tree68 erikem: A couple of things. One is that there is no indication that the crossing signals in Nevada case were malfunctioning. Two is that the driver did have recent driving infractions. And a third - two other drivers running in convoy with the driver in question were able to properly respond to all visual clues and slow down/stop, avoiding a collision.
erikem: A couple of things. One is that there is no indication that the crossing signals in Nevada case were malfunctioning. Two is that the driver did have recent driving infractions.
And a third - two other drivers running in convoy with the driver in question were able to properly respond to all visual clues and slow down/stop, avoiding a collision.
But the other truck drivers were not abreast of each other and the driver that hit the train. They were farther away and had the advantage of seeing the lead truck in emergency braking (320 ft of skid marks!). At present we don't know how far behind they were. By their reports, they were close enough to see the accident, but just how close is not known.
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
This is from someone that has travelled in a convoy to deliver a load before. The First thing you do when the Lead hits his brakes is STAND ON YOURS no questions asked since your not going to risk plowing into the back of the rig in front of you. 2nd The 320 feet of Skid maks blows that the 300 ft warning Distance for a Grade crossing IS PLENTY right out the WINDOW and buries it. With 320 feet of Skid marks he sure as hell was trying to stop and could not in the distance he had aviable from the time he had for Warning. IIRC from the news articcles that came out before the news media crucified the driver of the truck Amtrak has had all kinds of Near misses at theis Crossing but UP never did anything about them also. It was this company reporting them if they can prove it Look the hell out UP your screwed. Called UP was refusing to do it job to maintain a crossing. Boy were have they done that before IL I know I have read a story on that oh yeah they killed 2 teenagers by putting a shunt in a 4 bar crossing that ran in front of an Amtrak train. Then tried to cover it up.
UP is not going to end up smelling like a rose on this. Something tells me the Insurance carrier of the Trucking company is Fighting this tooth and nail. Yes this guy had a less than Perfect Driving Record however I did also when I had my Fatal Accident in 96 did not stop my boss or my Insurance carrier from defending me to the best they could. Yes we lost however when the Judge in the case won't allow the Toxicology tests from the Autopsy in on the other party that showed a BAC 3 times the legal limit your Screwed already from the begining..
Something tells me this company has maintained a record of every near miss they have had at this crossing every call to UP turned that over to their Insurance Company and they are the ones driving this Countersuit. They are the ones going You wanta play lets see what happens when all the evidence comes out.
Officials said the railroad crossing gates and warning lights were working. Witnesses told authorities that the truck didn't seem to attempt to stop at the crossing and crashed through the gate.
The truck that plowed into the train was the leader of a three-truck convoy, all from John Davies Trucking in Battle Mountain, Nev., Weener said. Visibility was excellent at the time of the accident, Weener said, and the drivers of the trailing trucks told investigators they saw the train coming and wondered why the lead driver, a man in his 40s, wasn't stopping.There was a warning signal 897 feet before the crossing, Weener said. The truck driver apparently slammed on his brakes, starting a skid mark on Highway 95 northbound that stretched 320 feet up to the tracks. … The truck could have required as much as 465 feet to stop if it was going the speed limit, according to widely used estimates. -LA Times
-LA Times
Both from the initial thread on this subject.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
tree68 Officials said the railroad crossing gates and warning lights were working. Witnesses told authorities that the truck didn't seem to attempt to stop at the crossing and crashed through the gate. There was a warning signal 897 feet before the crossing, Weener said. -LA Times Both from the initial thread on this subject.
The truck skidded 320 feet, so I don't see how witnesses could conclude that the truck did not attempt to stop.
I would like to know more about that "warning signal 897 feet before the crossing." I wonder if that is an active advance warning signal that I have advocated, or whether it is just sloppy reporting that refers to the passive RXR sign as a signal.
So. let me ask a question. Who is ultimately responsible for the warning at at a crossing? Does the responsibility fall to the railroad, the state, or others? Seems there could have been multiple failures in this case. I prefer to wait for the NTSB reoprt.. Somebody goofed,, but I don't think it was Amtrak. Remember the old saying of 'expect a train on any track at any time.
Norm
Norm,
Union Pacific RR owns the crossing installation and is responsible for the operation of the warning system. Nevada is responsible for the road and the speed limit. I will certainly be interested in seeing the final report, but as I mentioned above, I see a defect in this crossing that stands on its own, independent of the crash. So that defect may or may not have contributed to this crash.
BucyrusThe truck skidded 320 feet, so I don't see how witnesses could conclude that the truck did not attempt to stop.
I would take from that that the driver did not slow down on his approach to the crossing, as would be expected of someone who is aware that they will have to stop.
Extrapolating from theoretical travel times and factoring in the decelleration from locking up the brakes, one might conclude that he applied the brakes about 5-7 seconds before his collision with the train.
Since he hit the train several cars back from the locomotives, that means that at the point he applied the brakes the crossing protection (reported to have been working correctly) had been activated for at least 23-25 seconds, plus a little. The gates would have been down for around 15 to 20 seconds, maybe a touch more. He would have passed the pavement markings and roadside sign (which I take to be the "warning device") about 8-9 seconds before the collision. Visibility was reported to be excellent.
That puts him ~2000 feet from the crossing when the lights first started flashing. Even considering the nearly 500 feet necessary to stop the truck (per published estimates) at a rate of 100 feet per second (not considering decelleration), he still had 1500 feet (15 seconds at 70 MPH) within which to see the crossing lights and the train before he had to apply the brakes.
This still begs the question of what had his attention during the 15+ seconds during which he could have appropriately responded to the warnings that were provided.
One thing not mentioned so far is that there should be a video from the lead locomotive camera showing when the flashers and gates activated and time interval before the crossing was occupied. It may even show the truck approaching, if so it should not be too difficult to tell if the driver was exceeding his speed limit.
I believe I read somewhere that all Amtrak units are camera equipped.
Well look at this. The Amtrak engineer on the train hit by the truck says the crossing was particularly dangerous and he recommends several improvements including adding distant active advance warning lights or a speed reduction zone, two improvements which I have suggested in this thread. The engineer also says there have been many close calls reported by train crews at that crossing in recent years:
This is from Trainorders.com:
http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?1,2530346,2531142
The post with this information:
In a e-mail to friends and fellow workers, the engineer of the Amtrak train struck broadside by a tractor trailer called the site of the accident" a very dangerous crossing" and offered suggestions on how to help prevent such accidents in the future. "At the hearing, the National Transportation Safety Board inspector asked what I though could be done to have prevented this accident and what could help to avoid a similar one in the future," Amtrak engineer Ron Kaminkow wrote in the e-mail. My response: post a permanent speed zone of perhaps 40mph through the crossing, together with warning signs with flashing lights further out from the crossing. (Maybe a "rumble strip" a half mile out would help to alert motorists to the crossing). In the bright sunshine of the desert, going 70 to 80 mph down a lonely highway in the middle of nowhere, a busy railroad crossing requires more protection, more advance warning. With such provisions in place, it is far likely that such a catastrophic wreck like the one on June 24 could take place. Kamainkow said in the e-mali; that"there has been all kinds of close calls reported by train crews at the Highway 95 crossing in recent years. In fact, just nine months ago, Amtrak Train No. 5 (the same train involved in the June 24 crash) was put into emergency at this crossing by the engineer as he fully expected an imminent collision with another truck, this one headed south bound. The truck skidded, hit the guardrail and slammed into the pole that supports the overhead flashers, which the crashed into the train. Miraculously, the truck failed to hit the train and no one was hurt in this 'trail run' for what would happen just nine months later."
Well, there you go. Information we haven't had up until now, other than speculation.
I'm still not convinced on the flashing lights. A driver rummaging around his lunch pail or typing in a text would probably miss a marching band and the (name your team) cheerleaders.
Unless someone is going to regularly be there to enforce a reduced speed limit, I see limited effectiveness, and possibly more accidents as 70 MPH cruisers run up the tailpipes of 40 MPH law abiders.
With the rumble strips and some accompanying signage, I think we're on to something.
And, the suggested "S"-curve, which physically forces a slowdown (or "into the dirt"), might have some effectiveness. But, of course, it also costs more! Cost-benefit analysts, please report back to the conference room!
tree68 Well, there you go. Information we haven't had up until now, other than speculation. I'm still not convinced on the flashing lights. A driver rummaging around his lunch pail or typing in a text would probably miss a marching band and the (name your team) cheerleaders.
I am not sure what you mean by your first sentence.
But for the rest, why pick an example of something that is100% distracting to reach a general conclusion that no means of improving the chance of getting a driver’s attention will work? I agree that if a driver is reading a book, or trying to win a video game, or has his eyes closed, he or she will not likely notice warning lights. But a driver cannot possibly be at 100% distraction for very long because it takes attention just to keep the vehicle on the road.
