Sheesh, the aero skirts I did for trucks in the '80s were hinged laterally, had weighted flexible skirts, and had periodic small castered wheels to get them to fold preferentially when inevitably high-centered or forked wrong.
Even in California, you'd think they could figure it out themselves in 35 years of 'experience'...
... oh, wait. EGR. DPF and regen. Nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more.
The OTR industry can not keep affording to pay 2K to replace side skirts from poorly built grade crossings. I know my boss has told our customers that if we keep damaging our skirts on their docks we will be billing them for the replacements. Why they are federal mandated now so they are required equipment. Sorry but he's not eating that much in costs when the shippers where aware for years of this requirement coming down the line and could have rebuilt their docks to prevent damage. Yes they are flexible to a certain point but they can not fold up to prevent being ripped off.
Shadow the Cats owner <SNIP>. To the point where the trucking companies literally went to the state and county with bills saying you either pay for these repairs or we are no longer serving the largest employers. <SNIP>
<SNIP>.
To the point where the trucking companies literally went to the state and county with bills saying you either pay for these repairs or we are no longer serving the largest employers.
<SNIP>
There's several grade crossings in my area that are on approved OTR truck routes that the local highway departments are having to redo the approaches on recently. Why what has changed in the OTR industry. You've all seen those side skirts that are mandatory thanks to CARB well they have been getting ripped off on grade crossings that lead to several major industries in my area. To the point where the trucking companies literally went to the state and county with bills saying you either pay for these repairs or we are no longer serving the largest employers. It didn't matter where the tandems were on the trailer sucked to the nose or all the way back. Plants are redoing their docks with any drop off into the bay with a shallower angle. Those freaking things are a bigger problem than the fuel savings they've generated.
Does not matter if it's a block system or not. Onus is on the vehicle operator. No mention anywhere if truck driver was even aware of the ENS sign, much less called the 800 ENS Number (1-800-232-0144 ). Approach grades are the responsibility of the road agency as was the placement of the high-center risk sign out of the MUTCD manual (W10-5). Leaving the jackstands down was a result of deficient vehicle operator error. Original comments stand and Indiana Statute just magnifies the InDOT and local road agency engineering and maintenance blunders.
Indiana*9-21-8-40. Types of vehicles or equipment requiring notice to railroad prior to crossing railroad grading -- Procedure to be followed. (Slow and Low)
(a) A person may not operate or move a caterpillar tractor, steam shovel, derrick, roller, or any equipment or structure weighing more than ten (10) tons and having a normal operating speed of not more than six (6) miles per hour or a vertical body or load clearance of less than nine (9) inches above the level surface of a roadway upon or across tracks at a railroad grade crossingwithout first complying with this section.
(b) Notice of an intended crossing under this section shall be given to a superintendent of the railroad, and a reasonable time shall be given to the railroad to provide proper protection at thecrossing.
(c) Before making a crossing under this section, the person operating or moving a vehicle or equipment described in subsection (a) shall first stop the vehicle or equipment not less than ten (10) feet and not more than fifty (50) feet from the nearest rail or the railway. While stopped, the person shall listen and look in both directions along the track for an approaching train or other on-track equipment and for signals indicating the approach of a train or other on-track equipment. The person shall not proceed until the crossing can be made safely.
(d) A crossing may not be made when warning is given by automatic signal, crossing gates, a flagman, or otherwise of the immediate approach of a railroad train or other on-track equipment.
Ind. Code Ann. § 9-21-8-40 (LexisNexis 2012)
*8-23-5-2. Railroad grade crossings.
(2) in a manner as to afford security for life and property of persons and vehicles using the highway or road.
(h) The railroad is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the grade and surface occupied by the railroad tracks, including the space:
(1) between the rails of a railroad track;
(2) between the railroad tracks if there are at least two (2) railroad tracks; and
(3) that extends eighteen (18) inches in width on the outside of each rail of a railroad track.
