Train vs Semi

[greyhounds]

Well, the reporter got this one right.  He/she said the truck driver drove in front of the train. But the headline writer (not the same person) didn't.  As in: "Train Hits Truck".

I guess we have to take what we get from "The Media".  I'm glad nobody has "life threatening" injuries.  Sure made a mess of that truck.

http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=403318&#storycomments

 

[Deggesty]

greyhounds

Well, the reporter got this one right.  He/she said the truck driver drove in front of the train. But the headline writer (not the same person) didn't.  As in: "Train Hits Truck".

My wife's comment on such as the headline writer's work would be the same as yours: "Well, the reporter got this one right." To say that the train hit the truck (or whatever) is to intimate that the train was not where it was supposed to be and hit something that was there.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

The headline writer got it right, too.  After all, the train DID hit the truck, even if the truck wasn't supposed to be there.

[blownout cylinder]

I think the headline writer did it to increase sales--we like to think the truck was hit by the train instead of the other way round. That way we can blame something other than ourselves for the problem that ensues...

[Ulrich]

I don't see anything wrong with the headline. It is  completely factual...the train DID hit the truck...no?

 We really don't know what happened here, so sticking to the facts is probably a good idea...quite possible and likely the truck driver did something wrong...other scenarios are also possible... driver was incapacitated...truck brakes failed... crossing lights weren't functioning (I've seen that one personally)..

[Modelcar]

So common, as writers / reporters deal with a train / vehicle accident.

Of course the train hit the truck, if it broadsided into the trailer, but of course the truck / trailer was where it was not supposed to be, probably disregarding all warnings that a train was about to occupy that very location of track it had every right to be on.

I too am pleased to hear driver will recover.....

[zardoz]

I bet that caused some anxious moments for the train crew; you never know what's in a truck: anything from air to toilet paper to heavy machinery to hazmat.

[WSORatSussex]

I saw some recent chatter on another railfan board about a CN train hitting a Manure Tanker - full - in Wisconsin. I'm sure it isn't pleasant to hit anything with a train, but a manure truck!

Here is a link found on Yahoo Groups : Wisrail added by another member.

www.flickr.com/photos/dasphotography/

 

I hope the link works!

[edbenton]

WSORatSussex

I saw some recent chatter on another railfan board about a CN train hitting a Manure Tanker - full - in Wisconsin. I'm sure it isn't pleasant to hit anything with a train, but a manure truck!

Here is a link found on Yahoo Groups : Wisrail added by another member.

www.flickr.com/photos/dasphotography/

 

I hope the link works!

 

That crew was prbally going man I wonder what the Yard crew is going to say when we pull up.  What did you hit an Outhouse or Something. 

[samfp1943]

I had hesitated to post this since it was a couple of weeks old (8/12/2010) but it was another instance of Train vs.Truck. Truck Driver killed. 

http://www.gordon-elias.com/blog/1214/semi-truck-driver-killed-trying-to-beat-an-oncoming-train/#more-1214

Happened near Whitewater Ks; That's between Wichita and newton, Ks on the UP.   The crossing was protected by active warning devices (Lights with Gates). Driver was 80 yrs old pulling a double bottom grain trailer rig. According to witnesses he pulled around the down gates and the Engineer put the train in emergency and momentum carried the train through the cross and a distance down the line.   All the details are in the article.

When giving OLI presentations to drivers, It was emphasized that it was virtually impossible to give a speed and distance to an approaching train when viewed from the angle of 90 degrees.( Virtually no optical reference points to judge speed from).   I'd guess the driver was familiar with that area as he was local to Whitewater,Ks, and could guess what spped was normal through that area.

I guess, ultimately, there is no defense for someone bent on doing stupid things.  

[zardoz]

samfp1943

I had hesitated to post this since it was a couple of weeks old (8/12/2010) but it was another instance of Train vs.Truck. Truck Driver killed. 

