NTSB preliminary report on Missouri crash

[charlie hebdo]

Euclid

Here 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

[Euclid]

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 ?

 

Of course, I cannot know that because I was not there.  But the BNSF & AMTRAK court filing does list an issue about the loading procedures of the truck.  Two things that come to mind are overloading or improper load distribution, as you mention.  Maybe Backshop could comment on whether an imbalanced load could enhance the ability for the truck underframe to strike the crossing. 

 

Here 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;

[Backshop]

No, they wouldn't lift the steering axle off the ground.

[blue streak 1]

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? 

[tree68]

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.

Going back to a question I raised a while back - was this the first time the truck had gone over the crossing?

 

If not, one would likely assume that such a problem would have previously been noted and appropriate action taken.  

[Murphy Siding]

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

 

Extinction?

[Cotton Belt MP104]

 

Charlie/rdamon: Good points. While trashing CE’s, they find it impossible to keep the KISS rule in mind. Those who ARE good CE’s obey the Kiss rule.

 

Another: 3 professionals are guilty of bad conduct in the Middle East. They face beheading by guillotine. Each enter and they are exonerated when the blade locks up, not doing it’s job. The CE places his head under the blade, then shouts, “I SEE WHAT’S WRONG HERE” endmrw0812221322

[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.

[charlie hebdo]

Murphy Siding

hours 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.

[Backshop]

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. 

[adkrr64]

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?

[Backshop]

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)

[Euclid]

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!

How would you determine it?  BNSF/Amtrak must have determined it somehow.  They said the truck frame would have contacted the crossing. 

 

Maybe I am misinterpreting them.  Maybe it was not that the truck was out of compliance with the law.  Maybe it was the crossing geometry that out of compliance with the law. 

 

That would explain how the truck had a history of being driven on the roads without ever having bottoming out on a variety of grade crossings that it encounted.  

[Murphy Siding]

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!

[Euclid]

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.

 

 

My above post was not intended to be a comprehensive accident report.  In my first sentence, I introduced this basic premise for everything I said. 

 

Nothing that I concluded required me to “be there” because almost everything I concluded was based on the information reported by BNSF/Amtrak in one item on their list of 50 violations they say were committed by the truck driver. 

 

That one item from BNSF/Amtrak is this quote from them:

 

“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;” 

 

In my four paragraphs following the blue quote, everything I said is factual based on what the blue paragraph says.  I thought that paragraph was curious, so I was just unpacking it to see what conclusions logically flow from it. So, I am only drawing conclusions based on the information they provide.

 

For the most part, I am not even disagreeing with them.  I would not even call what I am saying as a “theory.”  I am taking the statement in blue as being factual, and from that I am merely following the logic of those facts to arrive at my conclusion of what happened. 

 

My last five paragraphs are my conclusions stated as opinion by saying, “I conclude,” I believe,” and "I suspect.”  When I said I see no evidence for there having been insufficient ground clearance, I mean any evidence that BNSF/Amtrak found to base their conclusion on for their claim that the driver was operating the truck through a railroad crossing without sufficient undercarriage clearance.  I am not saying that they have no evidence or that no evidence exists.  I am just saying that they have not provided any evidence in their blue quote.  So it is a fact that I see no evidence of the alleged insufficient undercarriage clearance.   

 

You replied to my comments as follows:

 

“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.”

 

It can’t leave my conclusion full of those holes because my conclusion does not rule out any of those things. 

 

I believe the locomotive probably did have a camera that recorded the collision.  If the video shows the lack of adequate ground clearance or even actual high centering, that is fine. It does not conflict with anything I have said.  I never said there were no clearance issues or high centering.  I have just not seen any evidence of it, and the quote in blue does not say that any such problems occurred. 

 

This leaves me to conclude that when they say the ground clearance was insufficient, they determined that by measuring the ground clearance on the actual truck involved in this collision.  Such a measurement could find that the truck was out of compliance with the law, but still had enough ground clearance to clear the crossing.  They go farther than that by saying that the truck ground clearance would not have cleared the crossing.  Also, a factor in this question is the established fact that the truck did not pass completely over the crossing.   So it may not have reached the location where the frame would have contacted the crossing surface.

[charlie hebdo]

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.

 

 

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.

[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.

[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. 

[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 ?

[Euclid]

There are 6 different variations of the issues surrounding vehicle ground clearance:

 

There are two types of high centering.  Both types leave the vehicle stranded because its underframe has contacted and rode up on a raised road feature. 

 

In one type of high centering, the vehicle cannot move because it cannot gain enough traction to pull off the high centering contact.

 

In the other type, the vehicle cannot move because its driven wheels are not touching the road surface because they are raised by the high centering contact. 

 

There is also an issue of a vehicle having insufficient ground clearance, which can have two different causes.  One cause is the vehicle is out of compliance with the ground clearance laws, and the other cause is that the roadway is out of compliance with those laws.

 

With either of these two causes, there can be two different consequences.  One is that the vehicle underframe can strike the roadway, but not get high centered.  This may cause some damage to either the vehicle or the roadway, but the vehicle passes over the site without becoming stranded.  The other consequence it that the vehicle does become high centered.

 

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. 

[charlie hebdo]

Backshop

On 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.

[Backshop]

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. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I was replying to CH's question.  On a truck like the dump truck in question with several axles, it isn't possible.  Technically, on an extremely long truck with only 2-3 axles and with a road with an extremely steep and short grade, it could be possible. Think of a jacked up 4x4 pickup truck.  It is much more likely to bottom out on the axles going through ruts than it is to hang up on the frame.  Technically, it's possible, but you have to really be trying to do it.

[rdamon]

charlie hebdo

High-centered vs truck frame not clearing crossing.  Is there a real difference or is this just some jargon?

 

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. 

 

 

[Overmod]

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.

[charlie hebdo]

High-centered vs truck frame not clearing crossing.  Is there a real difference or is this just some jargon?

[Euclid]

Backshop

Correct, so that was what the railroad was implying.

 

I am aware of what the BNSF/Amtrak said, which was this:

 

“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;” 

 

What I said four posts up was this:

 

“The only claim regarding that came from BNSF/Amtrak in their list of the 20 offenses by the truck driver, which was published as part of their lawsuit against the trucking company.  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.”

 

It is true that BNSF/Amtrak did not say the truck got high-centered.  I would not conclude that they even implied it got high-centered. What they did say is able to stand on its own without being an implication for something they did not say. 

 

However what they did say does mean that the truck undercarriage struck the crossing, so if the truck passed over the crossing, it may have struck it.  I think they are remiss for not telling us the consequence for operating the truck over the crossing while it its underframe could not have cleared the crossing. 

 

But since they don’t explain that, I only stated what they actually said.  So I stand by my original comment which was, “They don’t say the truck got high-centered.”  They don’t even imply it. 

[Backshop]

Correct, so that was what the railroad was implying.