# CZ Train Truck Collision In Nevada (2011)



## Reno89502

Details Still Sketchy

http://www.rgj.com/article/20110624/NEWS/110624012/Vehicle-Amtrak-train-collide-near-Interstate-80-by-Lovelock-least-one-train-dead?odyssey=mod|breaking|text|FRONTPAGE

http://www.kolotv.com/home/headlines/Semi_Truck_and_Amtrak_Train_Crash_124502874.html


----------



## printman2000

One report says the fourth car was hit. That would usually mean a sleeping car. Baggage-Transleeper-Sleeper-Sleeper

Also reported one person on the train has died.


----------



## AmtrakBlue

Looks like a nice clear day. Wonder if the truck driver had an medical condition (heart attack, seizure, ??) . Can't imagine s/he not seeing the train and not stopping in time (to have hit the 4th car).


----------



## Cristobal

Does not look good.


----------



## Bob Dylan

According to Postings on trainorders it's #5 that was hit, 75 Miles East of Reno! SAC TV is supposed to be Showing Video. Per trainorders the TransDorm is on Fire,therevenue Sleeper behind it is Heavily Damaged and Fatalities are Suspected??!! 

Emergency Crews are on the Scene and a Spokesperson for Amtrak Confirms that Train #5 was Hit by a Truck and is Currently in a Service Disruption!! 

All of our Toughts and Prayers Should Go out to the Crew,Pax& Even the Driver of the Vehicle that Hit the Train!(times like this we don't need Evolutionary remarks,people are injured/dead etc.)Hope Fatalities&Injuries are Minor and the Crew and Passengers will Get to their Destination Safely and Eventually!! :help:


----------



## George B

printman2000 said:


> One report says the fourth car was hit. That would usually mean a sleeping car. Baggage-Transleeper-Sleeper-Sleeper
> 
> Also reported one person on the train has died.


I thought that the CZ is currently running with regular sleepers on the rear?


----------



## MrFSS

This *REPORT* says the truck driver died.


----------



## Reno89502

NBC in Reno shows the TransDorm engulfed in flames, and a HUGE gash in the first sleeper.


----------



## AmtrakBlue

MrFSS said:


> This *REPORT* says the truck driver died.


Interesting. This report implies the Amtrak train hit the truck, not the truck hitting the Amtrak train.


----------



## Reno89502

Photos of the cash on the NBC 4 Facebook Page.

http://www.facebook.com/krnvnews4


----------



## printman2000

AmtrakBlue said:


> MrFSS said:
> 
> 
> 
> This *REPORT* says the truck driver died.
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting. This report implies the Amtrak train hit the truck, not the truck hitting the Amtrak train.
Click to expand...

I am certain the truck hit the train since the transdorm seems to be on fire. News reporting about train/vehicle accidents is often misreported in certain details like this.


----------



## printman2000

Reno89502 said:


> Photos of the cash on the NBC 4 Facebook Page.
> 
> http://www.facebook.com/krnvnews4


Wow, that looks horrible. Unbelievable.

It does look to me to be a coach that has the large gash in it.


----------



## printman2000

Here is a direct link to the picture...

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150220843043043&set=a.217016253042.136084.57221253042&type=1&theater

The damage on the second car is really high. I wonder if the trailer swung around and did that damage.


----------



## George B

printman2000 said:


> Here is a direct link to the picture...
> 
> http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150220843043043&set=a.217016253042.136084.57221253042&type=1&theater
> 
> The damage on the second car is really high. I wonder if the trailer swung around and did that damage.


The second car is Coach. Did I also see a pic where it looks like they uncoupled the baggage car from the burning dorm and pulled the power/baggage away? That would be a smart thing.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Reports now of at least Two dead/Injuries! I agree, the Gash appears to be in a Coach, if the Revenue Sleepers are on the back Perhaps only the TransDorm and A Coach are Heavily Damaged??? If the Driver is Confirmed as Being DOA then any further Deaths/Injuries would be from the Train!! Let's Hope Not! 

Also, some Reports say that the Train Hit the Truck!!!!, as has been Discussed before, Do these So Called "Reporters" get any Education now-a-days??  (I know Several of Our Members are Trained Media Reps!!) :help: :help: :help:


----------



## yarrow

this is terrible. tragic for all involved. the loss of life in this accident and the floods in the midwest put my little train hobby in perspective.


----------



## Ryan

printman2000 said:


> Here is a direct link to the picture...
> 
> http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150220843043043&set=a.217016253042.136084.57221253042&type=1&theater
> 
> The damage on the second car is really high. I wonder if the trailer swung around and did that damage.


wow.

Just, wow.

I think that you're probably right, the trailer got the car behind the trans dorm...

When's the last time a collision of derailment killed someone on a Amtrak?


----------



## nolatron

This articles says people are/were trapped in the burning cars and that the truck driver and a Conductor died.

http://www.rgj.com/article/20110624/NEWS/110624012/Passengers-trapped-semi-truck-driver-Amtrak-conductor-killed-150-injured-Churchill-Co-crash-?odyssey=nav|head


----------



## Reno89502

Reno Fire Batallion Chief Tim Spencer said there were between three to four fatalities and unknown injuries at the scene.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Looks like they need some more fire extinguishers on these trains.

Have any upcoming purchases been designed with any sort of automated extinguisher technology?


----------



## Reno89502

Video from the scene.

http://www.kolotv.com/home/headlines/Semi_Truck_and_Amtrak_Train_Crash_124502874.html


----------



## Reno89502

LIVE newscast.

http://www.kolotv.com/


----------



## jb64

just terrible. Prayers for all those injured and families of those killed.


----------



## George B

I’m listening to live coverage, and a reporter on the scene says the crossing arms are down and undamaged.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Does Amtrak have insurance for this sort of thing or do they simply pay out all damages and lose the cars?


----------



## Rail Freak

Would I be correct that the smoke is coming from the truck and it's the 531 car thats the most damaged????


----------



## Gratt

WOW, this is terrible. Suffice it to say there will be a very big investigation into how this happened.

I hope all the passengers and crew come out ok from this, but it looks like that will not the case. I expect quite a few law suites to come from this, hopefully none of them will be aimed at Amtrak.

As for the train, I don't expect those two cars to ever see service again.

The Superliner equipment is just getting whittled down bit by bit


----------



## Shanghai

If the truck hit the train, I would think the truck would have the liability

and should cover the associated damages. I would also think Amtrak would have

uninsured insurance to cover non-recovered losses.


----------



## The Journalist

Yikes. The first commenter on that article pretty much sums up my reaction-how anyone fails to see a train in Churchill County is completely unclear. There's nothing for miles around besides these tracks. I'm thinking the driver had a medical event or was otherwise...hampered. I'll leave it at that.


----------



## Peter KG6LSE

wow .	I can t say much more ,but wow . 

I ride the CZ Very often .

what is so flammable in those cars . . that is NOT a small fire .

HEP Arcing ? or compressor "Freon" . luaggage is not That bad is it ?

Peter


----------



## Montanan

Peter KG6LSE said:


> what is so flammable in those cars . . that is NOT a small fire .
> 
> HEP Arcing ? or compressor "Freon" . luaggage is not That bad is it ?
> 
> Peter


I imagine the fuel tank on the truck exploded ...


----------



## The Davy Crockett

From the Chicago Tribune website:



> Marianne Tidwell, a Chicago resident, said her daughter is an attendant on the train and was standing near a coworker who was one of the people killed in the crash.
> 
> "She called me and said that the train had been hit," said Tidwell, another of whose daughters is a Tribune reporter. "It was a very bad accident, and her coworker was dead. She was just talking to her.
> 
> "I told her bad things happen to good people."


Here is a link to the article: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-2-killed-when-amtrak-train-from-chicago-hits-semi-20110624,0,2226228.story

My thoughts and prayers are with those who are suffering.


----------



## reefgeek

Oh no, just saw it on the ABC news! Yikes!


----------



## Amtrak George

Truck hits train: ABC evening news reports people still trapped. Conflicting reports are seen on the net. Some say a lot of non life threatening injuries. It looks like this is in the open desert, view unrestricted, at crossing of U S Highway 95 and it deffinetly has flashing signals. One report says it has gates. This was a gravel truck and I assume the fire came from the fuel on the truck. Looks like the trucker died, and at least one fatality on the train.

I have to travel the interstate a lot (no passenger trains from here to Nashville) and have had numerous close calls with big rigs, (often they appear to be falling asleep). This guy either was impaired, fell asleep or decided to try to beat the train.

Thoughts, prayers to passengers, crew and their families.


----------



## amamba

My heart goes out to everyone involved. What a tragedy.


----------



## Cho Cho Charlie

Montanan said:


> I imagine the fuel tank on the truck exploded ...


What type of truck was it? A tanker carrying fuel(gas)?

BTW, CNN has that the truck driver and two on-board Amtrak have died.


----------



## Exiled in Express

Newspaper is now reporting 4 deaths, truck driver, 2 passengers, and conductor.

Reno Gazette


----------



## Grandpa D

Cho Cho Charlie said:


> What type of truck was it? A tanker carrying fuel(gas)?


Reports I've read say it was a gravel hauler with two trailers. Both were empty.


----------



## The Chief

_Reno Gazette Journal _reports conductor dead. Detailed report.

Add map location.


----------



## guest

I've driven this stretch of US-95 before, and from what I recall the tracks and two lane highway run parallel for several miles before a grade crossing. I find it hard to believe that you can miss an Amtrak train--I saw a UP freight miles away even though it was drizzling!


----------



## HotlantaAl

Not 100% sure but from what I found online I think the location of the collision is below. Just cut and paste into Google Maps to see the street view:

39.895526,-118.752551


----------



## DET63

Semi collides with Ill. to Calif. Amtrak, 2 killed



> By MARTIN GRIFFITH
> 
> The Associated Press
> 
> 
> 
> RENO, Nev.
> 
> 
> 
> Two people were killed and about 20 others were injured in a fiery crash in rural Nevada when a semitrailer collided with an Amtrak passenger train.
> 
> 
> 
> An Amtrak spokesman says 204 passengers and 14 crew members were aboard the California Zephyr en route from Chicago to Emeryville, Calif., about 300 miles west of the crash site.
> 
> 
> 
> A Nevada Highway Patrol trooper says the big rig ran into the train around 11:25 a.m. Friday at a crossing on U.S. 95 about 70 miles east of Reno.
> 
> 
> 
> A spokesman for Renown Regional Medical Center in Reno says two people were in critical condition, four were in serious condition and three were in fair condition. The conditions of those taken to a hospital in Fallon were not immediately known.


Don't know how up-to-date this is, though. It seems to contradict other reports in this thread regarding the number killed.

On edit: I found a time stamp at the bottom of the article saying it was "Published: Friday, June 24, 2011 16:51 PDT"


----------



## The Journalist

PIctures from the site show a very burned-out Superliner:

Link to pictures

Wow. Incredible amount of force a speeding truck has if it can do this to a train car.


----------



## Ryan

Wow, those pictures were amazing...

Surprised to see the Navy helocopters - I guess this isn't too far from Fallon...


----------



## ScottC4746

According to ABC News at 6:30 PST, "traveling from Chicago to San Francisco" That would make it Train #5 and really going to Emeryville. Also a passanger said, "a coach was hit" Not sure if he is using coach as a class i.e. not a sleeper or coach as an uneducated name of the rolling stock thinking all cars are called coaches.


----------



## Reno89502

The destroyed cars are: 39013 Trans Dorm, 34033 Coach, and 35006 Coach.


----------



## RRrich

The CZ was hit by a semi hauling two empty gravel trailers. I assume the semi was carrying some diesel. Would that have been enough to cause the fires that destroyed three cars? What caused the fires?

Geeze, if Amtrak cars are that flammable do I really want to ride in one?


----------



## Michael061282

Anything is combustable, at the right tempreture. From the linens in the trans-dorm to the metal frame of the cars themselves, if it gets hot enough, it'll burn. a couple hundred gallons of fuel from truck is certainly enough to make things pretty dern hot.


----------



## The Chief

Nevada DPS (acting) director Chris Perry, on axy scene, says on KOLO that firefighters report "there are deceased in the two cars that have the largest amount of fire damage to them, we just don't know how many."


----------



## DET63

Even if the signals and gates were malfunctioning and the engineer failed to whistle for the crossing (unlikely to be the case), it still seems odd that the truck driver would have failed to notice the train, which presumably would have been in the crossing for a few seconds before it was struck by the truck.


----------



## Rider

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/06/24/3-killed-as-Amtrak-train-truck-collide/UPI-76781308951810/

This article is saying at least 5 died in the collision -


----------



## Rob_C

And those crossing gates look just fine. The truck had to drive around them, which isn't really that likely while sleep driving while a train is blaring its horn at you. (assuming they can verify that, which I suspect in time they will confirm one way or another). I know it's still early. But anyone else leaning towards suicide or something more sinister here?


----------



## lthanlon

Reno89502 said:


> Video from the scene.
> 
> http://www.kolotv.com/home/headlines/Semi_Truck_and_Amtrak_Train_Crash_124502874.html



"Semi-Truck vs Amtrak"?! What idiot writes a headline like that? People died, for crying out loud.


----------



## Rider

More: Interviews with several passengers:

http://www.rgj.com/article/20110624/NEWS/110624012/Two-confirmed-dead-dozens-injured-after-Amtrak-train-collides-gravel-truck-near-Fallon


----------



## George Harris

My guess is that the fire and smoke are where the front of the truck hit the train. The huge hole in the side of the next car is where the gravel trailer swung around and hit it. I see one poster said the truck was empty and somewhere else I saw it was loaded. The size of the hole in the side of the car would suggest loaded, but then we should be seeing gravel or rock of some sort all over the place, so looks like going with empty is the right answer.

Regardless, it would be difficult to find a crossing more wide open on both road and track.


----------



## SP&S

Rob_C said:


> And those crossing gates look just fine. The truck had to drive around them, which isn't really that likely while sleep driving while a train is blaring its horn at you. (assuming they can verify that, which I suspect in time they will confirm one way or another). I know it's still early. But anyone else leaning towards suicide or something more sinister here?


Way, way, way too early for speculation like that. And anyway; if you wanted to attack a train, there are far easier ways to do it.

I believe the track limit there was 79 mph and the highway's limit was 70. I'm not surprised there's so little left of the truck, but the damage to the coaches is astounding - there's a pair of Superliners that are far beyond rebuilding. Tragic. My prayers are with those killed, injured, and shaken.


----------



## Michael061282

It does seem to be odd that the truck struck train, not the other way around. I'm really hoping it wasn't anything intentional, be it suicide or whatever. We may never know, but something about this just doesn't seem right.


----------



## Rider

I am puzzling over the fact that the train was 2 or 3 cars into the crossing, the truck hit it, yet the crossing arms are intact. Hopefully NTSB and other investigators can make sense of it all through whatever evidence is available.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

RRrich said:


> Geeze, if Amtrak cars are that flammable do I really want to ride in one?


Maybe we should add "fire extinguisher" to the list of things folks should bring with them. I never saw a single reference, image, or video of anyone trying to put out the fires. I did see photos of cars simply left to burn themselves out, possibly trapping and killing passengers in the process. Even if Amtrak has insurance nobody is selling Superliners anymore. They just lost two or three more cars they'll never get back. I guess they either don't have extinguishers or have no clue how to use them.


----------



## The Journalist

I'm thinking the fire extinguishers they have are meant for things like a seat catching fire, and would be vastly overwhelmed by a diesel explosion.


----------



## NorthCoastHiawatha

The west is just a mess, floods, wildfires, now a collision, a breather would be nice. Earlier today the status map was a sea of red and yellow, the corridors being the only exception.


----------



## George B

Texas Sunset said:


> RRrich said:
> 
> 
> 
> Geeze, if Amtrak cars are that flammable do I really want to ride in one?
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe we should add "fire extinguisher" to the list of things folks should bring with them. I never saw a single reference, image, or video of anyone trying to put out the fires. I did see photos of cars simply left to burn themselves out, possibly trapping and killing passengers in the process. Even if Amtrak has insurance nobody is selling Superliners anymore. They just lost two or three more cars they'll never get back. I guess they either don't have extinguishers or have no clue how to use them.
Click to expand...

Nothing short of a slurry bomber or a pumper would have been able to stop a fire like that once it started. Even fighting a fire fueled by a couple of gallons of spilled fuel is very hard to fight with an extinguisher. Amtrak has extinguishers in the cars, but by far the best thing to do is to just get everybody off the train. Encouraging employees or passengers to try and fight the fire leads to costly lawsuits. In all honesty, most people don’t know how to properly fight a fire with an extinguisher anyway.


----------



## me

I road this train just a few weeks ago, and the train was carrying 4 sleeper cars all at the front of the train between the baggage car and the dinning car. The last 4 cars on the train were coach seating. So from these pictures I would believe the destroyed cars were sleepers unless they changed the line-up.


----------



## Michael061282

I agree with The Journalist. Fire extinguishers were have been totally useless in this situation.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Yeah, why bother, everything's useless. I just hope there are some more positive minded folks on the train if I'm ever in a situation like this. I do find the flammability of the Superliners to be rather surprising though. You hear about US passenger trains having so many regulations, but in this area they seem to be lacking something.


----------



## Jean

While agreeing with the poster who said almost anything is flammable in the right circumstances, I believe, in general, diesel is not highly flammable, especially in a spilled state, as it requires compression to ignite. Do trucks of this type use gas (petrol)? This would indeed be highly flammable.

Jean


----------



## Rider

As an earlier post says, anything is flammable at high temperatures. Fabrics and other materials are specified as "flame-retardant", not "fire-proof." While I agree there should be more fire extinguishers on board than I have seen, a sudden burst of fire from a diesel fuel spillage directly into the interior of the car is not something one or two held-held extinguishers is likely to do much for. Passengers reported feeling and hearing a collision and immediately seeing flames rushing past their window. Too late to do much except try to evacuate, I'm afraid.


----------



## Rider

Diesel fuel is not explosive as gasoline is, but it IS highly flammable. It is quite similar to kerosene; nearly identical to home heating oil. It is not at all difficult to ignite.


----------



## Shanghai

I listened to the local NY / NJ morning radio show this morning and heard

the news item regarding the CZ train accident in Nevada. The new caster

said the Amtrak train hit the truck killing 5 people. I immediately called

the radio station (WOR) and spoke with a man in the news department and

informed him that the truck hit the train, not the train hit the truck.

He thanked me for the call and said they will futher investigate and change

the next news cast.


----------



## AlanB

Texas Sunset said:


> Yeah, why bother, everything's useless. I just hope there are some more positive minded folks on the train if I'm ever in a situation like this. I do find the flammability of the Superliners to be rather surprising though. You hear about US passenger trains having so many regulations, but in this area they seem to be lacking something.


GeorgeB's post #62 was hidden at the time you made your post, but George is correct in what he says. Bringing a fire extinguisher to a fire like that pretty much is hopeless. You might just as well bring a bucket of water to put out the wild fires in the Southwest. That extinguisher is one's first line of defense to keep a small fire from becoming a big fire. My guess is that things on that train went from dead calm to conflagration in a matter of seconds. And that would be well beyond any extinguisher's capacity to put out. Frankly you'd be lucky to even be able to get close enough due to the immense heat to use the extinguisher.

In a situation like that, the extinguishers would actually be better saved for trying to put out flames on any passengers escaping from the burning coaches. Or maybe, just maybe you could try to keep the next coach from catching fire. But even with all the extinguishers on the train combined, and that would be 11 or 12, the crew would not be able to put out that fire.


----------



## jis

Besides I doubt that the flammability of the Superliners is the primary issue here. Almost anything will burn nicely if it is sprayed with flammable liquid and then lit. Afterall that is how one starts any fire including in a Bar-B-Q fire pit.

So it looks like a Trans-Dorm and a Coach is off the roster at least for a while if not forever. Sigh....


----------



## Ryan

Texas Sunset said:


> Yeah, why bother, everything's useless. I just hope there are some more positive minded folks on the train if I'm ever in a situation like this. I do find the flammability of the Superliners to be rather surprising though. You hear about US passenger trains having so many regulations, but in this area they seem to be lacking something.


You know, that's really taking the "woe is Amtrak, everything sucks" attitude just a little bit too far. With a collision and fire of that magnitude, fire extinguishers were absolutely worthless You can see in some of those pictures that the firefighters involved were wearing their silver reflective "hot potato" suits because of the size and heat of the fire.

Here we are less than 24 hours after people have been killed, it's WAY too early to start playing armchair internet quarterback and start making sweeping statements indicting Amtrak over the supposed flammability of the train cars and lack of fire extinguishers.

How about you show a little bit of respect, let the professionals do their work, and once there are some answers and conclusions you can throw all the criticism at the right parties.

A far as the undamaged gates go, maybe those pictures are from the other side of the train. Again, until there are a little more facts, it's a little premature to break out the "Jump to Conclusions" mat.


----------



## bombcar

Yeah, with a fire that big, if you can move, you get out; you don't fight it with a hand-held extinguisher.

I'm not sure a train-wide surpression system would have been able to do much.


----------



## Everydaymatters

OMG! I just got off the phone and a family member who was part of the crew on that train is in the hospital. He'll be ok and the crew is being flown back to Chi today.

What I heard was horrible, but I was asked not elaborate. Sorry. Just know it has me shaking inside.

Terribly sorry for all involved.

Betty


----------



## Tumbleweed

bombcar said:


> Yeah, with a fire that big, if you can move, you get out; you don't fight it with a hand-held extinguisher.
> 
> I'm not sure a train-wide surpression system would have been able to do much.


Yes, the old saying "Pick your battles" applies here.......


----------



## GG-1

Aloha

In my career in theater/movies we use Diesel fuel to have controled fire effects. there is no way a hand held extinguisher can put out that much burning fuel. Also considering the impact speed the trucks tank ruptures would have sprayed that fuel all over the cars. The important action get away from the fire as fast as possible.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

Diesel fuel flash point is 80 plus, unlike gasoline which flash at -20. Darn sure it was above 80 at the time of the accident.

