I am thinking a little more about how this crossing was protected. Certainly lights and gates are the epitome of crossing protection art. They should be all the protection that is needed. As a further measure, they can be set up to prevent running around the gates.
What seems relatively unusual with this crash site is the speed limit of the road. Seventy mph is no big deal, but I can’t recall seeing any roads in my location with an active grade crossing on a 70-mph road. Around here, seventy is only allowed on some freeways, and never on a two-lane highway. The two-lane highways are 55-mph speed limit, and they will pull you over at much over sixty.
But out in the wide open, with little traffic, with a long way to go, on a straight highway with a 70-mph limit, and sparse law enforcement, I could see some major vehicle speeds occurring. Maybe the state is not too concerned about it because each driver is mostly risking only his or her life speeding down the lonely highway.
However, the introduction of an Amtrak train full of people, as a direct obstruction to this fast, lonely highway ought to raise an eyebrow. I think the state should have recognized this peril and done a little more to prevent it. It is not to say that it is okay for a truck driver to run 80-100 mph, but if they do so routinely, the state has a responsibility to know about it and act upon it. They manage the roadways. Sometimes the blame falls on the last person who could have prevented the accident, but did not.
Authorities always point out that you can see grade crossing lights from such and such distance. Presumably it is enough distance to stop a vehicle. It is reported that the lights at this Nevada crossing are timed to start flashing 25 seconds before the train reaches the crossing.
But these crossing lamps are tiny features in wide-open country when you first see them upon approach. And most people driving 80-100 mph tend to concentrate just ahead of their vehicle to make sure it stays on the road as it sucks up the highway like a Shop Vac.
It may be that ultra-fast trucks, requiring extra stopping distance, are capable of simply overrunning the warning of the grade crossing, if only a tiny interval of distraction is introduced that shortens that warning interval. If that is so, it seems that the method of protection is inadequate. Authorities need to tromp the speed limit down approaching a grade crossing, especially one that hosts passenger trains. Every state knocks the speed limit down for going through the smallest of towns.
Regardless of the truck driver’s negligence, the public was inadequately protected in this case. It seems to me that somebody larger than the truck driver dropped the ball here.
The truck driver could be scapegoated for the negligence of public officials who looked the other way in the face of an obvious road hazard in their state.
I've seen advanced warning lights for crossings on 55-65mph roads.
Even if you lower the limits - it's all about control of your vehicle. Apparently the first driver didn't have it (or there was a problem out of his control).
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
Lowering the speed limit would be meaningless if it is not enforced.
I've seen rail crossings here in Arizona along the Union Pacific Sunset Route that are so far out in the middle of nowhere, even though they are state highways, that law enforcement rarely, if ever, enforces the posted speed limit simply because there are not enough police to patrol every road.
The Nevada state highway where this accident occurred seems to be a very similar situation.
That's a good point...and maybe the crossing mechanism wasn't working properly. I've seen that happen in downtown Toronto. In my case I called CN and they fixed the problem..after I witnessed a train almost broadsiding a crowded city bus. The wig wag came down alright...and then went up again...and THEN the train came barrelling through..
Lots could have gone wrong here beyond the obvious. I hope John Davis has everything in order. It looks like he runs a first class operation judging from the FMSCA info available...but if there's even one discrepency in that driver's log or if there's anything like a missed drug test then he's cooked. I feel bad for John Davis... looks like a family business built up over years of hard work...only to have this happen... its tragic for them as well..
Bucyrus: Much of what you say about crossings and speed limits, although true in the East and some of the Midwest, does not apply out West. If you want to make rails with passenger trains running at 60-90 mph safe from cars and trucks, we need to begin a program of systematically eliminating low volume crossings and grade separating the rest. It will take time and money, but there really isn't any workable alternative.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Many, MANY years ago, Nevada had a "Reasonable and Proper" speed limit for the open road. The premise being that if you had an accident, then your were probably speeding, and conversely, if you did not have an accident then you were traveling at a reasonable and proper speed. Maybe that tradition/mentality has not subsided yet.
I think that Bucyrus has hit upon a good thought. There should be a reduction in the speed limit in the area of RR grade crossings, just like around here there are reductions in the speed limit at major highway intersections (whether signaled or not).
Of course, if drivers pay no attention to the signage, then posting such limits is just a waste of the earth's natural resource, so strong enforcement is a method to help drivers obey the limits, if not for safety, then for protection of the wallet.
But, to say that some official looked the other way, is to imply a criminal act. Not that such could not have happened, but just like the RR rules were written in blood, so are, too often, traffic regulations.
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
Ulrich That's a good point...and maybe the crossing mechanism wasn't working properly.
That's a good point...and maybe the crossing mechanism wasn't working properly.
A signal malfunction is always a possibility, but my premise of this thread is the assumption that the crossing signals were functioning properly. They just were not up to the job with such high vehicle speeds. So what is required is to get that speed down in advance of the crossing and raise crossing awareness at the same time.
How about a series of signs, say a minimum of two. The first warns of an upcoming crossing, and maybe 100 yards further, the second would ask, 'Do ya feel lucky, huh?" Then, for icing, about 100 yards past that, a big screen would replay endless loops of video showing crossing collisions.
Maybe that would work?
(Yes, a bit facetious, but....what else is there to do other than a warning sign that a crossing is coming, and maybe a mandated speed zone/reduction to 30 MPH within 100 yards of the crossing?)
Even so, it is like gun control laws....the bad guys don't read, apparently.
Crandell
In view of the present situation and the deaths, these might seem a bit crass, but Burma Shave had a few signs like that:
Remember thisIf you'dBe sparedTrains don't whistleBecause they're scaredBurma-Shave
He sawThe trainAnd tried to duck itKicked first the gasAnd then the bucketBurma-Shave
He triedTo crossAs fast train nearedDeath didn't draft himHe volunteeredBurma-Shave
Train approachingWhistle squealingPause!Avoid thatRundown feeling!Burma-Shave
Guys whose eyesAre inTheir backsGet halos crossingRailroad tracksBurma-Shave
ApproachedA crossingWithout lookingWho will eatHis widow's cooking?Burma-Shave
There were a few others with a RR theme, but they do not fit this situation.
Semper, you seem to be a great Burma Shave aficionado; never saw one of those and I started watching 75 years ago.
The one I treasure is this one: "When passing schools, take it slow. Let our little shavers grow."
Thanks for the additions, even though they've come at a bad time.
Art
There used to be (might still be, but I haven't looked) a web site devoted to the advertising campaign. It listed all the signs (sorted by the year they were first installed). The signs were almost all removed sometime after 1963 when the company was purchased by an other one. A few were missed by the crews hired to remove them.
My Dad's favourite was:
SpringHas sprungThe grass has rizWhere last year'sCareless drivers isBurma-Shave
It was on a highway between Indianapolis and Salem, Indiana and he would always read it aloud as we passed. I remember a couple of others along that same route, or an alternate one we would sometimes take. On a long vacation trip one summer, looking for them was a great passtime for us kids. I think I have seen about a dozen different ones...don't remember them all, but I copied the web site's list so I have a complete (hope) list to quote from in forums.
70 MPH is nothing Unusual for a Western Road remember this NEveda is over 400 Miles Across East to West on I-80 and over 400 Miles North to South. The drivers out there are used to driving at 70 MPH on those roads. Also people need to remember this about the collision we still have no clue about what caused the Driver to hit the train yet. Plus he was a local driver and they get to be Drivers of Habit and not expect trains at certain times when htey are on time. The CZ was running 5 hours late and according to the Drivers brain was not supposed to be there.
Closing off some of those roads in Nevada would result in causing 20-30 mile in extra length in runs each way for School Busses heck anyone that drives. Just because you think a road is not needed 2000 miles away and are monday morning Quarterbacking like no tomorrow. The locals on the scene are the ones that would know what roads are needed.
selector How about a series of signs, say a minimum of two. The first warns of an upcoming crossing, and maybe 100 yards further, the second would ask, 'Do ya feel lucky, huh?" Then, for icing, about 100 yards past that, a big screen would replay endless loops of video showing crossing collisions. Maybe that would work? (Yes, a bit facetious, but....what else is there to do other than a warning sign that a crossing is coming, and maybe a mandated speed zone/reduction to 30 MPH within 100 yards of the crossing?) Even so, it is like gun control laws....the bad guys don't read, apparently. Crandell
Crandell,
Where I live there is a standard for signage at rail crossings. I don't know if it is a Kansas law or something different. If I remember the rule correctly, there is a simple sign 500 feet from the crossing in each direction of the highway. At about 100 to 150 feet from the crossing on both sides there are pavement markings on each lane in each direction that look like this:
RXR
There is usually a shoulder on a two lane highway for vehicles who are required to stop at all rail crossings to drive onto so other vehicles may safely pass them.
Will
wholemanWhere I live there is a standard for signage at rail crossings. I don't know if it is a Kansas law or something different. If I remember the rule correctly, there is a simple sign 500 feet from the crossing in each direction of the highway. At about 100 to 150 feet from the crossing on both sides there are pavement markings on each lane in each direction that look like this: RXR There is usually a shoulder on a two lane highway for vehicles who are required to stop at all rail crossings to drive onto so other vehicles may safely pass them.
The crossing is also equipped with gates, also seen in video and still images from the scene.
The resolution of the satellite image is not such that one can determine conclusively if there are roadside signs a distance out from the crossing, but I have no doubt that there are.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Bucyrus:
Are you serious? Did you see the photographs of that crossing. Even if the speed limit was 100 mph and there was NO crossing protection, a person with his eyes open would have been able to see that train in time to stop.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
selector How about a series of signs, say a minimum of two. The first warns of an upcoming crossing, and maybe 100 yards further, the second would ask, 'Do ya feel lucky, huh?" Then, for icing, about 100 yards past that, a big screen would replay endless loops of video showing crossing collisions. Maybe that would work? Crandell
These could be put in for a fraction of the cost of more traditional protection. One great advantage is that they would be almost zero maintenance, would not rely on electronics, and would work in any weather.
Once one of these concrete cowboys get their head bounced off the ceiling of their rig, I'd bet they'd slow down next time.
A news story on CNN indicated that there were three trucks running in a convoy (possibly racing) and that the drivers of the other two saw the train from quite a distance away and slowed down. They also said the signals and gates were working properly.
Perhaps Bucyrus is a lawyer looking for someone to sue. The driver was an idiot. Its unfortunate for the other folks on the train who paid the real price of his stupidity.
John
john_edwards Perhaps Bucyrus is a lawyer looking for someone to sue. The driver was an idiot. Its unfortunate for the other folks on the train who paid the real price of his stupidity. John
So I guess we aren't going to wait until an official cause is released before we condemn the deceased?
Classy.
schlimm Bucyrus: Much of what you say about crossings and speed limits, although true in the East and some of the Midwest, does not apply out West. If you want to make rails with passenger trains running at 60-90 mph safe from cars and trucks, we need to begin a program of systematically eliminating low volume crossings and grade separating the rest. It will take time and money, but there really isn't any workable alternative.
Schlimm,
Eliminating crossings is surely the best way to eliminate the hazard for both vehicles and trains, but there are other less costly measures that could at least improve safety if not completely eliminate the hazard.
In blaming the truck driver, I notice a tendency to want to assume that the driver was completely incorrigible, and therefore he would not have heeded any form of safety restriction such as lowering the speed limit over the crossing. But that may or may not be true. One thing is for sure. The driver was not heedless once he saw the train.
The common sentiment among forum members is that drivers are so stupid and heedless that nothing will get them to yield at crossings. But this sweeping generalization gets in the way of finding better safety measures.
I am not excusing the driver in this case, but I think the state bears some of the blame for allowing an established and known traffic hazard to routinely threaten the safety of densely packed people riding on passenger trains. It is lucky that so few were killed in this crash. The crash dynamics could have easily killed 100 people or more.
