http://www.nbcchicago.com/traffic/transit/amtrak-truck-crash--124511984.html
Here are video, photos and late info from a Reno paper. http://www.rgj.com/article/20110624/NEWS/110624012/Passengers-describe-scene-deadly-truck-Amtrak-train-crash?odyssey=nav%7Chead
It looks like the first two Superliners were destroyed by the impact and fire. Just behind the baggage car, these would typically be sleepers. Photos indicate the truck was a tractor pulling doubles, dump trailers of the trough type used for gravel and other bulk materials. Can't tell for sure, but it appears the trailers were empty. I suspect the intensity of the fire was the result on the fuel tanks on the tractor bursting on impact. No good pictures of the remnents of the tractor, but it appears it was totally blown apart.
One photo shows skid marks from dual tires, but no way to tell if the skid marks were from this truck. Beside gates and flashing lights on posts, there are also light on the top of a bridge over the roadway.
I'd guess the engineer must have seen the truck within a few feet of the crossing. At track speed-79MPH-it would just be a fraction of a second between the time the nose of the engine passed the truck and the collision.
The linked article reports the death of the driver and one other-some indication an Amtrak crew member. Also 6 others seriously injured, but a responder reported that a search of the burned cars was not completed.
"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
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-sns-bc-us--amtrak-truckcrash,0,1311059.story
One person said the truck hit the 4th car on the train, which sounds like the train was already well into the crossing when the truck ran into it.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
From one of the online videos showing the damage. The initial impact was to the side of car number 39013, a transition sleeper first behind the baggage car. Some of the rooms in a transition are sometimes used for revenue passengers, but most are for the on-board service crew. The fact that it was daytime and crew members were on duty at other locations in the train may well have saved many from injury.
The second Superliner car in the consist, also showing impact and extensive fire damage was number 34033, a coach. That is an unusual position, as coaches in Superliner train consists most often are at the rear of the train. I am going to make a guess that for some reason that car was lightly occupied. A look at the impact and fire damage suggest that most occupants in that would have been at high risk to injury and death.
With sympathy to the injured and families, it seems it could have been much worse.
And, as usual, the local news weenie put the blame on the train!
Having already seen this on my internet feed, you can imagine my feelings when the bit was announced, "Train hits truck in northern Nevada." I sent him an E-mail inquiring how a train can hit anything broadside on.
Also, he sounded critical of the long response time before emergency crews showed up - in the approximate heart of nowhere!
Biased reporting, anyone?
Chuck (Nevada resident)
Chuck:
I am with you, sometimes you wonder if some reporters,or "Talking Heads" haver anything between their ears to stop suff from just rattling around in that cavity.
Frightening thing was, some of the internet pieces were saying that the two deceased were in the truck. and that it was enroute from Illinois to California. Obviously they were referencing th California Zephyr and NOT the truck! The truck was apparently a double bottom dump trailer combination that was empty at the time of it's hitting the CZ. Do not know if it hit the locomotive or one of the cars following behind them(?).
Scarily the similarities to the Crash at Bourbonnais, Il. in 1999, and AMTRAK #59 when something like 11 people died in the sleepers behind the locomotive
That crash led to a number of DOT /State Law Changes that effected the OTR Driver and Industry with a number of new rules. Just like the Crash out in California when that passenger train hit the UP Freight and so many were killed and injured ( Caused legislation to push for installation of PTC nationwide)
The truth in this Nevada Crash is obviously going to take time to be sorted out.
At least the national media got it right.
Comments: i would think the fuel tanks on the truck were the cause of the fire. If I remember correctly the company used 100 gallon fuel tanks(each side for a total of 200 gallons of diesel).
The next item is that the driver of the truck, as a local driver(under 100 miles from home terminal) did not keep a log book. Probably a time card somewhere. I would wonder what kind of hours.
Also time of day is kind of unusual 1130am or daylite hours.
This crossing does not have anything to obstruct visibility. No trees, a passing siding with another train(or railcars).
No information on the truck driver or company. Nevada is pretty laisez faire on regulation.
I've been across that crossing in a truck a few times. As I remeber it pretty unremarkable place in the middle of nowhere.
As I said above I can only comment.
Rgds IGN
It happened at 11:20 am, and the truck hit the train 4 cars deep. How incredibly stupid was this truck driver? Maybe he was related to the moron who drove around the gates a few weeks ago in Chicago. Geez, I wonder where these truck operators buy their permits.
I smell a cell phone. Maybe some texting while driving. No proof, just a hunch.
Death toll could be higher than two:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chibrknews-chicago-nevada-amtrak-crash-california-zephyr-20110625,0,5223475.story
The LA Times indicates some witnesses thought the truck attempted to avoid the crash. Seems unlikely based on the evidence so far.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-nevada-train-crash-20110626,0,4724347.story
jeaton From one of the online videos showing the damage. The initial impact was to the side of car number 39013, a transition sleeper first behind the baggage car. Some of the rooms in a transition are sometimes used for revenue passengers, but most are for the on-board service crew. The fact that it was daytime and crew members were on duty at other locations in the train may well have saved many from injury. The second Superliner car in the consist, also showing impact and extensive fire damage was number 34033, a coach. That is an unusual position, as coaches in Superliner train consists most often are at the rear of the train. I am going to make a guess that for some reason that car was lightly occupied. A look at the impact and fire damage suggest that most occupants in that would have been at high risk to injury and death. With sympathy to the injured and families, it seems it could have been much worse.
Johnny
....Now I believe the fatility count is up to 5...That is tragedy way too big. Unobstructed view.....tangent track.....midday timing...signals working....Guess we'll never know how that site became such a site to produce the terrible incident.
Our feelings / thoughts go out to the families involved.
Seems very unusual such a thing could happen {in broad daylight}, when part of the train already was somewhat across and beyond the crossing. What could have taken the attention of driving, away from the driver.....
Reported skid marks near the crossing indicates the driver was alert at that point, but what had his attention as he approached the crossing....Amtrak horns are really loud....And lights flashing...!
That said....It appears Amtrak lost at least 3 cars....Something they certainly can't afford. And some media reports I heard and saw as a "crawler" across the bottom of the TV screen....{Paraphrasing}..."An accident with an Amtrak Passenger Train hitting a semi, etc"....Of course, that just feeds more negative news of the Passenger Operation.
No winners here.....
Quentin
Most train/car crashes involve smaller vehicles that are either struck broadside by a train or run into the side of it. In either case, the road vehicle loses. However, there are large, heavy trucks that can tangle with a train, and the contest takes a toll on the train as well as the truck.
Here for some reason, the truck driver approached the crossing without perceiving the train until it was entering the crossing slightly before the truck would have done so. Then the driver saw the train and slammed on the brakes, leaving skid marks, but failed to stop short of the train. Because the train arrived at the crossing first, it got a few cars past the crossing before the truck struck it.
In that scenario, if in fact the truck driver did not see the train until it was passing over the crossing, then one could draw a conclusion about the dynamics involved. Those dynamics would say that the most likely location for a passenger to be affected by a “run-into-train” crash is near the head end. The longer the train runs over the crossing, the more likely it is to alert an approaching motorist.
An R-I-T crash involving a heavy truck is something to think about while riding any passenger train.
So I would rather sleep near the back end, but I suspect that there is a strong counter argument in that there might be more slack back there.
Deggesty jeaton: From one of the online videos showing the damage. The initial impact was to the side of car number 39013, a transition sleeper first behind the baggage car. Some of the rooms in a transition are sometimes used for revenue passengers, but most are for the on-board service crew. The fact that it was daytime and crew members were on duty at other locations in the train may well have saved many from injury. The second Superliner car in the consist, also showing impact and extensive fire damage was number 34033, a coach. That is an unusual position, as coaches in Superliner train consists most often are at the rear of the train. I am going to make a guess that for some reason that car was lightly occupied. A look at the impact and fire damage suggest that most occupants in that would have been at high risk to injury and death. With sympathy to the injured and families, it seems it could have been much worse. I do not know why, but Amtrak does operate the California Zephyr with the sleepers on the rear. Well do I remember walking the full length of the train when we boarded it (in a snowstorm) in Salt Lake City this past April and when we detrained two weeks later on our return home. When we rode the Coast Starlight (both ways) on the same trip, the sleepers were ahead of the parlour car, and when we rode the City of New Orleans (again, both ways) the sleepers were at the front.
jeaton: From one of the online videos showing the damage. The initial impact was to the side of car number 39013, a transition sleeper first behind the baggage car. Some of the rooms in a transition are sometimes used for revenue passengers, but most are for the on-board service crew. The fact that it was daytime and crew members were on duty at other locations in the train may well have saved many from injury. The second Superliner car in the consist, also showing impact and extensive fire damage was number 34033, a coach. That is an unusual position, as coaches in Superliner train consists most often are at the rear of the train. I am going to make a guess that for some reason that car was lightly occupied. A look at the impact and fire damage suggest that most occupants in that would have been at high risk to injury and death. With sympathy to the injured and families, it seems it could have been much worse.
I rode the CZ a couple of years ago and the sleepers were on the head end. I'll be taking the CZ to Denver early next month and it will be interesting to see how the consist is set. It is entirely possible that there is an operating reason for the CZ to have the coaches on the head end.
What a terrible thing! How could anyone drive a truck into the side of a silver train in broad daylight?
Anyway, sleepers and parlor cars go on the rear end out of Chicago so your first class passengers don't have to walk as far to get to their assingned cars. They paid for 1st class, give 'em every break.
Of course, that means going in to Chicago it's first class on the head end.
That's the way the Rock Island, Santa Fe and Burlington did it.
Report that the truck slid 320 feet before impact and the truck cab was imbedded in the car that it struck....
http://beta.news.yahoo.com/drivers-engineer-watched-amtrak-crash-unfold-095615847.html
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Death toll at 6.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-sns-ap-us-amtrak-truck-crash,0,1077655.story
jeaton At track speed-79MPH-it would just be a fraction of a second between the time the nose of the engine passed the truck and the collision.
At track speed-79MPH-it would just be a fraction of a second between the time the nose of the engine passed the truck and the collision.
Not true. It would have taken at least 5 seconds for the 4th car to reach the road after nose of the engine. The truck would have to have been traveling at a pretty high speed to hit the train that hard even after skidding. 60 MPH is 88 feet a second. The truck would have to have been several hundred feet back when the train entered the crossing.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
And the truck skidded 300 feet before striking the train at the crossing. So the truck was going too fast, given it was a double, and/or brake problems?
Phoebe Vet jeaton: At track speed-79MPH-it would just be a fraction of a second between the time the nose of the engine passed the truck and the collision. Not true. It would have taken at least 5 seconds for the 4th car to reach the road after nose of the engine. The truck would have to have been traveling at a pretty high speed to hit the train that hard even after skidding. 60 MPH is 88 feet a second. The truck would have to have been several hundred feet back when the train entered the crossing.
jeaton: At track speed-79MPH-it would just be a fraction of a second between the time the nose of the engine passed the truck and the collision.
Late reports indicate the engineer applied the brakes before the collision so the train speed could have been less. Probably something that will be more accurately calculated in the final NTSB report.
It is also being reported that skid marks indicated the driver may have had the brakes on the rig applied almost 300 feet before the crossing. That would seem to indicate that he saw the train or the crossing protection before before the train entered the crossing.
greyhounds Anyway, sleepers and parlor cars go on the rear end out of Chicago so your first class passengers don't have to walk as far to get to their assingned cars. They paid for 1st class, give 'em every break. Of course, that means going in to Chicago it's first class on the head end. That's the way the Rock Island, Santa Fe and Burlington did it.
Ah, the good old days.
So this is how I understand what happened:
Three trucks are traveling down the road together in a little "convoy". The drivers of the 2nd and 3rd trucks see the train/crossing signals and stop. The lead driver doesn't try to stop until it's too late.
He drives his truck into the train causing his own death and the deaths of five other people. (It's very fortunate that the train stayed on the rails.)
Good luck to the NTSB on figuring this one out. I do suggest they check his cell phone records.
In an equally inexplicable incident, here's guy who couldn't swim but jumped off a boat 1,000 feet from shore. They're still looking for him in the lake.
http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20110625/news/706259852/
You can't ask "What were these people thinking?" They weren't really thinking. So, what's the NTSB going to conclude about the truck driver's actions? Who knows? I'd hate to be one of the investigators and try to explain the inexplicable.
greyhounds So this is how I understand what happened: Three trucks are traveling down the road together in a little "convoy". The drivers of the 2nd and 3rd trucks see the train/crossing signals and stop. The lead driver doesn't try to stop until it's too late.
Interesting that the driver was leading a three-truck convoy. There is a fair amount of distraction that can arise from the fact that a driver is leading or following another driver he knows. For one thing, most people leading a convoy do not want to be considered by their friends to be holding up progress of the group. And in relation to that, a lead driver will frequently focus attention on his or her friends who are following, thus diverting attention away from the road ahead.
What I read elsewhere is that the truck was a double trailer gravel truck. Once he locked up the brakes on that rig it is going to be difficult or impossible to control it. The length of the skid marks may indicate that the truck was fully loaded. Poor situational awareness (not looking left and right for trains) combined with very bright sunlight (near noon) may have meant that he couldn't see the warning lights until he got too close to them. Not an excuse, but contributing factors. Accidents are usually the result of a lot of little failures.
If that double bottom had been loaded, the train would NOT have stayed on the rails. If nothing else, gravel on the track would have lifted the flanges of following cars.
One report on local TV questioned whether the skid marks were actually left by the truck involved.
I think I'll wait until the accident investigation report is released before making any additional comment.
I agree. Seems to be too many unsubstantiated "facts" being bantered about. Some comments say the truck was empty. That "300 ft of skid marks" has to be exageration... Aint that the length of an (American) Football field! Just how fast would that truck have to be traveling to leave skid marks the entire length of a Football field? And would it still be on the road even after half that distance with the wheels locked up such as to leave rubber on the road?
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
beaulieu Accidents are usually the result of a lot of little failures.
Accidents are usually the result of a lot of little failures.
Semper Vaporo That "300 ft of skid marks" has to be exageration... Aint that the length of an (American) Football field! Just how fast would that truck have to be traveling to leave skid marks the entire length of a Football field?
That "300 ft of skid marks" has to be exageration... Aint that the length of an (American) Football field! Just how fast would that truck have to be traveling to leave skid marks the entire length of a Football field?
The truck could have been moving 70 mph. That would be 102 feet per second. The truck would be slowing during the skid, so it is hard to say how much time elapsed during the skid. But skidding 300 feet does not seem far fetched. From the damage pattern on the train, I doubt the truck was moving over 15 mph at impact.
Bucyrus The truck could have been moving 70 mph. That would be 102 feet per second. The truck would be slowing during the skid, so it is hard to say how much time elapsed during the skid. But skidding 300 feet does not seem far fetched. [snipped]
Not at all saying that's what happened. But Bucyrus has the proportions about right for that scenario.
- Paul North.
....Until this incident, I had never thought about the double decker passenger cars and how vulnerable any passengers might be on the lower deck with such an accident impact.
Another thought....I wonder how the "old heavy weight" passenger cars might have survived this impact....? Their passenger position, elevation off the rail would have been more desirable when meeting an impact as this was.
And I too agree with the poster that states the train would have been derailed if that truck would have been loaded with rock and traveling at the speed we believe it was at impact.
They are looking at the safety record of the company that owned the trucks. It sounds like there are a few red flags emerging form that. I have a feeling we are going to find out something unexpected soon.
I'd opine that an empty truck would be harder to stop under such circumstances than a loaded truck. In fact, if he locked up the brakes, it's possible he actually would have travelled further than if he did a controlled (yet hard) application (or had ABS).
I'm sure cell phones will be a consideration in the investigation. I'd wonder about CB radios, too, even though they haven't been mentioned so far...
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...
tree68 I'd opine that an empty truck would be harder to stop under such circumstances than a loaded truck. In fact, if he locked up the brakes, it's possible he actually would have travelled further than if he did a controlled (yet hard) application (or had ABS).
That's pretty much a given. Paul's calculations above are very familiar to engineers who had to take that good old dynamics class in their sophomore year. One tidbit that always comes up is that sliding friction is always lower than static friction. For rubber on pavement, the ratio is usually given to be about three to two, that is to say, when the wheels are locked up, one third of the stopping capability has gone away.
This was drummed into me as a teenage by my two racer uncles, who said many times, "be careful on the binders and don't lock the wheels up." I used that a few times to good effect up until antilock brakes, when the strategy changes to "jump on the binders and let the microprocessor keep the wheels from locking up."
That being said, though, simplistic calculations are meant to approximate things like speed and time of events. In general, the best we can do as engineers, absent an event recorder, is establish a highly probable range for things like speed and time, etc. The NTSB folks generally do a pretty good job at sorting things out, at least from the accident reports I have read. (Unfortunately, they are changing their website right now and are demonstrating that the same level of talent and ability hasn't found its way into their web developers.) This one will end up being pretty detailed and interesting to read, when it finally comes out, maybe next year.
http://www.rgj.com/article/20110625/NEWS/110624030/Amtrak+train+crash++fire+and+chaos+in+Nevada
Tires on the truck and maybe other areas of vehicle safety are at question, along with driver error.
This trucking company runs over 100 trucks a day, sure they get citations.Sure they get reprimanded for having a truck not upto specs.7 violations and one to have truck pulled off the road ??sounds like media hype to me, betya if you stopped 100 automobiles at random you get a much higher violation and suspention rate.betya the FRA cited Amtrak way more on a average of one hundred cars or engines in same time ;-)
"The National Transportation Safety Board said Sunday that the trucking company whose vehicle hit an Amtrak train Friday had been involved in 19 random roadside inspections since 2010, leading to seven violations and one vehicle being taken out of service."
That is 8 out of 19 random inspections with problems. That is a documented violation rate of 42%!! Media hype? You claim the rate for autos is "much higher?" And you are claiming Amtrak's rate is worse? Let's see the data for your claims.
Dutchrailnut This trucking company runs over 100 trucks a day, sure they get citations.Sure they get reprimanded for having a truck not upto specs.7 violations and one to have truck pulled off the road ??sounds like media hype to me, betya if you stopped 100 automobiles at random you get a much higher violation and suspention rate.betya the FRA cited Amtrak way more on a average of one hundred cars or engines in same time ;-)
That is a good point. The average car driver has no idea how much police scrutiny is focused on large commercial trucks. There was a bad truck-car crash in Eagan, MN about eight years ago. A car full of people pulled into the direct path of a gravel truck traveling at highway speed, and all of the occupants of the car were killed. The highway patrol placed 100% of the blame on the car driver for failing to yield the right of way.
But you could not watch local TV news without getting the clear implication that it was the truck driver’s fault. It was as if the truck was a bully. They found one instance in the driver’s record where the truck driver ran a stop sign. All of the news said the driver “blew” through a stop sign; the clear implication being that the driver intentionally ran a stop sign at substantial speed. Whatever the driver did to get that charge had nothing whatsoever to do with the fatal crash that the news media were linking it to.
This is really a shocking event. My trip on the Zephyr was with my (late) wife, and it was just after Diana had been killed in a car crash. We have all lost some innocence. I send prayers to the families and communities who have been hurt by this...
Yahoo answers says 121 Americans die in automobile accidents every day. Amtrak did not need a blow to its reputation or morale, not to mention fleet. Railroads should be a safe place to travel and work, and this crash will have a permanent impact.
"Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood." Daniel Burnham
greyhounds I smell a cell phone.
I smell a cell phone.
I really think you may be on to something. But...
The remote location and the time of day of this accident reminds me of a semi/train crash back in the eighties. It happened on the Trans-Canada Highway north of Bassano, AB. A trucker on a regular run west from Winnipeg, MB drove into the side of a CPR freight on the remnant of the Irricana Sub. By this time trains on that line were rare.. The investigation found that while the driver was not asleep, nor impaired, he had driven over that crossing so many times with no train on it that he literally didn't see the train this time. I forget what the scientific name for the phenomena he experienced was called.
Although the operational policies of the company that owned the trailer were not the cause of this specific accident, they did get called into question and changes had to be made. I don't remember what the fallout from that was.
Bruce
So shovel the coal, let this rattler roll.
"A Train is a Place Going Somewhere" CP Rail Public Timetable
"O. S. Irricana"
. . . __ . ______
Bucyrus Dutchrailnut: This trucking company runs over 100 trucks a day, sure they get citations.Sure they get reprimanded for having a truck not upto specs.7 violations and one to have truck pulled off the road ??sounds like media hype to me, betya if you stopped 100 automobiles at random you get a much higher violation and suspention rate.betya the FRA cited Amtrak way more on a average of one hundred cars or engines in same time ;-) That is a good point. The average car driver has no idea how much police scrutiny is focused on large commercial trucks. ...
Dutchrailnut: This trucking company runs over 100 trucks a day, sure they get citations.Sure they get reprimanded for having a truck not upto specs.7 violations and one to have truck pulled off the road ??sounds like media hype to me, betya if you stopped 100 automobiles at random you get a much higher violation and suspention rate.betya the FRA cited Amtrak way more on a average of one hundred cars or engines in same time ;-)
It is quite true that common carrier vehicles (truck, bus, commercial aircraft) get much more scrutiny than the average car. And rightly so, IMHO, given a truck's much higher potential for causing death & destruction (due to mass/weight, time on the road, etc.).
But two thoughts to consider:
(1) A commercial truck operator is generally under much greater competitive pressures to keep the equipment on the road, in spite of possible problems;
(2) Given the fact of the "increased police scrutiny", and the fact that everyone knows of the "increased police scrutiny", to have 8 trucks cited out of 19 checked, looks like more than a statistical anomaly.
....Regarding the truck sliding it's wheels for 300 plus ft. and whether ABS was present or if it was empty or loaded.....if {and in this case it seems to be true}, the vehicle was traveling beyond a speed that any combination of braking force was inadequate to pull down all that speeding energy to a stop to prevent the collision.
The Engineer of the train, by sight....could see the about to happen crash....was eminent. {judging from the truck's closing speed}. According to his comments on the situation.
Dragoman Bucyrus: Dutchrailnut: This trucking company runs over 100 trucks a day, sure they get citations.Sure they get reprimanded for having a truck not upto specs.7 violations and one to have truck pulled off the road ??sounds like media hype to me, betya if you stopped 100 automobiles at random you get a much higher violation and suspention rate.betya the FRA cited Amtrak way more on a average of one hundred cars or engines in same time ;-) That is a good point. The average car driver has no idea how much police scrutiny is focused on large commercial trucks. ... It is quite true that common carrier vehicles (truck, bus, commercial aircraft) get much more scrutiny than the average car. And rightly so, IMHO, given a truck's much higher potential for causing death & destruction (due to mass/weight, time on the road, etc.). But two thoughts to consider: (1) A commercial truck operator is generally under much greater competitive pressures to keep the equipment on the road, in spite of possible problems; (2) Given the fact of the "increased police scrutiny", and the fact that everyone knows of the "increased police scrutiny", to have 8 trucks cited out of 19 checked, looks like more than a statistical anomaly.
Bucyrus: Dutchrailnut: This trucking company runs over 100 trucks a day, sure they get citations.Sure they get reprimanded for having a truck not upto specs.7 violations and one to have truck pulled off the road ??sounds like media hype to me, betya if you stopped 100 automobiles at random you get a much higher violation and suspention rate.betya the FRA cited Amtrak way more on a average of one hundred cars or engines in same time ;-) That is a good point. The average car driver has no idea how much police scrutiny is focused on large commercial trucks. ...
It may be that this company had an unusually bad record of safety violations, and it might be that the driver behavior that led to this crash is somehow related to that record. But I don’t think any conclusions can be drawn based on the fact that the company was ticketed 8 times in 19 random inspections. My only point is that that fact sounds bad to people who are only familiar with the police scrutiny of the equipment on their private automobile, and probably sounds bad to the news media reporting the event.
The reality is that there are dozens and dozens of technical issues that a commercial truck can be in violation of. As a driver, you hope you don’t get pulled over, but if you do, a ticket for something is almost to be expected. Maybe Ed Benton can chime in on this.
My best guess is that this crash was caused by driver distraction. The driver is going down a wide-open road at very high speed. There are no traffic lights out there that would habituate a driver to be on the lookout for conflicts. All he is concerned about is keeping the truck on the road, and that does not take a lot of attention. He dismissed the grade crossing and was caught off guard by the train. I suspect that the biggest factor in the driver’s distraction was the fact that he was leading a convoy.
The fact that he hit the train against that 45-degree angle would have added considerably to the impact force of the collision. So, after learning of that angle, I am lowering my estimate of impact speed back down to 15 mph.
I don't know what the train density is on that line, but unless it's in the hundreds per day, statistically you're more likely to not see a train at that crossing.
Multiple passages over a crossing (as it sounds like may have been the case there) without a train in sight might tend to lull one into a level of confidence that you're not going to see a train there. Add any distraction and you've got a high potential for a problem when one does show up.
As for the inspections - it does depend on what the violations are. Anyone who's been in the military knows that if the commander does a white glove inspection and wants to find something, he will, no matter how squared away your area may be.
The standard joke anymore when you get pulled over is your going to get a ticket from anything from your Sheets being the WRONG color to frating at the wrong time. When the States get low on funds they go after OTR trucks for cash by boosting the amount they charge us. The DOT also refuses to when we are involved in any accident make the all parties take a Drug test for them also. Why because then it would show that the people that are doing the drugs and are causing the Problems are NOT the OTR drivers that it is causing the problems.
We have Compaines that want tighter and tighter Schedulaes and then still refuse to pay Detention time to the Drivers. Also the FMCSA has rammed thru so many things against us from doing our jobs properly and the people of the USA still think we are the enemy. In the last 10 years alone the FMCSA regulations have been expanded by close to 15000 and then the HOS regulations have benn rewritten 3 times. Yet we have lowered the Accident rates all the time.
While I don't like to bad mouth cops, I can state from personal experience that when the HPD Truck Enforcement Division is low on tickets, they stage a Safety Raid at Gate 8 at the Port.
These guys have rigged out Dodge Ram 1500s, loaded with all kinds of neat "cop" stuff, including portable scales.
The first 10 to 15 trucks out of the dock are going to get a ticket, period.
Anything from a loose tie down strap to chocks not strapped in to air brakes to tread depth to tire inflation to every light on the truck and trailer working to the paperwork is gone over.
I mean they line them up on Clinton Drive and work them over top to bottom.
Once the word goes out, every truck on the north side of the channel either sits still or sneaks out gate 5 about a mile down the road.
The cops usually corral the trucks up on either the 15th or the last week in the month.
I mean they go full bore on this.
I watched one cop weigh a empty aluminum trailer and cite the driver because the trailer weighed more than his weight sticker said by 50 lbs. or so.
I know it sound incredulous but true, and from the looks of the trailer the extra 50lbs could have well been dirt accumulated on the thing, but the cop made him back it up on his scales and weighed it...the reason I went over and talked to the driver was because I couldn't figure out why the cop was weighing a empty trailer.
Now, that said I know for a fact from some of my cop buddies there is no quota on tickets a cop in HPD has to write, but interdepartmental and divisional promotions are based on the amount of paper work/cases an officer generates so you're free to draw your own conclusion.
The cops here call this "building up their pad"...a term left over from the days they actually had a ticket book and pad of citations, its meaning is filling up their ticket count.
23 17 46 11
I think Ed Blysard has hit the nail squarely on its head.
Everybody wants to make sure the commercial vehicles and drivers on the road are safe. They just don't really know how to go about ensuring that. So we wind up with cops weighing empty trailers and writing tickets because the paperwork differs from reality by 50 pounds. I'm not blaming the cop, he can only do what he's trained and told to do. Too much discression will get him in trouble.
But writing tickets for 50 pounds "off weight" will divert attention from any real problems. Knowing what's important and what's not is key to success in safety or anything else. If the police are focused on trivial matters, they're not focused on important matters. It's not the cops on the street, it's some supervisor up the ladder who is trying to enforce the safety regs, but who doesn't have a clue how to do so.
Here's a trucking industry perspective on the Nevada wreck:
http://fleetowner.com/news/trucking_safety/truck-train-crash-safety-records-0627/?cid=nl_flo_dn&YM_RID=`email`
AgentKid [snipped] The investigation found that while the driver was not asleep, nor impaired, he had driven over that crossing so many times with no train on it that he literally didn't see the train this time. I forget what the scientific name for the phenomena he experienced was called.
Why Seeing (The Unexpected) Is Often Not Believing
Is it possible to see something really, really obvious and not perceive it?
http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=137086464
http://www.npr.org/2011/06/20/137086464/why-seeing-the-unexpected-is-often-not-believing
Or the opposite - "situational awareness" - the lack thereof ?
The FMCSA the people that oversee the HOS in teh OTR trucking Industry are SO OBBSESSED with Paper Complanice that they came out with CVSA 2010 that penalizes carriers for stuff that happens after a driver leaves a Shipper with Load Securement now and with lighting on the trailers. Heaven forbid you have a line on your Logbook on the Wrong Spot of the freaking thing they will about hang you anymore.
This is not being done in the name of Safetey one word and one word MONEY. It was done so the FMCSA could hire more people that have NEver been in a truck to look at a log and go thats wrong. Even though according to the RULES they WROTE it is RIGHT. Now they want to get rid of the one thing that has UNCLOGGED the pipelines of the Logistics chain the 34HR Reset since it allows drivers to work more than 70 hours in 8 days. Well NO CRAp you gave them that option you didn't think they were NOT going to use it. Dangling a fresh 70 hours to a OTR driver is like giving a bone to a dog it WILL be GONE FAST.
