Overmodhe situation would be different, of course, if the bus triggered its red lights and folding stop signs when it stopped at the crossing. I have never seen that done, however, and I suspect any driver that tried it might produce far more complaints than the incremental "safety" would warrant. It would also, noncoincidentally, 'breed more contempt' for early actuation of the school-bus stop lights over time. Now, by 'run the stop sign' do you mean the folding stop signs on the bus?
When a school bus stops at a grade crossing in Illinois (THEY ARE REQUIRED TO STOP AT ALL CROSSINGS, whether flashing lights, gate down or not) the red lights and the fold out stop sign are both activated. On a 4 lane, all cars behind stop and those in a adjacent lane are also required to and usually do.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
tree68 Overmod The situation would be different, of course, if the bus triggered its red lights and folding stop signs when it stopped at the crossing. Based on my observations of NY school buses, the driver turns on the amber flashers, usually prior to the planned stop. This transitions to the red flashers when the door is opened. If the amber flashers are not turned on, the reds will not come on.
Overmod The situation would be different, of course, if the bus triggered its red lights and folding stop signs when it stopped at the crossing.
Based on my observations of NY school buses, the driver turns on the amber flashers, usually prior to the planned stop. This transitions to the red flashers when the door is opened.
If the amber flashers are not turned on, the reds will not come on.
Johnny
Deggesty tree68 Overmod Based on my observations of NY school buses, the driver turns on the amber flashers, usually prior to the planned stop. This transitions to the red flashers when the door is opened. If the amber flashers are not turned on, the reds will not come on. I have noticed the same sequence here--after the amber flashers are on, and the bus has stopped the red flashers come on, whether it is for a railroad crossing or it is to take on or discharge pasengers.
tree68 Overmod Based on my observations of NY school buses, the driver turns on the amber flashers, usually prior to the planned stop. This transitions to the red flashers when the door is opened. If the amber flashers are not turned on, the reds will not come on.
Overmod
I have noticed the same sequence here--after the amber flashers are on, and the bus has stopped the red flashers come on, whether it is for a railroad crossing or it is to take on or discharge pasengers.
School busses in the dark are not readily recognizable as school busses. Other drivers cannot see the recognizable Yellow, especially drivers in the opposing direction who are partially 'overwhelmed' by the headlights of the bus and may not easily see the flashing red lights or the outrigger stop signs.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACDSchool busses in the dark are not readily recognizable as school busses.
Buses here now have a fair amount of yellow reflective tape in specific locations - doesn't do much for the front, but the sides and rear are much more visible. Most of our buses also have an illuminated "School Bus" sign front and rear.
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 BaltACD School busses in the dark are not readily recognizable as school busses. Buses here now have a fair amount of yellow reflective tape in specific locations - doesn't do much for the front, but the sides and rear are much more visible. Most of our buses also have an illuminated "School Bus" sign front and rear.
BaltACD School busses in the dark are not readily recognizable as school busses.
Ours also have a lot of reflectivity on the rear - front not so much - with the busses being out before sunrise on high traffic two lane roads it can get dicey.
Euclidmy impression was that MUTCD referred to the organization that produces the manual as well as to the manual itself. The person I conversed with worked at the MUTCD.
He must be awful small or awful thin.
Here is the official history of the MUTCD, including the agencies responsible for publishing the first one in the '30s. The agency responsible for the current version is FHWA.
EDIT: There is an interdisciplinary committee actually tasked with modifications to the MUTCD -- the NCUTCD, "National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices." Here is their home page.
Cotton Belt MP1041. I don’t know where all this applies but it seems very common on many roads that do not have active protection … an advance yellow warning is in place! Yes/No? Why was it installed where it was?
Two notes: There was an extensive discussion on this subject several years ago, and one of the things in it was a crossing that had a permanent yellow flashing traffic light 'in advance' warning not that a train was coming, but that the crossing was ahead. It's in that sense that the reflectorized yellow 'advance warning' signs are so useful
But note that this means that the physical crossing is up ahead, not that there might be a train and people will be expected to yield there, etc. -- in other words, not the functional equivalent of a yellow approach signal.
