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

[7j43k]

n012944

 

 

 

 

 

3 seconds at 90mph means 396' away.  A bit over 100 yards.  Is the view obstructed from 400'  and out farther?  Can you only see the approaching train when it is at a 396' distance, and closer?

Citing a source that cannot be linked (Facebook) is hardly a source.

Examining the few photos of the site that CAN be found online, I don't see any close obstructions.  Certainly not the crops.

 

Ed

 

 

 

 

 

The source is available to anyone with a Facebook account.  If you chose to not have one, that is on you, it is still a source.  However I will spoon feed you the information, here is a news article that used the farmers Facebook video.

https://www.kansascity.com/news/state/missouri/article263049938.html

 

 

 

I'm sorry to have hurt your feelings, such that you feel you need to insult me with that "spoon feed" comment.

When one is trying to prove a point by using a citation, it should be readily available by those you are addressing.  You assumed that "Facebook" was such a source (or you just didn't care).

I assure you, there are people who don't use Facebook.  And, by citing Facebook, you are keeping those people from examining your evidence.  And, in a way, you are insulting them, too.

You apparently feel it is "on me", to have such an account, so that YOU can express yourself properly.

I suggest it is not.  Nor is it necessary for me to have a Twitter, Instagram, Tiktok, Kaleidoscope, Blither-Blather, and on-and-on account.  In my opinion.

 

Do you have any thoughts on the substance I wrote?  For example:  the distance I developed based on the 90mph statement.

 

 

Ed

 

[zugmann]

greyhounds

See, this is what you get out of the Operating Department.  You get push back and very questionable reasons not to do things.  They usually don’t even want to try to make things work.  They make things up or exaggerate problems to avoid change.

Can't remember the last time I saw a marketing guy out there working on crossing gates. 

[n012944]

7j43k

 

 

 

 

 

3 seconds at 90mph means 396' away.  A bit over 100 yards.  Is the view obstructed from 400'  and out farther?  Can you only see the approaching train when it is at a 396' distance, and closer?

Citing a source that cannot be linked (Facebook) is hardly a source.

Examining the few photos of the site that CAN be found online, I don't see any close obstructions.  Certainly not the crops.

 

Ed

 

 

The source is available to anyone with a Facebook account.  If you chose to not have one, that is on you, it is still a source.  However I will spoon feed you the information, here is a news article that used the farmers Facebook video.

https://www.kansascity.com/news/state/missouri/article263049938.html

[tree68]

Euclid

Low-Cost Highway-Rail Intersection Active Warning System Field Operational Test Evaluation Report

According to the report, the cost was estimated at $40,000 per crossing.

In 2022 dollars that's almost $60,000 (on-line inflation calculator).  I'd say the estimates given here of $42,000 look like a good deal.  I didn't read the whole report, but I did see a reference to GPS, and having to move equipment between locomotives...

[Euclid]

Here you go.

 

Low-Cost Highway-Rail Intersection Active Warning System Field Operational Test Evaluation Report

 

https://www.dot.state.mn.us/guidestar/2001_2005/hri/HRI_Evaluation_Report_Final.pdf

 

Approximately 61 pages packed with detailed text, illustrations, and photos of test prototype.  This was tested on Twin Cities & Western RR, ex-Milwaukee Road H&D subdivision between Norwood and Renville, MN.  This was 17 or so years ago, and I have not seen any follow-up review. 

[Backshop]

greyhounds

 

 

Backshop

How much would that all cost?  You'd have to add the software to all locomotives and all crossings. All because one truck driver screwed up?

 

 

See, this is what you get out of the Operating Department.  You get push back and very questionable reasons not to do things.  They usually don’t even want to try to make things work.  They make things up or exaggerate problems to avoid change.

  

Wrong. You're constantly suggesting things and have no idea what actual costs are.  Maybe you should do some research first.  I'm surprised you haven't used your favorite labor cost-cutting suggestion..."have high school students do it parttime".

[BaltACD]

SD70Dude

As was mentioned, Denver tried the PTC crossing idea.  They ended up fighting bugs for years and I'm not sure if they ever started working properly.  

https://www.denverpost.com/2020/09/21/rtd-trial-denver-transit-partners-a-line/

As for the cost of installing warning devices, any equipment that is 'railroad grade' seems to be significantly more expensive for that reason alone.  One example would be a supplier charging thousands for a EMD engine barring over tool (not even air or electric, this was just a funny shaped pry bar with a couple hinges so it would fit inside an F-unit's carbody).  

The current method of installing warning devices at a crossing requires installing track circuits, foundations, a connection to the power grid and/or a backup generator and batteries, and a whole lot of testing.  And most of that work has to happen between trains.  A reliable PTC based wireless system could get rid of the track circuits, but not the rest.

The prices quoted probably also include a profit margin the railroad built in if they are doing the project at a municipality's behest.  

I agree, the prices seem a tad high, but there is a lot more work involved than an outsider might initially think.  

The railroad enviornment - in the middle of nowhere does not treat consumer grade products well.  Railroad grade products cost!  I suspect military grade products would cost even more.

You are buying a product grade that is expected to last, without significant maintenance beyond required routine inspections, for 20 years or more.

[7j43k]

n012944

It has been a complaint at that crossing for years.  The Facebook post from June 11 shows the issue.  The BNSF train was not visible to the person at the crossing until it was 5 seconds away.  That would give a 90mph Amtrak less than 3 seconds from being visible to occupying the crossing.  That is not enough time.  

 

3 seconds at 90mph means 396' away.  A bit over 100 yards.  Is the view obstructed from 400'  and out farther?  Can you only see the approaching train when it is at a 396' distance, and closer?

Citing a source that cannot be linked (Facebook) is hardly a source.

Examining the few photos of the site that CAN be found online, I don't see any close obstructions.  Certainly not the crops.

 

Ed

[tree68]

greyhounds

Using a volume produced lower cost “Kit” that includes flashing lights, gates, and a couple smart phones attached to the existing posts is my idea. If you’ve got a better idea, I’m all for it.

Perhaps you might find a rep at one of the crossing signal companies to give you an idea of the cost of the crossing equipment.  Western Cullen Hays comes to mind.  Their "Model 10" would be just the thing.

[SD70Dude]

As was mentioned, Denver tried the PTC crossing idea.  They ended up fighting bugs for years and I'm not sure if they ever started working properly.  

https://www.denverpost.com/2020/09/21/rtd-trial-denver-transit-partners-a-line/

As for the cost of installing warning devices, any equipment that is 'railroad grade' seems to be significantly more expensive for that reason alone.  One example would be a supplier charging thousands for a EMD engine barring over tool (not even air or electric, this was just a funny shaped pry bar with a couple hinges so it would fit inside an F-unit's carbody).  

The current method of installing warning devices at a crossing requires installing track circuits, foundations, a connection to the power grid and/or a backup generator and batteries, and a whole lot of testing.  And most of that work has to happen between trains.  A reliable PTC based wireless system could get rid of the track circuits, but not the rest.

The prices quoted probably also include a profit margin the railroad built in if they are doing the project at a municipality's behest.  

I agree, the prices seem a tad high, but there is a lot more work involved than an outsider might initially think.  

[n012944]

wjstix

The accident site crossing appears to be surrounded on all four sides by flat farm fields, so I would assume the "vegetation" that has been mentioned in some news stories as limiting visibility would be crops (like corn perhaps). Also looks like the right of way for the road and railroad are fairly narrow - the farm fields pretty much come right up against the road and tracks. Not clear how BNSF/Amtrak would be expected to 'clear vegetation' there, unless they went on the farmer's property and cut down some of the farmer's crop?

 

 

Dont assume, there are trees along the row.  

https://www.facebook.com/100068030815707/posts/pfbid02Tbfw84s9kffZqqGyWtGaJNi3BaAMTWmjV2XaioPaBCt1LVLN2tLjrDVy8abpUzNDl/?d=n

[n012944]

BaltACD

 

 

n012944

 

BaltACD 

n012944 

azrail

This line had the Super Chief running on it for years with no grade crossing mishaps. We need more intelligent truck drivers.  

Or luck just ran out.   

Remember - not only the Super Chief was running on the line but the Chief, the El Capitan, the Scout, the Fast Mail and probably half a dozen more - each way DAILY. 

Back when railroads maintained vegatation growth along the right of way.

 

 

Haven't heard that vegitation has been called into question in this incident.

 

 

It has been a complaint at that crossing for years.  The Facebook post from June 11 shows the issue.  The BNSF train was not visible to the person at the crossing until it was 5 seconds away.  That would give a 90mph Amtrak less than 3 seconds from being visible to occupying the crossing.  That is not enough time.  