Saw some pic with an airport crash rescue truck in it. That an sure sign of an big hot fire, if they calling in an airport unit to spay foam on it.

Diesel fuel take an bit to burn, but then burn hot, no issue with the local fire dept, they seem to have an good plan, but that first unit on scene would have a need to change there underwear. This one would be a life time event for there department.

I going to be look for an after action from these guys in the fire/ems side of the house. Airport crash rescue, Navy helicopters. Someone earn there paycheck this day. Job well done.


----------



## printman2000

me said:


> I road this train just a few weeks ago, and the train was carrying 4 sleeper cars all at the front of the train between the baggage car and the dinning car. The last 4 cars on the train were coach seating. So from these pictures I would believe the destroyed cars were sleepers unless they changed the line-up.


They changed the lineup. The second car was clearly a coach.


----------



## printman2000

Several people have commented that the crossing gates were still intact. Could the gates you have seen been the gates from the opposite side of the train?


----------



## Guest

Amazing the train took that kind of side impact yet never derailed.


----------



## Amtrak George

NEWS COVERAGE: I am seeing wildly conflicting reports on the net. Some say 2 dead some 5, some say up to 45 bodies still not accounted for. I hope and pray this last statement is wrong. This thing is a real gut wrencher. Gotta pray for all concerned and their families.

One report says a trucker behind this trucker saw the gates down, saw the gravel truck speeding towards the crossing, saw it brake just before impact. Distracted driving?

Minor compared to the deaths and injuries but still critical is Amtrak has lost 2 or 3 cars here and will be having difficulty covering their full consists.

A real tragedy all the way around :angry:


----------



## RCrierie

Amtrak should take this opportunity to literally atom-bomb the owner/operator of this truck into oblivion, seize their assets and then sell the trucking company off to pay for Superliner replacements.

This is criminal negligence on a scale I haven't seen in a while -- the truck went through a crossing with the flashers AND gates down into the side of a passenger train.


----------



## GG-1

Aloha

Las Vegas news 3 just reported the truck "may" have been carrying Diesel Fuel. I would think even a high school student would know a diesel truck uses diesel fuel.


----------



## Rider

Is there in fact a "black box" train operation recording device of some kind carried in the engine(s)? I saw a reference to such a thing in one of the many news articles I have been reading about this accident.

In other articles, it has been said "it is not certain if the engineer had time to sound his horn" (paraphrased) - I believe the normal and required procedure is to sound the horn (long long short long) at all grade crossings - I'm wondering if some kind of recorder would be available to verify if this indeed took place.

In fact with the modern track signaling in use, one wonders if there is an automatic system that detects the approach to crossings and sounds the horn accordingly. (Somehow I doubt this as I have observed many times that engineers often have their own distinctive rhythms in sounding the horn.)


----------



## Rob_C

This image clearly shows both gates down and intact. (which is a minor miracle considering the trailer and cab had to have some serious lateral movement during the accident.) If the truck plowed through one of them, it would clearly be bent or broken.


----------



## Grandpa D

Guest said:


> Amazing the train took that kind of side impact yet never derailed.


My thought also. But by looking at the skid marks on the highway and the positions of the tractor and trailers of the truck it could be s/he was making a desperate attempt to stop and when that was not possible made a left turn off the highway, still trying to avoid hitting the train. The tractor struck a sideways blow to the transdorm and the first, and smaller, trailer hit the coach. The rear trailer had already broken loose and sat sideways on the highway. The angle of the impact plus the slowing of the truck by braking, turning, and the rough desert surface probably kept the train from derailing. Also in that scenario no parts of the truck hit the crossing arms.


----------



## pennyk

Betty, my thoughts are with your family member and everyone else involved. Ryan, I agree with what you said in your last post 100%.


----------



## Everydaymatters

I have heard there were 5 fatalities.


----------



## Amtrak George

When I worked for the RR in the 70's there were some locos with event recorders but IIRC they recorded speed, braking etc., but not the whistle. Now some locos actually have cameras as well that record video and audio.

Regardless, in this case there will be plenty of witnesses on the train, perhaps on the highway, that the whistle was blowing. Furthermore, legally it shouldn't make any difference when the gates were down, the lights were flashing before the engs entered the crossing., view was unobstructed, and this guy apparently wasn't even looking.


----------



## Grannie_Roz

Grandpa D said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing the train took that kind of side impact yet never derailed.
> 
> 
> 
> My thought also. But by looking at the skid marks on the highway and the positions of the tractor and trailers of the truck it could be s/he was making a desperate attempt to stop and when that was not possible made a left turn off the highway, still trying to avoid hitting the train. The tractor struck a sideways blow to the transdorm and the first, and smaller, trailer hit the coach. The rear trailer had already broken loose and sat sideways on the highway. The angle of the impact plus the slowing of the truck by braking, turning, and the rough desert surface probably kept the train from derailing. Also in that scenario no parts of the truck hit the crossing arms.
Click to expand...

I was just about to write something similar. I am in complete agreement with your analysis. My guess is that the driver was probably fiddling with something (radio, cd player, mp3 player, cellphone, texting, map, who knows?), heard the train whistle, looked up and realized how close he was to the crossing. At that point, the instinct is to hit the brakes. From the chatter of the skid marks, the brakes may have locked. His swerving cab clipped the gate (it looks like maybe a 3 or 4' chunk is missing) and slammed into the train left of center. If he hadn't slammed on his brakes, the force of the collision would probably caused a derailment. So a distracted driver is the most likely cause of this accident.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Ryan said:


> Texas Sunset said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, why bother, everything's useless. I just hope there are some more positive minded folks on the train if I'm ever in a situation like this. I do find the flammability of the Superliners to be rather surprising though. You hear about US passenger trains having so many regulations, but in this area they seem to be lacking something.
> 
> 
> 
> You know, that's really taking the "woe is Amtrak, everything sucks" attitude just a little bit too far.
Click to expand...

Um, the "everything's useless" comment was nothing more than sarcasm. The rest of the post is my honest surprise at how well Superliners burn. It was such a large area on fire that at first it seemed inherent flammability might have been a substantial part of the problem. However, in retrospect if you imagine the truck hitting the train with enough force the fuel could become more explosive than usual as it became atomized. With the truck hitting the side of a fast moving train the fuel-air mixture could cover a large area in very little time as the train flew by. That alone could explain the huge fire we saw in the pictures.

What remains to be discovered is the root cause. I saw folks referring to a stroke or heart attack or a suicide but the one theory that made the most sense to me was distracted driving. At this early stage that seems to fit the best in my view and it follows a long pattern of previous events involving truckers inadvertently causing enormous harm.


----------



## The Chief

●  Local newspaper, _big_ photo album of crash site.

● Reports say NTSB press conference scheduled for today Saturday.

● Reports say Amtrak supposed to make statement today Saturday on unaccounted-for PAX.

● Reports today concur with Friday's DPS Director interview statement that bodies still may be in PAX cars.

● Again, here's the map link.

This is a good time for _us_ to reflect on our own emergency plans and possible contributions on board Amtrak (or commuter rail) in event of any emergency, or catastrophe -- God forbid -- during our future travels. To those who much has been given, much is expected. With our familiarity, insight, interest and intelligence, many of us on this site could really help during an on-board situation when seconds count.

Edit note: * Photos show locos uncoupled during fire, smart move by crew.


----------



## DET63

Rob_C said:


> This image clearly shows both gates down and intact. (which is a minor miracle considering the trailer and cab had to have some serious lateral movement during the accident.) If the truck plowed through one of them, it would clearly be bent or broken.


If the gates came down after the accident, it wouldn't prove much of anything. Still, given that there are no hills or trees (only sagebrush or whatever grows out in the arid desert) in the area, it's hard to believe the truck driver, assuming he (I assume it was a man) was paying attention to what he was doing, would not have noticed the train in time to stop EVEN IF the gates and signals failed _and _the engineer failed to whistle for the crossing (none of which I consider likely). I hope there was a video cam on the locomotive to verify whether the signals were functioning properly, that the engineer sounded his horn properly, etc.

As for suing the trucking company for the damages to the Superliners, don't be surprised if the company files for bankruptcy, or lacks much in tangible or liquid assets to take.


----------



## rrdude

Texas Sunset said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sunset said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, why bother, everything's useless. I just hope there are some more positive minded folks on the train if I'm ever in a situation like this. I do find the flammability of the Superliners to be rather surprising though. You hear about US passenger trains having so many regulations, but in this area they seem to be lacking something.
> 
> 
> 
> You know, that's really taking the "woe is Amtrak, everything sucks" attitude just a little bit too far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Um, the "everything's useless" comment was nothing more than sarcasm. The rest of the post is my honest surprise at how well Superliners burn. It was such a large area on fire that at first it seemed inherent flammability might have been a substantial part of the problem. * However, in retrospect if you imagine the truck hitting the train with enough force the fuel could become more explosive than usual as it became atomized. * With the truck hitting the side of a fast moving train the fuel-air mixture could cover a large area in very little time as the train flew by. That alone could explain the huge fire we saw in the pictures.
> 
> What remains to be discovered is the root cause. I saw folks referring to a stroke or heart attack or a suicide but the one theory that made the most sense to me was distracted driving. At this early stage that seems to fit the best in my view and it follows a long pattern of previous events involving truckers inadvertently causing enormous harm.
Click to expand...

This first-person account sure speaks to this theory.

"As I looked up, I saw the train being ripped up. It created an opening in our car," Ortiz told the Lahontan Valley News & Fallon Eagle Standard newspaper in Fallon. "I saw the flames come over the windows of the side, like a quick flash of flames. Then smoked filled up everything. There was some screaming."


----------



## The Chief

10:40 a.m. update: Amtrak trains in both directions will detour through Winnemucca and Portola today ((Saturday)) to avoid the scene of a fatal crash on Friday near Lovelock.

Amtrak spokesman Steve Kulm said westbound the Amtrak train that left Chicago on Thursday will detour off the regular Union Pacific line at Winnemucca and go through Portola before rejoining the regular line again in Roseville.

Customers bound for Reno, Truckee or Colfax will get rides to their destinations from Portola, Kulm said.

The eastbound train leaving Emeryville near San Francisco today will take the same route and the Reno, Truckee and Colfax customers will be transported from Portola, he said.


----------



## RPE

Rider said:


> Is there in fact a "black box" train operation recording device of some kind carried in the engine(s)? I saw a reference to such a thing in one of the many news articles I have been reading about this accident.
> 
> In other articles, it has been said "it is not certain if the engineer had time to sound his horn" (paraphrased) - I believe the normal and required procedure is to sound the horn (long long short long) at all grade crossings - I'm wondering if some kind of recorder would be available to verify if this indeed took place.
> 
> In fact with the modern track signaling in use, one wonders if there is an automatic system that detects the approach to crossings and sounds the horn accordingly. (Somehow I doubt this as I have observed many times that engineers often have their own distinctive rhythms in sounding the horn.)




Yes. The engines have an Event Recorder. It would record the speed and any use of the Horn on the train. The use of the horn is not automatic, as some communities have Anti-whistiling by laws and the horn is not used at some designated crossings. (At least that is true in Canada)


----------



## Tumbleweed

Let us pray that this tragedy will help to increase the awareness of RR crossings and the inherent dangers associated with them......


----------



## rrdude

Tumbleweed said:


> Let us pray that this tragedy will help to increase the awareness of RR crossings and the inherent dangers associated with them......


All the previous grade-crossing collisions haven't yet, so if I were a betting man........................

I doubt in the middle of the dessert there are any "community restrictions on horns." Even when there are restrictions in place, the engineer, when sensing a motorist is "cutting it a little too close" will usually lay on the horn....

Hopefully there were some railfans on board with their camcorders running..........


----------



## Dan O

Were there any skid marks on the pavement or dirt that may have indicated the driver attempted to stop?

Dan


----------



## rrdude

Dan O said:


> Were there any skid marks on the pavement or dirt that may have indicated the driver attempted to stop?
> 
> Dan


YES, but FAR TOO CLOSE, in no way enuff distance. So, _*speculating*_, that removes the suicide option. I'm placing my bets on "Distracted Driving". Find the cell phone records, and POOF! At about the same time that the Amtrak even-recorder indicates the train went into emergency, there were text messages rec/sent on the deceased drivers phone.......*speculation.*


----------



## Ryan

I haven't seen any of these pictures with skid marks?


----------



## rrdude

Ryan said:


> I haven't seen any of these pictures with skid marks?


Nor I, was reading reports, but can't find the dang report now. Possible retract.
EDIT: From one of the online versions of a FOX report.

Investigators at the scene about 70 miles east of Reno found skid marks at the railroad crossing on U.S. 95, indicating the driver tried to stop his semitrailer before Friday’s crash, Nevada Highway Patrol Trooper Dan Lopez said.


----------



## amtrakwolverine

From the LA times http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-naw-amtrak-truck-crash-20110625,1,3448100.story



> Witnesses told authorities that the truck didn't seem to attempt to stop at the crossing when it crashed through the gate.





> Federal authorities plan to look into the driving and medical records of the semitrailer driver who died when the truck slammed into an Amtrak train, killing a train crew member and injuring dozens of passengers.


Could have been a medical problem or the driver was over tired and fell asleep at the wheel.So far it does not appear to be intentional or a act or terror.


----------



## Cristobal

Every time that I see one of these grade crossing accidents I can't help but think that at least some of them may have been caused by people misjudging the speed of an Amtrak train because they are so used to seeing a much slower (and longer) freight train. Was that the case here? We may never know...

Thoughts and prayers to all those affected by this tragic event.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

amtrakwolverine said:


> Could have been a medical problem or the driver was over tired and fell asleep at the wheel.So far it does not appear to be intentional or a act or terror.


Doesn't sound intentional to me either.

Last second strokes and heart attacks that result in this kind of inescapable carnage are relatively rare, but wrecks caused by irresponsible folks driving under the influence of drugs or dozing off at the wheel or wasting their mental alertness on phone calls and text messages are extremely common.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Hopefully SOMEONE??? Will Issue an Official Announcement with True Details SOON, Speculation and Misinformation is Rampant and for Sure Amtrak Isn't Going to Tell us Anything Useful! :help:

They Don't Have to Release any Names till Next of Kin have been Notified etc. (we Know the Conductor, her Picture has Even Been Shown on trainorders  ) but We Shouldn't have to Depend on the Internet to Get Valid and Invalid Information on this Tragedy! :wacko: Of Course the Cause/Contributing Factors etc. will Take A Long Time to Be Known, the Government Moves Very Slowly as We Know, but in the Meantime Please Put Out a Statement with the KNOWN Facts! :help:


----------



## GaSteve

Cristobal said:


> Every time that I see one of these grade crossing accidents I can't help but think that at least some of them may have been caused by people misjudging the speed of an Amtrak train because they are so used to seeing a much slower (and longer) freight train. Was that the case here? We may never know...
> 
> Thoughts and prayers to all those affected by this tragic event.


You have a point, but this would seem to be a pretty high-speed stretch of rail and even freights would be making 59mph or better. The recording on the locomotive will tell how fast Amtrak was going.

And, I'll bet that driver had crossed it many times before. Sadly, he won't cross here again.


----------



## Grannie_Roz

rrdude said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't seen any of these pictures with skid marks?
> 
> 
> 
> Nor I, was reading reports, but can't find the dang report now. Possible retract.
Click to expand...


See image #11 of this slideshow


----------



## Grandpa D

Ryan said:


> I haven't seen any of these pictures with skid marks?


Pictures

Number 17 of 38.


----------



## afigg

DET63 said:


> Rob_C said:
> 
> 
> 
> This image clearly shows both gates down and intact. (which is a minor miracle considering the trailer and cab had to have some serious lateral movement during the accident.) If the truck plowed through one of them, it would clearly be bent or broken.
> 
> 
> 
> If the gates came down after the accident, it wouldn't prove much of anything. Still, given that there are no hills or trees (only sagebrush or whatever grows out in the arid desert) in the area, it's hard to believe the truck driver, assuming he (I assume it was a man) was paying attention to what he was doing, would not have noticed the train in time to stop EVEN IF the gates and signals failed _and _the engineer failed to whistle for the crossing (none of which I consider likely). I hope there was a video cam on the locomotive to verify whether the signals were functioning properly, that the engineer sounded his horn properly, etc.
Click to expand...

Looks like both gates are still there. It is possible that if the truck driver slammed on his brakes at the last second, he swerved to the left in a frantic attempt to miss the train coming from his right and the point of impact was on the left hand side of the road. The photos and videos at the Reno Gazette Journal website, which are quite extensive, indicate that is where the point of impact was. Then when the truck cab and first gravel bed slammed into the train, they got pushed to the left side of the intersection (from the truck drivers side) and thus missed hitting the gate.

The truck must have been going at a pretty good clip. There is a quote in the RGJ from a local tow truck operator is that they could not find the engine block or hood from the truck and thinks they are embedded in the train car. How fast does a truck have to be going to punch through the side of a Superliner likely moving at 70 itself?!? The damaged Superliners have been sealed off for the investigation, so that is why there is uncertainty as to where all the trucks parts ended up. From the photos, there is almost nothing recognizable left as a truck cab except for two axles with tires and scattered pieces. The force of the impact may have rammed the diesel fuel tanks on the truck into the train car and thus they were the source of the fireball given the sheer energy of the collision.

The video camera on the train should confirm whether the gates were down, lights were flashing, and how long before the collision the gates went down. The video may also provide information about the force of the impact from how much it jumped in the lead engine. If the truck was of fairly recent vintage, there could be recorded information in the engine electronics box, but that could well have been destroyed in the collision and subsequent fire.

The picture of the crossing gate makes it clear that this was not a minor grade crossing with only a couple of cross-bucks and flashing lights. There were gates and overhead red flashing lights. Hard to miss. Lots of questions the NTSB and police will have to determine as what was going on with the truck driver that may be impossible to fully answer.


----------



## The Davy Crockett

Jean said:


> While agreeing with the poster who said almost anything is flammable in the right circumstances, I believe, in general, diesel is not highly flammable, especially in a spilled state, as it requires compression to ignite. Do trucks of this type use gas (petrol)? This would indeed be highly flammable.
> 
> Jean



I've witnessed diesel in the tanks on an Amtrak engine quite literally explode - just like a bomb going off - upon collision impact. There was a huge fireball and it caused the lead car of the MARC train it hit, to burn until there was almost nothing left. So while maybe not as volatile as gasoline, it could have easily ignited.


----------



## Ryan

Thanks, I hadn't seen the aerial set of pictures.

Of course, who's to say that they weren't there beforehand.

I've also seen nothing to suggest any reason to believe accident/medical/intentional/etc, either.

I think it's going to be a long time (if ever) before we know what the full story is.


----------



## Ryan

The Davy Crockett said:


> Jean said:
> 
> 
> 
> While agreeing with the poster who said almost anything is flammable in the right circumstances, I believe, in general, diesel is not highly flammable, especially in a spilled state, as it requires compression to ignite. Do trucks of this type use gas (petrol)? This would indeed be highly flammable.
> 
> Jean
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've witnessed diesel in the tanks on an Amtrak engine quite literally explode - just like a bomb going off - upon collision impact. There was a huge fireball and it caused the lead car of the MARC train it hit, to burn until there was almost nothing left. So while maybe not as volatile as gasoline, it could have easily ignited.
Click to expand...

Yep, the Capitol Limited/MARC collision and resulting fire was one of the first things that I thought of.


----------



## afigg

Grandpa D said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't seen any of these pictures with skid marks?
> 
> 
> 
> Pictures
> 
> Number 17 of 38.
Click to expand...

Hard to tell from the photos if those are new or old skid marks. Or a mix of several new ones and some old ones.


----------



## GG-1

Aloha

The last two post had linked photos that were the best yet. But the captions bother me. about half of them state the train hit the truck and half say the truck hit the train. Somehow one would think the report would be consistent within a report.


----------



## The Davy Crockett

Ryan said:


> The Davy Crockett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jean said:
> 
> 
> 
> While agreeing with the poster who said almost anything is flammable in the right circumstances, I believe, in general, diesel is not highly flammable, especially in a spilled state, as it requires compression to ignite. Do trucks of this type use gas (petrol)? This would indeed be highly flammable.
> 
> Jean
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've witnessed diesel in the tanks on an Amtrak engine quite literally explode - just like a bomb going off - upon collision impact. There was a huge fireball and it caused the lead car of the MARC train it hit, to burn until there was almost nothing left. So while maybe not as volatile as gasoline, it could have easily ignited.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep, the Capitol Limited/MARC collision and resulting fire was one of the first things that I thought of.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I'm talking about. I find the images from this wreck disturbingly familiar.


----------



## afigg

jimhudson said:


> Hopefully SOMEONE??? Will Issue an Official Announcement with True Details SOON, Speculation and Misinformation is Rampant and for Sure Amtrak Isn't Going to Tell us Anything Useful! :help:
> 
> They Don't Have to Release any Names till Next of Kin have been Notified etc. (we Know the Conductor, her Picture has Even Been Shown on trainorders  ) but We Shouldn't have to Depend on the Internet to Get Valid and Invalid Information on this Tragedy! :wacko: Of Course the Cause/Contributing Factors etc. will Take A Long Time to Be Known, the Government Moves Very Slowly as We Know, but in the Meantime Please Put Out a Statement with the KNOWN Facts! :help:


The latest update from the Reno Gazette Journal (obviously local time):

"1:55 p.m. update: There are more bodies in the train.

Dan Lopez, spokesman for the Nevada Highway Patrol, said officials have been trying to get into the burnt cars to pull the bodies out, but they’ve been hindered by structural instability.

He said authorities doesn’t know how many bodies are still in the passenger cars, and won’t know until they get access."

So that is why still no official final count of the number of dead. This was a very bad accident followed by an intense fire. The on-scene investigation and coroner's work could take some time.


----------



## Rider

Another thought on the sudden ignition and very rapid spread of the fire:

From the photos (smoke) it looks as there is a strong wind - say, 20 mph - blowing from West to East. That coupled with the fact that the train was (at first) heading into the wind at say 60 mph (slowing rapidly after impact, true) could have given apparent wind speed of up to 80 mph for a few seconds, fanning the flames intensely. Fuel + heat + oxygen = combustion. In this instance, large amounts of each -


----------



## DET63

GG-1 said:


> Aloha
> 
> The last two post had linked photos that were the best yet. But the captions bother me. about half of them state the train hit the truck and half say the truck hit the train. Somehow one would think the report would be consistent within a report.


I noticed that too. I would be reluctant to consider a caption to a photo to be a reliable source of information about anything.


----------



## DET63

If there are a lot of skid marks, whether from this incident or from earlier near-misses, would they justify a grade separation? US 95 may be a two-lane rural highway, but it is one of the main arteries from Las Vegas to northern Nevada.


----------



## George Harris

So far there seems to be some good analysis here, plus a good exposition of ignorance in some area.

Here is what I get out of what I see in the pictures and the map plus some things pulled out of what others have said here. There is quite a bit here that comes out of what people know from their own interests and professions that help in understanding what happened.

Location on the railroad: About milepost 318.6. Somebody should be able to give that more exactly since it can be read off the housing at the road crossing. It appears from Google Maps to be about 4/10 mile west of the west end of Ocala siding, which is at milepost 319.0. From the 2005 ETT, the speed limit here is 79P/70F. Given the terrain, all trains not using the siding, freight and passenger should be going fairly fast. The speed in the siding is shown as being 20 mph, so a train entering or leaving the siding would be going fairly slowbut this is CTC territory, so there is no stop to throw the switch involved.

Location on the highway: South of the crossing the highway is more or less parallel to the railroad, but not close, probably about 1/4 mile east of the railroad. Before the crossing, there is a large radius curve to the left and the crossing is just north of the end of the curve.

First, this is a fairly low angle crossing, somewhere around 35 to 45 degrees. The truck was going northbound on US95, which in this area means pretty well due north after running parallel to the railroad. The train was going westbound (obviously), which in this area means southwest. Therefore, they were near facing each other. In fact, given the openess of the country, the headlight of the train should have been in sight of the truck before he entered the curve that is in advance of the crossing.

This leaves us with two scenarios: One, that the truck driver say the train and tried to beat it. That would seem irrational, to say the least, as the time of observation that he would have had would tell him that the train was moving fast. Two, and somewhat more reasonable to consider that the truck driver was unaware until he saw the headlight, or, maybe heard the horn. Whether he was distracted or had headphones on a loud engine, who knows. Anything said in this area is completely speculation, and useless at this time. Suffice to say, when he did become aware, he swerved to the left. That would be the natural reaction when perceiving a threat from the left. He would probably have made the situation better by swerving right, but that would be an unnatural reaction, and there was no time at all for thought.

Second: With the crossing angle, at best the angle of impact would be somewhere in the 45 degree to 60 degree range. That would give a closing speed of around 110 mph or greater.

Third: Given the closing speed, the front part of the cab including engine, and probably fuel tanks, would almost certainly have ended up inside the car they hit. It would not be surprising to find that some parts of the front of the truck went clear through the car.

Fourth: Given this impact, the total fuel in the truck ended up inside and splashed underneath the car. I would go with inside, as there is no evidence in the pictures I have seen of fuel on the roadbed in the vicinity of the crossing, which would be the case if any significant quantity went under the car. Likewise, there is no evidence of fire inside or under the train beyond this one car.

Fifth: The smoke and flames say diesel fuel fire plus combustion of diesel fuel soaked car furnishings and contents. Someone else probably could give a better quantity, but I would say somewhere between 50 and 200 gallons of diesel fuel were involved. The fire has nothing to do with the relative flamability of the vehicle or contents. Some of what we see in the pictures is evidence of melted metal. For the passengers and crew to do anything about this fire other that put as much distance as they could between the fire and themselves would be an act of stupidity. In my opinion, the presence or absence of fire extinguishers, a fire fighting plan, or anything else on the train, including the materials in the car and an on-board fire supression system is completely irrelevant to the situation.

Sixth: The large hole in the side of the car behind the car on fire was caused by the first trailer coming around and slamming up against the car.

Seventh: The train did not derail because the point of impact was between the trucks. If one of the wheelsets of the train had been hit by the truck a derailment would have been a near certainty.

I have not looked much yet today for further information on injuries / deaths, but being on the upper level of the car hit by the trailer and on the side the trailer hit would almost certain result in serious injury or death. Like wise, being on the lower level of the car hit by the front end of the truck would be nearly a death sentence. Being on the upper level would not be so good, either.

Seeing pictures taken shortly after the accident, the engines were not detached immediately. That apparently came quite a bit later.


----------



## dlagrua

Just got back in after 24 hours away and read the tragic and sad news. I just hope that when the final count is in, the fatalities will be few. This has to be the work of an overtired/exhausted, or drugged out driver who faculties were impared or it could have been a legitimate medical condition like diabetes or seizures that caused the driver to pass out. Texting maybe, but its almost impossible to miss the loud sound of a diesel horn and how can you not see a train right in front of you? Texting should not be at fault because that far out in the desert, cell service is very sparce. Lets see what the findings of the NTSB report are.

If there is good news, it is that most of the passengers came out of this accident unharmed or with minor injuries. That probably would not have happened in an airline going down in the desert.


----------



## printman2000

Grandpa D said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't seen any of these pictures with skid marks?
> 
> 
> 
> Pictures
> 
> Number 17 of 38.
Click to expand...

Picture 20 actually called the train an "Amtrak vacation train."


----------



## Rider

It is looking worse. I hate to seem obsessive about this but for some reason, since I was on that train a week ago, I am following it.

http://www.rgj.com/article/20110625/NEWS/110624030/Amtrak+train+crash+++Multiple+passenger+deaths+++truck+driver+tried+to+brake


----------



## Ryan

Thanks George for that comprehensive post.


----------



## The Journalist

I meant to get today's paper. The front-page headline was something like "Fire, carnage at Amtrak train crash site." Says clearly under that that the truck hit the train.


----------



## sunchaser

This is really bad-


----------



## RailFanLNK

I just received a phone call from my church and the trip leader for the Singles Amtrak trip to GSC in July can't make the meeting tomorrow due to a medical emergency of his mother so the Director from our church knew that I would be very knowledgeable about Amtrak and Glenwood Springs. I looking forward to "subbing" but I know this accident is going to have all the folks going on the trip very nervous. Wish me luck, I'm trying to prepare for a 2 hour orientation of a trip I'm not going on in 2 hours! My thoughts and prayers go out to all of the families involved in this.


----------



## oldtimer

Ryan said:


> Thanks George for that comprehensive post.



I must agree a very concise analytical post. Thank You George!

The skid marks do not show much even if they were made by the truck. The length of the tractor and two trailers and the coupling between the trailers it may be possible that when the tractor made the initial impact the air brakes would set with the initial loss of pressure and the marks could have been produced by the last bogie of the last trailer.

As for the fire, I was in the cab of the United Aircraft Turbotrain on July 20th 1973 when we ran a red signal at 95 mph. I was beating on the engineer's shoulder as we approached the signal with no response until he finally made an emergency application after we passed the signal. We struck a freight train crossing over from our track to the adjoining track at an actual impact speed of 74-76 mph as observed by myself. The fuel tanks were topped off an Montreal approximately 10 miles east of the site in Lachine Quebec. The fuel tanks were also lined with a bladder were compressed by the end sill of the second or third car of the freight train we struck and sprayed fuel. The fire that ensued was also horrific, like the Zephyr fire. The train was on an acceptance run by the CN before its delivery to Amtrak. All aboard the train were railroad or United Aircraft employees, 11 of the 20 aboard were injured.

oldtimer2


----------



## Amtrak George

*Latest AP report on fatalities* says 6 (including truck driver). They are hoping passengers not fund got off train early, didn't get on the train that trip, or left the scene in other vehicles and haven't check in. The total would mean 4 passengers perished, the conductor and the gravel truck driver. :help:


----------



## George Harris

Amtrak George said:


> *Latest AP report on fatalities* says 6 (including truck driver). They are hoping passengers not fund got off train early, didn't get on the train that trip, or left the scene in other vehicles and haven't check in. The total would mean 4 passengers perished, the conductor and the gravel truck driver. :help:


I am afraid that will not be the case. Saw another report that the firemen could see burned bodies but could not get to them. It also said that around 45 people were missing. I would suspect that the death toll of those in the car hit by the truck cab would be near 100%. For those downstairs there would be no escape. For those upstairs, they likely were caught in a flash fire. Remember, they would be riding along all going smooth and normal when this struck, giving them zero time to do much of anything. The bodies are probably still in their seats.


----------



## George B

Two issues are probably preventing a true headcount of fatalities:

Only the conductor would have the best idea of who is on board at any moment. Even then, the conductor rarely has an exact, accurate count. I believe this is an issue that is always brought up by the NTSB in their accident reports. Not only did the conductor die in this situation, there is also a chance that her ticket pouch is lost, or damaged beyond usefulness. This is a guess, so I don’t know for sure.

This fire was hot enough, and burned long enough, that human remains might be impossible to identify and account for. It might not be a situation of just counting burned bodies. It is probably more of an issue of determining what is and is not human remains.


----------



## train person

Pretty horrible accident, not nice for those involved and those who have to sort out the mess.

Suppose by the law of averages that one day a grade crossing incident was going to turn out a lot worse than a few bent handrails and air hoses.


----------



## Rider

http://www.rgj.com/article/20110625/NEWS/110624030/Amtrak+train+crash++Death+toll+up+to+6++conductor+unofficially+identified+as+local+woman


----------



## Anderson

The families of the victims most assuredly have my sympathies.

Moving to the accident itself, I'm going to say that *if *for whatever reason the driver tried to beat the train, then while his family does have my sympathy, he does not. I'm sorry...if you seriously try and beat a train, you're asking to get hit, and as far as I am concerned, _if_ this is the case, he is guilty of five counts of negligent homicide. Note that I'm not saying that he _deserved_ to die, but that would be something akin to playing Russian Roulette while you're holding a grenade in a crowded room. I am marginally more sympathetic if he was simply distracted...well, in order to offer a judgment there, I would need to know what the signaling is on that road. If it is _anything_ but a full, gated crossing with all the bells and whistles (and you get a surprising number of roads with "substandard" crossings on higher speed tracks even now, though it's far better than it once was), then UP deserves unholy hell for this.

And of course, another question comes to mind: What's the speed limit at that crossing and immediately before it?


----------



## Everydaymatters

Was the fire located in the sleepers? My family member who was a crew member on this train talked about people in the sleepers.


----------



## Ryan

The fire was in the Transition Sleeper and the coach car immediately behind it.


----------



## The Davy Crockett

The article at this link: http://www.wtop.com/?nid=209&sid=2436527 says six are dead and that



> ...28 people were unaccounted for, but that the figure was "spongy" because some passengers may have gotten off the train before the crash or walked away from the scene without checking with officials.


I don't like thinking this way, but I can't help but wonder if Fox's hate of Amtrak has influenced their death toll estimate upwards.


----------



## Everydaymatters

Ryan said:


> The fire was in the Transition Sleeper and the coach car immediately behind it.


Thanks, Ryan. He had just left the transition sleeper and was two cars back.


----------



## Cho Cho Charlie

George Harris said:


> This leaves us with two scenarios: One, that the truck driver say the train and tried to beat it. That would seem irrational, to say the least, as the time of observation that he would have had would tell him that the train was moving fast.


Adding that this was the lead truck in a multi-truck convoy (cue "Convoy" by C. W. McCall in background), this might have been the convoy mentality taken to a lethal extreme. You know. Nothing, but nothing, gets in the way of convoy, nothing, not even apparently an Amtrak passenger train. The lead truck had to enforce this convoy mentality, even when the trucks following him realized taking on a train was foolish, broke the convoy, and slowed to a safe stop on their own.

Too bad trucks aren't required to have "cockpit recorders". It would surely interesting to hear the convoy's CB chatter leading up to this.


----------



## rrdude

The Davy Crockett said:


> The article at this link: http://www.wtop.com/...209&sid=2436527 says six are dead and that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...28 people were unaccounted for, but that the figure was "spongy" because some passengers may have gotten off the train before the crash or walked away from the scene without checking with officials.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't like thinking this way, but I can't help but wonder if Fox's hate of Amtrak has influenced their death toll estimate upwards.
Click to expand...

Exactly my first thought too, I hope that's not the case, even for Fox.
Just heard on NPR, prelim info from interview with NTSB, "........video data from train showed gates and signals were operational......." waiting for event recorder data.......... as of this moment, 6 confirmed fatalities.


----------



## Ryan

Everydaymatters said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fire was in the Transition Sleeper and the coach car immediately behind it.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, Ryan. He had just left the transition sleeper and was two cars back.
Click to expand...

Wow, then he's a very lucky man.


----------



## The Chief

rrdude said:


> The Davy Crockett said:
> 
> 
> 
> The article at this link: http://www.wtop.com/...209&sid=2436527 says six are dead and that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...28 people were unaccounted for, but that the figure was "spongy" because some passengers may have gotten off the train before the crash or walked away from the scene without checking with officials.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't like thinking this way, but I can't help but wonder if Fox's hate of Amtrak has influenced their death toll estimate upwards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly my first thought too, I hope that's not the case, even for Fox.
Click to expand...

That link ^ is to an Associated Press story, _not_ FOX News.

By SCOTT SONNER
*Associated Press*
AP writers Martin Griffith in Reno and Amanda Kwan in Phoenix contributed to this report.
AP is comprised of member newspapers and RTV stations.

AFIK the largest media company represented on site _so far_ is _LA Times_.

The rest of the bigs have been getting stories/reports from local Nevada newspapers, radio, and TV, and some citizen videos.

Coverage looks fair and balanced.

The spongy quote is attributed to NTSB's Earl Weener, on site.


----------



## Rider

>>Adding that this was the lead truck in a multi-truck convoy (cue "Convoy" by C. W. McCall in background), this might have been the convoy mentality taken to a lethal extreme. You know. Nothing, but nothing, gets in the way of convoy, nothing, not even apparently an Amtrak passenger train. The lead truck had to enforce this convoy mentality, even when the trucks following him realized taking on a train was foolish, broke the convoy, and slowed to a safe stop on their own.

Too bad trucks aren't required to have "cockpit recorders". It would surely interesting to hear the convoy's CB chatter leading up to this.

Me<<

Far-fetched. Local gravel haulers in a convoy that is out to prove some kind of a point? Wow, great. Why not aliens inhabiting the body of the driver? About equally likely.


----------



## Grandpa D

The Chief said:


> That link ^ is to an Associated Press story, _not_ FOX News.
> 
> By SCOTT SONNER
> *Associated Press*
> AP writers Martin Griffith in Reno and Amanda Kwan in Phoenix contributed to this report.
> AP is comprised of member newspapers and RTV stations.
> 
> AFIK the largest media company represented on site _so far_ is _LA Times_.
> 
> The rest of the bigs have been getting stories/reports from local Nevada newspapers, radio, and TV, and some citizen videos.
> 
> Coverage looks fair and balanced.
> 
> The spongy quote is attributed to NTSB's Earl Weener, on site.


I'm thankful for all the links posted here. My local newspaper, the Houston Chronicle, has had absolutely _nothing_ on this story, neither in print nor online.


----------



## MikefromCrete

The delay in a fatality total probably results from the time it takes to search the burned cars, notify next of kin, checking passenger manifest against those who have survived, etc.


----------



## The Davy Crockett

The Chief said:


> rrdude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Davy Crockett said:
> 
> 
> 
> The article at this link: http://www.wtop.com/...209&sid=2436527 says six are dead and that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...28 people were unaccounted for, but that the figure was "spongy" because some passengers may have gotten off the train before the crash or walked away from the scene without checking with officials.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't like thinking this way, but I can't help but wonder if Fox's hate of Amtrak has influenced their death toll estimate upwards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly my first thought too, I hope that's not the case, even for Fox.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That link ^ is to an Associated Press story, _not_ FOX News.
> 
> By SCOTT SONNER
> *Associated Press*
> AP writers Martin Griffith in Reno and Amanda Kwan in Phoenix contributed to this report.
> AP is comprised of member newspapers and RTV stations.
> 
> AFIK the largest media company represented on site _so far_ is _LA Times_.
> 
> The rest of the bigs have been getting stories/reports from local Nevada newspapers, radio, and TV, and some citizen videos.
> 
> Coverage looks fair and balanced.
> 
> The spongy quote is attributed to NTSB's Earl Weener, on site.
Click to expand...

Yes. I read the article before I posted the link to it.

I know I was not as clear as I could have been, as I said 'death toll' and not 'unaccounted for', so I'll point out the Fox article I was referring to. It is the link in post #128 of this thread.

The article is here: http://nation.foxnews.com/amtrak/2011/06/25/5-dead-amtrak-train-crash

The Fox article says *45* people remain unaccounted for, not *28* like the AP article.

And btw, you say that coverage looks 'fair and balanced.' Hmmm... where have I heard that expression before?


----------



## Montanan

jimhudson said:


> Hopefully SOMEONE??? Will Issue an Official Announcement with True Details SOON, Speculation and Misinformation is Rampant ...


Especially here.


----------



## PRR 60

The latest tragic count is six fatalities and 28 missing. The missing number does not necessarily equate to fatalities due to likely discrepancies caused uninjured passengers who left without being recorded and ticketed passengers who may not have been on the train at the time. Regardless of the count, this is a chilling accident.

Unofficially among the dead was the conductor, as reported at Trainorders and by the United Transportation Union. A colleague of the deceased conductor posted a picture of her on Trainorders. That photo put a human face on this horrific event.

From the Reno Gazette-Journal, 6/25/11:



> Workers in white protective suits have pulled the bodies of four passengers from charred train cars, bringing the number of people killed after a semi tractor-trailer slammed into an Amtrak train to six Saturday.
> An Amtrak conductor was killed in the crash, as well as the truck driver, a man in his mid-40s who worked for John Davies Trucking of Battle Mountain. The United Transportation Union said on its website that conductor Laurette Lee, 68, of South Lake Tahoe was one of the victims.


The full story is HERE.


----------



## AlanB

George B said:


> Only the conductor would have the best idea of who is on board at any moment. Even then, the conductor rarely has an exact, accurate count. I believe this is an issue that is always brought up by the NTSB in their accident reports. Not only did the conductor die in this situation, there is also a chance that her ticket pouch is lost, or damaged beyond usefulness. This is a guess, so I don’t know for sure.


It is almost a certainty that part of the problem regarding actual passenger counts is due to the fact that Amtrak is working from the manifest of expected passengers in ARROW.

The conductors setup shop on the lower level of the Trans/Dorm, which undoubtedly is the reason that one of the fatalities is one of the two conductors. And the tickets would have been sitting on one of the tables in that lounge on the lower level of the Dorm. Based upon the photos it is clear that those tickets would have gone up in smoke. Therefore Amtrak currently has no way of knowing if indeed every passenger with a ticket actually boarded that train. They have to assume that everyone did actually board, but again there is always the slight chance that someone no-showed.

I suppose that the surviving conductor might well know that perhaps someone no-showed along the way, but the odds of that conductor actually remembering the name of said passenger probably aren't very good. Especially with the tragic circumstances weighing heavily on their mind. After all, that conductor could well have been sitting in that very same lounge on the lower level of the Dorm where most likely the other poor conductor was when she was lost.


----------



## Anderson

Serious question: Is there any chance we could get a law forcibly cutting speed limits at crossings and/or making it a serious misdemeanor (the class varies by state) to run through a gate that is down?

Edit: Or simply say that when a gate is down, that track is entirely RR property and you become a trespasser if you enter...


----------



## Rider

Moderator: Thanks for editing my sarcastic remarks directed at the poster who referred to the possibility of a "truck convoy". Originally they were even stronger, and now I can't remember exactly what I said - but I know at the time I was amazed at the OP's post and reacted a bit too quickly to it.

I do not like personal attacks, but only in retrospect regretted one of my comments. I guess this is another reason why I don't mind not being a member - you guys keep me honest by screening my remarks.

And thanks for posting practically all of my comments intact. I do try to be constructive and helpful to new train riders, which of course we all were at some time.

Now if you'd just fix my spelling and grammar now and then!


----------



## Bierboy

Trucking company had multiple violations...


----------



## The Chief

The Davy Crockett said:


> The Chief said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rrdude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Davy Crockett said:
> 
> 
> 
> The article at this link: http://www.wtop.com/...209&sid=2436527 says six are dead and that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...28 people were unaccounted for, but that the figure was "spongy" because some passengers may have gotten off the train before the crash or walked away from the scene without checking with officials.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't like thinking this way, but I can't help but wonder if Fox's hate of Amtrak has influenced their death toll estimate upwards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly my first thought too, I hope that's not the case, even for Fox.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That link ^ is to an Associated Press story, _not_ FOX News.
> 
> By SCOTT SONNER
> *Associated Press*
> AP writers Martin Griffith in Reno and Amanda Kwan in Phoenix contributed to this report.
> AP is comprised of member newspapers and RTV stations.
> 
> AFIK the largest media company represented on site _so far_ is _LA Times_.
> 
> The rest of the bigs have been getting stories/reports from local Nevada newspapers, radio, and TV, and some citizen videos.
> 
> Coverage looks fair and balanced.
> 
> The spongy quote is attributed to NTSB's Earl Weener, on site.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. I read the article before I posted the link to it.
> 
> I know I was not as clear as I could have been, as I said 'death toll' and not 'unaccounted for', so I'll point out the Fox article I was referring to. It is the link in post #128 of this thread.
> 
> The article is here: http://nation.foxnews.com/amtrak/2011/06/25/5-dead-amtrak-train-crash
> 
> The Fox article says *45* people remain unaccounted for, not *28* like the AP article.
> 
> And btw, you say that coverage looks 'fair and balanced.' Hmmm... where have I heard that expression before?
Click to expand...

That link posted is from a web page _*hosted*_ by FOX. The reporting, however, which includes the "45 remained unaccounted for, federal officials said" statement, is provided by the _San Francisco Chronicle_, _not_ FOX.

Just look for identifiers of the source organization(s) on the web pages, and one can determine the agency/station/paper, etc., that is reporting. In this case it's

Jaxon Van Derbeken, Kevin Fagan,Will Kane, *San Francisco Chronicle*

and they were quoting an official(s) who was federal.

Hope this helps ID news sources. And the "fair and balanced" line was intentional. Thanks for noticing!


----------



## dlagrua

You know its very strange. Work for the airlines or for Amtrak and they have strict requiements for engineers, pilots and even conduct random drug testing. Work for a trucking company and they don't care who you are, what you have done, what your driving (and police)record is like and so forth. The move these days by the trucking industry is to hire the cheapest labor possible. This accident might not prove a money saver for the company who hired the driver. The damage and deaths are their responsibility alone for putting this incompetant driver behind the wheel of their truck. If in fact there was a 360' skid mark on the road as reported, the truck had to be moving at a high rate of speed, perhaps 80 mph or more.


----------



## amtrakwolverine

dlagrua said:


> You know its very strange. Work for the airlines or for Amtrak and they have strict requiements for engineers, pilots and even conduct random drug testing. Work for a trucking company and they don't care who you are, what you have done, what your driving (and police)record is like and so forth. The move these days by the trucking industry is to hire the cheapest labor possible. This accident might not prove a money saver for the company who hired the driver. The damage and deaths are their responsibility alone for putting this incompetant driver behind the wheel of their truck. If in fact there was a 360' skid mark on the road as reported, the truck had to be moving at a high rate of speed, perhaps 80 mph or more.


The companys don't care. so people died that's business in there eyes. The trucking company will just pack up and move somewhere else and change there name to avoid lawsuits etc.


----------



## njulian

It was said in an earlier post that people of the bottom were pretty much doomed. Can someone explain this to me? I would have thought the bottom level, close to the doors, would have had an easier escape route, while those on the top would have had to deal with taking out the windows ( I don't even know if I could figure that out quickly) and jumping (which looks like a pretty darn big fall).


----------



## The Davy Crockett

The Chief said:


> The Davy Crockett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Chief said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rrdude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Davy Crockett said:
> 
> 
> 
> The article at this link: http://www.wtop.com/...209&sid=2436527 says six are dead and that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...28 people were unaccounted for, but that the figure was "spongy" because some passengers may have gotten off the train before the crash or walked away from the scene without checking with officials.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't like thinking this way, but I can't help but wonder if Fox's hate of Amtrak has influenced their death toll estimate upwards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly my first thought too, I hope that's not the case, even for Fox.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That link ^ is to an Associated Press story, _not_ FOX News.
> 
> By SCOTT SONNER
> *Associated Press*
> AP writers Martin Griffith in Reno and Amanda Kwan in Phoenix contributed to this report.
> AP is comprised of member newspapers and RTV stations.
> 
> AFIK the largest media company represented on site _so far_ is _LA Times_.
> 
> The rest of the bigs have been getting stories/reports from local Nevada newspapers, radio, and TV, and some citizen videos.
> 
> Coverage looks fair and balanced.
> 
> The spongy quote is attributed to NTSB's Earl Weener, on site.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. I read the article before I posted the link to it.
> 
> I know I was not as clear as I could have been, as I said 'death toll' and not 'unaccounted for', so I'll point out the Fox article I was referring to. It is the link in post #128 of this thread.
> 
> The article is here: http://nation.foxnews.com/amtrak/2011/06/25/5-dead-amtrak-train-crash
> 
> The Fox article says *45* people remain unaccounted for, not *28* like the AP article.
> 
> And btw, you say that coverage looks 'fair and balanced.' Hmmm... where have I heard that expression before?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That link posted is from a web page _*hosted*_ by FOX. The reporting, however, which includes the "45 remained unaccounted for, federal officials said" statement, is provided by the _San Francisco Chronicle_, _not_ FOX.
> 
> Just look for identifiers of the source organization(s) on the web pages, and one can determine the agency/station/paper, etc., that is reporting. In this case it's
> 
> Jaxon Van Derbeken, Kevin Fagan,Will Kane, *San Francisco Chronicle*
> 
> and they were quoting an official(s) who was federal.
> 
> Hope this helps ID news sources. And the "fair and balanced" line was intentional. Thanks for noticing!
Click to expand...


Oh, so you do have an axe to grind. I hoped that you were not stooping to the level I was concerned that Fox might have stooped to by using an accident in which innocent lives were lost to further your own political agenda. But now I understand. How sad.


----------



## ThayerATM

The Chief said:


> The Davy Crockett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Chief said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rrdude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Davy Crockett said:
> 
> 
> 
> The article at this link: http://www.wtop.com/...209&sid=2436527 says six are dead and that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...28 people were unaccounted for, but that the figure was "spongy" because some passengers may have gotten off the train before the crash or walked away from the scene without checking with officials.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't like thinking this way, but I can't help but wonder if Fox's hate of Amtrak has influenced their death toll estimate upwards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly my first thought too, I hope that's not the case, even for Fox.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That link ^ is to an Associated Press story, _not_ FOX News.
> 
> By SCOTT SONNER
> *Associated Press*
> AP writers Martin Griffith in Reno and Amanda Kwan in Phoenix contributed to this report.
> AP is comprised of member newspapers and RTV stations.
> 
> AFIK the largest media company represented on site _so far_ is _LA Times_.
> 
> The rest of the bigs have been getting stories/reports from local Nevada newspapers, radio, and TV, and some citizen videos.
> 
> Coverage looks fair and balanced.
> 
> The spongy quote is attributed to NTSB's Earl Weener, on site.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. I read the article before I posted the link to it.
> 
> I know I was not as clear as I could have been, as I said 'death toll' and not 'unaccounted for', so I'll point out the Fox article I was referring to. It is the link in post #128 of this thread.
> 
> The article is here: http://nation.foxnews.com/amtrak/2011/06/25/5-dead-amtrak-train-crash
> 
> The Fox article says *45* people remain unaccounted for, not *28* like the AP article.
> 
> And btw, you say that coverage looks 'fair and balanced.' Hmmm... where have I heard that expression before?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That link posted is from a web page _*hosted*_ by FOX. The reporting, however, which includes the "45 remained unaccounted for, federal officials said" statement, is provided by the _San Francisco Chronicle_, _not_ FOX.
> 
> Just look for identifiers of the source organization(s) on the web pages, and one can determine the agency/station/paper, etc., that is reporting. In this case it's
> 
> Jaxon Van Derbeken, Kevin Fagan,Will Kane, *San Francisco Chronicle*
> 
> and they were quoting an official(s) who was federal.
> 
> Hope this helps ID news sources. And the "fair and balanced" line was intentional. Thanks for noticing!
Click to expand...

:hi:

This forum isn't a debate about who's the best network, or who's the best at saying they're "Fair And Balanced."

In my opinion, this forum is about finding out exactly what happened, and the facts surrounding the aftermath.

If it takes up to a year to find out what the facts actually are, and what actually happened, then it just has to be that long. Meanwhile, what all the networks are trying to do is get a "scoop," and present their videos or articles, as the news comes in to their desks, and fill the airwaves, newspapers, and websites.

Fox isn't any more accurate than CBS, or NBC, or ABC, or CNN.

The "facts" will slowly become clear, then all the networks can report what really happened. Where will we be able to read the final follow-up on this story after all the dust has settled?


----------



## AmtrakBlue

njulian said:


> It was said in an earlier post that people of the bottom were pretty much doomed. Can someone explain this to me? I would have thought the bottom level, close to the doors, would have had an easier escape route, while those on the top would have had to deal with taking out the windows ( I don't even know if I could figure that out quickly) and jumping (which looks like a pretty darn big fall).


I think they meant the car that was hit since the truck hit the bottom and that's where the fire ball probably originated from. The people on the top would presumably have the option to exit to another car before going down the stairs to the door.

I have not ridden on a Superliner but have been reading up on things (mostly here at AU) because I'm taking the CL and the CZ in November ... and I still can't wait for that trip.


----------



## GAT

The Chief said:


> 10:40 a.m. update: Amtrak trains in both directions will detour through Winnemucca and Portola today ((Saturday)) to avoid the scene of a fatal crash on Friday near Lovelock.
> 
> Amtrak spokesman Steve Kulm said westbound the Amtrak train that left Chicago on Thursday will detour off the regular Union Pacific line at Winnemucca and go through Portola before rejoining the regular line again in Roseville.
> 
> Customers bound for Reno, Truckee or Colfax will get rides to their destinations from Portola, Kulm said.
> 
> The eastbound train leaving Emeryville near San Francisco today will take the same route and the Reno, Truckee and Colfax customers will be transported from Portola, he said.


Is this bypass the Feather River Canyon route? If so, I believe that's a pretty scenic run. My friend is taking #6 tomorrow (Monday).

By the way, whay will the loss of a transdorm and at least one sleeper car do to Amtrak's overall running capacity? Will there be a domino effect in lost service?


----------



## AmtrakBlue

George said:


> By the way, whay will the loss of a transdorm and at least one sleeper car do to Amtrak's overall running capacity? Will there be a domino effect in lost service?


It was a transdorm and a coach, not a sleeper.


----------



## GAT

AmtrakBlue said:


> George said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, whay will the loss of a transdorm and at least one sleeper car do to Amtrak's overall running capacity? Will there be a domino effect in lost service?
> 
> 
> 
> It was a transdorm and a coach, not a sleeper.
Click to expand...

My bad. I was thinking the sleepers were directly behind rhe transdorm, but not so on the CZ? I seem to remember reading that somewhere. Which raises the question.....Why are the sleepers at the back of the train on the CZ?


----------



## Dan O

dlagrua said:


> You know its very strange. Work for the airlines or for Amtrak and they have strict requiements for engineers, pilots and even conduct random drug testing. Work for a trucking company and they don't care who you are, what you have done, what your driving (and police)record is like and so forth. The move these days by the trucking industry is to hire the cheapest labor possible. This accident might not prove a money saver for the company who hired the driver. The damage and deaths are their responsibility alone for putting this incompetant driver behind the wheel of their truck. If in fact there was a 360' skid mark on the road as reported, the truck had to be moving at a high rate of speed, perhaps 80 mph or more.


I don't think tickets/violations by truck drivers are uncommon. First, they drive a ton of miles so are more apt to do something work ticketing. Second, they are responsible for a lot more things on their vehicle that could end up being a ticket if they aren't up to par. When I worked for an insurance company many years ago we never saw a truck driver with a "clean" record. Some were probably bad drivers but most were probably not.

If the driver was distracted, be it texting, tuning the radio, etc, that does not mean he was "incompetent." If distraction was a factor it doesn't change it from being a very terrible accident. All who drive are distracted to some degree at times.

Dano


----------



## George Harris

I won't attempt to try to pull in everybody's quotes that I am addressing.

Getting all wound up about FOX, et al as sources is silly. Particularly since someone said that Fox was quoting the San Francisco Chronicle. I can hardly imagine two major sources of news being further apart on the political spectrum.

Given the condition of the two most damaged cars and the suddenness of the collision, either 28 or 45 deaths would be reasonable preliminary estimates. It appears now that the condition is "unaccounted for" and the number is 28, that approximating deaths somewhere well above 6 and likely approaching the 28 unaccounted for. Given that all tickets sold now have names and any passenger could reasonably be expected to produce identification, it should only be a matter of days that no-shows and those not counted when they got off the train can be located and their continued existence confirmed. At that point, a more realistic estimate of the number of dead becomes possible and then it becomes a matter of attempting to identfy the remains. Any further guessing between now and that time is pointless.

When I said the people in the lower level of the car initially struck were almost certainly lost, it is because of the almost instantaneous fireball, and the near certainty that the exit door would be blocked by the truck.

If you read the nature of the violations cited for the trucking company, for the most part they were not really that significant. You are talking high milage vehicles and high milage drivers, so there is a lot of exposure to being cited.

To those that want to use this thread to air their political positions, and I think you know who you are, put a sock in it.


----------



## RPE

Here is some good news. A new report saying they are down to 5 unaccounted for. Hope they find them OK as well.

SPARKS, Nev. (AP) -- An Amtrak official says there are now five passengers unaccounted for after a fiery crash between a semi-truck and train that killed at least six people and injured about 20 others at a crossing in the Nevada desert. Amtrak spokeswoman Vernae Graham tells The Associated Press that the five people who were on the train's manifest of more than 200 remained unaccounted for as of Sunday night. More than two dozen people were being sought a day earlier.


----------



## jis

According to postings on the Western Board on Trainorders 5(22) minus the destroyed cars and one damaged car, was on its way to EMY passing Truckee at around 1:30pm today. Not clear exactly where those three cars are located at present. The train was brought to Sparks before it headed out to EMY.

5(24) is running via Donner expected into EMY between 1:30 and 3am tonight. 5(24) has Phase III P42 #145 in the lead.


----------



## The Journalist

Both Zephyrs came though Reno today, though 5 was 9 hours late. That was a brief detouring...


----------



## DET63

George Harris' post #121 is probably the most comprehensive analysis of the situation based on the knowledge available at the present time.

As for the company, "Truck company in Nevada train crash had citations":



> SPARKS, Nev. (AP) — Federal records reviewed by the Associated Press show a spotty record for a Nevada trucking company under scrutiny for a deadly crash with an Amtrak train.
> Nevada authorities have previously cited John Davis Trucking Co., of Battle Mountain, Nev., for crashes, unsafe driving and operating a truck with tires so bald the vehicle had to be taken off the road.
> 
> ...
> 
> National Transportation Safety Board member Earl Weener told reporters Sunday night that it was difficult to say whether the company's record was significant or atypical.


----------



## DET63

Train conductor, formerly of Concord, remembered for her fierce love



Laurette Lee, 68, of South Lake Tahoe, is shown in a family photo given to the Contra Costa Times on Saturday, June 25, 

2011. Lee, an Amtrak conductor, was killed on June 24 after a truck struck an Emeryville-bound train she was driving. The truck 

driver and at least two other people were killed, and about 20 were injured. Her nephew Ben Rankin is also an Amtrak 

conductor. (Photo courtesy of Rankin family)
​


----------



## Guest

Does anyone know if Laurette Lee was just unlucky enough to be in that train car when struck, or was Laurette killed while attempting to give aid and assistance?


----------



## GaSteve

Guest said:


> Does anyone know if Laurette Lee was just unlucky enough to be in that train car when struck, or was Laurette killed while attempting to give aid and assistance?


As previously noted, she was probably in the lower level of the transition dorm doing her duties and that car took the brunt of the impact.


----------



## jis

From the _San Francisco Chronicle_:



> A spokesman said one crew member, conductor Laurette Lee, had died and that five passengers were missing. The Washoe County Medical Examiner said it had six unidentified bodies, suggesting that just one person remains unaccounted for. The agency is handling the autopsies for smaller Churchill County.


See the whole article here.

Also in the same article:



> A colleague of d'Alessandro, who requested anonymity because Amtrak has forbidden employees from talking to the press, said d'Allesandro had been a hero. Though his arm was mangled in the collision, the co-worker said, he climbed under at least one of the two double-decker passenger cars that were crippled to close necessary valves - and to uncouple it to prevent the fire from spreading toward the engine.
> D'Allessandro then walked the train, making sure people were off before accepting help, his colleague said.
> 
> One of d'Alessandro's fingers, though, was nearly torn off, said his niece, Michelle Childs of Elk Grove (Sacramento County). She said doctors were able to save the finger, and her uncle had surgery on his arm on Saturday. He expects to be released from the hospital in Reno and on his way home today.
> 
> "He was right in the same area where the conductor was that got killed. He's absolutely, totally lucky," Childs said. "He's going to make it, but it's going to be a long recovery."


----------



## fillyjonk

AmtrakBlue said:


> njulian said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was said in an earlier post that people of the bottom were pretty much doomed. Can someone explain this to me? I would have thought the bottom level, close to the doors, would have had an easier escape route, while those on the top would have had to deal with taking out the windows ( I don't even know if I could figure that out quickly) and jumping (which looks like a pretty darn big fall).
> 
> 
> 
> I think they meant the car that was hit since the truck hit the bottom and that's where the fire ball probably originated from. The people on the top would presumably have the option to exit to another car before going down the stairs to the door.
> 
> I have not ridden on a Superliner but have been reading up on things (mostly here at AU) because I'm taking the CL and the CZ in November ... and I still can't wait for that trip.
Click to expand...

Also, I'm guessing in a really bad crash, the safest thing to do is to get out of the car and into an undamaged car AS FAST AS POSSIBLE. IIRC, on Superliners, the links between the cars are topside- in the upstairs. It would be a lot harder to get upstairs and into a "safer" car if you were on the lower level. And I suspect in a fire situation, opening a door or window (allowing a blast of oxygen into the car right where you were) would likely make things even worse.

This accident is scary and sad. My prayers are definitely with the families who lost people who were killed in the crash - especially the families who know their loved one is missing but haven't heard "officially" yet. Fire is one of the things that scares me THE MOST and I am too good at imagining what the situation would be like.

I hope if the trucking company is found responsible some punishment is levied. I have seen too many cases around where I live of trucking companies, bus companies, etc. hiring unqualified/unsafe drivers, and then having horrible accidents where people were killed (A group of Vietnamese Christian pilgrims on a bus trip, a truck driver who crashed and killed several other drivers...)


----------



## The Chief

George Harris said:


> I won't attempt to try to pull in everybody's quotes that I am addressing.
> 
> Getting all wound up about FOX, et al as sources is silly. Particularly since someone said that Fox was quoting the San Francisco Chronicle. I can hardly imagine two major sources of news being further apart on the political spectrum.
> 
> To those that want to use this thread to air their political positions, and I think you know who you are, put a sock in it.


There's been nothing political in my posts on this thread.

Among other facts, I clarified and explained news sources, agencies, etc.

Again, a post clarifying news-gathering processes and sources is _not_ political.

As someone who worked many years in newspapers and TV, and worked for three different railroads, I have an interest in both industries -- and a background and foundation in the knowledge of how each business operates.

When noted about the political spectrum, re: the gap between FOX News and the _SF Chronicle_, I agree. The two are a bit apart, yet will share stories, as both are members of the _AP_. Think of BNSF detouring over UP tracks. While those two hosts treat Amtrak quite differently, they still cooperate on exchanging track rights when needed.

Please re-read my posts on this thread; they're neither "political," nor promoting FOX or any other medium. Hope this helps.


----------



## George B

> Also, I'm guessing in a really bad crash, the safest thing to do is to get out of the car and into an undamaged car AS FAST AS POSSIBLE. IIRC, on Superliners, the links between the cars are topside- in the upstairs. It would be a lot harder to get upstairs and into a "safer" car if you were on the lower level. And I suspect in a fire situation, opening a door or window (allowing a blast of oxygen into the car right where you were) would likely make things even worse.


If there is fire and/or heavy smoke in your car, you need to just get out as quickly as possible. Unless the train is still moving, or in a location where exiting the car would be more dangerous, don’t try and get up the stairs and to another car. The passageway between cars is a horrible place for bottlenecks of people trying to exit all at once. You stand a much better chance of survival by pulling out the window on the second floor of a Superliner car and jumping than being caught in a crush of people trying to go up or down the stairs or through the passageways to another car.

Don’t worry about the possibility of opening a window or door making a fire worse. If you are close enough to the fire where you think this is a problem, you need to get out of the car immediately anyway.


----------



## George Harris

The Chief said:


> *George* there's been nothing political in my posts on this thread.Among other facts, I clarified and explained news sources, agencies, etc.
> 
> . . .
> 
> Please re-read my posts on this thread; they're neither "political," nor promoting FOX or any other medium. Hope this helps.


It wasn't you I was thinking about when I wrote what I did. Quite the opposite, in fact. I thought yours were anything but political, something that cannot be said about someone who attacked you for no apparent reason.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

George Harris said:


> The Chief said:
> 
> 
> 
> *George* there's been nothing political in my posts on this thread.Among other facts, I clarified and explained news sources, agencies, etc. Please re-read my posts on this thread; they're neither "political," nor promoting FOX or any other medium. Hope this helps.
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't you I was thinking about when I wrote what I did. Quite the opposite, in fact. I thought yours were anything but political, something that cannot be said about someone who attacked you for no apparent reason.
Click to expand...

See what happens when you attack people with vague and unexplained innuendo? All it does is cause more trouble than when you started. Better to be honest about whoever it is you're actually intending to insult. Otherwise you're just randomly trolling the thread.


----------



## The Journalist

Driver had previous tickets for speeding in a school bus: RGJ Link


----------



## Amtrak George

_*Distracted Driving?*_ The National Transportation Safety Board has recovered the deceased trucker's cell phone and is investigating whether he was talking or texting. We'll have to wait and see what the investigation reveals, but distracted driving seems to be a definite possibility. :mellow:

One the passenger count, a recent news report says that now only two passengers are not accounted for. Apparently no more bodies have been recovered.


----------



## RailFanLNK

On our channel 8 news KLKN tonight two victims were from Seward NE, just 20 miles away from my hometown of LNK. It was a grandmother and granddaughter who was only 18. The teen had survived cancer as a child. It was a sad story.


----------



## Trainmans daughter

RailFanLNK said:


> On our channel 8 news KLKN tonight two victims were from Seward NE, just 20 miles away from my hometown of LNK. It was a grandmother and granddaughter who was only 18. The teen had survived cancer as a child. It was a sad story.


Of all the stories I have read about this tragic event, this is the one that grabbed my heart. My precious granddaughter is my Amtrak travel buddy and the reason I love to ride the train. My heart breaks for these two special people.


----------



## barbark

My link


----------



## George B

As far as I can tell, this video is correct in that it depicts #5 of June 22 passing through Iowa before being struck by the truck two days later:


----------



## amtrakwolverine

According to the news This trucking company hah a run in with an Amtrak train at the same crossing a year before. they had multiple violations etc


----------



## Devil's Advocate

George B said:


> As far as I can tell, this video is correct in that it depicts #5 of June 22 passing through Iowa before being struck by the truck two days later.