Therefore, the most egregious examples of 100 % distraction with drivers are necessarily short in duration. And those short lapses can lead to abrupt violations such as running over a pedestrian. Whatever may have transpired as distraction in this case had to last for 15-20 seconds. So the distraction was probably something less than 100% for the most part. A cell phone conversation would amount to the kind of mid-range, prolonged distraction that could have been enough for the driver to miss the importance of the advance warning signs, and the visual cues of the lights and approaching train until it was too late to stop. And a prolonged, mid-range distraction is just the kind of distraction that advance, active warning lights could break through.
Rumble strips are attention-getters, but whether that would properly translate at a grade crossing is an open question. They are passive, so they would rumble for drivers whether a train was approaching or not. As a passive measure, they are more assertive than the advance warning signs or pavement marking. But, since they would give a strong warning regardless of whether a train was approaching, they might habituate drivers to a sense of the rumble strips crying, “Wolf!” Rumble strips are also used in other situations, so it raises the possibility of their meaning being misunderstood in grade crossing applications.
The system of active advance warning lights that I have suggested is quite intuitively an extension of the active system at the grade crossing itself. And this system is not just something that I have dreamed up as the solution. The MUTCD and related authorities have developed this active advance warning system just for grade crossings on high-speed roads.
Persistence rewarded!! Perhaps, we can hope, better safety measures can be discovered and installed at our more vulnerable crossings.
One point that often gets overlooked in this and other discussions on crossing accidents and safety is that advocates are NOT suggesting improvements for the benefit of the typical, attentive, careful driver. rather, a higher level of protection is needed FROM the less careful driver, or good drivers under adverse conditions.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
From Bucyrus' post:
"At the hearing, the National Transportation Safety Board inspector asked what I though could be done to have prevented this accident and what could help to avoid a similar one in the future," Amtrak engineer Ron Kaminkow wrote in the e-mail."
My personal opinion is that question should not have been asked. The guy is a railroad engineer - not a highway engineer. And the correct answer is "I do not know". Never pretend to be an expert.
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 think we really have two separate issues here. One is whether the crash was the driver’s fault and other is whether better warning would have prevented the crash. Notwithstanding the title of this thread, I do think the driver was at fault. The larger question is whether Nevada could have done something to make the crash less likely.
The driver did lose about 15 seconds of the active warning. However, as I have pointed out several times, when a train and a vehicle converge in a perfect collision course at that crossing, the warning begins when a driver is 3000 feet away from the active warning device. That perfect collision course probably does not happen very often, but when it does happen, I suspect that the drivers frequently lose part of the warning because initially it is so far away.
I know some have advocated grade separation ...but who gets to foot the bill?
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/
zugmann From Bucyrus' post: "At the hearing, the National Transportation Safety Board inspector asked what I though could be done to have prevented this accident and what could help to avoid a similar one in the future," Amtrak engineer Ron Kaminkow wrote in the e-mail." [Zugmann's response below to the above] My personal opinion is that question should not have been asked. The guy is a railroad engineer - not a highway engineer. And the correct answer is "I do not know". Never pretend to be an expert.
[Zugmann's response below to the above]
Zugmann,
You say that if they asked the engineer how to fix the problem, the correct answer should have been “I don’t know.” If he had an opinion, why should he have not offered it? You say, “Never pretend to be an expert.” Are you concluding that the engineer was pretending to be an expert? Are you saying that the hearing procedure was duped into believing that the engineer was an expert?
And how do you know what the engineer’s credentials are? He offered an opinion. There will be plenty of other experts to refute it if it is not credible. And besides, you don’t have to be an expert to report that there have been many other close calls at that crossing including one nine months ago where the same train nearly hit a truck that skidded up to the crossing, knocked down the signal mast, but stopped short of the train.
I think the engineer’s revelation about the close calls at that particular crossing is a real eye-opener; especially so, considering that I have been told more than once, that there can’t be a problem because if there were really a problem with the crossing, there would be a history of incidents indicating the problem.
I'm just passing advice that I have been given by old railroaders. When involved in something like this, you do not run your mouth about your opinion on what should be or shouldn't be. In an incident like this where lawsuits are flying around like candy at a parade, you keep your mouth shut and stick to the facts.
I think it's wise advice.
Yes, I can understand that point, but that is not the point that I thought you were making in your original comment. You said the guy is a railroad engineer, not a highway engineer, and seemed therefore to conclude that the guy was not an expert on the subject of highway safety measures. I interpreted that to mean that that disqualified the validity of what he said about improving the crossing.
Whether or not he should have said it, considering its effect on the pending legal proceedings, is another matter, and I can certainly see your point about the advisability of holding back and only answering the questions that he was legally compelled to answer. I did wonder about that myself when I read how far he went in offering his opinion. Apparently, he made those comments in a hearing by the NTSB, and I have no idea what sort of legal process prevails in such a hearing. I also wondered how his comments made their way onto Trainorder.com.
