Amtrak #4 derails, lands all cars on side after hitting dump truck at Mendon KS today (/)

[tree68]

Fred M Cain

So, in 75 years there was no issue here.

And I would opine that is the reason for no urgency in taking any action on the crossing - "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

That the crossing had been identified for improvement says that the need was recognized.  That it hadn't says that the work was not seen as urgent.  Of course, this will change that.

As for the horn - with a reported (on the national crossing database) five or so crossings per day, the crews probably got lazy, with more of a perfunctory sounding than the full 20 seconds.

What may not have been noted in the investigation was the settings on the radio/tape/cd in the truck, if so equipped.  Was the driver blasting his favorite artist at full volume?  Was he engrossed in the chatter on a talk channel?  For that matter, was the driver's window up or down?  Those factors, along with the acute angle of approach on the driver's left, could conspire to limit his ability to sense an oncoming train.

Coulda, woulda, shoulda are nice, but what actually happened is what counts, and that info is currently kinda sparse.

[Euclid]

Fred M Cain

 

 

Euclid

How do you know that if you removed the trees, there would be other obstructions behind them?  How do you know the tracks go over a hill and out of sight?  That guy making the video said it is all river bottom land through that area.  I agree that easing the approach grades would help too, and that it would be ideal to remove the trees and ease the approaches.  But I suspect that getting the road project going would be a lot harder than removing the trees. 

 

 

 

One thing that I haven't seen mentioned in this thread - or anywhere else in the media for that matter - is the issue of the horn.  Did the engineer blow for the crossing?  If so, why didn't the truck driver hear that?  Once again, I am bothered by the possible issue of driver distraction.  BNSF & Amtrak might be justified in their complaints.

My points don't do away or dismiss the possibility of improving the crossing.  Sure they should.  Or close it.  The old Santa Fe Railway operated the Super Chief through there at 90 MPH for probably 25 years after the installation of ATS and then Amtrak did the same with their train for another 50+ years.  So, in 75 years there was no issue here.

So, what changed?  When we look around the country, some drivers continue to fail to use safety at railroad grade crossings.  This is  trend that does not seem to be improving.  A complete and total solution is to get rid of the crossings.  That's also an astromnomically expensive solution.

 

The horn sounding of the Amtrak train will be avaiable from the data recorder.  At this time, I know of no references to when the horn sounding commenced.

However, the video by local resident, Mike Spencer shows a freight train approaching the crossing.  It begins horn blowing at the moment it breaks into sight from behind the trees.  Five seconds later, the train arrives at the crossing.  So there was a 5-second horn blowing warning.  The horn signal is also highly compressed to make it fit into the 5-second time frame.  I would estimate the train to be traveling 60 mph.  

[Fred M Cain]

Euclid

How do you know that if you removed the trees, there would be other obstructions behind them?  How do you know the tracks go over a hill and out of sight?  That guy making the video said it is all river bottom land through that area.  I agree that easing the approach grades would help too, and that it would be ideal to remove the trees and ease the approaches.  But I suspect that getting the road project going would be a lot harder than removing the trees. 

One thing that I haven't seen mentioned in this thread - or anywhere else in the media for that matter - is the issue of the horn.  Did the engineer blow for the crossing?  If so, why didn't the truck driver hear that?  Once again, I am bothered by the possible issue of driver distraction.  BNSF & Amtrak might be justified in their complaints.

My points don't do away or dismiss the possibility of improving the crossing.  Sure they should.  Or close it.  The old Santa Fe Railway operated the Super Chief through there at 90 MPH for probably 25 years after the installation of ATS and then Amtrak did the same with their train for another 50+ years.  So, in 75 years there was no issue here.

So, what changed?  When we look around the country, some drivers continue to fail to use safety at railroad grade crossings.  This is  trend that does not seem to be improving.  A complete and total solution is to get rid of the crossings.  That's also an astromnomically expensive solution.

[Fred M Cain]

Murphy Siding

 

 

BaltACD

Must say Amtrak and BNSF are throwing a lot against the wall

 

 

Railway Age:...

 

 

negligently operating the vehicle while utilizing or otherwise being distracted by an electronic wireless communications device; ...

