Bucyrus That is the hidden danger of false activation. That is, that it is like crying wolf. It does not justify or excuse ignoring the signals, but it does encourage it. I would suggest that a crossing signal that commonly false activates has a relatively higher probability of being ignored or violated than a signal that operates properly most of the time.
For me I have seen a couple of false activations near where I work but due to background noise of the area and the fact to track curves on either side, I won't risk crossing. However I did get out of my car once after waiting 15 minutes and no sign of train (I always have an "emergency" train camera available) walk up to the gate (I was the first car in line) to get the 800 number and called them. They asked for the gate designation and my phone number, and then called me back in ~2 min to tell me no train was in the area. Whether you would consider this smart and/or legal or not is debatable but at least people get notified of a possible gate malfunction and I felt safe driving across without getting killed.
ungern
PS if I do see someone driving around gates when I am also waiting I sometimes get a good picture just in case. My work depends on the railcars getting through to/from my place of employment so I have a vested interest in not having a branchline get shut down due to lawsuits.
Bucyrus I have read an article in the NY Times that discusses failure to activate as being a big problem nationwide. They cite several cases of complete failure and also something they call “short signal,” meaning failure to provide at least 20 seconds of warning before the train reaches the crossing. They concentrate a lot of scrutiny on Amtrak trains, and make the case that their different type of braking can render the locomotive incapable of activating grade crossing signals. Here it is, but the link may not work for long unless you register: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C01E1D61739F933A05751C1A9629C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C01E1D61739F933A05751C1A9629C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
I have never in my life read an article more filled with outright lies. I sent the NY Times ombudsman several letters at the time expressing my dismay but none were answered.
RWM
cx500Generally the design requirement for crossing circuits is that the flashing lights and bells be activated at least 20 seconds before a train traveling at the maximum permitted speed fouls the crossing. Another couple of seconds are added to allow for the system to activate. The gates start dropping several seconds after the lights.So if there is less than 20 seconds, it may mean the engineer was speeding. Some crossings have speed prediction (with various levels of intelligence) so that slow trains are not triggering the system too far in advance, or so a stopped train will release the warning system. In this case I suppose it is possible the designers may not have properly allowed for an accelerating train.And another time when the warning could be short is if a train reverses direction before completely clearing the end of the circuit. Simple circuit logic doesn't realize the train is not going away and will only activate the warning system when the lead car reaches the insulated joint right by the crossing. But in this case speeds are usually slow and there should be a crew member protecting the point. Single RDCs were sometimes unreliable when it came to triggering CTC track circuits, especially when travelling fast. Dispatchers didn't like it when they failed to drop an OS circuit and they had to wait for it to time out, or the train disappeared for a while on their board. I suspect that certain CTC installations may have had lower sensitivity, since the problem did not seem to be universal.On very rarely used lines, rusty rails can prevent the system sensing the presence of a train and crews are ordered to be prepared to stop and flag the crossing if necessary.Complete failure is generally due to a major blackout that lasts longer than the back-up batteries can handle. But anything built by man can fail although the safeguards built into railroad signals make such incidents vanishingly rare (I know of none). Such safety does not come cheap, and the cost of even a simple crossing warning system is many, many times that of a traffic light.John
Generally the design requirement for crossing circuits is that the flashing lights and bells be activated at least 20 seconds before a train traveling at the maximum permitted speed fouls the crossing. Another couple of seconds are added to allow for the system to activate. The gates start dropping several seconds after the lights.
So if there is less than 20 seconds, it may mean the engineer was speeding. Some crossings have speed prediction (with various levels of intelligence) so that slow trains are not triggering the system too far in advance, or so a stopped train will release the warning system. In this case I suppose it is possible the designers may not have properly allowed for an accelerating train.
And another time when the warning could be short is if a train reverses direction before completely clearing the end of the circuit. Simple circuit logic doesn't realize the train is not going away and will only activate the warning system when the lead car reaches the insulated joint right by the crossing. But in this case speeds are usually slow and there should be a crew member protecting the point.
Single RDCs were sometimes unreliable when it came to triggering CTC track circuits, especially when travelling fast. Dispatchers didn't like it when they failed to drop an OS circuit and they had to wait for it to time out, or the train disappeared for a while on their board. I suspect that certain CTC installations may have had lower sensitivity, since the problem did not seem to be universal.
On very rarely used lines, rusty rails can prevent the system sensing the presence of a train and crews are ordered to be prepared to stop and flag the crossing if necessary.
Complete failure is generally due to a major blackout that lasts longer than the back-up batteries can handle. But anything built by man can fail although the safeguards built into railroad signals make such incidents vanishingly rare (I know of none). Such safety does not come cheap, and the cost of even a simple crossing warning system is many, many times that of a traffic light.
John
In the U.S. the standard warning time is 25 seconds. To this we add 5 seconds for equipment activation times, 1-5 seconds for vehicle clearance times if more than one track is inside the signals (depending on # of tracks and track centerline spacing), and additional time for traffic signal intertie pre-empt time, if such is included. The approach circuit is established at the distance calculated for that total time for the maximum authorized train speed limit on the subdivision. Thus, if the warning time is less, it is because the train is either in excess of the maximum authorized subdivision speed, or the train did not shunt the circuit, or the equipment malfunctioned.
There are few remaining signalized crossings in the U.S. without a Grade Crossing Predictor (GCP), which provides a constant warning time regardless of the train speed, direction, acceleration, deceleration, or reversal of direction. Similarly, there are few remaining crossings without event recorders that provide information about the warning time, the apparent speed of the train entering the approach circuit and any train speed changes, battery health, and so forth.
Railway Man I have never in my life read an article more filled with outright lies. I sent the NY Times ombudsman several letters at the time expressing my dismay but none were answered. RWM
Back around 1994, I wrote a letter to CBS regarding their clip on "Eye to Eye" with Connie Chung about railroad crossing accidents. They basically made it look like crossing accidents were the fault of the railroads, showing people going around lowered gates as well as telling about and showing accidents. They even had a camera crew on a crossing as the gates were coming down so they could film a train coming at the camera. I think my letter wound up at seven pages long with everything I had issues with on the show.
