• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Serious Amtrak derailment in Missouri (27/06)

Status
Not open for further replies.

ac6000cw

Established Member
Joined
10 May 2014
Messages
3,919
Location
Cambridge, UK
Yep....a good old-fashioned UK-style wet spot!
Also if you look carefully a track spike has pulled partly out of the tie (sleeper) due to vertical rail movement at the 'wet spot'.

Someone mentioned upthread using crumple zones versus 'built like tanks' - one major reason the US has long specified very high end-loading requirements on passenger vehicles and collision protection on locomotives is because of the risks of crossing collisions i.e. making the front end of the loco strong enough to hopefully push a road vehicle aside while protecting the crew. Looking at the video and picture in post #58, it looks like that's what the lead loco did in this case - then maybe some part of the truck got under the train and derailed it?

(The weight of US locos probably also helps a bit too - an Amtrak P42DC is around 120t, as is the SC-44 on the left in my Fullerton picture, with the freight locos being around 190t each. The Superliner passenger cars are around 68t to 78t each depending on type)
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Falcon1200

Established Member
Joined
14 Jun 2021
Messages
6,627
Location
Neilston, East Renfrewshire
It was statistically quite unlikely that a collision at that location would involve a passenger train, since there's only one Amtrak each way per day among dozens of freights including high speed Z-trains.

As a matter of interest, what is the normal speed of freights over the crossing ? Could a road user perhaps think they had time to cross but be caught out by the higher speed of the infrequent Amtrak service ?
 

DelW

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2015
Messages
6,051
As a matter of interest, what is the normal speed of freights over the crossing ? Could a road user perhaps think they had time to cross but be caught out by the higher speed of the infrequent Amtrak service ?
Post 29 says most are 50mph and maximum is 70mph, so yes, the Amtrak at 89mph prior to braking is going to be visible or audible for a shorter time. Most of the reports that I've seen have focussed on the speed of no.4 and haven't stated speeds for other types of train.
It's also the case that no.4 often goes through the area anything up to five or six hours late (indeed today's is currently in the same area and is shown as 5h 10m late), so its arrival time would have been unpredictable.
 

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
18,346
Location
Glasgow
As a matter of interest, what is the normal speed of freights over the crossing ? Could a road user perhaps think they had time to cross but be caught out by the higher speed of the infrequent Amtrak service ?
It's Class 5 track, this permits a maximum linespeed of 90 passenger, 80 freight.

However, BNSF do not run any freights at higher than 70mph AND crucially fitting it's locos with ATS equipment would be needed to run at 80 or higher.

Ergo, the actual permitted speeds are 90 passenger/70 for freight. The coal trains are 50mph, the intermodals do run at 70 unless over 8500ft - then brake performance imposes a 55mph limit.

I believe most freight traffic through that crossing is coal traffic (full and empties) running to/from Arkansas.
 

DelW

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2015
Messages
6,051
I believe most freight traffic through that crossing is coal traffic (full and empties) running to/from Arkansas.
That seems surprising, if I may say so.

The Southwest Chief's route from Kansas City to Galesburg goes via the derailment site at Mendon, then La Plata and Fort Madison. There are plenty of intermodal trains, both stackers and TOFC, to be seen passing the webcams at the latter two locations. Looking at maps, there is a route via Brookfield that they could take which bypasses Mendon, but it looks like a secondary line in comparison with the route via Mendon.

So unless I'm misunderstanding something, there is significant intermodal traffic over the crossing in question.
 

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
18,346
Location
Glasgow
That seems surprising, if I may say so.

The Southwest Chief's route from Kansas City to Galesburg goes via the derailment site at Mendon, then La Plata and Fort Madison. There are plenty of intermodal trains, both stackers and TOFC, to be seen passing the webcams at the latter two locations. Looking at maps, there is a route via Brookfield that they could take which bypasses Mendon, but it looks like a secondary line in comparison with the route via Mendon.

