All of the suggestions of installing more signs and flashing lights reminded me of this video on You-Tube.
Apparently, too many drivers ignore signs and flashing warning lights . . . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vj8Bkn9kaLE
Remember that one of the big three automakers had a known problem with one of their models.
After doing a cost/benefit analysis, they determined it was cheaper to pay out damages to folks who sued as a result of the defect than it was to actually fix the defect...
We had an accident here a couple of years ago - no train involved. The guilty party (now doing time in the big house) blew a .18, had drugs in his system, and was driving 81 MPH on a two lane country road. Another motorist didn't see him (poor sight distance + excessive speed) and pulled out in front of him.
Although the discussion continues to this day, most agree that had he been doing the speed limit (55 MPH) and been sober, the accident never would have happened.
Don't take this to imply the driver in the Nevada incident as impaired. That hasn't even been suggested in any report I've seen.
But it does imply that the driver pretty much held all the cards and it would appear that he misplayed the hand.
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...
A 45MPH max speed rumble strip is a quick, cheap, & fast installed protection. Now we hear that this crossing had another almost run into another CZ. Truck pushed gate arm into Amtrak train.
This thread is a testament to the "I'm a victim" mentality that is ruining this country. Sue Nevada? Why?
Even with no signals the train would have been visible from at least 1500 feet. On the pavement 700 feet before the crossing the is two lines approx 4 feet wide with an X with "RR" centered in it about 30 feet long.
Hell, if I can see it on Google earth, the driver could have seen it. Bet on a cell phone.
Why would anyone expect lights and signals would have stopped this truck? Look around and almost everyday you can witness cars and trucks blowing traffic lights well after the red, traveling 50+. More signals and gates won't get the job done. So then the question becomes: How many lives lost, people maimed and property damaged is a high enough price to "justify" closing lower-volume crossings and separation of the rest, at least on passenger lines?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm Why would anyone expect lights and signals would have stopped this truck?
Why would anyone expect lights and signals would have stopped this truck?
Why would you not expect that?
4. Active Advance Warning Systems: These are supplemental flashing yellow
beacons mounted along with the grade crossing advance warning signs that are
interconnected to the railroad active warning devices. Activation of the railroad
active warning devices activates the beacons to provide motorists with an
advance indication that a train is approaching or occupying the crossing. Active
advance warning systems are typically used where roadway geometry prevents
a clear view of the grade crossing ahead, or where higher highway speeds may
require advance notification of an impending stopping requirement. Use a plaque
stating “Train When Flashing” as part of such systems.
I posted the above as quote from a pdf, so I must comment about it in a separate post here. It appears that the people who wrote this believe that more lights and warnings would help. In the second to last sentence, they mention the application of more warning for grade crossings on especially fast highways. They say:
"Higher highway speeds may require advance notification of an impending stopping requirement."
Here is the link. Page 6 of 12, section (b), item #4: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/publications/manuals/fulltext/M22-01/1350.pdf
Here is the link. Page 6 of 12, section (b), item #4:
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/publications/manuals/fulltext/M22-01/1350.pdf
Bucyrus I posted the above as quote from a pdf, so I must comment about it in a separate post here. It appears that the people who wrote this believe that more lights and warnings would help. In the second to last sentence, they mention the application of more warning for grade crossings on especially fast highways. They say: "Higher highway speeds may require advance notification of an impending stopping requirement."
If you're quoting from something, it is only proper to credit the source. I want to read it, too.
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
Bucyrus 4. Active Advance Warning Systems: These are supplemental flashing yellow beacons mounted along with the grade crossing advance warning signs that are interconnected to the railroad active warning devices. Activation of the railroad active warning devices activates the beacons to provide motorists with an advance indication that a train is approaching or occupying the crossing. Active advance warning systems are typically used where roadway geometry prevents a clear view of the grade crossing ahead, or where higher highway speeds may require advance notification of an impending stopping requirement. Use a plaque stating “Train When Flashing” as part of such systems.
