Passenger Trains > .

.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/11/21 23:24 by F40PHR231.

Were the crossing bells still ringing? After a couple hours the folks living nearby weren't too happy.

jb

Should have the hook there by now... Bad part about trying to rerail a talgo is you can just make a cut and rerail what is down. To make it even worse is that the train is now really sitting it two different tracks.

Wow! Rough day in Portland. Keep us posted on the rerailing activities.

Terry
Berkeley,Ca.

Chris you've been hanging out along the rails, and amongst the real 'rails' to know that one shouldn't Monday morning quarterback things, and that it probably would have happened w/o a switcher on hand. Lets say that, a derailment of some kind of human, and or mechanical reasoning could occurr, anywhere, anytime and to anyone.

Aside from my comments, thank you for sharing the photos.


F40PHR231 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> This could be why Amtrak doesn't
> want to waste money keeping a Dash-8 500 series
> 'switcher' on hand, but this derailment could've
> been avoided if a "500" was on hand to move the
> cars on track 1 since they only needed to be
> spotted on the north end instead of the south
> end.
>

Dumbells should've never used an ENTIRE TRAINSET as a switcher! Who was the supervisor who decided to proceed this way? Hope he's at the Employment Development Dept. today. Honest to Goodness....

I hate to stick my foot in there when I REALLY don't know anything about Talgo equipment, but I will say that on the shortline freight railroad I worked on, we switched with entire trains all the time, day in and day out. Of course, freight is different than passenger and regular passenger is different than Talgo, but I would have to say it's not that unreasonable to switch a cut of cars with an entire train. It's not like it's a dangeraous move if you have more than the locomotive rolling with the cut.

Like I said, though, my only experience (so far) is with freight.

On another note, the tower that was knocked down and the historic signs seem interesting. Can anyone give insight to those of us (maybe only me?) that don't know what's going on with that? A speaker tower? For station announcements? Glass signs? I'm confused. :-)

Good photos, Chris! Unfortunate that it happened...

bwb6df Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Of course, freight is
> different than passenger and regular passenger is
> different than Talgo, but I would have to say it's
> not that unreasonable to switch a cut of cars with
> an entire train. It's not like it's a dangeraous
> move if you have more than the locomotive rolling
> with the cut.

I think you are correct. In the overhead shot above you can count the five tracks at Portland. Next to the fence is track one. The power (469) has been removed from the train and has run around to the other end. On track two you are looking at the Talgo baggage car. Track two is on this side of the first canopy. Track three is on the other side of the first canopy and is the track that the train shouldn't be on. Track four is this side of the second canopy and five is the far side. Freight "usually" uses track five but sometimes if four is open it is used. The Coast Starlight "usually" uses track five. I rode this trainset, train #504, from Salem to Portland in the morning. We came into track two. The trainset lays over about six and a half hours on track two and goes out as train #508. Track one is used for storage, frequently bad ordered cars. In the morning there were a couple cars on track one south that needed to be moved to the north end. This trainset went north through the track two/track three switch, through the track one/track two swithc, then back through the track one/track two switch to move the cars north. It had done that and was moving back into position as a regular train, NOTHING to do with switching, when it derailed on the track two/track three switch. Farther north the cab car was on the track three/track four switch that the Empire Builder needed to go through to depart Portland.

No switching was going on when the derailment happened. And that switch is used all the time with moves just like the Talgo was doing.

The Talgos run with the power on the south end so it is a push mode from Eugene to Seattle. In this case the engineer was operating the train from the cab car on the north so he was backing up. However the power (469) was on the south pulling the train through the switch. Confused?

jb

Guess the state might start the rebuild program earlier than they wanted....

jcaestecker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dumbells should've never used an ENTIRE TRAINSET
> as a switcher! Who was the supervisor who decided
> to proceed this way? Hope he's at the Employment
> Development Dept. today. Honest to Goodness....


Before you jump, should look at all facts:

Talgo train power is kept dedicated to it's trainset unless it's removed for repairs, or in an emergency, pulling a few B/O passenger cars down a track about 10-15 carlengths would not justify cutting off the one powered unit.

Derailment was caused by a remotely-controlled power switch, the switch crew had no control over it being thrown. The tower operator would be at fault for activiating it without verifying with the switch crew that there was no conflicting traffic/equipment on the tracks at the north end of the depot.

To disconnect the power from the trainset means getting between end car and the F59PHI, due to the close coupling of them, this can be a dangerous task when trying to disconnect the HEP cable(s) and turning the angle cock before cutting away, not to mention re-connecting them afterwards.

