When I said "local", I meant "belonging or relating to a particular area or neighborhood". In this case, whatever and whichever highway department that "related" to this "area".
I was trying to get out of having to actually specify which particular county, state and/or local department was involved, because it is not really necessary in order to make my case. And I do not actually know which of these glorious entities is responsible for this bit of pavement.
If you say it is Mississippi, I'll accept that.
Ed
Paul of Covington I have no experience in this matter, but I wouldn't be surprised if over and over, every day, crews saw vehicles momentarily stopped in crossings that moved off before the train reached the crossing. If they threw the train into emergency in every one of these situations, they'd be doing it over and over every day. This was one case where the vehicle couldn't move, but the crew couldn't have known that from a distance. That's my opinion, but I'd like to hear from someone who knows.
I have no experience in this matter, but I wouldn't be surprised if over and over, every day, crews saw vehicles momentarily stopped in crossings that moved off before the train reached the crossing. If they threw the train into emergency in every one of these situations, they'd be doing it over and over every day. This was one case where the vehicle couldn't move, but the crew couldn't have known that from a distance. That's my opinion, but I'd like to hear from someone who knows.
I am guessing that the train was heading east on the map. It is said that they dumped the air 500 ft from the bus. The distance from the bus on Main Street to Lameuse Street, the next crossing to the west, is 450 ft.
Euclid Paul of Covington I have no experience in this matter, but I wouldn't be surprised if over and over, every day, crews saw vehicles momentarily stopped in crossings that moved off before the train reached the crossing. If they threw the train into emergency in every one of these situations, they'd be doing it over and over every day. This was one case where the vehicle couldn't move, but the crew couldn't have known that from a distance. That's my opinion, but I'd like to hear from someone who knows. I am guessing that the train was heading east on the map. It is said that they dumped the air 500 ft from the bus. The distance from the bus on Main Street to Lameuse Street, the next crossing to the west, is 450 ft.
And...?
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Paul of Covington Euclid Paul of Covington I have no experience in this matter, but I wouldn't be surprised if over and over, every day, crews saw vehicles momentarily stopped in crossings that moved off before the train reached the crossing. If they threw the train into emergency in every one of these situations, they'd be doing it over and over every day. This was one case where the vehicle couldn't move, but the crew couldn't have known that from a distance. That's my opinion, but I'd like to hear from someone who knows. I am guessing that the train was heading east on the map. It is said that they dumped the air 500 ft from the bus. The distance from the bus on Main Street to Lameuse Street, the next crossing to the west, is 450 ft. And...?
23 17 46 11
Regardless of the details of this accident, the fact that numerous accidents have occurred at this crossing is totally unacceptable.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
I agree with Schlimm and that fundamental point in this crash is the crossing. If the addition of signals and gates are deemed necessary to warn drivers, why should it be sufficient to add a little passive sign with an ambiguous warning about the existence of a geometry problem that is capable of becoming a death trap to certain vehicles that are road-legal? With all the laws and regulations we have, it is mind boggling that such a crossing exists.
However, responsibility also flows to the two drivers, and the actions they took to try to avoid the accident.
When a vehicle gets hung up, the driver naturally panics and beings a struggle to get free. Time is of the essence because a train might arrive. The time might be wiser spent in trying to contact the railroad to stop the train or the driver even making a direct effort to flag any approaching train. Calling 911 could quickly have the police on the scene with more than enough lights and flares to set up in both directions from the crossing.
One factor that enters into this type of scenario is the hesitancy to alert the authorities for a predicament that may be alleviated if a driver were just able to get the vehicle free by its own power. It takes time to learn whether this is possible.
In the case of a bus with passengers, the time needed to unload also figures into the equation. The possibility of a passenger panic and jamming the unloading during the process also figures into the problem.
In my opinion, the best action on the part of the driver during this situation would have been to immediately call 911 at the first indication of being hung up; and immediately instruct the passengers to exit the bus as quickly as possible. Five minutes would have been enough time to unload.
