News Wire: NTSB issues preliminary report on Biloxi train-bus collision

[Norm48327]

Euclid

zugmann

Be a lot easier to just rip the crossing out.

Sure, if they don't want the crossing.

Damn! the peace and quiet of the past week has been disturbed. You said you were moving far away from home and never coming back Appearently your move was not far enough away.

[Euclid]

Norm48327

Bucky:

Your credibilty here is suffering from your lack of facts and information.

You base your posts on speculation sans facts; the latter be damned if they don't fit your opinion. In your warped mind, the NTSB and others overlook facts you think are important but are things they consider incidental. Who appointed you "lord and master" with insight over and above those who inspect accidents and are digging for factual information?  You take particular pains to demean those who do so. Why is your information in yourposts  sitting at a computer keyboard so much better than theirs? In an aviation forum your posts would be dismissed as garbage and trolling and I suspect you are doing the same here just to attract attention.  IOW, You are nothing more than a troll and an uninformed fool.

OK, we have know-it-alls on aviation forums too but they are soon outed as trolls. You fit the mold here. You post a lot of speculation without knowledge of actual events. At what point do you stop being a jerk and get in touch with reality? Is that even possible given your mental condition? Given your inability to see other's opinions I don't think it is Your mind is made up when you read the thread title.

You said you were moving far away and would never return. Please do that. It would be beneficial to the forum. Please get permanently lost and let this forum return to a rational discussion of events without your garbage being constantly interjected.

I am not alone in my opinion of you. I'm just more expressive of that opinion. GIGO applies and your posts are mostly "garbage in". If your posts were worthy of discussion I would participate. To date, most of them haven't been worthy of a reply.

Yep, I'm nasty and demand facts before speclation.

 

 

Norm,

 

The following is what I said about the crossing and how to correct the problem. As you can see, it is all fact-based.   Which facts are you disputing?  

 

 

 

Yes, the sign message is simple enough:  Every driver approaching that crossing should stop and perform an engineering analysis to see if the geometries of their vehicle and the crossing are compatible.

 

So the elevation of the track is raised higher than the general surrounding roadways.  Does that really require that the crossing has to come off like a giant speed bump?  A few cubic yards of fill on either side of the crossing would be sufficient to eliminate the hang up hazard. 

 

My point is that the sign tells the driver nothing that they can use to determine whether their vehicle will clear.  This is in contrast to a low overhead clearance sign that does give the driver specific information that they can use. 

 

But with the warning for low ground clearance, a driver is confronted with the choice of either not crossing or obtaining specific engineering information that will answer the question of whether or not the vehicle will clear.  No driver should cross without knowing the answer to that question.  So, what do you do when you approach that crossing and discover the warning sign in heavy traffic?  You must stop and try to clear the traffic until you can learn whether it is safe to cross; or you must turn around and go back. 

 

Do you really expect that drivers should make their decisions based on scratches on the pavement? 

 

My larger point is that this crossing could be easily revised to eliminate the hang up hazard.  The sign is not a practical solution.

 

Yes I understand that there are streets running parallel to the tracks in addition to the streets crossing the tracks.  So you have to raise those parallel streets too where they approach the crossing streets.  It is not difficult.  Out where those parallel streets cross the crossing streets, the raising will probably be only 6 inches. 

 

The maximum elevation difference right at the crossing is probably only 14-16" or so.  The hang up problem is that the rise occurs within 6 feet of horizontal distance on the road.  That has to be feathered out to begin the elevation change 30-50 feet from the crossing.  I am sure that the City does not want to pay for it however.  But the sign is not a realistic solution. 

 

[Paul of Covington]

Norm48327

Damn! the peace and quiet of the past week has been disturbed. You said you were moving far away from home and never coming back Appearently your move was not far enough away.

   Many  years ago I read a quote from an Eastern philosopher:

   "You become what you hate."

   It didn't make sense to me at first, but it stuck in my mind, and as I observed people's behavior and events in the news, it made more and more sense.

