This is the second incident around Chicago in the past year where crossing gates didn't work correctly and caused a collision..
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chibrknews-2-cars-crash-into-freight-train-on-south-side-4-injured-20110214,0,5819413.story
Not mentioned in the article....whose tracks?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Looks like Chicago Rail Link ex Rock Island lead into the industrial complex on the South East side of Chicago. http://www.omnitrax.com/railroads/chicago-rail-link-llc.aspx
"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
So if I understand this article correctly, if the gates aren't down, and the lights aren't flashing, then the train stopped on the crossing must be an optical illusion and you can drive right through it?
I don't care what color the train is painted, if your car is equipped with headlights...
Considering the time of day one has to wonder if some other driver impairment might be involved. I would feel differently if the train hand come roaring through the crossing and hit the cars.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
This brings up a lot of issues.
First of all, the FRA has declared that freight trains can be hard to see at night, and that is why the FRA has mandated side reflectors. I don’t agree with the reasoning because the law requires drivers to have their headlights on and not over-drive them. However in a recent thread about this, several forum members sided with the FRA reasoning and the reflector mandate. They agreed that drivers should be forgiven for running into stopped trains and even gave their own personal examples of nearly running into trains at night because they could not see them. This refers generally to non-signaled crossings.
So I have been waiting for this type of accident to demonstrate that drivers are not the morons that everybody has long declared them to be. Somebody else had to be the moron in this accident. Who parked that train out there as a death trap for drivers? Clearly the railroad is at fault in this case because the signals failed, but even if it were a non-signaled crossing, the railroad would have been at fault for leaving a road hazard there.
But the really spectacular irony here is the fact that the tank cars have reflectors and they did not do the job that was intended. Freight cars need to have electric warning lights on their sides. Obviously, the cars are a hazard to drivers and reflectors are not enough.
I would say that the FRA declaration that freight trains can be hard for drivers to see at night, takes the blame game in a whole different direction. It stands on its head, the long held belief that trains always have the right of way at grade crossings.
I actually agree with Phoebe Vet. Reflectors or no reflectors, you should have situational awareness while you're driving. Fact is, on the road most people have absolutely no clue what's going on around their vehicle. And then even Bucyrus said that perhaps reflectors are not enough and there should be lights on the sides of cars. So what's next - a version a PTC for cars to automatically stop them at a crossing or red light?
Fact is if the driver was situationally aware this wouldn't have happened. Get your head out people and be aware of what's around you while driving. I feel no sympathy for the driver.
Some questions not raised or answered:
- Did the tank car(s) actually have the reflectorized strips ? In good condition ? Would they have been visible ?
- Were there the usual round yellow 'R X R" Advance Warning signs and pavement markings ?
- Were the "cross-bucks" and/ or gates on the non-functioning signals reflectorized as well, so they would stand out and warn that something might be there ?
- Any streetlights or business parking lot or security lights in the area that would have provided some ambient light or silhouetted the tank cars - esp. with the current "white blanket" of snow cover all around there ?
- Would the car(s) from the other direction have illuminated the tank car, again at least as an outline ? How come the 2nd car didn't notice the odd position and non-motion of the 1st car after it hit the train ?
I agree completely with the rule about not "over-driving" the headlights = being able to stop within the distance that the headlights illuminate and/ or that you can see ahead, whichever is less. (Note that stopping distance is twice as far as what train crews are instructed when running under a "Restricted Speed" indication or rule.)
However, a tank car painted with flat black at night is as close to a "man-made trap" as I can envision, because that color absorbs and will not reflect almost all light that is directed at it - so it demands the absolute best of the driver and his headlights. Like it or not, the legal system has always made exceptions and favored trespassers, burglars, and similar persons as against the land owner when the trespasser, etc. was injured by a man-made trap or condition, and this situation seems of like kind.
I don't read the FRA reflectorization rule as intending to shif the responsibility, but instead merely to improve the physical odds of preventing an accident to be more in favor of the driver. One could perhaps argue that if the accident occurred even with that added protection, it therefore follows that the driver must have been careless or negligent more than usual. Add in car headlights that might be partially obscured by dried salt spray at this time of year, suddenly wet or icy road conditions near a grade crossing, etc., and the reflector strips seem like a reasonable preventative precaution to me.
All that being said, this reads more like driver inattentiveness late at night than anything else.
- Paul North.
Quote from the first article linked here:
It was not known why the gates and warning lights weren’t working.
Can someone please tell me: wouldn't it be that if the train is stopped in the same spot for longer than ___ minutes, (or whatever, I don't know the time frame), then the lights/gates deactivate until the train moves again? IIRC, I read that some place fairly recently.