 

 

 

 

This part stood out to me. 

 

 

Indeed, the whole thing to me struck me as driver distraction from the very beginning.  *BUT* they have to prove that first.  I have also wondered about the possibility of a cam recorder on the locomotive.  If there was one, that might show what happened.

[zugmann]

nevermind.  not worth it. 

[Overmod]

BaltACD

Also imagine the screaming from the carriers in having several feet of 'flood insurance' removed from their systems in thousands of locations.

Seens to me that reducing the height of the developed ballast prism is orders of magnitude more ballast-and earth-moving than the 'fill' to raise the crossing approaches and set their vertical curvature.

On the other hand... I wonder if railroads could be compensated for 'fouled ballast' moved and dumped at particular crossings instead of being expensively cleaned.  That might go double for 125mph track structure to be laid by a TLM...

[mudchicken]

Private crossing would be the proper term for "farm crossing". The accident was at a road dedicated to public use and therefore a public crossing.

Private crossings can be private driveways, field crossings, industrial use and so on. There is a license agreement, deed restrictive covenant (agreed to by the railroad), on a occasion a court order protecting a landlocked piece of ground, an easement (rare / bad idea from the railroad's POV - for good reason) explains why the crossing is there. Different crossings in different states require different signs by state statue, the railroad has its own standards for private signage (but will cede to the state rule) and all crossings (at-grade or grade separated) require a DOT # and the blue ENS signs at ALL grade crossings (Public/Private/Pedestrian/ RR Co Use). It would be smart to post the signs at the bridges too, especially for bridge strikes and other dumb trucker/ agri-dummy stunts.

Still amazes me how careless towns, cities, and counties are with keeping track of the documents that govern crossings. (dealt with that twice last week) Because they often do not find themselves recorded in deed books, they often are lost. It only gets worse with private crossings. (clueless/irresponsible title companies, real estate agents and lawyers usually causing the problems here)...

And yes, there are cases where local government has private crossings for a specific use (their public indemnity leaves them). And no, local government cannot decree a crossing is public (only the state can with a definate statute procedure to be followed)...

[wjstix]

jeffhergert

It may be semantics, but I think it wrong to call this crossing a farm crossing.  It is a public, county road.  It may be rural, but anyone can use the road.

Yes, I think folks might be confusing this accident with the one in California that happened about the same time, which did involve a private farm crossing of a rail line.

[tree68]

jeffhergert

It may be semantics, but I think it wrong to call this crossing a farm crossing.  It is a public, county road.  It may be rural, but anyone can use the road.

I completely agree.  

In order to understand the why of the elevation of the tracks, one would have to look at the surrounding terrain.  The elevation may simply be there to deal with what used to be a sag in the line.  It's hard to tell from the on-line topo map.

Add to that the usual railroad practice of adding ballast on top of ballast.  That's ususally the problem at those crossings paralling highways where semi's get high centered.

[jeffhergert]

It may be semantics, but I think it wrong to call this crossing a farm crossing.  It is a public, county road.  It may be rural, but anyone can use the road.

A farm crossing, to me at least, is one that is of limited use.  One that allows farmers access to their fields.  Either from a public road over tracks to a field, or field over tracks to field.  They normally won't have crossbucks, at least in Iowa, but will have a smaller than regulation stop sign and the blue sign, part of which says use subject to the property owners the crossing is provided for.

Jeff

[BaltACD]

Also imagine the screaming from the carriers in having several feet of 'flood insurance' removed from their systems in thousands of locations.

[blue streak 1]

Murphy Siding

Look at the video starting at about the 40 second mark. With those bushes gone the train would still appear to be out of sight, over the hill. To be fair, it looks like the video was filmed from the bottom of the incline on the gravel road. Maybe the easiest fix in this situation would be to cut the brush and to raise the gravel road level with the tracks for about 100 feet on each side of the rails. That would allow traffic to stop, check for approaching trains, and continue without having to putt-putt up the hill.

 Euclid

 

That is all well and good and should be done.  However, looking at other crossing in the area they all seem to be raised on the farm bottom land. The crossing NE of this crossing appears to be built the same, The RR is obviously raised track so that it will not be flooded from the stream to the NW.  A thought was this raised road bed a possible secondary levee system?. To really mitigate all these farm crossings will take a lot of fill which means money. 

