Trains.com

UP vs wind blade

11423 views
44 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 11,919 posts
UP vs wind blade
Posted by blue streak 1 on Tuesday, August 31, 2021 12:21 PM

overlength stalled wind blade smacked by UP freight.  Reminds us of the Palmetto hiting that electrical box.  When will these oversize load companys call the RRs before transiting these tight curves ?  Has the  Palmetto accident ever been resolved ?

Watch a freight train slam into truck carrying a wind turbine blade in Texas (msn.com)

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 21,669 posts
Posted by Overmod on Tuesday, August 31, 2021 12:30 PM

Look carefully.  He's been hung by the crossing-signal spacing making the turn.  When the gates go down he apparently thinks 'the hell with signal damage' and starts pulling through the crossing anyway, but had too little time.

If I had to apportion blame, it would be whoever was supposed to map and check the route.  It does not look to me as if there's enough area to swing that blade to get it 'clear' between those standards -- this should be checked on Google Earth or GPS/GIS maps.

  • Member since
    July 2008
  • 2,325 posts
Posted by rdamon on Tuesday, August 31, 2021 12:48 PM

And wouldn't that be something a Pilot car catch?

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 25,020 posts
Posted by tree68 on Tuesday, August 31, 2021 1:26 PM

Then there's that blue placard on the crossing equipment...

LarryWhistling
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...

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Tuesday, August 31, 2021 1:28 PM

The vehicle is too long to cross without track authority from the railroad.

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Tuesday, August 31, 2021 1:44 PM

Overmod
...

If I had to apportion blame, it would be whoever was supposed to map and check the route.  It does not look to me as if there's enough area to swing that blade to get it 'clear' between those standards -- this should be checked on Google Earth or GPS/GIS maps.

100% - plotting movements of oversized loads is not the mere operation of plugging starting location and ending location into GPS and driving the results.  Railroads have a entire department dedicated to the safe movement of oversized loads across the railroads.  

Normal carriers of oversized loads on the highways are specialized on their task - as such it is also their responsibility to plot out SAFE routes considering the particular size and characteristics of the load and the known characteristics of the routes being traversed.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    July 2016
  • 2,631 posts
Posted by Backshop on Tuesday, August 31, 2021 2:31 PM

Euclid

The vehicle is too long to cross without track authority from the railroad.

 

Huh?

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Tuesday, August 31, 2021 3:00 PM

Euclid
The vehicle is too long to cross without track authority from the railroad.

The overall vehicle length is too long to be able to make a turn from the street parallel to the railroad across the railroad at that location.  The article mentions that prior blade movements had traveled a different route through the town and were able to make a straight on perpendicular crossing of the railroad without issue.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Tuesday, August 31, 2021 4:08 PM

Backshop
 
Euclid

The vehicle is too long to cross without track authority from the railroad.

 

 

 

Huh?

 

 

 

The vehicle was too long to make the turning and crossing move within the time allowed by the crossing warning activation.  The vehicle may have required stopping, reversing, and realigning.  It may have required spotters on the ground in communication with the driver.  Under the circumstances, it would require notifying the railroad and arranging for a time slot with no trains to make the crossing move.  After making the crossing move successfully, they would notify the railroad that they were clear and finished. 

 

 

  • Member since
    April 2016
  • 1,447 posts
Posted by Shadow the Cats owner on Tuesday, August 31, 2021 5:32 PM

We got a heads up on this one from our insurance company.  Seems the highway Bubba in that county department decided to close the roads that were normally used and they were the ones that routed the oversized load on that route.  Driver and pilot car both said we can't make the turn sheriff's department threatened arrest for not obeying orders of a law enforcement officer.  Both the wind farm and carrier involved have filed a lawsuit against the county involved for the damages incurred as well as failure to provide proper protection and planning for this load movement.  The repairs to the road involved were planned for next year but from what has been found out some big shot on the county board has their car damaged by the area a said either fix it now or the entire highway department loses it budget.  That's one expensive mistake they made.  

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Denver / La Junta
  • 10,820 posts
Posted by mudchicken on Tuesday, August 31, 2021 5:49 PM

And the Texas DOT rail section (successor to the RR Commission of TX after 2005) was left out of the loop? NOBODY touches or reconfigures that crossing without TxDOT's express permission. FUBAR, fire or fine them all.

 

Backshop, just ignore Bucky. Don't get in a war of wits with an unarmed individual.

Mudchicken Nothing is worth taking the risk of losing a life over. Come home tonight in the same condition that you left home this morning in. Safety begins with ME.... cinscocom-west
  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Tuesday, August 31, 2021 8:38 PM

mudchicken

And the Texas DOT rail section (successor to the RR Commission of TX after 2005) was left out of the loop? NOBODY touches or reconfigures that crossing without TxDOT's express permission. FUBAR, fire or fine them all.

 

Backshop, just ignore Bucky. Don't get in a war of wits with an unarmed individual.

 

Do you really need a war of wits to figure this out?

  • Member since
    April 2007
  • 4,557 posts
Posted by Convicted One on Tuesday, August 31, 2021 8:58 PM

I think they are taking exception to your use/abuse of the term "track authority"?

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Burlington, WI
  • 1,418 posts
Posted by rvos1979 on Tuesday, August 31, 2021 10:41 PM

Shadow the Cats owner

We got a heads up on this one from our insurance company.  Seems the highway Bubba in that county department decided to close the roads that were normally used and they were the ones that routed the oversized load on that route.  Driver and pilot car both said we can't make the turn sheriff's department threatened arrest for not obeying orders of a law enforcement officer.  Both the wind farm and carrier involved have filed a lawsuit against the county involved for the damages incurred as well as failure to provide proper protection and planning for this load movement.  The repairs to the road involved were planned for next year but from what has been found out some big shot on the county board has their car damaged by the area a said either fix it now or the entire highway department loses it budget.  That's one expensive mistake they made.  

Well, looks like they just lost the budget for next year, those oversize rigs and blades aren't cheap, just the rig is close to a half million...........

Randy Vos

"Ever have one of those days where you couldn't hit the ground with your hat??" - Waylon Jennings

"May the Lord take a liking to you and blow you up, real good" - SCTV

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Wednesday, September 1, 2021 9:46 AM

Convicted One

I think they are taking exception to your use/abuse of the term "track authority"?

 

Why would they take exception to my use of the term, “track authority?”  What else would you call it?  From the moment the crossing warning activates, there is as little as 25 seconds before the train arrives at the crossing. 

That is way too short of a warning for a vehicle that might take 15 minutes to cross and clear.  It absolutely requires a commitment from the railroad company to guarantee an adequate timeframe during which no trains will pass over the crossing.  During that time, the crossing vehicle has the right of way over the track in the crossing.  That is “track authority” for the crossing vehicle. 

If a permit was granted for the routing of this special load, it most certainly should have required this track authority to have been sought and granted as a condition of entering the crossing.  If that was done, and if the vehicle was adhering to the track authority, the collision is the fault of the railroad.  If it was not done, the collision is the fault of the permitting authority.  If no permit was obtained, the collision is the fault of the driver and others associated with the truck movement.  

  • Member since
    April 2007
  • 4,557 posts
Posted by Convicted One on Wednesday, September 1, 2021 10:25 AM

Euclid
Why would they take exception to my use of the term, “track authority?”  What else would you call it?

Well, I have no way of  knowing on absolute terms what is on the minds of others. But think back to the discussions we've had in times past where a civil authority tried to demand a locomotive engineer's license,  or where a community has tried to implement blocked crossing penalties.......there has always been a "stay in your lane" mentality here whenever civil authority attempts to exercise influence over the sacred ground between the rails.

Isn't "track authority" part of the official RR lexicon?  Expanding that to include civil involvement might violate someone's sense of sanctity....that's what I was thinking anyway.

Not that I really care.

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Wednesday, September 1, 2021 10:57 AM

Convicted One
 
Euclid
Why would they take exception to my use of the term, “track authority?”  What else would you call it?

 

Well, I have no way of  knowing on absolute terms what is on the minds of others. But think back to the discussions we've had in times past where a civil authority tried to demand a locomotive engineer's license,  or where a community has tried to implement blocked crossing penalties.......there has always been a "stay in your lane" mentality here whenever civil authority attempts to exercise influence over the sacred ground between the rails.

Isn't "track authority" part of the official RR lexicon?  Expanding that to include civil involvement might violate someone's sense of sanctity....that's what I was thinking anyway.

Not that I really care.

 

I understand.  Track Authority may be part of the official RR lexicon, but that does not mean that they own the phrase.  Also, they do define it as being granted to vehicles that may be working on their track or have some need in relation to their track.  It does not stipulate who has to own the vehicle.  And the process of aquiring track authority to for a special vehicle using a grade crossing does require asking the railroad for it, and they have the right to grant it or refuse it entirely on their terms.   

If the idea of granting track authority to an oversize vehicle using a grade crossing violates someone's sense of sanctity, I would advise that they get their sense of sanctity under control. 

