Not much of a 'report', beyond what was already reported in the media.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD Not much of a 'report', beyond what was already reported in the media.
The prelims rarely have much info, as they generally eventually comprise an opening paragraph or two to the RAR when it comes out. I will say that the RAR documents can be very educational, though.
It appears the crossing is going to be seen as hazardous.
charlie hebdo It appears the crossing is going to be seen as hazardous.
That's been the opinion of just about everyone on the related threads. Early assumptions (flatland, mainly) have been ruled out.
And, apparently, the state saw a need for an upgrade.
Given the zero accident history of the crossing up to a month ago, it's easy to see why it hasn't already been upgraded. Locals knew it was dangerous, but acted accordingly.
Odds are it will be now, sooner, rather than later. The parts are probably already on hand, or on order.
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...
According to that guy who made the video, he and others have been warning the authorities about the crossing danger on various occasions for several years. If this crash finally propels action for making the crossing safe, it appears to be one of those solutions that are required to be "written in blood" in order to justify the removal of the danger.
It will be interesting to learn whether this crossing actually did fail to comply with regulatory standards.
I do remember that in Englewood, in northern New Jersey, all-way stop signs or lights were installed only after fatal crashes occurred at particular locations. Some of these made comparatively little sense considering road-use patterns, but they sure did produce the perception that government was enforcing safety in all directions...
Overmod I do remember that in Englewood, in northern New Jersey, all-way stop signs or lights were installed only after fatal crashes occurred at particular locations. Some of these made comparatively little sense considering road-use patterns, but they sure did produce the perception that government was enforcing safety in all directions...
A rural intersection near me was "imroved" after a fatal collision a few years ago. Additional signage and a reduced speed limit on the through road were the solutions. It's thought, however, that the driver who got hit simply didn't look both ways before proceeding.
A busy intersection (two state highways, rural location) to which I've made many responses has had the suggestion by those lamenting the many collisions there to install a full-blown stoplight. I usually point out that doing so would probably cause more accidents than in prevented.
A frequent cause of those collisions is failure to stop at the intersection, which is equipped with stop signs and flashing lights. A barn that once blocked a portion of the view (similar to the brush at the crossing in question) has long since been removed.
The only addition I would suggest for that intersection is rumble strips on the approaches, prior to the stop signs. There have been multiple cases of drivers blowing through the stop signs.
tree68 Overmod I do remember that in Englewood, in northern New Jersey, all-way stop signs or lights were installed only after fatal crashes occurred at particular locations. Some of these made comparatively little sense considering road-use patterns, but they sure did produce the perception that government was enforcing safety in all directions... A rural intersection near me was "imroved" after a fatal collision a few years ago. Additional signage and a reduced speed limit on the through road were the solutions. It's thought, however, that the driver who got hit simply didn't look both ways before proceeding. A busy intersection (two state highways, rural location) to which I've made many responses has had the suggestion by those lamenting the many collisions there to install a full-blown stoplight. I usually point out that doing so would probably cause more accidents than in prevented. A frequent cause of those collisions is failure to stop at the intersection, which is equipped with stop signs and flashing lights. A barn that once blocked a portion of the view (similar to the brush at the crossing in question) has long since been removed. The only addition I would suggest for that intersection is rumble strips on the approaches, prior to the stop signs. There have been multiple cases of drivers blowing through the stop signs.
Remember - everytime you make a design to 'Idiot Proof' a situation - the World just generates more idiotic idiots.
BaltACDRemember - everytime you make a design to 'Idiot Proof' a situation - the World just generates more idiotic idiots.
Oh, yeah.
In this case, one approach to the intersection is not terribly obvious, especially in late afternoon when the stop sign is backlit and the flashing red light is not real visible. Rumble strips would be a gentle reminder for those not paying full attention.
But, we've had people who stopped, then pulled out in front of oncoming traffic.
The downside of rumble strips is that they'd have to be cut into the pavement, account snow in the winter. bumps that stick up wouldn't work. OTOH, they've been cutting in centerline and shoulder rumbles for years...
The most effective way to make the crossing safer is to close it. Does it really have enough traffic on a regular basis to make it worth the money for the improvements needed? I doubt it. Of course, the locals will just complain for a different reason then.
Backshop The most effective way to make the crossing safer is to close it. Does it really have enough traffic on a regular basis to make it worth the money for the improvements needed? I doubt it. Of course, the locals will just complain for a different reason then.
As I have been suggesting. Many on here object, saying that can never happen.
charlie hebdo Backshop The most effective way to make the crossing safer is to close it. Does it really have enough traffic on a regular basis to make it worth the money for the improvements needed? I doubt it. Of course, the locals will just complain for a different reason then. As I have been suggesting. Many on here object, saying that can never happen.
That's true of any crossing. I doubt you'll see any disagreement here.
I don't think that most here feel it can't happen. Rather it's a matter of local interest - if if it's high enough, the closing won't happen.
That locals know that the crossing is dangerous suggests that it's used enough to indicate possible pushback if closing it is brought to the table.
I tend to doubt that anyone here has actually been over the crossing, so it's hard to say, from hundreds of miles away, what the most desirable solution for the situation would be.
The local politics of the crossing will trump any conversation that happens here.
I don't think there would be any issues about crossing safety if they just built up the road approches for less gradient, and cleared the trees that inhibit the view. It seems like a simple, relatively low cost solution, and it is what the local residents have been asking for.
It does not need to by improved by making the passive crossing into an active crossing. The actual problem is that this is a defective passive crossing. Eliminate the defect.
Euclid's' solution makes sense. It should cost less than $50000 if done by the County with their employees and equipment.
diningcar Euclid's' solution makes sense. It should cost less than $50000 if done by the County with their employees and equipment.
EuclidI don't think there would be any issues about crossing safety if they just built up the road approches for less gradient, and cleared the trees that inhibit the view. It seems like a simple, relatively low cost solution, and it is what the local residents have been asking for. It does not need to by improved by making the passive crossing into an active crossing. The actual problem is that this is a defective passive crossing. Eliminate the defect.
Certain you will pay for the changes you view as necessary?
Amtrak overloaded?
BackshopAmtrak overloaded?
Euclid I don't think there would be any issues about crossing safety if they just built up the road approches for less gradient, and cleared the trees that inhibit the view. It seems like a simple, relatively low cost solution, and it is what the local residents have been asking for. It does not need to by improved by making the passive crossing into an active crossing. The actual problem is that this is a defective passive crossing. Eliminate the defect.
Murphy Siding Look at the video starting at about the 40 second mark. With those bushes gone the train would still appear to be out of sight, over the hill. To be fair, it looks like the video was filmed from the bottom of the incline on the gravel road. Maybe the easiest fix in this situation would be to cut the brush and to raise the gravel road level with the tracks for about 100 feet on each side of the rails. That would allow traffic to stop, check for approaching trains, and continue without having to putt-putt up the hill.
Look at the video starting at about the 40 second mark. With those bushes gone the train would still appear to be out of sight, over the hill. To be fair, it looks like the video was filmed from the bottom of the incline on the gravel road. Maybe the easiest fix in this situation would be to cut the brush and to raise the gravel road level with the tracks for about 100 feet on each side of the rails. That would allow traffic to stop, check for approaching trains, and continue without having to putt-putt up the hill.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Euclid How do you know that if you removed the trees, there would be other obstructions behind them? How do you know the tracks go over a hill and out of sight? That guy making the video said it is all river bottom land through that area. I agree that easing the approach grades would help too, and that it would be ideal to remove the trees and ease the approaches. But I suspect that getting the road project going would be a lot harder than removing the trees.
Backshop Amtrak overloaded?
Yes, Amtrak overloaded. Look at the link. It tells the whole story. There was also a news report right after this happened that said there was one guy in charge of inspecting the crossing along with others in the same general location. As I recall, the story indicated that the crossing had defects that this guy should have reported and gotten action to fix the problems, which was said to include the trees obscuring the view. But I am looking for that story and so far, no luck. I know the story gave the guy's name.
Simply raising the approaches is going to be an expensive proposition. That is a LOT of fill.
A recent road project here on a county road raised the road surface about 5 feet over 100 yards, removing a significant dip. It took hundreds of truck loads of fill.
I think they should have raised it another few feet, but, once again, it would have taken hundreds of truckloads of fill. And the fill was available in the area (a lot of gravel hereabouts).
That's not to say that the approaches shouldn't be raised, but understand what's involved in such an undertaking.
tree68 charlie hebdo Backshop The most effective way to make the crossing safer is to close it. Does it really have enough traffic on a regular basis to make it worth the money for the improvements needed? I doubt it. Of course, the locals will just complain for a different reason then. As I have been suggesting. Many on here object, saying that can never happen. That's true of any crossing. I doubt you'll see any disagreement here. I don't think that most here feel it can't happen. Rather it's a matter of local interest - if if it's high enough, the closing won't happen. That locals know that the crossing is dangerous suggests that it's used enough to indicate possible pushback if closing it is brought to the table. I tend to doubt that anyone here has actually been over the crossing, so it's hard to say, from hundreds of miles away, what the most desirable solution for the situation would be.
