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.
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.
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
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."
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
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
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
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?
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
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.
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.
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...
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
zugmann Bucyrus:Furthermore, the authorities who run that road have the better mousetrap in their inventory. And it is specifcally intended for grade crossings on relatively fast highways. But do they have the funds? And are there better uses for those funds?
Bucyrus:Furthermore, the authorities who run that road have the better mousetrap in their inventory. And it is specifcally intended for grade crossings on relatively fast highways. But do they have the funds? And are there better uses for those funds?
But do they have the funds? And are there better uses for those funds?
Well money is always an issue, and if they had enough, they would signalize every crossing. And if they had even more, they would grade separate all crossings. But what I am talking about is relatively small potatoes in the spending scheme of things.
But they are responsible for public safety, and I don't believe that a lack of funding is a legitimate reason to forego an obvious safety need. If a bridge needs to be inspected for safety, they don't have the option of declining the responsibilty simply because they don't want to spend the money. If they don't have the money, they need to close the bridge.
Bucyrus Furthermore, the authorities who run that road have the better mousetrap in their inventory. And it is specifcally intended for grade crossings on relatively fast highways.
Furthermore, the authorities who run that road have the better mousetrap in their inventory. And it is specifcally intended for grade crossings on relatively fast highways.
zugmann Safety improvements cost money. Lots and lots of money. You will go broke trying to build the perfect mousetrap. I will say again: the following two trucks apparently saw the gates and safely came to a stop. Would an extra set of flashing lights made a difference?
Safety improvements cost money. Lots and lots of money. You will go broke trying to build the perfect mousetrap.
I will say again: the following two trucks apparently saw the gates and safely came to a stop. Would an extra set of flashing lights made a difference?
I don't know if the extended advance warning would have made any difference. If the driver was trying to beat the train, but aborted the attempt when he saw he could not make it, then the advance warning would not have had any effect. But if the driver simply lost 10-15 seconds of the 25-second warning due to inattention, then I would say there is a very high probability that the extented advance warning would have prevented the crash. The mousetrap does not need to be perfect, but it can be improved.
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. There used to be a toll plaza on the Tri-State, back when the tolls were 30c, that had pavement that rocked a car moving too fast (you'd notice it no matter what...bad shocks might create interesting effects); I think it was northbound beyond O'Hare. Just had another thought...what would have happened had there been other cars stopped at the crossing for this train? I really think that the driver knew that he had a clear route to the crossing and was hoping to get across.
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. There used to be a toll plaza on the Tri-State, back when the tolls were 30c, that had pavement that rocked a car moving too fast (you'd notice it no matter what...bad shocks might create interesting effects); I think it was northbound beyond O'Hare.
Just had another thought...what would have happened had there been other cars stopped at the crossing for this train? I really think that the driver knew that he had a clear route to the crossing and was hoping to get across.
On the Northwest Tollway (I 90) about 8 years ago, at one of the toll booths (Marengo Plaza) before they had I-Pass lanes, a tour bus with 20 women stopped in line to pay the toll. They got rammed by, you guessed it, another truck driver barreling along, who failed to slow. It ended up being a 5 vehicle crash in which at least 8 were killed. No signs or anything else could have prevented this one, but grade crossings are another story.
Bucyrus Why on earth would anybody object to this added safety measure? The need is obvious, and the state should have recognized it. It’s not like they don’t spend time studying these things. They can tell you all about how your seatbelt keeps you safe. They can slow you down to 30-40 mph for every little one-horse town along the highway.
Why on earth would anybody object to this added safety measure? The need is obvious, and the state should have recognized it. It’s not like they don’t spend time studying these things. They can tell you all about how your seatbelt keeps you safe. They can slow you down to 30-40 mph for every little one-horse town along the highway.
Every time there is an accident, someone gives this rallying cry. Is the need obvious? One truck hit a train. How many vehicles and trains use that crossing a day? A year? What is the rate of collisions?
I need to say that I don’t know what advanced warning this Nevada crossing has. The standard minimum advance warning is the round RXR sign. If they had a more elaborate advance warning than that, I might adjust my opinion regarding Nevada’s negligence.
We don’t know why the driver failed to yield. Assuming that it was not a medical problem, I can think of two possible reasons:
1) He was distracted from immediately recognizing the activated crossing signals.
2) He tried to beat the train, but when he realized he would lose, it was too late to stop.
If it were suicide, he would not have slammed on the brakes. Obviously he did not want to hit the train. But he did overrun his stopping distance.
I believe that the high speed limit and the probable frequency of exceeding that speed limit simply calls for extending the warning further out from the crossing. This does not have to be anything too clever. Why on earth would anybody object to this added safety measure? The need is obvious, and the state should have recognized it. It’s not like they don’t spend time studying these things. They can tell you all about how your seatbelt keeps you safe. They can slow you down to 30-40 mph for every little one-horse town along the highway.
With this Nevada crossing, they could use prominent signage coupled with yellow flashing lights to lower the speed limit to 45 mph about ½ to ¾ miles in advance of the crossing. They could put up a “Look For Trains” sign as well. It would extend the reaction time window and also raise awareness of the crossing peril.
Another approach would be to use an advance extension of the grade crossing signals, so when they activate; it also activates advance yellow flashing lights that are associated with signage identifying those lights with an activated grade crossing ahead. This is not rocket science. The highway design manuals offer these very provisions as options for advanced warning at grade crossings.
Over on another thread devoted to this wreck, there was a table showing how many hundreds of feet a driver would need to stop a truck like this from various speeds. It would be a fairly simple matter to erect an electric sign (solar-powered...don't tell me they couldn't make that work out there!) a quarter-mile or more from the track, saying something like "Railroad Crossing Ahead--Prepare to stop when lights flash". This would be tied in with the grade crossing signals themselves--someone traveling the speed limit would not encounter false alarms. Accompany the flashing lights and signs with rumble strips to get the drivers' attention.
Then have your prescribed yellow circular sign (perhaps enlarged from what's normally seen) at the usual distance, accompanied by rumble strips again, and the pavement markings mentioned above. Then more rumble strips.
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)
john_edwards If I drove my car into the side of a train wouldn't I be the idiot? Of course, trains are big and heavy, my car is little and small. Physics don't care, its always big over small, heavy over light. And don't forget gravity. Driving your vehicle into trains is just not a good idea. I'll grant that we may never know the "official" reason he didn't slow/stop/see the train/crossing lights/whatever. Perhaps he thought he could beat it to the crossing, many try, some die. John
If I drove my car into the side of a train wouldn't I be the idiot? Of course, trains are big and heavy, my car is little and small. Physics don't care, its always big over small, heavy over light. And don't forget gravity. Driving your vehicle into trains is just not a good idea.
I'll grant that we may never know the "official" reason he didn't slow/stop/see the train/crossing lights/whatever. Perhaps he thought he could beat it to the crossing, many try, some die.
John
If your car suffered some mechanical issue that prevented you from avoiding the collision, then no, I wouldn't consider you an idiot.
The guy is dead. At least let the investigation close before insulting him.
Bucyrus I am not excusing the driver in this case, but I think the state bears some of the blame for allowing an established and known traffic hazard to routinely threaten the safety of densely packed people riding on passenger trains. It is lucky that so few were killed in this crash. The crash dynamics could have easily killed 100 people or more.
I am not excusing the driver in this case, but I think the state bears some of the blame for allowing an established and known traffic hazard to routinely threaten the safety of densely packed people riding on passenger trains. It is lucky that so few were killed in this crash. The crash dynamics could have easily killed 100 people or more.
What traffic hazard? There were gates, lights, probably advanced warning signs. The other trucks were able to safely come to a stop. We cannot make our roads absolutely, 100% accident free, try as we might. Human life has a price in the name of what safety improvements are made. It's not a nice thought - but it is the truth.
There has to be some personal responsibility given to the operators of motor vehicles. Driving vehicles is a big responsibility. That truck operator could have veered across the center line and hit a passing bus and killed more than 6 people. You can't eliminate all risks. And you will go broke trying.
schlimm Bucyrus: Much of what you say about crossings and speed limits, although true in the East and some of the Midwest, does not apply out West. If you want to make rails with passenger trains running at 60-90 mph safe from cars and trucks, we need to begin a program of systematically eliminating low volume crossings and grade separating the rest. It will take time and money, but there really isn't any workable alternative.
Bucyrus: Much of what you say about crossings and speed limits, although true in the East and some of the Midwest, does not apply out West. If you want to make rails with passenger trains running at 60-90 mph safe from cars and trucks, we need to begin a program of systematically eliminating low volume crossings and grade separating the rest. It will take time and money, but there really isn't any workable alternative.
Schlimm,
Eliminating crossings is surely the best way to eliminate the hazard for both vehicles and trains, but there are other less costly measures that could at least improve safety if not completely eliminate the hazard.
In blaming the truck driver, I notice a tendency to want to assume that the driver was completely incorrigible, and therefore he would not have heeded any form of safety restriction such as lowering the speed limit over the crossing. But that may or may not be true. One thing is for sure. The driver was not heedless once he saw the train.
The common sentiment among forum members is that drivers are so stupid and heedless that nothing will get them to yield at crossings. But this sweeping generalization gets in the way of finding better safety measures.
john_edwards Perhaps Bucyrus is a lawyer looking for someone to sue. The driver was an idiot. Its unfortunate for the other folks on the train who paid the real price of his stupidity. John
Perhaps Bucyrus is a lawyer looking for someone to sue. The driver was an idiot. Its unfortunate for the other folks on the train who paid the real price of his stupidity.
So I guess we aren't going to wait until an official cause is released before we condemn the deceased?
Classy.
A news story on CNN indicated that there were three trucks running in a convoy (possibly racing) and that the drivers of the other two saw the train from quite a distance away and slowed down. They also said the signals and gates were working properly.
selector How about a series of signs, say a minimum of two. The first warns of an upcoming crossing, and maybe 100 yards further, the second would ask, 'Do ya feel lucky, huh?" Then, for icing, about 100 yards past that, a big screen would replay endless loops of video showing crossing collisions. Maybe that would work? Crandell
How about a series of signs, say a minimum of two. The first warns of an upcoming crossing, and maybe 100 yards further, the second would ask, 'Do ya feel lucky, huh?" Then, for icing, about 100 yards past that, a big screen would replay endless loops of video showing crossing collisions.
Maybe that would work?
Crandell
These could be put in for a fraction of the cost of more traditional protection. One great advantage is that they would be almost zero maintenance, would not rely on electronics, and would work in any weather.
Once one of these concrete cowboys get their head bounced off the ceiling of their rig, I'd bet they'd slow down next time.
Bucyrus:
Are you serious? Did you see the photographs of that crossing. Even if the speed limit was 100 mph and there was NO crossing protection, a person with his eyes open would have been able to see that train in time to stop.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
wholemanWhere I live there is a standard for signage at rail crossings. I don't know if it is a Kansas law or something different. If I remember the rule correctly, there is a simple sign 500 feet from the crossing in each direction of the highway. At about 100 to 150 feet from the crossing on both sides there are pavement markings on each lane in each direction that look like this: RXR There is usually a shoulder on a two lane highway for vehicles who are required to stop at all rail crossings to drive onto so other vehicles may safely pass them.
RXR
There is usually a shoulder on a two lane highway for vehicles who are required to stop at all rail crossings to drive onto so other vehicles may safely pass them.
The crossing is also equipped with gates, also seen in video and still images from the scene.
The resolution of the satellite image is not such that one can determine conclusively if there are roadside signs a distance out from the crossing, but I have no doubt that there are.
selector How about a series of signs, say a minimum of two. The first warns of an upcoming crossing, and maybe 100 yards further, the second would ask, 'Do ya feel lucky, huh?" Then, for icing, about 100 yards past that, a big screen would replay endless loops of video showing crossing collisions. Maybe that would work? (Yes, a bit facetious, but....what else is there to do other than a warning sign that a crossing is coming, and maybe a mandated speed zone/reduction to 30 MPH within 100 yards of the crossing?) Even so, it is like gun control laws....the bad guys don't read, apparently. Crandell
(Yes, a bit facetious, but....what else is there to do other than a warning sign that a crossing is coming, and maybe a mandated speed zone/reduction to 30 MPH within 100 yards of the crossing?)
Even so, it is like gun control laws....the bad guys don't read, apparently.
Crandell,
Where I live there is a standard for signage at rail crossings. I don't know if it is a Kansas law or something different. If I remember the rule correctly, there is a simple sign 500 feet from the crossing in each direction of the highway. At about 100 to 150 feet from the crossing on both sides there are pavement markings on each lane in each direction that look like this:
Will
70 MPH is nothing Unusual for a Western Road remember this NEveda is over 400 Miles Across East to West on I-80 and over 400 Miles North to South. The drivers out there are used to driving at 70 MPH on those roads. Also people need to remember this about the collision we still have no clue about what caused the Driver to hit the train yet. Plus he was a local driver and they get to be Drivers of Habit and not expect trains at certain times when htey are on time. The CZ was running 5 hours late and according to the Drivers brain was not supposed to be there.
Closing off some of those roads in Nevada would result in causing 20-30 mile in extra length in runs each way for School Busses heck anyone that drives. Just because you think a road is not needed 2000 miles away and are monday morning Quarterbacking like no tomorrow. The locals on the scene are the ones that would know what roads are needed.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.