Looks like the train made a wrong turn somewhere and ended up back where it started.



amtrakwolverine said:


> According to the news this trucking company hah a run in with an Amtrak train at the same crossing a year before. They had multiple violations etc


I'm sure the problem is too much regulation. If we just deregulated the trucking industry a little more then none of this would happen.


----------



## jis

Texas Sunset said:


> amtrakwolverine said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to the news this trucking company hah a run in with an Amtrak train at the same crossing a year before. They had multiple violations etc
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure the problem is too much regulation. If we just deregulated the trucking industry a little more then none of this would happen.
Click to expand...

Correct, if there were no regulations and rules and laws, then there would be nothing to be in violation of, ergo.... no violations


----------



## DET63

Texas Sunset said:


> George B said:
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I can tell, this video is correct in that it depicts #5 of June 22 passing through Iowa before being struck by the truck two days later.
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like the train made a wrong turn somewhere and ended up back where it started.
> 
> 
> 
> amtrakwolverine said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to the news this trucking company hah a run in with an Amtrak train at the same crossing a year before. They had multiple violations etc
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sure the problem is too much regulation. If we just deregulated the trucking industry a little more then none of this would happen.
Click to expand...

I'm not a radical libertarian by any means, but I don't think lack of regulation is the problem here. Either there are regulations that can't be enforced and are thus routinely violated—therefore making them all but worthless—or the regulations in place simply don't address the actual issues that make trucks unsafe. Neither imposing more draconian regulations, nor abolishing all regulations, is likely to be the answer. Before anything is done, however, a thorough investigation of the circumstances surrounding the accident will have to be done. My guess is that, short of building an overpass for the highway, there's not much that can be done.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

DET63 said:


> I'm not a radical libertarian by any means, but I don't think lack of regulation is the problem here. Either there are regulations that can't be enforced and are thus routinely violated—therefore making them all but worthless—or the regulations in place simply don't address the actual issues that make trucks unsafe. Neither imposing more draconian regulations, nor abolishing all regulations, is likely to be the answer. Before anything is done, however, a thorough investigation of the circumstances surrounding the accident will have to be done. My guess is that, short of building an overpass for the highway, there's not much that can be done.


You don't have to be a libertarian to setup straw men targets like "draconian" measures vs. abolishing all regulations. Demanding that companies insure for the level of damage and harm they can and do actually cause through their own negligence might be a great start though. While this particular case is still in the early stages there are many other examples of truckers causing far more damage than their minimum liability covers. My own personal auto liability is in the area of a hundred thousand dollars because it's not that hard for me to imagine a bad accident causing that much harm. Truckers should be expected to insure for _millions_ in damages and liabilities since that's the kind of harm _they_ can cause. If applied across the board we might actually get people to pay more attention to what they're doing. Just watching it on the news doesn't seem to be working for some reason.


----------



## DET63

RailFanLNK said:


> On our channel 8 news KLKN tonight two victims were from Seward NE, just 20 miles away from my hometown of LNK. It was a grandmother and granddaughter who was only 18. The teen had survived cancer as a child. It was a sad story.





> Two of the six victims in that tragic Amtrak crash are from Seward, Nebraska. 58 year old Fran Knox and her 18 year old daughter Annie died after a semi-trailer struck the Amtrak train.


KHAS News 5

Other sources seem to agree that Fran was the grandmother of Annie, however.


----------



## The Davy Crockett

DET63 said:


> My guess is that, short of building an overpass for the highway, there's not much that can be done.


I don't have it in front of me, but I read somewhere that a truck driver (one from the convoy?) said the problem was Amtrak, because the trains go too fast through that crossing! :help:


----------



## jis

Amtrak conductor had a passion for the rails



> Some called Laurette Lee the "Iron Maiden." Even at the age of 68, she would often climb out of the trains she conducted, sledgehammer in hand, to smash the ice off frozen switches.
> "She'd just bang on that switch until it came unstuck," said Dorrie Crooks, a volunteer at the California State Railroad Museum who often rode with Lee. "She was just incredibly strong."
> 
> Lee, who lived in Concord until a move to South Lake Tahoe two years ago, was the first person to be identified as a victim of Friday's fiery collision in the Nevada desert, where a tractor-trailer barreled through safety gates and rammed her Amtrak train.
> 
> .......


----------



## here she goes again

I am just so saddened to hear of this tragic loss

a million blessings and healing to all involved

I love the CZ, and have had the pleasure of riding three times, coast to coast.

I've also had the misfortune of being on a train that was hit (by a car), also outside of reno, in our case, there were no fatalities

on the train, the driver of the car did perish (rest her); that was bad enough..

just so sad


----------



## chandj

We were just on the CZ a month or so ago. This is just so very sad.


----------



## yarrow

first lawsuit filed over amtrak crash in nv


----------



## RRrich

I think it is amazing that they recovered the truck driver's cell phone from the rubble and expect that they can recover data from it. I assume that the cell and the driver were in the blaze. Am I wrong? After the cell phone was cooked well done, they can still recover data? WOW!!


----------



## AlanB

They don't need the phone to do anything, they'll just have the phone company pull the records to see if he was using it.


----------



## Donald M

Was the consist on the CZ accident unusual, transition, coach? Usually the transition is followed by two sleepers, diner, lounge and then coaches, correct?


----------



## yarrow

Donald M said:


> Was the consist on the CZ accident unusual, transition, coach? Usually the transition is followed by two sleepers, diner, lounge and then coaches, correct?


we took a round trip on the cz in early june and the 3 sleepers were on the rear both ways. the same consist as in the accident


----------



## DET63

yarrow said:


> first lawsuit filed over amtrak crash in nv


From the linked article:



> RENO, Nev. —An Amtrak train attendant filed the first lawsuit over a crash that injured her and killed at least six people in Nevada last week, as more details emerged Tuesday about the driving record of the trucker whose big rig plowed into the double-decker rail cars.
> 
> The suit was filed in Washoe County District Court in Nevada by Alexandra Curtis of Evanston, Ill., who is among about 20 people injured in the crash east of Reno on Friday. Her lawsuit alleges negligence on the part of truck driver Lawrence Valli, 43, and his employer, John Davis Trucking Co., saying that he ignored railroad crossing gates and warning signals.
> 
> "Quite simply, this driver should not have been behind the wheel of this truck," said attorney Dan Kotin, of Chicago firm Corboy & Demetrio, which filed the suit.


Looks like the plaintiff has a pretty good case.


----------



## DET63

Image link: http://cmsimg.rgj.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=J7&Date=20110628&Category=NEWS&ArtNo=110628004&Ref=AR&MaxW=300&Border=0

Fran Knox, left and granddaughter Karly Anne Knox from Seward, Neb., were both killed when a tractor-trailer rammed an Amtrak train 65 miles east of Reno, Nev. on Friday June 24, 2011. / Courtesy of the Knox family



> John Davis Trucking Company issued a statement Tuesday saying they wanted to “express their deepest condolences and sincerest sympathies” to the families and friends of people killed in the crash.


Link: Amtrak train crash: records show 2 more speeding tickets against trucker


----------



## PaulM

Dan O said:


> If the driver was distracted, be it texting, tuning the radio, etc, that does not mean he was "incompetent."


I must have missed it. When did "distracted" become a euphemism for reckless? With a mentality like this, it's a wonder more trucks don't crash into the side of trains.


----------



## Ryan

I must have missed that comment as well.

"Incompetent" is probably the nicest term that I could use to describe a driver that could get distracted enough to plow into the side of a moving train.


----------



## AlanB

Here's an interesting and frankly touching piece from the UTU describing some of the actions of the conductors on the train, along with the crew of a UP train following Amtrak who saw the accident.

Also for those who always say that upper management doesn't care about anything, note that they make mention of the fact that Amtrak President Boardman was on the first flight out to Reno after the accident occured.


----------



## Dan O

PaulM said:


> Dan O said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the driver was distracted, be it texting, tuning the radio, etc, that does not mean he was "incompetent."
> 
> 
> 
> I must have missed it. When did "distracted" become a euphemism for reckless? With a mentality like this, it's a wonder more trucks don't crash into the side of trains.
Click to expand...

You did miss it. Distracted and reckless are two completely different things. No euphemism here. Everyone drives distracted at times, be it listening to music, tuning the radio, adjusting the air conditioner or heater, keeping kids in line, conversing, daydreaming, etc.

Most people do not drive recklessly with little regard for the safety of other drivers.

This driver may have been reckless, distracted, both or neither. Now it would be quite a distraction to miss a train and not apparently pay attention to the road at all for a half mile or more but it is possible.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

dlagrua said:


> The move these days by the trucking industry is to hire the cheapest labor possible.


Many of the truckers around where I live can't even speak English. If they can't speak it how can they read it? If they can't read it then how on Earth did they pass their CDL?! I honestly don't get it.



Dan O said:


> I don't think tickets/violations by truck drivers are uncommon. First, they drive a ton of miles so are more apt to do something work ticketing. Second, they are responsible for a lot more things on their vehicle that could end up being a ticket if they aren't up to par. When I worked for an insurance company many years ago we never saw a truck driver with a "clean" record. Some were probably bad drivers but most were probably not. If the driver was distracted, be it texting, tuning the radio, etc, that does not mean he was "incompetent." If distraction was a factor it doesn't change it from being a very terrible accident. All who drive are distracted to some degree at times.


Truckers are sometimes targeted for tickets because they're traveling out of state and are less likely to find time to head back to contest the charges. However, they're *also* targeted for tickets because when they screw up it's far more dangerous for the rest of us. As witnessed by this very incident. If I get distracted and ram a train with my sedan it probably wouldn't be able to cause more than a few dents and dings. I'd also be able to reduce my speed far quicker and quite possibly avoid a wreck altogether. Commercial trucks that are carrying heavy loads or are traveling at great speed can send a whole train off the rails or leave it a burning wreck. That's a pretty big difference to anyone I know. Driving a commercial truck comes with enormous responsibility that includes focusing on the road anytime you're on it. If you need to take a call you need to pull over. If you're heading a convoy then I guess everyone will have to pull over with you while chat with whoever is so important. Or just don't pick up. Turn the phone off and shove it in the glove compartment so you aren't tempted to screw with it. Seems pretty simple to me. If you get tired of the monotony of driving and find your attention slipping then go discover another career and reinvent yourself rather than put the rest of us at more and more risk.


----------



## DET63

I've been thinking about this for the past day or so: given that the speed limit for trucks in Nevada appears to be the same as that for cars and other vehicles, even on two-lane open highways, has anyone figured out the total stoppage distance that would be involved for a truck going, say, 70 mph (the speed limit)? If he saw the lights start flashing (which happens a few seconds before the gates start to come down), he would have had to make a stop/don't-stop decision. Assuming he was paying proper attention to what he was doing (which he may or may not have been), how close to the nearest rail would he have been where it would have been best for him to simply disregard the signal, as he would be unable to safely stop in time (i.e., without locking the brakes, jackknifing, etc.)?


----------



## Ryan

Dan O said:


> You did miss it. Distracted and reckless are two completely different things. No euphemism here. Everyone drives distracted at times, be it listening to music, tuning the radio, adjusting the air conditioner or heater, keeping kids in line, conversing, daydreaming, etc.
> 
> Most people do not drive recklessly with little regard for the safety of other drivers.
> 
> This driver may have been reckless, distracted, both or neither. Now it would be quite a distraction to miss a train and not apparently pay attention to the road at all for a half mile or more but it is possible.


Negative, shipmate. To riff off of a recent ad campaign (image below), "Buzzed Distracted driving is drunk reckless driving"







Just like there's no such thing as being "a little pregnant" or "a little drunk", there's no such thing as "just a little distracted". *IF* (and that's a big *"IF"* until we know exactly what happened), you plow into the side of a train because you're distracted, then you're driving recklessly.


----------



## Dan O

> Negative, shipmate. To riff off of a recent ad campaign (image below), "Buzzed Distracted driving is drunk reckless driving"


If you have never driven while you are distracted, you have never driven with anyone in your car, never taken a bite to eat, never drank a sip of water, never put on sunglasses, never listened to music, never changed anything on your dashboard (heat/etc), etc. Just because one hasn't plowed into a train or a pole doesn't mean one has not driven while distracted, if just for a second or if the truck driver was distracted in this case for maybe a half minute.



> Just like there's no such thing as being "a little pregnant" or "a little drunk", there's no such thing as "just a little distracted".


See examples above. It only takes a second of being distracted for some accidents to occur.


----------



## PRR 60

AlanB said:


> They don't need the phone to do anything, they'll just have the phone company pull the records to see if he was using it.


However, having the phone may permit them to see if the device was being used for some off-line purpose such as composing a text or viewing previously downloaded material. The fact that the device was not communicating with the cell system does not necessarily mean it was not in use.


----------



## afigg

DET63 said:


> I've been thinking about this for the past day or so: given that the speed limit for trucks in Nevada appears to be the same as that for cars and other vehicles, even on two-lane open highways, has anyone figured out the total stoppage distance that would be involved for a truck going, say, 70 mph (the speed limit). If he saw the lights start flashing (which happens a few seconds before the gates start to come down), he would have had to make a stop/don't-stop decision. Assuming he was paying proper attention to what he was doing (which he may or may not have been), how close to the nearest rail would he have been where it would have been best for him to simply disregard the signal, as he would be unable to safely stop in time (i.e., without locking the brakes, jackknifing, etc.)?


According a statement from the NTSB, the signals at the US 95 crossing are timed to start 25 seconds before the train reaches the crossing. Figuring that means the gates come down a few seconds after the signal lights start flashing to give traffic time to stop, the gates had to be down well before the truck got there.

The truck hit the 4th car in the consist, somewhere in the middle, not the lead or 2nd engine. The P42s are 69' long; the baggage car is 85', mid-point to the Trans-dorm is approx 42'; so the truck hit the train approximately 265' from the front. At 78 mph, the CZ was going 114' per second. So the truck hit the train roughly around 2.3 seconds after the train entered the crossing. Adding that to the gates being down for 15-20 seconds, this is why it is very unlikely the driver was trying to beat the lights or gate. Visibility of the crossing or the train is clearly not an issue from the photos of the scene. You look at the photos and wonder how in the heck did he not see the crossing and stop? This is why the general consensus is that this was either a distracted or inattentive driver (for a long period of time) or he was in no condition to be driving. The NTSB preliminary report in a month or so should provide some more reliable information on what happened.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Dan O said:


> If you have never driven while you are distracted, you have never driven with anyone in your car, never taken a bite to eat, never drank a sip of water, never put on sunglasses, never listened to music, never changed anything on your dashboard (heat/etc), etc. Just because one hasn't plowed into a train or a pole doesn't mean one has not driven while distracted, if just for a second or if the truck driver was distracted in this case for maybe a half minute.


I've never driven a commercial truck while being distracted. As I said before, my sedan would bounce off the train. It would slow things down while the police made a report but that's about it. Obviously commercial trucks can and do cause a LOT more harm and damage than most of us on this forum could ever do with our cars and light trucks. I don't disagree that there are different levels of being distracted but that doesn't change the fact that commercial truckers are on a whole other level beyond most consumer vehicles.


----------



## AlanB

afigg said:


> DET63 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've been thinking about this for the past day or so: given that the speed limit for trucks in Nevada appears to be the same as that for cars and other vehicles, even on two-lane open highways, has anyone figured out the total stoppage distance that would be involved for a truck going, say, 70 mph (the speed limit). If he saw the lights start flashing (which happens a few seconds before the gates start to come down), he would have had to make a stop/don't-stop decision. Assuming he was paying proper attention to what he was doing (which he may or may not have been), how close to the nearest rail would he have been where it would have been best for him to simply disregard the signal, as he would be unable to safely stop in time (i.e., without locking the brakes, jackknifing, etc.)?
> 
> 
> 
> According a statement from the NTSB, the signals at the US 95 crossing are timed to start 25 seconds before the train reaches the crossing. Figuring that means the gates come down a few seconds after the signal lights start flashing to give traffic time to stop, the gates had to be down well before the truck got there.
> 
> The truck hit the 4th car in the consist, somewhere in the middle, not the lead or 2nd engine. The P42s are 69' long; the baggage car is 85', mid-point to the Trans-dorm is approx 42'; so the truck hit the train approximately 265' from the front. At 78 mph, the CZ was going 114' per second. So the truck hit the train roughly around 2.3 seconds after the train entered the crossing. Adding that to the gates being down for 15-20 seconds, this is why it is very unlikely the driver was trying to beat the lights or gate. Visibility of the crossing or the train is clearly not an issue from the photos of the scene. You look at the photos and wonder how in the heck did he not see the crossing and stop? This is why the general consensus is that this was either a distracted or inattentive driver (for a long period of time) or he was in no condition to be driving. The NTSB preliminary report in a month or so should provide some more reliable information on what happened.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that the engineer had hit the emergency stop button, so the train was already starting to slow at least a bit by the time of impact. It probably hadn't lost much speed, but his hitting the brakes would have alterted the point of initial impact at least a bit. Had he not done that, the point of impact would at the very least have been further back on the Trans/Dorm, if not on the first or even second coach.

So it's likely that the engineer's actions may well have prevented an even bigger tragedy by making the point of impact the Trans/Dorm. It could also have been the difference between the truck hitting in the middle of a car vs. hitting the car at a point where it sits on its trucks. And hitting at one of those trucks, as noted by George Harris earlier, probably would have caused a derailment making things even worse. Yes, it's really just dumb luck that things timed out that way, but still had the engineer not hit the brakes it could have dramtically changed how things unfolded that day.

To the point of stopping distance, PRR60 made a post several pages back giving various stopping distances based upon speed of the truck.


----------



## Ryan

Dan O said:


> If you have never driven while you are distracted, you have never driven with anyone in your car, never taken a bite to eat, never drank a sip of water, never put on sunglasses, never listened to music, never changed anything on your dashboard (heat/etc), etc. Just because one hasn't plowed into a train or a pole doesn't mean one has not driven while distracted, if just for a second or if the truck driver was distracted in this case for maybe a half minute.


My claim that distracted driving is reckless has nothing to do with whether I've done it or not.


----------



## PRR 60

AlanB said:


> ...To the point of stopping distance, PRR60 made a post several pages back giving various stopping distances based upon speed of the truck.


_I don't think I posted that here, so now I will:_

According to news reports, skid marks indicate the truck driver slammed on the brakes 320 feet from the crossing. Those same reports indicate that type truck, traveling at 70mph, would take about 465 feet to come to a stop (the NTSB will develop actual numbers, but this number seems reasonable). Assuming a uniform deceleration rate, here are the speeds at impact for various pre-braking speeds:

50 mph - no impact, stops in time

55 mph - impact @ 18 mph

60 mph - impact @ 30 mph

65 mph - impact @ 39 mph

70 mph - impact @ 47 mph <==_ in that location, I bet this was the slowest that truck was moving_

75 mph - impact @ 54 mph

80 mph - impact @ 61 mph

These calculations used idealized criteria, but I think they give pretty decent estimates of the impact speeds.


----------



## Tumbleweed

AlanB said:


> Here's an interesting and frankly touching piece from the UTU describing some of the actions of the conductors on the train, along with the crew of a UP train following Amtrak who saw the accident.
> 
> Also for those who always say that upper management doesn't care about anything, note that they make mention of the fact that Amtrak President Boardman was on the first flight out to Reno after the accident occured.


Thank you for posting that link......the real-life heroism that occurs is seldom made public on the media.......


----------



## Cristobal

I'm still leaning towards the theory that the truck driver was indeed trying to beat the train and tragically misjudged it's speed. I'm thinking this for a couple of reasons...

First, and perhaps foremost, is that even if this is a regular route for these drivers there is a good chance that they almost always only encounter slower freights. Remember that this #5 was running almost 6 hrs late at the time. Both the 5 the 6, if on-time, pass through this area either before or after a normal workday would likely be for truck drivers running a local route.

Also, if I'm not mistaken, short-haul truckers like these are paid by the load and not a daily or hourly rate. More loads/day means more $$. Getting held up by a long freight train may just be the difference between having the time to make one more run that day or not. Perhaps this driver had even encountered such a delay earlier that day or within the last few days and mistakenly thought that he had a chance to avoid another one. There is also the possibility that the driver thought that it would be funny to beat this train and laugh at his buddies stuck behind it. This driver's relative inexperience may have also played a role in his decision making process. 

I'm not trying to justify this driver's actions or make light in any way of a very tragic situation. We may never know exactly what led up to this or I could be completely wrong if the investigation does solve this mystery. I am simply pointing out one plausible version of (in this case very bad) human decision making.


----------



## chandj

Tumbleweed said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's an interesting and frankly touching piece from the UTU describing some of the actions of the conductors on the train, along with the crew of a UP train following Amtrak who saw the accident.
> 
> Also for those who always say that upper management doesn't care about anything, note that they make mention of the fact that Amtrak President Boardman was on the first flight out to Reno after the accident occured.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for posting that link......the real-life heroism that occurs is seldom made public on the media.......
Click to expand...

I missed the first posting of this link so thank you for reposting. I hope more is written about these brave souls and others who risked so much to help save others.


----------



## GAT

Cristobal said:


> I'm still leaning towards the theory that the truck driver was indeed trying to beat the train and tragically misjudged it's speed. I'm thinking this for a couple of reasons...
> 
> There is also the possibility that the driver thought that it would be funny to beat this train and laugh at his buddies stuck behind it.


We're perhaps getting way off topic here, but the above comment makes me mad - not at Cristobal, but at the thought that the driver might possibly have thought that way. He was the convoy leader; he had a responsibility to his truck-mates if not any driver following him. If he had made it through and if the second driver had not been able to stop, and had deaths occurred, he would in my opinion be guilty of at least voluntary manslaughter if not indeed murder (which might very well have been the case in California if his motivations could have been proven to a jury).


----------



## john h

Back on topic

Sorry if this is a repost hopefully not

Amtrak is sueing trucking company saying driver was not qualified

article here

I am so glad Amtrak is going after them, maybe individuals can go after the trucking company as well...


