thought earlier.

It must have squirted out of that wreck like a 40,000 lb bullet.

Do you have a link? I see lots of photos of the wreck on the TSB site, but not the one you are referring to.

buddah wrote:

justalurker66 wrote: The two key facts that should have been caught on camera are the exact signal indications visible to the crew and the positioning of the switches..

Justalurker we agree on something, however too all those who were wondering if a camera was equipped even though VIA has said that the rebuilds will receive cameras it seems 6444 was passed over and had not received its camera prior to the accident. The latest photo on the net shows 6444 in January 2012 and there is no visible cab-cam, what a shame. http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected] ... /lightbox/

This would have definitely helped in the investigation.

What's that white thing in the conductor's side windshield? Looks like it could be a camera to me.

Via Rails cameras are mounted a tad bit higher than the " white thing" in the pic on 6444, here's one for you of 6433 with the camera installed and the white thing just below it.
http://www.train-photos.com/picture/number9429.asp

scoostraw wrote:

litz wrote:There is a photo of the front truck on the TSB website showing it OFF rail, and extreme damage to wheel tread and flange surfaces.

So that 2-300 meters ahead of the wreck site happened off rail, not "on rail" as was thought earlier.

It must have squirted out of that wreck like a 40,000 lb bullet.

Do you have a link? I see lots of photos of the wreck on the TSB site, but not the one you are referring to.

My mistake ... it was CTV ... go here :

http://www.ctv.ca/gallery/html/train-de ... ndex_.html

And scroll over to the 16th image

litz wrote:

scoostraw wrote:

litz wrote:There is a photo of the front truck on the TSB website showing it OFF rail, and extreme damage to wheel tread and flange surfaces.

So that 2-300 meters ahead of the wreck site happened off rail, not "on rail" as was thought earlier.

It must have squirted out of that wreck like a 40,000 lb bullet.

Do you have a link? I see lots of photos of the wreck on the TSB site, but not the one you are referring to.

My mistake ... it was CTV ... go here :

http://www.ctv.ca/gallery/html/train-de ... ndex_.html

And scroll over to the 16th image

Thanks.

The flanges look especially bad on the right hand wheel. If the locomotive rocked off the rails due to excessive centrifugal force, that is the flange that would have taken the beating right?

Speculation of course is that speed alone caused the engine to jump the rails as it attempted to maneuver the switch to complete the crossover..

Damage like that could easily have come from running on the ballast.

67 mph over a 15 mph switch. How the hell does that happen? And I'm not sure a signal is to blame, 2 of the 3 people in the cab should have known the speed for that or any switch, it should be in paperwork and during qualifying don't you learn the track speeds including over switch tracks?

Something isn't adding up.

25Hz wrote:Damage like that could easily have come from running on the ballast.

67 mph over a 15 mph switch. How the hell does that happen? And I'm not sure a signal is to blame, 2 of the 3 people in the cab should have known the speed for that or any switch, it should be in paperwork and during qualifying don't you learn the track speeds including over switch tracks?

Something isn't adding up.

Are there any detailed photos of the crossover switches posted online?

I agree. No way this should have happened. It's too bad there wasn't a cab voice recorder. That might have given us the rest of the story. Man it must have been one hellacious shock - and awful ride for those men.

We don't have anything official at this point so a failure in the signal system can't be ruled out. Even though they are extremely rare a false clear indication could of been displayed allowing the crew to yard it out up to max speed. I know an initial investigation said the signals were working and I would still be deeply suprised if all 3 crew members were distracted.

AEM7AC920 wrote:We don't have anything official at this point so a failure in the signal system can't be ruled out. Even though they are extremely rare a false clear indication could of been displayed allowing the crew to yard it out up to max speed. I know an initial investigation said the signals were working and I would still be deeply surprised if all 3 crew members were distracted.

And that is why they will be digging deeper into the signal system, for sure. Back in 1985 here in Philadelphia, there was a low-speed sideswipe collision between a SEPTA commuter train and an Amtrak train that were operating side by side on parallel tracks that was the result of a false clear for one of the trains. The crossover involved was removed and never replaced after the accident.

When you look at the physics involved, and the fact that the entire rest of the train kept moving in the direction of the crossover (and right off the side of the roadbed), I still find it really surprising that front truck ended up some several hundred feet (what was it, 200 meters?) straight down the track.

That's the guiding truck after all ...

There was a speculation in a previous post that the train derailed behind the locomotive and pulled it over ... that perhaps looks more likely when you look at things that way.

Also interesting when you look at the overheads and there's relatively little to no track damage. The train went straight over the edge, right at that switch.

litz wrote:When you look at the physics involved, and the fact that the entire rest of the train kept moving in the direction of the crossover (and right off the side of the roadbed), I still find it really surprising that front truck ended up some several hundred feet (what was it, 200 meters?) straight down the track.

That's the guiding truck after all ...

There was a speculation in a previous post that the train derailed behind the locomotive and pulled it over ... that perhaps looks more likely when you look at things that way.

Also interesting when you look at the overheads and there's relatively little to no track damage. The train went straight over the edge, right at that switch.

In my mind I picture the train entering the first switch at high speed, leaning WAY over to the left as it negotiates the turnout. It stays on the rails... but then as it enters the second switch the sideways forces yank everything over the opposite direction. This time there is enough momentum (having begun leaning way left - then yanked ALL the way right) that it simply rocks off the rails - and off its front truck. The tightlock couplers drag the cars along behind, and that is enough to keep the trailing locomotive truck from following the first.

litz wrote:When you look at the physics involved, and the fact that the entire rest of the train kept moving in the direction of the crossover (and right off the side of the roadbed), I still find it really surprising that front truck ended up some several hundred feet (what was it, 200 meters?) straight down the track.

That's the guiding truck after all ...

There was a speculation in a previous post that the train derailed behind the locomotive and pulled it over ... that perhaps looks more likely when you look at things that way.

Also interesting when you look at the overheads and there's relatively little to no track damage. The train went straight over the edge, right at that switch.

If the switch malfunctioned or came apart it wouldn't take much at that speed to cause an incident. Was the train supposed to be taking the switch, or was it simply found that way? It just looks so much like that very terrible crash in UK near greyrigg.

Local news coverage:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/02/26 ... erailment/

Moderator's note: That's old news