Ed,
Having driven double bottom gravel trains during the sixties (11 axles with semi and pup). I can attest to the difference in braking performance between loads and and empty.s. Loads seemed to be easier to stop due to better traction between the tires and the load.and empties. Three hundred foot skid marks suggest the truck was empty. and going too fast.
It will be very interesting to read the NTSB's final report.
Norm
Getting back on the Topic at hand remember this Yes Davis has to give UP and Amtrak access to a Typical Truck from the Fleet you can almost bet that Davis is going to go over it with a comb to make sure everything is Perfect on it to show what the Brakes should be like on the truck. Also if they are smart they will have another one do a Demo if this gets up to Trial that shows the Braking Distance for an Empty for the Jury with the Standard Markings from RT 95 on the road and a copy of how the road is laid out say on a parking lot or in a empty Quarry someplace and show the Jury how far it TAKES to stop one of these combos to go even if he saw the Lights at the Spot he was supposed to he could NOT HAVE STOPPED. Boy that would take the Wind out of the UP and Amtraks case.
The discussion has occasionally gone a little bit off on a tangent, but we have for the most part been "Playing Nicely" without too many rude comments and personal attacks. We have pretty well avoid Politics, Religion , Abortion and Graffitti. A few have told some stories that some have found interesting, so far everyone seems to be having a Good time.
Has that serious an infraction been commited??
I hadn't been very active on the Kalmbach forums for awhile, now I remember why.
Doug
May your flanges always stay BETWEEN the rails
As for my post it did fit some of what was being discussed...I was talking about how we can actually not notice things...
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/
Is this category of topic one that should not be discussed on this forum? I am beginning to wonder if edgy topics such as grade crossing accidents, train wrecks, and other controversial topics are not wanted by the moderators or the editorial staff. I can understand that there are some off topic posts here, but we have threads that are all off topic, so why should a few off topic posts matter in a thread where all the other rules are being followed?
This thread is drifting
I think it is about time to move on.
Ed's Philly story - I believe it ! (My cousin used to do a lot of locksmithing in South Phila., and after any mob 'hit' there was usually a rush of key changes, etc.) Once I hired off-duty cops to provide overnight security for our on-track and other expensive equipment near the PHL airport.. In 2 or 3 weeks they made something like 40 arrests of trespassers and traffic violators (plus many warnings), and there was at least one they wanted real bad - chased him about 5 miles south down I-95 before stopping him at the PA Rt. 420 interchange. Then there was the stolen tool truck and air compressor . . .
- Paul North.
Damnn, Ed You get all the FUN, 24 years and over 2 Million miles, I've never had a cop tell me to run over a Caddy, or I get a ticket and my truck impounded, you must buy them boys in blue Lots of Coffee and doughnuts.
But, But Boss the Officer TOLD ME to run it over, What was I SUPPOSED to do??? Man I would love to say that JUST ONCE!
With all the things that I have seen and heard in all those years and miles, almost NOTHING surpizes me any more, I can actually believe that happened.
About the Worse thing I ever did was Crush that Guys Caddy in Philly but he was parked in a No Parking Zone the Philly PD said either YOU RUN IT OVER or I will give YOU THE TICKET for Obstructing Traffic and then have YOUR Rig Towed. So I grabbed a Granny and Splat went that Brand New Eldorado. Then the Owner came out of the house he was in madder than hell. Then he saw the Cops and his color Drained out of his face why wanted in Philly and the Big Apple on a total of 3 counts of Murder of a Police officer IIRC and Drug Traffic offenses in Philly. Needless to say he was Stuffed into a car real fast.
Getting back to the To the Crossing for this accident when I had to basically say my Hail Mary to AVOID the train throw out an Anchor and dang near Dyanmite the Brakes to the Drums to stop her I had just gotten up from a 12 Hour Sleeper Berth Break and had not had to push hard for 2 days. So Lack of Sleep was NOT an ISSUE for me.
blownout cylinder I remember one morning going through one of our major intersections and feeling the truck I was in start to feel woobly...after I got through said intersection I looked and did behold a wondrous sight...a geyser from a burst water main shooting about 40 feet into the air.... While I was driving to the intersection there was no sign of trouble....
I remember one morning going through one of our major intersections and feeling the truck I was in start to feel woobly...after I got through said intersection I looked and did behold a wondrous sight...a geyser from a burst water main shooting about 40 feet into the air....
While I was driving to the intersection there was no sign of trouble....
Blownout Cylinder:
Seems like this is getting "Off the Reservation!" But in a spirit of Cooperation. I can't speak to what happened, specifically, to the fire hydrant, mentioned in your description of the fountain created along your route to work. My educated guess is it was created bya random act of automotive violence, possibly, road rage enactd on the offending hydrant(?). You did not mention it was located on a street corner, but had it been and there were trailer trucks there, it (the Hydrant) might have been the victim of a turn cut too short ( sometimes, called 'bridging').. 'Bridging' is a very effective method for removing offending obstacles located right on street corners.corners. My personal experience with this effect was in about 1970/71(?) when negotiating a corner in Downtown Memphis, my spotter told me I was clear and pull ahead. The victims were a couple of newspaper vending boxes and a Fire Dept call box. The first clue of anything amiss was the intersection I was partially occupying with the rear of the trailer, (the tractor being in mid block). It is actually amazing the compression that can be caused when applying 45 or 50 tons to an object.
Then there is the time the lights went out in Coraopolis, Pa... But I digress.
Bothtales are a tribute to the old saying that "[Stuff] Happens!" and when you are new and young while learning a job. The potential for [stuff] happening goes up exponentially, when multiplied by the factor of individual's fatigue.
Situational awareness.......
suv goes airborne road buckles 124323974.html
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Bucyrus tdmidget: Bucyrus, it is you who seem to think that a driver should be oblivious to his surrounding unless there is a sign or gaggle of flashing lights . A driver does not drive in a bubble ignoring everything outside it. I have not said that or implied it.
tdmidget: Bucyrus, it is you who seem to think that a driver should be oblivious to his surrounding unless there is a sign or gaggle of flashing lights . A driver does not drive in a bubble ignoring everything outside it.
Bucyrus, it is you who seem to think that a driver should be oblivious to his surrounding unless there is a sign or gaggle of flashing lights . A driver does not drive in a bubble ignoring everything outside it.
I have not said that or implied it.
Excuse me?
Bucyrus BaltACD: tree68: Bucyrus: But he is not required to acknowledge the crossing until he enters the warning zone at the RXR signs. Interesting concept. What you are saying, then, is that if a driver is approaching a crossing which is occupied by a train, said driver is under no obligation to take any action to avoid a collision until he/she passes the RXR sign... ***! All these years I always thought when you saw the lights flashing on the crossing, even though you were a thousand feet or more from the first sign announcing the RR crossing you took actions based on the flashing crossing protection. What have I been missing? I guess the one thing I have been missing is running into a train in the crossing. Tree, Yes, that is what I am saying.
BaltACD: tree68: Bucyrus: But he is not required to acknowledge the crossing until he enters the warning zone at the RXR signs. Interesting concept. What you are saying, then, is that if a driver is approaching a crossing which is occupied by a train, said driver is under no obligation to take any action to avoid a collision until he/she passes the RXR sign... ***! All these years I always thought when you saw the lights flashing on the crossing, even though you were a thousand feet or more from the first sign announcing the RR crossing you took actions based on the flashing crossing protection. What have I been missing? I guess the one thing I have been missing is running into a train in the crossing.
tree68: Bucyrus: But he is not required to acknowledge the crossing until he enters the warning zone at the RXR signs. Interesting concept. What you are saying, then, is that if a driver is approaching a crossing which is occupied by a train, said driver is under no obligation to take any action to avoid a collision until he/she passes the RXR sign...
Bucyrus: But he is not required to acknowledge the crossing until he enters the warning zone at the RXR signs.
Interesting concept. What you are saying, then, is that if a driver is approaching a crossing which is occupied by a train, said driver is under no obligation to take any action to avoid a collision until he/she passes the RXR sign...
***! All these years I always thought when you saw the lights flashing on the crossing, even though you were a thousand feet or more from the first sign announcing the RR crossing you took actions based on the flashing crossing protection. What have I been missing? I guess the one thing I have been missing is running into a train in the crossing.
Tree,
Yes, that is what I am saying.