Happened near Whitewater Ks; That's between Wichita and newton, Ks on the UP.   The crossing was protected by active warning devices (Lights with Gates). Driver was 80 yrs old pulling a double bottom grain trailer rig. According to witnesses he pulled around the down gates and the Engineer put the train in emergency and momentum carried the train through the cross and a distance down the line.   All the details are in the article.

A few interesting tidbits from the article:

The first paragraph below the map quotes the Highway Patrol saying that the truck driver did not have his seat belt on.....like wearing a seatbelt or not was going to make any difference, especially considering (mentioned two paragraphs down where it was stated that) the train struck the cab of the truck.

Next, the article indicates the the engineer saw the truck from 1/4 of a mile (at the whistle post?) away and applied the emergency brake. My query is: if the train was going slow enough to stop in just over a quarter mile, then how long was this truck occupying the crossing?  To stop in 1/4 mile, the train couldn't have been going much over 30mph (unless the brakes were already set or it was all empties), which meant that it likely took the train a minimum of 30 seconds to get to the crossing from where the engineer claimed he first saw the truck.  Plus the train hit the cab of the truck--it wasn't like the truck was making a hasty move around the gates and the train just caught the rear trailer. If the engineer noticed something 30 seconds (1/4 mile) away, and the truck was only just beginning crossing the tracks when the train got there..... something just doesn't add up.

Lastly, the article says that the train continued another 10 car lengths down the track after the impact. So, considering the long time between the engineer's awareness of danger and the impact, plus the fact of only another 500' of travel after impact, the train could not have been going that fast when it hit. Although obviously fast enough.

[switch7frg]

  Sure put a big DENT in the trailer. ~~ The high dollar " dust screen" didn't fare well either.That driver sure has something to think about the guardian angel sitting beside him.

                                                       Jim

[samfp1943]

Zardoz:

     Everything you say is exactly right. I read the article and the only reason I could come up with comes from some years back when i was giving some OLI presentations and one of my fellow presenters was a NS Engineer from the Atlanta area.

   He made the point a couple of times that these violations of crossings by motorists was/are (?)  so common that most of the engineers made it a practice not to apply brakes until  moments before impact was to occur.  Most everyone here is aware of the complications, and what must happen in the event of an emergency brake application with a train.

 I know that is not exactly the required circumstances, but it seemed to be logical at the time it was explained to me.          I've been on a couple of OLI specials ( with a camer mounted and a viewing screen back in the train). Unfortunately, apparently close scrapes with ignorant motorists is way too common, consequently, the above mentioned defense moves by the engineers to be able to get their trains across their territory seems to be at least a rational approach to this ignorance of traffic laws by motorists.

 On a couple of posts in the past here there have been some comments by Forum members here who are Train crew that thety can expect several instances of ignored grade crossing protocols by motorists on each trip(?).

  

[zardoz]

samfp1943

He made the point a couple of times that these violations of crossings by motorists was/are (?)  so common that most of the engineers made it a practice not to apply brakes until  moments before impact was to occur. 

Yup. Once you know for certain that an impact is going to occur, you do the brakes for two reasons: 1. To satisfy the lawyers, and 2. To reduce the walking distance back to the incident site.

There are very few instances where any application of brakes (including emergency) due to a potential impact would have any positive outcome. The stopping distances (and times) are just too great. If an engineer dumped the air everytime some dolt drove around the gates or a tresspasser was near the right-of-way, trains would be nearly impossible to get over the road. In addition, there would be many stopped trains blocking crossings, repairing broken knuckles, chaining drawbars, etc.

samfp1943

On a couple of posts in the past here there have been some comments by Forum members here who are Train crew that thety can expect several instances of ignored grade crossing protocols by motorists on each trip.

Especially if you operate in an urban environment. And not only motorists, but pedestrians as well.

In my 20 years of running trains, I experienced 12 impact events which resulted in 9 fatalities and 6 seriously injured persons. I couldn't begin to tell you how many near-misses I had over those years, but if you count pedestrians, I probably had 1 or 2 incidents each trip. Of course, remember that I operated Metra suburban trains in Chicago, as well as freight north out of Proviso.