Kevin
http://chatanuga.org/RailPage.html
http://chatanuga.org/WLMR.html
Re: " Here it is, but the link may not work for long unless you register:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C01E1D61739F933A05751C1A9629C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all "
I don't know when I've seen such bias and illogic in a "news" piece. Superior journalism at the NY TIMES, huh...
If you'll p-m me your contact at the paper, I'll give him/her a piece of my mind, too.
- a.s.
PS: I was able to read the article without logging in or registering at the site.
I had the link open for a while when I first looked at it, but after some time, it went away and said that I had to register in order to see it. That is why I was not sure if it would hold up here.
The piece seems targeted to people who might end up on juries like the one in the Anoka crash. The theme is that there are far more signal failure-to-activate incidents than are officially tallied. I cannot pick out and verify the lies, but I have no doubt as to their existence. But aside from lies, the article seems like it is advancing an agenda when it mentions that MOW equipment fails to activate crossing signals, but fails to mention that such equipment is supposed to yield to motor vehicles at grade crossings.
Also indicative of an ulterior motive is the fact that the article cites the total number of phone calls about crossing malfunctions, which includes false activation as well as failure to activate, while the actual problem that is the subject of the article is only related to a failure to activate.
It mentions that many grade crossing signal failures are hard to confirm, leaving the impression that the only way to confirm them is to test the equipment after a crash, and discover that it fails again upon testing. This reinforces the impression that signal failure-to-activate cases occur often, but are not confirmed or counted in many cases.
The NY Times says they found, within a 4-year period, 400 grade crossing crashes where the signals either did not activate or were alleged to have malfunctioned. Yet the statistic is meaningless unless we are told how many of the 400 cases involved signals that did not activate, and how many involved signals that were alleged to have malfunctioned. The truth might be that one case involved a signal that did not activate, and the other 399 cases involved signals that were alleged to have malfunctioned. And all of the allegers may have lied for all we know. And even with those loopholes in the evidence, the Times admits that they don’t know what role the alleged malfunctions played in the crashes, it any. And finally, they do not tell us how many of the 45 deaths arising from this 4-year analysis were caused by signal failure-to-activate, yet that is the theme of the article.
There are a few things that have not been brought out in this discussion. The BNSF and Ferry Street in Anoka Minnesota do not cross at right angles; seeing an oncoming train is difficult in both directions. The BNSF tracks run Northwest Southeast while Ferry street runs North and South. The BNSF track is double track and has 30 plus freights and Amtrak which would be doing 90 crossing Ferry Street.
BNSF approaches Anoka through Coon Rapids which has several grade crossings.The suburb and its residents have had a less than cordial relationship over train noise. Train whistles are forbidden at many crossings in Coon Rapids. BNSF lawyers should have checked the jury pool to see if jurors lived in Coon Rapids and how they felt about BNSF and train noise.
BNSF has had at least three incidents in which one of their trains has hit a tresspasser resulting in death.The Twin Cities media has been very sympathetic to the victims.They seem anti-train. I notice that BNSF special agents have zero tolerence for tresspassers on the tracks out of Northtown.
I think most of the general public who lives near or commutes over a crossing has at one time or another observed a false activation of the crossing signals. Having personally seen one failure mode, a false activation; they then assume the opposite failure mode, a failure to operate, occurs with the same frequency. Presumably the railroads have the data that would refute the same frequency idea, but to present it in court they would have to admit failures to operate do happen.
As video becomes increasing standard in locomotives, one would assume this problem would tend to be minimized.
al-in-chgo I don't know when I've seen such bias and illogic in a "news" piece.
I don't know when I've seen such bias and illogic in a "news" piece.
You've obviously never watched the "fair and balanced" (?) news on Fox. Also keep in mind that the Chicago Tribune is regularly accused of having a liberal (!) bias.
aricatThere are a few things that have not been brought out in this discussion. The BNSF and Ferry Street in Anoka Minnesota do not cross at right angles; seeing an oncoming train is difficult in both directions. The BNSF tracks run Northwest Southeast while Ferry street runs North and South. The BNSF track is double track and has 30 plus freights and Amtrak which would be doing 90 crossing Ferry Street. BNSF approaches Anoka through Coon Rapids which has several grade crossings.The suburb and its residents have had a less than cordial relationship over train noise. Train whistles are forbidden at many crossings in Coon Rapids. BNSF lawyers should have checked the jury pool to see if jurors lived in Coon Rapids and how they felt about BNSF and train noise. BNSF has had at least three incidents in which one of their trains has hit a tresspasser resulting in death.The Twin Cities media has been very sympathetic to the victims.They seem anti-train. I notice that BNSF special agents have zero tolerence for tresspassers on the tracks out of Northtown.
In my experience, it's communities like this that jump up and down until their community is labeled a quiet zone, and then something like this happens, and still, they scream about how it's the railroad's fault. Quiet zones are counter-productive, and only cause more problems. If you don't like the noise, move somewhere away from the tracks. Problem solved. People don't seem to realize that the railroads didn't come up with the concept of a horn or whistle to annoy the general public, but to protect them from getting killed.
The vast majority of all grade level crossings were build after the railroad was already there.
When are we going to start a program to eliminate those crossings?
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Phoebe Vet The vast majority of all grade level crossings were build after the railroad was already there. When are we going to start a program to eliminate those crossings?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
There are numerous facts that have not been brought out in this discussion. I sat through 5+ years of pre-trial motions, hearings, and discovery and then sat through every day of the six week trial.
