EuclidIn addition to the actions of the bus driver, I also wonder why the engineer of the train waited until being just 500 feet away before attempting to stop the train when there was far more than enough warning to stop short of the bus.
That's where the engineer dumped the train. If, and when, the engineer took a service application has not been reported to my knowledge. So he may have begun to take action to stop the train a significant distance from the point of collision.
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...
Cotton Belt MP104Eculid: Did I recall that you were concerned about dumping air and causing a derailment? Now there is this comment that the crew should have acted more timely than the 500ft. What am I missing here? Endmrw0309171037
It is a judgment call as to when a situation calls for dumping the air. I disagree with the idea that a risk of derailment should influence that judgement call. I discussed this with a rep from the FRA and another from Operation Lifesaver. They both agreed with my position on this.
If you read the Casselton Oil Train Wreck thread, you will find that my position was from the start, that the crew of the oil train should have dumped the air as soon as they received the radio warning that the adjacent grain train had experienced an emergency application. I interpret the governering rule to have required that under the circumstances.
Others in that thread vehemently disagree with my postion because they worry that if the oil train dumped the air, it might have derailed and started a fire. They accused me of spreading dangerous, incorrect advice on the Internet.
This issue also came up in an earlier thread about the CSX derailment when a train braked for a suicide. This first introduced the idea that engineers should refrain from making an emergency application in certain situations where it is called for because making the emergency application might derail the train. I was completely opposed to that reasoning, and continue to be.
So in regard to the collision in Biloxie, I would not suggest any hesitation in dumping the air because of worry that it might derail the train. But aside from that, there was no reason to dump the air in that situation if the crew had reacted more proactively and began service application when it became obvious that a large bus was stalled on the crossing.
In addition to the actions of the bus driver, I also wonder why the engineer of the train waited until being just 500 feet away before attempting to stop the train when there was far more than enough warning to stop short of the bus.
It is true that road traffic can back up on a crossing with vehicles fouling after the signals activate. There is always a chance that a fouling vehicle will not clear as quickly as expected. These circumstances become clearer to the engineer as he nears the crossing, but at the same time, ability to stop short diminishes. So at some point during the approach, an engineer has to recognize that a stalled vehicle is unlikely to clear in time, and upon that realization, he should make full effort to stop short of the vehicle.
So the question is when was this realization possible? I am sure that a tour bus stalled on straight track during good daytime visibility would have been visually obvious at 5000 feet, but at that distance, it would not be unreasonable to dismiss it being a hazard. But what about watching it for the next 3000 feet, and seeing that it does not move? There would still be plenty of time to get down to restricted speed. Even at 1000 feet, stopping short was still possible, and by seeing that it had not moved in the intervening 4000 feet, the hazard should have been obvious. But at 500 feet, time had run out.
The only useful visual evidence of trouble is a vehicle that remains stopped on the crossing long enough to indicate that it is unlikely to be stopped due to backed up traffic. If a vehicle behaving in this way happens to be a bus, it warrants special scrutiny and consideration of the consequences of hitting it. What engineer would let this happen if the stalled vehicle were a gasoline tank truck?
Posted by schlimm on Thursday, March 09, 2017 7:55 AM
"...Regardless of the details of this accident, the fact that numerous accidents have occurred at this crossing is totally unacceptable..."
Euclid wrote the following post[in part]:
I agree with Schlimm and that fundamental point in this crash is the crossing. If the addition of signals and gates are deemed necessary to warn drivers, why should it be sufficient to add a little passive sign with an ambiguous warning about the existence of a geometry problem that is capable of becoming a death trap to certain vehicles that are road-legal? With all the laws and regulations we have, it is mind boggling that such a crossing exists.
However, responsibility also flows to the two drivers, and the actions they took to try to avoid the accident.
When a vehicle gets hung up, the driver naturally panics and beings a struggle to get free. Time is of the essence because a train might arrive. The time might be wiser spent in trying to contact the railroad to stop the train or the driver even making a direct effort to flag any approaching train. Calling 911 could quickly have the police on the scene with more than enough lights and flares to set up in both directions from the crossing.
One factor that enters into this type of scenario is the hesitancy to alert the authorities for a predicament that may be alleviated if a driver were just able to get the vehicle free by its own power. It takes time to learn whether this is possible.
