Train Slams Into Truck - Indiana

[BOB WITHORN]

So, how many millions would be spent on electronics etc to alert trains that someone got stopped, parked, hung up, snagged, what ever on a crossing they shouldn't been on? My bit of truck driving and farm equipment taught me to open my eyes and pay attention to what I was doing. Looks to me that someone assumed he would clear instead of using caution.

[Erik_Mag]

Makes me wonder if the best approach is very strict enforcement of "Do Not Stop on RR Tracks" laws. Along those lines would be very hefty fines for trucks getting stuck on the tracks.

I'd also wonder if a yellow caution light to warn of a train arriving that would come on 10 seconds or more before the red flashers and gates are activated.

[BaltACD]

Erik_Mag

Makes me wonder if the best approach is very strict enforcement of "Do Not Stop on RR Tracks" laws. Along those lines would be very hefty fines for trucks getting stuck on the tracks.

I'd also wonder if a yellow caution light to warn of a train arriving that would come on 10 seconds or more before the red flashers and gates are activated.

And then a blue light special 10 seconds before the yellow light and lime green lights 10 seconds before the blue ad nauseum through the rainbow of colors. [/sarcasm]

[Euclid]

So to review, what is the actual clear explanation of what in fact caused the truck to stall on the crossing?  And where in this thread has that explanation been given?

[tree68]

Euclid

So to review, what is the actual clear explanation of what in fact caused the truck to stall on the crossing?  And where in this thread has that explanation been given?

I believe it was discussed, and images in the original post linked news story appear to show that the landing legs were in contact with the road.

The trailer was not high centered as we usually think of it (low slung trailer bottoming out) but the effect was the same.

 

[blue streak 1]

tree68

 I believe it was discussed, and images in the original post linked news story appear to show that the landing legs were in contact with the road.

[quote user="tree68"]

Landing gear of trailers can be a real problem.  Maintenance of them is spotty and not greased.  Drivers are lazy in retracting them all the way.  Certain tractors  and placement of the gear how far from the 5th wheel is another 2  problems.  It can often take a piece of pipe for leverage on the handlle to operate retraction.

[Euclid]

So was the landing gear not supposed to be down during transit?  Or can it routinely be left down during transit unless there is a specific reason to have it raised, as was the case with this crossing?

[blue streak 1]

Euclid

So was the landing gear not supposed to be down during transit?  Or can it routinely be left down during transit unless there is a specific reason to have it raised, as was the case with this crossing?

Any idiot who does not retract the landing gear all the way ------------ ?!

The problem in the state of Georgia is local police can only cite truck drivers for traffic violations.  Any violation for equipment or loading can only be cited by state patrol or DOT.  Do not know if that is true in any other states ?

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

The only time that I've seen landing gear not lowered involves the use of yard tractors with elevating fifth wheels to move trailers.

[Euclid]

blue streak 1

 

Euclid

So was the landing gear not supposed to be down during transit?  Or can it routinely be left down during transit unless there is a specific reason to have it raised, as was the case with this crossing?

 

 

 

Any idiot who does not retract the landing gear all the way ------------ ?!

The problem in the state of Georgia is local police can only cite truck drivers for traffic violations.  Any violation for equipment or loading can only be cited by state patrol or DOT.  Do not know if that is true in any other states ?

 

Okay, so then it is illegal to drive the rig with landing gear not fully raised.  Is that correct?

[tree68]

Euclid

Okay, so then it is illegal to drive the rig with landing gear not fully raised.  Is that correct?

I'm sure Georgia V&T law is available on-line.  

I would not assume it to be illegal to drive with the landing gear not fully raised.  

And we don't know that it wasn't fully raised.  That particular crossing presented a unique situation, as we have discussed.

[Euclid]

tree68

 

Euclid

Okay, so then it is illegal to drive the rig with landing gear not fully raised.  Is that correct?

 

 

I'm sure Georgia V&T law is available on-line.  

I would not assume it to be illegal to drive with the landing gear not fully raised.  

