# Downeaster collission



## TransitGeek (Jul 11, 2011)

I'm standing in the woods between Dover and Wells, trackside next to the Downeaster #681. We hit something on the tracks. The locomotive and first coach car are on fire, and one truck on the first coach derailed. No fatalities, some minor injuries. Fire department is clearing things up.


----------



## Dan (Jul 11, 2011)

Looks like it was a truck.

http://www.wmur.com/news/28509803/detail.html


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jul 11, 2011)

Just another day during Amtrak's _worst year ever_?


----------



## jis (Jul 11, 2011)

One fatality.... the truck driver. See:

http://www.boston.com/Boston/metrodesk/2011/07/amtrak-train-hits-truck-railroad-crossing-north-berwick-truck-driver-killed/iscBvDODMVWy6h8lTddaaM/index.html


----------



## amamba (Jul 11, 2011)

How terrible. What is wrong with these truck drivers?!


----------



## Reno89502 (Jul 11, 2011)

LIVE video from Chopper on CBS Boston webpage. http://boston.cbslocal.com/


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jul 11, 2011)

amamba said:


> How terrible. What is wrong with these truck drivers?!


If we believe John Mica it's the lack of privatization of passenger trains that's the problem. Trucking companies are already privatized so it can't be their fault.


----------



## jis (Jul 11, 2011)

Looks like we may have one Amfleet I ready to be scrapped


----------



## Ryan (Jul 11, 2011)

amamba said:


> How terrible. What is wrong with these truck drivers?!


In general? Who knows?

This one in particular? He got hit by a train!


----------



## PRR 60 (Jul 11, 2011)

Both of the gates are down and undamaged. I wonder if the truck got stuck on the crossing, or if it tried to maneuver around the gates.

The Downeaster is a push-pull train. I believe it uses former F40 cabbage's for cab cars. It looks like it was in push mode. If so, it was lucky a standard Metroliner cab wasn't being used. Things might have been much worse.


----------



## Rail Freak (Jul 11, 2011)

Ryan said:


> amamba said:
> 
> 
> > How terrible. What is wrong with these truck drivers?!
> ...



Who hit Who???


----------



## jis (Jul 11, 2011)

I am wondering how the Amfleet managed to get hit on the side like that!


----------



## PRR 60 (Jul 11, 2011)

Here's a link to Google Streetview of the location:

Crash Site


----------



## had8ley (Jul 11, 2011)

jis said:


> Looks like we may have one Amfleet I ready to be scrapped


Believe it or not I've seen worse that were repaired unless of course the interior is charred.


----------



## Anderson (Jul 11, 2011)

So am I. I'm actually starting to wonder if we're going to need to nominate a Darwin out of all of these idiot truckers (I refer broadly to the fact that there have been, I believe, four truck vs. train incidents with Amtrak this year which I can recall: The Sunset incident, the Crescent, the Zephyr, and now this).


----------



## MikeM (Jul 11, 2011)

According to CNN, the Amtrak train "collided" with the truck. So I guess the train drove off the tracks, found an unsuspecting truck, drug it back to the crossing and proceeded to run over/through it? hboy: I really wish media would come to reality and realize vehicles collide into trains, not the other way, unless the train derails and goes off the track and hits the vehicle when it isn't on the tracks.


----------



## VentureForth (Jul 11, 2011)

TransitGeek said:


> I'm standing in the woods between Dover and Wells, trackside next to the Downeaster #681. We hit something on the tracks. The locomotive and first coach car are on fire, and one truck on the first coach derailed. No fatalities, some minor injuries. Fire department is clearing things up.


How are you doing? Anything firsthand to report?


----------



## PRR 60 (Jul 11, 2011)

So, what happened to the cabbage? I haven't seen it in any videos or photos.


----------



## NE933 (Jul 11, 2011)

No, I would say the year that holds the most Amtrak collisions, that is, the number of impacts and/or derailments is 1984. There was a head-on collision in Queens New York when a northbound Shoreliner somehow got past 'Gate' signals, and met it's southbound counterpart near the Hellgate Bridge. Then we have the lethal Montrealer washout, plus an Amfleet equipped express derailing south of Philadelphia on a heat/sun kink. One of the Silver Service trains left the tracks in the Carolinas, I remember a newspaper photo showing the Amfleet II cars teetering on their centers on top of a ballasted viaduct. The year of crashes started out with an Empire Builder hitting a truck at Wolf Point, MT and derailing.

1993 was bad for the NY to Florida Silver Star and Meteor route, in Fort Lauderdale alone. An F40 split a fuel tanker fouling the tracks, and flaming gasoline sprayed several parked cars and incinerated 5 or 6 occupants. Then the day before we were to go back to NY, a group of brats with too much time on their hands wedged a pipe into a switch frog and caused our southbound trainset that was to be used in the next day's northbound, to go on its side. Also, the then single track route was blocked, necessitating a bus bridge to Orlando.


----------



## Hamhock (Jul 11, 2011)

I was assuming it was in pull mode; usually southbound Downeaster trains are in push mode; northbound in pull mode.


----------



## bobnabq (Jul 11, 2011)

Because of my planned December trip, this is the first year in which I've been observant of Amtrak activity.

Are there usually this many "incident" with train-vehicle accidents, death, etc ?

I may need see if I can book passage on board a Wells Fargo stage coach. :mellow:


----------



## PRR 60 (Jul 11, 2011)

PRR 60 said:


> So, what happened to the cabbage? I haven't seen it in any videos or photos.


Answering my own question: it was a double-ended Genesis. The lead unit was disconnected, pulled forward, and completely burned.

Write off another P42.


----------



## The Chief (Jul 11, 2011)

*Justin*, great job of on-the-scene reporting this to our AU forum!

*PRR60*, one of the reports quotes a nearby witness quick on the scene: "I ran out there, and I saw skid marks from the dump truck that probably went about 300 yards, went right through the gates."

*Anderson*, nice pop culture reference to _The Darwin Awards_!

God forbid more state DPSes or highway admin agencies would have any kind of railroad crossing educational awareness program _targeting trucking companies and independents_ (and I'm aware of Operation Lifesaver). It just appears this would be a good area of focus.

For instance, I checked the website of _Maine Transportation Safety Coalition - Promoting safe transportation in Maine_. That group has communications/programs about traffic safety for the blind, bicycles, pedestrians, and (I'm not making this up) moose and deer.


----------



## Tracktwentynine (Jul 11, 2011)

The cab car (cabbage) was at the south (rear) end of the train. It is undamaged and is still coupled to the rest of the train. You can see it at 1:23 in this clip on the NECN website.

The train was being pulled by a Genesis. The helicopter doesn't get any particularly good photos of it. It's uncoupled from the coaches and is a good distance further north.


----------



## PRR 60 (Jul 11, 2011)

The Chief said:


> *PRR60*, one of the reports quotes a nearby witness quick on the scene: "I ran out there, and I saw skid marks from the dump truck that probably went about 300 yards, went right through the gates."


If you look at the photo posted by Texas Sunset, both gates are intact. News videos are even clearer. Skid marks for 300 yards (900 feet) are pretty unlikely. You could stop a truck from 90 mph in 900 feet. Eyewitness reports of incidents like this are notoriously unreliable.

It is possible that he (she) saw the gate at the last minute, swerved left to get around it, and got clobbered by the train. But, there is no question that the gates were working. They are still down.


----------



## Paul Dow (Jul 11, 2011)

Sounds like another distracted driver, but the witness ain't talking.


----------



## PRR 60 (Jul 11, 2011)

Tracktwentynine said:


> The cab car (cabbage) was at the south (rear) end of the train. It is undamaged and is still coupled to the rest of the train. You can see it at 1:23 in this clip on the NECN website.
> 
> The train was being pulled by a Genesis. The helicopter doesn't get any particularly good photos of it. It's uncoupled from the coaches and is a good distance further north.


You're right! Thanks.


----------



## PRR 60 (Jul 11, 2011)

Some good video of the damaged P42 at this site:

WCHS Portand


----------



## Anderson (Jul 11, 2011)

The Chief said:


> *Justin*, great job of on-the-scene reporting this to our AU forum!
> 
> *PRR60*, one of the reports quotes a nearby witness quick on the scene: "I ran out there, and I saw skid marks from the dump truck that probably went about 300 yards, went right through the gates."
> 
> ...


Let's try "If you get in front of a train, *YOU WILL DIE!*" It has the benefit of being exceedingly true...well over half of the fatalities in these incidents tend to be the truckers.

The other thing I would suggest is foisting some liability on the trucking companies for these accidents on the grounds of what is obviously inadequate training: If your truckers are dumb enough to try and run a gate, then you should be liable for being dumb enough to have them on the payroll.


----------



## The Chief (Jul 11, 2011)

PRR 60 said:


> If you look at the photo posted by Texas Sunset, both gates are intact. News videos are even clearer. Skid marks for 300 yards (900 feet) are pretty unlikely. You could stop a truck from 90 mph in 900 feet. Eyewitness reports of incidents like this are notoriously unreliable.


And I agree about eyewitness accounts; I was just posting a reported quote.

Be that as it may, this photo from the batch you just posted looks a bit to me like the far-side crossing gate may be down near the pavement,,,but that could just be my visual perspective.


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Jul 11, 2011)

bobnabq said:


> Because of my planned December trip, this is the first year in which I've been observant of Amtrak activity.
> 
> Are there usually this many "incident" with train-vehicle accidents, death, etc ?
> 
> I may need see if I can book passage on board a Wells Fargo stage coach. :mellow:


I'm in the same boat, uh, I mean stage coach. I have my first LD trip planned for Nov. What's the number for WF Stage Coach? :unsure:


----------



## afigg (Jul 11, 2011)

The Chief said:


> God forbid more state DPSes or highway admin agencies would have any kind of railroad crossing educational awareness program _targeting trucking companies and independents_ (and I'm aware of Operation Lifesaver). It just appears this would be a good area of focus.
> 
> For instance, I checked the website of _Maine Transportation Safety Coalition - Promoting safe transportation in Maine_. That group has communications/programs about traffic safety for the blind, bicycles, pedestrians, and (I'm not making this up) moose and deer.


I'm guessing you have not driven much in states where there are moose. A full grown bull moose can reach 8' high and weigh up to 1500 to 1600 lbs. You really do NOT want to hit a moose standing in the middle of the road in a car as the body of the moose can clear the hood of the car and come in through the windshield. A quick google search turns up a Maine DOT news release from 2009 with the stat that there were 22 fatalities from moose-vehicle collisions in ME over the previous 10 years (http://www.maine.gov/mdot/mainedotnews/moose04162009.htm). So, yea, Maine DOT has safety awareness programs for drivers about moose and deer. Google turned up this Maine DOT flyer on railroad crossing safety - http://www.maine.gov/mdot/safety/documents/ffdocs/RailroadSafetyJune.pdf - which it appears the truck driver was not following.

And, yes, the plural of moose is moose.


----------



## Cho Cho Charlie (Jul 11, 2011)

MikeM said:


> So I guess the train drove off the tracks, found an unsuspecting truck, drug it back to the crossing and proceeded to run over/through it? hboy:


When Thomas the Tank Engine goes bad. 



MikeM said:


> I really wish media would come to reality and realize vehicles collide into trains, not the other way, unless the train derails and goes off the track and hits the vehicle when it isn't on the tracks.


I don't know... if a car was stopped dead on the tracks and not moving, I would say that the train hit the car, and not that the car hit the train.


----------



## Cho Cho Charlie (Jul 11, 2011)

Texas Sunset said:


>


I wonder what all that "stuff" is?

