Metro North, 6 dead

[Euclid]

It seems to me that this inverted third rail design would produce exactly what happened in the Valhalla crash in at least 50% of crossing collisions with vehicles.  It is a predictable death trap for train passengers riding near the head end

So I wondered how this obvious danger could be acceptable, considering that the danger would be multiplied by a presumably large number of grade crossings in this third rail system.

However, now I find that there are only two lines with this type of third rail, and only a “few dozen” crossings.  So I conclude that this death trap for train riders is only limited by the small number of crossings improving the odds for passengers.

So now, there are calls to close those crossings.  It is amazing that it took this horrific accident to see the obvious hazard. 

[BaltACD]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/05/us/new-york-train-collision/index.html

[tree68]

Maybe this would help:

[wanswheel]

“Do not stop on tracks” is good, but it needs help. I’d like to see a wordless picture sign, showing a side view of a car stopped on the track with a train coming, within a red slashed circle. That, plus a plain old-fashioned stop sign on this side of the tracks, so that everyone has to stop before the tracks, whether there’s a train coming or not, and take the moment to see what space there is on the far side.

[BaltACD]

Paul_D_North_Jr

Worthwhile column on the problems with a grade crossing warning system forcing trains to stop, etc.:

http://ten90solutions.com/confessions_of_a_heartsick_man 

 

Interesting and informative!

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

Worthwhile column on the problems with a grade crossing warning system forcing trains to stop, etc.:

http://ten90solutions.com/confessions_of_a_heartsick_man 

[Euclid]

I am not very familiar with this third rail system, but this article describes what happened with it.  As I understand it, the third rail runs along the track just a bit raised off of the ground.  Then it is interrupted at a grade crossing, so the train loses contact with it as it passes through the crossing. So as the train passes through the crossing, it approaches the stub end of the third rail on the other side of the gap.

It sounds like the train hit the vehicle, and sort of "snowplowed" it under the blunt end of the facing third rail, and lifted the third rail off of its supports as train carried the impaled vehicle down the track.  And the dislodging rail pierced the vehicle and followed a path through it that led into the first car of the train. 

As it entered the train, the third rail broke up into 39 ft. lengths.  So the passengers were faced with 39 ft. javelins of rail coming through the car at high speed.  Of course, the rail was not traveling, but the train was swallowing it at 58 mph.  Apparently this rail remained energized as this process played out.  Here is an article that talks about it:

http://www.lohud.com/story/news/transit/2015/02/08/metro-north-train-suv-snagged-third-rail-valhalla/23070285/

The article’s expert says that the rail design was not to blame for the crash.  I wonder about that.  I would not say that the third rail caused the accident.  However, if the third rail had stayed intact, it is perhaps likely that nobody on the train would have been killed.

There must be a lot of grade crossing collisions within this third rail system.  I would think that, in the case of a collision, trains shoving an impaled vehicle into the butt end of the third rail would be highly likely. A lot of cars that get hit by trains stick to the front of the engine and are carried a long distance.   

 

[Electroliner 1935]

When I was working on the PRR in the 50's, Gates were released to lower by gravity and the descent was controlled by the motor acting as a generator into a resistance. Otherwise it would freefall and could do damage. No sensor was used to cause the gate to rise if it struck smething, it would just remain on whatever it landed on until the track circuits came clear (no train on track) and the motor circuits were energized to raise the gate to the upright and latched. I doubt that that design has changed. I know nothing is totally perfect but railroad signalling is designed to be fail-safe. I remember a crossing where a washout had caused the signal case to fall over but the crossing signal had one red light lit in both directions. Not flashing but lit. for the crossing signals to "clear" ie, gates rise and flashers go dark, the approach track section and the section between the approach sections had to be clear. Energized and no shunt. Today, they use audio tone overlay electonics but they provide the same functions. The poor lady failed to heed the sign "DO NOT STOP ON THE TRACKS" and paid a high price. Habit and highway design traps people into bad choices. Whether she thought she could get clear, why she did not back up or for whatever reason she failed to avoid being on the track when the train arrived. And then the train pushed the car into the energized third rail which being anchored to its supports was pushed up and into the lead car spearing it and setting it on fire due to the high fault currents arcing to the inside of the car. Such is how this tragedy occured. I suspect the five passengers who died were on the third rail side of the car. Hell of a way to go.

[BaltACD]

^

Why the double posting?  This was posted on page 3!

[Euclid]

We know the gates were apparently working because one came down on the victim’s vehicle.  I am not sure if we know whether the red flashing lights activated when they were supposed to.  The second driver might have confirmed that they did. 

However, if they activated after the gate lowered, then it is perfectly understandable how the driver would have been struck by the lowering gate.  The lights are supposed to warn drivers before the gate comes down so they have time to stop for it.  Without the flashers warning of the gate descent, it would be like having a traffic light go from green to red. 

We also know the public reported problems with the crossing protection system earlier the day of the crash.  That does not prove that a system malfunction caused the crash, but it is quite a coincidence. 

We also know that traffic engineers recognized the crossing as having a driver visibility problem due to the curves in the road. 

And then there is this little nugget of news from this link:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/02/03/mass-casualty-incident-after-car-train-collide-in-ny/22823329/

Quote from link:

“All railroad grade crossings have gate arms that are designed to lift automatically if they strike something like a car on the way down, railroad safety consultant Grady Cothen said.”

 

We know that did not happen in this accident. 

[BaltACD]

 

Euclid

 

We also know the public reported problems with the crossing protection system earlier the day of the crash.  That does not prove that a system malfunction caused the crash, but it is quite a coincidence. 

 

Observation from 25+ years of handling reports of 'malfunctioning' crossings where the OSP says the crossing didn't give them enough time to react.  Their thought processes were somewhere other than operating their vehicle when the protections began to operate - after a period of time they noticed them and were 'surprised'.

On my carrier, whenever this is reported, a maintainer is dispatched.  Findings upon arrival - protection is functioning as intended, review of crossing equipments log reveals no exceptions to operation in any period preceding the reported 'defect'.

My carrier takes the proper functioning of crossing protection seriously.  I suspect all carriers do, including Metro North.

[Euclid]

Yes Norm.  That explains why you never hear of a witness being used in a trial. 

[mudchicken]

BroadwayLion

Signs will not be read. A new crtossing protection is required. The kind used to protect Federal Buildings, it comes up out of the ground and can stop a tank.

If a car is on top of it when it comes up, the car will just stay there until it goes back down again. Naturally it has to be much further away from the tracks so that if it does lift a car it will not be half on the tracks. It will need good warning lihgts to let people know to STOP AND WAIT RIGHT THERE!

Oh well, ideas of LION might not be practicle, but what the heck do you expect from a LION.

 

ROAR

 

Tried and failed. (McLean, IL on SPCSL racetrack) If man designs and builds it, man can manage to subvert it.

[Norm48327]

Euclid

 

We also know the public reported problems with the crossing protection system earlier the day of the crash.  That does not prove that a system malfunction caused the crash, but it is quite a coincidence. 

 

 

Are you aware that witness reports after the fact are the least reliable source of information? Each is likely to see, and tell, the story differenly leaving the authorities to determine the true facts. People see things from their own perspective. Reality can be vastly different.

[ACY Tom]

How about signage on the INSIDE of the gate, saying "breakable gate arm" or some such?  Might help a panicky motorist.

Tom

[Euclid]

It is true that driver familiarity and expectations matter.  Traffic engineers do take that into consideration.  Last summer, the highway department set up a large detour coming into the north side of St. Peter, Mn.  They reversed the right of way through two intersections that had stop signs for one of the two routes through the intersection.  The next day, someone was killed as they drove under the trailer of a passing semi.  The detour signage was perfect, but the victim simply drove according to his established pattern, and failed to notice that the right or way had reversed.

