# BNSF Wreck near Panhandle Texas (near Amarillo)



## printman2000 (Jun 28, 2016)

Looks like it was a head on collision. Of the four crewman, only one has been found and he is recovering at the hospital.

http://www.newschannel10.com/story/32324196/breaking-two-trains-have-collided-near-panhandle-texas


----------



## Cho Cho Charlie (Jun 28, 2016)

Other news sources are saying there are an undetermined number of workers on the trains. I would think that each freight train would have an engineer and a conductor, no? That's a total of four. Also, if there were more, like a trainee or something, BNSF would know that.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jun 28, 2016)

A bad one for sure! Is this on the BNSF Transcon that the Chief sometimes detours through Amarillo on?

Hope the Crews, First Responders and area residents are all OK!


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Jun 28, 2016)

Cho Cho Charlie said:


> Other news sources are saying there are an undetermined number of workers on the trains. I would think that each freight train would have an engineer and a conductor, no? That's a total of four. Also, if there were more, like a trainee or something, BNSF would know that.


Hobos??  What do you expect from the news agencies.


----------



## printman2000 (Jun 28, 2016)

Bob Dylan said:


> A bad one for sure! Is this on the BNSF Transcon that the Chief sometimes detours through Amarillo on?
> 
> Hope the Crews, First Responders and area residents are all OK!


Yes, it is on the transcon.


----------



## KmH (Jun 28, 2016)

Whoa!

I too hope everyone is OK, but I am real concerned for the engineers of both trains.

This day and age, how do 2 freight trains get dispatched so they can have a head-on collision?


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Jun 28, 2016)

KmH said:


> Whoa!
> 
> I too hope everyone is OK, but I am real concerned for the engineers of both trains.
> 
> This day and age, how do 2 freight trains get dispatched so they can have a head-on collision?


According to the first article (I think it was that one), a similar accident happened in 2013 and they said it was because a switch wasn't set properly by the conductor.


----------



## KmH (Jun 28, 2016)

I kinda figured human error as the most likely cause.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Jun 29, 2016)

It takes talent to have a corn field meet on double track.

The pictures from the local news team shows a high speed pile up. Even a burn out frame with a prime mover but not a single shred of sheet metal left.

Not looking good for the three missing crews, pictures of accident do not inspire much hope. Bit surprised anyone got out.

A lot of MOW activity in that area. Does anyone know if the signals are bi-directional?


----------



## Palmetto (Jun 29, 2016)

Lack of proper sleep is often a contributing factor in incidents such as these. In the cornfield meet in Oklahoma referenced above, that was the main cause. Both crew members fell asleep and missed a couple of signals prior to the collision.


----------



## jis (Jun 29, 2016)

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> Does anyone know if the signals are bi-directional?


Both tracks are bidirectionally signaled CTC according to postings from a guy who used to be a dispatcher in that division (on trainorders).


----------



## willem (Jun 29, 2016)

I'm way ignorant of signalling standards. Is it possible for each train to enter a block at the same time, so neither would have a red indicator? Even so, wouldn't both trains have yellow indicators? In other words, if both trains were at speed, wouldn't there need to be human error on both ends?

Doesn't the dispatcher have a display where he or she can see indications of train movements? In other words, shouldn't the dispatcher have a visual indication of two trains approaching each other on the same track? (This is not the same thing as necessarily having time to react, depending on when the second train entered the track.)


----------



## CCC1007 (Jun 29, 2016)

willem said:


> I'm way ignorant of signalling standards. Is it possible for each train to enter a block at the same time, so neither would have a red indicator? Even so, wouldn't both trains have yellow indicators? In other words, if both trains were at speed, wouldn't there need to be human error on both ends?
> 
> Doesn't the dispatcher have a display where he or she can see indications of train movements? In other words, shouldn't the dispatcher have a visual indication of two trains approaching each other on the same track? (This is not the same thing as necessarily having time to react, depending on when the second train entered the track.)


A head on collision shouldn't be possible in a ctc territory, much less on a busy main line. There could possibly be a fundamental error in the signaling system, or one of the crews could have missed or ignored a/multiple signal(s), or there could have been malicious intent by some outside person, or crew confusion, or...


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Jun 29, 2016)

BNSF report speed of the impact was less than track speed.

On crew was responding to a less than green signal, the other crew did not. It seems. NTSB going in on this one.

The dispatch should get alarm when the train shot past the red signal, but with out PTC (Positive Train Control) no alarms just for speeding past a restricted signal. Alarm goes off you may have just a seconds left. Depending on the distance between signals.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jun 29, 2016)

Seems like human error for sure, if the NTSB is coming in well get the entire truth even if it takes awhile!