So unless I'm misunderstanding something, there is significant intermodal traffic over the crossing in question.
I'm not an expert, I'm just essentially repeating information from a US rail forum. That gave info such as linespeed, the speed of the train, the nature of the crossing, the number of fatalities and the usual traffic.

I know enough to understand about US track classes, permitted running speeds, use of ATS/Cab-signalling etc but the traffic over specific routes is beyond my knowledge so I relied on Americans knowing what they were talking about!
 

DelW

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2015
Messages
6,051
I'm not an expert, I'm just essentially repeating information from a US rail forum. That gave info such as linespeed, the speed of the train, the nature of the crossing, the number of fatalities and the usual traffic.

I know enough to understand about US track classes, permitted running speeds, use of ATS/Cab-signalling etc but the traffic over specific routes is beyond my knowledge so I relied on Americans knowing what they were talking about!
Ah, fair enough! It's not an area that I know that much about either, despite having worked for thirteen years for a company based in Kansas City. (I was UK based).

However I do go virtual trainwatching on those webcams quite often. On the day of the accident, I'd watched the train go through KC, and heard about the collision when I later visited the La Plata camera which it never reached. Much of my information came from the subsequent discussion on there.
 

ac6000cw

Established Member
Joined
10 May 2014
Messages
3,919
Location
Cambridge, UK
I believe most freight traffic through that crossing is coal traffic (full and empties) running to/from Arkansas.
I'd be surprised - Mendon is east of Kansas City on the ex-Santa Fe 'Transcon' route to Galesburg (and on to Chicago), part of the busiest intermodal route in the country.

I'd expect the main coal flows in that part of world to be NW-SE i.e. Powder River Basin trains to/from the southern states via KC.

The coal trains are 50mph, the intermodals do run at 70 unless over 8500ft
I think 'can' rather than 'do' run at 70 mph - the hotshots will (and customers pay more for the expedited schedules and service level guarantees), but the lower priority intermodals tend to run slower overall to save fuel (= money).
 

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
18,346
Location
Glasgow
Ah, fair enough! It's not an area that I know that much about either, despite having worked for thirteen years for a company based in Kansas City. (I was UK based).

However I do go virtual trainwatching on those webcams quite often. On the day of the accident, I'd watched the train go through KC, and heard about the collision when I later visited the La Plata camera which it never reached. Much of my information came from the subsequent discussion on there.
I've never really got into US rail webcam I must admit. I'm not particularly interested in freight personally.

Can't have been pleasant finding out a train you'd seen on camera later derailed. I'll happily bow to the people over there as to the traffic on the route.

I'd be surprised - Mendon is east of Kansas City on the ex-Santa Fe 'Transcon' route to Galesburg (and on to Chicago), part of the busiest intermodal route in the country.

I'd expect the main coal flows in that part of world to be NW-SE i.e. Powder River Basin trains to/from the southern states via KC.


I think 'can' rather than 'do' run at 70 mph - the hotshots will (and customers pay more for the expedited schedules and service level guarantees), but the lower priority intermodals tend to run slower overall to save fuel (= money).
That makes complete sense and it may well have been that the posters were simplifying what they were saying, but as I said to DelW I'm replying on others knowing what they are talking about and simply replaying some pieces of information that seemed pertinent to the discussion here, such as speeds/traffic on the line and so forth.

For instance, I hadn't appreciated that because US freights can be so long that they have speed restrictions on them when they exceed certain lengths due to brake propagation times. When mentioned it makes sense, but until mentioned its not really something one thinks about or at least I never considered and so it is for much of the other bits and pieces of info.
 

Falcon1200

Established Member
Joined
14 Jun 2021
Messages
6,627
Location
Neilston, East Renfrewshire
Post 29 says most are 50mph and maximum is 70mph, so yes, the Amtrak at 89mph prior to braking is going to be visible or audible for a shorter time.

