Bucyrus 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.
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.
Hard to see is not impossible to see. And "almost" only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. But the reflective stripes may have allowed them to slow down sooner, saving undue wear and tear on their brake pads...
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
Paul_D_North_Jr Some questions not raised or answered: - Were there the usual round yellow 'R X R" Advance Warning signs and pavement markings ? - Paul North.
Some questions not raised or answered:
- Were there the usual round yellow 'R X R" Advance Warning signs and pavement markings ?
- Paul North.
Well, thanks to Google Earth and its Street View feature, there are some answers available. The leading edges of the RXR pavement markings (as viewed by drivers) are about 140 feet from the near rail, or about 3 seconds worth of travel time at the posted speed limit of 35 mph. The north approach shows the circular yellow RXR road sign (W10-1) on a pole roughly even with the leading line of the pavement RXR marking. The sign is missing in Street View for the South Approach. Of course, there is no date information with Street View. There appear to be numerous street lamps on both sidewalks along Halstead there.
Well based upon the collisons that I was involved with in 1999 with some NYC taxi. In order to d wha the IDIOTS in this crash did. If they are doing 35 MPH then I do not live less than 1/4 mile from the BNSF Transcon Mainline in Streator IL. In order to drive a car that far under a tank car your looking at a speed of in the area of 50 MPH. Why am I saying that the Buickj La Sabere has a nasty habit of when it hits something in the front end it Cuts the fuel off and Drops it Drveline on the Ground. The Only taxi that made it under me was one that was doing 50 MPH. A Semitrailer is about the same height off the ground as a Tankcar and he ended up in the same shape as the Idiots of said car.
His speed at POI was 52 MPH shoved me over 2 feet.
zugmann Bucyrus: 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. Hard to see is not impossible to see. And "almost" only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. But the reflective stripes may have allowed them to slow down sooner, saving undue wear and tear on their brake pads...
Bucyrus: 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.
Nobody has said freight cars are impossible to see. The point is not that the FRA has mandated reflectors. The point is the reason they gave to justify the mandate. If they had not stated that reason, there would not be any issue, but rather, the mandate would be just one more safety measure redundancy.
Here's your answer to the reflector question...this is a photo from the Chicago Tribune this morning and you can clearly see the reflector stripes on the side of the tank car the auto hit. You can also plainly see the high intensity street lighting behind the tank car and there was undoubtedly the same degree of lighting on "this" side of the car as well. I don't really care what anybody tells me...under the evident circumstances IF one was driving slow enough and IF one was truly paying attention to his/her driving, then there is virtually no excuse for what happened. Oh, and by the way, I live in metro Chicago and I'm here to tell you that chances of two impaired drivers being on the same street driving in opposite directions are slim but far from impossible on any give morming (very, very, very early morning...right after the bars close) around here.
eolafan Here's your answer to the reflector question...this is a photo from the Chicago Tribune this morning and you can clearly see the reflector stripes on the side of the tank car the auto hit. End of discussion?
Here's your answer to the reflector question...this is a photo from the Chicago Tribune this morning and you can clearly see the reflector stripes on the side of the tank car the auto hit. End of discussion?
I don't recall there being any question as to whether or not the cars had reflectors. Why would that be the end of discussion?
James
And despite all the 'light power' that Fire Trucks (and other emergency vehicles) have....people still run into them from time to time with the statement 'I never saw it'.
zugmann 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 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.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
There are rules for crossings on which the signals are observed to not be functioning. I believe compliance with those rules would have required the train to stop and protect the crossing with fusees until the locomotives were into the crossing. Even if there were "no flares" as the victims (I hesitate to use that word) says, there should have been evidence that they had been placed.
Because of other tracks, junctions, and crossings in the area, the "35 m.p.h." quoted by one of the drivers is definitely beyond the ballpark, especially if they complied with the rules requiring trains to stop and protect. My CORA book doesn't include CRL (I assume that's whose track that is these days), so I couldn't find a speed limit for that segment. But I will say that back in the day I rode passenger trains through there (C&O are the ones I rode; all B&O trains for Chicago would have used this track, too), and doubt that we could have gotten up to 35 there, even under the best of conditions.