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Jun 29, 2016)

Not sure falling asleep is human error.

Interesting how three types hours of service employees have different standards of work and rest periods.

Trucks drivers, Airlines, and Railroad.

Navy submarine just started working a 24 hour day.

You think one study of fatigue would cover all types of worker.


----------



## Palmetto (Jun 30, 2016)

willem said:


> I'm way ignorant of signalling standards. Is it possonadlight meet" in multiple track CTC territory. What happens in that scenario is that the trains see each other on the same track. However, one train is brought to a stop, and the opposing train continues, but crosses over to the other track, continuing past the stopped train. Engineers in heavily-traveled commuter corridors are apt to see this situation on a regular basis.


Those of you who run simulations on Train Dispatcher [and there is one of this particular area] will know quite clearly what I'm talking about.

In the case at hand, it appears on the face of it that somebody blew by some signals that were restrictive; that is, requiring the slowing of [and perhaps eventually stopping] the train. The NTSB will give us the cause in due time.


----------



## willem (Jun 30, 2016)

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> Navy submarine just started working a 24 hour day.


What!? You mean 24 hour shifts? Please clarify.

Is this for the missile subs or the attack subs?


----------



## CCC1007 (Jun 30, 2016)

willem said:


> Just-Thinking-51 said:
> 
> 
> > Navy submarine just started working a 24 hour day.
> ...


I would guess 8 on shift, 8 free time, 8 sleep.


----------



## cirdan (Jun 30, 2016)

willem said:


> I'm way ignorant of signalling standards. Is it possible for each train to enter a block at the same time, so neither would have a red indicator? Even so, wouldn't both trains have yellow indicators? In other words, if both trains were at speed, wouldn't there need to be human error on both ends?
> 
> Doesn't the dispatcher have a display where he or she can see indications of train movements? In other words, shouldn't the dispatcher have a visual indication of two trains approaching each other on the same track? (This is not the same thing as necessarily having time to react, depending on when the second train entered the track.)


no, because a signal does not automatically turn green when the track is unoccupied.

It additionally requires the positive approval of a scheduler who sets a path.

If the block is green at both ends, this would imply there are two paths into that block simultaneously and the interlocking should prevent that.


----------



## jis (Jun 30, 2016)

True that on home signals. They have to be explicitly cleared by the controller (unless it is fleeted. But you cannot do that unless the track is clear all the way to the next control point and the track is allocated in the direction of the fleeting, which would prevent another train from entering in the opposite direction at that next CP).

So, if the CTC system was working correctly, someone has to have run multiple adverse signals to get into a head on. Such has happened in the past, and absent PTC will happen again in the future as night follow the day.

BTW, according to Railway Age:



> Unofficial information obtained by _Railway Age_ indicates one of the trains involved ran past both an approach and a stop signal.


See: http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/ptc/head-on-crash-on-bsf-transcon.html


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Jun 30, 2016)

willem said:


> Just-Thinking-51 said:
> 
> 
> > Navy submarine just started working a 24 hour day.
> ...


http://ask.metafilter.com/230592/Why-18hour-schedule-on-submarines

6 hours on, 12 hours off. 18 hour days. No natural light so no need for a 24 hour day. No days off, no weekends.

This has recent change. Most sea going ships 4 hours on 8 hours off, than 4 hours on with another 8 hours off. Not 100% what the navy is doing but there has been a change.

IMO regulations state maximum 11 hours working for sea going ships. Too many events occurring with crews falling asleep and hitting stuff. The USCG does not have the ability to regulate, so this law as many others are not enforce here is the US. (They need Congress to past the law, no rules can be issued by the USCG.)


----------



## Acela150 (Jun 30, 2016)

AmtrakBlue said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > Whoa!
> ...


I don't see how that's possible... Almost all switches these days are controlled by the Dispatcher in whatever city they are in. At NS the dispatchers are located in the city the division is named after.. e.g. Harrisburg Division is in Harrisburg, Pittsburgh Division in Pittsburgh, Dearborn Division in Dearborn. Some I'm not sure of though. Such as the Lake Division.

Their are quite a few hand thrown switches still.. The person who throws the switches is in charge of reporting them "Lined and Locked Normal".. At NS we are instructed by the Engineer to "Double Check the Switches and any Derails". Then the dispatcher will get his or her railroad.



KmH said:


> I kinda figured human error as the most likely cause.


While it's not set in stone yet. I would guess this.



jis said:


> Just-Thinking-51 said:
> 
> 
> > Does anyone know if the signals are bi-directional?
> ...