I have since learned that he has gone public with his views on the matter. On 7/2, he posted those comments in a blog on a website called Labor Notes. This is here:
http://labornotes.org/blogs/2011/07/engineer-truck-train-collision-raises-fundamental-safety-questions
Apparently, in the context of the relationship of the railroad industry and the unions, he is willing to take an adversarial position and criticize the industry over safety issues.
Bucyrus Apparently, in the context of the relationship of the railroad industry and the unions, he is willing to take an adversarial position and criticize the industry over safety issues.
It's still a stupid thing to do. Very stupid.
That's all I will say about that.
But is that not the role of unions? That is, to fight the industry for improvements in working conditions? If I understand it, the Amtrak engineer, Ron Kaminkow is a representative of the union.
Bucyrus Zugmann, But is that not the role of unions? That is, to fight the industry for improvements in working conditions? If I understand it, the Amtrak engineer, Ron Kaminkow is a representative of the union.
You're missing the point. I have said my peace, and will leave it at that.
My insurance company gives me a proof of insurance card for our vehicles. On the back are directions about what to do if you are in an accident. One of those things, is basically "don't talk to anybody about the accident, except law enforcement officers..." That probably has to do with attorneys and lawsuits. Maybe they're on to something.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
zugmann Bucyrus: Zugmann, But is that not the role of unions? That is, to fight the industry for improvements in working conditions? If I understand it, the Amtrak engineer, Ron Kaminkow is a representative of the union. You're missing the point. I have said my peace, and will leave it at that.
Bucyrus: Zugmann, But is that not the role of unions? That is, to fight the industry for improvements in working conditions? If I understand it, the Amtrak engineer, Ron Kaminkow is a representative of the union.
Okay. But I guess I will have to miss your point if you don’t tell me what your point is. It is interesting that one person on the Trainorders thread made the same comment as yours, in that Mr. Kaminkow is a locomotive engineer, and not a highway engineer. He therefore concluded that Mr. Kaminkow’s comments could not be considered to be an expert opinion. But, I believe his point was that Mr. Kaminkow’s comments, although perhaps true, could not be given standing in the NTSB hearing because the comments could not be considered to be an expert opinion. Actually, maybe that was your point too. I guess we will never know.
In any case, it is all beside my point, which is the merit of what Mr. Kaminkow said, as opposed to any contention that he should not have said it (if in fact that was ever contended by anybody or might be in the future).
How in heck are you going to talk with anyone if you get killed in the crash?
Talk about voices from beyond. They don't carry weight in court.
I'm not into speculation, but I think the truck driver will be found at fault when this case hits the courts.
Also, don't give LEO's any more information than your name and Dl number.
Double post. See below.
Be Governed accordingly.
Bucyrus Okay. But I guess I will have to miss your point if you don’t tell me what your point is. It is interesting that one person on the Trainorders thread made the same comment as yours, in that Mr. Kaminkow is a locomotive engineer, and not a highway engineer. He therefore concluded that Mr. Kaminkow’s comments could not be considered to be an expert opinion. But, I believe his point was that Mr. Kaminkow’s comments, although perhaps true, could not be given standing in the NTSB hearing because the comments could not be considered to be an expert opinion. Actually, maybe that was your point too. I guess we will never know. In any case, it is all beside my point, which is the merit of what Mr. Kaminkow said, as opposed to any contention that he should not have said it (if in fact that was ever contended by anybody or might be in the future).
It'll be one of life's mysteries, Bucyrus. I'm done commenting on it except for the following: be careful what you talk about in public.
If you read any FRA or NTSB reports you will see that the investigators ask everybody and anybody for their opinions of the event. Great insight can come from the witnesses whether they are an expert on their own comment or not.
..just because they ask for your opinion...
Norm48327 How in heck are you going to talk with anyone if you get killed in the crash? Talk about voices from beyond. They don't carry weight in court. I'm not into speculation, but I think the truck driver will be found at fault when this case hits the courts. Also, don't give LEO's any more information than your name and Dl number.
Nobody has suggested that the dead victims of the crash remain silent for legal purposes. We are talking about the engineer of the Amtrak train in this crash talking about how he feels the crossing is particularly unsafe, and his recommendation of installing the same safety improvements that I have advocated in this thread. Ron Kaminkow, the Amtrak engineer has made those comments here:
The engineer agrees with me on this. Many here don’t, so they need to oppose the views of the engineer in order to remain consistent. The best way to oppose the views of the engineer is to contend that he should not have offered those views.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.