[tree68]

There's already a system in place - a RR frequency receiver  in the crossing shack.  But interfacing that with the locomotive automatically would be a challenge. Such a system requires the locomotive to send out a DTMF tone.  It's used chiefly for switches and rarely used crossings.

There was an attempt to put radio transmitters in emergency vehicles which would override a vehicle AM/FM radio to provide a warning.  My AM/FM is never on, and my satellite only occasionally.

Many crossings are already on PTC - but only to report status, I believe.  The same goes for signals.  Actually activating either still requires a track circuit - a well known system that's been around for ages.

You say you can adjust your home thermostat from your phone.  Will it do so automatically when you reach a certain distance from home?  

What you're proposing (PTC activation of crossing signals) is not beyond the realm of possibility.  It may even already be under consideration.  As to whether the hardware and software actually currently exists, who knows?

As has been noted, however, just the equipment necessary to install the crossing protection costs money.  Choose two:  Fast, Reliable, Cheap.  You know the rest.

 

[greyhounds]

Backshop

How much would that all cost?  You'd have to add the software to all locomotives and all crossings. All because one truck driver screwed up?

See, this is what you get out of the Operating Department.  You get push back and very questionable reasons not to do things.  They usually don’t even want to try to make things work.  They make things up or exaggerate problems to avoid change.

 

We’ve got it right here.

 

As in: “You'd have to add the software to all locomotives and all crossings.”

 

NO, you would not have to add software to all locomotives.  (And if you did it’s not that much of a problem.  Microsoft does it frequently to my Windows system.)

 

But in PTC territory, which this was, they have already got the real time data on where the train is and how fast it is going.  They’ve got the data.  So, use it.  Use it to activate crossing signals.

 

Granted, they would have to install some system at the crossing that included software.  Some system such as the smart phone I carry around with me. If such a phone can adjust the temperature in your home from miles away it can activate a crossing signal.  They’d probably use two or more such phones to provide redundancy.

 

As a side note, I have a significant hearing loss.  So, I wear hearing aids. My phone is Bluetooth linked to the hearing aids.  I don’t even have to take the phone out of my pocket to answer a call.  I just touch a button on the left hearing aid and I’m talking on the phone. 

 

We’re often limited by our lack of vision and imagination.  Railroad operating officials seem to be exceptionally limited.

 

I’ve seen figures on this thread ranging from $400K to $768K to install automatic signals to protect a crossing.  That isn’t feasible on rural gravel/dirt roads.  So, design a lower cost system.

 

Using a volume produced lower cost “Kit” that includes flashing lights, gates, and a couple smart phones attached to the existing posts is my idea. If you’ve got a better idea, I’m all for it.

[wjstix]

The accident site crossing appears to be surrounded on all four sides by flat farm fields, so I would assume the "vegetation" that has been mentioned in some news stories as limiting visibility would be crops (like corn perhaps). Also looks like the right of way for the road and railroad are fairly narrow - the farm fields pretty much come right up against the road and tracks. Not clear how BNSF/Amtrak would be expected to 'clear vegetation' there, unless they went on the farmer's property and cut down some of the farmer's crop?

[BEAUSABRE]

charlie hebdo

Some folks are too quick to blame the trucker.

Truckers are always to blame! We need to eliminate all truckers!!

[charlie hebdo]

Murphy Siding

Maybe it should? In looking at one of the posts further up, someone has video showing how quickly a train gets to the crossing after coming into sight from behind trees along the tracks. Think about how long it takes to get a heavily loaded dump truck 50 feet from a standing start on what looks like a slight uphill climb. It's plausible that a truck driver could come to a complete stop, look both ways and not see or hear a train, then proceed and still get hit by a fast moving train.   

Good point!  Some folks are too quick to blame the trucker.

[blue streak 1]

blue streak 1

 diningcar

Amtrak and BNSF have filed a lawsuit against M S Contracting, the truck owner. M S had the contract to deliver rip rap and it was their truck which was struck at the crossing.

Look at the details that the driver did not do.  Using electronic device?  Cell phone?  direct viloation.  Many more.    

 Train derailment: Amtrak, BNSF sue company that owned dump truck (msn.com)

 

 

Maybe the quick lawsuit is filed to prevent MS from going into bankruptcy with MS paying off persons they owed.  Unfortunately the owner(s)  will anyway try to immediately start another company.  The new company will end up with the same type drivers and same operating practices.