It would make sense to teach it that way, if the sign were given that explicit meaning, adding the words "Be prepared to stop" perhaps. But I'm not sure that can be done in a prescriptive manner for all crossings, as for any signaled or gated crossing there is no 'approach restriction' until the lights, gates and horns are actuated. What I've always thought should happen is that a couple of alternating yellow lights be provided at the 'approach' sign, similar to the alternating lights that trigger when 'timed red' will catch drivers going the speed limit on some modern highways. These might go on appropriately before the crossing formally lights up and gates start down, as more than just the sort of 'approach warning' by analogy a distant signal would provide.
Here's another approach (no pun intended) --this company's LED-enhanced signs could easily provide active light or 'chase' or pattern animation. They note these are 'solar powered with radar detection unit' so are essentially autonomous -- for crossings, a little additional radio and logic could be required, but the things could still be 'self-powered' and autonomous...
They also have a clever idea that 'by itself' is in need of a better real-world use at actual crossings, as shown, and also in need of the right sort of driving populace to take proper note of it there:
http://test.lightguardsystems.com/testing/traxalert-safer-highway-railroad-grade-crossings/
I bring this up because it represents a highly useful method of signaling approach to a railroad crossing, several hundred feet ahead, in conjunction with the fixed signs/lights. I'm not sure, in fact, why they haven't thought of 'marquee' alternating their lights to show both the direction and speed of the train that is coming, or perhaps brightening/flashing if a vehicle speed of approach (determined by inductive loops back in the dinosaur age, but could be cameras with machine vision today) is 'too high'.
Now, on the other hand, what the crossing pavement lights CAN do -- I saw this done in multiple colors of in-pavement reflectors in Australia, in the late 1970s, and it was truly eye-opening in its promise and capabilities -- is mark out very clearly where the 'clearance line' of all tracks is, in order to prevent people from mistaking the railroad for where they need to turn, or trying to get across where they can't make it.
[EDIT: Firelock76 just mentioned a video in the 'we hit a car today' thread. In the introduction of this thread is a brief glimpse (0:07-0:09) of a fascinating approach -- I honestly don't know whether to be impressed or amused by it -- which provides a light that goes OUT when a train is present. Makes sense because it really, absolutely, positively fails safe; it also makes sense from a railroad-rules perspective because light out = most restrictive indication. Makes very little sense if someone bombs up to the crossing without seeing all the words on the sign ... or ASSumes that all instrumented crossings show red lights to mean 'stop for the train'...]
Well maybe it is just the manual, but in my correspondence with him, it looked like the MUTCD was part of his address or the name of his organization. I thought it a little strange because I too would have assumed that the letters simply stood for the book and it seemed odd to think that the designation also stood for the organization that writes the book.
But in any case, he told me about that other reference that I linked called NCHRP REPORT 470 about passive crossings. I have not looked at it recently, but there is some interesting information in there as I recall.
It is this: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_470-a.pdf
There is a system available that provides yellow flashing lights as advance warning when the red flashing lights at the crossing activate. It is used for special circumstances such as restricted vision and high road speeds.
All I know is I look at that picture of those little angels and I want to break down and cry.
Now they are angels, but I still want to cry."
Me too.
And I can't imagine what happens next, or what life will be like, for the little one who survived.
The St. Francis Consolidated Railroad of the Colorado Rockies
Denver, Colorado
EuclidBut in any case, he told me about that other reference that I linked called NCHRP REPORT 470 about passive crossings. I have not looked at it recently, but there is some interesting information in there as I recall. It is this: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_470-a.pdf
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_470-a.pdf
Do you have the second part of this report, including the TL;DR 'conclusion' section starting on p.50? The link you provided only goes up to p.42. I'm presuming the second part is
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_470-b.pdf
Every time I look at that picture of the daughters, which is now what my screen goes to after I post, it makes me want to do something so this never happens again.
-- I honestly don't know whether to be impressed or amused by it -- which provides a light that goes OUT when a train is present. Makes sense because it really, absolutely, positively fails safe; it also makes sense from a railroad-rules perspective because light out = most restrictive indication.
Ever been around the MONON railroad in Indiana? They used to use a green light to indicate it was OK to proceed across the tracks. If the light was out, stop.