We have the "Flashing Yellow Diamond" signs all over on my state's highways, Connecticut. When a clear view of a Traffic Light is not possible and the Traffic Light turns red, the Yellow sign down the road starts to flash, the sign reads "Stop Ahead When Flashing" .
Don U. TCA 73-5735
CShaveRR Jim, I chuckled at your suggestion of speed bumps. I'm just sorry that anything that would give one of those truckers the bounce required to get his attention would probably do damage to smaller vehicles.
Jim, I chuckled at your suggestion of speed bumps. I'm just sorry that anything that would give one of those truckers the bounce required to get his attention would probably do damage to smaller vehicles.
DMUinCT We have the "Flashing Yellow Diamond" signs all over on my state's highways, Connecticut. When a clear view of a Traffic Light is not possible and the Traffic Light turns red, the Yellow sign down the road starts to flash, the sign reads "Stop Ahead When Flashing" .
DMU: Are you sure about about when the "Stop ahead when flashing" illuminates? Here in Georgia any state road over 50 MPH will have the signs and they start flashing about 10 - 15 seconds before light starts changing time and distance set for the speed limit. Most of those lights are loop activated and are delayed after a vehicle enters the loop approach zone. Georgia DOT controls all traffic lights on state supported roads so the whole state is consistent.
Short of mechanical failure or a medical condition, prior evidence of this driver's record (if it has been reported correctly) points to the odds of this accident being caused by driver error.
What is the old saying, "Character is what you do when no one is watching". If it is proven to be driver error, Nevada could have put umpteen millions of dollars worth of protection on that crossing and the results would not have been much different--unless there is some fail safe, quick stop method I am unaware of.
Zardoz--depressed rumble strips might have be a relatively inexpensive option to get a drivers attention a strategic distance out.
Jay
From The UPRR Corp website:
http://www.uprr.com/she/safety/xing_safety/tips_rules.shtml
FTL:"...In most states, motor vehicle laws read: "Whenever any person driving a vehicle approaches a railroad grade crossing and signals indicate an approaching train, the driver of such vehicle shall stop within fifteen feet from the nearest rail of such railroad and shall not proceed until he can do so safely."
FTL:"....The driver must treat the crossbuck as a yield sign and the motorist must stop whenever automatic signals are activated..."
As well, this Link: http://www.uprr.com/she/safety/xing_safety/facts.shtml
[quoted] FTL: "...The following signs are installed and maintained by the Railroad:
All other signs (i.e. stop signs, yield signs, advance warning signs, pavement markings) are the responsibility of the public road authority.
Crossings are sometimes referred to as highway-rail crossings or intersections.
Crossbuck signs and all other signs (i.e. advance warning signs, pavement markings) are referred to as passive warning devices.
Signals are referred to as active warning devices. Active warning devices are maintained by the railroad..." [end quoted]
This website has a number of links and each link a different bit of pertinent information referencing RR Crossings.
Most of the information and opinions in this thread are pretty much specific and on the point. The implications of Railroad crossings are validated and encoded in Federal Code of regulations as well as each State has either directly encoded into their laws straight from the FCR or has added their own embellishments for their particular needs.
There is the mentality that declares, "Laws do not apply to ME." From time to time, someone will write a letter to the editor of the local paper complaining about the arrogant people on the highway who keep the writer from driving faster than the speed limit. Such a person does not realize that HE is the arrogant one. Of course, this mentality applies in many other areas.
How is the state of Nevada responsible for this collision? From what has been posted about the intersection, every reasonable precaution has been taken.
Johnny
Deggesty How is the state of Nevada responsible for this collision? From what has been posted about the intersection, every reasonable precaution has been taken.