Jishnu I don't believe much on TO.com.. This is one. Simply cause you can be a Dispatcher in one division but only be qualified to work 1 desk out of say 8. Unless he was an Assistant Chief or Chief Dispatcher... Then ya gotta know all you're division!

Bi-Directional signaling is more commonly known as "261" referring to Rule 261 of many rule books which states train can run in both directions on that track.. One Direction (No not the boy band) Is known as (251 N,S,E,W) Signaled in one direction North, South, East, or West. Or there is "271" signaled both directions BUT you need a Track Authority or Track Warrant for your Movement. One more to throw in there.. "171" Dark Territory... No signals govern movement. Movement is governed by Track Authority only.



willem said:


> I'm way ignorant of signalling standards. Is it possible for each train to enter a block at the same time, so neither would have a red indicator? Even so, wouldn't both trains have yellow indicators? In other words, if both trains were at speed, wouldn't there need to be human error on both ends?
> 
> Doesn't the dispatcher have a display where he or she can see indications of train movements? In other words, shouldn't the dispatcher have a visual indication of two trains approaching each other on the same track? (This is not the same thing as necessarily having time to react, depending on when the second train entered the track.)


Yes. Such train would receive a "Restricting Signal". At NS a restricting signal is either of the following governed by at least NORAC signals.. A signal that is Red with a NUMBER PLATE, red over steady yellow, or on a Dwarf signal steady yellow. These signals can NOT be received at an Interlocking with the EXCEPTION of Red over yellow. Should a dwarf signal be in place the steady yellow will rule.



cirdan said:


> willem said:
> 
> 
> > I'm way ignorant of signalling standards. Is it possible for each train to enter a block at the same time, so neither would have a red indicator? Even so, wouldn't both trains have yellow indicators? In other words, if both trains were at speed, wouldn't there need to be human error on both ends?
> ...


While it doesn't turn green some will go up to Approach then Clear. If the signal is an "automatic", non interlocking signal, it may just go dark. In which case it will use "approach lighting". Meaning the signal will display the proper indication when the train enters the block and once the train has passed will go dark again. Some interlocking use this. I know of one that does and one that did. Most interlocking are consistently lit.

But generally yes the dispatcher will have to have a train lined up to such a point.


----------



## jis (Jun 30, 2016)

Steve, whether you want to believe it or not is upto you, but that area is indeed bidirectional signaled on both tracks, and of course being BNSF it is governed by GCOR and not NORAC.


----------



## Acela150 (Jul 1, 2016)

jis said:


> Steve, whether you want to believe it or not is upto you, but that area is indeed bidirectional signaled on both tracks, and of course being BNSF it is governed by GCOR and not NORAC.


I do believe you. I just don't believe someone over on TO who says oh I was a dispatcher there.. Cause like I said. You can have 8 dispatchers but this person could be only qualified on only the one desk. While I'm not saying that's what happened with him or her. I've seen it at NS. I know of at least one dispatcher who is qualified on at least two different desks. But yes BNSF is a GCOR railroad. I honestly have no clue on how their signaling works. I was just using NORAC as an example. I should add that NORAC is a very user friendly rule book, GCOR is a little more complicated. But the NORAC signals are very easy to understand and learn. I know many a railroaders who wish that NORAC was used by plenty more railroads.


----------



## jis (Jul 1, 2016)

NTSB B-Roll - Panhandle, Texas - 29 June 2016


----------



## Ryan (Jul 1, 2016)

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> This has recent change. Most sea going ships 4 hours on 8 hours off, than 4 hours on with another 8 hours off. Not 100% what the navy is doing but there has been a change.


There's nothing new about this at all, there are all sorts of different watch rotations out there. All depends on the ship, it's up to the CO and the SWO (Senior Watch Officer, he writes the watch bills). If you're lucky the watch teams get some input into the rotation. "Five and Dimes" were always my favorite, 5 on 10 off*. Of course by "off", that just means off watch. You've still got a division to run, so a great deal of that "off" time is actually spent working.

*No, 5 hour watches don't go evenly into a 24 hour day, the 2200-0200 watch is only 4 hours. Of course it's also in the middle of the night, so it's not the greatest deal in the world. Get up early, stand the 07-12, do your work during the 12-17, if you're lucky grab an hour or two of sleep after dinner and the nightly ops/intel brief. Most of the time you're not lucky and something fills the time before you're up on watch. By 0200 you're dragging @$$. If you're lucky and the 2-7 crew actually wakes up and relieves you on time you can get 4 hours in the bag before getting up to face another day on the high seas.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jul 1, 2016)

Got them middle of the night Mid-Watch Blues! "


----------



## NW cannonball (Jul 2, 2016)

Ryan said:


> Just-Thinking-51 said:
> 
> 
> > This has recent change. Most sea going ships 4 hours on 8 hours off, than 4 hours on with another 8 hours off. Not 100% what the navy is doing but there has been a change.
> ...