Can’t keep up with the literature. Disregard if redundant. Excerpt from article at link.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232878711_Evaluation_of_Effectiveness_of_Stop-Sign_Treatment_at_Highway-Railroad_Grade_Crossings
This study was focused on a 26 year accident history of passive highway grade crossings that were originally controlled by crossbucks only and were later upgraded to stop controls. The first objective of the research was to assess the effectiveness of the stop-sign treatment on crossing safety. It was found that the annual accident rates during the period when the crossings were controlled by crossbucks only were consistently higher than the accident rates after the stop-sign installation. The study finding supports that stop-sign treatment should be an effective and inexpensive method to improve safety at public grade crossings. This conclusion is consistent with prior accident rate analyses for stop-sign usage at passive crossings...
https://archive.org/stream/trafficengineeri00instrich#page/286/mode/2up
DeggestyI have noticed the same sequence here--after the amber flashers are on, and the bus has stopped the red flashers come on, whether it is for a railroad crossing or it is to take on or discharge pasengers.
Here in PA (at least these parts) the school busses just use their regular hazard lights when stopping at a railroad crossing.
As far as visibilty, just about all the busses here have the clear stobes on the roof. Now my biggest issue is when buses doesn't have sun shades over the red and amber flashers. They can get washed out during certain times of day.
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
From the quoted study:The first objective of the research was to assess the effectiveness of the stop-sign treatment on crossing safety. It was found that the annual accident rates during the period when the crossings were controlled by crossbucks only were consistently higher than the accident rates after the stop-sign installation. The study finding supports that stop-sign treatment should be an effective and inexpensive method to improve safety at public grade crossings.
Note the critical difference between this and the reasoning the NCUTCD members et al. gave as their reasoning for not using widespread stop signage at passive crossings.
Of course, when the 'crossbuck' is commonly not recognized as being a yield sign, let alone a stop sign for 'stop, look, listen' purposes, replacing it with an absolute STOP will result in greater safety, statistically, than when folks just blissfully slow down enough to avoid bottoming out on the crossing. The argument is that if there are too many stop signs out in the middle of nowhere, it might breed contempt for stop signs in other locations and contexts, and I suspect those people have equally good (or at least statistically valid) studies and data to support their view.
Euclid zugmann Euclid Because there is less compliance with stop signs at grade crossings, the MUTCD worries that using stop signs at grade crossings will degrade the overall compliance with stop signs, and thus reduce stop sign compliance at road intersections. Happen to have any source for this? MUTCD 2009 edition has all sorts of guidelines for using stop and yield signs with passive crossings. The following is from this source on page 23 http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_470-a.pdf Quote from the source: 1. Studies have consistently observed low rates of compliance with Stop signs that are used at rail crossings even though their use is typically limited to more severe sites. There is concern that broad use at passive crossings would further reduce the perceived urgency and legitimacy of the Stop message, degrading compliance further. 2. Concern has been expressed by the traffic engineering community that the widespread use of nonrequired Stop signs will breed a general disrespect for this TCD that will generalize to other applications. There is no direct empirical support for this breeding of disrespect, and, in fact, it would be very hard to prove or disprove. However, because Stop signs are so widespread and critical in intersection traffic control, there is a potential for severe consequences even if there is only a minor amount of generalized disrespect.
zugmann Euclid Because there is less compliance with stop signs at grade crossings, the MUTCD worries that using stop signs at grade crossings will degrade the overall compliance with stop signs, and thus reduce stop sign compliance at road intersections. Happen to have any source for this? MUTCD 2009 edition has all sorts of guidelines for using stop and yield signs with passive crossings.
Euclid Because there is less compliance with stop signs at grade crossings, the MUTCD worries that using stop signs at grade crossings will degrade the overall compliance with stop signs, and thus reduce stop sign compliance at road intersections.
Happen to have any source for this? MUTCD 2009 edition has all sorts of guidelines for using stop and yield signs with passive crossings.
The following is from this source on page 23
Quote from the source:
1. Studies have consistently observed low rates of compliance with Stop signs that are used at rail crossings even though their use is typically limited to more severe sites. There is concern that broad use at passive crossings would further reduce the perceived urgency and legitimacy of the Stop message, degrading compliance further.
2. Concern has been expressed by the traffic engineering community that the widespread use of nonrequired Stop signs will breed a general disrespect for this TCD that will generalize to other applications. There is no direct empirical support for this breeding of disrespect, and, in fact, it would be very hard to prove or disprove.
