~~~~Gremlins seem to be alive and doing well, ( bad things). For awhile they were in the shadows now they are apparent again. Hopefully the NTSB will find hte real story, till then it is "dart board theory".
Respectfully, Cannonball
Just my worth
Y6bs evergreen in my mind
Running up to a stop sign and braking hard at the last instant saves time. But I don’t think that type of driving behavior played a role in this crash. The NTSB says that bad brakes played a role, but they do not offer any evidence that ties the drum wear with stopping deficiency.
The driver was traveling at 58 mph, and according to my calculation, he failed to respond for 5.5 seconds, apparently due to distraction.
tree68As you note, time and speed are of the essence when you're getting paid for volume/quantity. My point was that time spent gradually slowing is time wasted if I can run up to the 'point of no return' then brake hard to make my stop.
Except that when you will have to stop anyway stopping time doesn't matter. You can take 10 minutes to stop and wait another 10 minutes or take 10 seconds to stop and wait 19 minutes and 50 seconds. Either way you have lost the time.
Also, while time and speed are important when you are getting paid for moving the most stuff the fastest it is also important to avoid accidents.
Iron - My bad in using the term "coast." What I meant was slowing down by getting off the throttle, downshifting, etc, not an unpowered coasting.
As you note, time and speed are of the essence when you're getting paid for volume/quantity. My point was that time spent gradually slowing is time wasted if I can run up to the 'point of no return' then brake hard to make my stop.
Bucyrus - the placement and size of the warning sign take into consideration that a driver will see it some distance before reaching it. I don't have time to dig through the MUTCD to find that distance. So your measurements of warning time should be adjusted to include that distance. It is definitely not at the point the sign is placed.
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...
Was poking around the web and found this:
http://www.rgj.com/assets/pdf/J7194912921.pdf
Some of the comments on driver history are enlightening.
I'll also remark this, The train was running many hours late that day, and the drivers interviewed stated they had not seen a passenger train at the crossing before. Further it was stated by one driver(of John Davis Trucking) that "often stopped about ½ mile west of the crossing" (there is a siding about 1/2 mile east, I suspect that someone got east/west confused).
The number of companies the (driver of the truck) worked for is much more indicative of the companies. I know of many many drivers that went thru a slew of companies before finding someplace that treated them decently.
Rgds IGN
.
narig01 One other comment. The truck being operated was all 2008 equipment and about 3 years old at the time of the wreck. This is fairly new equipment. What I can not understand is why the drums were worn past limits. Also the other item I do not understand is why brake chambers were of different sizes. On equipment this new one should not have had to replace. Rgds IGN
One other comment. The truck being operated was all 2008 equipment and about 3 years old at the time of the wreck. This is fairly new equipment.
What I can not understand is why the drums were worn past limits. Also the other item I do not understand is why brake chambers were of different sizes. On equipment this new one should not have had to replace.
My take is that the report is calling out the trucking company for shoddy maintenance. It might be possible that they have been replacing brake shoes, but not checking the drums. It could be, too, that if they have a problem with a brake chamber, they just grab what's available instead of installing the proper replacement.
This all might lead one to the conclusion that they are pushing to get the max out of their equipment - running it hard (and fast) in order to get "one more load" out. I have no idea of what kind of profile they are driving. If it's mostly flat, that would suggest to me that they run 'at speed' as much as possible, and heavily use their brakes for slowing, as opposed to slowing more gradually via coasting, engine braking, etc. Thus the wear on their brakes might well be greater than 'normal.'
Of course, that's all guessing on my part. We may never know.
John WR It seems to me the report might have included one more point: Don't operated trucks with worn out brakes.
It seems to me the report might have included one more point: Don't operated trucks with worn out brakes.
Bad brakes? The report makes it very clear that the tow company backed off the brakes to tow the truck/trailers out.
Without that measurement you can not say bad brakes. If the shoes were worn I think the board would have said something(the board commented on the drums not the shoes). Also a non working ABS(Anti-lock Brake System) will not cause a brake to fail. It will make it more likely to skid.(ie the brakes will lock up when you apply the brakes)
Also the board was very specific in the criticism of the on scene investigation in not being able to measure the stroke of the brakes. This is how much the brake cylinders push in brake operation. Without being able to measure the stroke on the brakes it is impossible to accurately determine if the brakes were in adjustment or not.
