Western Railroad Discussion > Two Trains Collide Near Bonners Ferry, Idaho

Two freight trains collide near Bonner's Ferry, Idaho. One injured.

Dailyinterlake.com has the story.

https://dailyinterlake.com/news/2024/mar/04/trains-collide-near-bonners-ferry-daily-inter-lake/



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/04/24 20:10 by walstib.

PTC anyone, anyone, Buehler, Buehler.

SP4360 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> PTC anyone, anyone, Buehler, Buehler.

Maybe DCC would work better. ;-)

* JB *

SP4360 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> PTC anyone, anyone, Buehler, Buehler.

Ah yes the typical required TO judgmental and innuendo filled response before the dust has even settled.

Yikes....

Posted from Android

UP Sandpoint to Eastport local with UP GP39-2 #1203 (ex-Kennecot Copper KCCX #782>MKT #383) was getting ready to line into the siding when the southbound grain train led by the KCSdeM ES44AC #4875 came around the curve. The crew on the local bailed and the short train was shoved down the mainline a ways.

There was a similar incident at the north switch of Bonners Ferry two decades ago when the train lined into the siding picked the switch and ran into the train holding the mainline.

Ted Curphey
Ontario, OR



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/04/24 21:19 by funnelfan.

Is it twc up there?

Posted from Android

goduckies Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is it twc up there?

yes

Ted Curphey
Ontario, OR

SP4360 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> PTC anyone, anyone, Buehler, Buehler.

PTC had failed enroute on the KCSM led engne after the train departed Eastport.  Guess this helps the case that PTC is needed.....



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/05/24 07:35 by TractiveEffort.

TractiveEffort Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SP4360 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > PTC anyone, anyone, Buehler, Buehler.
>
> PTC had failed enroute on the KCSM led engne after
> the train departed Eastport.  Guess this helps
> the case that PTC is needed.....

Could also make the case that PTC has become such a crutch that engineers can not perform without it.

Company will make the case that engineers are not needed.

 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/05/24 12:12 by Englewood.

They collided at 17 MPH, that's considered Restricted Speed isn't it? And PTC won't stop you if you're doing Restricted Speed, right?

PHall Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They collided at 17 MPH, that's considered
> Restricted Speed isn't it? And PTC won't stop you
> if you're doing Restricted Speed, right?

Restricted speed is a method of operation, not a set speed.

PHall Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They collided at 17 MPH, that's considered
> Restricted Speed isn't it? And PTC won't stop you
> if you're doing Restricted Speed, right?

Restricted speed is being able to stop in half the range vision.

Englewood Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Could also make the case that PTC has become such
> a crutch that engineers can not perform without
> it.

It seems like there have been a lot of restricted speed accidents in the northwest recently.  I've often wondered if engineers are so used to relying on PTC that they're forgetting what restricted speed is all about.

wyeth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> PHall Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > They collided at 17 MPH, that's considered
> > Restricted Speed isn't it? And PTC won't stop
> you
> > if you're doing Restricted Speed, right?
>
> Restricted speed is being able to stop in half the
> range vision.

... and 17 mph is within part of the definition of Restricted Speed. The point is that PTC doesn't know how to stop within half the range of vision, so when operating at Restricted Speed, you are on your own. PTC is merely a passenger. NTSB doesn't talk about that part.

TAW

PHall Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They collided at 17 MPH, that's considered
> Restricted Speed isn't it? And PTC won't stop you
> if you're doing Restricted Speed, right?

To answer your question yes 17 mph is under the rules max speed of 20 mph. But like others have mentioned you are supposed to be operating at a speed that will allow stopping within half the range of vision. So that could mean you need to be in the single digits to be able to stop, depending on the situation. And no PTC will not stop you in a situation that requires compliance with the rule. And yes NWRail it sure does seem like we've had a rash of these type of events in the PNW. It didn't make headlines becsuse there wasn't a derailment. Back in January at North Dalles WA a BNSF grain train had an "impact collision" with another westbound grainer they were following. They were doing almost 16 mph, when the remote unit from the train ahead came into view around a curve in a rock cut.  They made an 8 mph joint. I really don't know everything stayed on the rail. The carrier has been showing us the in cab footage. Pretty scary stuff. PTC aside one would think these types of events would be a thing of the past. Running into the back of another train is something that's as old as railroading itself. But somehow here we are in 2024 and it's still happening. Honestly I wish the new hires could see half of the photo's available here on TO related to restricted speed type incidents. Some of them are pretty tough to look at, but as a railroader they definitely make me think.

In the case of this incident the s/b grainer out of Eastport with the KCS units would have had a warrant to Bonners Ferry and a "hold main track at last named point" also checked off. Can PTC enforce track warrant limits now, and if it can why didn't PTC know and enforce the trains braking limits to pull up to the south siding switch at Bonners Ferry and not pass it and exceed the limits of the track warrant like it did and collide with the n/b local who was about to pull up and head into the siding? 

ABS or Dark ???

NWrailfan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> why didn't PTC know and enforce the trains braking
> limits to pull up to the south siding switch at
> Bonners Ferry and not pass it and exceed the
> limits of the track warrant like it did and
> collide with the n/b local who was about to pull
> up and head into the siding? 

Because PTC was not operative on the KCSM engine leading the grainer due to a mechanical defect - see above.  Engineer operating without PTC; no restricted speed involved.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/05/24 15:02 by TractiveEffort.

Another recent collision that comes to mind in the PNW area was the Oliver BC collision/derailment a few months ago. Just a few miles south in USA PTC may have been able to assist in avoiding the collision. But not in Canada.

P.S. not a restricted speed scenario on that one…