Euclid, I agree with your recent posts- an engineer can't go into emergency for distant crossings. We don't know how much experience the crew has on this stretch of track, but I know the bus must've been visible for waaaaay more than 500 feet for EB trains. I feel like anything else I may say would be pure speculation in terms of crew actions, and I don't want to sling any mud, as I'm pretty sure the engineer and conductor are traumatized enough by the 4 deaths.
You'd think there might be a note on the dashboard of every tour bus telling them to look for the emergency sign on the crossbucks if they get stuck on a crossing. All of our surmising, of course, is dependant on how long the bus was stuck on the tracks........
Posted by schlimm on Thursday, March 09, 2017 7:55 AM
"...Regardless of the details of this accident, the fact that numerous accidents have occurred at this crossing is totally unacceptable..."
Euclid wrote the following post[in part]:
To respond to the fisrt section of the post by Euclid: There are too many of these 'road traps' across this country, They exist because as motor travel has increased, and railroads were previously existing at those same points {Highway'Rail crossings} it was easier for the ' engineering people' to devise syatems to allow the motorist access, while far more expensive to alter grades on many yards of perviously existing rail lines. Expense being the operative word there.
H/R crossings are generally 'protected' by first, conducting a traffic survey, based on use, for that H/R crossing. 2nd, Whatever level of protection to be designed is then subject to establishing payment- part shared by the 'local' jusridiction and the railroad involved.3rd, Once in place, the H/R crossing is generally maintained by the railroad. The roadway approaches by the 'local'jurisdiction.
Most likely, as the surrounding area has grown-up, pre-existing situations are allowed to continue on as they have been tolerated; that is until, they be come so problematic, that SOMETHING HAS to be done! [Sort of like knowing one has to go to the doctor, for an unpleasant proccedure, and putting it off, until there is no other choice, in the matter. ] I suspect the latter, in the case being discussed.
The bus involved in the incident being discussed, looks like ,possibly, a 49/50 passenger Prevost Coach, many of thses buses can have a 'kneeling' capability, to allow passengers to board without a very large step-up. They are generally, configured with air-ride axles (1 steering/1 drive axle/1 'drag' axle(?). Long distance tours, may or may not have two drivers(?). Many are operated by a single driver (?). Not sure about the tour,in question.
In Biloxi, most of the cascinos are on the South side of the barrier island ( on the Gulf). Only speculation, but many independent bus lines will also use an existing bus depot to refuel(?); particularly, when there is no Truck Stop convenient. The crossing being discussed appears to be East of the existing (Greyhound?) bus station.(?), Which might explain why the bus was 'in town'(?). Possibly, off of what locally might be considered an assigned Thru-route(?).
In addition to the actions of the bus driver, I also wonder why the engineer of the train waited until being just 500 feet away before attempting to stop the train when there was far more than enough warning to stop short of the bus.
It is true that road traffic can back up on a crossing with vehicles fouling after the signals activate. There is always a chance that a fouling vehicle will not clear as quickly as expected. These circumstances become clearer to the engineer as he nears the crossing, but at the same time, ability to stop short diminishes. So at some point during the approach, an engineer has to recognize that a stalled vehicle is unlikely to clear in time, and upon that realization, he should make full effort to stop short of the vehicle.
So the question is when was this realization possible? I am sure that a tour bus stalled on straight track during good daytime visibility would have been visually obvious at 5000 feet, but at that distance, it would not be unreasonable to dismiss it being a hazard. But what about watching it for the next 3000 feet, and seeing that it does not move? There would still be plenty of time to get down to restricted speed. Even at 1000 feet, stopping short was still possible, and by seeing that it had not moved in the intervening 4000 feet, the hazard should have been obvious. But at 500 feet, time had run out.
The only useful visual evidence of trouble is a vehicle that remains stopped on the crossing long enough to indicate that it is unlikely to be stopped due to backed up traffic. If a vehicle behaving in this way happens to be a bus, it warrants special scrutiny and consideration of the consequences of hitting it. What engineer would let this happen if the stalled vehicle were a gasoline tank truck?