[Murphy Siding]

Euclid

 

Murphy Siding

 

Euclid

Yes, the sign message is simple enough:  Every driver approaching that crossing should stop and perform an engineering analysis to see if the geometries of their vehicle and the crossing are compatible.

So the elevation of the track is raised higher than the general surrounding roadways.  Does that really require that the crossing has to come off like a giant speed bump?  A few cubic yards of fill on either side of the crossing would be sufficient to eliminate the hang up hazard. 

 

 

 

 

 

Any driver operating a low slung vehicle should have the training and expericence to know where and how he or she might get in trouble with that vehicle. Additionaly, that driver should have been aware there could be a problem just from seeing marks where other low slung vehicles gouged the pavement. 

     Your attitude suggests that anyone driving anything should be able to wiz right on down the road without a clue and not have to pay attention. That's far from the truth, especially driving a vehicle with passengers in it.

 

 

No my attitude does not suggest that at all.  My point is that the sign tells the driver nothing that they can use to determine whether their vehicle will clear.  This is in contrast to a low overhead clearance sign that does give the driver specific information that they can use. 

But with the warning for low ground clearance, a driver is confronted with the choice of either not crossing or obtaining specific engineering information that will answer the question of whether or not the vehicle will clear.  No driver should cross without knowing the answer to that question.  So, what do you do when you approach that crossing and discover the warning sign in heavy traffic?  You must stop and try to clear the traffic until you can learn whether it is safe to cross; or you must turn around and go back. 

Do you really expect that drivers should make their decisions based on scratches on the pavement? 

My larger point is that this crossing could be easily revised to eliminate the hang up hazard.  The sign is not a practical solution.

 

I really feel that anyone operating a vehicle full of human cargo needs to be trained in how to do it and be very aware of how to do it. If this had been a commuter plane landing at an airport surrounded by crashed airplanes, you would suggest that floating signs be placed in the clouds to warn the pilots to be extra careful.

 

[Euclid]

Murphy Siding

 

Euclid

 

Murphy Siding

 

Euclid

Yes, the sign message is simple enough:  Every driver approaching that crossing should stop and perform an engineering analysis to see if the geometries of their vehicle and the crossing are compatible.

So the elevation of the track is raised higher than the general surrounding roadways.  Does that really require that the crossing has to come off like a giant speed bump?  A few cubic yards of fill on either side of the crossing would be sufficient to eliminate the hang up hazard. 

 

 

 

 

 

Any driver operating a low slung vehicle should have the training and expericence to know where and how he or she might get in trouble with that vehicle. Additionaly, that driver should have been aware there could be a problem just from seeing marks where other low slung vehicles gouged the pavement. 

     Your attitude suggests that anyone driving anything should be able to wiz right on down the road without a clue and not have to pay attention. That's far from the truth, especially driving a vehicle with passengers in it.

 

 

No my attitude does not suggest that at all.  My point is that the sign tells the driver nothing that they can use to determine whether their vehicle will clear.  This is in contrast to a low overhead clearance sign that does give the driver specific information that they can use. 

But with the warning for low ground clearance, a driver is confronted with the choice of either not crossing or obtaining specific engineering information that will answer the question of whether or not the vehicle will clear.  No driver should cross without knowing the answer to that question.  So, what do you do when you approach that crossing and discover the warning sign in heavy traffic?  You must stop and try to clear the traffic until you can learn whether it is safe to cross; or you must turn around and go back. 

Do you really expect that drivers should make their decisions based on scratches on the pavement? 

My larger point is that this crossing could be easily revised to eliminate the hang up hazard.  The sign is not a practical solution.

 

 

 

 

I really feel that anyone operating a vehicle full of human cargo needs to be trained in how to do it and be very aware of how to do it. If this had been a commuter plane landing at an airport surrounded by crashed airplanes, you would suggest that floating signs be placed in the clouds to warn the pilots to be extra careful.

 

 

I assume that is an analogy to your advice to drivers to watch for scratches on the roadway as evidence of low ground clearance. 