The new Dining Car menus? :giggle:


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jul 11, 2011)

I know the Darwin awards are funny and all. And we all know that everyone who ever gets hurt or dies does so only out of blatant stupidity. However, even if you hold such a view the problem is that Amtrak doesn't have the flexibility to leave all this damaged hardware sitting around or the money to repair or replace everything that's lost in all these events. And if this becomes the new normal then it's possible Amtrak won't even be able to pay their future insurance rates. It's bad news all around and it's especially bad in view of the increasing pressure Amtrak is under to prove their worth to their owners.


----------



## GAT (Jul 11, 2011)

Both this accident and the recent CZ one occurred at crossings that are at rather extreme angles to the tracks. The CZ thread devoted considerable discussion to how such accidents might be prevented or reduced. Why not have a DOT regulation that all level crossings must be perpendicular to the tracks? Any roads approaching at less than a 90 degree angle would have to be altered with curves that: a) would require the driver to slow down and think about what's ahead and b) would enable greater visibility in those cases where the driver would otherwise be closing with the train on his blind side. Admittently this is not a perfect solution in all cases, but surely it would help, and it's pretty cost effective compared with building over/underpasses.


----------



## afigg (Jul 11, 2011)

PRR 60 said:


> If you look at the photo posted by Texas Sunset, both gates are intact. News videos are even clearer. Skid marks for 300 yards (900 feet) are pretty unlikely. You could stop a truck from 90 mph in 900 feet. Eyewitness reports of incidents like this are notoriously unreliable.
> 
> It is possible that he (she) saw the gate at the last minute, swerved left to get around it, and got clobbered by the train. But, there is no question that the gates were working. They are still down.


I have not seen obvious skid marks in any of the photos or videos I've seen so far. But even if there were some skid marks, the accident investigators will have to examine them carefully to see if they are new or old skid marks.

The debris field of whatever was in the truck trailer in the photos make it clear where the point of impact was. The Downeaster hit the truck; the front of the P-42 looks pretty messed up. Hope the engineer is ok. This is not a broadside impact like the CZ incident in Nevada. If both gates were down, my guess - and this is only a guess - is that the truck driver was driving around the gates. In the video at NECN.com, I can see the truck trailer spun around but I don't see the cab or tractor part of the truck.

Since this involved a passenger train but with no fatalities on the train, would the NTSB get involved in the investigation or will this be something handled primarily by the Maine State police?


----------



## had8ley (Jul 11, 2011)

NE933 said:


> No, I would say the year that holds the most Amtrak collisions, that is, the number of impacts and/or derailments is 1984. There was a head-on collision in Queens New York when a northbound Shoreliner somehow got past 'Gate' signals, and met it's southbound counterpart near the Hellgate Bridge. Then we have the lethal Montrealer washout, plus an Amfleet equipped express derailing south of Philadelphia on a heat/sun kink. One of the Silver Service trains left the tracks in the Carolinas, I remember a newspaper photo showing the Amfleet II cars teetering on their centers on top of a ballasted viaduct. The year of crashes started out with an Empire Builder hitting a truck at Wolf Point, MT and derailing.
> 
> 1993 was bad for the NY to Florida Silver Star and Meteor route, in Fort Lauderdale alone. An F40 split a fuel tanker fouling the tracks, and flaming gasoline sprayed several parked cars and incinerated 5 or 6 occupants. Then the day before we were to go back to NY, a group of brats with too much time on their hands wedged a pipe into a switch frog and caused our southbound trainset that was to be used in the next day's northbound, to go on its side. Also, the then single track route was blocked, necessitating a bus bridge to Orlando.


Was '93 the year 46 pax and crew lost their lives at the Bayou in Alabama?~ the worst train wreck in Amtrak's history, IIRC...


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jul 11, 2011)

George said:


> Why not have a DOT regulation that all level crossings must be perpendicular to the tracks? Any roads approaching at less than a 90 degree angle would have to be altered with curves that: a) would require the driver to slow down and think about what's ahead and b) would enable greater visibility in those cases where the driver would otherwise be closing with the train on his blind side.


You're impacting all drivers with this solution instead of only penalizing the drivers which are likely to severely damage a train. Namely, those with commercial sized trucks. Maybe we should make them carry larger insurance minimums and pay much larger fines for at-fault collisions. Then maybe we could use those funds to build overpasses and underpasses where trucks are likely to cross. Over the course of several years things might start to finally get safer as the new rules sink in and funds for improvements become available.


----------



## GAT (Jul 11, 2011)

Texas Sunset said:


> George said:
> 
> 
> > Why not have a DOT regulation that all level crossings must be perpendicular to the tracks? Any roads approaching at less than a 90 degree angle would have to be altered with curves that: a) would require the driver to slow down and think about what's ahead and b) would enable greater visibility in those cases where the driver would otherwise be closing with the train on his blind side.
> ...


With respect, I'm not suggesting penalizing anybody, only saving lives. Your response would indicate there isn't a safety issue here, only a bad driving issue. That's like saying we shouldn't have air and ground traffic control rules because plane crashes are always the pilot's fault. IMHO, any prudent measure that helps save lives should be considered.


----------



## NE933 (Jul 11, 2011)

had8ley said:


> Was '93 the year 46 pax and crew lost their lives at the Bayou in Alabama?~ the worst train wreck in Amtrak's history, IIRC...


Yes, 9/22/93. The 46 fatalities in that one alone made it Amtrak's worst in terms of loss of life. The big contributor was that the train went underwater, drowning many.


----------



## Trogdor (Jul 11, 2011)

George said:


> Both this accident and the recent CZ one occurred at crossings that are at rather extreme angles to the tracks. The CZ thread devoted considerable discussion to how such accidents might be prevented or reduced. Why not have a DOT regulation that all level crossings must be perpendicular to the tracks? Any roads approaching at less than a 90 degree angle would have to be altered with curves that: a) would require the driver to slow down and think about what's ahead and b) would enable greater visibility in those cases where the driver would otherwise be closing with the train on his blind side. Admittently this is not a perfect solution in all cases, but surely it would help, and it's pretty cost effective compared with building over/underpasses.


