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.
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.........."
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?
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
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.
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
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
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Norm,
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:
http://labornotes.org/blogs/2011/07/engineer-truck-train-collision-raises-fundamental-safety-questions
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.
..just because they ask for your opinion...
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.
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
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).
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.
Double post. See below.
Be Governed accordingly.
Norm
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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 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/
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.
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
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.
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.