greyhoundsOK, now tell me why this can't possibly work
Because the cost of design and material is minor. The majority of the cost is the labor involved in installing it. $10-20K cheaper isn't gonna make a difference on a $400K project
mudchicken There are plenty of rural roads that are closed because the county can't afford to keep them open for little or no use. Add in local terrain and topography and some roads were never built in the first place because of bridge requirements or local dirtwork for cuts and fills would be excessive. (Maybe the taxpayer subsidized trucking industry ought to have some of its directed highway improvement funds transferred to making crossing improvements until they quit colliding with trains? ... PTC for trucks?) Wonder if we will ever see the locomotive cab video or the story of what this dump truck was doing that caused it to be on this road in the first place.?
There are plenty of rural roads that are closed because the county can't afford to keep them open for little or no use. Add in local terrain and topography and some roads were never built in the first place because of bridge requirements or local dirtwork for cuts and fills would be excessive.
(Maybe the taxpayer subsidized trucking industry ought to have some of its directed highway improvement funds transferred to making crossing improvements until they quit colliding with trains? ... PTC for trucks?)
Wonder if we will ever see the locomotive cab video or the story of what this dump truck was doing that caused it to be on this road in the first place.?
Reported that truck was carrying riprap for a levee project by Army Corps.
BaltACDI believe it has been stated that MODOT already has a plan to install automatic protection with a estimated cost of $400K. It just had not been implemented at the time of the accident.
OK, just an idea here.
$400K to protect a little used crossing is a barrier to protecting the crossing. Can there be a way to reduce that expense?
If PTC knows where the train is and knows how fast it's going it seems like some simple computer code could activate about four flashing lights and cause two gates to drop. You'd use wireless communication.
If you could get the cost down to around $4K instead of $400K it would be feasible to protect more crossings.
OK, now tell me why this can't possibly work.
blue streak 1NTSB briefing the lady said that the 113 approach to the crossing is very steep. Now as to what her definition is will come out later. MC reports rail grade flat. Corp of engineers working on levee. Is the land in a flood plain? Might be why ROW is raised?
Main Line track structure is always raised above the 'normal' lay of the land. The right of way the track occupies has to be built up to withstand the tonnage that will be operating over it as well as providing an area for water to drain through the track structure.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
NTSB briefing the lady said that the 113 approach to the crossing is very steep. Now as to what her definition is will come out later. MC reports rail grade flat. Corp of engineers working on levee. Is the land in a flood plain? Might be why ROW is raised?
Indeed it was.
This will likely speed up the process...
Larry 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...
The crossing in question has a 135 degree angle of approach on the northern side plus a 9 foot grade separation also. There's a video a farmer in the area made on a windy day were you literally couldn't hear the trains approach from the north side or see them thanks to the bushes and other plants that have grown up in the right of way. His video showed 6 seconds of warning for a freight train moving slower than Amtrak. So again we have a bad design that finally gets discovered only after a passenger train derails.
tree68 charlie hebdo So...do nothing? Active protection would be a good thing. This incident will bring focus to the need. As has been noted, closing a crossing, any crossing, is likely to result in pushback. It all depends on the force and intensity of that pushback. There are four options, essentially - do nothing, install active protection, build an overpass, or close the crossing. Without knowing local traffic patterns, it's hard to say what the best solution is.
charlie hebdo So...do nothing?
Active protection would be a good thing.
This incident will bring focus to the need.
As has been noted, closing a crossing, any crossing, is likely to result in pushback. It all depends on the force and intensity of that pushback.
There are four options, essentially - do nothing, install active protection, build an overpass, or close the crossing.
Without knowing local traffic patterns, it's hard to say what the best solution is.
I believe it has been stated that MODOT already has a plan to install automatic protection with a estimated cost of $400K. It just had not been implemented at the time of the accident.
charlie hebdoSo...do nothing?
tree68 charlie hebdo Another poster said the grid is on a one mile set up. I guess it's an extension of the old Northwest Territory section system. If that is so, close alternate lightly used roads and improve the ones left open. It's hardly a hardship or a danger to detour two miles out of your way. The crossing is located at 39.56074 -93.18106 . While the grid is there, not every road that could be is.
charlie hebdo Another poster said the grid is on a one mile set up. I guess it's an extension of the old Northwest Territory section system. If that is so, close alternate lightly used roads and improve the ones left open. It's hardly a hardship or a danger to detour two miles out of your way.
