Trains.com

Semi-trailer plowed into an Amtrak train in rural Nevada: 2 killed

29255 views
175 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, June 30, 2011 6:38 PM

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. 

  • Member since
    July 2008
  • From: Southeast Missouri
  • 573 posts
Posted by The Butler on Thursday, June 30, 2011 1:58 PM

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.     

With the knowledge that the crossing signals were set to activate twenty-six seconds before the train entered the crossing, is there enough information to mathematically figure an estimated time after the signals started (or possibly before) that the truck driver locked up the brakes?

James


  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Thursday, June 30, 2011 11:00 AM

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. 

 

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    April 2007
  • From: Iowa
  • 3,293 posts
Posted by Semper Vaporo on Thursday, June 30, 2011 10:25 AM

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.

  

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! Sigh 

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! Blindfold )

 

Semper Vaporo

Pkgs.

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Canterlot
  • 9,575 posts
Posted by zugmann on Thursday, June 30, 2011 10:11 AM

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.

 

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

  • Member since
    January 2003
  • From: Kenosha, WI
  • 6,567 posts
Posted by zardoz on Thursday, June 30, 2011 9:40 AM

Paul_D_North_Jr

  Time to implement PTC !  No, not that one - a new one, "Positive Truck Control".  Mischief

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 . . .  Sigh  . . . then why not let the truckers share in the 'benefits', too ?  Whistling

- Paul North.    

What happens if this fancy system shuts down the truck and applies the brakes such that the truck is standing across a railroad crossing or a busy intersection of a highway? Or what happens when this fancy system breaks down or gets hacked (although a similar concern should be applicable to the real PTC system)?

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?

  • Member since
    June 2001
  • From: Lombard (west of Chicago), Illinois
  • 13,681 posts
Posted by CShaveRR on Thursday, June 30, 2011 9:34 AM

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)

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Thursday, June 30, 2011 9:11 AM

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.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    September 2002
  • From: Back home on the Chi to KC racetrack
  • 2,011 posts
Posted by edbenton on Thursday, June 30, 2011 6:06 AM

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. 

Always at war with those that think OTR trucking is EASY.
  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: At the Crossroads of the West
  • 11,013 posts
Posted by Deggesty on Wednesday, June 29, 2011 9:21 PM

BaltACD

Capial Beltway GRIDLOCK!

 Paul_D_North_Jr:

  Time to implement PTC !  No, not that one - a new one, "Positive Truck Control".  Mischief

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 . . .  Sigh  . . . then why not let the truckers share in the 'benefits', too ?  Whistling

- Paul North.    

 

And gridlock on every major highway as well.

Johnny

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Wednesday, June 29, 2011 8:46 PM

Capial Beltway GRIDLOCK!

Paul_D_North_Jr

  Time to implement PTC !  No, not that one - a new one, "Positive Truck Control".  Mischief

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 . . .  Sigh  . . . then why not let the truckers share in the 'benefits', too ?  Whistling

- Paul North.    

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    November 2009
  • 422 posts
Posted by Dragoman on Wednesday, June 29, 2011 8:21 PM

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.

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 ...

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Wednesday, June 29, 2011 7:40 PM

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

  • Member since
    October 2006
  • From: Allentown, PA
  • 9,810 posts
Posted by Paul_D_North_Jr on Wednesday, June 29, 2011 7:25 PM

  Time to implement PTC !  No, not that one - a new one, "Positive Truck Control".  Mischief

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 . . .  Sigh  . . . then why not let the truckers share in the 'benefits', too ?  Whistling

- Paul North.    

"This Fascinating Railroad Business" (title of 1943 book by Robert Selph Henry of the AAR)
  • Member since
    January 2003
  • From: Kenosha, WI
  • 6,567 posts
Posted by zardoz on Wednesday, June 29, 2011 6:58 PM

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.

  • Member since
    September 2002
  • From: Rockton, IL
  • 4,821 posts
Posted by jeaton on Wednesday, June 29, 2011 6:28 PM

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

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Wednesday, June 29, 2011 5:53 PM

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!

              

  • Member since
    October 2008
  • From: Near Burlington, WA
  • 380 posts
Posted by Maglev on Wednesday, June 29, 2011 5:27 PM

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

  • Member since
    March 2003
  • From: Central Iowa
  • 6,901 posts
Posted by jeffhergert on Wednesday, June 29, 2011 5:14 PM

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

  • Member since
    May 2011
  • From: Hills of WV
  • 30 posts
Posted by DaveVan51 on Wednesday, June 29, 2011 2:42 PM

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.

6000 miles on Amtrak in words and pictures   www.currtail.com

  • Member since
    November 2009
  • 422 posts
Posted by Dragoman on Wednesday, June 29, 2011 2:25 PM

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.

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 11,919 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Wednesday, June 29, 2011 3:58 AM

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? 

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 11,919 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Wednesday, June 29, 2011 3:44 AM

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.     

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.

  • Member since
    May 2011
  • From: Hills of WV
  • 30 posts
Posted by DaveVan51 on Tuesday, June 28, 2011 10:09 PM

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

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, June 28, 2011 8:42 PM

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.

  • Member since
    October 2006
  • From: Allentown, PA
  • 9,810 posts
Posted by Paul_D_North_Jr on Tuesday, June 28, 2011 8:26 PM

Bucyrus
  [snipped]  Try it.  Some of the bad drivers will not slow down.  But some will.  Signs are cheap. 

  On this we agree - the benefits of avoided crashes (via a probabilistic analysis of the likely range of costs and damages, etc.) would likely be greater than the cost of the signs.

- Paul North. 

"This Fascinating Railroad Business" (title of 1943 book by Robert Selph Henry of the AAR)
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, June 28, 2011 7:22 PM

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. 

  • Member since
    June 2011
  • 8 posts
Posted by David K. Wheeler on Tuesday, June 28, 2011 7:10 PM

See:

http://photos.denverpost.com/mediacenter/2011/06/photos-nevada-amtrak-train-crash/#12

for overhead shots of the accident site.

David K. Wheeler

 

 

  • Member since
    October 2006
  • From: Allentown, PA
  • 9,810 posts
Posted by Paul_D_North_Jr on Tuesday, June 28, 2011 6:54 PM

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. 

  The following is posted with a lot of respect for what Bucyrus usually thinks and comments:

 

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 . . . Whistling

 

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.

 

- Paul North. 

"This Fascinating Railroad Business" (title of 1943 book by Robert Selph Henry of the AAR)
  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Tuesday, June 28, 2011 4:13 PM

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.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy