Murphy Siding bucyrus- I think you're playing the *If only* game. Consider this- Somewhere along the way, a lot of folks have put in a lot of effort and study, to figure out what is a reasonable time frame for having the crossing lights coem on, the bells start to ring, and for the arms to start dropping. I'd have to believe that factors such as speed of the train, and the type of train were taken into account. After some resonable figures were worked out, those numbers were bumped up, call it margin of safety, CYA, etc... It seems to me, that there is already some *extra* built into the timing. You're suggesting that *maybe* things would have turned out differently *if only* the engineer had been able to give a little extra, extra time, on top of the normal extra ttime already built in, an on top of the reasonable time already established. Where do you stop? If you add extra time, and drivers still get in the path of trains, do you ad more extra? And when they still get hit, more yet? It seems to me, that what's needed is more education for drivers of those vehicles that are crossing railroad tracks. *If only* they'd follow the traffic rules, maybe they wouldn't find themselves needing extra, extra, resonable time.
bucyrus- I think you're playing the *If only* game. Consider this- Somewhere along the way, a lot of folks have put in a lot of effort and study, to figure out what is a reasonable time frame for having the crossing lights coem on, the bells start to ring, and for the arms to start dropping. I'd have to believe that factors such as speed of the train, and the type of train were taken into account. After some resonable figures were worked out, those numbers were bumped up, call it margin of safety, CYA, etc... It seems to me, that there is already some *extra* built into the timing. You're suggesting that *maybe* things would have turned out differently *if only* the engineer had been able to give a little extra, extra time, on top of the normal extra ttime already built in, an on top of the reasonable time already established. Where do you stop? If you add extra time, and drivers still get in the path of trains, do you ad more extra? And when they still get hit, more yet? It seems to me, that what's needed is more education for drivers of those vehicles that are crossing railroad tracks. *If only* they'd follow the traffic rules, maybe they wouldn't find themselves needing extra, extra, resonable time.
Yes that is what I am doing. But all those measures that you mention having been worked out over time were determined by people doing exactly the same thing I am doing. And the process never ends. The NTSB is doing the same thing I am doing as they look at this Texas crash.
For this particular crash, I am not offering any remedy or suggesting anything be changed. I am just looking at how it played out to see what I can see. In the Nevada crash, however, I do believe the crossing setup is deficient and could be made much safer with no compromise. The engineer on that Amtrak train involved in the crash feels the same way.
In this Texas case, perhaps more signal time would have prevented it, but there is something very powerful working against extending the signal time. MUTCD experts have found if you make the warning times longer, drivers tend to take more risk in beating the train. They perceive excessively long warnings as overkill, and take the matter into their own hands. They may be successful in beating a particular train, but the larger issue is that they will pay less heed to future warnings.
Therefore, counter intuitively, the traffic experts shorten the warning to save lives.
It was a dark foggy night in North Dakota, the driver had stopped for this mile long coal train, but he was getting impatient. He edged his car into the left lane clearly intending to zip across as soon as the last coal car cleared. Well, he hay have "zipped" but hi did so right into the side of the trailing locomotive. The train never did stop because the head end never knew they were involved in an accident. The police were able to call the dispatcher who was able to stop the train about 30 miles away.
ROAR
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
zugmannI wonder what is louder, the crossing bells right at the crossing, or a train blowing its horn 1/4 mile away?
Dr. Frankendiesel aka Scott Running BearSpace Mouse for president!15 year veteran fire fighterCollector of Apple //e'sRunning Bear EnterprisesHistory Channel Club life member.beatus homo qui invenit sapientiam
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
There are plenty of crossings that are tied in with traffic lights - so yeah, it can be pretty slick.
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
It may sound silly, but maybe railroad crossing should be controlled cyclically as are other road intersections. One can only cross when the way is permitted by controlling lights. Otherwise, the line waits, even if no train is within 20 miles. Light turns green, traffic enters the crossing, light turns amber, traffic clears the crossing...just like the rules of the road. The lights could be contolled by oncoming trains as they are by emergency responding vehicles to allow the timely passage of trains.