Cotton Belt MP104Eculid: Did I recall that you were concerned about dumping air and causing a derailment? Now there is this comment that the crew should have acted more timely than the 500ft. What am I missing here? Endmrw0309171037
It is a judgment call as to when a situation calls for dumping the air. I disagree with the idea that a risk of derailment should influence that judgement call. I discussed this with a rep from the FRA and another from Operation Lifesaver. They both agreed with my position on this.
If you read the Casselton Oil Train Wreck thread, you will find that my position was from the start, that the crew of the oil train should have dumped the air as soon as they received the radio warning that the adjacent grain train had experienced an emergency application. I interpret the governering rule to have required that under the circumstances.
Others in that thread vehemently disagree with my postion because they worry that if the oil train dumped the air, it might have derailed and started a fire. They accused me of spreading dangerous, incorrect advice on the Internet.
This issue also came up in an earlier thread about the CSX derailment when a train braked for a suicide. This first introduced the idea that engineers should refrain from making an emergency application in certain situations where it is called for because making the emergency application might derail the train. I was completely opposed to that reasoning, and continue to be.
So in regard to the collision in Biloxie, I would not suggest any hesitation in dumping the air because of worry that it might derail the train. But aside from that, there was no reason to dump the air in that situation if the crew had reacted more proactively and began service application when it became obvious that a large bus was stalled on the crossing.
EuclidIn addition to the actions of the bus driver, I also wonder why the engineer of the train waited until being just 500 feet away before attempting to stop the train when there was far more than enough warning to stop short of the bus.
That's where the engineer dumped the train. If, and when, the engineer took a service application has not been reported to my knowledge. So he may have begun to take action to stop the train a significant distance from the point of collision.
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...
I hope that all of the readers know that this took place in BiLUXi, and not BiLOCKSi.
Johnny
Cotton Belt MP104Euclid: Apology, I stand corrected. Some time ago I mentioned something I would have done if noticing the situation. Always carrying jumper cables, I would have shunted the rails before doing anything else. Having seen how long it takes to go the phone route of alerting crew and then being too late to avoid a crash ……drop RED in front of them. Anyone? I was told that even some heavy locos don’t provide the adequate low resistance short. Seems hard to believe but then I am no signal guy. For sure I would TRY to get immediate notification to the crew. I know it is not the proper shut but is it not even worth a try? Endmrw0308171331
I had also considered jumper cables. There were discussions along that line some time ago, where somewhere a locomotive was used to run some freight cars back and forth on a little used stretch of track to polish the rails to insure that a passenger train would make good contact. Then someone mentioned that an intermittent problem with false signals was caused by a piece of steel banding that had fallen across the rails. So, I guess the moral of this story is that nothing is absolute. I still think it is worth a try.
The NTSB is supposed to hold it's next press conference at 4 pm (Central) today. One of the earlier posts showed a max speed of 45 for this stretch of track. If the train was only doing 26 when the emergency application occured, which brought the speed to 19 mph at the time of collision, perhaps the engineer had reacted sooner by slowing, with the hope that the bus could free itself, before the loco reached that crossing.
RDG467The NTSB is supposed to hold it's next press conference at 4 pm (Central) today. One of the earlier posts showed a max speed of 45 for this stretch of track. If the train was only doing 26 when the emergency application occured, which brought the speed to 19 mph at the time of collision, perhaps the engineer had reacted sooner by slowing, with the hope that the bus could free itself, before the loco reached that crossing.
Perhaps if the train had been preceeded by a Flagman on horseback the event would have been prevented.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
RDG467 The NTSB is supposed to hold it's next press conference at 4 pm (Central) today. One of the earlier posts showed a max speed of 45 for this stretch of track. If the train was only doing 26 when the emergency application occured, which brought the speed to 19 mph at the time of collision, perhaps the engineer had reacted sooner by slowing, with the hope that the bus could free itself, before the loco reached that crossing.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
BaltACD RDG467 The NTSB is supposed to hold it's next press conference at 4 pm (Central) today. One of the earlier posts showed a max speed of 45 for this stretch of track. If the train was only doing 26 when the emergency application occured, which brought the speed to 19 mph at the time of collision, perhaps the engineer had reacted sooner by slowing, with the hope that the bus could free itself, before the loco reached that crossing. Perhaps if the train had been preceeded by a Flagman on horseback the event would have been prevented.