Maybe for new crossings, but it would surely be cost-prohibitive to redesign every single existing crossing that is not at a 90-degree angle.

My suggestion would be for a regulation that requires people to STOP when the crossing lights are activated and the gates are down. Oh, wait, we already have that.

Not that I'm trying to make excuses for idiot drivers, but I'm wondering if it might be better if railroad crossings, instead of having flashing red lights, had solid red lights.


----------



## eagle628 (Jul 11, 2011)

Trogdor said:


> Not that I'm trying to make excuses for idiot drivers, but I'm wondering if it might be better if railroad crossings, instead of having flashing red lights, had solid red lights.



I believe it's been proven that flashing lights catch someone's attention better than solid ones (one of the reasons that proposals come up every so often to have car brake lights flash).

EDIT: found this, vaguely related to the brake lights thing, relevent passage is "In European testing, Mercedes found that drivers reacting to flashing brake lights hit the brakes in 0.4 seconds, slightly faster than the 0.6 seconds it took them to react to a regular brake light."


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jul 11, 2011)

George said:


> With respect, I'm not suggesting penalizing anybody, only saving lives. Your response would indicate there isn't a safety issue here, only a bad driving issue. That's like saying we shouldn't have air and ground traffic control rules because plane crashes are always the pilot's fault. IMHO, any prudent measure that helps save lives should be considered.


No, my position is that poor driving/maintenance with a motorcycle, sedan, or small truck doesn't routinely take out a train like poor driving/maintenance with a commercial vehicle can. I don't know who you think should be paying hundreds of billions of dollars to repave every grade crossing into a right angle but I'm guessing it's taxpayers. My position is that you can count me out. It's not the job of the taxpayer to save everyone from themselves; only from each other. In that regard I'd be a lot more supportive of anti-ramming barriers to replace crossing gates. You can't stop people from ignoring warnings but maybe you can stop them from being able to reach the tracks when a train is coming.


----------



## afigg (Jul 11, 2011)

eagle628 said:


> Trogdor said:
> 
> 
> > Not that I'm trying to make excuses for idiot drivers, but I'm wondering if it might be better if railroad crossings, instead of having flashing red lights, had solid red lights.
> ...


Flashing red lights are going to be much better in catching the driver's attention. However I wonder how many drivers on the road are confused about what a flashing red light means in terms of road rules?

At a normal road intersection, flashing red is treated effectively the same as a stop sign: come to a full stop, then proceed if the way is clear. Or a rolling stop(!), which is what I see a lot of people do when there is a power hit during a storm and the traffic lights go to flashing mode until they are reset. Are there drivers who think the same is true for a railroad crossing, even when the gates are down? After all, people are now used to being ok to turn right on a red light.

Wonder if the NTSB has looked at railroad crossing signal and gate systems from human factors engineering standpoint? I'm sure they have in terms of the lights, but instead look at railroad crossing designs in terms of what the average driver is used to encountering, your typical traffic light intersection, and what they do when they come to a railroad crossing. There are many drivers in cities or suburbia who likely rarely encounter a railroad crossing in their normal day to day driving or, if they do, the gates are always up so they just drive right through it. Maybe railroad crossings with gates should have a solid red light in view of the stopped vehicle traffic with flashing red lights at the crossbuck a little further back to get attention.

What percentage of licensed drivers know the basic rules when they encounter a railroad crossing with flashing red lights? Given the scary percentages I saw recently in an article on July 4 when they asked people (US citizens) which country the US succeeded from on the Fourth of July and fought the Revolutionary War against, it could be pretty low.


----------



## alanh (Jul 11, 2011)

Sometimes consistency is more important than being "better". For example, for many years Scottsdale, AZ's fire engines were painted florescent yellow-green, which is more visible than traditional fire engine red. However, they found that people did not recognize the vehicles as fire engines because they weren't the expected color.

I've thought for a long time that railroad signals should be replaced with regular traffic lights. They evolved in parallel with traffic lights, but the two have never been unified despite serving much the same purpose.

It also bugs me that flashing red for a traffic light means that you can proceed after stopping and yielding to cross traffic. A flashing railroad signal, however, means stay stopped.


----------



## Big Iron (Jul 11, 2011)

afigg said:


> eagle628 said:
> 
> 
> > Trogdor said:
> ...



In the latest issue of Trains Magazine there is a company that is desiging a rail crossing that will send an alert to your GPS/Bluetooth that uses visual and audible warnings that a train is on the track and entering the crossing. Sounds a bit Buck Rogerish to me but another attempt at a better mousetrap.


----------



## GAT (Jul 11, 2011)

alanh said:


> Sometimes consistency is more important than being "better". For example, for many years Scottsdale, AZ's fire engines were painted florescent yellow-green, which is more visible than traditional fire engine red. However, they found that people did not recognize the vehicles as fire engines because they weren't the expected color.
> 
> I've thought for a long time that railroad signals should be replaced with regular traffic lights. They evolved in parallel with traffic lights, but the two have never been unified despite serving much the same purpose.
> 
> It also bugs me that flashing red for a traffic light means that you can proceed after stopping and yielding to cross traffic. A flashing railroad signal, however, means stay stopped.


I was thinking the same thing.....except how/when would the yellow work? Maybe for 10 seconds just before the gates come down? Then, what about crossings that don't have gates? People tend to "run" yellow lights all the time (Especially in San Francisco. The light would have to turn red in plenty of time before the train hit the crossing.


----------



## JBConn (Jul 11, 2011)

http://www.pressherald.com/news/Report-Train-collides-with-truck-in-N-Berwick.html

It was a trailer dump truck haauling waste to a trash-to-energy plant.