[David1005]

The solution to the grade crossing safety problem is grade seperation. At the present time there must be twenty five grade seperation projects in the works in Southern California. There are not being put in to improve safety, they are to reduce wait times caused by both train and auto congestion and whistle blowing noise.  Grade seperations are expensive, but once the crossings are gone, they are gone for good along with all the problems they cause for the trains, cars and the neighborhood. 

[tree68]

Yep - plenty of flashing lights and signs certain can make a difference.  If people read and heed them.

[BaltACD]

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1993-03-18/news/1993077250_1_gasoline-tanker-fort-lauderdale-fuel

[rfpjohn]

I am not sure if this crossing is equipped with "quad" gates, but I have seen multiple instances of drivers trapped within the quad gates, not realizing that the gates can be driven through, though their vehicle may suffer some scratches and they may be subject to a fine. In heavy traffic, too often, drivers inch onto a crossing while following the cars in front of them. The gate comes down in front of them, they can't back up and they freeze. I've blown by vehicles trapped in this scenario on double track territory, where fortunately there was enough room for the car to fit without fouling both tracks. Quad gates are dangerous!

[eolafan]

This was yet another tragic case of a auto driver not doing the correct, sensible or logical thing when coming upon a railroad track...which is to stop short of the track and NOT to cross that track until he/she is certain that there is enough room on the other side to accomodate the length of his/her vehicle without the back side of the vehicle foulding the track.  This woman obviously totally disregarded such very logical practice and paid the ultimate price for her foolishness.  The worst part of her not doing the right thing is that not only did she perish as a result, but so did numerous others who were totally innocent of such wrongdoing.

[Speaking clock]

I've seen everything in every category from odd junk to da funk, and I say that something must be done, but something that won't make motorists say "challenge accepted ".

we can all point fingers, however moving the crossing gate a bit further back from the tracks might help, or re routing the traffic, here in sharonville cincinnati Dayton road has been overloaded with construction and increased I&O traffic on the NS .

something Must be done, and I wish I had the answer.

[Euclid]

I wonder if the people riding that train would all agree that nothing should be done to increase crossing safety because you can’t fix stupid.

Apparently traffic engineers did not believe in that nonsense.  From this link, it says that distant warning signals were planned for that crossing because of the curving road limiting sight distance:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/02/07/new-york-officials-planned-more-warning-lights-on-tracks-before-deadly-train/

Quote from the link:

“More warning lights were planned at the suburban New York train crossing where a motorist and five train passengers were killed Tuesday, but state transportation officials never installed them.

The planned third set of lights would have been built up to 200 feet back from the crossing, on the curving road leading up to it, the New York Post reports.”

[Norm48327]

ACY

 

There's been a lot of commentary that states or implies that the tragedy was caused by stupidity.  We don't know the lady's state of mind.  Therefore, I prefer to think of her as being confused and misplacing her priorities. 

Tom 

 

Tom,

In a previous life, I was a professional firefighter. Many times I saw people simply freeze as if they were totally disengaged from the situation. They stood when they should have run and paid the consequences. Can't help but think that's what happened to her.

[Euclid]

“Do Not Stop on Tracks” should be relegated to the museum of stupid signs right along with “Danger, Low Flying Aircraft.”

The problem with the sign, “Do Not Stop on Tracks” is that it warns of the consequence rather than the underlying point.  If a driver ignores the underlying point, it may be too late to have a choice in the matter of whether to stop on the tracks.  That is why I suggest a sign that addresses the underlying point.    

I doubt that many drivers properly understand the message, “Do Not Stop on Tracks.”  The average driver will think, “Why warn me of that? Of course I won’t stop on the tracks.  Why would I?  I have no plan to stop here.”

I doubt that they realize that the point of the sign is to warn not to stop on the tracks when there is heavy stop-and-go traffic.  That is the one circumstance that leads to stopping on the track, and it may occur without any forethought or expectation on the part of the driver. 