The physical evidence did prove (beyond any reasonable doubt), that the vehicle was in the proper lane (all physical evidence supported and proved this), and was traveling under the posted the speed limit. The train on the other hand, was traveling above the posted limit, and the engineer did not blow the horn as required, and did not apply brakes until at least 7 seconds after the time of impact with the car (despite having testified that he watched the car drive around the gates). By the way, he also got the color of the car wrong, and identified the wrong victim as the driver. He was absolutely certain in his testimony of the driver and certain placement of the victims within the car. He got it all wrong! This was later proved through painful testimony and graphic images of injuries suffered by the occupants of the vehicle.
BNSF did in fact, abuse the legal process and WILL be sanctioned for their outrageous behavior in this case. BNSF abused the rules of discovery, destroyed critical evidence (including signal diagrams and event recorder data; contrary to documented policies and against specific direction from senior management of BNSF the night of the accident), altered electronic signal data, failed to cooperate with law enforcement officials, and generally misled the court throughout the entire proceeding. I've not even begun to address all the issues and outright unethical behavior within the context of this post.
The comments made about the jury by some who posted comments, are simply wrong. This jury sat through weeks of lies, contradiction, and altered data offered by the railroad. They made a good and just decision.
I realize this forum is biased on the side of the railroad, but I would suggest trying to put yourselves into the same position that these kids were in the night of the accident. Until this railroad starts taking responsibility for the action and/or inactions, our rail crossings will not be safe.
Informed There are numerous facts that have not been brought out in this discussion. I sat through 5+ years of pre-trial motions, hearings, and discovery and then sat through every day of the six week trial. The physical evidence did prove (beyond any reasonable doubt), that the vehicle was in the proper lane (all physical evidence supported and proved this), and was traveling under the posted the speed limit. The train on the other hand, was traveling above the posted limit, and the engineer did not blow the horn as required, and did not apply brakes until at least 7 seconds after the time of impact with the car (despite having testified that he watched the car drive around the gates). By the way, he also got the color of the car wrong, and identified the wrong victim as the driver. He was absolutely certain in his testimony of the driver and certain placement of the victims within the car. He got it all wrong! This was later proved through painful testimony and graphic images of injuries suffered by the occupants of the vehicle. BNSF did in fact, abuse the legal process and WILL be sanctioned for their outrageous behavior in this case. BNSF abused the rules of discovery, destroyed critical evidence (including signal diagrams and event recorder data; contrary to documented policies and against specific direction from senior management of BNSF the night of the accident), altered electronic signal data, failed to cooperate with law enforcement officials, and generally misled the court throughout the entire proceeding. I've not even begun to address all the issues and outright unethical behavior within the context of this post. The comments made about the jury by some who posted comments, are simply wrong. This jury sat through weeks of lies, contradiction, and altered data offered by the railroad. They made a good and just decision. I realize this forum is biased on the side of the railroad, but I would suggest trying to put yourselves into the same position that these kids were in the night of the accident. Until this railroad starts taking responsibility for the action and/or inactions, our rail crossings will not be safe.
As for an eyewitness not getting all the facts straight, I can understand that without accosing them of lying. We all pay attention to different things and I will always believe a photo over an eyewitness everyday. I would not expect the engineer or conductor to get everything straight during an emotional/streesful situation like a deadly grade crossing incident.
You say that the railroad should take responsibility for grade crossing. How about the communities that put the road in after the railline was there? I personaly believe that for every grade crossing that is installed after a railroad is laid then the city/county/state should accept 100% liability, because if the railroads would have their way there would be 0 grade crossings.
As about whether evidence was destroyed the question is whether there is a systematic destruction or just individual error. Sometimes things do inadvertently get trashed. I won't argue about whether evidence was destroyed because I do not know the specific facts of the case.
As for placing a train into emergency many engineers on this forum would say that until an actual collision takes place they do not simply due to the risk of derailments and if the car is not hit driver will just go along his merry way without any regard to the derailment that just happened.
I'll let engineers on the forum answer about possible reasons why the horn would not be sounded.
BTW, since you at the trial what was the engineer's response to not sounding the horn and/or exceeding the speed limit?
CSSHEGEWISCH al-in-chgo I don't know when I've seen such bias and illogic in a "news" piece. You've obviously never watched the "fair and balanced" (?) news on Fox. Also keep in mind that the Chicago Tribune is regularly accused of having a liberal (!) bias.
I don't really think of TV news as news. I was especially appalled a couple of nights ago in Elkhart when I turned on the cable TV (at home we don't have cable), landed on "Fox News" and saw a clearly opinionated show by a conservative talk-show host who used news only to editorialize upon it and harangue people who didn't hold his own right-wing views.
The NYT does indeed have a liberal, anti-private enterprise bias, in that it often takes the assumption that big companies are wrong from the git-go. This can be seen in the BNSF article which subtly downplayed any compliance the RR might have done, yet implied a lot (with no real evidence) what bad operators the co. is supposed to be (or perhaps better said, assumed to be). Little if any of this has to do with truth, logic or a coherent flow of ideas and information.
People say the TRIB is liberal? Who, Rush Limbaugh?? Most self-appointed conservative political pundits were pretty OK with the TRIB (as opposed to the rival SUN-TIMES), until the TRIB endorsed Obama in the presidential election. Ever since then, it has been a target for scorn. How does a mentality which sees only black-and-white (no pun intended) to which to subject its ideology -- how do they wind up on TV? Because people like it enough to watch it, I guess. - a.s.
Informed I sat through 5+ years of pre-trial motions, hearings, and discovery and then sat through every day of the six week trial.
Welcome to the forum. Thank you for sharing your point of view.
Welcome to the forum. I will gladly listen to and consider your account of the trial since you claim to have extensive experience with it. As I said in the first post, I have no idea what to make of the story, because I can only go by what was reported in the news, and that accounting raises many questions the go unanswered.
Reading your account and the news media’s account of the railroad’s behavior, I get the following perception: The jury concluded that the BNSF lied, destroyed incriminating evidence, were uncooperative, and generally so incorrigibly dishonest and deceitful that when they said the signals were working properly, that claim was outright rejected by the jury because the BNSF had no credibility due to their litany of bad behavior.
