Amtrak #4 derails, lands all cars on side after hitting dump truck at Mendon KS today (/)

[tree68]

Erik_Mag

One question comes to mind: Who owned the land where the trees were growing?

If the on-line tax map [https://charitongis.integritygis.com/H5/Index.html?viewer=chariton] is to be believed, as an overlay to a satellite image, the brush is on the railroad ROW.  If.

 

It would be hard to believe that the railroad would not argue that point.

 

It is a bit confusing figuring out what's what, though.  I've found three different designations for that road...

[Erik_Mag]

One question comes to mind: Who owned the land where the trees were growing?

[Euclid]

charlie hebdo

 

 

Euclid

When I said it should not be open to public use, I do not necessarily mean it should be permanently closed.  And that certainly would not be necessary.  All that is needed is to stop it from being a death trap.  That would entail removing all the trees right next to the track that have any effect on shortening the view of trains from the crossing.  It could be done in 48 hours or less.

 

 

 

 

You should realize by now that the "experts" prefer the status quo bolognae.

 

Yes I am always watching that.  This case with the Amtrak collision will be very interesting to watch unfold.  I expect some big surprises.  I don’t know what three of the four train approaches look like, but the one I have looked at leads me to conclude that this is a flawed crossing that lacks a key requirement for being a “passive crossing.” 

 

Passive crossings must have adequate visibility of train approach areas.   The depth of visibility determines the length of warning.  It appears to me that this crossing offers, for passenger trains, a warning of 3 seconds. 

 

This is offered to allow a heavy truck to start from a dead stop, pull forward from 15-50 feet while climbing a steep grade (approx. 20-30%), move onto the crossing, pull across the tracks, and move into the clear on the opposite side. 

[charlie hebdo]

Euclid

When I said it should not be open to public use, I do not necessarily mean it should be permanently closed.  And that certainly would not be necessary.  All that is needed is to stop it from being a death trap.  That would entail removing all the trees right next to the track that have any effect on shortening the view of trains from the crossing.  It could be done in 48 hours or less.

 

You should realize by now that the "experts" prefer the status quo bolognae.

[mudchicken]

Euclid

When I said it should not be open to public use, I do not necessarily mean it should be permanently closed.  And that certainly would not be necessary.  All that is needed is to stop it from being a death trap.  That would entail removing all the trees right next to the track that have any effect on shortening the view of trains from the crossing.  It could be done in 48 hours or less.

 

Won't happen in the present environment.

[mudchicken]

charlie hebdo

The crossing is on railroad property. Roads are a government provision.

 

Another attempt at pegging the baloney meter.

[Euclid]

When I said it should not be open to public use, I do not necessarily mean it should be permanently closed.  And that certainly would not be necessary.  All that is needed is to stop it from being a death trap.  That would entail removing all the trees right next to the track that have any effect on shortening the view of trains from the crossing.  It could be done in 48 hours or less.

[charlie hebdo]

The crossing is on railroad property. Roads are a government provision.

[rrnut282]

Why do you chose to punish the innocent?  A truckdriver got behind the 8-ball and had the first and only accident at a 100+ year old crossing.  Close the crossing and make it harder for the local residents to access their property is your asnwer?  I don't understand.  It sounds like you are seaying the property rights "of too few individuals" is outweighed by some sense of safety?

charlie hebdo

 

 

CSSHEGEWISCH

 

 

Euclid

 

This crossing is a death trap and should not be open to public use.   BNSF, Amtrak, and all of the regulating authorities should have realized this obvious peril. 

 

 

 

 

 

Closing this crossing isn't going to happen for reasons discussed in various postings made earlier in this thread.

 

 

 

 

Perhaps not but it should.  Benefits for leaving open as it is accrue to few individuals. They could detour a few miles out of their way.Costs to the passenger trains are high. Having an upgraded crossing is expensive for the general public. Consider closing it  unless the actual users want to pay for the upgrade.

 

[Overmod]

Yes, that 'clearly visible and in hazardous proximity to the crossing' seems like a ridiculous claim under the circumstances, especially combined with the steep approaches and heavy vehicle.

I don't know if additional signage warning of 'limited sight distance' ought to be mandated for any crossing such as this (if we assume physical removal of the kbstructions cannot be mandated as a requirement to keep the crossing from being closed).  I do think that inexpensive secondary means of alerting people to proximity ought to be pursued, even if used with the understanding they don't constitute a share of responsibility or potential liability if they fail to achieve their purpose.

[Euclid]

Overmod

Ron, whenever you talk about 'law' it's important to cite the precise statute wording or provide a link to the law(s) you mean.