Ergo, the actual permitted speeds are 90 passenger/70 for freight. The coal trains are 50mph, the intermodals do run at 70 unless over 8500ft - then brake performance imposes a 55mph limit.

Thanks for the info.
 

AndrewE

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2015
Messages
7,372
For instance, I hadn't appreciated that because US freights can be so long that they have speed restrictions on them when they exceed certain lengths due to brake propagation times. When mentioned it makes sense, but until mentioned its not really something one thinks about or at least I never considered and so it is for much of the other bits and pieces of info.
Would that be the case with additional radio-controlled locos in or at the rear of the train? Do they provide instantaneous brake actuations, or just controlled power with the braking all done from the head end?

If that did work, I wonder what the economics of a gadget (or a caboose with a small donkey engine for electric power) would be vs. higher speed and reduced line occupation? Maybe they would just put another loco in for simplicity.
 

ac6000cw

Established Member
Joined
10 May 2014
Messages
3,919
Location
Cambridge, UK
Would that be the case with additional radio-controlled locos in or at the rear of the train? Do they provide instantaneous brake actuations, or just controlled power with the braking all done from the head end?

If that did work, I wonder what the economics of a gadget (or a caboose with a small donkey engine for electric power) would be vs. higher speed and reduced line occupation? Maybe they would just put another loco in for simplicity.
All freight trains carry an 'End Of Train Device' (ETD/EOT/FRED) attached to the rear coupler. These come in three basic versions - just a flashing red light, ones that also report the brake line pressure by radio, and ones that can also vent the brake pipe by radio command i.e. initiate an emergency brake application. I think I've read about proposals for an ETD with variable brake valve capability, but I've no idea if those exist or are in use anywhere.

Radio-controlled locos (Distributed Power Units - DPUs) can apply the air brakes (and if on the rear of a train serve the functions of an ETD). They also provide dynamic (rheostatic) braking which these days is used in preference to the air brakes in many situations - it's fully variable, there's no risk of 'running out of air' and it saves a lot of brake shoe and wheel wear. I *think* a DPU can provide variable air brake control i.e. same as the head-end loco, but I don't know if they are used that way to speed up brake application propagation. They certainly respond to emergency brake applications (I think both by remote command and by sensing brake line pressure loss) and will vent the brake pipe to speed that up. Freight car brake valves also have devices to speed up emergency brake propagation along the train - I did witness that happening once, a freight was going past then suddenly there was a loud hissing noise that I could hear propagating quickly along the train as each car vented the pipe...took the crew about an hour or so to find and fix what I suspect was a broken coupler or disconnected air hose.

On lines with long steep gradients, to minimise the risk of runaways the use of ETDs with brake control capability (or a rear DPU) is generally mandatory, as is having sufficient dynamic brake capacity relative to the train weight.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

For instance, I hadn't appreciated that because US freights can be so long that they have speed restrictions on them when they exceed certain lengths due to brake propagation times. When mentioned it makes sense, but until mentioned its not really something one thinks about or at least I never considered and so it is for much of the other bits and pieces of info.
Although I've known about the brake propagation delay issues for ages, I've never come across any figures for maximum train length versus speed - so thanks for the info :smile:

That said, 8500 feet is 1.6 miles so I would have thought that's getting into 'good to have a DPU' territory anyway, just to keep the in-train forces sensible and provide faster acting braking from both ends of the train. I've seen (in the metal) BNSF double-stacks with two sets of DPUs a few times - I think seven locos in total is my record, in a 3+2+2 configuration - so I assume they have en-route 'pit stop' refueling capability able to deal with those.
 
Last edited:

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
18,346
Location
Glasgow
Would that be the case with additional radio-controlled locos in or at the rear of the train? Do they provide instantaneous brake actuations, or just controlled power with the braking all done from the head end?

