Does the Nevada crossing have a timing defect?
At 70 mph, a vehicle will require something like 450-550 feet to stop at maximum braking. Consider a driver approaching the Nevada crossing at 70 mph, and the crossing flashers activate when the driver is 500 feet from the crossing. At that point, the driver must consider whether it is possible to stop short of the crossing.
It the driver decides to stop, it will take 6-9 seconds to stop. After 3 seconds, the gate will come down. If the driver has misjudged his or her ability to stop, and therefore is incapable of stopping short of the crossing, the driver will crash through the lowered gate.
If the driver decides not to stop and continues to travel at 70 mph, it will take about 5 seconds to reach the crossing. And by that time, the gate will be down, and the driver will crash through the lowered gate at 70 mph.
Folks,
After discussion with the Forum moderators, we've decided to prune the contentious and off-topic posts and re-open this thread.
The thread was initially locked because a participant complained about it getting off-topic. I had answered a previous complaint by saying that the thread wouldn't be closed if it returned to topic and civility. Then when another moderator made the decision that the thread wasn't going to improve, and locked it, he didn't explain that reasoning.
The thread is being reopened, minus the off-topic posts that started it all, in the hopes that when the discussion resumes, it remains on-topic and civil. Attempts to derail it again, or to continue to discuss the decision to close or reopen it, even to say "thank you," will be deleted as off-topic.The threads that have been created to discuss this event, now redundant, will shortly be deleted as well.
I apologize for the distress this episode has caused to so many. Nobody wishes more than I that it had never happened. Chalk it up to a communication breakdown. I'm working more closely with the Forum moderators to ensure that we're all on the same page from now on.
Now, how 'bout that GG1? Sweet engine, huh?
--Steven Otte, Model Railroader senior associate editorsotte@kalmbach.com
Now there is something we didn't know, that a GG1 was pulling a train in Nevada!
Must have been that blaat horn. Ineffective, I tells ya...
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
In seriousness though, Bucyrus, if you are shilling for some law firm or otherwise have an interest in this board agreeing with you, give it up. This is a group of people who know that there is no excuse, anywhere, anytime, to hit or get hit by a train.
If you trouble yourself to see the location on Google earth you will see that there is a huge RRX on the pavement 700 feet before the crossing. So you can't say he did not have advance warning. You will also see that he could have seen an approaching train for a half mile in either direction. So you can't say he could not see the train. Since this was a regular loadout for him you can't say that he was not familiar with the crossing. Additionally as a holder of a CCL he is expected to exercise more caution than the average driver.
So, signals were there and working, he had warning, he could see,he was familiar with the route. Did he exercise even the caution expected of a grandmaw who drives once a week?
I didn't see any catenary in the wreck pcitures?
tdmidget Now there is something we didn't know, that a GG1 was pulling a train in Nevada!
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
extension cord.
Really long extension cord.
zugmann Must have been that blaat horn. Ineffective, I tells ya...
Truer than not, nowadays. I was involved with a near miss a few years ago - driver said we weren't blowing the horn. We were. RS-3 with blaat horn.
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...
I like BLAAT horns!
tdmidget In seriousness though, Bucyrus, if you are shilling for some law firm or otherwise have an interest in this board agreeing with you, give it up. This is a group of people who know that there is no excuse, anywhere, anytime, to hit or get hit by a train. If you trouble yourself to see the location on Google earth you will see that there is a huge RRX on the pavement 700 feet before the crossing. So you can't say he did not have advance warning. You will also see that he could have seen an approaching train for a half mile in either direction. So you can't say he could not see the train. Since this was a regular loadout for him you can't say that he was not familiar with the crossing. Additionally as a holder of a CCL he is expected to exercise more caution than the average driver. So, signals were there and working, he had warning, he could see,he was familiar with the route. Did he exercise even the caution expected of a grandmaw who drives once a week?
I have no interest in the forum agreeing with me. But I don’t think the forum is of one mind on this, as your comment suggests. And plenty of people who are not registered members also read the forum. There is no way to know what they think.
Obviously the driver did not yield to the train, so in that regard, the driver has to be at fault. But extenuating circumstances can exist in any collision, including grade crossing crashes. It is simply not true that, as you say, “there is no excuse anywhere, anytime, to get hit by a train.” Sometimes the signals fail to activate or provide a too short of a warning.
I see no harm in asking questions and considering all the plausible explanations for what happened in this Nevada crash. I do not expect that the driver bears no blame, or that Nevada bears all the blame. And I have not reached any conclusions about the blame or cause. But it seems like a number forum members have. There seems to be some consensus that we must wait for the final investigation; unless we believe the driver was 100% at fault. Then we don’t have to wait for the investigation.
Everybody says a driver must not be distracted. Yet, every driver is distracted to some extent every foot of the way they travel. So distraction is not a black and white issue of either being distracted or not being distracted.
So the traffic authorities try to mitigate the abrupt life or death situations with warning. They construct the warning to give more than what is needed in order to allow for some degree of distraction. You mention the RXR painted on the road ahead of the crossing. No doubt, there are also advance-warning signs. I am only asking if more warning would have been prudent, or would have prevented the crash.
Yet some are incredulous that I am suggesting an extended warning. They insist that no extra warning was necessary and that the driver had all the warning he needed. But consider this: The warning begins with the primary warning of the crossing signals and gates. Why should there be any more warning than that? If that were all the warning there was, for example, and I suggested painting RXR on the road, would forum members insist that that was not necessary? I think they would.
Grade crossing accidents are actually rather rare occurances; at least statistically speaking. Consider how many cars cross RR tracks every day and how often there is an accident. Those statistics just don't take into account the probabilities of a train and a road vehicle being at the crossing at the same time. I think it rather obvious that if there were no warning systems anywhere, there would be more accidents than there are now, but I cannot estimate how many more or how it would change the percentage of road vehicles crossing a RR track vs accidents.
Considering that there are warning signs and lights (which as has been pointed out, were working in this accident we are discussing) then I don't see holding Nevada as being "at fault" about it. They have met the requirements that in general we as a society have deemed reasonable and proper. Barring other factors, the "fault" seems to fall on the driver, but of course we won't know the truth of it until the final report is issued (even if it might or might not be the actual truth, being based just on the conjecture of the investigators).
But the question in this particular thread is whether we as a society should re-evaluate the status quo of requirements and provide improved warnings in order to save lives and property.
It might be argued that there are hundreds of grade crossings that are similar to this one where no accidents have ever occurred and thus the conclusion is that the present warning system is adequate, but I would counter that this particular crossing may have been accident free up to this point too, but the warning system MAY not have been inadequate to the circumstances... and those same circumstances exist at all those other hundreds of grade crossings too, and so they constitute a possible site of an accident of similar nature at any time. Just because there have been no accidents yet does not mean there never will be.
There is technology in use in other similar situations that might be applied to grade crossing signalization that could help... my thoughts are to the use of flashing lights on high-speed roadways that warn of a stop lighted intersection ahead and the lights start fiashing prior to the stop light starting to change, thus giving warning to the driver that by the time they get to the intersection the light will have turned red and they must stop. Of course that assumes the driver is paying attention and truely understand the purpose of the lights; something I have noticed not all drivers really do understand.
This is not unlike the RR signalization where one signal indicates something like "It is okay to pass this signal but be prepared to stop at the next one."
It may be a bit more difficult to activate a more distant signal on the highway because of an approaching train and of course it will be a more expensive installation than the present system.
It all depends on what the actual cost is and what we as a society decide is worth protecting for rare occurances.
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
Let's face it. Most accidents (look at airliners) are statistically rare events, but no sane person would suggest that is reason enough to stand pat and not try to find various ways to improve the odds.
There is a range of methods to protect rail-road intersection, ranging from none to crossbucks to flashing signals to gates to grade separations. The question is what level to use in what circumstances, taking into account cost to equip and the levels of traffic, speed limits, volumes of traffic, speed limits, and visibility on both the highway and railroad, and also whether or not passenger trains run on the rail line and/or buses run on the road. There may be other factors, but the key is finding the appropriate match.
I believe the reason this thread about a rail crossing accident attracts more attention is because of who needs protection. Usually it is a vehicle or pedestrian that is the "victim". in this case it was a train with many passengers on board, that was struck by a vehicle and which suffered fatalities on board, that needed the protection.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
zugmann extension cord. Really long extension cord.
What gauge?
I could see someone suggesting that the gates be down about 15 minutes before the train even gets there..then you really would see people just going around the gate even more....like that is going to help.
I've driven that stretch a few times before...it is a road that can hypnotize some people rather easily...we have a few level crossings out in the middle of nowhere here that could provide for some entertainment as well...
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
I have done a fair amount of research on grade crossing issues and also on the topic of crosswalk law, which I believe is getting people killed. There is a parallel between the two topics.
One would think that the law should be the final authority, clearly informing a driver of how to cross grade crossings and crosswalks. But I am coming around to the general conclusion expressed by members Dragoman and Falcon48.
And that conclusion is that the correct driving procedure is really defined by a combination of laws, court interpretation, organizational promotions to the public, organizational explanations of what the law means, common sense, and the general interpretation of the law by the police. The problem is that all of these sources are at least somewhat ambiguous, and in some details, they conflict with each other. Therefore, all of this together can only be averaged to arrive at a general conclusion. The fine points and technicalities are simply beyond the reach of resolution.
It is interesting to contrast this rather subjective authority that guides motorists, to the methods of train dispatching and control. The latter is not subjective at all. It is based on pure logic. There can be no overlap in meaning of the signals and the rules. Such an objective system is an incredible accomplishment. But when trains encounter grade crossings, they intersect with the subjective system of road rules.
So, it continues -- now the trucking company is sueing UP & Amtrak.
http://www.rgj.com/article/20110729/NEWS/110729047/Trucking-company-Amtrak-train-crash-countersues-Amtrak-Union-Pacific?odyssey=mod
Dragoman So, it continues -- now the trucking company is sueing UP & Amtrak. http://www.rgj.com/article/20110729/NEWS/110729047/Trucking-company-Amtrak-train-crash-countersues-Amtrak-Union-Pacific?odyssey=mod
The only winners here will be the lawyers.
Hmm, what a novel therory. A quote from the article announcing the basis for this new lawsuit against Amtrak and UP:
It [the lawsuit] said Amtrak and Union Pacific breached its duties “by allowing trains to accelerate in the approach to the grade crossing and in failing to install, program and maintain the grade crossing predictor, associated circuitry and warning device mechanisms so as to provide adequate warning to travelers on Highway 95 of the approach of trains at the crossing,” the suit says.
(My emphasis)
One would wonder if the truck also accelerated upon closing with the crossing. Hmmm....
Crandell
Bucyrus...and in failing to install, program and maintain the grade crossing predictor, associated circuitry and warning device mechanisms so as to provide adequate warning to travelers on Highway 95 of the approach of trains at the crossing,” the suit says. (My emphasis)
And if all of the warning devices that have been heretofore suggested were in place, the suit would still have read exactly the same.
The purpose of the suit is to deflect blame and to involve the deep pockets.
Nothing more, nothing less.
tree68 And if all of the warning devices that have been heretofore suggested were in place, the suit would still have read exactly the same.
Well perhaps so, but it is a prediction that is impossible to verify. And in that same vein, I predict that if the Active Advance Warning system had been applied to the crossing, the crash would have never happened.
Bucyrus, (said in part0
"...It is interesting to contrast this rather subjective authority that guides motorists, to the methods of train dispatching and control. The latter is not subjective at all. It is based on pure logic. There can be no overlap in meaning of the signals and the rules. Such an objective system is an incredible accomplishment. But when trains encounter grade crossings, they intersect with the subjective system of road rules..."
I would suggest that the whole grade crossing safety issue is one of the individual subjectively processing their own knowledge, and interpretation [ in addition, to adding their own priorities at that particular moment in time; to the process of their subjectively prioritizing their need to get across that next crossing they are approaching.] Ultimately, the whole process, regardless of what warnings are posted, crossbucks or automated warning devices, is a crap-shoot based on the individual's making a split second decision to go or stop.
One thing that has not been noted is that the decision to place a particular kind of active or in-active warning device at a highway/road crossing is one made by the political entity in which that site is located. Based on the relevant criteria. Once the decision is made the political entity must pay to have the selected devices bought and installed (usually by the host railroad or their contractor) when the installation is compete, it is then the responsibility of the host railroad to maintain that crossing and equipment in a satisfactory condition of operation.