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...
BaltACD A picture I have seen of the crash site was taken well beyond the 'official' warning zone - and the lights were plainly visible, approximately 1/2 mile or more in advance of the crossing. From my observations, the only possible excuse for a alert, responsible driver to miss them would be some kind of sun glare situation hiding them. Outside of sun glare, the only other possible 'excuse' is not paying attention to the duties at hand - driving the truck in accordance with the surroundings ie. 4 red flashing light - 2 above the lane of travel and 2 to the right of the lane of travel.
A picture I have seen of the crash site was taken well beyond the 'official' warning zone - and the lights were plainly visible, approximately 1/2 mile or more in advance of the crossing. From my observations, the only possible excuse for a alert, responsible driver to miss them would be some kind of sun glare situation hiding them. Outside of sun glare, the only other possible 'excuse' is not paying attention to the duties at hand - driving the truck in accordance with the surroundings ie. 4 red flashing light - 2 above the lane of travel and 2 to the right of the lane of travel.
BaltACD,
If you have a picture of the lights being plainly visible at ½ mile, I would like to see it. Can you post it here?
This link has several photos of the approach to the crossing.
http://www.rgj.com/article/20120628/NEWS/306280101/Amtrak-crash-lawsuit-Rail-gates-broken-at-crossing?odyssey=tab%7Cmostpopular%7Cimg%7CNEWS&nclick_check=1
If you open “View thumbs”, it shows the index of all 23 photos. Number 16 shows a view with the pavement painted RXR. The advance warning begins at the RXR sign, which is maybe 200-400 feet further back from the pavement RXR painting. In this picture, the signals are not activated, so you cannot see how visible they would be. But the assumption of the warning zone is that the signals are visible within it.
Picture #15 shows a view from the RXR sign, however, this is a telephoto shot. You can see that it appears to be much closer to the crossing than picture 16, however it is further from the crossing. Also, the caption says the RXR signs in 1/10th mile (528 ft.) from the crossing. That is incorrect. The best I can scale from the satellite maps is 900 feet.
Now a lot of people want to say that the driver had a vastly larger warning than the visible warning within the advance zone. Look at picture #1, which shows the red flashing lights. I would estimate that distance at about 225 feet. The lights are certainly plainly visible. Now go back 4 times further. Do you think those lights are going to be obvious at 900 feet? I don’t. Look again at picture #16. That is about 600-700 ft. Do you think the lights will be obvious at that distance?
So, 900 feet is where the official warning zone begins, and that is about where the lights become visible. I went out last summer in midday sun and looked at grade crossings and traffic lights. I could not find an activated grade crossing, but I could find traffic signals. At about ¼ mile, traffic light illuminations are visible, but not at all attention getting. No way can you see them at ½ mile.
Moreover, at the Nevada crossing, there is a curve just ahead of the start of the advance zone, so the beam spread of the flashing lights would have to account for that curve in order to be seen at a greater distance.
tdmidget Bucyrus, it is you who seem to think that a driver should be oblivious to his surrounding unless there is a sign or gaggle of flashing lights . A driver does not drive in a bubble ignoring everything outside it.
I have not said that or implied it. People familiar with railroading, of all people, should be able to understand my point. The engineer of the train understands it.
Bucyrus, it is you who seem to think that a driver should be oblivious to his surrounding unless there is a sign or gaggle of flashing lights . A driver does not drive in a bubble ignoring everything outside it. The crossing was well known to him. If not then he should be constantly looking for the unexpected. You have a very strange idea of the responsibilities of operating a motor vehicle.
tdmidget ... Couple that with the fact that this was a regular run, one he had run earlier in the day, and his negligence is criminal. He had every kind of warning and ignored them all. Yet you constantly defend the total lack of responsibility on his part. Why?
... Couple that with the fact that this was a regular run, one he had run earlier in the day, and his negligence is criminal. He had every kind of warning and ignored them all. Yet you constantly defend the total lack of responsibility on his part. Why?
These issues are about the crossing. They may or may not have anything to do with the driver in the crash. But regarding that driver or any driver, the fact that a driver had been over the road multiple times is irrelevant. That comes up repeatedly. Are people saying that it is okay to violate the crossing if it is your first time through?
I've worked at that crossing. Visibility is good and at the time of day the accident occured the sun would have been behind the driver's right shoulder. To put it another way there would have been no problem with glare.
It seems to me that you're simply to trying to make a point to a person who knows more than everyone else.
Bucyrus BaltACD: tree68: Bucyrus: But he is not required to acknowledge the crossing until he enters the warning zone at the RXR signs. Interesting concept. What you are saying, then, is that if a driver is approaching a crossing which is occupied by a train, said driver is under no obligation to take any action to avoid a collision until he/she passes the RXR sign... ***! All these years I always thought when you saw the lights flashing on the crossing, even though you were a thousand feet or more from the first sign announcing the RR crossing you took actions based on the flashing crossing protection. What have I been missing? I guess the one thing I have been missing is running into a train in the crossing. Tree, Yes, that is what I am saying. BaltACD, If you see the lights ahead of time, fine. Take action. But not everyone will see the lights at the same distance. So they establish a distance zone in which every qualified driver should be able to see the flashing lights. They mark the beginning of that zone with an RXR sign. And they make that zone long enough to react and stop. The problem with the Nevada crossing in question is that the warning zone is barely long enough for the speed limit for the class of truck that was involved in the 6/24/11 crash. The NTSB is blowing smoke when they say the crossing was visible for a mile. Maybe so if you are wearing microscopic glasses. But the warning zone begins at about 900 feet from the crossing.
The NTSB is blowing smoke when they say the crossing was visible for a mile. Maybe so if you are wearing microscopic glasses. But the warning zone begins at about 900 feet from the crossing.
Here's some interesting research:
http://www.k-state.edu/media/newsreleases/jun12/truckcrashes61412.html
There is way too much speculation on what finally caused the accident, or what the driver should have or could have done to prevent it.
The only fact I can see is, that tracks crossing a 70 mph highway with no other protection than flashing lights and maybe a bell is by far not enough.
Bucyrus, your fanaticism is tedious. You claim that there was only 900 ft warning because the painted warning on the pavement was 900 feet from the track. Were you expecting the driver to have a glass bottomed tractor and look down to see it? Of course not, it was visible 300 ft before he got to it. So he had 1200 feet warning. Couple that with the fact that this was a regular run, one he had run earlier in the day, and his negligence is criminal. He had every kind of warning and ignored them all. Yet you constantly defend the total lack of responsibility on his part. Why?
BaltACD tree68: Bucyrus: But he is not required to acknowledge the crossing until he enters the warning zone at the RXR signs. Interesting concept. What you are saying, then, is that if a driver is approaching a crossing which is occupied by a train, said driver is under no obligation to take any action to avoid a collision until he/she passes the RXR sign... ***! All these years I always thought when you saw the lights flashing on the crossing, even though you were a thousand feet or more from the first sign announcing the RR crossing you took actions based on the flashing crossing protection. What have I been missing? I guess the one thing I have been missing is running into a train in the crossing.
If you see the lights ahead of time, fine. Take action. But not everyone will see the lights at the same distance. So they establish a distance zone in which every qualified driver should be able to see the flashing lights. They mark the beginning of that zone with an RXR sign. And they make that zone long enough to react and stop. The problem with the Nevada crossing in question is that the warning zone is barely long enough for the speed limit for the class of truck that was involved in the 6/24/11 crash.
Bucyrus And, even though it is compelled by statute, it would have to be a subjective judgment call on the part of the driver and or any police officer that happened to question it on site; as to the proper response for driving according to conditions. Drivers must yield to anything in their path as long as that obstacle does not enter their path so abruptly that it makes it impossible to yield in time. Maybe Edbenton could chime in on this. Ed, in the case of the Nevada crossing crash, what would have been the legal, proper, and responsible speed limit for the driver while approaching the crossing had he been exercising all due care?
And, even though it is compelled by statute, it would have to be a subjective judgment call on the part of the driver and or any police officer that happened to question it on site; as to the proper response for driving according to conditions.
Maybe Edbenton could chime in on this. Ed, in the case of the Nevada crossing crash, what would have been the legal, proper, and responsible speed limit for the driver while approaching the crossing had he been exercising all due care?
