BroadwayLion It *was* The driver's fault. At the grade crossing it is *always* the drivers fault even if there are no gates or lights or if they are not working or if there is a fog so thick you cannot see the other side of the tracks. No matter what: It is always the driver's fault. Period. Can it be prevented? Yes, it can always be prevented by being careful at grade crossings. The train is not going to chase you anywhere, it is going to stay on the tracks, and it is going to keep moving. That is all a train can do, that is all the physics of the train can do. It cannot stop, it cannot reverse, it cannot evaporate or dissolve. All it can do is to keep on going. The driver at a grade crossing must assume that there is a train right there until he can see, hear and prove otherwise. Simple. ROAR
It *was* The driver's fault. At the grade crossing it is *always* the drivers fault even if there are no gates or lights or if they are not working or if there is a fog so thick you cannot see the other side of the tracks. No matter what: It is always the driver's fault. Period.
Can it be prevented? Yes, it can always be prevented by being careful at grade crossings. The train is not going to chase you anywhere, it is going to stay on the tracks, and it is going to keep moving. That is all a train can do, that is all the physics of the train can do. It cannot stop, it cannot reverse, it cannot evaporate or dissolve. All it can do is to keep on going.
The driver at a grade crossing must assume that there is a train right there until he can see, hear and prove otherwise.
Simple.
ROAR
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Re: A parade and the RR being notified of same. Everything I've seen indicates that the crossing was not on the parade route. Rather, a caravan of vehicles that were involved with the parade was crossing the RR tracks.
Per the previous timeline, the signals were activated ~8 seconds before the second truck entered the crossing. Given a likely speed in the single digits range, the driver should have seen said warnings, even if the gates were not yet coming down. I note that we haven't heard his version of the story yet, and probably won't for a while.
Finally, if the light had turned green, what was holding up the first truck? It should have pulled right through the intersection and kept going. Not that the second truck should have entered the crossing in the first place, but that so far unexplained detail is definitely a factor.
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...
BucyrusSo the extra 10-15 seconds of horn signal could have prevented the crash; aside from the issue of the driving violation; assuming that the driver did not realize that the signals had activated, and did not hear the bells because the cops were sounding their sirens in celebration.
See? There's the streeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetch.
A train doing 70mph, starts blowing its horn at 1/4 mile away (as per FRA rule see http://www.fra.dot.gov/Pages/1773.shtml), if my math is correct, the horn would be blowing ~ 12 seconds before the train occupies the crossing.
From the NTSB conference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Accte0lwn6Y&feature=relmfu
21 seconds before collision, traffic light turned green for clearing the crossing.
20 secs before, crossing activated
13 seconds before collision, gates start coming down
12 seconds prior, southbound truck begins to cross the north rail
9 seconds prior, engineer sounds horn as warning
7 seconds prior, gates hits the float
5 seconds before, emergency brakes applied.
If the crossing was not a quiet one, the horn would be sounded at 12 seconds prior at the most (if my math is correct). After the gates began lowering and the truck began crossing the track. Even if the truck driver was completely oblivious to the crossing gates, he would have had at most 3 seconds extra warning. Would it have made a difference?
Who knows. But I don't give it the vote of confidence you do.
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
To add a little fuel to the fire so to speak, look closely at the crossing, and its sight lines.
Go to Goggle map, use street view to look both directions from the grade crossing perspective, and the sight line down the track is at least a mile either way.
Absolutely clear, no building, no trees, no shrubbery, nothing but air.
All it would have taken is for the truck driver to turn his head and look before he entered the grade crossing.
Now, that said, if the LEOs were providing traffic control, or escorting the trucks, or even if the driver simply thought they were doing so, he may have incorrectly assumed train traffic would be stopped, or possible not even considered it in the first place…busy distracting day with a bunch of chairs and people on a flatbed would require him to drive with almost all of his concentration on the people riding so as not to injure them or toss them around, he may have lost all situational awareness because of that.
23 17 46 11
zugmann That really doesn't help much. Can you explain it in the context of this Texas incident? Where is the proverbial "kicking" in this Texas case? Yes it was a quiet zone. But the engineer did sound his horn due to the emergency situation (since it was a quiet zone, one could argue it made the horn blasts just that more noticeable).
That really doesn't help much.
Can you explain it in the context of this Texas incident?
Where is the proverbial "kicking" in this Texas case? Yes it was a quiet zone. But the engineer did sound his horn due to the emergency situation (since it was a quiet zone, one could argue it made the horn blasts just that more noticeable).
