Not sure under which rulebook the railroad was operating on, but the CSX rule 100J states:
"When equipment is standing and obscuring highway traffic's view, an employee must protect the highway traffic against movement on adjacent tracks."
Further it states "Activation Failure - with no flagger/no police - MUST STOP. Crew member flag traffic and reboard."
Ed
edblysard Look at it this way...if there had not been a train occupying the crossing, would it not be reasonable to assume the drives should have expected to see on coming headlights from automobiles, street signs, advertising signs, streetlights, traffic lights, buildings and all the background objects one sees and all the other visual clues that the way ahead is clear? Instead, they would have seen nothing but vertical bright yellow stripes against a solid black background. Shouldn't the absence of any visual clutter ring alarm bells in the mind of any attentive driver? How many of you would blithely drive off into black at speed with no caution?
Look at it this way...if there had not been a train occupying the crossing, would it not be reasonable to assume the drives should have expected to see on coming headlights from automobiles, street signs, advertising signs, streetlights, traffic lights, buildings and all the background objects one sees and all the other visual clues that the way ahead is clear?
Instead, they would have seen nothing but vertical bright yellow stripes against a solid black background.
Shouldn't the absence of any visual clutter ring alarm bells in the mind of any attentive driver?
How many of you would blithely drive off into black at speed with no caution?
Not trying to absolve the drivers from responsibility, but I think that the question you ask goes beyond the attention span of most normal people. we tend to respond to visual clues, and the absence of anything is most often interpreted as "nothing", people who react to 'nothing' are usually branded loons (ufo sightings, conspiracy buffs, etc) so (from your example) the fact that 'nothing' failed to register as a threat.... does not surprise me at all.
Have you ever had to get some place in a relative hurry, only to find that a fog has rolled in, and you find yourself torn ...wondering if you dare drive any quicker, vs maybe you are already driving too fast?
I've personally never had a fog related accident, but have found myself in that position (wondering) on a number of occasions.
Now granted, "fog" is a special condition, and perhaps the uniqueness of conditions serves as a visual clue to be extra cautious, wheras "night" is not a unique condition, so perhaps the 'cue' is less notable?
"By installing an active safety appliance (flashers and gates), then the frequent users of this crossing have a reasonable expectation that the appliance will be performing it's intended function. And the fact that it was not will constitute (drum roll)..........CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE!!!."
I'm not an attorney, but I whole heartedly agree with that statement. There seem to be extenuating circumstances in this incident.
Were the fusees designed to burn for as long as the cars occupied the crossing? I think not. Most of them burn for fifteen or twenty minutes. It appears the train occupied the crossing for longer than that.
I won't speculate on why the gates and lights did not continue working while the crossing was occupied.
Norm
schlimm zugmann: You flag with a fusee (or other light) by night. Could you clarify? Does the act of "flagging" mean merely throwing the fusee on the pavement, or actually having it in the air, as is implied? Crossing tenders back in the 1940's and before used to wave a flag to warn motorists at crossings without gates..
zugmann: You flag with a fusee (or other light) by night.
You flag with a fusee (or other light) by night.
Could you clarify? Does the act of "flagging" mean merely throwing the fusee on the pavement, or actually having it in the air, as is implied? Crossing tenders back in the 1940's and before used to wave a flag to warn motorists at crossings without gates..
You can't hold a lit fusee too long. They get hot fast. If a crossing needs proper flagging (usually a shove move), I toss out 1 or 2 per side (depending on the road) on the pavement itself - usually in the middle of the lane and at least in line with the crossbuck, if not further back. If it is foggy or rainy/misty I get out the old pitcher's arm (yeah right) and toss one even further back (an approach fusee?). The trick is to leave the cap on the other end and put a nice spin to it. If I am going to have the road blocked for more than 10 minutes (switching moves), I sometimes try to line a couple up in a row, so that one will light off the next one. But that doesn't always work... even if they burn out - there is a crossbuck there. I just light the road up because I believe it may hopefully keep me from getting hit.
If a car is approaching as I light the fusee, then I will use the fusee to flag them down, otherwise I use my LED lantern (which is very bright and noticeable). I flag down cars until the crossing is occupied. Then there was that one time I had enough fusees on the road to rival a DUI checkpoint...
It amazes me when I lay down fusees and cars don't even slow down. You'd think lit road flares would make them think "hmm... something must be happening here!"
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
zugmann You flag with a fusee (or other light) by night.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
I have seen a driver of a car slam intopt he rear of a Truck that was doing 55 MPH in California he was doing 70+ his reason. I thought I could fit between him and the Guardrail he was pulling. He meant his ICC Bumper on the Trailer. Trust me sometimes the person that gets a DL is not the brightest bulb in the package. Best one I ever saw however had to be when I was in Ontario CA in 1999 sitting waiting for a load Driver now this guy had a CDL gates were coming down and he decides to blow around 2 trucks to beat a train. He was caught on the other side by a CHP officer and Lost his CDL.
WC#3000 Bucyrus you hit the nail on the head! I agree with you totally. It shouldn't matter if there are 20 sets of flashing red lights or just a crossbuck, TRAINS HAVE THE RIGHT OF WAY, period! And when you approach a grade-crossing you should always expect a train. Remember,
Bucyrus you hit the nail on the head! I agree with you totally. It shouldn't matter if there are 20 sets of flashing red lights or just a crossbuck, TRAINS HAVE THE RIGHT OF WAY, period! And when you approach a grade-crossing you should always expect a train. Remember,
I don't think that it is that simple.
By installing an active safety appliance (flashers and gates), then the frequent users of this crossing have a reasonable expectation that the appliance will be performing it's intended function. And the fact that it was not will constitute (drum roll)..........CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE!!!.
Now, don't let the extremists try and distort that into some insistence that such a claim is an attempt to totally absolve the motorist of responsibility, because that is not the way it will play out. The factors that will be key are..what share of responsibility should rightly rest with each party, did either party act with carelessness or intent, which party can easiest afford to remedy the loss incurred, and which party suffered the greatest loss?
And with jury's being made up of mostly non-wealthy folk who share western culture's belief that nothing is so sacred as a human life, you can pretty much guess the way the latter two criteria will be decided
Driver expectations are likely a major factor here. Face it, if there are 30 trains a day that take 4 minutes each to clear a crossing, that's two hours a day that the crossing is blocked. It's also 22 hours a day that the crossing isn't blocked. Somebody else can work out the probability of catching a train at a given crossing under such circumstances.
The point is that because drivers rarely see a train at a crossing, they really don't expect to see a train. Why should they watch for something that, in their experience, is never there?
That said, it's your responsibility to ensure that the road ahead of you is clear of obstructions. Had the vehicle struck been a semi-trailer we wouldn't be discussing it here, but four people would still have been in the hospital.
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...
Thank you, Jeff. Unless I am misreading your post, I think you have exactly answered my last question. That expectation (re driver vs occupied crossing) is as it should be, IMO. It also goes back to the V&T I posted.
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 This latest news that the crossing was intentionally “deactivated” by the railroad company just blows me away. You cannot simply shut off or deactivate a signalized crossing and expect drivers to treat it as a non-signalized or so-called passive crossing. Drivers naturally rely on the lights and gates to warn them of approaching trains, so they pay less attention than if there were no lights and gates. Therefore it follows that if the lights and gates fail to activate, you have a crossing situation that is far more dangerous than a crossing only having unlighted crossbucks. Maybe the railroad company thought they could make up for the missing safety factor by flagging the crossing for trains. However, they proved that the hyper hazard of a failed crossing signal system also applies to trains standing on the crossing as well as trains approaching the crossing. People talk about drivers being morons and idiots on this forum all the time. The real moron / idiot is the person who decided to de-activate that signalized crossing and just let it go at that.
People talk about drivers being morons and idiots on this forum all the time. The real moron / idiot is the person who decided to de-activate that signalized crossing and just let it go at that.
They didn't just "deactivate that signalized crossing and just let it go at that." Obviously a crossing protection order was put out. The train crew knew they weren't functioning, followed proper procedure (infact more than required by rule. Unless their specific rules or instructions call for it, the GCOR rule, CRL is a GCOR road, doesn't require lighted fusees to be left along the road. It's a good idea, but not specifically called for as written.)
The thinking behind stopping and protecting the head end at a failed/deactivated crossing is so motorists aren't surprised by the big bad locomotive jumping out of the weeds at them. It is expected once the crossing is fully occupied that motorists will note the obstruction and stop. I looked at the governing rule for this situation in general GCOR, UP specific GCOR, CSX rules and NS rules. (Note: I don't know how current the CSX and NS rules are. Since they are off a BLET website for it's members I would think they are current. Except for the UP, I don't have access to any other specific instructions beyond the rule as written.) None of them require an employee, or law enforcement person if available, to protect the crossing on the ground after the head end has fully occupied the crossing. Once the head end of the train is over it, they may proceed at maximum speed.
I can understand that some freight cars are hard to see at night. There are a lot of obstacles that are hard to see at night. 99 times out of a 100, those hard to see things aren't there. That 100th time they are and most motorists aren't driving like they expect it. They then collide with the obstacle.
It seems many drivers at times, some more others less since even the best isn't perfect 100% of the time, do drive like morons or idiots. I don't say this because of grade crossing accidents. Most drivers I see obey the railroad crossing signals, a few don't. It's when I'm driving, observing others drive that I wonder when Cracker Jacks started putting in driver's licenses for the prize.
Jeff
As I said before Pheobe, the ability to pass roads at grade is one of the best things about railroads. Sure, you can try to eliminate crossings (and that should be the goal), but I'd rather focus on the main line RR. It is a waste of money to try to build overpasses/underpasses for every industrial track, siding, runner or yard lead.
I think you guys are ignoring the fact that the next RR car in line is NOT black, it is right by the edge of the road and the street is lighted. I put this accident in the same pigeon hole where I file the ones where a driver runs into the back of a police car that is on the side of the road with all it's emergency lights flashing.
The only way to stop cars and trains from colliding is to eliminate grade level crossings. It is a project that should have been started 50 years ago. It is too expensive to just remove them all now, but spread over 50 years it could be done. But we have to start first. Not only are we not gradually removing the ones we have, but we are still building more. If we learn anything from history it's that we don't learn anything from history.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
From what I was taught, you are to warn of your advance 'until you are fully occupying the crossing." What are the regulations once you do fully occupy the crossing, or are there any?
I wouldn't have a problem with reducing all crossings to just crossbucks. Maybe people would pay more attention.
We have a 70 MPH mainline that goes thru this area and there are multiple county roads that cross it. Guess what there are plenty of crossings that only have a Crossbuck warning. No Flashing Lights No Arms Nothing Do you hear of people getting killed or running into trains on the Transcon at these Crossings Nope Why because the Drivers around here Know to LOOK FOR A TRAIN. Around herre in Drivers Ed if you cross a Grade crossing that has just a Cross buck without slowing and looking for a train guess what YOU FAIL DRIVERS ED. We take Grade Crossing Saftey Seriously here. But then again this is Chicago were this accident happened were common sense is never to be found.
edblysard [snip] Look at it this way...if there had not been a train occupying the crossing, would it not be reasonable to assume the drives should have expected to see on coming headlights from automobiles, street signs, advertising signs, streetlights, traffic lights, buildings and all the background objects one sees and all the other visual clues that the way ahead is clear? Instead, they would have seen nothing but vertical bright yellow stripes against a solid black background. Shouldn't the absence of any visual clutter ring alarm bells in the mind of any attentive driver? [snip]
Shouldn't the absence of any visual clutter ring alarm bells in the mind of any attentive driver? [snip]
The technial term for that condition (which I was trying to think of yesterday) is "occluded", I think - see http://www.thefreedictionary.com/occluded , 2nd definition. It's kind of like the visual equivalent of the analytical question of "What dog didn't bark ?" in that it's what light are you not seeing that you should be ? I've encountered that most often in outdoors situations at night where a building, mountain, or even a blacked-out ship, aircraft, or stopped train blocks the stars behind it, as well as any ambient 'glare' in the sky from lights in the distance. That effectively enables you to see at least the outlines of the object based on what's not there !
Otherwise, ed - right on ! (funny, too, in places)
- Paul North.
"Flagging" the crossing. Is that to be taken literally? Or is throwing a fusee on the pavement an acceptable alternative? It is obvious that the drivers should have been more attentive. It is also obvious that the prevention of accidents is the whole point of gates, flashing lights etc., as a means of improving the level of safety. Otherwise why even bother with costly safety equipment and just depend on human judgment to watch out for the train?
According to the FRA: Under federal regulations, railroads are required to:
So someone who is against FRA reflectors because it makes the RR seem responsible, also blames the railroad because two drivers were out-driving their headlights on a 30-35mph road? Crossing gates or not, these people still hit a tank car on a 30-35 mph road. Luckily it wasn't a bicyclist, stalled car, downed pole, or a thousand other items. And don't give me the "it was hard to see" BS. They could smash into your car and claim "it was hard to see". Please.
Wasn't like this was a 65mph freeway. I am still curious if 100% of their attention was to the road...
I read in the Chicago Tribune this mornign that crossing gate/signal circuit was impacted by amount of road salt used in the area after the blizzard a couple weeks back. Also, IIRC such signals and gates have signs basically saying "If problems with these gates/signals, call 1-800-555-5555 or something similar...well the, if they had not been operating for weeks, did somebody bother to call the railroad or police OR did the good citizens do what most do these days...NOT MY JOB MAN!
In Feb 2004, there was a case outside Rochester NY where an older couple was killed after being struck by a train. The crossing warning device(s) weren't operating properly, if at all. Their local paper, for anyone interested in the archives, is called The Rochester Democrat & Chronicle.
PS I should add, the case I cite here was also linked to road salt in the failure of the lights/gates failure, where it was known ahead of the 'accident' that the warning devices were not working (properly) and eerily similar but had a much more grim outcome.
This latest news that the crossing was intentionally “deactivated” by the railroad company just blows me away. You cannot simply shut off or deactivate a signalized crossing and expect drivers to treat it as a non-signalized or so-called passive crossing.
Drivers naturally rely on the lights and gates to warn them of approaching trains, so they pay less attention than if there were no lights and gates.
Therefore it follows that if the lights and gates fail to activate, you have a crossing situation that is far more dangerous than a crossing only having unlighted crossbucks.
Maybe the railroad company thought they could make up for the missing safety factor by flagging the crossing for trains. However, they proved that the hyper hazard of a failed crossing signal system also applies to trains standing on the crossing as well as trains approaching the crossing.
ChuckCobleigh edblysard: Shouldn't the absence of any visual clutter ring alarm bells in the mind of any attentive driver? Seemingly a rare bird indeed. At least these days. I think you've stumbled on something, Ed?
edblysard: Shouldn't the absence of any visual clutter ring alarm bells in the mind of any attentive driver?
Seemingly a rare bird indeed. At least these days.
I think you've stumbled on something, Ed?
I am sure more than a few great philosophers have delved into this at some length, but the one I am thinking of was only about 5 years old. When he was told that before crossing the street he should be sure to look for no cars. His thoughtful response was, "What do no cars look like?"
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
edblysard Shouldn't the absence of any visual clutter ring alarm bells in the mind of any attentive driver?
News reports tonight suggest that the signals at that crossing have not worked for weeks.
[/quote]
Signals and gates out for weeks? Why wasn't it fixed? Halsted is a fairly busy street. Does anyone know how many trains use the crossing each day? It may well be that the Rail Link runs fairly few trains daily past the crossing, so that folks don't pay much attention to the crossing, especially at night and with no warning lights or gates.
Well,
Based on the photo in Paul North's link, I have no difficulty seeing the tank car/train.
Now, all things considered, what exactly would you expect to find at a railroad crossing?
A herd of sheep or goats?
Maybe the Goodyear blimp?
Or, odd as it may seem, how about a train?
There seems to be a trend towards blaming the train for simply being there, as if there was some other option.
If you drove your automobile across the landing strip of any airport, wouldn't you expect to encounter air planes there?
Why do people seem so surprised to find a train on the tracks that the road crosses?
And that's the way it almost always is, the road crosses the tracks, not the other way around.
Rare is the instance where a railroad built its tracks across an existing roadway, but more often the case, a city or state constructs a road across the tracks.
Which gives the train and the railroad the legal right of way in most instances.
I would hazard a guess that the drivers both have driven in Chicago before, and looking at a map of the city, it is almost impossible to drive more than a few miles in any direction without crossing railroad tracks at least once, so a fair guess would be that both drivers had used that same crossing before.
Now, I don't know about the rest of the forum members, but I know where every railroad crossing is that I drive over, and I expect there to be a train either approaching those crossings, or occupying those crossings.
Again, what do you expect to find on the railroad tracks?
Granted, according to the story, the gates and lights had been deactivated, and quite a lot of drivers rely on those alone to warn them, but still, unless you're a very inattentive driver, it is hard not to see the reflectors on the tankcars, they reflect quite well even under very low light conditions.
And, according to one report, the crew had left fusees bruning on both sides of the crossing.
My switchmans lantern will show the strips on one from 100 yards away, and driving into the yard at 5am, I can tell you who's locomotives are parked where in our yard with just the reflective labeling they have, all by my automobiles head lights.
I mean, if I turn the corner on any familiar street and saw absolutely nothing but solid black with yellow strips, and none of the things I was expecting to see, trust me, I am pretty sure I would step on the brakes.
I drive county roads at night quite often, several of them very overgrown with old old trees overhanging the road, zero street lighting.
Its like driving in a dark tunnel.
I drive at a speed that allows me to stop if a deer, cow or person steps into my headlights.
23 17 46 11
This is the best report I've seen on the incident yet.
http://www.suntimes.com/3814240-417/no-flashing-lights-or-gates-before-freight-train-crash-witness-says.html
They even got the railroad's name correct. There are a few decent journalist still working.
According to this the crossing circuit had been compromised by the snow and salt applied to the road surfaces. So the railroad did the "responsible thing" (an FRA type said) and took the lights and gates out of service. Otherwise they'd fail safe and block the road continuously. I don't know how the railroad would "fix" an abundance of salt in the ground.
The crew flagged the crossing and left burning fussees on the road. Reports differ, naturally, as to whether the fussees were still burning when the autos ran in to the train.
It's not as bad as I thought. The crossing signals didn't fail to activate. They had been deactivated intentionally. But still, there were four people seriously hurt and in the hospital. Time to find a better way.
Paul_D_North_Jr 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.
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.
The picture included with the news article very clearly shows the reflective strips on the tank cars and they appear to be in good condition and doing their job. The cars certainly wouldn't have been "black" to an approaching motorist.
Bucyrus you hit the nail on the head! I agree with you totally. It shouldn't matter if there are 20 sets of flashing red lights or just a crossbuck, TRAINS HAVE THE RIGHT OF WAY, period! And when you approach a grade-crossing you should always expect a train. Remember, a crossbuck is the same thing as a yield sign
But the sad reality today is common sense is about as common as a Wisconsin Central SD45. People just seem to disregard rules and laws that were written for a reason, likely in another "victim's" blood. Sad but true.
My
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. 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)
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)
The warning signals shouldn't deactivate if the train is stopped in the "island" circuit (i.e.' if it is stopped while occupying the crossing).
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.