Ind. Code Ann. § 8-23-5-2 (LexisNexis 2012)
Fred M Cain It would be a very neat trick if when something like this happens where a truck gets stranded like that would foul the block system. I would think that with all this technology we have today, that shouldn't be that hard to do. Highway departments should help with some of the costs since both highway and rail users would benefit. I suspect that the hardest part of such an idea is not in technology but in getting politicians, State Highway department officials and railroaders all on the same page. Regards, Fred M. Cain
It would be a very neat trick if when something like this happens where a truck gets stranded like that would foul the block system.
I would think that with all this technology we have today, that shouldn't be that hard to do. Highway departments should help with some of the costs since both highway and rail users would benefit.
I suspect that the hardest part of such an idea is not in technology but in getting politicians, State Highway department officials and railroaders all on the same page.
Regards,
Fred M. Cain
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
York1 BaltACD As I was following the GPS route I came to a detour from the GPS route to the Delaware Memorial Bridge - the detour put me on a rural suburban' type road - houses on the South Side for a ways with a forest/wetlands on the North Side that was shortly on both sides. Right at a 'dip' the authorities had place a 'BUMP' sign - what the bump was was the top of a round culvert that drained water between the North and South sides of the road, however on each side of the top of the culvert the road saged beneath the crest by about 8 to 10 inches. I wonder how a self-driving car or truck would have done here?
BaltACD As I was following the GPS route I came to a detour from the GPS route to the Delaware Memorial Bridge - the detour put me on a rural suburban' type road - houses on the South Side for a ways with a forest/wetlands on the North Side that was shortly on both sides. Right at a 'dip' the authorities had place a 'BUMP' sign - what the bump was was the top of a round culvert that drained water between the North and South sides of the road, however on each side of the top of the culvert the road saged beneath the crest by about 8 to 10 inches.
I wonder how a self-driving car or truck would have done here?
Suspect it would have proceed at 'track speed' - since the trailer doesn't have brakes - it would have drug it until it 'fell off'. The 'Bump' sign would not have been programmed into its 'memory'.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
York1I wonder how a self-driving car or truck would have done here?
The first consideration is whether the routes involve Carnegie-Mellon's idea of running an analogue of the Google mapping vehicles over the routes to coordinate their surface levels with master GIS information to give an accurate, and at least in theory updatable, assessment of grade that a self-driving combination could use to evaluate high- or low-centering (and correct itself to negotiate, if necessary). If that is present, an autonomous combination would either 'choose' a route without known dips or humps, or slow down and -- in this case -- use adaptive or leveling suspension to bring the trailer nose high enough to clear the obstacle even if with some scraping...
If the route is not so mapped, the vehicle has to do a bit better at prescanning the route and creating the effective TERCOM map for the suspension compliance. Since this is limited in its ability to presense 'dips' this might result in some fairly abrupt braking once the situation with 'two dips and a culvert' was recognized, probably still a few feet before the front of the combination reached the point where line-of-sight showed the bottom of the far dip. Forward speed would then be controlled until the (calculated) point of greatest trailer-nose depression was reached. Again, adaptive or leveling suspension would be activated "appropriately" to get the nose to clear if possible.
There have been some fun discussions about how autonomous vehicles will respond when routes are blocked or turn out to be impassable. While they can probably perform reverse turns with a trailer better than most human drivers, there will be many situations -- I suspect Balt's was one -- where physical turnaround would be impossible, and the combination would have to be backed some distance before it could be turned. This is less of a problem if the autonomous guidance has access to individual brakes on the trailer wheels.
Part of the answer, of course, is that it is unlikely that a trailer like Balt's would just be attached to a bumper hitch on an autonomous pickup and hauled off. Whether a given vehicle's "skill" extended to knowing how to cope with a less-than-'perfect' trailer is an interesting discussion, but one that I think is best reserved for a much later stage of 'autonomous optimization' than we're likely to get soon.
BaltACDAs I was following the GPS route I came to a detour from the GPS route to the Delaware Memorial Bridge - the detour put me on a rural suburban' type road - houses on the South Side for a ways with a forest/wetlands on the North Side that was shortly on both sides. Right at a 'dip' the authorities had place a 'BUMP' sign - what the bump was was the top of a round culvert that drained water between the North and South sides of the road, however on each side of the top of the culvert the road saged beneath the crest by about 8 to 10 inches.
