It is currently Thu Aug 20, 2026 9:00 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 40 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Collision with injuries - Fall Foliage Train on the A&M
PostPosted: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:17 pm 

Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2004 8:51 pm
Posts: 2055
Location: Southern California
Yes, it is hard to tell what occurred. The statement could be taken as being either way. The NTSB member probably thought that his statement was correct and not one that was unclear.

I think we will have to wait for additional factual information to be reported out by the NTSB. Then we will know if the locomotive had been separated prior to the impact or the impact caused the separation.

The posted photo seems to show that the vestibule was shoved in during the event. This may imply that the locomotive was separated from the train and then shoved into it. Or the impact was sufficient to collapse the draft gear allowing the locomotive to impact the end framing of the vestibule.

_________________
Brian Norden


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Collision with injuries - Fall Foliage Train on the A&M
PostPosted: Mon Oct 20, 2014 4:10 pm 

Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2004 10:54 am
Posts: 1186
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Brian Norden wrote:
Yes, it is hard to tell what occurred. The statement could be taken as being either way. The NTSB member probably thought that his statement was correct and not one that was unclear.

I think we will have to wait for additional factual information to be reported out by the NTSB. Then we will know if the locomotive had been separated prior to the impact or the impact caused the separation.

The posted photo seems to show that the vestibule was shoved in during the event. This may imply that the locomotive was separated from the train and then shoved into it. Or the impact was sufficient to collapse the draft gear allowing the locomotive to impact the end framing of the vestibule.


We won't know the answer until more facts are identified by the NTSB. Either way, the vestibule of the coach was crushed in and that implies that there was significant amount of energy involved in the collision. From the looks of it, the impact was enough to separate the end of the roof from the end of the vestibule.

_________________
"When a man runs on railroads over half of his lifetime he is fit for nothing else-and at times he don't know that."- Conductor Nimrod Bell, 1896


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Collision with injuries - Fall Foliage Train on the A&M
PostPosted: Tue Oct 21, 2014 2:31 pm 

Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 6:17 pm
Posts: 527
Location: Scranton, PA
I won't pretend to know what happened here, because I wasn't present.

I did want to clear up the restricted speed issue here. I'm familiar with it from NORAC, but GCOR has similar language, which can be applied to signaled territory as well. Things to remember:

1: Restricted Speed is not a speed limit. It is a method of train handling. The key provision of which is the requirement of controlling your movement to permit stopping half-range of vision. The maximum speed allowed under restricted speed is 20 mph, but that is the only time when a numeric value comes into play. To be able to do 20 mph under restricted speed rules, you must have a good view over a considerable distance, free of obstructions.

2. A number of things can affect your stopping distance. Curves, vegetation, buildings, other trains are the most often quoted. There is also the condition of the rails i.e. leaves, ice, oil/grease and rain. Even insects can be an issue, caterpillars can be especially troublesome. That doesn't take into account train make-up. Lite power can be a real b*** to stop, even under good conditions.

The bottom line in the restricted speed rule is this: If you hit an object, unless it was dropped from heaven right in front of you, it's your fault.

I would estimate that with the curves and trees I see in the photographs posted in this instance, restricted speed requirements would have limited the assisting engines to a top speed of 10 mph, AT MOST. Maybe 5 mph AT MOST with slippery rail conditions.

The caveat being that if these engines were travelling completely out of control due to leaves etc, there's no safety rule in the world that could have stopped them in time.

Again, I wasn't there. I do not know what happened. I do not know what protocols were in place.

_________________
Dave Crosby


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Collision with injuries - Fall Foliage Train on the A&M
PostPosted: Wed Oct 22, 2014 9:40 pm 

Joined: Sun Jul 14, 2013 3:46 pm
Posts: 261
cood101 wrote:
Very bad week for the A&M. Their three SD70ACes flipped into a river earlier this week. Now this. How many ALCOs does the A&M have still?


The A&M still has all its Alco locomotives.

Here's a roster:

http://www.thedieselshop.us/AM.HTML


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Collision with injuries - Fall Foliage Train on the A&M
PostPosted: Thu Oct 23, 2014 12:14 am 

Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 11:43 am
Posts: 783
A little birdie told me that:

The two locomotives that hit each other are totaled. Not a huge shock......
A&M was going to sell/lease or otherwise let some of their Alcos go. Now they are in a bit of a power shortage....
Some Alcos in storavation, or is that preserage....stashed.... might be moving soon to fill in the gaps. Not necessarily to the A&M.

The above is worth exactly half of what you paid for it.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Collision with injuries - Fall Foliage Train on the A&M
PostPosted: Thu Oct 23, 2014 1:39 am 

Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2004 11:12 am
Posts: 578
Location: Somewhere off the coast of New England
Quote:
As a result of the crash, two locomotives are being repaired. One was built in 1917 [emphasis added], so, the parts for the engine can’t be purchased anymore. Because of that, the people repairing the locomotive are having to make their own parts, according to Ron Sparks with the Arkansas Missouri Railroad.

An Alco Diesel Locomotive built in 1917?
That strikes me as a far more interesting topic than the way the A&M is handling the refunds and reservations.
GME

http://5newsonline.com/2014/10/21/train-trips-to-continue-thursday-as-crashs-preliminary-investigation-wraps-up/


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Collision with injuries - Fall Foliage Train on the A&M
PostPosted: Thu Oct 23, 2014 7:21 am 

Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 11:43 am
Posts: 783
I was hoping they slipped up and accidentally announced the restoration of SLSF 4003 in Fort Smith, but that was built in 1919...

But seriously, that article is full of holes in a lot of places-10 engines involved in the wreck? 1 on the excursion train and they sent 9 more? I think maybe the reporter counted the locomotives sent as part of the wreck train.

I am hoping the one bit of factual info out of that whole article, is that they are continuing the passenger operations, starting today! I have to complement them on not taking the 'easy' way out and giving up entirely.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Collision with injuries - Fall Foliage Train on the A&M
PostPosted: Thu Oct 23, 2014 1:26 pm 

Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 12:08 pm
Posts: 255
Location: Western Railroad Museum - Rio Vista
A&M has announced that excursion train service will resume today, October 23. A train will depart Springdale, Arkansas, at 8:30 AM with return from Van Buren at 11:30 AM without the normal three hour layover. Two of the passenger cars involved in the collision will be used in today's train. For safety a high rail truck will run ahead of the passenger train.

The railroad reports that over 1000 people have reservationd for trains this weekend. They report that people on the collision train have asked if they can complete their trips.

This is the height of the fall color season in the Boston Mountains that adjoin the Ozark Mountains in Northwest Arkansas. The train runs through thick forrests of deciduous trees.

The A&M owns part of an old Frisco Railroad branch line that ran from Monett, Missouri to Paris, Texas. It connected with the St.Louis, Tulsa, Oklahoma City Frisco main line. A&M only operates 139 miles to South Fort Smith, Arkansas. From this point Kansas City Southern owns track to Poteau, Oklahoma. A major flood in 1943 destroyed the original KCS track to Fort Smith so KCS obtained trackage rights from Frisco rather than rebuild its own track. (A KCS freight train hit a Frisco passenger train head-on near Fort Smith in 1952). I believe the former Frisco track south of Poteau has been abandoned.

Frisco passenger service between Paris and Fort Smith ended in 1958. Service between Fort Smith and St. Louis ended in 1965. The train departed St. Louis at night. It carried a Pullman car as far as Fort Smith. Then it was coach only to Paris. The northbound train was daytime from Paris then overnight to St. Louis. Both ways involved a lot of switching at Monett that always woke up the Pullman passengers.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Collision with injuries - Fall Foliage Train on the A&M
PostPosted: Thu Oct 23, 2014 1:31 pm 

Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 11:43 am
Posts: 783
This explains things better I think...