Yet the DOT and FMCSA still refuse to address the two Biggest issues facing the Trucking Industry as a whole. 1st is UNREALISTIC Delivery Times When they need a solo to run 700 miles a day there is something wrong with that picture. 2nd is lack of Parking. We can not park in alot of the places where they expect us to deliver yet they want us to come in there. Under Jasons Law all Shippers and Recievers would be required to have a holding area large enough for 50% of the trucks they get on a daily basis complete with Bathrooms that are Maintained and food service. Yes there are places that refuse to allow Truck Drivers to have access to Rest rooms.
This is the case with nearly everything the government manages. If there is a problem, an additional paperwork layer will be added to the solution.
One thing about the fact that all of these industries have become so safe due to better roads, rails, aircraft control, equipment... is that the human failures will now be the dominant cause of accidents. Fatigue and distraction will cause most accidents. The company won't care that you fill out more paper nor will they worry too much about the marginally important issues that cause violations (burned out lights, loose equipment). But they have a real conflict with fatigue. If operators operate fewer hours it costs the company real money.
70 hour weeks or 12 hour days are too long for the average worker to remain alert.
Are there some good solutions to this problem?
The problem for train riders is that this kind of violent sudden death potential is always present on trains unless we can eliminate bad drivers.
It points to the issue of an extremely high speed limit on roads, versus the interference of a crossing train. Is it too much to ask traffic to slow down so they are better able to check a grade crossing? The State could have posted a warning to slow down and look for trains, but they did not.
edblysard [snipped] Now, that said I know for a fact from some of my cop buddies there is no quota on tickets a cop in HPD has to write, but interdepartmental and divisional promotions are based on the amount of paper work/cases an officer generates so you're free to draw your own conclusion.
Note that the citations that are being described here are for 'objective' violations - weight, logbooks, stickers, lights, etc., even speeding - all of these can be measured or otherwise easily determined, and don't require any real judgment to write up and support through prosecution. Hence they're more 'bulletproof", regardless of whether you believe they are being issued for safety, 'building up their pad', or enhancing this month's ticket revenue. In contrast, how often do you see tickets being written for moving violations that require the use of judgment, such as rolling through stop signs or red lights, and even more challenging - 'tail-gating' or reckless, aggressive, or erratic driving, such as cutting someone off ? (Note that this is true for '4-wheelers' [autos] too !] Yet which type of violation presents the greatest hazard to the motoring public ? A truck with a tail-light or two burned-out - or a driver that never applies his brakes long enough to illuminate them anyway ?
Paul_D_North_Jr ....such as rolling through stop signs or red lights, and even more challenging - 'tail-gating' or reckless, aggressive, or erratic driving, such as cutting someone off ?
Traffic enforcement in today's world has everything to do with revenue and very little to do with safety.
Bucyrus The problem for train riders is that this kind of violent sudden death potential is always present on trains unless we can eliminate bad drivers. It points to the issue of an extremely high speed limit on roads, versus the interference of a crossing train. Is it too much to ask traffic to slow down so they are better able to check a grade crossing? The State could have posted a warning to slow down and look for trains, but they did not.
Sadly, all too true. Out west, the speeds are very high, since the roads are often in very sparse country. You really think having a sign would have had any impact [no pun] on the driver? Rail crossings accidents are a problem, especially for any passenger trains in terms of a potential for a heavy loss of life. Eliminating bad drivers, even if that were possible, would still leave a hazard, as not all (maybe not even most?) of these accidents involve folks with a bad record. The only real answer is to close and/or separate more crossings where there are trains that move at speed.
Methinks this statement places too much faith in the efficacy of such a sign. In that regard, it's a lot like the theory of some "unreasonably dangerous" products liability suits: since the product allegedly has an inherent risk or danger that can't be eliminated or guarded against, the manufacturer therefore has a duty to warn all consumers about that danger and the likely or possible consequences, and that will immunize everyone involved from any legal or financial responsibility for any adverse consequences from use or accidents, etc. (except the victim, of course). See the first pages of the instructions for any power tool or electrically-powered appliance for good examples of that.
Unstated too is the logic of the hoped-for cause-and-effect here: If the State posts a warning, then all drivers - including the bad ones - will slow down and look for trains. And further, that such slowing down and looking will significantly reduce the risk of collisions - again, including those that would involve bad drivers. I don't like to be negative, but that echoes of expecting criminals to abide by gun-registration and control laws . . .
That said, I agree that such a sign would be a good idea - but the customary round yellow "(R X R)" Advance Warning Signs, Type "W10-1" - see: http://www.rxrsignals.net/Signs/Railroad/Advance/01.PNG - several hundred feet before most crossings are already supposed to be that kind of a sign, as I understand them - see: http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/safety/motorist/railcrossings/warning.htm#advance-warning-signs and http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2003r1/part8/fig8b-06_longdesc.htm
Ultimately, the better ways to reduce this risk are grade crossing elimination, then weeding out the bad drivers, then maybe a more physical barrier - though I doubt that anything short of a thick masonry, concrete, or steel wall would have prevented at least portions of this truck from impacting the Amtrak train.
See:
http://photos.denverpost.com/mediacenter/2011/06/photos-nevada-amtrak-train-crash/#12
for overhead shots of the accident site.
David K. Wheeler
Oh I think an additional traffic control sign might have prevented this crash. What if they put up a red octagon stop sign with advance warnings? I'll bet these trukers would have stopped for it. Don't speculate about the effectivness of a sign. Try it. Some of the bad drivers will not slow down. But some will. Signs are cheap.
Bucyrus [snipped] Try it. Some of the bad drivers will not slow down. But some will. Signs are cheap.
An additional sign on both sides of every at-grade crossing? Hard to put a value on lives, but what would all those signs cost?
Remember a 'few' years ago we were 'gonna go' metric? The costs of changing every 'mph' and 'mileage to wherever' sign to a metric equivalent were horrendous.
And I've noticed the signs still read 'mph' and 'miles to'. Grade separations would get rid of the problem, but their costs are, for the most part, prohibitive.
How about plain old fashioned 'being responsible' ??? Other than a medical emergency of the extent that the truck driver may have died anyway......it boils down to being alert 100% of the time.
6000 miles on Amtrak in words and pictures www.currtail.com
Paul_D_North_Jr Concur. As a first approximation, say the rate of de-acceleration - after the driver perceived the situation (3/4 sec.) and then reacted (another 3/4 sec.) - was uniform or constant at 1/2 G (gravity), which corresponds to a coefficient of friction of 50%, and a rate of -16.1 ft./ sec. or about -11 MPH per second. Thus it would take about 6.4 seconds to stop. During that time, the truck would have skidded 1/2 x A x T^2 or 1/2 x 16.1 ft./ sec. ^2 x 6.4 secs. x 6.4 secs. = 330 ft. If the skid mark is exactly 300 ft. long - the last 30 ft. of deceleration occurred while impacting the train - the speed at impact would have been about 21 MPH (same rates and formulas - 1.93 secs., 31 ft./ sec., etc.). Not at all saying that's what happened. But Bucyrus has the proportions about right for that scenario. - Paul North.
Concur. As a first approximation, say the rate of de-acceleration - after the driver perceived the situation (3/4 sec.) and then reacted (another 3/4 sec.) - was uniform or constant at 1/2 G (gravity), which corresponds to a coefficient of friction of 50%, and a rate of -16.1 ft./ sec. or about -11 MPH per second. Thus it would take about 6.4 seconds to stop. During that time, the truck would have skidded 1/2 x A x T^2 or 1/2 x 16.1 ft./ sec. ^2 x 6.4 secs. x 6.4 secs. = 330 ft. If the skid mark is exactly 300 ft. long - the last 30 ft. of deceleration occurred while impacting the train - the speed at impact would have been about 21 MPH (same rates and formulas - 1.93 secs., 31 ft./ sec., etc.).
Paul : Correct. However also in the equation is the time for brakes to apply which is 3/4 - 1 second for the first trailer and 1-1/2 - 2 seconds for the double. Just like a train.
Another factor may be too many trips over the crossing. How often did driver go over that crossing? What is the ruling grade for trains in that direction? What is the speed of freight trains in that direction normally?. Driver may have "seen" a train thinking it was a freight and knew he could beat a freight. How many times has the crossing gates been replaced by run thrus?
Paul_D_North_Jr Ultimately, the better ways to reduce this risk are grade crossing elimination, then weeding out the bad drivers, then maybe a more physical barrier - though I doubt that anything short of a thick masonry, concrete, or steel wall would have prevented at least portions of this truck from impacting the Amtrak train. - Paul North.
Since 9/11, I have noticed that the ramps leading to the loading docks and parking garages at most all federal buildings (and some other iconic buildings that could be considered a potential terrorist target, such as the Transamerica Pyramid in San Francisco) have a fully retractible barrier that appears designed to stop even a truck moving at speed. Probably pretty expensive, but likely cheaper than grade separation, for high-risk but low-traffic crossings.
I have seen draw bridges with movable barriers like that.....costly but not something impossible in high speed lines like this.
Bucyrus Oh I think an additional traffic control sign might have prevented this crash. What if they put up a red octagon stop sign with advance warnings? I'll bet these trukers would have stopped for it. Don't speculate about the effectivness of a sign. Try it. Some of the bad drivers will not slow down. But some will. Signs are cheap.
I don't have anything against this idea, but don't have much faith that most drivers will obey it. I've just seen too many people ignore a stop sign when it involves a railroad crossing. Too many people seem to not understand the yield concept in non-railroad crossing situations that I doubt their effectiveness at said crossings.
Jeff
So maybe all trucks should stop at all RR crossings... But what are the costs? Would there be an increased likelihood of STALLED trucks on the tracks at some (uphill) crossings?
Not onlly stalled trucks....but trucks rear ended by following traffic that didn't anticipate the stop.
We can propose all the fixes we want.....remember this was a crossing in the middle of nowhere, both from a railroad and highway perspective. The trucker did not exercise proper driving behavior and comply with the correctly displayed warning devices. All the pictures I have seen would indicate there was near perfect visibility for all parties involved.
I will take exception to having a 70 MPH Speed Limit over a railroad crossing at grade....but I guess that is a Nevada thing. I my neck of the woods, two lane highways don't have speed limits that high (of course in my state the Interstate limit isn't that high) as two lane roads have speed limits less than the Interstate limits.
Maglev So maybe all trucks should stop at all RR crossings... But what are the costs? Would there be an increased likelihood of STALLED trucks on the tracks at some (uphill) crossings?
The UTU tribute to two of its members provides insight to conditions right after the crash.
http://utu.org/2011/06/29/2-amtrak-conductors-a-story-of-selfless-bravery/
DragomanSince 9/11, I have noticed that the ramps leading to the loading docks and parking garages at most all federal buildings.....have a fully retractible barrier that appears designed to stop even a truck moving at speed. Probably pretty expensive, but likely cheaper than grade separation, for high-risk but low-traffic crossings.
It would probably be cheaper to reinforce the train coaches.
Time to implement PTC ! No, not that one - a new one, "Positive Truck Control".
GPS receivers and transmitters on all truck tractors, constantly broadcasting its location and speed. At first, if - no, when - the truck exceeds the posted speed limit on the specific road its on by more than, say, 5 MPH - then the engine shuts off, the brakes are applied, a log is recorded, and the truck can't be restarted until it's come to a complete stop for at least 1 minute. More than 2 such events during 8 hours and the truck stops until a new driver takes over. It'll monitor driver ID and compliance with Hours Of Service laws, too, Anti-tampering devices included, of course.
The next generation will include an application to force the truck to slow down and stop at any activate grade crossing. Also to keep a safe distance behind any other truck for the speed they're traveling. And to force it to stop before yellow traffic signals. And so on.
After all, if it's good enough for the railroads . . . . . . then why not let the truckers share in the 'benefits', too ?
Are you serious? I wouldn't want to share a road with any vehicle rigged that way. Not safe. I'll leave it to your imagination to envision the hazards.
zardoz Dragoman: Since 9/11, I have noticed that the ramps leading to the loading docks and parking garages at most all federal buildings.....have a fully retractible barrier that appears designed to stop even a truck moving at speed. Probably pretty expensive, but likely cheaper than grade separation, for high-risk but low-traffic crossings. The cost would be extreme. Consider how many crossings at risk there are between Chicago and Los Angeles. And then consider how strong these barriers would have to be in order to prevent the incursion of a loaded double travelling at 70+mph. It would probably be cheaper to reinforce the train coaches.
Dragoman: Since 9/11, I have noticed that the ramps leading to the loading docks and parking garages at most all federal buildings.....have a fully retractible barrier that appears designed to stop even a truck moving at speed. Probably pretty expensive, but likely cheaper than grade separation, for high-risk but low-traffic crossings.
The ones I've seen appear to be strong enough, at least to seriously deflect if not stop just about anything on the road, and that is there purpose.
In any case, I wasn't proposing such barriers for every crossing, only as an expensive but cheaper-than-grade-separation alternative for those crossings considered to be high-risk, but perhaps without the level of traffic (rail or road) to justify a grade separation.
How about, on those busy desert highways, moving the crossing signals and gates back a few hundred feet, with those retractible "teeth" that some parking lots have to stop cars from coming in the exit lanes, which will rip out the tires of any vehicle going through or around an activated crossing gate? In urban areas, where speeds are slower, they could be placed much closer to the tracks. Just a thought ...
Capial Beltway GRIDLOCK!
Paul_D_North_Jr Time to implement PTC ! No, not that one - a new one, "Positive Truck Control". GPS receivers and transmitters on all truck tractors, constantly broadcasting its location and speed. At first, if - no, when - the truck exceeds the posted speed limit on the specific road its on by more than, say, 5 MPH - then the engine shuts off, the brakes are applied, a log is recorded, and the truck can't be restarted until it's come to a complete stop for at least 1 minute. More than 2 such events during 8 hours and the truck stops until a new driver takes over. It'll monitor driver ID and compliance with Hours Of Service laws, too, Anti-tampering devices included, of course. The next generation will include an application to force the truck to slow down and stop at any activate grade crossing. Also to keep a safe distance behind any other truck for the speed they're traveling. And to force it to stop before yellow traffic signals. And so on. After all, if it's good enough for the railroads . . . . . . then why not let the truckers share in the 'benefits', too ? - Paul North.
