Bucyrus The best way to oppose the views of the engineer is to contend that he should not have offered those views.
The best way to oppose the views of the engineer is to contend that he should not have offered those views.
Not true, but believe whatever you want.
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
Someone's come to his senses:
http://www.nevadalabor.com/unews/amtrak.html
Now , Bucyrus, I doubt that reason will matter to you but what if the state brought in a witness, an expert, a licensed PE, Civil engineering, with 25 years experience designing roads, bridges,etc. Should he be allowed to testify as to the operation of a locomotive?
tdmidget Someone's come to his senses: http://www.nevadalabor.com/unews/amtrak.html Now , Bucyrus, I doubt that reason will matter to you but what if the state brought in a witness, an expert, a licensed PE, Civil engineering, with 25 years experience designing roads, bridges,etc. Should he be allowed to testify as to the operation of a locomotive?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Dragoman 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!
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!
Doing it right would cost some money, but probably a lot less than grade separating the crossing.
The way I would do it is as follows: Approaching the crossing from the north, about put a 55 MPH turn to the right with a concrete barricade divider to protect opposing traffic, followed by a 25 MPH turn to the left with about 100 feet from the crossing. The road would cross the tracks at a right angle. Approaching from the south, straighten out the last curve before the crossing so the road runs parallel with the track and make a 25 MPH left turn to the crossing. With the sharp left turns, vehicles traveling too fast for the turn would run off the road away from opposing traffic.
"S" turns and trucks reminds of what happened a few miles south of here back in 1997. During work widening I-5 though Del Mar, CalTrans had placed a 45 MPH "S" turn in the southbound lanes. About 4AM one morning, a truck hauling cream of mushroom soup didn't slow down in time, tipped over and ended up blocking 3 of the 4 southbound lanes.
- Erik
Well looky here. The state of Nevada apparently does not follow the wisdom that says that if the authorities or the masses have not discovered a problem with a grade crossing installation, there must not be any problem with it.
As a result of the 6/24 Amtrak/truck crash, Nevada DOT is conducting a statewide study of grade crossings which host fast trains and are situated on fast highways. They are going to be looking at whether the advance warning is sufficient for grade crossings on 70 mph highways. If they find that the advance warning is insufficient, they are going to consider adding more flashing lights to extend the warning.
This article is a sort of composite of coverage of the news on this crash, so some of it is old news. However, if you go down to about the middle of the first page where it says, “4:40 pm and evening update,” there is new information on how the state of Nevada is investigating their grade crossings on high-speed roads:
http://www.rgj.com/article/20110630/NEWS/110630006/Amtrak%2Btrain%2Bcrash%2B%2BNevada%2Bcrossings%2Bto%2Bbe%2Binvestigated%2Bafter%2Breport%2Bof%2Bnear-miss%2B9%2Bmonths%2Bago
Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
Early in this or one of the other threads on the topic, I responded to a suggestion that glare might have been a problem. I can’t find that response but I know I stated something to the effect that the accident happened a very few minutes prior to local noon 4 days after the summer solstice. Therefore the sun was as high as it ever gets, 73+ degrees, eliminating almost any glare. And also eliminating any shadows, which almost don’t exist out there in the desert.
I also suggested that another kind of “glare” caused by a dirty windshield or trashy dashboard top can also obscure what should be visible, such as flashing warning lights.
And I suggested that the normal reaction to the active signals by many drivers, especially with unrestricted visibility, as to look for the train, probably by looking left first.
At that point in drafting the response, I erroneously hit Post..
My suggestion was immediately pooh-poohed as an indication of driver error and forgotten. And I let the subject drop. Now I am picking it up again.
Looking at Google Earth (39.895802 -118.752360) you can see that the highway closely parallels the track for several miles northward from Fallon. About 2 miles south of the crossing, the highway diverges to the right and then curves back left to a straight section through the 45 degree crossing and continuing to the I-80 interchange.
Zoom in closely and you can see some sort of “line” - probably the pre-I-80 highway alignment - in the desert which more closely follows the track on the south side almost all the way to Lovelock. This suggests to me that the road was rebuilt with the “bow” to the right to provide a better angle at the crossing and intercept I-80 further west.
Unfortunately, the straight run prior to the crossing is rather short. Using the Google Earth scale, it is only about 900 feet: 9 seconds at 70 mph? Gates must be fully down by 5 seconds to go and take 12 seconds to descend.
Prior to the turn to the crossing, the truck would be almost facing the train, with almost no apparent relative motion except increasing size. With a nearly 140 mph closing speed, the driver would have great difficulty estimating where he would be relative to the train at the crossing. For some portion of the highway prior to or into the final turn, the focused beam of the flashing signals would not be visible.
I don’t put a great deal of faith in the spot elevations of Google Earth but the highway seems to skirt around the shore of a perennial lake and it - the highway - might be higher than the crossing, perhaps placing the truck outside the upper edge of the focused beam of the signals as well.
It is my opinion that Nevada could have done much better, with minimal extra cost, by swinging the road further away from the track creating a crossing closer to 90 degrees with a longer straight approach and remote active flashing lights.