And we don't know that it wasn't fully raised.  That particular crossing presented a unique situation, as we have discussed.

 

 

Okay, so nobody did anything negligent.  It was just a crossing presenting a unique situation.  So the mishap was just an act of God, kind of like an earthquake or comet strike?

 

[charlie hebdo]

Bucky: Didn't you realize years ago that on here these crossing incidents (some members don't even like the term accident or that a train struck a car) are always the fault of vehicle drivers or pedestrians? 

[Euclid]

charlie hebdo

Bucky: Didn't you realize years ago that on here these crossing incidents (some members don't even like the term accident or that a train struck a car) are always the fault of vehicle drivers or pedestrians? 

 

I do seem to recall something like that.  Maybe it is time to trot out the Darwin Award.  And saying a train struck a car is unfair because it makes it sound like the train started a fight by taking the first punch.  I think what must have happened in this case is that the landing gear wheels got stuck in a flangeway. 

[tree68]

Euclid

Okay, so nobody did anything negligent.  It was just a crossing presenting a unique situation.  So the mishap was just an act of God, kind of like an earthquake or comet strike?

I believe someone posted that the driver was trying to detour around some construction, which is why he used this crossing.  He may have driven considerable miles to get to that point, without incident.

If the landing gear was, in fact, completely retracted, then yes, this one goes into the unlucky coincidence file.  

As a cop told me once, sometimes they really are accidents.

[charlie hebdo]

Euclid

 

 

charlie hebdo

Bucky: Didn't you realize years ago that on here these crossing incidents (some members don't even like the term accident or that a train struck a car) are always the fault of vehicle drivers or pedestrians? 

 

 

 

 

I do seem to recall something like that.  Maybe it is time to trot out the Darwin Award.  And saying a train struck a car is unfair because it makes it sound like the train started a fight by taking the first punch.  I think what must have happened in this case is that the landing gear wheels got stuck in a flangeway. 

 

 

Years ago in one of these "car attacks train" discussions I recall wondering why it is that these incidents seem to happen more frequently here than in Europe,  even though the density/frequency of trains there is greater. Drivers are more careless/inattentive here?  Somehow that seems unlikely,  yet folks keep insisting the solution is to change our drivers.  Good luck with that. 

[tree68]

charlie hebdo

Years ago in one of these "car attacks train" discussions I recall wondering why it is that these incidents seem to happen more frequently here than in Europe,  even though the density/frequency of trains there is greater.

I suspect the answer to that lies at least partly with the physical separation of the railroads from the highways.  I believe such separation is much more common in Europe.  Here in the states ROWs are wide open, and so are the crossings.  We consider things like four quadrant gates to be the exception rather than the rule.

And there are just that many more crossings and vehicles.

Perhaps someone more familiar with European operations can address that.

[charlie hebdo]

That's just the point, Larry.  More grade separations because it's sensible.  But on many somewhat more lightly used lines (not HSR, though on some lines the speed limits are over 10 kmh)  in Germany, they have level crossings with gates.  I've seen many in my travels, both from the trains and from the road. 

[tree68]

charlie hebdo

That's just the point, Larry.  More grade separations because it's sensible.  But on many somewhat more lightly used lines (not HSR, though on some lines the speed limits are over 10 kmh)  in Germany, they have level crossings with gates.  I've seen many in my travels, both from the trains and from the road. 

 

There you go.  

I used to watch the rail cam in the Netherlands on a regular basis.  The ROW in that area is fenced, and a major project a few years ago routed a main road under the ROW near a station.  

Much of the NYC was grade separated, especially what is now the Chicago Line through NY state.  And it was noted earlier in the thread that crossings have been closed in the vicinity of the truck incident.  As you drive around, however, you may note that grade separating in many places may require major disruptions of those areas.  

I noted earlier that I felt that the track had likely been elevated over time by successive applications of ballast.  A look at the incident site in the news articles rather bears that out. Going over (or under) the tracks with the roadway likely would be expensive.  I'd opine that you'd have to build a "pigtale" to loop around and gain the necessary elevation.

I do think the "Pinto" phenomenon applies here, too.  Cheaper to deal with the occasional aftermath than to fix the problem in the first place.

I am reminded of driving on "the 401" through table-flat southern Ontario. Every mile or two would be an overpass, built on fill, to allow local roads to continue unabated.

[Euclid]

Euclid

So to review, what is the actual clear explanation of what in fact caused the truck to stall on the crossing?  And where in this thread has that explanation been given?

I asked the question as to who was at fault in this accident because the thread seems to have drawn no clear conclusion about that point.  The accident certainly was not the fault of CSX.  We hear about the landing gear being too low for the crossing, and then we are told that lowered landing gear not necessarily illegal or negligent on the part of the driver.  So it raises this question:

Was the crossing built too high for the normal presence of the landing gear?

We hear that was the case, but that the driver was negligent for using the crossing, because there was a sign warning him not to use the crossing with the truck. 

But then we hear that the sign was put up after the collision, and there was no sign prior to the collision.  Is that really true?  If it is, I conclude that it was not just a coincidence that sign-posting day happened to have followed right after a serious collision that the sign was meant to prevent.  If the information about the sign going up right after the collision is true, I conclude that is was an almost comical case of C.Y.A. 

Therefore, I conclude that the collision was the fault of the road authority for failure to warn drivers of an excess track elevation danger that could kill or injure drivers, train crews, and pedestrians. 

[Overmod]

Euclid

I asked the question as to who was at fault in this accident because the thread seems to have drawn no clear conclusion about that point.

My own opinion about this now-timeless topic is that "fault" here is almost nugatory -- it was an accident in the most literal sense of the word.  To say that the driver was 'negligent' in making an emergency turn to avoid construction issues is to imply that he was conscious of the problem crossing that particular intersection ... which I don't think is fully fair.

We hear about the landing gear being too low for the crossing, and then we are told that lowered landing gear not necessarily illegal or negligent on the part of the driver.

This has nothing to do with "legality"; the issue is a combination of a container underframe with the bogie at the extreme rear, and a steep departure angle for the tractor on the opposite side.  If the effect were to 'high-center' the landing gear before the bogie wheels had measurably begun up the crossing approach, with the further effect of unloading the tractor duals to prevent reversing, the onset might have been sudden and unanticipated, like reversing out of your driveway in heavy snow and running your bumper onto heavy drifts on the other side.  The 'correct' answer was to pull the combination back until the interference was relieved, but this might have been difficult with no more than a strap from the underframe to a piece of construction equipment; some of the angles were wrong.  

It is evident to me they were succeeding in getting the truck off the crossing by the time of impact; look at the angles in the pictures and video immediately before impact.  If you use a straightedge from the fifth-wheel position back to the duals I think any landing-gear fouling was relieved at that point, and any fouling of the drive tires due to the combination angle might have been relieved (allowing the truck to back under its own power were it safe for the driver to remain in the cab).

So it raises this question: Was the crossing built too high for the normal presence of the landing gear? We hear that was the case, but that the driver was negligent for using the crossing, because there was a sign warning him not to use the crossing with the truck.

In the absence of better pictures and measurements, I think yes.  But I don't pretend to be either a trucking or forensics expert.  Look to them if you badly need actual conclusions.

But then we hear that the sign was put up after the collision, and there was no sign prior to the collision.  Is that really true?  If it is, I conclude that it was not just a coincidence that sign-posting day happened to have followed right after a serious collision that the sign was meant to prevent.

As with the Amtrak 188 accident -- common sense would be to put up a sign at an accident site to preclude that type of accident from happening again.  Having a crew out 'within the hour' to put a sign up is not a sign of CYA so much as of due care to prevent a repeat.

Now, my understanding of the 'signage' was that the sign was, in fact, there, but it was posted in such a location as to be invisible or largely edge-on to the driver during most of the actual turn he was making.  It is difficult to imagine relocating a single sign to serve both directions turning off the highway; it is difficult to imagine a long combination approaching across the highway where the sign would be visible.  Someone has already suggested that signage needed to be placed in both approach directions before the intersection, something with which I concur.  Again, placing of such signs ASAP ... including at other crossings on the 'rising grade' to the overpass ... would be in my opinion less CYA than 'prudence through experience'.

Therefore, I conclude that the collision was the fault of the road authority for failure to warn drivers of an excess track elevation danger that could kill or injure drivers, train crews, and pedestrians.

And this is one of the reasons there was a Constitutional prohibition against ex post facto legislation.  From what we've seen, truck drivers should have been at least mindful of the danger of crossing any raised berm with unknown dropoff on the far side, and the municipality seems in fact to have provided (in this case, inadequate) signage warning about high-centering trucks.  To castigate the road authority for not 'going further' in recognizing a perhaps never-to-be-repeated combination of factors which led to that driver trying that crossing is more 20/20 hindsight by the judgmental than where I think the concern should be more focused: on how to prevent these kinds of incidents better in future.  I don't think there is a convenient sole fault to be identified here.

[tree68]

Overmod

My own opinion about this now-timeless topic is that "fault" here is almost nugatory -- it was an accident in the most literal sense of the word.  To say that the driver was 'negligent' in making an emergency turn to avoid construction issues is to imply that he was conscious of the problem crossing that particular intersection ... which I don't think is fully fair.

I agree - if there has been an incident which defines "accident," this is it.

We don't know about the legal angles on the landing gear - that would be contained in GA V&T law.

We don't know the actual physical status of the landing gear - it may have been fully retracted.

We have no history of similar incidents at the crossing.

I would opine that if the driver was pulling a lowboy trailer, he would not have attempted that crossing.  That the landing gear got stuck may well have been a surprise to him as well.  Until proven otherwise, I think he gets the benefit of the doubt on that.

As previously noted, several other crossings in the area have apparently been closed.  This one was left because of the distance between those still open.

As Overmod writes - the combination of factors involved in this incident was unusual.

While I'm sure that measures will be taken to help avoid a repeat, the odds of such a repeat may be near zero.  Just like a low overhead bridge, signage may restrict truck traffic over the crossing.  And like low overhead bridges, eventually the stars will again line up and a truck will try to use the crossing as a train approaches at speed.

BTW - the low bridge in Liverpool, NY has claimed another semi...

 

[Overmod]

tree68

We don't know about the legal angles on the landing gear - that would be contained in GA V&T law.

Would that matter for an incident in Indiana?  I don't know the current status of motor-carrier law.

[Overmod]

tree68

While I'm sure that measures will be taken to help avoid a repeat, the odds of such a repeat may be near zero. 

It's important to remember that the odds of such a repeat are essentially 100% for the same type of vehicle in the same location ... and that specifically would include van trailers with the duals similarly far back, as someone has already noted.

The odds of a driver using the crossing are what need to be changed, and arguably 'better signage conventions' would help this.

One thing I argued for, years ago, was distinctive paint on the crossing standards and poles for crossings unsuitable for different kinds of truck traffic.  (Carefully chosen to be reflective and NOT isoluminant with dark colors in poor kinds of lighting, as many reds are).  I would be tempted to argue that distinctive and 'visually evident' signage ought to be developed for MUTCD and put on the physical crossing itself, not just at approach distance.  I will not go into who 'should' pay for the additional cost of this, or to its 'assurance', or whether it should be part of ongoing railroad maintenance without express compensation.

In a nutshell: if it is not abundantly and definitively clear before a truck commits to a turn or route that there are significant hazards to passage, the issues raised by this accident have not been correctly addressed... 

[tree68]

Overmod

Would that matter for an incident in Indiana?  I don't know the current status of motor-carrier law.

My bad - somehow I was thinking it was Georgia.  The same logic applies.  Maybe I should leave it at "applicable state V&T law."