BaltACD Capial Beltway GRIDLOCK! Paul_D_North_Jr: Time to implement PTC ! No, not that one - a new one, "Positive Truck Control". GPS receivers and transmitters on all truck tractors, constantly broadcasting its location and speed. At first, if - no, when - the truck exceeds the posted speed limit on the specific road its on by more than, say, 5 MPH - then the engine shuts off, the brakes are applied, a log is recorded, and the truck can't be restarted until it's come to a complete stop for at least 1 minute. More than 2 such events during 8 hours and the truck stops until a new driver takes over. It'll monitor driver ID and compliance with Hours Of Service laws, too, Anti-tampering devices included, of course. The next generation will include an application to force the truck to slow down and stop at any activate grade crossing. Also to keep a safe distance behind any other truck for the speed they're traveling. And to force it to stop before yellow traffic signals. And so on. After all, if it's good enough for the railroads . . . . . . then why not let the truckers share in the 'benefits', too ? - Paul North.
Paul_D_North_Jr: Time to implement PTC ! No, not that one - a new one, "Positive Truck Control". GPS receivers and transmitters on all truck tractors, constantly broadcasting its location and speed. At first, if - no, when - the truck exceeds the posted speed limit on the specific road its on by more than, say, 5 MPH - then the engine shuts off, the brakes are applied, a log is recorded, and the truck can't be restarted until it's come to a complete stop for at least 1 minute. More than 2 such events during 8 hours and the truck stops until a new driver takes over. It'll monitor driver ID and compliance with Hours Of Service laws, too, Anti-tampering devices included, of course. The next generation will include an application to force the truck to slow down and stop at any activate grade crossing. Also to keep a safe distance behind any other truck for the speed they're traveling. And to force it to stop before yellow traffic signals. And so on. After all, if it's good enough for the railroads . . . . . . then why not let the truckers share in the 'benefits', too ? - Paul North.
Paul hate to Burst your Bubble but MOST carriers ALREADY are doing CRAP LIKE THAT. They restrict us in how long we can Idle can not have us wasting fuel even though it is 120 outside can not have a WELL RESTED DRIVER that means the Driver is SAFE to go. With the Qua;lcom Satalite Tracking they know where we are to within 10 feet at all times speeds at all times and can even tell if we are coasting to long. Hell some carriers can even shut of the truck remotely from the office. Speed 95% of all trucks are Goverened to LESS than the Speed limits already. Most carriers top end speed is 62 a few are at 65 very few run 70 or higher IT COSTS TO MUCH IN FUEL.
Now here is the Standard Policy for about every carrier anymore after any accident Driver Pees in the cups comes back clean finsih the investigation Driver is FIRED to limit carriers Liability. This was a very tragic accident I am not excusing the Driver at all but from everything I have read his BFI carrier should NEVER have hired him in the first place. Also the area of the accident IIRC is a place where if your willing to come out to work about anyone will be hired since there is about no one left with a CDL that they can hire.
edbenton Speed 95% of all trucks are Goverened to LESS than the Speed limits already. Most carriers top end speed is 62 a few are at 65 very few run 70 or higher IT COSTS TO MUCH IN FUEL.
Speed 95% of all trucks are Goverened to LESS than the Speed limits already. Most carriers top end speed is 62 a few are at 65 very few run 70 or higher IT COSTS TO MUCH IN FUEL.
What roads and trucks are you talking about? On I 88 and I 90 they sure run well above the speed limits.
Amtrak has now sued the trucking company. I'll bet their insurance isn't enough...
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)
And why stop at trucks? Why not make such a control system mandatory on every vehicle? After all, if the fastest speed allowed in the US is 75mph, why does the government allow vehicles to have the capability to go faster?
schlimm edbenton: Speed 95% of all trucks are Goverened to LESS than the Speed limits already. Most carriers top end speed is 62 a few are at 65 very few run 70 or higher IT COSTS TO MUCH IN FUEL. What roads and trucks are you talking about? On I 88 and I 90 they sure run well above the speed limits.
edbenton: Speed 95% of all trucks are Goverened to LESS than the Speed limits already. Most carriers top end speed is 62 a few are at 65 very few run 70 or higher IT COSTS TO MUCH IN FUEL.
I was about to say... those 5% must all work near here. The big carriers seem to govern their trucks - but all the smaller companies? 70, 80+ is nothing.
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
I use a GPS system to read my vehicle speed, and on "limited access" roads (Interstates, mainly) where the (open road/non-city limits) speed limit is 70 MPH (in my State), I pass more trucks than pass me, but not by 95%... More like 55%. Of the remaining 45% or so, a small percentage of them pass me (maybe that 5% left of the quoted amount that are not governed at all).
I pass a few more cars than that. (I think that car speedometers are set to display a faster speed than the car is actually going by around 5 percent... My speedometer registers 74 when I am actually doing 70, per my GPS readout, but it varies based on the age/wear of my tires and their pressure, which will increase as they warm up and reduce the over-speed error in the speedometer by a percent or two.) The amount of error in my speedometer does not seem to be linear, because at around 20 MPH the speedometer and my GPS agree.
More cars pass me than trucks and some make it seem like I have my car in reverse!
But a speed governor does not help where the speed limit on non-limited access roads is just 55 MPH or anywhere the posted speed limit is less than the top speed of the governor. In those areas, trucks tailgate me until I get out of the way, even if I am going 5 or 10 MPH over the speed limit trying to keep up with ALL (car AND truck) traffic... (I hate to be an obstruction to the free flow of traffic! )
I have no doubt that everything you are stating is true....for company owned trucks being operated by company paid drivers. But as you are aware, there are at great number of independent owner/operators that haul to their own drummer....they pay their own bills and for them, they believe their route to financial success is to maximize the miles they haul in a hour....for all the hours they can hide in the log books.
edbenton Paul hate to Burst your Bubble but MOST carriers ALREADY are doing CRAP LIKE THAT. They restrict us in how long we can Idle can not have us wasting fuel even though it is 120 outside can not have a WELL RESTED DRIVER that means the Driver is SAFE to go. With the Qua;lcom Satalite Tracking they know where we are to within 10 feet at all times speeds at all times and can even tell if we are coasting to long. Hell some carriers can even shut of the truck remotely from the office. Speed 95% of all trucks are Goverened to LESS than the Speed limits already. Most carriers top end speed is 62 a few are at 65 very few run 70 or higher IT COSTS TO MUCH IN FUEL.
Paul_D_North_Jr Bucyrus: The truck could have been moving 70 mph. That would be 102 feet per second. The truck would be slowing during the skid, so it is hard to say how much time elapsed during the skid. But skidding 300 feet does not seem far fetched. [snipped] Concur. As a first approximation, say the rate of de-acceleration - after the driver perceived the situation (3/4 sec.) and then reacted (another 3/4 sec.) - was uniform or constant at 1/2 G (gravity), which corresponds to a coefficient of friction of 50%, and a rate of -16.1 ft./ sec. or about -11 MPH per second. Thus it would take about 6.4 seconds to stop. During that time, the truck would have skidded 1/2 x A x T^2 or 1/2 x 16.1 ft./ sec. ^2 x 6.4 secs. x 6.4 secs. = 330 ft. If the skid mark is exactly 300 ft. long - the last 30 ft. of deceleration occurred while impacting the train - the speed at impact would have been about 21 MPH (same rates and formulas - 1.93 secs., 31 ft./ sec., etc.). Not at all saying that's what happened. But Bucyrus has the proportions about right for that scenario. - Paul North.
Bucyrus: The truck could have been moving 70 mph. That would be 102 feet per second. The truck would be slowing during the skid, so it is hard to say how much time elapsed during the skid. But skidding 300 feet does not seem far fetched. [snipped]
James
James,
I was wondering about that too. If the lights come on 25 seconds before the train reaches the crossing, that translates into a half mile warning to a vehicle approaching at 70 mph. Those lights would be visible for a half mile, but I doubt that most drivers would notice them come on from a half mile away. So it may be reasonable to assume that most drivers would be somewhat into the 25 second warning before they realized the lights were flashing. Say they fail to notice the lights for the first 10 seconds. That leaves 15 seconds to realize the warning and stop the vehicle.
Paul has calculated that it would take 6.4 seconds to stop, so the 15 second warning seems adequate. But that all assumes a 70-mph speed. If the truck was traveling at 80-100 mph, then the warning and the required stopping distance get closer together.
CShaveRR Amtrak has now sued the trucking company. I'll bet their insurance isn't enough...
Carl: How true; Let us see.
1. Totaled 2 Superliners Amtrak's stated replacement costs $4.5M per = $9.0M
2. Damage to other cars = Unknown at present but smoke damage to # car at least.
3. Loss of revenue until cars replaced 2-1/2 to 3 years until Bilevel order is processed and maybe another 5 years to integrate lost cars onto trains.
a. Transiston Sleeper revenue ~~ 40 passengers @ $150/day (a completre wag) times 80% standard availability x 80 % = $1.4M x 3 years = $4.2M.
b. Coach ~~ 70 Seats same formula = ~~ $2.1M.
4. Displaced passengers and crew `~~$.1M
5. Injury and death payments ~~ $5.0M ??????
All in all $20M probably on the very low side???
Whew; with all the numbers juggled and crunched , It is comforting to know we pulled the pin when we did. The 50 yrs.combined with Hurricane ( Shirl) and my self we saw a lot of change in trucking. Some, very little for the good and most not good. Most of all the different breed of "drivers". Big Brother is watching more closely now. Independent trucking is taking a nasty hit . More rules and regs isn't going to accomplish much.
just my Cannonball
Y6bs evergreen in my mind
switch7frg Whew; with all the numbers juggled and crunched , It is comforting to know we pulled the pin when we did. The 50 yrs.combined with Hurricane ( Shirl) and my self we saw a lot of change in trucking. Some, very little for the good and most not good. Most of all the different breed of "drivers". Big Brother is watching more closely now. Independent trucking is taking a nasty hit . More rules and regs isn't going to accomplish much. just my Cannonball
I'll take it you are retired professional driver. There are others like you on this board and even some trucking company owners.
I've got a question for you guys.
If you figured you were going to run in to a train, or be hit by a train, why wouldn't you turn the wheel and take your truck in to a ditch? It's got to be better than tangling with a train.
'Course, I didn't do it when it was my turn. I was driving south on Illinois Route 59 about 3 1/2 years ago when a lady was headed straight at me in my lane. We were gonna' hit square head on and I never thought of turning in to the ditch instead of staying in my lane. We wound up hitting headlight to headlight and my Explorer spun her around. We both walked away. (actually, she ran away before the deputy showed up, but that's another story.)
Why do drivers (including myself) insist on staying on the road and in their lane when doing so is disaster in the making? Instead of turning the wheel and taking the lesser of two evils.
I'm going to guess that drivers don't head for the ditch in such a situation since it's a guarantee that some damage will occur. Staying in the lane is based on the very thin hope that the other guy will get back where he belongs and nothing bad will happen. Also, few of us are trained to constantly consider alternatives when and where such a situation occurs.
Another reason an OTR driver is less likely to swreve is this reason any manuver we do when someone is in our lane makes that accident NON Preventable. That plus if we are moving towards the ditch when we get hit we are more likely to ROLL OVER and possibly get killed.
greyhounds [snipped] Why do drivers (including myself) insist on staying on the road and in their lane when doing so is disaster in the making? Instead of turning the wheel and taking the lesser of two evils.
"Why do people consistently choose or do nothing and stay with a status quo which involves some risk of a disaster, instead of taking a specific action that certainly leads to much lesser damage ?"
(This could also be applicable to living in a flood plain, living dangerously, climate change, etc., etc.)
I don't know. I don't think it's consciously accepting a known risk, like gambling. Instead, it may be more like hoping that the odds will work out in their favor. But we need a psychologist to explain it to us.
Probability theory dealing with irrational choices has been explored for many years in psychology with much of the research conducted by Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman in the late 1960's. Loss and risk aversion heuristics as a area in behavioral economics to explain irrational behavior would seem most salient here.
greyhounds Why do drivers (including myself) insist on staying on the road and in their lane when doing so is disaster in the making? Instead of turning the wheel and taking the lesser of two evils.
Unless you can head off into a level field without much of a ditch, going into the ditch with a big truck at 70-mph is the certain disaster once you decide to do it. Whereas, sticking with the long skid may not be a disaster at all if you get stopped in time. And you won’t know whether or not you will be able get stopped in time in the first half or so of the skid.
If it then becomes apparent that hitting the train is inevitable, there may only be 150 feet left to go. At that point, if you take the ditch, you will still probably hit the train anyway if the ditch does not kill you before you get to the train. I don’t know what the ditch looks like at the Nevada site, but there was one reference to the shoulders being only about three feet wide.
I think most drivers can and do instantly weigh the pros and cons of trying to dodge a collision.
We take the actions we have been programmed through years of repetition to take...unless we have been practicing 'unorthodox' avoidance maneuvers we don't possess the idea of something unorthodox let alone the skills necessary to pull it off. Additionally, after the event is over, and damages have been done, those who attempted the unorthodox will generally be punished for it in the courts.
This same line of thought applies to the engineer of the train, placing the train in emergency, even though he FULLY knows that this is a frivolous action when it comes to avoiding the collision and he would be better served by advancing the throttle to Run 8 (probably with the same ultimate results).
Paul_D_North_Jr greyhounds: [snipped] Why do drivers (including myself) insist on staying on the road and in their lane when doing so is disaster in the making? Instead of turning the wheel and taking the lesser of two evils. A great question, esp. if we reframe it in slightly broader terms (and note that I've attempted to chose each word carefully and deliberately - THOUGH EDITED A LITTLE BIT LATER ON): "Why do people consistently choose or do nothing and stay with a status quo which involves some risk of a disaster, instead of taking a specific action that certainly leads to much lesser damage ?" (This could also be applicable to living in a flood plain, living dangerously, climate change, etc., etc.) I don't know. I don't think it's consciously accepting a known risk, like gambling. Instead, it may be more like hoping that the odds will work out in their favor. But we need a psychologist to explain it to us. - Paul North.
greyhounds: [snipped] Why do drivers (including myself) insist on staying on the road and in their lane when doing so is disaster in the making? Instead of turning the wheel and taking the lesser of two evils.
What about the possibility of sun glare?
How about a medical problem?
Could there have been a mechanical problem with something on the truck?
Maybe there are other factors we aren't aware of?
It will be interesting to see what the final report shows.
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
BaltACD We take the actions we have been programmed through years of repetition to take...unless we have been practicing 'unorthodox' avoidance maneuvers we don't possess the idea of something unorthodox let alone the skills necessary to pull it off. Additionally, after the event is over, and damages have been done, those who attempted the unorthodox will generally be punished for it in the courts. This same line of thought applies to the engineer of the train, placing the train in emergency, even though he FULLY knows that this is a frivolous action when it comes to avoiding the collision and he would be better served by advancing the throttle to Run 8 (probably with the same ultimate results).
And the last line of the first quoted paragraph is the other reason.
(With apologies to Shakespeare) "To dump or not to dump, that is the question" is a decision that an engineer has so short a time to decide, that if you take the time to think about it, it is already too late.
To dump, or not to dump, that is the question:Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to sufferThe slings and arrows of outrageous lawyers,Or to take logic against a sea of idiots,And by opposing end them?
Well done !
THe following quote from a website I monitor from time to time is in answer to the question about how many trucks were "apparently running together(?)" prior to the AMTRAK collision.
[I am not going to post the URL here, as I do not feel it is relevant at this time. If there is a need to know PM me for a response.]
"The San Francisco Chronicle reports:
Six people were killed and 28 remain unaccounted for in the fiery collision of a semi-trailer and an Emeryville-bound Amtrak train in the Nevad desert, officials said late Saturday. It wasn’t until Saturday afternoon that the wreckage was safe enough to allow search teams to enter the burned-out hulks of two passenger cars in the 10-car train that exploded in a fireball on Friday. A team of 18 investigators from the National Transportation Safety Board is examining the wreckage, but they don’t yet have a full explanation of why the crash occurred. Two other truck drivers watched in horror and disbelief as the lead semi-tractor trailer in their convoy failed to stop for flashing warning signals and plowed into the train, the federal investigators said. ” The two other trucks noticed the signs and took action,” NTSB member Earl Weener said at a briefing. “The lead truck did not stop..". (added emphasis is mine.Sam)
Six people were killed and 28 remain unaccounted for in the fiery collision of a semi-trailer and an Emeryville-bound Amtrak train in the Nevad desert, officials said late Saturday.
It wasn’t until Saturday afternoon that the wreckage was safe enough to allow search teams to enter the burned-out hulks of two passenger cars in the 10-car train that exploded in a fireball on Friday.
A team of 18 investigators from the National Transportation Safety Board is examining the wreckage, but they don’t yet have a full explanation of why the crash occurred.
Two other truck drivers watched in horror and disbelief as the lead semi-tractor trailer in their convoy failed to stop for flashing warning signals and plowed into the train, the federal investigators said.
” The two other trucks noticed the signs and took action,” NTSB member Earl Weener said at a briefing. “The lead truck did not stop..". (added emphasis is mine.Sam)
Another Fourm I am a member of has had a Driver of the Company involved comment on the accident. Their trucks are all governed out at 60 MPH Max Speed. Also they only have 400 HP and can not maintain road speed even Empty pulling a grade. Lastly he stated that the driver in question had asked for his truck to be cut back further to 55 MPH max.
After hearing this I am thinking Electronic Failure in the Computer. Pulling the Johnson/trolley bar back will give you 300 feet of skidmarks from the trailers alone.
samfp1943 [I am not going to post the URL here, as I do not feel it is relevant at this time. If there is a need to know PM me for a response.]
You really should give the URL here. It is bad form to quote from an article and not give proper citation.
Headlights can glare at night. The sun can glare shortly after sunrise or shortly before sunset. This accident occurred shortly before local noon four days after the summer solstice: the sun was about as high as it ever gets at that location.
That does not rule out glare caused by a dirty windshield or dashboard top.
I can only speak for myself but when I see the flashing lights start, I look to find the train and try to determine if I should stop and how hard to brake. I would probably look left first which would have required I turn my head, then turn it back when I saw nothing. That might have been a fatal delay in this case.
Note that there was a prior accident at this crossing, reported by the Reno Guardian-Journal:
http://www.rgj.com/article/20110630/NEWS/110630006/Amtrak-train-crash-DNA-sample-used-try-identify-last-passenger
"Dave Fyfe of Shelly, Idaho, was pulling a loaded flatbed at 7 a.m. on U.S. 95 in the September (14, 2010) near miss as an Amtrak train approached. He slammed on his brakes and crashed into the railroad crossing guardrail and tower, which landed on the train.“It was early in the morning and the sun was in my eyes,” he said. “The train track is not parallel to the road and you have to look a bit behind you to see if the train is coming.”
The truck was southbound in the September incident.
WMNB4THRTL What about the possibility of sun glare? How about a medical problem? Could there have been a mechanical problem with something on the truck? Maybe there are other factors we aren't aware of? It will be interesting to see what the final report shows.
So true -- so many possible factors. The final report will indeed be most intersting. And yet ...
I find it interesting that there appears to be a very different tone in these discussions, from those that are shared when the "incident" is caused by a pedestrian or other trespasser.
But, I have started a different thread on those reflections.
Dragoman I find it interesting that there appears to be a very different tone in these discussions, from those that are shared when the "incident" is caused by a pedestrian or other trespasser. But, I have started a different thread on those reflections.
Where is that thread and its title?
schlimm Dragoman: I find it interesting that there appears to be a very different tone in these discussions, from those that are shared when the "incident" is caused by a pedestrian or other trespasser. But, I have started a different thread on those reflections. Where is that thread and its title?
Dragoman: I find it interesting that there appears to be a very different tone in these discussions, from those that are shared when the "incident" is caused by a pedestrian or other trespasser. But, I have started a different thread on those reflections.
Reflections on the responses to the Nevada Amtrak/truck tragedy , here on the General Discussion board -- thanks for asking!
I started as the response above, and as it spun out to other thoughts, it seemed more appropriate to its own thread.
David K. Wheeler I can only speak for myself but when I see the flashing lights start, I look to find the train and try to determine if I should stop and how hard to brake.
I can only speak for myself but when I see the flashing lights start, I look to find the train and try to determine if I should stop and how hard to brake.
(snip)
David K. Wheeler“It was early in the morning and the sun was in my eyes,” he said. “The train track is not parallel to the road and you have to look a bit behind you to see if the train is coming.”
Mr. Wheeler, once you specifically say, and the second time you suggest (through the voice of the other driver), that it's all right not to stop for flashing grade-crossing signals.
Guess what: it isn't! Ever.
If there's a question about how hard you should be braking when the flashers flash, you're probably moving too fast for conditions. Always move prepared to stop at grade crossings. Railroaders shouldn't even have to worry about whether that bloomin' idiot is going to think he can beat the train.
CShaveRR Mr. Wheeler, once you specifically say, and the second time you suggest (through the voice of the other driver), that it's all right not to stop for flashing grade-crossing signals. Guess what: it isn't! Ever.
That is correct, but your mention of this has caused something to occur to me. It is illegal for a driver to cross a grade crossing if the red lights are flashing. What do you do if you are driving the speed limit of say 55 mph down a highway and the lights start flashing when you are 100 feet from the crossing? It would be impossible to stop for the lights in just 100 feet. Getting hit by the train is not the issue here. The issue is breaking the law by crossing against the lights.
I don’t think the law is very clear about this issue. It speaks of exercising due care when approaching a crossing. The crossing gives you a warning interval between the start of the lights and the arrival of the train. But it gives you no warning about the starting of the lights. It is like a traffic signal with no yellow light.
So when the law says you have to exercise due care, that has to mean that you have to go slow enough while approaching a crossing to be able to stop short if the lights come on. Certainly that cannot be more than 10 mph. Crossing at 70 mph cannot possibly be using due care, so it would be breaking the law even if the lights don’t come on. Therefore everyone who drives across that Nevada crossing at the speed limit is breaking the law no matter whether a train is approaching or not.
Bucyrus That is correct, but your mention of this has caused something to occur to me. It is illegal for a driver to cross a grade crossing if the red lights are flashing. What do you do if you are driving the speed limit of say 55 mph down a highway and the lights start flashing when you are 100 feet from the crossing? It would be impossible to stop for the lights in just 100 feet. Getting hit by the train is not the issue here. The issue is breaking the law by crossing against the lights.
The NP branchline to Red Lodge (Rocky Fork & Cooke City) was crossed by Highway 212 at grade in three places, one at Red Lodge in a 25 MPH zone, the next just southwest of Boyd in a 45 MPH zone and the last about 1 mile northeast of Joliet. My recollection was the crossing near Joliet had a flashing warning sign in addition to the regular flashing lights. Presumably the warning sign could be timed to start flashing a few seconds before the red flashing lights, so that cars and trucks would have a chance to slow down and stop before the red lights came on. Cars and trucks too close to stop when the warning lights came on would treat this similar to a yellow light at a road intersection (i.e. proceed only if it is unsafe to stop at the time the light turns yellow).
At 70 MPH, a 0.5g stop takes about 330 feet, which is equivalent to about 3.3 seconds of travel at 70 MPH, and a couple of seconds to allow the driver to see, process and start applying brakes would imply that you want at least 5.3 seconds between the warning lights coming on and the red lights coming on.
- Erik
Bucyrus, I think you, as well as others, know that highway traffic signals are designed with the road speed and sight distance being taken into account with a yellow warning before going to red. Likewise, a railroad grade crossing's bells and lights will engage before the gates come down or the lights and bells start in a time frame to allow those who cannot stop time to escape. But somewhere along the line it is also incumbent on the vehicle driver to have read the driver's manuel and to have passed a test in order to get a license to drive. Failure to have read the manuel or to have passed the test or to think they are above the law or can beat physics does not constitute my having to give one sympathy nor defend him.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
Henry,
I understand your point, but I don’t think you understood mine. You are right to point out that the grade crossing signals give a timed warning ahead of a train’s arrival at the crossing. But they give zero warning before they activate. And yet the law says a driver must stop short of them if they activate.
The point I was making was not about giving the driver warning for the train. My point was about giving the driver warning for the absolute stop indication of the signals. The law is not clearly written in regard to driver responsibility when approaching a signalized grade crossing.
You make the analogy to a traffic light with yellow aspect giving warning to the red aspect. But there is no such warning in the grade crossing signals. They simply go from clear to stop instantaneously. So the grade crossing train-warning interval is not intended to give the driver time to stop. It can’t be, because a driver must be stopped before that interval begins.
So, for all practical purposes, to comply with crossing law, a driver must stop at all signalized grade crossings in order to be prepared to stop for an instantaneous signal change from clear to stop. Is that what the law actually intends? That is not what I was taught in driver training. It would be a great question for the Nevada State Patrol. I know of no other instance in highway or railroad signals where a signal changes from clear to stop with no advance warning.
Drivers can muddle by this ambiguity in the crossing law in city driving. A cop is probably not going to give a ticket if the signals activate and a driver closely approaching zips through rather than slamming on the brakes. Cops always like to cite common sense. But when you have a 70-mph highway grade crossing, this ambiguity in the law becomes much more significant. That is why Nevada should either drop the speed limit in advance of the crossing, or incorporate an active advance warning for the crossing. That would, in effect, provide the missing yellow light so to speak.
I understand there is no law. And I don't think a law could be written, implimented or enforeced either. It is a matter of engineering the timing and of the expertise and ability of a driver. If you see the warning and can stop, stop, if you can't stop, go through. It is the "yellow light syndrome", yes, but it is part of the design and if you are going the right speed, you should be able to make a safe judgement and either stop or clear with safety. And gates are usually down 10-15 seconds before the train enters the crossing. Of course, the assumption here is that there are gates in addition to lights and bells.
One of the ideas I've always thought of...I am not an engineer or inventor or whatever...is a strobe light curtain changing from clear to yellow to red as it "falls" across the roadway. Another would be a concrete and steel wall which sets in the roadway flush but pops up three or four feet (red lights and or reflective paints) to prevent a vehicle from entering the track. Or bigger and heavier "gate" drop to the roadway.
henry6 I understand there is no law. And I don't think a law could be written, implimented or enforeced either. It is a matter of engineering the timing and of the expertise and ability of a driver. If you see the warning and can stop, stop, if you can't stop, go through. It is the "yellow light syndrome", yes, but it is part of the design and if you are going the right speed, you should be able to make a safe judgement and either stop or clear with safety. And gates are usually down 10-15 seconds before the train enters the crossing. Of course, the assumption here is that there are gates in addition to lights and bells. One of the ideas I've always thought of...I am not an engineer or inventor or whatever...is a strobe light curtain changing from clear to yellow to red as it "falls" across the roadway. Another would be a concrete and steel wall which sets in the roadway flush but pops up three or four feet (red lights and or reflective paints) to prevent a vehicle from entering the track. Or bigger and heavier "gate" drop to the roadway.
I do not understand what you mean when you say there is no law.
Impassible solid barriers that rise out of the road have been considered quite extensively. It is costly, but certainly feasible. Believe it or not, the biggest official objection to the idea is the crash hazard it presents to drivers. They don't want drivers to get killed by trains, but they also don't want drivers to get killed running into a wall.
One thing I have thought about is locomotive-borne crossing signals. It would consist of powerful strobe lights in an array that would be programed to target a road approach to a crossing. They would adjust to the speed of the train so the lights would turn to shift their aim down the road as the train approaches the crossing. This would be primarily intended to protect non-signalized crossings at a lower overall cost than adding signals and gates to them.
BucyrusOne thing I have thought about is locomotive-borne crossing signals. It would consist of powerful strobe lights in an array that would be programed to target a road approach to a crossing. They would adjust to the speed of the train so the lights would turn to shift their aim down the road as the train approaches the crossing. This would be primarily intended to protect non-signalized crossings at a lower overall cost than adding signals and gates to them.
That would work fine if the track was straight for the required distance, but there are many places where such a concept would require extensive trackside optics in order to bring the light to bear where desired. There would also be the question of reduced visibility due to fog or other such factors.
The track circuit is a time-tested, reliable method for activating crossing protection. Some places link regular traffic lights to the crossing circuit, which will provide a "prewarning" in the form of the amber as the light cycles through.
As for not being able to stop without going through the crossing when the warning devices first activate, that's a reason why the gates don't come down immediately as the lights and bell start - and a reason why trains are not to enter the crossing until the protection has been completely activated for 15-20 seconds.
At this point, it appears the warning equipment at the subject crossing was working properly, and that others saw it and responded appropriately.
It is obvious that the most critical operating entity in this and any other moving vehicle is a sober, awake, and intelligent human being in control of the vehicle and himself 100% at all times. And that is the weakest link in the whole process.
henry6 It is obvious that the most critical operating entity in this and any other moving vehicle is a sober, awake, and intelligent human being in control of the vehicle and himself 100% at all times. And that is the weakest link in the whole process.
Perhaps so, but that is not the only weakness in the whole process. I would submit that the premise alone of the Nevada crash was a relatively weak link in the whole process. But I think we have to be fair and not heap all the presumed blame upon the weakest link yet. The driver of the truck could very well have been "sober, awake, and intelligent," as you say. If so, then we have to look at some of the other less weak links to understand what happened in Nevada.
What about the 2 vertical reflectors that are installed on some crossing warning signs? The headlights of a loco especially the flashing ditch lights should really get someone's attention? These reflectors are angled so each reflects the headlights in one direction or the other.
I believe Ohio has installed them on some crossings?
tree68 As for not being able to stop without going through the crossing when the warning devices first activate, that's a reason why the gates don't come down immediately as the lights and bell start - and a reason why trains are not to enter the crossing until the protection has been completely activated for 15-20 seconds.
The lights and bell with the gate up is the equivalent of the amber traffic light, i.e. stop if there is sufficient distance to come to a safe stop when the lights start flashing. On a 70 MPH road, you would want 5 to 7 seconds between the time the lights start flashing and the gate comes down.
Barriers are tough to do right. In order not to trap a vehicle in the crossing, they should fold over when pushed away from the track, but remain in place when pushed towards the track.
From what I'm reading, Erik, Larry, and Henry are saying that the flashing red lights before the lowering of the gates is the railroad's version of the yellow before the red traffic light. Bucyrus is saying the motor vehicle code says the red lights are the same as a "Stop" light (red traffic light) the instant they light, gate position being irrelevant.
With the discussions on other threads as to crossbucks being the same as a "Yield" sign, I get the impression that all motor vehicles should be slowing to, say, 10 mph before entering a grade crossing (regardless of the posted speed limit) in order to prevent a driver of breaking a traffic law.
If these are the facts, then, maybe having a lower speed zone prior to a grade crossing on a high speed road would be a good idea. Enforcement could be by photo radar in extreme rural areas such as this grade crossing in Nevada.
Bucyrus [snipped] . . . It is illegal for a driver to cross a grade crossing if the red lights are flashing. What do you do if you are driving the speed limit of say 55 mph down a highway and the lights start flashing when you are 100 feet from the crossing? It would be impossible to stop for the lights in just 100 feet. Getting hit by the train is not the issue here. The issue is breaking the law by crossing against the lights. . . . The crossing gives you a warning interval between the start of the lights and the arrival of the train. But it gives you no warning about the starting of the lights. It is like a traffic signal with no yellow light. . . .
Otherwise, maybe a solution for the 'at-risk' crossings with lots of truck and train traffic is to require all trucks to come to a complete stop before crossing, same as school buses and the trucks hauling flammables and haz-mats, etc. have to do. That of course is less than the 10 MPH suggested elsewhere above by Bucyrus, and lends itself to easy enforcement by the police. Yes, those extra stops would be a traffic hazard - so that will lead to the installation of an additional outer acceleration-deceleration lane for those vehicles at each such crossing, plus the merge-back in maneuver. For the railroad, the crossing surface will get that much longer. Well, as the saying goes, "Choose your poison" (per John Wayne in a Western movie ?) . . .
The Butler From what I'm reading, Erik, Larry, and Henry are saying that the flashing red lights before the lowering of the gates is the railroad's version of the yellow before the red traffic light. Bucyrus is saying the motor vehicle code says the red lights are the same as a "Stop" light (red traffic light) the instant they light, gate position being irrelevant. With the discussions on other threads as to crossbucks being the same as a "Yield" sign, I get the impression that all motor vehicles should be slowing to, say, 10 mph before entering a grade crossing (regardless of the posted speed limit) in order to prevent a driver of breaking a traffic law. If these are the facts, then, maybe having a lower speed zone prior to a grade crossing on a high speed road would be a good idea. Enforcement could be by photo radar in extreme rural areas such as this grade crossing in Nevada.
James and Paul,
You both understand the point I am making about this.
On one hand, you could say that the timed interval between the activation and the arrival of the train at the crossing is the grade-crossing equivalent of the yellow aspect of a traffic light. However, the crossing flashers mean absolute stop. So comparing a grade crossing to a traffic light, the proper analogy would be a traffic light that changes from green to red and yellow on at the same time. It would make no sense.
The reason that this convoluted issue does not seem like a problem to drivers is that it is a conflict between the signals and the law, and most people do not know the grade crossing law.
James, you bring up a good point about the crossbucks meaning yield. That yield requirement might correspond to the requirement to be prepared to stop short of the flashers if they should happen to activate. However, the yield requirement imposed by the crossbucks is a requirement to yield to trains, not a warning that the lights are about to activate. Once the lights activate, the yield requirement changes to a stop requirement.
Look at this way: The yield requirement does not necessarily require a driver to slow down. If a driver has enough visibility to cross while knowing that he or she is not on a collision course with an approaching train, then that driver can cross at the speed limit and still be properly yielding to trains. However, it would be impossible to cross at the speed limit while being prepared to stop short of the flashers if they should happen to activate.
So "RRXing" signs alongside the road or painted in the road are not enough warning for a motorist to be cautious of a possible 'red lights and gates coming down"? I am not sure those warning are actually built into the crossing protection procedure, vis a vie, the timing versus speed, or even written into any laws. Nor am I sure those postings have any effect on the normal driver (railfans being abnormal drivers).
Bucyrus: So short of elimination of the crossing or giving it complete separation, I fail to see what else could make it 100% "fool" proof. What would you suggest?
schlimm Bucyrus: So short of elimination of the crossing or giving it complete separation, I fail to see what else could make it 100% "fool" proof. What would you suggest?
I agree that grade separation would make the crossing 100% foolproof, so to speak. And I don’t see any other way of achieving that objective. But I think that if certain crossings can be made substantially safer at an acceptable cost, it should be done, even if it results a crossing that is less than 100% foolproof.
I believe this particular crossing is more dangerous than most others because it does not have enough warning time for the road speed. To improve its safety, I suggest either of the following:
1) In conjunction with fulltime flashing yellow warning lights and prominent signage, lower the speed limit to say 45 mph in advance of the crossing.
2) Install an active advance warning system that turns on flashing yellow warning lights in advance of the crossing that would activate with the red flashers at the crossing. Combine these advance-warning lights with prominent signage indicating what they mean.
Item #2 would cost more than item #1. But even item #2 would probably cost less than 2% of the cost of a grade separation project.
Paul_D_North_Jr [snipped] Although, someplace there are design standards for the minimum time intervals between: initial activation of the lights; the start of the descent of the gates; the end of that descent; and, the arrival of the train; and/ or combinations of the above.
Title 49 - TRANSPORTATION of the Code of Federal Regulations, PART 234 - GRADE CROSSING SIGNAL SYSTEM SAFETY AND STATE ACTION PLANS, specifically:
I'll leave it to someone else to figure out the math from all this, except to note that at speeds above 35 MPH or so, a gate that starts moving right at the 3 second mark is going to snag the occasional vehicle if it can't stop at a deceleration rate of at least 0.5G = 16.1 ft./ sec.^2 = 11 MPH per second, plus reaction time, etc. . . .
Table of Contents for more info on this (not much, other than the Federal pre-emption in Sec. 234.4, see: http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/safety/part_234a.pdf ):
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_10/49cfr234_10.html
Bucyrus I agree that grade separation would make the crossing 100% foolproof, so to speak. And I don’t see any other way of achieving that objective. But I think that if certain crossings can be made substantially safer at an acceptable cost, it should be done, even if it results a crossing that is less than 100% foolproof. I believe this particular crossing is more dangerous than most others because it does not have enough warning time for the road speed. To improve its safety, I suggest either of the following: 1) In conjunction with fulltime flashing yellow warning lights and prominent signage, lower the speed limit to say 45 mph in advance of the crossing. 2) Install an active advance warning system that turns on flashing yellow warning lights in advance of the crossing that would activate with the red flashers at the crossing. Combine these advance-warning lights with prominent signage indicating what they mean. Item #2 would cost more than item #1. But even item #2 would probably cost less than 2% of the cost of a grade separation project.
Nothing is ever fool proof. What about pedestrians/trespassers?
My response to your suggestions:
1). More flashing yellow lights. EVERYTHING has flashing yellow lights any more. Do people even pay attention to them? They are extremely overused and over-abused. Lower the speed limits? What about enforcement? There's already laws on the Nevada books about speeds to operate at so you don't cause damage or threat to life and limb (I posted it in the other thread). If people aren't going to use their judgment to drive at a speed to be able to stop for something in their sight distance, a speed limit won't work.
2). Didn't we just add flashing yellow lights? So we have TWO sets of flashing yellow lights, but one is for all the time, and one just when a train is approaching? Confusing. I've seen one or the other done, but never both.
My question: someone is stopped on the highway (disabled, whatever). Truck hits that car. Who is at fault? Isn't the bottom line that we are supposed to have control of our vehicles?
I was driving to work last week and thought about this thread.
I was following a car that apparently was looking for a particular entrance to the local college we were both driving by. Out of state tags, may have been holding directions, driving slow, etc. They were about to turn into one driveway (pulling into the turn lane), changed their minds and drove up the road a bit. Then they must have found the correct driveway. They turned into it. Success!
Only problem - they turned left even though they had a red traffic light. Didn't even look, didn't even slow down. They must have been so focused on the directions, they became oblivious to everything else. Luckily no one was on the cross street, or it could have been ugly.
City street, plenty of traffic lights, no lack of sight, and the drive right through it.
Nothing is fool proof. And no amount of lights or signage will prevent all accidents/incidents/etc.
zugmann,
You keep saying my suggestion is invalid because it is not 100% foolproof. I never said I expected my suggestion to make everything 100% foolproof. Read my above post again. And just because there is always someone who will break a law does not mean that the law serves no useful purpose.
As to my two suggestions that use yellow lights, I am suggesting one or the other, but not both. Each one would use yellow lights. The first suggestion uses them passively to get the driver’s attention focused on the speed reduction indicated by signage. The second suggestion uses them actively to be normally off and turn on with the crossing flashers. There is no speed limit reduction with the second suggestion. The second suggestion merely extends the range of the crossing flashers. The first suggestion slows down traffic.
There are places where there are signs or lights suggesting that there is a "red" light ahead. So perhaps starting a mile from the grade crossing there should be signs and/or yellow lights, maybe even flashing, warning that there is a railroad corssing ahead. The lights would change from flashing yellow to flashing red. And if that doens't work. we should maybe place a crowd of people within a mile of each railroad grade crossing and hold the driver's hands up to and across the grade crossing. Come ON! There is only so much that can be done about driving safety but then the driver itself has to take on some responsiblity. And no matter how much is done by others, drivers will find a way around, over, under, or otherwise through it! All the safer crossings, trains, and motor vehicles can be built but nothing can improve safety more than a safe driver...and we don't seem to be able to make them!
Bucyrus zugmann, You keep saying my suggestion is invalid because it is not 100% foolproof. I never said I expected my suggestion to make everything 100% foolproof. Read my above post again. And just because there is always someone who will break a law does not mean that the law serves no useful purpose. As to my two suggestions that use yellow lights, I am suggesting one or the other, but not both. Each one would use yellow lights. The first suggestion uses them passively to get the driver’s attention focused on the speed reduction indicated by signage. The second suggestion uses them actively to be normally off and turn on with the crossing flashers. There is no speed limit reduction with the second suggestion. The second suggestion merely extends the range of the crossing flashers. The first suggestion slows down traffic.
I could counter that the current protection is adequate. It's not foolproof either, but neither is your suggestion. So, how do we measure "foolproofiness" and how do we determine how much to spend to try to reduce it? Keeping human emotions and politics out of it, of course.
Ok, we install your flashers. Then someone hits a train yet. So do we install a 2nd pair of advanced flashers? Third? Fourth? When does it cross the line from advanced warning to silliness?
I don't think those additional measures gain enough extra safety to bother. How about this proposal?
1. A federal/state program to gradually eliminate or separate grade crossings on all roads, where the speed limit is 45 mph or higher, which cross passenger lines. The goal here is protecting the train passengers, not the careless driver.
2. In the short term, install high intensity strobe light flashers on all grade crossings where the speed limit is 45 mph or higher, including freight-only lines. I think the strobes would get attention somewhat better than a maze of flashing yellows.
Why strobes? They aren't very good in sunlight.
LEDs are the way to go. You can set them to a strobe-like pattern, if you wish, but there's something to be said for a nice simple alternating flash.
henry6 There are places where there are signs or lights suggesting that there is a "red" light ahead. So perhaps starting a mile from the grade crossing there should be signs and/or yellow lights, maybe even flashing, warning that there is a railroad corssing ahead. The lights would change from flashing yellow to flashing red. And if that doens't work. we should maybe place a crowd of people within a mile of each railroad grade crossing and hold the driver's hands up to and across the grade crossing. Come ON! There is only so much that can be done about driving safety but then the driver itself has to take on some responsiblity. And no matter how much is done by others, drivers will find a way around, over, under, or otherwise through it! All the safer crossings, trains, and motor vehicles can be built but nothing can improve safety more than a safe driver...and we don't seem to be able to make them!
I cannot imagine how anyone can be so absolutely certain that nothing could have made the crossing safer. And yet several people seem to be that certain. It almost seems to me that people are worried that what I am suggesting somehow threatens the template that all grade crossing crashes are caused exclusively by the sheer stupidity of drivers.
If, as you suggest, the crossing itself has nothing to do with safety, they why bother to put flashers and gates on crossing? If the driver obeys the law, a simple crossbuck is all you need.
I would say let’s not be so blinded by our hatred of all drivers when it comes to grade crossings that we close our minds to any possible warning improvement and overlook the safety of the passengers on the train.
Bucyrus I cannot imagine how anyone can be so absolutely certain that nothing could have made the crossing safer. And yet several people seem to be that certain. It almost seems to me that people are worried that what I am suggesting somehow threatens the template that all grade crossing crashes are caused exclusively by the sheer stupidity of drivers. If, as you suggest, the crossing itself has nothing to do with safety, they why bother to put flashers and gates on crossing? If the driver obeys the law, a simple crossbuck is all you need. I would say let’s not be so blinded by our hatred of all drivers when it comes to grade crossings that we close our minds to any possible warning improvement and overlook the safety of the passengers on the train.
Too many people relying on everyone else doing their thinking for them.
It's just that this crossing had gates. Physical barriers across the road. Flashing red lights. Train horns. Clear sight lines. I mean, c'mon, what else do we need? The president of the railroad standing in the middle of the road (in his lime green SUPERVEST) handing out written invitations to stop?
You say we need lower speed limits and advanced amber flashers. Someone else might want even lower speed limits. Maybe we should just put a stop sign right then and there on the highway?
Again: There has to be a limit to this nonsense. Sometimes a line must be drawn. We do not have unlimited funds in this country to protect the completely oblivious.
We seem to go from the sublime to the ridiculous. I think the focused sort of colored strobe that police cars around here use is effective day and night.
schlimm We seem to go from the sublime to the ridiculous. I think the focused sort of colored strobe that police cars around here use is effective day and night.
You're probably thinking LEDs.
Strobes are more of a 1990s thing that have slowly been going the way of the dodo.
1. Strobes, per se, are NOT to be used bc they can , and sadly DO, induce seizures in those so prone.
2. Most all (yes, there are exceptions, to everything!) RR crossings already have: RR and crossbucks painted in advance of the Xing on the pavement; round, yellow sign in advance of crossing; lights, gates, bells and crossbucks; train tracks at the crossing, etc etc!
IF a driver, willfully or otherwise, disregards ALL those devices, then a great big load of lights, sirens, and on and on and on, will be a HUGE waste of money that this country does NOT have now or for the forseeable future.
Bucyrus: Perhaps your energy would be much better used to assist Operation Life Saver to educate drivers as to the dangers and to convince them to comply with the current laws and warning devices.
zugmann (in blue) Bucyrus: zugmann, You keep saying my suggestion is invalid because it is not 100% foolproof. I never said I expected my suggestion to make everything 100% foolproof. Read my above post again. And just because there is always someone who will break a law does not mean that the law serves no useful purpose. As to my two suggestions that use yellow lights, I am suggesting one or the other, but not both. Each one would use yellow lights. The first suggestion uses them passively to get the driver’s attention focused on the speed reduction indicated by signage. The second suggestion uses them actively to be normally off and turn on with the crossing flashers. There is no speed limit reduction with the second suggestion. The second suggestion merely extends the range of the crossing flashers. The first suggestion slows down traffic. I could counter that the current protection is adequate. It's not foolproof either, but neither is your suggestion. So, how do we measure "foolproofiness" and how do we determine how much to spend to try to reduce it? Keeping human emotions and politics out of it, of course.
Bucyrus: zugmann, You keep saying my suggestion is invalid because it is not 100% foolproof. I never said I expected my suggestion to make everything 100% foolproof. Read my above post again. And just because there is always someone who will break a law does not mean that the law serves no useful purpose. As to my two suggestions that use yellow lights, I am suggesting one or the other, but not both. Each one would use yellow lights. The first suggestion uses them passively to get the driver’s attention focused on the speed reduction indicated by signage. The second suggestion uses them actively to be normally off and turn on with the crossing flashers. There is no speed limit reduction with the second suggestion. The second suggestion merely extends the range of the crossing flashers. The first suggestion slows down traffic.
A big federal bureaucracy known as the Manual On Uniform Traffic Control Devices measures the degrees of protection. They come up will all kinds of improvements that are not foolproof. The suggestion I made about the active advance warning is one of their ideas, and it is an option that can be applied. It is specifically targeted for use on relatively fast highways for exactly the same reason I am advocating it for the Nevada crossing. The people at the MUTCD are not blinded by the hatred of all drivers when it comes to grade crossings, so they are able to see ways to improve things.
And yes, your hypothetical scenario of adding a second, third, and fourth set of flashers does get silly. You keep bringing up nonsense scenarios and equating them with what I am suggesting, and then you say we have to put an end to this nonsense. But your examples of nonsense have nothing whatsoever to do with my point.
MUTCD sure likes their signs and graphics. I'll give them that. There is no hatred here, Bucyrus. I'm just not impressed with adding 56,000 flashing lights and signs and graphics to, well, everything. I believe that personal responsibility has to play a bigger role that it does. Unfortunately, that belief is not shared by many anymore, it seems.
But what makes a 3rd set of flashers any more silly than your additional set? I'd like to know.
And yes, they have everything to do with the point.
WMNB4THRTL 2. Most all (yes, there are exceptions, to everything!) RR crossings already have: RR and crossbucks painted in advance of the Xing on the pavement; round, yellow sign in advance of crossing; lights, gates, bells and crossbucks; train tracks at the crossing, etc etc! IF a driver, willfully or otherwise, disregards ALL those devices, then a great big load of lights, sirens, and on and on and on, will be a HUGE waste of money that this country does NOT have now or for the forseeable future.
If the truck was traveling at the speed limit, this Nevada crash began to unfold when the truck was 3000 feet from the crossing. The standard advance warning RXR signs and the crossbuck painted on the road are much closer to the crossing. I am not sure where they are in relation to the Nevada crossing, but it is likely that the truck was already skidding when it went by them. An extended warning feature is available for crossings on relatively fast highways.
And nobody is advocating “a great big load of lights, sirens, and on and on and on,” as you say. That sounds like something zugmann would say. He says he is not impressed with adding 56,000 flashing lights and signs and graphics to, well, everything.
A late post here made me think: What was the truck driver's visual status? That is did he require glasses?? Macular degeneration?? etc??
Let me ask you something, Bucyrus.
Let's say you are driving and get a flat tire along a road with no decent shoulder. So you stop as far off the road as you can, but are still fouling the travel lane. You even put your 4-ways on. I come up behind you at 55 mph (posted speed limit) and plow right into you.
You only had 2 little lights blinking back there. No advanced warning. This is a 55 mph road. So, who is at fault?
Bottom line is that one is supposed to have control of his vehicle at all times. If there is a situation where you may have to slow down, then you slow down. Like restricted speed. On steroids. That railroad crossing didn't just jump out in front of the driver.
We had gates and an advanced warning sign. Now, we need ANOTHER advanced warning sign. Oh, and throw some lights on it too. Lights are pretty. Better have two sets of flashing lights. Someone may miss the first ones.
zugmann Let me ask you something, Bucyrus. Let's say you are driving and get a flat tire along a road with no decent shoulder. So you stop as far off the road as you can, but are still fouling the travel lane. You even put your 4-ways on. I come up behind you at 55 mph (posted speed limit) and plow right into you. You only had 2 little lights blinking back there. No advanced warning. This is a 55 mph road. So, who is at fault? Bottom line is that one is supposed to have control of his vehicle at all times. If there is a situation where you may have to slow down, then you slow down. Like restricted speed. On steroids. That railroad crossing didn't just jump out in front of the driver. We had gates and an advanced warning sign. Now, we need ANOTHER advanced warning sign. Oh, and throw some lights on it too. Lights are pretty. Better have two sets of flashing lights. Someone may miss the first ones.
I don’t think your example is as clear-cut as you seem to believe. Yes, a driver is supposed to have their car under control to be able to stop short of obstructions. But if they can’t see the obstruction, or if it is difficult to see it, they may not necessarily be at fault for hitting it. In your example, I would not change the tire or even wait in the car if it was not well off the travel lane. And if you came along and ran into my car, I don’t believe it would necessarily be 100% your fault.
But I am only going by some stories that I have heard. So I really don’t have an answer to your question. What if I did not have any flashers or lights on and you hit me? Would that mean that you did not have your car under control because you were over-driving your headlights? Or would it be partly my fault for not having any warning lights on?
Now let me ask you something. Suppose you are driving a commercial truck and you get a flat tire. You pull completely off of the travel lane and well onto the shoulder, and turn on your emergency flashers. Then a cop comes along and gives you a ticket because you don’t have the proper array of flagging triangles set up behind your truck. Why should you be required to set up flagging equipment? Isn’t the responsibility resting completely on the other drivers to have their vehicles under control and not run into you? You are off the travel lane, and your flashers are visible. What is the point of flagging equipment?
Beats me about the triangles. I didn't write the law.
Bucyrus On one hand, you could say that the timed interval between the activation and the arrival of the train at the crossing is the grade-crossing equivalent of the yellow aspect of a traffic light. However, the crossing flashers mean absolute stop. So comparing a grade crossing to a traffic light, the proper analogy would be a traffic light that changes from green to red and yellow on at the same time. It would make no sense. The reason that this convoluted issue does not seem like a problem to drivers is that it is a conflict between the signals and the law, and most people do not know the grade crossing law. James, you bring up a good point about the crossbucks meaning yield. That yield requirement might correspond to the requirement to be prepared to stop short of the flashers if they should happen to activate. However, the yield requirement imposed by the crossbucks is a requirement to yield to trains, not a warning that the lights are about to activate. Once the lights activate, the yield requirement changes to a stop requirement. Look at this way: The yield requirement does not necessarily require a driver to slow down. If a driver has enough visibility to cross while knowing that he or she is not on a collision course with an approaching train, then that driver can cross at the speed limit and still be properly yielding to trains. However, it would be impossible to cross at the speed limit while being prepared to stop short of the flashers if they should happen to activate.
To brush up a bit on the law, I checked the California Drivers handbook with respect to RR crossings. The basic law is that drivers must not exceed 15 MPH when approaching a RR crossing unless the visibility of the tracks is greater than 400 feet or the crossing is protected by crossing signals. The handbook says the driver must stop when the lights are flashing. I would argue that in the case of where the lights started flashing as the driver was approaching the crossing, the driver would need to stop if it was safe to stop (same as the strict reading of the law with respect to yellow traffic lights). Given that a car being too close to the crossing to stop would clear the crossing in less than five seconds, this still gives on the order of 20 seconds before the train reaches the crossing.
zugmann Beats me about the triangles. I didn't write the law.
The triangles are an extra precaution to prevent drivers from running into a vehicle. Even though the law requires drivers to have their cars under control, as you rightly point out, traffic authorities want to prevent crashes should those drivers happen to not have their cars completely under control. So they came up with a little extra measure of safety. And they did not come up with a scheme of 56,000 extra flashing lights and sirens; just some little reflectorized triangles.
And let’s not forget that the FRA says freight cars are hard for drivers to see at night, so we have to add reflectors to them to help prevent drivers from running into them should they happen to not have their cars under control.
Bucyrus And let’s not forget that the FRA says freight cars are hard for drivers to see at night, so we have to add reflectors to them to help prevent drivers from running into them should they happen to not have their cars under control.
Wait.. weren't you against the reflectors?
erikem Bucyrus: On one hand, you could say that the timed interval between the activation and the arrival of the train at the crossing is the grade-crossing equivalent of the yellow aspect of a traffic light. However, the crossing flashers mean absolute stop. So comparing a grade crossing to a traffic light, the proper analogy would be a traffic light that changes from green to red and yellow on at the same time. It would make no sense. The reason that this convoluted issue does not seem like a problem to drivers is that it is a conflict between the signals and the law, and most people do not know the grade crossing law. James, you bring up a good point about the crossbucks meaning yield. That yield requirement might correspond to the requirement to be prepared to stop short of the flashers if they should happen to activate. However, the yield requirement imposed by the crossbucks is a requirement to yield to trains, not a warning that the lights are about to activate. Once the lights activate, the yield requirement changes to a stop requirement. Look at this way: The yield requirement does not necessarily require a driver to slow down. If a driver has enough visibility to cross while knowing that he or she is not on a collision course with an approaching train, then that driver can cross at the speed limit and still be properly yielding to trains. However, it would be impossible to cross at the speed limit while being prepared to stop short of the flashers if they should happen to activate. To brush up a bit on the law, I checked the California Drivers handbook with respect to RR crossings. The basic law is that drivers must not exceed 15 MPH when approaching a RR crossing unless the visibility of the tracks is greater than 400 feet or the crossing is protected by crossing signals. The handbook says the driver must stop when the lights are flashing. I would argue that in the case of where the lights started flashing as the driver was approaching the crossing, the driver would need to stop if it was safe to stop (same as the strict reading of the law with respect to yellow traffic lights). Given that a car being too close to the crossing to stop would clear the crossing in less than five seconds, this still gives on the order of 20 seconds before the train reaches the crossing. - Erik
Bucyrus: On one hand, you could say that the timed interval between the activation and the arrival of the train at the crossing is the grade-crossing equivalent of the yellow aspect of a traffic light. However, the crossing flashers mean absolute stop. So comparing a grade crossing to a traffic light, the proper analogy would be a traffic light that changes from green to red and yellow on at the same time. It would make no sense. The reason that this convoluted issue does not seem like a problem to drivers is that it is a conflict between the signals and the law, and most people do not know the grade crossing law. James, you bring up a good point about the crossbucks meaning yield. That yield requirement might correspond to the requirement to be prepared to stop short of the flashers if they should happen to activate. However, the yield requirement imposed by the crossbucks is a requirement to yield to trains, not a warning that the lights are about to activate. Once the lights activate, the yield requirement changes to a stop requirement. Look at this way: The yield requirement does not necessarily require a driver to slow down. If a driver has enough visibility to cross while knowing that he or she is not on a collision course with an approaching train, then that driver can cross at the speed limit and still be properly yielding to trains. However, it would be impossible to cross at the speed limit while being prepared to stop short of the flashers if they should happen to activate.
The 15 mph requirement is interesting, but that is for passive (non-signalized) crossings. I suppose that is to help enforce the yield requirement. Authorities are most concerned with the yield requirement of passive crossings although it does apply to signalized crossings as well.
You are right that the 25-second crossing warning interval will protect the driver from a train. So if the driver happens to run the lights as they start, he will be clear before the interval runs out. But running the lights under any circumstances is strictly forbidden, whether the train is near or far, or even if there is no train, and the signals false activate. Today, I have posed a question about this conundrum to someone at the Manual On Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
A related question is this: If a driver encounters a signalized crossing on a fast highway, and the crossing has limited sight lines down the tracks, the driver must slow down in order to properly yield. There are a couple signalized crossings where I drive across Wisconsin that only offer maybe fifty feet of visibility down the tracks for approaching drivers. They would require drivers to stop in order to properly yield. Remember, that in order to yield, a driver has to know the speed of the vehicle he is yielding to. Since a driver has no way of knowing how fast a train might be running, he has to anticipate the highest possible train speed in order to safely yield. So the driver has to yield on those terms, and with a zero visibility crossing, that means stopping. Stopping in the middle of a 60 mph highway with following traffic that might have no knowledge of the counter-intuitive yield requirement could be disastrous.
So I asked the MN State Patrol. The first officer I spoke to said he was unaware of a requirement to yield to a non-activated, signalized grade crossing. He did not believe that is required. Operation Lifesaver and the FRA says it is required. I took the question further up the chain of command at the MN State Patrol. On more than one occasion, they would not respond to the question that I posed to them in writing.
My 2 cents worth: What about a timed indication indicating the number of seconds until the train is at the crossing? In numerous places I see the pedestrian crosswalk lites with a timed indication showing pedestrians how long they have to cross the street. When driving I use these to gauge how long before the lite starts to change(believe me it helps a lot).
The other thing that might work is say timing the lites to flashin shorter increments as a train gets closer to the crossing.
I will remark that with both vehicles traveling at speeds in excess of 60mph (a closing speed very likely in excess of 130mph) it is all too easy to misjudge.
Thx IGN
narig01 My 2 cents worth: What about a timed indication indicating the number of seconds until the train is at the crossing? In numerous places I see the pedestrian crosswalk lites with a timed indication showing pedestrians how long they have to cross the street. When driving I use these to gauge how long before the lite starts to change(believe me it helps a lot). [snipped]
This has become a war of minced words and hypothized concepts which no one will win because no one is right or wrong nor does anyone here have the power to make changes in laws and technologies which would effect the situation past, present or future. It it is just to see who can type many times and often, let it continue. Otherwise it is time to wrap it up.
Very, very well said; thank you, Henry!!!
henry6 This has become a war of minced words and hypothized concepts which no one will win because no one is right or wrong nor does anyone here have the power to make changes in laws and technologies which would effect the situation past, present or future. It it is just to see who can type many times and often, let it continue. Otherwise it is time to wrap it up.
I think that is just your perception, and maybe you need to pay a little more attention to what is being said. I think this thread has been quite illustrative of the basic problem whether you see that or not. Since when should anybody worry about the need to "wrap up" a thread?
This and the related threads (317 posts and counting) have been good discussions but the subject has been nearly exhausted. Summing up, perhaps somewhat more could be done to prevent rail - highway accidents at existing gated crossings, but it appears the benefits are marginal. There is a distinction between blame assessment and accident prevention. More positive measures (primarily separation) are quite costly and there are divergent opinions on whether or not it is worth the expense and/or whether or not funds could be available..
Here is a rather ponderous summation of an elaborate new system, including the application and the reasoning. Looks like lots of new ideas short of grade separation for both signalized and non-signalized crossings. And this is not really that new, being released in 2005:
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/guidestar/2001_2005/hri/HRI_Evaluation_Report_Final.pdf
Grade separation is the perfect solution, but the cost holds it back. Cost is also holding back the signalization of non-signalized crossings. The cost of that latter holds out the possibility that a low-cost substitute for full signalization can be found. Lots of people are looking for that solution, but the challenge in achieving suitable reliabilty for such a system is daunting.
The cost of grade separation as a solution, while perfect, does not hold out the promise of some revolutionary way to get it accomplished for low cost. I wonder what a simple highway overpass would cost, for example, at the site of the Nevada crash. Basically, you need a highway overpass and two filled ramps. Probably would also need a shoefly for the highway while the new work is done.
Speaking of active advance warning (in the other thread), that will soon be inside of your car.
Bucyrus [snipped] . . . I wonder what a simple highway overpass would cost, for example, at the site of the Nevada crash. Basically, you need a highway overpass and two filled ramps. Probably would also need a shoefly for the highway while the new work is done. . . .
Thanks for finding and sharing that linked report (72 pages total, approx. 1.26 MB in size). Note the discussion on liability and insurance issues on pp. 46 - 47: the possible liability for damages from a single collision could be in the $5 - $10 million range ! In this context, that's about the same range of cost as the above grade separation . . . .
A simple highway overpass is less than 1/2 the cost of an underpass, since the rail bridge has to handle a much heavier load.
When all the physical damages to the CZ plus the truck, plus the grade crossing gates and signals plus whatever damages are paid out to the injured (even if only for medical care) and the deceased heirs, it certainly sounds like an overpass for the highway would have ended up costing a lot less.
As they say, "Penny wise, pound foolish."
The Butler [snipped] With the discussions on other threads as to crossbucks being the same as a "Yield" sign, I get the impression that all motor vehicles should be slowing to, say, 10 mph before entering a grade crossing (regardless of the posted speed limit) in order to prevent a driver of breaking a traffic law. If these are the facts, then, maybe having a lower speed zone prior to a grade crossing on a high speed road would be a good idea. Enforcement could be by photo radar in extreme rural areas such as this grade crossing in Nevada.
DOH ! (a la Homer Simpson on me for not having made this connection before, because I used to say it a lot, though in a different context)
Bucyrus The 15 mph requirement is interesting, but that is for passive (non-signalized) crossings. I suppose that is to help enforce the yield requirement. Authorities are most concerned with the yield requirement of passive crossings although it does apply to signalized crossings as well. You are right that the 25-second crossing warning interval will protect the driver from a train. So if the driver happens to run the lights as they start, he will be clear before the interval runs out. But running the lights under any circumstances is strictly forbidden, whether the train is near or far, or even if there is no train, and the signals false activate. Today, I have posed a question about this conundrum to someone at the Manual On Uniform Traffic Control Devices. A related question is this: If a driver encounters a signalized crossing on a fast highway, and the crossing has limited sight lines down the tracks, the driver must slow down in order to properly yield. There are a couple signalized crossings where I drive across Wisconsin that only offer maybe fifty feet of visibility down the tracks for approaching drivers. They would require drivers to stop in order to properly yield. Remember, that in order to yield, a driver has to know the speed of the vehicle he is yielding to. Since a driver has no way of knowing how fast a train might be running, he has to anticipate the highest possible train speed in order to safely yield. So the driver has to yield on those terms, and with a zero visibility crossing, that means stopping. Stopping in the middle of a 60 mph highway with following traffic that might have no knowledge of the counter-intuitive yield requirement could be disastrous. So I asked the MN State Patrol. The first officer I spoke to said he was unaware of a requirement to yield to a non-activated, signalized grade crossing. He did not believe that is required. Operation Lifesaver and the FRA says it is required. I took the question further up the chain of command at the MN State Patrol. On more than one occasion, they would not respond to the question that I posed to them in writing.
The California Drivers handbook seems to imply that a signalized RR crossing can be approached at greater than 15 MPH regardless of the visibility of the tracks (as opposed to the signal). Yet, there is no discussion in the handbook about what to do if it is not possible to safely stop when the lights start flashing as the driver approaches the crossing. On the other hand, California has prohibited putting new grade crossings across state highways for at least three decades and conversely crossing a RR line at grade when building a new state highway. On the gripping hand, the drivers handbook also doesn't say much about not crossing if there is no room on the other side of the crossing.
A question comes to mind: Has the state of California (and Cal DMV) done what it needs to do in order to minimize its liability with respect to grade crossing accidents?
Putting a 35 MPH zone on a 70 MPH highway also has its dangers, worst case being when a car slows down and the following truck doesn't. We do have something similar in the form of Border Patrol checkpoints along I-5, I-8 and I-15. These have flashing warning lights and signs a mile ahead of the checkpoints when they are in operation (the I-5 checkpoint is almost in Orange County and the I-15 checkpoint is in Riverside County).
I mentioned earlier about the flashing signs augmenting the normal crossing flashers that used to be on Highway 212 in Montana. I'm assuming that the signs illuminated before the flashers, but traffic was down to a few trains per year when I saw these signals - i.e. never saw the signals in action.
schlimm When all the physical damages to the CZ plus the truck, plus the grade crossing gates and signals plus whatever damages are paid out to the injured (even if only for medical care) and the deceased heirs, it certainly sounds like an overpass for the highway would have ended up costing a lot less. As they say, "Penny wise, pound foolish."
Your comparison of the cost of the damage in this crash to the cost of an overpass that would have prevented it may be accurate. However, the cost of crashes must be weighed against the cost of overpasses collectively, on an average basis rather than individually. Not every grade crossing is destined to suffer a catastrophic crash. So you don’t know ahead of time what each overpass will offset in crash costs.
I think a better analysis would be to pick a random sample of grade crossings based only on their similarity in train and vehicle traffic and physical characteristics. The sample selection would be intentionally blind to the actual crash history of the crossings. Say we pick 100 crossings on that sampling basis.
Then do the following:
1) Research the crash history and calculate the cost.
2) Calculate the cost of replacing those crossings with bridges.
3) Compare the totals of those two cost summaries.
If the cost of the total crash history is greater than the cost of replacing those crossings, then I think one could conclude that the payback is there.
But, as I mentioned elsewhere, I believe a layer of automatic vehicle management will soon be in all of our vehicles. With that system, keeping cars out of the way of trains will be a walk in the woods.
And you think automatic vehicle management is cheaper and more fool proof than grade separations? You know, that is what we have on interstates and expressways. I wonder if folks back then said, "Can't be done, too expensive. Let's just have better traffic lights."
schlimm And you think automatic vehicle management is cheaper and more fool proof than grade separations? You know, that is what we have on interstates and expressways. I wonder if folks back then said, "Can't be done, too expensive. Let's just have better traffic lights."
I think automatic vehicle management is right around the corner as the next big thing. I am not advocating it. Actually I dread it, but it is on the way. It won’t be cheap, and it won’t drive your car. But it will have many features that control drivers. The basic principle of the “Red Light Camera” will be part of this system, and connecting this to grade crossings is an obvious application.
There are several potential features to that grade crossing application. It can warn drivers in advance of the crossing flashers, it can ticket drivers who run the gates and flashers, and it can stop your car if you pass a certain point. If it did the latter, there would be no need for the two former features.
But even if it only did automatic ticketing, it would eliminate the risk-taking cause of grade crossing crashes. If it automatically stopped your car, it would eliminate all causes of grade crossing crashes. It would make gates obsolete.
This is simply an idea whose time has come, and it is going to upset a lot of apple carts. Although this system will not be cheap, this grade crossing control feature would be far cheaper than eliminating grade crossings as a comprehensive solution. However, some crossing elimination will still be worthwhile in terms of eliminating delays and traffic tie-ups caused by trains.
automatic vehicle control is not cheap. secondly would it have used on an isolated out in the middle of nowhere rail crossing? Yes this is a well traveled highway. I would point out though that it does not have the volume even for more then 2 lanes. Also the volume of traffic is such that vehicles do pass each other safely(my margin in a truck, at speed, to pass on a two lane road like this is one mile of no opposing traffic & visibility to match).
Paul_D_North_Jr narig01: My 2 cents worth: What about a timed indication indicating the number of seconds until the train is at the crossing? In numerous places I see the pedestrian crosswalk lites with a timed indication showing pedestrians how long they have to cross the street. When driving I use these to gauge how long before the lite starts to change(believe me it helps a lot). [snipped] I like the concept - none around here, but I've seen them elsewhere. But what function would they serve at a crossing once the gates are down ? And even then - or at a flashers-only crossing - I can just envision some reckless driver saying to him(her)self: "OK, now I know I've got 5 more seconds to get over this crossing before that darn train gets here and delays me for gosh knows how long !", and then running the risk of accomplishing that. - Paul North.
narig01: My 2 cents worth: What about a timed indication indicating the number of seconds until the train is at the crossing? In numerous places I see the pedestrian crosswalk lites with a timed indication showing pedestrians how long they have to cross the street. When driving I use these to gauge how long before the lite starts to change(believe me it helps a lot). [snipped]
I like the concept - none around here, but I've seen them elsewhere. But what function would they serve at a crossing once the gates are down ? And even then - or at a flashers-only crossing - I can just envision some reckless driver saying to him(her)self: "OK, now I know I've got 5 more seconds to get over this crossing before that darn train gets here and delays me for gosh knows how long !", and then running the risk of accomplishing that.
When I think about it this crossing is unique in the mix of traffic. A fair amount of it all at speed. ie RR trains 55mph to 79mph & road traffic at 70-75 mph.
The only other grade crossing I can think of that comes close is the BNSF crossing of Calif. state route 58 between Kramer Junction and Mojave, Ca. There to start the speeds are slower 55mph for highway traffic and 59mph(I think) for RR. The volume of traffic here is much larger for both modes.
Maybe the problem of grade crossing incursions cannot be eliminated. It appears that heavy trucks cause the most damage and deaths for grade crossing incursion; such as the City of New Orleans, Piedmont, this one. . However incursions may be significantly reduced by the trucking companys them selves. How?
1. First what are the libility insurance requirements of each state?
2. If mandatory liability Insurance for heavy ( GVW 26001# +) trucks is raised to say $100M and allow the insurance companys themselves to vet the drivers and refuse to insure those at greatest risk. Certainly those trucking companys that have the greatest risk ( say all trucks have to cross an unsignaled crossing to get to business) vs those trucks that have a very low risk ( never cross a RR or interact, with a school zone, travel mostly interstates) would set rates. Along with training programs for drivers to lower rates and history of accidents. Grade crossing camers that can catch those who violate the law and get flagged to the insurance companys.
WOW.
There is a whole lot of speculation and various degrees of negativity on the driver and trucking industry. I have not seen any posts on how far down the track the signal system activates. The speed of the train and a fixed distance to grade flasher activation. Could it be possible that the fast pace of the train coinciding with the fixed distance the grade signals start had limited the stopping distance for the truck also going at a considerable speed to give both driver and train time to avoid the collision? I have been at grade crossings when a slower freight train activates the gates and considerable time elapses before the locomotives are into the crossing. I have also seen some Amtrak trains blast through before the gates reach the bottom and bounce around before going back up.
This timing and distance covered by the train should be taken into effect before judgment is rendered.
Pete
I pray every day I break even, Cause I can really use the money!
I started with nothing and still have most of it left!
locoi1sa WOW. There is a whole lot of speculation and various degrees of negativity on the driver and trucking industry. I have not seen any posts on how far down the track the signal system activates. The speed of the train and a fixed distance to grade flasher activation. Could it be possible that the fast pace of the train coinciding with the fixed distance the grade signals start had limited the stopping distance for the truck also going at a considerable speed to give both driver and train time to avoid the collision? I have been at grade crossings when a slower freight train activates the gates and considerable time elapses before the locomotives are into the crossing. I have also seen some Amtrak trains blast through before the gates reach the bottom and bounce around before going back up. This timing and distance covered by the train should be taken into effect before judgment is rendered. Pete
Pete,
Take a look at this thread. I have posed questions and looked for answers to all of the points you mention, plus some others that are related.
http://cs.trains.com/TRCCS/forums/t/193774.aspx
The premise of that thread is not to take the entire blame off of the driver and put it on Nevada, but the crash site crossing is on a very high-speed highway, and that does raise issues about the warning interval. We do know that the warning interval for the Amtrak train was 25 seconds. We also know that the truck driver lost 18 of those seconds for some reason. The missing 18 seconds is all it took to make the difference between a routine crossing yield and a catastrophe.
Sun glare for traffic heading north at that particular crossing at that particular time of day would not have been any factor at all. The sun would be S/SE of northbound traffic. In other words the sun is behind those driving north.
I've worked at that crossing at this time of year so I'm absolutely certain the sun was not a factor.
I do not see sun glare as being a factor in this.
Bucyres
What I am trying to say is the gates could be timed for the usual UP freights going by at 50mph. The Amtrak train barrels through at 70 to 80 mph covers a heck of a lot more track then that freight. Still with 300 feet of skid marks there should have been time for the driver to realize what was about to happen.
As for turning into the ditch or some other alternative maneuver, This takes training in avoidance driving. Not every commercial driver receives this training. I received this training in the military thirty years ago for a special job. It is an intense course that tries to overcome your instinctive responses to situations. Any drivers first instinctive response is to slam on the brakes. My first response is to remove my foot from the accelerator and scan my mirrors for an exit way. My foot never touches the brake unless it is needed to maneuver. These responses took training. Next time someone cuts you off pay attention to what your foot just did. The majority of people would be standing on the brake in an instant. This training is what saved a school buss with children aboard from being T boned. If I stood on the brake the outcome would have been tragic. My training is what taught me to steer into the road the buss was leaving. The only damage was a bent stop sign and some torn up grass. Thankfully there was a state cruiser 5 cars behind me that saw the whole thing. The bus driver received a failure to yield ticket and let go. Big trucks during a skid do not steer and risk the chance of jackknifing or spin out.
Modern crossing gates have "predictors" that adjust the time the gates lower to correspond with the approaching train's speed.
This picture shows code line of 10 wires. The old SP system had 2 or 3 power wires, 2 CTC, 3 bi-directional signal circuits and at a crossing would unually have 2 additional wires for a fixed distance signal activation.
Although this is not definite proof and we will find out soon whether this crossing had a predictor circuit or not. I would tend to believe that it did not but would not be so rash as to say it did not. have a prediction circuit..
http://www.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=201430106002
http://www.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2014301060029
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.