No, I would not advise that signs be placed in the clouds to warn pilots to watch out for whatever caused all the other planes to crash.  I would fix the problem that caused the planes to crash.

[Murphy Siding]

Euclid

 

Murphy Siding

 

Euclid

 

Murphy Siding

 

Euclid

Yes, the sign message is simple enough:  Every driver approaching that crossing should stop and perform an engineering analysis to see if the geometries of their vehicle and the crossing are compatible.

So the elevation of the track is raised higher than the general surrounding roadways.  Does that really require that the crossing has to come off like a giant speed bump?  A few cubic yards of fill on either side of the crossing would be sufficient to eliminate the hang up hazard. 

 

 

 

 

 

Any driver operating a low slung vehicle should have the training and expericence to know where and how he or she might get in trouble with that vehicle. Additionaly, that driver should have been aware there could be a problem just from seeing marks where other low slung vehicles gouged the pavement. 

     Your attitude suggests that anyone driving anything should be able to wiz right on down the road without a clue and not have to pay attention. That's far from the truth, especially driving a vehicle with passengers in it.

 

 

No my attitude does not suggest that at all.  My point is that the sign tells the driver nothing that they can use to determine whether their vehicle will clear.  This is in contrast to a low overhead clearance sign that does give the driver specific information that they can use. 

But with the warning for low ground clearance, a driver is confronted with the choice of either not crossing or obtaining specific engineering information that will answer the question of whether or not the vehicle will clear.  No driver should cross without knowing the answer to that question.  So, what do you do when you approach that crossing and discover the warning sign in heavy traffic?  You must stop and try to clear the traffic until you can learn whether it is safe to cross; or you must turn around and go back. 

Do you really expect that drivers should make their decisions based on scratches on the pavement? 

My larger point is that this crossing could be easily revised to eliminate the hang up hazard.  The sign is not a practical solution.

 

 

 

 

I really feel that anyone operating a vehicle full of human cargo needs to be trained in how to do it and be very aware of how to do it. If this had been a commuter plane landing at an airport surrounded by crashed airplanes, you would suggest that floating signs be placed in the clouds to warn the pilots to be extra careful.

 

 

 

 

 

I assume that is an analogy to your advice to drivers to watch for scratches on the roadway as evidence of low ground clearance. 

No, I would not advise that signs be placed in the clouds to warn pilots to watch out for whatever caused all the other planes to crash.  I would fix the problem that caused the planes to crash.

 

And apparently allow any durned fool to drive that bus, whether he was qualified or not because he could always shift the responsibility to someone else if he failed in his duties. Do you also favor making all corners wider so those chauffers driving outrageously stretched limousines don't have to pay attention either?

 

[7j43k]

Getting back to the actual subject of original discussion, I agree that drivers SHOULD have training, including appropriate training in handling low-slung vehicles.  And that they should follow that training rigorously.

Judging by the scrape marks, it appears plain that quite a number of untrained drivers had already used the crossing.  Either that, or they ignored their training.  Or they used their training and incorrectly believed they were safe in crossing.

Consider that a Pepsi truck had been hit recently at that crossing.  And another truck in 2014.  And THOSE were only the ones that got hung up.  And hit.

So, it appears quite a number of "untrained" drivers, including one for a major US corporation, used that crossing.

And it also appears that the street people knew or should have known, as there was plain evidence.

And it also appears they failed to act on that evidence.  Adequately.

If street builders install a dangerous bit of streetwork, EVERY driver should be adequately trained to act accordingly.  I do not see failure of the latter excusing the former.

 

 

Ed

[tree68]

7j43k

And it also appears that the street people knew or should have known, as there was plain evidence.

I suspect that some portion of the problem lies with the railroad.  I know, it's their property and they can do what they wish, but...

I'd be willing to bet that when that crossing was built it was flat as a billiard table.

Over the years, the railroad(s) have surfaced the line by adding more stone and tamping.  Each time, the rail gets that much higher.  

