# Southwest Chief derailment



## acelafan

A friend of mine who works in Amtrak ops said #4 hit a truck and I see 4 (25) is now in Service Disruption, 81 miles east of Kansas City. He said it may be a bad one. 
A story to follow for sure.


----------



## AmtrakBlue

Looking at the tracker's location history and google maps, it appears it's in "no man's land"- no nearby towns. Maybe near Swan Lake National Wildlife Refuge.


----------



## acelafan

TO picked it up - "yeah, it's bad". Nothing in the news channels yet.


----------



## jis

I wonder if this is related in any way to this incident...



> Amtrak Alerts
> 
> @AmtrakAlerts
> Southwest Chief Train 3, which is scheduled to depart Chicago (CHI) on 6/27, is canceled. Please contact 1-800-USA-RAIL for further assistance or guidance.


----------



## AmtrakBlue

jis said:


> I wonder if this is related in any way to this incident...


Redacted my original thought. 
I suspect it's because they expect the tracks to be blocked.


----------



## acelafan

Some news is starting to trickle in:








Amtrak train crash death toll rises to four with 150 injured in horror scenes


FOUR PEOPLE were killed and approximately 150 others were injured when an Amtrak train slammed into a dump truck at a Missouri crossing on Monday. The horror collision caused eight rail cars and tw…




www.thesun.co.uk


----------



## AmtrakBlue

acelafan said:


> Some news is starting to trickle in:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amtrak train crash death toll rises to four with 150 injured in horror scenes
> 
> 
> FOUR PEOPLE were killed and approximately 150 others were injured when an Amtrak train slammed into a dump truck at a Missouri crossing on Monday. The horror collision caused eight rail cars and tw…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thesun.co.uk


I just saw that and was going to post it...UK news beats USA news.


----------



## merkelman06

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Oh no..<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Amtrak?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc^tfw">#Amtrak</a> derailment somewhere in <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Missouri?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc^tfw">#Missouri</a>. <a href="https://twitter.com/NBCNews?ref_src=twsrc^tfw">@NBCNews</a> <a href="https://t.co/Tk0SKvyKv3">pic.twitter.com/Tk0SKvyKv3</a></p>&mdash; Durand (@Kadingis) <a href="">June 27, 2022</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>


----------



## jebr

Not looking good at all.


----------



## AmtrakBlue

I count 5 overturned.


----------



## OBS

Train #4 has derailed and laying on its side around Durand KS (near Kansas City) with multiple injuries reported


----------



## jis

Sigh! I guess SW Chief is back to five days a week after this. Basically it is a good part of a consist that has been taken out.


----------



## acelafan

Looks like 5 overturned...and the last reported speed was 90MPH, so really not a good situation.


----------



## acelafan

More images with a video, as well. https://www.thedailybeast.com/entire-amtrak-train-topples-over-in-missouri-derailment


----------



## Cal

Looks similar to the EB derailment


----------



## TinCan782

The last tracking point before 0 mph was 90.6 mph!








Multiple fatalities after Amtrak derailment in Missouri


Missouri officials have declared a 'large fatality event' after an Amtrak train stuck a dump truck on a public railroad crossing and overturned.




www.dailymail.co.uk


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

Holy moly/mackerel! That's absolutely insane!


----------



## SarahZ

jis said:


> I wonder if this is related in any way to this incident...


I’m in the lounge at CUS. They just announced #4 is blocking the tracks and they might have to cancel tomorrow’s #3 as well.

They’re doing their best to find hotels and buses and suggested anyone who lives in IL, MN, WI, IA, MI, or IN try to return home. (They’re refunding tickets and helping them find lodging and transportation too.)


----------



## Rover

Live Coverage here:



And Rob Nightingale's FB Page:





__





Log in or sign up to view


See posts, photos and more on Facebook.




www.facebook.com





I have no idea why the Facebook link is printing in strange script???


----------



## AmtrakBlue

Cal said:


> Looks similar to the EB derailment



Except the EB didn't hit a truck.


----------



## TinCan782

From transitdocs, next to last point 90.6 mph; next point under the balloon is 0 mph.


----------



## coventry801

Did it derailed first then hit the truck waiting at the crossing? 
Or did it hit the truck on crossing and derailed as a result? 
Generally hitting a truck would not lead to derailment


----------



## Kirk2266

Wow. That's rough.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Watching "Live" on CNN as a Passenger talks with the CNN Reporter via Phone.

It doesn't sound or look good, report of Injuries but No deaths so far!

One of the Conductors and some of the Passengers are standing on the side of the overturned Cars.Others are walking around on the ROW.


----------



## basketmaker

Access to the scene looks like it is gonna be difficult. Only access is a quarter mile down a a small trackside access dirt road. There are irrigation ditches on both sides of the track. Note: location is taken from the last GPS coordinates shown.


----------



## jebr

Multiple air ambulances en route.


----------



## Rover

Bob Dylan said:


> Watching "Live" on CNN as a Passenger talks with the CNN Reporter via Phone.
> 
> It doesn't sound or look good, report of Injuries but No deaths so far!
> 
> One of the Conductors and somd Passengers are standing on the side of the overturned Cars.











3 killed and at least 50 injured when Amtrak train derails in Missouri after hitting dump truck


Three people are dead and at least 50 injured after an Amtrak train derailed Monday in Missouri, authorities said Monday evening.




www.cnn.com


----------



## JWM

That 90 mph limit on those tracks dates back decades from the ATSF. We will keep having these incidents so long as vehicles ignore trains or warnings. I pray for the injured.


----------



## Kirk2266

So, was the dump truck parked on the tracks, or did it try to beat the train across the tracks?


----------



## AmtrakBlue

Kirk2266 said:


> So, was the dump truck parked on the tracks, or did it try to beat the train across the tracks?


It hit the truck - at 90 mph


----------



## Steve4031

The crossing does not appear to have gates. I’m assuming this was the route 122 crossing where the derailment occurred.


----------



## jebr

Live helicopter feed from KMBC in Kansas City









LIVE: Amtrak passenger train derailment in Missouri | LIVE: Amtrak passenger train derailment in Missouri An Amtrak passenger train has derailed Monday afternoon near Mendon, Missouri. Multiple injuries... | By KMBC 9 | Facebook


143K views, 87 likes, 29 loves, 347 comments, 338 shares, Facebook Watch Videos from KMBC 9: LIVE: Amtrak passenger train derailment in Missouri An Amtrak passenger train has derailed Monday...




www.facebook.com


----------



## Rover

Live copter coverage from KMBC 9 out of Kansas City, Mo









A fourth person has died after Monday's Amtrak derailment in rural Missouri, 150 taken to the hospital


A passenger train derailed near Mendon in rural Missouri, reports indicate four deaths and approximately 150 sent to local hospitals




www.kmbc.com


----------



## basketmaker

The whole consist is on it's side.


----------



## TinCan782

Kirk2266 said:


> So, was the dump truck parked on the tracks, or did it try to beat the train across the tracks?


We'll find out later as the investigation continues.


----------



## AmtrakBlue

Rover said:


>



Look at the comments. He posted a short video of the inside of one of the coach cars.


----------



## jkevkillian

KMBC-TV helicopter has been circling the scene and reporting for a couple of hours now. At the time I'm posting this, it's still live. The entire train, except for the lead engine, tipped over.

*








A fourth person has died after Monday's Amtrak derailment in rural Missouri, 150 taken to the hospital


A passenger train derailed near Mendon in rural Missouri, reports indicate four deaths and approximately 150 sent to local hospitals




www.kmbc.com




*


----------



## jebr

Confirmed that there are fatalities, no number given yet.


----------



## alpha3

Once again.........something tries to beat or evade an approaching train, with disastrous consequences. But, I'm sure this is the train's fault....


----------



## Cal

basketmaker said:


> The whole consist is on it's side.


Engines aren't, all passengers cars and baggage car is. 



jebr said:


> Confirmed that there are fatalities, no number given yet.





I wonder how this might effect my scheduled Chief trip in a few weeks.


----------



## Chris I

Have there been any studies out there about propensity for flipping with single-level vs. bi-level cars? This seems to happen a lot with the bi-level Amtrak cars. It just seems to me that these trains should not be tipping over when derailing on a completely straight section of track.


----------



## joelkfla

Rover said:


> 3 killed and at least 50 injured when Amtrak train derails in Missouri after hitting dump truck
> 
> 
> Three people are dead and at least 50 injured after an Amtrak train derailed Monday in Missouri, authorities said Monday evening.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnn.com


"Amtrak said people who need immediate assistance with information about the train can call or text 1-800-USA-RAIL."

Yeah, good luck with that.


----------



## SarahZ

alpha3 said:


> But, I'm sure this is the train's fault....


Literally no one has said that.


----------



## AmtrakBlue

Chris I said:


> Have there been any studies out there about propensity for flipping with single-level vs. bi-level cars? This seems to happen a lot with the bi-level Amtrak cars. It just seems to me that these trains should not be tipping over when derailing on a completely straight section of track.


Purely a guess on my part, but I wonder if large piece of the truck started the dominos effect.


----------



## BalmyZephyr

alpha3 said:


> Once again.........something tries to beat or evade an approaching train, with disastrous consequences. But, I'm sure this is the train's fault....


The term "derailment" out of context makes people think that trains just randomly derail. Something like this should be called what it is. Rail passengers were victims of Negligent (or Intentional) Homicide by Motor Vehicle?


----------



## jebr

joelkfla said:


> "Amtrak said people who need immediate assistance with information about the train can call or text 1-800-USA-RAIL."



Amtrak's own statement gives a different number - 1-800-523-9101. Not sure why CNN is giving the USA-RAIL number when that wasn't even mentioned in the press release.


----------



## BalmyZephyr

SarahZ said:


> Literally no one has said that.



The term "derailment" says that.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

Chris I said:


> Have there been any studies out there about propensity for flipping with single-level vs. bi-level cars? This seems to happen a lot with the bi-level Amtrak cars. It just seems to me that these trains should not be tipping over when derailing on a completely straight section of track.


They are certainly more top heavy but in an accident like this there are so many forces at play it’s complicated. This train went from 90 to 0 with no telescoping and no structural issues.... that’s pretty amazing.


----------



## Cal

With the SWC derailment, if the train goes to five-days-a-week what days will it probably depart? Can't remember where it was said previously on here.


----------



## zetharion

Thw SW Chief was already on life support it seemed, will this do it in? Really hope the fatalities are minimal.


----------



## AmtrakBlue

Cal said:


> Engines aren't, all passengers cars and baggage car is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder how this might effect my scheduled Chief trip in a few weeks.







__





Amtrak Information


This forum contains useful information about Amtrak service and facilities like timetables, route guides, station codes, mandates etc., for travelers and railfans.




www.amtraktrains.com


----------



## jis

crescent-zephyr said:


> They are certainly more top heavy but in an accident like this there are so many forces at play it’s complicated. This train went from 90 to 0 with no telescoping and no structural issues.... that’s pretty amazing.


Indeed! The tightlock couplers worked and kept the train together inline.


----------



## zetharion

If the truck driver survived I cant imagine what's going through his mind right now especially when he finds out how many lost their lives.


----------



## TinCan782

coventry801 said:


> Did it derailed first then hit the truck waiting at the crossing?
> Or did it hit the truck on crossing and derailed as a result?
> Generally hitting a truck would not lead to derailment


I guess we'll have to see what the investigation reveals. Give it time.


----------



## Fenway




----------



## alpha3

SarahZ said:


> Literally no one has said that.


Literally, you can't tell my sarcasm by the 'rolled eyes' emogi. C'mon.



BalmyZephyr said:


> The term "derailment" says that.


No, it doesn't


----------



## Trogdor

BalmyZephyr said:


> The term "derailment" says that.


No, it doesn’t.

Derailment is literally correct. That is what happened. The train is not on the rails. It derailed. It in no way, other than your own attempt at interpretation, implies cause.


----------



## jis

Cal said:


> With the SWC derailment, if the train goes to five-days-a-week what days will it probably depart? Can't remember where it was said previously on here.


It is all speculative. I am sure no one has any idea.

Incidentally the previous 5 day thing was not designed to reduce the number of consists needed. It was designed to reduce the number of crew needed. A reduced operation to reduce the number of consists needed will look very very different. But for now let us wait until we get to that river before figuring out which bridge to cross.


----------



## Cal

AmtrakBlue said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amtrak Information
> 
> 
> This forum contains useful information about Amtrak service and facilities like timetables, route guides, station codes, mandates etc., for travelers and railfans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.amtraktrains.com


The only thing I could find was days of operation after the Chief went daily.


----------



## PRR 60

joelkfla said:


> "Amtrak said people who need immediate assistance with information about the train can call or text 1-800-USA-RAIL."
> 
> Yeah, good luck with that.


Special number is 800-523-9101.


----------



## jis

Cal said:


> The only thing I could find was days of operation after the Chief went daily.


As I pointed out in the other thread, the previous 5 day operation did not save any consists. It reduced the number of staff needed. So those days of operation will provide you no guidance in figuring out how they will operate a train with one fewer consist, if it comes to that.


----------



## zetharion

jis said:


> Indeed! The tightlock couplers worked and kept the train together inline.


If they werent like that could only one or two cars have toppled instead? Or does having more go down limit the number of potential rolls?


----------



## Sammo

What about the engineers up front?


----------



## jis

zetharion said:


> If they werent like that could only one or two cars have toppled instead? Or does having more go down limit the number of potential rolls?


No they would have more likely jacknifed and the cars would have been hit from the side causing much more damage. If there is no track left they would have deraiedl and flown every which way.

There is a century of research that support the idea that tightlock couplers save lives.


----------



## joelkfla

There's double track, and the train fell away from the other track. Looks like they should be able to get a single track open pretty quickly, once the remains of the truck are removed and the crossing repaired.


----------



## stx

A passenger just posted elsewhere that passengers have been bussed to a school, and those injured will be taken to Columbia MO hospitals.


----------



## slasher-fun

Sammo said:


> What about the engineers up front?


Looks like they were in the only part of the train that didn't go to rest on its side, so they should be doing pretty ok.


----------



## zetharion

Maybe a bit insensitive at the moment? But the cars that toppled, will they just get a crane and put them back on the tracks to see if they still roll?


----------



## jis

zetharion said:


> Maybe a bit insensitive at the moment? But the cars that toppled, will they just get a crane and put them back on the tracks to see if they still roll?


Wait a day and you'll know for sure. Why pointlessly speculate?


----------



## zetharion

Well I assumed some on here might know off the top of their head how it was done in the past.


----------



## BalmyZephyr

Trogdor said:


> No, it doesn’t.
> 
> Derailment is literally correct. That is what happened. The train is not on the rails. It derailed. It in no way, other than your own attempt at interpretation, implies cause.



Derailment (alone) is literally incomplete and out of context, like one of my two posts said. Maybe you didn't read that one. The train didn't randomly derail (most likely) nor did it derail because of excessive speed on a curve like the Philadelphia derailment. So what I said was, people who only see "Derailment" might get the impression that trains randomly derail or engineers drive too fast, and trains are a dangerous way to travel. All you're gonna hear for weeks now are news reports saying "passengers killed/injured in derailment in Missouri" and the like. My only point is that if this truck (driver) caused the accident, another description would be better.


----------



## Fenway

KMBC Nowcast


Live and on demand Kansas City newscasts and weather from KMBC 9 News.




www.kmbc.com


----------



## jis

MODERATOR'S NOTE: Let us please stop arguing about the meaning of "Derailment" and focus on this event.

Thank you for your understanding, cooperation, and participation.


----------



## joelkfla

CNN website now says more than 50 injuries and multiple fatalities.


----------



## zetharion

That truck only has its engine and frame left in tact, the rest of it is gone. press conference at 6 EST.


----------



## frequentflyer

Low level or bi level, going from 90 to 0 in an 1/8 mile, would have ended up in that ditch. I remember back in the 80s, the STL-CHI State House with an F40 and 4 amfleets hit a dump truck at 79. The locomotive was upright but three of four Amfleets ended up on their sides.


----------



## Maverickstation

Here is the CNN update.









Live updates: Amtrak train derails in Missouri


An Amtrak train with 243 passengers derailed in Missouri after hitting a dump truck at a public crossing near the city of Mendon, according to the passenger rail company. Follow here for the latest news updates.




www.cnn.com





We pray and send thoughts to those who were killed, and injured, as well as their loved ones.

Ken


----------



## Bob Dylan

joelkfla said:


> CNN website now says more than 50 injuries and multiple fatalities.


Sad!


----------



## Cal

zetharion said:


> That truck only has its engine and frame left in tact, the rest of it is gone. press conference at 6 EST.


Link to press conference?


----------



## zetharion

Cal said:


> Link to press conference?


Heres the tweet, no info about where to watch.
MSHP Tweet about upcoming news conference


----------



## zetharion

3 dead, two on the train one one in the truck


----------



## McIntyre2K7

You can watch the press conference here..


----------



## StanJazz

I wonder if the 2 fatalities on the train were the engineers or in the passenger cars.


----------



## Rover

KMBC Nowcast


Live and on demand Kansas City newscasts and weather from KMBC 9 News.




www.kmbc.com


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

I'm still in the office so I can't listen live, what updates are we getting from the press conference?


----------



## Amtrak Apple

People are going to want every crossing to have arms, bells, and whistles.

How about drivers just have some common sense?


----------



## MARC Rider

Amtrak Apple said:


> People are going to want every crossing to have arms, bells, and whistles.
> 
> How about drivers just have some common sense?


Unfortunately, given the state of the American people today, we're probably going to need the arms, bells, and whistles at every crossing.


----------



## zetharion

Seems like every comment from a reporter is aiming their words at it being Amtrak's fault.


----------



## joelkfla

The train passed Santa Fe Junction, Kansas City, Missouri, USA | Virtual Railfan at 10:40:47 CDT.

Consist: Engines 133 & 166, baggage, 2 sleepers, diner, SSL, coach, bag-coach, coach.

(I'm not 100% sure about the last 3.)


----------



## crescent-zephyr

zetharion said:


> If they werent like that could only one or two cars have toppled instead? Or does having more go down limit the number of potential rolls?


Having the cars together in a straight line is much better. If the cars separated they would be going in different directions and could run into each other = cutting into and crushing each other.

We sometimes complain that the US safety standards are a bit extreme but those standards probably saved many lives today.


----------



## Brian_tampa

Amtrak Apple said:


> People are going to want every crossing to have arms, bells, and whistles.
> 
> How about drivers just have some common sense?


And what would be wrong with that? In my opinion, running 90 mph passenger trains on tracks that cross unprotected grade crossings is crazy. The world you seek has long ago passed.

The decision to not install any protective devices is strictly a monetary decision. Railroads have proven recently with PSR that the only god that they worship is wall street. Edit: And I know BNSF is the only class 1 not to go the PSR route, but still they worship the investor. Not the safety of their employees or passengers on their tracks.


----------



## ShiningTimeStL

crescent-zephyr said:


> Having the cars together in a straight line is much better. If the cars separated they would be going in different directions and could run into each other = cutting into and crushing each other.
> 
> We sometimes complain that the US safety standards are a bit extreme but those standards probably saved many lives today.


They're probably extreme for the trains because they're so lax for the road traffic. Trains here have to be built to withstand anything the road throws at them. Elsewhere, things like level crossings exist, with gates that fully close off the road so you can't drive around. In Florida at least they're starting to put up mirrors so people can actually see the train coming without even turning their head.


----------



## joelkfla

NY Times article with video by passenger:









Amtrak Train Hits Truck in Missouri, Killing 4 and Injuring Dozens


The train was carrying nearly 300 people when it hit a dump truck at a crossing with no lights in Mendon, Mo., causing several cars to derail, the authorities said. About 150 people were injured.




www.nytimes.com


----------



## John Bobinyec

ShiningTimeStL said:


> They're probably extreme for the trains because they're so lax for the road traffic. Trains here have to be built to withstand anything the road throws at them. Elsewhere, things like level crossings exist, with gates that fully close off the road so you can't drive around. In Florida at least they're starting to put up mirrors so people can actually see the train coming without even turning their head.


In Florida are they putting up mirrors in both directions for all tracks? Some would think that putting up aids to help people cross the tracks when protection devices are operating is a bad idea. In fact, it might prove to be a liability for those who installed them.
jb


----------



## Fenway




----------



## StanJazz

CBS2 in Chicago just said it was 2 people in the dump truck and only 1 on the train that were killed. Not 1 in the truck and 2 on the train. I wonder which is correct.


----------



## Chessie

Very sad.

There was another Amtrak accident that killed 3 women in Brentwood California, also involving a vehicle (a car).


----------



## MccfamschoolMom

Brian_tampa said:


> And what would be wrong with that? In my opinion, running 90 mph passenger trains on tracks that cross unprotected grade crossings is crazy. The world you seek has long ago passed.
> 
> The decision to not install any protective devices is strictly a monetary decision. Railroads have proven recently with PSR that the only god that they worship is wall street. Edit: And I know BNSF is the only class 1 not to go the PSR route, but still they worship the investor. Not the safety of their employees or passengers on their tracks.


When the Lincoln Service/Texas Eagle tracks were upgraded for high-speed rail in my town, long crossing gates were installed. People used to drive around the shorter crossing gates when it wasn't obvious a train was approaching (and give "the look" to other drivers not doing likewise), which was dangerous. A few decades ago, the first big personal-injury case my husband's law firm won involved an ungated (and with unlighted cross-buck signs) freight crossing on the N side of town, with 4 teenagers in a car with the radio going who couldn't hear the train horn being killed.


----------



## NSC1109

Brian_tampa said:


> And what would be wrong with that? In my opinion, running 90 mph passenger trains on tracks that cross unprotected grade crossings is crazy. The world you seek has long ago passed.
> 
> The decision to not install any protective devices is strictly a monetary decision. Railroads have proven recently with PSR that the only god that they worship is wall street. Edit: And I know BNSF is the only class 1 not to go the PSR route, but still they worship the investor. Not the safety of their employees or passengers on their tracks.



BNSF has absolutely gone the PSR route and don’t let anyone tell you differently.


----------



## Tlcooper93

What a tragedy.
Unfortunately, my train evangelism doesn't work to well when your chances of losing your life on a train are worse than in an airplane.


----------



## Cal

MccfamschoolMom said:


> 4 teenagers in a car with the radio going who couldn't hear the train horn being killed.


People should still look. Look, listen, live.


----------



## Dakota 400

StanJazz said:


> CBS2 in Chicago just said it was 2 people in the dump truck and only 1 on the train that were killed. Not 1 in the truck and 2 on the train. I wonder which is correct.



NBC Nightly News reported a few minutes ago that two killed were passengers on the train. The truck driver died. According to the news report, the driver ended up in a ditch nearby the accident. A Boy Scout was nearby (for some reason) and tried to provide some comfort to the person before he passed. 



Amtrak Apple said:


> How about drivers just have some common sense?



Common sense is in very short supply these days. Has the good Lord had supply chain issues in installing this in recent generations?


----------



## zephyr17

zetharion said:


> If they werent like that could only one or two cars have toppled instead? Or does having more go down limit the number of potential rolls?


Tight lock couplers prevented the couplers from climbing over each other and causing more damage. They prevent severe vertical displacement between the couplers as well as reducing the possibility of jackknifing 

They reduced damage, not increased it.


----------



## Dakota 400

It's been a bad day for public transportation in the last two days. The Amtrak issue on the West Coast, the SWC's derailment, and the Norwegian Sun's striking a growler trying to visit the Hubbard Glacier.


----------



## StanJazz

Just now CBS2 Chicago said it was 2 on the train and 1 in the truck killed, just like what others were saying.


----------



## zephyr17

zetharion said:


> Maybe a bit insensitive at the moment? But the cars that toppled, will they just get a crane and put them back on the tracks to see if they still roll?


In even a minor low speed derailment where the cars remain upright and apparently undamaged, like the derailment backing up over sand awhile ago at Palm Springs, the cars must have all running gear and brake rigging minutely inspected before they can be moved at more than minimum speed or carry passengers.

In this case, the cars scoured the gravel on their sides decelerating from 90 mph. I think the damage might be considerably more extensive than their ability to "roll". At least some are likely to be classified as "wrecked-not repairable".


----------



## Bob Dylan

zetharion said:


> 3 dead, two on the train one one in the truck


RIP!


----------



## OlympianHiawatha

On a practical note, is Amtrak not already facing a serious shortage of usable SuperLiner equipment?


----------



## zephyr17

OlympianHiawatha said:


> On a practical note, is Amtrak not already facing a serious shortage of usable SuperLiner equipment?


Yup


----------



## AmtrakBlue

Dakota 400 said:


> NBC Nightly News reported a few minutes ago that two killed were passengers on the train. The truck driver died. According to the news report, the driver ended up in a ditch nearby the accident. A Boy Scout was nearby (for some reason) and tried to provide some comfort to the person before he passed.
> 
> 
> 
> Common sense is in very short supply these days. Has the good Lord had supply chain issues in installing this in recent generations?


There were 2 Boy Scout troops on the SWC. Coming home from camp.


----------



## Bob Dylan

AmtrakBlue said:


> There were 2 Boy Scout troops on the SWC. Coming home from camp.


Wow, that Train is usually Full in the Summer in both directions.


----------



## west point

Thoughts.
1. The angle of the road is very acute. If the truck was going north and the train NE the driver would need to really turn his head to see back down the track.
2. The AT&SF tracks are going NE for a long distance. North = S roads are going to all going to have looking for trains going a relative same diretion. 
3. The grid system of roads in this area have both n- S % E_W raoads not crossing the tracks at a 90 egree angle.
4.. Kansas might need to place some kind of passive reflector to protect these crossings. Metal mirrors maybe but vandiaism a problem. Maybe the vertical type mountd on crossbuck poles that Ohio is using? That should be immediately. An emergency grant from FRA could be forth coming.
5. Tight lock couplers really seem to have done their job. Freight cars often accordian. Accordian passengers would be flung side to side causing many more fatilities.
6. The 2 dead if they were passengers or onboard crew were probably walking in an aisle and might have flown 40 or more feet forward to hit the bulkhead. I always walk hand by hand on seats. 
If I ever hear the emergency brakes air exhaust I would take both hands hold on and yell " every body hold on, hold on, hold on. " Was on the Eagle once when another passenger did just that. I will follow that example. What happened was our train entered a siding too fast that the seach light signal was not propertly visible for the diversion. We did not derail and no one in our car was hurt.


----------



## uncleboots

Latest update from here in St. Louis. 3 people have died, they are reporting the train hit a dump truck. My biggest concern with the Marceline Sub was there were several crossing with no arm guards and crossings with only stop signs. For future travelers on this train it has rerouted through Quincy Illinois and St Louis in the past.


----------



## uncleboots

Bob Dylan said:


> Wow, that Train is usually Full in the Summer in both directions.


There was also a group of High School Students from Kansas on the train.


----------



## alanh

So sorry to see this. This is the location: 








39°33'39.9"N 93°10'50.9"W







goo.gl


----------



## MARC Rider

MARC Rider said:


> Unfortunately, given the state of the American people today, we're probably going to need the arms, bells, and whistles at every crossing.


...and some people will still try to beat out the train....


----------



## Steve4031

There has to be at some point in this country a reckoning of the monetary value of a single life. As described in previous posts, the intersection of tracks and many roads in this area are not at right angles. The BNSF must know this. I wonder how many similar accidents have occurred in this area. 

The design of these crossings and lack of extra means to view trains from hard to view angles are the ingredients of a lawsuit imho.


----------



## MARC Rider

Dakota 400 said:


> It's been a bad day for public transportation in the last two days. The Amtrak issue on the West Coast, the SWC's derailment, and the Norwegian Sun's striking a growler trying to visit the Hubbard Glacier.


It hasn't been such a hot day for people traveling in private cars, either.






car crashes june 27 2022 at DuckDuckGo


DuckDuckGo. Privacy, Simplified.




duckduckgo.com





(I would expect this is typical of what happens on the road every day. Also, one of the entries pulled up on the search was a report of the car hitting the Amtrak train in California.)


----------



## Fenway

Missouri Department of Transportation plan listed the intersection in need of lights, gates, and roadway improvements









State records: Train crossing at site of deadly Amtrak crash on list for safety improvements


Missouri Department of Transportation plan listed the intersection in need of lights, gates, and roadway improvements




www.kmbc.com


----------



## west point

Lacking equipment it would need to be 2 on, 2 off, 1 on, 2 off.


----------



## joelkfla

Steve4031 said:


> There has to be at some point in this country a reckoning of the monetary value of a single life. As described in previous posts, the intersection of tracks and many roads in this area are not at right angles. The BNSF must know this. I wonder how many similar accidents have occurred in this area.
> 
> The design of these crossings and lack of extra means to view trains from hard to view angles are the ingredients of a lawsuit imho.


I believe the state or local jurisdiction bears the responsibility to pay for upgrades to existing crossings, not the railroad.


----------



## Night Ranger

AmtrakBlue said:


> There were 2 Boy Scout troops on the SWC. Coming home from camp.


Per CNN, the 2 troops were from Appleton, Wisconsin with 8 adult leaders. They were on their way back home for the Philmont Scout Ranch in New Mexico. None of them were hurt (thank goodness) and they assisted other passengers who needed help. National headquarters is trying to arrange transportation to get them home as soon as possible.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

joelkfla said:


> I believe the state or local jurisdiction bears the responsibility to pay for upgrades to existing crossings, not the railroad.


BNSF made $6B last year. Why should the state (aka state tax-holders) be responsible?


----------



## ehbowen

joelkfla said:


> I believe the state or local jurisdiction bears the responsibility to pay for upgrades to existing crossings, not the railroad.


My understanding is that, as with drawbridges over waterways, much depends upon which came first: The highway or the railroad? Caveat: I Am Not A Lawyer.


----------



## Willbridge

Brian_tampa said:


> And what would be wrong with that? In my opinion, running 90 mph passenger trains on tracks that cross unprotected grade crossings is crazy. The world you seek has long ago passed.
> 
> The decision to not install any protective devices is strictly a monetary decision. Railroads have proven recently with PSR that the only god that they worship is wall street. Edit: And I know BNSF is the only class 1 not to go the PSR route, but still they worship the investor. Not the safety of their employees or passengers on their tracks.


While I was working for Oregon DOT, a Southern Pacific freight hit a school bus at 20 mph on the secondary West Side line. The school bus driver had stopped, then pulled in front of the train. As a result, outraged public demanded and got crossing gates on the access to a mobile home park. The state and railroad money came by deleting a crossing project with a more likely chance of an accident.

In this case, a 79 mph speed limit -- it appears -- would have made little difference. And the public share of crossing improvements might have been better used at a higher traffic volume location.

Added note: I see that this crossing was on the list for improvements. Some states have engineering units that work on crossing improvements and federal funds may be available. Oregon was doing this in the 70's, some other states had other priorities through the years.


----------



## TinCan782

Night Ranger said:


> Per CNN, the 2 troops were from Appleton, Wisconsin with 8 adult leaders. They were on their way back home for the Philmont Scout Ranch in New Mexico. None of them were hurt (thank goodness) and they assisted other passengers who needed help. National headquarters is trying to arrange transportation to get them home as soon as possible.


Nice article and interview here from WTMJ in Wisconsin.








Boy Scouts from Appleton on board Amtrak train when it derailed in Missouri, rendered aid to wounded


Scouts and chaperones from two Boy Scout troops based in Appleton, Wisconsin were on-board an Amtrak train when it derailed in Missouri on Monday




wtmj.com


----------



## Cal

west point said:


> Lacking equipment it would need to be 2 on, 2 off, 1 on, 2 off.


I’m confused by what you mean by this.


----------



## The Chief

zephyr17 said:


> Tight lock couplers prevented the couplers from climbing over each other and causing more damage. They prevent severe vertical displacement between the couplers as well as reducing the possibility of jackknifing
> 
> They reduced damage, not increased it.


Exactly. Part of design always has been to prevent the deadly "telescoping" of longtime years ago.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

I was watching one of the videos of people onboard afterwards and I was impressed at how calm they were despite everything (not that I was expecting the Poseidon or anything). But impressive. They were packing up and seemed calm, if shaken, and helping each other to clean up. 

One the crossings: of course the state pays, who owns and maintains the roads? From the brief description it seemed like more than just crossing arms, but an entire intersection redo was in the works.


----------



## zetharion

2 days train, 2 days no train, 1 day train, 2 days no train.


----------



## Cal

Metra Electric Rider said:


> I was watching one of the videos of people onboard afterwards and I was impressed at how calm they were despite everything (not that I was expecting the Poseidon or anything). But impressive. They were packing up and seemed calm, if shaken, and helping each other to clean up.
> 
> One the crossings: of course the state pays, who owns and maintains the roads? From the brief description it seemed like more than just crossing arms, but an entire intersection redo was in the works.


Honestly that’s a little surprising to me, considering it seems to be a small crossing in the middle of nowhere


----------



## zephyr17

ehbowen said:


> My understanding is that, as with drawbridges over waterways, much depends upon which came first: The highway or the railroad? Caveat: I Am Not A Lawyer.


Yeah, that is my understanding, too


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

Cal said:


> Honestly that’s a little surprising to me, considering it seems to be a small crossing in the middle of nowhere


Here's what the article posted by Fenway said:

"However, MODOT's 2022 State Freight and Rail plan released in February listed the intersection at County Road 113 and Porche Prairie Road for installation of lights, and gates, and roadway improvements at the public crossing."


----------



## AmtrakBlue

crescent-zephyr said:


> BNSF made $6B last year. Why should the state (aka state tax-holders) be responsible?


Because the railroad was there before the roads (just my guess). These are farm roads, not state roads, so maybe the farmers should be responsible.


----------



## zephyr17

AmtrakBlue said:


> Because the railroad was there before the roads (just my guess). These are farm roads, not state roads, so maybe the farmers should be responsible.


Well, it shows as a county road, not a private road, even though it serves farms in the area. County has it.


----------



## Willbridge

Metra Electric Rider said:


> Here's what the article posted by Fenway said:
> 
> "However, MODOT's 2022 State Freight and Rail plan released in February listed the intersection at County Road 113 and Porche Prairie Road for installation of lights, and gates, and roadway improvements at the public crossing."


I can't speak to this one, but every crossing has a history. Few states had a State Rail Plan until 1976 and then the 4-R act provided federal funds.

Often county roads on the survey grid in the West predate the later railways, keeping in mind that the Santa Fe built this relatively "modern" line to be the shortest diagonal between Kansas City and Chicago. So, some may want the railway to pay. But, there may have been a modern increase in road traffic on it. That turns out to be a common story, and it argues for the local government or state to contribute. County commissioners or city councils like the revenue from development, but usually do not think of side effects unless an angry neighbor testifies. It takes a while to work things out when there is a new situation.

I've only been in one grade crossing accident. It was in Indiana, on the _Cardinal, _and visibility for the garbage truck driver and the engineer was excellent. The truck driver changed his mind at the last minute, and we just clipped his truck. No one was killed. However, this was another county road that now led to a garbage dump and at some point, that increased its traffic. I'm sure when the Monon was built that they did not anticipate that.


----------



## NSC1109

crescent-zephyr said:


> BNSF made $6B last year. Why should the state (aka state tax-holders) be responsible?


because it’s their road.


----------



## DeepChillWolf

OlympianHiawatha said:


> On a practical note, is Amtrak not already facing a serious shortage of usable SuperLiner equipment?


I'm curious to know how other trains that use superliner equipment will be affected by this accident. Will we be seeing less service (such as tri-weekly) on some routes, or perhaps shorter train consists? It's already bad enough that the Texas Eagle runs on a reduced service with only four cars and no sightseer lounge. Would it be possible for them to transfer some amfleets over to the western pool once the Siemens Venture cars are in service?


----------



## Tk48states

I was just inthis area last fall, the crash site is on the BNSF’s Marceline Sub, a very busy high speed double track railroad diagonally across Missouri from Fort Madison Iowa to Kansas City, it was built by the Santa Fe in late 19’thcentury as an airline deliberately missing populated areas on a straight line between Chicago and KC.
The BNSF maintains it for passenger train speeds up to 90mph and freights 70. The area around Mendon is flat open country with long straight tangents of heavily ballasted 136 lb welded rail. This is very rural farm country but the residents are well aware of the 60-70 highspeed trains mostly intermodal passing through daily, CTC controls all movements. Will be interesting to find out the identity of the driver and the type of company involved.. As a lawyer my second thought in this type of accident is how much money damages are involved and the answer in this one will be in the hundreds of millions when personal injury claims are added. Only the very largest national trucking companies have enough liability coverage to survive this kind of catastrophic event.


----------



## Cal

NSC1109 said:


> because it’s their road.


They own the road? What? DO you mean it's their crossing? 



DeepChillWolf said:


> I'm curious to know how other trains that use superliner equipment will be affected by this accident. Will we be seeing less service (such as tri-weekly) on some routes, or perhaps shorter train consists? It's already bad enough that the Texas Eagle runs on a reduced service with only four cars and no sightseer lounge. Would it be possible for them to transfer some amfleets over to the western pool once the Siemens Venture cars are in service?


I doubt it, they only lost one set.


----------



## NSC1109

Cal said:


> They own the road? What? DO you mean it's their crossing?
> 
> 
> I doubt it, they only lost one set.


The railroad lets them cross there. If the locals want to upgrade the warning devices, they’re paying for it. I believe it’s based on the amount of traffic that the road sees.

Do we know if the fatalities on board were crew or passengers?


----------



## Willbridge

The AP story describes details that help to understand this, so it's worth a read. However, it finishes up with the traditional wire service paragraphs itemizing past accidents without explaining whether they were related or not. The BBC did that, too, concluding with a 2018 accident. When I was news director on college radio I asked my announcers to trim those paragraphs off and get on to actual news.









3 killed, dozens hurt in Amtrak train crash in Missouri


MENDON, Mo. (AP) — An Amtrak passenger train traveling from Los Angeles to Chicago struck a dump truck Monday in a remote area of Missouri, killing three people and injuring dozens more as rail cars tumbled off the tracks and landed on their sides, officials said.




apnews.com


----------



## joelkfla

Angry farmer talks about efforts to get crossing improvements:


----------



## Rover

MARC Rider said:


> ...and some people will still try to beat out the train....


Bty,
How do other countries, including China handle rail crossings in remote, rural areas??


----------



## coventry801

Amtrak Apple said:


> People are going to want every crossing to have arms, bells, and whistles.
> 
> How about drivers just have some common sense?



I thought all crossings would have I've always treated rails without signals as abandoned


crescent-zephyr said:


> BNSF made $6B last year. Why should the state (aka state tax-holders) be responsible?



Vanguard being the biggest stock holder I believe. Greedy Wall street


----------



## billosborn

joelkfla said:


> Angry farmer talks about efforts to get crossing improvements:



sadly, at first glance, based on what this farmer said, it appears that the failure to upgrade the crossing were due to bureaucracy on either the part of the railroad or the county.


----------



## zephyr17

If BNSF has a crossing they deem too dangerous, and local authorities do nothing about it, they have the option of closing the crossing.


----------



## west point

Is that the remains of a block signal destroyed?


----------



## billosborn

I just read that today's (6/28) #3 SWC will depart from Kansas City, not Chicago. I know that Amtrak is busy trying to get all the passengers on the derailed train to their final destinations - but in cases like this, are the folks who are booked from Chicago on the #3 on their own as far as getting to KCY by 10.30 pm tonight to catch the #3 to Los Angeles?


----------



## John819

DeepChillWolf said:


> I'm curious to know how other trains that use superliner equipment will be affected by this accident. Will we be seeing less service (such as tri-weekly) on some routes, or perhaps shorter train consists? It's already bad enough that the Texas Eagle runs on a reduced service with only four cars and no sightseer lounge. Would it be possible for them to transfer some amfleets over to the western pool once the Siemens Venture cars are in service?


Remember that the cars involved will (irrespective of the damage sustained) be out of service until (a) released by the NTSB and (b) released by the Amtrak legal department (usually after all lawsuits are resolved).

If there is an immediate need for more Superliner equipment, perhaps the CL could be converted to Amfleet II / Viewliner equipment?


----------



## Cal

coventry801 said:


> I've always treated rails without signals as abandoned


There are many, many, many unguarded crossings across the US. I usually look at the rails to see if it's active or not, and even then unless I know for a fact it is abandoned I look for trains (for safety plus I just like seeing trains).


----------



## billosborn

billosborn said:


> I just read that today's (6/28) #3 SWC will depart from Kansas City, not Chicago. I know that Amtrak is busy trying to get all the passengers on the derailed train to their final destinations - but in cases like this, are the folks who are booked from Chicago on the #3 on their own as far as getting to KCY by 10.30 pm tonight to catch the #3 to Los Angeles?


Answered my own question. Amtrak tweeted that they will provide alternate transportation for passengers on today's #3 that will originate in Kansas City instead of Chicago.


----------



## Brian_tampa

Willbridge said:


> While I was working for Oregon DOT, a Southern Pacific freight hit a school bus at 20 mph on the secondary West Side line. The school bus driver had stopped, then pulled in front of the train. As a result, outraged public demanded and got crossing gates on the access to a mobile home park. The state and railroad money came by deleting a crossing project with a more likely chance of an accident.
> 
> In this case, a 79 mph speed limit -- it appears -- would have made little difference. And the public share of crossing improvements might have been better used at a higher traffic volume location.
> 
> Added note: I see that this crossing was on the list for improvements. Some states have engineering units that work on crossing improvements and federal funds may be available. Oregon was doing this in the 70's, some other states had other priorities through the years.


I agree with you in that 90 mph versus 79 mph would make no difference in this crash. The point I am trying to make is that this is a very busy double track railroad, 60 to 80 trains per day, that is being run with very little supporting safety infrastructure along it at certain grade crossings. People can point to the railroad being there first and how that means the railroad is not responsible for improving the safety devices along its route. At the end of the day, the railroad does have a moral or ethical duty to operate in a safe manner. 

To me, for BNSF to run 80 trains a day on the busiest railroad route in the country and not provide any modern safety protection at certain public road crossings is borderline reckless. It all comes down to money and greed. BNSF has taken a risk and lost here. In what other country would this situation be acceptable?


----------



## NorthShore

Mighty steep crossing. Raises even more questions about sightlines, distance seen, and even acceleration of certain vehicles from stop/go versus rolling speed.


----------



## NSC1109

Brian_tampa said:


> I agree with you in that 90 mph versus 79 mph would make no difference in this crash. The point I am trying to make is that this is a very busy double track railroad, 60 to 80 trains per day, that is being run with very little supporting safety infrastructure along it at certain grade crossings. People can point to the railroad being there first and how that means the railroad is not responsible for improving the safety devices along its route. At the end of the day, the railroad does have a moral or ethical duty to operate in a safe manner.
> 
> To me, for BNSF to run 80 trains a day on the busiest railroad route in the country and not provide any modern safety protection at certain public road crossings is borderline reckless. It all comes down to money and greed. BNSF has taken a risk and lost here. In what other country would this situation be acceptable?


You’re ignoring the fact that the driver of the dump truck broke the law and killed himself and two others by doing so. That is the only question here. You can put all the lights and gates up that you want to, and people will STILL run right through them. 

Enough with the blame game. There comes a time when people need to help responsible for their actions and the consequences. The crossing had a stop sign. You are required to STOP, LOOK, and LISTEN. There is ZERO wiggle room there. The railroad has the right of way. Failing to stop to make sure there’s no train coming or trying to beat it is the fault of the driver and the driver alone. Not Amtrak’s, not BNSF’s, not the FRA.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

MccfamschoolMom said:


> A few decades ago, the first big personal-injury case my husband's law firm won involved an ungated (and with unlighted cross-buck signs) freight crossing on the N side of town, with 4 teenagers in a car with the radio going who couldn't hear the train horn being killed.


Over coffee almost any functioning adult can admit those kids took their lives in their own hands and suffered the consequences of invincible thinking, but put the same people on a jury with emotional testimony under the gaze of weeping mothers and the concept of personal responsibility evaporates.



jebr said:


> Multiple air ambulances en route.







Tlcooper93 said:


> What a tragedy. Unfortunately, my train evangelism doesn't work to well when your chances of losing your life on a train are worse than in an airplane.


Short of falling off a bridge or impacting another train this looks to be among the worst collisions possible and still kept the vast majority of passengers alive and unharmed. Incidents like this remind me how safe trains are compared to many other risks. I grew up with bottle rockets and lawn darts so the idea of never doing anything with a slight chance of harm seems excessively careful.


----------



## Cal

I've seen many people saying that, due to the steep incline, the garbage truck was stuck. One person said that they tried to move it which begs the question why didn't they get out when they saw the Chief coming. 


However, this is all from YouTube comments, so take it however you please.


----------



## NSC1109

Cal said:


> I've seen many people saying that, due to the steep incline, the garbage truck was stuck. One person said that they tried to move it which begs the question why didn't they get out when they saw the Chief coming.
> 
> 
> However, this is all from YouTube comments, so take it however you please.



If it truly was stuck, then the driver should have 1) gotten OUT OF THE TRUCK and 2) called the number on the blue emergency sign on every crossing with the crossing’s unique identifier and this may have been prevented, if there was time.


----------



## Cal

NSC1109 said:


> If it truly was stuck, then the driver should have 1) gotten OUT OF THE TRUCK and 2) called the number on the blue emergency sign on every crossing with the crossing’s unique identifier and this may have been prevented, if there was time.


1. Again, maybe they tried to move it and thought they had it.

2. So many people don't do that, it's sad.


----------



## Brian_tampa

NSC1109 said:


> You’re ignoring the fact that the driver of the dump truck broke the law and killed himself and two others by doing so. That is the only question here. You can put all the lights and gates up that you want to, and people will STILL run right through them.
> 
> Enough with the blame game. There comes a time when people need to help responsible for their actions and the consequences. The crossing had a stop sign. You are required to STOP, LOOK, and LISTEN. There is ZERO wiggle room there. The railroad has the right of way. Failing to stop to make sure there’s no train coming or trying to beat it is the fault of the driver and the driver alone. Not Amtrak’s, not BNSF’s, not the FRA.


It is not a blame game. It is a matter of what is a reasonable action to protect the public. Who has the right of way does not matter. It is like I was taught in school for driving on the road. No one really has the right of way - so the presence of a piece of metal stop sign is the minimum protection the railroad should do? Again I ask, in what other country would this be considered acceptable? 

The driver here was clearly at fault. But does that mean that we should accept that a stop sign is the only meaningful protection available? The driver at fault paid the ultimate penalty. Did the passengers in the train deserve to pay the same penalty through no fault of their own, especially since it has been proven that warning lights and gates do save lives? Then why not have stop signs at all grade crossings if the law says to stop, look, listen. That should be good enough then, right?


----------



## John Bobinyec

The only safe grade crossing is no grade crossing at all.
jb


----------



## cirdan

crescent-zephyr said:


> They are certainly more top heavy but in an accident like this there are so many forces at play it’s complicated. This train went from 90 to 0 with no telescoping and no structural issues.... that’s pretty amazing.


my thoughts exactly


----------



## MccfamschoolMom

Devil's Advocate said:


> Over coffee almost any functioning adult can admit those kids took their lives in their own hands and suffered the consequences of invincible thinking, but put the same people on a jury with emotional testimony under the gaze of weeping mothers and the concept of personal responsibility evaporates.


The brush along the tracks had never been cut back by the railroad, so even if the teenage driver had looked, it would have been extremely difficult to see the train coming.


----------



## cirdan

MccfamschoolMom said:


> The brush along the tracks had never been cut back by the railroad, so even if the teenage driver had looked, it would have been extremely difficult to see the train coming.


When I took driving lessons my driving instructor always repeated its my job to look and double check, never to assume or trust.

If you can't see very far, then that is a reason to be really super careful, not an excuse to ignore the danger.


----------



## MccfamschoolMom

zephyr17 said:


> If BNSF has a crossing they deem too dangerous, and local authorities do nothing about it, they have the option of closing the crossing.


Closing crossings can be extremely disruptive to local communities, however. The original plan for upgrading the Lincoln Service/Texas Eagle tracks for high-speed rail called for closing all but one crossing in each town, which would have nearly cut each town in half and caused a great increase in traffic congestion at the one remaining crossing (like "Checkpoint Charlie" at the Berlin Wall). The compromise solution in my town was to modify the two crossings which had two roads going through them at an intersection, so that only 1 road would actually be in the crossing.


----------



## Maverickstation

In 2016 there was another derailment on the Southwest Chief, in this case it was blamed on track damage caused by a farm truck.

In these very rural areas you are never going to have full control at grade crossings as in many of these spots you can just drive around them.









2016 Cimarron train derailment - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org


----------



## John819

Maverickstation said:


> In 2016 there was another derailment on the Southwest Chief, in this case it was blamed on track damage caused by a farm truck.
> 
> In these very rural areas you are never going to have full control at grade crossings as in many of these spots you can just drive around them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2016 Cimarron train derailment - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org


Nothing can be made idiot proof.

When I learned to drive 50 years ago in eastern Colorado it was drummed into me that when you come to a railroad crossing you:
Stop
Turn the radio off (if you had one)
Open the driver's side and passenger side windows (if not already open)
Listen carefully
Look up and down the track
Cross the track completely

As my uncle said, in every collision it was Missouri Pacific 1, car 0.


----------



## MccfamschoolMom

John819 said:


> Nothing can be made idiot proof.
> 
> When I learned to drive 50 years ago in eastern Colorado it was drummed into me that when you come to a railroad crossing you:
> Stop
> Turn the radio off (if you had one)
> Open the driver's side and passenger side windows (if not already open)
> Listen carefully
> Look up and down the track
> Cross the track completely
> 
> As my uncle said, in every collision it was Missouri Pacific 1, car 0.


To quote Sancho Panza in "Man of La Mancha," "Whether the stone hits the pitcher, or the pitcher hits the stone -- it's going to be bad for the pitcher."


----------



## NSC1109

Brian_tampa said:


> It is not a blame game. It is a matter of what is a reasonable action to protect the public. Who has the right of way does not matter. It is like I was taught in school for driving on the road. No one really has the right of way - so the presence of a piece of metal stop sign is the minimum protection the railroad should do? Again I ask, in what other country would this be considered acceptable?
> 
> The driver here was clearly at fault. But does that mean that we should accept that a stop sign is the only meaningful protection available? The driver at fault paid the ultimate penalty. Did the passengers in the train deserve to pay the same penalty through no fault of their own, especially since it has been proven that warning lights and gates do save lives? Then why not have stop signs at all grade crossings if the law says to stop, look, listen. That should be good enough then, right?


The passengers died in a tragic accident caused by someone who either was too inexperienced to be driving a vehicle of that type alone (or at all) or who was reckless and ignored a traffic control device for who knows what reason. 

Under your logic, every road intersection should have a stoplight vs a stop sign. The road in question is not used by a lot of traffic. What the farmer was talking about in that video that was linked doesn’t match up with what you can see behind both the reporter and the farmer. It’s straight track, doesn’t appear to be a lot of brush in the way affecting sight lines. There are laws about minimum sight lines at crossings. Equipment has to be at least 200’ away from the crossing itself. I believe brush has a similar requirement. 

Other countries have lights and gates everywhere and still have accidents at them. It doesn’t matter the type of warning device; what matters is the actions and responsibilities of the driver. Automatic gates can malfunction easily. It is up to the driver to approach each crossing expecting a train any time in any direction and to take action to determine if it is safe to cross. That is the bottom line.


----------



## Bierboy

Kansas City Star article with local farmers explaining how the crossing was #1-too steep (9 foot drop from the tracks to where the grade begins), and #2-views obstructed by brush



https://www.kansascity.com/news/state/missouri/article262950423.html#storylink=mainstage_lead


----------



## BalmyZephyr

joelkfla said:


> Angry farmer talks about efforts to get crossing improvements:




Wow. Excellent interview. Thanks for posting that.


----------



## John Bredin

Bierboy said:


> Kansas City Star article with local farmers explaining how the crossing was #1-too steep (9 foot drop from the tracks to where the grade begins), and #2-views obstructed by brush
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.kansascity.com/news/state/missouri/article262950423.html#storylink=mainstage_lead


A useful article for its description of the circumstances and lay of the land, but IMHO the reporter uncritically relayed the farmer's layman's opinion that "the railroad" is at fault.

