NTSB preliminary report on Missouri crash

[charlie hebdo]

It's not very safe for most peopleto turn head more than ~45° while driving straight ahead.

[Euclid]

charlie hebdo

It's not very safe for most peopleto turn head more than ~45° while driving straight ahead.

 

Especially, in this type of situation where a driver must pay strict attention straight ahead in order to assess whether he/she is moving as fast as possible, but able to stop short of the crossing if a train appears; and at the same time, paying strict attention to the point where a train will first appear.  

[Overmod]

charlie hebdo

It's not very safe for most people to turn [their] head more than ~45° while driving straight ahead.

I think this is predominantly a muscle-coordination and inner-ear concern... and the eye motion combines with the head motion, as for example looking out the driver or passenger side window if the view from the 'wing mirrors' is too restricted.

More of a problem, though, might be the confusion if foreground attention when a driver is "multitasking" on guiding the vehicle across an obstacle, working the transmission and engine rpm, listening above the ambient noise, AND watching outside the normal field of vision for what may be small cues of light and motion.

I do think we can figure a great deal of this out by looking at the locomotive camera view... when that gets released.

[Backshop]

I would think the truck would stop so that he could check traffic.  He couldn't have been moving that fast. Even if not, how many of you glance both ways down tracks when you're driving over them to see if a train is coming?  I do.  

 

[BaltACD]

Backshop

I would think the truck would stop so that he could check traffic.  He couldn't have been moving that fast. Even if not, how many of you glance both ways down tracks when you're driving over them to see if a train is coming?  I do.  

I especially look where one direction is at a oblique angle behind my sight line.

[Euclid]

Backshop

I would think the truck would stop so that he could check traffic.  He couldn't have been moving that fast. Even if not, how many of you glance both ways down tracks when you're driving over them to see if a train is coming?  I do.  

 

 

I would think the truckdriver would have taken the legal option of stopping 50 feet away from the nearest rail.  That is what I would have done.  Then from that point, he would get moving forward while watching for the track veiw to open up.  At some point prior to reaching the crossing, I assume the track view to extend to a mile or so.  Then if it is clear in both directions, he would just keep moving and cross the track at 5-10 mph.  There is no requirement to actually stop at right at the crossing.  

Several videos show that crossing approach to have been freshly graded and much less steep than the approach on the north side.  This improvement was mentioned in one of the news reports as having been done just after the crash in order to make it easier to get heavy equipment onto the site.  

[Erik_Mag]

With respect to sightlines at the crossing versus maintaining momentum: isn't the truck driver's ultimate repsonsibility to determine if it was safe to cross? Along those lines, it could be argued that the contractor should have provided flag protection at the crossing or paid for the RR to provide protection.

[Backshop]

Erik_Mag

With respect to sightlines at the crossing versus maintaining momentum: isn't the truck driver's ultimate repsonsibility to determine if it was safe to cross? Along those lines, it could be argued that the contractor should have provided flag protection at the crossing or paid for the RR to provide protection.

 

There you go, injecting common sense into the conversation!

That makes it harder to blame the big, bad railroad, though.

[Euclid]

Erik_Mag

With respect to sightlines at the crossing versus maintaining momentum: isn't the truck driver's ultimate repsonsibility to determine if it was safe to cross? Along those lines, it could be argued that the contractor should have provided flag protection at the crossing or paid for the RR to provide protection.

 

I don't think it was the drivers responsibility to determine whether the crossing had design flaws.  It was his responsibility to determine whether the crossing was safe to cross under the assumption that the crossing had been properly designed and installed.  

I don't know what the driver did during his encounter with the crossing, but I do conclude that the evident details of the crossing show it to be structurally flawed, and thus it should not have been open for use.

I did find an intersting detail in one of the news reports.  It stated that the truck that was hit was being immediately followed by a second truck from the same company.  So in addition to Amtrak video, we have a direct eye witness.  Eventurally we will learn the outcome when the NTSB circles back a couple years from now with their report.

One question is whether we have any record now of the layout of the crossing approach that existed at the time of the crash.  I doubt that is the case.  It will be very interesting to see which version of that approach is shown in the NTSB's final report.

 

[Backshop]

Euclid

 

  

 I do conclude that the evident details of the crossing show it to be structurally flawed, and thus it should not have been open for use.

 It stated that the truck that was hit was being immediately followed by a second truck from the same company.  So in addition to Amtrak video, we have a direct eye witness. 

1. You're stating the first point like you're a qualified civil engineer.  Everyone here knows you're not.

2. The video is objective evidence.  The testimony of another employee of the same company could be biased.

[Euclid]

Of course one would consider both the evidence from the locomotive video and the statements of an eye witness.  Would you start from the conclusion that that only the video should be considered, and the eye witness testimony should be discarded?  You make it sound that way.  Why not consider them both and see how they match or differ?  The fact that both sources of observation are from different view locations helps evaluate both against each other.  More evidence is good if you are fair and objective in your inquiry.  Incidentally, I am sure that “everyone here” here will be please to know that they all support your thinly veiled accusation that I am misrepresenting myself as a civil engineer.   

[Backshop]

I would consider both viewpoints while also knowing that videos are objective and eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable. Also, with the second truck even farther from the crossing, what he could/couldn't see is even greater than the deceased.  As far as your last statement, I concur, there might be one or two people who don't agree with me.  The rest know your background on this forum.

[charlie hebdo]

I think opinions of rational people other than civil engineers are worth considering. 

[charlie hebdo]

Duplicate.

[Backshop]

charlie hebdo

I think opinions of rational people other than civil engineers are worth considering. 

 

It's not what you say but how you say it.  When someone says something is "structurally flawed", that makes it sound like a professional opinion.

[charlie hebdo]

Backshop

 

 

charlie hebdo

I think opinions of rational people other than civil engineers are worth considering. 

 

 

 

 

It's not what you say but how you say it.  When someone says something is "structurally flawed", that makes it sound like a professional opinion.

 

 

Picky picky!  I don't think many people thought he was trying to sound like a structural engineer.  If someone were to use the term, obsessive compulsive, I would not accuse them of trying to sound like a clinical psychologist or psychiatrist. 

[Euclid]

Backshop

 

 

charlie hebdo

I think opinions of rational people other than civil engineers are worth considering. 

 

 

 

 

It's not what you say but how you say it.  When someone says something is "structurally flawed", that makes it sound like a professional opinion.

 

 

I used the term, “structurally flawed” specifically to respond to Erik_Mag when he said this above:

 

“With respect to sightlines at the crossing versus maintaining momentum: isn't the truck driver's ultimate responsibility to determine if it was safe to cross?”

 

I would say yes it is the driver’s responsibility to obey the laws which govern all facets of the crossing procedure.  But I would say no it is not the driver’s responsibility to look for hidden design flaws in the crossing such as compromised sight lines and severely steep crossing approach ramps that can distract a driver, and potentially high center a large truck.  These hazards existed at the crossing with no warning sign to alert the driver to them.  

 

Crossings are governed by law to prohibit these hidden dangers, and a driver’s obligation to cross safely does not include a requirement to find these hidden “design flaws” that are violating crossing design standards.  Can I say “design flaws”?    I think that term applies better.  “Structural flaws” sounds like buildings that collapse.  Sight lines and gradient of approaches is more of a design issue.

[Backshop]

You can't "high center" a straight truck.

[BaltACD]

Backshop

You can't "high center" a straight truck.

Euc can high center anything, anywhere, anytime.

[Euclid]

Backshop

You can't "high center" a straight truck.

 

I don’t know what kind of truck it was, but I am speaking in general terms about the high centering hazard that was cited for this crossing by Amtrak/BNSF in their list of crimes committed by the driver of the truck in this crash as follows: 

 

“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;” 

 

And even if the truck did not get high centered, the language says there was not “sufficient undercarriage clearance necessary to prevent the undercarriage form contacting the railroad crossing.”  So, overall, I would conclude that the high centering hazard of the large and abrupt angle change of the roadway at the crossing was one of those design flaws that is not the responsibility of the driver to avoid, unless the crossing had a warning sign for a high centering hazard.

[rdamon]

charlie hebdo

I think opinions of rational people other than civil engineers are worth considering. 

 

One of my EE Profs said that a CE must have designed the Human Body, because they put a recreational area near the sewage facility. 

[charlie hebdo]

BaltACD

 

 

Backshop

You can't "high center" a straight truck.

 

 

Euc can high center anything, anywhere, anytime.

 

Clearly Amtrak thought the truck lacked sufficient clearance. So belittle Euclid with snippy remarks when you lack facts?

[Erik_Mag]

Euclid

I used the term, “structurally flawed” specifically to respond to Erik_Mag when he said this above:

 

“With respect to sightlines at the crossing versus maintaining momentum: isn't the truck driver's ultimate responsibility to determine if it was safe to cross?”

