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.
- Paul North.
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.).
Not at all saying that's what happened. But Bucyrus has the proportions about right for that scenario.
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.
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.
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?
"Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood." Daniel Burnham
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?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
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/
"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
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.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
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.
Johnny
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! )
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.