The last 4 cars (auto carriers) of the Auto Train derailed last night. It appears from the photos that the tail end of the last car stayed on the track. The 4 cars apparently did not become uncoupled from the train and stayed upright. Since there is no one back there to signal, and I assume the brakes would not go into emergency if they did not separate, my question is how would the engineer know of the derailment?
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Hi RJR . Any break anywhere in the train line (hose bags... piping) would cause everything to go into emergency (engines, cars, the whole works)
I realize that, Gregg, but if cars stay coupled, would an air line break? Aerial photos indicate that cars just bumper along the ties.
The engineer may have "felt" the additional drag on the train and stopped. Could have been a nearby dragging equipment detector alerted them to some issue.
Finally, maybe the crew was alert and stopped the train. I don't know if they use end of train telemetry or not. That could have alerted them too...
Tom
What cars derailed? (if any) Near the head end? tail end ? I don't understand your question? Do you have a link?. It only takes one break to have the emergency brakes apply any where on the train...Did the train go into emergency?
Gregg, if you Google Auto Train derailment, you can see aerial video from several N.C. TV stations, taken after the rest of the train was uncoupled and moved forward. As I said above, it was the last 4 cars. I realize only one break will put the train into emergency; that is basic. But what if the train doesn't uncouple?
Tom, there are many car carriers between the last passenger car and the end of the train.
The other possibilities may apply then...
Tom
Seems the last 4 cars derailed but didn't part and probably no emergency brake application.... The crew must have been on the job and noticed something was amiss or someone reported the defects and the train was stopped in time. (must have been a lot of dust).... However pulling derailed cars is eventually going to lead to a disaster . Something 's eventually going to give. Sounds like Amtrak got lucky on this one.
Very lucky. Reports say no autos were damaged. Since southbound is slack at this time of year, hopefully few cars were delayed in being reunited with their owners stranded in beautiful Sanford.
My buddy is a conductor and he once realized they had a derailment when he looked in the rear view mirror and saw a bunch of dust flying towards the rear.
Kent in SD
Gentlemen,
The wheels on the newer Train cars have sensors in them that deliver all kinds of different information to the man driving the train via computers now. However this all depends on how new the equipment is on the train being run at the time.
PCRR/Dave
RJR
On a shorter train you would feel the resistance of the derailed cars pulling. I would imagine he started looking around real quick and checking. He would know the territory and would know something is wrong by second nature.
As noted by other poster above.
I have seen some very long trains have a derailed truck or two. The engineer would probably not notice this and keep going until something brakes. I've seen tie damage go on for miles.
Hey, CSX Fan. Haven't heard from you in awhile. Hope you're well. This is a long train
Dave:
I’d be curious where you are getting your information regarding sensors on railcar wheels.
Railroads deploy all kinds of wayside detectors now such as wheel impact load detectors (WILD); acoustic bearing detection devices and what have you but; I have never heard of sensors on railroad wheels; at least not those on freight cars.
Curt
Pine Creek Railroad posted:Gentlemen,
The wheels on the newer Train cars have sensors in them that deliver all kinds of different information to the man driving the train via computers now. However this all depends on how new the equipment is on the train being run at the time.
PCRR/Dave
Where and how did you come up with THAT information? wheels and couplers/draft gears are NOT instrumented, and thus provide no information the the Engineer in the operating cab. The ONLY information I have ever seen displayed for the Engineer is data from the reared device, i.e. FRED.
Amtrak has had bad luck lately. This is one of the reasons all non revenue trains such as charters are being banned.
If a single axle, or truck, or maybe both trucks are derailed, it won't necessarily cause the hoses to part, unless they hit a crossing, or the cars start to go left or right far enough. The engineer may or may not feel a single truck, or car on the ground back in the train, unless it's pretty short. The momentum of a long heavy train will make something minor like that very hard to notice at first if the train line hasn't separated. Sometimes a car with a broken wheel, or burned off journal can go for miles before things really goes bad.
I left Kansas City westbound one time, off main 2. The train was about 7500' long, all double stacks. When the rear car came through the fuel pad, at about 15 mph, the radio lit up saying "stop your train, stop your train on Main 2, you're on the ground" About that same time, I finally felt the train drag down slightly, so I just plugged it and we stopped. A big steel coil had fallen through the floor of a well car, was dragging on the track ahead of the very last truck on the very last car. When it hit a switch, that truck derailed. When it came through the fuel pad, it hit another switch, swung the rear of the car over far enough to the north, to hit and side swipe another train on track 3, then tear out another switch right under I-635 before we got stopped. But I really never felt anything until about the same time I heard it on the radio.