However, because Stop signs are so widespread and critical in intersection traffic control, there is a potential for severe consequences even if there is only a minor amount of generalized disrespect.
The above in blue is what I found in REPORT 470. The thinking seems to be that adding yield signs to crossbucks at passive crossings will always help and never hurt. But adding stop signs enters into a fair amount of controversy. One issue is that lots of drivers don't come to a full stop.
While the failure to come to a complete stop is definitive in testing compliance, I think it is faulty to conclude that the failure to completely stop completely offsets the benefit of a stop sign.
OvermodThe argument is that if there are too many stop signs out in the middle of nowhere, it might breed contempt for stop signs in other locations and contexts, and I suspect those people have equally good (or at least statistically valid) studies and data to support their view.
Do we actually have the studies/evidence to support that? And as you know, being statistically significant, though important, is not sufficient, since you can get those results with a large n. The effect size is a more telling stat.
schlimm Overmod The argument is that if there are too many stop signs out in the middle of nowhere, it might breed contempt for stop signs in other locations and contexts, and I suspect those people have equally good (or at least statistically valid) studies and data to support their view. Do we actually have the studies/evidence to support that? And as you know, being statistically significant, though important, is not sufficient, since you can get those results with a large n. The effect size is a more telling stat.
Overmod The argument is that if there are too many stop signs out in the middle of nowhere, it might breed contempt for stop signs in other locations and contexts, and I suspect those people have equally good (or at least statistically valid) studies and data to support their view.
This has been a party line in the Traffic Engineering community for at least 40 years.
schlimmDo we actually have the studies/evidence to support that?
Not my field of interest (or, really, of expertise), and I personally don't like abusing statistics to try to "prove" that the effect is or isn't valuable enough to incorporate in national policy, which is really what a question like this boils down to.
I'd be much more concerned with establishing some way to provide enhanced enforcement on stop signs associated with railroad crossings, which of course can be done ad nauseam with current privacy-intrusive methods of enforcement, particularly including well-placed cameras and overeager Barney-Fife-style rural communities that already love speed-trap revenues, like Gallaway, TN. The question then becomes whether it's worth it to engage in such activity for such purposes, rather than just developing better signage specific to railroad crossings that does not involve semantic confusion with traffic stop signs and then enforcing that going forward -- which I think is far more fair, and is the approach I, personally, have been following.
Maybe Mr. Billups was on to something ...
You need to show what it did in action!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGhFHKtDhns
(There is a movie of the Neon Crossing Signal with a streamlined train passing, but that version doesn't do justice to the sound...)
Speaking of false alarms breeding contempt: apparently the siren was known for sticking 'on' until someone came out to fix it. It might be very likely for locals within earshot ... potentially that is a relatively large number, even for Grenada ... to take less notice if it cried wolf often.
I'm still not quite sure why this wasn't built with lift-bridge functionality, lowering under gravity and then winching back up afterwards. THAT would almost guarantee that people would stop, and perhaps not try to go or crawl around to 'beat' a train.
If I recall correctly, IC ran very fast trains through here at one point, so it's not as exaggerated as you might think given the location. And the accident at Bourbonnais established that the death might not, as schlimm said, be limited to the vehicle passengers or trespassers.
rdamon Maybe Mr. Billups was on to something ...
Maybe the visual and auditory protections of crossings need to be updated to 21st Century norms. Instead of just a ringing bell, utilize the multi-tone police and fire werbling horns. Instead of the common alternating flashing red lights, mix in the high powered red & blue LED's that are blinding drivers viewing today's police cars. For grins throw in strobeing black light and have black light viewable designs and images applied to the passing rail equipment. Maybe even have a laser light show between the components of the crossing protection.
But - This incident occured at a private crossing that is essentially a driveway.
There is no through traffic there. You're either going to the house (and farm facilities), or leaving. And, the house is very close to the crossing, from what I can see. The residents would likely have been very familiar with rail traffic there.
I would opine that the odds are really good that the father may have been somehow distracted by his family, in which case a ten foot by ten foot stop sign would have made little difference.
There were numerous subsequent stories after the incident about how better crossing protection was planned for the intersection in question, but I submit that the stories are referring to the CR 75-1 crossing, not the CR 32 crossing where the collision occured.