Which, curiously, the article managed to not identify. It repeatedly says "the railroad" without ever saying BNSF or any combination of Burlington, Northern, Santa, or Fe. Or the word freight even. The only railroad name mentioned in the article is Amtrak, as in the derailed train. If I didn't know there was only one Amtrak round-trip on that line, I could read that as if Amtrak owns and operates a frequent 90mph corridor CHI-KCY. As if!


----------



## lordsigma

Undoubtedly some drivers ignore crossing lights and gates and are totally at fault when they do. But this interview definitely calls the safety of this particular crossing and the others like it into question. Undoubtedly BNSF is going to get some heat for dragging their feet on improving these crossings.


----------



## cassie225

So the truck was stuck on the rails?For how long and can’t the driver normally see and hear a train.


----------



## Amtrak25

If the road has to go up and down 9' over the tracks, how is it the railroad's job to fix ? Is BNSF, the name of which the farmers can't seem to recall, in the road business or are they supposed to sink the tracks to accomodate the lousy road ?


----------



## PerRock

Brian_tampa said:


> Again I ask, in what other country would this be considered acceptable?



In most countries in the world, a "unprotected" crossing, is perfectly acceptable. It's only in the hyper-developed western Europe & Japan where they only have protected crossings.

peter


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

I've noticed that several people have been talking about whether the RR or the road was there first and it was mentioned that this was an airline, more or less, which leads me to a question, when was this subdivision built?

There are still level crossings in Britain and Germany (less than ever, but they still exist, as does some street running) for instance. In Scandinavia, outside of towns, there are plenty of rural crossings for driveways, forestry roads, etc. Another example would be in the alps where hiking trails and walking paths cross non-higher speed RR's. In both cases the horn is blasted upon approach.

I'm still impressed at how few people were seriously injured or killed. It could have been a lot worse.


----------



## frequentflyer

Brian_tampa said:


> It is not a blame game. It is a matter of what is a reasonable action to protect the public. Who has the right of way does not matter. It is like I was taught in school for driving on the road. No one really has the right of way - so the presence of a piece of metal stop sign is the minimum protection the railroad should do? Again I ask, in what other country would this be considered acceptable?
> 
> The driver here was clearly at fault. But does that mean that we should accept that a stop sign is the only meaningful protection available? The driver at fault paid the ultimate penalty. *Did the passengers in the train deserve to pay the same penalty through no fault of their own, especially since it has been proven that warning lights and gates do save lives?* Then why not have stop signs at all grade crossings if the law says to stop, look, listen. That should be good enough then, right?


Brigthtline is a perfect example, no they don't sadly.


----------



## Kirk2266

This is very sad. I'll continue to keep the families of the victims in my prayers.


----------



## frequentflyer

We have seen Genesis locomotives hit heavy vehicles and rise up to fortunately come down on the tracks. The Heartland Flyer video and Texas Eagle in Cleburne as two recent events. I wonder if this had been a Z train hitting this with their heavy GEs locomotives would the result been the same?


----------



## jwhit27237

TinCan782 said:


> The last tracking point before 0 mph was 90.6 mph!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Multiple fatalities after Amtrak derailment in Missouri
> 
> 
> Missouri officials have declared a 'large fatality event' after an Amtrak train stuck a dump truck on a public railroad crossing and overturned.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailymail.co.uk


Too bad that people don't pay attention to trains. All those fatalities both in Kansas and California could have been avoided! Not Amtrak's fault. " SEE TRACKS, THINK TRAINS!"


----------



## jebr

Maverickstation said:


> In 2016 there was another derailment on the Southwest Chief, in this case it was blamed on track damage caused by a farm truck.
> 
> In these very rural areas you are never going to have full control at grade crossings as in many of these spots you can just drive around them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2016 Cimarron train derailment - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org



The perfect doesn't need to be made the enemy of the good, though. Just because some people will still try and go around a grade crossing and gates doesn't mean that there's no/little benefit in doing so. In fact, there's a lot of benefit in it - it makes it much clearer when it's generally safe and unsafe to cross the tracks and the decision to cross at an unsafe time becomes much more deliberate and difficult to do.

I'm not sure what the failure levels are for warning lights or how that's detected, but once it's known that there's a failure the trains proceed to those intersections with great caution and often (always?) have flaggers to ensure the track is clear. Nothing of the sort is done at grade crossings without warning lights/bells/gates.

I'm not sure where the cost/benefit lands for signalizing every grade crossing, although my gut reaction is that on a section of track where passenger trains run at 79+ mph, having all grade crossings signalized would likely be a reasonable policy to work towards. That's faster than the speed limit on any road in the US where someone can cross it at grade (a few states have speed limits on interstates higher than 79, but a driver can't cross those at grade) and a vehicle can slow down/stop much faster than a train if someone misjudges speed when crossing/merging in.


----------



## John819

In 1982 a van with 10 teenagers ran around the crossing gates in Mineola, New York. Nine were killed when hit by a train doing 65.

The sole survivor was the daughter of a recently deceased popular politician. So within two years an overpass as built at a fairly large price tax so that the grade crossing was effectively eliminated (still in use for businesses near the tracks and for pedestrians).


----------



## PaulDobbs

I rode #3 (SWC westbound) a few years ago and discovered that 90 is the normal speed for large portions of that route. Apparently the old Santa Fe mainline was approved for higher speeds than the normal 79 MPH limit.

The best picture that I have found shows the lead engine on the track, the second engine off the track, but upright, the baggage car at about a 45 degree angle and the remaining cars (transdorm, sleeper, diner, cafe-observation and 3 coaches) on their sides.


----------



## Barb Stout

Amtrak25 said:


> If the road has to go up and down 9' over the tracks, how is it the railroad's job to fix ? Is BNSF, the name of which the farmers can't seem to recall, in the road business or are they supposed to sink the tracks to accomodate the lousy road ?


Good point.


----------



## Asher

Large trucks are extremely easy to get hung up on a RR track, especially in rural areas where the front drops downs a little and causes a rear driving wheel to come clear of the road surface. Among other scenarios.


----------



## rrdude

Brian_tampa said:


> And what would be wrong with that? In my opinion, running 90 mph passenger trains on tracks that cross unprotected grade crossings is crazy. The world you seek has long ago passed.
> 
> The decision to not install any protective devices is strictly a monetary decision. Railroads have proven recently with PSR that the only god that they worship is wall street. Edit: And I know BNSF is the only class 1 not to go the PSR route, but still they worship the investor. Not the safety of their employees or passengers on their tracks.


It's not really the RR responsibility, (in most cases) to install lights-bells-gates, as the RR was there LONG BEFORE the road was. But counties and states don't want to pay the big bucks for crossing protection.


----------



## rrdude

Brian_tampa said:


> I agree with you in that 90 mph versus 79 mph would make no difference in this crash. The point I am trying to make is that this is a very busy double track railroad, 60 to 80 trains per day, that is being run with very little supporting safety infrastructure along it at certain grade crossings. People can point to the railroad being there first and how that means the railroad is not responsible for improving the safety devices along its route. At the end of the day, the railroad does have a moral or ethical duty to operate in a safe manner.
> 
> To me, for BNSF to run 80 trains a day on the busiest railroad route in the country and not provide any modern safety protection at certain public road crossings is borderline reckless. It all comes down to money and greed. BNSF has taken a risk and lost here. In what other country would this situation be acceptable?


Your comments / thoughts about BNSF having to foot the bill for this are way off base. It does't matter if BNSF made $100 Billion last year, it's NOT (generally) their responsibility. Period.


----------



## PRR 60

No party - railroad, government, property owner - has the authority to unilaterally install crossing protection. Any proposed improvement has to be approved by the appropriate regulatory authority. The federal DOT, which regulates railroads and sets standards for crossing protection, has assigned the regulation of railroad grade crossings to the states. Each state has an agency that takes that responsibility. That agency has the authority to accept petitions requesting crossing improvements, order the specifics of the improvement and allocate costs. In my time being involved with grade crossings, the cost allocation has been similar. The highway agency or private party pays for the equipment and installation. The railroad pays the on-going operation and maintenance of the crossing. The question of which facility came first has never been a factor in the allocation.


----------



## cirdan

PerRock said:


> In most countries in the world, a "unprotected" crossing, is perfectly acceptable. It's only in the hyper-developed western Europe & Japan where they only have protected crossings.
> 
> peter


I don't know about Japan but there are plenty of unprotected crossings in Europe.

On some crossings (in the UK for example) little used crossings over tracks used at higher speeds have telephones that you are supposed to use to get clearance to cross. Alternatively, and if you don't want to leave your vehicle, you can phone a posted number using your own phone.

On normal speed lines you are supposed to use your own common sense.


----------



## billosborn

Sadly, almost all safety improvements in transportation are the result of a loss of life. Almost all airplane safety improvements came after a plane crash; as a former Navy officer I can attest to the fact that safety improvements always were implemented after the loss of life. It is no different with train or bus accidents. 

The NTSB will no doubt make recommendations after the analysis of this tragedy. And since I expect the families of the two passengers who died to sue both BNSF and the county for failing to follow through on plans to make this crossing safer, it will lead to a lot of finger-pointing which hopefully will lead to safety improvements on rural crossings.


----------



## alpha3

MARC Rider said:


> Unfortunately, given the state of the American people today, we're probably going to need the arms, bells, and whistles at every crossing.


People ignore those, when they feel like it, or even feel gates and lights are 'inconvenient' for them. I know one guy who brags often about how many times he's gone around crossing gates in Ft Lauderdale with either Brightline approaching or one of the Silvers. Thinks it's a game. I told him the clock is going to strike zero for him, one day.


cirdan said:


> On normal speed lines you are supposed to use your own common sense.


 Ah, common sense. Does anyone have it, anymore?


----------



## F900ElCapitan

I am in agreement that this crossing should have been upgraded. The fact that it has taken so long just points to too much bureaucracy, red tape, and feet dragging.
As to a crossing policy going forward? I’m of the thought that if a rail line has passenger trains on it, then lights and gates should be required. The gates should also be long enough to dissuade people from driving around them. I really don’t think this is too much to ask, especially when this happened so soon after the Empire Builders accident with the tractor in Bainville. The only question would be the truly private road crossings.


----------



## Amtrak25

There are 16,000 corssings in the country like that. Do we know how many Amtrak crosses ?


----------



## F900ElCapitan

Amtrak25 said:


> There are 16,000 corssings in the country like that. Do we know how many Amtrak crosses ?


Good question. Considering a very large number of uncontrolled crossings would be on secondary lines, I would think the number would be fairly small for Amtrak routes.


----------



## Brian_tampa

rrdude said:


> Your comments / thoughts about BNSF having to foot the bill for this are way off base. It does't matter if BNSF made $100 Billion last year, it's NOT (generally) their responsibility. Period.


Generally speaking as you say, BNSF would not have to pay for the equipment unless they decide to do so. They can't be forced to pay obviously. All I am pointing out is that for BNSF to run that amount of trains at fairly high speeds across unprotected grade crossings is not safe. Though it might be a lightly traveled road, the railroad is not. Even if the state DOT is the authority that determines if warning equipment should be installed (using public money), how would that prevent a railroad from acting on its own to install the equipment? I tend to believe crossings such as this on a busy mainline are not upgraded due to the cost. It was a business decision to not install anything more than a stop sign based on minimizing expenses and maximizing profits.


----------



## Bob Dylan

F900ElCapitan said:


> I am in agreement that this crossing should have been upgraded. The fact that it has taken so long just points to too much bureaucracy, red tape, and feet dragging.
> As to a crossing policy going forward? I’m of the thought that if a rail line has passenger trains on it, then lights and gates should be required. The gates should also be long enough to dissuade people from driving around them. I really don’t think this is too much to ask, especially when this happened so soon after the Empire Builders accident with the tractor in Bainville. The only question would be the truly private road crossings.


Don't exclude Freights, many more Vehicles and People are involved in episodes with Freight Trains than with Passenger Trains.


----------



## F900ElCapitan

Bob Dylan said:


> Don't exclude Freights, many more Vehicles and People are involved in episodes with Freight Trains than with Passenger Trains.


Very true, and maybe freights should be included where their speed is above a certain threshold? The reason I did exclude them for this conversation is when this happens to passenger trains, the potential for added injury, loss of life, and liability goes way up. Therefore I think it’s a good place to start.


----------



## NSC1109

Brian_tampa said:


> Generally speaking as you say, BNSF would not have to pay for the equipment unless they decide to do so. They can't be forced to pay obviously. All I am pointing out is that for BNSF to run that amount of trains at fairly high speeds across unprotected grade crossings is not safe. Though it might be a lightly traveled road, the railroad is not. Even if the state DOT is the authority that determines if warning equipment should be installed (using public money), how would that prevent a railroad from acting on its own to install the equipment? I tend to believe crossings such as this on a busy mainline are not upgraded due to the cost. It was a business decision to not install anything more than a stop sign based on minimizing expenses and maximizing profits.



Because the amount of vehicular traffic doesn’t warrant an active protection crossing. Trust me, there is PLENTY that the Class 1 railroads have done to skimp out on investments. This isn’t one of them.


----------



## Tlcooper93

Devil's Advocate said:


> Over coffee almost any functioning adult can admit those kids took their lives in their own hands and suffered the consequences of invincible thinking, but put the same people on a jury with emotional testimony under the gaze of weeping mothers and the concept of personal responsibility evaporates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Short of falling off a bridge or impacting another train this looks to be among the worst collisions possible and still kept the vast majority of passengers alive and unharmed. Incidents like this remind me how safe trains are compared to many other risks. I grew up with bottle rockets and lawn darts so the idea of never doing anything with a slight chance of harm seems excessively careful.



It’s true, trains are built to protect! But there is still the unfortunate truth that in less than a years time, there have been 5 deaths on board Amtrak trains due to crashes.

There have not been any fatalities aboard any major American airline revenue service flight in nearly 5 years (death due to crash or aircraft failure).


----------



## crescent-zephyr

Devil's Advocate said:


> Over coffee almost any functioning adult can admit those kids took their lives in their own hands and suffered the consequences of invincible thinking


I don’t agree. If there were no lights, Bella, Gates, etc. and the visibility was low, that brings in many questions. 

It’s not illegal to drive if you are deaf or hard of hearing. There should be visual warnings anywhere that trains operate at high-er speeds (maybe 30 mph?).


----------



## Tlcooper93

crescent-zephyr said:


> I don’t agree. If there were no lights, Bella, Gates, etc. and the visibility was low, that brings in many questions.
> 
> It’s not illegal to drive if you are deaf or hard of hearing. There should be visual warnings anywhere that trains operate at high-er speeds (maybe 30 mph?).


It seems pretty crazy to me that a train can operate at 90mph at a crossing like this.
It seems even crazier that I seem to be in the minority for thinking that is crazy.


----------



## frequentflyer

Tlcooper93 said:


> It seems pretty crazy to me that a train can operate at 90mph at a crossing like this.
> It seems even crazier that I seem to be in the minority for thinking that is crazy.


The SWC hits 90 in Arizona too and I bet there are more gates like this on this busy route that see 60-80 freight trains a day many doing 70 mph. It would be nice if all of the US would be grade free like most of the NEC.


----------



## Amtrak Apple

I also saw the video from the farmer yesterday. Sounds like the locals have pointed this out as a problem for YEARS and have gotten nowhere. Pretty sad this will be what it takes to fix this intersection.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

I’m seeing some news reports say 3 on board fatalities. :-(


----------



## Brian_tampa

Trains Magazine is reporting that Missouri just this past February recommended installing warning lights and gates at this crossing. From this new information I presume that the crossing was recognized as hazardous, even with the little amount of vehicular traffic, and it warrants more than a stop sign and crossbucks. 

Site of Southwest Chief accident had been recommended for grade-crossing improvements - Trains


----------



## Railspike

When you factor in the number of grade crossings in the U.S. and the number of both freight and passenger trains that pass over these crossings daily, at some point there's going to be an incident (regardless of how the incident happened or who's at fault). It's inevitable.

When you realize that a passenger train carrying 200+ passengers derailed at 90MPH with seven cars on their side and there were only two fatalities on the train, that should say something about the safety measures that have been implemented (i.e. tightlock couplers, etc). Trains are still the safest way to travel.


----------



## uncleboots

If this has already been mentioned, I apologize, but Amtrak has announced that Train 3 will be departing from Kansas City and Train 4’s end point will also be Kansas City for the next couple of days


----------



## John Bobinyec

uncleboots said:


> If this has already been mentioned, I apologize, but Amtrak has announced that Train 3 will be departing from Kansas City and Train 4’s end point will also be Kansas City for the next couple of days


Can you please point to the announcement? I haven't been able to find it.
Thanks,
jb


----------



## Larry H.

Chris I said:


> Have there been any studies out there about propensity for flipping with single-level vs. bi-level cars? This seems to happen a lot with the bi-level Amtrak cars. It just seems to me that these trains should not be tipping over when derailing on a completely straight section of track.


I was going to ask the same question, it does seem light being taller makes them more prone to ending up on there sides?


----------



## crescent-zephyr

Railspike said:


> Trains are still the safest way to travel.


This is not true. Air Travel and Bus travel are both safer.


----------



## Amtrak25

I don't know. But intercity buses have gotten taller and taller with increasingly larger windows. They do seem to flip far more readily and have their windows pop out than the old GMD PD parlor coaches.


----------



## F900ElCapitan

John Bobinyec said:


> Can you please point to the announcement? I haven't been able to find it.
> Thanks,
> jb


This is from the latest announcement on the website,

Service Update:

As a result of the derailment, passengers who were traveling onboard Train 4, which departed L.A. on Sunday, June 26, will be reaccommodated as quickly as possible on other trains or buses as available. Additionally, Southwest Chief Train 3, scheduled to depart Chicago on Tuesday, June 28, will now originate at Kansas City (KCY).

You have to read Amtrak into this, but they ran 4 into KCY this morning (6/28) and it will turn to become 3 tonight. Not sure if they are bussing through pax between Chicago and Kansas City or putting them on 318/319. They just say alternate transportation will be provided.


----------



## John819

Larry H. said:


> I was going to ask the same question, it does seem light being taller makes them more prone to ending up on there sides?


More to the point, because of the higher level the "secondary collision" (passenger hitting side of car) will be greater.


----------



## Tlcooper93

By the stats of the last 12 years, commercial air travel on legacy carriers (and similarly large American airlines) is actually safer than Amtrak travel.
Of course, trains by and large are indeed safer than planes, by and large.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

multiple news reports are saying “3 passengers” have died. 2 at the site, and 1 later at the hospital.


----------



## west point

Thoughts.
1. The farmer said there were several crossings of the rail line near there that were all the same problems. Said he had taken it to local governments up to state.
2. Truck was carrying gravel for some nearby project. Driver might have had previous crossings of the track?.
3. Was truck single axel or dual axels? With gravel might be load was over for the rated capacity of truck. Maintenance record of truck? n
4. The road intersects the rail line at an acute angle. So the loco did not head on collide with the truck. the scene seems to have all the truck remains on one side of the tracks. It may be that acut angle contributed to the train over turning? NTSB will determine .
5. Noticed a block signal was taken out on only one side of track. Could not tell if it was on #4s track or other track.
6 Evidently engineer has survived. Hope his condition is OK.
7. Chief's passengers could take Mule and Lincoln to CHI. Other direction way too early at CHI.


----------



## Bierboy

Four deaths now according to the KC Star. 150 injured. Crossing looks like a POS


----------



## Brian_tampa

west point said:


> Thoughts.
> 1. The farmer said there were several crossings of the rail line near there that were all the same problems. Said he had taken it to local governments up to state.
> 2. Truck was carrying gravel for some nearby project. Driver might have had previous crossings of the track?.
> 3. Was truck single axel or dual axels? With gravel might be load was over for the rated capacity of truck. Maintenance record of truck? n
> 4. The road intersects the rail line at an acute angle. So the loco did not head on collide with the truck. the scene seems to have all the truck remains on one side of the tracks. It may be that acut angle contributed to the train over turning? NTSB will determine .
> 5. Noticed a block signal was taken out on only one side of track. Could not tell if it was on #4s track or other track.
> 6 Evidently engineer has survived. Hope his condition is OK.
> 7. Chief's passengers could take Mule and Lincoln to CHI. Other direction way too early at CHI.



https://www.kansascity.com/news/state/missouri/article262950423.html

The farmer interviewed on the video with this newspaper link also said he has had multiple discussions with BNSF, MoDOT, and others regarding the safety of this crossing over the last several years. So BNSF clearly knew about the hazards with this crossing. MoDOT also knew, yet they put this upgrade project on hold from last year according to the farmer. 

An eyewitness account said the truck stalled going up or at the top of the steep approach and then got hit by the train once it started going again across the tracks. That makes sense as a dump truck that has to stop at the crossing (due to the stop sign), would not be able to speed up and clear the tracks very fast if it was also on an incline. Same situation for the farm equipment that uses the road I suppose, which is why the farmer was concerned. This is why warning lights and gates would have helped to give early warning to a fast 90 mph train approaching the crossing. As the farmer said, so much could have been done to avoid this.


----------



## Cal

Bierboy said:


> Four deaths now according to the KC Star. 150 injured. Crossing looks like a POS


Honestly from this photo the road doesn't seem to be on too much of an incline, especially not the part's directly around the tracks.


----------



## Amtrak George

Chris I said:


> Have there been any studies out there about propensity for flipping with single-level vs. bi-level cars? This seems to happen a lot with the bi-level Amtrak cars. It just seems to me that these trains should not be tipping over when derailing on a completely straight section of track.


It does seem that the Bi Level versus Single level safety factor is something to study in detail when ordering new equipment for the western trains. The laws of physics would seem to indicate that single level cars would be less likely to topple over on their sides. Other advantages to replacing Superliners with single level equipment would be ease of complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act and flexibility of using any equipment anywhere on the system. I say all this reluctantly as I have loved traveling in Superliners, but now is the time to look at safety.


----------



## Amtrak Apple

Looking at the helicopter video again today, it's amazing to me how much force was actually stopped when the train hit the truck. Some of those railroad ties are angled away from the track, which I can't imagine is easy to do. The train basically hit the truck and almost immediately toppled over.

I'm also very glad to see the woman from the NTSB saying at the press conference how much she loves traveling on Amtrak and that it's one of the safest forms of travel. That's so nice to hear.


----------



## Amtrak Apple

Amtrak George said:


> It does seem that the Bi Level versus Single level safety factor is something to study in detail when ordering new equipment for the western trains. The laws of physics would seem to indicate that single level cars would be less likely to topple over on their sides. Other advantages to replacing Superliners with single level equipment would be ease of complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act and flexibility of using any equipment anywhere on the system. I say all this reluctantly as I have loved traveling in Superliners, but now is the time to look at safety.



I agree. I love the Superliners, but they do seem to be a bigger tipping risk.


----------



## John819

Amtrak George said:


> It does seem that the Bi Level versus Single level safety factor is something to study in detail when ordering new equipment for the western trains. The laws of physics would seem to indicate that single level cars would be less likely to topple over on their sides. Other advantages to replacing Superliners with single level equipment would be ease of complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act and flexibility of using any equipment anywhere on the system. I say all this reluctantly as I have loved traveling in Superliners, but now is the time to look at safety.


The center of gravity is higher on bi-level cars. If the COG is displaced beyond the track, the car will tip over.


----------



## John Bobinyec

F900ElCapitan said:


> This is from the latest announcement on the website,
> 
> Service Update:
> 
> As a result of the derailment, passengers who were traveling onboard Train 4, which departed L.A. on Sunday, June 26, will be reaccommodated as quickly as possible on other trains or buses as available. Additionally, Southwest Chief Train 3, scheduled to depart Chicago on Tuesday, June 28, will now originate at Kansas City (KCY).
> 
> You have to read Amtrak into this, but they ran 4 into KCY this morning (6/28) and it will turn to become 3 tonight. Not sure if they are bussing through pax between Chicago and Kansas City or putting them on 318/319. They just say alternate transportation will be provided.


I'm wondering why they didn't detour the remaining Chiefs through St. Louis instead of cancelling yesterday's 3 and then truncating the next 4 to turn at Kansas City as 3(28).
jb


----------



## rookzie

Unlike with Nº 5 


Amtrak Apple said:


> I agree. I love the Superliners, but they do seem to be a bigger tipping risk.


I also agree. Having traveled many times in Superliner consists since 1987, doing so has become a challenge for me during recent runs ─ with even a modest-sized single piece of luggage ─ in negotiating the "3-quarter" stair sets to and from the upper level. Age (mine) has begun to take its toll, particularly since around mid-2020. "California" cars and the Surfliners are much easier for me, since their stairs are straight and have no quarter landings in the middle.


----------



## frequentflyer

Amtrak George said:


> It does seem that the Bi Level versus Single level safety factor is something to study in detail when ordering new equipment for the western trains. The laws of physics would seem to indicate that single level cars would be less likely to topple over on their sides. Other advantages to replacing Superliners with single level equipment would be ease of complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act and flexibility of using any equipment anywhere on the system. I say all this reluctantly as I have loved traveling in Superliners, but now is the time to look at safety.



Superliners actually have very low center of gravities. They connect to the trucks at wheel axle level.


----------



## zephyr17

frequentflyer said:


> Superliners actually have very low center of gravities. They connect to the trucks at wheel axle level.


Also, their sowbelly design and major mechanicals (HVAC and vacuum system) and water and sewage tanks on the lower level in the spaces above the trucks contribute to a lower center of gravity than one would expect just looking at them.


----------



## frequentflyer

Everyone seems so fixated on the fact the Superliners were on their sides. There embankments on either side of the right of way. A car traveling straight on rails, and then no rails will follow the terrain, hence why they are on their side. At 90 mph, this could have been much much worse. Willing to bet the semi permanent Siemens cars would have done something similar.

My question is did the windows shatter on the side of the Superliner that hit the ground. Mr. Pullman, you designed and built (Alstom copied the plans on SIIs) one heck of a product as your swan song.