----------



## GAT

john h said:


> Back on topic
> 
> Sorry if this is a repost hopefully not
> 
> Amtrak is sueing trucking company saying driver was not qualified
> 
> article here
> 
> I am so glad Amtrak is going after them, maybe individuals can go after the trucking company as well...


This last reader comment in the referenced news article says it all:

_jamesqf_

_ _

_9:56 AM on June 30, 2011_

_ _

_Am I being stupid in thinking that they could have built an over/underpass for a lot less than they're going to be spending on lawyers?_


----------



## Ryan

In this particular case? Probably.

The issue is that you don't know at what crossing the incident is going to occur at and the cost of grade separating all of them would cost many, many orders of magnitude more than all of the lawyers and damages for all of the grade crossing accidents that occur.


----------



## jis

Ryan said:


> In this particular case? Probably.
> 
> The issue is that you don't know at what crossing the incident is going to occur at and the cost of grade separating all of them would cost many, many orders of magnitude more than all of the lawyers and damages for all of the grade crossing accidents that occur.


Exactly. How would anyone know which crossing will have a whopper of an accident like this one. Suppose in good faith they had built an overpass here and the bad one took place at the next crossing. Now they are out funds for both the overpass and the lawyers. On the whole they probably still come out ahead financially.


----------



## john h

Ryan said:


> In this particular case? Probably.
> 
> The issue is that you don't know at what crossing the incident is going to occur at and the cost of grade separating all of them would cost many, many orders of magnitude more than all of the lawyers and damages for all of the grade crossing accidents that occur.


How many Amtrak crosses grades are there on roads that have speed limits of 65 or more? Just curious, also are there any interstaes that Amtrak has crossing on? I would think that it would be prohibbited on interstates but I am not sure


----------



## jis

john h said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> 
> In this particular case? Probably.
> 
> The issue is that you don't know at what crossing the incident is going to occur at and the cost of grade separating all of them would cost many, many orders of magnitude more than all of the lawyers and damages for all of the grade crossing accidents that occur.
> 
> 
> 
> How many Amtrak crosses grades are there on roads that have speed limits of 65 or more? Just curious, also are there any interstaes that Amtrak has crossing on? I would think that it would be prohibbited on interstates but I am not sure
Click to expand...

Interesting question to which I would like to know the answer too. But I would add that some of the most spectacularly damaging crossing incidents for Amtrak have taken place at relatively slow traffic local crossing. Bourbonnaise IL comes to mind.


----------



## George B

George said:


> Cristobal said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still leaning towards the theory that the truck driver was indeed trying to beat the train and tragically misjudged it's speed. I'm thinking this for a couple of reasons...
> 
> There is also the possibility that the driver thought that it would be funny to beat this train and laugh at his buddies stuck behind it.
> 
> 
> 
> We're perhaps getting way off topic here, but the above comment makes me mad - not at Cristobal, but at the thought that the driver might possibly have thought that way. He was the convoy leader; he had a responsibility to his truck-mates if not any driver following him. If he had made it through and if the second driver had not been able to stop, and had deaths occurred, he would in my opinion be guilty of at least voluntary manslaughter if not indeed murder (which might very well have been the case in California if his motivations could have been proven to a jury).
Click to expand...

If that makes you mad, then you really don’t want to know what games and tricks most drivers (both commercial and non-commercial) like to play when they get bored, complacent, or are in an altered state of mind. That is why in aviation we always say the most dangerous part about flying is the drive to the airport.


----------



## PaulM

Ryan said:


> Dan O said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you have never driven while you are distracted, you have never driven with anyone in your car, never taken a bite to eat, never drank a sip of water, never put on sunglasses, never listened to music, never changed anything on your dashboard (heat/etc), etc. Just because one hasn't plowed into a train or a pole doesn't mean one has not driven while distracted, if just for a second or if the truck driver was distracted in this case for maybe a half minute.
> 
> 
> 
> My claim that distracted driving is reckless has nothing to do with whether I've done it or not.
Click to expand...

Question: What is a conservative? Answer: a liberal who got mugged.

Dan's philosophy reminds me that the opposite is equally true.

Question: What is a liberal? Answer: a conservative who got caught.

Maybe I don't have too much sympathy for bleeding heart liberalism when it comes to driving an automobile. Not long ago my wife, while riding a bicycle, was left-hooked by a distracted/reckless driver and broke her leg.


----------



## Ryan

I'm going to shamelessly use those at every opportunity, Paul. 

The focus on distraction has really taken away from the point I was trying to make, which is that if you drive your truck into the side of a train, by definition you've been operating your truck in a reckless (and NOT wreck-less) fashion (barring edge cases like a legit, undiagnosed medical issue).


----------



## George B

One thing that you also have to keep in mind when we are trying to guess why the truck driver went through the crossing is that you can’t always use logic to determine why the truck driver did what he did. The fact that investigators are/were on-scene that were also used for the commuter aircraft accident in Buffalo, NY is an interesting parallel in many ways. In that aircraft accident, the pilots stalled the airplane repeatedly, eventually leading to the crash.

Now, from day one, pilots have it hammered in to their heads that stalls are a major cause of accidents, and they must demonstrate proficiency in being able to recognize a stall in various aircraft attitudes and successfully recover from it. The pilots in Buffalo, NY ignored all of their training, and kept pulling up the nose of the aircraft while the airspeed kept dropping. Not only did the stall warning system alert them of an impending stall, but the stick-pusher engaged several times and tried to force the nose of the aircraft down so the aircraft would recover, but the flight crew fought it all the way to impact with the ground. Very illogical, and a rather basic error that most pilots find unbelievable.

So, in the end, the investigation for the CZ accident might just show that the trucker was not speeding, driving recklessly, distracted by his phone, high on meth, exhausted, or playing a game of chicken with his buddies. He might have just had a moment of stupidity and put himself on the short end of stopping distance. It doesn’t make him any less guilty of negligence, nor does it diminish the consequences of his actions. But, don’t be shocked if we never find an answer as to why the trucker did what he did.


----------



## DET63

Thanks, Alan and PRR, for the figures. I'm sure those will come up a lot during the investigations, hearings, etc.

I do think that overpasses probably should be required for crossings involving rural highways with high speed limits (60-65 mph or higher) that are crossed by railroad tracks that also feature high speed limits.


----------



## The Journalist

john h said:


> How many Amtrak crosses grades are there on roads that have speed limits of 65 or more? Just curious, also are there any interstaes that Amtrak has crossing on? I would think that it would be prohibbited on interstates but I am not sure


Interstates, by being called that rather than "US Routes," do not have any grade crossings at all-either with railroad tracks or other roads. I think there are a few exceptions to the other roads rule, but not to the railroad rule.


----------



## Ryan

You're right, there are a handful of exceptions to the rule, but none involve railroad tracks:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gaps_in_Interstate_Highways#At-grade_intersections_and_traffic_lights


----------



## The Journalist

US95 in Nevada has several other railroad crossings-some of the are labeled "exempt," whatever that means, and another is in a slow zone through some small town so it wouldn't apply really.


----------



## AlanB

The Journalist said:


> US95 in Nevada has several other railroad crossings-some of the are labeled "exempt," whatever that means, and another is in a slow zone through some small town so it wouldn't apply really.


Exempt means that school buses and trucks with hazardous materials don't have to come to a complete stop before proceeding across the railroad crossing. Generally a line that is no longer in daily use, or perhaps a line that has a very low speed limit 10MPH, will have an exempt crossing. Otherwise, to avoid major disasters, school buses and hazmat trucks must come to a complete stop, look both ways, before proceeding over the crossing.


----------



## George Harris

> First, and perhaps foremost, is that even if this is a regular route for these drivers there is a good chance that they almost always only encounter slower freights.


The freight train speed limit at that location is 70 mph. Given the near flat terrian the normal freight train speed limit is probably reasonably close to that speed, which means the time between seeing train and train occupying crossing is about the same regardless of type of train. It also means that the time it would take a 100 car train to pass the crossing would be in the range of one minute, that is 60 seconds. Hardly a significant delay.



> I do think that overpasses probably should be required for crossings involving rural highways with high speed limits (60-65 mph or higher) that are crossed by railroad tracks that also feature high speed limits.


Until there is such a thing as unlimited money that will not happen. What does happen is that there are legitimate methods of applying monetary values to hazardous locations so that the money available is spent most effectively in reducting hazards. However, the real world also says that he who controls the checkbook controls how the money is spent which means that those with political power get their pet projects built regardless of how they prioritize in the needs analysis.

For this particular case, a wide open rural road with excellent visibility the needs analysis probably said that application of flashers and gates was the best use of funds for this location and money for grade separations was better spent where the return in safety improvements was higher.



> If he saw the lights start flashing (which happens a few seconds before the gates start to come down), he would have had to make a stop/don't-stop decision. Assuming he was paying proper attention to what he was doing (which he may or may not have been), how close to the nearest rail would he have been where it would have been best for him to simply disregard the signal, as he would be unable to safely stop in time (i.e., without locking the brakes, jackknifing, etc.)?


The warning time on the flashers was 25 seconds (which is the standard warning time). As to the statement that the driver had to make his decision on whether or not to stop after he saw the flashing start. No, legally he did not. When the flashers start flashing, that says stop, not to think about whether or not to stop, but you must stop.


----------



## The Journalist

Ah. The exempts are primarily around the Hawthorne Army base, which probably doesn't see many trains these days.


----------



## PRR 60

The Journalist said:


> US95 in Nevada has several other railroad crossings-some of the are labeled "exempt," whatever that means, and another is in a slow zone through some small town so it wouldn't apply really.


"Exempt" crossings are very low train frequency and speed crossings. Normally, hazmat trucks and buses are required to stop at rail crossings before proceeding. At "exempt" crossings, a stop is not required. If a train actually has to pass through an exempt crossing, the crew will stop, flag the crossing, then proceed.


----------



## PA Traveler

As I posted in a travelogue last night, this train was running three to three and a half hours' late out of Salt Lake City. When we got there to take the eastbound train, the people who were taking the westbound train were still in the station. There was an announcement made about the accident on our train after the accident the next day (we arrived at the station about 2 AM the same morning as the accident). They knew almost immediately that the conductor had been killed and made that announcement as she had been on our train earlier. I don't know where she changed trains.

My husband is a forensic engineer who investigates accidents. He said immediately that it had to be the truck driver and that it would be a year or more easily before there would be any preliminary or final results in an investigation like this.

It's so tragic, and I'm so sorry for the loss of life and for those who were injured or just had to be a part of this.


----------



## DET63

> I do think that overpasses probably should be required for crossings involving rural highways with high speed limits (60-65 mph or higher) that are crossed by railroad tracks that also feature high speed limits.
> 
> 
> 
> Until there is such a thing as unlimited money that will not happen.
Click to expand...

BS. There are not that many crossings that will fit those criteria. "Unlimited" money would not be needed to build overpasses where (comparatively) high-speed trains cross high-speed rural highways.



> As to the statement that the driver had to make his decision on whether or not to stop after he saw the flashing start. No, legally he did not. When the flashers start flashing, that says stop, not to think about whether or not to stop, but you must stop.


Again, BS. It's simply not possible to stop a truck on a dime. If he was doing 70 mph (103 ft/sec) only a couple of hundred feet away from the crossing when the lights came on, he would have been able to cross the intersection within a couple of seconds, well before the train got there or even the gates came down. Obviously, he was probably really several hundred feet further away, and if he made a conscious decision about whether or not to stop, the (incorrect) decision cost him his life and that of several others.



> "Exempt" crossings are very low train frequency and speed crossings.


Some may be abandoned lines where the tracks have not yet been removed.

If the tracks are still in use, though only a few times a week, school buses may be required to stop even if other vehicles are allowed to proceed without stopping. Usually signs in the area will inform drivers as to the exact status of the crossing.


----------



## jis

DET63 said:


> I do think that overpasses probably should be required for crossings involving rural highways with high speed limits (60-65 mph or higher) that are crossed by railroad tracks that also feature high speed limits.
> 
> 
> 
> Until there is such a thing as unlimited money that will not happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BS. There are not that many crossings that will fit those criteria. "Unlimited" money would not be needed to build overpasses where (comparatively) high-speed trains cross high-speed rural highways.
Click to expand...

Since you are so sure about the BS-ness of George's statement with such high level of certainty (apparently), could you perhaps provide an estimate of how many such crossings are there and what it would cost to convert all of them? Or are you happy just calling some statement BS based on just a strong, warm and fuzzy feeling?


----------



## George Harris

PRR 60 said:


> The Journalist said:
> 
> 
> 
> US95 in Nevada has several other railroad crossings-some of the are labeled "exempt," whatever that means, and another is in a slow zone through some small town so it wouldn't apply really.
> 
> 
> 
> "Exempt" crossings are very low train frequency and speed crossings. Normally, hazmat trucks and buses are required to stop at rail crossings before proceeding. At "exempt" crossings, a stop is not required. If a train actually has to pass through an exempt crossing, the crew will stop, flag the crossing, then proceed.
Click to expand...

If you were to look at the railroad's rules for trains at that crossing, you would probably see that they say "stop and flag" In other words, the train will not be going across that road until a member of the train crew is on the ground in the middle of the road to make sure traffic is either non-existant or stopped. If the track speed is low, that is probably not enough to allow hazmat and busses to go across the track without stopping.

Since from the pictures it looks like that crossing has all the latest "lights bells and whistles", so it probably had constant warning time circuitry, so regardless of train speed there would be the same warning time.

Someone was talking about "sun in their eyes" Huh?? The road is almost north-south in orientation. Last I looked the sun's path was fairly close to east-west.

For frequent users of a road, speed limits have little effect. The main thing we got out of the national 55 mph speed limit, now long gone and unmourned, was a general disrespect for speed limits and other road regulations. It may have played well in the postage stamp size states in the north east but in the larger states with lots of wide open road, they were senseless.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

George Harris said:


> For frequent users of a road, speed limits have little effect. The main thing we got out of the national 55 mph speed limit, now long gone and unmourned, was a general disrespect for speed limits and other road regulations. It may have played well in the postage stamp size states in the north east but in the larger states with lots of wide open road, they were senseless.


So you're saying that lowering speed does nothing to reduce fuel consumption or reduce fatalities?


----------



## George Harris

Texas Sunset said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> 
> For frequent users of a road, speed limits have little effect. The main thing we got out of the national 55 mph speed limit, now long gone and unmourned, was a general disrespect for speed limits and other road regulations. It may have played well in the postage stamp size states in the north east but in the larger states with lots of wide open road, they were senseless.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying that lowering speed does nothing to reduce fuel consumption or reduce fatalities?
Click to expand...

Lowering speed *LIMITS* has little to nothing to do with reducing fuel consumption and nothing to even being counterproductive to reducing accidents/fatalities. Why? Because steady driving of most vehicles at about the same speed is beneficial in reducing speed and reducing accidents. Thus, if everybody is driving 70 mph, on a road that is safe for 70, the overall situation is better than if you have a proportion of people driving 50 when another proportion are trying to drive 70.

Another factor that clouds any form of statitical analysis concerning highway accidents: Without exception, throughout the world the accident rate and traffic death rate per miles driven has a long term declining trend. There have been up and down wobbles, but the trend has been downward throughout the time that records exist. Yes, roads are safer. Yes, vehicles are safer. But, you would be hard put to find the points of beginning for the improvements from the statistics. There are many factors in the trends besides road and vehicle improvements. Improved awareness by drivers and pedestrians is a big factor. "Darwin" effects are another. Of course improvements in the roads and vehicles do spread gradually. Better signage relevant to hazards is beneficial.

Yes, gasoline usage and accidents both dropped during the "gas shortage crisis" of the mid 1970's. They dropped because a lot of trips were simply not made, so milage driven dropped. To state things in simplistic terms: It is hard to have a colission when there is not another vehicle out there to colide with.


----------



## George Harris

Found it for Illinois, but not Nevada:



> 40-1.03© *Exempt Railroad Crossings*
> 625 ILCS 5/11-1202 allows abandoned, industrial, or spur track railroad grade crossings to be designated as exempt by the Illinois Commerce Commission.
> 
> Exempt crossings must be signed according to the ILMUTCD before officially being considered exempt. Signs for exempt railroad crossings are intended to inform drivers of vehicles carrying passengers for hire, school buses carrying children, or vehicles carrying flammable or hazardous materials that a stop is not required at the designated grade crossing.


for a good bit of information on railroad crossings, see: www.techtransfer.berkeley.edu/railroad06downloads/nizam_macdonald.pdf


----------



## jdcnosse

George Harris said:


> So you're saying that lowering speed does nothing to reduce fuel consumption or reduce fatalities?
> 
> Lowering speed *LIMITS* has little to nothing to do with reducing fuel consumption and nothing to even being counterproductive to reducing accidents/fatalities. Why? Because steady driving of most vehicles at about the same speed is beneficial in reducing speed and reducing accidents. Thus, if everybody is driving 70 mph, on a road that is safe for 70, the overall situation is better than if you have a proportion of people driving 50 when another proportion are trying to drive 70.


A good example of this is the Autobahn in Germany. It has no speed limit (at least in the rural areas) so if we follow the "lower speed = less accidents" theory, they should have more accidents/fatalities, however that is totally the opposite. Apart from the fluid speed limits in the urban areas that change based on traffic conditions and weather, the Autobahn has specific rules that help maintain a steady driving of the vehicles all traveling around the same speed. If I recall correctly, it is also illegal to drive in the left lane there. It is only used for passing and that's it.

What's more important than the speed limit is the road and driver condition leading up to this railroad crossing.


----------



## DET63

jis said:


> DET63 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do think that overpasses probably should be required for crossings involving rural highways with high speed limits (60-65 mph or higher) that are crossed by railroad tracks that also feature high speed limits.
> 
> 
> 
> Until there is such a thing as unlimited money that will not happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BS. There are not that many crossings that will fit those criteria. "Unlimited" money would not be needed to build overpasses where (comparatively) high-speed trains cross high-speed rural highways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since you are so sure about the BS-ness of George's statement with such high level of certainty (apparently), could you perhaps provide an estimate of how many such crossings are there and what it would cost to convert all of them? Or are you happy just calling some statement BS based on just a strong, warm and fuzzy feeling?
Click to expand...

Logic, not "warmth" and "fuzziness." There are not that many rural two-lane highways in the U.S. where speed limits (or even average speeds) are in the 65-70mph or higher range. There are also not that many stretches of track (compared to overall railroad mileage) where speed limits are in the 70 mph or higher range. There would logically be only a few places where (a) those two cross; and (b) where there isn't already a grade separation.


----------



## GG-1

DET63 said:


> There are not that many rural two-lane highways in the U.S. where speed limits (or even average speeds) are in the 65-70mph or higher range. There are also not that many stretches of track (compared to overall railroad mileage) where speed limits are in the 70 mph or higher range. There would logically be only a few places where (a) those two cross; and (b) where there isn't already a grade separation.


Aloha

US 95 which is where the accident occurred continues south and passes my house. I use it to go to the Nevada Southern Rail museum in boulder City, near Hover Dam. It has many places with 70mph speed limits. On many of the roads in the Southern Nevada have 70mph limits. Except for real bad roads and in the towns most limits are 50mph.

Not supporting it but many drivers in this state drive 15-20mph over the limits. Last month on my trip to LA I was a slowpoke doing the limit on I-15, so vould not be suprised to hear reports that the driver of that truck was doing 80-90 mph before the accident.


----------



## George Harris

DET63 said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since you are so sure about the BS-ness of George's statement with such high level of certainty (apparently), could you perhaps provide an estimate of how many such crossings are there and what it would cost to convert all of them? Or are you happy just calling some statement BS based on just a strong, warm and fuzzy feeling?
> 
> 
> 
> Logic, not "warmth" and "fuzziness." There are not that many rural two-lane highways in the U.S. where speed limits (or even average speeds) are in the 65-70mph or higher range. There are also not that many stretches of track (compared to overall railroad mileage) where speed limits are in the 70 mph or higher range. There would logically be only a few places where (a) those two cross; and (b) where there isn't already a grade separation.
Click to expand...

How about some numbers? If you get into the less densely populated states, particularly those west of the Mississippi, there are lots of miles of wide open two lane. There are also lots of miles of railroads in this country with 70 mph freight speed limits as well, again a lot of them west of the Big Muddy. As to how many grade crossing of the two there are, that I do not claim to know.


----------



## jis

DET63 said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DET63 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do think that overpasses probably should be required for crossings involving rural highways with high speed limits (60-65 mph or higher) that are crossed by railroad tracks that also feature high speed limits.
> 
> 
> 
> Until there is such a thing as unlimited money that will not happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BS. There are not that many crossings that will fit those criteria. "Unlimited" money would not be needed to build overpasses where (comparatively) high-speed trains cross high-speed rural highways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since you are so sure about the BS-ness of George's statement with such high level of certainty (apparently), could you perhaps provide an estimate of how many such crossings are there and what it would cost to convert all of them? Or are you happy just calling some statement BS based on just a strong, warm and fuzzy feeling?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Logic, not "warmth" and "fuzziness." There are not that many rural two-lane highways in the U.S. where speed limits (or even average speeds) are in the 65-70mph or higher range. There are also not that many stretches of track (compared to overall railroad mileage) where speed limits are in the 70 mph or higher range. There would logically be only a few places where (a) those two cross; and (b) where there isn't already a grade separation.
Click to expand...

Ah OK. So you don't have the numbers to back up your "warm and fuzzy"  . OK. Just checking.


----------



## Dan O

http://www.rgj.com/article/20110630/NEWS/110630006/Amtrak-train-crash-Nevada-crossings-investigated-after-report-near-miss-9-months-ago?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|Local News

This does not take culpability away from the truck driver but it makes me think that something should be done there, be it lower speed limit or something else.

Dan


----------



## Ryan

There seems to be a key difference between this crash and the near miss. With the crossing at such a shallow angle, it looks like the near miss came when the train was approaching "over the shoulder" of the truck driver. This crash it appears as the truck and train were in more of a head on geometry.

I don't have any idea on the numbers, but high speed limits (on the road) and grade crossings don't seem to mix. 25 seconds might be enough to stop a car at "normal" speeds, but a truck traveling much faster is going to need more warning.


----------



## George Harris

A little bit of digging into Nevada DOT information finds that the AADT (annual average daily traffic count) for US 95 at this location is 870 vehicles per day. That was for 2009, but for the entire 10 year period in the record found the count has been near constant, with the highest being 920 in 2000 and the lowest being 780 in 2002 and 2003. For comparison, the theoretical capacity of a two lane highway is between 1500 and 3000 vehicles *per hour*, depending on terrain and other factors.


----------



## Bruce-C

All due respect to our eastern members, but you have to have driven in rural Nevada to understand how vast it is. I have driven several trips on US. #50 between Ely and Fallon (a two-lane highway with a 70mph. speed limit) and could count a total of 10-15 vehicles in the entire 240 mi. run.

I sure wish I knew how to post a couple photographs to show how truly wide open and beautiful rural Nevada is.


----------



## Big Iron

George Harris said:


> A little bit of digging into Nevada DOT information finds that the AADT (annual average daily traffic count) for US 95 at this location is 870 vehicles per day. That was for 2009, but for the entire 10 year period in the record found the count has been near constant, with the highest being 920 in 2000 and the lowest being 780 in 2002 and 2003. For comparison, the theoretical capacity of a two lane highway is between 1500 and 3000 vehicles *per hour*, depending on terrain and other factors.


NDOT will be conducting a saftey audit of the crossing to determine if the current setup is safe. The article I read also stated that there are 3 grade crossings in NV where the speed limit is 70mph and 3 more where the speed limit is 65mph.

Something seems intuitively wrong to me to have an at grade crossing on roads with speed limits that high.


----------



## George Harris

Based on sight distance standards, there was plenty of sight distance for this crossing.

Here are the numbers from the California Highway Design Manual:

Sight Distance Standards

Design....Stopping.....Decision

Speed....Sight Dist...Sight Dist

(mph).....(feet).......(feet)

..20.......125.......not given

..25.......150.......not given

..30.......200.........450

..35.......250.........525

..40.......300.........600

..45.......360.........675

..50.......430.........750

..55.......500.........865

..60.......580.........990

..65.......660.......1,050

..70.......750.......1,105

..75.......840.......1,180

..80.......930.......1,260

Stopping sight distance includes a component for reaction time and considers less than perfect road conditions.

Decision sight distance is the distance that is “desirable to allow drivers time for decisions without making last minute erratic maneuvers”

For those that want to know more, the Cal DOT Manual references Chapter III of AASHTO, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets.

I am not trying to say that leaving this as a grade crossing is a good idea. I believe that there should be 100% seperation of railroads and highways. However, given traffic volume and sight distances, it is very understandable that this particular crossing would not be near the top of the list of problem crossings that urgently require work.


----------



## Tumbleweed

All these statistics and analyses are fine, but the bottom line when driving a vehicle of any kind on any highway in any location is maintaining situational awareness....if everyone done that and reacted accordingly, the accident rate would decline rapidly......


----------



## Big Iron

George Harris said:


> Based on sight distance standards, there was plenty of sight distance for this crossing.
> 
> Here are the numbers from the California Highway Design Manual:
> 
> Sight Distance Standards
> 
> Design....Stopping.....Decision
> 
> Speed....Sight Dist...Sight Dist
> 
> (mph).....(feet).......(feet)
> 
> ..20.......125.......not given
> 
> ..25.......150.......not given
> 
> ..30.......200.........450
> 
> ..35.......250.........525
> 
> ..40.......300.........600
> 
> ..45.......360.........675
> 
> ..50.......430.........750
> 
> ..55.......500.........865
> 
> ..60.......580.........990
> 
> ..65.......660.......1,050
> 
> ..70.......750.......1,105
> 
> ..75.......840.......1,180
> 
> ..80.......930.......1,260
> 
> Stopping sight distance includes a component for reaction time and considers less than perfect road conditions.
> 
> Decision sight distance is the distance that is “desirable to allow drivers time for decisions without making last minute erratic maneuvers”
> 
> For those that want to know more, the Cal DOT Manual references Chapter III of AASHTO, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets.
> 
> I am not trying to say that leaving this as a grade crossing is a good idea. I believe that there should be 100% seperation of railroads and highways. However, given traffic volume and sight distances, it is very understandable that this particular crossing would not be near the top of the list of problem crossings that urgently require work.



Your comments are inline with what the NDOT person mentioned in the article. He said the sight distance for the crossing was 2,000 ft. and was within Federal standards for safe grade crossings.


----------



## PetalumaLoco

Latest suit filed. Attendant sues Amtrak.

So apparently you can get from a Superliner to a Viewliner (single level) baggage car? Didn't know that.


----------



## Trogdor

PetalumaLoco said:


> So apparently you can get from a Superliner to a Viewliner (single level) baggage car? Didn't know that.


That's what the transition sleeper is for.

(Also, the current baggage car fleet is Heritage cars. There are no Viewliner baggage cars yet)


----------



## PetalumaLoco

Trogdor said:


> PetalumaLoco said:
> 
> 
> 
> So apparently you can get from a Superliner to a Viewliner (single level) baggage car? Didn't know that.
> 
> 
> 
> That's what the transition sleeper is for.
> 
> (Also, the current baggage car fleet is Heritage cars. There are no Viewliner baggage cars yet)
Click to expand...

OK, thanks.


----------



## Karl1459

Speed limits are only a good as observed. So are crossing gates. So the safest, though most expensive, way is a total grade separation. A lower cost option to slow traffic and get attention is to create an artificial "S" curve in the road prior to the crossing. For a low traffic, high speed crossing such as this one with lots of low cost land available it may be the most cost effective safety improvement available.

When we consider grade crossings there are several factors, road use and speed, and rail use and speed. High use and speed of both road and rail quickly justifies the costs of a grade separation. Low road speed will usually confine injuries to the road vehicle ("law of lugnuts"), Burbonase an exeption. The recipe for disaster is high road speed with high train speed, though with low road use they will be infrequent.


----------



## hessjm

IIRC, once Amtrak started to carrying firearms in checked baggage there would not be access from the transition sleeper anymore so the door would normally be locked. I thought it was mentioned here in this forum a while back, but I can't find the thread. Does anyone else remember recall seeing that?


----------



## john h

hessjm said:


> IIRC, once Amtrak started to carrying firearms in checked baggage there would not be access from the transition sleeper anymore so the door would normally be locked. I thought it was mentioned here in this forum a while back, but I can't find the thread. Does anyone else remember recall seeing that?


Here is a transcript that said Amtrak had to use Locked bagge cars from Dec 1 2010

cnn transcript on fire arms

ROBERTS: And the weapon has to be unloaded and has to be in checked luggage which goes into a locked baggage car, right?

CHETRY: On some cars, so hopefully.


----------



## AmtrakBlue

Wouldn't the OBS be aware that the baggage car is locked? At least the ones working in the transdorm?


----------



## amamba

Even if the OBS was aware that the baggage car was supposed to be locked, it does seem like potentially a safety/fire hazard to not have any egress from the train that way. I wonder if this was considered before the decision was made to accept firearms as checked baggage?

Moreover, and I know someone here knows it, how did amtrak arrive at the decision to allow firearms in the baggage car? Was it mandated by congress? Did someone just decide to do it? If it was mandated by Congress, than it seems like amtrak should not be culpable here.


----------



## Michael061282

It was mandated.


----------



## AmtrakBlue

amamba said:


> Even if the OBS was aware that the baggage car was supposed to be locked, it does seem like potentially a safety/fire hazard to not have any egress from the train that way. I wonder if this was considered before the decision was made to accept firearms as checked baggage?
> 
> Moreover, and I know someone here knows it, how did amtrak arrive at the decision to allow firearms in the baggage car? Was it mandated by congress? Did someone just decide to do it? If it was mandated by Congress, than it seems like amtrak should not be culpable here.


I agree that it would be a safety/fire hazard to have it locked. And, of course, the OBS could have been confused as to which way she was headed, etc.


----------



## PRR 60

Aren't the firearms in a separate, locked container in the baggage car? If so, locking access to the car itself would not be necessary to secure the firearms.

I believe locking the car is a general security measure that is not associated with the firearms locker.


----------



## jis

Besides there are all those removable windows to provide egress in an emergency. So I doubt that a locked baggage car counts for much as a safety hazard.


----------



## john h

jis said:


> Besides there are all those removable windows to provide egress in an emergency. So I doubt that a locked baggage car counts for much as a safety hazard.


The cars were standing up right,, try to get out of a 2nd floor superliner


----------



## Ryan

When it's on fire?

Out you go!!!


----------



## GG-1

john h said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Besides there are all those removable windows to provide egress in an emergency. So I doubt that a locked baggage car counts for much as a safety hazard.
> 
> 
> 
> The cars were standing up right,, try to get out of a 2nd floor superliner
Click to expand...

Aloha

Even at my age if my choice is between being charbroiled or jumping from the second story, I am jumping!


----------



## jis

john h said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Besides there are all those removable windows to provide egress in an emergency. So I doubt that a locked baggage car counts for much as a safety hazard.
> 
> 
> 
> The cars were standing up right,, try to get out of a 2nd floor superliner
Click to expand...

You can't get to the Baggage Car from the second floor without coming down to the first floor anyway. So I don't see the relevance of this comment to the present discussion.


----------



## Amtrak839

jis said:


> john h said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Besides there are all those removable windows to provide egress in an emergency. So I doubt that a locked baggage car counts for much as a safety hazard.
> 
> 
> 
> The cars were standing up right,, try to get out of a 2nd floor superliner
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't get to the Baggage Car from the second floor without coming down to the first floor anyway. So I don't see the relevance of this comment to the present discussion.
Click to expand...

Actually, the only way is a stairway at the transition end of the car that leads down from the second floor to single level doorway. So if someone were downstairs in the transition sleeper and wanted to get to the baggage car, they would have to go up to the second floor then down the stairway to the single level doorway.


----------



## The Chief

One would think that OBS would have what used to be called "coach keys," which are keys that can open coach door locks, and locks into say, a baggage car. That is such a simple "workaround" I would be surprised -- but not astonished -- if OBS did not have those keys. And I know there are automatic doors on *Superliners* (and the East fleet) but I don't think that is the case on a *Heritage baggage*, which would be an old school door. The baggage cars I've seen on *Lake Shore*, *Crescent*, and the *Silvers* are old school. So if the baggage car access door is locked, simply insert key, unlock, and open door.

Suing attendant Lana Dickerson of Worth, Ill, reported to have a 2009 seniority date, may not understand Murphy's Law during emergencies or combat.

However her lawsuit vs. *Amtrak* (and John Davis Trucking Company of Battle Mountain) alleges that Amtrak also did not properly train its employees for how to respond in the case of a collision at a grade crossing. Now that, if proven, could be of concern to all PAX.

The suit also claims Amtrak did not properly inspect, maintain or repair its equipment, and did not provide “a crashworthy railroad car.”

That's a two-part allegation: Part 1 may have merit (albeit maybe not directly affecting this axy, but rather Amtrak's overall inspection/maintenance/repair processes; Part 2 would have to be something similar to an M1A2 tank,,,

Regarding escaping a burning Superliner, I, too, would jump, even from the roof. Some reports and videos indicated some *Zephyr* surviving PAX lamenting a victim who would not jump, or drop down, from the flame-ridden sleeper.

And as I noted in an earlier post in this thread,



The Chief said:


> This is a good time for us to reflect on our own emergency plans and possible contributions on board Amtrak (or commuter rail) in event of any emergency, or catastrophe -- God forbid -- during our future travels. To those who much has been given, much is expected. With our familiarity, insight, interest and intelligence, many of us on this site could really help during an on-board situation when seconds count.


The Chief note: _FOX News_ did _not_ contribute to this post.


----------



## amamba

I think it is an excellent point that we should all consider our own emergency plans. It is not something I generally consider but will in the future.


----------



## jis

amamba said:


> I think it is an excellent point that we should all consider our own emergency plans. It is not something I generally consider but will in the future.


When flying, on each flight, before it takes off I know precisely what the first, second and third alternative exits are for me. On a train I always know the same before it gets on its way.


----------



## AlanB

jis said:


> amamba said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is an excellent point that we should all consider our own emergency plans. It is not something I generally consider but will in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> When flying, on each flight, before it takes off I know precisely what the first, second and third alternative exits are for me. On a train I always know the same before it gets on its way.
Click to expand...

I take that even a step further. When I'm on the train I always have a mini-mag light hooked onto my belt. The only time it's not on my belt is when I'm sleeping and then it's in the little accessories holder next to the bed and right where I can get to it.


----------



## Everydaymatters

I've had a knee replacement and trying to get that replacement leg up and over the edge of the window might not be a possibility. Sometimes I have to manually lift that leg just to get into a car. Getting out of a train window might not be possible. In addition to it being weak, I can't move that leg in some angles. I'd probably be one of those who wouldn't be able to jump out the window.


----------



## jis

AlanB said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amamba said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is an excellent point that we should all consider our own emergency plans. It is not something I generally consider but will in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> When flying, on each flight, before it takes off I know precisely what the first, second and third alternative exits are for me. On a train I always know the same before it gets on its way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I take that even a step further. When I'm on the train I always have a mini-mag light hooked onto my belt. The only time it's not on my belt is when I'm sleeping and then it's in the little accessories holder next to the bed and right where I can get to it.
Click to expand...

I have a LED light attached to my keyring that will at least get you light for an hour or so.


----------



## gswager

I have my cell phone. When you flip the phone open, light comes out of the screen.


----------



## The Chief

Bump.

"The collision threw Turner, 64, out of her booth,,,

"She was able to watch the horrific scene play out because the Amtrak *California Zephyr* train had been going around a curve when the truck hit."

_Contra Costa Times_ 07/09/2011 Interview with PAX.


----------



## George Harris

The Chief said:


> "She was able to watch the horrific scene play out because the Amtrak *California Zephyr* train had been going around a curve when the truck hit."



DO WHAT??

Somebody better look at a map. The railroad is dead straight for something like 3 miles in advance of that crossing. There is a curve to the right that starts about 3/4 mile PAST the crossing.


----------



## Dan O

George Harris said:


> The Chief said:
> 
> 
> 
> "She was able to watch the horrific scene play out because the Amtrak *California Zephyr* train had been going around a curve when the truck hit."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DO WHAT??
> 
> Somebody better look at a map. The railroad is dead straight for something like 3 miles in advance of that crossing. There is a curve to the right that starts about 3/4 mile PAST the crossing.
Click to expand...

That didn't make sense to me either.

I wonder if the near miss there last year and a conductor saying that there are close calls there (5 a year I thought she/he said) will hurt Amtrak's case in their lawsuit.

Dan


----------



## trainman74

There's also this from the article:

"There were 204 passengers and 14 crew members aboard the train, which was traveling from *Evanston, Ill.*, to Emeryville, according to an Amtrak spokesman."

Very convenient for Northwestern University students!


----------



## Henry Kisor

The Evanston departure is convenient for me, too -- I live there. Of course, there's this looooooong smoking stop at a place called Chicago Union Station.


----------



## George Harris

Dan O said:


> I wonder if the near miss there last year and a conductor saying that there are close calls there (5 a year I thought she/he said) will hurt Amtrak's case in their lawsuit.


Since the presence or absence of a grade crossing or separation is entirely outside Amtrak's control it would be hard to see how it would affect their case at all.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

George Harris said:


> Dan O said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if the near miss there last year and a conductor saying that there are close calls there (5 a year I thought she/he said) will hurt Amtrak's case in their lawsuit.
> 
> 
> 
> Since the presence or absence of a grade crossing or separation is entirely outside Amtrak's control it would be hard to see how it would affect their case at all.
Click to expand...

It might affect any lawsuit against the host railroad though. But of course the host railroad can simply submit the bill for any of their own liabilities to Amtrak. Thank god for fault-neutral indemnity agreements.


----------



## AlanB

Texas Sunset said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan O said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if the near miss there last year and a conductor saying that there are close calls there (5 a year I thought she/he said) will hurt Amtrak's case in their lawsuit.
> 
> 
> 
> Since the presence or absence of a grade crossing or separation is entirely outside Amtrak's control it would be hard to see how it would affect their case at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It might affect any lawsuit against the host railroad though. But of course the host railroad can simply submit the bill for any of their own liabilities to Amtrak. Thank god for fault-neutral indemnity agreements.
Click to expand...

It will have no effect on anything, since the RR isn't in charge of building roads. It is not their decision to dig a tunnel or build a bridge. That is entirely up to the State to decide what, if anything to do about a crossing.


----------



## Dan O

AlanB said:


> It will have no effect on anything, since the RR isn't in charge of building roads. It is not their decision to dig a tunnel or build a bridge. That is entirely up to the State to decide what, if anything to do about a crossing.


Perhaps not. I could envision the trucking company saying that the crossing was unsafe and nothing was done to make it safer, thereby trying to spread the blame around a bit. May be way off but that would be something I'd be considering if I were the trucking company.

Dan


----------



## AlanB

Dan O said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> It will have no effect on anything, since the RR isn't in charge of building roads. It is not their decision to dig a tunnel or build a bridge. That is entirely up to the State to decide what, if anything to do about a crossing.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps not. I could envision the trucking company saying that the crossing was unsafe and nothing was done to make it safer, thereby trying to spread the blame around a bit. May be way off but that would be something I'd be considering if I were the trucking company.
> 
> Dan
Click to expand...

They may well try that idea, the crossing was unsafe. But the blame would be spread to NDOT or which ever DOT owns the road in question. The RR has nothing to do with the crossing essentially, other than making sure that the signals are working and that the plates between the tracks in in good repair. Even if the signs/signals weren't facing in quite the right direction, that would be the fault of the DOT. They are traffic control devices and therefore the RR cannot even install signals or gates without the permission of the DOT.


----------



## PRR 60

AlanB said:


> Dan O said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> It will have no effect on anything, since the RR isn't in charge of building roads. It is not their decision to dig a tunnel or build a bridge. That is entirely up to the State to decide what, if anything to do about a crossing.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps not. I could envision the trucking company saying that the crossing was unsafe and nothing was done to make it safer, thereby trying to spread the blame around a bit. May be way off but that would be something I'd be considering if I were the trucking company.
> 
> Dan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They may well try that idea, the crossing was unsafe. But the blame would be spread to NDOT or which ever DOT owns the road in question. The RR has nothing to do with the crossing essentially, other than making sure that the signals are working and that the plates between the tracks in in good repair. Even if the signs/signals weren't facing in quite the right direction, that would be the fault of the DOT. They are traffic control devices and therefore the RR cannot even install signals or gates without the permission of the DOT.
Click to expand...

In most, if not all cases, the maintenance of grade crossing signals and gates is the responsibility of the railroad, not the highway authority. If a signal fails, the railroad fixes it, not the state, county or local highway agency.

The requirement to install grade crossing protection, and the type and design of the protection, is governed by the state, usually under the control the state utility commission (following FRA regulations). The design is usually (but not always) cooperative between the railroad and the highway agency, but the final order detailing the required design and the cost allocations is made by the state utility commissions. In general, the highway agency pays for the initial installation, and the railroad pays for the operation and maintenance of the protection.


----------



## AlanB

PRR 60 said:


> In most, if not all cases, the maintenance of grade crossing signals and gates is the responsibility of the railroad, not the highway authority. If a signal fails, the railroad fixes it, not the state, county or local highway agency.


Agreed, wasn't trying to suggest otherwise. My point was that they can't just show up one day and decide to put in gates either. They also can't decide to move the signal say 2 feet to the right or left, without permission from the DOT.


----------



## PRR 60

AlanB said:


> PRR 60 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In most, if not all cases, the maintenance of grade crossing signals and gates is the responsibility of the railroad, not the highway authority. If a signal fails, the railroad fixes it, not the state, county or local highway agency.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed, wasn't trying to suggest otherwise. My point was that they can't just show up one day and decide to put in gates either. They also can't decide to move the signal say 2 feet to the right or left, without permission from the DOT.
Click to expand...

You're right: the railroad can't make any changes in the crossing without permission. However, the permission would not come from the state DOT or whatever agency is responsible for the highway. It would come from the state utility commission. The highway agency would have a voice in the decision, as would any other affected parties (like, for example, the local power company), but the utility commission issues the final order that is then binding on all parties. It could even be a decision the highway agency or the railroad does not like, but even if the DOT objects, the commission has the final say.


----------



## afigg

Don't know when the NTSB put up the preliminary report on their website, but there is a web page under Accident Investigations at http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/2011/miriam_nv.html On that page, there is a link to a short preliminary report summary.

Excerpt from the accident summary:

"Investigators have documented that the sight distance on the section of roadway leading up to the grade crossing from the truck driver’s direction of travel was over 1 mile; a color video recording from the lead locomotive showed that the crossing gates were down as the train approached the crossing and the audio recording confirmed that the train horn and crossing bell were activated; and tire marks were found starting 320 feet from the grade crossing and continuing up to the railroad tracks.

The data from the train’s event data recorder and video recorder are being analyzed at the NTSB’s recorder laboratory in Washington. The cell phone that was believed to belong to the truck driver was found near the scene and is also being examined at the NTSB lab."

Answers some questions about the visibility range and further confirms that the gates were down & the horn was working.


----------



## SP&S

Thanks for finding this and posting the link. Preliminary as it is, it sure seems to put all the onus on the truck driver. May his innocent victims rest in peace.


----------



## Dan O

afigg said:


> Excerpt from the accident summary:
> 
> "Investigators have documented that the sight distance on the section of roadway leading up to the grade crossing from the truck driver’s direction of travel was over 1 mile;


There may be visibility from over one mile but the road and the track are close to parallel at that point. I would think that at that point the train would be over a mile away from the point of impact as well so the driver would be looking for a train coming directly at him over two miles away. Haven't been there so I don't know if that would be difficult or not. But it's different than if the tracks and road were perpindicular to each other. Looks to me from the map that at about 1/3 of the mile the road turns so that the driver would be looking straight ahead to where the tracks intersect the road. If he was distracted for about 10 seconds from that point on, that could account for his failure to brake until the last 300+ feet. Just wild speculation. But I think the report re sight distance may be questioned later.

Dan


----------



## George B

The last 1/3 mile of road before the crossing has an acute angle of 40 degrees. Further out from that, it would indeed be difficult to determine closure rate between you and the train due to the shallower angle. But, that is why there is such thing as lights and gates at that crossing to help take out the guesswork. Also, there is this often-unused backup system called common sense. If you can’t tell what the closure rate is, then slow down and be ready to stop at the crossing. The only way he could have not been able to stop during the last 1/3 mile on the approach was if he was going like a bat out of hell, or was distracted.


----------



## GaSteve

The latest chapter


----------



## afigg

GaSteve said:


> The latest chapter


It helps if you provide a summary of what the link is about so people can decide whether to click on it or not.

Summary: UP is now suing the trucking company. Start of the news article:

"In what seems to be turning into a legal pingpong game, Union Pacific Railroad has filed a countersuit against the trucking company that was involved in the deadly crash into an Amtrak train in June.

The Union Pacific suit filed in U.S. District Court in Reno was in response to a lawsuit filed by John Davis Trucking Co. of Battle Mountain against Amtrak and Union Pacific, claiming the rail companies failed to maintain a safe crossing."

I saw the photos of the train crossing with the crossbeam with OVERHEAD flashing lights over the road and working gates. In the desert with no trees blocking the view. We will have to wait for the NTSB report to get a detailed analysis, but suing the railroad for failure to maintain a safe crossing is not likely to succeed in court.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Looks like this brings the list of active lawsuits to nine or so.

Lawsuit #01 Amtrak sues John Davis Trucking

Lawsuit #02 Victim sues John Davis Trucking

Lawsuit #03 Victim sues John Davis Trucking

Lawsuit #04 Victim sues John Davis Trucking

Lawsuit #05 Victim sues John Davis Trucking

Lawsuit #06 Victim sues John Davis Trucking

Lawsuit #07 Victim sues Amtrak

Lawsuit #08 John Davis Trucking sues Amtrak & Union Pacific

Lawsuit #09 Union Pacific sues John Davis Trucking

Suing a company with something like a 43 billion dollar market cap seems like a bit of a long shot to me, but what do I know.

*Lawrence Valli*







_Fined for speeding four times in the last three years._
















John Davis Trucking

1110 Muleshoe Road

Battle Mountain, NV 89820

Phone: 775-635-2805

Fax: 775-635-8017

USDOT: 159572

Total Trucks: 67

Total Drivers: 130


----------



## the_traveler

I agree with afigg. The photos show the crossing arms down (on both sides)! That says to me that the truck drove *AROUND* the down crossing arms! (I hardly think UP rushed out a crew as soon as they heard about the accident just to reinstall a broken crossing arm before a photo of the scene was taken!



)


----------



## afigg

the_traveler said:


> I agree with afigg. The photos show the crossing arms down (on both sides)! That says to me that the truck drove *AROUND* the down crossing arms! (I hardly think UP rushed out a crew as soon as they heard about the accident just to reinstall a broken crossing arm before a photo of the scene was taken!
> 
> 
> 
> )


Don't want to rehash all the discussions earlier in this thread, but the truck driver was clearly going way too fast if his intent was to drive around the gates. He slammed on the brakes and left around 320' of skid marks up to the location where his cab punched through the side of the trans-dorm car. There was a guardrail to the driver's right side of the road at the intersection and the train was also coming from the driver's right. It appears that the truck driver swerved to his left to aim for some open space and instinctively head away from the train. In doing so, his truck and trailers missed hitting the gate, but broadsided the train. To maneuver around the gates, he would have to slow down, say 10 or 15 mph. And the train got to the crossing 2 plus seconds before the truck did. No, the evidence strongly suggests that the truck was going down the road at a pretty good clip, and the driver was distracted, inattentive, zoned out, or should have not been operating the truck for some reason, and saw the gates & lights way too late to come to a full stop in time.


----------



## PRR 60

the_traveler said:


> I agree with afigg. The photos show the crossing arms down (on both sides)! That says to me that the truck drove *AROUND* the down crossing arms! (I hardly think UP rushed out a crew as soon as they heard about the accident just to reinstall a broken crossing arm before a photo of the scene was taken!
> 
> 
> 
> )


The highway skid marks show the truck was in a locked-wheel skid for nearly 300 feet prior to impact. With the wheels locked, there is no steering. The driver is helpless. The driver did not intentionally drive around the gates. The out-of-control truck happened to miss the gates.

The lawsuit by the UP is SOP. In a case like this, all parties sue each other, then let the court sort things out. Once you file suit, you have the right to root through evidence held by the other party (discovery). Law suits and counter suits by parties on both sides of an incident happen all the time. It is only a matter of when, not if. Similarly, a passenger injured on that train should sue everyone - the trucking company, Amtrak and the Union Pacific. It is not up to a passenger to determine who is at fault. Some times what initially seems obvious becomes less so once all the facts are known. Let the courts do that, and then you can be in correct line for compensation once the determination has been made.


----------



## RPE

Now on the bright side, just saw this on the train orders site. Hope this is true. I am scheduled for the 5th out of Chicago. Anybody have any word through their contacts?

*Passenger Trains > Zephyr east of DEN open for bookings beginning Friday*

Date: 09/11/11 20:29

Amtrak is accepting bookings for the California Zephyr east of Denver, beginning with the departures from Chicago and Denver on Friday, Sep. 16.

Space is available through all the usual sources including Amtrak.com

There has been no official announcement of service resumption; the advisory still says that the Zephyr is "canceled between Denver and Chicago

until a date to be announced later this month." Perhaps an update tomorrow morning?


----------



## Devil's Advocate

In possibly related news the NTSB has finally recommend that commercial truck drivers be banned from cell phone use while actively driving. The statement is included in its entirety for the following reasons.

1. It is an unrestricted press release intended for immediate dissemination.

2. It is a work of the US government for the purpose of informing its citizens.

3. Righthaven LLC has been sanctioned and is likely to file for bankruptcy.



> National Transportation Safety Board
> 
> Office of Public Affairs
> 
> September 13, 2011
> 
> NTSB calls for ban on use of mobile phones by commercial drivers; cites need for improved mediam barriers in accident that killed 11 in Kentucky
> 
> Citing distraction from the use of a mobile phone by the driver of an 18-wheel semi truck as the probable cause of a crash that killed 11 people, the National Transportation Safety Board recommended banning the use of mobile phones by commercial drivers except in emergencies.
> 
> "Distracted driving is becoming increasingly prevalent, exacerbating the danger we encounter daily on our roadways," said NTSB Chairman Deborah A.P. Hersman. "It can be especially lethal when the distracted driver is at the wheel of a vehicle that weighs 40 tons and travels at highway speeds."
> 
> On March 26, 2010, at about 5:14 a.m. CDT, near Munfordville, Kentucky, a truck-tractor semitrailer combination unit driven by a 45-year-old male departed the left lane of southbound Interstate 65, crossed a 60-foot-wide median, struck and overrode a cable barrier system, entered the northbound travel lanes, and struck a 15-passenger van, driven by a 41-year-old male and occupied by 11 passengers (eight adults, two small children, and an infant). The truck driver and 10 of the 12 occupants of the van were killed.
> 
> Investigators determined that the driver used his mobile phone for calls and text messages a total of 69 times while driving in the 24-hour period prior to the accident. The driver made four calls in the minutes leading up to the crash, making the last call at 5:14 a.m. CDT, coinciding with the time that the truck departed the highway.
> 
> The Safety Board also determined that the median barrier system, which had recently been installed following another cross-median fatal accident on the same section of I-65, contributed to the severity of the accident because it was not designed to redirect or contain a vehicle of the accident truck's size. Because median crossover accidents involving large vehicles are so deadly, the NTSB made recommendations regarding the use of appropriately designed median barriers on roadways with high volumes of commercial vehicles.
> 
> At the meeting today, the NTSB issued 15 new safety recommendations to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA), all 50 states, and the District of Columbia. The Safety Board also reiterated two previously issued recommendations to the FMCSA.
> 
> A synopsis of the NTSB report, including the probable cause, findings, and a complete list of all the safety recommendations, is available on the NTSB's website. The NTSB's full report will be available on the website in several weeks.


I'm fine with all of that so long as it's the trucking companies themselves who are paying for all these upgrades and enhancements necessary to keep their distracted drivers from killing and maiming the rest of us.

And here is a portion of the AP writeup for critical, educational, and research purposes.



> The NTSB doesn't have the power to ban cell calls and texting. It sent its recommendation to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and all 50 states for action. Kentucky is among 34 states that have barred texting for all drivers but it doesn't outlaw cellphone calls behind the wheel. The proposed ban would cover commercial driver's license holders while they operate vehicles such as tractor-trailers, buses or tanker trucks.


Sounds good to me. Can we add full size trucks and SUV's to the list as well?



> The NTSB voted to accept its investigators' conclusion that Laymon, distracted by his phone, caused the deadly wreck. In an interview before the hearing, Misty Laymon said her husband was careful about using his phone while driving, even buying a hands-free device to ensure safety. "I don't want him perceived to be another incompetent driver who killed people," she said.


If that's what she was so worried about then she should have told her easily distracted husband not to use his phone while driving. The only thing I want to hear from Misty Laymon on this subject is that she feels absolutely horrible for all the innocent people her husband killed.

Instead we get a story about how Misty Laymon stubbornly refuses to grasp that it's *not* simply a matter of having our hands free. It's about being able to mentally process what's occurring around us and react to it quickly and appropriately. But I suppose studies and statistics are no match for a public that's too distracted to read them and hasn't been taught how to understand them.


----------



## George Harris

Count me as one that does not see the cell phone use as being the issue. It was at most incidental to going to fast, being unaware of conditions, taking unnecessary risks, etc. While we will never know what he was thinking, if anything, it looks much like he though he could beat the train. Getting abig rig from a stop back up to speed is neither as simple nor as quick as doing it with a car, so he may have just felt he could beat it and avoid a stop and restart. That he did not see the train or the flashing lights at the crossing simply does not hold water. Cell phone or no cell phone, those shold not have been missed by anyone competent enough to be allowed to drive anything larger than a riding lawnmower.

As to grade a seperation, this is a crossing with good visibility and, despite being a US numbered highway, a relatively low traffic volume, so it would not be near the top of the priority listing for grade seperation.


----------



## The Davy Crockett

Yep, *this thread was last posted to well over two years ago*, but the Reno Gazette Journal had an article on the ongoing litigation yesterday. From the article:



> More than two years after a tractor-trailer slammed into an Amtrak train east of Reno, killing six, lawyers for the trucking company say they have evidence showing the railroad companies tampered with a video of the crash and are hiding or have destroyed the gate arm from the crossing.
> 
> Steve Jaffe, a lawyer for John Davis Trucking Co., said the key issue in a federal lawsuit and about 25 Washoe District Court cases that were consolidated into one is “what Union Pacific did to the evidence and what role will that play in whether we can get a fair trial.”
> 
> The trucking company lawyers claim that a video from the train’s camera was altered to make it look like the crossing gate was working and say the actual gate arm has disappeared. They also are claiming that the data collector located in a small building next to the rail crossing contained no data.
> 
> The lawyers have asked the state judge to sanction the railroad “for the intentional or grossly negligent destruction of evidence.”
> 
> Vernae Graham, spokeswoman for Amtrak, declined to comment, saying, “We don’t discuss cases under litigation.”
> 
> Aaron Hunt, spokesman for Union Pacific, which is responsible for the rail tracks, said the company strongly denies the allegations.
> 
> “We plan to vigorously defend ourselves in court,” he said in an email.


And:



> The National Transportation Safety Board investigated the crash and in December 2012 released a report that blamed the crash on Valli’s “delayed breaking” as he approached the rail crossing. The report said Valli was an “inattentive” driver and the trucking company failed to adequately maintain the truck’s brakes.
> 
> John Davis Trucking Co., Amtrak and Union Pacific have competing lawsuits in U.S. District Court in Reno that blame each other for the crash.
> 
> The federal judge has ordered a settlement conference for March 3 and has set a trial date for Aug. 4 if a settlement isn’t possible.
> 
> The state court cases were filed by Amtrak employees and passengers who were injured or the families of people killed. The next hearing before Judge Scott Freeman is set for Jan. 23.
> 
> John Davis Trucking Co. lawyer Jaffe argues that none of the cases can move forward until their destruction and tampering of evidence claims are resolved.



There is more at the above link.

Nothing is over till the lawyers make a tidy sum...


----------



## pianocat

For anyone interested - there is an active Facebook page dedicated to this accident, simply type in Amtrak California Zephyr Memorial Page at Facebook. Several passengers from that train continue to update the site and there are personal accounts recorded if you go back to June, 2011. I was on this CZ on that day, but got off at SLC with a tour group a few hours before the collision [my first Amtrak LD train]. It was running a few hours late. Sadly, the lawyers indeed will draw this out for years to come, making the families relive the horror. Amtrak did nothing wrong!! [imho]


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

The "Truth" has little to do in a court room.

The actual gate arm was it ever recovered? Or did it get push in the train and burn up in the following flames?

The video from the train camera was it a frame grabber? So the lawyers can easy claim it faked.

It not like there a pile of money at the end of this road. Just people try to avoid a jail sentence.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

These sound like some pretty wild claims. I hope the trucking company is sued out of existence. Ideally a company with as many infractions as John Davis Trucking Company would have been fined and regulated out of existence long before they could kill innocent people that had nothing to do with their sloppy "safety be damned" work ethic. The truck driver is finally off the road but what a heavy cost it took to make that happen.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

A trucking company is only required to carry one million of insurance, three million if hauling Hazmat.

While this company may own it tractor and trailer, and not be incorporated. Most trucking companies are LLC, with leased equipment, tractor are common, trailer less so.

The government is cracking down on trucking, bus companies left and right. However it take a few hours to start a new one. The Feds have just cracked that problem, but it take a lot of paperwork and due process to shut down a company. Even when it a clear cut problem, it also can be a easy to fix issue.

The company that I work for got in trouble with paper log book to the point it may be shut down. Then overnight we switch to E-logs, problems ended. Now were a safe company. Some say we targeted for extra inspections, but we did what the government wanted and were still here.

As for the "truth" it just a side issue. Welcome to our galaxy.

.


----------



## domefoamer

One million dollars liability insurance! That's the smallest professional liability policy I can buy from an insurance agent, and I'm a sole proprieter with no heavy equipment. Those trucking companies are getting a free ride.


----------



## Karl1459

A judge in this case has ruled on the claims Amtrak and UP tampered with crossing gate and train video evidence... no evidence of tampering. Another pretrial BS motion resolved.

Article: http://www.rgj.com/story/news/crime/2014/03/28/sanctions-rail-companies-amtrak-crash-case/7031531/


----------



## George Harris

Karl1459 said:


> A judge in this case has ruled on the claims Amtrak and UP tampered with crossing gate and train video evidence... no evidence of tampering. Another pretrial BS motion resolved.
> 
> Article: http://www.rgj.com/story/news/crime/2014/03/28/sanctions-rail-companies-amtrak-crash-case/7031531/


Look at the picture in Devil Advocate's post above (post No. 301) and you can see both gates. This aerial view had to have been taken very soon after the accident. News copters are usually about as fast as if not faster than first responders, so there is more than just the in-cab camera to give the gate position. Even if the gate had been destroyed, which it wasn't, the counterweight would still there and it's position could be seen. By the way, it is in the position it would be for a gate down if you cannot see the gate in the picture. I can't imagine anyone even trying this sort of motion.


----------



## CHamilton

Amtrak Wins $4.55M for Deadly Nevada Accident



> RENO, Nev. (CN) - A 2011 fireball that killed six people, caused by a truck slamming into Amtrak's California Zephyr, will cost a Nevada trucking company more than $4.55 million in damages, a federal jury ruled.
> Investigators for the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) blamed the June 24 accident at a rail crossing on U.S. 95, about 70 miles east of Reno, on poor maintenance and inattentive driving.
> John Davis Trucking, of Battle Mountain, Nev., disabled the anti-lock braking system on the trailers, did not properly adjust the brakes, used axles that were not properly matched to brake components and had 11 of 16 brake-drum surfaces worn beyond their designated service limitation, the NTSB reported.


----------



## Ryan

I'll bet they never see a quarter of that amount.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

Oh they see a cool million. Not a penny after that.

A non-Hazmat trucking company is required to carry a million dollars of insurance. A truck company that hauls hazmats is required to carry 3 million.

Company will go into bankruptcy. So yes just under 25% Amtrak will get. Wonder how much Amtrak has pay out to the dead, and injured. Never mind the lawyers.


----------



## XHRTSP

Did anyone ever go to jail over this?


----------



## afigg

XHRTSP said:


> Did anyone ever go to jail over this?


The driver of the truck died in the accident. As far as I know, no criminal charges for negligence were brought against the operators or managers of the trucking company. The company may have been negligent in maintenance of the brakes and the truck, but baring a criminal indictment, the negligence is being handled as a civil matter.
Two Superliners were destroyed in the accident and a 3rd car, a coach car IIRC, suffered significant smoke and some fire damage. The award of $4.55 million is not going to cover all of Amtrak losses due to the accident. Even if there was a production line Amtrak could order Superliners from, the replacement price for each car would likely be in the $3 million range. Add in loss of business, the manhours spent dealing with the accident, an employee killed, others injured, legal costs, the $4.55 million award comes up short.


----------



## VentureForth

Amtrak claimed $10 Mil in losses.


----------



## amamba

Not to mention the lives lost of the staff.  They obviously cannot be brought back.


----------



## Karl1459

It looks like the John Davis Trucking website is down and their federal DOT status is "not authorized" http://safer.fmcsa.dot.gov/query.asp?query_type=queryCarrierSnapshot&query_param=USDOT&query_string=159572.


----------



## neroden

Well, the next likely step after the insurance payouts is that the various injured parties who are owed money will split up the remaining assets of the company. I wonder how much selling their fleet of trucks will generate.


----------



## MikefromCrete

neroden said:


> Well, the next likely step after the insurance payouts is that the various injured parties who are owed money will split up the remaining assets of the company. I wonder how much selling their fleet of trucks will generate.


Not enough to cover all of the settlements.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

If they even own any trucks. Lease truck and trailers are common.


----------



## Agent

I didn't know this was still in the courts.

A judge has denied a request for a retrial and upheld a $4.5 million award to Amtrak.


----------



## Thirdrail7

I wonder if it is a coincidence this outfit is developing a new website that is named Quality Transportation Inc.


----------



## neroden

It's disgraceful the way the fly-by-night truckers reorganize under new corporate names. The STB needs to start using its powers to blacklist the principals in firms which are shut down for negligence.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

The Government is cracking down on this issue. However it only individuals that get ban from new trucking companies. So let say the wife of the owner of a "fly by night company", were to start a new company, that is allowed.

If thirdrail7 thinks that this company is reborn under a new name and USDot number, a complaint to the FMCSA will launch a investigation, and the company will be shut down.

https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/

https://nccdb.fmcsa.dot.gov/nccdb/home.aspx

The issue in the past was two different computer system that couldn't talk to each other. So one computer would issue you new permits, the other had you listed as a bad player that was banned.

Also the information need to launch a investigation is pretty low. The FMCSA is on overdrive on this issue.


----------



## Ryan

Good.


----------



## neroden

In my home town, I've been watching the rebuilding of a building which was severely damaged by a negligent trucking company which sent an incompetent driver out with a truck with insufficient brakes.

http://theithacan.org/news/truck-crashes-into-commons-restaurant/

Of course, the so-called "trucking company" didn't have enough insurance to cover anything *near* all the damages -- and of course they can never compensate for the woman they killed.

I don't think much of federal trucking standards at the moment. Any improvement would help, but a lot of improvement is needed.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

Your story is about a car carrier that was making a right turn. Nothing but poor trained driver, with a super long vehicle try to make a turn on a street that was not design for trucks.

When a truck is turning our trailers will take a short cut. This why we swing wide (button hook) to the left when we're turning to the right. To give the trailer space to make the turn. This motion can cause a another vehicle to try and sneak past us on our right follow by a crunch as we turn right, and the space gets fill by the trailer. When you don't do it right the trailer will hop the curve and ride the sidewalk. In this case it seem to have hop the curve and then clipped the building, bring the building down.

A truck need three lanes to make a turn. In a city that might be four due to the tiny size roads there.


----------



## Eric S

Vehicles that need to drive on the sidewalk (hop the curb) in order to make a turn probably shouldn't be trying to make that turn in the first place. The problem isn't undersized streets but rather oversized vehicles.

Drivers should be held accountable for the safe operation of their vehicles (whether commercial or private). Companies that send out drivers with large vehicles should be responsible for ensuring that the vehicle is appropriately-sized for the community.


----------



## neroden

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> Your story is about a car carrier that was making a right turn. Nothing but poor trained driver, with a super long vehicle try to make a turn on a street that was not design for trucks.


(1) He wasn't even supposed to be on that street. It's not a legal through truck route. He was supposed to have left the road at least a block earlier.(2) His brakes were defective.

(3) He hadn't learned the topography and was coming down a steep hill.

(4) He was speeding.

(5) He didn't even know the geometry and didn't realize until quite late that he had to turn (the road ends at a T).

As a result he attempted to turn at the last minute and went slamming into the building AHEAD of him to the right. There were NO extenuating circumstances.

Compare the standards we have for railroad engineers.

They let any incompetent operate a commercial truck. They have very high standards for railroad engineers and conductors, including the "know the territory" requirement. If we keep our trucking standards THIS low, I would advocate for the total removal of any "know the territory" requirement for train engineers, just for fairness.

I've been told that it would take three months of "route familiarization" to train engineers to run a train route like a daily Cardinal. This is a ridiculously high standard, given that the train *is on tracks*.

In the trucking industry, they just send truckers out in commercial operation to routes they've never seen before, not even once. Same in the bus industry. This is far too *little* familiarization.

This situation is a government subsidy to trucks and buses at the expense of trains.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

Ok thanks for the correction.


----------