 

[Euclid]

Euclid

So to review, what is the actual clear explanation of what in fact caused the truck to stall on the crossing?  And where in this thread has that explanation been given?

I do not conclude that this crash was an "accident" if that term means that there was no negligence involved in the cause. 

I asked the above question near the top of this page because I have not yet seen an explanation of the actual cause.  Yet the first two pages of this thread include 22 posts blaming the truck driver without any facts to back up the accusation. 

[tree68]

Euclid

 

 

Euclid

So to review, what is the actual clear explanation of what in fact caused the truck to stall on the crossing?  And where in this thread has that explanation been given?

 

 

I do not conclude that this crash was an "accident" if that term means that there was no negligence involved in the cause. 

I asked the above question near the top of this page because I have not yet seen an explanation of the actual cause.  Yet the first two pages of this thread include 22 posts blaming the truck driver without any facts to back up the accusation. 

 

Go back to the original post and watch the video.  You can see that the landing legs are in contact with the pavement.  With the tractor dropping down over the other side of the crossing, that leaves the trailer effectively high centered.

As to blaming the driver, it's been noted that the usual route to his destination was obstructed by some sort of construction.  It's been opined that perhaps the landing legs weren't fully retracted - something we really can't judge with the information we have.  

What does appear clear is that this was an unusual event.  Normally a crossing such as this would be hanging up a lowboy or other minimal clearance trailer.  I suspect this is where a lot of the blame the driver sentiment comes from.  

Were it not for the landing legs, he would have made it over the crossing without incident.  I would opine that he simply didn't realize the issue until it was too late.  It's not often you hear about such a situation.  I can't say as I ever have.

The crossing is a problem, with its steep attack angles on both sides.  However, this incident occurred on a sunny day - the driver could easily see the situation.  And this goes back to his not realizing the landing legs would prove a problem.  I'm not sure any signage would have made a difference.  

It's already been discussed why this crossing remains a crossing.  As I mentioned earlier, an overpass might be a possibility, but one has to weigh the cost vs the benefit.  

I'm still calling this an accident.  

[Overmod]

tree68

As I mentioned earlier, an overpass might be a possibility, but one has to weigh the cost vs the benefit.

Reading a little between the lines, part of the reason for the rising grade at that crossing (and a couple of what might be even more extreme ones nearby) is that the grade HAS been modified to put in an overhead crossing a relatively short distance away.  This being the preferred, and probably documented, way for any vehicles that 'can't' use a marked crossing to take a safe route across.  

If this is so, and further if this is a location 'prone to flood' as I believe was suggested in an earlier post, there would either have to be extreme transient grade changes or a road in a flood hole perhaps requiring active pumping, neither of which is a particularly plausible alternative.

[Euclid]

If the crossing had a surface clearance deficiency that could trap large trucks with trailers, the road authority had the responsibility to warn drivers of this anomaly rather than just letting them find it by driving into it and possibly suffering the consequences.  The road authority could have met their responsibility by posting an adequately conspicuous sign that clearly identifies the limitation and the duty of the driver to ascertain whether his/her vehicle can pass the restriction. 

If the road authority met that requirement, then the crash was the fault of the driver, and that would not have been an "accident" if the term is defined as being a mishap without any negligence.  

If there was no such warning by the road authority, the crash was the fault of the road authority.  

There may also have been extenuating circumstances that cause a placing of blame more than one party to the crash.   

[tree68]

Euclid

If the crossing had a surface clearance deficiency that could trap large trucks with trailers, the road authority had the responsibility to warn drivers of this anomaly rather than just letting them find it by driving into it and possibly suffering the consequences.

While I agree in principle, we still have the possibility that the driver didn't realize the landing legs would not clear.  He was not towing a lowboy.  

The discussion has also been had here that signage did exist at one point.  Whether it was there at the time of the incident, or was adequate, is unsettled.

The existence of new asphalt at the crossing raises the possibility that the track had been recently raised...  (Google Streetview)