Undoubtedly, it would have. If the bus had taken another crossing, that would've prevented it, too.
I was referencing my previous ponderings about the collision, and was trying to give the engineer more of the benefit of the doubt vis-a-vis sightlines and how to decide where to apply max braking. I did not explain my last post in those terms, as I see upon re-reading it.
If he saw the bus from 2000+ feet and started to slow from 45 by reducing throttle, in the hopes the bus could free itself before the train got too close, going into emergency at 25 mph makes a bit more sense (to me).
If the train was only doing 25, saw the bus from 2000+ feet and went into emergency 500 feet before the bus-fouled crossing without any prior slowing, that makes me wonder a bit more about the crew's actions.
I know, I'm speculating when I said I shouldn't until more info has been verified and released. I'll smack my own hand and try to do better this afternoon.....
No worries, Murphy Siding. I need to stop over thinking this situation and wait for more data!!!
RDG467 Euclid It seems like a dangerous situation that should not be allowed to exist. I suppose some drivers don’t notice the sign, but I suspect that far more do not assimilate the full meaning and implication of the message. It seems pretty obvious that something is not working there as evidenced by all the accidents and deep gouges in the pavement as it humps up over the track. One of today's pix shows the crossing gates lying on the ground after the bus knocked it over. On the post is a blue sign with an 800 # for CSX and the crossing information. Wondering why no one on the bus (ie the DRIVER) noticed it after the bus had been stuck for more than a few minutes? Reports were that it was there as long as 5 minutes before being struck. The trackage is about as tangent as you can get through Biloxi, and given the fact that the bus was shoved about 300 ft, the train was going fairly slowly before impact. Why was the 800 number not called? My two cents is the average driver, truck and bus drivers don't know it exists. For the regular drive in PA, there is no reference what to do when stuck on the tracks. Don't know if there is a requirement for obtaining a CDL. My question, if the driver did call, how long would he have waited for someone to pick-up? What are the response procedures for the person answering the call or is it 50 question? Would those procedures had stop this specific train or would a call go out to haul or issue a slow order for all trains on the division/line?
Euclid It seems like a dangerous situation that should not be allowed to exist. I suppose some drivers don’t notice the sign, but I suspect that far more do not assimilate the full meaning and implication of the message. It seems pretty obvious that something is not working there as evidenced by all the accidents and deep gouges in the pavement as it humps up over the track.
It seems like a dangerous situation that should not be allowed to exist. I suppose some drivers don’t notice the sign, but I suspect that far more do not assimilate the full meaning and implication of the message. It seems pretty obvious that something is not working there as evidenced by all the accidents and deep gouges in the pavement as it humps up over the track.
One of today's pix shows the crossing gates lying on the ground after the bus knocked it over. On the post is a blue sign with an 800 # for CSX and the crossing information. Wondering why no one on the bus (ie the DRIVER) noticed it after the bus had been stuck for more than a few minutes? Reports were that it was there as long as 5 minutes before being struck. The trackage is about as tangent as you can get through Biloxi, and given the fact that the bus was shoved about 300 ft, the train was going fairly slowly before impact.
Why was the 800 number not called? My two cents is the average driver, truck and bus drivers don't know it exists. For the regular drive in PA, there is no reference what to do when stuck on the tracks. Don't know if there is a requirement for obtaining a CDL.
My question, if the driver did call, how long would he have waited for someone to pick-up? What are the response procedures for the person answering the call or is it 50 question? Would those procedures had stop this specific train or would a call go out to haul or issue a slow order for all trains on the division/line?