If that did work, I wonder what the economics of a gadget (or a caboose with a small donkey engine for electric power) would be vs. higher speed and reduced line occupation? Maybe they would just put another loco in for simplicity.
I'm aware of the use of distributed power but not how much control is available beyond throttle/dynamic brake.

Although I've known about the brake propagation delay issues for ages, I've never come across any figures for maximum train length versus speed - so thanks for the info
Oh I kknew that it gets much slower the longer the train is, but not that 8500ft is too long to safely stop from 70 on pure air. (Presumably if they had EP assist, it wouldn't be an issue but that isn't very common on freights even in Europe AFAIK.)

That said, 8500 feet is 1.6 miles so I would have thought that's getting into 'good to have a DPU' territory anyway,
You would think so at that length. Somehow 8500ft seems shorter than 1.6mi though!
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
28,768
Location
Nottingham
I'm not sure how widespread Electronically Controlled Pneumatic braking is in the States yet, but it's probably the ultimate solution to braking issues with their huge freight trains if they can make the case to spend the money upgrading each freight car. It's similar in function to electro-pneumatic braking on passenger trains, but implemented by a different means and as it's done digitally it also provides with various added gizmos. In particular it is able to apply the brakes on every car simultaneously without depleting the train pipe, so there is never a risk of running out of air.
 

AndrewE

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2015
Messages
7,372
I'm not sure how widespread Electronically Controlled Pneumatic braking is in the States yet, but it's probably the ultimate solution to braking issues with their huge freight trains if they can make the case to spend the money upgrading each freight car. It's similar in function to electro-pneumatic braking on passenger trains, but implemented by a different means and as it's done digitally it also provides with various added gizmos. In particular it is able to apply the brakes on every car simultaneously without depleting the train pipe, so there is never a risk of running out of air.
My point was whether the higher speeds allowed with better braking and hence quicker transits (and increased overall capacity from the reduced time to clear single-track sections) would more than cover the cost of whatever gadget was chosen.
Freight rates could drop as wagons might be unloaded a day quicker (attracting more business) and more trains per day might be worked across the same network.
It's possible that the costs of increased track maintainance standards for higher speeds would rule it out though.
 

ac6000cw

Established Member
Joined
10 May 2014
Messages
3,919
Location
Cambridge, UK
It's possible that the costs of increased track maintainance standards for higher speeds would rule it out though.
There's the increased fuel costs as well.

Trains of bulk commodities (grain, coal, oil, ethanol, various other minerals etc.) tend to be down at the 1hp per ton or less power-to-weight ratio, depending on terrain and they normally don't exceed 50mph. A large part of the delivered price of those commodities tends to be transport cost and so no shipper wants to pay more than they absolutely have to for transport. Those trains end up with the absolute minimum number of locos that can 'get it over the road' at minimum fuel cost, even if it means they climb the hills at 10mph (or less at times), screaming along in full-on AC-drive controlled wheelslip...

Intermodals usually have higher power-to-weight ratios - maybe 2 to 4 hp per ton - as that is more time-sensitive traffic and shippers are willing to pay more to get the service level they need (and double-stack intermodal is cheaper than trucking if the distance is long enough - which is why the western US railroads dominate the West Coast - Midwest intermodal market).

I think the problem with the very slow take-up of ECP braking in the US is a mixture of the cost-versus-economic benefit issue, the much more widespread use of 'distributed power' locos (which also provide distributed dynamic braking) and maybe the recently completed, Federally-mandated 10-year programme to install Positive Train Control on mainlines in the US has soaked up a fair amount of the railroad 'capital expenditure safety budget' money? I suspect to get ECP widely adopted it might take Federal legislation, and I don't sense any appetite for that at present.
 