I realize it wouldn't be slick, especially where trains have to perform switching functions briefly, and that it will inconvenience the much higher density of wheeled traffic, but it may save a lot more lives. I can't see anything else beyond routing all road traffic down underpasses or up overpasses to ensure there is never an unwanted 'intersecton'. Otherwise, it should remain as it is...a sort of "caveat adscensor", or, "Let the charioteer beware."
Crandell
I wonder what is louder, the crossing bells right at the crossing, or a train blowing its horn 1/4 mile away?
I wouldn't be surprised it it was the former (until the train got closer). So if the driver couldn't hear that, somehow I doubt that he could hear a horn blast 1/4 mile away in a well-insulated truck with police sirens nearby.
Yes, and in most crossing crashes, the stopping distance of the train is irrelevant. It is always trumpeted as the number one issue by safety advisers, but it seldom matters in grade crossing crashes. Most vehicles that are struck are in the process of driving past the front of the locomotive. So even if the train could stop in 100 feet, it would not prevent the crash.
The only time the train stopping distance might matter is for vehicles stalled on the crossing where an engineer might see the situation from a significant distance and take preemptive action. Long stopping distance matters when a danger ahead becomes obvious enough for an engineer to try to stop short of it.
Even if all the brakes on every car had been locked there's no way that train could have stopped in time or even slowed enough to avoid a collision.
Schlimm,
What you say about rising tonnage and speed is true, but there is also more braking on a longer train that tends to offset the effect of the extra tonnage.
I mentioned train length b/c it relates to the total mass of the train. Stopping is simply negative acceleration, but the total mass is a variable that will influence the momentum or inertia of train. Typical loaded freight cars in 1950 were 40-50 tons vs 120 tons now, train length was shorter, 60 cars vs 100+ today. Also average velocity has changed from about 35-50mph (difficult to document, but I referred to a PRR employee TT) then to 45-70 mph top speed today. So although braking is better today, since the average speed and weight of freight train are higher, stopping distances are also higher.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
CNW 6000 Bucyrus, Are you asking to just what extent the 3.75 seconds of "horn time" would have mattered? IMO the short answer is "It Depends". If there were enough distractions to keep the driver from reacting correctly to the already present & correctly functioning safety apparati at the crossing, how is anyone to know if any amount of extra horn would've influenced the (correct) desired behavior of stopping/getting in the clear? No amount of simulation or reenacting will answer that I believe.
Bucyrus,
Are you asking to just what extent the 3.75 seconds of "horn time" would have mattered? IMO the short answer is "It Depends". If there were enough distractions to keep the driver from reacting correctly to the already present & correctly functioning safety apparati at the crossing, how is anyone to know if any amount of extra horn would've influenced the (correct) desired behavior of stopping/getting in the clear? No amount of simulation or reenacting will answer that I believe.
Dan,
I agree that it would be impossible to know for sure if it would have mattered. However, if it would have mattered, it would have saved the day. I would conclude this:
If the driver did not see the flashing red lights for some reason, and did not hear the bells due to the cop sirens, then there is a very high probability that the driver would have heard the train horn had it been sounding in that highly critical time frame when he was passing the white crossing line and approaching the track. That is exactly where that missing part of the standard horn signal would have occurred. Furthermore, the locomotive horn would have been louder than the crossing bells, and the extra sound might have been enough to override the cop sirens.
Disclaimer: This does not exonerate the driver from blame. It is merely an observation about the effect of the quiet zone.
schlimm My contention is that ~60 years ago, the stopping distance for a typical freight train was much shorter than it is today. Exactly what that distance was, I don't know. Perhaps some of the railroaders on here do. As a consequence, an engineer today cannot stop in time if a vehicle is stuck on a crossing.