Robert K posted:Amtrak has had bad luck lately. This is one of the reasons all non revenue trains such as charters are being banned.
Charters were non-revenue? Gee, I didn't know they ran for free.
Rusty
There are not any sensors that I've ever heard of on wheels and other appliances like mentioned.
The only sensors that I know of are in autoracks that detect rough handling. Don't know where they are located,but I do I do know the NS gets reports on these that use to get sent to Norfolk via a third party.
Also the old electric brake trains had sensors that detected the car,but not such as being in a wheel or drawbar.
Now when using the soon to be phased out Leader System,train buff forces are calculated in according to the wheel reoort,which factors in tonnage,drawbar buffering forces and terrain.
I was told that the PTC uses the same buffering software in the use of running a train over a selected territory.
The question was, how would the engineer know of the derailment?
That side mirror on the cab window is for looking back at the train without having to put your head out. Checking it frequently, and especially on curves, allows crew members to spot dust, smoke, debris, excessive rocking, etc. during daylight. At night, crew members should look for sparks, fire, or anything glowing or not ordinary, and especially when passing lighted areas, such as a road crossing with a street light or automobile headlights helping. You can't see smoke or dust at night without the benefit of outdoor illumination. Visual observation is good for about a mile on straight track or where there is not a lot of foliage obstructing the view on curves. Beyond that point, it's up to other employees who give the train a roll-by inspection where possible, or to detectors. Sometimes, if the mirror is vibrating, it's necessary to open the cab window and steady the mirror by hand while taking a look at the train.
Sometimes, if a car derails and stays in line with the track structure, then the air hoses remain coupled. However, in my experience, they more often become uncoupled from being stretched and jerked. In any event, when the derailed equipment passes over a turnout or road crossing, it almost always becomes derailed worse, but not every single time. However, this is the reason that a large percentage of major derailments occur at road crossings and at turnouts.
The extra drag of one derailed wheel set, or even one truck, on a heavy train might not be noticed by the Engineer, but, on a passenger train or a light train, it could be noticeable. Four cars of autos derailed on a passenger train would likely have been noticed if speed was being maintained at a constant rate, but, if the train was accelerating or decelerating, it could have been less obvious in the "feel". As an example, I remember a trip as Engineer on a train going up the west side of Cajon Pass, a more or less constant 2.2% ascending grade for 25 miles. the train had settled into its speed at a constant 18 MPH, and I noticed speed dropping to 17, then 16 MPH. It didn't appear to be engine trouble, so, I stopped the train. The trainmen (on both ends then) walked the train and found a car with a broken wheel, and that entire truck was now riding the ties. As speed dropped, the engines just treated that as more tonnage, and pulled harder, and would likely have pulled until the derailed truck dug in somewhere and we would have had a more serious derailment and might have derailed in foul of the adjacent main track. I'm sure Big Jim, Wyhog, our esteemed moderator, and other railroaders on the Forums have had similar experiences.
That's the way things normally work, but . . .There is no 100% accurate indication to always give the Engineer knowledge of trouble back in the train. Some really weird things happen once in a blue moon. Derailed equipment has been re-railed while passing over turnouts or road crossings. Freight car trucks have bounced on the ground so violently that they came apart and flew off onto the right of way, while a shelf coupler kept the car and the air hoses coupled and the train kept on going for some distance until somebody saw too much daylight under one end of a car with a missing truck.
You could say that the mechanical reactions to derailed wheels are not always the same, but, usually, there are common indications and results.
As to the Auto Train derailment, we do not have enough information to determine how the Auto Train Engineer realized his train was derailed, or how long it took to get the train stopped.
" Visual observation is good for about a mile on straight track "
That is way too far back to see anything from the head end, especially on straight track and in the daylight. A quarter mile to a third mile would be more like it and that is if a curve is involved. A long sweeping curve with little to no vegetation in the way offers the best look at the side of the train. Coming out of a curve onto a long straightline is where you can get a good look at the train as you can see each car as it exits the curve onto the straight.