If the brake is completely out of adjustment the brake will not engage. And you will not get a skid mark from the affected wheel. The lack of a skid mark for the affected wheel is something that can be seen. Personally my experience (the 2 times I've found bad slack adjusters) is that when an automatic slack adjuster fails the only way that find the slack adjuster is bad is by making the adjustment manually.
Rather damning of the trucking company but tainted by call the trailers "side dump". What kind of cops let the tow operator back off the brakes before a measurement?
rather damning of the trucking company but tainted by calling the trailers "side dump" trailers. What kind of cops let the tow truck guy back off the brakes before any measurements?
Not Amtrak's fault.
http://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/2012/miriam_nv/Abstract_Miriam_NV.pdf
Still messy though.
The crash mentioned earlier was at a place called Great Heck in Yorkshire (UK). The driver of the vehicle fell asleep, ran down an embankment onto the tracks where he was hit at c90mph by one train followed by 54mph by c2000 tons of coal train (one engine). The road vehcile (with car on trailer) was driven by a Gary Hart (not your one). He was sucessfully prosecuted for causing death by dangerous driving and given 5 years in prison. The prosecution proved recklessness by showing he'd been awake for much of the previous night despite knowing he was going to make the motorway journey.
There were issues relating to the fencing on the motorway to protect the railway itself. It's not the first and it won't be the last example in this country of road vehicles leaving the road and being hit by trains, and being able to do so because of poor roadside barriers.
The investigation results of the state of Nevada’s report on the 6/24/11 Amtrak-truck crash have been completed and handed over to the NTSB, but they will not be made public by the state of Nevada now or at any time. They will be part of the NTSB report, which will be made public when it is finished and released. There is no way of knowing when that will be.
Hey don’t drag me into it. I am only the messenger. If it were up to me, I would rather be running the locomotive from on board than from the office. But then I would just as soon go high to pass signs and set brakes; and get on and off moving equipment.
The FRA says: “When uncoupling, individuals have to position themselves between two cars, grab the cut-lever and exert a force to lift the coupler’s lock to allow release of the car’s mechanical couplers. In this scenario, the individual is exposed to physical stress…”
So it is the dangers of physical stress that the FRA is worried about, not getting run over.
Here is the full story: http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/research/rr0829.pdf
"After all, the FRA is looking at ways to couple and uncouple cars by remote control because they say that it too dangerous to have a man on the ground performing those functions near the couplers. So they are way outside of the box too. "
No they are just stupid. They are I fear, like you, zealous to the point of foolishness. If you don't want the man to go between the cars, then no big deal. He doesn't have to go there to make a cut, only to close the angle$1****$2 So if you make the angle$1****$2accessable from either side he will have no need to go there. Of course it shouldn't be a problem now since the engineer should not not move unless the man on the ground tells him to. So if you can't keep a man from calling an engine to run over himself then what can you do ?
These accidents happen because of human failure, not because of inherent danger. The kind of ideas you are promoting will foster a false sense of security and result in even worse accidents.
I remember a safety manager asking an employee in a meeting if he thought that the place was a safe place to work. The employee answered that it was. "Then why do I have you wearing a hard hat, gloves, safety glasses, and steel toe shoes if it is safe?" was his reply. Do you think in your wildest dreams that a guy in an air conditioned, sound controlled room watching a video screen will have a grip on the dangers involved? He is completely detached from reality and his actions will reflect that.
Falcon48 Are you really serious about this "robotic vehicle"? If so, you need to think this one through a whole lot better.
Are you really serious about this "robotic vehicle"? If so, you need to think this one through a whole lot better.
Gee, I only said it was interesting. I don’t see any technological barrier to the idea, but there will be the devil in the details, no doubt. The problem will be getting all of that complexity to solve enough problems to make it worth the cost.
I don’t see much benefit in the grade crossing protection component except that it could enhance the protection of passive crossings. But I have ideas for locomotive-borne crossing signals that could accomplish that at far less lost. But either way, for the most part, the issue is not a need to warn the driver. The issue is that frequently, drivers strongly want to beat the train because they worry about a big delay. So they take risks.