 

I would say yes it is the driver’s responsibility to obey the laws which govern all facets of the crossing procedure.  But I would say no it is not the driver’s responsibility to look for hidden design flaws in the crossing such as compromised sight lines and severely steep crossing approach ramps that can distract a driver, and potentially high center a large truck.  These hazards existed at the crossing with no warning sign to alert the driver to them.

 

I would argue that it was indeed the driver's responsibility to ensure that he could see far enough down the track in order to cross safely.

 

A couple of things come to mind:

 

Speed limits: It is the responsibility of a driver to decide whether driving at the speed limit is safe. For example in dense fog, an attentive driver will typically reduce speed to well below the speed limit.

 

"Cleared" as used in air traffic control: There was quite a flurry of FAA notices going out in the 1970's after an airliner crashed when given a clearance to descend and ended up flying into terrain. The notices made it very clear that it was the pilot's responsibility to make sure if it was safe to descend.

 

 

Crossings are governed by law to prohibit these hidden dangers, and a driver’s obligation to cross safely does not include a requirement to find these hidden “design flaws” that are violating crossing design standards.  Can I say “design flaws”?    I think that term applies better.  “Structural flaws” sounds like buildings that collapse.  Sight lines and gradient of approaches is more of a design issue.

Which raises the question of who is responsible for the "design flaws" with this grade crossing? MC's comment about "highway bubbas" comes to mind.

 

[diningcar]

Which raises the question of who is responsible for the "design flaws" with this grade crossing? MC's comment about "highway bubbas" comes to mind. 

Today's news is that an Amtrak employee is suing Missouri DOT.  

[charlie hebdo]

Circular firing squad with a dose of contempt.  Predictable targets of blame: driver and "bubbas" as usual.

[Lithonia Operator]

Backshop

You can't "high center" a straight truck.

 

I don't know why not.

If the truck's front wheels are going down the grade before the rear ones get to the top, and there's not enough clearance, the truck will high-center, no?

[Backshop]

As I've explained before, there are two ways to high center a truck, and both apply only to semis.  The first is if it's a lowboy trailer, where the trailer frame comes in contact with the pavement and levers the drive axles off the ground.  The second is if the angles are so steep that they exceed the vertical pivoting range of the fifth wheel, which also levers the drive axles off the pavement. Also, since this crossing was in regular use by dump trucks working for the CoE, this couldn't have happened. 

BNSF and Amtrak just threw everything at the wall to see what would stick.  They wanted every angle covered beforehand.

[Euclid]

Backshop

As I've explained before, there are two ways to high center a truck, and both apply only to semis.  The first is if it's a lowboy trailer, where the trailer frame comes in contact with the pavement and levers the drive axles off the ground.  The second is if the angles are so steep that they exceed the vertical pivoting range of the fifth wheel, which also levers the drive axles off the pavement. Also, since this crossing was in regular use by dump trucks working for the CoE, this couldn't have happened. 

BNSF and Amtrak just threw everything at the wall to see what would stick.  They wanted every angle covered beforehand.

 

Amtrak/BNSF say this about the driver’s actions in their press release published in Railway Age:

 

“operating the Dump truck through the railroad crossing without sufficient undercarriage clearance necessary to prevent the undercarriage of the vehicle from contacting the railroad crossing in violation of § 304.035.4 RSMo;” 

 

So you are saying that Amtrak and BNSF simply made this up as a total lie because you have proven that it could not have happened?  That is not convincing.  For one thing, how do you know that this truck in the collision was identical to all other trucks engaged in this hauling project?

[Backshop]

I don't know but then you don't have the facts for all the accusations that you're making, but that hasn't stopped you, has it?  What I do have is experience.  I've had a CDL-AH and used it OTR.  I know what high centering is.  I know how much torque a truck has in low gear.  I know what sightlines and blind spots are in a truck. So, you see, I have what is known as an informed opinion. ThNot just on this subject, but in every thread that you participate in.

[Euclid]

Backshop

I don't know but then you don't have the facts for all the accusations that you're making, but that hasn't stopped you, has it?

I am asking you about something that you have made very specific which was this:

"BNSF and Amtrak just threw everything at the wall to see what would stick.  They wanted every angle covered beforehand."

You were referring to Amtrak and BNSF publishing their press release saying that the truck driver attempted to cross the track while his truck did not have sufficient bottom clearance to prevent the truck frame from contacting the crossing surface.

Regarding this press release, you stated the above comment quoted in blue.  So I asked you to explain your contention that Amtrak/BNSF were misrepresenting the facts of this matter.  Then you respond by saying you don't know.  Then you compare it to all the "accusations" that you say I make. 

What specific accusations have I made?