Sometimes, you just have to rely on ESP. Laugh at that if you want, but, sometimes you just get a feeling something is wrong. One night I was shoving back a set of interchange hoppers to the CSX nice and easy because my conductor was riding the side of the rear car protecting the move. Everything seemed to be going fine as I looked out the window in the direction of movement. I looked back in and it struck me that something wasn't quite right, so, I stopped the train. The head brakeman walked back to find that the train had buckled with a number of cars derailed. The odd thing was that the entire train was still coupled, several cars were at ninety degree angles to each other and the air hoses were still coupled! That's right, the air hoses never separated!
Needless to say that we had all of the road crossings in town blocked, including the "Lover's Lane" cul-de-sac! When the conductor got back to the head end he said there was a guy stuck in the "sparking area" with his girl friend and he wanted to know when we could clear the crossing as she needed to get home to her husband! 
The cause of the derailment was later found to be a bad guard rail in the switch going over to the CSX.
Surprised they don't have something like video monitoring, in theory you could have instead of a rearview mirror, video feeds showing he back end of the train fed to a display screen.
bigkid posted:Surprised they don't have something like video monitoring, in theory you could have instead of a rearview mirror, video feeds showing he back end of the train fed to a display screen.
Just where would the video camera be placed on, say a 135 car coal train? Plus, there are already enough "display screens" in the cabs now!
bigkid posted:Surprised they don't have something like video monitoring, in theory you could have instead of a rearview mirror, video feeds showing he back end of the train fed to a display screen.
There used to be an old-fashioned version of just this device.
(You *know* this is coming, right?)
It was called a caboose, and it contained one, two, or maybe even three sophisticated train monitoring devices. They were even mobile, able to move along the train to make close observations of the cars at any point along the line. They had video and audio sensors as well as sophisticated methods of telemetering their date to the engine crew, including radio (fairly recent), whistle signals, flags, lights, and even automatic application of braking. They were capable of making some repairs on the move and more serious ones with the train stopped. They were even capable of manipulating track switches and providing warnings to other train crews (although that portion of the system was not fool--eh, Casey Jones-proof).
Yep , Right on......The Old devices could also smell trouble (Burning rotting egg smell)....Thanks for your post.
There weren't usually "cabeese" at the ends of passenger trains. Of course, the Auto Train is, arguably, the last "mixed train daily," since it contains both passenger at the head and freight cars at the tail (albeit the latter are rigged to run in a passenger train).
Given the length of this train and the Virginia/Carolinas/Georgia foliage it is doubtful the engineer can ever see the end of the train.
bigkid posted:Surprised they don't have something like video monitoring, in theory you could have instead of a rearview mirror, video feeds showing he back end of the train fed to a display screen.
A side mirror costs about $25.00, and it works without telemetry, electronics, or power. I'm pretty sure that there is no danger of something more complex replacing it.
Note this was at 11:30 pm.
Someone out there is forumland must know someone at Amtrak who has the answer for this wreck.
Derailment cause was a broken rail. Equipment had Tightlock couplers that functioned as intended and kept things upright and in line. Train was stopped by a trainline initiated emergency air brake application caused by a parted air hose connection between cars. Speed was reported to be 69 MPH at time of incident, No injuries reported.
C.J.
A rearview mirror seems great, but the engineer has to continuously look at it, and the other problem is with a mile long train it is unlikely it can show the whole length (freight train in this case). Cameras can have night vision on them to allow visibility at night, and the technology is advanced and cheap, where with a couple of cameras you could cover the whole train. In terms of 'distracting" the engineer, that is a matter of having a display that is well thought out, that rearview mirror requires looking to the side to see it, camera input could be on a heads up display or a monitor that allows full visibility to the track ahead while having it easily seen with peripheral vision, it needn't be distracting (whether railroads would actually do that is another story). A display could show images from the cameras in succession, it wouldn't have to have X feeds showing continously, if the picture changed every 10 seconds they would have near instantaneous visibility to problems likely.
