A young woman was killed late Friday evening at a normally protected Amtrak crossing in University Park, just south of Chicago. Apparently, a track repair crew forgot to reactivate the crossing signals according to the story:
http://www.southtownstar.com/news/2176650,042010uptrain.article
Alton Junction
Read about the accident the other day online. Was surprised today to hear that the signals were left disabled. I know I always approach all crossings, including crossings with signals, as though a train is approaching and am always prepared to stop since I never go by what the crossing signals are doing. In this case, even though the drivers should check the tracks before crossing, it sounds like CN could be in trouble over this since it was their workers that had disabled the signals and not a mechanical failure.
Kevin
http://chatanuga.org/RailPage.html
http://chatanuga.org/WLMR.html
There was an incident a while back which was very similar. It was a rural crossing and a car full of kids (or at least a couple). While there may have been arguments that the teens should have seen the train coming, the key sticking point was the crossing protection having been disabled and the signal maintainer returning after the accident (but while authorities were still on-scene) and trying to pull the shunt.
That said, it'll be hard to defend in court...
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Wow! Saddening tragedy. Poor Amtrak, although innocent will likely be included in the multi-million dollar lawsuit that may come at it from the lady's family. Canadian National is going to sink in this one. Likely the guy in charge of that track maintenance crew is going to be grilled as well. No winners in this case.
"I like my Pullman Standards & Budds in Stainless Steel flavors, thank you!"
Disabling malfunctioning crossing protection while awaiting parts to repair it, or taking the protection out of service during major track work are not uncommon occurrences.
There are procedures to be followed first of which is to notify the Train Dispatcher so that the appropriate 'Stop & Flag' train order can be issued to all trains operating over the crossing(s) that have disabled crossing protection. If this was done, and the train order was issued to the train involved then the responsibility flows to the train crew involved. If it wasn't done, the onus is on the Signal Maintainer. If the Maintainer got the appropriate information to the Train Dispatcher, but the Dispatcher did not get it to ALL the affected trains then the onus is on the Train Dispatcher.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Hello,
The Chicago Tribune is now reporting that the CN crew witnessed the crash:
"Believing they had fixed malfunctioning railroad gates and warning lights, Canadian National Railway workers let an Amtrak train pass through the intersection at full speed as a test, only to watch it barrel into a car on the tracks and kill the driver behind the wheel, according to sources involved in the accident probe.
Investigators interviewed a CN worker who saw the line of vehicles converging on the University Park crossing as the Chicago-bound train approached at 78 mph, then ran toward the SUV driven onto the tracks by Katie Lunn, a Chicago dance instructor.
Desperately hoping to save her, the worker got to within about 30 feet of Lunn's car when it was broadsided by the passenger train Friday night.
'The CN crew came back specifically to test the crossing system with that northbound Amtrak train at about 9:30,' said a rail safety investigator who spoke with the CN technician who tried to save Lunn, 26, who lived in Lincoln Park. "
Full story:
http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/04/university-park-amtrak-crash-lunn-canadian-national.html
CC
BaltACD Disabling malfunctioning crossing protection while awaiting parts to repair it, or taking the protection out of service during major track work are not uncommon occurrences. There are procedures to be followed first of which is to notify the Train Dispatcher so that the appropriate 'Stop & Flag' train order can be issued to all trains operating over the crossing(s) that have disabled crossing protection. If this was done, and the train order was issued to the train involved then the responsibility flows to the train crew involved. If it wasn't done, the onus is on the Signal Maintainer. If the Maintainer got the appropriate information to the Train Dispatcher, but the Dispatcher did not get it to ALL the affected trains then the onus is on the Train Dispatcher.
The young lady killed in that accident was from Fort Dodge Iowa A real Iowa connection here Larry
Falcon48One of the other notes in this string suggests the signal crew let the Amtrak train go through at track speed to verify everything was working properly. That suggests that they didn't do all of the required testing and were taking a short cut. If they had done all of the testing, they would have known whether a train would actuate the signals.
Question: When testing a crossing this way shouldn't there be someone on each side of the gates to flag autos to a stop maybe with a fuse at nights? That way if circuit does not work cars are stopped anyway? Of course maybe only the one maintainer was there.
Falcon48 - I have not before seen or heard the use of the term ''deranged'' in the context of disabling or ''un-arranging'' railroad grade crossing signals - only in the more common context of a severely mentally unstable or ill person, etc. But sure enough, a quick Google search discloses that it has been used in the railroad signalling literature and references as at least as far back as 1903. And here's the first 2 meanings under a definition that I found on-line that corroborates your usage of it, per: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/deranged
I was wondering the same thing too as blue streak 1 mentions above earlier today - until the correct operation of the crossing signals was tested and confirmed, why wasn't this crossing being flagged, and with a fusee at night ? The number of personnel shouldn't have been an issue - when a conductor is 'flagging' across a crossing as part of normal switching operations, or when a crossing is subject to a 'flagging order', there's only 1 of him/ her then, too, and that's enough to get the job done.