Ideally, the crossing should be closed. Doing so will involve building a new access road to the property.
Having the effects of stop signs being diminished by stop signs where they are not necessarily needed certain makes sense - but those less-than-necessary signs must be in relative proximity to signs that are needed. A driver that never sees a stop sign at a rail crossing will not be effected as such.
Peoples reaction to any sign is relative to its perceived importance in their life...
Overmod You need to show what it did in action! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGhFHKtDhns (There is a movie of the Neon Crossing Signal with a streamlined train passing, but that version doesn't do justice to the sound...) Speaking of false alarms breeding contempt: apparently the siren was known for sticking 'on' until someone came out to fix it. It might be very likely for locals within earshot ... potentially that is a relatively large number, even for Grenada ... to take less notice if it cried wolf often. I'm still not quite sure why this wasn't built with lift-bridge functionality, lowering under gravity and then winching back up afterwards. THAT would almost guarantee that people would stop, and perhaps not try to go or crawl around to 'beat' a train. If I recall correctly, IC ran very fast trains through here at one point, so it's not as exaggerated as you might think given the location. And the accident at Bourbonnais established that the death might not, as schlimm said, be limited to the vehicle passengers or trespassers.
I do not know about the crossings in towns south of Grenada, but between Memphis and Grenada there were many crossings so close together that the engineer was put to it make the proper signal for each one (the time I rode the engine, I would make the last blast for one such crossing be the first blast for the next one; the engineer did not chide me for my practice).
Excerpt from “Driver Behavior at Railway-Highway Grade Crossings with Passive Traffic Control: A Driving Simulator Study” by Bryan Andre Bartnik (2013)
http://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2705&context=utk_gradthes
The 1961 MUTCD guidelines put forth seven conditions that could warrant a STOP sign. The sixth warrant stated that STOP signs may be placed at “railroad crossings where a stop is required by law or by order of the appropriate public authority.” In the next 10 years there was much debate on the topic. In the next edition of the MUTCD released in 1971 that warrant was removed. There was one remaining warrant that could be applied to grade crossings. However, it was never made clear if the warrant applied to grade crossings or not. The State of Florida asked for an “interpretation” from FHWA whom responded that the STOP sign could be used after an engineering study was performed which shows a specific need but only as an interim measure. Several states and counties were putting stop signs at every grade crossing while others avoided placing stop signs at grade crossings completely. In 1991, the US Congress passed a law under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act authorizing the use of STOP and YIELD signs at grade crossings with two more trains per day.
Excerpts from “Effectiveness of Stop Sign Installations at Highway-Railroad Grade Crossings: An Evaluation of Installation Safety Performance” by Harold Lynn Millegan (2008)
http://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1549&context=utk_graddiss
In 1991, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) was enacted by the U.S. Congress. In Section 1077 of ISTEA, the Secretary of Transportation was directed by Congress to: “Revise the Manual of Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) to authorize States and local governments, at their own discretion, to install stop or yield signs at any rail-highway grade crossing without automatic traffic control devices with two or more trains operating across the crossing per day.”…
…Stop-sign installations at highway-railroad grade crossings have shown a definite benefit according to the accident record since 1980. The research conducted herein has proved in three different ways that Stop-sign installation safety performance is superior to Crossbucks-only in the target population. The ISTEA mandate to allow usage of Stop signs at highway-railroad grade-crossings has been shown to be correct.
Excerpt from “Study of Drivers’ Behavior at Passive Railroad-Highway Grade Crossings” by Eugene R. Russell (2007)
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=ADDC19D744F192FBB3E38030D29CBD06?doi=10.1.1.485.4851&rep=rep1&type=pdf
FHWA 1978 conducted an extensive study to determine advantages and disadvantages of the selective use of highway STOP sign as safety improvements at rail-highway grade crossings and to develop guidelines for their use. In this study they compared the STOP sign with the CROSSBUCK sign. They conducted a field study of 17 crossings with STOP sign and 8 with only a CROSSBUCK sign and they found that 60% of all drivers exhibited “acceptable” stopping and 82.5% looked for trains at STOP sign locations, while only 42% looked for trains at CROSSBUCK sign sites. The final report concluded that the STOP sign could be more effective when applied selectively at hazardous passive grade crossings, and if guidelines for their use is provided. The guidelines from this study are presented below.