Report states that there is a steep hill leading to the crossing. eyewitnesses said the truck locked his brakes and left 75 yard skid marks.

Also good photo of the charred front end of the locomotive.


----------



## jis (Jul 11, 2011)

alanh said:


> Sometimes consistency is more important than being "better". For example, for many years Scottsdale, AZ's fire engines were painted florescent yellow-green, which is more visible than traditional fire engine red. However, they found that people did not recognize the vehicles as fire engines because they weren't the expected color.
> 
> I've thought for a long time that railroad signals should be replaced with regular traffic lights. They evolved in parallel with traffic lights, but the two have never been unified despite serving much the same purpose.
> 
> It also bugs me that flashing red for a traffic light means that you can proceed after stopping and yielding to cross traffic. A flashing railroad signal, however, means stay stopped.


So that people can run them in a uniform way like they run red lights all the time around here? Wait! They already run crossing lights too. Scratch that comment.


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Jul 11, 2011)

What kind of insurance policy does amtrak have? Are they self insured? they need a policy that goes after the driver that caused the accident.


----------



## The Chief (Jul 11, 2011)

afigg said:


> The Chief said:
> 
> 
> > God forbid more state DPSes or highway admin agencies would have any kind of railroad crossing educational awareness program *targeting trucking companies and independents* (and I'm aware of Operation Lifesaver). It just appears this would be a good area of focus.
> ...


Thanks for the link to the Maine DOT pdf flyer with the cartoon traffic light and caption "Be a Road Model." While that message is good, the verbiage and graphic appear targeted for younger drivers, passenger vehicle types.

My point is a notable increase in RR crossing axys involving commercial trucks may mean a need exists for railroad crossing educational awareness program *targeting trucking companies and independents*. Or how about a needs analysis to determine what may help?

While not having driven much in moose states, and I've never driven in Maine, that reference I inserted as a hyperbole. I postulate that there are many more truck-train accidents nationwide, than moose-train or moose-motor vehicle accidents.

And thanks for bringing up "moose" again, because I was chuckling while typing earlier, thinking of "

" een Ruzzhan akscent.


----------



## jis (Jul 11, 2011)

The Chief said:


> And thanks for bringing up "moose" again, because I was chuckling while typing earlier, thinking of "


Not to mention Natasha and Boris!


----------



## afigg (Jul 11, 2011)

George said:


> Both this accident and the recent CZ one occurred at crossings that are at rather extreme angles to the tracks. The CZ thread devoted considerable discussion to how such accidents might be prevented or reduced. Why not have a DOT regulation that all level crossings must be perpendicular to the tracks? Any roads approaching at less than a 90 degree angle would have to be altered with curves that: a) would require the driver to slow down and think about what's ahead and b) would enable greater visibility in those cases where the driver would otherwise be closing with the train on his blind side. Admittently this is not a perfect solution in all cases, but surely it would help, and it's pretty cost effective compared with building over/underpasses.


Looking at the Google Earth view of the intersection in , it is at around a 45 degree angle, but I would not call it an extreme angle. It is also a more complex intersection as there are also 2 access roads that turn onto Rt. 4. I wonder if the truck driver was coming out of one of the side road and was not on Rt. 4?

The problem with changing the angle of the road crossing is the huge number of grade crossings in the US. How much land would have to taken to do it? How much would it slow down road traffic when the gates are up, which may be a good idea in general, but what about for a lightly traffic railroad line? There is also the question of whether a new curve in the road would lead to more accidents on a otherwise straight road when people miss the curve and go flying off into the trees or onto someone's property?

How many grade crossings are there on the 21,200 miles of routes that Amtrak uses? I would imagine thousands and thousands, if not into the more than 10 thousand range. Even on the NEC, there are still 11 grade crossings remaining in eastern CT on the Shore Line route in and near New London. Amtrak probably has the number of grade crossings on their total route mileage, but understandably is not going to put it into the fact sheets. Fixing even just those with quad gates or upgraded gate & light systems would cost a LOT of money.


----------



## afigg (Jul 11, 2011)

JBConn said:


> http://www.pressherald.com/news/Report-Train-collides-with-truck-in-N-Berwick.html
> 
> It was a trailer dump truck haauling waste to a trash-to-energy plant.
> 
> ...


Looking at Google Earth, it reports about a 20' drop in elevation downhill over what looks to be more than a 1000' distance. Steep hill may be overstating it, just a downhill slope. If the truck driver locked up his brakes 75 yards away, just how fast was he going? We may have another possible case here of an inattentive or distracted truck driver, like in Nevada, who did not see that the lights were flashing and the gates were down until it was too late to stop in time. Rt. 4 is quite straight leading to the rr crossing, unless there is foliage or someone blocking the view, the driver should have been able to see the lights & gate from a fair ways off.


----------



## Bierboy (Jul 11, 2011)

LOTS more photos here.

Check out the loco...


----------



## gdj (Jul 11, 2011)

How about having all vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 26000 lbs or greater (CDL threshold) be required to stop at all crossings just like school buses and fuel tankers. Cost is minimal.

Also a few years ago Norfolk Southern had arrangements with the police in the more urban areas of Tidewater to ride in the cab of the locomotives. Other police would hide on a side street near the crossing. The officer in the cab relayed info on vehicles running the lights and gates. The officers on the side streets caught the violators and issued tickets with some fairly stiff penalties. When the officer on the train got to the end of the enforcement area he got off the train and rode the next one going the opposite direction. The officer in the cab had a camera. It was amazing how many cars ran the gates. I don't know if they are still doing this, but they should, if they are not.

Gary


----------



## jis (Jul 11, 2011)

I am wondering if the fire was caused entirely by diesel from the truck. The fuel tanks of the P42s are pretty secure and protected within the monococque structure. But there have been one or two occasions when they have still managed to get punctured. but that is not very common at all.


----------



## Ben_G (Jul 11, 2011)

Seeing the post about flashing lights I can't help but recall in SE Ohio on one hwy there were red light warning lights a good distance from the intersection. They (the warning lights were yellow) started flashing several seconds ( around 20 seconds I guess) before the light turned red warning any vehicle and gave you plenty of time to slow for the light. Just two bright lights top and bottom of a highway sign. If you were past the warning light before it came on you had time to clear the intersection before the light turned red.


----------



## amamba (Jul 11, 2011)

George said:


> Both this accident and the recent CZ one occurred at crossings that are at rather extreme angles to the tracks. The CZ thread devoted considerable discussion to how such accidents might be prevented or reduced. Why not have a DOT regulation that all level crossings must be perpendicular to the tracks? Any roads approaching at less than a 90 degree angle would have to be altered with curves that: a) would require the driver to slow down and think about what's ahead and b) would enable greater visibility in those cases where the driver would otherwise be closing with the train on his blind side. Admittently this is not a perfect solution in all cases, but surely it would help, and it's pretty cost effective compared with building over/underpasses.


Interesting idea, but it sounds cost prohibitive in regards to areas that are heavily populated. I am not sure that the owner of that lovely maine farmhouse on the corner would like having their property seized and their home bulldozed so that the grade crossing could be at a 90 degree angle.


----------



## TimePeace (Jul 11, 2011)

afigg said:


> eagle628 said:
> 
> 
> > Trogdor said:
> ...


Even more important might be which country the US seceded from!


----------



## Guest (Jul 11, 2011)

MikeM said:


> According to CNN, the Amtrak train "collided" with the truck. So I guess the train drove off the tracks, found an unsuspecting truck, drug it back to the crossing and proceeded to run over/through it? hboy: I really wish media would come to reality and realize vehicles collide into trains, not the other way, unless the train derails and goes off the track and hits the vehicle when it isn't on the tracks.


Collided works for me. After all it was the train that was the one doing the striking. You don't say the squirrel hit my car when you run over a squirrel, you say I hit a stupid squirrel. The train collided with a stupid truck driver.


----------



## Ryan (Jul 11, 2011)

Ben_G said:


> Seeing the post about flashing lights I can't help but recall in SE Ohio on one hwy there were red light warning lights a good distance from the intersection. They (the warning lights were yellow) started flashing several seconds ( around 20 seconds I guess) before the light turned red warning any vehicle and gave you plenty of time to slow for the light. Just two bright lights top and bottom of a highway sign. If you were past the warning light before it came on you had time to clear the intersection before the light turned red.


There are a bunch of traffic lights around here that have that kind of warning sign roughly 1/4 mile before the intersection. They say something along the lines of "Prepare to stop when lights are flashing" and have a bunch of flashing yellow lights. They're really great - not sure how practical it would be for something like a grade crossing, you'd need a good bit of warning to get the yellow lights flashing in time to do any good.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jul 11, 2011)

There are Several places around the Austin Metro Area where Hilly Roads have Signs with Flashing Yellow Lights Warning Drivers that Signal Lights are Over the Upcoming Hill Out of Sight of the Driver! Yet on the Access Road of IH35, which used to be IH35 before the Upper Deck was Built, there is a Rail Road Crossing with no Warning, just the standard Pole Lights with the Cross Bucks, No Gates!!! People Drive really Fast on this Road and are Distracted by Cell Phones/Lap Tops etc. and the Red Line and Freights cross this Road Several times a day and night, Accident Waiting to Happen!!! :help: :help: :help:


----------



## AlanB (Jul 11, 2011)

afigg said:


> Even on the NEC, there are still 11 grade crossings remaining in eastern CT on the Shore Line route in and near New London. Amtrak probably has the number of grade crossings on their total route mileage, but understandably is not going to put it into the fact sheets. Fixing even just those with quad gates or upgraded gate & light systems would cost a LOT of money.


All NEC crossings are already quad gated IIRC. Slight chance that one very small road crossing only has a single gate.


----------



## afigg (Jul 11, 2011)

AlanB said:


> afigg said:
> 
> 
> > Even on the NEC, there are still 11 grade crossings remaining in eastern CT on the Shore Line route in and near New London. Amtrak probably has the number of grade crossings on their total route mileage, but understandably is not going to put it into the fact sheets. Fixing even just those with quad gates or upgraded gate & light systems would cost a LOT of money.
> ...


I was talking about ALL the grade crossings on the routes used by Amtrak. Which is a subset of all the grade crossings in the US on the active freight lines.


----------



## TimePeace (Jul 11, 2011)

I live in Maine and am saddened and dismayed by this crash.

I like the idea of regular stop lights at crossings. How about ones that also go through an occasional stop cycle when a train is NOT approaching, and have one of those cameras that takes a photo of the license numbers of those who run the light, and prosecute and publicize them?


----------



## Train2104 (Jul 11, 2011)

AlanB said:


> All NEC crossings are already quad gated IIRC. Slight chance that one very small road crossing only has a single gate.


The only non-quad crossings on the NEC are 3 in New London, because of the 25mph speed limit around the station.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Jul 11, 2011)

Let's not get too overworked over this crash. Luckily, the only death was the truck driver, so the Amtrak passengers and crew are all right. Unfortunately, there are always going to be stupid drivers who will ignore signals and gates and risk their lives and others to save a couple of seconds. Every day, I see drivers who perform all kinds of dangerous tricks to gain a few feet/seconds in traffic. You could put movable concrete blocks at grade crossings and somebody will try to run them. Educational programs help, but nothing, short of putting in overpasses or underpasses at every grade crossing will completely rid us of stupid drivers.


----------



## amamba (Jul 11, 2011)

Maine Rider said:


> I live in Maine and am saddened and dismayed by this crash.
> 
> I like the idea of regular stop lights at crossings. How about ones that also go through an occasional stop cycle when a train is NOT approaching, and have one of those cameras that takes a photo of the license numbers of those who run the light, and prosecute and publicize them?