I know of no statute requiring a particular standard of care for a crossing with a combination of steep approach/sharp breakover and limited effective sight distance (including the issues from oblique crossings).  This might gainfully be at least codified (e.g. through Congressional action in the case of the CFR) to deal with 'perfect storm' situations like the one supposed to exist at the subject crossing.

The laws have been cited by Amtrak and BNSF in the Railway Age article:

 

Railway Age

Amtrak and BNSF cited no fewer than 20 points of how “MS Contracting and its agents, officers, or employees were negligent, grossly negligent, and/or reckless”:

 

failing to use the highest degree of care in the operation of the Dump Truck in violation of § 304.012 RSMo ; 

operating the Dump Truck in a careless and imprudent manner in violation of § 304.012 RSMo.; 

failing to stop at the railroad crossing in violation of a posted stop sign and § 304.351 RSMo.; 

failing to stop at the railroad crossing at a point between 15 and 50 feet of the nearest rail of the railroad track and not proceed until it was safe to do so in violation of § 304.035.1 RSMo; 

failing to stop at the railroad crossing at a point between 15 and 50 feet of the nearest rail of the railroad track despite the fact that Amtrak Train 4 was clearly visible and in hazardous proximity to the crossing; 

failing to stop at the railroad crossing at a point between 15 and 50 feet of the nearest rail of the railroad track despite the presence of traffic signs and/or, devices at the railroad crossing; 

operating the Dump truck through the railroad crossing without sufficient undercarriage clearance necessary to prevent the undercarriage of the vehicle from contacting the railroad crossing in violation of § 304.035.4 RSMo; 

operating the Dump Truck, a commercial motor vehicle, at a rate of speed which did not permit the Dump Truck to stop before reaching the nearest rail of the railroad crossing in violation of § 304.035.5 RSMo; 

driving the Dump truck upon or over the railroad crossing without taking due caution to ascertain that the course was clear in violation of § 304.035.5 RSMo; 

failing to observ

failing to observe and hear the approaching Amtrak Train 4; 

failing to yield the right-of-way to the approaching Amtrak Train 4; 

failing to maintain control of the Dump Truck;

failing to keep a proper lookout; 

negligently operating the vehicle while utilizing or otherwise being distracted by an electronic wireless communications device; 

failing to observe, hear and heed Amtrak Train 4 warning signals, including the train’s horn, bells and lights; 

failing to train and supervise its employees, including Barton, in the proper procedures for operating the Dump Truck in a safe and prudent manner, and in particular, in the operation of the Dump Truck at railroad crossings; 

failing to supervise, test, observe and otherwise ensure that its employees, including Barton, were sufficiently qualified, knowledgeable and understood and followed the proper procedures for operating the Dump Truck in a safe and prudent manner, and in particular at railroad crossings; 

failing to properly inspect, maintain, and/or repair the Dump Truck to ensure it operated in a safe manner; and 

failing to follow proper loading procedures for the Dump Truck.

 

 

My comments about the process of following the laws are based on the video of the wreck scene.  It shows a freight train approaching the crossing from the side of the crossing first encountered by the truck driver. 

 

The freight train is coming from the driver’s left side and is totally obscured by the trees along the track until the train is FIVE SECONDS from being on the crossing.  An Amtrak train, at a higher speed, would have taken even less time; say THREE SECONDS. 

 

This video segment was taken from maybe 12-20 feet from the nearest rail.  The law forbids that a driver get closer than 15 feet from the nearest rail unless the driver can see whether a train is within “dangerous proximity” to the crossing. 

 

So the question is this:  Is a train in dangerous proximity when it is THREE SECONDS away from entering the crossing? 

 

If the answer is “YES”, the driver must break the “15-feet law” in order to get close enough to the crossing to determine if the crossing is clear to cross.   So, technically, the crossing is closed to road traffic, and yet nobody had informed the road users. 

[Cotton Belt MP104]

Gramp

I imagine if all the costs that this accident will have caused would be tallied, the amount would otherwise go a long way towards building a bridge over the tracks.

Attention to the unsafe crossing was cited long before this accident. Cheaper corrective action rather than building a bridge, would have been for the RR to clear ROW of trees and even have the county to clear the side of road similarly.

Everything to get line of sight clear between vehicles and oncoming locomotives. Being realistic about the difficult situation, steep grade, trucks needing momentum, "running start" to get over the rail, how else can negotiating the crossing be done?

With high speed RR traffic maybe two or even three mile clearance of obstruction would be necessary. Enough clearing that before a truck "makes a run" at the hill, they can see the headlamp of the oncoming train. Probably one could even surmise normal or high speed train by watching the approaching headlamp.

Gramps, congratulate that grandson on super job well done. 