P.S. I found it very interesting the driver stated he was talking to/with his passenger at about the time of the crossing. (not an exact quote)
Nance-CCABW/LEI
“Even if you are on the right track, you’ll get run over if you just sit there.” --Will Rogers
Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, you're right! --unknown
WMNB4THRTL Quote from the first article linked here: It was not known why the gates and warning lights weren’t working. Can someone please tell me: wouldn't it be that if the train is stopped in the same spot for longer than ___ minutes, (or whatever, I don't know the time frame), then the lights/gates deactivate until the train moves again? IIRC, I read that some place fairly recently.
The bells, flashers, and gates are activated when a train occupies the island circuit, which is a track circuit across the roadway plus at least 50 feet each side of the roadway. The bells, flashers, and gates do not deactivate until the island circuit is no longer occupied by the train, regardless of whether the train is moving or stopped. If the train is there forever, the signals are activated forever.
RWM
Nope - to the contrary:
"Any occupancy of the island circuit will activate the crossing signals."
[emphasis added - PDN; from post by Railway Man to the "Grade Crossing Signals" thread here on 01-30-2011 at 10:24 AM, which is the 2nd one in the thread near the top of the page at - http://cs.trains.com/TRCCS/forums/t/186634.aspx ]
So, it would seem, at this time, that the statement in the article is correct then? Of course, we all know, these things have to be investigated and we lack the exact facts from the scene, etc, but I'm saying apparently. I'm just trying to sort this out. I think what I read might have been talking about a RR repair vehicle; I'm not sure.
The other thing I don't get here is the fact that this accident occurred in the middle of Chicago in a very urban area - now for those not from Chicago the entire city is lit up like a christmas tree at night, and Halsted is a main road and not some side street. In fact, you could be driving in the city at night with your headlights off and not even realize it because there is that much street lighting (yes, that's happened to me once or twice in my life). So the fact is that this train would have been seen just by the ambient street light, but you need to be looking out ahead on the road to see it and not just at the 50 ft directly in front of your car. If this happened in the middle of nowhere in a place where's it's pitch black I could commiserate more with the driver, but not in this case.
Update.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
I am very much in favor of reflective stripes, but I don't think they absolve the driver from the responsibility of driving within their headlights. Just another tool to maybe save some careless person. Now I sometimes question whether these stripes applied to a curve surface (like a tank car) are as effective as they should be, but that is another issue.
That being said, if it was a tree that fell down in the same spot, I bet these jackasses would have hit it just the same. Gates weren't down, but I bet the crossbuck is still reflective.
Bottom line: these morons would have hit anything that would be in the road. I wonder if they were even paying attention to the road or to their phones at the time...
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
Same here this is Chicago where I have seen people driving think they can fit a car UNDER a truck going down the Freaking IKE Expressway to make an exit 40 feet away.
Ha - what an interesting idea "Hey, let's see if we can fit the car under the railroad tank car!".
That totally would not surprise me.
In the photographs, the tank cars have highly visible reflectors, which are appear to be in excellent condition. Yet they did not prevent two run-into-train crashes.
The FRA said that trains can be hard for drivers to see at night. Yet, if drivers obey the laws already in place, they will not run into trains. When you say trains must be reflectorized because drivers have a hard time seeing them, it contradicts the rules that drivers must not drive if they do not see where they are going. This can’t be had both ways, although I doubt that the FRA has thought it through enough to see the conflict.
The fire department official on the scene said that the train was difficult to see and that is why motorists ran into it. He did not say anything about the responsibility of drivers to see where they are going. He did not take the hard line approach of most railfans and nearly all railroad employees that every grade crossing crash is the fault of the driver.
If the FRA had simply mandated reflectors without offering the rationale that takes responsibility away from drivers and places it on the train, it would be different. But clearly the FRA rationale sympathizes with drivers who over-drive their headlights and/or fail to pay attention and the fire chief agrees with them.
So once you start down that road, it leads to a slippery slope. If you put reflectors on the side of your train because you believe it is hard for drivers to see it at night, and if drivers still run into it, it must mean that reflectors are not enough to address the problem. That is the slippery slope.
I expect litigation in this double crash, and I expect the car reflectors to play a large role in the trials. Maybe the plaintiffs’ lawyers will bring in the FRA and the fire chief to tell the jury that trains are hard for drivers to see at night, and the railroad industry knows this to be a fact. And yet they did not do enough to prevent crashes.
Oh god, I'd love to sit on the jury when these drivers sue. It'd be a chance for me to play a small part in ending this ridiculously over-litigious society we live in.
The fire department. Oh, the outfit that covers their trucks (All 4 sides) with LED lights and reflective stripes (including the newest trend of the European-style large chevrons on the rear)?
How the hell do you not see a large truck? I can see lights to the front for gaining right of way, but why to the rear? And to go even further - why do cars or trucks need taillights? I mean, that just promotes unsafe driving.