But what was the actual direct evidence that the signals were not working? I want to know exactly how the physical evidence supported and proved that the vehicle was in the proper lane when it was hit. Was there fresh damage to the roadway or crossing surface that was within the proper lane for the vehicle? Were there tire skid marks running parallel with the tracks, and beginning within the proper lane for the vehicle?
The news report linked with this thread says that the police said that the evidence at the scene was consistent with a vehicle running around the lowered gate. What evidence were they talking about? How do you reconcile their conclusion with your contention that the evidence showed the car to be in the proper lane when hit?
The traffic laws state that the crossbuck at the crossing constitutes a yield sign that requires a driver to look for trains and yield if any are approaching whether the signals are activated or not. The driver failed to yield. Doesn’t that place him at fault for the crash?
So, what do you propose the railroad does to further crossing safety? Make trains go two miles per hour through a crossing? Seriously, though, what else can be done, and at what point is it the driver's responsibility to prevent accidents of this nature? Even if the signals aren't operating, it's must be assumed that a train may be approaching.
As for the engineer misidentifying the driver and color of the car, in traumatic events such as this, eyewitnesses generally don't give out entirely accurate info, simply because of the mind beginning to race. That doesn't prove any wrongdoing on the railroad's part. Put yourself in his position. You act as if he intended to plow through a car. This man has to go through the rest of his life with the events of that night running through his mind, and the eternal questioning of "What if?"
As for your claims of so-called "bias," it's not really that at all. As railfans, we have a general understanding of procedure, and through that, we have a hard time believing that it's completely the fault of the railroad.
Well, this certainly is interesting.
First, if you lost someone in the crash you have my condolences and sympathy.
But the railroad's highway crossings are safe. The BNSF operates from Birmingham, Alabama to Vancouver, British Columbia, from Chicago to Los Angeles, from Duluth to Phoenix, etc. They have thousands of highway crossings. Hundreds of thousands of autos cross the BNSF with safety every day.
Your understandably emotional posting focuses on irrelevent details. Why would the engineer be able to place the deceased in their proper positions in the vehicle? I think trying to get him to do so was a lawyer's trick to discredit all his testimony. That the judge allowed it speaks volumes.
You say evidence was destroyed "contrary to documented policies and against specific direction from senior management of BNSF the night of the accident." I don't know if evidence was destroyed or not, but by your own words you acknowledge such action would be contrary to the railroad's policies and instructions. You can't accuse the railroad of destroying evidence when senior management had policies in place and gave instructions to preserve the evidence. Maybe some employee went off on his/her own and behaved irresponsibly by loosing or destroying evidence. But that's not "The Railroad" destroying evidence.
The fact that the auto was in the "right" lane is not relevant. The driver would have had to manuever to return to the "right" lane in order to exit the crossing since the gates were down. Otherwise he would have had to intentionally crash through the lowered gate protecting the auto traffic crossing from the other direction.
One thing that is certain. The railroads do need to mount video recorders on every leading locomotive.
ungern:
Thank you for the thoughtful response.
I understand the point you are making here, and setting this situation aside, would generally agree with you. However, the testimony that was offered in this situation was clearly "coached", even to the untrained eye. In addition, so much of the testimony was later proven inaccurate that it becomes difficult to accept most of it.
I agree with the basis of your comments. The only safe crossing is no crossing. Currently, that's not possible. While I'm not entirely certain (in other words, I could be wrong), it is my understanding that tax monies fund the installation of the crossing and warning devices. However, the railroads maintain them and claim ownership of devices, data, and resulting evidence in a situation where an accident occurs. If the railroad is uncooperative in turning over the data, supporting the investigation, or otherwise provides false assumptions to accident investigation teams on the outset, it becomes extremely difficult to understand the true nature of the accident.
In my humble opinion, there was a gross systematic failure on the part of the railroad to preserve the evidence. I realize this statement could be somewhat judgmental. However, in several cases the railroad clearly failed to preserve the evidence, and in others either hid or intentionally destroyed the evidence. There were also situations where the railroad presented human altered data as factual event recorder downloads.
Not throwing the train into emergency immediately, still puzzles me (especially when the Engineer testified that he supposedly saw them driving around the gate). If you look at the second hand on your watch while you read this response and let it fully tick down seconds, that's a really long time.
With respect to the horn, I'm not completely certain that there was no horn. In this situation there are two crossings that are geographically very close to one another; just across the river from one another. I think the horn was sounded correctly at the first of those crossings, but was not quite right for the second one. I can't recall the exact details, but the horn should sound in a series of long and short blasts before and possibly thru, the crossing. I recall that there were issues with the sequence and/or timing of the horn, but can't recall the exact details. In fairness to the Engineer, I will leave it at that.
I recall that the event recorders for the locomotive showed a speed of 62 mph with a speed limit of 60 mph at the time of impact. There was a "measured mile" just past the crossing where this accident occurred and the Engineer was trying to get the locomotive up to a speed of 60 mph for that test.
Thanks for the warm welcome
Bucyrus But what was the actual direct evidence that the signals were not working? I want to know exactly how the physical evidence supported and proved that the vehicle was in the proper lane when it was hit. Was there fresh damage to the roadway or crossing surface that was within the proper lane for the vehicle? Were there tire skid marks running parallel with the tracks, and beginning within the proper lane for the vehicle? The news report linked with this thread says that the police said that the evidence at the scene was consistent with a vehicle running around the lowered gate. What evidence were they talking about? How do you reconcile their conclusion with your contention that the evidence showed the car to be in the proper lane when hit? The traffic laws state that the crossbuck at the crossing constitutes a yield sign that requires a driver to look for trains and yield if any are approaching whether the signals are activated or not. The driver failed to yield. Doesn’t that place him at fault for the crash?
To your point, all of the physical evidence put the vehicle in the correct lane of travel. The physical evidence included scrap marks on the pavement, fluid splatter, skid marks, and other debris. Further tests and analysis, including use of an exemplar vehicle, proved that it was physically impossible to maneuver the exemplar vehicle around the gate and put it in the place that the vehicle was impacted by the locomotive. Simply put (I'm not an accident reconstruction expert), the vehicle could not have been impacted where it was, if the gates were down as originally claimed.
With respect to the assignment of fault, the jury's decision was that 90% fault was assigned to BNSF, and 10% fault was assigned to the driver. I'm not qualified to speculate on the legal question that you pose above with respect to failure to yield.
Informed Thanks for the warm welcome
WELCOME! WELCOME! WELCOME!
BNSF & DMIR 4Ever So, what do you propose the railroad does to further crossing safety? Make trains go two miles per hour through a crossing? Seriously, though, what else can be done, and at what point is it the driver's responsibility to prevent accidents of this nature? Even if the signals aren't operating, it's must be assumed that a train may be approaching. I don’t pretend to have all the answers with respect to ensuring the safety of the motoring public at rail crossings. Furthermore, while it would be my hope that we could somehow prevent these accidents from occurring, I know that it is an impossibility. Signal systems and crossing protection devices/systems can and do fail in an unsafe way, and drivers don’t always anticipate the potential dangers inherent with rail crossings. As for the engineer misidentifying the driver and color of the car, in traumatic events such as this, eyewitnesses generally don't give out entirely accurate info, simply because of the mind beginning to race. That doesn't prove any wrongdoing on the railroad's part. Put yourself in his position. You act as if he intended to plow through a car. This man has to go through the rest of his life with the events of that night running through his mind, and the eternal questioning of "What if?" I in no way, shape, or form intended to attack the Engineer. In reflecting on my own words, I now realize it may have appeared that way. Apologies all the way around in that regard. With so much of the facts presented from the eyewitness testimony later being proved inaccurate, it becomes extremely difficult to sort out what was accurate and factual. Since the railroad took the position that another victim was the driver, and the supporting evidence was the eyewitness account of the Engineer, these seemingly small details become very important. As for your claims of so-called "bias," it's not really that at all. As railfans, we have a general understanding of procedure, and through that, we have a hard time believing that it's completely the fault of the railroad. Again, no willful intention on my part to offend anyone (if I did so, apologies for that). I read every post on this thread of discussion and appreciate the insight that this group has provided. I thought long and hard about even posting my initial response. I just wanted to ensure that the full story was being represented.
I don’t pretend to have all the answers with respect to ensuring the safety of the motoring public at rail crossings. Furthermore, while it would be my hope that we could somehow prevent these accidents from occurring, I know that it is an impossibility. Signal systems and crossing protection devices/systems can and do fail in an unsafe way, and drivers don’t always anticipate the potential dangers inherent with rail crossings.
I in no way, shape, or form intended to attack the Engineer. In reflecting on my own words, I now realize it may have appeared that way. Apologies all the way around in that regard. With so much of the facts presented from the eyewitness testimony later being proved inaccurate, it becomes extremely difficult to sort out what was accurate and factual. Since the railroad took the position that another victim was the driver, and the supporting evidence was the eyewitness account of the Engineer, these seemingly small details become very important.
Again, no willful intention on my part to offend anyone (if I did so, apologies for that). I read every post on this thread of discussion and appreciate the insight that this group has provided. I thought long and hard about even posting my initial response. I just wanted to ensure that the full story was being represented.
greyhounds Well, this certainly is interesting. First, if you lost someone in the crash you have my condolences and sympathy. But the railroad's highway crossings are safe. The BNSF operates from Birmingham, Alabama to Vancouver, British Columbia, from Chicago to Los Angeles, from Duluth to Phoenix, etc. They have thousands of highway crossings. Hundreds of thousands of autos cross the BNSF with safety every day. Your understandably emotional posting focuses on irrelevent details. Why would the engineer be able to place the deceased in their proper positions in the vehicle? I think trying to get him to do so was a lawyer's trick to discredit all his testimony. That the judge allowed it speaks volumes. You say evidence was destroyed "contrary to documented policies and against specific direction from senior management of BNSF the night of the accident." I don't know if evidence was destroyed or not, but by your own words you acknowledge such action would be contrary to the railroad's policies and instructions. You can't accuse the railroad of destroying evidence when senior management had policies in place and gave instructions to preserve the evidence. Maybe some employee went off on his/her own and behaved irresponsibly by loosing or destroying evidence. But that's not "The Railroad" destroying evidence. The fact that the auto was in the "right" lane is not relevant. The driver would have had to manuever to return to the "right" lane in order to exit the crossing since the gates were down. Otherwise he would have had to intentionally crash through the lowered gate protecting the auto traffic crossing from the other direction. One thing that is certain. The railroads do need to mount video recorders on every leading locomotive.
Thanks for your concern. I think I addressed most of your questions through the responses that I provided in earlier posts.
WTR to placement of victims in the vehicle, BNSF argued and maintained a diferent victim involved in the accident was driving (for reasons only known to the railroad). In fact, this was one point that the jury was required to deliberate against and find judgement. While I can't crawl inside the head of the judge in this case, I'm quite certain that she was requried to hear the testimony at the urging of the railroad and the legal staff that represented them.
I'm not certain how to respond to your legal question regarding destruction of evidence. That question will have to answered or pondered by someone with much more experience in the law than I currently possess.
Lastly, the car could not have been impacted where it was, if the crossing arms were in fact, in the down position. It was physically impossible and that fact was proven during the trial.
Once cameras are in all locos 90% of all litigations will be eliminated and the very few that can be traced to a RR fault will be settled out of court.
blue streak 1 Once cameras are in all locos 90% of all litigations will be eliminated and the very few that can be traced to a RR fault will be settled out of court.
Informed ungern: Thank you for the thoughtful response. you're welcome. As for an eyewitness not getting all the facts straight, I can understand that without accosing them of lying. We all pay attention to different things and I will always believe a photo over an eyewitness everyday. I would not expect the engineer or conductor to get everything straight during an emotional/streesful situation like a deadly grade crossing incident. I understand the point you are making here, and setting this situation aside, would generally agree with you. However, the testimony that was offered in this situation was clearly "coached", even to the untrained eye. In addition, so much of the testimony was later proven inaccurate that it becomes difficult to accept most of it. Aren't most witnesses coached before trial by their sides lawyers? I thought that was normal because when I have been stuck on jury duty that is the feeling I get from all of them. BTW it seems that I get stuck on criminal jurys after the defense has used all their preemptive challenges and since I am an engineer(industrial not train type), the prosecution types like me which means I get stuck in multiday/week murder trials. You say that the railroad should take responsibility for grade crossing. How about the communities that put the road in after the railline was there? I personaly believe that for every grade crossing that is installed after a railroad is laid then the city/county/state should accept 100% liability, because if the railroads would have their way there would be 0 grade crossings. I agree with the basis of your comments. The only safe crossing is no crossing. Currently, that's not possible. While I'm not entirely certain (in other words, I could be wrong), it is my understanding that tax monies fund the installation of the crossing and warning devices. However, the railroads maintain them and claim ownership of devices, data, and resulting evidence in a situation where an accident occurs. If the railroad is uncooperative in turning over the data, supporting the investigation, or otherwise provides false assumptions to accident investigation teams on the outset, it becomes extremely difficult to understand the true nature of the accident. From what I understand(and I am not an expert) the state/county/city tells the railroad this is what we'll pay for a crossing and the railroad supplies the protection that is within that price. Anyone on this forum to explain this in more detail who actually knows the details please? So unless I am wrong if a city will only pay for a crossbucks sign that is all they get. Conversely, if a city wants four quadrant protection that is what they get. Any railroad lawyers lurking around who want to respond? As about whether evidence was destroyed the question is whether there is a systematic destruction or just individual error. Sometimes things do inadvertently get trashed. I won't argue about whether evidence was destroyed because I do not know the specific facts of the case. In my humble opinion, there was a gross systematic failure on the part of the railroad to preserve the evidence. I realize this statement could be somewhat judgmental. However, in several cases the railroad clearly failed to preserve the evidence, and in others either hid or intentionally destroyed the evidence. There were also situations where the railroad presented human altered data as factual event recorder downloads. As for placing a train into emergency many engineers on this forum would say that until an actual collision takes place they do not simply due to the risk of derailments and if the car is not hit driver will just go along his merry way without any regard to the derailment that just happened. I'll let engineers on the forum answer about possible reasons why the horn would not be sounded. Not throwing the train into emergency immediately, still puzzles me (especially when the Engineer testified that he supposedly saw them driving around the gate). If you look at the second hand on your watch while you read this response and let it fully tick down seconds, that's a really long time. I'll let the engineers here respond to this. BTW, since you at the trial what was the engineer's response to not sounding the horn and/or exceeding the speed limit? With respect to the horn, I'm not completely certain that there was no horn. In this situation there are two crossings that are geographically very close to one another; just across the river from one another. I think the horn was sounded correctly at the first of those crossings, but was not quite right for the second one. I can't recall the exact details, but the horn should sound in a series of long and short blasts before and possibly thru, the crossing. I recall that there were issues with the sequence and/or timing of the horn, but can't recall the exact details. In fairness to the Engineer, I will leave it at that. I recall that the event recorders for the locomotive showed a speed of 62 mph with a speed limit of 60 mph at the time of impact. There was a "measured mile" just past the crossing where this accident occurred and the Engineer was trying to get the locomotive up to a speed of 60 mph for that test.
you're welcome.
Aren't most witnesses coached before trial by their sides lawyers? I thought that was normal because when I have been stuck on jury duty that is the feeling I get from all of them. BTW it seems that I get stuck on criminal jurys after the defense has used all their preemptive challenges and since I am an engineer(industrial not train type), the prosecution types like me which means I get stuck in multiday/week murder trials.
From what I understand(and I am not an expert) the state/county/city tells the railroad this is what we'll pay for a crossing and the railroad supplies the protection that is within that price. Anyone on this forum to explain this in more detail who actually knows the details please? So unless I am wrong if a city will only pay for a crossbucks sign that is all they get. Conversely, if a city wants four quadrant protection that is what they get. Any railroad lawyers lurking around who want to respond?
I'll let the engineers here respond to this.
I know that the the wonderful world created by lawyers these days that 62 vs 60 is the end of the world. With similar thoughts about sounding the horn. Where I work there are grade crossings after grade crossings for at least to miles with the crossing less then a quarter mile apart so sometimes I do hear not completely correct horn signals but usually I know if there is something and heavy coming and I pay very careful attention aroung these tracks because a bad day is any day that I lose my life or limb. Otherwise, I have a good day no matter how awful it my get.
PS Welcome to the forum. I hope you like trains or just want to learn to learn more about them because there are lots of knowledgable people here.
Informed Bucyrus But what was the actual direct evidence that the signals were not working? I want to know exactly how the physical evidence supported and proved that the vehicle was in the proper lane when it was hit. Was there fresh damage to the roadway or crossing surface that was within the proper lane for the vehicle? Were there tire skid marks running parallel with the tracks, and beginning within the proper lane for the vehicle? The news report linked with this thread says that the police said that the evidence at the scene was consistent with a vehicle running around the lowered gate. What evidence were they talking about? How do you reconcile their conclusion with your contention that the evidence showed the car to be in the proper lane when hit? The traffic laws state that the crossbuck at the crossing constitutes a yield sign that requires a driver to look for trains and yield if any are approaching whether the signals are activated or not. The driver failed to yield. Doesn’t that place him at fault for the crash? To your point, all of the physical evidence put the vehicle in the correct lane of travel. The physical evidence included scrap marks on the pavement, fluid splatter, skid marks, and other debris. Further tests and analysis, including use of an exemplar vehicle, proved that it was physically impossible to maneuver the exemplar vehicle around the gate and put it in the place that the vehicle was impacted by the locomotive. Simply put (I'm not an accident reconstruction expert), the vehicle could not have been impacted where it was, if the gates were down as originally claimed. With respect to the assignment of fault, the jury's decision was that 90% fault was assigned to BNSF, and 10% fault was assigned to the driver. I'm not qualified to speculate on the legal question that you pose above with respect to failure to yield.
Thank you for that information. I appreciate the insight you have provided and the clarity of your statements. As I understand it, the crash scene evidence places the car within its proper lane of travel at the point that it was struck dead center by the train. It has been reported that the car was verified to have been traveling at 28 mph at the point of impact.
I further understand that actual vehicle testing at the site proved conclusively that the car, when struck, was positioned in its own lane, parallel with it, and that it could not have gotten into that position had it run around the first gate. If that is true, I can see no explanation other than that the gates failed to activate.
But since the whole case pivots on whether the gates and signals were activated, I have lingering questions about the demonstration that proved that the car could not have gotten into the location where it was hit had it run around the first lowered gate. Did you witness this test? When you say that this was proven, I have a question about the term, “proven.” By “proven,” which of the following two definitions do you mean?
1) The jury simply accepted the outcome of the test with the exemplar vehicle as proof that the car could not have gotten into the location where it was hit had it run around the first lowered gate.
2) The test with exemplar vehicle proved that outcome in a scientific manner that would with withstand the peer review of the scientific community.
I assume that it would be item #1. I would like to know who did the test. Was the exemplar vehicle identical to the vehicle that was struck by the train? Who was driving the vehicle? Any driver making this desperate maneuver while actually trying to beat a train is going to try as hard as they can to get back into their lane as quickly as possible. How do you know that the driver of the test vehicle made the maximum effort to get back into his lane before reaching the tracks?
It would be possible to run the test where the only objective was to miss both gates. If you did that, the car would probably be straddling the two lanes as it crossed the railroad centerline between the two tracks. But still, it may be possible to get back into the proper lane earlier by steering into that lane tighter after going around the first lowered gate. If one were to steer tight enough, the car would go into a side skid or roll over.
After going around the first lowered gate, did the test driver push this return steer tight enough to cause the car to go into a side skid, or begin to rise up on two wheels and begin to roll? If he did not, I don’t see how the test can conclude that the vehicle in the crash could not have gotten into that position if it ran around the first gate when lowered.
This might seem like nit picking, but the outcome of this test would be riding a very fine line between proving that the gates were either up or down.
However, in thinking about this further, if the car was southbound and the train eastbound as has been mentioned in this thread, then the car would probably have encountered the train on the first of the two tracks. I looked at some single-track crossings yesterday. If the distance between the gate and that first track at the Anoka crossing is similar to the gate-to-track distance in a single track crossing, I think it would be impossible to go around the lowered gate and get fully back into the proper lane and squared up with it upon reaching the track centerline. It might not be possible at the lowest possible vehicle speed, let alone at 28 mph. The steering geometry of the vehicle may simply have not permitted the move.
Bucyrus Sorry for the delayed response to your post. Wow, you have really put some thought into this post and my response will unfortunately not be as articulate with respect to many of the questions you asked. Thank you for that information. I appreciate the insight you have provided and the clarity of your statements. As I understand it, the crash scene evidence places the car within its proper lane of travel at the point that it was struck dead center by the train. It has been reported that the car was verified to have been traveling at 28 mph at the point of impact. I further understand that actual vehicle testing at the site proved conclusively that the car, when struck, was positioned in its own lane, parallel with it, and that it could not have gotten into that position had it run around the first gate. If that is true, I can see no explanation other than that the gates failed to activate. Your understanding is correct, based upon the testimony and evidence that was submitted at the trial along with the conclusions that were drawn from both. Furthermore, if the gates did in fact function correctly that night, there would have been proof of evasive maneuvering actions left on the road, and a very different debris field from what was catalogued, photographed, inventoried, measured, and analyzed by the State Patrol and other accident reconstruction experts. But since the whole case pivots on whether the gates and signals were activated, I have lingering questions about the demonstration that proved that the car could not have gotten into the location where it was hit had it run around the first lowered gate. Did you witness this test? When you say that this was proven, I have a question about the term, “proven.” By “proven,” which of the following two definitions do you mean? 1) The jury simply accepted the outcome of the test with the exemplar vehicle as proof that the car could not have gotten into the location where it was hit had it run around the first lowered gate. 2) The test with exemplar vehicle proved that outcome in a scientific manner that would with withstand the peer review of the scientific community. Please appreciate that there has been considerable time that has passed since some of these events have taken place and the subject matter is very technical. That said, I will endeavor to respond with as much accuracy as possible, but I’m certain that I won’t recall every significant detail.There were two separate and distinct rounds of testing that occurred. In both scenarios, identical vehicles; right down to the pin striping, were used within the testing. The first set of testing was conducted by the State Troopers and happened within days of the accident. As I understand it (I did not witness this testing), they were operating on the basis that it was a fact that the motorist had driven around the gates and was struck by the locomotive. The State Patrol was puzzled by the physical evidence and obtained an exemplar vehicle in an attempt to determine the point of impact. In short, they tried to match the vehicle and related gouge marks and skid marks on the road surface with that of the exemplar vehicle. The conclusion from that round of testing was that the vehicle could not be placed where the physical evidence remained, without placing the vehicle in reverse and the driver performing a series of maneuvers to place the vehicle in the proper location. The railroad and their expert witnesses later maintained that the locomotive magically lifted the vehicle at the point of impact and dropped it in the location where all of the physical evidence was found (in the proper lane). Again, there was no physical evidence of the vehicle ever being located where the railroad maintained, and the locomotive struck the vehicle above the center of gravity of the vehicle itself.The second round of testing happened just before the railroad modified the configuration of the crossing. In this case the Plaintiff’s expert witnesses (certified accident reconstruction experts that had previously been retained by the National Transportation Safety Board – NTSB), conducted a series of tests to determine if it was possible