Personally considering conditions Empty set of doubles, Approaching conflicting traffic(the train), the greater hazard of the collision(car gets in front of train too bad for the car, truck gets in front of train, train crew is extremely worried). The personal knowledge of how long the signal will come down in front of tracks. It is a very long decision tree, to be made in a very few seconds.
I do not know the experience level of the driver with that kind of equipment. I will state that he was not a rookie, but had I think 3+ years of local driving, and had been driving his current job 3-6 months.
Personally with a train on the horizon at an unknown speed I would have reduced speed going near a railroad crossing.
But that comes from both having 16 years as a driver and the knowledge of what a truck can do to a train. Yes I've seen pictures of a tractor getting under a locomotive frame and derailing the train(a few years back the City of New Orleans in Il). Very few truck drivers are aware of the consequences of a grade crossing accident.
My personal opinion of this wreck is that given the conditions the accident was non preventable. At closing speeds above 60 mph it is very difficult to gauge at a mile or more a point of conflict. At 1/2 mile and a closing speed of 130 mph( presuming that both vehicles were doing about 65 mph) you now have about 7 seconds to make a decision. If you misjudge for even a couple of seconds the consequences are
Rgds IGN
tree68 Bucyrus: But he is not required to acknowledge the crossing until he enters the warning zone at the RXR signs. Interesting concept. What you are saying, then, is that if a driver is approaching a crossing which is occupied by a train, said driver is under no obligation to take any action to avoid a collision until he/she passes the RXR sign...
BucyrusBut he is not required to acknowledge the crossing until he enters the warning zone at the RXR signs.
edbenton I can Compare Both of those Crossing for you if you want. The one on Rt 58 in CA has the Extra Warning we as OTR Drivers WANTED installed and the State had installed in IIRC the early 90's I know it has saved a few lives why we as OTR Drivers get the WARNING WE NEEDED to STOP IN TIME. More than one time on 58 you would be Just Passed it and here be ready to stop at the crossing they are going. So you would stop at the Crossing and wait out the Hotshot coming thru. I know this because I hauled ALOT and I mean ALOT of Carrots and Grapes out of the Bakersfield area. Compare that to the Crossing on Rt95 in Nevada if your Lucky and can see the SOB your only Option is to Stand on the Brakes PRAY LIKE HELL YOU GET STOPPED and hope like HELL YOU DO NOT RUN INTO THE TRAIN. Yep that is basically the standard option everytime coming north. It may look like a SAFE CROSSING but IT IS NOT ONE. Sorry but I almost piled my truck into a Train on it a one time and saw a couple OTHER drivers do the same. Reported the Problem to the NV DOT in the 90's was anything done HELL NO then in 2011 the crossing bit them in the$1***$2and man are they going to SQUEAL when all this comes out. 14 YEARS at least they new it was a BAD CROSSING and did NOTHING.
I can Compare Both of those Crossing for you if you want. The one on Rt 58 in CA has the Extra Warning we as OTR Drivers WANTED installed and the State had installed in IIRC the early 90's I know it has saved a few lives why we as OTR Drivers get the WARNING WE NEEDED to STOP IN TIME. More than one time on 58 you would be Just Passed it and here be ready to stop at the crossing they are going. So you would stop at the Crossing and wait out the Hotshot coming thru. I know this because I hauled ALOT and I mean ALOT of Carrots and Grapes out of the Bakersfield area.
Compare that to the Crossing on Rt95 in Nevada if your Lucky and can see the SOB your only Option is to Stand on the Brakes PRAY LIKE HELL YOU GET STOPPED and hope like HELL YOU DO NOT RUN INTO THE TRAIN. Yep that is basically the standard option everytime coming north. It may look like a SAFE CROSSING but IT IS NOT ONE. Sorry but I almost piled my truck into a Train on it a one time and saw a couple OTHER drivers do the same. Reported the Problem to the NV DOT in the 90's was anything done HELL NO then in 2011 the crossing bit them in the$1***$2and man are they going to SQUEAL when all this comes out. 14 YEARS at least they new it was a BAD CROSSING and did NOTHING.
In all my times thru there I do not remember having a train at that crossing. The only times I remember stopping was when I had a Haz Mat load(mandatory stop before crossing).
Thx IGN
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.