Fall-trip rail rides are back on today

1st post-crash run likely to haul 110

BILL BOWDEN
ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE


The Arkansas & Missouri Railroad was scheduled to resume passenger service today, one week after a locomotive going 25 mph crashed head-on into the engine of a passenger train that was stalled near Brentwood, injuring some passengers and crew members.
About 110 passengers are expected to ride today and 300 are expected Saturday, said Ron Sparks, the railroad’s police chief. It’s the height of the railroad’s “fall foliage” tours between Springdale and Van Buren. More than 1,000 people had to cancel or re-book their trips because of the accident.
“The folks need to understand this is a safe train,” Sparks said at a news conference Wednesday outside Arkansas & Missouri’s headquarters in Springdale. “We run a safe operation. This is a very unfortunate incident that happened once in 28 years. We’re going to be taking all kinds of different measures to make sure it doesn’t happen again.”
There were 39 passengers and four crew members on the southbound train that stalled, Sparks said. Two other crew members were on the north- bound locomotive that was on its way to assist, but instead collided with, the passenger train.
“All went to the hospital per our request to be checked out,” said Sparks. Most had only bumps and bruises, he said.
Five people were kept in area hospitals overnight. By the third day after the accident, two remained hospitalized — the conductor of the support locomotive and a Missouri woman who was a passenger.
The conductor jumped from the support engine before the collision, breaking his ankle and fracturing bones in his back, Sparks said. The fractures will heal without surgery, but the man will be off work for two to three months, Sparks said. The conductor was released Tuesday night from Washington Regional Medical Center in Fayetteville.
Sparks said the injured woman was transferred from Washington Regional Medical Center in Fayetteville on Wednesday to a hospital nearer her home in Missouri. She suffered broken bones in the accident.
Investigations are being conducted by the National Transportation Safety Board and Federal Railroad Administration. The investigations should be completed in 12 to 14 months, but a preliminary report is expected in six weeks, Sparks said. The safety board investigation is informational, but the Federal Railroad Administration has the power to sanction the railroad.
The assisting locomotive was traveling about 25 mph at the time of the collision, Sparks said. It should have been going no more than 20 mph on the basis of the “outof-service track warrant” under which it was authorized to travel. Under that warrant, the engineer should be going slow enough to stop if he sees anything on the track ahead of the locomotive, Sparks said.
The stalled train wasn’t equipped with a geographic positioning system, Sparks said. The railroad keeps track of train location through dispatchers and “readers” along the track that report when a train passes that point.
Leaves on the tracks had slowed the passenger train to a stop, Sparks said. Arkansas & Missouri Railroad trains have “lost momentum” before because of fallen leaves, but this is the first time he knows of a train that completely stopped and couldn’t get going again without help.
The train’s engine was pulling four cars, including two empty ones, so it could pick up additional passengers in Van Buren. Sparks said the plan was for the assisting engine to hook onto the stalled locomotive, then shift into reverse and pull the passenger train to Van Buren.
A 39-foot section of track had to be replaced because the locomotives derailed after the collision, Sparks said. It was replaced by Friday night and freight trains resumed using the track, he said.
The track will be checked again this morning before the first passenger train travels south from Springdale to Van Buren, Sparks said.
The two locomotives are being repaired along with one passenger car, which dates from about 1917, Sparks said.
Sparks said the accident caused no explosion, as initially reported by some passengers who apparently mistook the crash for an explosion. About 20 to 30 gallons of diesel fuel leaked from a “pinhole”-size puncture in a hose underneath the train, he said.
Sparks said the accident had nothing to do with an Oct. 10 derailment about 13 miles south along the same line, which is owned by the Arkansas & Missouri Railroad.
Springdale-based Arkansas & Missouri operates a 150-mile route from Monett, Mo., to Fort Smith, according to its website, amrailroad.com. The company provides freight service and excursion passenger service between Springdale and Van Buren.

http://wehco.olivesoftware.com/Default/ ... /empty.gif


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Collision with injuries - Fall Foliage Train on the A&M
PostPosted: Thu Oct 23, 2014 10:09 pm 

Joined: Sun May 23, 2010 11:27 am
Posts: 473
Location: Switching the Coach Yard
I thought it was informative when the NTSB said the cars were built in 1922. I suppose those Budd cars in the train were early prototypes, perhaps quite rare. Looks like the investigation is in good hands.

ETA


Offline
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 40 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: