http://www.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2014301060029
23 17 46 11
http://www.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=201430106002
Here are video, photos and late info from a Reno paper. http://www.rgj.com/article/20110624/NEWS/110624012/Passengers-describe-scene-deadly-truck-Amtrak-train-crash?odyssey=nav%7Chead
This picture shows code line of 10 wires. The old SP system had 2 or 3 power wires, 2 CTC, 3 bi-directional signal circuits and at a crossing would unually have 2 additional wires for a fixed distance signal activation.
Although this is not definite proof and we will find out soon whether this crossing had a predictor circuit or not. I would tend to believe that it did not but would not be so rash as to say it did not. have a prediction circuit..
Modern crossing gates have "predictors" that adjust the time the gates lower to correspond with the approaching train's speed.
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
Bucyres
What I am trying to say is the gates could be timed for the usual UP freights going by at 50mph. The Amtrak train barrels through at 70 to 80 mph covers a heck of a lot more track then that freight. Still with 300 feet of skid marks there should have been time for the driver to realize what was about to happen.
As for turning into the ditch or some other alternative maneuver, This takes training in avoidance driving. Not every commercial driver receives this training. I received this training in the military thirty years ago for a special job. It is an intense course that tries to overcome your instinctive responses to situations. Any drivers first instinctive response is to slam on the brakes. My first response is to remove my foot from the accelerator and scan my mirrors for an exit way. My foot never touches the brake unless it is needed to maneuver. These responses took training. Next time someone cuts you off pay attention to what your foot just did. The majority of people would be standing on the brake in an instant. This training is what saved a school buss with children aboard from being T boned. If I stood on the brake the outcome would have been tragic. My training is what taught me to steer into the road the buss was leaving. The only damage was a bent stop sign and some torn up grass. Thankfully there was a state cruiser 5 cars behind me that saw the whole thing. The bus driver received a failure to yield ticket and let go. Big trucks during a skid do not steer and risk the chance of jackknifing or spin out.
Pete
I pray every day I break even, Cause I can really use the money!
I started with nothing and still have most of it left!
I do not see sun glare as being a factor in this.
Sun glare for traffic heading north at that particular crossing at that particular time of day would not have been any factor at all. The sun would be S/SE of northbound traffic. In other words the sun is behind those driving north.
I've worked at that crossing at this time of year so I'm absolutely certain the sun was not a factor.
locoi1sa WOW. There is a whole lot of speculation and various degrees of negativity on the driver and trucking industry. I have not seen any posts on how far down the track the signal system activates. The speed of the train and a fixed distance to grade flasher activation. Could it be possible that the fast pace of the train coinciding with the fixed distance the grade signals start had limited the stopping distance for the truck also going at a considerable speed to give both driver and train time to avoid the collision? I have been at grade crossings when a slower freight train activates the gates and considerable time elapses before the locomotives are into the crossing. I have also seen some Amtrak trains blast through before the gates reach the bottom and bounce around before going back up. This timing and distance covered by the train should be taken into effect before judgment is rendered. Pete
WOW.
There is a whole lot of speculation and various degrees of negativity on the driver and trucking industry. I have not seen any posts on how far down the track the signal system activates. The speed of the train and a fixed distance to grade flasher activation. Could it be possible that the fast pace of the train coinciding with the fixed distance the grade signals start had limited the stopping distance for the truck also going at a considerable speed to give both driver and train time to avoid the collision? I have been at grade crossings when a slower freight train activates the gates and considerable time elapses before the locomotives are into the crossing. I have also seen some Amtrak trains blast through before the gates reach the bottom and bounce around before going back up.
This timing and distance covered by the train should be taken into effect before judgment is rendered.
Pete,
Take a look at this thread. I have posed questions and looked for answers to all of the points you mention, plus some others that are related.
http://cs.trains.com/TRCCS/forums/t/193774.aspx
The premise of that thread is not to take the entire blame off of the driver and put it on Nevada, but the crash site crossing is on a very high-speed highway, and that does raise issues about the warning interval. We do know that the warning interval for the Amtrak train was 25 seconds. We also know that the truck driver lost 18 of those seconds for some reason. The missing 18 seconds is all it took to make the difference between a routine crossing yield and a catastrophe.
Maybe the problem of grade crossing incursions cannot be eliminated. It appears that heavy trucks cause the most damage and deaths for grade crossing incursion; such as the City of New Orleans, Piedmont, this one. . However incursions may be significantly reduced by the trucking companys them selves. How?
1. First what are the libility insurance requirements of each state?
2. If mandatory liability Insurance for heavy ( GVW 26001# +) trucks is raised to say $100M and allow the insurance companys themselves to vet the drivers and refuse to insure those at greatest risk. Certainly those trucking companys that have the greatest risk ( say all trucks have to cross an unsignaled crossing to get to business) vs those trucks that have a very low risk ( never cross a RR or interact, with a school zone, travel mostly interstates) would set rates. Along with training programs for drivers to lower rates and history of accidents. Grade crossing camers that can catch those who violate the law and get flagged to the insurance companys.
Paul_D_North_Jr narig01: My 2 cents worth: What about a timed indication indicating the number of seconds until the train is at the crossing? In numerous places I see the pedestrian crosswalk lites with a timed indication showing pedestrians how long they have to cross the street. When driving I use these to gauge how long before the lite starts to change(believe me it helps a lot). [snipped] I like the concept - none around here, but I've seen them elsewhere. But what function would they serve at a crossing once the gates are down ? And even then - or at a flashers-only crossing - I can just envision some reckless driver saying to him(her)self: "OK, now I know I've got 5 more seconds to get over this crossing before that darn train gets here and delays me for gosh knows how long !", and then running the risk of accomplishing that. - Paul North.
narig01: My 2 cents worth: What about a timed indication indicating the number of seconds until the train is at the crossing? In numerous places I see the pedestrian crosswalk lites with a timed indication showing pedestrians how long they have to cross the street. When driving I use these to gauge how long before the lite starts to change(believe me it helps a lot). [snipped]
I like the concept - none around here, but I've seen them elsewhere. But what function would they serve at a crossing once the gates are down ? And even then - or at a flashers-only crossing - I can just envision some reckless driver saying to him(her)self: "OK, now I know I've got 5 more seconds to get over this crossing before that darn train gets here and delays me for gosh knows how long !", and then running the risk of accomplishing that.
- Paul North.
When I think about it this crossing is unique in the mix of traffic. A fair amount of it all at speed. ie RR trains 55mph to 79mph & road traffic at 70-75 mph.
The only other grade crossing I can think of that comes close is the BNSF crossing of Calif. state route 58 between Kramer Junction and Mojave, Ca. There to start the speeds are slower 55mph for highway traffic and 59mph(I think) for RR. The volume of traffic here is much larger for both modes.
Thx IGN
automatic vehicle control is not cheap. secondly would it have used on an isolated out in the middle of nowhere rail crossing? Yes this is a well traveled highway. I would point out though that it does not have the volume even for more then 2 lanes. Also the volume of traffic is such that vehicles do pass each other safely(my margin in a truck, at speed, to pass on a two lane road like this is one mile of no opposing traffic & visibility to match).
Rgds IGN
schlimm And you think automatic vehicle management is cheaper and more fool proof than grade separations? You know, that is what we have on interstates and expressways. I wonder if folks back then said, "Can't be done, too expensive. Let's just have better traffic lights."
And you think automatic vehicle management is cheaper and more fool proof than grade separations? You know, that is what we have on interstates and expressways. I wonder if folks back then said, "Can't be done, too expensive. Let's just have better traffic lights."
I think automatic vehicle management is right around the corner as the next big thing. I am not advocating it. Actually I dread it, but it is on the way. It won’t be cheap, and it won’t drive your car. But it will have many features that control drivers. The basic principle of the “Red Light Camera” will be part of this system, and connecting this to grade crossings is an obvious application.
There are several potential features to that grade crossing application. It can warn drivers in advance of the crossing flashers, it can ticket drivers who run the gates and flashers, and it can stop your car if you pass a certain point. If it did the latter, there would be no need for the two former features.
But even if it only did automatic ticketing, it would eliminate the risk-taking cause of grade crossing crashes. If it automatically stopped your car, it would eliminate all causes of grade crossing crashes. It would make gates obsolete.
This is simply an idea whose time has come, and it is going to upset a lot of apple carts. Although this system will not be cheap, this grade crossing control feature would be far cheaper than eliminating grade crossings as a comprehensive solution. However, some crossing elimination will still be worthwhile in terms of eliminating delays and traffic tie-ups caused by trains.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm When all the physical damages to the CZ plus the truck, plus the grade crossing gates and signals plus whatever damages are paid out to the injured (even if only for medical care) and the deceased heirs, it certainly sounds like an overpass for the highway would have ended up costing a lot less. As they say, "Penny wise, pound foolish."
When all the physical damages to the CZ plus the truck, plus the grade crossing gates and signals plus whatever damages are paid out to the injured (even if only for medical care) and the deceased heirs, it certainly sounds like an overpass for the highway would have ended up costing a lot less.