If the crossing is on railroad property and this line engages in interstate commerce, then a strong case can be made that the federal government view can overrule any local desire.
Murphy Siding Euclid I don't think there would be any issues about crossing safety if they just built up the road approches for less gradient, and cleared the trees that inhibit the view. It seems like a simple, relatively low cost solution, and it is what the local residents have been asking for. It does not need to by improved by making the passive crossing into an active crossing. The actual problem is that this is a defective passive crossing. Eliminate the defect. There's always some guy that would argue with you on those points, for example>>> Euclid How do you know that if you removed the trees, there would be other obstructions behind them? How do you know the tracks go over a hill and out of sight? That guy making the video said it is all river bottom land through that area. I agree that easing the approach grades would help too, and that it would be ideal to remove the trees and ease the approaches. But I suspect that getting the road project going would be a lot harder than removing the trees.
There's always some guy that would argue with you on those points, for example>>>
I don't understand your point. I advocated solving the problem by removing the trees and reducing the gradient of the approaches. You said removing the trees would do no good and would only have added a second or so to the truck driver's time for spotting a train. The quote immediatly above by me is me responding to your claim that removing the trees would not help much, if at all.
What I said in the first post quoted above is me saying exactly what I am saying now and was saying back in that post. My viewpoint on this has been consistent. And it is also the viewpoint of nearby residents.
According to that news report I linked a few posts up, they already brought in lots of new fill to raise at least one of the approaches in order to be able to get the trucks onto the site that were used to help pick up the wreck. When they first attemped to get those trucks over the crosing, they found it was impossible to do.
Importing, spreading, compacting, and grading the fill would cost some money, but I bet it would be the cheaper than converting the crossing to active protection. Even with that, you would probably need the approaches to be raised.
Also keep in mind that the law does not allow a driver to pull right up to the track to look for trains. He cannot get closer than 15 ft. from the nearest rail before stopping to look. If he knew no trains were approaching, he is allowed to stop 50 ft. from the nearest rail. Then he could make a run for steepest part othe climb without stopping right at the track and then needing to restart.
If they used Hulcher or someone similar, their trucks, especially their lowboys, are a lot bigger and heavier than the dump truck. Remember, most of that news video was about a lawyer suing the railroads; it just might be slightly biased. I've dealt with news reporters a few times in my career and most know nothing about their subject matter. They can't, they're reporting on different subjects every day.
A guy that I have personally heard from who was on the train said that they loaded a bunch of people they did not have seats for at K.C. so they put them in the sightseer lounge. However, I'm not sure why that would make a difference. I don't see that that was unsafe in anyway.
Euclid Here is some interesting information in this report. There is concern now that fixing the crossing will make the legal point that the crossing had specific safety shortcomings that were allowed to persist until they caused or contributed to this fatal crash. Also mentioned is the fact that the train was overloaded, and people were riding in unsafe areas of the train, which made them vulnerable to injury caused by this crash. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeU6KfKly3s
A couple of questions I've had from the beginning, although the crossing could be made safer, what I'm really wondering about, did the driver of the truck actually stop? After all, there IS a stop sign there, not?
If there was a video cam on the locomotive, it might tell us if the driver stopped.
Then, if he did stop, did he look? Did the engineer blow for the crossing? If he did, why didn't the truck driver hear it?
The roads that go over some rural crossing are by far too lightly travelled to justify automatic half barrier gates. If this is such a crossing, then would it be an option to simply close it? What few local motorists need to use the crossing would have to drive a little further but such is life.
Fred M Cain Euclid Here is some interesting information in this report. There is concern now that fixing the crossing will make the legal point that the crossing had specific safety shortcomings that were allowed to persist until they caused or contributed to this fatal crash. Also mentioned is the fact that the train was overloaded, and people were riding in unsafe areas of the train, which made them vulnerable to injury caused by this crash. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeU6KfKly3s A couple of questions I've had from the beginning, although the crossing could be made safer, what I'm really wondering about, did the driver of the truck actually stop? After all, there IS a stop sign there, not? If there was a video cam on the locomotive, it might tell us if the driver stopped. Then, if he did stop, did he look? Did the engineer blow for the crossing? If he did, why didn't the truck driver hear it? The roads that go over some rural crossing are by far too lightly travelled to justify automatic half barrier gates. If this is such a crossing, then would it be an option to simply close it? What few local motorists need to use the crossing would have to drive a little further but such is life.
There was a news report that said he did not stop, but no evidence for that claim was offered. The locomotive camera would maybe provide that evidence, but as far as I know, none of that video has been made public yet. It is possible that the news simply assumed he did not stop because with the stop comes the requirement to yield after stopping. So under that basis, one might conclude that if he got hit, he did not yield. And because the yield requirement is connected to stopping, one might conclude that he did not "stop."
Also he was allowed to dischage his duty to stop anyhwere only betwee 15 and 50 feet from the nearest rail. So if he were to have stopped 50 feet back to get a run, he could legally get a run for the crossing and pass over it without stopping.
So the locomotive camera would have to see a wide enough field to include the truck at up to 50 feet back from the crossing in order to determine whether or not the truck driver obeyed the stop sign. I doubt that the camera could have seen that wide of a field once the train came out from behind the trees.
And even if the driver did stop at 50 ft. back, he had only 3 seconds to step on the throttle, climb the grade for 50 feet, pass over the crossing, and get into the clear. I don't think 3 seconds would have been enough.
The above posts, well reflect my observation. I tried to get several post included in this post.
With an actual incident similar, here in my area.....the "fix".... before gates were finally installed....was to reduce foilage FARTHER than that required.
Does anyone know the "term" given to the amount of clearance (probably FRA mandated) at crossings. It's my understanding this clearance distance coincides with the spotting of cars if a train is broken to open the grade crossing. In the Mindon case due to the acute angle of intersecting and high speed of RR traffic, seems FRA would wisely mandate extrordinary distance of clearance. IMHO endmrw0726221359
" the crossing is on railroad property and this line engages in interstate commerce, then a strong case can be made that the federal government view can overrule any local desire."
Obviously my attempt to post quotes is failing
reference: the above quote
And to add to it, if it is a Federal matter in any way, looks like the Corps of Engineers could build the expensive approach improvement. After all the deceased driver was on delivery to COE project.
I can atest to this. At a retirement job we tried to idot proof equipment. Simply impossible. Maybe make a slight improvement but Walt is correct.
endmrw0726221414
Vegetation on railroad property which is on or immediately adjacent to roadbed shall be controlled so that it does not -
(a) Become a fire hazard to track-carrying structures;
(b) Obstruct visibility of railroad signs and signals:
(1) Along the right-of-way, and
(2) At highway-rail crossings; (This paragraph (b)(2) is applicable September 21, 1999.)
(c) Interfere with railroad employees performing normal trackside duties;
(d) Prevent proper functioning of signal and communication lines; or
(e) Prevent railroad employees from visually inspecting moving equipment from their normal duty stations.
Missouri Rule is set at 250 feet. Common practice with most railroads' M/W standard instructions and most other states use 500 feet. The feds by MOA with the states have the states setting the standard brush cutting rules in crossing enforcement. At 79 mph, 500 feet is covered in 11 seconds, 250 feet in 5.5 seconds. Railroads set the whistle posts at a minimum of 1/4 mile (1320 ft), but on this piece of railroad the distance is even further out because this is higher speed territory. (90 MPH until the ATS system was retired)
The cab video exists and the speed recorder data exists. (at what quality/)
Weed enforcement is usually at the call of the local county noxious weed officer.
Anybody using GIS as an "absolute truth" is out to lunch. (Highly inaccurate and somebody did not bother to read the disclaimer on the assessor website before rushing to look at the imagery that is rubbersheeted behind the linework of rather dubvious quality by a person (cartoonist?) who generally is not a surveyor and is not supervised by a surveyor - ie a misguided effort fraught with errors using a tool of limited precision and accuracy.
The truck driver is still responsible for his multiple errors, causing the accident and self demise.
The railroad press release listing the violations and failings of the truck driver is perfectly justified in protecting the railroad from the grandstanding efforts of the ambulance chaser that is trying to try the railroad in the press before any legal proceedings start. (Sorry you can't see that Bucky - it's a common defensive tactic. Railroads learned the hard way that the legal process has been set up to be skewed by the legal trade. )
Closing the crossing is a moot issue (see MOA above), the state (Missouri) does not have a railroad qualified individual qualified to make that decision. The highway department (hardly a well rounded transportation group with the resume's to match - just a civil service appointment of a highway or bus (rubber-tired person) staff member into a railroad post. They cannot look at the issue from both sides.
