Metro North, 6 dead

[Deggesty]

rdamon

Couple of thoughts ...

Maybe if the crossing gates were more like elevator doors and would momentary raise and then return. This may help with “Driver Paralysis”

If the crossing gates are unable to indicate a fully down position could there be some sort of signal to the crew?

Also, when a train running 3^rd rail goes into emergency shouldn’t there be a mechanism to depower the line?

 

We could always bring back the siren crossings!!

 

 

 

If someone not familiar with the route of travel were suddenly confronted by that warning in action--Stop dead and be rearended? It may be well that there was only one.

[rdamon]

Couple of thoughts ...

Maybe if the crossing gates were more like elevator doors and would momentary raise and then return. This may help with “Driver Paralysis”

If the crossing gates are unable to indicate a fully down position could there be some sort of signal to the crew?

Also, when a train running 3^rd rail goes into emergency shouldn’t there be a mechanism to depower the line?

 

We could always bring back the siren crossings!!

 

 

[gardendance]

Also Euclid if you're going to suggest a better sign please tell us what the sign should say.

[zardoz]

zugmann

 

 

Euclid

I would suggest a better sign to cover the issue of getting trapped on the track by traffic congestion.

 

 

 

"Do Not Stop on Tracks" seems to fit the bill.

 

If someone is dumb enough to stop on railroad tracks, what are the chances that they will comprehend the sign?

[BaltACD]

http://news.yahoo.com/york-train-not-speeding-crash-car-002000199.html

 

[schlimm]

On the national evening network news broadcast (not sure which) Thursday, mention was made of the short interval between when bells and light start to flash and gates descend.   Given the driver got trapped, perhaps that timing interval needs to be revisited.

[Euclid]

zugmann

 

Euclid

I would suggest a better sign to cover the issue of getting trapped on the track by traffic congestion.

 

"Do Not Stop on Tracks" seems to fit the bill.

She never stopped on the tracks.  She stopped short of the track, got hit by the gate, and hesitated, apparently not sure what to do.  Then she made the wrong decision and proceeded across the track.

With a gate on top of their vehicle, a driver should simply back out from under it.  As others have said, the gate will yield or break if necessary.  But how many drivers know this?  Does Operation Lifesaver inform the public of this procedure? 

Having never thought about the situation of fouling the gate, a driver is bound to consider the potential of damaging their vehicle in the act of breaking free of the gate.  They will also worry about damaging the gate and worsening their offense if they get caught.  And they will consider that if they are not fouling the track, there will be no need to get out from under the gate on top of their vehicle, so it may be best just to wait until the train passes and the gate rises. 

Maybe the driver will need stand on the rail with his/her arm extended to check whether their vehicle is within the fouling point of the track before deciding what to do. 

 

[trackrat888]

From the pics on the New York Daily news the railroad car has few dents in it and off course the SUV is totaled. Case in favor of overbuilt American Railroad Design vs Europe lightweight cars.

[NorthWest]

carnej1

There are first person eyewitness accounts that say that the third rail did in fact penetrate the car...

See picture three at this link:

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ntsb-heads-westchester-investigate-metro-north-crash-article-1.2102750

That's the third rail at the TOP of the car!

Official NTSB photos: https://www.flickr.com/photos/ntsb/sets/72157650647203205/

[ACY Tom]

Euclid:

Looking on Google Maps, I do not see a "Do Not Stop on Track" sign facing either direction.  Is there another map site that shows a more current view?  In any case, nobody should drive a car without knowing not to stop between the gates.  Too me, it looks like panic and/or confusion are the most likely explanations.  Truly tragic. 

[blue streak 1]

tree68

In reading about similar incidents in the past, it appears that too many people (maybe most of them) regard the gates as they would a rock wall - immovable - which is not the case.  The gates are made to swing or break away if forced.

 

 

Tree is correct.  Notice how often the media reports call the crossing gates as barriers.

A question often arises how do you mark the crossings better?  None has been found.  Sun rail around Orlando has a partial solution with strict enforcement of not stopping on the tracks.  Last timme there saw 4 separate police pull over 20 vehicles in as much time.  Got my chuckles.  Next time there regulars seem to have gotten the message.

 

[samfp1943]

zugmann

 

Euclid

I would suggest a better sign to cover the issue of getting trapped on the track by traffic congestion.

 

 

 

"Do Not Stop on Tracks" seems to fit the bill.