York1 John
tree68 As I pulled out of the gas station, my trailer hitch hit the ramp. No damage, but that was the first time in 11 years of driving that truck that I'd ever done that at that location, and I'm there about once a week. The weight of the pavers was enough to drop the rear end enough to hit. Who know how much the hitch clears by when I don't have much weight back there... Might be a fraction of an inch...
As I pulled out of the gas station, my trailer hitch hit the ramp. No damage, but that was the first time in 11 years of driving that truck that I'd ever done that at that location, and I'm there about once a week. The weight of the pavers was enough to drop the rear end enough to hit. Who know how much the hitch clears by when I don't have much weight back there... Might be a fraction of an inch...
As you travel about your area, I suspect you will notice a number areas where there are local dips, humps or sags - if you look in the middle of the roadway you will invariably see a number of drag and scrape marks from trailer hitches and/or trailers that 'routinely' drag across the area.
Raced at New Jersey Motorsports Park several years ago. After the racing I was following my GPS to route me back home as this was the first time I had ever been to the track. As I was following the GPS route I came to a detour from the GPS route to the Delaware Memorial Bridge - the detour put me on a rural suburban' type road - houses on the South Side for a ways with a forest/wetlands on the North Side that was shortly on both sides. Right at a 'dip' the authorities had place a 'BUMP' sign - what the bump was was the top of a round culvert that drained water between the North and South sides of the road, however on each side of the top of the culvert the road saged beneath the crest by about 8 to 10 inches. Driving a car at 15-20 MPH when seeing and reacting to the BUMP sign - no problems but a couple of instants of being uncomfortable from the BUMP; however, I was towing a 'low' centerframe trailer - when the tow vehicle went into the dip on the leaving side of the culvert it drove the centerframe member into the crest of the culvert - breaking it - 7 PM on a Sunday Night and I have no real idea of where I am. Called AAA and they said they would send someone after they cleaned up some mess on the NJ Turnpike - in the meantime the local police came by to see what the trouble was - Officer said he knew a guy with a mobile welder and he would send him by - 20 minutes later the guy shows up, says it will be $100, I say I don't have that much cash - he tells me there is a ATM in the WaWa further up the road. We jack the trailer into a position for welding and I cut away from it and go to the WaWa. By the time I return the welding is done, cash changes hands, I hook up and am on my way - total delay about 2 hours. AAA showed up as I was rehooking to the trailer - I thanked them.
BaltACD tree68 Euclid If the crossing had a surface clearance deficiency that could trap large trucks with trailers, the road authority had the responsibility to warn drivers of this anomaly rather than just letting them find it by driving into it and possibly suffering the consequences. While I agree in principle, we still have the possibility that the driver didn't realize the landing legs would not clear. He was not towing a lowboy. The discussion has also been had here that signage did exist at one point. Whether it was there at the time of the incident, or was adequate, is unsettled. The existence of new asphalt at the crossing raises the possibility that the track had been recently raised... (Google Streetview) FINAL responsibility is on the driver - the driver is SUPPOSED to know his rig and what it can and can't do. When he attempts to do something the rig is not able to perform - the onus is on the driver. PERIOD. The driver put is rig in the position it was - he was not forced to put it in that position by some other party.
tree68 Euclid If the crossing had a surface clearance deficiency that could trap large trucks with trailers, the road authority had the responsibility to warn drivers of this anomaly rather than just letting them find it by driving into it and possibly suffering the consequences. While I agree in principle, we still have the possibility that the driver didn't realize the landing legs would not clear. He was not towing a lowboy. The discussion has also been had here that signage did exist at one point. Whether it was there at the time of the incident, or was adequate, is unsettled. The existence of new asphalt at the crossing raises the possibility that the track had been recently raised... (Google Streetview)
Euclid If the crossing had a surface clearance deficiency that could trap large trucks with trailers, the road authority had the responsibility to warn drivers of this anomaly rather than just letting them find it by driving into it and possibly suffering the consequences.
While I agree in principle, we still have the possibility that the driver didn't realize the landing legs would not clear. He was not towing a lowboy.
The discussion has also been had here that signage did exist at one point. Whether it was there at the time of the incident, or was adequate, is unsettled.