I've seen pictures of a bridge in my old hometown that date back nearly to when it was built.  The rail is now easily several feet higher than back in the day.  The bridge is a concrete arch (known locally as "The Arch"), with full roadbed above.

I suspect this is the issue with many similar crossings.  Just about any time we have an incident of this kind, there is a parallel road which limits the ability of the highway folks to reduce the grade approaching the tracks.  In this case, there is a paved road on one side, and a dirt road on the other.  

It might be possible to raise the dirt road on the north side, but raising the paved road on the south side will be quite the endeavor.  And it'll be good until the tracks get surfaced a few more times and the hump returns.

Per Google Streetview, a number of the crossings in that vicinity have the same problem.

[Euclid]

Murphy Siding,

What is a trained driver supposed to do when encountering a sign that warns about close ground clearance?  There is only one answer, and it is obvious.  The critical point is that the he only way a driver could know whether his vehicle would not hang up would be to attempt crossing and take the risk that his vehicle might hang up. 

It is easy for armchair quarterbacks to condemn the driver after the fact if he takes that chance and loses.  But for drivers facing that decision, there is no way to know the outcome of crossing.  And if he takes the chance and does hang up, it is a potential death trap as this Biloxi crash demonstrates.  

So the answer to the question as to what a trained driver should do is unequivocal:  Don’t cross.

As much as railfans rejoice in blaming drivers for grade crossing crashes, the sheer stupidity of this crossing design shares the blame. 

[7j43k]

tree68

 

I suspect that some portion of the problem lies with the railroad.  I know, it's their property and they can do what they wish, but...

I'd be willing to bet that when that crossing was built it was flat as a billiard table.

 

It's a thought.  I just "drove" down the street, and there doesn't seem to be much of a raise to the roadbed itself.  And the ballast height looks pretty typical.

It looks to me like the height of rail-top over surrounding land didn't change much over time.

For the crossing to have been flat, it looks to me like the track would have to have been laid without ballast.  Which I s'pose might have been done.  Not at all best practice, as we know.  But then the street people are blind-sided when the railroad later adds ballast.  Yikes, what to do.  I know.  Let's make really crappy street crossings here and here and here.  What could go wrong?  And who cares, anyway? 

Ed

 

[7j43k]

What "they" shoulda done:

Well, do the crossing right.  But that's old news.  How about other options that are cheaper.  'Cause that had to be why they didn't do the crossing right.  Just ask them.

First on my list is to close the crossing.  No crashes or stuckies then.  Tell folks "Just go around."  It happens all over the country/world.  "Drive two blocks and cross there."

Next we might try different signage:

"No trucks or buses"

or

"No vehicles over 20'" (that one is kinda nebulous, like the original sign.  But I see signs like that.)

I noticed school buses parked down the street.  Whee, let's drive school buses across the crossing.  Yeah, I know, THOSE buses have enormous clearance.  So, what to do?

"No trucks or buses without permit"

 

And the lovely thing about my signage is it's a great way to raise revenue.  If you get my drift.

But, really, they should just close the crossing.  Maybe they already have.

 

Ed

[Murphy Siding]

Euclid

Murphy Siding,

What is a trained driver supposed to do when encountering a sign that warns about close ground clearance?  There is only one answer, and it is obvious.  The critical point is that the he only way a driver could know whether his vehicle would not hang up would be to attempt crossing and take the risk that his vehicle might hang up. 

It is easy for armchair quarterbacks to condemn the driver after the fact if he takes that chance and loses.  But for drivers facing that decision, there is no way to know the outcome of crossing.  And if he takes the chance and does hang up, it is a potential death trap as this Biloxi crash demonstrates.  

So the answer to the question as to what a trained driver should do is unequivocal:  Don’t cross.

As much as railfans rejoice in blaming drivers for grade crossing crashes, the sheer stupidity of this crossing design shares the blame. 

 

Geeze Louise! You're saying the driver should say "Hold my beer and watch this!". I disagree. By your logic, if the sign read "Danger- sinkholes ahead" and all the driver saw was skid marks leading into the abyss, he should gun the motor and go for broke Dukes of Hazard style. The driver- any driver- of a vehicle needs to have situational awareness and use common sense.

