I wonder if the lead UP locomotive had an onboard camera? Many UP locomotives have these.
If it did, the recording should be able to help investigators determine what may have gone wrong.
Matt from Anaheim, CA and Bayfield, COClick Here for my model train photo website
Southwest Chief I wonder if the lead UP locomotive had an onboard camera? Many UP locomotives have these. If it did, the recording should be able to help investigators determine what may have gone wrong.
Yes it did. NBC nightly news said the NTSB is going to view the tape.
George
This does confirm my earlier speculation that the train began braking prior to impact, and was traveling below the speed limit at the time of impact. Although it says that the impact speed was 62 mph, which was higher than what I expected.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ntsb-train-traveling-62-mph-in-70-mph-zone-when-hit-trailer-killing-4-injuring-16-in-texas/2012/11/16/9d85b23c-3043-11e2-af17-67abba0676e2_story.html
On the surface it appears that the event organizers failed their responsibilities in two areas.
1. UP was not notified to restrict traffic.
2. Traffic Signals on the parade route were not disabled or protected by a police presence so that the movement of the parade would not be impeded by traffic signals.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Link to a news report on our local TV channel today:
"Reading mindful of holiday parade crossing train tracks on Penn Street" -
http://www.wfmz.com/news/news-regional-berks/Reading-mindful-of-holiday-parade-crossing-train-tracks-on-Penn-Street/-/121418/17450660/-/ln1nlwz/-/index.html
Evidently a similar incident occurred last month during a Halloween parade in Topton, a small town about halfway to Allentown ! However, the truck driver apparently had the wits enough to pull ahead anyway - even though it broke the gate - and clear the crossing before the train did.
The report also details the coordination the city of Reading does with Norfolk Southern to prevent incidents, similar to what Bruce/ Agent Kid described above for the Calgary Stampede Parade. zugmann - has this kind of thing been covered in any of your DS training ? (Does your territory go that far east ?)
Both of these locations are former Reading RR lines, then ConRail, now Norfolk Southern.
- Paul North.
My carrier gets and complys with many parade requests around the traditions 'parade' holidays as well as assisting with running races, bike races and many other forms of competiton and/or events that cross the carriers tracks. This weekend we will be holding traffic over a 20 mile streach of high traffic double track main line for 3 hours in support of a Ultra Marathon Race that will be crossing the tracks in multiple locations.
These kinds of incidents most times occur because the organizers have kept the event a 'secret' from the carriers - sometimes you can blame it directly on the organizers, sometimes on the local police. I my territory we generally receive two requests, one from the organizers and one from the local police. These kinds of happenings should NEVER occur.
Link to an Oct. 27, 2012 article in the Reading Eagle newspaper about that 'near-miss' in Topton:
"Halloween parade provided a scare" - http://readingeagle.com/article.aspx?id=423658
From the article: "They [borough officials] said the said the protocol in that situation should have been to bring the train to a complete stop, with the conductor getting off the train to guide it safely through the intersection."
BaltACD On the surface it appears that the event organizers failed their responsibilities in two areas. 1. UP was not notified to restrict traffic. 2. Traffic Signals on the parade route were not disabled or protected by a police presence so that the movement of the parade would not be impeded by traffic signals.
From what I read, this was not the actual parade route, but the trucks were simply "deadheading" to (or from) the parade.
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
Paul_D_North_Jr The report also details the coordination the city of Reading does with Norfolk Southern to prevent incidents, similar to what Bruce/ Agent Kid described above for the Calgary Stampede Parade. zugmann - has this kind of thing been covered in any of your DS training ? (Does your territory go that far east ?) Both of these locations are former Reading RR lines, then ConRail, now Norfolk Southern. - Paul North.
Check the Goggle street view for the street intersection and grade crossing…
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Midland,+TX&hl=en&ll=31.985498,-102.093469&spn=0.000515,0.001888&sll=29.785658,-95.471707&sspn=0.006611,0.015106&oq=midland+tx+&t=h&hnear=Midland,+Texas&z=19&layer=c&cbll=31.985497,-102.09347&panoid=Y62_3L2nndKbt07jD9MPNQ&cbp=11,341.34,,0,-4.55
Not like you couldn’t see a train coming…
23 17 46 11
Bucyrus This does confirm my earlier speculation that the train began braking prior to impact, and was traveling below the speed limit at the time of impact. Although it says that the impact speed was 62 mph, which was higher than what I expected. http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ntsb-train-traveling-62-mph-in-70-mph-zone-when-hit-trailer-killing-4-injuring-16-in-texas/2012/11/16/9d85b23c-3043-11e2-af17-67abba0676e2_story.html
While this might sound callous and uncaring, if we slowed down for every single grade crossing incursion, we would never get to track speed, or get where we are going.
Most of the time, the offending car is out of the way by the time we arrive…the fact this train was either slowing or running slower than track speed makes me think the engineer figured out this might be the exception to the normal.
Repeating a comment by arobb00 from another RR related forum:
"... if slowing trains down is the answer ..., then by the same token we should slow cars down on any rural 55mph highway where a rural road intersects it, in case some idiot decides to blow thru a stop sign. ..."
I added; "Doesn't have to be rural roads either! City streets and driveway intersections qualify for that reasoning too!"
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
The school bus incident someone mentioned was in Fox RIver Grove Illinois on the C&NW. A car was stopped for a light, just across the tracks. I read the NTSB report, but I place the blame on the stupid bus driver for stopping on the tracks.
edblysard Bucyrus This does confirm my earlier speculation that the train began braking prior to impact, and was traveling below the speed limit at the time of impact. Although it says that the impact speed was 62 mph, which was higher than what I expected. http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ntsb-train-traveling-62-mph-in-70-mph-zone-when-hit-trailer-killing-4-injuring-16-in-texas/2012/11/16/9d85b23c-3043-11e2-af17-67abba0676e2_story.html While this might sound callous and uncaring, if we slowed down for every single grade crossing incursion, we would never get to track speed, or get where we are going. Most of the time, the offending car is out of the way by the time we arrive…the fact this train was either slowing or running slower than track speed makes me think the engineer figured out this might be the exception to the normal.
Ed,
I understand that you may be speaking in a general sense, but just to be clear, I am not advocating slowing trains down for grade crossings. And I do understand your point that that position is not callous. It is just physics that engineers cannot attempt to stop for an impending close call. For one thing, there are a lot of them. But the main reason, as you say, is that if it is going to be close, they won’t get stopped in time anyway, and won’t even get slowed down much.
But having said that, it would not surprise me if there are a lot of calls for trains to slow down or even yield for grade crossings in the wake of this crash. I would expect just that from any of the national news media.
As I mentioned earlier, I speculate that this U.P. engineer did set the brakes substantially ahead of impact, upon seeing two large trucks with a traffic light holding them, and one of them fouling the crossing. I would think that an engineer would, and should, attempt to stop if he recognizes danger in time to do something about it, as is often the case with a stalled vehicle.
But it does bring up an interesting point. There are a few Youtube videos on line showing locomotive camera coverage of trains hitting stalled vehicles and equipment. One was that fire truck that got hit by an Amtrak train. The truck did try to get out of the way at the last instant. It would be interesting to know how the engineer reacted to that situation prior to impact. However, an emergency application might not have been audible in the video capture.
zugmann From what I read, this was not the actual parade route, but the trucks were simply "deadheading" to (or from) the parade.
Ditto, which would tend to explain why there was no special traffic control at the intersection in question.
This apparently being quite a big deal, it appears that even though they weren't in a formal "parade," there were nonetheless numerous folks out to wish them well as they passed, which explains the number of witnesses that saw the incident occur.
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 zugmann From what I read, this was not the actual parade route, but the trucks were simply "deadheading" to (or from) the parade. Ditto, which would tend to explain why there was no special traffic control at the intersection in question. This apparently being quite a big deal, it appears that even though they weren't in a formal "parade," there were nonetheless numerous folks out to wish them well as they passed, which explains the number of witnesses that saw the incident occur.
Which throws the responsibility fully on the truck drivers shoulders.
I saw a report on my local CBS where a female reporter intoned "It isn't clear whether the train crew SAW the truck on the tracks".
Incredible.
Reality TV is to reality, what Professional Wrestling is to Professional Brain Surgery.
The train may have been going slower than the maximum authorized speed for track and equipment because that's all the train could do at that location under the given circumstances. The speed at impact isn't a good indicator of when braking began.