Yeah, in the good old days they had full train crews, on passenger trains you had the conductor and a brakeman who would be the 'eyes on the train", on freights you had people in the caboose who could see problems and or smell hotboxes and the like. Without getting into a discussion on economics and politics, that model simply won't work today, it isn't coming back as much as we want it to, both profit and the demands of shippers (ever think about if the cost of shipping by rail was increased by having pre-1960 levels of train crews, that it would suddenly cause a rise in things shipped by rail by significant amounts? Many of those complaining about corporate greed taking away jobs would likely be the first ones complaining at the rise in prices). Whether I think cutting the size of train crews was a good thing or not (hint, I am no fan of 'greed is good' capitalism, not by a long shot), it is a reality that is here to stay, the multi man train crew is as dead as the caboose that once housed them, so the only alternative is to look at present reality and see what can be done to improve it.
bigkid posted:A rearview mirror seems great, but the engineer has to continuously look at it, and the other problem is with a mile long train it is unlikely it can show the whole length (freight train in this case). Cameras can have night vision on them to allow visibility at night, and the technology is advanced and cheap, where with a couple of cameras you could cover the whole train. In terms of 'distracting" the engineer, that is a matter of having a display that is well thought out, that rearview mirror requires looking to the side to see it, camera input could be on a heads up display or a monitor that allows full visibility to the track ahead while having it easily seen with peripheral vision, it needn't be distracting (whether railroads would actually do that is another story). A display could show images from the cameras in succession, it wouldn't have to have X feeds showing continously, if the picture changed every 10 seconds they would have near instantaneous visibility to problems likely.
Yeah, in the good old days they had full train crews, on passenger trains you had the conductor and a brakeman who would be the 'eyes on the train", on freights you had people in the caboose who could see problems and or smell hotboxes and the like. Without getting into a discussion on economics and politics, that model simply won't work today, it isn't coming back as much as we want it to, both profit and the demands of shippers (ever think about if the cost of shipping by rail was increased by having pre-1960 levels of train crews, that it would suddenly cause a rise in things shipped by rail by significant amounts? Many of those complaining about corporate greed taking away jobs would likely be the first ones complaining at the rise in prices). Whether I think cutting the size of train crews was a good thing or not (hint, I am no fan of 'greed is good' capitalism, not by a long shot), it is a reality that is here to stay, the multi man train crew is as dead as the caboose that once housed them, so the only alternative is to look at present reality and see what can be done to improve it.
Have you actually given any real thought to your post, because you have obviously never run a train of any kind!
Talk about a distraction! Well, you are definitely trying to create one where none is needed!
Oh! And, what was that about the FRA outlawing personal cell phones and other devices that distract crew members from their jobs? Just tell the Supt. that you were watching the screen as you went by the red board, I'm sure he will reward you for it!
Since we’re “ pie in the skying” here; how about we equip every train with a drone and make the conductor responsible for flying it up and down the train as it travels along; monitoring a single camera on the drone and keeping watch for derailments. (And yes; I offer this suggestion with my tongue firmly planted in my cheek.) 😏
Curt
juniata guy posted:Since we’re “ pie in the skying” here; how about we equip every train with a drone and make the conductor responsible for flying it up and down the train as it travels along; monitoring a single camera on the drone and keeping watch for derailments. (And yes; I offer this suggestion with my tongue firmly planted in my cheek.) 😏
Curt
Now THAT'S funny! Just wondering what would happen to the drone when the Conductor has to copy a Track Warrant or a Form B?
Big Jim posted:bigkid posted:A rearview mirror seems great, but the engineer has to continuously look at it, and the other problem is with a mile long train it is unlikely it can show the whole length (freight train in this case). Cameras can have night vision on them to allow visibility at night, and the technology is advanced and cheap, where with a couple of cameras you could cover the whole train. In terms of 'distracting" the engineer, that is a matter of having a display that is well thought out, that rearview mirror requires looking to the side to see it, camera input could be on a heads up display or a monitor that allows full visibility to the track ahead while having it easily seen with peripheral vision, it needn't be distracting (whether railroads would actually do that is another story). A display could show images from the cameras in succession, it wouldn't have to have X feeds showing continously, if the picture changed every 10 seconds they would have near instantaneous visibility to problems likely.
Yeah, in the good old days they had full train crews, on passenger trains you had the conductor and a brakeman who would be the 'eyes on the train", on freights you had people in the caboose who could see problems and or smell hotboxes and the like. Without getting into a discussion on economics and politics, that model simply won't work today, it isn't coming back as much as we want it to, both profit and the demands of shippers (ever think about if the cost of shipping by rail was increased by having pre-1960 levels of train crews, that it would suddenly cause a rise in things shipped by rail by significant amounts? Many of those complaining about corporate greed taking away jobs would likely be the first ones complaining at the rise in prices). Whether I think cutting the size of train crews was a good thing or not (hint, I am no fan of 'greed is good' capitalism, not by a long shot), it is a reality that is here to stay, the multi man train crew is as dead as the caboose that once housed them, so the only alternative is to look at present reality and see what can be done to improve it.