Moral of the story- Friends let let friends catch rides with euclid.

[Murphy Siding]

7j43k

 

tree68

 

I suspect that some portion of the problem lies with the railroad.  I know, it's their property and they can do what they wish, but...

I'd be willing to bet that when that crossing was built it was flat as a billiard table.

 

 

 

 

It's a thought.  I just "drove" down the street, and there doesn't seem to be much of a raise to the roadbed itself.  And the ballast height looks pretty typical.

It looks to me like the height of rail-top over surrounding land didn't change much over time.

For the crossing to have been flat, it looks to me like the track would have to have been laid without ballast.  Which I s'pose might have been done.  Not at all best practice, as we know.  But then the street people are blind-sided when the railroad later adds ballast.  Yikes, what to do.  I know.  Let's make really crappy street crossings here and here and here.  What could go wrong?  And who cares, anyway? 

Ed

 

 

Wasn't it the street department that built the really crappy street crossings, not the railroad?

[7j43k]

I thought that is what I was saying.  I can see it's not clear.  But, yes, the street folks did done it.

 

Ed

[tree68]

Murphy Siding

Wasn't it the street department that built the really crappy street crossings, not the railroad?

Maybe they built a perfectly good crossing, and the railroad came in a changed the profile...

Topo map on Acme Mapper shows it as Louisville and Nashville...  I couldn't fine a specific date, but the line was likely constructed between 1865 and 1890...

But, anyhow.  Just throwing that out as one reason for the problem.  The city should be fixing it or otherwise dealing with it, but there are challenges, as already noted.

[7j43k]

tree68

 

Maybe they built a perfectly good crossing, and the railroad came in a changed the profile...

 

 

That would be a good indicator that the crossing needed modification to properly match the new profile--such event probably being hard to miss with the railroad crew and ballast train and all.

I'm not sure what the challenges really are.  I can understand that some solutions cost more than others.  Raising roadways and intersections are expensive, at least compared to putting up a roadblock on either side of the track.

But either will work in correcting the problem.

And either would have saved lives if it had been done earlier.

 

Ed

 

[Paul of Covington]

zugmann

Be a lot easier to just rip the crossing out.

   I finally got around to looking at that area on Google Earth.    In about an 18 block stretch in that area there are 10 crossings.  Close most of them and put money into making the remaining ones safe.

   There was a grade crossing accident in a town nearby many years ago that resulted in five deaths.   At the time practically every street crossed the RR with just crossbuck signs.   Most of them are now closed.   Yes, I know that all the locals want "their" crossings to remain open.

[BaltACD]

Mississippi Rails

Construction of the railroad between Mobile and New Orleans was started by the New Orleans, Mobile & Chattanooga Railroad in 1869, and it was completed in 1871. That year, the name of the railroad was changed again to the New Orleans, Mobile & Texas Railroad. The Louisville & Nashville Railroad  leased the NOM&C on May 8, 1880, and bought the railroad at a mortgage foreclosure sale on October 5, 1881.

[blue streak 1]

Euclid

So you have to raise those parallel streets too where they approach the crossing streets.  It is not difficult.  Out where those parallel streets cross the crossing streets, the raising will probably be only 6 inches.

1st question ---  Who was there first RR or road ?

2nd question --  If road second how was the road easement worded ?

3rd question  --  If you raise road is there a sidewalk(S) ?

4.  Will sidwalk raising impede access to stores and homes

5.  What about ADA access ramps ?

6.  Cause any drainage problems. ?

Simple don't think so ! 

[Euclid]

Murphy Siding

 

Euclid

Murphy Siding,

What is a trained driver supposed to do when encountering a sign that warns about close ground clearance?  There is only one answer, and it is obvious.  The critical point is that the he only way a driver could know whether his vehicle would not hang up would be to attempt crossing and take the risk that his vehicle might hang up. 

