NTSB has issued guidance on the incident that happened in a steel facility in Cleveland.
https://www.progressiverailroading.com/federal_legislation_regulation/news/Conductor-fatality-prompts-FRA-safety-bulletin--68833
The article identifies the area where it happened as being 'lighted'. For someone to 'see' a brakemans lantern in a lighted industrial area and have it 'register' would take 'super human accuity'.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
The actual FRA safety bulletin:
https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/2023-03/Safety%20Bulletin%202023-02%20%28031623%29.pdf
FRA Directive. It was nighttime, the yard was lighted, and the conductor had his lantern turned on. Prior to the incident, the conductor was in communication with the engineer via radio. The private highway-rail grade crossing was equipped with passive warning devices and stop signs.
There is nothing more invisible in a generally lighted area than a 6 volt brakeman's lantern bulb.
That DOES NOT ABSOLVE the truck driver of his responsibilities to LOOk and SEE what is approaching the crossing.
We have, as I suspect others do also, rules prohibiting riding the bottom step of an engine or the stirrup on the side of a car over crossings. Public and private, including in railroad yards.
That's not to say that's the case here. A dump truck would be tall enough to hit you riding up higher on the car.
Jeff
I've seen far too many hi-viz documents that were anything but, due to dirt and wear.
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...
tree68 I've seen far too many hi-viz documents that were anything but, due to dirt and wear.
I seriously hope MSHA/FRA/OSHA comes down hard on the facility operator and the construction truck driver. (Agree 100% with BALT)
Protecting the shove .... and the dump truck driver can't see the railcar that's as big as the mining equipment to judge relative positions? I certainly do not want to be on foot in that environment.
Why not fuses?
blue streak 1 Why not fuses?
CSSHEGEWISCH blue streak 1 Why not fuses? Fusees are quite bright but they can be hazardous in their own right, especially for a conductor riding on the side of a freight car in a back-up move.
As a former supplier to a railcar builder of graphics and related material....railcars have very effective conspicuity reflective film applied in the range of 700-1000 candlepower.
Granted the NS locomotives are black, but my guess is those had reflective tape.
Horrible incident.
ed
When I was ATM at Locust Point Yard in Baltimore, we had a 2nd trick yard job that worked its way out of the yard and down the middle of Key Highway to the intersection of Light Street and then further on Light Steet to the intersection of Pratt Street where the track ended just past the McCormack Spice plant, which was the final customer on the line.
A day or two before Christmas in 1974 or 1975 the crew was shoving their train with a caboose in the lead - the cab was lit up 'like a Christmas tree' with both red and yellow fusees - multiple fusees!. Someone in a Ford stationwagon driving 'up' Key Highway ran head on into the fusee lit caboose, at speed. The vehicle was littered with multiple beer cans and Christmas presents. The driver did not survive.
Impaired drivers tend to obsess and aim at the most conspicuous stuff out there, especially at night. Instead of avoiding the high viz colours, the impaired driver winds up aiming at it.
Too many night-time crossing repairs/replacements will teach you that.
Railway Age On March 7, a NS conductor on NS train C75B106 was killed when the train he was riding collided with a dump truck as they simultaneously entered a private highway-railroad grade crossing (private grade crossing) in the Cleveland-Cliffs Incorporated steel plant in Cleveland, Ohio. The conductor was riding on the end platform of the lead railcar during a shoving movement when he was pinned between the railcar and the dump truck during the collision. NS and TMS International (the truck owner) estimated total damages to equipment to be about $42,000. Visibility conditions at the time of the accident were dark and clear; the weather was 34°F with no precipitation. The crew of train C75B106 consisted of an engineer in the locomotive cab and the conductor. The train was composed of one locomotive and 12 mixed railcars: four residue tank cars and eight empty covered hopper cars. The dump truck was driven by a TMS International employee and was hauling rock at the time of the collision. Cleveland Cliffs surveillance camera data reviewed by NTSB investigators show the dump truck traveling south through the plant, stopping at the private grade crossing, and then proceeding through the crossing. Based on event recorder data, the train was traveling about 9 mph at the time of the collision; the maximum authorized speed within the steel plant was 10 mph. The private grade crossing where the accident occurred was equipped with stop signs facing both directions of approach. According to the preliminary report, NTSB investigators, while on scene, reviewed data from surveillance cameras and the locomotive event recorder, conducted sight distance observations at the private grade crossing, and completed interviews. As a result of this accident, the FRA on March 16, 2023, issued “Safety Advisory 2023-02: Highway-Rail Grade Crossing and Shove Movement Accident,” noting “the importance of proper training, oversight, job briefings, and crew communication to protect safety at highway-railroad grade crossings.” NTSB’s investigation, which includes the FRA, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA); NS; the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET); the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers (SMART); TMS International; and Cleveland Cliffs, is ongoing. According to NTSB, future investigative activity will focus on “industry-wide operational rules for conductors riding equipment through highway–railroad grade crossings and Cleveland-Cliffs’ methods of protection at private grade crossings.”
On March 7, a NS conductor on NS train C75B106 was killed when the train he was riding collided with a dump truck as they simultaneously entered a private highway-railroad grade crossing (private grade crossing) in the Cleveland-Cliffs Incorporated steel plant in Cleveland, Ohio.
The conductor was riding on the end platform of the lead railcar during a shoving movement when he was pinned between the railcar and the dump truck during the collision. NS and TMS International (the truck owner) estimated total damages to equipment to be about $42,000. Visibility conditions at the time of the accident were dark and clear; the weather was 34°F with no precipitation.
The crew of train C75B106 consisted of an engineer in the locomotive cab and the conductor. The train was composed of one locomotive and 12 mixed railcars: four residue tank cars and eight empty covered hopper cars. The dump truck was driven by a TMS International employee and was hauling rock at the time of the collision. Cleveland Cliffs surveillance camera data reviewed by NTSB investigators show the dump truck traveling south through the plant, stopping at the private grade crossing, and then proceeding through the crossing. Based on event recorder data, the train was traveling about 9 mph at the time of the collision; the maximum authorized speed within the steel plant was 10 mph. The private grade crossing where the accident occurred was equipped with stop signs facing both directions of approach.
According to the preliminary report, NTSB investigators, while on scene, reviewed data from surveillance cameras and the locomotive event recorder, conducted sight distance observations at the private grade crossing, and completed interviews.
As a result of this accident, the FRA on March 16, 2023, issued “Safety Advisory 2023-02: Highway-Rail Grade Crossing and Shove Movement Accident,” noting “the importance of proper training, oversight, job briefings, and crew communication to protect safety at highway-railroad grade crossings.”
NTSB’s investigation, which includes the FRA, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA); NS; the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET); the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers (SMART); TMS International; and Cleveland Cliffs, is ongoing.
According to NTSB, future investigative activity will focus on “industry-wide operational rules for conductors riding equipment through highway–railroad grade crossings and Cleveland-Cliffs’ methods of protection at private grade crossings.”
Overmod The actual FRA safety bulletin: https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/2023-03/Safety%20Bulletin%202023-02%20%28031623%29.pdf
On the other hand this truck driver, surely made a fatal mistake. Something that crews deal with the rest of their life, after a fatal grade crossing crash. endmrw0321232208
I would opine that the oncoming railcars were in a bit of a blind spot for the truck driver - over his right shoulder and possibly blocked by the rear of the cab.
He reportedly stopped at the crossing, apparently saw nothing, and proceeded. Note that the conductor, with his lantern was on the side of the car closest to the truck.
The train was moving at a shade more than 13 feet per second (9 MPH, per the report). That means that just ten seconds before the collision the leading end of the movement was 130 feet (~110 meters) from the crossing - a third of a football field.
I'm not trying to absolve anyone of anything. This was a case of all the holes lining up. Even having the conductor on the other side of the car would have changed the outcome.
Industrial settings such as the Cleveland-Cliffs plant are nearly perfect camouflage in being able to hide obvious movements of rail cars and/or trucks. Such areas are full of different shapes that create a multiplicity of light and shadow with various levels of illumination be that daylight sunshine, overcast or nightime electric illumination.
BaltACD Industrial settings such as the Cleveland-Cliffs plant are nearly perfect camouflage in being able to hide obvious movements of rail cars and/or trucks. Such areas are full of different shapes that create a multiplicity of light and shadow with various levels of illumination be that daylight sunshine, overcast or nightime electric illumination.
I was wondering about that. I know what you mean by your description of the plant setting causing camouflage and distraction with the wide variety of shapes and lighting. The best preventative would have been to require such shoving moves to stop and flag through the crossing.
EuclidI was wondering about that. I know what you mean by your description of the plant setting causing camouflage and distraction with the wide variety of shapes and lighting. The best preventative would have been to require such shoving moves to stop and flag through the crossing.
Complacency can be a major consideration.
One has to wonder how often such interfaces take place.
If the answer is "infrequently" then it's possible that neither the driver nor the conductor had had to deal with the situation before.
Too, it's been recorded that the driver did stop. The conductor may have assumed (and we all know the phrase) that the truck would stay stopped as the train went over the crossing.
tree68 I would opine that the oncoming railcars were in a bit of a blind spot for the truck driver - over his right shoulder and possibly blocked by the rear of the cab. He reportedly stopped at the crossing, apparently saw nothing, and proceeded. Note that the conductor, with his lantern was on the side of the car closest to the truck. The train was moving at a shade more than 13 feet per second (9 MPH, per the report). That means that just ten seconds before the collision the leading end of the movement was 130 feet (~110 meters) from the crossing - a third of a football field. I'm not trying to absolve anyone of anything. This was a case of all the holes lining up. Even having the conductor on the other side of the car would have changed the outcome.
From a previous post (from Balt) with more detail, he wasn't riding the actual side of a car. He was riding the end platform of a tank car on the side where they collided. Tank cars are one of the few types our trainmen can ride the end platform, provided they can place themselves behind the handrail that runs across the end of the car.