In the case of a bus with passengers, the time needed to unload also figures into the equation. The possibility of a passenger panic and jamming the unloading during the process also figures into the problem.
To respond to the fisrt section of the post by Euclid: There are too many of these 'road traps' across this country, They exist because as motor travel has increased, and railroads were previously existing at those same points {Highway'Rail crossings} it was easier for the ' engineering people' to devise syatems to allow the motorist access, while far more expensive to alter grades on many yards of perviously existing rail lines. Expense being the operative word there.
H/R crossings are generally 'protected' by first, conducting a traffic survey, based on use, for that H/R crossing. 2nd, Whatever level of protection to be designed is then subject to establishing payment- part shared by the 'local' jusridiction and the railroad involved.3rd, Once in place, the H/R crossing is generally maintained by the railroad. The roadway approaches by the 'local'jurisdiction.
Most likely, as the surrounding area has grown-up, pre-existing situations are allowed to continue on as they have been tolerated; that is until, they be come so problematic, that SOMETHING HAS to be done! [Sort of like knowing one has to go to the doctor, for an unpleasant proccedure, and putting it off, until there is no other choice, in the matter. ] I suspect the latter, in the case being discussed.
The bus involved in the incident being discussed, looks like ,possibly, a 49/50 passenger Prevost Coach, many of thses buses can have a 'kneeling' capability, to allow passengers to board without a very large step-up. They are generally, configured with air-ride axles (1 steering/1 drive axle/1 'drag' axle(?). Long distance tours, may or may not have two drivers(?). Many are operated by a single driver (?). Not sure about the tour,in question.
In Biloxi, most of the cascinos are on the South side of the barrier island ( on the Gulf). Only speculation, but many independent bus lines will also use an existing bus depot to refuel(?); particularly, when there is no Truck Stop convenient. The crossing being discussed appears to be East of the existing (Greyhound?) bus station.(?), Which might explain why the bus was 'in town'(?). Possibly, off of what locally might be considered an assigned Thru-route(?).
Euclid, I agree with your recent posts- an engineer can't go into emergency for distant crossings. We don't know how much experience the crew has on this stretch of track, but I know the bus must've been visible for waaaaay more than 500 feet for EB trains. I feel like anything else I may say would be pure speculation in terms of crew actions, and I don't want to sling any mud, as I'm pretty sure the engineer and conductor are traumatized enough by the 4 deaths.
You'd think there might be a note on the dashboard of every tour bus telling them to look for the emergency sign on the crossbucks if they get stuck on a crossing. All of our surmising, of course, is dependant on how long the bus was stuck on the tracks........
In my opinion, the best action on the part of the driver during this situation would have been to immediately call 911 at the first indication of being hung up; and immediately instruct the passengers to exit the bus as quickly as possible. Five minutes would have been enough time to unload.
Regardless of the details of this accident, the fact that numerous accidents have occurred at this crossing is totally unacceptable.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Paul of Covington Euclid Paul of Covington I have no experience in this matter, but I wouldn't be surprised if over and over, every day, crews saw vehicles momentarily stopped in crossings that moved off before the train reached the crossing. If they threw the train into emergency in every one of these situations, they'd be doing it over and over every day. This was one case where the vehicle couldn't move, but the crew couldn't have known that from a distance. That's my opinion, but I'd like to hear from someone who knows. I am guessing that the train was heading east on the map. It is said that they dumped the air 500 ft from the bus. The distance from the bus on Main Street to Lameuse Street, the next crossing to the west, is 450 ft. And...?
Euclid Paul of Covington I have no experience in this matter, but I wouldn't be surprised if over and over, every day, crews saw vehicles momentarily stopped in crossings that moved off before the train reached the crossing. If they threw the train into emergency in every one of these situations, they'd be doing it over and over every day. This was one case where the vehicle couldn't move, but the crew couldn't have known that from a distance. That's my opinion, but I'd like to hear from someone who knows. I am guessing that the train was heading east on the map. It is said that they dumped the air 500 ft from the bus. The distance from the bus on Main Street to Lameuse Street, the next crossing to the west, is 450 ft.
Paul of Covington I have no experience in this matter, but I wouldn't be surprised if over and over, every day, crews saw vehicles momentarily stopped in crossings that moved off before the train reached the crossing. If they threw the train into emergency in every one of these situations, they'd be doing it over and over every day. This was one case where the vehicle couldn't move, but the crew couldn't have known that from a distance. That's my opinion, but I'd like to hear from someone who knows.
I have no experience in this matter, but I wouldn't be surprised if over and over, every day, crews saw vehicles momentarily stopped in crossings that moved off before the train reached the crossing. If they threw the train into emergency in every one of these situations, they'd be doing it over and over every day. This was one case where the vehicle couldn't move, but the crew couldn't have known that from a distance. That's my opinion, but I'd like to hear from someone who knows.
I am guessing that the train was heading east on the map. It is said that they dumped the air 500 ft from the bus. The distance from the bus on Main Street to Lameuse Street, the next crossing to the west, is 450 ft.
And...?
23 17 46 11
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
When I said "local", I meant "belonging or relating to a particular area or neighborhood". In this case, whatever and whichever highway department that "related" to this "area".
I was trying to get out of having to actually specify which particular county, state and/or local department was involved, because it is not really necessary in order to make my case. And I do not actually know which of these glorious entities is responsible for this bit of pavement.
If you say it is Mississippi, I'll accept that.
Ed
7j43kI am not currently impressed with the competence of the local highway department. Ed
It is Mississippi.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
I would think the current signs were put up in response to vehicles having problems at this crossing. The installing agency should then have done a follow up to see if the signs solved the problem, perhaps by counting new scratch marks. If the problem was not solved, signs should have been posted denying use for all trucks and buses.
Yes, there are many trucks and buses that CAN easily make it over that hump. But with the existing signs, it is expected that EVERY driver crossing the hump can and will make a proper evaluation of his vehicle. In this case, it obviously did not happen. And it is unlikely the only failure. Hence my concept of a total ban.
The intersection of (northern) Esters and Main should have been raised to lessen the dip between it and the tracks. The whole road did not need to be raised, only the intersection.
I am not currently impressed with the competence of the local highway department.
RDG467I watched part of this earlier today. I'm wondering how the engine crew only reacted to this when 500 ft away....this is tangent track...if the bus was stuck for 5 minutes. Determining the time line will be key, according to the NTSB. There's a road overpass to the west, but I can't see how it would've impeded their view of the track. The sun shouldn't have been in their eyes at 2 pm when going east......
I wonder about that too. Vehicles can foul the crossing during a long approach. They can't all be treated as an emergency if they are a long distance away because they are likely to clear in time. But the key to this is a large boxy vehicle standing still on the crossing for five minutes which likely included the entire approach of the train.
I wonder if there are warning signs along the street that parallels the railroad. I have seen such which warn against turning from the parallel road if you have a low clearance vehicle.
Johnny
I watched part of this earlier today. I'm wondering how the engine crew only reacted to this when 500 ft away....this is tangent track...if the bus was stuck for 5 minutes. Determining the time line will be key, according to the NTSB.
There's a road overpass to the west, but I can't see how it would've impeded their view of the track. The sun shouldn't have been in their eyes at 2 pm when going east......
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ8Bby_k8mo&t=13m42s
gmpullmanIt seems to me that many vehicle manufacturers are concentrating on lowering ground clearance presumably to improve air-flow dynamics and, in turn, improve their EPA fuel consumption numbers.
Or, he was blindly following his GPS, or simply wasn't paying attention. Lotsa possibilities. We'll have to see what the investigators come up with.
RDG467 I wonder if there were more warning signs of the Low Crossing a block or more away from the tracks.
I didn't see any. Here's a view of the "drop-off" side and, although it doesn't show here, as [ACY] Tom points out there are plenty of scrapes in the asphalt of the crossing.
You can barely make out the "low ground clearance" sign on this side (just above the painted "Stop" stripe. The back of the other sign is visible just to the left of the crossing signal on the other side of the track. By the time a driver is committed to turning onto this crossing I'm sure it is easy to miss these signs.
It seems to me that many vehicle manufacturers are concentrating on lowering ground clearance presumably to improve air-flow dynamics and, in turn, improve their EPA fuel consumption numbers.
Compare one of these motor coaches to a school bus as far as ground clearance goes.
That makes me wonder if this "coach" has a system of air suspension. I understand many city buses can "lower-to-the-curb" for easier egress. There were problems with air springs on a large group of Cleveland buses that caused them to lean severely when one of the "bags" leaked.
Could the air-suspension system have caused the coach to ride exceptionally lower. Did the driver have a way to override the system to raise the clearance?
Also, there is usually a set of un-driven (trailing truck?) wheels that aid in suspension on these coaches. If they were taking weight off the driving wheels the coach would have been spinning it's wheels trying to move.
I'm sure this will all be considered, just random musings on my part...
Just saw preliminary report to news media by NTSB representative on TV, but haven't found updates on their web site. Train was going 26 MPH when emergency applied about 500 ft before crossing, 19 MPH when collision occurred. That's from my memory, so numbers might not be too reliable.
Euclid It seems like a dangerous situation that should not be allowed to exist. I suppose some drivers don’t notice the sign, but I suspect that far more do not assimilate the full meaning and implication of the message. It seems pretty obvious that something is not working there as evidenced by all the accidents and deep gouges in the pavement as it humps up over the track.
It seems like a dangerous situation that should not be allowed to exist. I suppose some drivers don’t notice the sign, but I suspect that far more do not assimilate the full meaning and implication of the message. It seems pretty obvious that something is not working there as evidenced by all the accidents and deep gouges in the pavement as it humps up over the track.
I've been to Biloxi for work and remember this stretch of track fairly well. It was the 'Dam' for Hurricane Katrina- remember all the debris that was piled up along this stretch? There's a road about 40 feet to the north of the crossing, so it would've been near impossible to build up the grade on that side of the tracks. It has been leveled out more on the other side. I wonder if there were more warning signs of the Low Crossing a block or more away from the tracks. It's kinda hard to make a good driving decision if the only sign is right in front of the grade crossing.....
Without knowing the actual itinerary of the bus trip, I can only speculate, but - There are casinos at both ends of Main Street. I wonder if they were just arriving in town, or were travelling between casinos...
A friend on FB pointed out that it's possible a slightly shorter bus might clear the crossing (albeit barely). There is the possibility that this was the first time this driver had a longer bus and didn't anticipate the problem.
The view in Street View shows many scrape marks on the pavement adjacent to the tracks. One might conclude that in addition to the actual collisions on the crossing, there have been many "close calls" where a vehicle got stuck but cleared before any trains arrived.
By way of following up and updateing some information on the incident in Biloxi, Ms. ON 3/08,
Here is a linked site with comments and additional photos@ http://heavy.com/news/2017/03/biloxi-bus-crash-train-accident-photos-videos-watch-derailed-deaths-toll-injuries-update-louisiana/
FTA:"...The Sun Herald reported that four people declined medical treatment, three died at the scene and a fourth died later. Among those injured, 10 are reportedly listed in critical condition while another 10 are in serious condition...
The bus was reportedly traveling from Austin, Texas through Biloxi on Main Street when it attempted to cross over the train tracks, but got stuck and was hit by the train.
The senior citizens were on the bus from Bastrop Senior Center, located in Bastrop, Texas. The center confirmed it was their bus at a press conference later in the day..."
Per information posted by Paul D. North on this Thread..This particular crossing in Biloxi does have a history of recent incidents; regarding this railroad/highway crossing.
Since the Casinos have started in Biloxi , motor traffic has picked up, exponentially; tourists began flocking to the Gulf Coast. The railroad has also been an intrigal part of the City, and Coastal traffic for a number of years. It is primarily a freight route, and was once part of the Sunset Limited route East from the New Orleans area ,That route is poised for a 'comeback', and as traffic has grown in the years since Hurricane Katrina devestated that area, and both motor and rail traffic volumes recover, and that ' interaction'become more problematic.
Biloxi Police Chief John Miller addressed media members shortly after responding units arrived to the scene. He said the crash occurred around 3:12 p.m. EST and the scene was understandably chaotic once emergency personnel arrived.
EuclidDoes anybody have the actual address of this crossing? I would like to see what it looks like upon approach, and particularly what the signs look like.
Google Maps views of the crossing at Main Street and Esters show signs indicating low ground clearance, about 20-30 feet from the tracks on both sides. The hump does not appear to be too great, but it looks like enough to hang up a long bus with very little ground clearance. That's hard to judge from the Google view. The track is straight, and visibility appears to be pretty much unrestricted for a pretty long distance. There are flashing lights and gates.
Obviously I have no idea of the current condition of the low ground clearance signs, or the weather & lighting conditions, or other factors.
Tom
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.