Putting a far more cynical and devious spin on this, I can see a plaintiff's attorney essentially claiming that the railroad's employee(s) decided to test the crossing signal in the following manner: ''Let's wait until a train comes, and see if it hits anything.'' Now I may be accused of exaggerating that, but - If there was any doubt about the signal operating correctly*, and the CN employees on the scene weren't flagging, then that's pretty much what they were doing ! What else did they expect to happen then if the signal was in fact not operating correctly ?
*And we all know the first rule in most rule books - ''When in doubt, the safe course must be taken.'' Well, if there was no doubt, then why were they waiting to 'test' the operation of the signal ? And isn't the 'safe course' to flag the crossing anyway ? If the signal wasn't working, then the protection was at least attempted to be provided. And if it is, then they can step aside when it activates and watch it go through its cycle, it seems to me.
Unfortunately, I can see where the employee(s) involved and CN may well have to defend themselves against criminal charges in the nature of involuntary homicide due to gross negligence or recklessness. The only likely defense may be an honest - but mistaken - belief that the signal had been restored to proper operation, and that it was just being watched to double-check or confirm that. Against the tragic result, though, that defense will be very hard to establish unless something else can be shown to have gone horribly and unforseeably wrong at the same time. So we'll just have to wait and see the results of the official investigatons and reports.
- Paul North.
The Chicago press is rightly having a field day with this one:
You read about the promising life and the many accomplishments of 26-year-old Katie Lunn, how beloved she was by so many, and your heart breaks.
But nobody outside those who knew and loved her must feel worse about her tragic death than the Canadian National Railway track crew that was working on the crossing last Friday morning.
"A track crew inadvertently turned off the gates and warning lights at [the] rail crossing," said an online report from the Chicago Tribune.
" 'This was human error,' said an investigator, who asked not to be identified.
If that's true, the nightmare gripping Katie's loved ones is even darker. Some accidents, while so devastating that you never really recover from the loss, just can't be prevented. This does not sound like one of those accidents.
The CN crews reportedly were working to fix a flaw in a signal system that left the lights still flashing and the gates in place well after a train had cleared, creating traffic delays. They thought they'd fixed the problem -- "but they actually deactivated the warning system, creating an unprotected crossing that provided motorists no indication of oncoming trains, officials said," according to the Tribune.
An investigation is ongoing, but I'm trying to figure out: How can there not be redundant safeguards in place? On the human side, how do you walk away from a job like that without making sure everything's working again? How do you not conduct a quick test to ensure the settings for the barriers, lights and bells are good to go?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
blue streak 1 Question: When testing a crossing this way shouldn't there be someone on each side of the gates to flag autos to a stop maybe with a fuse at nights? That way if circuit does not work cars are stopped anyway? Of course maybe only the one maintainer was there.
Let me clarify my question. If the CN maintainer wanted to test the signal at speed ( I can see the maintainer's resoning that the crossing gate system might have worked at slower speeds but not 79MPH) then there should have been someone to flag the crossing when the Amtrak train reported 1 mile from crossing. There may have been reports of the gate system not working at 79 MPH speed.
Is this procedure done whenever any crossing is modified for a higher track speed than original speeds ?
edit: maybe the short Amtrak train did not shunt the crossing system where as a heavy freight might?
I don’t want to sound like I am piling on the victim in this crash, but it raises a perplexing question. Drivers are supposed to yield at grade crossings no matter whether the signals and gates are activated or not, and no matter whether the signals and gates fail to activate upon the approach of a train.
The crossbuck alone requires a driver to yield, and for a driver to yield, a driver must know that no train is approaching before the driver crosses. That is the law according to the FRA, Operation Lifesaver, and the state DOTs.
While there may be some hair-splitting over what it means to yield in merging situations where no collision occurs, it is 100% clear that if a driver gets hit by a train, that driver did not yield.
Therefore, in cases where a driver gets hit by a train at a grade crossing where the signals have failed to activate, that driver has failed to yield, as the law requires.
So, who is at fault in such a collision? To most people, it would seem to be the railroad’s fault because their warning signals have failed to activate; and most people are not aware of the requirement to yield at signalized grade crossings even when those signals are not activated.
But the full-time yield law is there at every crossing. How can a driver break that law and not be at fault for the resulting collision?
When, oh when, are people going to accept the fact that they really do have personal responsibility to take reasonable precautions in such instances and stop blaming the big, bad railroads?
Civil cases don't necessarily work out they way. In order for that defense to work, it would have to be shown that everybody else did exactly what they were supposed to do. I think the term is contributory neglegence. It might be employed to try to mitigate the award, but when those kinds of cases go to a jury trial, the jury usually gets to set the award. I am placing my bets on a big award for the plaintiff.
By the way, there may be some exceptions, but Amtrak's contracts with railroads indemnify them from damages due to anything involving an Amtrak train. It is likely that Amtrak will have to pick up the tab for this one.
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
Bucyrus, I've often thought the same thing. One of my biggest peeves is when I read of a car/train collision at crossings that only have crossbucks, but the press reports as being "unprotected." I guess going by their line of reasoning, most road intersections are also "unprotected." Most only have stop or yield signs.
Still, since there are warning lights/gates the railroad is going to have a higher degree of liability. My question is in the way the media is reporting this. Are they just reporting the news, or are they tainting the jury pool. I see this with almost all criminal cases too. If the media likes the victim, reporting is slanted against the accused. If the media champions the accused, the victim is reviled to just short of saying the victim deserved what they got. (I suppose I, and others, are also a bit guilty of this, hence the Darwin Awards we are so willing to give out.)
Jeff
Well, in this case it is the railroad's fault, since the railroad's employees turned off the safety devices. If the crew was at the scene waiting to see if the gates worked, they should have flagged the crossing. Remember, these guys apparently thought the gates were working when in fact they had turned them off. Pretty negligent.
jeffhergertOne of my biggest peeves is when I read of a car/train collision at crossings that only have crossbucks, but the press reports as being "unprotected." I guess going by their line of reasoning, most road intersections are also "unprotected." Most only have stop or yield signs.
Depending on the location, the term "inadequately protected" would more accurate. If I were you, I would be careful with the use of phrases like the "Darwin Award" even if it is an inside joke. If lawyers get hold of that, it could be used to influence juries, convincing them that engineers view road crossings as an opportunity for sport.
Who says Darwin Awards are only handed out for railroad crossing accidents? The news is full of stories about people who get themselves into predicaments, then blame everyone but themselves. Or the next of kin blames everyone else.
You are right about one thing, though. Lawyers are usually involved.
Mike O Well, in this case it is the railroad's fault, since the railroad's employees turned off the safety devices. If the crew was at the scene waiting to see if the gates worked, they should have flagged the crossing. Remember, these guys apparently thought the gates were working when in fact they had turned them off. Pretty negligent.
Certainly there is negligence on the part of the railroad, but the driver broke the law by not yielding. How can this not count? The yield requirement is not suspended just because the signals are inoperable.
Bucyrus Mike O Well, in this case it is the railroad's fault, since the railroad's employees turned off the safety devices. If the crew was at the scene waiting to see if the gates worked, they should have flagged the crossing. Remember, these guys apparently thought the gates were working when in fact they had turned them off. Pretty negligent. Certainly there is negligence on the part of the railroad, but the driver broke the law by not yielding. How can this not count? The yield requirement is not suspended just because the signals are inoperable.
jeaton Bucyrus Mike O Well, in this case it is the railroad's fault, since the railroad's employees turned off the safety devices. If the crew was at the scene waiting to see if the gates worked, they should have flagged the crossing. Remember, these guys apparently thought the gates were working when in fact they had turned them off. Pretty negligent. Certainly there is negligence on the part of the railroad, but the driver broke the law by not yielding. How can this not count? The yield requirement is not suspended just because the signals are inoperable. You are saying that the railroad didn't break any laws?
I don't mean to say that. I am only asking about how the blame is placed in a case where the signals fail, but the driver has a legal obligation to yield to all trains no matter whether the signals are activated or not.
Where do you get the idea that motorists have a "yield" obligation at a signalized grade crossing if the signals don't indicate that a train is coming? That's a new one on me.
Bucyrus I don’t want to sound like I am piling on the victim in this crash, but it raises a perplexing question. Drivers are supposed to yield at grade crossings no matter whether the signals and gates are activated or not, and no matter whether the signals and gates fail to activate upon the approach of a train. The crossbuck alone requires a driver to yield, and for a driver to yield, a driver must know that no train is approaching before the driver crosses. That is the law according to the FRA, Operation Lifesaver, and the state DOTs. While there may be some hair-splitting over what it means to yield in merging situations where no collision occurs, it is 100% clear that if a driver gets hit by a train, that driver did not yield. Therefore, in cases where a driver gets hit by a train at a grade crossing where the signals have failed to activate, that driver has failed to yield, as the law requires. So, who is at fault in such a collision? To most people, it would seem to be the railroad’s fault because their warning signals have failed to activate; and most people are not aware of the requirement to yield at signalized grade crossings even when those signals are not activated. But the full-time yield law is there at every crossing. How can a driver break that law and not be at fault for the resulting collision?