Making no excuses for the railroad's maintenance of the signal at this point (this is, after all, Illinois Highway 1), the drivers were still at fault. What are the odds that on a state highway, two drivers from opposite directions are the first to encounter a big black obstruction in the tracks on well-lighted street, disregard the reflectorized strips on the cars (they work pretty well--V.O.E. here!) and crash into the train? I'd say they planned that idiot trap pretty well! _ _
Carl
Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)
CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)
My thought is keyed on a statement by Sawtooth500:
Situational awareness is the key. The very lack of it, and driving while distracted lead to such happenings of people broadsiding locomotives and fire trucks and police cars ( with or withouty their various warning devices actuated).
All the reflectors/reflective tape that could be applied to the sides or back of another (ie; a trailer or rail car). Posted warnings will not preclude an inattentive driver from running into; or under another object or vehicle in front of them.
"You can train the ignorant, but stupidity is forever" (observation of an old trucker)
CShaveRR [snip] Because of other tracks, junctions, and crossings in the area, the "35 m.p.h." quoted by one of the drivers is definitely beyond the ballpark, especially if they complied with the rules requiring trains to stop and protect. . . . [snip] What are the odds that on a state highway, two drivers from opposite directions are the first to encounter a big black obstruction in the tracks on well-lighted street, disregard the reflectorized strips on the cars (they work pretty well--V.O.E. here!) and crash into the train? I'd say they planned that idiot trap pretty well! _ _
[snip] What are the odds that on a state highway, two drivers from opposite directions are the first to encounter a big black obstruction in the tracks on well-lighted street, disregard the reflectorized strips on the cars (they work pretty well--V.O.E. here!) and crash into the train? I'd say they planned that idiot trap pretty well! _ _
I believe the "35 m.p.h." quoted by one of the drivers was meant to be his car's speed, not the train's speed . . . ?
"V.O.E." = "Verifiable, Objective, Evidence", or "Voice Of Experience" - either could work in this context - or something else ? See: http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/VOE
Or: "res ipsa loquitur" = "the thing speaks for itself" . . .
One thing that the RR can use for its defense in court is that the driver was speeding. The Chicago citywide speed limit is 30 mph (even though with the exception of Lake Shore Drive and the Skyway there is virtually no enforcement of it). The driver by his own admission was going 35 mph, so that could prove to be a problem for him in court.
Here is the rationale from the FRA. They don't say anything about drivers being morons and idots:
As noted in the NPRM, approximately
4,000 times each year, a train and a
highway vehicle collide at a highwayrail
grade crossing in the United States.
Approximately 23% of all highway-rail
grade crossing accidents involve motor
vehicles running into trains occupying
grade crossings (‘‘RIT’’ accidents). Many
of these RIT accidents occur during
nighttime conditions (dawn, dusk, and
darkness) and involve a highway
vehicle striking a train behind the first
two units of the consist. This suggests
that a contributing factor to many RIT
accidents is the difficulty motorists have
in seeing a train consist at a crossing in
time to stop their vehicles before
reaching the crossing, particularly
during periods of limited visibility, such
as dawn, dusk, darkness, or during
adverse weather conditions.
As explained in the NPRM, the
physical characteristics of trains, in
combination with the characteristics of
grade crossings (e.g., grade crossing
configuration, type of warning devices
at a crossing, rural background
environment with low level ambient
light, or visually complex urban
background environment, etc.), and the
inherent limitations of human eyesight,
often make it difficult for motorists to
detect a train’s presence on highway-rail
grade crossings, particularly during
periods of limited visibility. Freight
trains lack conspicuity in different
environmental settings. For example,
trains are typically painted a dark color
and are often covered with dirt and
grime which are inherent in the railroad
environment. With the exception of
locomotives, trains are usually
unlighted and are not equipped with
reflective devices. Similarly, a large
percentage of crossings are not lighted.
Consequently, much of the light from an
approaching motor vehicle’s headlights
is absorbed by the freight cars, instead
of being reflected back toward the
motorist. In addition, the large size of
freight cars also makes them difficult to
detect. For instance, even if a motorist
is looking for a train, if the locomotive
has already passed, it is difficult to
detect the freight cars because the cars
often encompass the motorist’s entire
field of view and have the tendency to
‘‘blend’’ into the background
environment, especially at night. Also,
because most drivers involved in grade
crossing accidents are familiar with the
crossings and with roadway features at
the crossings, the drivers become
habituated (or preconditioned) to the
crossings. Based on previous driving
experiences and conditioning, a driver
may not expect a train to be occupying
a crossing, and without a clear auditory
signal (because the locomotive has
already cleared the crossing) or visual
stimuli alerting the driver to a train
traveling through the crossing, the
driver may fail to perceive the train in
time to stop. This condition is further
exacerbated when a train is stopped on
a crossing.
Of course the FRA can't call drivers morons or idiots because that wouldn't be "politically correct". Plus, you can't legislate common sense, you either have it or don't. I also like how the newspaper article refers to the guy who hit the car as the "train wreck VICTIM" - thereby subconsciously automatically shifting the blame for the accident to the railroad.
The problem is people fundamentally don't pay attention. Sure, I'll agree it's harder to see the train at night. But impossible? Definitely not. You should be paying attention. No excuse for that. And I just wish that our court system forced more people to be personally responsible for their screw ups - maybe then people would think about taking their heads out of the sand.
The Butler eolafan: Here's your answer to the reflector question...this is a photo from the Chicago Tribune this morning and you can clearly see the reflector stripes on the side of the tank car the auto hit. End of discussion? What isn't seen in this photo, but can be seen in the video, is the second car impacted the train at the couplers on the opposite side of the train where the firemen are standing. Maybe that driver was trying to go between the tank cars?
eolafan: Here's your answer to the reflector question...this is a photo from the Chicago Tribune this morning and you can clearly see the reflector stripes on the side of the tank car the auto hit. End of discussion?
This photo answers some questions and brings up some observations.
1. Gates and lights not working even when photo taken (that is a big bad).
2. Front of first car appears to be canted slightly to the left.
3. second car appears to have crashed into coupler area between cars.
4. Due to this being a night time photo we cannot tell how much light is in driver's eyes of 1st car from the street light beyond the right hand car?
5. The 2 tank car's wheels both appear to have reflector treatment (note glowing of wheel rims) but the wheels were not in the 1st car's driving lane but were in the 2nd car's driving lane.
6. Shadow on right hand tank car indicates illumination coming from some vehicle out of view
7. Tail lights on 1st car seem to be on indicating headlights might still be working.
8. Reflector stripes are installed on both tank cars but this is where I find a lacking.
9. We have a crossing that is 3 ft above the street and the reflection does not occurr at night as the street dips before the crossing. That has concerend me in the past.
10. We do not know the slope of the road approaching this crossing.
11. Since present State of the Art reflector tape reflects light back to source in spite of the angle (up to about 30 degrees?) I see no reason that the vertical tape should not be farther down the tank car instead of where it is. A car on low beam (especially if low beams set low) might not get much reflection + may seem to not be a warning. A hazard seen at eye level is much more likely to be recognized.
12. Why a horizontal reflector tape (s) is not installed along the bottom (if there is a usable angle) is not understood.
13. If the 1st cars headlights were still working there is the possibility that the crash caused its headlights to shine directly into the second car's drivers eyes preventing that driver from seeing the train?
14. This appears to be a 4 lane street (?) but no striping in sight probably because of snow and salt possibility erasing same.
15. Wonder if 1st or second car dumped the train's air?
Sorry, Paul--I should have said "voice of experience", but my throat's still sore.
There's an awful lot of light available there...or so it appears.
Dan
My response is this.
No matter where the crossing is, or it's condition, there always will be the stupid people that make the wrong choice. and how can a train not be visible when the cars headlights are on?
Thats like the People that rear end a Shiny Hiney Reefer Trailer. You know the ones I am talking about the ones with the Polished Stainless Steel Rear Doors lit up like a Christmas Tree yet we still get Rear Ended.
One reason you're seeing amber lights of fire trucks now (usually at the rear) is because people are, for some reason, drawn to the red lights - especially drunks. Here in NY, we're finally adding rear-facing blue to the mix - all the cops have it now, and fire apparatus are also adding it as well.
All in hopes that we'll get people's attention and they won't hit us.
A New England fire department recently had not one, but two trucks hit as they were "blocking" at an accident. Photos of the damage clearly showed the "conspicuity stripes" on the rear of the rigs.
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...
schlimm The reflector issue will be a minor part of any litigation. The failure of the gates and signals to operate is the primary culprit.
The reflector issue will be a minor part of any litigation. The failure of the gates and signals to operate is the primary culprit.
Yes, that is true. The failure to activate will the the centerpiece of any litigation. But what about that? Will the crashes still be the fault of stupid moron idiot drivers, even though the signals failed to warn them? We have never settled that issue on this forum in the past.
I did watch the WGN news at noon and the Engineer had thrown Fusses as Required by rule to mark the Grade Crossing and the FD recovered the Burned out remants they reported he hit the Grade Crossing 12 Mins Before the Accident. IIRC Fusses burn out after 10 mins.
A couple of quick points before heading out to dinner with the lovely bride:
1. I have sold considerable amount of the yellow reflective tape to a major tank car company.
2. The tape, if properly purchased will have extremely high angularity and is specifically engineered for the railroad industry. It is 4" in width.
3. That being said, conditions dampen the reflective candlepower, particularly in the winter, namely, buildup of snow and road grime will diminish the candlepower of the reflective film.
4. The same buildup of snow and street salt, etc. will GREATLY diminish the candlepower of the car's headlights. I frequently wash my headlight lens while fueling and still find the reach of the headlights diminished frequently.
5. Night vision is greatly reduced as a person ages.
Lots of people jumping to quick conclusions here. If they were impaired, it will come out quickly. The fact the flashers were out of service and the gates were not down is not good.
Black tank cars are very difficult to see at night. The pattern of the reflective tape on the tank cars is not the best. The fact that two cars hit the train...not good.
More later.
Ed
edbenton I did watch the WGN news at noon and the Engineer had thrown Fusses as Required by rule to mark the Grade Crossing and the FD recovered the Burned out remants they reported he hit the Grade Crossing 12 Mins Before the Accident. IIRC Fusses burn out after 10 mins.
Nope, fussees come in activated times ranging from 5-30 mins.
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
Bucyrus The failure to activate will the the centerpiece of any litigation. But what about that? Will the crashes still be the fault of stupid moron idiot drivers, even though the signals failed to warn them? We have never settled that issue on this forum in the past.
The failure to activate will the the centerpiece of any litigation. But what about that? Will the crashes still be the fault of stupid moron idiot drivers, even though the signals failed to warn them? We have never settled that issue on this forum in the past.
And judging by the responses on this incident, it probably will never be settled. Nor need it be.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
There is a rather widespread law that says that on signalized grade crossings, even if the signals have failed to activate, a driver must yield to trains.
It means that the driver is not supposed to rely only on the signals to warn him or her of approaching trains. Instead, there is an onus on the driver to slow down and make sure no trains are approaching from either direction------even if there are crossing signals and gates are standing there un-activated. So, under these rules, if the signals fail to warn the driver, any resultant crash has to be the driver’s fault.
The fact is that drivers feel a security blanket from the massive automatic gates and flashing lights that govern the passage over a grade crossing. They put their faith into that warning system, and they reduce their effort to watch out for themselves.
Nance, although it's true that fusees are made to last that variety of times, you would be very hard-pressed to find much other than a ten-minute fusee in a locomotive cab or anywhere else that most employees could easily get to. Trust me, I knew that longer ones existed, and many's the time I was out flagging, wishing that my fusees would last a little longer than ten minutes!
(I also remember being the new guy and being given a five-minute fusee because I wasn't old enough for a regular one...everybody enjoyed that, especially since I'd handled 15-minute fusees regularly in my pre-railroading career.)
News reports tonight suggest that the signals at that crossing have not worked for weeks.