F40PHR231 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And the birds-eye view. Lifting one car at a time
> made some real loud cracking noises between the
> cars, it seems that Talgo and Ceeco are going to
> have long nights taking these cars apart and
> repairing the mechanisms between each car...

Chris,
I was onboard the S/B #507 coming back down from Mt. Vernon, and we heard about the derailment as we were coming over the bridge into Willbridge. Talgo technician on board stated that the damaged train would have to limp up north at restricted speed after being inspected, and the wheels/axles have to be changed at derailment scene; they are not allowed to roll on the damaged wheel/axle sets for safety reasons. Also, the wheels are imported from Spain, not standard US-made wheels, so there will be alot of work probably done at the TalgoUSA Seattle shops before they roll the trainset down to Ceeco, I hope the Seattle TalgoUSA shops have enough spare wheel sets on hand! Either way, this will make for some very EXPENSIVE repairs!! The train I was on, #507, was turned there at Portland to become #508, and almost all of the passengers were bussed to their destinations. (I stuck around and rode the #509 to Eugene)

SantaFeCF7 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The
> train I was on, #507, was turned there at Portland
> to become #508, and almost all of the passengers
> were bussed to their destinations. (I stuck around
> and rode the #509 to Eugene)
>

SAY WHAT!

Where were you hiding? I had gone up on #504 (the trainset that derailed) and was planning on coming back on #507. When they announced that Salem would be a bus I went back downtown and got something to eat. Came back and caughtl the #509. I almost always ride "Bistro Class" taking to the crew and tech.

jb

SantaFeCF7 Wrote:

> Derailment was caused by a remotely-controlled
> power switch, the switch crew had no control over
> it being thrown. The tower operator would be at
> fault for activiating it without verifying with
> the switch crew that there was no conflicting
> traffic/equipment on the tracks at the north end
> of the depot.

Is that a UP tower? Would that make UP liable for damages?

symph1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SantaFeCF7 Wrote:
>
> > Derailment was caused by a
> remotely-controlled
> > power switch, the switch crew had no control
> over
> > it being thrown. The tower operator would be
> at
> > fault for activiating it without verifying
> with
> > the switch crew that there was no
> conflicting
> > traffic/equipment on the tracks at the north
> end
> > of the depot.
>

How can a towerman throw a switch under a train? Doesn't occupancy nullify such a command?

I'm always amazed at the wealth of details that turn out to matter in cases such as this. Even though i'm way too much of a detail sponge on this topic, according to some people, there's so much that's relevant that I have never noted in detail. I guess that's the difference between being a real geek about "how stuff works" and it being my job.

Well, operationally, you have to be able to throw the switches so that the train on T2 can depart, then the train on T3 or T4; so you can't blank the operation because the station track(s) is/are occupied.

I would be interested to know if we have the technology to detect that the switch is being straddled by equipment ... ?

Does anyone know which entity / location actually does control the switches at Portland Union Station?

Interestingly enough:

-- there are "begin / end CTC" signs at both ends of the depot (the exact sign depending on which way you are facing -- the depot is NOT CTC territory but it's a matter of tens of yards from the ends of the depot sheds.

-- I'd have to actually go look at the CTC boundaries to see whether the switches are actually in or out of them; on the North (problem) end, I'm pretty sure the switches are on the Depot side of the BNSF CTC -- but i'm open to correction on this point.

-- The Portland Depot is the point where the BNSF and UP dispatching transition occurs, but the station is a DMZ between the two, perhaps?

Just in case anyone was wondering, I'm NOT so much of a foamer that I'm going to take the streetcar downtwon over lunch to do field research on the topic <g>.

Here I go with a bunch of "What IFs?"

What if? The Talgos were light enough that the won't (maybe sometimes) provide a shunt across the rails? It shouldn't cause a problem because the cab car on one end and power on the other end are heavy enough to reliably do a shunt. In all the years the Talgos have been here I've never heard a hint that they may have disappeared from a dispatchers board.

What if? There were insulated joints on each side of the switch that were close enough together that the Talgo could straddle them while the cab car and power were on either side?

This derailment happened on the track two/track three switch that the Empire Builder was to depart on less than fifteen minutes later.

What if? The tower operator was watching the Talgo move into track two on his board and it showed that the switch was clear. The power (469) could have been providing the shunt on the track two side and when it got across the insulated joint it told the tower operator the switch was clear.