From the practical legal standpoint, it isn't so much about deflecting blame or shifting fault per se, but setting up an argument for comparative or contributory negligence.
This is so that when the ultimate settlements are made (and it will be settled -- this will never actually go to trial), the insurance companies representing those who are found to be most at fault (as a result of the state and federal investigations) will pay less than would be the case if they just said "OK, our fault!"
So now we have another truck crossing accident with via now. This is getting old. Is it the summer heat?
Bucyrus Well perhaps so, but it is a prediction that is impossible to verify. And in that same vein, I predict that if the Active Advance Warning system had been applied to the crossing, the crash would have never happened.
Unless it somehow slaps the driver up alongside the head and shouts, "pay attention," no system is going to prevent an accident from happening if the driver is distracted, is not properly focussed on the road ahead, or is trying to beat the train.
Thus we'll always see this kind of suit - the insistance that if government had done one more thing the incident wouldn not have happened...
Bold statement when we don't even know a cause. But hey, why let facts get in the way of emotion?
tree68 Bucyrus: Well perhaps so, but it is a prediction that is impossible to verify. And in that same vein, I predict that if the Active Advance Warning system had been applied to the crossing, the crash would have never happened. Unless it somehow slaps the driver up alongside the head and shouts, "pay attention," no system is going to prevent an accident from happening if the driver is distracted, is not properly focussed on the road ahead, or is trying to beat the train. Thus we'll always see this kind of suit - the insistance that if government had done one more thing the incident wouldn not have happened...
Bucyrus: Well perhaps so, but it is a prediction that is impossible to verify. And in that same vein, I predict that if the Active Advance Warning system had been applied to the crossing, the crash would have never happened.
And by the same token ... every time there is a major rule infraction incident, either the carriers on their own or at the FRA's behest concoct and implement half a dozen additional rules on top of the rule that was actually violated. The thought being that now you have 7 rules to violate to get to the same failure; all this really does is add additional poundage to the rule book. The more 'ticky-tac' rules that get added to the rule book, the more it becomes a 'Gotcha Book' and not something to effectively operate a railroad.
There are many instances of the traffic control authorities adding more warning beyond the minimum, to a hazard just to increase the probability of attracting a driver’s attention. They don’t draw a line in the sand. It is absurd to believe that only so much warning is necessary and no additional warning will make any difference. With that reasoning, if all we had were non-signalized crossings, and someone suggested adding lights and gates, would you insist that adding lights and gates would not reduce crashes?
I think it is safe to say, statistics have show that virtually no safety improvement can eliminate all accidents, but every safety improvement eliminates some accidents. Then it comes down to a cost-benefit analysis (and/or political decision), as to what level of accident reduction is worth the cost of what level of improvement.
Everything makes a difference, but do we (as a society) think the difference is worth it?
BucyrusWith that reasoning, if all we had were non-signalized crossings, and someone suggested adding lights and gates, would you insist that adding lights and gates would not reduce crashes?
As Dragoman points out - it's all a matter of return on investment.
If the crossing in question has had numerous incidents, then adding additional protection makes plenty of sense.
On the other hand, if the crossing has had no incidents for years, then the ROI on adding more protection is near zero - and the community will probably not support the cost.
The village where I lived in MI has three crossings, all fairly busy. They didn't have gates 40 years ago, and they don't have gates today. The last incident I'm aware of involved an auto carrier and a high crowned crossing (now closed) on which the trailer got hung up. The incident had nothing to do with the warning mechanisms and everything to do with driver error - he should have realized that with his long wheelbase trailer he wouldn't be able to get over the crossing.
Before anyone can decide that any given crossing needs more/better protection, they have to look at the history of the crossing. Zero incidents would tend to indicate little need for improvements.
blue streak 1 So now we have another truck crossing accident with via now. This is getting old. Is it the summer heat?
Happened just west of Glencoe ON....Police couldn’t confirm how the collision occurred, but passengers in the rear of the train and residents of a nearby house say the truck struck close to the end of the last car.
Taken from...http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/2011/07/29/18486786.html.....
Ummmm...how does one not see a train? Especially if the thing is crossing the grade?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.