The North side would have had to be reworked as well: a straight shot from a 90 degree crossing to the interchange would have saved a mile of paving which would have been better used on the South side.
Humans are perverse. When something bad happens to us, we blame something or someone else. When something bad happens to someone else, we blame them. It’s called attribution error. Let’s no do that.
David K. Wheeler
Thanks for your insight on this David. I had not studied that map until reading your post, and until doing so, I was not aware of the changing road alignment approaching the crossing from the south. News coverage quoted experts saying that the signals could be seen from a half-mile minimum. So I assumed that the road runs straight to the crossing for at least a half-mile. Now I see that is not the case. The experts must have been referring to the visibility of the signals over distance, assuming no object interferes with the view. Obviously that assumption does not apply in the actual circumstances of this crossing.
It is so easy for people to beat up on the driver by concluding that a 25-second warning should be more than enough time to stop a vehicle. Yet, I don’t see how it would be possible to see the signals if you are not aligned with them. A warning does not do any good if you don’t know it is happening.
If the driver only came into alignment 900 feet from the crossing, as you say, and if the truck required 600 feet to stop, that would leave the driver with a 2.9-second warning. Considering that the consequences of not heeding the warning may be the death of the driver and many people on the train, even the possible derailment of the 79-mph train; it seems to me that a warning of only a few seconds is astoundingly inadequate.
I see that, according to Trains Newswire, the Nevada crossing in this crash has passed inspection, so any signal malfunction can be ruled out. That is a good first step in the coming official state review of this crossing to determine whether it has a fundamental design flaw in the practical amount of timed warning.
Just can't give it up,huh? Bucyrus I would bet that it is visible for one half mile. It's Nevada, remember? There is nothing out there over 4 feet tall. The driver is sitting up high and had excellent visibility. No excuse.
25 seconds isn't enough warning, according to Bucyrus. Based on what, exactly? How did you come to that conclusion? Like my old tests used to say: show all work.
And what is enough warning? 30 seconds? 40? 55?
tdmidget Just can't give it up,huh? Bucyrus I would bet that it is visible for one half mile. It's Nevada, remember? There is nothing out there over 4 feet tall. The driver is sitting up high and had excellent visibility. No excuse.
"Yes but.........."
Yeah I can't wait. Waves on the lake too high? Sailboats blocking the view?
If you had actually read the Wheeler's post, you could have seen that the problem is the road running at a considerable angle to the signal (parallel to the track) until it is only 900 feet away. Given that, the signal could be only 200 feet away and you wouldn't see it because the planes of the road and front of the signal weren't at close to right angles. But I guess your personal assumptions blind you to facts.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
I googled this road then it all came back sorry being a Double Storke Survivor will do that to you that has had to relearn alot and sacrifice parts of his LTM to lelearn alot of things. I also have had a NEAR and I mean a NEAR MISS in 1999. I was hauling Lube oils for the quarry. Was coming up to that crossing doing 65MPH and saw the gates were down. I was less than 400 feet away. I was lucky got it stopped less than 20 feet from the railheads.
What would have hitt my rig an Eastbound GM train that was pulled by 2 AC44000 and a True SD90MAC I doubt I would have survived. I needed a clean pair of Underwear and my boss had to replace a Brake drum from me breaking it from the pressure I throw at it also.
Ed, since their is a 900-1000 foot on obstructed view, what was your excuse?
Schlimm; you must be looking at a different crossing. Here it is:
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=churchill,+nv&hl=en&ll=39.89502,-118.752197&spn=0.005416,0.009398&sll=37.50798,-117.124885&sspn=5.733423,9.624023&t=h&
The RXR on the pavement is 500 feet from the crossing. There is at least 1000 feet unobstructed view.
d: maybe you should write a letter to the NTSB about your experience?
zugmann 25 seconds isn't enough warning, according to Bucyrus. Based on what, exactly? How did you come to that conclusion? Like my old tests used to say: show all work. And what is enough warning? 30 seconds? 40? 55?
At 70 mph, average largest empty truck rig requires 600 ft to stop. Driver rounds curve and sees crossing lights flashing 900 ft. away. 900 ft. minus 600 ft. = 300 ft. of warning. 300 ft. at 70 mph = 2.9 seconds of warning.
Bucyrus300 ft. at 70 mph = 2.9 seconds of warning.
Or double the reaction time given in the link I posted earlier, assuming a driver is paying attention to the road ahead.
Even if a driver didn't react until the 600 foot mark, the speed of the truck would certainly have been reduced by the time it reached the point of impact to the extent that it would not cause the damage seen in this incident.
And given the driver's reported behavior just prior to the collision (ie, did not see and react as the drivers behind him did), just how likely is it he would have seen "active" warning?
If you're rumaging through your lunch bucket or typing out a text, that marching band still isn't going to make any difference.
Given that the idea of more extensive active warning had been brought up even before this incident, I can see where it provides an attentive driver with just that much more notice of the impending crossing.
But that does nothing for the driver who isn't paying attention, or even finds the earlier warning a challenge to be overcome.