I think the train was placed into emergency before impact, but not soon enough to shave off more than a couple mph from it's speed. By the time you realize the vehicle isn't going to clear it's usually too late to avoid hitting it, especially at track speed.
It's bad enough to see a semi trailer of any kind (or any vehicle for that matter) stopped over your track. I can't imagine the horror of seeing a trailer full of people sitting on chairs, realizing it isn't going to clear.
Jeff
Nothing unexpected here, but at least it is official now:
"Federal investigators say the warning signals at a railroad crossing in West Texas were activated before a parade float crossed the tracks in an accident that killed military veterans.
National Transportation Safety Board member Mark Rosekind made that announcement at a news conference Saturday. He said the signals had been activated seven seconds before the float crossed the tracks.
Four veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan were killed Thursday when a freight train slammed into the parade float in Midland. Sixteen people were injured.
Rosekind said the NTSB reconstructed the accident using video cameras from the train and a sheriff's vehicle.
He said the train started sounding its horn nine seconds before it hit the float. The train engineer also used the emergency brake five second before the crash."
Link to story
I would say that that is incredibly unexpected, and entirely new and critical information.
All indications from previous news coverage were that the truck had entered the crossing when the signals were not activated, but was trapped on the crossing by the leading truck when the signals did activate.
This morning, I was wondering if we actually know that the driver did not enter the crossing against the activated signals. But then I dismissed the question, recalling hearing that the gates came down on top of the trailer occupants. I forgot to consider that the gates do not come down until the signals have been activated for some period of time.
The fact that the driver entered the crossing against the activated signals adds much more to the driver’s negligence of entering the crossing without room on the other side to clear the crossing. So far, in all the news coverage, I have not heard a peep about the driver. I wonder why.
I agree with Bucyrus about the latest info being critical information, as it looks really bad for the truck driver if it holds up under further scrutiny. That the crossing gates were functioning was expected, what wasn't expected was clear evidence that the truck driver had attempted to cross the tracks after the lights started flashing.
It is interesting to observe the news media culture in operation on this crash coverage. There is a distinct tone that the train was somehow at fault. It seems as if a parade float is simply too virtuous to be at fault in the eyes of the news media. My favorite line is this opening statement: “How did a train find itself in the middle of a parade?”
The A.P. story reports a witness saying that the train came out of nowhere without warning. The truck was “trapped,” suggesting that there was no way the crash could have been avoided.
It really makes me wonder who was driving the truck, because mention of the driver is conspicuous by its absence from the news coverage. The driver seems to be someone the media does not want to blame.
Now, the media is announcing that the driver drove past the activated gates, and yet the media almost seems oblivious to the significance of that new detail. They are still asking how the train found itself in the middle of the parade.
erikem I agree with Bucyrus about the latest info being critical information, as it looks really bad for the truck driver if it holds up under further scrutiny. That the crossing gates were functioning was expected, what wasn't expected was clear evidence that the truck driver had attempted to cross the tracks after the lights started flashing.
FRA and the NTSB don't publish matters of FACT that don't pass all forms of scrutiny. Their pronouncements on matters beyond fact - are where scrutiny and conjecture come to the fore. Corroberating Engine and Police videos pretty much seal the deal on facts.
The linked story notes that the gates came down as the truck entered the crossing, which squares with something that was earlier reported - that some of the riders on the flatbed were struck by the gates.
I would also opine that a rather laissez faire attitude was being taken by local authorities regarding the event, given the question of whether there was a parade permit, although reports that the floats were enroute either to or from a parade, as opposed to in one may render the permit thing moot.
Still, the obvious police presence would say that there was official knowledge of what was going on.
I'm sure there will be a thorough review of policies and procedures.
Here is a carefully worded description of the crash event as told by the NTSB:
“The NTSB said 20 seconds before the collision, bells and lights activated on the crossing. 13 seconds before the crash happened, the gates started to descend. Then, 12 seconds prior, the front of the truck crossed in front of the train.”
When you add to that, their independent statement that the truck entered the crossing 7 seconds after activation of the signals, the whole piece of information becomes clear. The front of the truck was crossing the track one second after the gate started to descend. That would have brought the gate down onto the trailer, or possibly it struck the top of the truck cab first, and then dropped all the way down behind the cab as the cab passed.
In one news report, it said that the sheriff was right behind the second float, and the squad car dash cam caught the whole thing.
