Eastern Railroad Discussion > NTSB: Alabama derailed train lacked needed couplers

A Norfolk Southern train that derailed in Alabama earlier this month lacked required alignment control couplers for two of its locomotives and a company inspection did not identify their absence, federal investigators said Monday.

The notation comes in one of three preliminary reports issued Monday by the National Transportation Safety Board about Norfolk Southern train accidents this month as the board investigates the railroad’s safety practices after the fiery February derailment and toxic chemical burn in East Palestine, Ohio.

In a report released Monday about a March 9 derailment of two locomotives and 37 rail cars in Anniston, Alabama, the safety board said two of the train’s six locomotives were “waybill locomotives,” or towed cars not used for any tractive power. The cars weren’t equipped with alignment control couplers that “resist lateral coupler movement under compressive in-train forces.” A company rule bars towing waybill locomotives without such couplers, the report said. 

The waybill locomotives were coupled together and picked up from Bluffton, Indiana, on Feb. 24 and a Norfolk Southern inspection before the first movement involving the coupled locomotives “did not identify the absence of alignment control couplers,” the safety board said.

A company spokesperson said in an e-mail Monday that “these locomotives were not owned by Norfolk Southern and the couplers on these locomotives are not common on our network.” 

 “We have taken immediate action to update our manuals with photos and details to implement training with our crews. Safety is a priority at NS and we’ll continue working with the NTSB to identify the final cause of this derailment and implement any other necessary changes,” said Connor Spielmaker, a senior communications manager with Norfolk Southern.

More from the Sacramento Bee (yeah, west coast coverage of an east coast derailment....): https://www.sacbee.com/news/business/article273390360.html#storylink=moresection 

-j

Why do non alignment control couplers still exist? It's a simple and cheap upgrade for goodness sake!

Curious as to the ownership of the two "waybilled" locomotives.   Were they museum pieces?

EDIT:
Saw on an earlier thread they were Wabash Central, ex IC geeps.   



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/21/23 06:18 by cjvrr.

It is not an easy and cheap upgrade.   The couplers may be wedged for transit, but changing the draft gear is another matter entirely.

And those locomotives would have had to be inspected before interchanged.

Bluffton only shows the Wabash Central shortline as an interchange.   It's not uncommon for shortlines to have older power.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/21/23 06:21 by randgust.

engineerinvirginia Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why do non alignment control couplers still exist?
> It's a simple and cheap upgrade for goodness sake!

I have been in situations trying to couple to a car in a curve where non-alignment control draft gear was appreciated.  You would usually find them on locals or yard engines.

The Wabash Central trackage is SO BAD, that the extra coupler movement might be the only thing that keeps the cars hooked to the locomotive.  (Only half kidding).  This incident will likely make the Wabash Central's owner even LESS popular with NS, if that is possible.  One one hand, That company has been moving locomotives around for decades and you won't convince me they didn't know NS's rules and that these locos were not compliant, BUT, did NS send out an inspector that either doesn't know how to do their job, or just not give a damn?  I am actually curious about this.  These locomotives have been moved between operations more than once, and NS is the ONLY outside connection for the WBCR, so how did they get moved before?  Were the couplers blocked for shipment, and then the blocks removed?

> A company spokesperson said in an e-mail Monday
> that “these locomotives were not owned by
> Norfolk Southern and the couplers on these
> locomotives are not common on our network.” 

What I think she is saying is "not our equipment, and nobody in our NOC knows what alignment control draft gear is anymore, so the wreck isn't our fault."

junctiontower Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Wabash Central trackage is SO BAD, that the
> extra coupler movement might be the only thing
> that keeps the cars hooked to the locomotive. 
> (Only half kidding).  This incident will likely
> make the Wabash Central's owner even LESS popular
> with NS, if that is possible.  One one hand, That
> company has been moving locomotives around for
> decades and you won't convince me they didn't know
> NS's rules and that these locos were not
> compliant, BUT, did NS send out an inspector that
> either doesn't know how to do their job, or just
> not give a damn?  I am actually curious about
> this.  These locomotives have been moved between
> operations more than once, and NS is the ONLY
> outside connection for the WBCR, so how did they
> get moved before?  Were the couplers blocked for
> shipment, and then the blocks removed?

It wouldn't be their fault. Or even an inspector for that matter so long as the inspection paperwork did show that they lacked alignment control couplers. There is a check box right on the paperwork for that very thing. It would come down to whoever picked up the two engines or sent them out of the yard but did not know the rule about separating them or handling only one at a time. It's not the shoreline's responsibility to comply with rules for handling on the NS most likely when these engines had been moved before they were either separated or the easy way, one ran one day and the other ran the next.

Posted from Android



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/21/23 16:51 by OHRY.

Well perhaps, but with the sketchy relationship the owner has with NS, you might think they would go out if their way to make sure the movement as smooth as possible. But then again, if the ownership had a lick of sense, NS wouldn't have had to kick them out of New Castle IN.

Posted from iPhone

I went to a public school, but I recall a  properly recorded UMLER file for a locomotive would indicate if it has or lacks aligment control couplers?   Most smaller railroads fail to keep their UMLER files updated for their locomotives,  adding to the propblem.  For the outsiders,  UMLER = Universal Machine Langague Equipment Register contains valuable information about railcars and locomotives:  lengths,  weights, heights (and appropriate Plate #), etc. The AAR maintains the database of UMLER equipment.   DOUBLE FAIL! 

Burt

OHRY Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> junctiontower Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The Wabash Central trackage is SO BAD, that the
> > extra coupler movement might be the only thing
> > that keeps the cars hooked to the locomotive. 
> > (Only half kidding).  This incident will
> likely
> > make the Wabash Central's owner even LESS
> popular
> > with NS, if that is possible.  One one hand,
> That
> > company has been moving locomotives around for
> > decades and you won't convince me they didn't
> know
> > NS's rules and that these locos were not
> > compliant, BUT, did NS send out an inspector
> that
> > either doesn't know how to do their job, or
> just
> > not give a damn?  I am actually curious about
> > this.  These locomotives have been moved
> between
> > operations more than once, and NS is the ONLY
> > outside connection for the WBCR, so how did
> they
> > get moved before?  Were the couplers blocked
> for
> > shipment, and then the blocks removed?
>
> It wouldn't be their fault. Or even an inspector
> for that matter so long as the inspection
> paperwork did show that they lacked alignment
> control couplers. There is a check box right on
> the paperwork for that very thing. It would come
> down to whoever picked up the two engines or sent
> them out of the yard but did not know the rule
> about separating them or handling only one at a
> time. It's not the shoreline's responsibility to
> comply with rules for handling on the NS most
> likely when these engines had been moved before
> they were either separated or the easy way, one
> ran one day and the other ran the next.
>
> Posted from Android

BurtNorton Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I went to a public school, but I recall a 
> properly recorded UMLER file for a locomotive
> would indicate if it has or lacks aligment control
> couplers?   Most smaller railroads fail to keep
> their UMLER files updated for their locomotives, 
> adding to the propblem.  For the outsiders, 
> UMLER = Universal Machine Langague Equipment
> Register contains valuable information about
> railcars and locomotives:  lengths,  weights,
> heights (and appropriate Plate #), etc. The AAR
> maintains the database of UMLER equipment. 
>  DOUBLE FAIL! 
>
> Burt

Looked at UMLER records - in the Draft System Components section, units are CLEARLY marked NO in the value field for element name Alignment Control Eqpd.  Regardless of what an NS inspected noted or failed to note, locomotives are clearly registered as not equipped.  NS's system (all roads for that matter) are supposed to draw data from UMLER.  So either NS has an internal system error that failed to flag units as non equipped, OR, someone at NS failed to notice or flat out disregarded their own handling rules.  Does not matter who the short line is - this would appear to fall squarely on NS.  Just an ironic coincidence as to who the units belong to. 
 

engineerinvirginia Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why do non alignment control couplers still exist?

Because there are probably quite a number of older diesels, and/or especially steam locomotives, that were built prior to the development of alignment control draft gear.

> It's a simple and cheap upgrade for goodness sake!

WRONG! Definitely NOT "simple and cheap". However the installation of coupler stop-blocks in each side of the coupler pocket, or the installation of truck bolster stop-blocks easily solves any shipping issues. However, there are probably no longer and personnel in current railroad Mechanical Departments that are even aware of such items.

randgust Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> And those locomotives would have had to be
> inspected before interchanged.
>

Accepted in interchange makes equipment the receiving railroad responsible for the equipment, as is, where is.

Railroads used to have mechanical department folks inspect interchange received. That 'cost too much' so they did away with mechanical department and have the train crew inspect.

49 CFR 215.11 gives qualifications for car inspectors.

There are two inspection requirements in the regulation.

49 CFR 215.13 b provides for a thorough pre-departure inspection of cars in a train "where an inspector designated under § 215.11 is on duty for the purpose of inspecting freight cars"

49 CFR 215.13 c provides for a visual pre-departure inspection of cars in a train "At a location where a person designated under § 215.11 is not on duty for the purpose of inspecting freight cars"

So how do we fix the need for those pesky, expensive inspections? We don't have an inspector on duty. The train crew makes sure the wheels are on the railroad and mostly round and the equipment is not falling over and they're good to go. (Thank you FRA!)

So, NS accepted them in interchange, it's their problem.

TAW