My contention is that ~60 years ago, the stopping distance for a typical freight train was much shorter than it is today. Exactly what that distance was, I don't know. Perhaps some of the railroaders on here do. As a consequence, an engineer today cannot stop in time if a vehicle is stuck on a crossing.
It's not so much the length of but the speed of the trains that determines stopping distance. Increasing the length of a train from 4,000' to 8,000' would add something like 5 seconds for all of the brakes to apply, though that would be shorter if the 8,000' train had DPU's set up to initiate braking. Maximum braking rate for a freight train (remember varying car weights, no anti-lock) is not likely to be more than 1 MPH/sec, which means that a train moving at 60 MPH will take a minute to stop after all of the brakes are applied. Passenger trains will stop in shorter distances, but I don't a passenger train would have stopped short of the crossing in this case.
There is substantial public benefit for allowing trains to travel at 60+ MPH, one being that the crossings are cleared much faster.
Grade crossing elimination is a laudable goal, but somebody has to pay for it and there may be some cases in which it is not feasible to eliminate the crossing. Also remember that the Operation Lifesaver program has resulted in a very significant reduction in grade crossing fatalities. On a local level, trespassing and pedestrian fatalities are more common than vehicle occupant fatalities.
- Erik
schlimm Greyhounds: My contention is that ~60 years ago, the stopping distance for a typical freight train was much shorter than it is today. Exactly what that distance was, I don't know. Perhaps some of the railroaders on here do. As a consequence, an engineer today cannot stop in time if a vehicle is stuck on a crossing. Whether by driver error or some other circumstance, a collision is unavoidable. The long range solution is to reduce the number of grade crossings, either by elimination (for many streets) or separated crossings for more heavily trafficked roads. This will take many years and an investment, but should be a goal.
Greyhounds: My contention is that ~60 years ago, the stopping distance for a typical freight train was much shorter than it is today. Exactly what that distance was, I don't know. Perhaps some of the railroaders on here do. As a consequence, an engineer today cannot stop in time if a vehicle is stuck on a crossing. Whether by driver error or some other circumstance, a collision is unavoidable. The long range solution is to reduce the number of grade crossings, either by elimination (for many streets) or separated crossings for more heavily trafficked roads. This will take many years and an investment, but should be a goal.
Actually stopping distances are much better today. Trains have better brake systems, dynamic braking, engine brakes, train line brakes, and can even brake from the rear of the train via the FRED device, although cabeese of old could do the same, albeit a brake dump. Composition shoes have replaced steel or iron brake shoes, but LION hears from NYCT friends, that this increased braking distances.
Never Matter, today's trains are longer and will get longer still. Trains can run faster because the brakes have become better. So what do they do? The make the trains LONGER.
Doesn't Matter, Professor Newton has it all figured out, and his laws are 100% inviolable. Argue with Newton, and Darwin will collect the fees.
I like to keep things Simple.
If you are driving a car, truck, or other and you see a RED LIGHT you know you must "STOP", it's not optional. If you " Run a Light" you should get a ticket, or may make it across, or get into an accident. To assure compliance, many cities and towns have installed "Red Light Cameras" at intersections.
Railroad Grade Crossings are protected with Red Lights, two of them flashing to get your attention. In this case the compliance camera was mounted on the locomotive. Nuf said.
Don U. TCA 73-5735
We don’t know where the two trucks were when the traffic light was holding traffic. It may be that neither truck had yet crossed the tracks because cars were waiting between the tracks and the traffic light. This point has not been clarified in any of the news. We also don’t know if the second truck was stopped or moving when hit.
Earlier, I speculated that the train must have hit the very back part of the trailer because of the fact that trailer was relatively undamaged and still attached to the truck tractor. A direct impact on the trailer at 62 mph would have demolished most of the trailer and tore it off of its connection with the tractor.
Looking at the reenactment video, it appears that the trailer only fouled the train by one foot or so. The last tires of the trailer were completely clear of the track rail by several feet.
I suspect that both trucks were moving ahead when the impact happened because there is not enough room for both to have been standing in line, short of the traffic light.
Something I have not seen mentioned even by the NTSB guys is the distance between the lead and following flatbeds. I say this because on Google earth there appears to be plenty of room for the second rig to turn off the roadway and be parallel to the tracks and not be struck by the train. OTOH, if he was close enough to the first rig he couldn't make that move he was stuck. Assuming he had room, some quick thinking may have averted the disaster. Pure speculation on my part. I hope the NTSB will publish that information.
Norm
tdmidget "Side note - As a Moderator, keep it civil and avoid any personal name calling & calling people out and things should be just fine. We (volunteer Mods) were advised to watch for and keep an eye out for contentious threads on this topic (TX crash specifically). The "lock debate" for this subject should be in the past and this thread seems to be aiming "on topic" and being civil. Let's let that continue - ok? Debate is great and so is the ability to agree to disagree on some topics." So you admit that you were instructed to keep this at a kindergarten sandbox level of discussion. You need to wake up. Controversy sells. LOOK at the threads. Including this thread, this subject has generated 180 posts. Yet you lock them. Look at the moronic "video of this and that threads. Virtually no response, not even views. Is this what you want? Why does Trains Magazine have editorials and columnists if not to stimulate thought and discussion?
"Side note - As a Moderator, keep it civil and avoid any personal name calling & calling people out and things should be just fine. We (volunteer Mods) were advised to watch for and keep an eye out for contentious threads on this topic (TX crash specifically). The "lock debate" for this subject should be in the past and this thread seems to be aiming "on topic" and being civil. Let's let that continue - ok? Debate is great and so is the ability to agree to disagree on some topics."
So you admit that you were instructed to keep this at a kindergarten sandbox level of discussion. You need to wake up. Controversy sells. LOOK at the threads. Including this thread, this subject has generated 180 posts. Yet you lock them. Look at the moronic "video of this and that threads. Virtually no response, not even views. Is this what you want? Why does Trains Magazine have editorials and columnists if not to stimulate thought and discussion?
You misunderstood what I said. If you care to discuss what i said on this subject further, PM me.
Dan
schlimm Continuing to be complacent by blaming the vehicle drivers is about as inane and unlikely to correct the real problem as simply shrugging and saying, "Stuff (or whatever) happens."
Continuing to be complacent by blaming the vehicle drivers is about as inane and unlikely to correct the real problem as simply shrugging and saying, "Stuff (or whatever) happens."
I don't think many here are "complacent" about this.
But what do you mean by "correct the real problem"? Do you mean zero crossing fatalities? If so, it's impossible. There is also this whole diminishing returns thing. There isn't an unlimited amount of money to spend on anything, let alone crosssing protection.
I'm certainly not complacent about people getting whacked at railroad crossings. But flashing red lights mean STOP and when automobile/truck dirvers ignore that, just what could be a solution? Given that there is always going to be, and always has to be, a limited amount of money to spend on this.
As tragic as these incidents are, railroad grade crossings in the US are amazingly safe. Every day millions of cars and thousands of trains go over them 99.999999% of the time without incident.
So, just what "real problem" are you seeking to correct? .'Cause if you're seeking perfection you ain't gonna' get there.
blownout cylinderWell, one way to deal with crossing issues is by making level crossings into overpasses. Forget underpasses as over height trucks will find low bridges .....
Of course, my idea of a billboard/crossing gate is in jest....
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 don't see people blaming the crossing, nor attempting to exonerate the driver. I am reading that people want to not "just" blame the driver and then walk away. "WE" are seeking to understand the WHY of it all and then seeking ways to prevent it from ever happening again.
No one here has specifically suggested that making the STOP sign bigger would CURE the problem, but I recognize that some have advocated changes that others believe would make no difference.
Sound the horn sooner? Make it louder? Repeal the rules and regulations that limit those things? Close all at-grade crossings or make grade separations? Slow all trains to a crawl? Forced annual training for all drivers with an emphasis on "Dumb ways to die"? More barricades, better signage, brighter lights, bigger lights, automatic Gatling guns that fire across the street in place of the gates?
We, here, are just a bunch of citizens with a vocation or an avocation centered around trains and we CARE about what happens to our fellow citizens in regard to our vocation and/or avocation. While we may not find the "cure" to the problem, discussing it is a way to get ideas into the public's minds. It also serves to remind "US" personally of the dangers involved.
The point is, if nothing will make a difference, and it is only the driver's responsibility, then let us do away with signs, lights, gates, horns and all of that expensive stuff and just expect people to do what they shoud do and let them die if they don't.
One more thing... I have noted that sometimes people here get exasperated with someone repeating their opinion/idea/argument. (I have too!) and complain about it (I have tried not to).
I also have been other side of it all and done the same repeating my opinion because I felt like I was not being "understood". I THOUGHT I was stating my position/idea in a different way, but, I sometimes cannot find the precise words I seek (like right now!) and end up repeating myself, even if when I was typing it the 2nd time I was "thinking" an emphasis on a different word than the last time I blathered on and on. The reader just sees the same words with no altered emphasis, no difference in inflection or nuance, and thus only understands what they originally thought I meant and continues to miss my point.
I think I will stop responding in exasperation. AND, if I cannot say something NEW, then I have already stated my position and I should let it go at that. I hope others here can see that point and agree to do the same.
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
I can't speak to that situation - but can to the one in my hometown. Oshkosh, WI has at least 3 parades that cross the CN mainline (Chicago to Winnipeg). I know that the City builds a "gap" into the parade timing such that the different participants in the parade have room ahead and behind to clear the crossing. "Knock on Wood" we haven't had any issues with that.
I have also coordinated races (foot & bicycle) that cross the CN tracks in/around town and advised other events on communicating with CN on that subject. We humans aren't predictable and there are far too many factors that affect the what or why of an outcome to attempt to account for. In My Opinion.
Well, one way to deal with crossing issues is by making level crossings into overpasses. Forget underpasses as over height trucks will find low bridges .....
Quiet zone issues? Cut the crossing out completely and make overpasses as well...otherwise just place guardrails at the former crossing....
If one was to have more signs claiming a crossing was present just place them so that the end sign becomes the size of a billboard that becomes a crossing gate as the train enters the zone...
Looking for technological answers to what seems to be an issue of 'convenience'(?) might not be the 'best'(?) solution either. I take it that the crossing in question was used numerous times, in the past, to transport whatever floats people were still on...this is a tragedy all the way around....
Side note - As a Moderator, keep it civil and avoid any personal name calling & calling people out and things should be just fine. We (volunteer Mods) were advised to watch for and keep an eye out for contentious threads on this topic (TX crash specifically). The "lock debate" for this subject should be in the past and this thread seems to be aiming "on topic" and being civil. Let's let that continue - ok? Debate is great and so is the ability to agree to disagree on some topics.
Bucyrus doesn't come across to me as blaming the crossing, but more like questioning whether the "design" of the crossing is completely blameless. The reports about the accident state that the crossing lights and gates activated almost exactly when they were supposed to. One could argue that the time between activation and the arrival of the train was too short for this circumstance, but it would be equally (if not more) reasonable to argue that the special cases should provide additional protection on their own nickel (e.g. a couple of guys with radios a mile each side of the crossing to provide additional warning).
It is certain that the truck driver violated the rule of not crossing the tracks until there was sufficient space on the other side (same issue as not crossing an intersection until there is sufficient space on the other side). The driver apparently also failed to cross the tracks at a speed sufficient to clear the tracks within the 20 second window from activation to the arrival of the train (clearing under 10 seconds would be much better). He should have seen the lights activating, if he wasn't able to, then that would be a design problem with his truck. He may have not been able to see the oncoming train due to the relative position of the sun.
Doesn't sound to me as if the quiet zone was contributory to the accident in this case. The lack of planning on the organizer's part is another story.
The discussion about this accident does remind me of the September 1978 PSA crash over San Diego. The basic facts were that the PSA 727 collided with the Cessna 172 from behind. Strictly speaking the PSA pilots failed to see and avoid the Cessna (the PSA pilots were making a VFR landing), but there were a lot of extenuating circumstances.
zugmannIn the first locked thread, I stated that we were talking about a possible 3 second difference between when a regular horn signal would have been sounded, and when the emergency signal was sounded by the engineer. Both would have been after the gates activated, according to the NTSB timeline. I do not see how the quiet zone figures into this, when the truck was already going across the tracks when the horn would have been sounded in a normal, non quiet crossing. Remember, FRA states the horn should be sounded no more than 1/4 a mile away, which comes into play at a high speed crossing like this one. PS. And here you go again: it must be the crossing's fault. Always. This time it must be the quiet zone. Nevermind the fact the truck driver blew the crossing for whatever reason, it must be the quiet zone.
I do not see how the quiet zone figures into this, when the truck was already going across the tracks when the horn would have been sounded in a normal, non quiet crossing. Remember, FRA states the horn should be sounded no more than 1/4 a mile away, which comes into play at a high speed crossing like this one.
PS. And here you go again: it must be the crossing's fault. Always. This time it must be the quiet zone. Nevermind the fact the truck driver blew the crossing for whatever reason, it must be the quiet zone.
I made it very explicit in yesterday’s locked thread that I was not excusing the driver because the quiet zone failed him. I clearly stated that I was only considering what might have prevented the crash even if the driver did enter against the signals and also entered with insufficient clearance on the opposite side. So your P.S. characterization above of what I said is simply incorrect.
Furthermore, I stand by my conclusion that the difference between the full standard horn signal and the quiet zone emergency signal (a difference of 3.75 seconds), would have been just about the right amount of time in the sequence of events to prevent the crash; IF the driver was distracted and unaware of the approaching train; and IF the cop sirens were drowning out the crossing bells.
The engineer blew the emergency horn signal at 9 seconds before impact, and by that time, the truck tractor had already crossed the track and was tangled up with the lowered gate behind him. If the horn had been blown 3-4 seconds earlier, the truck was just beginning to enter into the track space, and the gate was just beginning to come down. So the missing 3-4 seconds of horn signal would have fallen right into the proper time slot to have warned the driver when he was in a position to be able to escape the crossing by backing up.
This is only my observation of this one particular effect of a quiet zone. I think it is interesting because the premise of quiet zones is that they are no less protected than a non-quiet zone crossing because quiet zone crossings are provided with safety enhancements that are intended to compensate for the loss of safety due to the lack of a horn signal. The NTSB said they were looking into what added safety enhancements were used to compensate for the lack of the horn signal.
So I conclude that you have a pre-existing belief that I am trying to defend every grade crossing transgressor, and you look at what I say through the lens of that pre-existing belief. It makes what I say seem to conform to your pre-existing belief.
zugmann PS. And here you go again: it must be the crossing's fault. Always. This time it must be the quiet zone. Nevermind the fact the truck driver blew the crossing for whatever reason, it must be the quiet zone.
Why human error? Sure, on the surface, the float driver apparently entered the crossing after the lights started flashing. Human error. But the goal should to reduce human error accidents. Why not examine system error, as I pointed out on the 3rd locked thread? Most grade crossings depend on somewhat updated 1940's or earlier technology. Yet the freight trains operated are usually longer, heavier and faster, even in congested urban areas. I wonder what the reaction would have been if instead of a flatbed with veterans in wheelchairs, the trailer struck had been loaded with gasoline and killed the train crew? My point is crossings are dangerous for train crews as well as vehicles and their passengers. Continuing to be complacent by blaming the vehicle drivers is about as inane and unlikely to correct the real problem as simply shrugging and saying, "Stuff (or whatever) happens."
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.