Just curious... despite the time it would take for equipment to get there to put this poor unfortunate engine back on the rails; Would they need to wait for the engine to loose pressure, cool down, etc., before attempting to rail it?
Originally Posted by Charly:
Just curious... despite the time it would take for equipment to get there to put this poor unfortunate engine back on the rails; Would they need to wait for the engine to loose pressure, cool down, etc., before attempting to rail it?
Technically no, as having any steam up really would not be an issue. However, in my opinion, I would cool her down slowly, dumping the fire and latter blow her out and drain all the water out of the tender at the same time. All that would drastically reduce the weight.
If you watch it on YouTube to the very end, there is at least one other video to go along with it...plus another derailment.
Watching that video, I'm a little concerned that they're apparently backing that train up blind. The crewman (would that be the engineer be on the right side?) isn't even seen in the window until the derailment (though the cab and through a window on the tender). Even if that was the fireman, he should have been looking out the window as well.
Steve
On these locomotives (and every reasonably modern mainline UK loco except those built for the Great Western Railway) the driver (U.S. - 'engineer') is on the left of the footplate and the fireman on the right. As this loco is reversing towards the viewer, the driver is on our left.
At the start of the film clip, we see the fireman look down out of the cab, a routine act as he is checking that the injectors are working. The driver would have had his left hand on the regulator and be looking along the direction of intended travel with his back to the boiler. Because the cab is enclosed at the back we do have a view of the driver in this clip.
This is not likely to be a case of SPAD (signal passed at danger) as the driver would have been directed to move by the signalman.
There is now another interesting video on Youtube of the breakdown train arriving later that afternoon but I haven't yet seen any shots of the lifting itself.
David
The blower seems to be on (this is a jet of steam at the base of the chimney to assist with the draught and so encourage the fire) which suggests that they are not yet at sufficient speed to do without that.
Mlavender480, I worked out of Shire Oaks yard in Elrama, Pa. Mostly, I worked on the road. Taking loaded coal trains to Altoona and bringing the empties back the next day.
Rick
This is just in from a friend in England: "... the engine driver got permission from the signal-man to proceed beyond the stop signal but the signalman forgot to change the catch point and the driver forgot to check, resulting in the train ending on the ballast!!"
Sorry, interesting video, to say the least....but I am kind of lost.
1) this does not look like a switch/turnout
2) is it really something designed to derail a train?
I found this bit of info to help me understand:
"The second type of derail is the "split rail" type. These are basically a complete or partial railroad switch which directs the errant rolling stock away from the main line. This form is common throughout the UK, where it is called trap points or catch points."
That leads me to think that:
1) the train in the video backed up to a point, then instead of going forward, went backward by accident
or
2) it was supposed to back up, but even though it does not look like a switch/turnout to me in the video....it really is one! And it was not aligned properly.
I am thinking 2. Am I on "the right track" here?
Sorry for the ignorance. It still was interesting to watch.
Greg
cngw,
There are many, many. locations on US railroads withe the same type of derail system. Lots of locations with single "movable point derails" and for absolute positive protection,i.e approaches to lift/draw/swing bridges, high traffic main line crossings at grade, and heavily used sidings, the "double movable point derail". When you want to be sure that the train is COMPLETELY derailed, the the twin "movable point derail" type is used.
As you can see in the video above, the twin point system works every time!
Concerning your other questions, please refer to Big Jim's post, directly above yours. He gives the answer as to WHY it happened.
A split point derail is essentially a switch to nowhere. Always works...
This video should serve as a reminder for the following: Maintain situational awareness, and ALWAYS double check switches and derails! That is what they pounded in my head going thru NS's Choo Choo U a few years ago.
Yep, it's no accident there was an accident!
As far as NS is concerned there are NO accidents. Every "accident" can be prevented. Case being, if someone on this crew would have looked...there would not have been an "accident".
Rick
WOW 
I hate that for someone !
Hey first post! CN still uses alot of split rails. Mainly since we kick cars down hill (no bowl) into blocks of cars with brakes/skates. At least a few times a year due to mental errors one car never hits a car/skate (clear rail doh) and the split rail saves those cars going into a loaded amcrash.. i mean amtrak. 
Originally Posted by OGR Webmaster:
A split point derail is essentially a switch to nowhere. Always works...
Pardon my ignorance but why would you want to intentionally derail a car in this way? Seems to be an accident waiting to happen.
Originally Posted by Chris Lord:
Pardon my ignorance but why would you want to intentionally derail a car in this way? Seems to be an accident waiting to happen.
As stated above, you would want to derail a car for a number of reasons. To prevent a car from rolling onto a high-traffic main line; to prevent a car from rolling into the drink at a drawbridge, etc. On a siding for a petroleum plant, you might not want a cut of tank cars loaded with gasoline rolling into the path of an on-coming passenger train, so you derail the cars before they get that far.