What if? The tower operator was watching closely because he wanted to throw the switch to track three to allow #28 to depart on time.

jb

jdb Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SantaFeCF7 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The
> > train I was on, #507, was turned there at
> Portland
> > to become #508, and almost all of the
> passengers
> > were bussed to their destinations. (I stuck
> around
> > and rode the #509 to Eugene)
> >
>
> SAY WHAT!
>
> Where were you hiding? I had gone up on #504 (the
> trainset that derailed) and was planning on coming
> back on #507. When they announced that Salem
> would be a bus I went back downtown and got
> something to eat. Came back and caughtl the #509.
> I almost always ride "Bistro Class" taking to the
> crew and tech.
>
> jb
>
John,
I was in the Bistro 'til Oregon City, talking to Ronda, the other conductor and Talgo tech, then I went back to car #2 and slept 'til Eugene.

Not sure where the 'tower' operator is located, but I believe he is considered to be "Portland Terminal", not just BNSF or UP, if I'm wrong, I apologize. I've only heard over my scanner crews contact the terminal/tower/switch operator to get lined for certain routes at both ends of the train sheds, the only tower I it ISN'T is the tower between the south train shed and Steel Bridge. That has been unmanned for a couple of years.

The Portland Terminal Tower is situated in the loop track in BNSF's Lake Yard. I don't know where the switch movement was commanded that day, but Lake Yard's tower has controlled movement north of the depot quite a while.

To answer a few questions:

The BNSF CTC ends at the northwest side of NW Ninth Avenue at the timetable west (compass southeast) end of CP 0.5. However, the BNSF Vancouver Terminal dispatcher also controls the two power switches located on yard tracks just southeast of Ninth Avenue. The closest one to Ninth Avenue is the Track 4/Track 1 Lead switch (just a couple yards from the crossing) and the other one is the Track 3 switch off of the Track 1 Lead. It is this Track 3 switch that apparently malfunctioned. The Portland Terminal Railroad has no main line. All tracks through the depot are yard tracks (1 through 5) in spite of tracks 4 and 5 typically being thought of as the "main lines". Further enhancing this common misconception is the fact that the Track 4/Track 1 Lead switch indicator lights show green for Track 4 and yellow for Track 1 Lead. This would certainly be correct if Track 4 was indeed a "main line", but it isn't. The other switch correctly indicates yellow for Track 3 and green for Track 1 Lead. The use of the depot tracks is authorized by the Portland Terminal Railroad yardmaster although there are a few moves that can be made now (such as departing trains) that no longer require calling him.

UPRR CTC controlled by Omahaha dispatcher WS68 begins at the compass southeast end of the depot tracks at CP S000 (old VC Tower) at approximately UPRR milepost 0.2. UPRR milepost zero is at the high shed at the trackside depot entrance.

A few posts above John hinted about track shunting problems. We talked about this on Saturday afternoon. He chickened out and didn't ride the #507 rubber tires like I had to do. I would have gladly waited and joined him on #509 but I wouldn't have had enough hours of service remaining at Eugene to work #500(12). Here's my speculation of a possible reason for the derailment: No one I have ever asked could answer my question regarding whether or not the Talgo cars shunt the rail circuits. Remember that the Talgo cars have no axles (except perhaps the baggage car and power car, I'm not sure). With normal railcar wheelsets there is a very solid connection made between the wheels via the axle which provides the best possible means of rail circuit shunting. Is it possible that the path through the Talgo wheels, wheel bearings, and the inverted "V" car structural framework in which the wheels are mounted does not provide a sufficient route for a reliable track circuit shunt? If such is the case, Saturday's derailment could have easily happened. The switch had been in hand operation and then returned to power operation (yes, with the specified amount of track surrounding the switch occupied) by the yard crew conductor. After notifying the Vancouver Terminal dispatcher that the switch had been returned to "motor" he went to the 469 on the southeast compass end of the train to be on the point of the move back to the spot for loading #508. Train #28 was due out soon from Track 3 and I would suppose that the dispatcher stacked in the move for #28 after the yard conductor reported the switch back in "motor". If the Talgo cars are incapable of providing reliable (or even any) track circuit shunting then it would certainly be possible for the switch to react to the stacking command as soon as the 469 cleared the compass southeast end of the switch circuit.

This whole situation could have far-reaching consequences if the Talgos are not reliable track circuit shunters. Remember that the BNSF has a 12-axle rule regarding road crossing protection devices actuation. The cabbage car and locomotive add up to only eight axles. As I stated above, I do not know, and have been unable to find out, the truth regarding Talgo track circuit shunting. I'm merely stating a possible scenario here.