As they say, "Penny wise, pound foolish."
Your comparison of the cost of the damage in this crash to the cost of an overpass that would have prevented it may be accurate. However, the cost of crashes must be weighed against the cost of overpasses collectively, on an average basis rather than individually. Not every grade crossing is destined to suffer a catastrophic crash. So you don’t know ahead of time what each overpass will offset in crash costs.
I think a better analysis would be to pick a random sample of grade crossings based only on their similarity in train and vehicle traffic and physical characteristics. The sample selection would be intentionally blind to the actual crash history of the crossings. Say we pick 100 crossings on that sampling basis.
Then do the following:
1) Research the crash history and calculate the cost.
2) Calculate the cost of replacing those crossings with bridges.
3) Compare the totals of those two cost summaries.
If the cost of the total crash history is greater than the cost of replacing those crossings, then I think one could conclude that the payback is there.
But, as I mentioned elsewhere, I believe a layer of automatic vehicle management will soon be in all of our vehicles. With that system, keeping cars out of the way of trains will be a walk in the woods.
Bucyrus The 15 mph requirement is interesting, but that is for passive (non-signalized) crossings. I suppose that is to help enforce the yield requirement. Authorities are most concerned with the yield requirement of passive crossings although it does apply to signalized crossings as well. You are right that the 25-second crossing warning interval will protect the driver from a train. So if the driver happens to run the lights as they start, he will be clear before the interval runs out. But running the lights under any circumstances is strictly forbidden, whether the train is near or far, or even if there is no train, and the signals false activate. Today, I have posed a question about this conundrum to someone at the Manual On Uniform Traffic Control Devices. A related question is this: If a driver encounters a signalized crossing on a fast highway, and the crossing has limited sight lines down the tracks, the driver must slow down in order to properly yield. There are a couple signalized crossings where I drive across Wisconsin that only offer maybe fifty feet of visibility down the tracks for approaching drivers. They would require drivers to stop in order to properly yield. Remember, that in order to yield, a driver has to know the speed of the vehicle he is yielding to. Since a driver has no way of knowing how fast a train might be running, he has to anticipate the highest possible train speed in order to safely yield. So the driver has to yield on those terms, and with a zero visibility crossing, that means stopping. Stopping in the middle of a 60 mph highway with following traffic that might have no knowledge of the counter-intuitive yield requirement could be disastrous. So I asked the MN State Patrol. The first officer I spoke to said he was unaware of a requirement to yield to a non-activated, signalized grade crossing. He did not believe that is required. Operation Lifesaver and the FRA says it is required. I took the question further up the chain of command at the MN State Patrol. On more than one occasion, they would not respond to the question that I posed to them in writing.
The 15 mph requirement is interesting, but that is for passive (non-signalized) crossings. I suppose that is to help enforce the yield requirement. Authorities are most concerned with the yield requirement of passive crossings although it does apply to signalized crossings as well.
You are right that the 25-second crossing warning interval will protect the driver from a train. So if the driver happens to run the lights as they start, he will be clear before the interval runs out. But running the lights under any circumstances is strictly forbidden, whether the train is near or far, or even if there is no train, and the signals false activate. Today, I have posed a question about this conundrum to someone at the Manual On Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
A related question is this: If a driver encounters a signalized crossing on a fast highway, and the crossing has limited sight lines down the tracks, the driver must slow down in order to properly yield. There are a couple signalized crossings where I drive across Wisconsin that only offer maybe fifty feet of visibility down the tracks for approaching drivers. They would require drivers to stop in order to properly yield. Remember, that in order to yield, a driver has to know the speed of the vehicle he is yielding to. Since a driver has no way of knowing how fast a train might be running, he has to anticipate the highest possible train speed in order to safely yield. So the driver has to yield on those terms, and with a zero visibility crossing, that means stopping. Stopping in the middle of a 60 mph highway with following traffic that might have no knowledge of the counter-intuitive yield requirement could be disastrous.
So I asked the MN State Patrol. The first officer I spoke to said he was unaware of a requirement to yield to a non-activated, signalized grade crossing. He did not believe that is required. Operation Lifesaver and the FRA says it is required. I took the question further up the chain of command at the MN State Patrol. On more than one occasion, they would not respond to the question that I posed to them in writing.
The California Drivers handbook seems to imply that a signalized RR crossing can be approached at greater than 15 MPH regardless of the visibility of the tracks (as opposed to the signal). Yet, there is no discussion in the handbook about what to do if it is not possible to safely stop when the lights start flashing as the driver approaches the crossing. On the other hand, California has prohibited putting new grade crossings across state highways for at least three decades and conversely crossing a RR line at grade when building a new state highway. On the gripping hand, the drivers handbook also doesn't say much about not crossing if there is no room on the other side of the crossing.
