UP Trains Collide in Goodwell, OK

I'm a layman, but I have family in the area, so I get to spend a good amount of time railfanning the Pratt sub. Here is a google earth map of the area with pertinent sidings marked. The railroad travels from southwest to northeast, and I'm assuming that trains going northeast are really eastbound, etc. For the record, I am embarrassed to say that I do not know the name of the siding between Stratford and Texhoma, so I marked it as unknown.

(north is straight up, should open in new tab. If you have slow internet take heed because it is fairly large)
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/11156762/up_pratt_ok.jpg

up8677,

Thanks for the Google link.

Any CTC controlled system I have run on used dispatcher-controlled switches to enter and leave passing sidings. These switches have a time delay feature, and are interlocked with the block signals. Single track lines in CTC territory are reverse-signaled, unless there is a direction of traffic (where lines are used for traffic in one direction only). In addition, the block signals themselves are interlocked with each other. If the system is operating properly, it cannot give green signals to two opposing trains within a minimum distance of each other.

If the system was working properly, it could not have given a clear signal for the Westbound to proceed on the main if the switch at ESS was lined for the siding. It could not have shown a signal aspect to enter the siding on a diverging route if the switch was lined for the main. If the switch at ESS was lined for the diverging route, the signal for the main line would have been red. If that was the case, then the signal for the Eastbound at ESS should have also been red.

This isn't rocket science, it's just the way this stuff works. There is no way a train can proceed through a switch to continue on the main if the switch is lined for the siding.

Yet, we are being told that the signal system/CTC was working normally. If that were true, the accident could not have happened. Even if neither train crew, or the dispatcher, were paying attention to what was happening, this accident still could not have happened if the signals were working properly. If you take a worst-case human error scenario (the Westbound continues through the siding, runs the switch at WSS, and reenters the main in the face of the Eastbound) the collision could not have happen where it did.

Les

Desertdweller wrote: This isn't rocket science, it's just the way this stuff works. There is no way a train can proceed through a switch to continue on the main if the switch is lined for the siding.

Yet, we are being told that the signal system/CTC was working normally. If that were true, the accident could not have happened. Even if neither train crew, or the dispatcher, were paying attention to what was happening, this accident still could not have happened if the signals were working properly. If you take a worst-case human error scenario (the Westbound continues through the siding, runs the switch at WSS, and reenters the main in the face of the Eastbound) the collision could not have happen where it did.

Les

Les, I have to disagree with you. If the signals are not being observed/reacted to properly, this accident can happen. In this case the eastbound was on the main but doing track speed or close to it, presumably NOT observing what should have been a less than clear signal at the WSS (coming up to the stop at the ESS). It sounds like it basically ran through the "reversed" turnout on the ESS straight route (hope that makes sense) and given the mass and speed of the train I'll presume the switchpoints were damaged but allowed this move to continue without derailing. I'm sure more details will be forthcoming that should help clarify this. (DIdn't the Chatsworth wreck involve a run through switch at much lower speeds?)

While it may not sound like it, I'm not trying to point fingers in the tragedy, just pointing out that the signal system alone won't prevent this accident IF the operating rules associated with it are not being observed.

Not a problem on the images. I can make closer in ones too if you would like to see them.


I have a question for you: what if the eastbound Z crew was really so tired that they were sleeping? Wouldn't they have blown through the ESS at Goodwell, and the crash happened as it did? I suppose that switch would be damaged if it was lined for the westbound to "take the hole".


Also wondering that IF they were asleep, was their locomotive either not equipped with an alerter? Or maybe it was broken?

I posted an opinion as to what I felt had occurred with a post yesterday evening between 7:55pm and 7:57pm and promptly had it deleted by party or parties unknown and I sure would like to
know why.

Also, the news reports that say there is a siding at Guymon are using out of date information. There once was one (I know because UP 844 was tied down on it in Guymon for the Pioneer Days celebration some years back; really sad I didn't have a good camera back then). However, it has mostly been torn out as of the last time I was there (May 2012).

gravely,

The scenario you described would, I agree, result in a head-on collision east of ESS on the main. Especially if cab signals were not in use to force a penalty brake application.

To do this, though, would have required several things to happen: first, the trackside signals at ESS and the two blocks previous would have to be ignored by the Eastbound crew. Second, the Westbound train, staring the Eastbound in the face on straight track, would have to be ignored. Third, there would have to be a lack of communication between the two trains.

Conceivably, the crew of the Eastbound train could have been in some unknown condition to cause them to be unresponsive. Even if this is so, there is an alerter system that has to be responded to within seconds to prevent an emergency brake application. This system would have required a response several times from the time the Advance Approach signal was presented and the point of collision. Would the engineer have responded to the alerter system but ignore the trackside signals?

I don't think it is fair to suggest a gross violation of the rules without more information of what happened here. A lot of things COULD have happened here. What we do know is that there were three distinct groups that could have prevented this, but for some reason didn't or couldn't.

Les

Desertdweller wrote:Would the engineer have responded to the alerter system but ignore the trackside signals?

The alerter-response becomes so Pavlovian, it certainly is possible. Not suggesting that's what happened here, but as a conductor I definitely had a few experiences where engineers in a stupor could reset the alerter while reacting to little else.

Freddy...enlighten me on something. I've never seen it myself, but I've heard of false proceeds. Say you had a false clear at an interlocking. Would the distant signal follow the error, or would you still get an approach?

Did this route ever have Atomatic Train Stop and/or Automatic Train Control?

While the terrain is "rolling",the Railroad is "flat",with cuts,fills and bridges.
Not sure if UP was planning on cab signals for the sub. There're a bunch of "Agi-business" spurs in the area as well.
The CTC is Radio/Microwave linked to Omaha. Guymon has a pair of "talking detectors",no passing track.

To:up8677,next passing track "west" is Stevens Tx,next passing track "east" is Optima,
then Collingwood Grain "controlled siding".

I'm not aware of any UP Cab Signal Territory outside of Chicago.

The "Overland route" from Omaha Ne to Ogden Ut has cab signals,

Anyone know if the engines involved, instead of having an alerter, had a deadman instead? Is it possible that if the lead engine of the train that exceeded it's limits had a deadman that became defective. Or, that the deadman might not have even become defective, but the engineer have a medical condition that made him unresponsive yet he was able to still keep the deadman depressed?

To answer a few peoples' questions on whether train crews regularly communicate while operating: no, they usually don't. It's the dispatcher's responsibility to keep track of where the trains are and to set up routes for the trains to take. Then, it's up to the signal systems to prevent the trains from exceeding the limits that have been established, and up to the crews on the trains to react to those signals in the field. Those who don't work for the railroad, imagine driving a car. Do you talk to other drivers to determine where they are, or do you follow the traffic laws and road rules to avoid crashing into other cars? Well, it works the same way with trains and their crews.

Backshophoss wrote:While the terrain is "rolling",the Railroad is "flat",with cuts,fills and bridges.
Not sure if UP was planning on cab signals for the sub. There're a bunch of "Agi-business" spurs in the area as well.
The CTC is Radio/Microwave linked to Omaha. Guymon has a pair of "talking detectors",no passing track.

To:up8677,next passing track "west" is Stevens Tx,next passing track "east" is Optima,
then Collingwood Grain "controlled siding".

Thanks for the info! Noted...

[edit] Can you guys recommend any reliable literature that the layman can get his hands on that explains the rules and signaling stuff you speak of?