Trainmen's lanterns have two settings, one provides a beam the other a more general illimunination. The beam is used more for walking or riding because you can see further ahead. The other can be used for walking and is usually used when using hand signals at night. Both can be seen from the side, but the general illumination setting is more visible from tje side, that's why that setting is preferred for passing signals. The setting and/or how he held the lantern could change his visibility to others on the moving car.
The above could help explain why the driver didn't identify the moving cars.
Someone mentioned this happened when the conductor was protecting a blind shove. The conductor was protecting a shoving move, but it wasn't blind. A blind shove is when no one is protecting the movement.
To me, this is similar to the dump-truck collision a couple of months ago, in that visibility for the truck driver was likely ridiculously low.
Crossing about 45 degrees to the off side, so the truck driver's view was not out the windshield but the side window, likely with none of the truck's lighting bearing on any of the Scotchlite on the cars.
What this says very loudly to me -- and Euclid, take note, here's another profit opportunity -- is that some kind of high-visibility lighting needs to be provided for the point of shoves at night. Whether that is some kind of Mars light, or patterned flashes, or high-visibility LEDs in a FRED-like device that drops into the coupler knuckle, and whether it coordinates with a loud distinctive aural warning, is a matter of discussion; I personally think there should be a monkey tail with a distinctive sounding whistle or horn for those cases where vehicular traffic doesn't respond to the light or 'backup' warnings.
jeffhergertFrom a previous post (from Balt) with more detail, he wasn't riding the actual side of a car. He was riding the end platform of a tank car on the side where they collided.
No disagreement. The diagram does show him on the corner where the collision would have occurred, though.
jeffhergertTrainmen's lanterns have two settings, one provides a beam the other a more general illumination.
I just upgraded my railroad lantern to LED. Know them well.
Overmod To me, this is similar to the dump-truck collision a couple of months ago, in that visibility for the truck driver was likely ridiculously low. Crossing about 45 degrees to the off side, so the truck driver's view was not out the windshield but the side window, likely with none of the truck's lighting bearing on any of the Scotchlite on the cars. What this says very loudly to me -- and Euclid, take note, here's another profit opportunity -- is that some kind of high-visibility lighting needs to be provided for the point of shoves at night. Whether that is some kind of Mars light, or patterned flashes, or high-visibility LEDs in a FRED-like device that drops into the coupler knuckle, and whether it coordinates with a loud distinctive aural warning, is a matter of discussion; I personally think there should be a monkey tail with a distinctive sounding whistle or horn for those cases where vehicular traffic doesn't respond to the light or 'backup' warnings.
I used to see, and some may still do it, placing a lit fusee on the end of the leading car when shoving, even when riding the shove. Often a lit fusee is used when a trainmen at one end is shoving the cut towards someone at the other end of the track at night.
tree68 jeffhergert From a previous post (from Balt) with more detail, he wasn't riding the actual side of a car. He was riding the end platform of a tank car on the side where they collided. No disagreement. The diagram does show him on the corner where the collision would have occurred, though. jeffhergert Trainmen's lanterns have two settings, one provides a beam the other a more general illumination. I just upgraded my railroad lantern to LED. Know them well.
jeffhergert From a previous post (from Balt) with more detail, he wasn't riding the actual side of a car. He was riding the end platform of a tank car on the side where they collided.
jeffhergert Trainmen's lanterns have two settings, one provides a beam the other a more general illumination.
Brakemen's lanterns as they have existed since the 6 volt battery that operates them work reasonably well where it is DARK. The lighter the surrounding enviornment is, the harder it is for the parties not holding the lantern to see it. Throw in a 'lighted' industrial enviornment and for the holder of the lantern to be on a moving rail car in that enviornment will be almost totally invisible to anyone on the ground.
Have to wonder how much truck driver can turn his head. Lookback beyond 135 degrees is difficult for even the most agile person. I cannot turn my head more than 90 degrees to left.Makes it difficult to look left entering roads more than that behind myself.
What would the driver have seen if he looked to the right when he was 100 feet from the crossing? Was that view obscured by railcars or plant infrastructure?
If the view opened up when the truck was only say 30 ft. from the crossing, and then it required the driver to rotate his vision 135 degrees; it would have probably required rotating his head 90 degrees, and also rotating his upper body another 45 degrees.
But even if he did that, to what extent would the truck cab opaque structure have obscured the view?
What do the railroad rules say is required for shoving cars across this crossing?
Here's the actual location of the crossing. I measured the angle between the road and rail to be about 31°, or 149° back from the view of the driver. Here's a couple of pictures:
Looking at the picture -- note that this is a half-cab, on the far left side. With the view to the right rear of the vehicle substantially blocked by the structure. Why has no one in the media commented on this yet?
One sensible argument for Euclid would be for the government to require clear-vision cameras on this type of vehicle -- perhaps with limited AI that can distinguish relative motion and 'warn' on it.
The size of the dump truck suggests that it is an off-road vehicle similar to those seen in open-pit mines. Since this is a private crossing on a private road on an industry site, I'm not sure if this is even within FRA jurisdiction.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.