----------



## Amtrak709

Amtrak Apple said:


> Looking at the helicopter video again today, it's amazing to me how much force was actually stopped when the train hit the truck. Some of those railroad ties are angled away from the track, which I can't imagine is easy to do. The train basically hit the truck and almost immediately toppled over.
> 
> I'm also very glad to see the woman from the NTSB saying at the press conference how much she loves traveling on Amtrak and that it's one of the safest forms of travel. That's so nice to hear.


I did NOT see the press conference, but if it was Jennifer Homendy--the current chairman--it seems she has always been known as a great fan as well as a very fair critic of Amtrak under the predecessor chairman Robert Zumwalt.


----------



## Cal

John Bobinyec said:


> I'm wondering why they didn't detour the remaining Chiefs through St. Louis instead of cancelling yesterday's 3 and then truncating the next 4 to turn at Kansas City as 3(28).
> jb


Maybe too short of notice for UP?


----------



## Rover

1. With these cars on their sides, considering the bathrooms, is there a danger of contamination?

2. Regarding the angled approach to the rail line... How about considering requiring the road to, so many yards out, take a turn, so that crossing the tracks is a perpendicular affair?? This for safety, and to hell with the property owner's gripes about some lost acreage...

3. It bothered me that the helo camera operator/ pilot, did not give close-up head on footage of the lead engine, in all of their filming...


----------



## zephyr17

Well, toilet contents are sucked into a sealed tank when flushed. It isn't a gravity dependent system, so the cars being on their sides, in and of itself, would have much effect as long as the tanks remained intact.

With that said, I have encountered situations fairly frequently where a previous user of facilities hadn't fully disposed of their deposit. That could definitely cause some contamination.


----------



## F900ElCapitan

Rover said:


> 1. With these cars on their sides, considering the bathrooms, is there a danger of contamination?
> 
> 2. Regarding the angled approach to the rail line... How about considering requiring the road to, so many yards out, take a turn, so that crossing the tracks is a perpendicular affair?? This for safety, and to hell with the property owner's gripes about some lost acreage...
> 
> 3. It bothered me that the helo camera operator/ pilot, did not give close-up head on footage of the lead engine, in all of their filming...



1. The toilets are operated on a vacuum system and the waste is stored/located in a heavy duty tank above the truck on one end of the car. So contamination risks are quite low.

2. Possible, but with the cost of imminent domain and rebuilding the crossing, I would think that making the crossing “active” with at least lights would be much cheaper. Personally, I feel all crossings with passenger service should be “active” with at least lights and probably gates that cover the entire roadway.

3. Although there isn’t a “close up”, I did see a few views and the front of 133 was pretty messed up, but to me it is not as bad as 9 after hitting the farm sprayer tractor in Montana on the Empire Builder.


----------



## uncleboots

John Bobinyec said:


> Can you please point to the announcement? I haven't been able to find it.
> Thanks,
> jb


Go to Amtrak’s Web Site, you can also do a search on Latest Amtrak News


----------



## NorthShore

Brian_tampa said:


> https://www.kansascity.com/news/state/missouri/article262950423.html
> 
> The farmer interviewed on the video with this newspaper link also said he has had multiple discussions with BNSF, MoDOT, and others regarding the safety of this crossing over the last several years. So BNSF clearly knew about the hazards with this crossing. MoDOT also knew, yet they put this upgrade project on hold from last year according to the farmer.
> 
> An eyewitness account said the truck stalled going up or at the top of the steep approach and then got hit by the train once it started going again across the tracks. That makes sense as a dump truck that has to stop at the crossing (due to the stop sign), would not be able to speed up and clear the tracks very fast if it was also on an incline. Same situation for the farm equipment that uses the road I suppose, which is why the farmer was concerned. This is why warning lights and gates would have helped to give early warning to a fast 90 mph train approaching the crossing. As the farmer said, so much could have been done to avoid this.



This rings true to what my grandfather (a gas truck driver for 30 years) often related. Just like a train can't stop on a dime, neither can a truck. He often had to make decisions just when approaching road intersections on flat pavement significantly in advance. Am I going for it? Speed up, even if I risk running the light. Am I not? Slow down, knowing I might not get it into high enough gear to make the light, even if it turns out I can.

Add other circumstances like ice...and, more stories.

He, once, sat at a railroad crossing behind another truck which stalled on the tracks. The lights and bells came on. He knew there was one (dangeous) choice. And one only. Push the other truck over the tracks. Otherwise, major disaster (and likely death) came to all. So he risked it. They cleared and everyone survived.

It's just to note that everything isn't always so clear cut in these situations. As rail advocates, we rightly get frustrated at how the train seems to get blamed for accidents. When, usually, it is careless (or even suicidal) drivers who are really at fault. But, in our rush to lay blame and clear reputations, let's understand that it is quite possible the truck driver here was just as much of a victim as everyone else, and just stuck in an impossible situation which wasn't easy to resolve.


----------



## uncleboots

uncleboots said:


> Go to Amtrak’s Web Site, you can also do a search on Latest Amtrak News


Also Amtrak News and Releas


uncleboots said:


> Go to Amtrak’s Web Site, you can also do a search on Latest Amtrak News


Amtrak News And Releases is where I found it


----------



## Cal

From Instagram, not sure of the original photographer


----------



## Fenway

Amtrak709 said:


> I did NOT see the press conference, but if it was Jennifer Homendy--the current chairman--it seems she has always been known as a great fan as well as a very fair critic of Amtrak under the predecessor chairman Robert Zumwalt.



It was her


----------



## Fenway

Grade crossings are what they are. In a rural town like Mendon, MO you know trains will pass by but you don't know when. 

We all grew up with Stop, Look, and Listen - maybe the dump truck driver just ignored the warning but we will never know as he died. It is also possible he looked and saw no headlight in the bright afternoon sun. 

I offer as evidence comparing the Acela flying through Mansfield, MA with an MBTA commuter train behind it - you could look but never see the Acela coming.


----------



## Shanghai

I was on a westbound Southwest Chief three years ago when the train struck a tractor-trailer truck at an unguarded crossing in Southwest Kansas. Fortunately, the truck driver and his nine-year-old son were not injured. We were delayed for six hours and arrived at LAX late. We were able to take our connecting train (#14) the following day to Emeryville.


----------



## Barb Stout

Shanghai said:


> I was on a westbound Southwest Chief three years ago when the train struck a tractor-trailer truck at an unguarded crossing in Southwest Kansas. Fortunately, the truck driver and his nine-year-old son were not injured. We were delayed for six hours and arrived at LAX late. We were able to take our connecting train (#14) the following day to Emeryville.


May I assume they had gotten out of their vehicle?


----------



## Barb Stout

One thing I don't understand and perhaps I have some wrong information, but I believe I read on this thread somewhere that this line has 90 trains passing per day. If you subtract the 2 daily SWCs, then there are 88 freight trains going by here every day. So dividing 24 hours by 88, we get 0.27 which means there is a train that goes by here every 15 minutes or so. And we know that some (many, most?) of these freight trains are very long. And a lot/most of the vehicles that cross here are heavy-duty vehicles carrying big loads. Seems like a tough situation.

Also, I suppose there must be a reason why railroads have so much buildup to make them ride on a ridge above the landscape, but I don't know what it is. Can someone share the reasoning behind that?


----------



## MccfamschoolMom

As to having tracks built up above the surrounding landscape, it might be for a reason similar to highway construction, where the trackbed needs to be strong enough to support the weight of the trains passing by on it. It would also reduce the risk of the tracks flooding. Maybe it would also reduce the risk of causing erosion damage to surrounding agricultural land. All this is just my guessing as a very non-expert laywoman, however, so I'm sure we'd all appreciate some input from someone who does have some expertise on this subject.


----------



## TinCan782

Barb Stout said:


> Also, I suppose there must be a reason why railroads have so much buildup to make them ride on a ridge above the landscape, but I don't know what it is. Can someone share the reasoning behind that?


I would surmise that may be related to drainage. Also, an effort to maintain a level track (minimize any grades), like having a "fill" over low areas and "cuts" through higher areas.
Just a guess on my part.


----------



## mitako

Shanghai said:


> I was on a westbound Southwest Chief three years ago when the train struck a tractor-trailer truck at an unguarded crossing in Southwest Kansas. Fortunately, the truck driver and his nine-year-old son were not injured. We were delayed for six hours and arrived at LAX late. We were able to take our connecting train (#14) the following day to Emeryville.


Hubby and I were on the CA Zephyr last year when a driver of an SUV ran around the gate at a crossing and drove right into the side of the train, actually hit the sleeper car we were in. In this case, the train didn't hit the car; the car literally drove right into the side of the train, which was fortunately moving fairly slowly at the time. It tore the entire bumper and part of the side off the car, which sat there for a moment and then rapidly reversed and drove away! We were delayed for a couple of hours while the train was inspected and then continued on our way.


----------



## Gary Moline

I agree with Brian_tampa. Until you have been in the shoes (or vehicle) at that crossing, you have no idea what the situation was. Place all the legal blame you want on the truck driver, just don't let BNSF off the hook by not having done what they should have done years ago. Right-of-Way does not mean deferred maintenance.


----------



## west point

Almost certainly raised to prevent flooding. Truck was carrying rock to a core of engineers project. That then brings up what was the size of the stone? Could have been rip rap but saw no signes of any on videos.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

mitako said:


> Hubby and I were on the CA Zephyr last year when a driver of an SUV ran around the gate at a crossing and drove right into the side of the train, actually hit the sleeper car we were in. In this case, the train didn't hit the car; the car literally drove right into the side of the train, which was fortunately moving fairly slowly at the time. It tore the entire bumper and part of the side off the car, which sat there for a moment and then rapidly reversed and drove away! We were delayed for a couple of hours while the train was inspected and then continued on our way.


There's a great video of an older gentleman driving into a moving train at a heritage RR in the Carolina's. He stopped and then started iirc (it was a Country Squire wagon too I think). Of course, if one goes on YouTube there are _tons_ of "idiot driver" videos (especially in Russian apparently) with people cutting it too close to trains, going around them or running into moving trains, streetcars, etc., etc...


----------



## LookingGlassTie

NorthShore said:


> This rings true to what my grandfather (a gas truck driver for 30 years) often related. Just like a train can't stop on a dime, neither can a truck. He often had to make decisions just when approaching road intersections on flat pavement significantly in advance. Am I going for it? Speed up, even if I risk running the light. Am I not? Slow down, knowing I might not get it into high enough gear to make the light, even if it turns out I can.
> 
> Add other circumstances like ice...and, more stories.
> 
> He, once, sat at a railroad crossing behind another truck which stalled on the tracks. The lights and bells came on. He knew there was one (dangeous) choice. And one only. Push the other truck over the tracks. Otherwise, major disaster (and likely death) came to all. So he risked it. They cleared and everyone survived.
> 
> It's just to note that everything isn't always so clear cut in these situations. As rail advocates, we rightly get frustrated at how the train seems to get blamed for accidents. When, usually, it is careless (or even suicidal) drivers who are really at fault. But, in our rush to lay blame and clear reputations, let's understand that it is quite possible the truck driver here was just as much of a victim as everyone else, and just stuck in an impossible situation which wasn't easy to resolve.


My thoughts exactly (the last paragraph).


----------



## jis

MODERATOR'S NOTE: Several posts on the relative safety of planes trains and automobiles has been moved to a new thread:

https://www.amtraktrains.com/threads/relative-safety-of-planes-trains-and-automobiles.82443/
Please continue that discussion on this new thread, and continue discussing the South West Chief incident in this thread.

Thank your for your understanding, cooperation and participation


----------



## Eric in East County

According to the Amtrak website, the SWC No. 4 that was supposed to depart from LAX today (June 29) was cancelled. Was this because its train set was the one for the SWC No. 3 that was supposed to have departed from CHI on Monday and was cancelled?


----------



## Cal

Eric in East County said:


> According to the Amtrak website, the SWC No. 4 that was supposed to depart from LAX today (June 29) was cancelled. Was this because its train set was the one for the SWC No. 3 that was supposed to have departed from CHI on Monday and was cancelled?


Seems likely


----------



## Eric in East County

Cal said:


> Seems likely


The Amtrak website shows that SWC No. 4 will depart from LAX for CHI on June 30th and also on July 1st. Somewhere, they must have scrounged up another trainset to replace the one lost in Monday’s derailment.


----------



## BGW 1

Just found this - no sound but answers a lot not seen on those long distance photos - search YouTube for "NTSB B-Roll: Grade Crossing Collision in Mendon, MO"


----------



## jis

BGW 1 said:


> Just found this - no sound but answers a lot not seen on those long distance photos - search YouTube for "NTSB B-Roll: Grade Crossing Collision in Mendon, MO"


Or simply go to :


----------



## Eric in East County

Barb Stout said:


> One thing I don't understand and perhaps I have some wrong information, but I believe I read on this thread somewhere that this line has 90 trains passing per day. If you subtract the 2 daily SWCs, then there are 88 freight trains going by here every day. So dividing 24 hours by 88, we get 0.27 which means there is a train that goes by here every 15 minutes or so. And we know that some (many, most?) of these freight trains are very long. And a lot/most of the vehicles that cross here are heavy-duty vehicles carrying big loads. Seems like a tough situation.
> 
> Also, I suppose there must be a reason why railroads have so much buildup to make them ride on a ridge above the landscape, but I don't know what it is. Can someone share the reasoning behind that?


With that many trains going through one right after another every day, it is a wonder that any vehicles have an opportunity to use this crossing, given how long it takes the average freight train to go pass a given point.


----------



## dbkbye

More cancellations: 



> As a result of the derailment, Southwest Chief Train 3, scheduled to depart Chicago (CHI) on Wednesday, June 29, will originate in Kansas City (KCY). Southwest Chief Train 4, scheduled to depart LAX on Wednesday, June 29 is cancelled. Additionally, Southwest Chief train 3, scheduled to depart CHI on Saturday, July 2 is cancelled. Southwest Chief Train 4, scheduled to depart LAX on Monday, July 4 is cancelled.



(From the alert on amtrak.com)


----------



## MccfamschoolMom

BGW 1 said:


> Just found this - no sound but answers a lot not seen on those long distance photos - search YouTube for "NTSB B-Roll: Grade Crossing Collision in Mendon, MO"


Copy/pasting those keywords works once I'm on YouTube - but not in search engines like Bing or Google. Fascinating viewing, even without sound!


----------



## jebr

Based on that notice, it appears that there isn't enough equipment to quickly build up a replacement consist. Hopefully they'll be able to get something set up quickly so seven-day-a-week service can stay on the SWC.


----------



## Stremba

Based on the cancellation dates I suspect the cancellations are directly related to the fact that there is one less train set available. Train 3 should be the same set as the 4 departing 3 days earlier. Train 4 should be the same set as 3 departing 2 days previously (based on arrival/departure schedules same day turnaround is possible at LAX but not CHI). The cancellations are 4(29), 3(2), and 4(4) so far. These would all be the same “missing” train set. 

If no equipment is available (and if I’m right) I’d expect 3(7), 4(9), 3(12) and 4(14) to be cancelled as well.


----------



## Eric in East County

dbkbye said:


> More cancellations:
> 
> 
> 
> (From the alert on amtrak.com)


Most of those trains were sold out, too. So sad.


----------



## dbkbye

Stremba said:


> Based on the cancellation dates I suspect the cancellations are directly related to the fact that there is one less train set available. Train 3 should be the same set as the 4 departing 3 days earlier. Train 4 should be the same set as 3 departing 2 days previously (based on arrival/departure schedules same day turnaround is possible at LAX but not CHI). The cancellations are 4(29), 3(2), and 4(4) so far. These would all be the same “missing” train set.
> 
> If no equipment is available (and if I’m right) I’d expect 3(7), 4(9), 3(12) and 4(14) to be cancelled as well.



Gee, I hope you're wrong...I'm scheduled to be on the 4 on the 14th 

What would people here recommend...should I book a flight proactively, or wait and see? Would anyone at Amtrak be able to tell me definitively that the train on the 14th will be cancelled?


----------



## Stremba

dbkbye said:


> Gee, I hope you're wrong...I'm scheduled to be on the 4 on the 14th
> 
> What would people here recommend...should I book a flight proactively, or wait and see? Would anyone at Amtrak be able to tell me definitively that the train on the 14th will be cancelled?


No offense, but I hope I’m right. I’m scheduled to be on 4(8). I would be exploring plan B if I were you, but it is possible that they will get some extra equipment together by then. Nothing is set in stone yet.


----------



## TinCan782

dbkbye said:


> Gee, I hope you're wrong...I'm scheduled to be on the 4 on the 14th
> 
> What would people here recommend...should I book a flight proactively, or wait and see? Would anyone at Amtrak be able to tell me definitively that the train on the 14th will be cancelled?


At this point, even Amtrak would (could) not make a definitive statement regarding your question. It is still too early. 
As mentioned above, you might be considering a back-up plan.


----------



## zephyr17

dbkbye said:


> Gee, I hope you're wrong...I'm scheduled to be on the 4 on the 14th
> 
> What would people here recommend...should I book a flight proactively, or wait and see? Would anyone at Amtrak be able to tell me definitively that the train on the 14th will be cancelled?


I doubt you could get a definitive answer because I doubt Amtrak operations has their recovery plan figured out yet. And the call center will be the last to know once they do.

I'd get a Plan B figured out but wouldn't pull the trigger on it just yet.


----------



## Amtrak Apple

Amtrak709 said:


> I did NOT see the press conference, but if it was Jennifer Homendy--the current chairman--it seems she has always been known as a great fan as well as a very fair critic of Amtrak under the predecessor chairman Robert Zumwalt.


Yes, that's who it was! She did another one today and I've been very impressed with her and her team's response.


----------



## Amtrak Apple

Here's today's press conference:


----------



## Cal

Stremba said:


> Based on the cancellation dates I suspect the cancellations are directly related to the fact that there is one less train set available. Train 3 should be the same set as the 4 departing 3 days earlier. Train 4 should be the same set as 3 departing 2 days previously (based on arrival/departure schedules same day turnaround is possible at LAX but not CHI). The cancellations are 4(29), 3(2), and 4(4) so far. These would all be the same “missing” train set.
> 
> If no equipment is available (and if I’m right) I’d expect 3(7), 4(9), 3(12) and 4(14) to be cancelled as well.


I hope you're right, if you are my trip is good.


----------



## Bonser

frequentflyer said:


> The SWC hits 90 in Arizona too and I bet there are more gates like this on this busy route that see 60-80 freight trains a day many doing 70 mph. It would be nice if all of the US would be grade free like most of the NEC.


That's not going to happen. Ever.


----------



## west point

It would be good if the NTSB made a count of how many of these steep crossings there are along this route. Especially since it appears the track is elevated because the train route is crossing a flood plain??


----------



## zephyr17

west point said:


> It would be good if the NTSB made a count of how many of these steep crossings there are along this route. Especially since it appears the track is elevated because the train route is crossing a flood plain??


Doubt they are going to inventory similar crossings, they focus on the facts of the current incident as the Chairperson made clear (as do other investigation reports). If they find that the crossing steepness was a contributing factor in the crash, they may issue recommendations that grade crossings exceeding x percent be reconfigured, closed, closed to trucks, etc. The FRA/NHTSA/state transportation departments could choose to make such an inventory based on the NTSB recommendations.


----------



## billosborn

Gary Moline said:


> I agree with Brian_tampa. Until you have been in the shoes (or vehicle) at that crossing, you have no idea what the situation was. Place all the legal blame you want on the truck driver, just don't let BNSF off the hook by not having done what they should have done years ago. Right-of-Way does not mean deferred maintenance.


NTSB is on the ball. They are gong to literally be in the shoes at that crossing. They will re-enact the crossing with the same type of vehicle, hopefully with the same weight of rocks it was carrying. Hopefully they can re-enact it at the same time of day - (actually not the exact moment because the sun won't be in the same position now, but they can adjust to make sure that the sun is at the exact angle that it was at the time of the collision). That way they can examine sightlines to see what the driver did or did not see. I think we will know more after these kinds of tests.


----------



## billosborn

Tom Booth said:


> That's not going to happen. Ever.


Unlike the NEC where grade crossings are infrequent and are found in urban or small towns, there are over 6000 grade crossings in the state of Missouri alone! Over 3000 of them are passive like this one, found mostly in farm areas. So removing the crossings is impractical. A possible solution would be to identify the 100 most dangerous and post flashing lights (I'm sure this one would be on that list). The cost would be in the millions of dollars, but within the practical budget resources of the federal government (for instance)


----------



## Everydaymatters

Are a lot of these crashes at roads that approach the rails at an angle?


----------



## billosborn

Let the finger-pointing begin... Here is a link to a TV news article. The Chariton County Commission had brought the dangers of this particular crossing to the attention of BNSF and Missouri Department of Transportation repeatedly as early as 2019. It finally made it to some state-sponsored list in February.. of this year.. typical bureaucratic delays.. only this time, it cost 4 people their lives. I am not normally in favor of big time lawsuits, but t I hope the families of the deceased and injured sue both BNSF and MoDOT for megabucks.. just to at least get someone to admit fault and apologize... and get the crossing and others fixed. However, usually they will settle with the victims out of court with sums of money without any admission of guilt on the part of either BNSF or MoDoT.

Just click on the "watch on Youtube" link.


----------



## MccfamschoolMom

If I were a farmer with fields adjacent to that brush obstructing line-of-sight, I would be mightily tempted to take my own brush-cutting equipment and trim it back, regardless of whose responsibility it should be.


----------



## Bierboy

MccfamschoolMom said:


> If I were a farmer with fields adjacent to that brush obstructing line-of-sight, I would be mightily tempted to take my own brush-cutting equipment and trim it back, regardless of whose responsibility it should be.


Exactly what I was thinking. Shouldn't take more than a half day (at most) depending on how much and how thick the brush is.


----------



## TinCan782

MccfamschoolMom said:


> If I were a farmer with fields adjacent to that brush obstructing line-of-sight, I would be mightily tempted to take my own brush-cutting equipment and trim it back, regardless of whose responsibility it should be.


Wife and I were discussing that last evening. Just go cut them down! 
In the final analysis, looking at property lines (ROW vs farm fields) will determine potential liability.


----------



## MccfamschoolMom

Bierboy said:


> Exactly what I was thinking. Shouldn't take more than a half day (at most) depending on how much and how thick the brush is.


And no cost other than the farmer's labor, since he would already have the brush-cutting equipment, and could do it any day when there wasn't some major time-consuming task on the farm itself.


----------



## MccfamschoolMom

TinCan782 said:


> In the final analysis, looking at property lines (ROW vs farm fields) will determine potential liability.


Hopefully, the brush-cutting farmer would already have a sympathetic local attorney he uses for other matters, and some "rainy day" savings to pay the attorney's fee.


----------



## joelkfla

MccfamschoolMom said:


> And no cost other than the farmer's labor, since he would already have the brush-cutting equipment, and could do it any day when there wasn't some major time-consuming task on the farm itself.


If his equipment damaged any railroad property, BNSF probably wouldn't hesitate to sue him.


----------



## TinCan782

MccfamschoolMom said:


> Hopefully, the brush-cutting farmer would already have a sympathetic local attorney he uses for other matters, and some "rainy day" savings to pay the attorney's fee.


Now that an incident has happened and visibility impaired by brush growth has been brought up, I would imagine the NTSB will look at that.


----------



## jis

billosborn said:


> Let the finger-pointing begin... Here is a link to a TV news article. The Chariton County Commission had brought the dangers of this particular crossing to the attention of BNSF and Missouri Department of Transportation repeatedly as early as 2019. It finally made it to some state-sponsored list in February.. of this year.. typical bureaucratic delays.. only this time, it cost 4 people their lives. I am not normally in favor of big time lawsuits, but t I hope the families of the deceased and injured sue both BNSF and MoDOT for megabucks.. just to at least get someone to admit fault and apologize... and get the crossing and others fixed. However, usually they will settle with the victims out of court with sums of money without any admission of guilt on the part of either BNSF or MoDoT.
> 
> Just click on the "watch on Youtube" link.



Due to the nature of the contract between Amtrak and BNSF, it is Amtrak that will get to pay the big bucks to the next of kin of the deceased. BNSF will get to pay maybe a part of the cost of fixing their infrastructure. Mostly it will be Amtrak's responsibility.

As to whether the crossing gets fixed, that is a separate matter.


----------



## MccfamschoolMom

joelkfla said:


> If his equipment damaged any railroad property, BNSF probably wouldn't hesitate to sue him.


Exactly why the farmer would want to be careful about that while doing the brush-cutting, and have a local attorney already lined up (and some savings with which to pay the attorney).


----------



## SarahZ

Four people killed in Amtrak train crash in rural Missouri include sisters from Kansas


The Missouri State Highway Patrol identified four victims who were killed Monday when an Amtrak train struck a dump truck and derailed near Mendon.



www.columbiatribune.com


----------



## billosborn

SarahZ said:


> Four people killed in Amtrak train crash in rural Missouri include sisters from Kansas
> 
> 
> The Missouri State Highway Patrol identified four victims who were killed Monday when an Amtrak train struck a dump truck and derailed near Mendon.
> 
> 
> 
> www.columbiatribune.com


Sadly, it was two adult sisters in their 50's on a getaway trip to Chicago. One of the sister's daughter was also with them and survived. There is a GoFundMe page out there for them.


----------



## billosborn

billosborn said:


> Let the finger-pointing begin... Here is a link to a TV news article. The Chariton County Commission had brought the dangers of this particular crossing to the attention of BNSF and Missouri Department of Transportation repeatedly as early as 2019. It finally made it to some state-sponsored list in February.. of this year.. typical bureaucratic delays.. only this time, it cost 4 people their lives. I am not normally in favor of big time lawsuits, but t I hope the families of the deceased and injured sue both BNSF and MoDOT for megabucks.. just to at least get someone to admit fault and apologize... and get the crossing and others fixed. However, usually they will settle with the victims out of court with sums of money without any admission of guilt on the part of either BNSF or MoDoT.
> 
> Just click on the "watch on Youtube" link.



And the finger-pointing is underway. In this news clip it turns out the BNSF and MoDOT have conflicting stories about the plans to upgrade that particular crossing.. why am I not surprised....this is so easy to predict...