  • Member since
    February 2018
  • 299 posts
Posted by adkrr64 on Wednesday, September 1, 2021 1:45 PM

To C.O.'s point, "track authority" in RR realm usually means authority for train or piece of equipment (like a high-rail vehicle) to occupy and use some defined section of  track. Under NORAC rules, in a situation like this, where something was going to foul (but not actually use) the track for some limited period of time, the dispatcher would give "foul time". It might seem like hair splitting on the terminology, since getting track authority or getting foul time requires someone to get that permission from the dispatcher. But there are different procedures involved between the two (at least in NORAC) that affect what and how the dispatcher gives the permission.

Also, whoever calls the dispatcher needs to be a rules qualified individual, presumably an employee of the railroad. The truck driver cannot drive up and call the number on the blue sign and ask for foul time.

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 21,669 posts
Posted by Overmod on Wednesday, September 1, 2021 5:51 PM

I'm not sure there can't be a procedure to request foul permission by calling 'a number on a blue sign'. There are gated crossings in Britain that require calling 'control' and getting permission to cross -- after any nearby rail traffic has cleared without delay -- with the understanding that other trains approaching will know to watch, go to restricted speed, etc. until the vehicle is fully across.

Probably a good time to check permitting, GPS and GIS data, etc. before the vehicle comes into foul or gets 'surprised', too.

This would apply by regulation to vehicles above a certain size and weight, or needing a special movement permit, but could easily be applied to buses now required to 'stop and open the door' or some other less-than-fully-effective thing.

In this age of nearly pervasive 3G or better wireless, I think it would be easy to assure cell-phone connectivity at any potentially dangerous crossing... and to require that drivers, even if forbidden to use devices while moving, have one that can be activated and used for these purposes.

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Wednesday, September 1, 2021 6:37 PM

adkrr64
The truck driver cannot drive up and call the number on the blue sign and ask for foul time.

I am not suggesting that.  I agree that it would have to be a much more formal process.  The request and granting of permission would need to be established in a certified record. 

It would not be done by the truck driver calling a phone number on a sign or by a simple phone call and verbal discussion.  Instead, it would be done by the permitting authority probably hours or days prior to the date of use. 

I think it might require spotters on the ground, including railroad employees to make sure nothing about the crossing has been damaged in the oversize move, and to make sure that the terms of the permission are complied with. 

I suspect this entire procedure is exactly what is in place and used for these extra-oversize highway loads.  They probably call it Track Authority For Special Highway Movements. 

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 25,020 posts
Posted by tree68 on Thursday, September 2, 2021 3:02 PM

Euclid
If the idea of granting track authority to an oversize vehicle using a grade crossing violates someone's sense of sanctity, I would advise that they get their sense of sanctity under control. 

As has been pointed out, track authority is for the track and the vehicles thereon.

If someone knows they are going to have an issue such as this, they need to contact the railroad ahead of time.  By doing so, the dispatcher can issue instructions accordingly, be it to hold trains, advise them to keep an eye out, move slowly, or whatever may be necessary.  Odds are a railroad supervisor will be on the scene for something like this.

This is often done for things like parades.  I'm sure that Lake States RR issued an advisory for the event I just attended in Michigan, as there would be more than the usual number of folks (especially pedestrians) just at the crossings, never mind anywhere else.

On the other hand, a situation such as we are discussing here calls for calling the number on the blue placard on the crossing to advise them that the crossing is fouled.  This would apply to any short notice situation, such as a stalled car or a high-centered semi.  That's why the number is posted, along with specific crossing information.

 

LarryWhistling
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...

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 21,669 posts
Posted by Overmod on Thursday, September 2, 2021 5:40 PM

Perhaps I should have been clearer.  The permitting, positive route assurance, and initial scheduling for these high/wide/overlength moves would continue just as they do now; the difference is that at the timethe vehicle reaches the crossing area they phone in toget specific foul authority from the railroad.  Only when that is assured in some safe, unambiguous way would the driver actually start to approach or occupy the crossing.

it would've nice to have an instant hold or emergency button (or equivalent) that would command all the rail traffic to slow, stop, or go to restricted speed until 'cleared'.  It is pretty easy to see why that is unworkable.  To me it's a different thing to re-confirm arrangements before any emergency can, well, begin to emerge, as it can quickly catch many problems or concerns not recognized in the initial planning... this accident apparently being a good example in a number of respects.

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Thursday, September 2, 2021 9:51 PM

If Shadow the Cat's post is accurate - the blame for this incident is totally on the local police in changing the route through town.