Yup -- my kid did lots of the "five and dimes" on a carrier (propulsion division) . The main point to consider is that the NAVY has a clue -- 5-6 hours standing watch is the most you can expect a person to keep alert and effective.

The NTSB has reported and recommended so many times about sleep-deprived workers as a big risk factor --

Here's a local news report on light-rail workers doing 16-hour shifts and increased fatalities-- http://kstp.com/news/metro-transit-light-rail-operators-investigation-accidents-speeding-long-hours/4149830/


----------



## HighBall (Jul 5, 2016)

28-second video taken by passer-by as accident happened.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70BIbfsl3aE


----------



## Palmetto (Jul 5, 2016)

The gentleman doesn't know what he's talking about.


----------



## CCC1007 (Jul 5, 2016)

Palmetto said:


> The gentleman doesn't know what he's talking about.


No he really doesn't, as he just caught the final seconds of the collision, the cars were still moving, so they really should have been on the phone right then and there!


----------



## CSXfoamer1997 (Jul 12, 2016)

The way I saw it on a second camera, it doesn't look like a head-on collision. It looks more like one train ran into a stopped train.


----------



## CCC1007 (Jul 12, 2016)

CSXfoamer1997 said:


> The way I saw it on a second camera, it doesn't look like a head-on collision. It looks more like one train ran into a stopped train.


Could you please provide a link for that, I would like to see the evidence myself.


----------



## CSXfoamer1997 (Jul 13, 2016)

CCC1007 said:


> CSXfoamer1997 said:
> 
> 
> > The way I saw it on a second camera, it doesn't look like a head-on collision. It looks more like one train ran into a stopped train.
> ...


Here's the second angle of it. On the very left, you can see very clearly the cars aren't moving.


----------



## HighBall (Jul 14, 2016)

Update:



> The signal system was set up to route the westbound train into Panhandle, while holding the eastbound train on the main track. The crash happened about a half-mile east of the switch. A red signal aspect requires a train to stop before any part of the train passes the signal; an approach signal indicated by a solid yellow aspect requires that a train reduce speed to a maximum of 40 mph and be prepared to stop at the next signal.
> 
> A preliminary review of locomotive event recorder data revealed that the eastbound train was traveling about 62 mph when it went by the approach signal at the west end of the Panhandle siding and about 65 mph when it went by the stop signal at the east end of the Panhandle siding.


http://www.kcbd.com/story/32445805/ntsb-train-missed-stop-signal-before-deadly-crash-in-panhandle-tx


----------



## CSXfoamer1997 (Aug 21, 2016)

Did the two trains hit head-on, or did one train run into a stopped train?


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Aug 22, 2016)

Yes to both.

One train when 65 mph past a red light, the second one may of been moving or about to stop, or complete stopped at the time of impact.

Confused? NTSB will issue the final in a year post.

Sorry that last story reference this accident was poorly written. Today I write about a train wreak, tomorrow the high school showing of "Cats" type of issue.


----------



## CSXfoamer1997 (Aug 22, 2016)

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> Yes to both.
> 
> One train when 65 mph past a red light, the second one may of been moving or about to stop, or complete stopped at the time of impact.
> 
> ...


And another question, one crew jumped, but why did the other stay with the train if he wasn't going to possibly live through the crash?


----------



## Ryan (Aug 22, 2016)

You'll have to ask them.


----------



## Acela150 (Aug 22, 2016)

CSXfoamer1997 said:


> Just-Thinking-51 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes to both.
> ...


There is no real protocol on what to do in a situation like this.. Not a word about it in the Rule Books.... This happens enough that I'd think someone would have said something by now.. I mean they can add rules every year.. But this subject isn't one. Go figure!

Personally, I'm staying on and trying to get to the last unit if I can.



Ryan said:


> You'll have to ask them.


This is a good answer. Cause it's true.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Aug 23, 2016)

One thinks there was not much time. Engineer had the door behind him, Conductor had to cross the cab to exit.

Engineer has a longer service time. He may of preplan his escape. If you have a mental plan in place you will be more likely to respond to a event. Otherwise you might be seating there and trying to processing the event, and come up with a plan of action.

Or the conductor plan was to ride it out, which didn't work out well.


----------