Bucyrus I am not excusing the driver in this case, but I think the state bears some of the blame for allowing an established and known traffic hazard to routinely threaten the safety of densely packed people riding on passenger trains. It is lucky that so few were killed in this crash. The crash dynamics could have easily killed 100 people or more.
What traffic hazard? There were gates, lights, probably advanced warning signs. The other trucks were able to safely come to a stop. We cannot make our roads absolutely, 100% accident free, try as we might. Human life has a price in the name of what safety improvements are made. It's not a nice thought - but it is the truth.
There has to be some personal responsibility given to the operators of motor vehicles. Driving vehicles is a big responsibility. That truck operator could have veered across the center line and hit a passing bus and killed more than 6 people. You can't eliminate all risks. And you will go broke trying.
If I drove my car into the side of a train wouldn't I be the idiot? Of course, trains are big and heavy, my car is little and small. Physics don't care, its always big over small, heavy over light. And don't forget gravity. Driving your vehicle into trains is just not a good idea.
I'll grant that we may never know the "official" reason he didn't slow/stop/see the train/crossing lights/whatever. Perhaps he thought he could beat it to the crossing, many try, some die.
john_edwards If I drove my car into the side of a train wouldn't I be the idiot? Of course, trains are big and heavy, my car is little and small. Physics don't care, its always big over small, heavy over light. And don't forget gravity. Driving your vehicle into trains is just not a good idea. I'll grant that we may never know the "official" reason he didn't slow/stop/see the train/crossing lights/whatever. Perhaps he thought he could beat it to the crossing, many try, some die. John
If your car suffered some mechanical issue that prevented you from avoiding the collision, then no, I wouldn't consider you an idiot.
The guy is dead. At least let the investigation close before insulting him.
Over on another thread devoted to this wreck, there was a table showing how many hundreds of feet a driver would need to stop a truck like this from various speeds. It would be a fairly simple matter to erect an electric sign (solar-powered...don't tell me they couldn't make that work out there!) a quarter-mile or more from the track, saying something like "Railroad Crossing Ahead--Prepare to stop when lights flash". This would be tied in with the grade crossing signals themselves--someone traveling the speed limit would not encounter false alarms. Accompany the flashing lights and signs with rumble strips to get the drivers' attention.
Then have your prescribed yellow circular sign (perhaps enlarged from what's normally seen) at the usual distance, accompanied by rumble strips again, and the pavement markings mentioned above. Then more rumble strips.
Jim, I chuckled at your suggestion of speed bumps. I'm just sorry that anything that would give one of those truckers the bounce required to get his attention would probably do damage to smaller vehicles. There used to be a toll plaza on the Tri-State, back when the tolls were 30c, that had pavement that rocked a car moving too fast (you'd notice it no matter what...bad shocks might create interesting effects); I think it was northbound beyond O'Hare.
Just had another thought...what would have happened had there been other cars stopped at the crossing for this train? I really think that the driver knew that he had a clear route to the crossing and was hoping to get across.
Carl
Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)
CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)
I need to say that I don’t know what advanced warning this Nevada crossing has. The standard minimum advance warning is the round RXR sign. If they had a more elaborate advance warning than that, I might adjust my opinion regarding Nevada’s negligence.
We don’t know why the driver failed to yield. Assuming that it was not a medical problem, I can think of two possible reasons:
1) He was distracted from immediately recognizing the activated crossing signals.
2) He tried to beat the train, but when he realized he would lose, it was too late to stop.
If it were suicide, he would not have slammed on the brakes. Obviously he did not want to hit the train. But he did overrun his stopping distance.
I believe that the high speed limit and the probable frequency of exceeding that speed limit simply calls for extending the warning further out from the crossing. This does not have to be anything too clever. Why on earth would anybody object to this added safety measure? The need is obvious, and the state should have recognized it. It’s not like they don’t spend time studying these things. They can tell you all about how your seatbelt keeps you safe. They can slow you down to 30-40 mph for every little one-horse town along the highway.
