https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Pages/RRD22MR010.aspx
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.