I am starting from a base line of not expecting any explanation from the U.P. And even if they gave one, I reserve the right to not believe it. I also reserve the right to believe that the U.P. may never find the complete explanation to what happened.

Assuming that the problem will never be explained to the public, about the only additional insight might be gained by a decision to delay resumption of using the remote control helper.

You can believe whatever you want.

IMO, if they haven't announced anything yet, they probably aren't going to.

Which is a good indication that the root cause was something embarrassing.

Which leads back to human error. The possible cause that most seem to want to skate around rather than face up to.

Ever have a car with an ongoing intermittent problem that every single time you take it to have it checked out the mechanic can never seem to figure out what it is because the problem never rears its head? I'm sure diesels do that too.

As do steam engines, and as do crews.

THAT IS PURE SPECULATION.

And so is this.... Do you really think UP eagerly wants to tell the world..."Hey our diesel locomotives may run wild, and trains may not stop when they are supposed to."

It's all speculation....otherwise known as BS.

Some BS is better than others. Some is entertaining or perhaps even educational. But that's what we like to do. Stand around the cooler and BS.

So I see.

All I want to say on this topic is that it is incredibly fortunate as to where this incident happened, i.e. - someplace they had running room to get it stopped without a disaster. Most tourist railroads don't have an extra couple of miles to stop a runaway. For that matter, a lot of the time you're trying to stop a train on a main line it's because you've come up to an absolute stop signal with opposing or proceeding traffic in front of you. I think we all know just how lucky the crew and railroad were with this incident, and having nearly whacked a huge tree with a small engine myself recently, I know that sickening post-adrenaline rush feeling of narrowly avoiding a potentially bad accident, ...I did remember to actuate through the emergency application, though.

For the record, this occurred in CTC territory. However, there were NO signals, switches, or opposing movements in the immediate area. They were on green signals with clear track in front of them, easily seen.

Having been there a number of times and having been on the head of trains in that location, I can assure you this is NOT speculation. Those who choose to discount that are encouraged to trot on down to Mt. Pleasant and see for themselves.

Why so adamant about something no one has expressed any doubt over? The prior poster was saying it was a good thing that it happened at such a location. It could have been disastrous if it were at an absolute stop with another train nearby not that this was any sort of mandatory stop.

Steve

Illustrating that there is no known operating reason for such a Herculean effort to stop. This would not be the first time a train of any kind "missed the bricks" and had to simply come to an easy stop, and get authority from the dispatcher to make a reverse move back to the scheduled stopping point. A few red faces, perhaps, but no harm, no foul.

It would be a completely different thing if there was, indeed an opposing movement or another engine or car in the foul of the main track or if running a red "A" block were imminent.

There is obviously more to this than is being speculated here and elsewhere. There are only 2 ways to flatten wheels. One is to brake so hard that the wheels slide. In this case, the drivers didn't slide from braking, as it can be clearly seen in the videos that the driver brake shoes are not even touching the wheels. The others are, but not the drivers.

Call it speculation or whatever you wish to call it. Some of us have enough experience to know what happened. And what didn't happen.

The other way to flatten wheels is to yank the engine into reverse and pull the throttle out. Way out. That will cause the drivers to stop turning momentarily, which is sufficient time and distance to produce small flat spots until the drivers begin to turn again, in reverse. This is the stuff of B grade western movies.

Other stuff can happen if this is done, too. Nearly all of it bad.

That "odd account" several posts or pages back is starting to look a lot closer to what actually may have happened to flatten the drive wheels, with a few exceptions.

While the runaway per se did not pose a significant risk because there was nothing to hit, I would say that the underlying cause for the runaway is deadly serious in terms of the possibility of hitting another train or other fouling detail. So I would not discount the seriousness of this incident based on the fact that nothing was in the way.

I also do not see any evidence to rule out the possibility of the wheels being slid by an application of the independent brake. While some video evidence shows that the independent brakes were released, that was only a brief showing, and it is my understanding that the train continued a considerable distance further before stopping. So the independent brakes could have been applied after the video showing them released.

No way, Ron. The trailer truck brakes and tender brakes are clearly applied. They come on when the independent brake is applied. And funny thing, no other wheels anywhere else on the entire train were damaged. Given the same brake cylinder pressure, the trailer truck and tender wheels should have slid flat, too. All in all, it's obvious the driver brakes were cut out and not working at all, probably by use of the so-called "mountain cock." Too, somewhere in the chaos and confusion, the engineer could have, and may have, cut the driver brakes back in. They still would not have slid, though. Here's why:

The independent brakes are applied with 40 psi when fully applied. If the rail surface is in good condition (i.e. dry, no wet leaves, frost or weeds), they won't slide. Had their been grease or oil on the head of the rail, the wheels would have slid but would have been lubricated by the grease or oil. They would have produced some smoke and odor, but not flat spots due to the unwanted lubrication being provided.

I have to go with some of the other actual experts on this board, such as Preston. Several steps were taken (or not) that set up the incident in the first place, and several others were not taken (or were) when the feces hit the propeller. I'm not buying mechanical or electrical failure.

There are too many separate ways to keep this from kind of thing from happening. It boggles the mind to think that all of them failed simultaneously. If that actually was the case, then there are some very serious issues and risks out there that must be addressed in a forceful manner and the quicker the better for all.

Well, from reading your earlier comment, it sounded like you were saying that we know the wheels were not slid by an application of the independent, so they had to have been slid by reversing. And the reason you gave for knowing that the independent was not applied to cause a slide was because of the video shows the brakes released on the drivers.

Then I said that the video only shows a short sequence, so the independent may have been applied (or cut back in) later when it was not in the video. Now you are saying that even if the independent were applied, it would not have been able to slide the wheels because of inadequate brake pipe pressure. I won’t dispute that, but it is the first time I have ever heard that the independent brake is incapable of sliding the wheels.

But assuming you are correct, why then would they keep the independent brake released (or cut out) during an emergency that required all the braking effort possible? Even if the independent were not capable of locking the wheels, it surely would have added significant braking effort.

Uh, who said there was an emergency requiring all possible braking effort??

There were no switches or signals or imminent collisions involved, no grade crossing where they might have hit something that shouldn't have been there, no washout or failed bridge, and as far as we know and can see, no mob of spectators swarming over the tracks. (Been there, seen that. It ain't funny.)

One of my questions all along has been why the huge effort in the first place to drop the anchor and drag feet in the ballast to get stopped in such a hurry if there was no imminent danger?

Or was there?

Independent brake cylinder pressure set high enough to slide the wheels would be a defect under anybody's rulebook. And even if I'm wrong on this, why would only 4 sets of wheels slide and not the other 9 sets from the same brake application since all pressures are controlled by one feed valve?

Well, if there were not an emergency requiring all possible braking effort, why would they reverse the locomotive?

Since they managed to flatten the drivers on #844, it seems reasonable to conclude that they were making a maximum effort to stop. It may be true that there was no immediate need to get stopped to avoid hitting something. But this would not have just been a matter of taking a long time to stop versus dropping the anchor, as you say. If the diesel were shoving out of control, that could have persisted for an indefinite distance. So disaster may not have been right around the corner, but it would be up ahead somewhere.

Moreover, we do know that they had the brakes set on the diesel and apparently most or all wheels ahead of the diesel except for the drivers of #844, and with the diesel still pushing, this head end application was not slowing the speed. So given all of that, it seems reasonable to conclude that they wanted all possible braking effort