Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site lsuc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!lsuc!msb
From: msb@lsuc.UUCP (Mark Brader)
Newsgroups: net.railroad
Subject: Re: VIA rail train collides head-on with freight.
Message-ID: <1119@lsuc.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 15-Feb-86 06:45:11 EST
Article-I.D.: lsuc.1119
Posted: Sat Feb 15 06:45:11 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 15-Feb-86 07:41:19 EST
References: <6389@utzoo.UUCP> <675@hlwpc.UUCP>
Reply-To: msb@lsuc.UUCP (Mark Brader)
Organization: Law Society of Upper Canada, Toronto
Lines: 142
Summary: More facts

This accident rated several days of heavy news coverage in Canada.  Here's
a more detailed summary, assembled from recent issues of the Toronto Star,
for the benefit of interested foreigners.  Then, I comment on some points
mentioned in other articles.

The passenger train, VIA Rail #4 "Super Continental", was really two
trains joined end to end.  It consisted of 2 engines, baggage car, coach,
observation car, 2 sleeping cars, another engine, steam generator car,
baggage car, coach, dining car, sleeping car, steam generator car.
(VIA Rail's passenger stock is still steam heated.  Some engines are
fitted with steam generators, while separate steam generator cars are
used with others.)

Tickets had not been checked for passengers boarding in Jasper and
Hinton.  The best estimate seems to be that 80 passengers survived
and 19 were killed; 13 crew survived and 5 were killed including both
enginemen.  There were many injuries among the survivors, and 8 had to
be taken 150 miles to Edmonton (nearest major city hospital).

The freight consisted of 3 engines, 35 grain cars, 7 cars carrying
large pipes, 46 open hopper cars full of sulfur, 20 cars of ethylene
dichloride (that makes 118), and a caboose.  It was a mile and a half
long.  The two enginemen were killed; the other crew member survived.

The speed limit for passenger trains is 70 mph and for freights 50.
Both trains were going at least 45 mph, and passengers said that there
was no warning such as heavy braking before the collision.  The engines
and the front parts of both trains were terribly damaged and ended up
in a pile 30-40 feet high, then spilled diesel fuel ignited in a 
fireball.  This accounts for most of the deaths, of course.  Fortunately,
the sulfur cars were far enough back not to burn, though most of them
derailed and ended up crosswise; the last 31 cars of the freight,
thus including all the chemical cars, stayed on the track.  (All of
the passenger cars were derailed and several landed on their side.)
Water bombers were called in to help extinguish the fire.

The freight train, which was westbound, received a yellow-and-red caution
signal, followed 2.7 miles later by a triple-red stop signal.  The signals
are controlled by CTC from Edmonton and failure has been ruled out,
which leaves human error by the enginemen.  The double track ran out
250 feet after the train ran past the stop signal, and the collision
occurred just 300 feet after that.  (Early articles did not know
whether the Edmonton CTC board shows an indication when a train passes
a stop signal, and I did not see this point mentioned again, but it
would have been too late in any case.)

Even if, as it now appears, the accident is entirely CN's fault, under
the arrangements imposed on VIA, it is VIA that will bear the financial
brunt of the wreck.  Some say 3 to 5 million dollars (~2 to 3.5 million
American), some say even more.  Both VIA and CN are government-owned,
but they have been separate bodies since 1978; they are analogous to
Amtrak and ConRail in function and origins.  (But CN, which was formed
in the 1920's, is hardly likely to ever be sold off; and VIA has much
less freedom to negotiate financial matters than does Amtrak, as shown by
the topic of this paragraph.)

Richard Snell (snell@utzoo.UUCP) writes:

| Extrordinarily, some 100 people survived this ...

There is nothing really extraordinary about a 78% survival rate in a crash
like this.  Actually, it is somewhat surprising that it wasn't higher; this
would be because of the fireball.  We ARE talking about steel passenger cars.
I have at hand a short article about a British Rail derailment in 1983
where a 14-car train including sleeping cars derailed at 60-65 mph, causing
NO serious injuries at all.  Now, that was not a collision, but still...

| (it is not known yet if drinking was involved...).

Still isn't, and may never be known.  It is, however, worth observing
that there were two men in that engine, both of whom should have been
checking the signals.

| Freight trains share tracks throughout the system with passenger trains.

This is true on almost all lines in the world.  Most of the CN mainline,
including the accident area, gets only one passenger train each way daily.

| Only passenger trains have schedules.

True but irrelevant.  Schedules only tell you where a train is theoretically
supposed to be, and you don't use them to decide whether to proceed.  These
decisions are made by dispatchers, who know where the trains really are.
In this case, their signal to the freight was ignored.

Carl Blesch (cb@hlwpc.UUCP) writes:

> The New York Times did note one thing unrelated to the accident, however,
> which I experienced once when I rode VIA cross country.  It said that
> freight trains have the right of way over passenger trains, and that
> since most of the lines are single track, the passenger trains spend a
> lot of time in sidings, and end up running as much as a half-day late!
> ...
> In the good 'ole days, passenger trains ALWAYS had the right of way
> over freights.  I imagine that the situation has changed in Canada
> because VIA is a "guest" on the freight railroads, and the railroads
> are going to care about their own traffic first. ...

The last may be true to some extent, but there is another consideration.
Freights are a good deal longer than they were in the good ol' days,
and many of them are simply too long for the sidings.  So they HAVE
to take precedence in these cases.  My understanding is that passenger
trains do take precedence where possible, but I could be wrong.
You're right about the disgraceful arrival record of the VIA
transcontinentals, anyway.  This has been the subject of a number
of news reports.

| Are there shut off levers (as on many (ALL?) subway systems) which throw
| the break on immediately if a train runs a red light?
> 
> Some railroads had these, if they still don't.  I believe the New York
> Central did at one time.

My understanding is that automatic train stopping is very rare outside
of subway systems, both because of the expense in installation and track
maintenance (the positioning of the tripper with respect to the rail
has to stay accurate), and because one would want all locomotives
including visiting ones to be equipped.  In Britain they have an "Automatic
Warning System" that gives an audible indication of whether the signal
you just passed was green or something else, and requires you to acknowledge
if not green or else the train stops.  But this is not fitted on minor
lines, and does not provide special protection for overrunning reds.
And British Rail is a (fairly) unified government-owned system for the
whole country, which is far from the situation here.

| (Otherwise,
| should the engineer have a heart attack, for instance, 
| the train would just keep rolling).
> 
> Engines have "dead-man" controls.  I know that the E- and F-unit diesels
> had foot pedals that the engineer had to keep depressed continuously.
> If the engineer let up on the pedal, emergency brakes would be applied.
> I'm not sure the pedal system is in use today, but some variation is.

It was the pedal system on these trains.  And of course, an irresponsible
driver can override this by weighting the pedal.  (I am NOT suggesting
that this happened.)

I don't think that were will be much more of great significance.
If there is, I'll post again.

Mark Brader