It raises some questions about the crossing and the circumstances:
I can see how a driver being about to enter the crossing, intent on the truck ahead, might have missed the activation of the signals. The one on his or her side would have been right alongside of him or her. The opposite signal would have been easier to observe illumination, but that signal was also offset to the more probable straight ahead line of sight.
The crossing was in a quiet zone, so no horn warning accompanied the signal activation to provide supplementary warning. The engineer blew the horn as the quite zone rules allow for emergencies, but by the time he did, time was very short for the truck driver to do escape.
The news says that the driver may not have heard the horn because the cops were sounding their sirens in celebration of the parade. But again, that point would be moot since the crossing is quiet.
HOWEVER, if the crossing had bells, the cop sirens might have drowned out the bell sound. And the bell sound may have been precisely the thing that would have caught the driver’s attention 7 seconds before he or she drove ahead onto the crossing. Does anybody know whether that crossing had bells?
Bucyrus HOWEVER, if the crossing had bells, the cop sirens might have drowned out the bell sound. And the bell sound may have been precisely the thing that would have caught the driver’s attention 7 seconds before he or she drove ahead onto the crossing. Does anybody know whether that crossing had bells?
Yep, it has bells, you can see them in the videos, and they are mentioned in the news reports.
Rich
Alton Junction
There is one detail that is still missing from the timing sequence of events as the truck encountered the crossing. We are told that the truck entered the crossing seven seconds after the signals activated. Here is what we still don’t know:
Where was the truck when the signals first activated?
The truck could have been standing just short of the crossing at that instant, waiting for the truck ahead to move—OR—the truck could have been perhaps 100 feet away and rolling up to the crossing.
Seconds count... But they do not mean anything.
(LIONS *like* being mysterious)
Once second is NOT enough time to react to anything. He was intent on crossing the tracks, he was looking at the truck in front. A gate sounding one second before entering the tracks would not have registered one iota.
This was probably a farm truck used for hauling hay. There was probably a local farmer driving it. He may have used that crossing at least 1000 times, but this may have been the first time he did so in caravan with a truck. Normally you would drive with about 100' between you and the truck ahead of you. Here he may have only been 25' following. Not enough space to pay attention to the sides.
His focus was on the parade, not on driving a truck across a railroad track. He should have stopped short of the tracks, let his leader clear the intersection and move down the road before he attempted the tracks. But he did not do this.
I spent many years in the ambulance service, and we would never follow another emergency vehicle, and we certainly would not allow a police car to escort us. When ever I drive, I keep away from other vehicles, yet when I drove the ambulance in the parade, I was less than 100 feet from my leader. Still, I am used to operating the ambulance in a parade, and frankly I always hang back from the previous entry. I want to make my own grand entry, thank you, let people look at me rather than having to focus at other entries all at once.
There should have been a parade organizer or Marshall at every intersection and turn just to keep things spaced out and to control traffic like this. Now this works just fine for parade organizers who run a parade year after year, but this one appears to have been a special event, organized by different people who could not or did not draw on the experience of others.
Now it is the case that the requirement for parade permits grew out of wanting to obstruct politically unacceptable entities from having a parade except under the most rigid avalance of legally acceptable red tape, But the fact remains that there are now many safety and security reasons for having permits. A sheriff deputy should have been at every intersection from beginning to end. Maybe this was done, maybe it was not. In any event the railroad should have been notified, and that box on the permit should have been checked.
ROAR
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
Bucyrus There is one detail that is still missing from the timing sequence of events as the truck encountered the crossing. We are told that the truck entered the crossing seven seconds after the signals activated. Here is what we still don’t know: Where was the truck when the signals first activated? The truck could have been standing just short of the crossing at that instant, waiting for the truck ahead to move—OR—the truck could have been perhaps 100 feet away and rolling up to the crossing.
The squad car camera tape could tell you that.
What the?
The story I linked changed. The line I quoted is strangely missing now:
"He said the signals had been activated seven seconds before the float crossed the tracks."
Now it contains a line as follows:
"The second float didn't enter the tracks until several seconds after the warning system went off, the NTSB said. By that time, the guardrail was lowering."
The first quote made it easier to understand the truck entered after the crossing lights activated. The second quote muddles this fact a bit.
Wonder why they changed this particular part of the story?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.