NTSB preliminary report on Missouri crash

[charlie hebdo]

It's all speculation and slim pickins on facts.

[Cotton Belt MP104]

Larry, Good post. 

NO PUN intended: That should put a nail in the coffin, regarding discussion. I am reminded of the methodology, “extinction” endmrw0817221306

[tree68]

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.

My thoughts as well.  Overconfidence can be a dangerous thing.  Remember, too, that there is that visibility issue with the brush, and the fact that the train was coming in from behind him. 

Has there been an autopsy with an answer regarding toxicity or prior medical conditions?

Patient confidentiality may delay that info until official reports are made. 

What about the driver's radio and phone use.

Definitely possible factors - even checking his lunchbox.  All potential distractions.

Quite a stew of possibilities here and we sure are stirring it. It'll continue until the NTSB report I suppose.

That's what we do...

Speculation can be entertaining but the rail clearance issue is a dead horse.

Exactly.

[Overmod]

Euclid

Yes I would too.

Good -- we can dispense with the frame-strike theory that has become so irritating to so many.

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.

In my opinion -- and again, this will be developed further in the investigation -- by the time the driver had reached the point he might have heard a tank strike, he would be at considerable speed 'getting up to get over' and might not hear or feel contact over the noise and vibration from the driveline and tires.  In any case even if he applied full brakes to 'check it out' he would have had the front of the truck, probably right as far as the cab, in the crossing 'foul zone', and he would have to be borderline insane to get out and see if fuel was leaking with the truck in that position.

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. 

With the truck empty, what would you estimate to be the ground clearance to the tank bottoms?

At least a couple of feet, over a tank length that Backshop can provide good numbers for.  Some of the trucks I see appear to be using multiple smaller-diameter tanks, which may be to improve ground clearance if there is rutted or steep roadway to the loading or discharge point.

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.

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.

Of course it did.  The argument about longer ramps only involves the added costs to provide them, and some inconvenience about access to parallel routes close to the crossing (I think the routes have been mapped earlier in this thread, but I don't remember the details).  The ONLY solution that starts to solve the 'safe crossing' issue here is to provide, at a minimum, a low-grade section either side of the crossing that is long enough that a loaded truck can fully negotiate the approach grade and then get stopped by the 50-foot safe "inspection zone" and with clear sightlines.  It would then be relatively easy to accelerate across the crossing in least time, and use the corresponding low-grade section on the other side to start appropriate braking to negotiate any steeper approach on that side.  Why this hasn't been discussed in potential remediation is a bit confusing to me, as it is also the only practical approach for some of these high-centered crossings with parallel streets and inadequate lowboy or bus clearance...

[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. 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   

[Euclid]

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?

 

That is a significant question.  If the driver had made several trips over the crossing with the same truck and load, it would be less likely for him to have had this collision.  But I have no way to answer the question because I have not seen any source of that information.  

[charlie hebdo]

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]

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.  

[rdamon]

Of course we would need to know all of the tires air pressures to fully know ... 

[Overmod]

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!!  

[Euclid]

Backshop

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.

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.   

[Backshop]

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.

[Euclid]

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.  

[Overmod]

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...

[Euclid]

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?

 

 

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. 

[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?

[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?    

[tree68]

blue streak 1

More 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.

[blue streak 1]

tree68

 Still unanswered:  Was that the first time the truck had been over the crossing loaded?

 

 

More important.  How many times had the driver been over the crossing?  How many times in that truck?

 

[Backshop]

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?

 

I don't know but I doubt it.  How long had the CoE project been going on?  Unless it was just the first couple of days, I'd say the truck had been over the crossing many times.  Trucking companies are normally contracted for the length of the project.

[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]

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.  

 

When Overmod refers to "tag axle", he is referring to the entire assembly--suspension, wheels, tires, etc. 

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)

[Backshop]

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.  

[Euclid]

Just to clarify, I am referring to these two items in court filing by BNSF/AMTRAK:

 

One item is the last item on page 6:

 

t. failing to follow proper loading procedures for the Dump Truck;

 

The other item I have previously quoted is this one from page 5:

 

g. 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;

 

Of all the items they list, these two are not clear at all as to what they specifically refer to in the circumstances of this collision.   They are also two items that seem likely to be related.   Item "g" at least makes the point clear as to what it entailed.  But item "t" only refers to improper loading procedures.  Not only does it not give any indications of what that actually refer to, but also leaves it unclear as to whether it refers to loading procedures or the physical result of the loading.  As I mentioned, the latter could include overloading or imbalanced loading.  I think it is fair to conclude that either of these issues could affect the underframe clearance from the road surface. 

 

Of course I was not there, so I do not know what actually occurred.  So, I am commenting only on what the court filing lists as errors and offenses committed in this case. 

[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.

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.

[Backshop]

Euclid, look at the two pictures of dump trucks that I posted and tell us how the frame could've struck the ground.

[rdamon]

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: