# 5 Killed: Michigan Collision with Wolverine (2009)



## AAARGH! (Jul 9, 2009)

Link here.



> Amtrak Spokesman Devon Sayers said 170 passengers and crewmembers were onboard the Wolverine 353, which had just left the Dearborn train station and was heading west for Chicago.


It appears from the description that the collision occured at the intersection of Hannan Road and the track, where ther are lights and gates. Google Maps link here.


----------



## transit54 (Jul 9, 2009)

This sort of stuff is just terrible. I really feel that states need to crack down on railroad crossing violations. If you drive around a lowered crossing gate, you should be facing a serious penalty, and cops should be enforcing it. Everyone knows that if you consistently and excessively speed, you're pretty much bound to get caught, because every police department in the nation enforces speed limits. There are routinely campaigns for wearings seatbelts ('Click it or ticket') and drunk driving. A similar campaign needs to be rolled out with regard to grade crossing accidents - and not just Operation Lifesaver stuff (which is a good program, no doubt) but something with some real enforcement behind it. I think that's the only way to attempt to prevent tragedies like this. What about red light cameras at grade crossings? That's an idea that would work.


----------



## AAARGH! (Jul 9, 2009)

rnizlek said:


> This sort of stuff is just terrible. I really feel that states need to crack down on railroad crossing violations. If you drive around a lowered crossing gate, you should be facing a serious penalty, and cops should be enforcing it. Everyone knows that if you consistently and excessively speed, you're pretty much bound to get caught, because every police department in the nation enforces speed limits. There are routinely campaigns for wearings seatbelts ('Click it or ticket') and drunk driving. A similar campaign needs to be rolled out with regard to grade crossing accidents - and not just Operation Lifesaver stuff (which is a good program, no doubt) but something with some real enforcement behind it. I think that's the only way to attempt to prevent tragedies like this. What about red light cameras at grade crossings? That's an idea that would work.


I wish. Unfortunately they put cameras where they will make $$$, not save lives.

The 5 killed were all young adults. Perhaps driver's ed needs to have more 'train' curriculum. I don't know. I'm assuming they skipped past closed gates, but who knows.

From the pictures, the car was hit dead center, and was pushed in front of the train for some distance. The car did not bounce off to one side the other. The car was substantially compressed to where there could be no survivors. I'm guessing the train must have been going pretty fast at that point by the amount of time it took to stop.

What a WASTE! :angry:


----------



## Neil_M (Jul 9, 2009)

rnizlek said:


> If you drive around a lowered crossing gate, you should be facing a serious penalty


You are facing a serious penalty........ The front end of a P42 in your face.


----------



## wayman (Jul 9, 2009)

AAARGH said:


> rnizlek said:
> 
> 
> > This sort of stuff is just terrible. I really feel that states need to crack down on railroad crossing violations. If you drive around a lowered crossing gate, you should be facing a serious penalty, and cops should be enforcing it. Everyone knows that if you consistently and excessively speed, you're pretty much bound to get caught, because every police department in the nation enforces speed limits. There are routinely campaigns for wearings seatbelts ('Click it or ticket') and drunk driving. A similar campaign needs to be rolled out with regard to grade crossing accidents - and not just Operation Lifesaver stuff (which is a good program, no doubt) but something with some real enforcement behind it. I think that's the only way to attempt to prevent tragedies like this. What about red light cameras at grade crossings? That's an idea that would work.
> ...


I would think the cameras would stand make just as much money at a grade crossing as at a traffic light, if placed on a street with similar traffic volume.


----------



## transit54 (Jul 9, 2009)

wayman said:


> AAARGH said:
> 
> 
> > I wish. Unfortunately they put cameras where they will make $$$, not save lives.
> ...


I'd agree. From what I hear, this is a pretty common occurrence. Plus if you set the fine at $400 or $500, you'd pay back the cost of a camera pretty quickly. I can't imagine it would cost more than $10-$20k to have one installed.

At the same time, then you get into the argument that wouldn't that money be better spent on four-across gates that can't be driven around? But those costs are 1) primarily borne by the railroad, unless they get federal or state funds for the project and 2) I don't think that does anything to deter this type of behavior at unsignaled or less-signaled crossings. I think mounting a large enforcement campaign would bring much more awareness to this issue.

No one thinks they're going to get hit by a train if they do this. Just like most people who speed (including myself, who always sped until I picked up a ticket for 87 in a 65 last year and cut my speed for good) - they're more worried about tickets than the safety risk they are incurring. They probably figure that they are just very good at beating trains, so they continue to cut across grade crossings. But adding the variable of a cop, who may or may not be present and has nothing to do with how fast you can cut between the gates, may act as a better deterrent.


----------



## AAARGH! (Jul 9, 2009)

I wonder how cameras would work at a crossing. They look for motion after the light has changed, or in this case, the gate has gone down. But there will always be movement because the train goes through! I'm sure there is a technical solution for that though.

I agree that any amount of education will help as will the barrier gates.

Perhaps if you all are right about the amount of revenue one of these cameras generates, cities will be more likely to install them. It's a win/win. City makes money / lives would be saved.


----------



## creddick (Jul 9, 2009)

Neil_M said:


> rnizlek said:
> 
> 
> > If you drive around a lowered crossing gate, you should be facing a serious penalty
> ...


Amen! Punishment enough for stupidity. I have no sympathy for them. I do, however, for their families.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jul 9, 2009)

AAARGH said:


> I wonder how cameras would work at a crossing. They look for motion after the light has changed, or in this case, the gate has gone down. But there will always be movement because the train goes through! I'm sure there is a technical solution for that though.
> I agree that any amount of education will help as will the barrier gates.
> 
> Perhaps if you all are right about the amount of revenue one of these cameras generates, cities will be more likely to install them. It's a win/win. City makes money / lives would be saved.


Modern computers can tell the difference between a car and a train. It just looks for objects within certain perameters-- movement, and most likely size.


----------



## AAARGH! (Jul 9, 2009)

creddick said:


> Neil_M said:
> 
> 
> > rnizlek said:
> ...


And the engineer.

I do have some sympathy for those killed. It's likely the driver was inexperienced and like many kids, thought they were invincible. We all know young drivers can and do make stupid mistakes, and hopefully learn a lesson when they do. But they didn't this time as they are now gone. This stupid mistake was the ultimate one.

AGAIN, I am supposing they tried crossing around a closed gate or were speeding and could not stop in time. If it turns out the gates were malfunctioning, then I have much more sympathy for the kids.


----------



## Everydaymatters (Jul 9, 2009)

There's a crossing near here where they put posts in the middle of the road for about 15 feet leading to the tracks. You can't get around those posts to go into the other lane to get around the gates.


----------



## AAARGH! (Jul 9, 2009)

The Detroit Free Press is now reporting witnesses saw the car go around the lowered gates.

They also state the car was dragged almost a mile. Does it really take that long for 2-engine / 5 car train to stop, even from 79 MPH?

EDIT: Looking again at the map, it looks like it took about 1500 feet to stop, not 1 mile. Darned reporters..... h34r:


----------



## cpamtfan (Jul 9, 2009)

AAARGH said:


> The Detroit Free Press is now reporting witnesses saw the car go around the lowered gates.
> They also state the car was dragged almost a mile. Does it really take that long for 2-engine / 5 car train to stop, even from 79 MPH?



Yes it does, I feel really sorry for the engineer, how would you like to kill five people at once? Some nerve for those kids to try to beat a train!

cpamtfan-Peter


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jul 9, 2009)

AAARGH said:


> The Detroit Free Press is now reporting witnesses saw the car go around the lowered gates.
> They also state the car was dragged almost a mile. Does it really take that long for 2-engine / 5 car train to stop, even from 79 MPH?


It shouldn't unless the engineer didn't throw the brakes into emergency fearing that he'd derail the train at top speed which is entirely possible.

If I am not mistaken, parts of that route are rated for 105mph... I might be thinking of something else.

Also, depending on the grade it could also extend the distance required to stop. But remember, this is the media. To them, 3/5ths of a mile is "almost a mile".


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Jul 9, 2009)

it says that the teens went around ANOTHER CAR in front of them just to go around the gates.



> surveillance video from a nearby business shows that the teens' car, which was traveling northbound, was hit by the train when it went around a white SUV that had stopped at the crossing gate. According to the tape, the white SUV was stopped at the gate for 17 seconds before the teens' car swerved around it.


i feel sorry for those on board all those pax stuck on the train for 4 hours. did amtrak bus them to chicago after the train was towed back.

also the victims of the accident and the family's. but i don't feel sorry for the driver of the car who went around another car to get around the gates.

there happy alc_rail_writer


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jul 9, 2009)

amtrakwolverine said:


> i feel sorry for those on board all those pax stuck on the train for 4 hours.


Wow four hours... five people DIED today. You know, I can justify not having as much sympathy for the driver-- but what about his/her four passengers? Their families? The engineer and the train crew? You know-- compared to the suffering and loss of all those involved the pax are the last people to feel sorry for.

I do feel bad for the people in the car who weren't behind the wheel. We don't know who they were or what they were doing. Perhaps just along for the ride and didn't realize this was going to happen. You can't call them stupid for being hapless victims.


----------



## creddick (Jul 9, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> amtrakwolverine said:
> 
> 
> > i feel sorry for those on board all those pax stuck on the train for 4 hours.
> ...


Agreed. OK, I don't feel sorry for the driver of the car. All the others involved, including those in other cars who witnessed, I feel terribly sorry. I was on a train back in the 60's that hit a car at a crossing between London and Windsor, Ont. I was one of three witnesses. I'll never forget it and have a tremendous respect for crossings gates or no.


----------



## caravanman (Jul 9, 2009)

I was astonished to learn in a post above that it is possible to derail an Amtrak train by the engineer applying full emergency brakes. This seems like a major design flaw?

Ed


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Jul 9, 2009)

yes i feel sorry for the pax stuck for 4 hours on train that didn't even get halfway to chicago. dearborn is the stop after detroit. all those pax missed there connection and if i was on the train going to the gathering it would have really messed things up. i would have to call the hotel and change the check in date to the 30th and take grey hound all the way to Boston as there no way i would make it to Chicago in time to catch the 448 to boston. i feel sorry for the victims on the senseless drivers act. the family's of the victims and the train crew.


----------



## PetalumaLoco (Jul 9, 2009)

caravanman said:


> I was astonished to learn in a post above that it is possible to derail an Amtrak train by the engineer applying full emergency brakes. This seems like a major design flaw?
> Ed


Lock up the brakes on your car at 100mph and see what happens.


----------



## transit54 (Jul 9, 2009)

PetalumaLoco said:


> caravanman said:
> 
> 
> > I was astonished to learn in a post above that it is possible to derail an Amtrak train by the engineer applying full emergency brakes. This seems like a major design flaw?
> ...


I think a more apt, though perhaps less relevant analogy is - lock up the brakes of a tractor-trailer at 100 MPH and see what happens. The risk of derailment stems from the fact that when the engineer dumps the brake pressure, the coaches slam forward into a declerating locomotive.

But wait, you say, the coaches have brakes too, and they are connected to the locomotive. Yes, but it takes a certain amount of time for the decreasing pressure to travel all the way back to the last coach. So the front cars start slowing before the back cars do. Now this all happens very quickly, but the resulting forces in the train can cause it to jump the tracks.

The solution to this is to use electrically controlled pneumatic brakes, in which the signal to brake travels via an electrical wire that spans the length of the train. Since the electrical signal transmits nearly instantly, all the brakes apply uniformly. But ECP brakes are very new technology and only a handful of trains in the US have them - each car needs to be equipped with ECP technology for the system to work. The Amfleets, and all of Amtrak's fleet, were created long before it.

Now it's worth noting that the above described effects are much more pronounced with freight trains, I'm not sure how much an Amtrak train would be affected by them.


----------



## PetalumaLoco (Jul 9, 2009)

rnizlek said:


> PetalumaLoco said:
> 
> 
> > caravanman said:
> ...


Thanks, you put a lot of thought into that!


----------



## AmtrakWPK (Jul 9, 2009)

Well, I would not be surprised to lose control of a car if, while traveling around a curve at a high but controllable speed (i.e., safe as long as everything works), one or more wheels locked up, or a tire blew out. Even on a straight high-speed road, the same thing can happen.

Also, remember that the train brakes are effectively applied starting with the engine and working back towards the end of the train, not simultaneously, as the air pressure change works it's way toward the back of the train. So for a few seconds you may have one or more wheels locked up in the front part of the train while the balance of the train smacks into it. Also, you are going from couplers in tension to couplers in compression, almost explosively, throughout the train. That's why they call it "emergency" braking. After application of the emergency brake, I believe the conductor has to do a complete walk-around of the entire train, inspecting each wheel to make sure everything is ok, before the train can move again. Consider the sudden stress on the rails themselves and where they are fastened down, as the train, by emergency braking, applies hundreds or perhaps thousands of tons of force on those rails pushing them in the direction of travel. The forces involved have to be incredible. Especially if there is even a small rail discontinuity and you suddenly have a sideways force of inertia applied to them by emergency braking added to perhaps by a small shift in the rail itself. A train's mass is enormous, and trying to quickly decelerate that mass must exert incredible forces.


----------



## caravanman (Jul 9, 2009)

I always imagined that the flanges on the wheels would guide the train, as there is no element of steering within the engineers controls. Is it a fact that a full brake application causes the train wheels to all "lock".. My thought is that despite the efforts of the brakes to stop the wheels rotation, the weight and momentum of the train would keep all the wheels turning for some considerable time?

Ed


----------



## transit54 (Jul 9, 2009)

caravanman said:


> I always imagined that the flanges on the wheels would guide the train, as there is no element of steering within the engineers controls. Is it a fact that a full brake application causes the train wheels to all "lock".. My thought is that despite the efforts of the brakes to stop the wheels rotation, the weight and momentum of the train would keep all the wheels turning for some considerable time?
> Ed


Actually, it's very common for the wheels to lock up. Keep in mind the surface that a wheel touches about a rail is about the size of a dime. When you combine very heavy braking pressure with high speeds and large amounts of weight, the wheels do many times (if not usually) lock up. This actually causes flat spots on the bottom of the wheels and if this is bad enough the cars need to be taken out of service till the flat spots can be machined out or the wheels changed.


----------



## jis (Jul 9, 2009)

amtrakwolverine said:


> i feel sorry for those on board all those pax stuck on the train for 4 hours. did amtrak bus them to chicago after the train was towed back.


According to reports, the passengers were bussed to Ann Arbor and then put on a train from there to Chicago.


----------



## caravanman (Jul 9, 2009)

Interesting. I had assumed that the wheel flats were caused either by a parking brake not being released, or faulty wheel cylinders not releasing when they should.

To my way of thinking, if it is possible, as you say it is, for the engineer to derail the Amtrak train by stopping suddenly, then it might be a lot safer to govern the amount of force that can be applied to the braking process?

Ed


----------



## henryj (Jul 9, 2009)

rnizlek said:


> PetalumaLoco said:
> 
> 
> > caravanman said:
> ...


It has always been my understanding that passenger trains DID have electrically controlled pneumatic brakes and have had for decades, well before Amtrak. Did I miss something? Did they take them off all Amtrak trains somewhere in the past? Somehow I don't think so.

Also, the danger of a derailment is comes from the vehicle damaging the track as it is dragged along or some of the debris getting under the engine's wheels.......not from the braking. That would only apply to long freight trains that might double up on a curve or something.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 9, 2009)

Amtrak trains, and all FRA-compliant trains running in this country, use a variation of the automatic air brake invented by George Westinghouse. Basically, the locomotive produces pressure and charges the brake line. The pressure in the brake line holds the brakes in the car in the off position. When the engineer applies the brakes normally, the air pressure is reduced causing the brakes to apply. When the engineer puts the train into emergancy from the engine, all air is released from the system through the engine. In trains with EOT/FRED mechanisms are put into emergency, "Wilma" tells "FRED" to also dump the air pressure out of the rear of the train. When a car's emergancy brake is pulled, air is dumped from the entire train through the valve in that particular car.

Lastly, if anything were to disrupt the brake line in any way, the air would explode out as in an emergancy braking application, and the train would come to a halt.

Assuming you don't close the cocks on the system (which can be safely demonstrated not to be the case with a brake test) the system is practically fail-safe- because its default condition, unlike, say, automobiles brakes, is fully applied.


----------



## caravanman (Jul 9, 2009)

That is indeed pretty much my understanding of how the air brakes work. I am still struggling to comprehend that a simple emergency brake applicartion at speed could derail the train, which was the original statement that attracted my attention.

Ed


----------



## jis (Jul 9, 2009)

Doesn't Amtrak already use a form of ECP (Electronically Controlled Pneumatic) brakes on all its trains except the Auto Train? I have read that Amtrak is planning to equip the Auto Train too with a form of ECP.


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Jul 9, 2009)

watching the news on this just now a couple pulled up to the tracks after the crash and jumped out the truck and ran to the wreckage to see if they could help they were banging on the car windows trying to see if anyone was alive. they said the conductor stuck his head out the window yelling get out of here leave and they said no we're trying to help.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jul 9, 2009)

Foolhardy move. The tracks were not clear, they could have added to the casualty list.


----------



## oldtimer (Jul 9, 2009)

I would like to correct a couple of things:

1: All Amtrak cars and locomotives are equipped with a wheel slide sensing device that is designed to prevent wheels from sliding regardless of speed. This modulates the brake cylinder pressure preventing any axle from stopping before another axle on that specific car or locomotive. This is the equivalent of the Anti Lock Brake System in your auto.

2: As the GML stated "When the engineer applies the brakes normally, the air pressure is reduced causing the brakes to apply. When the engineer puts the train into emergency from the engine, all air is released from the system through the engine." This is partially true. The normal operation is correct, but when an emergency application is made the rapid reduction of pressure in any car will cause will cause a valve in that car to go into emergency and dump more brake pipe air. This causes the rapid reduction to the next car which is also equipped with that same valve to apply the emergency brakes in that car and so on and so on. Passenger cars very rarely run into the locomotive or each other, An emergency stop often goes unnoticed by the average passenger if no object is hit.

I would also like to add my condolences to the engineer,crew,survivors of the victims and also to those in the white SUV that had to witness this tragic event.

I would also like to point out that the original French built Turboliners, RTG's, based in Chicago from 1973 to 1981 were equipped with ECP braking and had some fantastic stopping distances. On clean dry rail from 79 mph stops of under 1,000 feet were measured, and from 50 mph stops of 500 feet were measured.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jul 10, 2009)

And thus the turboliners leak into this thread!


----------



## Longford (Jul 10, 2009)

Here's a link to a Chicago Tribune news article about the crash, posted a short time ago:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-...0,7449430.story


----------



## AlanB (Jul 10, 2009)

AAARGH said:


> I wonder how cameras would work at a crossing. They look for motion after the light has changed, or in this case, the gate has gone down. But there will always be movement because the train goes through! I'm sure there is a technical solution for that though.


Most red light cameras that I know of are not motion sensative. If they were, they'd be taking pictures of the cross traffic in motion.

Most red light cameras are activated by your car passing over a wire loop in the roadway right after the stop line. That coupled with checking to see if the light is red via the control box, is what triggers the camera.


----------



## DET63 (Jul 10, 2009)

Longford said:


> Here's a link to a Chicago Tribune news article about the crash, posted a short time ago:
> http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-...0,7449430.story





> The crash occurred around 12:30 p.m. in Canton Township, about 20 miles west of Detroit, police Sgt. Craig Wilsher said. He said the vehicle was heading north when it crossed the train tracks and was struck. The train typically travels about 67 miles per hour at the site of the crash, [police spokesman Sgt. Mark] Gajeski said.
> ...
> 
> Gajeski said the car was pushed about a mile from one road crossing to another.


If the cop was right, and the train was going 67 mph (not 79 mph or whatever others have speculated), how long should it have taken the train to stop? A mile, as the cop suggested?


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jul 10, 2009)

DET63 said:


> If the cop was right, and the train was going 67 mph (not 79 mph or whatever others have speculated), how long should it have taken the train to stop? A mile, as the cop suggested?


Many people are trained to think a train takes a mile to stop because that's a figure that is thrown around to prove a point. Remember that the media will think anything over a half-mile is equal to "nearly a mile".

According to the account a truck pulled over and people went over to offer assistance. If that is the case, they were probably only a few hundred yards at most from the crossing.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jul 10, 2009)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090709/ap_on_..._train_hits_car



> The car was broadsided and pushed down the tracks. It was crumpled underneath the front of the train and ended up right-side up, its roof and front crushed.Gajeski said the car was pushed about a mile from one road crossing to another.
> 
> James Reese, 59, of Royal Oak, who was taking the train to an Ann Arbor museum with his wife and grandson and was riding in the second car, said he felt a brief "surge" of the brakes but "no impact and no sound."


That does sound weird.


----------



## DET63 (Jul 10, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> DET63 said:
> 
> 
> > If the cop was right, and the train was going 67 mph (not 79 mph or whatever others have speculated), how long should it have taken the train to stop? A mile, as the cop suggested?
> ...


I would hope that a police officer, who may have to testify in court in matters where precise and accurate information is expected (and often required), would be trained to judge what a mile is, irrespective of what news media flunkies may say. IOW, if he says it was a mile, it should be a mile or close to it. Nonetheless, I wouldn't be surprised if the train stopped in a considerably shorter distance than that, especially considering that it was an Amtrak train, not a heavily loaded mile-long freighter, that was involved in the accident.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jul 10, 2009)

DET63 said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> > DET63 said:
> ...


That AP story seems to confirm it was a mile. "Crossing to crossing"


----------



## jackal (Jul 10, 2009)

rnizlek said:


> caravanman said:
> 
> 
> > I always imagined that the flanges on the wheels would guide the train, as there is no element of steering within the engineers controls. Is it a fact that a full brake application causes the train wheels to all "lock".. My thought is that despite the efforts of the brakes to stop the wheels rotation, the weight and momentum of the train would keep all the wheels turning for some considerable time?
> ...


Keep in mind that an emergency braking application only produces about 20-30% more braking effort than a full-service application. At a full-service application, the air pressure in the 2500cc service portion of the dual-compartment reservoir is pretty much equalized with that in the brake cylinder at somewhere between 50 and 60 psi. Putting the train into emergency adds the 3500ccs of air in the emergency portion of the dual compartment reservoir into the brake cylinder, which sounds like a lot, but it really only increases the pressure in the brake cylinder to about 70-75psi. (These numbers are from memory of brakeman training in spring of 2006. I did jot the calculations down in my notebook--I should go back and look them up. It'd be interesting to review that stuff anyway.)

Also, one has to take into account the fact that steel-on-steel (especially over a dime-sized contact area) has a much lower coefficient of friction than rubber-on-asphalt or other contact methods. (This is one factor of why rail transport is so much more energy-efficient than road transport--a 100-car freight train has about the same contact with the ground on a square-inch basis as an 18-wheel semi truck.)

An emergency or even full-service application can certainly result in locked/stuck wheels, but usually only if the car is an empty (not loaded) or the traction between the wheels and rail is compromised (e.g. wet rail or debris like leaves on the rail). That is, of course, based on my experience with freight cars--I'm not sure how much of a difference people in a passenger car make to the overall weight of the car and/or how heavy a passenger car is compared to, say, an unloaded hopper ("gon") or tank car ("can"). I do know that some cars--usually, in my experience, articulated TOFC cars--have a weight sensor which (pneumatically--nothing fancy like an electronic scale) controls the amount of air allowed to enter the brake cylinder during a brake application, preventing wheel lock-ups.

Of course, I don't know if the rapid application of a brake at high speed would cause the wheel to lock (and once it's locked, the principles of kinetic vs. static friction dictate that it's not as easy to get it spinning again as if it had never locked up).



caravanman said:


> Interesting. I had assumed that the wheel flats were caused either by a parking brake not being released, or faulty wheel cylinders not releasing when they should.
> To my way of thinking, if it is possible, as you say it is, for the engineer to derail the Amtrak train by stopping suddenly, then it might be a lot safer to govern the amount of force that can be applied to the braking process?
> 
> Ed


That is actually the most common cause of flat spots, since mass emergency brake applications aren't super common.

It's not exactly easy to control the amount of force that can be applied when doing an emergency brake application. During a service application, it is, but that service application takes many seconds (even minutes, on a long freight train) to propogate throughout the train. If an engineer saw something on the tracks and did a full-service application at 60mph, the effects of the brake probably wouldn't even begin to take effect until well after the train passes whatever caused the engineer to apply the brakes.

In contrast, an emergency brake application dumps _all_ of the air immediately. The aforementioned Number 8 vent valve helps to quickly vent all of the air in the trainline to atmosphere, thus propagating the emergency application quickly. If you have someone plug a long cut of cars in a railyard and you're standing in the middle of the cut, you can hear the air exhausting out of the Number 8 vent valves in extremely rapid succession--probably no more than 10 seconds for a 100-car cut. (It's actually a really cool stereo effect if you're standing in the middle of the cut of cars.) Once the trainline's air is dumped, the brake piston begins actuating within about 3-5 seconds and is fully applied within about 10 seconds (though you can hear the air pumping through the valve applying the last few PSI for a good 30 seconds or more after the emergency application). Unfortunately, you can't apply less than an emergency application without vastly increasing the amount of time it takes to apply the brakes.



caravanman said:


> That is indeed pretty much my understanding of how the air brakes work. I am still struggling to comprehend that a simple emergency brake applicartion at speed could derail the train, which was the original statement that attracted my attention.
> Ed


Well, as you can see, it's not just "a simple emergency brake application." An emergency application applies maximum force as quickly as possible. There are a number of factors which could lead to derailing--differential forces (especially around curves), wheels riding up and over the rail, whatever. Locked wheels may contribute to that, but actually, a locked wheel has less traction than a spinning-but-braked wheel (think of anti-lock brakes on your car versus locking your wheels, especially on ice). If Amtrak cars are equipped with wheel lock sensors (not something I've heard of before, but I've never worked on passenger equipment), that would substantially help. Regardless, though, when massive forces are applied to objects of great momentum--well, crap happens. 



henryj said:


> It has always been my understanding that passenger trains DID have electrically controlled pneumatic brakes and have had for decades, well before Amtrak. Did I miss something? Did they take them off all Amtrak trains somewhere in the past? Somehow I don't think so.
> Also, the danger of a derailment is comes from the vehicle damaging the track as it is dragged along or some of the debris getting under the engine's wheels.......not from the braking. That would only apply to long freight trains that might double up on a curve or something.





jis said:


> Doesn't Amtrak already use a form of ECP (Electronically Controlled Pneumatic) brakes on all its trains except the Auto Train? I have read that Amtrak is planning to equip the Auto Train too with a form of ECP.


Not as far as I've ever heard. Many (most?) subway and light-rail lines use ECP brakes, but it's a fairly new process to mainline rail. Remember, too, that ALL engines and cars must be equipped for ECP in order to utilize them, which is why freight rail companies are only implementing them (at this time) on unit trains whose cars always pretty much stay together (e.g. coal trains out of the Powder River Basin).


----------



## AAARGH! (Jul 10, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> That AP story seems to confirm it was a mile. "Crossing to crossing"


I just used an application that measures between two points on a Google Map.

It is only a 1/2 mile between the two crossings and based on the helicopter video of where the train stopped, it is _approximately_ .4 miles (or ~2200 feet) from the initial collision site.

Anyway, nowhere near 1 mile. It is not possible to be over 1/2 mile because the train never crossed the second crossing.


----------



## AAARGH! (Jul 10, 2009)

The Detroit Free Press has posted the Survailance Video of the intersection at the time of the crash. The actual collision is blocked by trees, so no gore involved.

You can clearly see the Ford Fusion never slowed down and simply passed the stopped SUV. It was then instantly hit by the train. It is unlikely they ever saw the train or the train saw them based on how fast they both were going in my opinion.

The driver's license had been suspended the day before for poor driving.