Sad situation all the way around. Wait until all the facts are out on the table and NTSB releases its findings.
mudchickenThe railroad press release listing the violations and failings of the truck driver is perfectly justified in protecting the railroad from the grandstanding efforts of the ambulance chaser that is trying to try the railroad in the press before any legal proceedings start. (Sorry you can't see that Bucky - it's a common defensive tactic. Railroads learned the hard way that the legal process has been set up to be skewed by the legal trade. )
Yes I know what the point of the press release is, but I have no idea whether its claims are factual.
Euclid mudchicken The railroad press release listing the violations and failings of the truck driver is perfectly justified in protecting the railroad from the grandstanding efforts of the ambulance chaser that is trying to try the railroad in the press before any legal proceedings start. (Sorry you can't see that Bucky - it's a common defensive tactic. Railroads learned the hard way that the legal process has been set up to be skewed by the legal trade. ) Yes I know what the point of the press release is, but I have no idea whether its claims are factual.
mudchicken The railroad press release listing the violations and failings of the truck driver is perfectly justified in protecting the railroad from the grandstanding efforts of the ambulance chaser that is trying to try the railroad in the press before any legal proceedings start. (Sorry you can't see that Bucky - it's a common defensive tactic. Railroads learned the hard way that the legal process has been set up to be skewed by the legal trade. )
Backshop Euclid mudchicken The railroad press release listing the violations and failings of the truck driver is perfectly justified in protecting the railroad from the grandstanding efforts of the ambulance chaser that is trying to try the railroad in the press before any legal proceedings start. (Sorry you can't see that Bucky - it's a common defensive tactic. Railroads learned the hard way that the legal process has been set up to be skewed by the legal trade. ) Yes I know what the point of the press release is, but I have no idea whether its claims are factual. Yet, you consider the amateur video factual without standing on the ground and seeing its angle, camera lens length, distortion, etc.
Yet, you consider the amateur video factual without standing on the ground and seeing its angle, camera lens length, distortion, etc.
Too many people have lost their critical thinking skills. They see something on the internet and think "it must be true, I read it on the internet". The correct way is to see what the railroad says from their biased viewpoint, see what the litigator says from their biased viewpoint, do some of your own research and then determine what the "real truth" is. Much has been said about viewpoints, but until we see the cam from the locomotive, if the driver didn't attempt to stop and look, it's all moot. I'll wait for more FACTS.
I'm with Backshop on this.
Whether the truck driver 'stopped in the prescribed 15 to 50 feet' is only of interest to the lawyers interested in deep-pockets involvement. The issue is what he did after reaching the 15-to-50-foot zone, and since that involved negotiating the steep approach ramps with a full load, it would actually be a little 'safer' for him to make a running start at the crossing to minimize dwell time going across it. Of course, with limited sight distance it would be difficult to determine if a rolling start were safe.
I agree that we need to see the locomotive-camera video before we speculate about this 'n that any further. While I don't think we need expert-witness evidence about many of the details here, the technical concerns involve prospective 'risk abatement' far more than assigning blame or responsibility for this particular accident.
In an adversarial system, everyone leads out of the gate with pinning blame on the other guy, usually in ways with the best 'public optics'. I wouldn't lay any more importance on the 'facts' in these other than to understand a bit better what the state and Federal governments -- insufficiently -- indicated at that particular crossing. The railroad needs to be careful not to overdo this; I'd hate to see a reprise of the Midnight Rider case, where the railroad's defense attorneys seem to have repeatedly shot themselves in the foot for no really good reason.
EuclidIn my opinion: None of the 20 claims in the press release are accompanied by any evidence. They all are intended to show that the driver’s negligence caused the crash. I think it is also possible that negligence on the part of those responsible for the crossing caused the crash. I see evidence that supports that possibility.
Gotta admit, you're consistent. Could have lifted this right off the Nevada thread...
I've seen the farmer's video. Taken from the level of the surrounding fields. Sight distance is indeed limited. I've seen pictures taken from the location of the crossbucks and the sight distance is much improved.
If he stopped at the bottom, to get a run for the hump - which he probably did, he still should've been looking for a train when getting close to the tracks. Depending on hearing a horn in a cab of a heavy truck in low gear is problamatic. Depending on other conditions (windows closed, radio on, wind direction and strength) it's very possible not to hear a horn being sounded.
I believe the stop sign was missing from crossbuck for the approaching truck. That really is immaterial. The crossbuck is the same as a yield sign. While the missing sign may absolve, posthumously, the driver from stopping for the crossing, the crossbucks still required yielding right of way to the train.
In general and not necessarily applicable to this incident, I really don't think most drivers comply with stop signs at railroad crossings. In my own observations, from ground level and not from in the cab, most drivers see the crossbucks and that blinds them to the stop sign. Or the actual yield sign used in place of stop signs in some applications. They seem to pay no attention, especially on lighter used lines. After all, it's only a railroad crossing, not a road intersection.
Jeff
I never knew that crossing railroad tracks could be so complicated.
BackshopI never knew that crossing railroad tracks could be so complicated.
Euclid does seem to have a knack for pointing out how seemingly simple activites can actually be endlessly complex.
jeffhergert They seem to pay no attention, especially on lighter used lines.
I would opine that said phenomenon is based on their experience. If they never see a train there, their guard goes way down.
Before I retired, I crossed the CSX St Lawrence Sub twice each day. I can almost count on my fingers and toes (and may not need the toes) the number of trains I saw at that crossing in a ten year period.
There were two through trains a day over that crossing, plus the occasional local or special movement.
The crossing has lights and gates, so blowing over it in the face of an oncoming train would require a conscious effort.
The crossing in question in this thread sees something like 60 trains a day, so this logic doesn't completely apply. Still, it would be possible to pass over the crossing numerous times without seeing a train.
Backshop I never knew that crossing railroad tracks could be so complicated.
Truck drivers with any experience at all don't really worry about "getting over" or "stalling out". For them, driving a truck is just like you driving a car.
Here's the part that you should have highlighted and enlarged...
" Officials are unclear how much the truck driver could or could not see as he attempted to drive over the crossing when the train approached".
Backshop Truck drivers with any experience at all don't really worry about "getting over" or "stalling out". For them, driving a truck is just like you driving a car. Here's the part that you should have highlighted and enlarged... " Officials are unclear how much the truck driver could or could not see as he attempted to drive over the crossing when the train approached".
We can't forget that the train was approaching from basically behind him. The crossing is at a 45 degree angle and he would have had to look over his left shoulder to see it.
Normal peripheral vision usually ends just about 90 degrees on each side, maybe a touch more.
If he didn't see the train approaching in the distance as he neared the crossing, he may not have seen it at all, stop or not.
We also don't know how many trips he'd made over that crossing, so we don't know what his confidence level may have been that there would not normally be a train coming. Sixty trains per day is 2.5 per hour. That's if they are evenly spaced.
1. Thought it was mentioned that the truck had an electronic control that recorded some time in the past. Someone famaliar with that model trck can correct if that is not true.
2. How old was the truck driver. Older might mean he may have had some / any neck limitations that limited him to turn his head at least 60 degrees to the left to check. At least driving a vehicle I can turn car to be perpendicular to a cross street. The crossing had a very narrow width and may be an unmarked one lane crossing.
3. Closing this crossing does not really solve this type crossing problem The overhead satellite map showed that the road went north about 1 mile then turned east to again cross the BNSF. Same bottom land and it was reported that BNSF had almost no grade. There is no other road to avoid one of these 2 crossings. Note almost all wreck vehichels approaching the crossing had to cross the E - W grade crossing as their vehicles were all on the north side of the crossing..
4. Pictures showed the build up of the crossing was on the north side to proably not change the optics of the truck approaching the crossing from the south.
5. Who in BNSF's RR is responsible for tree clearing. In the past it was the signal department's responsible to keep pole lines clear of vegetation. That was the craft of the various RRs I have been familar with. No signal lines on most BNSF except Raton? Does BNSF signal craft still claim that vegetation job? If so signal employes have been very busy installing new signal systems and PTC.
6. CSX has not cleared many crossing of visual distances around here for non crossing signals grade crossings. But max speeds are either 50 or a few 60 MPH. Much more time and I always lower windows to hear and look both ways for trains for the one non signaled crossing I cross a couple times a month. BTW a MOW nearly scared me out of my mind as I though I had heard a truck at that crossing.
Additionally it CONNOT go unchallenged the comment that driving a big truck is like driving a car. Surely you realize how difficult to stop a train, while not as hard a driving a big truck it is similar and most people do not realize this.
Cotton Belt MP104 Additionally it CONNOT go unchallenged the comment that driving a big truck is like driving a car. Surely you realize how difficult to stop a train, while not as hard a driving a big truck it is similar and most people do not realize this.
Cotton Belt MP104
I am not an experienced big rig truck driver. BUT the LOCAL farmer who made a video of how fast a train comes from behind the obstructed view of oncoming trains, contadicts you.
That aside (I mentioned him becuse he IS THERE) he SAID in the video that a large vehicle (farm or OTR) has to get a run at the steep approach.
Should you doubt this, I'll go review the clip and cite the time he mentions this.
I have driven lowboys hauling dozers in the Army.
What does "can't remember that far back" mean. Age is 75. endmrw0728221712
Backshop Additionally it CONNOT go unchallenged the comment that driving a big truck is like driving a car. Surely you realize how difficult to stop a train, while not as hard a driving a big truck it is similar and most people do not realize this. Your second sentence makes no sense. As to the first, I had a CDL-AH. For a truck driver, driving the truck is second nature. My comment was really addressed to those who kept worrying about the truck stalling on the crossing. Also, trucks don't have to "make a run for" a crossing. When's the last time you saw a Class 8 truck stall out? Can't remember that far back?
Your second sentence makes no sense. As to the first, I had a CDL-AH. For a truck driver, driving the truck is second nature. My comment was really addressed to those who kept worrying about the truck stalling on the crossing. Also, trucks don't have to "make a run for" a crossing. When's the last time you saw a Class 8 truck stall out? Can't remember that far back?
I do not have a CDL.
One issue is that trucks like the one in the accident usually have engines with limited powerbands, which translates directly into speeds in gear as well as torque. That implies multiple shifts to get the loaded truck up the 'hump' at any particular speed, especially since there are limits to how fast the truck can negotiate vertical curves of the kind visible in the crossing while remaining under control.
In addition, it was common practice long ago to keep a truck in one engaged gear for the entire time traversing a crossing. In the case of a loaded gravel truck, that might have to be a comparatively low gear, with a comparatively low choice of 'road speed' within the engine's practical safe maximum rpm capacity even if the driver were to react by 'flooring it'... not that an experienced driver would do that.
While the NTSB may not get around to the specific characteristics of the engine and transmission type actually installed in the truck, they have recovered the module from the truck that tracks the information needed to reconstruct how the driver actually approached the crossing. It remains to be seen how they interpret it.
tree68Normal peripheral vision usually ends just about 90 degrees on each side, maybe a touch more.
Normal visual field is 170°. Peripheral vision is 100°
Another thing to remember is that dump trucks operate a lot in construction sites. Drivers are well used to steep grades, soft traction, etc.
charlie hebdotree68 Normal peripheral vision usually ends just about 90 degrees on each side, maybe a touch more. Normal visual field is 170°. Peripheral vision is 100°
Luckily, people can turn their heads...
It's not very safe for most peopleto turn head more than ~45° while driving straight ahead.
charlie hebdo It's not very safe for most peopleto turn head more than ~45° while driving straight ahead.
Especially, in this type of situation where a driver must pay strict attention straight ahead in order to assess whether he/she is moving as fast as possible, but able to stop short of the crossing if a train appears; and at the same time, paying strict attention to the point where a train will first appear.
charlie hebdoIt's not very safe for most people to turn [their] head more than ~45° while driving straight ahead.
More of a problem, though, might be the confusion if foreground attention when a driver is "multitasking" on guiding the vehicle across an obstacle, working the transmission and engine rpm, listening above the ambient noise, AND watching outside the normal field of vision for what may be small cues of light and motion.
I do think we can figure a great deal of this out by looking at the locomotive camera view... when that gets released.
I would think the truck would stop so that he could check traffic. He couldn't have been moving that fast. Even if not, how many of you glance both ways down tracks when you're driving over them to see if a train is coming? I do.
BackshopI would think the truck would stop so that he could check traffic. He couldn't have been moving that fast. Even if not, how many of you glance both ways down tracks when you're driving over them to see if a train is coming? I do.
I especially look where one direction is at a oblique angle behind my sight line.
Backshop I would think the truck would stop so that he could check traffic. He couldn't have been moving that fast. Even if not, how many of you glance both ways down tracks when you're driving over them to see if a train is coming? I do.
Several videos show that crossing approach to have been freshly graded and much less steep than the approach on the north side. This improvement was mentioned in one of the news reports as having been done just after the crash in order to make it easier to get heavy equipment onto the site.
With respect to sightlines at the crossing versus maintaining momentum: isn't the truck driver's ultimate repsonsibility to determine if it was safe to cross? Along those lines, it could be argued that the contractor should have provided flag protection at the crossing or paid for the RR to provide protection.
Erik_Mag With respect to sightlines at the crossing versus maintaining momentum: isn't the truck driver's ultimate repsonsibility to determine if it was safe to cross? Along those lines, it could be argued that the contractor should have provided flag protection at the crossing or paid for the RR to provide protection.
That makes it harder to blame the big, bad railroad, though.
I don't think it was the drivers responsibility to determine whether the crossing had design flaws. It was his responsibility to determine whether the crossing was safe to cross under the assumption that the crossing had been properly designed and installed.
I don't know what the driver did during his encounter with the crossing, but I do conclude that the evident details of the crossing show it to be structurally flawed, and thus it should not have been open for use.
I did find an intersting detail in one of the news reports. It stated that the truck that was hit was being immediately followed by a second truck from the same company. So in addition to Amtrak video, we have a direct eye witness. Eventurally we will learn the outcome when the NTSB circles back a couple years from now with their report.
One question is whether we have any record now of the layout of the crossing approach that existed at the time of the crash. I doubt that is the case. It will be very interesting to see which version of that approach is shown in the NTSB's final report.
Euclid I do conclude that the evident details of the crossing show it to be structurally flawed, and thus it should not have been open for use. It stated that the truck that was hit was being immediately followed by a second truck from the same company. So in addition to Amtrak video, we have a direct eye witness.
I do conclude that the evident details of the crossing show it to be structurally flawed, and thus it should not have been open for use.
It stated that the truck that was hit was being immediately followed by a second truck from the same company. So in addition to Amtrak video, we have a direct eye witness.
1. You're stating the first point like you're a qualified civil engineer. Everyone here knows you're not.
2. The video is objective evidence. The testimony of another employee of the same company could be biased.
I would consider both viewpoints while also knowing that videos are objective and eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable. Also, with the second truck even farther from the crossing, what he could/couldn't see is even greater than the deceased. As far as your last statement, I concur, there might be one or two people who don't agree with me. The rest know your background on this forum.
I think opinions of rational people other than civil engineers are worth considering.
Duplicate.
charlie hebdo I think opinions of rational people other than civil engineers are worth considering.
Backshop charlie hebdo I think opinions of rational people other than civil engineers are worth considering. It's not what you say but how you say it. When someone says something is "structurally flawed", that makes it sound like a professional opinion.
It's not what you say but how you say it. When someone says something is "structurally flawed", that makes it sound like a professional opinion.
Picky picky! I don't think many people thought he was trying to sound like a structural engineer. If someone were to use the term, obsessive compulsive, I would not accuse them of trying to sound like a clinical psychologist or psychiatrist.
You can't "high center" a straight truck.
BackshopYou can't "high center" a straight truck.
Euc can high center anything, anywhere, anytime.
Backshop You can't "high center" a straight truck.
One of my EE Profs said that a CE must have designed the Human Body, because they put a recreational area near the sewage facility.
BaltACD Backshop You can't "high center" a straight truck. Euc can high center anything, anywhere, anytime.
Clearly Amtrak thought the truck lacked sufficient clearance. So belittle Euclid with snippy remarks when you lack facts?
Euclid I used the term, “structurally flawed” specifically to respond to Erik_Mag when he said this above: “With respect to sightlines at the crossing versus maintaining momentum: isn't the truck driver's ultimate responsibility to determine if it was safe to cross?” I would say yes it is the driver’s responsibility to obey the laws which govern all facets of the crossing procedure. But I would say no it is not the driver’s responsibility to look for hidden design flaws in the crossing such as compromised sight lines and severely steep crossing approach ramps that can distract a driver, and potentially high center a large truck. These hazards existed at the crossing with no warning sign to alert the driver to them.
Crossings are governed by law to prohibit these hidden dangers, and a driver’s obligation to cross safely does not include a requirement to find these hidden “design flaws” that are violating crossing design standards. Can I say “design flaws”? I think that term applies better. “Structural flaws” sounds like buildings that collapse. Sight lines and gradient of approaches is more of a design issue.
Which raises the question of who is responsible for the "design flaws" with this grade crossing? MC's comment about "highway bubbas" comes to mind.
Today's news is that an Amtrak employee is suing Missouri DOT.
Circular firing squad with a dose of contempt. Predictable targets of blame: driver and "bubbas" as usual.
I don't know why not.
If the truck's front wheels are going down the grade before the rear ones get to the top, and there's not enough clearance, the truck will high-center, no?
Still in training.
As I've explained before, there are two ways to high center a truck, and both apply only to semis. The first is if it's a lowboy trailer, where the trailer frame comes in contact with the pavement and levers the drive axles off the ground. The second is if the angles are so steep that they exceed the vertical pivoting range of the fifth wheel, which also levers the drive axles off the pavement. Also, since this crossing was in regular use by dump trucks working for the CoE, this couldn't have happened.
BNSF and Amtrak just threw everything at the wall to see what would stick. They wanted every angle covered beforehand.
Backshop As I've explained before, there are two ways to high center a truck, and both apply only to semis. The first is if it's a lowboy trailer, where the trailer frame comes in contact with the pavement and levers the drive axles off the ground. The second is if the angles are so steep that they exceed the vertical pivoting range of the fifth wheel, which also levers the drive axles off the pavement. Also, since this crossing was in regular use by dump trucks working for the CoE, this couldn't have happened. BNSF and Amtrak just threw everything at the wall to see what would stick. They wanted every angle covered beforehand.
I don't know but then you don't have the facts for all the accusations that you're making, but that hasn't stopped you, has it? What I do have is experience. I've had a CDL-AH and used it OTR. I know what high centering is. I know how much torque a truck has in low gear. I know what sightlines and blind spots are in a truck. So, you see, I have what is known as an informed opinion. ThNot just on this subject, but in every thread that you participate in.
BackshopI don't know but then you don't have the facts for all the accusations that you're making, but that hasn't stopped you, has it?
I am asking you about something that you have made very specific which was this:
You were referring to Amtrak and BNSF publishing their press release saying that the truck driver attempted to cross the track while his truck did not have sufficient bottom clearance to prevent the truck frame from contacting the crossing surface.
Regarding this press release, you stated the above comment quoted in blue. So I asked you to explain your contention that Amtrak/BNSF were misrepresenting the facts of this matter. Then you respond by saying you don't know. Then you compare it to all the "accusations" that you say I make.
What specific accusations have I made?
Euclid Backshop As I've explained before, there are two ways to high center a truck, and both apply only to semis. The first is if it's a lowboy trailer, where the trailer frame comes in contact with the pavement and levers the drive axles off the ground. The second is if the angles are so steep that they exceed the vertical pivoting range of the fifth wheel, which also levers the drive axles off the pavement. Also, since this crossing was in regular use by dump trucks working for the CoE, this couldn't have happened. BNSF and Amtrak just threw everything at the wall to see what would stick. They wanted every angle covered beforehand. Amtrak/BNSF say this about the driver’s actions in their press release published in Railway Age: “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;” So you are saying that Amtrak and BNSF simply made this up as a total lie because you have proven that it could not have happened? That is not convincing. For one thing, how do you know that this truck in the collision was identical to all other trucks engaged in this hauling project?
Apparently Backstop believes he is better informed about this than the quoted BNSF statement because he had a CDL and drove.
charlie hebdoApparently Backstop believes he is better informed about this than the quoted BNSF statement because he had a CDL and drove.
I believe he would be better informed of whether you can get a dump truck high-centered at a xing.
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
charlie hebdo Euclid Backshop As I've explained before, there are two ways to high center a truck, and both apply only to semis. The first is if it's a lowboy trailer, where the trailer frame comes in contact with the pavement and levers the drive axles off the ground. The second is if the angles are so steep that they exceed the vertical pivoting range of the fifth wheel, which also levers the drive axles off the pavement. Also, since this crossing was in regular use by dump trucks working for the CoE, this couldn't have happened. BNSF and Amtrak just threw everything at the wall to see what would stick. They wanted every angle covered beforehand. Amtrak/BNSF say this about the driver’s actions in their press release published in Railway Age: “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;” So you are saying that Amtrak and BNSF simply made this up as a total lie because you have proven that it could not have happened? That is not convincing. For one thing, how do you know that this truck in the collision was identical to all other trucks engaged in this hauling project? Apparently Backstop believes he is better informed about this than the quoted BNSF statement because he had a CDL and drove.
zugmann charlie hebdo Apparently Backstop believes he is better informed about this than the quoted BNSF statement because he had a CDL and drove. I believe he would be better informed of whether you can get a dump truck high-centered at a xing.
charlie hebdo Apparently Backstop believes he is better informed about this than the quoted BNSF statement because he had a CDL and drove.
Euclid Backshop I don't know but then you don't have the facts for all the accusations that you're making, but that hasn't stopped you, has it? I am asking you about something that you have made very specific which was this: "BNSF and Amtrak just threw everything at the wall to see what would stick. They wanted every angle covered beforehand." You were referring to Amtrak and BNSF publishing their press release saying that the truck driver attempted to cross the track while his truck did not have sufficient bottom clearance to prevent the truck frame from contacting the crossing surface. Regarding this press release, you stated the above comment quoted in blue. So I asked you to explain your contention that Amtrak/BNSF were misrepresenting the facts of this matter. Then you respond by saying you don't know. Then you compare it to all the "accusations" that you say I make. What specific accusations have I made?
Backshop I don't know but then you don't have the facts for all the accusations that you're making, but that hasn't stopped you, has it?
Murphy Siding zugmann charlie hebdo Apparently Backstop believes he is better informed about this than the quoted BNSF statement because he had a CDL and drove. I believe he would be better informed of whether you can get a dump truck high-centered at a xing. Experience in the field goes a long way.
Experience in the field goes a long way.
While it has been well over 60 years ago, I thought my Corvair was going to be high centered on some road I was driving in Southern Indiana a little North of Louisville. A relatively steep approach to a very small precipice and a steep descent - felt like a reversed V.
Murphy, were those trucks on a road?
As far as me being accused by a couple of posters as knowing more than the railroad. At least I have some experience. The very prolific poster has been blaming the railroad since the day it happened. When he is called out on stuff, he moves the goalposts. First, the truck had to make a run for it so it wouldn't stall. Then the truck had to make a run for it so it wouldn't be on the tracks for too long. I could go on and on, but I have a life outside this forum.
There not being much of the truck left to judge by, I would opine it was a "ten wheeler," probably with an additional tag axle. It's not likely the truck would get hung up on the frame.
If the peak of the crossing was as sharp as has been alluded to, and given the acute angle (45 degrees) of the crossing, it might have been possible for the drive axles to get "cornered," ie, one wheel of each axle off the ground, which would result in spinning wheels.
That said, how many dump trucks loaded with rip rap had been over the crossing prior to the collision? If this was the first, it's a whole different story than if it was the fiftieth. And how many trips had the driver in question made over the crossing?
EuclidObviously Amtrak and BNSF are blaming the truck driver for the crash by their list of 20 legal violations committed by the truck driver. But Backshop informs us that the Amtrak and BNSF are just making up theories and throwing them against the wall in hopes that they will stick.
I doubt they are "making up" theories. There is likely some basis for their hypotheses.
My observations of the possibility of the frame hanging up are based on everyday observations. As I said, it would take a pretty signficant "peak" to catch the frame on most dump trucks I've ever seen. And that's why I ask how many trips these dump trucks have made over that crossing. If the number is significant, I would opine that it makes the possibility of getting high centered on the frame virtually nil.
The grades on approach and the brush were cited as issues by the farmer - not the peak at the crossing.
Reportedly there was another truck following the one in question. We haven't heard from that point of view, although we may not until any trials that occur.
At least he didn't leave hundreds of feet of skid marks before he ran into the train.
Euclid So here we have Backshop taking sides with the deceased truck driver because he does not believe the story told by BNSF and Amtrak about the insufficient truck ground clearance. It sounds to me like Backshop is the one picking on the railroads as he tries to take the truck driver off the hook, and places the blame on Amtrak/BNSF.
Backshop Murphy, were those trucks on a road?
FWIW, the Leucadia Blvd crossing of the NCTD (AT&SF) Surf Line has signs warning that the crossing is likely to high center large trucks. I still hear occasional reports of trucks getting stuck at that crossing.
BackshopEverything BNSF stated doesn't have to be true for them not to be responsible. Some of their points could be seen as contradictory. In one point, they say he was speeding and couldn't stop. Then they say he high centered. They also say the truck wasn't well maintained. In the condition the truck was in after the accident, that would be hard to assess.
Like Tree said, it appears to be either a 3 axle truck with 2 drive axles or a four axle with a tag. Here's close to what it would look like. Dump trucks haul heavy, dense material so gross out quickly. They don't need a lot of length to carry the load.
dump truck with tag axle - Bing images
Caught Yesterday in LaGrange
https://youtu.be/3WsZiXNZ-n4?t=784
It was very clear in one of the news photos that the truck in question had a tag axle. Whether it was lowered or not before the accident is yet to be determined.
rdamonCaught Yesterday in LaGrange https://youtu.be/3WsZiXNZ-n4?t=784
Driver failure - got to raise the land legs to their fullest extent.
Overmod It was very clear in one of the news photos that the truck in question had a tag axle. Whether it was lowered or not before the accident is yet to be determined.