Response time at those centers are typically less than 30 sec, the railroad center I am familiar with (not the CSX) have direct lines from the emergency center to the dispatcher desks, there are red lights on the dispatch desks that go off when an emergency call comes in, plus it sets of a warning light on the supervisor's desk. So probably a minute or 2 from initial call till the dispatcher has enough info to start notifying trains.
Provided somebody calls.
On most of the train trips I have been on there has been at least one vehicle who crosses the tracks 500 ft or less in front of a train. Less than 2% of the time we hit a vehicle.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
The CSX number posted on the blue signs goes to the railroad police, I believe in JAX. They've got the system at their fingertips, though, and will know what crossing you are at if you can at least give them a locale and road name.
I'm sure they can be in pretty quick contact with the appropriate dispatcher. Balt might have more to add.
The railroad police are right there with the dispatchers.
First reported sign of the ambulance chasers showing up tonight. Knuckleheads are busy going after everybody but who they really should.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/tour-bus-hit-by-freight-train-in-deadly-crash-didnt-take-planned-route/
tree68 The CSX number posted on the blue signs goes to the railroad police, I believe in JAX. They've got the system at their fingertips, though, and will know what crossing you are at if you can at least give them a locale and road name. I'm sure they can be in pretty quick contact with the appropriate dispatcher. Balt might have more to add.
CSX's PSCC accesses a data base of road crossings that can be searched by FRA ID number, Street Name, City, county, railraod milepost - any 'shred' of information that a caller can provide. In the conversation with the caller the 'correct' identification of the road crossing will be deduced. The data base record for the crossing includes the Dispatcher and Chief Dispatcher who handle that particular crossing. The Dispatcher and/or the Chief are then contacted by the PSCC person handling the call on the 'Emergency Line' a specific telephone number for each and every Dispatcher's desk and Chief's desk - the call FLASHES on the Avtec communications console and if not answered within 2 rings begins to RING on a genuine telephone. Instructions for all dispatching personnel are to drop what you are doing and answer the Emergency Line and do what ever is necessary to protect the situation. Emergency Line numbers are only made known to the PSCC.
The PSCC and the computer applications that support it are a result of a misrouted Emergency Call from a outside party to one Division's Dispatcher's office; not knowing that there were parallell tracks at that location on another Division. The 1st Division notified took appropriate actions. The 2nd Division who was opeating a train through the location was not notified and therefore took no protective actions. You can guess the result.
Having dealt with the public in the days before the PSCC and the FRA ID plates were affixed to each crossing - the hardest thing to do was to establish where HERE was. Railroads are identified by Milepost, civilians are identified by street and hundred block. As a routine matter, railroads don't have any record of streets that run parallell to tracks - only streets that cross tracks.
While it was not involved in the Biloxi incident - Train Dispatchers do not protect road crossings in the body of yard territory - Yardmaster's do and their procedures are not as involved as the rules governing Train Dispatchers protection of road crossings at grade.
Without the DOT#....."Which Main Street?"
mudchickenWithout the DOT#....."Which Main Street?"
If there are multiple Main Street crossings in the identified area, ALL get protected.
samfp1943 Calling 911 could quickly have the police on the scene with more than enough lights and flares to set up in both directions from the crossing.
Calling 911 could quickly have the police on the scene with more than enough lights and flares to set up in both directions from the crossing.
Well, maybe. Maybe not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyIXfhTka-A
Jeff
samfp1943Calling 911 could quickly have the police on the scene with more than enough lights and flares to set up in both directions from the crossing.
As was said, maybe, maybe not. Depends on how quickly a car is available and can get to the scene. Factor in a minute or two to process the call, then provide the information to the patrol. It's not an instant process. Add to that a busload of people who don't even know they're on Main Street. A patrol might have ended up being first on the scene after the collision occurred.
One report said the group had breakfast in one place and was headed to the other. Given the time of the incident, I can only guess they ate, then gambled, then were headed north. There is at least one casino at the north end of Main Street.
The response standard for fire and EMS is under 8 minutes...
Plus fire and police generally put flares out a hundred feet or less, when the train needs them 1000's of feet in advance.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.