BTW The above suggestion (clear trees) has been done here locally. It took a local school district to warn/request this be done since a bus crossed a grade crossing similar to Minden. UP did it, as accidents repeatedly had happened there. endmrw0709221146

[Overmod]

Ron, whenever you talk about 'law' it's important to cite the precise statute wording or provide a link to the law(s) you mean.

I know of no statute requiring a particular standard of care for a crossing with a combination of steep approach/sharp breakover and limited effective sight distance (including the issues from oblique crossings).  This might gainfully be at least codified (e.g. through Congressional action in the case of the CFR) to deal with 'perfect storm' situations like the one supposed to exist at the subject crossing.

I think there is ample precedent in Federal law to justify legislation or enforcement based on a single event -- see the post-2008 PTC mandate and the returned enforcement of Esch Act maximum speeds in the absence of ATS/ATC after Naperville.

[diningcar]

Euclid, this will be determined by the established federal government inspection and report. Our conclusions are made without sufficient information.

[Euclid]

The vehicle count is irrelevant.  The issue is unsafe crossing geometry and vegetation obscuring the critical view.  Passive crossings such as this one require drivers to look for trains approaching.  That requires an unobstructed view.  The law says drivers must not enter the crossing if a train is in dangerously close proximity.  Yet, that is impossible to accomplish with this crossing.  Trains are in dangerous proximity before they can even be seen by drivers.  

 

The law says drivers cannot get closer than 15 ft. from the nearest rail unless they know the crossing is clear to pass.  Yet they cannot know that when they are over 15 ft. from the crossing.

 

[blue streak 1]

BaltACD

At 5 vehicles a day - it sounds like it is serving one three person family. Two people work 'daylight' and go out and back daily.  The other person works nights and goes out in the evening and returns in the morning.

 

There may be another explanation.

County road 113 going north crosses BNSF goes ~~ 3/4 mile and then turns east as county 128 to go another ~~ 3/4 mile to cross the BNSF in what appears an identical crossing since the RR and farm land is essentially flat.

 

At the apex of 113 and 128 the Yellow river recreaction area ( ?? ) appears to the NW of that apex adjoining the farmland.  There does not appear to be any permanent buildings NW of BNSF RR any where .  Just farmland.  Now the map does not show any road to the rec area but it may be possile that there is one or more drives or trails into the area not shown.    Visitors to the area may account for the 5 vehicles / day count .  There are no apparent reasons that I can see for any local traffic other than the occasional farm vehicle.

 

What is the vehicle count on the 128 RR crossing?  About the same, more,  less?  Since the truck traffic is one off for the CORP project they should probably not be counted to increase daily count?

 

EDIT: Will the boy scouts receive some kind of award for their efforts?

[tree68]

BaltACD

At 5 vehicles a day - it sounds like it is serving one three person family. Two people work 'daylight' and go out and back daily.  The other person works nights and goes out in the evening and returns in the morning.

The date on the report was possibly two decades ago.  It's in the crossing database.  It could be more today - especially if it's being used for materials for that project.  Still, we're not talking hundreds of vehicles per day.

[BaltACD]

At 5 vehicles a day - it sounds like it is serving one three person family. Two people work 'daylight' and go out and back daily.  The other person works nights and goes out in the evening and returns in the morning.

[Euclid]

Maybe the people who use it even though they know it is dangerous survive because they know it is dangerous.  The danger only becomes obvious when you encounter a train. 

 

This is not just one more passive crossing that could benefit from being converted to an active crossing.  Instead, this is a deeply flawed crossing, and this fact will for once be made obvious in the trial through the use of pictures, diagrams, traffic engineering analysis, and animations all showing how closely the needle is threaded.  Just the negligence of leaving the crossing partly obscured by trees is stunning. 

 

I don’t think there is any doubt that this crossing will either be closed or be upgraded in many ways including signalization, raising the roadway approaches, and clearing all vegetation that limits visibility to the most distant track curve in either direction from the crossing. 

[Backshop]

I'm really curious to see the cam footage from the locomotive.  Until we see it, we don't know whose fault it is. Apparently all the farmers who thought it was "dangerous" still used it.  Maybe it only became dangerous after the fact.  

[tree68]

zugmann

But I have a feeling it may have just jumped to the front of the line for crossing gate installation. 

You're probably right, but I believe it was MC that pointed out that the crossing has a zero accident history.  Up until a few days ago, it wasn't exactly on anyone's radar, existing plans for eventual upgrade notwithstanding.

The FRA/DOT report for the crossing listed something like 5 vehicles per day used it.  That plays well into arguments to close it, but in the past it would appear that the opportunities for vehicle/train interaction were virtually nil.

The farmer noted that they've felt it was dangerous for years, but apparently because they knew that they compensated accordingly.  It would be interesting to know just how familiar the dump truck driver was with the road/crossing.  If he was a contractor from outside the area, he probably didn't know the danger.

If this collision had not occurred, then when the project he was working for was complete, it would have simply been just another sleepy crossing.  Still dangerous, but sleepy.

[charlie hebdo]

CSSHEGEWISCH

 

 

Euclid

 

This crossing is a death trap and should not be open to public use.   BNSF, Amtrak, and all of the regulating authorities should have realized this obvious peril. 

 

 

 

 

 

Closing this crossing isn't going to happen for reasons discussed in various postings made earlier in this thread.

 

Perhaps not but it should.  Benefits for leaving open as it is accrue to few individuals. They could detour a few miles out of their way.Costs to the passenger trains are high. Having an upgraded crossing is expensive for the general public. Consider closing it  unless the actual users want to pay for the upgrade.

[zugmann]

CSSHEGEWISCH

Closing this crossing isn't going to happen for reasons discussed in various postings made earlier in this thread.

But I have a feeling it may have just jumped to the front of the line for crossing gate installation. 

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Euclid

 

This crossing is a death trap and should not be open to public use.   BNSF, Amtrak, and all of the regulating authorities should have realized this obvious peril. 

 

 

Closing this crossing isn't going to happen for reasons discussed in various postings made earlier in this thread.

[zugmann]

Euclid

To me, this signals panic about their potential liability.  What happened to the policy of answering every question by starting with, “It’s too early to tell.   We will be conducting a thorough investigation…”  I think this “19 causes” strategy is going to backfire.  

Or they want to get their suits in the system before the company quickly dissolves and disappears into the night?

[tree68]

If we presume that he's made the trip over that crossing several times, then he'd likely know what would be required to make it over successfully.  

The possibililty of high centering might explain why he may not have stopped.  The need to get a running start up the approach might also be a factor.  We've seen video taken at the crossing.  It might be interesing to see what the sight lines are from 100, 200, 300 yards back, on the approach to the crossing.

Depending on the age of the truck, there might have been a "chip" that recorded at least some information.

 

[Euclid]

What strike me as completely bizarre is Amtrak and BNSF throwing up a list of 19 violations of law in an editorial fashion just a couple days after the crash.  And they do this without any explanation of the way that this crash actually occurred.  To me, this signals panic about their potential liability.  What happened to the policy of answering every question by starting with, “It’s too early to tell.   We will be conducting a thorough investigation…”  I think this “19 causes” strategy is going to backfire.

 

The law calls for a vehicle to stop between 15 and 50 ft. from the crossing and not proceeding until it can be verified that no train is approaching.  Considering the obscuration of the trees along the track, a driver cannot verify this until a train is approximately 3 seconds from the crossing.  So once a driver verifies that the crossing is clear to cross, he has to drive ahead, cross the track, and get clear on the opposite side; all in a time span no longer than THREE SECONDS.

 

And during that three seconds, a driver is violating the law for being closer than 15 out from the first rail to be encountered. 

 

Consider too that a driver has to cross two tracks, so it is possible for two trains to be approaching at the same time.  So a driver must divide his/her attention between two opposing directions of potential train approach. 

 

This crossing is a death trap and should not be open to public use.   BNSF, Amtrak, and all of the regulating authorities should have realized this obvious peril. 

[Overmod]

Backshop

Use the right gear and you don't have to worry about it.

I'd suspect that the 'right' gear would involve considerable road speed if powerful to get up that steep a grade "loaded", or as Tree noted, slower in granny.  In the former case, you'd have to commit while still off the approach grade, so be relatively less able to stop; in the latter case your dwell in the foul zone might be appalling.  I suspect we'll have a good idea of it when Amtrak or the NTSB release the forward-looking camera footage of the accident.

I wonder if the added engine and gear noise climbing the approach, perhaps in conjunction with using handsfree on a phone, masked the approach noise of the train...

Something I note is that this truck had tag axles for additional load-carrying capacity.  I was unable to determine if they were deployed or raised in the pictures I saw, but it might be the case that the tags would indeed 'high-center' enough to unload the rear wheels on that gravel.  That might come as a shock even with an automated (important to know the distinction between what he said and an 'automatic') transmission.

[Backshop]

I was replying to those that said a truck could stall out on the crossing grade. Use the right gear and you don't have to worry about it. Many Class 8 trucks even have automated transmissions now, so that would make the whole point moot, if this one did.

[tree68]

Backshop

I wonder if that driver had made previous, successful trips over the crossing?

I agree with Euclid. In first (creeper) gear, you can start on any grade.  It isn't even used in normal operation.

Even taking away the limited sight line issue, creeping across the tracks in "granny" would introduce a larger opportunity for a collision than ones family sedan.