Flashing lights, gates, rumble strips, you-name-it, mean nothing if the drivers ignore them.
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...
People keep saying "Nothing will help an unattentive driver."
But come on, now. Attention is not black-and-white, all-or-nothing. Rumble strips will certainly get the attention of even the unattentive driver rummaging through the lunch box, in part because it both makes noise and creates vibration.
We may never know what, if anything, might have helped this particular driver avoid this accident. But these repeated arguments that "if you're paying attention, you're fine, and if you're not, you're done for", are just disingenuous. By that thinking, plain old crossbucks are all you'll ever need. For drivers paying attention, it's enough -- for those not paying attention, nothing is enough.
Is that what we're saying? Honestly?
Larry,
I see Dragoman has just posted much of what I was writing in response to your post. I think he summed it up extremely well. I will go ahead and post my reply even though some of it repeats what Dragoman said:
Your comment seems to assume that paying attention is a matter of either continuously paying attention perfectly, or continuously not paying attention at all. And if it is the latter, then yes I agree that no amount of warning will be enough.
But I don’t believe your scenario of prolonged, continuous, 100% lack of attention is a realistic example of something that actually occurs. It appears that you are using it just to make your case that no extra warning is needed. As I mentioned earlier, a driver has got to pay a fair amount of attention just to keep the vehicle on the road.
And also, as I mentioned earlier, no driver ever is paying perfect attention to everything all the time. It is impossible to do that, so drivers must shift their attention around so that every relevant feature in their sphere of attention gets some attention every so often. In that context of paying attention, it seems to me that a 3-second warning for fatal hazard is way too little.
But I do agree that 3 seconds would be enough warning if a driver happened to have his or her attention in the right place when the 3 seconds began. And the driver in this crash did not. But my point is not necessarily to vindicate the driver in this crash, but more to focus on the safety of the crossing in general as it pertains to future drivers.
The Amtrak engineer in this crash makes the same point. And now the Nevada DOT is considering that same point as well. I am convinced that they will add more active warning to this crossing after they consider the problem.
Not only that, but I want to get the attention of the inattentive driver!
This is for MY safety! Not just an attempt to save the inattentive driver.
Some may say that if the driver kills himself because he is a poor driver (even he was inattentive just for a moment) that it is "just desserts" for that moment of inattentiveness. Not only is that a harsh judgement, but there are others that may be quite innocent of any infraction of attentiveness but get hurt as a result of the "just desserts" being dispensed.
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
Here is a Blog with Pics that shows what the Driver sees at Various Distances on that Same Crossing on RT 75. Now you can SEE WHY I am most ran INTO a train even with over 1,000,000 miles driven. You tell me given the time and haze of the pics what your going to see at those Distances. NOTHING. http://misterhippity.tumblr.com/post/6946429634/ive-been-using-google-street-view-to-conduct-my
Without the crossing lights flashing I agree....With the crossing lights flashing I don't.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
edbenton . http://misterhippity.tumblr.com/post/6946429634/ive-been-using-google-street-view-to-conduct-my
. http://misterhippity.tumblr.com/post/6946429634/ive-been-using-google-street-view-to-conduct-my
ed: That is a good example of the road. I expect that if you had been driving a double you would have hit the train. The extra .75 seconds for the second trailer to apply its brakes would have been too much time.
Now addressing what is needed in order.
1. a rumble strip to get all driver's attention.
2. rr crossing painted on road.
3. another rumble strip along with a speed limit sign of say 45 mph
4. Flashing rr crossing ahead sign activated ahead of regular warning lights [ say 45 seconds].
5. brighter and larger flashing rr warning lights
BaltACD Without the crossing lights flashing I agree....With the crossing lights flashing I don't.
Given the quality of the photos - even on the close up of the crossing isn't all that clear. I suspect the crossing equipment would be perfectly clear at 900 feet if you were actually standing there (or driving down the road).
The point on the rumble strips is that they only work if someone heeds them, just like the lights. If you're trying to beat the train, you'll ignore the lights and curse the rumble strips because they bounce your vehicle around, potentially slowing it down.
I guess my thought is that additional warning equipment can't hurt. As I said in an earlier post, there are places that use the concept on the highway, as pre-warning for out-of-view stoplights.
However, it's my belief that this is (despite claims to the contrary) a rather one-off event. Until we hear something definitive from the investigation, I stand by my conclusion that the incident was the result of some manner of negligence on the part of the driver involved.
One thing I would like to add. Please put your local RR's safety phone number into your cell phone and report any issues you might see while driving. My local RR is CSX and their number is:
Report a Railroad Emergency: 1-800-232-0144
Sorry for not getting back to sooner TDM. Did you get the answer to your question? Those crossing signals are not beacons sending light in all directions. They are directionally aimed beams of light. The light goes straight and the road does not.
The road is straight for 1000 feet before the crossing. The terrain is as flat as a pool table. A train it self would have been visible further than that. He had warning signs at 900 and 650 feet. No excuse.
You seem to have a zero-tolerance policy.
Pretty much so. How many people do you allow to be killed before you expect responsibility to be assumed?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.