 

Seems to be proof that signage and an actively signaled crossing is no insurance that a motorist will hed a warning that a train is coming? According to reports the speed of train in the area of this accident was 60 mph.

FTL:"...Metropolitan Transportation Authority Chairman and CEO Thomas Prendergast said the third rail entered the SUV and then went up through the first car of the train, causing the SUV to burst into flames and starting the fire in the train.

Prendergast said the 5:45 p.m. express train carries an average of 655 passengers, and the speed limit for trains in the area is 60 mph..."  see link @ http://westfaironline.com/69028/six-killed-15-injured-in-valhalla-trainsuv-collision/

 

[zugmann]

Euclid

I would suggest a better sign to cover the issue of getting trapped on the track by traffic congestion.

 

"Do Not Stop on Tracks" seems to fit the bill.

[Euclid]

Why put up a sign if it does not mean what it says?  She may have broken the law, but I can see how someone might do that as an honest mistake.  Certainly she should not have pulled forward into the path of the train, but I suspect that she may have been somewhat rattled or maybe even embarrassed by her predicament.  When the gate came down on her vehicle, it was not clear for her to back up.  Then, even though the guy behind her made space, she may have not clearly seen that.  At the same time, the way ahead apparently cleared, so she impulsively went that way.  I would suggest a better sign to cover the issue of getting trapped on the track by traffic congestion. 

[ACY Tom]

Speculation is always an iffy proposition, but I wonder whether she might have thought she was in reverse when she moved forward onto the track.  I'm sure we'll never know. 

[BaltACD]

I am going to make an assumption - the driver was a 'local' and had been using this crossing for years.

Some people take the 'do not stop on tracks' sign literally and will stop just shy of the rail and get the surprise of their life (and most likely the last surprise).  Stopping clear of tracks really means stopping behind the crossing protection.

There is no acceptable excuse for the drivers actions, as attested to by the following driver.

[Euclid]

 

According the news link I posted above, the driver stopped short of the track, but under the gate.  The gate came down on her vehicle.  She got out and looked at it.  The driver behind her backed up to give her room to back out from under the gate.  The driver of the car under the gate got back into her vehicle, but instead of backing up, she drove forward and was hit by the train. 

Since the driver was stopped when the gate came down, I assume that slow moving, heavy traffic was holding her back.  Since she decided to move forward instead of backing into the clear, I assume that the blocking traffic ahead had cleared enough for her to cross the track. 

There is a sign there that says “Do Not Stop on Track.”  But she did not stop on the track.  She stopped short of the track, but under the gate. 

[BaltACD]

tree68

 

 

chatanuga

Every crossing with gates that I've seen has the gates set back a little bit from the nearest track, leaving room for a single small car.  If the gate came down on the back of the SUV, she should have been okay if she'd just stayed where she was.  I'm wondering if she was preoccupied and focused on what hit her vehicle and then trying to move forward with nobody in front of her or if she thought she was too far out, panicked, and tried to get across rather than abandon the vehicle.

 

 

In reading about similar incidents in the past, it appears that too many people (maybe most of them) regard the gates as they would a rock wall - immovable - which is not the case.  The gates are made to swing or break away if forced.

Throw in the fear of scratching or denting one's Rolls Kanardly and it makes sense why people don't just drive out of the situation (assuming they have room in front or behind them).

 

Recived instructions to put out a 'Stop & Flag Order' on a crossing because a OSP stated the gates 'just came down on their own and scratched the top of my car' - and a train went through the crossing seconds later.

Call should have been answered requesting name and address to send the driving citation to.

Signal personnel checked out the crossing a hour after the report and it was found to be operating as intended.

[Deggesty]

Yup--no scratch, no dent--just no car.

[tree68]

chatanuga

Every crossing with gates that I've seen has the gates set back a little bit from the nearest track, leaving room for a single small car.  If the gate came down on the back of the SUV, she should have been okay if she'd just stayed where she was.  I'm wondering if she was preoccupied and focused on what hit her vehicle and then trying to move forward with nobody in front of her or if she thought she was too far out, panicked, and tried to get across rather than abandon the vehicle.

In reading about similar incidents in the past, it appears that too many people (maybe most of them) regard the gates as they would a rock wall - immovable - which is not the case.  The gates are made to swing or break away if forced.

Throw in the fear of scratching or denting one's Rolls Kanardly and it makes sense why people don't just drive out of the situation (assuming they have room in front or behind them).