A question comes to mind: Has the state of California (and Cal DMV) done what it needs to do in order to minimize its liability with respect to grade crossing accidents?
Putting a 35 MPH zone on a 70 MPH highway also has its dangers, worst case being when a car slows down and the following truck doesn't. We do have something similar in the form of Border Patrol checkpoints along I-5, I-8 and I-15. These have flashing warning lights and signs a mile ahead of the checkpoints when they are in operation (the I-5 checkpoint is almost in Orange County and the I-15 checkpoint is in Riverside County).
I mentioned earlier about the flashing signs augmenting the normal crossing flashers that used to be on Highway 212 in Montana. I'm assuming that the signs illuminated before the flashers, but traffic was down to a few trains per year when I saw these signals - i.e. never saw the signals in action.
- Erik
The Butler [snipped] With the discussions on other threads as to crossbucks being the same as a "Yield" sign, I get the impression that all motor vehicles should be slowing to, say, 10 mph before entering a grade crossing (regardless of the posted speed limit) in order to prevent a driver of breaking a traffic law. If these are the facts, then, maybe having a lower speed zone prior to a grade crossing on a high speed road would be a good idea. Enforcement could be by photo radar in extreme rural areas such as this grade crossing in Nevada.
If these are the facts, then, maybe having a lower speed zone prior to a grade crossing on a high speed road would be a good idea. Enforcement could be by photo radar in extreme rural areas such as this grade crossing in Nevada.
DOH ! (a la Homer Simpson on me for not having made this connection before, because I used to say it a lot, though in a different context)
A simple highway overpass is less than 1/2 the cost of an underpass, since the rail bridge has to handle a much heavier load.
Bucyrus [snipped] . . . I wonder what a simple highway overpass would cost, for example, at the site of the Nevada crash. Basically, you need a highway overpass and two filled ramps. Probably would also need a shoefly for the highway while the new work is done. . . .
Thanks for finding and sharing that linked report (72 pages total, approx. 1.26 MB in size). Note the discussion on liability and insurance issues on pp. 46 - 47: the possible liability for damages from a single collision could be in the $5 - $10 million range ! In this context, that's about the same range of cost as the above grade separation . . . .
Here is a rather ponderous summation of an elaborate new system, including the application and the reasoning. Looks like lots of new ideas short of grade separation for both signalized and non-signalized crossings. And this is not really that new, being released in 2005:
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/guidestar/2001_2005/hri/HRI_Evaluation_Report_Final.pdf
Grade separation is the perfect solution, but the cost holds it back. Cost is also holding back the signalization of non-signalized crossings. The cost of that latter holds out the possibility that a low-cost substitute for full signalization can be found. Lots of people are looking for that solution, but the challenge in achieving suitable reliabilty for such a system is daunting.
The cost of grade separation as a solution, while perfect, does not hold out the promise of some revolutionary way to get it accomplished for low cost. I wonder what a simple highway overpass would cost, for example, at the site of the Nevada crash. Basically, you need a highway overpass and two filled ramps. Probably would also need a shoefly for the highway while the new work is done.
Speaking of active advance warning (in the other thread), that will soon be inside of your car.
This and the related threads (317 posts and counting) have been good discussions but the subject has been nearly exhausted. Summing up, perhaps somewhat more could be done to prevent rail - highway accidents at existing gated crossings, but it appears the benefits are marginal. There is a distinction between blame assessment and accident prevention. More positive measures (primarily separation) are quite costly and there are divergent opinions on whether or not it is worth the expense and/or whether or not funds could be available..
henry6 This has become a war of minced words and hypothized concepts which no one will win because no one is right or wrong nor does anyone here have the power to make changes in laws and technologies which would effect the situation past, present or future. It it is just to see who can type many times and often, let it continue. Otherwise it is time to wrap it up.
This has become a war of minced words and hypothized concepts which no one will win because no one is right or wrong nor does anyone here have the power to make changes in laws and technologies which would effect the situation past, present or future. It it is just to see who can type many times and often, let it continue. Otherwise it is time to wrap it up.
Henry,
I think that is just your perception, and maybe you need to pay a little more attention to what is being said. I think this thread has been quite illustrative of the basic problem whether you see that or not. Since when should anybody worry about the need to "wrap up" a thread?
Very, very well said; thank you, Henry!!!
Nance-CCABW/LEI
“Even if you are on the right track, you’ll get run over if you just sit there.” --Will Rogers
Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, you're right! --unknown
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
narig01 My 2 cents worth: What about a timed indication indicating the number of seconds until the train is at the crossing? In numerous places I see the pedestrian crosswalk lites with a timed indication showing pedestrians how long they have to cross the street. When driving I use these to gauge how long before the lite starts to change(believe me it helps a lot). [snipped]
My 2 cents worth: What about a timed indication indicating the number of seconds until the train is at the crossing? In numerous places I see the pedestrian crosswalk lites with a timed indication showing pedestrians how long they have to cross the street. When driving I use these to gauge how long before the lite starts to change(believe me it helps a lot).
The other thing that might work is say timing the lites to flashin shorter increments as a train gets closer to the crossing.
I will remark that with both vehicles traveling at speeds in excess of 60mph (a closing speed very likely in excess of 130mph) it is all too easy to misjudge.
erikem Bucyrus: On one hand, you could say that the timed interval between the activation and the arrival of the train at the crossing is the grade-crossing equivalent of the yellow aspect of a traffic light. However, the crossing flashers mean absolute stop. So comparing a grade crossing to a traffic light, the proper analogy would be a traffic light that changes from green to red and yellow on at the same time. It would make no sense. The reason that this convoluted issue does not seem like a problem to drivers is that it is a conflict between the signals and the law, and most people do not know the grade crossing law. James, you bring up a good point about the crossbucks meaning yield. That yield requirement might correspond to the requirement to be prepared to stop short of the flashers if they should happen to activate. However, the yield requirement imposed by the crossbucks is a requirement to yield to trains, not a warning that the lights are about to activate. Once the lights activate, the yield requirement changes to a stop requirement. Look at this way: The yield requirement does not necessarily require a driver to slow down. If a driver has enough visibility to cross while knowing that he or she is not on a collision course with an approaching train, then that driver can cross at the speed limit and still be properly yielding to trains. However, it would be impossible to cross at the speed limit while being prepared to stop short of the flashers if they should happen to activate. To brush up a bit on the law, I checked the California Drivers handbook with respect to RR crossings. The basic law is that drivers must not exceed 15 MPH when approaching a RR crossing unless the visibility of the tracks is greater than 400 feet or the crossing is protected by crossing signals. The handbook says the driver must stop when the lights are flashing. I would argue that in the case of where the lights started flashing as the driver was approaching the crossing, the driver would need to stop if it was safe to stop (same as the strict reading of the law with respect to yellow traffic lights). Given that a car being too close to the crossing to stop would clear the crossing in less than five seconds, this still gives on the order of 20 seconds before the train reaches the crossing. - Erik
Bucyrus: On one hand, you could say that the timed interval between the activation and the arrival of the train at the crossing is the grade-crossing equivalent of the yellow aspect of a traffic light. However, the crossing flashers mean absolute stop. So comparing a grade crossing to a traffic light, the proper analogy would be a traffic light that changes from green to red and yellow on at the same time. It would make no sense. The reason that this convoluted issue does not seem like a problem to drivers is that it is a conflict between the signals and the law, and most people do not know the grade crossing law. James, you bring up a good point about the crossbucks meaning yield. That yield requirement might correspond to the requirement to be prepared to stop short of the flashers if they should happen to activate. However, the yield requirement imposed by the crossbucks is a requirement to yield to trains, not a warning that the lights are about to activate. Once the lights activate, the yield requirement changes to a stop requirement. Look at this way: The yield requirement does not necessarily require a driver to slow down. If a driver has enough visibility to cross while knowing that he or she is not on a collision course with an approaching train, then that driver can cross at the speed limit and still be properly yielding to trains. However, it would be impossible to cross at the speed limit while being prepared to stop short of the flashers if they should happen to activate.
Look at this way: The yield requirement does not necessarily require a driver to slow down. If a driver has enough visibility to cross while knowing that he or she is not on a collision course with an approaching train, then that driver can cross at the speed limit and still be properly yielding to trains. However, it would be impossible to cross at the speed limit while being prepared to stop short of the flashers if they should happen to activate.
To brush up a bit on the law, I checked the California Drivers handbook with respect to RR crossings. The basic law is that drivers must not exceed 15 MPH when approaching a RR crossing unless the visibility of the tracks is greater than 400 feet or the crossing is protected by crossing signals. The handbook says the driver must stop when the lights are flashing. I would argue that in the case of where the lights started flashing as the driver was approaching the crossing, the driver would need to stop if it was safe to stop (same as the strict reading of the law with respect to yellow traffic lights). Given that a car being too close to the crossing to stop would clear the crossing in less than five seconds, this still gives on the order of 20 seconds before the train reaches the crossing.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.