Having a light that makes cars stop at the tracks when a train is not approaching sounds like a great way to train drivers to actually run the light - because a train might not be coming so what is the point of stopping.


----------



## Trogdor (Jul 12, 2011)

afigg said:


> What percentage of licensed drivers know the basic rules when they encounter a railroad crossing with flashing red lights?


What percentage of licensed drivers know the basic rules of the road at all, regardless of whether or not a railroad crossing is present?



George said:


> I was thinking the same thing.....except how/when would the yellow work? Maybe for 10 seconds just before the gates come down? Then, what about crossings that don't have gates? People tend to "run" yellow lights all the time (Especially in San Francisco. The light would have to turn red in plenty of time before the train hit the crossing.


The current system already requires the lights to be on/gates down in plenty of time before the train reaches the crossing. However, adding a yellow signal to the mix would require adjusting the grade crossing circuitry so that it activates a bit sooner than it currently does.



MikefromCrete said:


> Educational programs help, but nothing, short of putting in overpasses or underpasses at every grade crossing will completely rid us of stupid drivers.


Nothing will ever rid us of stupid drivers. We can only minimize the potential for them causing problems for others. The driver will still be stupid.


----------



## Ryan (Jul 12, 2011)

Trogdor said:


> Nothing will ever rid us of stupid drivers.


I dunno, Amtrak seems to be doing a pretty good job of clearing them out this month.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jul 12, 2011)

Ryan said:


> Trogdor said:
> 
> 
> > Nothing will ever rid us of stupid drivers.
> ...


Touche. Unfortunately the cost of removing stupid drivers this way is rather prohibitive. I would recommend much tougher testing _and routine retesting_ required for obtaining and maintaining drivers licenses and much stiffer penalties for driving without a valid license. This could be seen as a punitive measure but in all honesty the rules of the road change from year to year while most of us never know or notice any of that. For some reason we tend to assume that whatever the rules were when we got our license simply remain in effect forever. Routine testing might help with that while also removing bad drivers.


----------



## Oldsmoboi (Jul 12, 2011)

George said:


> alanh said:
> 
> 
> > Sometimes consistency is more important than being "better". For example, for many years Scottsdale, AZ's fire engines were painted florescent yellow-green, which is more visible than traditional fire engine red. However, they found that people did not recognize the vehicles as fire engines because they weren't the expected color.
> ...


Same as the lights on a drawbridge.


----------



## NE933 (Jul 12, 2011)

Texas Sunset said:


> Touche. Unfortunately the cost of removing stupid drivers this way is rather prohibitive. I would recommend much tougher testing _and routine retesting_ required for obtaining and maintaining drivers licenses and much stiffer penalties for driving without a valid license. This could be seen as a punitive measure but in all honesty the rules of the road change from year to year while most of us never know or notice any of that. For some reason we tend to assume that whatever the rules were when we got our license simply remain in effect forever. Routine testing might help with that while also removing bad drivers.


Also I think our media culture and social norms are bringing more to the table than we can handle. Case in point: BMW presently has a TV campaign of commercials in which drivers of their present cars climb out of, then jump from, their present old car, to a brand new BMW still on the delivery truck. Then you have the run of the mill extreme daredevilry in which the shiny new car overtakes the older one on a curvy mountain road. Such sexualized recklessness are deliberately targeted to a youth market eager to get into debt in order to own one of these much in the way tobacco used to be: cars are not for transportation, but rather for a masculine image that will get you into the pretty people crowd, and even into the hottest clubs.

Railroads, Operation Lifesaver, and us -- the railfans -- ought to serve a confrontational volley and open up a debate that challenges automakers, and the advertising corporations that do their marketing, about the lethal correlations between train/road vehicle accidents and the seductively sensational ads that are being shown. It will need to be for the long haul, much like it took over a decade for tobacco firms to retrench. The link between behaviors that are influenced (or downright caused) by the imagery and sensory arousal of driving recklessly with all the consequences removed, and violent deaths by burning, crushing, and dismemberment of innocent train passengers and crew, and in the autos as well, has to be exposed and halted. Otherwise, Operation Lifesaver will be little more than a toothless yellow cloud squealing to the deaf and stupid.


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Jul 12, 2011)

Oldsmoboi said:


> Same as the lights on a drawbridge.


There's an idea. Put "drawbridges" on either side of the tracks. When the train comes, it triggers the "drawbridge" to go up. Anyone who wants to try to beat the train will just fly over the train. :giggle:


----------



## Ispolkom (Jul 12, 2011)

MikefromCrete said:


> but nothing, short of putting in overpasses or underpasses at every grade crossing will completely rid us of stupid drivers.


And stupid drivers who don't know the height of their loads will then get wedged in the underpasses.


----------



## GAT (Jul 12, 2011)

AmtrakBlue said:


> Oldsmoboi said:
> 
> 
> > Same as the lights on a drawbridge.
> ...


LOL to the last remark. Seriously, though, don't drawbridges use constantly ringing, loud bells ("RRRRRRRRRiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnnnnnnngggggggggggggggg) rather than the ding-ding (not all that loud IMO when your windows are up and the AC is on full fan) of a track crossing? Maybe that's part of the answer. Another sound like the drawbridge is heard on the Ballard Locks in Seattle.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jul 12, 2011)

Here in San Antonio we're modifying areas with tracks into no-horn zones to cut down on the noise pollution. I'm not sure if I'm agree or disagree with that position. I see both sides in that I wouldn't want to live with constant train horns but neither would I want a bunch of derailments either. Supposedly the changes required to make a horn-free zone are just as safe if not safer than a conventional crossing but in the case of pedestrians it seems less safe to me.


----------



## Ryan (Jul 12, 2011)

AmtrakBlue said:


> Oldsmoboi said:
> 
> 
> > Same as the lights on a drawbridge.
> ...