I question whether every reasonable precaution has been taken. Traffic control authorities acknowledge that if the road speed is high enough, the warning system on a signalized grade crossing should be extended beyond what is typical by some means. Whether or not, that applies to the Nevada crossing is an open question.
garr Short of mechanical failure or a medical condition, prior evidence of this driver's record (if it has been reported correctly) points to the odds of this accident being caused by driver error. What is the old saying, "Character is what you do when no one is watching". If it is proven to be driver error, Nevada could have put umpteen millions of dollars worth of protection on that crossing and the results would not have been much different--unless there is some fail safe, quick stop method I am unaware of. Jay
At this point, of course, no one can be 100% sure, but strongly looks like the cause is truck driver error, not railroad or Nevada negligence. However, were Nevada to put some money into protection for the crossing in the form of a grade separation, the results would have been very different. yes, the cost is in the millions, but the railroads should not have to pay for an overpass and only partly for an underpass. Nearly 100 years ago, elevated viaducts for multi-track rail main lines through various cities were built because wisdom prevailed over the short term cost considerations.
pdf's pertinent to rail/highway separations. An underpass under the rail line costs 6X an overpass.
https://trust.dot.state.wi.us/static/standards/fdm/17-40.pdf
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/policy/costs/Bridges.pdf
Bucyrus Deggesty: How is the state of Nevada responsible for this collision? From what has been posted about the intersection, every reasonable precaution has been taken. I question whether every reasonable precaution has been taken. Traffic control authorities acknowledge that if the road speed is high enough, the warning system on a signalized grade crossing should be extended beyond what is typical by some means. Whether or not, that applies to the Nevada crossing is an open question.
Deggesty: How is the state of Nevada responsible for this collision? From what has been posted about the intersection, every reasonable precaution has been taken.
If this truck was in fact the first in a convoy, which implies closely following trucks, the protection proved adequate enough for the following two. Usually when vehicles are trailing each other closely it is easy for the following vehicles to also be involved in the same wreck as the first.
Again, I am basing my ideas on what has been reported. We all know how accurate the media is when reporting on railroad issues so I would assume the accuracy would be no greater on this and other issues.
garr If this truck was in fact the first in a convoy, which implies closely following trucks, the protection proved adequate enough for the following two. Jay
If this truck was in fact the first in a convoy, which implies closely following trucks, the protection proved adequate enough for the following two. Jay
If this truck was in fact the first in a convoy, which implies closely following trucks, the protection proved adequate enough for the following two.
Yes, but just because some drivers can avoid a collision without an extension of the crossing warning, that does not necessaily mean that the extended warning is not needed. If that were the case, we would not need signals and gates at grade crossings. Assuming good sight distance, a simple crossbuck should suffice.
Having been an owner/operator with two million plus miles in the seat of 18+ wheelers what would be wrong with 1. adding stobe lights to these crossings 2. making it a law all vehicles make a full stop before crossing 3. if they don`t stop then putting speed bumps on both approaches, or all of the above.I remember a lot of crossings years ago that required a full stop.I always slowed down to less than 5 mph on all because it was easier on tires and suspensions
A lot of what ifs here, where the only change is in adding a few more passive crossing devices. We have one glaring fact: a crossing with operating gates (which were seen by the two following trucks) in broad daylight, in a flat area with excellent visibility, failed in protecting the approaching train from a truck. That is the function of such a passive device, and in this case it failed. It really doesn't matter much that it succeeded for the past 1000 times; it failed to protect one time with multiple deaths and significant damage. If some accountant's cost-benefit analysis suggests that result is desirable because it is cheaper than installing more positive protection, then there isn't much more to say.
In his 6-30 reply in this thread, cacole mentioned Arizona, which is similar to Nevada.
In Arizona, the highly traveled north-south Highway 85 crosses the Union Pacific (SP) rail line once used by Amtrak's Sunset Limited.
Looking east at the southbound lanes.
The northbound lanes are about a half a block to the east.
The highway is used as a bypass to avoid the congestion of Phoenix. Personally, this railfan finds this grade crossing a rather terrifying one, even with little train traffic traversing it. What is so scary is that non-railroad oriented people often drive in lala land. So, they would not see crossing gates down and flashers flashing, but finally see something big move across the road, like a train. Perhaps the truck driver in the incident in Nevada was one of these.
In the last couple of years I had a rather shocking experience. As I approached a severely angled rural dirt road grade crossing (photo bottom) only protected at the time with crossbucks ...