 

Agree that all grade crossings need the flat approaches nation wide.  Can you imagine the political screaming from 49 state governments to fix this nation wide problem.

[tree68]

Murphy Siding

Odd thing; looking at Google Maps, it appears that the next crossings up the line and down the line have crossing lights.

Have to dig into the crossing database.  They may have more reported vehicle traffic.  Or not.

EDIT:  Here you go:

MP 359.783     CR 118   L&G

MP 360.560    Felt St   L&G (Mendon)

MP 362.764    CR 122   L&G

MP 364.620   CR 111    L&G

MP 363.876   CR 113   XB (Incident Location)

MP 366.765   CR 107   XB

MP 367.435   CR 132   XB

[Murphy Siding]

Odd thing; looking at Google Maps, it appears that the next crossings up the line and down the line have crossing lights.

[tree68]

Lithonia Operator

I'm guessing the tree line is not on BNSF property. I'm wondering if the state/county could order them cut.

It's hard to tell on the tax map.  It may be right on the property line, which would then involve both the adjacent property owner(s) and the railroad.  MC can certainly comment on the accuracy of the GIS information.

The property owner has no skin in the game - there's no law that requires them to clear the trees.  In fact, they could probably argue that cutting said trees would potentially damage their property (conjecture, I know, but these days you never know).

I would imagine that, given this incident, the brush may get cleared by someone, be it the railroad, local authorities, or whomever.

[Lithonia Operator]

Euclid, you make some good points.

I'm guessing the tree line is not on BNSF property. I'm wondering if the state/county could order them cut.

Regardless of who blames who for what, the crossing needs at least flashing signals, as do other such crossings. Doing anything less will just haunt the railroads and the state/county in the future, guaranteed.

That crossing was an accident waiting to happen.

[Euclid]

Murphy Siding

 

 

Euclid

 

I doubt that raising the approaches will make the train more visible.  What it will do is lower the risk associated with stopping and making a steep climb with a heavy vehicle.  

 

 

 

 

I think it would make the train more visible, as somebody said the track is raised 9' above the surrounding countryside. Having it at the same level would help out the sight lines.

Yes, it would help if the raising were enough to expose the trains protruding above the threes.  I think both remedies should be applied, since the problems cited by the local residents involve the twin causes of crossing approaches being too steep and trees blocking the view of approaching trains. 

 

The guy making the video said that the residents start looking for trains when they are ½ mile from the crossing.  They look left and right and sometimes can spot approaching trains in gaps between the trees.  Apparently, they are taking advantage of the long view as being more perpendicular to the track.  There are possibly frequent tree gaps visible in the perpendicular view, and the gaps become obscure as you get nearer to the crossing.  This is because as you get closer to the crossing, the tree line visually foreshortens as the view becomes nearly parallel with the tree line.  That compressing of the view of the tree line visibly closes up the gaps.  That is excellent thinking on the part of the residents to take advantage of viewing from ½ mile out from the crossing where trains might be spotted earlier. 

 

However, I would not be surprised if both remedies of tree removal and road raising will be rejected, if for no other reason than seeing it as an admission of guilt on the part of those with the power to make the safety improvements.  So now is the time for the residents to take action with the leverage provided by this tragedy.  They ought to make a video that clearly presents the dangers beyond what has been done already.  Videos and diagrams would be helpful.  Finding the legal blame for this wreck will be extremely critical to all involved.  I think that explains the odd move by Amtrak and BNSF in publishing their long and redundant list of legal violations by the truck driver just hours after the tragedy.  That decision speaks volumes about the role of others besides the driver.

[Murphy Siding]

Euclid

 

I doubt that raising the approaches will make the train more visible.  What it will do is lower the risk associated with stopping and making a steep climb with a heavy vehicle.  

 

I think it would make the train more visible, as somebody said the track is raised 9' above the surrounding countryside. Having it at the same level would help out the sight lines.

[Euclid]

The tree line begins with the largest trees that recede in the distance.  Their top silhouette looks like three distinct clumps, but maybe composed of many trees.  At their distant end, there is the lowest upper profile just for a very small interval, and then beyond that small interval there appear to be more trees appearing somewhat taller than that lowest profile for the short interval.  The mass in that lowest and very short interval may actually be the moving train.  But I can’t be sure because of the low resolution. 

 

I think that eliminating the foreground trees would at least double the viewing distance.  If that is the moving train showing in the distance right after the foreground clumps of trees, its headlight has already passed through that opening where it would have shown.  So if the foreground trees were removed, and if that is the train showing in the narrow gap, the headlight could be observed all the way back to the most distant end on that narrow gap. 

 

But yes, by all means, clear the trees and raise the crossing approaches.  Doing that would qualify the crossing as being a “passive crossing.”  The only thing that gives me pause is the fact that this crossing has been in business without those two essential features having been executed for a very long time.  And its defects are well known in the area.  What is the hang-up in getting the thing fixed?

 

I doubt that raising the approaches will make the train more visible.  What it will do is lower the risk associated with stopping and making a steep climb with a heavy vehicle.  

[Murphy Siding]

Euclid

How do you know that if you removed the trees, there would be other obstructions behind them?  How do you know the tracks go over a hill and out of sight?  That guy making the video said it is all river bottom land through that area.  I agree that easing the approach grades would help too, and that it would be ideal to remove the trees and ease the approaches.  But I suspect that getting the road project going would be a lot harder than removing the trees. 

 

Watch the video again.  At about the 40 second mark, the train appears from behind the trees. It seems like if the trees were the only problem, you would see the train moving to the left of those trees. You don't. From that perspective, it seems the rest of the train is hidden by the geography. Cutting the trees would make some of the train visible sooner. Raising the gravel road level with the tracks would make all the train visible- and for a longer distance. Why would it be hard to raise the gravel road? It's done all the time. This one might even be easier than average because there's a gravel pit right down the road.

[tree68]

Euclid

One mile of warning at 90 mph would be 40 seconds.  Currently, the warning is 3 seconds.

The rules call for 20 seconds.  Odds are the Amtrak engineer was sounding his horn in the prescribed manner.

[Euclid]

How do you know that if you removed the trees, there would be other obstructions behind them?  How do you know the tracks go over a hill and out of sight?  That guy making the video said it is all river bottom land through that area.  I agree that easing the approach grades would help too, and that it would be ideal to remove the trees and ease the approaches.  But I suspect that getting the road project going would be a lot harder than removing the trees. 

[Murphy Siding]

Look at the video starting at about the 40 second mark. With those bushes gone the train would still appear to be out of sight, over the hill. To be fair, it looks like the video was filmed from the bottom of the incline on the gravel road. Maybe the easiest fix in this situation would be to cut the brush and to raise the gravel road level with the tracks for about 100 feet on each side of the rails. That would allow traffic to stop, check for approaching trains, and continue without having to putt-putt up the hill.

Euclid

 

 

Murphy Siding

From the linked video, it looks like cutting the brush would mean seeing the oncoming train only a second or two sooner.

 

 

 

 

Well, crossings with automatic lights and gates give a standard warning by activating 25 seconds before arriving at the crossing at maximum authorized track speed.  Looking at the map, I do not readily find the crossing, but the track looks straight about 5 miles either direction from Mendon, Missouri.  I’ll bet they could easily get an adequate warning interval at the subject crossing if they cut the trees near the crossing.  If they did that, from a viewpoint looking straight down the track, the train would come into the range of view but could not be seen without binoculars.  The headlight might be visible for as much as two miles, but one mile for sure.  One mile of warning at 90 mph would be 40 seconds.  Currently, the warning is 3 seconds.

 

[Euclid]

Murphy Siding

From the linked video, it looks like cutting the brush would mean seeing the oncoming train only a second or two sooner.

 

Well, crossings with automatic lights and gates give a standard warning by activating 25 seconds before arriving at the crossing at maximum authorized track speed.  Looking at the map, I do not readily find the crossing, but the track looks straight about 5 miles either direction from Mendon, Missouri.  I’ll bet they could easily get an adequate warning interval at the subject crossing if they cut the trees near the crossing.  If they did that, from a viewpoint looking straight down the track, the train would come into the range of view but could not be seen without binoculars.  The headlight might be visible for as much as two miles, but one mile for sure.  One mile of warning at 90 mph would be 40 seconds.  Currently, the warning is 3 seconds.

[charlie hebdo]

Euclid

Over a span of many years, how many Railroad and Government officials have examined this crossing, and how often did they examine it?  Could so many experts have actually missed the obvious problem?  I doubt it.  Apparently they all saw the problem, but each one decided it someone else’s problem. 

Precisely.  And how much detour and for how many vehicles daily would there be if crossings like this were closed?  Is it worth loss of lives so some trucker or farmer can save 10-15 minutes?

[Murphy Siding]

From the linked video, it looks like cutting the brush would mean seeing the oncoming train only a second or two sooner.

[Overmod]

I suspect the 'keeping up momentum' was a logical result of applying enough power to get the rear wheels over the crest of the steep approach; the truck would surge forward at that point since the driver is surely watching the crossing and not precisely where his back end is.  Look at where the front of a truck long enough to have tag axles would be at that point.

A problem is that Amtrak's liability is capped at $225M, the trucker is likely to file a quick and expedient BK, and under joint & several liability even if that brush is found to be only 5% or so... look for the deep pockets to be tapped.

[Euclid]

Erik_Mag

Larry,

Thanks - if the brush is on the ROW, I would expect that the trucking firm would use that as a defense. That's a big "if" and I have no idea of how that defense would hold up as the driver's responsibility was to keep an eye out for trains - i.e. counter-argument was that he shouldn't been using that crossing if he couldn't make sure if it was safe to cross.

 

Keeping an eye out for trains does no good if they are hidden from view. 

 

Look at this video starting at 0:40.  The trees are on the railroad right of way.  The train comes into view just as the horn begins to blow.  I count 4-5 seconds from the point the train can first be seen to the point where it is on the crossing.  I believe this is showing the train approaching on the same track and direction that the Amtrak train was on, and so this was the truck driver’s view just before the crash.

 

Look at the video at 0:25, and you can see the steepness of the approach.  I believe this is the approach on the side opposite the side the truck approached from, but judging by the video of the train approaching, I would say the approach gradient is about the same on both sides.   

 

The narrator says the rise from the low road up to the crossing elevation is approximately nine feet.  So if there is 50 ft. of travel in that approach, that is an 18% grade rising to the crossing. 

 

It has been claimed that the driver did not stop for the crossing.  The guy narrating the video says the driver had to keep his momentum up.  If so, I don’t believe the need to keep the momentum up was to avoid an inability to re-start after stopping, as has been suggested here. 

 

I think the choice to keep momentum up would have been to shorten the time span of fouling the crossing.  So his choice was either to get across quick while watching for a train; or to stop and spend a lot of time as a “sitting duck” after re-starting and crawling across the crossing. 

 

If it is true that the driver never stopped, I speculate that he chose to get across quick and into the clear rather than to spend a longer interval fouling the track if he had chosen to stop.  There is really no point in stopping if you are focusing attention on the point where a train can first be seen, and if you do stop, it will increase the risk of collision rather than reduce it, as the law assumes.  So if a driver is paying attention to the blind track approach, IT IS SAFER NOT TO STOP, versus stopping as the law requires.   

 

So stopping is not the key to preventing a collision at this crossing.  There is no key.  For a large, heavy vehicle, and a train approaching from the direction of the Amtrak train, this crossing is literally a game of “Russian Roulette.”  The only safety is the good chance that no train is approaching.

 

Over a span of many years, how many Railroad and Government officials have examined this crossing, and how often did they examine it?  Could so many experts have actually missed the obvious problem?  I doubt it.  Apparently they all saw the problem, but each one decided it someone else’s problem. 

 

Here is the video:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIpbUZ1QQLg

[Erik_Mag]

Larry,

Thanks - if the brush is on the ROW, I would expect that the trucking firm would use that as a defense. That's a big "if" and I have no idea of how that defense would hold up as the driver's responsibility was to keep an eye out for trains - i.e. counter-argument was that he shouldn't been using that crossing if he couldn't make sure if it was safe to cross.