 

It will not surprize me if some entity will try to sue the Corp of Engineers for not properly supervising this (sub)contractor. 

 

Probably not Amtrak as one government agency cannot sue  another?

[Murphy Siding]

BaltACD

 

 

n012944

 

BaltACD 

n012944 

azrail

This line had the Super Chief running on it for years with no grade crossing mishaps. We need more intelligent truck drivers.  

Or luck just ran out.   

Remember - not only the Super Chief was running on the line but the Chief, the El Capitan, the Scout, the Fast Mail and probably half a dozen more - each way DAILY. 

Back when railroads maintained vegatation growth along the right of way.

 

 

Haven't heard that vegitation has been called into question in this incident.

 

Maybe it should? In looking at one of the posts further up, someone has video showing how quickly a train gets to the crossing after coming into sight from behind trees along the tracks. Think about how long it takes to get a heavily loaded dump truck 50 feet from a standing start on what looks like a slight uphill climb. It's plausible that a truck driver could come to a complete stop, look both ways and not see or hear a train, then proceed and still get hit by a fast moving train. 

[blue streak 1]

diningcar

Amtrak and BNSF have filed a lawsuit against M S Contracting, the truck owner. M S had the contract to deliver rip rap and it was their truck which was struck at the crossing.

 

 

Look at the details that the driver did not do.  Using electronic device?  Cell phone?  direct viloation.  Many more.    

 

Train derailment: Amtrak, BNSF sue company that owned dump truck (msn.com)

[NittanyLion]

greyhounds

Why do four lights and two gates cost $250,000? Someone said it was mainly the labor that made the total cost $400,000.  Now it's the lights and gates that make up most of the cost.

That $400k wasn't an exact quote.  That's just a ballpark figure.

You want some hard numbers? https://www.cityofrochelle.net/government-documents/city-council-agendas-and-minutes/agendas/2015-city-council-meeting-documents/2015-03-23-agenda/3430-4-bf7610-069803b-rochelle-il-15th-st-form-approved-w-exhibits/file.html

A full four quadrant gate on a paved two lane road, crossing a double track.  Nothing exotic at all.

$768,000

[Euclid]

I assume that statistically, “Active” grade crossings are safer than “Passive” grade crossings.  There is a widely recognized desire to change all passive crossings to active crossings, and a wide recognition that the impediment to this conversion is cost.  So it stands to reason that there is high motivation to reduce the cost of active crossings. 

 

However, there is a cost/quality tradeoff, and part of the quality is the effectiveness of the crossing warning in preventing death or injury.  Nobody is going to be willing to accept a lowering of that quality in order to reduce cost.  But other than that issue, I assume that there is a degree of potential to reduce the cost, and also a potential to increase effectiveness.  It follows that if cost can be reduced, it will increase the rate of conversion of passive crossings to active crossings.

 

There is also a movement proposing to make passive crossings safer even if they are not converted to active crossings.  The theory is:  “The safer, the better.”   Yet there is hidden danger in this very concept.  That is that drivers are the most wary of crossing danger with passive crossings, and less wary at active crossing; even though the law demands maximum wariness at both types of crossings. 

 

This is a fundamental problem with safety devices such as the table saw that stops when you touch the running blade with your finger.  There is potential added danger to a person who is accustomed to that type of saw, running a saw without that added safety feature.

 

I have seen various ideas for adding features to passive crossings that simply attract more driver attention to the existence of the crossing.  These feature may be animated without the use of electric power, such as reflectors that spin in the wind.  So what if the wind does not blow?  It will add safety when the wind does blow, therefore, it will be a safer crossing than a passive crossing without this feature.  So adding this feature could collectively increase the safety of all passive crossings, even if they still remain less safe than the active crossings with their lights, bells, and gates. But any feature that you add to passive crossings will reduce driver wariness.  And if it also only works intermittently, that adds to the trap of reduced wariness. 

 

Adding a little safety, at the expense of reducing wariness may actually make the crossing more dangerous.

[BaltACD]

n012944

 

BaltACD 

n012944 

azrail

This line had the Super Chief running on it for years with no grade crossing mishaps. We need more intelligent truck drivers.  

Or luck just ran out.   

Remember - not only the Super Chief was running on the line but the Chief, the El Capitan, the Scout, the Fast Mail and probably half a dozen more - each way DAILY. 

Back when railroads maintained vegatation growth along the right of way.

Haven't heard that vegitation has been called into question in this incident.

[n012944]

BaltACD

 

 

n012944

 

azrail

This line had the Super Chief running on it for years with no grade crossing mishaps. We need more intelligent truck drivers.  

Or luck just ran out.  

 

 

Remember - not only the Super Chief was running on the line but the Chief, the El Capitan, the Scout, the Fast Mail and probably half a dozen more - each way DAILY.

 

 

Back when railroads maintained vegatation growth along the right of way.

[diningcar]

Amtrak and BNSF have filed a lawsuit against M S Contracting, the truck owner. M S had the contract to deliver rip rap and it was their truck which was struck at the crossing.

[BaltACD]

greyhounds

 

Backshop

I doubt that crossbuck posts could support the weight of flashers and gates.  I don't think that PTC (someone tell me if I'm wrong) activates crossing gates.  If it does, great. 

Well, if weight is a problem, they could: 1) Make some flashers and gates that weigh less, or 2) add some reinforcement to the posts.

PTC does not currently turn on flashers and gates.  But because it doesn't do that now does not, in any way, mean that it cannot be adapted to do that.

PTC "Knows" where the train is and how fast it's going.  Use that data to feed into a system that "Knows" where the crossing is.  Activate signals as necessary.

Can you afford what you are asking for?  Somebody has to pay for it!  What is the cost/benefit ratio?  Do those paying the costs reap any of the benefits?

[Backshop]

greyhounds

 

 

Backshop

I doubt that crossbuck posts could support the weight of flashers and gates.  I don't think that PTC (someone tell me if I'm wrong) activates crossing gates.  If it does, great.

 

 

Well, if weight is a problem, they could: 1) Make some flashers and gates that weigh less, or 2) add some reinforcement to the posts.

PTC does not currently turn on flashers and gates.  But because it doesn't do that now does not, in any way, mean that it cannot be adapted to do that.

PTC "Knows" where the train is and how fast it's going.  Use that data to feed into a system that "Knows" where the crossing is.  Activate signals as necessary.

 

How much would that all cost?  You'd have to add the software to all locomotives and all crossings. All because one truck driver screwed up?

[greyhounds]

Backshop

I doubt that crossbuck posts could support the weight of flashers and gates.  I don't think that PTC (someone tell me if I'm wrong) activates crossing gates.  If it does, great.

Well, if weight is a problem, they could: 1) Make some flashers and gates that weigh less, or 2) add some reinforcement to the posts.

PTC does not currently turn on flashers and gates.  But because it doesn't do that now does not, in any way, mean that it cannot be adapted to do that.

PTC "Knows" where the train is and how fast it's going.  Use that data to feed into a system that "Knows" where the crossing is.  Activate signals as necessary.

[ChuckCobleigh]

tree68

Impediments to sightlines notwithstanding, remember that the road and rails meet at a 45 degree angle.  Get in your car and see how your vision is 45 degrees behind you on your left side.  If the dirver didn't make a positive effort to look down the tracks, he may not have seen the oncoming train.

It's been reported that the crossbucks included a stop sign, so theoretically the driver did stop.

Getting a heavily loaded dump truck going isn't going to be a fast process.  He may have misjudged the speed of the train (around 130 feet per second) vs how long it would take him to clear the crossing. I think it's been mentioned that there was something of a hump to get over the crossing, which would also have an effect on his clearing the crossing.

Investigators are reportedly checking the forward-facing camera on the locomotive, which will probably provide some clues as to the driver's behavor.

No conclusions here - just factors that are probably in play in the investigation.

Spoken like the first responder you are, Tree. I think the bolded and underlined sentences are Damon Runyan "smart money" takes on this situation, given what we have learned so far. Misjudging oncoming train speed has a too-frequent role in crossing collisions. The train a quarter mile away doing 90 will be at the crossing in 10 seconds. I've not driven a loaded dump, but I have driven vehicles heavy enough to show how "jackrabbit starts" just aren't going to happen. In a sense, I am getting a strong déjà vu feeling going back 23 years to Bourbonnais, IL and the City of New Orleans. Also sad that this event was 11 years, three days after the Nevada Cal-Zeph collision. (As an aside, the Bourbonnais IL and Miriam NV incidents were at crossings with lights and gates.)

[zugmann]

To claim "actively protected crossings have just as much danger as unprotected crossings", I'm going to have to see actual data - not juut a few anectodotes. 

I can offer anecdotes that lead me to believe crossings with gates are a lot safer than those without.