The slippery slope is already there, Bucyrus. The horse has done left the barn and is halfway across the state. Don't blame the railroads for finally playing catch-up with every other mode of transportation.
I have yet to see anyone say reflective stripes will prevent all collisions. But I'm sure they may have prevented a few - but that's the problem. It is hard to keep numbers on events that didn't happen.
Easy to blame the driver, as usual. If you look at the video of the scene at night, it does seem that the black tankers blend into the sky. The idea that two separate drivers, coming from different directions, hit the same train within minutes of each other, makes the notion that it is the fault of idiot drivers seem unlikely. One driver, sure; but two? That theory becomes possible but improbable.
The reflector issue will be a minor part of any litigation. The failure of the gates and signals to operate is the primary culprit.
And if it would have been a dark-colored power pole that fell across the roadway? Same result. People out-drive their headlights all the time. But it only makes national news when they hit something big like a train.
schlimm Easy to blame the driver, as usual. If you look at the video of the scene at night, it does seem that the black tankers blend into the sky. The idea that two separate drivers, coming from different directions, hit the same train within minutes of each other, makes the notion that it is the fault of idiot drivers seem unlikely. One driver, sure; but two? That theory becomes possible but improbable.
Yeah, but if the crossbuck was reflective, I have no sympathy for them. Mechanical/electrical things fail. They survived, so maybe they should just count themselves lucky and realize it for the lesson it is. Don't go flying across RR crossings while out-driving your headlights.
After reading the above comments, take a look at this photo from the same article, and then see if you think at least 1 of these drrivers was really more at fault:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chibrknews-2-cars-crash-into-freight-train-on--001,0,1566940.photo
Supposedly there's also a video with the article, but it never finishes "Loading . . . " for me.
Schlimm this is what happened to me one time in NYC. 19 Differant Cabs all tried to squeeze Under my Trailer Between the Landing gear of the Trailer and the Tandems of the Trailer. Now one or 2 I can see but 19 differant Cabs all hitting me Where I had Reflective tape 3 Turn Signals and 4 lights and 3 more Reflectors they should have seen me in the MIDDLE OF THE DAY. The NYPD was sick and tired of dealing with me the Trailer went from Shiny Metal to Yellow when that day was done.
Got out of the city got to the First Service plaza out of the city called Saftey and said Fax Number please I had all the reports to fax them. Now the Fun the Taxi Companies tried to blame Me for the Accidents saying their Drivers could not see me. We took Pictures of the rig looked like Bright Maroon Tractor with Polished Aluminum wheels and tanks. The Tariler had White sides and Polished rails and also had Yellow letters. How could you have not seen that when I also was sitting in a Loading/Unloading zone Sideways in the road. Some people can not see something unless it is 50 feet in front of them.
WMNB4THRTL [snip] I think what I read might have been talking about a RR repair vehicle; I'm not sure.
Paul, Thanks!! I think you are correct, as usual!!
Bucyrus However in a recent thread about this, several forum members sided with the FRA reasoning and the reflector mandate. They agreed that drivers should be forgiven for running into stopped trains
However in a recent thread about this, several forum members sided with the FRA reasoning and the reflector mandate. They agreed that drivers should be forgiven for running into stopped trains
Do you have a link for that? I recall members giving examples of how conditions can compromise visibility, and how reflectors could help to mitigate this problem, but I can't recall anyone stating that the auto driver should be forgiven/absolved for his part.
Convicted One Bucyrus: However in a recent thread about this, several forum members sided with the FRA reasoning and the reflector mandate. They agreed that drivers should be forgiven for running into stopped trains Do you have a link for that? I recall members giving examples of how conditions can compromise visibility, and how reflectors could help to mitigate this problem, but I can't recall anyone stating that the auto driver should be forgiven/absolved for his part.
Bucyrus: However in a recent thread about this, several forum members sided with the FRA reasoning and the reflector mandate. They agreed that drivers should be forgiven for running into stopped trains
I will see if I can find that thread. People commented that they had almost run into trains at night because the train was hard to see. They did not say it was because they were over-driving their headlights, or not paying attention. They said it clearly the fault of rail cars that were hard to see.
Paul_D_North_Jr After reading the above comments, take a look at this photo from the same article, and then see if you think at least 1 of these drrivers was really more at fault: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chibrknews-2-cars-crash-into-freight-train-on--001,0,1566940.photo Supposedly there's also a video with the article, but it never finishes "Loading . . . " for me. - Paul North.
Yes, by all means, look at the pictures and the video. Notice the streetlights almost right over the train? Notice how well lit the crossing is in the images? Driving 35 mph and still drove half the length of the car under the train car?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.