It is easy for armchair quarterbacks to condemn the driver after the fact if he takes that chance and loses.  But for drivers facing that decision, there is no way to know the outcome of crossing.  And if he takes the chance and does hang up, it is a potential death trap as this Biloxi crash demonstrates.  

So the answer to the question as to what a trained driver should do is unequivocal:  Don’t cross.

As much as railfans rejoice in blaming drivers for grade crossing crashes, the sheer stupidity of this crossing design shares the blame. 

 

 

 

 

Geeze Louise! You're saying the driver should say "Hold my beer and watch this!". I disagree. By your logic, if the sign read "Danger- sinkholes ahead" and all the driver saw was skid marks leading into the abyss, he should gun the motor and go for broke Dukes of Hazard style. The driver- any driver- of a vehicle needs to have situational awareness and use common sense.

Moral of the story- Friends let let friends catch rides with euclid.

 

 

What on earth are you talking about?  I said the driver should not cross.  How does that mean gunning the motor and going for broke?

[7j43k]

blue streak 1

 

1st question ---  Who was there first RR or road ?

2nd question --  If road second how was the road easement worded ?

3rd question  --  If you raise road is there a sidewalk(S) ?

4.  Will sidwalk raising impede access to stores and homes

5.  What about ADA access ramps ?

6.  Cause any drainage problems. ?

Simple don't think so ! 

 

I believe the proposal is to raise the surface of the "minor" intersection about 6".  It might, however, approach a foot.  Thus the approaches to the minor intersection would also have to be modified, very roughly out to 15'.

 

1.  It doesn't matter.  The responsibility of maintenance is the road people's.

2.  Easement would refer to right of access.  I don't see how this applies.

3.  An examination of the site will reveal there is sidewalk at two corners of the "minor" intersection.

4.  It is unlikely.

5.  They would be designed into the new sections of sidewalk at the corners.

6.  Probably.  Someone might have to do some actual design work.

 

Well, it surely isn't SIMPLE.  Except that it is.  Roadway modification and repair is done all over the country.  

BUT.

If it is too much of a challenge for the street people of Mississippi to fix the crossing, then it should be removed.  

Because their present solution kills people.

 

Ed

[Euclid]

 

 

7j43k

 

blue streak 1

 

1st question ---  Who was there first RR or road ?

2nd question --  If road second how was the road easement worded ?

3rd question  --  If you raise road is there a sidewalk(S) ?

4.  Will sidwalk raising impede access to stores and homes

5.  What about ADA access ramps ?

6.  Cause any drainage problems. ?

Simple don't think so ! 

 

 

 

 

1.  It doesn't matter.  The responsibility of maintenance is the road people's.

2.  Easement would refer to access.  I believe my answer to 1. covers this.

3.  An examination of the site will reveal there is none.

4.  There is no sidewalk and there are no stores or homes with significant involvement.

5.  There are no sidewalks.

6.  Probably.  Someone might have to do some actual design work.

 

Well, it surely isn't SIMPLE.  Except that it is.  It's done all over the country.  

BUT.

If it is too much of a challenge for the street people to fix the crossing, then it should be removed.  

Because their present solution kills people.

 

Ed

 

Yes, fixing the problem would be simple.  I suspect the City feels that the railroad caused the problem by rasing the track and therefore, the railroad should pay for raising the road grade.  The railroad refuses to pay for that, so there is a standoff.  Meanwhile people get killed.  Maybe this latest accident will lead to fixing the problem. 

[7j43k]

Euclid

   

Yes, fixing the problem would be simple.  I suspect the City feels that the railroad caused the problem by rasing the track and therefore, the railroad should pay for raising the road grade.  The railroad refuses to pay for that, so there is a standoff.  Meanwhile people get killed.  Maybe this latest accident will lead to fixing the problem. 

 

 

I'm not sure how we got to the railroad DID raise the track and the City FEELS the railroad should pay for the corrections.  And the railroad REFUSED.  If that happened, I'd like to hear more details.

If anything like that did occur, I wonder why there wasn't a law suit by the City (or, more likely, the State) to collect money owed to them.  Since they felt it was.