to maneuver the vehicle around the gates and place it at the point of impact. I did witness some of this testing, but had no real understanding of the test at the time (i.e. the test methodology wasn’t clear to me at the time). The testing again proved that it was physically impossible to maneuver the vehicle around the gate and place it at the point of impact (as determined by the physical evidence). The vehicles turning radius would not permit this to happen. In both test scenarios, recognized processes and test methodology were employed, which I’m quite certain were scientific and would stand up to peer review. These points were clearly argued and heard by the court in numerous pretrial motions filed by both sides. In my mind, my definition of “proven” would satisfy both criteria that you cited above. First, the jury did in fact accept the test and reconstruction results consistent with their finding that BNSF was negligent. Second, the test methodology and findings would in fact, stand up to peer review, were clear, and were compelling. I assume that it would be item #1. I would like to know who did the test. Was the exemplar vehicle identical to the vehicle that was struck by the train? Who was driving the vehicle? Any driver making this desperate maneuver while actually trying to beat a train is going to try as hard as they can to get back into their lane as quickly as possible. How do you know that the driver of the test vehicle made the maximum effort to get back into his lane before reaching the tracks? It would be possible to run the test where the only objective was to miss both gates. If you did that, the car would probably be straddling the two lanes as it crossed the railroad centerline between the two tracks. But still, it may be possible to get back into the proper lane earlier by steering into that lane tighter after going around the first lowered gate. If one were to steer tight enough, the car would go into a side skid or roll over. After going around the first lowered gate, did the test driver push this return steer tight enough to cause the car to go into a side skid, or begin to rise up on two wheels and begin to roll? If he did not, I don’t see how the test can conclude that the vehicle in the crash could not have gotten into that position if it ran around the first gate when lowered. This might seem like nit picking, but the outcome of this test would be riding a very fine line between proving that the gates were either up or down. As you can rightly conclude from my response above, this specific set of tests were not performed. The State Patrol testified that if a vehicle were to make evasive maneuvers of this type, there would most certainly be evidence of such (skid marks, braking, black box data from the vehicle, physical damage left on the vehicle, etc.). There was a technical term that they used to describe this scenario and that term now escapes me. However, they clearly stated that the driver did not perform these actions, and that no evidence was found to suggest that they did. Either way, the vehicle would still have to back up to properly place it at the point of impact. The State Patrol described these sets of movements as "parallel parking maneuvers". Clearly, this didn't happen while the vehicle was moving in the forward direction at a speed of 28 mph. However, in thinking about this further, if the car was southbound and the train eastbound as has been mentioned in this thread, then the car would probably have encountered the train on the first of the two tracks. I looked at some single-track crossings yesterday. If the distance between the gate and that first track at the Anoka crossing is similar to the gate-to-track distance in a single track crossing, I think it would be impossible to go around the lowered gate and get fully back into the proper lane and squared up with it upon reaching the track centerline. It might not be possible at the lowest possible vehicle speed, let alone at 28 mph. The steering geometry of the vehicle may simply have not permitted the move. Clearly, it is my belief that the gates and signals did not activate and this was in fact, the major contributing factor of the accident. I believe this point was clearly proven and that all of the physical evidence supports this conclusion. At this particular crossing it is difficult to see trains approaching from the Northtown yard, as there are buildings and trees which obstruct the view. If a train is approaching that crossing at 62mph and a vehicle is attempting to cross that intersection at a speed of 28mph in roughly a perpendicular direction (this crossing was not a perfect 90 degree intersection), the vehicle is nearly directly in the path of the oncoming train in less than 2 seconds before you see it. The human reaction time, as presented in trial, would not allow a normal person to react in time to prevent the accident if the signals were not functioning as designed.
Sorry for the delayed response to your post. Wow, you have really put some thought into this post and my response will unfortunately not be as articulate with respect to many of the questions you asked.
Your understanding is correct, based upon the testimony and evidence that was submitted at the trial along with the conclusions that were drawn from both. Furthermore, if the gates did in fact function correctly that night, there would have been proof of evasive maneuvering actions left on the road, and a very different debris field from what was catalogued, photographed, inventoried, measured, and analyzed by the State Patrol and other accident reconstruction experts.
The first set of testing was conducted by the State Troopers and happened within days of the accident. As I understand it (I did not witness this testing), they were operating on the basis that it was a fact that the motorist had driven around the gates and was struck by the locomotive. The State Patrol was puzzled by the physical evidence and obtained an exemplar vehicle in an attempt to determine the point of impact. In short, they tried to match the vehicle and related gouge marks and skid marks on the road surface with that of the exemplar vehicle. The conclusion from that round of testing was that the vehicle could not be placed where the physical evidence remained, without placing the vehicle in reverse and the driver performing a series of maneuvers to place the vehicle in the proper location. The railroad and their expert witnesses later maintained that the locomotive magically lifted the vehicle at the point of impact and dropped it in the location where all of the physical evidence was found (in the proper lane). Again, there was no physical evidence of the vehicle ever being located where the railroad maintained, and the locomotive struck the vehicle above the center of gravity of the vehicle itself.
As you can rightly conclude from my response above, this specific set of tests were not performed. The State Patrol testified that if a vehicle were to make evasive maneuvers of this type, there would most certainly be evidence of such (skid marks, braking, black box data from the vehicle, physical damage left on the vehicle, etc.). There was a technical term that they used to describe this scenario and that term now escapes me. However, they clearly stated that the driver did not perform these actions, and that no evidence was found to suggest that they did. Either way, the vehicle would still have to back up to properly place it at the point of impact. The State Patrol described these sets of movements as "parallel parking maneuvers". Clearly, this didn't happen while the vehicle was moving in the forward direction at a speed of 28 mph.
P.S. You would have made a good juror in this case.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.