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 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.
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.
Apparently Backstop believes he is better informed about this than the quoted BNSF statement because he had a CDL and drove.
charlie hebdoApparently Backstop believes he is better informed about this than the quoted BNSF statement because he had a CDL and drove.
I believe he would be better informed of whether you can get a dump truck high-centered at a xing.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
charlie hebdo 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? Apparently Backstop believes he is better informed about this than the quoted BNSF statement because he had a CDL and drove.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
zugmann charlie hebdo Apparently Backstop believes he is better informed about this than the quoted BNSF statement because he had a CDL and drove. I believe he would be better informed of whether you can get a dump truck high-centered at a xing.
charlie hebdo Apparently Backstop believes he is better informed about this than the quoted BNSF statement because he had a CDL and drove.
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?
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:
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?
Murphy Siding zugmann charlie hebdo Apparently Backstop believes he is better informed about this than the quoted BNSF statement because he had a CDL and drove. I believe he would be better informed of whether you can get a dump truck high-centered at a xing. Experience in the field goes a long way.
Experience in the field goes a long way.
While it has been well over 60 years ago, I thought my Corvair was going to be high centered on some road I was driving in Southern Indiana a little North of Louisville. A relatively steep approach to a very small precipice and a steep descent - felt like a reversed V.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Murphy, were those trucks on a road?
As far as me being accused by a couple of posters as knowing more than the railroad. At least I have some experience. The very prolific poster has been blaming the railroad since the day it happened. When he is called out on stuff, he moves the goalposts. First, the truck had to make a run for it so it wouldn't stall. Then the truck had to make a run for it so it wouldn't be on the tracks for too long. I could go on and on, but I have a life outside this forum.
There not being much of the truck left to judge by, I would opine it was a "ten wheeler," probably with an additional tag axle. It's not likely the truck would get hung up on the frame.
If the peak of the crossing was as sharp as has been alluded to, and given the acute angle (45 degrees) of the crossing, it might have been possible for the drive axles to get "cornered," ie, one wheel of each axle off the ground, which would result in spinning wheels.
That said, how many dump trucks loaded with rip rap had been over the crossing prior to the collision? If this was the first, it's a whole different story than if it was the fiftieth. And how many trips had the driver in question made over the crossing?
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
EuclidObviously Amtrak and BNSF are blaming the truck driver for the crash by their list of 20 legal violations committed by the truck driver. But Backshop informs us that the Amtrak and BNSF are just making up theories and throwing them against the wall in hopes that they will stick.
I doubt they are "making up" theories. There is likely some basis for their hypotheses.
My observations of the possibility of the frame hanging up are based on everyday observations. As I said, it would take a pretty signficant "peak" to catch the frame on most dump trucks I've ever seen. And that's why I ask how many trips these dump trucks have made over that crossing. If the number is significant, I would opine that it makes the possibility of getting high centered on the frame virtually nil.
The grades on approach and the brush were cited as issues by the farmer - not the peak at the crossing.
Reportedly there was another truck following the one in question. We haven't heard from that point of view, although we may not until any trials that occur.
At least he didn't leave hundreds of feet of skid marks before he ran into the train.
Euclid So here we have Backshop taking sides with the deceased truck driver because he does not believe the story told by BNSF and Amtrak about the insufficient truck ground clearance. It sounds to me like Backshop is the one picking on the railroads as he tries to take the truck driver off the hook, and places the blame on Amtrak/BNSF.
Backshop Murphy, were those trucks on a road?
FWIW, the Leucadia Blvd crossing of the NCTD (AT&SF) Surf Line has signs warning that the crossing is likely to high center large trucks. I still hear occasional reports of trucks getting stuck at that crossing.
BackshopEverything BNSF stated doesn't have to be true for them not to be responsible. Some of their points could be seen as contradictory. In one point, they say he was speeding and couldn't stop. Then they say he high centered. They also say the truck wasn't well maintained. In the condition the truck was in after the accident, that would be hard to assess.
Like Tree said, it appears to be either a 3 axle truck with 2 drive axles or a four axle with a tag. Here's close to what it would look like. Dump trucks haul heavy, dense material so gross out quickly. They don't need a lot of length to carry the load.
dump truck with tag axle - Bing images
Caught Yesterday in LaGrange
https://youtu.be/3WsZiXNZ-n4?t=784
It was very clear in one of the news photos that the truck in question had a tag axle. Whether it was lowered or not before the accident is yet to be determined.
rdamonCaught Yesterday in LaGrange https://youtu.be/3WsZiXNZ-n4?t=784
Driver failure - got to raise the land legs to their fullest extent.
Overmod It was very clear in one of the news photos that the truck in question had a tag axle. Whether it was lowered or not before the accident is yet to be determined.
What would you conclude (if anything) if it was lowered at the time of the accident.
BaltACD rdamon Caught Yesterday in LaGrange https://youtu.be/3WsZiXNZ-n4?t=784 Driver failure - got to raise the land legs to their fullest extent.
rdamon Caught Yesterday in LaGrange https://youtu.be/3WsZiXNZ-n4?t=784
I would opine that it would make little difference. It would partly depend on just how much weight the tag axle actually bears.
And remember, the other two axles are not fixed on the frame - they have some vertical play.
And an as-yet unanswered question - how many trips had the truck made over the crossing before the collision? If that number is significantly higher than zero, the high-center issue may be moot.
To add to Tree's post---Tag axles, since they are raised and lowered by air and have airbag suspensions, have quite a bit of vertical travel.
BackshopTo add to Tree's post---Tag axles, since they are raised and lowered by air and have airbag suspensions, have quite a bit of vertical travel.
And even if down, they are equipped with wheels and tires that are rolling, just like the drive and steer axles.
EuclidWhat would you conclude (if anything) if it was lowered at the time of the accident.
If I recall the picture correctly, the tag was in a raised position after the accident. Let me repeat that we should wait for the accident investigation before judging anything like this.
A peripheral point is that the truck was long enough to accommodate the additional tag axle. I doubt the tag would have hung up on the crossing or unloaded the drive wheels; the issue is more that the truck was longer and potentially heavier than a 'regular' 10-wheel dump truck.
In this long thread, is there a photo of the same type of truck or at least an accurate description?
charlie hebdo In this long thread, is there a photo of the same type of truck or at least an accurate description?
Overmod Euclid What would you conclude (if anything) if it was lowered at the time of the accident. That the truck was loaded heavily enough to require the axle to be lowered. That might be to accommodate extra weight, or give lower ground pressure. If I recall the picture correctly, the tag was in a raised position after the accident. Let me repeat that we should wait for the accident investigation before judging anything like this. A peripheral point is that the truck was long enough to accommodate the additional tag axle. I doubt the tag would have hung up on the crossing or unloaded the drive wheels; the issue is more that the truck was longer and potentially heavier than a 'regular' 10-wheel dump truck.
Euclid What would you conclude (if anything) if it was lowered at the time of the accident.
That the truck was loaded heavily enough to require the axle to be lowered. That might be to accommodate extra weight, or give lower ground pressure.
Euclid 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.
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.
Correct, so that was what the railroad was implying.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.