What would you conclude (if anything) if it was lowered at the time of the accident.
BaltACD rdamon Caught Yesterday in LaGrange https://youtu.be/3WsZiXNZ-n4?t=784 Driver failure - got to raise the land legs to their fullest extent.
rdamon Caught Yesterday in LaGrange https://youtu.be/3WsZiXNZ-n4?t=784
I would opine that it would make little difference. It would partly depend on just how much weight the tag axle actually bears.
And remember, the other two axles are not fixed on the frame - they have some vertical play.
And an as-yet unanswered question - how many trips had the truck made over the crossing before the collision? If that number is significantly higher than zero, the high-center issue may be moot.
To add to Tree's post---Tag axles, since they are raised and lowered by air and have airbag suspensions, have quite a bit of vertical travel.
BackshopTo add to Tree's post---Tag axles, since they are raised and lowered by air and have airbag suspensions, have quite a bit of vertical travel.
And even if down, they are equipped with wheels and tires that are rolling, just like the drive and steer axles.
EuclidWhat would you conclude (if anything) if it was lowered at the time of the accident.
If I recall the picture correctly, the tag was in a raised position after the accident. Let me repeat that we should wait for the accident investigation before judging anything like this.
A peripheral point is that the truck was long enough to accommodate the additional tag axle. I doubt the tag would have hung up on the crossing or unloaded the drive wheels; the issue is more that the truck was longer and potentially heavier than a 'regular' 10-wheel dump truck.
In this long thread, is there a photo of the same type of truck or at least an accurate description?
charlie hebdo In this long thread, is there a photo of the same type of truck or at least an accurate description?
Overmod Euclid What would you conclude (if anything) if it was lowered at the time of the accident. That the truck was loaded heavily enough to require the axle to be lowered. That might be to accommodate extra weight, or give lower ground pressure. If I recall the picture correctly, the tag was in a raised position after the accident. Let me repeat that we should wait for the accident investigation before judging anything like this. A peripheral point is that the truck was long enough to accommodate the additional tag axle. I doubt the tag would have hung up on the crossing or unloaded the drive wheels; the issue is more that the truck was longer and potentially heavier than a 'regular' 10-wheel dump truck.
Euclid What would you conclude (if anything) if it was lowered at the time of the accident.
That the truck was loaded heavily enough to require the axle to be lowered. That might be to accommodate extra weight, or give lower ground pressure.
Euclid And they only say that the truck frame was not high enough to clear the crossing. They don’t say the truck got high-centered.
And they only say that the truck frame was not high enough to clear the crossing. They don’t say the truck got high-centered.
Correct, so that was what the railroad was implying.
Backshop Correct, so that was what the railroad was implying.
High-centered vs truck frame not clearing crossing. Is there a real difference or is this just some jargon?
charlie hebdo High-centered vs truck frame not clearing crossing. Is there a real difference or is this just some jargon?
I think certain people are dancing with semantics in the absence of knowledge again.
"High-centering" can mean either that the frame has come in contact and the wheels cannot push it further, or that the frame is holding part or all of the drive wheels clear of the surface.
When I see 'undercarriage' I think of tag axle before I think frame contact on that type of truck. Again, it remains to be seen whether that particular truck had a frame section between the steers and the tag that would have physically come in contact. Frankly I can see that with a beer truck chassis, but not a heavy dump truck.
Wait for the (inevitable) accident reconstruction videos.
Backshop charlie hebdo High-centered vs truck frame not clearing crossing. Is there a real difference or is this just some jargon? On a straight truck, it's the same thing.
On a straight truck, it's the same thing.
I have not seen a definition of clearance. High-Center implies physical contact whereas improper clearance could just be a few 1/10s of an inch below the legal limit.
It looks like the lawyers threw in as much as possible.
https://abc17news.b-cdn.net/abc17news.com/2022/07/amtrak-complaint.pdf
Murphy Siding Backshop charlie hebdo High-centered vs truck frame not clearing crossing. Is there a real difference or is this just some jargon? On a straight truck, it's the same thing. OK, Now you've lost me. I just plain don't comprehend what you're trying to say about getting high-centered. Here's a quote from a week ago- Backshop You can't "high center" a straight truck.
OK, Now you've lost me. I just plain don't comprehend what you're trying to say about getting high-centered. Here's a quote from a week ago-
BackshopOn a truck like the dump truck in question with several axles, it isn't possible.
Do we know with any certitude what this dump truck looked like? Around here they are all tractor trailer rigs.
The other consequence is that the vehicle is inspected by police and found to be out of compliance with the ground clearance laws; when no actual frame-to-road contact has occurred because the vehicle has not yet passed over any ground clearance conditions capable of being struck by the out of compliance vehicle.
A not likely speculation. What if the truck could not carry a full load due to delivery locations? Then truck was loaded in rear of truck bed --- or the steep approach to the tracks caused the load to shift to the rear. If so what could that to the balance of truck ? tail heavy ?
Euclid I think the main question pertains to what is meant by the item in the list of legal charges against the truck driver released by BNSF and Amtrak. Their statement appears to be poorly written, or contains incorrect information. This is that statement: “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;” All this says it that the driver was operating a truck with insufficient ground clearance. It does not say that the truck did or did not high center. It also does not say that the truck contacted the crossing due to having insufficient ground clearance. However: The statement by BNSF and Amtrak does say the insufficient ground clearance was such that the truck frame would have contacted the crossing if it passed “through” the crossing. If that means the truck passing entirely through the crossing: We know that the truck had to have contacted the crossing with the lowest part of its underframe. This is the only conclusion that can be confirmed by the BNSF/Amtrak statement. However, even that is dependent on whether the truck passed entirely through the crossing. And that would have been impossible because the truck was struck while on the crossing and was immediately thrown off of the crossing by the impact. Therefore, the truck could not have passed completely “through the crossing.” Based on these details, I suspect that BNSF and Amtrak have no evidence that the truck contacted the crossing. Any direct evidence on the crossing would be in the form of damage, but it may have been as minor as a scratch that was indistinguishable from any other signs of general wear and tear on the crossing from normal use. So, I believe the most plausible explanation for the language in the statement by BNF and Amtrak is that they only measured some features on the wrecked truck and determined that it had insufficient ground clearance. So the only crime would have been operating a truck with insufficient ground clearance. I also think it is highly probable that the measurements were taken hastily with little care for accurate confirmation, and thus could have been easily mistaken in the dimensions they determined. In any case, the statement does not provide any evidence of there actually having been insufficient ground clearance. So I conclude the following regarding the charge of operating a truck with insufficient ground clearance: If there was insufficient ground clearance, it did not play any part in this collision. I see no evidence for there having been insufficient ground clearance. Overall, I see no evidence for the charge of driving a truck with insufficient ground clearance.
Murphy Siding Euclid I think the main question pertains to what is meant by the item in the list of legal charges against the truck driver released by BNSF and Amtrak. Their statement appears to be poorly written, or contains incorrect information. This is that statement: “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;” All this says it that the driver was operating a truck with insufficient ground clearance. It does not say that the truck did or did not high center. It also does not say that the truck contacted the crossing due to having insufficient ground clearance. However: The statement by BNSF and Amtrak does say the insufficient ground clearance was such that the truck frame would have contacted the crossing if it passed “through” the crossing. If that means the truck passing entirely through the crossing: We know that the truck had to have contacted the crossing with the lowest part of its underframe. This is the only conclusion that can be confirmed by the BNSF/Amtrak statement. However, even that is dependent on whether the truck passed entirely through the crossing. And that would have been impossible because the truck was struck while on the crossing and was immediately thrown off of the crossing by the impact. Therefore, the truck could not have passed completely “through the crossing.” Based on these details, I suspect that BNSF and Amtrak have no evidence that the truck contacted the crossing. Any direct evidence on the crossing would be in the form of damage, but it may have been as minor as a scratch that was indistinguishable from any other signs of general wear and tear on the crossing from normal use. So, I believe the most plausible explanation for the language in the statement by BNF and Amtrak is that they only measured some features on the wrecked truck and determined that it had insufficient ground clearance. So the only crime would have been operating a truck with insufficient ground clearance. I also think it is highly probable that the measurements were taken hastily with little care for accurate confirmation, and thus could have been easily mistaken in the dimensions they determined. In any case, the statement does not provide any evidence of there actually having been insufficient ground clearance. So I conclude the following regarding the charge of operating a truck with insufficient ground clearance: If there was insufficient ground clearance, it did not play any part in this collision. I see no evidence for there having been insufficient ground clearance. Overall, I see no evidence for the charge of driving a truck with insufficient ground clearance. I had to read this a couple times to get the entire effect. I kept expecting a quote from Alice in Wonderland to be thrown in for good measure, just to see if anybody caught it. I can't conclude anything because I wasn't there. Neither were you. What I can see, is that your theory has some holes in it. Suppose, that the locomotive had a camera on it. Now suppose that camera recorded video showing the truck not having enough clearance to get through the crossing and that the truck then got hit by the train. Suppose that information hasn't been shared yet. Suppose that leaves your conclusion full of holes.