A lot of the inventor’s objective here is to extend the vision of the engineer so he can spot trouble earlier. But there are ways to accomplish that without preceding the train with a physical vehicle. For that matter, it won’t be long before they take the engineer off of the locomotive and have him watching ahead and running the locomotive from the safety of the terminal office. It is dangerous to have personnel riding the point of a train. And for seeing danger far ahead, the engineer will be able to zoom ahead through the computer and lineside optical sensors to look for broken rails, trees on the track, etc. There will be no need for a robotic vehicle to take the view point ahead.
After all, the FRA is looking at ways to couple and uncouple cars by remote control because they say that it too dangerous to have a man on the ground performing those functions near the couplers. So they are way outside of the box too.
BaltACD The only perfect crossing protection is crossing elimination - and even then some wayward soul will manage to find their way to the tracks to be hit. Bucyrus: Here is an interesting idea that I ran across. A robotic rail vehicle runs ahead of a train and looks for trouble. The engineer of the train sees a remote video view that is taken from the robotic vehicle, so it extends the engineer’s forward view way beyond the normal view ahead from the cab. For grade crossing protection, this robotic vehicle, running some distance ahead of the train, stops on grade crossings to secure the route for the train. Then as the train catches up, the robotic vehicle speeds ahead just at the train is about to hit the crossing. http://water.tsar.ri.cmu.edu/~gwp/WhitePapers/RailScout/RailScout200502.pdf If I had invented this, I think I would be showing it to Congress rather than to the railroads. Maybe they would make it a part of PTC.
The only perfect crossing protection is crossing elimination - and even then some wayward soul will manage to find their way to the tracks to be hit.
Bucyrus: Here is an interesting idea that I ran across. A robotic rail vehicle runs ahead of a train and looks for trouble. The engineer of the train sees a remote video view that is taken from the robotic vehicle, so it extends the engineer’s forward view way beyond the normal view ahead from the cab. For grade crossing protection, this robotic vehicle, running some distance ahead of the train, stops on grade crossings to secure the route for the train. Then as the train catches up, the robotic vehicle speeds ahead just at the train is about to hit the crossing. http://water.tsar.ri.cmu.edu/~gwp/WhitePapers/RailScout/RailScout200502.pdf If I had invented this, I think I would be showing it to Congress rather than to the railroads. Maybe they would make it a part of PTC.
If I had invented this, I think I would be showing it to Congress rather than to the railroads. Maybe they would make it a part of PTC.
If the robotic vehicle is essentially a small and light weight toy, it won't reliably actuate either the grade crossing signals or the train signals, which means that it is likely to be struck by either a highway vehicle or a train. It certainly won't be able to operate at passenger train speeds, since even small obstructions would throw it off the track. Why do you think railroads don't let hi-rail vehicles zip along at passenger train speeds? That means it won't be able to stay ahead of a passenger train, unless the train's speed is limited to the speed the robotic vehicle can safely operate. Kiss good-bye to "high speed rail" or even today's passenger train speeds.
If, on the other hand, the robotic vehicle is heavy enough to address these issues (which means it would have to be heavier than a hi rail vehicle), it will have to be treated as a train for purposes of rail signalling and dispatching. That's because a "heavy" robotic vehicle would itself be a serious hazard to a train (whether the following train or an opposing or converging train) that hits it. The vehicle would be at least as hazardous to other trains as a highway vehicle on the tracks. If the robotic vehicle is treated as a train, it would have to operate many miles ahead of a passenger train in order to allow the passenger train to operate at track speed. This means that, if grade crossing signals actuate for the robotic vehicle and then stay activated for the following train, they will remain activated for a very long time, which would lead motorists to believe the crossing signals had malfunctioned and to run the crossing signals.
The notion that such a vehicle would stop on the crossing until the following train "catches up" is ridiculous. Think about that a second. Where's the "fail safe" feature, if the vehicle can't start back up in time to get out of the the way of the following train? The reality is that the vehicle would have to clear the crossing sufficiently in advance of the following train so that the signal system would allow the following train to proceed at track speed. That means, if the following train is operating at normal passenger train speeds (let alone "high speed"), the vehicle would have to clear the crossing miles ahead of the approaching train.
Bottom line: This "solution" is far worse than the "problem" it's designed to address. Just the type of thing Congress likes to do.
Of course how many motorists would see the scout move off the crossing and proceed to cross thinking the "train" had passed?
Just remember one of Murphys Laws "You make something foolproof and only a fool will break it"
Except when that out of the box thinkings focus is on the inept performance of Congress.
Bucyrus And since he does, he surely knows that he does not have to waste time trying to sell his idea to the railroads. Just sell it to Congress and they will impose it on the railroads. Congress is really attracted to thinking outside of the box.
And since he does, he surely knows that he does not have to waste time trying to sell his idea to the railroads. Just sell it to Congress and they will impose it on the railroads. Congress is really attracted to thinking outside of the box.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
In terms of keeping cars and people from being struck by trains, perfection is not attainable unless you stop running trains. But that does not mean that improvements are not possible. As a result of the Nevada crash, the state is studying ways to improve safety at their grade crossings on highways with a speed limit over 60 mph. They are not content to just assume that nothing can be improved because drivers will always find a way to get hit by trains.
BaltACD The only perfect crossing protection is crossing elimination - and even then some wayward soul will manage to find their way to the tracks to be hit.
A couple of years ago the exact example in northern Britain. A car towing a trailer somehow left the motorway just before it crossed overhead, and landed on the tracks. I can't remember the exact details, but I think a passenger train hit it and derailed. Unfortunately a goods train was also approaching on the other track. It might have been the other way round. Fatalities were invoIved among the passengers and train crew. I believe there was a subsequent programme to extend and beef up the crash barriers along the roads in similar locations. But no doubt some enterprising driver will still manage to flip his vehicle over any barrier.....
You just can't win. If you replace all the overpasses with underpasses, it is the overheight trucks taking out the bridge instead of vehicles falling from above.
The Rail Scout will not be perfect solution to the grade crossing problem, but it does represent the much touted “out of the box” thinking that we hear so much about these days. In that respect, the idea has a lot in common with the FRA, which is so much outside of the box that they want to couple and uncouple freight cars by remote control. So this inventor of the Rail Scout surely knows how to play the right tune.
Bucyrus Here is an interesting idea that I ran across. A robotic rail vehicle runs ahead of a train and looks for trouble. The engineer of the train sees a remote video view that is taken from the robotic vehicle, so it extends the engineer’s forward view way beyond the normal view ahead from the cab. For grade crossing protection, this robotic vehicle, running some distance ahead of the train, stops on grade crossings to secure the route for the train. Then as the train catches up, the robotic vehicle speeds ahead just at the train is about to hit the crossing. http://water.tsar.ri.cmu.edu/~gwp/WhitePapers/RailScout/RailScout200502.pdf If I had invented this, I think I would be showing it to Congress rather than to the railroads. Maybe they would make it a part of PTC.
Here is something Else teh NTSB wants a COMPLETE BAN on all cellphones for EVERYONE that is Driving FInally except for Bluetooth devices ONLY. That means if your a driver of a car no phone on your ear anymore nationwide. http://www.pantagraph.com/news/national/ntsb-recommends-ban-on-driver-cell-phone-use/article_cd9da6e0-25b4-11e1-81bc-0019bb2963f4.html?mode=story Yes so maybe OTR drivers will stop being targets for Soccermoms Posting on Facebook what lil JIMMY did at school today.
schlimm Nevada officials to soon submit Amtrak crash report to NTSB http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-nevada-officials-to-soon-submit-amtrak-crash-report-to-ntsb-20111223,0,2661309.story
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-nevada-officials-to-soon-submit-amtrak-crash-report-to-ntsb-20111223,0,2661309.story
My first reaction was, “finally we get the report.” But after reading the piece, I am guessing that this report will not be made public, but rather will be just one more brick added to the massive structure that will be NTSB report, which is still probably many, many moons away.
What I would really like to know is what Nevada concluded after their study to determine whether there were safety problems with their handful of grade crossings on their fastest highways.
zugmann What happens when the Railscouts turn evil and try to take over the earth????
What happens when the Railscouts turn evil and try to take over the earth????
Or when they fail and get run over by the train they are supposed to be protecting?
Besides, you expect the engineer to watch TV while he's running the locomotive? I think there are rules against that.
How many drivers are going to go around the gates as the Railscout pulls away, only to get nailed by the train the Railscout is supposed to protect?
W-a-a-a-a-y too much technology there. Just one more thing to fail.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.