Bucyrus There is a rather widespread law that says that on signalized grade crossings, even if the signals have failed to activate, a driver must yield to trains. It means that the driver is not supposed to rely only on the signals to warn him or her of approaching trains. Instead, there is an onus on the driver to slow down and make sure no trains are approaching from either direction------even if there are crossing signals and gates are standing there un-activated. So, under these rules, if the signals fail to warn the driver, any resultant crash has to be the driver’s fault. The fact is that drivers feel a security blanket from the massive automatic gates and flashing lights that govern the passage over a grade crossing. They put their faith into that warning system, and they reduce their effort to watch out for themselves.
Yes, I know this was in IL, not NY, but in NYS the V&T says, and I quote, "1170 Obedience to signal indicating approach of a train. (a) Whenever any person driving a vehicle approaches a railroad grade crossing under any of the circumstances stated in this section, the driver of such vehicle shall stop not less than fifteen feet from the nearest rail of such railroad, and shall not proceed until he can safely do so safely. The foregoing requirements shall apply when: (skipping down now to applicable section)
4. An approaching railroad train is plainly visible and is in hazardous proximity to such crossing."
I'd pretty much dare say it's likely IL has a similar law. The only question from John Q Dopey-driver would be: does IN THE CROSSING count as "plainly visible and hazardous proximity to such crossing?" Like I said a while back on this thread, driver stated he was talking to his passenger just before the crossing.
WMNB4THRTL Bucyrus: There is a rather widespread law that says that on signalized grade crossings, even if the signals have failed to activate, a driver must yield to trains. It means that the driver is not supposed to rely only on the signals to warn him or her of approaching trains. Instead, there is an onus on the driver to slow down and make sure no trains are approaching from either direction------even if there are crossing signals and gates are standing there un-activated. So, under these rules, if the signals fail to warn the driver, any resultant crash has to be the driver’s fault. The fact is that drivers feel a security blanket from the massive automatic gates and flashing lights that govern the passage over a grade crossing. They put their faith into that warning system, and they reduce their effort to watch out for themselves. Yes, I know this was in IL, not NY, but in NYS the V&T says, and I quote, "1170 Obedience to signal indicating approach of a train. (a) Whenever any person driving a vehicle approaches a railroad grade crossing under any of the circumstances stated in this section, the driver of such vehicle shall stop not less than fifteen feet from the nearest rail of such railroad, and shall not proceed until he can safely do so safely. The foregoing requirements shall apply when: (skipping down now to applicable section) 4. An approaching railroad train is plainly visible and is in hazardous proximity to such crossing." I'd pretty much dare say it's likely IL has a similar law. The only question from John Q Dopey-driver would be: does IN THE CROSSING count as "plainly visible and hazardous proximity to such crossing?" Like I said a while back on this thread, driver stated he was talking to his passenger just before the crossing.
Bucyrus: There is a rather widespread law that says that on signalized grade crossings, even if the signals have failed to activate, a driver must yield to trains. It means that the driver is not supposed to rely only on the signals to warn him or her of approaching trains. Instead, there is an onus on the driver to slow down and make sure no trains are approaching from either direction------even if there are crossing signals and gates are standing there un-activated. So, under these rules, if the signals fail to warn the driver, any resultant crash has to be the driver’s fault. The fact is that drivers feel a security blanket from the massive automatic gates and flashing lights that govern the passage over a grade crossing. They put their faith into that warning system, and they reduce their effort to watch out for themselves.
You quote what must be done to obey the signal. What if no signal is shown?
I think maybe you are confused, and yes, I know what you are saying. You are reading the title of the section. I did not type parts 1, 2, and 3, as they didn't apply in this case. Think of that title as saying, "Here's what you do in case you approach a railroad crossing." Does that help to answer your question and/or clarify things?
[EDIT] After re-reading what I wrote, I want to be sure to expressly state I don't mean the 'tone' of my post to come across wrongly. I am simply trying to clarify this and/or answer the question. I don't want to sound 'snippy' or whatever and I do apologize if it came across that way. It was not my intent or attitude.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.