Taunton

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
12,343
Trains of bulk commodities (grain, coal, oil, ethanol, various other minerals etc.) tend to be down at the 1hp per ton or less power-to-weight ratio, depending on terrain and they normally don't exceed 50mph.
That may be true but it's not my (or a wider) perception of the Santa Fe line as a high speed line from LA to Chicago. It's not a route I've associated with extensive bulk trains, which seems more of a UP approach, or particularly the former BN lines (which is maybe where a BNSF perception comes from). Apart from the Chief, it's always seemed the route for intermodals, double-stacks, Trailer-on-Flat-Car, high speed and through services from Chicago, or at least Kansas City, to LA. Competitive railroads in the USA often seem to specialise in different freight groups - the Union Pacific on this overall routing has got the bulk of the market on new car Autoracks.
 

alf

On Moderation
Joined
1 Mar 2021
Messages
427
Location
Bournemouth
There's an NTSB video on YouTube of an inspection of the train, showing that the lead loco stood up quite well to an 87mph collision:

Screenshot showing the loco cab attached.
God bless America.
I have counted the NTSB & other functionaries visiting the site on the video, & presumably also taking wreckage selfies for the folks back home. At least 25 people.

All paid for by the US taxpayer, & they say the USA is the bastion of freee enterprise.
Two capable guys & good video cameraman could have done the job.
And this was probably the nth bureaucratic visit.
 

Taunton

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
12,343
God bless America.
I have counted the NTSB & other functionaries visiting the site on the video, & presumably also taking wreckage selfies for the folks back home. At least 25 people.

All paid for by the US taxpayer, & they say the USA is the bastion of freee enterprise.
Two capable guys & good video cameraman could have done the job.
And this was probably the nth bureaucratic visit.
Didn't Carmont have Scotrail, Network Rail, RAIB, Police Scotland, BTP, the Procurator Fiscal, etc, all poking around and each claiming precedence over the other. Well over 25.

I also can't see BNSF taking three months to reopen in Missouri. In fact, it was three days.
 

ac6000cw

Established Member
Joined
10 May 2014
Messages
3,919
Location
Cambridge, UK
That may be true but it's not my (or a wider) perception of the Santa Fe line as a high speed line from LA to Chicago. It's not a route I've associated with extensive bulk trains, which seems more of a UP approach, or particularly the former BN lines (which is maybe where a BNSF perception comes from). Apart from the Chief, it's always seemed the route for intermodals, double-stacks, Trailer-on-Flat-Car, high speed and through services from Chicago, or at least Kansas City, to LA. Competitive railroads in the USA often seem to specialise in different freight groups - the Union Pacific on this overall routing has got the bulk of the market on new car Autoracks.
I should have made it clear I was talking in generic terms (as AndrewE's question appeared to be).

I fully agree that the ex-Santa Fe 'transcon' (LA/Oakland-Barstow-Needles-Flagstaff-Belen-Clovis-Amarillo-Avard-Kansas City-Galesburg-Chicago) is and has been for many years primarily an intermodal route, with a much smaller amount of general merchandise trains. BNSF has the fastest/shortest/highest capacity route between the end-points (next best is probably UP's Sunset Route east to El Paso, then turning north-east along the ex-SP/Rock Island 'Golden State' route via Tucumcari, NM to the Kansas City area).
 

Taunton

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
12,343
I should have made it clear I was talking in generic terms (as AndrewE's question appeared to be).

I fully agree that the ex-Santa Fe 'transcon' (LA/Oakland-Barstow-Needles-Flagstaff-Belen-Clovis-Amarillo-Avard-Kansas City-Galesburg-Chicago) is and has been for many years primarily an intermodal route, with a much smaller amount of general merchandise trains. BNSF has the fastest/shortest/highest capacity route between the end-points (next best is probably UP's Sunset Route east to El Paso, then turning north-east along the ex-SP/Rock Island 'Golden State' route via Tucumcari, NM to the Kansas City area).
The three former routes from LA to Chicago were indeed, the ATSF, the UP through Las Vegas/Ogden, and the SP/CRIP through El Paso, with the key passenger trains at their zenith the "Super Chief", the "City of Los Angeles", and the "Golden State" respectively. The latter route fell into disrepair with the steady demise of the Rock island, but UP taking it over in the 1980s has picked it up again.