 

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Friday, September 3, 2021 8:33 AM

I am not sure what all is covered in the permitting process.  Grade crossings with signals and gates are capable of offering permission to cross without any notice or preparations other than complying with the applicable driving laws. 

A slightly oversize load, such as a dozer with a slightly over-width blade requiring a permit; might not require any special procedure in passing through a grade crossing.  It could just be driven through as usual while obeying the traffic laws.  It could pass over the crossing as quickly as other vehicles.

But consider a greatly oversize load such as the wind mill blade or one of those gigantic industrial products riding on those big multi-wheeled platforms with hydraulic steering and position shifting.  This could be a load that weighs say 500-1000 tons.  That might require the full road width and it would require movement with no interaction with the general road traffic.  And it certainly would not allow the load to operate over a grade crossing with the contingency of a possible train arrival. 

A very large load may simply be incapable of passing over the grade crossing within the allotted time of a grade crossing warning, should a train arrive.  Obviously this is what occurred with the wind mill blade.

The permitting process should be required to contact the railroad ahead of time, and seek formal permission from the railroad, and be granted that permission in a formal documentation covering all times and other details.   Such a certified process has no place for informal phone calls by the truck driver, upon arrival at the crossing, and notifying whoever happens to answer the phone at the railroad. 

That may be fine for reporting emergencies such as a stalled vehicle that are not a specially permitted move.  But for permitting an abnormally risky, oversize movement, it requires the complete elimination of any risk of a train conflict at a grade crossing.  This arrangement has to be as formal and stringent as railroad train control. 

  • Member since
    September 2013
  • 2,505 posts
Posted by caldreamer on Friday, September 3, 2021 10:04 AM

I agree that the company transiting such a load should be required to notify the raiload(s) ahead of time so that the dispatchers can notify any trains approaching such a grade crossing will know that there is an oversize load be approaching the crossing at such and such an hour.

  • Member since
    August 2004
  • From: The 17th hole at TPC
  • 2,283 posts
Posted by n012944 on Friday, September 3, 2021 10:19 AM

Euclid

 

I suspect this entire procedure is exactly what is in place and used for these extra-oversize highway loads.  They probably call it Track Authority For Special Highway Movements. 

 

You suspect incorrectly.

An "expensive model collector"

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Friday, September 3, 2021 10:41 AM

BaltACD

If Shadow the Cat's post is accurate - the blame for this incident is totally on the local police in changing the route through town.

 

 

I don’t know how this may have been permitted or who the permitting authority was.  But if the county highway bubba made the decision to close the original route which had a workable crossing for this move, then I would say it was Bubba’s fault.  The cops were just following County Bubba’s orders.  Although there may be a case to be made that the cops should not have followed Bubba’s orders.  Likewise, there may be a case to be made that the truck driver should have also not followed the orders.  By not following orders, I mean simply refusing to drive the new route until the railroad and the permitting authority gave their permission. 

So we can’t say who is to blame.  It is possible that the driver, the cops, the country bubba, or even the permitting authority are at fault for failing to discharge their responsibilities.  It is also possible that the railroad is at fault for failing to adhere to a commitment to hold trains, if they had made such a commitment. 

  • Member since
    July 2008
  • 2,325 posts
Posted by rdamon on Friday, September 3, 2021 10:54 AM

The tracks are set back pretty far from the intersection.

 

  • Member since
    December 2006
  • 1,754 posts
Posted by diningcar on Friday, September 3, 2021 10:55 AM

Pehaps we should wait until specific info is available. It is likely to be a while until all this is determined. 

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Denver / La Junta
  • 10,820 posts
Posted by mudchicken on Friday, September 3, 2021 11:00 AM

BaltACD

If Shadow the Cat's post is accurate - the blame for this incident is totally on the local police in changing the route through town. 

.... at least the majority of it. (that bubba managed to pass a civil service test?)....If moving outsize loads is the outfit's bread and butter, their insurance carrier may be saying bye-bye. Moving blades and/or moving houses has a set procedure, which was not followed. (not Bucky's fairy-tale version - Irony being that UP's recently designated contractor consultant is not that far away in Irving...the bonehead that thought they were saving time and money might be rethinking that?) ... Hope certain trucking company supervision is invited to the whuppin' out behind the woodshed for cutting corners on the spreadsheet.)

Mudchicken Nothing is worth taking the risk of losing a life over. Come home tonight in the same condition that you left home this morning in. Safety begins with ME.... cinscocom-west

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy