NTSB preliminary report on Missouri crash

[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.

 

[Euclid]

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.  

[Cotton Belt MP104]

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

[Cotton Belt MP104]

" 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.

Remember - everytime you make a design to 'Idiot Proof' a situation - the World just generates more idiotic idiots.

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

 

[mudchicken]

• CFR

FEDERAL RULE

49 CFR § 213.37 Vegetation.

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.

 

 

 

 

[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.  

[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.

[Murphy Siding]

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.

 

 

And consider the reports on a local TV channel as being objective.

[Backshop]

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.

[Euclid]

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.

 

 

 

I do not consider anything yet to be proof of what happened during this crash.  All I see is a variety of evidence.  I agree that the key point is whether the driver stopped within the prescribed 15-50 feet short of the nearest rail. 

 

I consider the video to be good evidence of the site conditions.  The fact that it is amateur is irrelevant.  There is a lot of video showing the crossing and the view both ways down the track form a view point on the track; and from various views from the approach taken by the truck driver.  This video is also taken from various elevated drone perspectives.  The video also varies by lens depth of field, as you note.

 

The video of the approaching freight train gives evidence of when the Amtrak train first because visible to the approach taken by the truck driver.  It also provides the time from that point until the train enters the crossing as being approximately 5 seconds.

 

I also consider the evidence of statements made by residents living near the crash site.

 

I also consider the press release published by Amtrak and BNSF in Railway Age, listing 20 claims of negligence on the part of the truck driver to be evidence. 

 

But none of the video, or the 20 claims in the press release, or the resident statements leads to proof of what the driver actually did in approaching the crossing other than the fact that he collided with the train.  As far as I know, there were no eye witnesses to the crash other than the locomotive engineer and anyone else riding in the cab. 

 

I also do not believe that the lawyers for the truck driver’s wife are going to be intimidated by the 20 claims of evidence cited in the press release.  On the contrary, they may welcome the statements in the press release and use them to their advantage.  In that sense, I find the press release to be very odd.

 

In 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.

[Overmod]

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.

[tree68]

Euclid

In 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...

[jeffhergert]

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

[Euclid]

I agree that the critical point is what the driver did from the point he became 50 feet from the nearest rail to the point he became 10 feet from the nearest rail. 

 

He would have benefited in reducing his dwell time, while fouling the crossing, to be as short as possible.  At the same time, he had to keep his approach speed down to the point where he had time to stop if a train became visible as he drove the 50 feet up to the crossing.  These two objectives compete with each other. 

 

The faster he travels in order to reduce crossing fouling dwell; the longer his stopping distance becomes. 

 

If he intended to comply with the stop rule, he should have stopped at the 50 ft. line and then accelerated as much as possible.  But he had to be ready to abort the acceleration at any point as he watched the track to his left in order to detect an approaching train as early as possible.

 

So he has to accelerate at the highest rate possible as the view down the track lengthens and his required stopping distance also lengthens.  So the faster he goes, the more stopping distance he needs, while at the same time, the less stopping distance he has.

 

To perform this calculation to its maximum benefit requires full attention on the road ahead, the speedometer, and the location of the track.  It also requires full attention to the left, down the track as the view expands due to getting past the obscuration of the trees. 

[Backshop]

I never knew that crossing railroad tracks could be so complicated.

[adkrr64]

Backshop

I 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.

[tree68]

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.

[Euclid]

Backshop

I never knew that crossing railroad tracks could be so complicated.

 

Apparently, the NTSB does not find the crossing issues too complicated to grasp:

 

NTSB says it will focus the investigation on the angle of the tracks and the incline of the crossing. Locals have said the uncontrolled crossing is hazardous, especially with growing vegetation near the tracks. 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.

 

“There is a lot resting on a driver to be able to see a train at these crossings, particularly when there's such a steep incline,” said NTSB Chair Jennifer Homendy. “You have to look for the train. You have to worry about 'Am I going to get up? Am I going to stall out? Am I going to get over?’”

 

Homendy added that the agency has significant concerns with the uncontrolled crossing and that action “needs to be taken so that another accident doesn't occur.”

[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".

 

[tree68]

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.

[blue streak 1]

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.

[Cotton Belt MP104]

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".

 

 

As a retired bus driver, we practiced rear door exit to familrize students with that. In case a bus got stuck on a RR crossing, this is after of course stopping and watching for oncoming trains.

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.

[Backshop]

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.

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?

[Cotton Belt MP104]

 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?

 

 

[Euclid]

I don’t see the references to making a run for the grade as meaning to prevent stalling, as in trains making a run for a grade.  In this case, I would consider the phrase “making a run for it” to mean getting up the approach grade and over the track as quickly as possible.   But this is not for the purpose of avoiding stalling, but rather, for the purpose of keeping speed up in order to spend  as little time as possible on the crossing.  Of course a driver would also have to exercise restraint to make sure he could abandon the move in case a train suddenly appeared. 

[Overmod]

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.

[charlie hebdo]

tree68

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°

[Backshop]

Another thing to remember is that dump trucks operate a lot in construction sites.  Drivers are well used to steep grades, soft traction, etc.

[tree68]

charlie hebdo

tree68

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°

 

There you go! 

 

The crossing is 45°, that would put the oncoming train 35° behind normal peripheral vision.

[Backshop]

Luckily, people can turn their heads...