However the Santa Fe has long been the speedy one, back to "Death Valley Scotty" and his 1905 special charter, "The Coyote", from LA to Chicago, the USA equivalent of City of Truro, except they kept it up for 2,300 miles and just under two days! Scott himself was an infamous self-publicist, and together with the ATSF public relations department, and a newspaper journalist who wired breathless prose from each intermediate stop, it galvanised the USA and gave the Santa Fe publicity they never forgot. Same route as we are discussing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Special
 

ac6000cw

Established Member
Joined
10 May 2014
Messages
3,919
Location
Cambridge, UK
However the Santa Fe has long been the speedy one, back to "Death Valley Scotty" and his 1905 special charter, "The Coyote", from LA to Chicago, the USA equivalent of City of Truro, except they kept it up for 2,300 miles and just under two days! Scott himself was an infamous self-publicist, and together with the ATSF public relations department, and a newspaper journalist who wired breathless prose from each intermediate stop, it galvanised the USA and gave the Santa Fe publicity they never forgot.
From 1968 to 1976 the Santa Fe ran the 'Super-C' intermodal train on a 40-hour schedule over the roughly 2200 miles between LA and Chicago - a start-to-stop average of 55 mph. The inaugural test run did it in 37.5 hours, averaging 58.3 mph (with a 79 mph maximum speed). It was claimed to be the 'world's fastest freight train' at the time, certainly over that sort of distance. It stopped running in the end because there weren't enough customers willing to pay the premium prices needed to operate it profitably.

In the early 2000's BNSF, CSX and NS did some test runs (basically at the behest of UPS) to see if a transcontinental 65-hour LA to New Jersey intermodal service was feasible, which resulted in some sub-40 hour runs between LA and Chicago, but this time not exceeding 70 mph maximum. The answer to the 65-hour question was 'Yes', but the projected service never happened because, again, it wasn't economic - speed sells, but not at any price for freight.

(Re. the speed versus economics and line capacity issue - how many 140 mph capable passenger train fleets have been put into service in the UK versus the number that do/have ever run in normal service at 140 mph? ;) )
 

Taunton

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
12,343
The nuisance factor of such high speed runs is of course considerable on such a busy line, which averages some 40 trains each way per day. Far more efficient to run it like the Trans Siberian, where everything, passenger and freight, runs along at much the same speed.

In the 1970s, pretty much the doldrums of US rail, the Santa Fe introduced Regular High Frequency ("RHF") service, every 4 hours from Chicago to Los Angeles, with Next Train Out guarantees for freight delivered to the consolidation yards at both ends, either interchanged or trucked in. It was every 12 hours from Chicago to San Francisco as well (routed via Barstow). This was a much more efficient way to run the service - and was only one of a number of traffics mixed in on the main line. The RHF freights are discussed here :

 

ac6000cw

Established Member
Joined
10 May 2014
Messages
3,919
Location
Cambridge, UK
does anyone know the percentage of casualties on trains and how many were in vehicles.
In post #21 I summarised equivalent European crossing safety stats - nearly all of the casualties were '3rd parties' i.e. people in road vehicles or pedestrians, not passengers or staff. Given that the majority of trains in the US are freight, I would expect that to be even more the case in the US.

From the FRA website safety stats: (note this is combined train and crossing accident data, not just accidents at crossings)

1657536499665.png
1657536597535.png

So basically the number of passengers killed & injured is typically 1% or less of the total killed & injured in grade-crossing accidents.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
31,139
Location
Redcar
I also can't see BNSF taking three months to reopen in Missouri. In fact, it was three days.
Was somewhat easier to recover the vehicles and rebuild the infrastructure I suspect in this incident than at Carmont...
 