... I was deep in conversation with my adult son. At the last minute I realized where I was at and just slammed on the brakes. I didn't even have time to check the rearview mirror. Once I had ascertained no train was approaching, I proceeded on. But the experience made this railfan think. What about those that are NOT oriented toward trains?
Whatever actually happened (the probable cause) in Nevada will likely eventually come out. But railroaders and railfans generally have an advantage over the general motorists in that they are train aware (usually, anyway)!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- K.P.’s absolute “theorem” from early, early childhood that he has seen over and over and over again: Those that CAUSE a problem in the first place will act the most violently if questioned or exposed.
Not much to worry about there , K.P. The Phoenix to Yuma line is embargoed and used only for car storage for quite a while now.
tdmidget:
The embargoed status of the line can perhaps put K.P.'s mind to rest about this crossing, but I think the point he makes is a good one generally -- even those of us who know better can have lapses of situational-awareness. Those even less "oriented towards trains" should, perhaps, be better protected?
Sad to say (IMHO), I also believe schlimm has hit it on the nose: so many of the decisions made in our society, including those around safety and loss of life, are based upon "some accountant's cost-benefit analysis". Number of lives to be saved vs. the overall cost of the protection.
In fact (speaking of truckers, as this thread has been), IIRC, didn't the same sort of cost-benefit analysis come up in the original proposals to require truck underride guards?
Mention has been made of the number of times vehicles cross this crossing without a collision, and is that therefore an indication that the risk is insignificant? But there has to be a train approaching for there to be any risk at all. I wonder how many trains cross this crossing in 24 hours. How many of them are passenger trains? Are there more than two passenger trains and four freight trains per day?
It could be that a wide-open highway with a high speed limit and a state that countenances speeding poses an exceptionally high risk of collision every time a vehicle and a train arrive at the crossing at the same time. It is just that that might only happen once a month.
How do you measure risk? There's always risk.
Whether it's one train a day or 100.. what's the rate of collisions? There be your answer.
zugmann, I suspect it is more complicated than rate of collisions. I think what Bucyrus is trying to point to, is that trains only occupy (and approach) a crossing so many minutes out of the 1440 minutes there are in a day, and vehicles only cross (and approach) the tracks so many minutes of the day (especially in the more isolated areas).
So, it should be possible to calculate the statistical likelihood of a train/vehicle meet. Knowing that and the rate of collisions may get you somewhere. Otherwise, a certain frequency of collisions on a nearly-abandoned dessert road looks comparable to the same frequency at a busy urban crossing, which it is not.
We need a statistician. There are ways to calculate all that stuff out that takes in account number of trains.
But I bet the number would be pretty unimpressive (in a good way).
zugmann We need a statistician. There are ways to calculate all that stuff out that takes in account number of trains. But I bet the number would be pretty unimpressive (in a good way).
You need the number of vehicles too.
Set up a couple cameras that are activated when the signals activate. Count the number of vehicles that stop or don't stop.
You already know the frequency of crossing accidents at that location. So you know the number of vehicles that didn't stop and had a train/vehicle collision.
Assume (Yes, I know about "Assume") that the traffic pattern across the crossing hasn't changed. (Or wait forever to get a history of accidents with acually counted vehicles.)
Figure out that flashing red lights and crossing gates stop X percent of all vehicles when they need to stop. Use the camera info to give traffic tickets to those who deserve them.
Make an evaluation as to what action is needed. Keep in mind that there are not unlimited resources.
Zugmann,
Consider this example: Say that a hypothetical grade crossing has one fast train per month, and one vehicle crossing per month. Now say that the crossing is completely unmarked with no visibility down the tracks. Say the tracks are in a blind cut on both sides of the road, and there are no flashers, no gates, no crossbucks, and nothing to indicate the crossing is there except the rails in the road. Would you consider that crossing to be exceptionally dangerous?
Yet with only one train and one vehicle per month, there might not be a collision in 100 years if they don’t happen to arrive at the crossing at the same time. So the infrequency of collisions might suggest that the crossing is not dangerous, and yet the deficiencies in the crossing warning obviously make it as dangerous as can be.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.