I had to read this a couple times to get the entire effect. I kept expecting a quote from Alice in Wonderland to be thrown in for good measure, just to see if anybody caught it. I can't conclude anything because I wasn't there. Neither were you. What I can see, is that your theory has some holes in it. Suppose, that the locomotive had a camera on it. Now suppose that camera recorded video showing the truck not having enough clearance to get through the crossing and that the truck then got hit by the train. Suppose that information hasn't been shared yet. Suppose that leaves your conclusion full of holes.
The post by Euclid exposes the hazards in deductive reasoning as well as semantic quibbling. Far too many conclusions on far too little evidence yields abmaybe at best, a big zero at worst.
Wow! You just wrote 12 paragraphs to explain your previous 11 paragraph post. And yet, it still looks like a lot of conjecture on your part as you try to make the known elements of this event mean what you want them to mean in order to prove the conclusoon you jumped to. You honestly want us to believe that someone measured the frame of twisted wreck to ascertain that the truck frame was too low to the track!
Murphy Siding You honestly want us to believe that someone measured the frame of twisted wreck to ascertain that the truck frame was too low to the track!
You honestly want us to believe that someone measured the frame of twisted wreck to ascertain that the truck frame was too low to the track!
Here are photos of both a tri and a quad axle dump truck. Would anyone care to explain how the frame could come anywhere near the ground? The truck in the accident would've been very similar to one or the other.
2017-peterbilt-567-dump-trucks-trucks-in-south-saint-paul-mn.jpg (1279×960) (buysellsearch.com)
Dump-Trucks-Freightliner-114SD-22867664.jpg (1440×1080) (d2uhsaoc6ysewq.cloudfront.net)
Backshop:
As I understand it, the center axles shown raised on the photos (pusher axles?) are unpowered. If those axles were lowered and the truck encountered a short hump, like a raised grade crossing, could those axles cause the powered axles to lose contract with the surface? Or are there elements designed into the suspension that would allow them to give enough to keep the powered axles on the ground?
And out of curiosity, do those extra axles have some sort of steering capability, or do they just get dragged across the surface when the truck turns?
No steering capability. That's why they are normally raised during sharp turns. Less sideways scrub and friction on the tires. They have airbag suspension so they have quite a bit of vertical travel. Remember, dump trucks are designed to drive in gravel pits, landfills, etc.
Murphy Sidinghours ago: Wow! You just wrote 12 paragraphs to explain your previous 11 paragraph post. And yet, it still looks like a lot of conjecture on your part as you try to make the known elements of this event mean what you want them to mean in order to prove the conclusion you jumped to.
And Euclid just goes on and on in a verbal quagmire.
As a teacher, we were taught the tactic of, "Extinction".
A kid distracts the school room any way he can. Keep on "teachin'". Don't take the bait. Finally, after not getting attention, they will quit the distraction, or better yet, surrounding students will put a stop to it.
In the case of comments made here, if they seem to be distracting, ignore them.
For goodness sakes, DON'T make ANY comment or REFERENCE to those "distracting comments".
The "offender" WANTS attention and will not get same, if no one comments referece his remarks.
Simple, but aw yes, one can't resist the temptation to challenge.
Suggestion, PATIENCE. endmrw0812221306
Cotton Belt MP104 As a teacher, we were taught the tactic of, "Extinction". A kid distracts the school room any way he can. Keep on "teachin'". Don't take the bait. Finally, after not getting attention, they will quit the distraction, or better yet, surrounding students will put a stop to it. In the case of comments made here, if they seem to be distracting, ignore them. For goodness sakes, DON'T make ANY comment or REFERENCE to those "distracting comments". The "offender" WANTS attention and will not get same, if no one comments referece his remarks. Simple, but aw yes, one can't resist the temptation to challenge. Suggestion, PATIENCE. endmrw0812221306
Euclid BNSF/AMTRAK quote from legal filing: “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;” Actually, I find that the issue was not that the truck was driven on the roads while it had insufficient ground clearance according to a law. Apparently the issue was only that the truck was driven through the crossing where the collision occurred while the truck had insufficient ground clearance for the truck to pass through the crossing without contacted it. So how could that have happened with a truck such as the one in this collision, which appears to have maybe a couple feet of ground clearance? Of course, I will not conclude whether the truck frame contacted the crossing because I was not a witness to that. But I must conclude that the language of the blue paragraph has to mean that the truck frame contacted the crossing.
Most of the truck was still on the NW track.The loco shows only damage on the NW side. Where on the truck the loco hit the truck may say a lot? "IF" the idler wheel were down could the steering tires not be contacting the road where the grade falls off just beyond end of ties? Not likely but before crash maybe truck was yawing to the right?
No, they wouldn't lift the steering axle off the ground.
blue streak 1 A not likely speculation. What if the truck could not carry a full load due to delivery locations? Then truck was loaded in rear of truck bed --- or the steep approach to the tracks caused the load to shift to the rear. If so what could that to the balance of truck ? tail heavy ?
EuclidHere is the PDF for the court filing which is the basis for the blue paragraph I have been quoting that indicates that the truck frame did strike the crossing. https://www.railwayage.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/01-Complaint-6-30-22.pdf It says this about the truck loading: t. failing to follow proper loading procedures for the Dump Truck;
Ok
I believe he is refering to page 6
under the section (emphasis added)
28. MS Contracting and its agents, officers, or employees were negligent, grossly
negligent, and/or reckless in one or more of the following ways:
Euclid, look at the two pictures of dump trucks that I posted and tell us how the frame could've struck the ground.
The ONLY relevant claim in the document Euclid links is claim 28(g), which we were all in agreement pages ago as more likely referring to the tag axle.
For anyone that cares, the VIN of the truck was provided, and you could check the vehicle details corresponding:
VIN# 1NKWXBEX97J177480
The improper loading could not possibly increase any possibility of a frame, as opposed to a raised or lowered tag, strike.
Overmod The ONLY relevant claim in the document Euclid links is claim 28(g), which we were all in agreement pages ago as more likely referring to the tag axle. The improper loading could not possibly increase any possibility of a frame, as opposed to a raised or lowered tag, strike.
How exactly would the tag axle strike the crossing surface? I do recall seeing it in the wreckage photos. If I am not mistaken, the frame connecting it to the rear of the truck arches way up to several feet above the road. So that leaves only its axle near the road, and it will immediatly rise and fall with the two wheels, which will prevent the axle from touching the ground.
Overmod, thanks for the VIN (I bet you never thought you'd hear me say that!).
While not the exact truck, this a 95% match. The VIN infor says it's built for the 70-80,000 GVW. That would make it a quad axle. Both trucks are 2007 Kenworth W900 models.
Used-2007-Kenworth-W900-Quad-Axle-Dump-Truck---Cat-C15-Acert---475-HP.jpg (1920×1440) (chicagomotorcars.com)
Now, to Euclid's "conclusions". With the damage to the vehicle, there's no way the railroad would know if the truck was loaded properly, or not. The truck is too short of a wheelbase to make any front-rear loading bias a factor. Once again, the lawyers were just writing down all possible mistakes. They don't have to prove all of them, just one.
PS--I'm starting to think about the "extinction" method that another poster alluded to. Euclid never participates in threads where he offers information or helps anyone, just ones where he can argue with everyone else. Borderline troll.
Euclid Overmod The ONLY relevant claim in the document Euclid links is claim 28(g), which we were all in agreement pages ago as more likely referring to the tag axle. The improper loading could not possibly increase any possibility of a frame, as opposed to a raised or lowered tag, strike. How exactly would the tag axle strike the crossing surface? I do recall seeing it in the wreckage photos. If I am not mistaken, the frame connecting it to the rear of the truck arches way up to several feet above the road. So that leaves only its axle near the road, and it will immediatly rise and fall with the two wheels, which will prevent the axle from touching the ground.
Here's a question for you. You seem to be obsessed with the whole "frame hitting the pavement" thing as the reason for the truck being on the crossing. Looking at pictures that I've posted, how about explaining how that could happen? All the axles are close enough together to keep any part of the frame from touching the road surface. You're really good at asking questions, pretty poor at answering them. I guess that's what it's like when you have protected status, Bucky. We all know what your "excavating" business entailed, also.
71lsz642oTL._SL1500_.jpg (1500×1159) (ssl-images-amazon.com)
BackshopAll the axles are close enough together to keep any part of the frame from touching the road surface.
Still unanswered: Was that the first time the truck had been over the crossing loaded?
tree68 Backshop All the axles are close enough together to keep any part of the frame from touching the road surface. Still unanswered: Was that the first time the truck had been over the crossing loaded?
Backshop All the axles are close enough together to keep any part of the frame from touching the road surface.
tree68 Still unanswered: Was that the first time the truck had been over the crossing loaded?
blue streak 1More important. How many times had the driver been over the crossing? How many times in that truck?
Precisely. All this talk of high centering... If it was a problem, I would opine that it had long since been known and measures taken to deal with it.
I don't see how there is any way to know or make an educated guess as to how many times the truck or the driver had been over that crossing prior to crash. Is there some evidence that anyone knows about?
Euclid I don't see how there is any way to know or make an educated guess as to how many times the truck or the driver had been over that crossing prior to crash. Is there some evidence that anyone knows about?
Backshop Euclid I don't see how there is any way to know or make an educated guess as to how many times the truck or the driver had been over that crossing prior to crash. Is there some evidence that anyone knows about? Quit avoiding the question. How could the truck in question high center?
Quit avoiding the question. How could the truck in question high center?
I am not avoiding any question. I don't see how the truck could have high centered. I never said it high centered. The court filing by BNSF/AMTRAK does not say the truck high centered. All it says is that the truck had insufficient ground clearance to pass through the crossing without the underframe contacting the crossing. If that is true, it does not mean that the truck high centered. It only means that the truck frame touched the crossing. Let me know if you have any other questions.
A little fill-in.
"improper loading for the crossing" might mean the load was unbalanced, but I doubt this would have had any effect on the things we are discussing. It would, however, have one very significant potential effect on crossing 'strike'.
These trucks are made to carry their peak load by lowering an auxiliary axle -- the piece we have been referring to as the 'tag axle'. While on a bus this axle might be steerable, on most trucks that have them the wheels don't steer, and the axle is like a trailer axle with only single wheels.
If the vehicle was loaded 'full', it might easily have weighed enough to justify lowering the tag. This has the effect of SHORTENING the effective frame length that might come into contact with a crossing surface. As it is not a driven axle, if it were to contact the steepest part of the ramp, with the load in the dump bed acting somewhat more on the front, there MIGHT be a tendency for the truck to pivot on the tag wheels and partially unload the rear suspension, decreasing the tire adhesion from the driven eight tires.
This MIGHT happen to a lesser degree with the tag in its raised position, as it still has two wheels carried not far above the road surface. I think it is at least possible that the tag treads contacted part of the crossing grade, and that is almost certainly what was meant by 'undercarriage' being used in the filing language. The tag was in its raised position in the one photo I saw of the 'aftermath' damage.
I almost hesitate to mention this -- I suspect backshop has already hesitated because of the can of worms it will likely open -- but the bottom of the fuel tanks on the truck almost certainly ride closer to the road surface and would strike before the frame...
Overmod I almost hesitate to mention this -- I suspect backshop has already hesitated because of the can of worms it will likely open -- but the bottom of the fuel tanks on the truck almost certainly ride closer to the road surface and would strike before the frame...
I was thinking about that area under the cab. With that span without wheels, I don't see any reason why that could not bottom out if the ground were uneven enough. Also, while we know about the long slope rising up to the crossing on both sides of the tracks, I wonder if those two tracks abruptly rise in relation to the broader "hump" of the two long inclines leading up to the crossing. There appears to be a lot of crushed rock spread and compacted all around the crossing and some of the long approach slopes. I assume this was done after the collision since it looks very fresh and it was mentioned that modifications had to be made in order to make it possible for the big trucks that brought equipment in to pick up the wreck. I reach no conlcusions. Just some food for thought.
The railroads mentioned close to 20 possible things the driver or his company did wrong but one poster is obsessing on one and has completely derailed (pun intended) the thread. I think it's much more probable that the driver was talking on the phone or had his radio turned up too loud. Do you know how steep an anlge and edge the road would've had to hang up or drag between the steering and drive axles? A car wouldn't have been able to go over the tracks.
BackshopDo you know how steep an anlge and edge the road would've had to hang up or drag between the steering and drive axles? A car wouldn't have been able to go over the tracks.
All I am saying is that the focus on the physical characteristics of the crossing has been directed at the long steep approches of the road from both sides. They form an apex where their angle changes at the crossing. The long views of the news coverage show the two inclines, so they give an idea of what that apex may be like. But is is common for crossings to have an apex created just by the track being elevated in the ballast. If that is the case here, the apex may be more abrupt than what the long view pictures suggest.
As I recall there are lateral pictures of the crossing that show the 'hump' fairly close, without telephoto distortion. There is indeed a fairly sharp transition both at the bottom and at the top of the (I'd call it short) approach grade at least on the side the truck was approaching from.
There is no way in the world this would have contacted the frame before contacting the fuel tanks and other equipment between the steer and tag/drive axles, which on the comparable dump truck I inspected yesterday hangs with its bottom at least two feet below frame level.
(Of course you could, and I would, consider the tanks part of the 'undercarriage'...)
Drop, Fido! Drop!!
Of course we would need to know all of the tires air pressures to fully know ...
Overmod (Of course you could, and I would, consider the tanks part of the 'undercarriage'...)
Yes I would too. In the context of this discussion about the collision, tank interference may not stop the truck or high center it, but it would certainly cause the driver to possibly stop and spend time checking and deciding what to do next, with the goal of mitigating damage to the tanks.
With the truck empty, what would you estimate to be the ground clearance to the tank bottoms?
Regarding the crossing hump, it may be that while local residents see problems with the long approach ramps, the hump right at the tracks may have had more potential to interfere with the truck that was hit.
EuclidYes I would too. In the context of this discussion about the collision, tank interference may not stop the truck or high center it, but it would certainly cause the driver to possibly stop and spend time checking and deciding what to do next, with the goal of mitigating damage to the tanks. With the truck empty, what would you estimate to be the ground clearance to the tank bottoms? Regarding the crossing hump, it may be that while local residents see problems with the long approach ramps, the hump right at the tracks may have had more potential to interfere with the truck that was hit.
How many times had the truck and driver been over the crossing? Was this the first time?
Overmod I almost hesitate to mention this -- I suspect backshop has already hesitated because of the can of worms it will likely open --
Oh I think that can of worms has been open and rotting a long time already!
tree68 Euclid Yes I would too. In the context of this discussion about the collision, tank interference may not stop the truck or high center it, but it would certainly cause the driver to possibly stop and spend time checking and deciding what to do next, with the goal of mitigating damage to the tanks. With the truck empty, what would you estimate to be the ground clearance to the tank bottoms? Regarding the crossing hump, it may be that while local residents see problems with the long approach ramps, the hump right at the tracks may have had more potential to interfere with the truck that was hit. How many times had the truck and driver been over the crossing? Was this the first time?
Euclid Yes I would too. In the context of this discussion about the collision, tank interference may not stop the truck or high center it, but it would certainly cause the driver to possibly stop and spend time checking and deciding what to do next, with the goal of mitigating damage to the tanks. With the truck empty, what would you estimate to be the ground clearance to the tank bottoms? Regarding the crossing hump, it may be that while local residents see problems with the long approach ramps, the hump right at the tracks may have had more potential to interfere with the truck that was hit.
Too much speculation here about the truck being hung up on the tracks. I think the truck was moving. He may have observed the train but misjudged it's speed. He may have routinely crossed before and had never seen a train. He may have had a "well what are the odds" moment and just gunned it coming up the ramp. Has there been an autopsy with an answer regarding toxicity or prior medical conditions? What about the driver's radio and phone use.
Quite a stew of possibilities here and we sure are stirring it. It'll continue until the NTSB report I suppose.
Speculation can be entertaining but the rail clearance issue is a dead horse.
Rick
rixflix aka Captain Video. Blessed be Jean Shepherd and all His works!!! Hooray for 1939, the all time movie year!!! I took that ride on the Reading but my Baby caught the Katy and left me a mule to ride.
EuclidYes I would too.
In the context of this discussion about the collision, tank interference may not stop the truck or high center it, but it would certainly cause the driver to possibly stop and spend time checking and deciding what to do next, with the goal of mitigating damage to the tanks.
The locomotive camera will likely establish whether he slowed or stopped in approaching the crossing, and certainly show the last 50 feet or so of approach to the foul zone.
I believe the tanks are typically 'hung' rather than rigidly secured with welded-on brackets, but again Backshop will have better information than I do.
rixflix Too much speculation here about the truck being hung up on the tracks. I think the truck was moving. He may have observed the train but misjudged it's speed. He may have routinely crossed before and had never seen a train. He may have had a "well what are the odds" moment and just gunned it coming up the ramp.
Too much speculation here about the truck being hung up on the tracks. I think the truck was moving. He may have observed the train but misjudged it's speed. He may have routinely crossed before and had never seen a train. He may have had a "well what are the odds" moment and just gunned it coming up the ramp.
Has there been an autopsy with an answer regarding toxicity or prior medical conditions?
What about the driver's radio and phone use.
That's what we do...
Exactly.
It's all speculation and slim pickins on facts.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.