----------



## fredmcain

The above photo posted by Billosborn should tell everyone all they need to know. There is a *STOP* sign there for cryin' out loud! All this finger pointing about brush, and no lights or gates, is all a distraction. Did the truck driver really come to a complete stop and look before proceeding? Whatever happened to "Stop, Look and Listen"? There are probably thousands of crossings like this in the U.S. with very lightly traveled and unpaved rural roads. It just wouldn't make sense to put half-barrier gates on all of them.

Let us hypothetically imagine a similar set of circumstances whereby a dump truck loaded with stone approaches a stop sign on a busy highway. Then, after making a "Hollywood" stop, the driver pulls out in front of a speeding Greyhound bus that T-bones the truck resulting in four deaths and numerous passenger injuries. In a such a case like that there would be no question as to who was at fault. So, why do we use a completely different set of guidelines for an intersection with a dirt road, a stopsign, and a railroad crossing.

This is just plain unfair. This is NOT Amtrak's fault nor is it really BNSF's fault. If anyone should be sued, in a just world, it ought to be the company that owned the dump truck. Probably he or they don't have much money, so they go after someone who does. Just ain't right. Not right at all.

Regards,
Fred M. Cain


----------



## crescent-zephyr

fredmcain said:


> Let us hypothetically imagine a similar set of circumstances whereby a dump truck loaded with stone approaches a stop sign on a busy highway. Then, after making a "Hollywood" stop, the driver pulls out in front of a speeding Greyhound bus that T-bones the truck resulting in four deaths and numerous passenger injuries. In a such a case like that there would be no question as to who was at fault. So, why do we use a completely different set of guidelines for an intersection with a dirt road, a stopsign, and a railroad crossing.


I’m not aware of such an intersection where the speed limit is 90 mph.


----------



## fredmcain

The speed limit of 90 shouldn't make that much difference. Many rural U.S. Highways, especially out west, have speed limits of 70 or more. The question is, did the truck driver stop? Based on the photos I've seen, if he'd pulled up right to the tracks, stopped and looked, he very likely would've seen the train coming. He's now dead so the authorities will never be able to obtain his testimony.

I've always wondered if crossings like this that have traffic much too light to warrant gates, should just plain be closed. But, that's another issue, I guess


----------



## AmtrakBlue

fredmcain said:


> The speed limit of 90 shouldn't make that much difference. Many rural U.S. Highways, especially out west, have speed limits of 70 or more. The question is, did the truck driver stop? Based on the photos I've seen, if he'd pulled up right to the tracks, stopped and looked, he very likely would've seen the train coming. He's now dead so the authorities will never be able to obtain his testimony.
> 
> I've always wondered if crossings like this that have traffic much too light to warrant gates, should just plain be closed. But, that's another issue, I guess


We don’t know, yet, if the truck had time to cross and got stuck on the tracks. I believe the train hit the back of the truck.


----------



## Amtrak Apple

And already, someone is suing Amtrak.  Isn't this the same ambulance chaser from the Montana incident?


----------



## crescent-zephyr

fredmcain said:


> The question is, did the truck driver stop? Based on the photos I've seen, if he'd pulled up right to the tracks, stopped and looked, he very likely would've seen the train coming.


Large trucks don’t start quickly and this was a rough road on an incline. Plus the exhaust of the truck.

I think it’s likely he did stop and could not yet see / hear the train and the slow acceleration from the stop and crosssing the tracks meant he probably didn’t hear / see the train until he was already partially across one of the tracks.

If lights are flashing and gates are down it’s very easy to “blame the driver” - but this is not that scenario at all.


----------



## Cal

Amtrak Apple said:


> And already, someone is suing Amtrak.  Isn't this the same ambulance chaser from the Montana incident?



I don't understand why they're suing Amtrak, shouldn't they sue BNSF? How is Amtrak at fault?


----------



## TinCan782

Cal said:


> I don't understand why they're suing Amtrak, shouldn't they sue BNSF? How is Amtrak at fault?


Probably don't know who to sue!
I believe that Amtrak pays even if BNSF is found at fault. (something in the contracts and other fine print)
I can't remember the particulars but I read somewhere there is some "advantage' to filing a law suit as early as possible....even before liability is determined. Of course, they sue anybody and everybody connected.
I may have read that in connection with the Montana derailment last year.


----------



## MccfamschoolMom

TinCan782 said:


> Probably don't know who to sue!
> I believe that Amtrak pays even if BNSF is found at fault. (something in the contracts and other fine print)
> I can't remember the particulars but I read somewhere there is some "advantage' to filing a law suit as early as possible....even before liability is determined. Of course, they sue anybody and everybody connected.
> I may have read that in connection with the Montana derailment last year.


I'll have to ask my attorney husband if he's heard of this "ambulance chaser" fellow in Chicago. The next question is what court the attorney is filing suit in. If it's the Missouri state courts, he'd probably want to bring in a Missouri attorney as co-counsel, especially if the Chicago fellow isn't already admitted to the Missouri bar. For a federal lawsuit, he would have to be admitted to the Federal bar in the district he was filing suit in. (F.ex., Chicago is in the Northern District of Illinois.)


----------



## trimetbusfan

zetharion said:


> 2 days train, 2 days no train, 1 day train, 2 days no train.


 .


----------



## FunNut

This incident is an absolute tragedy on all sides. I have property on top of Rowe Mesa, in New Mexico. To get to or from anywhere I have to cross the SWC tracks that intersect NM Hwy 34, at the bottom of the mesa and adjacent to I-25. There are lights and arms at this crossing. Regardless, no matter what time of day or what the weather, I ALWAYS stop, turn off the radio, roll both front windows down, look and LISTEN and WAIT to be sure a train isn't coming. Every single time, without fail. 

Numbers 3 and 4 are the only trains (normally) that use those tracks. I don't trust the lights or the arms, hence my extra extra caution. The crossing near Mendon sees many trains every day. I would think local people know this, so they should be MUCH more cautious with unprotected crossings. The truck driver was fairly local and I would surmise that he had been hauling rocks past this crossing several or more times every working day. Perhaps he let his guard down, perhaps the sun was in his eyes, perhaps he had the radio on and didn't roll down his window. 

I hope the investigation reveals the real cause of the accident, which also killed three people onboard the train. I hope testimony from the driver of the truck that was behind him can be helpful. My deepest condolences to all involved in this terrible event.


----------



## Amtrakfflyer

They were able to do inspections at Chicago shop on some cars and get the SWC back to full strength. I wonder if these were true out of service cars that were pending inspections. Either way they got them done in a matter of days.









Southwest Chief resumes regular schedule after Missouri derailment - Trains


CHICAGO — The Southwest Chief that departed Los Angeles Tuesday evening and its westbound counterpart leaving Chicago today (Thursday, June 30) are the first Chiefs to operate over the train’s full route, passing the scene of the fatal derailment in Mendon, Mo., since that accident on Monday...




www.trains.com


----------



## Eric in East County

Is there any way to find out the numbers (example AMTK 32029) of the locomotives, the coaches, the sleepers, the sightseer lounge car, the dining car, and the baggage car involved in this incident? Every time we take the SWC, we record the numbers of the cars in the consist. We’re curious to know if any of the cars that were derailed were once in the consists of trains we rode on in the past.


----------



## Palmland

I was surprised to see this Trains news wire report about the resumption of full service of the SWC:

“Shop forces assembled three coaches, a Sightseer Lounge, a dining car, two sleeping cars, a transition sleeper, and baggage car from available Superliner equipment in Chicago for the Thursday westbound train. That train departed Chicago on time, and the first eastbound train into the Windy City was running three hours late”

What caught my eye was the reference to the consist including two sleepers and the transition car. Thought it was down to one full sleeper?


----------



## SarahZ

Just some math for anyone who wants to compare.

I could see roughly a mile (0.7) down the road earlier. It's a clear day, the sun wasn't in my eyes, and I was wearing my glasses. I also used a straight stretch of road with no obstructions. I noted where a car with its headlights on was and then noted my odometer when I passed that point. This stretch of road is extremely familiar to me, as I drive it to and from work every day, so I know where every single sign, mailbox, and house is.

Assuming the train has brighter lights, not to mention the horn, we'll use exactly one mile as a reference point.

If a train is traveling at 90 mph, it will take 40 seconds to go from the farthest visual point possible (for me) under perfect conditions to the crossing.

At 70 mph, it takes 51.4 seconds, a gain of 11 seconds. Count to 11 using the 1-Mississippi, 2-Mississippi method and see just how much longer 11 seconds is.

Now, a fully loaded dump truck takes approximately 35-40 seconds to speed up to 25 mph, and that's on a completely level grade. (Source: Good friend with a current CDL)

I'm not going to take it upon myself to decide if the dump truck driver was at fault or not. I wasn't there. I feel bad for everyone involved. I just wanted to toss out some math so we can stop assuming it's super easy for anyone to avoid this situation simply because we're used to fast and easy acceleration in our compact cars and sedans.


----------



## Cal

Eric in East County said:


> Is there any way to find out the numbers (example AMTK 32029) of the locomotives, the coaches, the sleepers, the sightseer lounge car, the dining car, and the baggage car involved in this incident? Every time we take the SWC, we record the numbers of the cars in the consist. We’re curious to know if any of the cars that were derailed were once in the consists of trains we rode on in the past.


 Here you go.


----------



## LookingGlassTie

It just occurred to me that there is this weird similarity between ambulance chasers and overzealous prosecutors:

The former try to sue as many people/entities under the sun as possible in order to get money from somewhere
The latter charges a defendant with as many things as possible so that at least something will stick.


----------



## TinCan782

Palmland said:


> What caught my eye was the reference to the consist including two sleepers and the transition car. Thought it was down to one full sleeper?


I just rewound the Ft Madison VR cam and took a look at today's #3.
Power is 151 and 184; baggage; trans dorm; sleeper; diner; SSL and three coaches (not coach baggage).
BTW, A Boy Scout troop boarded the train at FMD.


----------



## AmtrakBlue

There's a video from yesterday showing the track has been repaired and the cars have been uprighted. I can't post it here, though.

**see post below where I was able to post a link to the video


----------



## zephyr17

billosborn said:


> I am not normally in favor of big time lawsuits, but t I hope the families of the deceased and injured sue both BNSF and MoDOT for megabucks.. just to at least get someone to admit fault and apologize... and get the crossing and others fixed. However, usually they will settle with the victims out of court with sums of money without any admission of guilt on the part of either BNSF or MoDoT.


BNSF isn't going to be paying out money to families. Part of the Amtrak contract is Amtrak and the host railroad hold each other harmless and indemnify each other for any damages arising out of any incident, regardless of fault. Amtrak holds BNSF harmless for any damage to Amtrak equipment or property and any damages owed to passengers. BNSF holds Amtrak harmless to any damage to BNSF facilities or equipment. _Regardless of fault, regardless if either party committed a "tort."_

Missouri DOT may well be on the hook. That trucking company almost certainly is and is likely toast, they will probably far exceed the caps on whatever liability insurance they carry, since Amtrak, the injured passengers, the families of the deceased and even BNSF will all come after them. But BNSF, all they'll be out is legal fees to show a court they're indemnifed by Amtrak and pointing the plaintiffs at Amtrak and getting a ruling to that effect.


----------



## TinCan782

AmtrakBlue said:


> There's a video from yesterday showing the track has been repaired and the cars have been uprighted. I can't post it here, though.


Click on "Watch on You Tube" ... it took me there and played fine.
You just can't view it on AU.


----------



## AmtrakBlue

TinCan782 said:


> Click on "Watch on You Tube" ... it took me there and played fine.
> You just can't view it on AU.


Ok, I'll repost the link


----------



## TinCan782

AmtrakBlue said:


> Ok, I'll repost the link



Good. Click on that bottom line "Watch on YouTube" and it will take you there. Interesting drone footage.
Interesting because it shared to my Facebook Page just fine!


----------



## Jack Davis

TinCan782 said:


> I would surmise that may be related to drainage. Also, an effort to maintain a level track (minimize any grades), like having a "fill" over low areas and "cuts" through higher areas.
> Just a guess on my part.


As many others have also, I saw the video by the concerned 'local man' in the Mendon, MO area that showed the grade crossing (a gravel road) climbing up & over the tracks (because the rail line IS high up. I'm thinking why not then build a tunnel UNDER the tracks for the trucks and farm equipment to use eliminating the danger? News stations said signal equipment on the grade would cost around $400,000 (and then be maintained). What would a tunnel cost? Would the costs be divided between the rail line and the community?


----------



## zephyr17

Jack Davis said:


> As many others have also, I saw the video by the concerned 'local man' in the Mendon, MO area that showed the grade crossing (a gravel road) climbing up & over the tracks (because the rail line IS high up. I'm thinking why not then build a tunnel UNDER the tracks for the trucks and farm equipment to use eliminating the danger? News stations said signal equipment on the grade would cost around $400,000 (and then be maintained). What would a tunnel cost? Would the costs be divided between the rail line and the community?


Generally, since the railroad was there first and the grade crossing is an easement on railroad right of way, any grade crossing structure/improvement is the responsiblity of whatever agency owns the road, in this case, the county. So a grade separation, be it an overhead or a tunnel, would be on the county's dime (although probably state and federal grants would be available for some of the expense).

I don't know about maintenance expenses for grade crossing signals. I think the railroad just takes care of routine maintenance as part of signal maintenance, but any capital expense, like replacing the signals, would be on the agency's dime. Not doing routine maintenance as part of a signal maintainer's duties doesn't make sense and would lead to massive tie ups since a non-functional grade crossing signal has to be flagged across, so it just makes sense to be able to dispatch a signal maintainer (which is what they do). Parsing out any grade crossing signal maintenance to the local agencies sounds like a nightmare, parsing any time and equipment to individual crossings, then billing it. Crossing 1 to Y City, Crossing 2 to X County, Crossing 3 to the state highway department, crossing 4 to Z city.


----------



## Willbridge

zephyr17 said:


> Generally, since the railroad was there first and the grade crossing is an easement on railroad right of way, any grade crossing structure/improvement is the responsiblity of whatever agency owns the road, in this case, the county. So a grade separation, be it an overhead or a tunnel, would be on the county's dime (although probably state and federal grants would be available for some of the expense).
> 
> I don't know about maintenance expenses for grade crossing signals. I think the railroad just takes care of routine maintenance as part of signal maintenance, but any capital expense, like replacing the signals, would be on the agency's dime. Not doing routine maintenance as part of a signal maintainer's duties doesn't make sense and would lead to massive tie ups since a non-functional grade crossing signal has to be flagged across, so it just makes sense to be able to dispatch a signal maintainer (which is what they do). Parsing out any grade crossing signal maintenance to the local agencies sounds like a nightmare, parsing any time and equipment to individual crossings, then billing it. Crossing 1 to Y City, Crossing 2 to X County, Crossing 3 to the state highway department, crossing 4 to Z city.


Note: this might be one of the cases where the railway was built after the county roads had been established. The Santa Fe line between Kansas City and Chicago was opened on May 1, 1888. It was built to be the shortest and fastest route between the two rail hubs, running diagonally across the prairie grid survey.


----------



## joelkfla

zephyr17 said:


> Generally, since the railroad was there first and the grade crossing is an easement on railroad right of way, any grade crossing structure/improvement is the responsiblity of whatever agency owns the road, in this case, the county. So a grade separation, be it an overhead or a tunnel, would be on the county's dime (although probably state and federal grants would be available for some of the expense).
> 
> I don't know about maintenance expenses for grade crossing signals. I think the railroad just takes care of routine maintenance as part of signal maintenance, but any capital expense, like replacing the signals, would be on the agency's dime. Not doing routine maintenance as part of a signal maintainer's duties doesn't make sense and would lead to massive tie ups since a non-functional grade crossing signal has to be flagged across, so it just makes sense to be able to dispatch a signal maintainer (which is what they do). Parsing out any grade crossing signal maintenance to the local agencies sounds like a nightmare, parsing any time and equipment to individual crossings, then billing it. Crossing 1 to Y City, Crossing 2 to X County, Crossing 3 to the state highway department, crossing 4 to Z city.


The NTSB chair said in one of the press conferences that the U.S, the state, and the county share expenses for the improvement, and the railroad is responsible for the cost of ongoing maintenance. Of course, I think the county would be responsible for maintaining the road approaches. If they remain dirt & gravel, their steepness would probably increase over time due to erosion and they would need to be rebuilt.


----------



## Willbridge

Amtrak and BNSF Railway sue dump truck owner after fatal Missouri train crash


----------



## zephyr17

Willbridge said:


> Amtrak and BNSF Railway sue dump truck owner after fatal Missouri train crash


Surprise, surprise!


----------



## billosborn

zephyr17 said:


> Surprise, surprise!


If the NTSB's final report blasts MODOT and BNSF for dragging their heels on fixing the crossing, good luck finding a local jury that render a judgment against the dump truck company.


----------



## zephyr17

billosborn said:


> If the NTSB's final report blasts MODOT and BNSF for dragging their heels on fixing the crossing, good luck finding a local jury that render a judgment against the dump truck company.


Defense costs alone will kill them.

And the passengers and families haven't been heard from yet, and most of them will file suit naming that trucking company, Amtrak, BNSF, the county, MODOT and who knows who else as defendants. Amtrak has a statutory liability limit on a per accident, not per person, basis. BNSF had ironclad indemnification from Amtrak for passenger injury, and that winds up in Amtrak's hard liability cap. Who doesn't have such protection? The trucking company that fouled the crossing. Hope they have a high liability insurance limit with excess/surplus reinsurance on top of that, because the sharks are already circling. If they aren't insured up to their eyeballs, they're as good as bankrupt. That's their only recourse if their insurers decide to write a check for their policy limits and walk away with no further duty to defend, aside from litigating against their insurers (more $$$$).

And it's all in Federal District Court, not the Chariton County Courthouse


----------



## fredmcain

Willbridge said:


> Amtrak and BNSF Railway sue dump truck owner after fatal Missouri train crash


This kinda supports my contention that the truck driver was at fault. Of course, nothing has been proven yet. It will take time to sort out all the details of what actually happened.

I think that the historical precedent of the law is that at an unguarded crossing on a lightly traveled dirt road, protected with only a set of crossbucks and stop signs, it is up to the motorist to make sure the way is clear before proceeding. I'm not sure that this truck driver did that but, like I say, we still don't know for sure what happened. But still, the whole thing kinda smacks of driver distraction or inattentiveness.


----------



## Railspike

From the video showing most of the cars upright, and little exterior damage, what are the odds any of these cars will eventually be put back in service?


----------



## Nance

__





Widow of truck driver killed in Amtrak collision files wrongful death suit






www.msn.com


----------



## joelkfla

Willbridge said:


> Amtrak and BNSF Railway sue dump truck owner after fatal Missouri train crash


"clearly visible approaching Amtrak train"? Not if the truck was approaching from the same side as the farmer's video! The view from the road was obstructed by brush, apparently on the RR ROW, until the train was about a block away.

In my unlegally-educated opinion the trucking company has good cause to delay the case until the NTSB releases at least it's preliminary report, if not the final one.


----------



## frequentflyer

On trainorders they are stating they are moving Superliners via truck. I guess BNSF did want to clog this important rail highway with damaged Superliners being towed to a siding.


----------



## jis

frequentflyer said:


> On trainorders they are stating they are moving Superliners via truck. I guess BNSF did want to clog this important rail highway with damaged Superliners being towed to a siding.


Now there is a video posted on TO showing one Superliner being transported on a flatbed truck. The Superliner is placed on the flatbed on its side.

One thing this time around is that they seem to be taking much greater care not to destroy the cars, unlike what they did with the EB cars. Maybe there was a bit of an exchange of thoughts on the matter between Amtrak and BNSF.


----------



## LookingGlassTie

Nance said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Widow of truck driver killed in Amtrak collision files wrongful death suit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.msn.com


IANAL, so here's my layman's understanding regarding (most) lawsuits:

1. One party owed the other party a duty of care
2. That duty was breached
3. The breach caused injury or death to the other party.

Generally, a plaintiff has to prove all three.

With that in mind, from a legal standpoint, what duty was owed to the dump truck driver and who owed that duty? Amtrak? BNSF? The county? MoDOT? I'm not suggesting at all that his widow absolutely doesn't have a case, I'm just curious as to what the legal intricacies of it are.

And if any of the above entities are found liable, to what extent are they liable?


----------



## alpha3

^^^^^^^
good job by Beech grove; shows they can get after it when they need to.


----------



## jis

alpha3 said:


> ^^^^^^^
> good job by Beech grove; shows they can get after it when they need to.


I doubt that there was any Beech Grove involvement. The article says the cars were already in Chicago presumably awaiting inspection or something like that.


----------



## alpha3

Oh? I took it to mean that they got some of the OTS cars and made them roadworthy - ?

The article says, ''shop forces assembled....'' and lists the cars.


----------



## Stremba

LookingGlassTie said:


> IANAL, so here's my layman's understanding regarding (most) lawsuits:
> 
> 1. One party owed the other party a duty of care
> 2. That duty was breached
> 3. The breach caused injury or death to the other party.
> 
> Generally, a plaintiff has to prove all three.
> 
> With that in mind, from a legal standpoint, what duty was owed to the dump truck driver and who owed that duty? Amtrak? BNSF? The county? MoDOT? I'm not suggesting at all that his widow absolutely doesn't have a case, I'm just curious as to what the legal intricacies of it are.
> 
> And if any of the above entities are found liable, to what extent are they liable?


There may not prove to be any legal liability at all. An unfortunate feature of our civil legal system is that plaintiffs can pay legal fees based on a percentage of money recovered, but defendants cannot. Especially for large corporations (like BNSF), it is often both cheaper and better in terms of public relations to simply come to some settlement with a plaintiff, even if there is no legal liability. Plaintiffs’ lawyers are well aware of this, so will often take cases on contingency even if they know there is no real case. 

I am not saying that this is true in this particular case, but the fact that lawsuits are filed is not necessarily indicative that there is legal liability.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

LookingGlassTie said:


> With that in mind, from a legal standpoint, what duty was owed to the dump truck driver and who owed that duty? Amtrak? BNSF? The county? MoDOT?


The duty of providing properly maintained and safe crossing.

This includes good visibility, adequate warning of an oncoming train, etc.

I’m sure the NTSB will investigate visuals and also audible warnings


----------



## jis

alpha3 said:


> Oh? I took it to mean that they got some of the OTS cars and made them roadworthy - ?
> 
> The article says, ''shop forces assembled....'' and lists the cars.


Had nothing to do with the Beech. The shop force was Chicago shop force.

Beech Grove is in Indianapolis.


----------



## alpha3

Got it.


----------



## John819

Stremba said:


> There may not prove to be any legal liability at all. An unfortunate feature of our civil legal system is that plaintiffs can pay legal fees based on a percentage of money recovered, but defendants cannot. Especially for large corporations (like BNSF), it is often both cheaper and better in terms of public relations to simply come to some settlement with a plaintiff, even if there is no legal liability. Plaintiffs’ lawyers are well aware of this, so will often take cases on contingency even if they know there is no real case.
> 
> I am not saying that this is true in this particular case, but the fact that lawsuits are filed is not necessarily indicative that there is legal liability.


As a retired lawyer, in a case such as this everyone will sue everyone else and there will end up with a settlement putting a pot of money on the table, irrespective of who was actually at fault.


----------



## Cal

jis said:


> Now there is a video posted on TO showing one Superliner being transported on a flatbed truck. The Superliner is placed on the flatbed on its side.
> 
> One thing this time around is that they seem to be taking much greater care not to destroy the cars, unlike what they did with the EB cars. Maybe there was a bit of an exchange of thoughts on the matter between Amtrak and BNSF.


Now that’s a sight to see! Is there a link to the video? And what happened with the cars on the EB?


----------



## Cal

joelkfla said:


> "clearly visible approaching Amtrak train"? Not if the truck was approaching from the same side as the farmer's video! The view from the road was obstructed by brush, apparently on the RR ROW, until the train was about a block away.
> 
> In my unlegally-educated opinion the trucking company has good cause to delay the case until the NTSB releases at least it's preliminary report, if not the final one.


If the truck went up to the stop sign and stopped, I think they could’ve seen the train clearly.


----------



## jis

Cal said:


> Now that’s a sight to see! Is there a link to the video? And what happened with the cars on the EB?


I don't know to what extent someone who is not a paid up member of TO can see the video, but for what it is worth, it can be found here:



Wrecked Amtrak Superliner on the move in Missouri


----------



## Agent

Cal said:


> Now that’s a sight to see! Is there a link to the video? And what happened with the cars on the EB?



In this news story, the reporter at scene starts her report just as one of the Superliners starts getting hauled away from the wreck site: Widow of dump truck driver in Amtrak crash files wrongful death lawsuit - ABC17NEWS.


----------



## frequentflyer

What an odd way to move a Superliner on a flatbed. 80 or so tons on a highway.


----------



## Qapla

That crossing has been there a long time without a wreck like this - why did it all-the-sudden become so dangerous?

The shame is, instead of each entity taking responsibility and working together to make sure this does not happen again, they are all pointing fingers at the others and blaming them ... and, all for the money. Shame! Shame!! SHAME!!!

I have crossed many tracks in well over 55 years of driving ... some with full protection devices and some with absolutely with nothing (we have some on private property that don't have any signage) and I have never been hit by a train or even come close to interfering with a train. But then, I do not drive around the arms, speed up when they lights start to flash, try to "beat the train" or blindly cross tracks without first looking (stopping, if need be, to see better) when I come to the crossing.

We have an intersection near us where a two-lane state road that crosses a busy four-lane divided US highway. There is a traffic light that has road sensors to help those on the state road get a green light. Sometimes this catches the semi-trucks a bit short on time to stop. A fully loaded semi cannot always stop in time for the light change. The state, Fed's or anyone else has never "adjusted" the yellow on the light to make sure all semis can stop in time. Most people make sure the trucks are going to stop before they proceed. There have, at times, been some fast on the take-off as soon as they get the green even though a semi is clearly visible trying to stop and there have been some really close calls and some collisions, some fatal ... but the light still functions as it has for many, many years.

Right past this intersection is a RR crossing. It has cross arms and the RR controls are tied to the light intersection. If a train is approaching the light will not turn green for westbound traffic that would need to cross the US Highway and then cross the tracks. As soon as the trains clears, the light will change to allow the westbound traffic to go. The space between the US highway and the RR tracks will only allow about three cars to que if the crossarms are down (people can still turn right on the red from the US Highway even if the arms are down).

The thing is, even with this double-danger intersection there has been very rare instances of a problem with the RR crossing. There has been a couple of train vs vehicle in the past 60+ years but they involved alcohol on the part of the car drivers.

Not saying that the crossing in this SWC derailment doesn't have some issues but, had the truck not been on the tracks, the train could not have hit it. While the farmer who was interviewed has pointed at the RR, county and MoDOT, has he ever offered some of his land so the road/track crossing can be adjusted to 90° or has he offered to keep the brush mowed? Do any of the crops he plants interfere with the sightlines?


----------



## zephyr17

fredmcain said:


> This kinda supports my contention that the truck driver was at fault. Of course, nothing has been proven yet. It will take time to sort out all the details of what actually happened.
> 
> I think that the historical precedent of the law is that at an unguarded crossing on a lightly traveled dirt road, protected with only a set of crossbucks and stop signs, it is up to the motorist to make sure the way is clear before proceeding. I'm not sure that this truck driver did that but, like I say, we still don't know for sure what happened. But still, the whole thing kinda smacks of driver distraction or inattentiveness.


It really doesn't support much of anything, filing suit is pretty much standard operating procedure in such cases and in and of itself not indicative of much.


----------



## zephyr17

First passenger suit filed:








Lawsuits filed days after deadly Missouri Amtrak crash


The first lawsuits have been filed following an Amtrak train collision and derailment in rural Missouri that killed four people and injured up to 150 others.




www.seattletimes.com





One thing I found interesting in this AP story is that MS Contracting quit answering their phone. Can't say I blame them.


----------



## TinCan782

zephyr17 said:


> First passenger suit filed:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lawsuits filed days after deadly Missouri Amtrak crash
> 
> 
> The first lawsuits have been filed following an Amtrak train collision and derailment in rural Missouri that killed four people and injured up to 150 others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.seattletimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One thing I found interesting in this AP story is that MS Contracting quit answering their phone. Can't say I blame them.


...says the train was packed with too many riders, creating “cattle car conditions.”


----------



## AmtrakBlue

TinCan782 said:


> ...says the train was packed with too many riders, creating “cattle car conditions.”


Guess she's never been on a plane.


----------



## zephyr17

TinCan782 said:


> ...says the train was packed with too many riders, creating “cattle car conditions.”


That is just arm-waving.


----------



## Eric in East County

frequentflyer said:


> What an odd way to move a Superliner on a flatbed. 80 or so tons on a highway.


How far will these coaches have to be transported? Are they being moved in a convoy with some sort of escort?


----------



## zephyr17

jis said:


> Now there is a video posted on TO showing one Superliner being transported on a flatbed truck. The Superliner is placed on the flatbed on its side.
> 
> One thing this time around is that they seem to be taking much greater care not to destroy the cars, unlike what they did with the EB cars. Maybe there was a bit of an exchange of thoughts on the matter between Amtrak and BNSF.


Amtrak probably pointed out that while BNSF couldn't be liable for damage caused by the accident itself, even if it turned out to be a track maintenance issue, it likely could be held liable for additional damage caused by careless handling of the damaged cars. They probably made some sort of settlement, and BNSF doesn't want to repeat the exercise.


----------



## amydeg

zephyr17 said:


> That is just arm-waving.


I've heard reports that the train was oversold and that extra passengers were riding in the observation car. Maybe that's what it's alluding to?


----------



## zephyr17

amydeg said:


> I've heard reports that the train was oversold and that extra passengers were riding in the observation car. Maybe that's what it's alluding to?


Possible, that happens, I've seen it. Whether or not it was just a completely filled coach or was oversold with people in the lounge will come out in the NTSB report. Right now I am still in the arm-waving camp. If she was seated in her car and there weren't standees in it, it is just a full coach, though and shouldn't have an effect on her particular claim. If she was forced to sit in the lounge car, that is another matter. I would consider the lounge car less safe in a crash where the car flips on its side (personally, I take my chances and spend a lot of time in the Sightseer, though ).


----------



## F900ElCapitan

So this is just a gut feeling…but I am a bit worried for further use of the Sightseer Lounge cars. Much like the EB accident where at least one fatality was in the SSL, I’m afraid this has repeated. In the helicopter footage after the crash, the last rescue efforts were from that car, which doesn’t bode well for the severity of injuries. I know it’s only my speculation, but I’m afraid if these issues are correlated, it might lead to restrictions or the end of the sightseer‘s and that will be a sad day.


----------



## west point

There is no way sunlight will be a factor.
1. Truck was north bound. 
2. Driver would have turned to look SW along the train track. Needs to look left 135 degrees from straigh ahead ( North )
3. Time of accident near 1PM daylight time puts sun time somewere between 1130 and 1200. Sun would be near zenith.


----------



## zephyr17

F900ElCapitan said:


> So this is just a gut feeling…but I am a bit worried for further use of the Sightseer Lounge cars. Much like the EB accident where at least one fatality was in the SSL, I’m afraid this has repeated. In the helicopter footage after the crash, the last rescue efforts were from that car, which doesn’t bode well for the severity of injuries. I know it’s only my speculation, but I’m afraid if these issues are correlated, it might lead to restrictions or the end of the sightseer‘s and that will be a sad day.


Well, the big windows are clearly more of a issue when the train flops over the big windows scrape over ballast at speed, plus many people in them are facing windows rather than parallel to them. On the Builder, one of the fatalities was from the Sightseer, but another was just in a room, both were victims of broken windows scraping over ballast on the car's side. I think there is somewhat more "exposure" to injuries in that situation in the Sightseer, but the problem isn't inherently different and essentially the same thing happened in a Superliner sleeper.

I am a lot more worried about the reduction in numbers of a popular car type that is being stretched thin. We'll know more when the NTSB reports on the EB wreck and this one are released and see if the cars are specifically out in the survival factors section of the report.


----------



## George Harris

This may have already been said, as I have not gone back and read the whole thread. One of the pictures shows a crossbuck with a stop sign attached. It can well be argued that this is sufficient protection based on the road and traffic. Inherent in a stop sign is that the vehicle at the stop sign must be sure that the way is clear before they move. Some railroad companies are beginning to fight lawsuits from crossing accidents if everything satisfies legal requirements rather than settle for the sake of public relations. Here, BNSF would have a very good case to fight against any claim or suit. 

As to grade separate everything everywhere, that is simply not practical. In many cases physically not practical and for situations such as this economically not practical. There is not an unlimited bucket of money out there. All state highway and other public roads agencies have a list of things they want to do but are not financially able to do. There is this thing called the benefit-cost ratio. The projects with the highest benefit to cost ratio are, rightly, the first ones to get built. If the ratio is less than one, it should not be built. Usually, the ones that get built have ratios well above one. Unfortunately, this factor can be trumped by politics so that some politician's pet project gets built even when it makes no economic sense.


----------



## AmtrakMaineiac

frequentflyer said:


> What an odd way to move a Superliner on a flatbed. 80 or so tons on a highway.


I would imagine that the alternative of moving them by rail would require insuring they were roadworthy enough to be able to move on their trucks and that they would have to have at least working brake lines, all of which would probably take some work at the site to get them ready to move. Much quicker to just load them on a flatbed and go.


----------



## joelkfla

George Harris said:


> This may have already been said, as I have not gone back and read the whole thread. One of the pictures shows a crossbuck with a stop sign attached. It can well be argued that this is sufficient protection based on the road and traffic. Inherent in a stop sign is that the vehicle at the stop sign must be sure that the way is clear before they move. Some railroad companies are beginning to fight lawsuits from crossing accidents if everything satisfies legal requirements rather than settle for the sake of public relations. Here, BNSF would have a very good case to fight against any claim or suit.
> 
> As to grade separate everything everywhere, that is simply not practical. In many cases physically not practical and for situations such as this economically not practical. There is not an unlimited bucket of money out there. All state highway and other public roads agencies have a list of things they want to do but are not financially able to do. There is this thing called the benefit-cost ratio. The projects with the highest benefit to cost ratio are, rightly, the first ones to get built. If the ratio is less than one, it should not be built. Usually, the ones that get built have ratios well above one. Unfortunately, this factor can be trumped by politics so that some politician's pet project gets built even when it makes no economic sense.


I don't think the freight railroads care much about public relations. Whether to settle or defend is probably a purely financial and risk-based decision (that's risk of a jury trial.)


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

F900ElCapitan said:


> So this is just a gut feeling…but I am a bit worried for further use of the Sightseer Lounge cars. Much like the EB accident where at least one fatality was in the SSL, I’m afraid this has repeated. In the helicopter footage after the crash, the last rescue efforts were from that car, which doesn’t bode well for the severity of injuries. I know it’s only my speculation, but I’m afraid if these issues are correlated, it might lead to restrictions or the end of the sightseer‘s and that will be a sad day.



The sightseer railcars have a poor design for accident survival. This is how they came out of the factory. If you been travel many years, you will recall how at first the seats could be rotated. Pull the handle and turn them. After a big bad derailment, Amtrak bolt the seats into a single position. The handle was removed and a bolt replaced it. The problem was the bolt was removed/fell out, and there was nobody was assigned to maintained it in a lock position. So you could find at least a few seats that would rotate in a sightseer lounge. Seats that rotate are not your friend when the train derails. You will get throw out of the seat and start to fly around the railcar. Then you have many more things to hit with your body. The more things you hit with your body, the more injuries you receive.


----------



## joelkfla

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> The sightseer railcars have a poor design for accident survival. This is how they came out of the factory. If you been travel many years, you will recall how at first the seats could be rotated. Pull the handle and turn them. After a big bad derailment, Amtrak bolt the seats into a single position. The handle was removed and a bolt replaced it. The problem was the bolt was removed/fell out, and there was nobody was assigned to maintained it in a lock position. So you could find at least a few seats that would rotate in a sightseer lounge. Seats that rotate are not your friend when the train derails. You will get throw out of the seat and start to fly around the railcar. Then you have many more things to hit with your body. The more things you hit with your body, the more injuries you receive.


Personally, I'd rather take my chances and have the convenience & comfort of a rotating seat. IMHO, we've gone way too far in trying to protect everyone from dangers with miniscule chances of happening.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

F900ElCapitan said:


> So this is just a gut feeling…but I am a bit worried for further use of the Sightseer Lounge cars. Much like the EB accident where at least one fatality was in the SSL, I’m afraid this has repeated. In the helicopter footage after the crash, the last rescue efforts were from that car, which doesn’t bode well for the severity of injuries. I know it’s only my speculation, but I’m afraid if these issues are correlated, it might lead to restrictions or the end of the sightseer‘s and that will be a sad day.


2 of the deaths were ladies that were “waiting to use the restroom” according to one report. (The 2 sisters - they had gone downstairs to use the restroom.). 

Was the other fatality in the SSL?


----------



## George Harris

joelkfla said:


> In my unlegally-educated opinion the trucking company has good cause to delay the case until the NTSB releases at least it's preliminary report, if not the final one.


The NTSB reports cannot be used as in component of a legal proceeding by law. However, this does not mean that a party to a suit cannot use them as a roadmap to find information that will be useful in their action.


----------



## billosborn

I am curious about the repair / restoration process that will occur on the 7 Superliners that were on their side - is anyone familiar with the process used in prior derailments? At the very least all the windows need replacing on the right side, and those on the left that were smashed to save people's lives.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

The condition of the railcars frame is the critical part. The outermost sheet metal is replaceable. Windows are stock. The inside feature can be replaced as needed. The sleepers walls are built into a Superliner so rebuilt can be done, but not by swapping a module.

Really about the labor cost and time needed.


----------



## TinCan782

billosborn said:


> and those on the left that were smashed to save people's lives.


Generally, the windows don't need to be broken. The rubber gasket holding the glass in place is removable from the inside or outside to allow removal of the entire plate of glass. The glass itself would be very difficult to break/shatter.


----------



## Dakota 400

joelkfla said:


> Personally, I'd rather take my chances and have the convenience & comfort of a rotating seat. IMHO, we've gone way too far in trying to protect everyone from dangers with miniscule chances of happening.



I agree. It's impossible to remove all the hazards of life. It's ridiculous for anyone to even think about removing the SSL from service or to keep people from sitting in them because of "what if"....


----------



## crescent-zephyr

Dakota 400 said:


> I agree. It's impossible to remove all the hazards of life. It's ridiculous for anyone to even think about removing the SSL from service or to keep people from sitting in them because of "what if"....


Yes and no. 

Having booths instead of chairs in the lounge and diner is an excellent law that surely prevented injuries and deaths in this and other accidents. 

Having appliances bolted to the wall / counter, and having latches on all doors in the cafe and diner kitchen / prep area as well.


----------



## Dakota 400

crescent-zephyr said:


> Yes and no.
> 
> Having booths instead of chairs in the lounge and diner is an excellent law that surely prevented injuries and deaths in this and other accidents.
> 
> Having appliances bolted to the wall / counter, and having latches on all doors in the cafe and diner kitchen / prep area as well.



I agree mostly with what you are saying. Having only booths in the SSL is not as desirable for sightseeing as individual seats, in my opinion. Someone is going backwards all the time.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

Dakota 400 said:


> I agree mostly with what you are saying. Having only booths in the SSL is not as desirable for sightseeing as individual seats, in my opinion. Someone is going backwards all the time.


The SSL chairs are fine, they are bolted down, I was referring to the types of chairs in older lounge cars (a few remain in the yet to be refurbished Park Cars on VIA.)


----------



## Qapla

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> The condition of the railcars frame is the critical part. The outermost sheet metal is replaceable. Windows are stock. The inside feature can be replaced as needed. The sleepers walls are built into a Superliner so rebuilt can be done, but not by swapping a module.
> 
> Really about the labor cost and time needed.



At least, if they are repairable, they will have clean windows


----------



## joelkfla

crescent-zephyr said:


> Yes and no.
> 
> Having booths instead of chairs in the lounge and diner is an excellent law that surely prevented injuries and deaths in this and other accidents.
> 
> Having appliances bolted to the wall / counter, and having latches on all doors in the cafe and diner kitchen / prep area as well.


Those things are fine; they don't affect the quality of the experience. And seatbelts in cars save a significant number of lives at the cost of a minor annoyance.

It's when people stop me from doing something or detract from an experience (like locking the SSL seats in place) because of the remote possibility of an accident that I get annoyed.


----------



## zephyr17

crescent-zephyr said:


> The SSL chairs are fine, they are bolted down, I was referring to the types of chairs in older lounge cars (a few remain in the yet to be refurbished Park Cars on VIA.)


Not to mention the unattached chairs in VIA's dining cars...


----------



## crescent-zephyr

zephyr17 said:


> Not to mention the unattached chairs in VIA's dining cars...


Correct. Which are also being phased out as refurbishments happen.


----------



## PaTrainFan

Dakota 400 said:


> I agree. It's impossible to remove all the hazards of life. It's ridiculous for anyone to even think about removing the SSL from service or to keep people from sitting in them because of "what if"....



I hope this accident (along with the EB tragedy) doesn't prompt another serious discussion about seatbelts on trains.


----------



## joelkfla

PaTrainFan said:


> I hope this accident (along with the EB tragedy) doesn't prompt another serious discussion about seatbelts on trains.


It was mentioned briefly in one of the NTSB pressers. IIRC, it was a question from a reporter.


----------



## TinCan782

PaTrainFan said:


> I hope this accident (along with the EB tragedy) doesn't prompt another serious discussion about seatbelts on trains.


Wouldn't get too worried. Seat belts on trains would take a long time to come to pass...if it ever did.
How long have seatbelts on school buses been discussed?


----------



## zephyr17

joelkfla said:


> It was mentioned briefly by the NTSB chair. I don't know whether it was for historical perspective or something they're still interested in.


I looked at the NTSB recommendations for the Nisqually crash, which did involve passenger ejections, and the NTSB did not issue any recommendations in that report regarding adding seat belts/seat restraints. There were a number of recommendations issued about rotating seats and locking mechanisms, and one recommendation about use of child seats which did refer to lack of seat restraints (btw, the seat was ejected, but that parents had taken their child out of it by the time of the crash).

I also briefly looked at the recommendations coming out of Cayce, SC accident where Silver Star had a head on crash with a freight train due to an improperly lined switch.

Those are two most recent completed NTSB investigations on accidents involving Amtrak, with everything final and available. No official NTSB recommendations for seat belts/seat restraints were issued for either. I would have expected it in the Nisqually wreck if they were going to go that way.


----------



## PaTrainFan

TinCan782 said:


> How long have seatbelts on school buses been discussed?



Several states already have this requirement.


----------



## Ryan

TinCan782 said:


> Generally, the windows don't need to be broken. The rubber gasket holding the glass in place is removable from the inside or outside to allow removal of the entire plate of glass. The glass itself would be very difficult to break/shatter.


Generally, you are correct. In this specific case several windows had to be broken out 



> First, the Scouts secured passengers who seemed like they might have spinal cord injuries, his father told The Post. Then, they started popping out the train car’s emergency windows. When some became stuck, the Scouts used their shirts for protection and broke the glass. They evacuated everyone they could.





https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/06/29/boy-scout-amtrak-train-derailment/?fbclid=IwAR37tRCvRydNo4gNhhLD8Ne_Anhtjn2_PiGdrqtKOHlGcvi-2Ayrn1heVno


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

PaTrainFan said:


> Several states already have this requirement.


Shoot, even back in the early 80's in Illinois...


----------



## F900ElCapitan

crescent-zephyr said:


> 2 of the deaths were ladies that were “waiting to use the restroom” according to one report. (The 2 sisters - they had gone downstairs to use the restroom.).
> 
> Was the other fatality in the SSL?


As I said in my post, I’m not sure and I still haven’t heard. My supposition was from the final rescue efforts being made in the SSL. Usually the last efforts are more recovery based than rescue, but this could have been just a very difficult rescue. Either way, the NTSB lead has talked a lot about rotating seats and the SSL is the easiest target there, even though they‘re not supposed to actually rotate anymore.


----------



## CHImdw1522

What about things in the luggage racks? Were people injured by flying debris? Could/should coaches have enclosed bins like on airplanes?


----------



## amtrakp42

Last several 


crescent-zephyr said:


> 2 of the deaths were ladies that were “waiting to use the restroom” according to one report. (The 2 sisters - they had gone downstairs to use the restroom.).
> 
> Was the other fatality in the SSL?


Last several years I've rode western superliners, the lounge bathroom downstairs has not been used?


----------



## crescent-zephyr

amtrakp42 said:


> Last several
> 
> Last several years I've rode western superliners, the lounge bathroom downstairs has not been used?


I’m guessing they were in, or were thrown into the vestibule section, one of the survivors of the Empire Builder crash said he had to hang on to a restroom door not to fall out and be crushed. 

I’m thinking the vestibule doors could easily open / get caught and torn open on impacts like that.


----------



## zephyr17

amtrakp42 said:


> Last several
> 
> Last several years I've rode western superliners, the lounge bathroom downstairs has not been used?


In my experience, the Sightseer Lounge restroom is almost never open.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

amtrakp42 said:


> Last several
> 
> Last several years I've rode western superliners, the lounge bathroom downstairs has not been used?


Ohhhh I thought the poster was referring to the old “Ladies Lounge” on the lower level of superliner coaches. 

I believe the ladies were downstairs of the coach they were riding in.


----------



## west point

#3 wascancelled yesterday. Speculation was lack of equipment. Address that first. The axel count cars are often etioned for some coach replacements. However we know they are roadworthy but are they passenger ready? Here are just a few mechanical problems keeping the out of revenue service.
a, HVAC
b. Rransformeers to convert 480 ro either 240 and 130 volts.
c Potable water sstem
d. Wiring for various passenger amenities.
e. Doors, Windows not working or in working condition
f. Lavs not working
g. Pass thru of HEP inop

Reported accident train14 crew. So probably 12 OBS? Extra board might not have that many OBS available given the shortages reported ?


----------



## Cal

crescent-zephyr said:


> I’m thinking the vestibule doors could easily open / get caught and torn open on impacts like that.


I don't see how, they seem pretty sturdy. If locked properly (which I've always seen happen) there's a metal handle blocking the window and door from opening.


----------



## Michigan Mom

MccfamschoolMom said:


> If I were a farmer with fields adjacent to that brush obstructing line-of-sight, I would be mightily tempted to take my own brush-cutting equipment and trim it back, regardless of whose responsibility it should be.


I would too.. knew someone kinda like this, years ago. He took it upon himself to clear weeds from the water on the sandy shore of a freshwater lake, so that everyone in the area could enjoy the small beach. After he was gone, though, no one else did it... the weeds eventually reclaimed the shore and no one went there anymore.
For safety infrastructure we can't leave it up to one responsible individual.


----------



## Michigan Mom

Stremba said:


> There may not prove to be any legal liability at all. An unfortunate feature of our civil legal system is that plaintiffs can pay legal fees based on a percentage of money recovered, but defendants cannot. Especially for large corporations (like BNSF), it is often both cheaper and better in terms of public relations to simply come to some settlement with a plaintiff, even if there is no legal liability. Plaintiffs’ lawyers are well aware of this, so will often take cases on contingency even if they know there is no real case.
> 
> I am not saying that this is true in this particular case, but the fact that lawsuits are filed is not necessarily indicative that there is legal liability.


This is not an accurate representation of liability and what injured plaintiffs can be expected to recover. The fact is that our system very efficiently weeds out cases where there is no legal liability, and all too often, cases where there IS legal liability, but the injured plaintiffs don't have a snowballs chance in hell of succeeding when they are up against:
1) Powerful legal departments with unlimited money cannons
2) Poor protections available for plaintiffs in states where recoveries are capped
3) The cost for a plaintiff even being able to get their day in court when they go up against the big guys.


----------



## cirdan

zephyr17 said:


> In my experience, the Sightseer Lounge restroom is almost never open.


Is that official Amtrak policy though, or is it a staff decision to have one fewer bathroom to worry about keeping clean and presentable?

I think most passengers don't even realize there is a bathroom down there, so if there is one bathroom that can be taken out of service without causing hurt, this is an obvious candidate.


----------



## cirdan

Michigan Mom said:


> I would too.. knew someone kinda like this, years ago. He took it upon himself to clear weeds from the water on the sandy shore of a freshwater lake, so that everyone in the area could enjoy the small beach. After he was gone, though, no one else did it... the weeds eventually reclaimed the shore and no one went there anymore.
> For safety infrastructure we can't leave it up to one responsible individual.


Cleaning up a lakeside is one thing. But going onto an active railroad ROW is not a step to be taken lightly.

Under the noise of a heavy duty trimmer he may not hear a train approaching.

In my view this type of work is clearly the railroad's and nobody else's.


----------



## cirdan

jis said:


> Now there is a video posted on TO showing one Superliner being transported on a flatbed truck. The Superliner is placed on the flatbed on its side.
> 
> One thing this time around is that they seem to be taking much greater care not to destroy the cars, unlike what they did with the EB cars. Maybe there was a bit of an exchange of thoughts on the matter between Amtrak and BNSF.


or maybe the trucks or other geometry are deformed in some way, or there may be risk of wheel or axle fractures, or maybe the brake assemblies and pipes are damaged or disaligned in a way that cannot reasonably be repaired or bridged on site.

Plowing through ballast at 90mph is not your average derailment.


----------



## Cal

cirdan said:


> Cleaning up a lakeside is one thing. But going onto an active railroad ROW is not a step to be taken lightly.
> 
> Under the noise of a heavy duty trimmer he may not hear a train approaching.
> 
> In my view this type of work is clearly the railroad's and nobody else's.


I am pretty sure the brush was well off the RR ROW and on a farmers property, or at least far enough to be away from the tracks


----------



## billosborn

Cal said:


> I am pretty sure the brush was well off the RR ROW and on a farmers property, or at least far enough to be away from the tracks


I think the NTSB will have a clear idea of what role the brush may or may not have played in the accident. They were going to procure an identical vehicle and re-enact the approach to the crossing. They have the forward video cameras from the train, as well as electronic recorded info from both the train and the dump truck. I assume they will have it carrying the approximate weight of stones and at the same time of day (adjusting for the sun being at a slightly different angle a few days later).


----------



## SteveSFL

cirdan said:


> Is that official Amtrak policy though, or is it a staff decision to have one fewer bathroom to worry about keeping clean and presentable?
> 
> I think most passengers don't even realize there is a bathroom down there, so if there is one bathroom that can be taken out of service without causing hurt, this is an obvious candidate.


I once used the SSL restroom on the Portland section of the Empire Builder. When I came out the large female conductor angrily shouted at me, “That restroom is closed!” 

I said, “How was I supposed to know that?”

She said, “Because this trash can is blocking it!”


----------



## jis

cirdan said:


> or maybe the trucks or other geometry are deformed in some way, or there may be risk of wheel or axle fractures, or maybe the brake assemblies and pipes are damaged or disaligned in a way that cannot reasonably be repaired or bridged on site.
> 
> Plowing through ballast at 90mph is not your average derailment.


My point was that they did not roll 'em over like they did with the EB derailed Superliners. I don't think that has anything to do with whether trucks were deformed or not in either case.


----------



## cirdan

SteveSFL said:


> I once used the SSL restroom on the Portland section of the Empire Builder. When I came out the large female conductor angrily shouted at me, “That restroom is closed!”
> 
> I said, “How was I supposed to know that?”
> 
> She said, “Because this trash can is blocking it!”


happened to me too once.

I don't understand why they don't just lock the door.


----------



## joelkfla

cirdan said:


> happened to me too once.
> 
> I don't understand why they don't just lock the door.


Maybe it's the exclusive crew bathroom. Can't be using the same bathroom as those common folk.


----------



## WWW

“Because this trash can is blocking it!”
Poorest flimsiest excuse !
Lock the door with the escape key or put a ribbon of Caution Tape - sign Out of Service !
A trash can in front of a door - a temporary fix while servicing is being done to that facility or something in the vicinity ?


----------



## SteveSFL

And while we are talking about restrooms, the regular “small” restrooms in the sleepers would probably be the best place to be during a crash. It’s so small you’re not going to accelerate much before striking the wall and you’re unlikely to be pummeled by any loose object unless the SCA has been kind enough to leave a can of air freshener or toilet cleaner on the counter.