The crossing is located at 39.56074 -93.18106 . While the grid is there, not every road that could be is.
So...do nothing?
The truck was northbound. The train was almost due NE bound. The truck driver would either turn his head and body 135 degrees to the left. I cannot turn that much anymore so have to cock car to get a 90 degree view. The driver would depend on a convex mirrror installed on his side mirror. He may or may not had a convex mirror and their view can have blind spot.
I have a real heartburn with hump crossings. My belief is that any crossing should have at least 50 feet and better still 80 feet flat approach or no more than 1 - 2 % slope. There being a gravel roads along this streach of RR tracks all it would take is dropping many loads of dirt and then gravel to have approaches for these tracks close to level.
Local governments do not want to spend the money most times. Our town has one that has a US route on west side ( under state DOT ). East side has three street intersecting 50 - 60 feet from east rail. CSX rebuilt the hump about 2 months ago. I counted the number of scrapes last week 4 different vehicles. A while back TT landing gear snagged east rail. Trains were stopped fortunately. Took 1-1/2 hours to free.
Our city does not want to raise the east approach to the track. Too expensive is the stated reason. West side with state DOT owner have not heard.
EDIT: RR there first about 60 - 70 years.
Murphy SidingOr his attention was somewhere else, like on a phone screen, and he couldn't hear the train because he had ear buds in.
One of these days one of these moron vlogger "truckers" is going to wreck his/her rig while making content. I mean it probabyl already has happened, just not known.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
diningcarIt was said that the truck was northbound, and the train was eastbound. If this is true, the driver had a clear view from his left window and could have seen the train clearly - unless other factors blocked his line of sight.
Train might have been out of the area covered by rear view mirrow. Driver may not have looked down track behind him at a 45 degree angle Driver didn't see the headlight in the noonday sun.
Does anyone know how the engineer is. And the dining car crew.
diningcar It was said that the truck was northbound, and the train was eastbound. If this is true, the driver had a clear view from his left window and could have seen the train clearly - unless other factors blocked his line of sight.
It was said that the truck was northbound, and the train was eastbound. If this is true, the driver had a clear view from his left window and could have seen the train clearly - unless other factors blocked his line of sight.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
charlie hebdoAnother poster said the grid is on a one mile set up. I guess it's an extension of the old Northwest Territory section system. If that is so, close alternate lightly used roads and improve the ones left open. It's hardly a hardship or a danger to detour two miles out of your way.
For the record:
PUBLIC LAND SURVEY SYSTEM (PLSS) is the proper name for what CharlieH and others are struggling to describe.
County Road 113 is a section line road established by Territorial/State Statute somewhere after the township was surveyed and approved 1816/1817 by GLO (BLM since 1947) deputy surveyors Rector and McCafferty. The area was settled/patented by military scrip in 1819 (payment for services rendered in the War of 1812). We are talking the common line between sections 19 and 20; Township 55 North; Range 20 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian (of 1815). The road would have had to have been established by a formal process at the County Commissioner's level to accept the road as public, to pay for it's construction and maintenance, and to compensate the adjoining landowners for the land (usually a strip 66 ft wide (one chain) split along the section line). - Finding that dedication to public use is a challenge and most counties have no clue how large portions of their public road system came to be and many counties were too dumb to follow the law. Point being that section lines do not automatically become public roads and local government cannot force a public crossing over an existing railroad - there is a process to this. DiningCar's statement earlier in this thread about this road crossing being "grandfathered-in" in the case of County Road 113 rings very true. Failure to follow the statutes causes many headaches generations later.
The railroad in this area (Santa Fe predecessor Chicago, Santa Fe & California Ry) came through in 1887. Buying right of way (R/W) from the adjoining landowners and making agreements with the local government over how existing roads were crossed.(often by something other than an easement - which causes us mudchickens much brain damage chasing that documentation down)
Back to the crash at hand, NTSB briefing offered two tibits of information lacking from media coverage I have seen. First, the dump truck was proceeding northbound. Second, the crossing is "passive protection" meaning that there were crossbucks and a stop sign. The road is minor enough that Google StreetView has not come through there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEfpoAKER3M
ricktrains4824And, actively protected crossings have just as much danger as unprotected crossings do. Signals are not foolproof, and far too many drivers often ignore the signals when they are active.
How do you figure that?
BaltACD charlie hebdo If the typical Midwestern grid system is the pattern in that part of Missouri, why can't most of those low traffic volume crossings be simply closed? Cheap. Easy for a outsider to say. Much harder for local politicians to pull off. Should a farmer operate 1/2 a mile to his field or should he operate 20 miles to the same field?
charlie hebdo If the typical Midwestern grid system is the pattern in that part of Missouri, why can't most of those low traffic volume crossings be simply closed? Cheap.
Easy for a outsider to say. Much harder for local politicians to pull off. Should a farmer operate 1/2 a mile to his field or should he operate 20 miles to the same field?
Another poster said the grid is on a one mile set up. I guess it's an extension of the old Northwest Territory section system. If that is so, close alternate lightly used roads and improve the ones left open. It's hardly a hardship or a danger to detour two miles out of your way.
ricktrains4824 I may get criticized, but here goes - Two points. First: Grade crossings like this one exist in many areas, simply because there is not enough funding available. If the road is little used, that funding really dries up in a hurry. Closing these crossings may not be feasble - distance to a better protected crossing might simply be too big. One such unprotected crossing in my area, the next crossing over would add in a roughly 15-20 minute detour to reach, and local authorities would have kittens, due to the increased emergency response times, not to mention local residents would very loudly object. (Local's would demand the RR moved somewhere else instead.) And currently? There was a bridge that washed out, and can not currently be replaced, so that closest detour around that crossing just vanished. It would take 40+ minutes to detour around it now. (Bridge is slated to replaced by the end of 2023.....) Even I would object to simply closing that unprotected crossing currently. (And not just because I like trains!) If you still feel it should just simply be closed, ask yourself this question: If you, or your loved ones, lived on that road, and the fire department was the other side of the tracks, would you feel safe knowing that this now closed crossing means a much longer arrival time in the event of a medical emergency or fire? Espescially if when you or that loved one bought the house it was not an issue because the crossing was open? How much would you complain? How loudly would you object? In that scenario, I think you would be very loudly objecting to it's closure, doing everything possible you could think of to prevent it's closure. After all, even a one minute delay in response time during an emergency could make the differance between life or death. So, short of magically finding lots and lots of money, these types of crossings will continue to exist, as in certain circumstances, there is no other feasable alternative. Second: All train versus motor vehicle collisions are indeed avoidable, this incident included. The train has the right of way, everytime, lights, gates and bells present and working, or not. As a CDL driver, that truck driver is considered a "professional driver" in many states, and the blame should rightly rest only with the "professional driver" who royally messed up in this incident. (CDL drivers all receive higher fines for every offense, whether commited in a big rig, or a compact car, in all those states, as the DOT considers them "professionals" who "should know better".) In this instance, if it was a case of difficulty in seeing if it was clear, the vehicle driver is the one who must do something different to assure their safe crossing of the tracks. Whether this be stopping the vehicle short of the crossing, and exiting the vehicle if need be, or anything else, the car/truck driver is the one who needs to assure they can cross the tracks safely. The train crew aboard #4, the railroad that owns the tracks, and the state DOT, could not do anything that would have changed the outcome once that truck entered the crossing into the path of #4. And, actively protected crossings have just as much danger as unprotected crossings do. Signals are not foolproof, and far too many drivers often ignore the signals when they are active. Lights and gates may not have prevented this incident. There exists a chance that they may have, but the chance exists equally that it still could have occurred anyway.
I may get criticized, but here goes - Two points.
First: Grade crossings like this one exist in many areas, simply because there is not enough funding available. If the road is little used, that funding really dries up in a hurry.
Closing these crossings may not be feasble - distance to a better protected crossing might simply be too big.
One such unprotected crossing in my area, the next crossing over would add in a roughly 15-20 minute detour to reach, and local authorities would have kittens, due to the increased emergency response times, not to mention local residents would very loudly object. (Local's would demand the RR moved somewhere else instead.)
And currently? There was a bridge that washed out, and can not currently be replaced, so that closest detour around that crossing just vanished. It would take 40+ minutes to detour around it now. (Bridge is slated to replaced by the end of 2023.....) Even I would object to simply closing that unprotected crossing currently. (And not just because I like trains!)
If you still feel it should just simply be closed, ask yourself this question: If you, or your loved ones, lived on that road, and the fire department was the other side of the tracks, would you feel safe knowing that this now closed crossing means a much longer arrival time in the event of a medical emergency or fire? Espescially if when you or that loved one bought the house it was not an issue because the crossing was open? How much would you complain? How loudly would you object?
In that scenario, I think you would be very loudly objecting to it's closure, doing everything possible you could think of to prevent it's closure. After all, even a one minute delay in response time during an emergency could make the differance between life or death.
So, short of magically finding lots and lots of money, these types of crossings will continue to exist, as in certain circumstances, there is no other feasable alternative.
Second: All train versus motor vehicle collisions are indeed avoidable, this incident included. The train has the right of way, everytime, lights, gates and bells present and working, or not.
As a CDL driver, that truck driver is considered a "professional driver" in many states, and the blame should rightly rest only with the "professional driver" who royally messed up in this incident. (CDL drivers all receive higher fines for every offense, whether commited in a big rig, or a compact car, in all those states, as the DOT considers them "professionals" who "should know better".) In this instance, if it was a case of difficulty in seeing if it was clear, the vehicle driver is the one who must do something different to assure their safe crossing of the tracks. Whether this be stopping the vehicle short of the crossing, and exiting the vehicle if need be, or anything else, the car/truck driver is the one who needs to assure they can cross the tracks safely.
The train crew aboard #4, the railroad that owns the tracks, and the state DOT, could not do anything that would have changed the outcome once that truck entered the crossing into the path of #4.
And, actively protected crossings have just as much danger as unprotected crossings do. Signals are not foolproof, and far too many drivers often ignore the signals when they are active.
Lights and gates may not have prevented this incident. There exists a chance that they may have, but the chance exists equally that it still could have occurred anyway.
I hear what you're saying. I understand it would take time for changes to be implemented. (I am tired of ill-suited urgency).
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.
Certainly when limited access highways have been built, farms have been split also.
I'm making the assumption that a heavily used rail route will continue to be used. I just think it is wise and rational that those type of routes be grade separated just like interstate highways are.
charlie hebdoIf the typical Midwestern grid system is the pattern in that part of Missouri, why can't most of those low traffic volume crossings be simply closed? Cheap.
If the typical Midwestern grid system is the pattern in that part of Missouri, why can't most of those low traffic volume crossings be simply closed? Cheap.
ricktrains4824Lights and gates may not have prevented this incident. There exists a chance that they may have, but the chance exists equally that it still could have occurred anyway.
Witness Nevada several years ago, where a dump truck ran into the side of an Amtrak train - with good sight lines, lights, and gates at the crossing.
If the FRA crossing database accurately reflects current road traffic, it's under 10 vehicles per day. Based on maps and satellite images, there are crossings approximately every mile, with the roads on a rough grid of a mile.
That said, were such a crossing to be closed, adjustments would likely be made in response patterns. We had to deal with that here when the county highway department replaced a culvert. That was a temporary disruption, but still would have required a longer response to some locations.
As several folks have noted, there's a limited pool of funds for such upgrades. A crossing with no accident history, and minimal traffic isn't going to be a high priority. It's been noted that the crossing in question was slated for inprovements, but if that list has to be cut back, this would be a crossing that would probably miss out on this round of improvements.
Given this incident, it will likely get moved up, though.
Ricky W.
HO scale Proto-freelancer.
My Railroad rules:
1: It's my railroad, my rules.
2: It's for having fun and enjoyment.
3: Any objections, consult above rules.
Amtrak provided a chartered plane today that flew the Boy Scout group from Columbia, Mo. to Green Bay that arrived this evening. The two injured adults remain in the hospital in Mo.
This crossing was already on a list for upgrades.
https://www.kansascity.com/news/article262952283.html#storylink=bignews_related
Until these crossings are closed or upgraded, Amtrak trains on these lines need lower speed limits.
Agreements from the 19th century should be waived if the permit holder cannot provide liability protection now.
Apparently residents in area have been complaining that the crossing sightlines are poor because of the gradients are too steep (hump) and vegetation blocking.
Many of these crossings are "grandfathered" because they existed when the RR was constructed. RR's currently work with the parties who are grandfathered to eliminate them; and currently will not permit any new crossings such as this one in Missouri.
RR's at one time allowed these but with a substantial liability provision from the recipient of the permit. Many of those who signed a liability provision contract did not have assets to cover the costs of an accident. I suspect some such provision is applicable at the Missouri crossing.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.