The existence of new asphalt at the crossing raises the possibility that the track had been recently raised... (Google Streetview)
FINAL responsibility is on the driver - the driver is SUPPOSED to know his rig and what it can and can't do. When he attempts to do something the rig is not able to perform - the onus is on the driver. PERIOD.
The driver put is rig in the position it was - he was not forced to put it in that position by some other party.
BaltACD tree68 BaltACD FINAL responsibility is on the driver - the driver is SUPPOSED to know his rig and what it can and can't do. When he attempts to do something the rig is not able to perform - the onus is on the driver. PERIOD. The driver put is rig in the position it was - he was not forced to put it in that position by some other party. No disagreement whatsoever. There are, however, those things called mitigating circumstances. The only mitigation is between the drivers ears and that is not a acceptable excuse. Irrespective of any signs or the absence of signs - his eyes have to view the situation with his knowledge of what his vehicle can do or cannot do. When he attempts something that he knows his vehicle cannot do - it is on him.
tree68 BaltACD FINAL responsibility is on the driver - the driver is SUPPOSED to know his rig and what it can and can't do. When he attempts to do something the rig is not able to perform - the onus is on the driver. PERIOD. The driver put is rig in the position it was - he was not forced to put it in that position by some other party. No disagreement whatsoever. There are, however, those things called mitigating circumstances.
BaltACD FINAL responsibility is on the driver - the driver is SUPPOSED to know his rig and what it can and can't do. When he attempts to do something the rig is not able to perform - the onus is on the driver. PERIOD. The driver put is rig in the position it was - he was not forced to put it in that position by some other party.
No disagreement whatsoever. There are, however, those things called mitigating circumstances.
The only mitigation is between the drivers ears and that is not a acceptable excuse. Irrespective of any signs or the absence of signs - his eyes have to view the situation with his knowledge of what his vehicle can do or cannot do. When he attempts something that he knows his vehicle cannot do - it is on him.
So is there a solution or just do nothing?
BaltACDThe only mitigation is between the drivers ears and that is not a acceptable excuse.
When I went back and looked at the video today, I noticed new asphalt on the crossing - and it looks like there might have been more height added in the process. This is where I'd apply mitigating circumstances. Never mind that he was taking a detour because of the construction, if that crossing was a couple of inches higher, it's possible that he'd been over it before with the same type of rig, with no problems. If he had, I doubt he got out and measured his clearance at that point. He would have cleared, if by fractions of an inch, and kept on going.
Still a lot we don't know.
A few weeks ago I went to the home improvement store and picked up some concrete pavers. Loaded them in the back of the pickup, made a couple of stops, and after getting fuel, headed home.
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...
BaltACDFINAL responsibility is on the driver - the driver is SUPPOSED to know his rig and what it can and can't do. When he attempts to do something the rig is not able to perform - the onus is on the driver. PERIOD. The driver put is rig in the position it was - he was not forced to put it in that position by some other party.
EuclidIf the crossing had a surface clearance deficiency that could trap large trucks with trailers, the road authority had the responsibility to warn drivers of this anomaly rather than just letting them find it by driving into it and possibly suffering the consequences.
If the crossing had a surface clearance deficiency that could trap large trucks with trailers, the road authority had the responsibility to warn drivers of this anomaly rather than just letting them find it by driving into it and possibly suffering the consequences. The road authority could have met their responsibility by posting an adequately conspicuous sign that clearly identifies the limitation and the duty of the driver to ascertain whether his/her vehicle can pass the restriction.
If the road authority met that requirement, then the crash was the fault of the driver, and that would not have been an "accident" if the term is defined as being a mishap without any negligence.
If there was no such warning by the road authority, the crash was the fault of the road authority.
There may also have been extenuating circumstances that cause a placing of blame more than one party to the crash.
tree68As I mentioned earlier, an overpass might be a possibility, but one has to weigh the cost vs the benefit.
If this is so, and further if this is a location 'prone to flood' as I believe was suggested in an earlier post, there would either have to be extreme transient grade changes or a road in a flood hole perhaps requiring active pumping, neither of which is a particularly plausible alternative.