And the pertinent message is not the issue of stopping on the track.  It is the requirement to not enter the crossing until it is clear to pass completely through it.  If a driver does not understand that larger point, they will inadvertently enter the crossing with insufficient room to clear on the opposite side.  So by the time they have to stop on the track, they will have no choice in the matter.  They can’t run over the car ahead of them that has stopped and is preventing them from clearing the track.

The new sign makes the crucial point that one should not ENTER the crossing if not entirely clear.  This is crucial because once you enter the crossing; it will then be too late to make a choice to not stop on the track if you are inching along in stop-and-go traffic. 

So the new sign should say this: 

In Slow Road Traffic—

Wait Here Until Clear to Pass

Completely Through Crossing

[Mookie]

Doug - I agree with you completely.  Also, she may have been doing the new driving additive - texting or talking on a phone before the accident.  Which could be why her mind was not even conscious of her surroundings - just that she may have damaged her vehicle.  It was after work, she could have her mind any of a thousand places, and just never made the connection involving a train.   Just get out of the situation she was in.  She may have even panicked, thought she was in reverse and rolled forward.  

Clearly when she got out to look at the damage, this says to me that she was mentally very distracted.  

[challenger3980]

"Intelligent Crossings" that WARN the locomotive engineer about obstacles in the crossing, would have to have the activation advanced how much to be effective?  A 25 -30 second before train arrival activation would not warn an engineer in time to stop in most instances.

 Increasing the activation before arrival time is just going to inspire more drivers to try to beat the train, drive around gates, and other stupid acts.

IMO, new signs are NOT needed, or likely to change most drivers behaviours, DO NOT STOP ON TRACKS is more than sufficient, it says everything that needs to be said without complicating the signs. Traffic engineers work very hard to design signs that give drivers the information they need to drive safely, without making the sign messages too long to read while driving, the current signs do their job, it is up to the drivers to OBEY the signs in place.

You just can't fix Stupid, not to speak ill of the dead, but this was a senseless tragedy, that should not have happened. There was a sign in place specifically warning NOT to do what she did, her speed was obviously slow enough that she should have had plenty of time to comprehend it's warning, and because she disregarded the signs warning, not only was she killed, but so were 5 completely innocent other people.

As a Professional Driver with more than 26 years, and 2,500,000 miles experience, the stupid things that people do behind the wheel are beyond mind boggeling.

 

Doug

[16-567D3A]

.                    

[ACY Tom]

Lion:

It's been tried.  We found some photos of such an installation on the AC&Y RR in the 1920's or 1930's.  I think it was in Carey, Ohio.  It was evidently short-lived.  I think maintenance & reliability were the downfall of the system.  I can imagine snow being a problem.  Also, what happens to the car that is caught between the barriers?  I don't want to think about that.

There's been a lot of commentary that states or implies that the tragedy was caused by stupidity.  We don't know the lady's state of mind.  Therefore, I prefer to think of her as being confused and misplacing her priorities.  The SUV was evidently fairly new.  Was she thinking about the crossarm damaging the paint? Did she think she was in Reverse when she pulled forward?  We'll never know, and I'd prefer to think well of her.  She paid dearly for her mistake, as did the other victims, and it seems a bit churlish to add to that tragedy by insulting her.

Tom 

[tree68]

The fact that the crossing equipment did its job notwithstanding, one must consider the relative need to make further improvements of the crossing.  As I noted before, unless this is a popular shortcut, it's a windy road through a cemetary.

News reports indicated that the highway controls at that intersection are interlocked with the crossing protection so people wouldn't get caught on the tracks by being backed up by the traffic light if there are trains coming.

It would appear that the heavy traffic due to the temporary detour overwhelmed the planning.

This was likely a one-off event - except for unusually bad intersections, such detours occur at intervals measured in years.  If accidents do occur at the intersection that caused the collision, I'm sure traffic engineers are looking at that.  But, as has been stated numerous times, you can't fix stupid.  It only takes one driver making a bozo move to negate all the planning in the world.