Join the discussion on the following article:
Virginia rear-end collision, derailment sends train crew to hospital
The two trains involved were 27V and 15T. 16T is an eastbound train. I glad to here that the injuries were not serious and I hope the cause is found, as to not happen again.
Judging by the article and the photo, this was not a low-speed (restricted speed) collision. The results could have been much worse. Although it is not apparent by reading this article, I am sure that the lead locomotive was a modern “safety cab”. This incident again demonstrates the value of the safety cab design of modern locomotives. As fans, we groan over the sight of yet another wide body, but if this train had been led by a standard cab unit, the crew would be in far worse condition. Perhaps, they wouldn’t have survived at all.
I guess this shows that two-man crews are better than one-man crews??
My thought exactly.
Looks like they need 3 man crews - 2 sure didn’t work. Would the crash been any worse if only 1 was in the cab?
Down here the troopers, et. al., call a rear end collision a “failure to control speed.” That is obviously the cause in this case, but why such a failure occurred is the more important question.
Three man crews, with a caboose, of course, would have resulted in a fatality.
It is not stated whether the leading train was stopped or moving. Had it been stopped, that third crewman in a caboose could have flagged the rear. FRED stood there with a blank look on his face!
Flagged a train traveling at restricted speed on a red signal. Hahaha
@Edward, 2-man or 3-man, wouldn’t make a different in this case vs a 1-man…and irregardless of what the unions keep saying…all anyone has to look at is Europe and other places in the world where 1-man crews are commonplace…and they have lower accident rates than we do(that was even stated in the recent article about crew sizes in Trains)
@Jim…the FRED is not blank, if it’s working properly it’s blinking red.
We hear the one man crew in Europe thing often. However, these across the pond freight trains are shorter, lighter and operate in a market where trucks are king.
@ Gerald from CA - At 4 PM, FRED would not be blinking red. The light only operates under low light conditions. The point from Jim from AL about comparing European operating conditions vs. those in the US is valid and should be taken into consideration when discussions of single operator crews is the subject. In my opinion, one person crews are ridiculous for US mainline operations. There are far too many circumstances where, without a second on-board employee, a mainline railroad would become a clogged up mess in short order. It’s not just about accident avoidance, nor is it all about a second set of eyeballs (although these factors are helpful), it’s also about keeping traffic moving when adversities occur. A roving (mobile) conductor can’t possibly keep up when there are multiple occurrences. And while it’s easy to conclude (valid or not) that this accident was not prevented by having a second crew member, the times when a second crew member was key to avoiding an accident are unknown because an accident didn’t happen.
The accident was caused by one of two things - either a signal malfunction on the rail line, or the crew failing to follow and obey the lineside signals.
Would PTC have helped here? There seems confusion as to whether PTC would prevent this kind of accident… I know NARP has been pushing to ensure that PTC standards include prevention of rear-end accidents like this.
Eric - PTC will enforce signal indications. If this line (I am not familiar with the territory) is protected by automatic signals, yes, PTC would have prevented, or reduced the severity of, this collision.
Unless passenger traffic exceeds a certain level then PTC will mot be installed on this route. It is not the universal fix for every mile of rail.