----------



## RailFanLNK (Jul 10, 2009)

To this day, when Burlington Northern came to my high school in 1978 with "Operation Lifesaver" my whole thought process of a railroad crossing change....and for life. I cross RR tracks (the line the CZ traverses on) 4 times every day. To work, to my UPS route, back from my UPS route to the center and back across the tracks to go home. I believe I may be one of the few that slows down and looks not once but twice before crossing. It is this same line that not only once but twice in my career at work I saw the crossing arms NOT go down. Too much faith in technology and with this situation, just a horrible split second decision that cost the lives of a carload of friends.


----------



## MattW (Jul 10, 2009)

About the braking force, I noticed from watching the video the train had 2 P-42s, one on each end. Could the second large mass at the end of the train account for not going into emergency? With the cars bunching up against one locomotive, it's one thing, but with another large mass like that, wouldn't that contribute to the possibility of a derailment after an air-dump?


----------



## DET63 (Jul 10, 2009)

What street was the train crossing when the accident took place? The news reports usually give the location simply as "Canton Township, 20 miles west of Detroit," which doesn't tell very much.

On edit: I've looked at my Google maps, and it appears to have been at Haggerty Road. Haggerty appears to have a cantilevered crossing signal, though it's impossible to be certain.

The next crossing to the west is Lilley Road, which is an industrial driveway or access road. The track runs at a WSW angle, so it's impossible to tell exactly how far apart the crossings are, but it would appear that they are about 2000 feet apart.


----------



## AAARGH! (Jul 10, 2009)

DET63 said:


> What street was the train crossing when the accident took place? The news reports usually give the location simply as "Canton Township, 20 miles west of Detroit," which doesn't tell very much.


Hannan Road. Use the links I provided in the 1st post to see it.


----------



## AAARGH! (Jul 10, 2009)

Using Street View on Google Maps, the car could not see the train approaching at the speed he was going. There are trees all along the track.

What a stupid chance to take. It's like Russian roulette.


----------



## George Harris (Jul 10, 2009)

The chances of a short passenger train being derailed due to going into emergency braking is almost nil. The possibility of wheel flat spots from the brake locking up the wheelset is much higher. The brake line propgation time and draft gear run in issues are near insignificant in a train as short as the one in this case.

The stopping distance of a long freight train is much longer due to brake line propgation time and greater mass per wheel. the one mile commonly quoted is normally stated as "up to a mile" but somehow those first few words seem to be forgotten.

However, even short freights can stop in will under one mile There is an example, quite a few years back now, of a short freight that hit a school bus (the driver did not stop and open her door as required by law) moving at near 60 mph and stopping in something like 1500 feet distance.


----------



## DET63 (Jul 10, 2009)

AAARGH said:


> DET63 said:
> 
> 
> > What street was the train crossing when the accident took place? The news reports usually give the location simply as "Canton Township, 20 miles west of Detroit," which doesn't tell very much.
> ...


According to Google Maps, Hannan Road is in Wayne. I don't know if Wayne (or part of it) is in Canton Township, if Google Maps is wrong about the city, or if it's another example of sloppy reporting.

If the Google Maps picture of the crossing is correct, there is a plate below the signals that reads "STOP ON RED SIGNAL," but I suppose the driver might have been going a bit too fast to read it.


----------



## AAARGH! (Jul 10, 2009)

DET63 said:


> If the Google Maps picture of the crossing is correct, there is a plate below the signals that reads "STOP ON RED SIGNAL," but I suppose the driver might have been going a bit too fast to read it.


I would think the gate down across the road would be an obvious indication to stop. If the gate on his side was obscured by the SUV, he certainly should have seen the gate on the other side of the tracks blocking the other lane. Not to mention the blinking lights at the top of the RR crossing pole and the vewry loud train horn blowing. Somebody would really have to not be paying attention to miss all the indications that a train is about to cross.


----------



## wayman (Jul 10, 2009)

AAARGH said:


> DET63 said:
> 
> 
> > If the Google Maps picture of the crossing is correct, there is a plate below the signals that reads "STOP ON RED SIGNAL," but I suppose the driver might have been going a bit too fast to read it.
> ...


... he should have certainly seen the SUV, too! Swerving into the oncoming-traffic lane to go around a stopped vehicle at high speed is rather widely regarded as unsafe and is under most circumstances blatantly illegal, too, regardless of whether there's a railroad crossing involved or not.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jul 10, 2009)

wayman said:


> AAARGH said:
> 
> 
> > DET63 said:
> ...


What looks weird (on camera on least) is how fast he's going in the wrong lane to pass the gate and SUV, however, the driver would (if not for the train) need to make a very shard right-hand turn to clear the gate that would be directly across from them. That is a very tight turn to make at that speed-- It doesn't mean anything except that s/he's a very wreckless driver. Even without a train he could have front-ended any person waiting in the lane across the tracks with that gate in front of them!


----------



## PetalumaLoco (Jul 10, 2009)

Did you notice as the trailing engine comes into view there's a cloud of debris following the train as it exits left.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jul 10, 2009)

PetalumaLoco said:


> Did you notice as the trailing engine comes into view there's a cloud of debris following the train as it exits left.


Indeed. It was a nasty accident.


----------



## Spokker (Jul 10, 2009)

There are people complaining on the site where the video is being shown that it should not indeed be shown. It should absolutely be released. Maybe some people will get it rammed through their thick skulls that you stop when you see flashing lights and hear bells at railroad crossings, or they'll get a train rammed through their thick skulls instead.


----------



## jis (Jul 10, 2009)

I think that video together with the picture of the car being removed by the towing company should be shown as part of Operation Lifesaver and in various schools when they talk about traffic safety. Due to the circumstances the video does not contain any gore at all and it is yet patently obvious what happened.


----------



## JayPea (Jul 10, 2009)

Spokker said:


> There are people complaining on the site where the video is being shown that it should not indeed be shown. It should absolutely be released. Maybe some people will get it rammed through their thick skulls that you stop when you see flashing lights and hear bells at railroad crossings, or they'll get a train rammed through their thick skulls instead.




I couldn't agree more. Seeing something like this might just be what it takes for some drivers to stop at a crossing rather than telling someone to.


----------



## creddick (Jul 10, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> wayman said:
> 
> 
> > AAARGH said:
> ...


The driver's license had been suspended the day before for bad driving. Again, no sympathy for him, he got what he deserved. For EVERYONE else, however...


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 10, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> DET63 said:
> 
> 
> > If the cop was right, and the train was going 67 mph (not 79 mph or whatever others have speculated), how long should it have taken the train to stop? A mile, as the cop suggested?
> ...


Not to mention the increased deceleration of hitting an object and lodging it under your snowplow.


----------



## DET63 (Jul 10, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> What looks weird (on camera on least) is how fast he's going in the wrong lane to pass the gate and SUV, however, the driver would (if not for the train) need to make a very shard right-hand turn to clear the gate that would be directly across from them. That is a very tight turn to make at that speed-- It doesn't mean anything except that s/he's a very wreckless driver. Even without a train he could have front-ended any person waiting in the lane across the tracks with that gate in front of them!


"That is a very tight turn to make at that speed-- It doesn't mean anything except that s/he's a very *wreckless* driver."

That should be *reckless*. A reckless driver is likely to be anything but "wreckless."

As for the other points made, it's unlikely that the driver was thinking of them at the time--or had ever thought of them. That's one of the reasons teenage drivers have high insurance rates.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jul 10, 2009)

DET63 said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> > What looks weird (on camera on least) is how fast he's going in the wrong lane to pass the gate and SUV, however, the driver would (if not for the train) need to make a very shard right-hand turn to clear the gate that would be directly across from them. That is a very tight turn to make at that speed-- It doesn't mean anything except that s/he's a very wreckless driver. Even without a train he could have front-ended any person waiting in the lane across the tracks with that gate in front of them!
> ...


... Thanks. <_<

Personally, I would avoid lumping teenage drivers into one loop-- but have it your way.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 10, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> Personally, I would avoid lumping teenage drivers into one loop-- but have it your way.


Gotta say, most teenage drivers are pretty reckless and very rarely wreckless. Thinking of people I knew in school at the time, their parents had all gotten them new cars, mostly BMWs, Mercedes, Lexuses. Spoiled brats. Anyway, only one of them that I'm thinking of, out of 15 people, didn't total their car within the course of senior year. I totalled my car, too, actually. But my car was an ancient heap of junk (a rusted hulk of a misfiring 240D) and the reason was the other guy ran a red.

Not to say I wasn't reckless. That came later when I had a car that actually had some performance. Still don't trust myself, one of many reasons I drive a slow car once again.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jul 10, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> > Personally, I would avoid lumping teenage drivers into one loop-- but have it your way.
> ...


Well you have five years on me... so when your premiums increase at 65, I'll be 60. I'll laugh then.


----------



## Amtrak839 (Jul 11, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> > Personally, I would avoid lumping teenage drivers into one loop-- but have it your way.
> ...


That's how it is at my high school. God forbid that anyone should have to take a bus to get anywhere. I actually have a 16 YO friend who is allowed to drive on the Beltway, but his parents think the bus is too dangerous.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 11, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> ...


Due to rust issues on my current car, I've been thinking of downgrading to a 10-speed bike. Then I'll laugh when I pay no premiums at all.


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Jul 11, 2009)

i also saw on the news that there's one crossing in the whole USA or world that has these polls that come out of the ground so you can't go around the gates. it takes 6 seconds for them to deploy. while it would be prohibitively expensive to install at all crossings. maybe just install them at the crossings that have the most accidents.


----------



## AlanB (Jul 11, 2009)

amtrakwolverine said:


> i also saw on the news that there's one crossing in the whole USA or world that has these polls that come out of the ground so you can't go around the gates. it takes 6 seconds for them to deploy. while it would be prohibitively expensive to install at all crossings. maybe just install them at the crossings that have the most accidents.


Yes, that's a test that's currently being run. If sucessful, which it most likely will be, then you may start to see that type of system deployed at other extremely dangerous crossings. But it will take a while, as it is more expensive than a traditional system.


----------



## PetalumaLoco (Jul 11, 2009)

amtrakwolverine said:


> i also saw on the news that there's one crossing in the whole USA or world that has these polls that come out of the ground so you can't go around the gates. it takes 6 seconds for them to deploy. while it would be prohibitively expensive to install at all crossings. maybe just install them at the crossings that have the most accidents.


Here's a Florida study that used inexpensive flexible posts , with good results.


----------



## wayman (Jul 11, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> DET63 said:
> 
> 
> > As for the other points made, it's unlikely that the driver was thinking of them at the time--or had ever thought of them. That's one of the reasons teenage drivers have high insurance rates.
> ...


Well, it's not so much DET63 lumping teenage drivers here as auto insurance companies lumping teenage drivers--statistically, 16-24 year olds (roughly) get into a lot more accidents, and a lot more very expensive accidents, than other drivers. It's not that all 16-24 year olds are bad drivers, but there are a lot more bad apples in the bunch proportionately (compared with other age groups), and insurance companies base their rates on statistical categories, not individual personalities. Young? More expensive. Male? More expensive. No college degree? More expensive. No drivers ed? More expensive. Red car? More expensive.

Very unfortunate for all the good young drivers 

Perhaps the best way to lower your insurance rate is to volunteer for Operation Lifesaver, to help educate the drivers who might otherwise be stupid. No, it won't directly lower _your_ insurance rates, because changing the statistics will take a long time, but it may help future young drivers in the long run.... And if you can help prevent even a single accident, you may save somebody's life and you'll certainly save many, many people a lot of emotional trauma. I suppose I'll put this on my list (my long list...) of things to do... hopefully I'll get around to it someday.


----------



## creddick (Jul 11, 2009)

The driver's license had been suspended the day before the crash for bad driving. According to the Detroit Free Press, he had six tickets in the two years he had his license. They were for causing an accident, speeding, running a stop sign, etc. His friends say he would never put anybody in harm's way intentionally. Passing a stopped car and ignoring flashing lights and down gates sounds intentional to me. He was 18. His girlfriend who was also killed was 14.


----------



## Gord (Jul 11, 2009)

George Harris said:


> The chances of a short passenger train being derailed due to going into emergency braking is almost nil. The possibility of wheel flat spots from the brake locking up the wheelset is much higher. The brake line propgation time and draft gear run in issues are near insignificant in a train as short as the one in this case.
> The stopping distance of a long freight train is much longer due to brake line propgation time and greater mass per wheel. the one mile commonly quoted is normally stated as "up to a mile" but somehow those first few words seem to be forgotten.
> 
> However, even short freights can stop in will under one mile There is an example, quite a few years back now, of a short freight that hit a school bus (the driver did not stop and open her door as required by law) moving at near 60 mph and stopping in something like 1500 feet distance.


Agreed. Passenger cars and locos have type H, Tightlock couplers and much less slack action than freight consists on top of typically being much shorter. I can't think of a paasenger train derailment in recent times caused solely by an emergency reduction, lots of slid flats, but no derailments.

I would expect a conventional Amtrak or Via train should easily be able to stop within a half mile or less at 60-70 mph. I was on the Crescent a couple of years back where the hose bags hit the pavement at a crossing and dumped the air at roughly 60 mph. I would estimate the stopping distance at about 1/4 to 1/3 of a mile. Those composite brake shoes sure stink and smoke when they get that hot!

Gord


----------



## wayman (Jul 11, 2009)

creddick said:


> The driver's license had been suspended the day before the crash for bad driving. According to the Detroit Free Press, he had six tickets in the two years he had his license. They were for causing an accident, speeding, running a stop sign, etc. His friends say he would never put anybody in harm's way intentionally. Passing a stopped car and ignoring flashing lights and down gates sounds intentional to me. He was 18. His girlfriend who was also killed was 14.


Many of us here have rightly been saying the driver's actions were stupid... but sadly, given the circumstances I have to say that his passengers were also not making a good decision to ride in a car with him, given that he not only had a terrible driving record but was even--that day--illegally driving a vehicle. It doesn't matter that he might have been a "nice guy" or whatever who would never think "I'm going to play chicken with this train, just to scare my friends!"; they knew he was a _very_ bad decision-maker and a serious risk-taker behind the wheel with disregard for the law and for safety, regardless of his "intentions", and still they all willingly let him drive them around. All five of them made bad decisions that day


----------



## MrFSS (Jul 11, 2009)

From looking at the video several times the car that was hit seems to have been going very fast. Can you image what would have happened if he had hit the stopped car and pushed it into the path of the train? I wonder if he swerved around the stopped car so he wouldn't hit it?


----------



## Karl (Jul 13, 2009)

As always, sympathies to everyone involved, families, crew, passengers, emergency responders.

As to photo crossing enforcement, my understanding is that Railroad Special Agents have police authority anywhere their railroad operates. It should be possible for a railroad (including Amtrak) to install and photo enforce crossing violations when local or state law allows.

Lets all advocate for safer crossings.

1. Grade seperations.

2. Positive crossing gates (full width or median blocked).

3. Crossing gates (better than signs)

4. Education, everyone gets to see a video of a P42 vs compact car (pun intended) before getting a drivers licence.

5. Enforcement.


----------



## PetalumaLoco (Jul 13, 2009)

An eyewitness tells what he saw.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jul 14, 2009)

PetalumaLoco said:


> An eyewitness tells what he saw.


I figured as much-- I always wondered why Amtrak seems to have more crossing accidents (Relative to fleet size) compared to the other railroads-- I came to the conclusion that many people expect a slow freight and get a speedy pax train.


----------



## DET63 (Jul 14, 2009)

PetalumaLoco said:


> An eyewitness tells what he saw.


From the article linked above, though from a different eyewitness:



> Ashley Vaughn was driving south on Hannan with her husband, Dwayne, when the crash happened. She told the Free Press on Saturday that she did not remember seeing the gate down or the lights flashing.


I have to agree with Josh McFadden, the eyewitness referred to by PetumaLoco, and disagree with Vaughn. Although the video of the incident has no sound, it's clear that the SUV that the death car passed was stopped, and it wouldn't likely have stopped for no reason. It was stopped for about 14 sec prior to the accident.


----------



## catblue (Jul 14, 2009)

Not all insurance companies give a discount for Drivers Ed anymore. Which makes no sense really. Looks like it would be a requirement for teens to even get a drivers license. That and raising the age to acquire a license to 18 would help. I think most insurances companies around here do give a discount to teens with proof of having good grades in school. The color of the auto having a affect on insurance price just seems silly to me. A blue or black car or truck goes just as fast as a red one.


----------



## George Harris (Jul 14, 2009)

catblue said:


> Not all insurance companies give a discount for Drivers Ed anymore. Which makes no sense really. Looks like it would be a requirement for teens to even get a drivers license. That and raising the age to acquire a license to 18 would help. I think most insurances companies around here do give a discount to teens with proof of having good grades in school. The color of the auto having a affect on insurance price just seems silly to me. A blue or black car or truck goes just as fast as a red one.


Raising the age to 18 ionly works in areas where there is good public transportation. I have no porblem with the 16 year old having a license. I do have a problem with parents being so stupid as to hand the kid a high powered car. There used to be several states that would let you have a drivers license at 15, including mine. I was in my first accident at 19 despite that, and note I said "was in" thanks to a guy that jumped ahead of the green. If you were on a farm, you could get one at 14 in some places. Like some guys I knew said, I have been driving a tractor since I was 10 so keeping a car where it is supposed to be is no big deal. But then, we were all driving functional junk not fancy stuff.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jul 14, 2009)

George Harris said:


> catblue said:
> 
> 
> > Not all insurance companies give a discount for Drivers Ed anymore. Which makes no sense really. Looks like it would be a requirement for teens to even get a drivers license. That and raising the age to acquire a license to 18 would help. I think most insurances companies around here do give a discount to teens with proof of having good grades in school. The color of the auto having a affect on insurance price just seems silly to me. A blue or black car or truck goes just as fast as a red one.
> ...


Driver's Ed also has a tendency to be.. less than effective. Education cannot be accomplished en masse like this-- many of my friends who took driver's ed (required if you are under 18 in Ohio, plus 6 months mandatory on temps before you can take your driving exam) are horrible drivers. Those who waited until they're older than 18 are much better for it.


----------



## jis (Jul 14, 2009)

DET63 said:


> > Ashley Vaughn was driving south on Hannan with her husband, Dwayne, when the crash happened. She told the Free Press on Saturday that she did not remember seeing the gate down or the lights flashing.
> 
> 
> I have to agree with Josh McFadden, the eyewitness referred to by PetumaLoco, and disagree with Vaughn. Although the video of the incident has no sound, it's clear that the SUV that the death car passed was stopped, and it wouldn't likely have stopped for no reason. It was stopped for about 14 sec prior to the accident.


Good thing Ashley Vaughn was nowhere near the crossing, since if she was she would apparently have missed the gates that were down and found herself in front of the train too. Sigh....


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jul 14, 2009)

jis said:


> DET63 said:
> 
> 
> > > Ashley Vaughn was driving south on Hannan with her husband, Dwayne, when the crash happened. She told the Free Press on Saturday that she did not remember seeing the gate down or the lights flashing.
> ...


It's pretty easy to not remember something like gates going down because you don't take notice of it-- it's something somebody takes for granted.


----------



## catblue (Jul 14, 2009)

Of course there will be exceptions as there to all generalities. Some 16 year kids might be ready to drive but most are not. In fact according to the experts the prefrontal cortex is the part of the brain that makes judgments is not fully developed at 16 and won't be till they are in their 20s. This causes them to take chances. They think they are invincible.


----------



## transit54 (Jul 14, 2009)

Update: The Detroit Free Press is reporting that Amtrak states a video recorder in the locomotive indicated the grade crossing gates were down, and police are attempting to obtain information on speed and braking from the data recorder in the car.

*Data sought from car's black box in fatal crash with train*

http://www.freep.com/article/20090714/NEWS...-in-fatal-crash


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Jul 14, 2009)

i didn't know cars had black boxes now. or did the reporter mean the locomotive.


----------



## transit54 (Jul 14, 2009)

amtrakwolverine said:


> i didn't know cars had black boxes now. or did the reporter mean the locomotive.


Nope, they meant the car. Some new cars do have the equivalent of a flight data recorder or "black box." I don't know how prevalent they are, but I've heard about them for a few years. However, every manufacturer puts in a different unit, so I know there's a lot of compatibility issues and most police departments don't have the ability to download their data, nor can they legally due so without consent in most circumstances (I believe). And they only record a small amount of time - maybe just the last minute or two before the accident. I'm sure I could dig up more info for you but I'm running out the door at the moment.


----------



## MrFSS (Jul 14, 2009)

As a now retired claim adjuster I can say with certainty they exist. Not a very high percentage. We had them in all our company cars, installed by an independent company not associated with the manufacturer of the car itself. Just knowing it was there made your driving habits be on the up and up.

A number of semi-type trucks have them, too.


----------



## George Harris (Jul 14, 2009)

catblue said:


> Of course there will be exceptions as there to all generalities. Some 16 year kids might be ready to drive but most are not. In fact according to the experts the prefrontal cortex is the part of the brain that makes judgments is not fully developed at 16 and won't be till they are in their 20s. This causes them to take chances. They think they are invincible.


Partly true, partly hogwash.

Invincible does not equal stupid.

I tried quite a few things in the 16 to 25 year age range that I would not after that point, and have seen the same thing in my boys, It seems to be primaily a male thing, but I have seen girls do some things a little more maturing would have said no to. Depending upon your reactions to get you out of bad situation is a big part of this feeling of invincibility. However, collecting traffic tickets and driving in front of trains is not. Failing to understanding that there are consequences if your reactions do not save you is not. These things are simply applied stupidity. Who knows? Maybe this kid had not had to deal with the consequences of his own stupidity. There were two things I told my kids I would not do for them. 1. pay their traffic fines, and 2. make bail if they were arrested. For these things, you get to stew in your own juice. A night in jail can do a lot to help you wise up, hopefully before you have to become a long term resident of the gray hotel.


----------



## JayPea (Jul 14, 2009)

In reading some of the readers' comments to the Free Press articles on this accident, it's amazing to me that somehow, some blame Amtrak! I don't get it!!!! :blink:


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Jul 14, 2009)

JayPea said:


> In reading some of the readers' comments to the Free Press articles on this accident, it's amazing to me that somehow, some blame Amtrak! I don't get it!!!! :blink:


yeah like "if it wasn't for amtrak going ridiculously fast the teens would have made it" etc etc etc


----------



## catblue (Jul 14, 2009)

George Harris said:


> catblue said:
> 
> 
> > Of course there will be exceptions as there to all generalities. Some 16 year kids might be ready to drive but most are not. In fact according to the experts the prefrontal cortex is the part of the brain that makes judgments is not fully developed at 16 and won't be till they are in their 20s. This causes them to take chances. They think they are invincible.
> ...


Could you clarify what part you think is hogwash? The feeling of being invincible means they don't think anything bad will happen to them. I was not talking just about this young man but 16 year olds in general and their ability to make good decisions at 16.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jul 14, 2009)

amtrakwolverine said:


> JayPea said:
> 
> 
> > In reading some of the readers' comments to the Free Press articles on this accident, it's amazing to me that somehow, some blame Amtrak! I don't get it!!!! :blink:
> ...


They are technically correct. If it had been a slow freight the youngerts probably would have made it. Same thing goes for the people the CZ hit the other day as well-- it isn't Amtrak's fault, but the speed is the reason why these accidents happened. People expect a pondering double stack and insteak get a silver streak.


----------



## JayPea (Jul 14, 2009)

If the kid driving hadn't swerved around an SUV stopped at the gate it wouldn't matter whether the train was an Amtrak train or a freight. A gate down and flashing lights and bells clanging are all supposed to mean STOP!!!!!!!!!


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Jul 14, 2009)

JayPea said:


> If the kid driving hadn't swerved around an SUV stopped at the gate it wouldn't matter whether the train was an Amtrak train or a freight. A gate down and flashing lights and bells clanging are all supposed to mean STOP!!!!!!!!!


yeah just like a red light at a intersection means stop or a stop sign at a intersection but people still blow though those like there not even there. have cameras at the crossings that whenever a car goes through the crossing when the lights are flashing it takes a picture of the cars license plate and you get a ticket in the mail for $$$$$. those fines will pay for the cameras in no time.


----------



## AlanB (Jul 15, 2009)

JayPea said:


> If the kid driving hadn't swerved around an SUV stopped at the gate it wouldn't matter whether the train was an Amtrak train or a freight. A gate down and flashing lights and bells clanging are all supposed to mean STOP!!!!!!!!!


It's even worse than that JayPea, he illegally passed that white SUV. That was a no passing zone, and he blew around that stopped SUV at high speed, in a no passing zone.


----------



## MrFSS (Jul 15, 2009)

Picture I took in 1995 at the Bellevue, OH rail museum. It shows what can happen when a train hits a car.


----------



## frj1983 (Jul 15, 2009)

catblue said:


> Not all insurance companies give a discount for Drivers Ed anymore. Which makes no sense really. Looks like it would be a requirement for teens to even get a drivers license. That and raising the age to acquire a license to 18 would help. I think most insurances companies around here do give a discount to teens with proof of having good grades in school. The color of the auto having a affect on insurance price just seems silly to me. A blue or black car or truck goes just as fast as a red one.


Catblue,

There is some sense to the color thing: my Brother-in-Law who is a Police Officer told me that he was warned when in training that people who drive red cars drive agressively and at first did not believe it. But he later discovered that this was true: the first 3 traffic accidents he had to respond to were caused by drivers in red cars. Strange but true! :huh:


----------



## wayman (Jul 15, 2009)

MrFSS said:


> Picture I took in 1995 at the Bellevue, OH rail museum. It shows what can happen when a train hits a car.


I wish more museums had such exhibits.

At one small-town train station in the Netherlands--rural enough that it was really just two platforms and a level pedestrian crossing between them with standard Dutch bicycle gates (a little zig-zag-y chute on either side of the tracks designed to slow you down, though a skilled rider can manuever it while still riding)--there was an extremely mangled bicycle frame chained to a fence on the platform, with a small sign saying something to the effect of "what happens when a bicycle is on the train tracks". There was no mention of a person being killed or injured, so I hope in this particular instance the person abandoned their bicycle and got clear of the tracks, but who knows....

Anyway, it was a very sobering little exhibit positioned exactly where it should be--right near a crossing on a seldom-used train line in a small town, exactly the sort of place where kids might get careless or reckless and not look for trains before crossing.


----------



## Alice (Jul 15, 2009)

rnizlek said:


> amtrakwolverine said:
> 
> 
> > i didn't know cars had black boxes now. or did the reporter mean the locomotive.
> ...


They are very common in newer cars. The manufacturers use them to improve safety. I suspect they are also used to reduce lawsuit claims against manufacturers. Google will get you multiple articles on how privacy advocates are up in arms about the trend.


----------



## transit54 (Jul 15, 2009)

wayman said:


> MrFSS said:
> 
> 
> > Picture I took in 1995 at the Bellevue, OH rail museum. It shows what can happen when a train hits a car.
> ...


This is also an fantastic video that very clearly shows the damage a train can do. It was filmed for a British TV program and shows a locomotive hitting an (empty) car in slow motion. A really eye opening experience to watch, I don't know who would ever try and beat a train after watching this. Especially considering a full train wasn't even used for the video!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDrOFZqtH-0


----------



## catblue (Jul 15, 2009)

frj1983 said:


> catblue said:
> 
> 
> > Not all insurance companies give a discount for Drivers Ed anymore. Which makes no sense really. Looks like it would be a requirement for teens to even get a drivers license. That and raising the age to acquire a license to 18 would help. I think most insurances companies around here do give a discount to teens with proof of having good grades in school. The color of the auto having a affect on insurance price just seems silly to me. A blue or black car or truck goes just as fast as a red one.
> ...


Could it possibly be that red is one of the most popular colors and therefor there are a lot of red vehicles on the road. I know where I live when you stop at a stop light and just look at the traffic around you it seems like every other vehicle is either red or white. Especially when it comes to pickup trucks, around here anyway. Just a thought and I will leave it at that. I don't claim to be a expert.


----------



## George Harris (Jul 15, 2009)

catblue said:


> frj1983 said:
> 
> 
> > catblue said:
> ...


I have also been told by someone that had one, if you drive a red car, be sure to very carefully observe all traffic laws, including keep it to speed limit -1 or lower because red seems to attract police scrutiny.


----------



## caravanman (Jul 15, 2009)

rnizlek said:


> wayman said:
> 
> 
> > MrFSS said:
> ...


I am 100% distressed to find Jeremy Clarkson introducing this video clip. On the other hand I am 100% pleased to see that the type of locomotive featured (Brush Diesel Electric) was one that I learnt to drive as a British Rail trainee engineer many years ago..

Yep, I honestly do know quite a bit about how trains stop...

Ed


----------



## PetalumaLoco (Jul 15, 2009)

George Harris said:


> catblue said:
> 
> 
> > frj1983 said:
> ...


Car color doesn't have much to do with the chance of getting a ticket.

Read this.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 15, 2009)

catblue said:


> Not all insurance companies give a discount for Drivers Ed anymore. Which makes no sense really. Looks like it would be a requirement for teens to even get a drivers license. That and raising the age to acquire a license to 18 would help. I think most insurances companies around here do give a discount to teens with proof of having good grades in school. The color of the auto having a affect on insurance price just seems silly to me. A blue or black car or truck goes just as fast as a red one.


Actually, the reason is several fold. A police officer sitting on the side of the highway will fire off their radar gun at cars that catch their attention. Red cars are much more visible- they have to see the violator to track their speed- and attract much more attention. A beige and common car going 85 down the highway in a comfortable straight line that is not acting in an attention grabbing way has a lower chance of getting caught then an interesting red one (Lets say, a BMW) that is playing thread the needle through traffic at 70.

Second, your assertion that red cars are just as fast as other colours sounds reasonable, but statistically, it is inaccurate. Why? Performance cars are more often sold in vibrant colours (such as fire-engine red) then lower performance vehicles, such as the Toyota Camry. A red car is not, inherently, faster. But a fast car is more likely to be red.

Lastly, everything points to a picture of the person who buys it. A quiet, unassuming person is more likely to choose a quiet, unassuming car- say a beige four-cylinder Camry. A person who shows off more, or is more risky, or more aggressive, is likely to buy something more aggressive. More aggressive in appearance- say, a Dodge Charger- more aggressive in performance- say, a Hemi V8 - and more aggressive in colour- say, Fire Engine red. And they are more likely to drive fast. Which means they are more likely to get a ticket. And more likely to get into an accident.



amtrakwolverine said:


> i didn't know cars had black boxes now. or did the reporter mean the locomotive.


They do. They are an infringement upon your rights. They can be- and are - used to convict people in crimes. They do NOT require consent in several states. They bug me on several levels.



amtrakwolverine said:


> JayPea said:
> 
> 
> > If the kid driving hadn't swerved around an SUV stopped at the gate it wouldn't matter whether the train was an Amtrak train or a freight. A gate down and flashing lights and bells clanging are all supposed to mean STOP!!!!!!!!!
> ...


Most people I know don't do that. Its a very rare problem where I live. People do roll through stop signs (which is generally not dangerous- it takes little pressure from your left foot to stop) but that's a different category of safety stupidity then outright running one.


----------



## PaulM (Jul 16, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> amtrakwolverine said:
> 
> 
> > yeah like "if it wasn't for amtrak going ridiculously fast the teens would have made it" etc etc etc
> ...


I could be wrong; but I thought I learned from an AU thread (probably the one about the CN requiring a certain number of axles on Illinois trains) that the crossing gate computer uses the approaching train's speed to drop the gates a certain TIME, not distance, before the train arrives. So it would seem that the guy would have the same time to get by once the gate went down whether it was a slow freight or fast passenger train, .


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jul 16, 2009)

PaulM said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> > amtrakwolverine said:
> ...


But does the Average American know that? Nope. He doesn't know what's coming, and most people forget Amtrak exists.


----------



## jackal (Jul 16, 2009)

PaulM said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> > amtrakwolverine said:
> ...


That's my understanding.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 16, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> But does the Average American know that? Nope. He doesn't know what's coming, and most people forget Amtrak exists.


So what? You do a stupid thing, I don't care if its the Coal Slug Local, the Intermodal Hot Shot, or the Amtrak Cannonball Express. You run the gates, you just bought yourself a one way ticket on the Hell Limited, and good riddance. My only wish is that your sorry self is alone.


----------



## Spokker (Jul 16, 2009)

If it wasn't a train this guy would have probably been killed by ramming into something else. The coverage in the newspaper, news sites and railroad forums is probably the most attention he ever got in his life. I'm sure his friends and family thinks he's the nicest guy in the world no matter what he did while he was living, but he chose to live his life in a way where we'll remember him as an idiot who sped through a rail crossing and killed himself.

If I do something stupid to get myself killed and you read about it in the paper, by all means, say whatever you want. Tell my mother how stupid I was to her face. The last thing I would want is people to censor their true feelings over my death.


----------



## oldtimer (Jul 16, 2009)

amtrakwolverine said on Tue, Jul 14, 2009, 07:51 PM

"i didn't know cars had black boxes now. or did the reporter mean the locomotive."

GML replied

"They do. They are an infringement upon your rights. They can be- and are - used to convict people in crimes. They do NOT require consent in several states. They bug me on several levels."

They have had these for sometime now even some that record the last few seconds of voice.

A study of pickup trucks in Texas has found that in 50% of the fatal accidents the last words were "HOLD MY BEER, AND WATCH THIS".


----------



## OlympianHiawatha (Jul 16, 2009)

We were on the *Wolverine* the day after the crash, but since the previous 2 days had been on trains, did not know about it until our cab driver in ARB briefed us in. I found it interesting, yet typical, how the Detroit media went on and on about the kids in the car and yet said nothing about the crew or pax on the train. As I've always said, people who chose to run crossings and die get what they deserve but unfortunately at the cost of the crew, passengers and railroad.


----------



## George Harris (Jul 16, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> amtrakwolverine said:
> 
> 
> > yeah like "if it wasn't for amtrak going ridiculously fast the teens would have made it" etc etc etc
> ...


Not at all. Plenty of collisions are with slow trains, and then there are those that run into the sides of trains.

A number of years ago with a different employer, we were acting as the engineering staff for a 10 mph short line. One day we got an order from one of the counties to do plans for lights and bells, etc, amd maybe even gates at a crossing with one of the county roads. The firstt reaction was, Why here, followed by why at all? Best I can remember, there were only a couple of crossings on the whole line that had flashers, and those were in the larger towns on busy streets.

The answer was this: Somehow the sheriff of that county managed to get his marked police car totaled at this particular crossing. This was the *one train a day moving a 10 mph*. This collission would have been hard to achieve without planning, but somehow he managed. By the way, a straight track in near level country.

So, even with slow trains, stupidity will find a way. Also if you know the trains will be long and slow, there is more temptation to try and beat it. At least with the Amtraks, the passing time is measured in seconds and the whole cycle is not much longer than a normla street light cycle.


----------



## DET63 (Jul 17, 2009)

Momentum *p* is the product of mass *m* times velocity *v*: *p=mv*

When I was in my high-school physics class, we learned that a speeding bullet (low mass, high velocity) may have as much momentum as a slow moving train (high mass, low velocity). Driving in front of a train makes as much sense as driving in front of a bullet. Actually, less sense, since you should be able to see the train, while you probably won't be able to see the bullet.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 17, 2009)

George Harris said:


> Not at all. Plenty of collisions are with slow trains, and then there are those that run into the sides of trains.


He is TECHNICALLY correct. If the train was moving slower it wouldn't have been in that location in the exact time to make this happen. That being said, let us remember more importantly, if my Aunt had wheels, she'd clearly be a teacart.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jul 17, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> > Not at all. Plenty of collisions are with slow trains, and then there are those that run into the sides of trains.
> ...


Just do a study about how many car-train crossing accidents there are, and keeping in mind the fleet size of each class I RR in the US I'm willing to put money that Amtrak will have more collisions per train than any other RR by a significant margin.


----------



## transit54 (Jul 17, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > George Harris said:
> ...


Hmm, that's an interesting idea. I wonder if you are right, however, because a significant percentage of Amtrak's trains ply the NEC which has very, very few grade crossings.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jul 17, 2009)

rnizlek said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> > Green Maned Lion said:
> ...


It's not like this could be done... some pencil pusher would have to spend a lot of man hours working on it-- but I am willing to bet there is a very good chance, and that its such a good chance I'd put money on it as a safe bet.


----------



## George Harris (Jul 17, 2009)

DET63 said:


> Momentum *p* is the product of mass *m* times velocity *v*: *p=mv*When I was in my high-school physics class, we learned that a speeding bullet (low mass, high velocity) may have as much momentum as a slow moving train (high mass, low velocity). Driving in front of a train makes as much sense as driving in front of a bullet. Actually, less sense, since you should be able to see the train, while you probably won't be able to see the bullet.


He must not have passed his math course, then.

Let's look at it:

Take one freight diesel, only, weight around 400,000 pounds, and have him move at 10 mph

Momentum: 400,000 lbs * 10 mph * 44/30 = 5,866,668 ft-lbs. (44/30 converts mph to feet/second)

That is one engine moving slow, not even multiple units or a train.

Now let's take a big bullet moving fast:

45 caliber 500 grain bullet = 0.07143 pounds, have it move at twice the speed of sound, in round numbers, 2000 ft/second

Momentum: 0.07143 lbs * 2000 ft/sec = 142.9 ft-lbs

Need I say more?


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 17, 2009)

George Harris said:


> DET63 said:
> 
> 
> > Momentum *p* is the product of mass *m* times velocity *v*: *p=mv*When I was in my high-school physics class, we learned that a speeding bullet (low mass, high velocity) may have as much momentum as a slow moving train (high mass, low velocity). Driving in front of a train makes as much sense as driving in front of a bullet. Actually, less sense, since you should be able to see the train, while you probably won't be able to see the bullet.
> ...



Yeah but you could argue that a Baby Bullet (An MP38, and 3-4 Bombardier Bi-levels) hitting 79 mph might have a similar amount of force to, say, a single SD70MAC and 20 coal cars going 15 mph.


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Jul 18, 2009)

either way if a train hits a car the car is scrap if there's anything left.


----------



## jackal (Jul 18, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Yeah but you could argue that a Baby Bullet (An MP38, and 3-4 Bombardier Bi-levels) hitting 79 mph might have a similar amount of force to, say, a single SD70MAC and 20 coal cars going 15 mph.


However, on any given stretch of track, you're not going to have that much of a differential between the speed of the freight train and that of the passenger.

Passenger speed limits are generally only 10, perhaps 15, mph more than freight limits. So if you pick some random grade crossing in an area where the passenger speed limit is 79mph, most freight trains going by are likely to be running at 65-70mph.

And that's a HECK of a lot of momentum.

The exceptions would be if you're talking about a train with specialized speed restricted equipment (e.g. loaded air dump cars, which BNSF restricts to 45mph, or certain of empty hopper cars, which they restrict to 40mph--for an interesting list, check out the BNSF System Special Instructions on page 3-4), or if you have a loaded train going up a grade or starting from a stop or some similar circumstance.


----------



## DET63 (Jul 18, 2009)

George Harris said:


> DET63 said:
> 
> 
> > Momentum *p* is the product of mass *m* times velocity *v*: *p=mv*When I was in my high-school physics class, we learned that a speeding bullet (low mass, high velocity) may have as much momentum as a slow moving train (high mass, low velocity). Driving in front of a train makes as much sense as driving in front of a bullet. Actually, less sense, since you should be able to see the train, while you probably won't be able to see the bullet.
> ...


So you're better off stepping in front of bullet than a locomotive?


----------



## KayBee (Jul 18, 2009)

> So you're better off stepping in front of bullet than a locomotive?


Stepping in front of a bullet is enough.

Stepping in front of a train is overkill!


----------



## George Harris (Jul 20, 2009)

DET63 said:


> So you're better off stepping in front of bullet than a locomotive?


The level of stupidity in doing either one is such that whatever the cause of death it won't be brain damage, because it is hard to damage something that is not present for the event.

The point being that the teacher had his mouth leading his brain, a not uncommon event amongst people who have not experience in or understanding of whatever it is they are talking about. To put out such complete *mis*information in a classroom is rediculous. It is not just slightly wrong, but completely irrational in its level of error.

(Edited to correct "information" to "misinformation"


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 20, 2009)

George Harris said:


> The level of stupidity in doing either one is such that whatever the cause of death it won't be brain damage, because it is hard to damage something that is not present for the event.


Amen.


----------



## PetalumaLoco (Jul 20, 2009)

The black box details.


----------



## Ryan (Jul 21, 2009)

68 in a 45 on the road on the way to the crossing.

FWIW, if they got the nomenclature correct, most every car for the last 10 years has had a powertrain control module - it's not that the manufacturers are adding a new "black box" somewhere as much as they are adding capability to the computers that have been standard in cars for a long time. The practical side of this means that it MAY be possible in some implementations to have custom programming inserted into the PCM that disables these recording functions. Custom PCM tuning is a healthy business now as a way of extracting more power from your motor (I've had it done to my Suburban, and the difference is night and day).


----------



## DET63 (Jul 21, 2009)

George Harris said:


> DET63 said:
> 
> 
> > So you're better off stepping in front of bullet than a locomotive?
> ...


The comparison was made in the textbook. The teacher did seem to accept it as valid, however.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 22, 2009)

HokieNav said:


> 68 in a 45 on the road on the way to the crossing.
> FWIW, if they got the nomenclature correct, most every car for the last 10 years has had a powertrain control module - it's not that the manufacturers are adding a new "black box" somewhere as much as they are adding capability to the computers that have been standard in cars for a long time. The practical side of this means that it MAY be possible in some implementations to have custom programming inserted into the PCM that disables these recording functions. Custom PCM tuning is a healthy business now as a way of extracting more power from your motor (I've had it done to my Suburban, and the difference is night and day).


Actually, 15 years is more accurate. The last car to go without it was (ironically but not unintentionally) is what I drive, a '95 MB E300 Diesel, because it was the last car on our market to use mechanical injection.

As for disabling them, just like with any modification, it does void your warranty.


----------



## George Harris (Jul 22, 2009)

DET63 said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> > DET63 said:
> ...


Having seen some of the absolutely goofball examples given in my wife's middle school math books (Mid school math is what she taught), I can readily believe that the source of the error was the textbook. A lot of what is in the current run of school texts is either fluff or error. If you have school kids, read their textbooks to see what they are being taught.


----------



## LookingGlassTie (Jun 23, 2017)

***Moderator's note - this thread is 8 years old***

Bumping the thread......

I watched the cab POV of the accident on YouTube, and I saw shattered glass fly up on the locomotive windshield upon impact.

My stomach dropped to my knees when I saw that......


----------



## tim49424 (Jun 23, 2017)

LookingGlassTie said:


> Bumping the thread......
> 
> I watched the cab POV of the accident on YouTube, and I saw shattered glass fly up on the locomotive windshield upon impact.
> 
> My stomach dropped to my knees when I saw that......


I've seen that video too. The hardest part of it to me is watching the conductor surveying the accident. I've also seen a video taken of the same incident from a different perspective from a local motel's security camera. You can see the car speeding towards the crossing but don't see the impact. From what I heard of the incident, the driver was thrill racing the train and obviously lost, paying the ultimate price for all five teenage occupants.


----------



## LookingGlassTie (Jun 23, 2017)

Also, this Amtrak incident reminds me of one of the early episodes of "World's Scariest Police Chases" where the last segment showed a pair of teens who had just stolen a lawnmower, were eluding officers and decided to go through an intersection on a red light. Their truck was immediately struck by a flatbed semi traveling at high speed. Both were killed instantly.


----------



## OlympianHiawatha (Jun 24, 2017)

tim49424 said:


> LookingGlassTie said:
> 
> 
> > Bumping the thread......
> ...


That video should be MANDATORY viewing in every high school driver's ed program!


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Jun 25, 2017)

tim49424 said:


> The hardest part of it to me is watching the conductor surveying the accident.


His face says it all!


----------



## tim49424 (Jun 25, 2017)

I was on the Empire Builder a few weeks ago and talking to our SCA about this very incident. He was quite frank about how he feels after something like this. One story he told me was when there was an accident involving a fatality, his conductor had to be replaced as he was too emotionally affected to continue on. The SCA went on to tell me that the conductor was so traumatized by the situation that he never worked another train again.


----------



## dlagrua (Jun 25, 2017)

In my township the busy grade crossing has a lane divider for about 30 feet before you reach the gates. It would still be possible to drive around in the wrong lane and pass the gates but far more difficult to do so. Perhaps this is what is needed to deter careless/reckless drivers but with enough effort any good system can be defeated. Prayers to the families of those that needlessly perished and we hope that this tragic accident sends a message to those bent on disobeying the law.


----------



## ehbowen (Jun 25, 2017)

dlagrua said:


> In my township the busy grade crossing has a lane divider for about 30 feet before you reach the gates. It would still be possible to drive around in the wrong lane and pass the gates but far more difficult to do so. Perhaps this is what is needed to deter careless/reckless drivers but with enough effort any good system can be defeated.


I'm not sure. About fifteen years back I personally witnessed a local METRO bus, loaded with passengers, pull out of a line of traffic and drive down the wrong side of the street to go between lowered crossing gates at a 2-track crossing (track speed limit 50 MPH) where a BNSF switch engine was visible working one of the tracks (and any potential traffic on the other track was unknown).

I timed the crossing gates. By pulling this stunt, he saved a full two minutes. Yes, I called in and reported him, but as I was never called back I have no idea whether any action was taken on him at all.


----------



## Acela150 (Jun 25, 2017)

tim49424 said:


> I was on the Empire Builder a few weeks ago and talking to our SCA about this very incident. He was quite frank about how he feels after something like this. One story he told me was when there was an accident involving a fatality, his conductor had to be replaced as he was too emotionally affected to continue on. The SCA went on to tell me that the conductor was so traumatized by the situation that he never worked another train again.


Crew replacement is SOP after trespasser and crossing incidents IINM. Along with 3 paid days off.


----------



## tim49424 (Jun 25, 2017)

Acela150 said:


> tim49424 said:
> 
> 
> > I was on the Empire Builder a few weeks ago and talking to our SCA about this very incident. He was quite frank about how he feels after something like this. One story he told me was when there was an accident involving a fatality, his conductor had to be replaced as he was too emotionally affected to continue on. The SCA went on to tell me that the conductor was so traumatized by the situation that he never worked another train again.
> ...


I think some sort of counseling is required along with training before the crew member returns to work....but this particular conductor was so traumatized that he never returned to work and found a new profession.


----------



## SubwayNut (Jun 26, 2017)

tim49424 said:


> Acela150 said:
> 
> 
> > tim49424 said:
> ...


I know of a New York City Subway Train Operator who still has similar ptsd and isn't working anymore due to the trauma of someone jumping in front of his train.


----------