Well, in the Texas crash, the "kicking" did not happen. What might have constituted the "kicking" would have been a full length horn signal beginning earlier, at the twenty-second signal activation point. Then the truck driver would have been subjected to the horn signal seven seconds before even entering the crossing.
As it was, the truck driver was already past the gate and crossing the track by the time the horn blew. Had the driver not been blocked by the truck ahead, he probably could have gotten clear in time. It appears that the train just caught the very end of the trailer, so the driver was a lot closer to clearing by moving forward than he was if he were to try to back up to clear.
It is reported that the driver was blowing the truck horn trying to get the truck ahead to move forward. If so, it seems obvious that the driver realized the train was approaching. So the engineer blowing the horn in emergency circumstances at that point would have been irrelevant because the driver was already aware of the problem. And by that point, the driver was in a position where he or she was out of options.
So the extra 10-15 seconds of horn signal could have prevented the crash; aside from the issue of the driving violation; assuming that the driver did not realize that the signals had activated, and did not hear the bells because the cops were sounding their sirens in celebration.
Bucyrus zugmann Explain your last sentence in more depth - I do not follow. You asked me to explain this sentence that I stated above: “I am asking you to separate the issue of whether the crash was the driver’s fault from whether it could have been prevented, because they are two different issues.” Here is my explanation of that sentence by means of a hypothetical example: Say that you have a man who is deaf, and he walking along the outside of one rail of a railroad track in the fouling zone. Behind him, a train is approaching, and the engineer is blowing the horn in warning but the man cannot hear it. He also cannot see it because it is behind him. The train is too close to stop in time. So the train hits the man and kills him. It is the man’s fault because he was trespassing and exposing himself to obvious danger. Now say we back up to just before the train hit the man. This time the engineer realizes the man cannot hear because the engineer is blowing the horn and the man is not reacting. So the engineer gets out onto the pilot, and just as the man is about to get run over, the engineer give the man a hard kick and knocks him clear. So the man does not get killed. In the first case, the man was killed and it was his fault. In the second case the inevitable death of the man was prevented.
zugmann Explain your last sentence in more depth - I do not follow.
Explain your last sentence in more depth - I do not follow.
You asked me to explain this sentence that I stated above:
“I am asking you to separate the issue of whether the crash was the driver’s fault from whether it could have been prevented, because they are two different issues.”
Here is my explanation of that sentence by means of a hypothetical example:
Say that you have a man who is deaf, and he walking along the outside of one rail of a railroad track in the fouling zone. Behind him, a train is approaching, and the engineer is blowing the horn in warning but the man cannot hear it. He also cannot see it because it is behind him. The train is too close to stop in time. So the train hits the man and kills him. It is the man’s fault because he was trespassing and exposing himself to obvious danger.
Now say we back up to just before the train hit the man. This time the engineer realizes the man cannot hear because the engineer is blowing the horn and the man is not reacting. So the engineer gets out onto the pilot, and just as the man is about to get run over, the engineer give the man a hard kick and knocks him clear. So the man does not get killed.
In the first case, the man was killed and it was his fault. In the second case the inevitable death of the man was prevented.
In the second case the deaf man then files assault charges and sues the engineer and the RR for medical and emotional damages.
This is not ment in any way to be funny, its the reality of the litigious world we live in where it is implacably impossible for people to be responsible for their own behavior.
Everything I am reading so far still points to the driver who should NEVER have knowingly left his trailer straddling a crossing at a signal, riders or no riders. BTW what the hell were they doing ON the trailer if they hadnt even reached the starting point of the parade?
Have fun with your trains
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
zugmann Despite every piece of evidence presented so far that the truck driver was at fault - you are stretching to find some way to blame the crossing itself. But that's ok, I know it is your thing.
Despite every piece of evidence presented so far that the truck driver was at fault - you are stretching to find some way to blame the crossing itself.
But that's ok, I know it is your thing.
As I mentioned, what is left to discover is whether the driver realized the train was approaching, realized the signals had activated; or failed to realize these things. He or she may have taken a risk; or may have been oblivious to the danger. They will interview the driver today, so we may find out.
If the driver was taking an intentional risk, then the full horn warning may not have made any difference. However, if the driver was oblivious to the train danger, the full horn signal may have prevented the crash.
We once had a discussion here questioning whether horn sounding was necessary at all. Some were insisted that horn sounding was essential and even criticized the quiet crossings. I suggested that if a driver intends to take an intentional risk to beat the train, the horn signal will make no difference.
And then you said that you have seen drivers who were intent on beating the train, but suddenly changed their mind when the horn was blown. If the horn will change the change a driver’s minds about trying to beat the train, then surly it will be effective in drawing their attention to train danger that they are not aware of.
I am asking you to separate the issue of whether the crash was the driver’s fault from whether it could have been prevented, because they are two different issues.
erikem I came across a couple of more twists while trolling the web this afternoon. The "Mike Smith Enterprises blog" mentioned that at the time the truck crossed the tracks, the sun was 11 degrees above the horizon and in the direction of the oncoming train. The WSJ reported that the truck driver was a veteran as well. I wonder if one outcome of this accident would be the FRA requiring any special event that crosses a railroad track to get permission from the FRA for doing so. - Erik
I came across a couple of more twists while trolling the web this afternoon. The "Mike Smith Enterprises blog" mentioned that at the time the truck crossed the tracks, the sun was 11 degrees above the horizon and in the direction of the oncoming train. The WSJ reported that the truck driver was a veteran as well.
I wonder if one outcome of this accident would be the FRA requiring any special event that crosses a railroad track to get permission from the FRA for doing so.
- Erik
Responsible organizations planning events that cross railroad tracks already notify the carrier of their plans for crossing the tracks and request the carriers cooperation so that they can conduct their event safely. The carriers comply. This does not appear to have been done in this instance. Organizers are responsible for ALL aspects of their event - forming up the event, parading the event, dispersing the event, if any of these actions are going cause participants or spectators of the event to cross or be in close proximity to operating railroad tracks it behooves the organizer to notify the carrier and secure their cooperation to hold the event safely.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
How so?
Bucyrus Yes the engineer is permitted to sound the horn in an emergency, and the engineer did so in this case. However, the nature and duration of the emergency horn option is not defined because it will necessarily be impulsive depending on the engineer’s perception of the emergency. In this case the emergency horn signal came too late to get a response in time to avoid the crash. Whereas a standard crossing horn signal may have alerted the truck driver in time to respond if the driver were oblivious to the danger. If the crossing horn signal is not essential, why not eliminate it across the board rather than in specific quiet zones? If it is essential, how can you justify eliminating it for quiet zones?
Yes the engineer is permitted to sound the horn in an emergency, and the engineer did so in this case. However, the nature and duration of the emergency horn option is not defined because it will necessarily be impulsive depending on the engineer’s perception of the emergency.
In this case the emergency horn signal came too late to get a response in time to avoid the crash. Whereas a standard crossing horn signal may have alerted the truck driver in time to respond if the driver were oblivious to the danger.
If the crossing horn signal is not essential, why not eliminate it across the board rather than in specific quiet zones? If it is essential, how can you justify eliminating it for quiet zones?
You're really stretching here, Bucyrus.
Timeline of Events From Trains News Wire:
"The agency said it has obtained two videos of the accident, one from the camera in the locomotive cab and a second from a dashboard camera in a police cruiser that was behind the trailer that the train struck. The agency also obtained the event recorder from the lead locomotive. Based on the information from these sources the NTSB assembled a timeline of the events:21 seconds before the collision the south traffic light at the crossing turned green as it was supposed to.20 seconds before impact the bells and lights activated. The agency said this time period met federal minimums for grade crossing protection. At that time the lead truck, which was ahead of the truck and trailer involved in the collision, was crossing the south rail.13 seconds before impact the crossing gates began coming down.
12 seconds before impact the front of the accident truck crosses the north rail.
9 seconds before impact the engineer sounds the locomotive horn as a warning for four seconds. The crossing is part of a quiet zone in Midland.7 seconds before impact the crossing gate hits the trailer/float carrying the veterans, impacting flagpoles on it.5 seconds before impact the engineer places the train into emergency. 75 seconds later the train comes to a complete stop."
Opinion: Regardless of whether this area was a quiet zone or not, it's really hard to defend the actions of the 2nd Truck driver based on above timeline.
Bucyrus I believe this crash will focus new scrutiny on the safety of quiet zones. There are several safety features that back up each other. The train horn may have prevented this crash if all other safety features failed to get the attention of the driver.
I believe this crash will focus new scrutiny on the safety of quiet zones. There are several safety features that back up each other. The train horn may have prevented this crash if all other safety features failed to get the attention of the driver.
I thought that the engineer can sound the horn in a quiet zone in the event of an emergency, and this situation would clearly qualify as an emergency.
Rich
Alton Junction
jeffrey-wimberlyWell that puts it squarely on the truck drivers shoulders then.
Yes it does. What is left to discover is whether the driver realized the train was approaching, realized the signals had activated, or failed to realize these things. He or she may have taken a risk; or may have been oblivious to the danger. They will interview the driver today.
The basic premise of a quiet zone is that they are no less safe than a regular non-quiet zone crossing because they have road dividers, and other extra features. That may be true if you consider the train horn to be redundant. This crash may drive home the point that the horn is not redundant if the lights, bells, and gates fail to have an effect.
Well that puts it squarely on the truck drivers shoulders then.
Dr. Frankendiesel aka Scott Running BearSpace Mouse for president!15 year veteran fire fighterCollector of Apple //e'sRunning Bear EnterprisesHistory Channel Club life member.beatus homo qui invenit sapientiam
Here is a carefully worded description of the crash event as told by the NTSB:
“The NTSB said 20 seconds before the collision, bells and lights activated on the crossing. 13 seconds before the crash happened, the gates started to descend. Then, 12 seconds prior, the front of the truck crossed in front of the train.”
I also recall seeing it reported that the truck driver in question blew his horn, trying to get the truck in front to move.
Too, it was reported that the gates may have struck the riders on the flatbed as they dropped. Given that the lights and bells start a certain time before the gates start dropping, it's possible the lights started flashing before, or as, the truck was beginning to cross the tracks.
The patrol car video would have most of the answer.
erikem I wonder if one outcome of this accident would be the FRA requiring any special event that crosses a railroad track to get permission from the FRA for doing so. - Erik
I doubt it since the public right-of-way to cross is already established. I'm no lawyer, but I see no way they could enforce something like that.
This latest development that the driver ran the crossing signal seems to have gone right over the head of the news media.
I actually don’t think it occurs to the news media that a parade float driver could be responsible for getting hit by a train. It is almost as if they see a parade as operating outside of the routine traffic regulations. That is why they are asking how a freight train found itself in the middle of a parade.
In an audio clip that I heard during the hourly news update on NPR at 7 AM EST this morning - sounded like from the NTSB briefing - the guy speaking said to the effect that when the crossing signal lights started flashing, the truck should have stopped "immediately".
I mention this mainly because I recall Bucyrus had an extensive discussion of and many comments on this exact same point in connection with the dump truck crashing into the Amtrak train in Nevada last year.
- Paul North.
I would also opine that a rather laissez faire attitude was being taken by local authorities regarding the event, given the question of whether there was a parade permit, although reports that the floats were enroute either to or from a parade, as opposed to in one may render the permit thing moot.
If they were not on the permitted parade route then NOBODY should have been on that trailer. Off the Parade route, there would not be the expected traffic control such as officers at each intersection/crossing, to prevent an incident exactly like this from happening.
With the vets on the trailer and the vehicles moving at walking speed, they had what amounted to an UNPERMITTED Parade, possibly just trying to stretch the parade and get more bang for their buck.
The Vets should not have boarded that trailer until it reached the authorized starting point of the Parade, where there would have been the expected traffic control protection.
Although I am a truck driver myself, I am NOT defending his actions, his was the final responsibility to not allow anyone on that trailer early. He should have simply said load at the proper point, or the truck doesn't move. I understand nobody wants to be the "Bad Guy" in a case like that, but sometimes we all have to do things that we don't like, that should have been one for him.
And of course, it is REALLY EASY to say what should have been done, AFTER, something goes TERRIBLY WRONG.
Doug
May your flanges always stay BETWEEN the rails
BaltACD FRA and the NTSB don't publish matters of FACT that don't pass all forms of scrutiny. Their pronouncements on matters beyond fact - are where scrutiny and conjecture come to the fore. Corroberating Engine and Police videos pretty much seal the deal on facts.
FRA and the NTSB don't publish matters of FACT that don't pass all forms of scrutiny. Their pronouncements on matters beyond fact - are where scrutiny and conjecture come to the fore. Corroberating Engine and Police videos pretty much seal the deal on facts.
I was being cautious as all I read was the newspaper article linked to in a previous post and had not yet seen the original FRA and NTSB announcements. The news media has not done much to inspire confidence in their abilities to report on this story.
As for dealing with the driver, the next step would be using the tape to recreate what was visible to the driver at the time the crossing signals activated. If the signals weren't visible to the driver (my guess is that the signals were visible to the driver, but I don't know that for a fact), then that could open up discussion by the NTSB on truck visibility standards, though it would not exonerate the driver.
What the?
The story I linked changed. The line I quoted is strangely missing now:
"He said the signals had been activated seven seconds before the float crossed the tracks."
Now it contains a line as follows:
"The second float didn't enter the tracks until several seconds after the warning system went off, the NTSB said. By that time, the guardrail was lowering."
The first quote made it easier to understand the truck entered after the crossing lights activated. The second quote muddles this fact a bit.
Wonder why they changed this particular part of the story?
Matt from Anaheim, CA and Bayfield, COClick Here for my model train photo website
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.