[Euclid]

This article seems to have a lot of good information.  It does not sound like there was any signal failure.  There was apparently extra heavy traffic over the crossing due to a diversion around another crash earlier nearby.  The testimony of the person in the vehicle behind the struck vehicle is quite clear and detailed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/05/nyregion/metro-north-train-crash.html

[chatanuga]

Every crossing with gates that I've seen has the gates set back a little bit from the nearest track, leaving room for a single small car.  If the gate came down on the back of the SUV, she should have been okay if she'd just stayed where she was.  I'm wondering if she was preoccupied and focused on what hit her vehicle and then trying to move forward with nobody in front of her or if she thought she was too far out, panicked, and tried to get across rather than abandon the vehicle.

Kevin

[blue streak 1]

Some reports indicate very heavy traffic on cross street past crossing.

Maybe SUV was unable to clear crossing?

As often said the only very good RR crossing is one that has become extinct.  ( eliminated )

[MOWBill]

The camera on the train will tell us what happened...

[Speaking clock]

petitnj

Speculation: Since the fire was so intense, something kept it going. Gasolene would not have come into the passenger car -- the third rail did. The vehicle as it was pushed in front of the locomotive, tore the third rail from its mountings and it came up into the first passenger car. The live third rail sparked against the body of the rail car and set off the fire. As long as the third rail was hot, sparks and flames spread. 

 

logic:

As a scout I have some experience with fire, and I say that a spark between the third rail and a peice of metal ignited the petrol.

Once the gas fire got pretty hot, some other things like upolstery or insulation might have caught Fire and added to the heat. Anything can burn if it gets hot enough (excluring water). 

that should make sense

[oltmannd]

carnej1

 

 

petitnj

Speculation: Since the fire was so intense, something kept it going. Gasolene would not have come into the passenger car -- the third rail did. The vehicle as it was pushed in front of the locomotive, tore the third rail from its mountings and it came up into the first passenger car. The live third rail sparked against the body of the rail car and set off the fire. As long as the third rail was hot, sparks and flames spread. 

 

 

 

 

There are first person eyewitness accounts that say that the third rail did in fact penetrate the car...

 

 

Awful.  Just Awful.  Third rail explains the intense fire in what is otherwise a "flame-proof" coach.

NSTB will likely tie the line up for days and then recommend ejection seats passengers after a year of intense study.  I'm not hopeful anything useful will come from this.

[Euclid]

I have not heard anything reported that would indicate a false activation.  Since the gate came down when the train arrived, there was no failure to activate the gate.  The only question that remains is whether the flashing red lights could have failed to activate.  If they did, there would be no warning that the gate was about to come down.  Under that circumstance, it would be possible to be passing over the crossing, be struck by the descending gate, and stop because of that.  I do not believe that would violate the sign warning not to stop on the crossing. 

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

What kind of malfunction was reported ?  False activation, or failure to activate ?

I could believe false activation - what with all the snow up that way in the past week or so, and salt being spread to prevent icing, that would have greatly lowered the electrical resistance between the rails and 'shunted' (connected) them, leading the signal to respond the same as if a train was nearby or approaching.

Obviously, that would have been a 'fail-safe' malfunction - it errs on the safe side, i.e., warning against vehicles crossing the tracks , as opposed to no warning at all.

- Paul North.   

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

Jim in Fla

The road that crosses the tracks there ends,eastbound, at a traffic light about 5-7 car lengths ahead at the Taconic Parkway.

We have a similar siruation here in Rockledge, FL with the FEC and parallel US1 where eastbound auto trafic has only a short distance between them.

The New Sunrail commuter service through Orlando has had a few train vs car crashes since it started where cars stopped on the tracks, no one killed as I recall. I guess people cannot learn that it is a bad idea to stop on the tracks and that gates come down BECAUSE A TRAIN IS COMING!

Then a standard R8-8 "DO NOT STOP ON TRACKS" sign should have been installed there.  See the 2009 MUTCD, Chapter 8, Sec. 8B.09, about midway down the webpage, at:

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part8/part8b.htm 

- Paul North.

[CShaveRR]

A radio news report says that the NTSB is looking at the train now--whether it sounded its horn, how fast it was moving, etc.  What a waste--nothing will be found out of the ordinary, I suspect.

If the crossing were malfunctioning, had it been reported?  Those reports get relayed to trains on the line very quickly, and the train should have been notified to slow down.  (At least that's the way it works by us!)