----------



## Dakota 400

SteveSFL said:


> She said, “Because this trash can is blocking it!”



This kind of an excuse is rather like a SCA keeping bags of linen in the shower of a Viewliner sleeper to keep it from being used.


----------



## SarahZ

SteveSFL said:


> And while we are talking about restrooms, the regular “small” restrooms in the sleepers would probably be the best place to be during a crash. It’s so small you’re not going to accelerate much before striking the wall and you’re unlikely to be pummeled by any loose object unless the SCA has been kind enough to leave a can of air freshener or toilet cleaner on the counter.


While this is true, the fear of being trapped in there after a crash is too much for me. At least with the roomettes, you generally have a window to escape from (either your own or the one across the hall, depending on how the car ends up).


----------



## Cal

SarahZ said:


> While this is true, the fear of being trapped in there after a crash is too much for me. At least with the roomettes, you generally have a window to escape from (either your own or the one across the hall, depending on how the car ends up).


Unless there is something blocking the door from opening I'm not sure how one can be trapped in the restroom unless the car has been SERIOUSLY mangled (has that ever happened?). I feel like the door would be fairly easy to break open.


----------



## AmtrakBlue

Cal said:


> Unless there is something blocking the door from opening I'm not sure how one can be trapped in the restroom unless the car has been SERIOUSLY mangled (has that ever happened?). I feel like the door would be fairly easy to break open.











Wisconsin Boy Scouts played major role in Amtrak train derailment rescue


Appleton, Wisconsin Troops 12 and 73 helped others at the crash, and a Columbia Boy Scout Troop stepped up to return the favor.




www.komu.com






> Another passenger and Boy Scout Dean Seaborn was in the bathroom at the time of the crash. He said water was leaking and screws were falling out, and he couldn’t move the door.
> 
> “Two men helped me lift the door up and they got me out," Seaborn said. "When I got out I didn’t realize how bad it was."


----------



## crescent-zephyr

Cal said:


> Unless there is something blocking the door from opening I'm not sure how one can be trapped in the restroom unless the car has been SERIOUSLY mangled (has that ever happened?). I feel like the door would be fairly easy to break open.


When the City of New Orleans crashed many years ago passengers were trapped in roomettes. It’s why every room now has an emergency window.


----------



## lordsigma

If they propose seat restraints - why not? Even if they provided them it wouldn’t necessarily mean they’d have to make them mandatory for riders to keep them on. But it would make it available for those who wish to - and it’s likely restraints would make a difference in such an event.


----------



## SteveSFL

SarahZ said:


> While this is true, the fear of being trapped in there after a crash is too much for me. At least with the roomettes, you generally have a window to escape from (either your own or the one across the hall, depending on how the car ends up).


Yes I guess with the roomette door being a slider it’s less likely something could block it from swinging open. And you could always break the door glass if it did jam.


----------



## cirdan

SteveSFL said:


> Yes I guess with the roomette door being a slider it’s less likely something could block it from swinging open. And you could always break the door glass if it did jam.



I can't remember now. Is the rail of the sliding door on the inside or the outside of the roomette? I mean, in case something did block it, is this a situation you could remedy yourself?


----------



## Devil's Advocate

MccfamschoolMom said:


> [The] first big personal-injury case my husband's law firm won involved an ungated (and with unlighted cross-buck signs) freight crossing [...] with 4 teenagers in a car with the radio going who couldn't hear the train horn being killed. The brush along the tracks had never been cut back by the railroad, so even if the teenage driver had looked, it would have been extremely difficult to see the train coming.


The crossbuck is illuminated by your headlights as you stop to listen for a horn and confirm the crossing is free of threats and obstructions. If you drive through a crossing with no sense of self preservation then accept the results of the risks you chose to take. Emotional appeals for the sad fates of careless actions undermine the needs of actual victims who were behaving responsibly.



Tlcooper93 said:


> It’s true, trains are built to protect! But there is still the unfortunate truth that in less than a years time, there have been 5 deaths on board Amtrak trains due to crashes.


That sounds like a minuscule threat. Not just compared to driving but even getting out of a bathtub. How do people swayed by such figures get out of bed?



crescent-zephyr said:


> I don’t agree. If there were no lights, Bella, Gates, etc. and the visibility was low, that brings in many questions. It’s not illegal to drive if you are deaf or hard of hearing. There should be visual warnings anywhere that trains operate at high-er speeds (maybe 30 mph?).


The crossbucks and stop signs are visual warnings. Rather than turn the whole country into Disneyland maybe we should expect more from our drivers.


----------



## Rasputin

SteveSFL said:


> I once used the SSL restroom on the Portland section of the Empire Builder. When I came out the large female conductor angrily shouted at me, “That restroom is closed!”
> 
> I said, “How was I supposed to know that?”
> 
> She said, “Because this trash can is blocking it!”


I think you may have discovered one of the hiding places for the crew.


----------



## UserNameRequired

SteveSFL said:


> And while we are talking about restrooms, the regular “small” restrooms in the sleepers would probably be the best place to be during a crash. It’s so small you’re not going to accelerate much before striking the wall and you’re unlikely to be pummeled by any loose object unless the SCA has been kind enough to leave a can of air freshener or toilet cleaner on the counter.


Getting covered in manure coming out if the car gets sideways or upside started crossing my mind...


----------



## MccfamschoolMom

UserNameRequired said:


> Getting covered in manure coming out if the car gets sideways or upside started crossing my mind...


At least alive but covered in s--- beats clean but dead!


----------



## Qapla

Stopping cars (vehicles) from being hit by trains is as simple as not driving on the tracks when a train is coming. It's like keeping pedestrians from being hit by EV's. It's as simple as pedestrians looking before they cross the street.

However, instead expecting pedestrians to look where they are going, they require the quiet electric car to make noise when it slows down so the pedestrian who isn't looking will know a car is there. Likewise, instead of "Stop, Look, Listen" - a fortune in outlay is called for to eliminate grade crossings and/or make idiot-proof crossing gates at all crossings.

When I was younger, many of the country crossings only had signs and crossbucks and traffic just stopped and made sure a train was not coming. It seemed to work since, rarely did a train ever hit a car. Now, those same crossings still only have signs and crossbucks but they have become extremely dangerous. What happened? The crossing didn't change - the drivers changed from those who stopped for the train to those who want to beat the train. But, hey, let's blame the train instead of the driver.


----------



## Ryan

Qapla said:


> However, instead expecting pedestrians to look where they are going, they require the quiet electric car to make noise when it slows down so the pedestrian who isn't looking will know a car is there.


People with vision impairments wave and say "hi".

I would love to see actual data on train/vehicle collisions adjusted for vehicle miles travelled over time to back up your claim that collisions are more common now because people are worse.


----------



## John819

As they say, common sense is not all that common. No way are we going to install quad gates at every grade crossing. But it should be possible, and practicable, to install flashing lights that can (1) be solar powered and (2) be activated by the PTC location.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

I just looked up a video I took of the Chief at a similar crossing. I don’t believe it’s in 90 mph territory, probably 79, but I’m not sure. (It’s by a semaphore). 

The video starts as the train is sounding the first horn - the entire video is 24 seconds long. Meaning from the first horn sounding until the train was completely past.... 24 seconds.


----------



## TinCan782

crescent-zephyr said:


> I just looked up a video I took of the Chief at a similar crossing. I don’t believe it’s in 90 mph territory, probably 79, but I’m not sure. (It’s by a semaphore).
> 
> The video starts as the train is sounding the first horn - the entire video is 24 seconds long. Meaning from the first horn sounding until the train was completely past.... 24 seconds.


from the FRA...
"Under the Train Horn Rule (49 CFR Part 222), locomotive engineers must begin to sound train horns at least 15 seconds, and no more than 20 seconds, in advance of all public grade crossings.
If a train is traveling faster than 60 mph, engineers will not sound the horn until it is within ¼ mile of the crossing, even if the advance warning is less than 15 seconds."




__





The Train Horn Rule and Quiet Zones | FRA


Click hereUnder the Train Horn Rule (49 CFR Part 222), locomotive engineers must begin to sound train horns at least 15 seconds, and no more than 20 seconds, in advance of all public grade crossings.




railroads.dot.gov


----------



## crescent-zephyr

TinCan782 said:


> from the FRA...
> "Under the Train Horn Rule (49 CFR Part 222), locomotive engineers must begin to sound train horns at least 15 seconds, and no more than 20 seconds, in advance of all public grade crossings.
> If a train is traveling faster than 60 mph, engineers will not sound the horn until it is within ¼ mile of the crossing, even if the advance warning is less than 15 seconds."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Train Horn Rule and Quiet Zones | FRA
> 
> 
> Click hereUnder the Train Horn Rule (49 CFR Part 222), locomotive engineers must begin to sound train horns at least 15 seconds, and no more than 20 seconds, in advance of all public grade crossings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> railroads.dot.gov


So it’s very likely that a train traveling at 90 MPH would not sound a horn in time to give ample warning to a loaded dump truck who has to accelerate from a complete stop and cross over 2 railroad tracks on a gravel road.


----------



## zetharion

So the faster the train goes the less time they are required to blow the horn?


----------



## AmtrakBlue

TinCan782 said:


> from the FRA...
> "Under the Train Horn Rule (49 CFR Part 222), locomotive engineers must begin to sound train horns at least 15 seconds, and no more than 20 seconds, in advance of all public grade crossings.
> If a train is traveling faster than 60 mph, engineers will not sound the horn until it is within ¼ mile of the crossing, even if the advance warning is less than 15 seconds."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Train Horn Rule and Quiet Zones | FRA
> 
> 
> Click hereUnder the Train Horn Rule (49 CFR Part 222), locomotive engineers must begin to sound train horns at least 15 seconds, and no more than 20 seconds, in advance of all public grade crossings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> railroads.dot.gov


But that’s for Quiet Zones, right?


----------



## crescent-zephyr

AmtrakBlue said:


> But that’s for Quiet Zones, right?


Quiet zone would be no horn.


----------



## Qapla

Ryan said:


> I would love to see actual data on train/vehicle collisions adjusted for vehicle miles travelled over time to back up your claim that collisions are more common now because people are worse.



So would I.

I don't have any data on train vs vehicle - however

I live in a college town, and I can determine with my own eyes and experience driving that pedestrians (mostly college students) are more distracted with various electronic devices and/or earbuds on and simply cross the street when and where they want with no regard to what the cars are doing than they used to be. I can attest to the fact that, back in the 1960's and 1970's this was not the case.

Since we have a grade crossing with gates and lights near us that I used to have to cross at least twice daily, I can also attest to the fact that, prior to the road overpass that was built a couple years ago, more people "ran the gates" in recent times than ever used to 20- 40 years ago.

May not be "actual data" - just what I have seen with my own eyes over the past 56 years driving on that road and in the college town.


----------



## TinCan782

zetharion said:


> So the faster the train goes the less time they are required to blow the horn?


Sounded like that to me too. Surprising.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Qapla said:


> However, instead expecting pedestrians to look where they are going, they require the quiet electric car to make noise when it slows down so the pedestrian who isn't looking will know a car is there.


There are some aspects of the mandatory noise rule that make little sense to me. Newer combustion engines also catch pedestrians off guard but those are not included in the rule. Targeting the drivetrain over relative noise levels is a flawed and irrational concept. The mandatory noise rule sounds like a solution searching for a problem that depending on your perspective may not exist or is unlikely to be solved by a rule this clumsy.



John819 said:


> No way are we going to install quad gates at every grade crossing. But it should be possible, and practicable, to install flashing lights that can (1) be solar powered and (2) be activated by the PTC location.


I've often wondered why the only models approved for active signaling seem to cost six figures or more. It would be good to have cheaper options for low volume crossings.



crescent-zephyr said:


> So it’s very likely that a train traveling at 90 MPH would not sound a horn in time to give ample warning to a loaded dump truck who has to accelerate from a complete stop and cross over 2 railroad tracks on a gravel road.


Where I live you can hear horn blasts from two or three crossings away before the train announces itself for your crossing. If this crossing is so remote that no other crossing is near it then perhaps the rules should be changed to reflect this situation. Seems like a reasonable compromise to me.


----------



## zephyr17

crescent-zephyr said:


> So it’s very likely that a train traveling at 90 MPH would not sound a horn in time to give ample warning to a loaded dump truck who has to accelerate from a complete stop and cross over 2 railroad tracks on a gravel road.


15 to 20 seconds is 15 to 20 seconds. At 90 they start blowing the horn from a lot farther away then they do when going 10.

That's also why the horn has to be at least 96 db


----------



## crescent-zephyr

zephyr17 said:


> 15 to 20 seconds is 15 to 20 seconds. At 90 they start blowing the horn from a lot farther away then they do when going 10.
> 
> That's also why the horn has to be at least 96 db


But it doesn’t even have to be 15 - 

“If a train is traveling faster than 60 mph, engineers will not sound the horn until it is within ¼ mile of the crossing, even if the advance warning is less than 15 seconds.”

Even if it’s 15-20 I’m not sure that’s enough i time for a loaded truck who has to clear 2 tracks from a complete stop. NTSB results will be very interesting and may change some RR rules.


----------



## OlympianHiawatha

SteveSFL said:


> Yes I guess with the roomette door being a slider it’s less likely something could block it from swinging open. And you could always break the door glass if it did jam.


I have never paid attention but how easy it it to remove the inside window of a Sleeper room to gain access to the corridor. If you are on the downside of a car on its side and the sliding door is jammed, that window may be your only escape/


----------



## zephyr17

crescent-zephyr said:


> But it doesn’t even have to be 15 -
> 
> “If a train is traveling faster than 60 mph, engineers will not sound the horn until it is within ¼ mile of the crossing, even if the advance warning is less than 15 seconds.”
> 
> Even if it’s 15-20 I’m not sure that’s enough i time for a loaded truck who has to clear 2 tracks from a complete stop. NTSB results will be very interesting and may change some RR rules.


Then if they had not been absolutely certain about clearing it in they should have not proceeded through the crossing. In fact, knowing they had a heavy, slow truck, they shouldn't have even considered proceeding. Hearing the horn shouldn't be the starting gun for a race. 15-20 seconds is plenty of warning to _stop._


----------



## crescent-zephyr

zephyr17 said:


> Then if they had not been absolutely certain about clearing it in they should have not proceeded through the crossing. In fact, knowing they had a heavy, slow truck, they shouldn't have even considered proceeding. Hearing the horn shouldn't be the starting gun for a race. 15-20 seconds is plenty of warning to _stop._


I’m suggesting that the truck driver could have stopped (at the stop sign) - not heard anything, and proceeded before the first horn. 20 seconds would not necessarily be enough time to clear from a dead stop.


----------



## Eric in East County

How long will it be before the NTSB’s preliminary investigation findings are made public? Will there be any NTSB recommendations regarding operational changes that need to be made now rather than waiting until the full report is issued?


----------



## SarahZ

OlympianHiawatha said:


> I have never paid attention but how easy it it to remove the inside window of a Sleeper room to gain access to the corridor. If you are on the downside of a car on its side and the sliding door is jammed, that window may be your only escape/


You could probably use your suitcase to (carefully) break the glass. Simply shoving the center, with your suitcase as added pressure, might pop it out rather than breaking it. I've never really studied it.

You'd want to watch out for other people, of course.


----------



## Ryan

crescent-zephyr said:


> I’m suggesting that the truck driver could have stopped (at the stop sign) - not heard anything, and proceeded before the first horn. 20 seconds would not necessarily be enough time to clear from a dead stop.


While I advocated on behalf of the blind earlier, it's a fair assumption that this particular truck driver probably wasn't blind and thus could have seen the train land before it started on the horn.


----------



## Eric in East County

We now travel with a “tactical pen,” a ballpoint pen contained in a heavy-duty body machined from a solid block of aircraft aluminum which is then coated with titanium. Strong and durable, one end of this pen is pointed and, in an emergency can be used to break out a glass window or serve as a self-defense tool. (We anticipate that, during our upcoming trip, we’ll only use it as a pen.)


----------



## joelkfla

crescent-zephyr said:


> So it’s very likely that a train traveling at 90 MPH would not sound a horn in time to give ample warning to a loaded dump truck who has to accelerate from a complete stop and cross over 2 railroad tracks on a gravel road.


1/4 mi. at 90 mph is 10 seconds.


----------



## Ryan

Qapla said:


> So would I.
> 
> I don't have any data on train vs vehicle



Fortunately, The Internet does! Let's look at number of collisions and deaths as a result over time:



Wow, you're right - there is a huge change over time!

(but if you look at the tiny numbers at the bottom, the x-axis is reversed, so 2021 is at the left - looks like both collisions and fatalities have gone down significantly in the last 40 years!)




Qapla said:


> May not be "actual data" - just what I have seen with my own eyes over the past 56 years driving on that road and in the college town.


As we've seen, it isn't data, and the conclusions drawn from it are completely backwards.


----------



## Cal

Ryan said:


> As we've seen, it isn't data, and the conclusions drawn from it are completely backwards.





Ryan said:


> (but if you look at the tiny numbers at the bottom, the x-axis is reversed, so 2021 is at the left - looks like both collisions and fatalities have gone down significantly in the last 40 years!)


Maybe because of the media and technology we hear about it much more (like whenever it happens) vs just locally when the media wasn't here


----------



## cirdan

Cal said:


> Maybe because of the media and technology we hear about it much more (like whenever it happens) vs just locally when the media wasn't here



The fact that we do hear about these things reflects how rare they are. The media don't typically give so much time to incidents that occur often. 

Objectively speaking, a far greater number people are killed in road accidents every day. But other than maybe a mention in the local news, this doesn't cause much of a ripple. And nobody speaks about putting up barriers or other fancy gadgets at road-road intersections.


----------



## John819

There is reporting bias based on what the public "wants" to hear. One person killed when a broken engine blade penetrated the aircraft cabin got more coverage than the four killed in the SWC collision. The number killed in "mass shootings" is far less than the number killed in individual street violence.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

cirdan said:


> And nobody speaks about putting up barriers or other fancy gadgets at road-road intersections.


People do speak up for traffic lights / warning lights / traffic circles, etc. at intersections where there are known issues.


----------



## MccfamschoolMom

crescent-zephyr said:


> People do speak up for traffic lights / warning lights / traffic circles, etc. at intersections where there are known issues.


I've complained about the lack of 4-way stop signs at the intersection where traffic to the local grade school crosses a state highway going through our town for decades (including the 6 years when I served on the library board -- my most active participation in local government), but nothing has been done. (At least a traffic light has been installed at the intersection near I-55 where most of the fast-food places in town are located! That has both greatly improved the safety of driving in that part of town, and gives the drivers' ed. students at the high school a traffic light to practice on before taking their driver's license exams.)


----------



## Qapla

Ryan said:


> As we've seen, it isn't data, and the conclusions drawn from it are completely backwards.



It may not be the data that you posted - however, two things about my comments:

The comments about the students ignoring protocol and walking in traffic without looking is not just "my conclusion". I have seen the changes over the years from students waiting for traffic to just walking without looking - and it's not just me. Due to the problem of more students getting struck by cars and/or close calls, there have been recent changes made to these roads ... all aimed at the vehicles, and none aimed at the students.
One of the reasons for the overpass being built at the RR crossing near us was the increase of "close calls" of car vs train - as reported in the local newspaper.
I'm sure where I live is not an isolated condition of people ignoring driving and/or walking habits that used to be followed 30-40 years ago as can be seen here


> According to a study by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety that examined police records nationally, there were more than 1,250 incidents of road rage on average reported per year between 1990–1996 in the United States. Many of these incidents have ended with serious injuries or fatalities. These rates rose yearly throughout the six years of the study. A number of studies have found that individuals with road rage are predominantly young (33 years old on average) and 96.6% male.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Road rage - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org



Regardless, it would be ideal if all grade crossings had idiot-proof gates - but that is impractical. Solar powered flashing lights seems like a much lower-cost preventative measure that could easily be installed. However, nothing will help more than drivers simply stopping, looking and listening before crossing tracks where there are no gates - and using common sense and quit trying to beat-the-train.


----------



## crescent2

west point said:


> There is no way sunlight will be a factor.
> 1. Truck was north bound.
> 2. Driver would have turned to look SW along the train track. Needs to look left 135 degrees from straigh ahead ( North )
> 3. Time of accident near 1PM daylight time puts sun time somewere between 1130 and 1200. Sun would be near zenith.




Thanks for this info. I knew the road crossed at a sharp diagonal to the tracks. With brush obstructing the view farther down from the crossing, it might be difficult to see an approaching train.

If there are no nearby crossings there may be no distant train horns to hear. I don't know how far the closest crossing is, though. 

In Temple, GA, there is a grade crossing that has a short, steep incline on one side. In a car you are looking at sky and can't see the road or tracks, but the streets and incline are paved, and the crossing has lights and gates and trains aren't going very fast. Also, the street runs parallel to the tracks, so the stop sign is actually on a level street, then you make a 90 degree turn onto the incline to the tracks. Nevertheless, I take a small detour to avoid that crossing because of the steep incline. I drive a Camry which has no problem accelerating from a full stop on a paved surface.

I can't imagine having to start a heavily loaded dump truck from a dead stop on a gravel incline with trains running 90 mph and limited visibility. At 90 mph a quarter-mile goes by fast. I'm surprised there aren't whistle posts (if they use those in the Midwest) farther from that crossing to tell the engineer to blow the horn sooner than normal.

Of course, it's still the driver's responsibility to be sure it is safe and there is time to cross, but this does seem like an unusually hazardous, more difficult crossing, especially for heavily loaded trucks.

And it's true there are not unlimited funds. At a minimum, all the brush should be cleared so there is good visibility and the trains should blow the horn from farther away. Those measures wouldn't cost much money.


----------



## Jack Davis

Railspike said:


> From the video showing most of the cars upright, and little exterior damage, what are the odds any of these cars will eventually be put back in service?


I think the odds are high that those cars will be back on the rails after some 'dusting off' and replacing 'outed' windows and other damaged items. Those Super-Liner cars are too expensive to just sit around on a siding not being utilized for revenue service.


----------



## zephyr17

BNSF uses whistle post roadway signs throughout their network. They are placed to give at least FRA required warning minimum 15 seconds warning at maximum track speed.

Irrespective of that, crews must be qualified on the territory they operate on and are required to know where all grade crossings are (among other things, like speed restricted curves) and sound the horn for those crossings starting 15-20 seconds before reaching the crossing without being dependent on roadway signs.

Note the FRA reg on blowing horns at crossings is expressed in _ time_, _not distance. _The grade crossing horn warning pattern must start being sounded at least 15 seconds before reaching the crossing, whether the train is going 10 mph or 90 mph.

When the horn was sounded will be in the event recorder, as will brake applications, etc. Precisely when the horn was sounded will certainly be in the NTSB report and, if they consider the timing of the horn sounding was a contributing factor, they will call that out, whether it was compliant with regs or not. Of course, if it did not comply with regs, they'll call that out, too.


----------



## Jack Davis

Railspike said:


> From the video showing most of the cars upright, and little exterior damage, what are the odds any of these cars will eventually be put back in service?





Railspike said:


> From the video showing most of the cars upright, and little exterior damage, what are the odds any of these cars will eventually be put back in service?


After some 'dusting off' and replacing 'outed' windows and other items damaged by the derailment, I wouldn't be surprised that the Super-Liner cars involved will be back on the rails asap. Those cars make revenue but not when out of service. Now however, an overturned car where people were killed in it; that may haunt some folks if they knew what had happened in there prior. Airlines eliminate flight numbers after a disaster. Perhaps Amtrak will change car I.D's on the units involved.


----------



## zephyr17

Jack Davis said:


> Perhaps Amtrak will change car I.D's on the units involved.


Nobody but _some _railfans (those in the rivet counter tribe) are interested in or have any idea of what the physical car numbers are, and the car line numbers (like "430") have not been reported widely, if they have been reported at all.

Amtrak has never changed the train name or number after any wreck with fatalities either, which would be the closer analog to airline practice. The Cascades are still the Cascades after the Nisqually wreck, the Empire Builder is still the Empire Builder after going on the ground and flipping over some cars at Joplin, MT. The Silver Star is still the Silver Star after having a head on with a freight train at Cayce, SC. The Sunset Limited is still the Sunset Limited after having plunged into Bayou Canot (though that segment of the Sunset is no longer operating for unrelated reasons).


----------



## MARC Rider

zephyr17 said:


> Amtrak has never changed the train name or number after any wreck with fatalities either, which would be the closer analog to airline practice.


Northeast Regional #188 might beg to disagree with that. Soon after the Frankford Junction wreck, they started calling the train that left Washington at 7:10 PM "Northeast Regional #186." I think 186 ran up until the Covid cutbacks, not sure if it's been restored, thanks to the new (lack of) timetable situation.

(Fun fact: I was actually riding in 188 om the night of the wreck. Fortunately for me, I got off in Baltimore.)


----------



## AmtrakMaineiac

MARC Rider said:


> Northeast Regional #188 might beg to disagree with that. Soon after the Frankford Junction wreck, they started calling the train that left Washington at 7:10 PM "Northeast Regional #186." I think 186 ran up until the Covid cutbacks, not sure if it's been restored, thanks to the new (lack of) timetable situation.
> 
> (Fun fact: I was actually riding in 188 om the night of the wreck. Fortunately for me, I got off in Baltimore.)


186 is currently running with a departure at WAS of 8:30 PM


----------



## zephyr17

MARC Rider said:


> Northeast Regional #188 might beg to disagree with that. Soon after the Frankford Junction wreck, they started calling the train that left Washington at 7:10 PM "Northeast Regional #186." I think 186 ran up until the Covid cutbacks, not sure if it's been restored, thanks to the new (lack of) timetable situation.
> 
> (Fun fact: I was actually riding in 188 om the night of the wreck. Fortunately for me, I got off in Baltimore.)


Hmm, interesting. They didn't change the train number of the Cascades involved in the fatal Nisqually wreck, 501. 501 continued to operate until COVID.

Certainly train 7 (Joplin), train 2 (Bayou Canot), train 91 (Cayce, SC), train 6 (Fallon, NV) all fatals, all widely reported and some much worse than this one (Bayou Canot and Fallon), all kept their numbers and names. I do not expect the Southwest Chief to be renumbered or renamed.


----------



## Railspike

Just wondering if more people today are trying to "beat the train" across crossings because of the long, 1-2 mile slow-moving freight trains. They can't tell from the locomotive light (or when the gates are down) whether it's a slow freight coming or a fast passenger train. Crossing Roulette!! Seems that patience wears thin these days.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

It is unlikely that these drivers were hit the first time they fouled a grade crossing. It is much more likely they've been doing this for years or even decades before their luck finally ran out. Maybe instead of more lights and barriers we need more cameras. Penalize those that put trains at serious risk (commercial trucks, construction equipment, farming vehicles, etc.) and play actual impact videos as public service alerts for everyone else. Painting cute messages on locomotives is not working so how about clips that show what happens when years of reckless behavior lead to another predictable conclusion?


----------



## Cal

Jack Davis said:


> After some 'dusting off' and replacing 'outed' windows and other items damaged by the derailment, I wouldn't be surprised that the Super-Liner cars involved will be back on the rails asap. Those cars make revenue but not when out of service. Now however, an overturned car where people were killed in it;


Hhmm, does anyone know if the EB cars re-entered service? When did they?


----------



## Eric in East County

zephyr17 said:


> Nobody but _some _railfans (those in the rivet counter tribe) are interested in or have any idea of what the physical car numbers are, and the car line numbers (like "430") have not been reported widely, if they have been reported at all.
> 
> Amtrak has never changed the train name or number after any wreck with fatalities either, which would be the closer analog to airline practice. The Cascades are still the Cascades after the Nisqually wreck, the Empire Builder is still the Empire Builder after going on the ground and flipping over some cars at Joplin, MT. The Silver Star is still the Silver Star after having a head on with a freight train at Cayce, SC. The Sunset Limited is still the Sunset Limited after having plunged into Bayou Canot (though that segment of the Sunset is no longer operating for unrelated reasons).


We don’t consider ourselves to be in the rivet counting rail fans category, but we do like to write down the physical car numbers of the SWC trains we ride on. (We’ll walk the length of the train and write down all the car numbers during the extended service stops in Albuquerque or La Junta.) We’ll also include these numbers in our trip reports.

Having these car numbers available for future reference sometimes comes in handy. For example, on an eastbound SWC No. 4, we drew a bedroom E where there was no hot water for the shower. On our return trip on SWC No. 3 15 days later, we again had a bedroom E where there was no hot water for the shower. By referring to the physical car number we were able to determine that it was same sleeper we’d had while heading east. On another trip, we were able to determine that our SWC No. 3 train had most (but not all) of same cars in its consist as the SWC No. 4 train we’d ridden on while heading east.

Using a railcam video that was posted online and which showed the same SWC No. 4 train that was involved in the Mendon derailment, we were able to record most of the physical car numbers. (We did compare them with the SWC cars from our trip last year and none of them matched.) We’ll keep these car numbers handy to see if any of them ever turn up in the consists of our future SWC trains.


----------



## Eric in East County

Cal said:


> Here you go.



As copied from a railcam video identified as having been recorded at Glorieta on Sunday, June 26, 2022, here are the physical numbers of the coaches in the consist of the SWC No. 4 train that was derailed at Mendon. (I think I got them all.)

133 GE P42DC Loco
166 Power Unit
61053 Superliner II Baggage
39045 Superliner II Transition Sleeper
32104 Superliner II Sleeping Car
38060 Superliner II Dining Car
33046 Superliner Sightseer Lounge Car
34026 Superliner Coach
31029 Superliner I Coach/Baggage
34102 Superliner II Coach


----------



## Rasputin

Jack Davis said:


> After some 'dusting off' and replacing 'outed' windows and other items damaged by the derailment, I wouldn't be surprised that the Super-Liner cars involved will be back on the rails asap. Those cars make revenue but not when out of service. Now however, an overturned car where people were killed in it; that may haunt some folks if they knew what had happened in there prior. Airlines eliminate flight numbers after a disaster. Perhaps Amtrak will change car I.D's on the units involved.


I suggest you read the July 6 item by Bob Johnston on Trains.com 

Maybe someone can post the link. I don't have it at hand.


----------



## ZiaReba

Why have Southwest Chief trains been canceled recently?


----------



## dbkbye

FYI


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Railspike said:


> From the video showing most of the cars upright, and little exterior damage, what are the odds any of these cars will eventually be put back in service?





Jack Davis said:


> After some 'dusting off' and replacing 'outed' windows and other items damaged by the derailment, I wouldn't be surprised that the Super-Liner cars involved will be back on the rails asap.





Rasputin said:


> I suggest you read the July 6 item by Bob Johnston on Trains.com
> Maybe someone can post the link. I don't have it at hand.


I believe this is it...









Chief wreck puts further strain on Amtrak capacity woes: Analysis - Trains


CHICAGO — When bad CSX track caused the northbound Auto Train to derail 14 of 16 Superliners at Crescent City, Fla., on April 18, 2002, Amtrak strategists scrambled but were able to counteract the resulting equipment shortage. Dealing with a similar shock to the system today — such as the one...




www.trains.com


----------



## ZiaReba

Thank you for your response.


----------



## Cal

Eric in East County said:


> As copied from a railcam video identified as having been recorded at Glorieta on Sunday, June 26, 2022, here are the physical numbers of the coaches in the consist of the SWC No. 4 train that was derailed at Mendon. (I think I got them all.)
> 
> 133 GE P42DC Loco
> 166 Power Unit
> 61053 Superliner II Baggage
> 39045 Superliner II Transition Sleeper
> 32104 Superliner II Sleeping Car
> 38060 Superliner II Dining Car
> 33046 Superliner Sightseer Lounge Car
> 34026 Superliner Coach
> 31029 Superliner I Coach/Baggage
> 34102 Superliner II Coach


I've been on the SSL back in March/April of 2021 on the Sunset.


----------



## Rasputin

Devil's Advocate said:


> I believe this is it...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chief wreck puts further strain on Amtrak capacity woes: Analysis - Trains
> 
> 
> CHICAGO — When bad CSX track caused the northbound Auto Train to derail 14 of 16 Superliners at Crescent City, Fla., on April 18, 2002, Amtrak strategists scrambled but were able to counteract the resulting equipment shortage. Dealing with a similar shock to the system today — such as the one...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.trains.com


Yes, that is the article. Thanks for posting the link.


----------



## Shanghai

Barb Stout said:


> May I assume they had gotten out of their vehicle?


The driver was walking around the scene after the crash. The boy was taken to the hospital but we were told that he was not injured and was returned to his father.


----------



## Amtrakfflyer

Lawsuit: Amtrak train over capacity before Missouri crash



This is interesting. This is my “home train” I ride it often and it is very true they use the SSL for “overflow” seating. I’ve heard the announcement a few times myself.


----------



## joelkfla

Amtrakfflyer said:


> Lawsuit: Amtrak train over capacity before Missouri crash
> 
> 
> 
> This is interesting. This is my “home train” I ride it often and it is very true they use the SSL for “overflow” seating. I’ve heard the announcement a few times myself.


I wonder what are these "passenger lounges" that they claim were being used for baggage? Do they mean the restrooms?

They referred to the SSL as the "observation car", so apparently that's not it.


----------



## Amtrakfflyer

“A former Amtrak employee tells News Wire that Amtrak management “probably let cars sit because it costs about $13,000 to put a car back in service.”

That’s the fare of 3 bedrooms, one way LAX to CHI on the SWC. Whether the above is a true statement or not I find it curious that cars of all types could be inspected and made road worthy within 72 hours of the derailment. It would be nice to know how many cars are sidelined for lack of minor inspections vs stored for damage. 










Chief wreck puts further strain on Amtrak capacity woes: Analysis - Trains


CHICAGO — When bad CSX track caused the northbound Auto Train to derail 14 of 16 Superliners at Crescent City, Fla., on April 18, 2002, Amtrak strategists scrambled but were able to counteract the resulting equipment shortage. Dealing with a similar shock to the system today — such as the one...




www.trains.com


----------



## jis

A bit old news perhaps, but I did not realize that even a few Amtrak crew members had filed their own lawsuits...









More passengers, 2 Amtrak crew members file lawsuits after deadly derailment


Four people died in Monday's train derailment near Mendon




www.kmbc.com


----------



## jis

MODERATOR'S NOTE: Perhaps it is time to gently curve back to the topic of the thread, which is Southwest Chief Derailment.

A number of posts have been moved to the Amtrak Dining thread and several other off topic posts have been removed.

Please stick to the present grade crossing incident topic on this thread.

Thank you for your understanding, cooperation and participation!


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

So back in the day, while drive a ambulance we were told not to use the siren on the highway. The folklore was you were out driving the noise above 50 mph. I know from experience that the emergency equipment has to be on top of you before you hear the siren when traveling at highway speeds.

So if the train was traveling at 90 mph and the truck was making truck noise, when did the truck driver hear the on-coming train? Or was it a visual clue that was required, to know there was a train approaching? At a bad angle with brush close to the line of sight?

Seems to be several factors at play here.

Also these folks are not the first to complain about how the railroad maintained there tracks. The pouring of ballast, and raise the tracks ever year has been blame for several issues. Vehicles get stuck going over the hump to flooding of towns, are issue I have heard about.


----------



## zephyr17

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> So back in the day, while drive a ambulance we were told not to use the siren on the highway. The folklore was you were out driving the noise above 50 mph. I know from experience that the emergency equipment has to be on top of you before you hear the siren when traveling at highway speeds.
> 
> So if the train was traveling at 90 mph and the truck was making truck noise, when did the truck driver hear the on-coming train? Or was it a visual clue that was required, to know there was a train approaching? At a bad angle with brush close to the line of sight?
> 
> Seems to be several factors at play here.
> 
> Also these folks are not the first to complain about how the railroad maintained there tracks. The pouring of ballast, and raise the tracks ever year has been blame for several issues. Vehicles get stuck going over the hump to flooding of towns, are issue I have heard about.


I think approaching an uncontrolled railroad crossing, use of the Mark I Eyeball is wise in addition to listening. The "visual clue" being a train on the the tracks.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

zephyr17 said:


> I think approaching an uncontrolled railroad crossing, use of the Mark I Eyeball is wise in addition to listening. The "visual clue" being a train on the the tracks.


I agree, A train traveling at 90 miles give you how many seconds of advance notice? How long does it take a vehicle to cross say intersection? You have to see and reaction correctly. There a reason the locals are demanding a safer and better way across these two tracks.


----------



## zephyr17

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> I agree, A train traveling at 90 miles give you how many seconds of advance notice? How long does it take a vehicle to cross say intersection? You have to see and reaction correctly. There a reason the locals are demanding a safer and better way across these two tracks.


The NTSB report will doubtless have a full and meticulous analysis of sightlines and metrics. I am satisfied to wait on that.


----------



## WWW

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> I agree, A train traveling at 90 miles give you how many seconds of advance notice? How long does it take a vehicle to cross say intersection? You have to see and reaction correctly. There a reason the locals are demanding a safer and better way across these two tracks.


There is a solution to this - build a bridge over the tracks or an underpass under the tracks.
The trains and tracks are going to be there for quite sometime - there is always the option
to find a different way to get to the otherside depending on the need and cost.
But stop blaming the railroad - have a problem with line of site to the crossing - fix it -
clear the land !
When you don't have food on the table - blame the farmers
When you have supply-side issues - blame the truckers
When you can't cross RxR tracks - why of course blame the railroad -
People people take time to take the blame out of this and responsibility !
Don't be dumb and do stupid things around RxR tracks/crossings !

The only benefactors getting rich out of this are the lawyers and litigators !


----------



## TWA904

Aren't all trains supposed to start blowing horns 500 ft from the crossing. 90mph and 500 feet wont be but 3 to 4 seconds.


----------



## zephyr17

TWA904 said:


> Aren't all trains supposed to start blowing horns 500 ft from the crossing. 90mph and 500 feet wont be but 3 to 4 seconds.


As noted in earlier posts in this thread, the FRA regulation states the grade crossing warning must start being sounded at least 15 seconds before reaching the crossing, but no more than 20 seconds.

The reg is expresses the grade crossing horn requirement as a function of time, not distance.

You are correct that starting to sound the at 500 feet would only give 3-4 seconds warning (3.8 seconds to be precise). Fortunately, the regulation is not drafted that stupidly.


----------



## WWW

zephyr17 said:


> As noted in earlier posts in this thread, the FRA regulation states the grade crossing warning must start being sounded at least 15 seconds before reaching the crossing, but no more than 20 seconds.
> 
> The reg is expresses the grade crossing horn requirement as a function of time, not distance.
> 
> You are correct that starting to sound the at 500 feet would only give 3-4 seconds warning (3.8 seconds to be precise). Fortunately, the regulation is not drafted that stupidly.


And then there are some crossings by local ordinance "NO TRAIN HORN" -
But really what good are horns in a corn field for only those ears to hear.
Locomotives have head lights very bright flashing - alternatively - and those new Siemens with LED blinding lights -

Matter of physics light travels faster and farther than sound -

Wake the heck up when you see bright flashing (alternating) lights coming your way -
You do it for emergency vehicles on the road (or at least you are supposed to) -
We keep beating around the bush - kicking the can down the road - putting this on the back burner -
What part of getting out of the way of a train coming do you not understand !


----------



## zephyr17

Quiet zones cannot be implemented by local ordinance. The local government must apply to the FRA for one and grade crossing improvements are required and must be approved by the FRA. Until a quiet zone is approved by the FRA, any local ordinance on noise abatement will be flatly ignored by the railroad.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

zephyr17 said:


> As noted in earlier posts in this thread, the FRA regulation states the grade crossing warning must start being sounded at least 15 seconds before reaching the crossing, but no more than 20 seconds.


Also in the FRA - 
“If a train is traveling faster than 60 mph, engineers will not sound the horn until it is within ¼ mile of the crossing, even if the advance warning is less than 15 seconds.”


----------



## Eric in East County

Amtrakfflyer said:


> Lawsuit: Amtrak train over capacity before Missouri crash
> 
> 
> 
> This is interesting. This is my “home train” I ride it often and it is very true they use the SSL for “overflow” seating. I’ve heard the announcement a few times myself.


We no longer travel with checked luggage but distribute everything we bring with us among our carry on items. When traveling in coach, there are certain items such as Pat’s purse, our laptop, and my camera bag that we keep with us at our seats and don’t leave in the luggage rack with our suitcases. If we were assigned to overflow seating in a SSL, we would have these items with us, holding them on our laps or keeping them next to our seats. Other passengers required to sit in the SSL due to the train being sold out would probably have their personal items with them, too. In the event of a rollover such as happened in Missouri, all of these loose items would be set into motion, possibly colliding with other passengers with sufficient force to cause injuries. So, we can see where the practice of using a SSL for overflow passenger seating on a sold out train could be hazardous, and why passengers could use it as justification for bringing legal action against Amtrak.


----------



## pennyk

MODERATOR NOTE: Please keep your comments in this thread on the topic of the SWC derailment. Several posts relating to general train/auto/pedestrian accidents were moved to the general thread on that topic.





Amtrak trains vs pedestrians or motor vehicles; accidents/fatalities


MODERATOR NOTE: we have consolidated several train vs pedestrian/auto threads into this one. Please post any "new" accidents into this consolidated thread. Thank you. Crash of Amtrak and car in Houston. Two killed in Houston following car crash into Amtrak train (msn.com)




www.amtraktrains.com





Thank you for your understanding and continued cooperation.


----------



## SarahZ

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> I agree, A train traveling at 90 miles give you how many seconds of advance notice? How long does it take a vehicle to cross say intersection? You have to see and reaction correctly. There a reason the locals are demanding a safer and better way across these two tracks.


I did the math on this a few pages back.

Unless you were being rhetorical.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

I think it’s about 10 seconds if they started at 1/4 mile per FRA rules.


----------



## Cal

One thing that has come to mind is the yellow stool. If someone’s in the vestibule and the train is flipping over at 90mph (well less because of friction) it seems like the yellow stool could cause a serious (head) injury as it’s not usually very secured.


----------



## zephyr17

Cal said:


> One thing that has come to mind is the yellow stool. If someone’s in the vestibule and the train is flipping over at 90mph (well less because of friction) it seems like the yellow stool could cause a serious (head) injury as it’s not usually very secured.


Yeah, that sucker is made out of steel pipe and is at most just hooked on a handrail.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

SarahZ said:


> I did the math on this a few pages back.
> 
> Unless you were being rhetorical.


Rhetorical, there several questions unknown in this issue. I am just tired of the blame game before all facts are know. A tractor trailer needs 18 seconds to cross a intersection. A truck is not permitted to change gears while on a railroad crossing. Was the track 25’ on center that a lot of space to cover when the twice a day higher than normal speed train is approaching. Did the truck drive make a complete stop, could he see the train? Could you or me identify it by the lights on the engine as a fast mover?

The locals were complaining about this crossing so how many of them had close calls before this wreck.

NTSB doing there stuff, there human, but they are trying hard to cover all aspects.


----------



## WWW

Also note this was a double track zone - twice as many tracks to cross safely !


----------



## George Harris

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> Rhetorical, there several questions unknown in this issue. I am just tired of the blame game before all facts are know. A tractor trailer needs 18 seconds to cross a intersection. A truck is not permitted to change gears while on a railroad crossing. Was the track 25’ on center that a lot of space to cover when the twice a day higher than normal speed train is approaching. Did the truck drive make a complete stop, could he see the train? Could you or me identify it by the lights on the engine as a fast mover?


Based on the pictures, track centers appear to be about the usual for lines that have been double track for most of the years of major track construction, that is in the range of 13 to 15 feet, with 13.5 to 14 feet being most common. (Much of the Northeast tracks are 13 feet or less on center.) 10 mph is 14 2/3 feet per second, so if we take track centers 14 feet plus train width 10'-8" plus truck, say 25 feet, after all this is a dump truck, not a tractor-trailer with a 53 feet trailer, you have 50 feet you have to traverse from nose clear of train to tail clear of train, so that is 7 1/3 seconds. 90 mph is 132 feet per second, so the train would travel 968 feet in that length of time. It needs to be remembered that freights are allowed up to 70 mph here, which is 103 feet per second so in the same time the freight could travel 753 feet. Not really a lot of difference. Any sense of self preservation should result in extreme caution and making sure you had plenty of clear time before crossing these tracks,


----------



## Cal

There is a slow section through the derailment site


----------



## Eric in East County

Cal said:


> There is a slow section through the derailment site View attachment 28835
> View attachment 28836
> View attachment 28837


Although the relative distances shown in photos can be deceiving based on the lens that was used, it appears to me that someone at this intersection could see a considerable distance down the tracks, perhaps a half mile or so. Based on the speed of the SWC No. 4 train involved in the collision/derailment, how long would it have taken for it to reach the intersection from the furthest point visible in the photograph taken at the intersection?


----------



## SarahZ

Eric in East County said:


> Although the relative distances shown in photos can be deceiving based on the lens that was used, it appears to me that someone at this intersection could see a considerable distance down the tracks, perhaps a half mile or so. Based on the speed of the SWC No. 4 train involved in the collision/derailment, how long would it have taken for it to reach the intersection from the furthest point visible in the photograph taken at the intersection?


At 90 mph, it takes 20 seconds to go a half-mile.

A fully loaded dump truck takes approximately 35-40 seconds to speed up to 25 mph, and that's on a completely level grade. (Source: Good friend with a current CDL)


----------



## WWW

SarahZ said:


> At 90 mph, it takes 20 seconds to go a half-mile.
> 
> A fully loaded dump truck takes approximately 35-40 seconds to speed up to 25 mph, and that's on a completely level grade. (Source: Good friend with a current CDL)


And how much ground is traveled in those 35-40 seconds to achieve 25 mph ?
I can walk at 3 mph - 5280 x 3 =15840 feet - probably can walk across the crossing of 50 odd feet in some 15 seconds - - -

There is enough time - you have straight track (albeit two) and you do not see lights of the locomotive - you are at the crossing 
see no lights - unless you are a dumb klutz with shifting gears and use of the throttle to achieve sufficient speed to cross the
track(s) getting across should be accomplished with adequate time. Now distraction - failure to look both directions and your
envelope of time to safely cross is reduced. Still YET no lights good to go - SEE LIGHTS reconsider your action ! It couldn't be
any more simple and straight forward as the tracks you are crossing. Stupid is what stupid does. 
With two tracks - lights on one - don't even think of crossing until that train has passed to view the other track for headlights !
Having noted that - train dispatchers don't dispatch trains that close together at high speed. There will be a safe time to cross.


----------



## John819

Simply stated, the train had the right of way. The truck had to yield. If the truck driver felt it was unsafe to cross then he had to wait; perhaps have the driver of the second truck get out and look down the tracks.

Note that a delay of one to two seconds it all it took to change a miss into a hit.


----------



## Eric in East County

With a ledger-straight right-of-way like this one, it might be possible to see further than a half-mile down the track. (Not having been there, I can’t determine from the photo exactly how far down the track one can see and at what distance the locomotive’s light would first become visible.) This information will undoubtedly be included in the NTSB report.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Do commercial vehicle drivers think the railroad is responsible for preventing them from making careless decisions? Do they assume every crossing is safe for all traffic at all times if nobody has closed it down? There are dozens if not hundreds of videos of drivers making careless decisions at grade crossings that likely resulted in permanent injury or death. These drivers may as well blame a GPS for directing them to drive into a lake because it's the same logic and deflection at play. Blame the railroad for not being able to cross the tracks rather than for having chosen to cross the tracks unsafely despite the risks.


----------



## Barb Stout

What is the current route of the SWC in this area of derailment? Or is it back in use now?


----------



## AmtrakBlue

Barb Stout said:


> What is the current route of the SWC in this area of derailment? Or is it back in use now?


It’s back in use. See Cal’s post above. I think he was on it yesterday.


----------



## zephyr17

Barb Stout said:


> What is the current route of the SWC in this area of derailment? Or is it back in use now?


I don't think they ever detoured.


----------



## TinCan782

zephyr17 said:


> I don't think they ever detoured.


Correct, as far as I know.


----------



## WWW

I believe that since it was a double track line - only one track was compromised - the good adjacent track was used by the MOW equipment
to restore the torn up track. The trains 3 & 4 had a service break between Kansas City and Chicago - maybe bus bridging around that ?
Only when there is a bridge out does the railroad have a problem restoring service within a day or two. 
Now as for replacing damaged cars and locomotives - well that is another issue taking more time - Beech Grove must be working overtime !


----------



## crescent2

crescent-zephyr said:


> Also in the FRA -
> “If a train is traveling faster than 60 mph, engineers will not sound the horn until it is within ¼ mile of the crossing, even if *the advance warning is less than 15 seconds.”*




Less than 15 seconds warning time doesn't seem to me to be enough to be safe, especially if the crossing is an especially difficult one for any number of possible reasons (sharp diagonal to the tracks, obstructed view farther down the track, steep incline, gravel surface, etc.). 

It doesn't cost a cent to start blowing the horn several seconds sooner. Not blaming the engineers, though; that would likely be a railroad regulation. 

It will be interesting to see the NTSB's conclusions on contributing factors to the accident. The responsibility is ultimately on the vehicle driver, but that doesn't mean the crossing shouldn't be made safer, especially by measures that aren't even costly. (Realizing there are never unlimited funds.)


----------



## Amtrak709

crescent2 said:


> Less than 15 seconds warning time doesn't seem to me to be enough to be safe, especially if the crossing is an especially difficult one for any number of possible reasons (sharp diagonal to the tracks, obstructed view farther down the track, steep incline, gravel surface, etc.).
> 
> It doesn't cost a cent to start blowing the horn several seconds sooner. Not blaming the engineers, though; that would likely be a railroad regulation.
> 
> It will be interesting to see the NTSB's conclusions on contributing factors to the accident. The responsibility is ultimately on the vehicle driver, but that doesn't mean the crossing shouldn't be made safer, especially by measures that aren't even costly. (Realizing there are never unlimited funds.)


crescent2: I, too, anxiously await the NTSB's report. It has been my opinion that the NTSB does a very highly professional job in collating the facts to a respectable conclusion. Their current chairman, Jenifer Homendy, has always been an Amtrak advocate BUT she has been critical at times when and if necessary. A good recent example of NTSB thoroughness, in my opinion, is the accident involving Amtrak 91 in Cayce SC 4 years ago. Sure it was crystal clear to any average observer that the freight conductor's error in failing to realign a switch to the main which diverted 91 into an occupied siding was the cause; but, if you read the probable cause statement, that obvious error is mentioned in a subordinate position to other factors. Again, just my opinion.


----------



## Cal

By the way, according to train orders superliner list, many superliners involved in derailments took several years to be returned to service .http://trainweb.org/web_lurker/AmtrakSuperliner/


----------



## SarahZ

WWW said:


> And how much ground is traveled in those 35-40 seconds to achieve 25 mph ?
> I can walk at 3 mph - 5280 x 3 =15840 feet - probably can walk across the crossing of 50 odd feet in some 15 seconds - - -
> 
> There is enough time - you have straight track (albeit two) and you do not see lights of the locomotive - you are at the crossing
> see no lights - unless you are a dumb klutz with shifting gears and use of the throttle to achieve sufficient speed to cross the
> track(s) getting across should be accomplished with adequate time. Now distraction - failure to look both directions and your
> envelope of time to safely cross is reduced. Still YET no lights good to go - SEE LIGHTS reconsider your action ! It couldn't be
> any more simple and straight forward as the tracks you are crossing. Stupid is what stupid does.
> With two tracks - lights on one - don't even think of crossing until that train has passed to view the other track for headlights !
> Having noted that - train dispatchers don't dispatch trains that close together at high speed. There will be a safe time to cross.


They asked for the math. I provided the math. I am not taking a side.


----------



## Agent

The National Transportation Safety Board has issued its preliminary report: RRD22MR010.aspx.


----------



## Dakota 400

Agent said:


> The National Transportation Safety Board has issued its preliminary report: RRD22MR010.aspx.



Thanks for posting this. It doesn't tell us any more than we already know, however.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

Step one of a year or two process.


----------