Euclid Euclid So to review, what is the actual clear explanation of what in fact caused the truck to stall on the crossing? And where in this thread has that explanation been given? I do not conclude that this crash was an "accident" if that term means that there was no negligence involved in the cause. I asked the above question near the top of this page because I have not yet seen an explanation of the actual cause. Yet the first two pages of this thread include 22 posts blaming the truck driver without any facts to back up the accusation.
Euclid So to review, what is the actual clear explanation of what in fact caused the truck to stall on the crossing? And where in this thread has that explanation been given?
So to review, what is the actual clear explanation of what in fact caused the truck to stall on the crossing? And where in this thread has that explanation been given?
I do not conclude that this crash was an "accident" if that term means that there was no negligence involved in the cause.
I asked the above question near the top of this page because I have not yet seen an explanation of the actual cause. Yet the first two pages of this thread include 22 posts blaming the truck driver without any facts to back up the accusation.
As to blaming the driver, it's been noted that the usual route to his destination was obstructed by some sort of construction. It's been opined that perhaps the landing legs weren't fully retracted - something we really can't judge with the information we have.
What does appear clear is that this was an unusual event. Normally a crossing such as this would be hanging up a lowboy or other minimal clearance trailer. I suspect this is where a lot of the blame the driver sentiment comes from.
Were it not for the landing legs, he would have made it over the crossing without incident. I would opine that he simply didn't realize the issue until it was too late. It's not often you hear about such a situation. I can't say as I ever have.
The crossing is a problem, with its steep attack angles on both sides. However, this incident occurred on a sunny day - the driver could easily see the situation. And this goes back to his not realizing the landing legs would prove a problem. I'm not sure any signage would have made a difference.
It's already been discussed why this crossing remains a crossing. As I mentioned earlier, an overpass might be a possibility, but one has to weigh the cost vs the benefit.
I'm still calling this an accident.
OvermodWould that matter for an incident in Indiana? I don't know the current status of motor-carrier law.
My bad - somehow I was thinking it was Georgia. The same logic applies. Maybe I should leave it at "applicable state V&T law."
tree68While I'm sure that measures will be taken to help avoid a repeat, the odds of such a repeat may be near zero.
The odds of a driver using the crossing are what need to be changed, and arguably 'better signage conventions' would help this.
One thing I argued for, years ago, was distinctive paint on the crossing standards and poles for crossings unsuitable for different kinds of truck traffic. (Carefully chosen to be reflective and NOT isoluminant with dark colors in poor kinds of lighting, as many reds are). I would be tempted to argue that distinctive and 'visually evident' signage ought to be developed for MUTCD and put on the physical crossing itself, not just at approach distance. I will not go into who 'should' pay for the additional cost of this, or to its 'assurance', or whether it should be part of ongoing railroad maintenance without express compensation.
In a nutshell: if it is not abundantly and definitively clear before a truck commits to a turn or route that there are significant hazards to passage, the issues raised by this accident have not been correctly addressed...
tree68We don't know about the legal angles on the landing gear - that would be contained in GA V&T law.
OvermodMy own opinion about this now-timeless topic is that "fault" here is almost nugatory -- it was an accident in the most literal sense of the word. To say that the driver was 'negligent' in making an emergency turn to avoid construction issues is to imply that he was conscious of the problem crossing that particular intersection ... which I don't think is fully fair.
I agree - if there has been an incident which defines "accident," this is it.
We don't know about the legal angles on the landing gear - that would be contained in GA V&T law.
We don't know the actual physical status of the landing gear - it may have been fully retracted.
We have no history of similar incidents at the crossing.
I would opine that if the driver was pulling a lowboy trailer, he would not have attempted that crossing. That the landing gear got stuck may well have been a surprise to him as well. Until proven otherwise, I think he gets the benefit of the doubt on that.
As previously noted, several other crossings in the area have apparently been closed. This one was left because of the distance between those still open.
As Overmod writes - the combination of factors involved in this incident was unusual.
While I'm sure that measures will be taken to help avoid a repeat, the odds of such a repeat may be near zero. Just like a low overhead bridge, signage may restrict truck traffic over the crossing. And like low overhead bridges, eventually the stars will again line up and a truck will try to use the crossing as a train approaches at speed.
BTW - the low bridge in Liverpool, NY has claimed another semi...
EuclidI asked the question as to who was at fault in this accident because the thread seems to have drawn no clear conclusion about that point.
We hear about the landing gear being too low for the crossing, and then we are told that lowered landing gear not necessarily illegal or negligent on the part of the driver.
It is evident to me they were succeeding in getting the truck off the crossing by the time of impact; look at the angles in the pictures and video immediately before impact. If you use a straightedge from the fifth-wheel position back to the duals I think any landing-gear fouling was relieved at that point, and any fouling of the drive tires due to the combination angle might have been relieved (allowing the truck to back under its own power were it safe for the driver to remain in the cab).
So it raises this question: Was the crossing built too high for the normal presence of the landing gear? We hear that was the case, but that the driver was negligent for using the crossing, because there was a sign warning him not to use the crossing with the truck.
But then we hear that the sign was put up after the collision, and there was no sign prior to the collision. Is that really true? If it is, I conclude that it was not just a coincidence that sign-posting day happened to have followed right after a serious collision that the sign was meant to prevent.
Now, my understanding of the 'signage' was that the sign was, in fact, there, but it was posted in such a location as to be invisible or largely edge-on to the driver during most of the actual turn he was making. It is difficult to imagine relocating a single sign to serve both directions turning off the highway; it is difficult to imagine a long combination approaching across the highway where the sign would be visible. Someone has already suggested that signage needed to be placed in both approach directions before the intersection, something with which I concur. Again, placing of such signs ASAP ... including at other crossings on the 'rising grade' to the overpass ... would be in my opinion less CYA than 'prudence through experience'.
Therefore, I conclude that the collision was the fault of the road authority for failure to warn drivers of an excess track elevation danger that could kill or injure drivers, train crews, and pedestrians.
EuclidSo to review, what is the actual clear explanation of what in fact caused the truck to stall on the crossing? And where in this thread has that explanation been given?
I asked the question as to who was at fault in this accident because the thread seems to have drawn no clear conclusion about that point. The accident certainly was not the fault of CSX. We hear about the landing gear being too low for the crossing, and then we are told that lowered landing gear not necessarily illegal or negligent on the part of the driver. So it raises this question:
Was the crossing built too high for the normal presence of the landing gear?
We hear that was the case, but that the driver was negligent for using the crossing, because there was a sign warning him not to use the crossing with the truck.
But then we hear that the sign was put up after the collision, and there was no sign prior to the collision. Is that really true? If it is, I conclude that it was not just a coincidence that sign-posting day happened to have followed right after a serious collision that the sign was meant to prevent. If the information about the sign going up right after the collision is true, I conclude that is was an almost comical case of C.Y.A.
charlie hebdo That's just the point, Larry. More grade separations because it's sensible. But on many somewhat more lightly used lines (not HSR, though on some lines the speed limits are over 10 kmh) in Germany, they have level crossings with gates. I've seen many in my travels, both from the trains and from the road.
That's just the point, Larry. More grade separations because it's sensible. But on many somewhat more lightly used lines (not HSR, though on some lines the speed limits are over 10 kmh) in Germany, they have level crossings with gates. I've seen many in my travels, both from the trains and from the road.
There you go.
I used to watch the rail cam in the Netherlands on a regular basis. The ROW in that area is fenced, and a major project a few years ago routed a main road under the ROW near a station.
Much of the NYC was grade separated, especially what is now the Chicago Line through NY state. And it was noted earlier in the thread that crossings have been closed in the vicinity of the truck incident. As you drive around, however, you may note that grade separating in many places may require major disruptions of those areas.
I noted earlier that I felt that the track had likely been elevated over time by successive applications of ballast. A look at the incident site in the news articles rather bears that out. Going over (or under) the tracks with the roadway likely would be expensive. I'd opine that you'd have to build a "pigtale" to loop around and gain the necessary elevation.
I do think the "Pinto" phenomenon applies here, too. Cheaper to deal with the occasional aftermath than to fix the problem in the first place.
I am reminded of driving on "the 401" through table-flat southern Ontario. Every mile or two would be an overpass, built on fill, to allow local roads to continue unabated.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.