Have you actually given any real thought to your post, because you have obviously never run a train of any kind!
Talk about a distraction! Well, you are definitely trying to create one where none is needed!
Oh! And, what was that about the FRA outlawing personal cell phones and other devices that distract crew members from their jobs? Just tell the Supt. that you were watching the screen as you went by the red board, I'm sure he will reward you for it!
First of all, I am getting tired of people who when posting don't add to the discussion and resent that anyone else has a different point of view or experience and act like how dare anyone post who doesn't agree with them. If you think someone has posted something mistaken or won't work, you can talk about why it won't work...and if my thoughts on this are a distraction, a distraction from what, given this is a forum, not a working group of people who actually decide things like this, it is a bunch of people shooting the breeze, some people treat this like it actually matters, whether it is discussing railroad technology or when an accident occurs speculating on the cause.
I have never driven a train, that is true, but I think I know enough of the operating characteristics of a train to understand the issues, of monitoring a long freight train from the can of an engine and be able to see enough to look for problems...a rearview mirror, no matter how good, whether 25 bucks or not, is going to give an engineer that great a view of the entire train, it might work with a relative short train, but not long ones, that is simple physics of mirrors, no matter how big, how cleverly angled, it cannot show enough to be all that effective, there are blind spots, a lot of other problems that it won't be able to handle.
The technology involved is not pie in the sky or rocket science, the kind of technology that I am talking about has been around a long time and is not exotically expensive. Heads up displays are not rocket science or exotic, and they have been using them on fighter planes where a pilot is surrounded by a lot of information yet functions, because the displays are designed to work with the job, where the pilot doesn't have to take his eyes off all the things he/she needs. You wouldn't design a display the engineer had to sit and stare at constantly, it would be a display that would allow him to look at the road ahead while having a view in his/her peripheral vision they could glance at, not stare at.
Using the FRA rules with cellphones is basically apples and oranges, cell phones whether talking on them or texting because of the nature of what you are doing draws total attention to it, it requires it or impels it. When you text on the screen you have to totally look at it to both read it and text, if you are talking with a cell phone in your hand you are distracted from the road (hands free devices are better, not having the phone in your hand makes it less likely you will look away, down, etc), all verified by studies, using a cell phone forces you to look at a very tiny screen away from what is enfolding in front of you. When they designed the heads up displays on fighter aircraft and the like, they were designed using studies and experiments to alllow the pilot to see what they need to while not being distracted (and this I know for a fact, my dad worked on fighter aircraft like the F4 and F15 as an engineer for Bendix, worked in the industry for 20 years).
It might offend some sensibilities to suggest that technology can solve the problem, but it can, and given despite the hopes of many with so many things, the 1950's are not returning, the days of solutions involving a lot of people are gone, and given the need for safety the only solution likely is going to be technology. If the display is designed to work with the operators work flow, unlike cell phones, the FRA wouldn't have any problems with it. Drones are more pie in the sky, unless they use drones with sophisticated AI to keep it flying and also avoid hazards like light poles, tunnel portals, signals, wires, etc, not a very practical solution.
What???!! You didn’t find my idea to be workable? And this from the guy who says “technology can solve the problem”?
Curt
It is worth noting that technology has, in many ways, compensated for the decline of both on board and wayside visual inspections by railroad personnel. Major rail lines today use many different types of sophisticated wayside devices to monitor conditions on a moving train. Hundreds of Equipment Defect Detectors of many types such as hot box, dragging equipment, WILD (wheel impact load detector), acoustical bearing, high/wide and others are currently in service. These are placed at specific locations and intervals in order to detect conditions and prevent accidents caused by rolling equipment failures. Many Operating Rules and Procedures governing their use are in effect.
A rail that breaks under the weight of a passing train (the cause of this particular derailment .... sparking this thread) could not have been detected by crew members, or any other existing technology that I am aware of, regardless of their location on the train.