Of course, they could have gone ahead and corrected the intersection(s) anyway, knowing they'd win in the lawsuit.  Or they could have closed the intersections temporarily or permanently.  Or they could have put up better signage.

But they didn't.

[wanswheel]

Shouldn’t  the words - low ground clearance - be above the pictogram?  

2016 photo:

http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-biloxi-mississippi-usa-8th-mar-2017-a-charter-bus-got-stuck-on-the-135402031.html

 

[tree68]

I offered that this is partly the railroad's "fault" due to track maintenance that likely raised the profile of the rail over the years.  This was not a one-time action.  Aside from a few vehicles getting hung up, it's possible no one really noticed and/or put two and two together.

On the other hand, it's well established that once the crossing is in, it's the road owner's responsibility.  I doubt a suit by the city (or whoever) would be successful, and if a decedent's family sued the railroad for the hump under discussion, it would fall back on the municipality.

IF the municipality felt that the railroad should help deal with the issue, they could always request that the RR take a little off the top, if you will.  If there is sufficient roadbed under the track with some ballast removed, they might agree to do so.  Or not.

[7j43k]

I don't think there's a chance in hell that the railroad is going to lower their tracks because the City/State asked them.  They would point out that the problem is the City/State's, and that they should fix it themselves.  They might offer to do the job for money (as opposed to for free, which would likely be how it starts), but the cost of lowering the track might very likely be more than raising the street.  And then, with less ballast under the ties...........

The point about the railroad raising their track is surely an interesting one.  I can certainly see the point about how the streets were just fine, thank you, until you mucked about with your stupid railroad.  Hence my suggestion of a lawsuit, if the railroad blew them off.

However, that is not an excuse to not fix the problem.

Really.

Imagine, please.  The railroad raises their track.  The City/State says "Hey, you messed up our roads with that trick.  Give us money to fix it."  Railroad says "Bite me."  (with more and bigger words).  City/State then gives up and does nothing except maybe putting up signs costing almost $300.  And people die. 

And that's OK?

 

Ed

[tree68]

7j43k

And that's OK?

Never said it was.

 

[7j43k]

tree68

 

 

7j43k

And that's OK?

 

 

Never said it was.

 

 

 

I know.  Nor do I think anyone else here would.

That was a follow on to the mini-play in the previous paragraph and was meant for the wizards at the Mississippi DOT.

Gosh, it's fun to type Mississippi.  I should do it more often.

 

Ed

 

[erikem]

I wish I could be surprised by the actions of the bus driver, but a visit to the 11'8" (?) website proves that there are a small minority of drivers who appear incapable of processing signs warning about clearance problems. Locally, two low ground clearnace hot spots I'm aware of are the Leucadia Blvd crossing of the AT&SF (Coaster) Surf line, though truck drivers appeaer to be getting the message, the other was a driveway to a strip mall with an impressive breakover angle - seen several trucks get hung up on that.

One possible solution is to require long/low rating for drivers licenses that would include regular recertification. A related measure would be to require any GPS unit used on such a vehicle to include database of low ground clearance crossings. What does surprise me is that there hasn't been much in the way of news about GPS makers being sued for directions that lead to danger (e.g. some "roads" in Death Valley).

[mudchicken]

The myopia over road crossings between the railroad field engineers and the highway engineers has been in place for too many years. I just got reminded how bad it gets by a crossing in Indiana which got compounded by a none too bright state statute that clearly was written without input from the railroads. (in essence, IDOT and the local road agencies can do & deem as they please and the railroads have to pay for it)

An awful lot of rough crossing complaints go back to what the road agencies did to the crossing approaches. It's not only humps like discussed here, but also getting paved into a hole (and then there are the instances of being paved over all together )

Hoping NTSB's final report takes FHWA and FRA to task over the reluctance to address this festering old problem. (also wish that states would quit merging railroad commissions into state DOT's (and then staffing the quasi independent ombudsman's post with highway people with zero(!) railroad experience, but that is another story)