Joined
4 Sep 2015
Messages
240
Location
Lehigh Valley PA USA
God bless America.
I have counted the NTSB & other functionaries visiting the site on the video, & presumably also taking wreckage selfies for the folks back home. At least 25 people.

All paid for by the US taxpayer, & they say the USA is the bastion of freee enterprise.
Two capable guys & good video cameraman could have done the job.
And this was probably the nth bureaucratic visit.
There are 25 people because you have specialties in different aspects including track, signaling, the equipment involved in the crash, the design and layout of the crossing itself, and so on. It would be hard to find 2 people knowledgeable in all these aspects. Plus you would have representatives from Amtrak, BNSF, and possibly the state highway people.
 
Joined
4 Sep 2015
Messages
240
Location
Lehigh Valley PA USA
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has released their preliminary report on this derailment.

NTSB Preliminary Report

Investigation Details​

What Happened​


This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed. Release Date: July 21, 2022
On June 27, 2022, about 12:42 p.m. local time, eastbound National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) train 4 (also known as the Southwest Chief), carrying 270 passengers and 12 crew, derailed in Mendon, Missouri after colliding with a 2007 Kenworth W900B dump truck that was fouling a highway railroad grade crossing. (1) (See figure.) Three train passengers and the truck driver died, and multiple passengers and crew were transported to local hospitals with injuries. Damage was estimated by Amtrak and BNSF Railway (BNSF) to be about $4 million.
Amtrak train 4, traveling from Los Angeles, California, to Chicago, Illinois, consisted of two locomotives and eight railcars. The collision with the fully loaded dump truck occurred at milepost 363.8 on the BNSF Marceline Subdivision near a rural passive highway railroad grade crossing on County Road 113, also known as Porsche Prairie Avenue. The highway railroad grade crossing was equipped with crossbucks, and a stop sign on the right side of Porsche Prairie Avenue as the dump truck driver approached from the south. All locomotives and railcars derailed with seven of the railcars coming to a rest on their sides. The dump truck received heavy damage and came to rest in a ditch northeast of the rail crossing adjacent to the road.
In the vicinity of the accident area, BNSF authorizes train movements with a traffic control system. Train movements are coordinated by a BNSF train dispatcher located at the Dispatch Center in Fort Worth, Texas. Train movements on the Marceline Subdivision are governed by operating rules, special instructions, timetable instructions, and the signal indications of the traffic control system and supplemented with an overlaid positive train control (PTC) system. The maximum allowable speed on this section of track was 90 mph for passenger trains. The PTC system was enabled and operating at the time of the collision. Preliminary review of the data from the leading locomotive’s event recorder showed that train 4 was traveling 89 mph when its emergency brakes were activated. The weather was clear with no precipitation at the time of the accident.
While on scene, National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigators conducted highway railroad grade crossing inspections and highway vehicle inspections, reviewed data from the lead locomotive’s forward-facing image recorder and event recorder, obtained the dump truck’s engine control module, and conducted interviews. NTSB’s investigation is ongoing. Future investigative activity will focus on highway railroad grade crossing design specifications, railcar design, survival factors, and passenger railcar crashworthiness.
Parties to this investigation include the Federal Railroad Administration, Amtrak, BNSF, the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers – Transportation Division, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, Missouri State Highway Patrol, and Missouri Department of Transportation.


1 (a) All times in this document are local time unless otherwise noted. (b) Amtrak is a passenger railroad service that provides medium- and long-distance intercity passenger rail service in the contiguous United States and to nine cities in Canada. (c) Fouling refers to being in proximity to a track such that the individual or equipment could be struck by a moving train.

2 Passive highway railroad grade crossings lack train-activated signals or gates to warn of an approaching train. Traffic control devices at passive crossings include advance warning signs, pavement markings, crossbucks, and stop signs.
 

Taunton

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
12,343
Damage was estimated by Amtrak and BNSF Railway (BNSF) to be about $4 million.

Anyone surprised at such a low figure for damage to rolling stock and track?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top