With this Nevada crossing, they could use prominent signage coupled with yellow flashing lights to lower the speed limit to 45 mph about ½ to ¾ miles in advance of the crossing. They could put up a “Look For Trains” sign as well. It would extend the reaction time window and also raise awareness of the crossing peril.
Another approach would be to use an advance extension of the grade crossing signals, so when they activate; it also activates advance yellow flashing lights that are associated with signage identifying those lights with an activated grade crossing ahead. This is not rocket science. The highway design manuals offer these very provisions as options for advanced warning at grade crossings.
Bucyrus Why on earth would anybody object to this added safety measure? The need is obvious, and the state should have recognized it. It’s not like they don’t spend time studying these things. They can tell you all about how your seatbelt keeps you safe. They can slow you down to 30-40 mph for every little one-horse town along the highway.
Why on earth would anybody object to this added safety measure? The need is obvious, and the state should have recognized it. It’s not like they don’t spend time studying these things. They can tell you all about how your seatbelt keeps you safe. They can slow you down to 30-40 mph for every little one-horse town along the highway.
Every time there is an accident, someone gives this rallying cry. Is the need obvious? One truck hit a train. How many vehicles and trains use that crossing a day? A year? What is the rate of collisions?
Safety improvements cost money. Lots and lots of money. You will go broke trying to build the perfect mousetrap.
I will say again: the following two trucks apparently saw the gates and safely came to a stop. Would an extra set of flashing lights made a difference?
CShaveRR Jim, I chuckled at your suggestion of speed bumps. I'm just sorry that anything that would give one of those truckers the bounce required to get his attention would probably do damage to smaller vehicles. There used to be a toll plaza on the Tri-State, back when the tolls were 30c, that had pavement that rocked a car moving too fast (you'd notice it no matter what...bad shocks might create interesting effects); I think it was northbound beyond O'Hare. Just had another thought...what would have happened had there been other cars stopped at the crossing for this train? I really think that the driver knew that he had a clear route to the crossing and was hoping to get across.
On the Northwest Tollway (I 90) about 8 years ago, at one of the toll booths (Marengo Plaza) before they had I-Pass lanes, a tour bus with 20 women stopped in line to pay the toll. They got rammed by, you guessed it, another truck driver barreling along, who failed to slow. It ended up being a 5 vehicle crash in which at least 8 were killed. No signs or anything else could have prevented this one, but grade crossings are another story.
zugmann Safety improvements cost money. Lots and lots of money. You will go broke trying to build the perfect mousetrap. I will say again: the following two trucks apparently saw the gates and safely came to a stop. Would an extra set of flashing lights made a difference?
I don't know if the extended advance warning would have made any difference. If the driver was trying to beat the train, but aborted the attempt when he saw he could not make it, then the advance warning would not have had any effect. But if the driver simply lost 10-15 seconds of the 25-second warning due to inattention, then I would say there is a very high probability that the extented advance warning would have prevented the crash. The mousetrap does not need to be perfect, but it can be improved.
Furthermore, the authorities who run that road have the better mousetrap in their inventory. And it is specifcally intended for grade crossings on relatively fast highways.
Bucyrus Furthermore, the authorities who run that road have the better mousetrap in their inventory. And it is specifcally intended for grade crossings on relatively fast highways.
But do they have the funds? And are there better uses for those funds?
zugmann Bucyrus:Furthermore, the authorities who run that road have the better mousetrap in their inventory. And it is specifcally intended for grade crossings on relatively fast highways. But do they have the funds? And are there better uses for those funds?
Bucyrus:Furthermore, the authorities who run that road have the better mousetrap in their inventory. And it is specifcally intended for grade crossings on relatively fast highways. But do they have the funds? And are there better uses for those funds?
Well money is always an issue, and if they had enough, they would signalize every crossing. And if they had even more, they would grade separate all crossings. But what I am talking about is relatively small potatoes in the spending scheme of things.
But they are responsible for public safety, and I don't believe that a lack of funding is a legitimate reason to forego an obvious safety need. If a bridge needs to be inspected for safety, they don't have the option of declining the responsibilty simply because they don't want to spend the money. If they don't have the money, they need to close the bridge.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.