C.J.
bigkid posted:The technology involved is not pie in the sky or rocket science, the kind of technology that I am talking about has been around a long time and is not exotically expensive. Heads up displays are not rocket science or exotic, and they have been using them on fighter planes where a pilot is surrounded by a lot of information yet functions, because the displays are designed to work with the job, where the pilot doesn't have to take his eyes off all the things he/she needs. You wouldn't design a display the engineer had to sit and stare at constantly, it would be a display that would allow him to look at the road ahead while having a view in his/her peripheral vision they could glance at, not stare at.
Using the FRA rules with cellphones is basically apples and oranges, cell phones whether talking on them or texting because of the nature of what you are doing draws total attention to it, it requires it or impels it. When you text on the screen you have to totally look at it to both read it and text, if you are talking with a cell phone in your hand you are distracted from the road (hands free devices are better, not having the phone in your hand makes it less likely you will look away, down, etc), all verified by studies, using a cell phone forces you to look at a very tiny screen away from what is enfolding in front of you. When they designed the heads up displays on fighter aircraft and the like, they were designed using studies and experiments to alllow the pilot to see what they need to while not being distracted (and this I know for a fact, my dad worked on fighter aircraft like the F4 and F15 as an engineer for Bendix, worked in the industry for 20 years).
It might offend some sensibilities to suggest that technology can solve the problem, but it can, and given despite the hopes of many with so many things, the 1950's are not returning, the days of solutions involving a lot of people are gone, and given the need for safety the only solution likely is going to be technology. If the display is designed to work with the operators work flow, unlike cell phones, the FRA wouldn't have any problems with it. Drones are more pie in the sky, unless they use drones with sophisticated AI to keep it flying and also avoid hazards like light poles, tunnel portals, signals, wires, etc, not a very practical solution.
The thing about aircraft systems is they are all within the confines of the aircraft being monitored, not a mile back.
So, the question becomes, where does one place these cameras?
Left side? Right side? Top of car? Bottom of car? All four locations? Every car? Last car? Permanently attached or placed by the crew? Will the camera(s) have the ability to transmit to the locomotive without interference? What about interference from other trains? Interference from the surrounding terrain? Will freight cars have to be equipped with video cables? What about batteries? What about image quality in heavy rains or snows? Will there be spares in the locomotives? Who's going to be responsible for maintaining the system? Who is going to clean the lens en route? If more than one camera, will the display auto-select or will the engineer/conductor select the "view." Does the train go into emergency if a camera stops transmitting? Does the crew go out into the dark if night in the middle of nowhere if a camera fails in order to repair/replace? Will they have to run at a restricted speed if they don't?
Or, do we just simply tack on a "video caboose" to the end of the train?
There's probably a hundred other questions that need to be asked before a video monitoring system can be devolped.
Rusty
bigkid posted:Using the FRA rules with cellphones is basically apples and oranges, cell phones whether talking on them or texting because of the nature of what you are doing draws total attention to it, it requires it or impels it.
And looking at a monitor for defects doesn't require total attention to it?
Why do you think engineers are not allowed to take any kind of orders over the radio while the train is moving?
juniata guy posted:What???!! You didn’t find my idea to be workable? And this from the guy who says “technology can solve the problem”?
Curt
Nope, because unless they develop drones with deep AI on them to be able to fly themselves, and avoid obstacles and such, not gonna happen.
GP 40 posted:It is worth noting that technology has, in many ways, compensated for the decline of both on board and wayside visual inspections by railroad personnel. Major rail lines today use many different types of sophisticated wayside devices to monitor conditions on a moving train. Hundreds of Equipment Defect Detectors of many types such as hot box, dragging equipment, WILD (wheel impact load detector), acoustical bearing, high/wide and others are currently in service. These are placed at specific locations and intervals in order to detect conditions and prevent accidents caused by rolling equipment failures. Many Operating Rules and Procedures governing their use are in effect.
A rail that breaks under the weight of a passing train (the cause of this particular derailment .... sparking this thread) could not have been detected by crew members, or any other existing technology that I am aware of, regardless of their location on the train.
C.J.
True, but montoring technology could tell the engineer that something happened, if the engineer sees the rear of the train is tracking funny, sparking, throwing up dirt from a derailed truck, they can stop the train soon after it happens.
Access to this requires an OGR Forum Supporting Membership