1. The installation must be believable. The driver must be able to perceive a reason for the stop sign which satisfies his requirements for validity. These requirements include low visibility to train detection, high train expectancy, and enforcement.
2. The vehicle-train exposure value should exceed 100. Translated into train per day and AADT values, this means that the train volume must be higher than average and AADT’s lower than average. At less than three trains per day, the stop sign should not be used without a compelling reason. Rough guidelines are that stop signs are acceptable for an AADT under 2000, temporarily acceptable while waiting active traffic control devices up to 4000 AADT, and impractical above 4000. The vehicle delay imposed by stop signs and the potential for vehicle-vehicle conflicts should be acceptable at these levels.
3. The driver should be unable to adequately detect trains unless he nearly stops. It is also necessary that the driver be able to perceive that a stop is necessary.
4. The level of enforcement must at least be equal to that applied to intersection stop signs. The courts must also agree that the offense of failure to stop is equal for grade crossings and intersection.
5. The stop sign must be selectively used so that expectancy is reinforced. If a driver is exposed to improperly used grade crossings stop signs, his respect for those which are properly used will be reduced. (The driver does not confuse intersection applications with grade crossing applications).
6. A high level of traffic engineering is required so that hazardous conflicts are not created at nearby intersections by the grade crossing stop sign.
7. The stop sign installation must be treated as a system, including proper deployment and maintenance of advance warning for both the grade crossing and stop sign.
8. The crossing must be periodically reviewed to insure that the original conditions which prompted the stop sign use still exist.
https://archive.org/stream/evaluationofsafe6723berg#page/n0/mode/2up
tree68I would opine that the odds are really good that the father may have been somehow distracted by his family, in which case a ten foot by ten foot stop sign would have made little difference.
I have a very bad feeling about this.
Has anyone plotted where the church is, relative to where the crossing is, and its orientation north-south?
We know the family was supposed to be going to church, but that the accident is said to have occurred with the van 'northbound'. Isn't that the direction into the driveway, not onto the road?
Suspect they went off to church, and something happened a short way down the road -- I can think of a couple of logical ones with children that age -- which made them rush home before going on. Focus on what would happen at home, not so much on the infrequently-used crossing they were coming to.
I'm not commenting on it any further, but I think the situation fits much better than 'suicide' if the geography and timing are as I think they are.
Good grief, whoever planted the idea this was suicide-murder needs a brain if not a heart. By all accounts he was a good Christian.
The vehicle was struck on the right, therefore headed toward County Road 75.
wanswheel Good grief, whoever planted the idea this was suicide-murder needs a brain if not a heart. By all accounts he was a good Christian. The vehicle was struck on the right, therefore headed toward County Road 75.
Even good Christians have marital problems and/or a dark side. Not ruling anything in or out.
OvermodHas anyone plotted where the church is, relative to where the crossing is, and its orientation north-south?
The church (if I got the right one) is on the south side of Trinidad, on or about CR 69.3, the Santa Fe Trail. Regardless, it was apparently in Trinidad somewhere.
The County Route 32 crossing is here: N 37 13' 14" W 104 27' 29"
Given the fact that the van was hit on the right side by westbound train, they were northbound, which would square will pulling out of the driveway, across the tracks, and onto County Route 32.
After the collision, the train would likely have stopped in the vicinity of the County Route 75.1 crossing (MP632.753) (N 37 13' 0" W 104 27' 52"), and that's been pretty well established by the milepost visible in several photos (MP632.9).
Among the routes the family could have taken into Trinidad are a direct line across CR 32 to CR 75, then south, or CR 32 to CR 75.1 to US 160/350 and south. The first would not have them crossing the tracks again. The second would have them crossing southbound on CR 75.1.
If we go with the possibility that they were returning home, they would have had to be taking the second route and using the CR 75.1 crossing northbound, but that would mean the train stopped in a very short distance (.147 mile, or 776'). From upwards of 70 MPH, that seems unlikely.
I did a little research on where they lived, but could not find anything. News stories indicate they were likely renting from a farmer they were working for. IMHO, that might square with living in the CR32 location.
Barring evidence to the contrary, I'm not buying into the murder/suicide angle. It makes great press, but I lean toward a distraction angle - perhaps a fussy child. And they might have been running late, which would compound the issue.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.