I commented on this in response to another post. I'm not aware of any law or legal principle in Illinois requiring a motorist to treat a signalized grade crossing as a "yield" if the signals aren't indicating the approach of a train.
Paul_D_North_Jr Falcon48 - I have not before seen or heard the use of the term ''deranged'' in the context of disabling or ''un-arranging'' railroad grade crossing signals - only in the more common context of a severely mentally unstable or ill person, etc. But sure enough, a quick Google search discloses that it has been used in the railroad signalling literature and references as at least as far back as 1903. And here's the first 2 meanings under a definition that I found on-line that corroborates your usage of it, per: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/deranged 1. To disturb the order or arrangement of. 2. To upset the normal condition or functioning of. I was wondering the same thing too as blue streak 1 mentions above earlier today - until the correct operation of the crossing signals was tested and confirmed, why wasn't this crossing being flagged, and with a fusee at night ? The number of personnel shouldn't have been an issue - when a conductor is 'flagging' across a crossing as part of normal switching operations, or when a crossing is subject to a 'flagging order', there's only 1 of him/ her then, too, and that's enough to get the job done. Putting a far more cynical and devious spin on this, I can see a plaintiff's attorney essentially claiming that the railroad's employee(s) decided to test the crossing signal in the following manner: ''Let's wait until a train comes, and see if it hits anything.'' Now I may be accused of exaggerating that, but - If there was any doubt about the signal operating correctly*, and the CN employees on the scene weren't flagging, then that's pretty much what they were doing ! What else did they expect to happen then if the signal was in fact not operating correctly ? *And we all know the first rule in most rule books - ''When in doubt, the safe course must be taken.'' Well, if there was no doubt, then why were they waiting to 'test' the operation of the signal ? And isn't the 'safe course' to flag the crossing anyway ? If the signal wasn't working, then the protection was at least attempted to be provided. And if it is, then they can step aside when it activates and watch it go through its cycle, it seems to me. Unfortunately, I can see where the employee(s) involved and CN may well have to defend themselves against criminal charges in the nature of involuntary homicide due to gross negligence or recklessness. The only likely defense may be an honest - but mistaken - belief that the signal had been restored to proper operation, and that it was just being watched to double-check or confirm that. Against the tragic result, though, that defense will be very hard to establish unless something else can be shown to have gone horribly and unforseeably wrong at the same time. So we'll just have to wait and see the results of the official investigatons and reports. - Paul North.
If you've dealt with RR and FRA signal people as much as I have, you learn that "derange" is a common term in their rather unique language (I used to call it "signalese").
All railroads have very specific testing protocols which their signal people are required to follow to make sure grade crossing signals are operating properly after the circuits are deranged. There have been cases where signal personnel haven't followed these protocols, because they think they are unnecessary in a paarticular job . Sometimes, that leads to tragedy. I don't know what happened here, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that it was something like this. As you say, we'll have to wait and see what the investigators turn up.
With respect to another posting suggesting the Amtrak train may not have shunted the signal circuits, Given the number of trains reportedly using this trackage every day and the length of the Amtrak train, I think that is highly unlikely (unless, that is, the maintenance crews had adjusted the signal apparatus outside of normal parameters).
Falcon48I commented on this in response to another post. I'm not aware of any law or legal principle in Illinois requiring a motorist to treat a signalized grade crossing as a "yield" if the signals aren't indicating the approach of a train.
A white, X-shaped sign or "crossbuck" is located at the railroad crossing. This sign has the same meaning as a "yield" sign; therefore, you must yield to trains at crossings. ...snip...
When you see any of these signs [round advance warning sign, pavement markings, crossbuck], SLOW DOWN, look for a train, and be ready to stop You must STOP if the red lights are flashing or the gate is down. ...snip
The way I read it, here in Missouri a driver should be prepared to stop and yield to a train whenever they encounter a crossbuck, regardless of activation of lights and/or gate.
My own opinion is that the signal maintainers that were there should have flagged the crossing until they were positive the signals were working correctly.
James
Falcon48 With respect to another posting suggesting the Amtrak train may not have shunted the signal circuits, Given the number of trains reportedly using this trackage every day and the length of the Amtrak train, I think that is highly unlikely (unless, that is, the maintenance crews had adjusted the signal apparatus outside of normal parameters).
Falcon48: Yes a number of trains used the trackage. My understanding is that some work had just been done in the approach area that Amtrak ran through not maintenance but actual a capital project?. There could have been an inadvertent change in the shunt circuit caused by the signal work. ( maybe an engineering mistake ) Could be a long train would shunt the signals but not a short train?The signal apparatus definitely did not work for the Amtrak train but there is indication that the signals started working when the Amtrak train occupied the circuit at the road?
The signal department must have had some concern to be at the crossing at this time of day?
Falcon48 Bucyrus Mike O Well, in this case it is the railroad's fault, since the railroad's employees turned off the safety devices. If the crew was at the scene waiting to see if the gates worked, they should have flagged the crossing. Remember, these guys apparently thought the gates were working when in fact they had turned them off. Pretty negligent. Certainly there is negligence on the part of the railroad, but the driver broke the law by not yielding. How can this not count? The yield requirement is not suspended just because the signals are inoperable. Where do you get the idea that motorists have a "yield" obligation at a signalized grade crossing if the signals don't indicate that a train is coming? That's a new one on me.
As James has explained in a post above, it is the crossbuck atop the flashers at a signalized crossing that means yield. A crossbuck is equivalent to a yield sign. So the crossbuck requires a driver to yield even if the signals are inactivated. To yield, a driver must look for approaching trains to make sure there are none. I sought and received confirmation of this interpretation from the FRA, Operation Lifesaver, and my state DOT.
This might vary from state to state, but I think the crossbuck being equivalent to a yield sign is universal. It might be that some states do not use a crossbuck at signalized crossings, and thus do not have a yield requirement when the signals are inactivated. I have seen signals without crossbucks in some of the youtube videos.
When you say you are surprised to hear about this yield requirement at inactivated, signalized crossings, I think that is the reaction of most people. I was told by my state DOT that they have done surveys and found that most drivers do not realize that a crossbuck means yield. They just take the crossbuck to be an identifier of a grade crossing. Therefore YIELD signs are being added to all non-signalized crossings. With that addition, there will be two forms of yield signs at non-signalized crossings; one that drivers understand and one that they don’t understand.
I think there is a problem in expecting drivers to yield at inactivated signalized crossings. Such crossings often have quite limited sight distance, and yet are on high-speed highways. In order to properly yield, a driver must know the top speed of what he or she is expected to yield to. A driver has no way of knowing how fast trains will be running on a rail line, so he or she must anticipate the fastest possible train, which might be 80 mph or more.
Therefore, to properly yield in anticipation of that high of train speed, with limited sight distance, a driver might have to stop at the crossing. On a high-speed highway, stopping raises a high probability of causing a rear-end collision from a following vehicle. This is especially true if a driver were to stop for an inactivated signalized crossing to properly yield when the vast majority of drivers are not aware of the requirement to do so.
I asked the Minnesota State Patrol if they expected drivers to stop on high-speed roads to yield at inactivated signalized grade crossings where sight distance was sufficiently limited. They would not respond to my question in writing, but one officer did tell me that he was not aware of any requirement to yield at inactivated signalized crossings.
Bucyrus When you say you are surprised to hear about this yield requirement at inactivated, signalized crossings, I think that is the reaction of most people. I was told by my state DOT that they have done surveys and found that most drivers do not realize that a crossbuck means yield. They just take the crossbuck to be an identifier of a grade crossing. Therefore YIELD signs are being added to all non-signalized crossings. With that addition, there will be two forms of yield signs at non-signalized crossings; one that drivers understand and one that they don’t understand
Have been doing a non-scientific survey and absolutely no one knows of this requirement. In fact several said I was full of hot air. It now appears that a massive educational program would not achieve good results. So what is the answer?
blue streak 1 Falcon48 With respect to another posting suggesting the Amtrak train may not have shunted the signal circuits, Given the number of trains reportedly using this trackage every day and the length of the Amtrak train, I think that is highly unlikely (unless, that is, the maintenance crews had adjusted the signal apparatus outside of normal parameters). Falcon48: Yes a number of trains used the trackage. My understanding is that some work had just been done in the approach area that Amtrak ran through not maintenance but actual a capital project?. There could have been an inadvertent change in the shunt circuit caused by the signal work. ( maybe an engineering mistake ) Could be a long train would shunt the signals but not a short train?The signal apparatus definitely did not work for the Amtrak train but there is indication that the signals started working when the Amtrak train occupied the circuit at the road? The signal department must have had some concern to be at the crossing at this time of day?
But, of course, this is all just speculation. I suspect the investigators already know what caused the signals to fail, and are now trying to figure out how that condition occurred.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.