Even better:


----------



## rile42 (Jul 12, 2011)

As I read several of the ideas to make crossings safer, one comment popped out but not, I believe as an answer to crossing safety. I have seen the videos from locomotives of the constant running of warning signals. Why not start to equip crossings with the equivalent to a red light camera? Position a sign up the road from the crossing stating that the crossing is equiped with a camera to catch people illegally crossing the tracks. The cost effectiveness issue will be raised I'm sure, but it is an alternative. Of course, in the latest two incidences with the CZ and the Downeaster, the driver would be unavailable to pay the fine.

Another idea would be to use the videos already, if I recall, available from locomotives. The worst incidences involve trains and large trucks. In my experience driving around Ohio, almost every large truck has signage on its side advertising it's company. If a truck ignores a crossing signal, then the engineer could make a note of it, when the run is over, the tape could be reviewed, and fines levied against the company that owns the truck as seen from the advertising on the truck.

In any case, maybe the fines should be increased substantially for violating crossing signals. After all, as one has always said, there are only two types of engineers, those that have had a crossing accident, and those that are going to have one. I have little sympathy for people injured or killed trying to beat a train, but I feel terrible for the engineers, crew and passengers of a train involved is such accidents.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jul 12, 2011)

Ryan said:


> AmtrakBlue said:
> 
> 
> > Oldsmoboi said:
> ...


Exactly. We're on the same page here. Let the truck driver kill himself and destroy his rig. No need to drag the train down with all these half-arsed trucking companies. My only question is, would this actually stop a commercial truck at a high rate of speed?


----------



## NY Penn (Jul 12, 2011)

Texas Sunset said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > AmtrakBlue said:
> ...


The problem is that it might make the truck (or the remains of the truck) stop right on the crossing. This would be kind of what happened in the 1987 crash (locomotives ignored a stop signal and halted in the train's path).


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Jul 12, 2011)

Ryan said:


> AmtrakBlue said:
> 
> 
> > Oldsmoboi said:
> ...


Yeah, that's what I was picturing as the "drawbridge".


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jul 12, 2011)

AmtrakBlue said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > Even better:
> ...


The side you're looking at is the side the oncoming traffic would see. I guess you could say it's a drawbridge in reverse. However, these devices are not designed to support the weight of a vehicle on the inclined side. It is likely they would buckle and close if a large commercial truck struck the inclined side at speed.



NY Penn said:


> The problem is that it might make the truck (or the remains of the truck) stop right on the crossing. This would be kind of what happened in the 1987 crash (locomotives ignored a stop signal and halted in the train's path).


True, this would need to be considered as well. Perhaps the anti-ramming devices would need to be pushed back further away from the tracks to give room for the debris to land before reaching the tracks?


----------



## Ryan (Jul 12, 2011)

Texas Sunset said:


> My only question is, would this actually stop a commercial truck at a high rate of speed?


I don't have YouTube access here at work, but I've seen some video of dump trucks running into them that are pretty dang impressive.


----------



## FriskyFL (Jul 12, 2011)

Ryan said:


> Trogdor said:
> 
> 
> > Nothing will ever rid us of stupid drivers.
> ...


Unfortunately Amtrak will run out of locomotives way before the roads are purged of moron drivers.


----------



## gswager (Jul 12, 2011)

Texas Sunset said:


> Here in San Antonio we're modifying areas with tracks into no-horn zones to cut down on the noise pollution. I'm not sure if I'm agree or disagree with that position. I see both sides in that I wouldn't want to live with constant train horns but neither would I want a bunch of derailments either. Supposedly the changes required to make a horn-free zone are just as safe if not safer than a conventional crossing but in the case of pedestrians it seems less safe to me.


On horn-free zone, the crossing requires quad crossing arms which the vehicle cannot go around, even on opposite traffic. However, it doesn't stop the runaway vehicles. Some areas have pedestrian crossing arms. On high traffic flow area such as 4 lanes, it has protected median such as cement wall. It is still relatively new and still adding some tweaking to it such as rising barricades.


----------



## bombcar (Jul 12, 2011)

Mordac said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > Trogdor said:
> ...


Put the burnt-out locomotives on new trucks, and run them in front of the working ones. They'll still weigh as much.


----------



## jis (Jul 13, 2011)

bombcar said:


> Mordac said:
> 
> 
> > Ryan said:
> ...


Doesn't address the issue of trains getting hit from the side on the 3rd or 4th car as happened to the CZ.

BTW, for speeds above 110mph it is exactly those sorts of barriers, only higher, that are required. That is why all concerned choose to simply grade separate or shut down grade crossings on such segments.

And above 125mph no grade crossings are allowed. But as of now there are no requirements to protect the side of the track so an incursion like in Fullerton in the post below can still happen.

On the NEC between Philly and Wilmington where it runs parallel to an interstate they installed all sorts of guard rails protecting the track after an incident in which a truck showed up on the railroad track (125mph main) after losing control on the highway. Fortunately no Acela came by to have a meet with it at the time.


----------



## VentureForth (Jul 13, 2011)

Another car that was struck by Amtrak in Fullerton, CA.

I don't know why workers didn't run up the track and give the universal flailing of the arms to keep the train from hitting the car left on the tracks... I guess they didn't know a train was coming, but it's a pretty busy corridor. Someone HAD to have a radio. According to the article, three minutes passed from the time the driver was extracated from the vehicle until it was hit.


----------



## afigg (Jul 13, 2011)

VentureForth said:


> Another car that was struck by Amtrak in Fullerton, CA.
> 
> I don't know why workers didn't run up the track and give the universal flailing of the arms to keep the train from hitting the car left on the tracks... I guess they didn't know a train was coming, but it's a pretty busy corridor. Someone HAD to have a radio. According to the article, three minutes passed from the time the driver was extracated from the vehicle until it was hit.


Three minutes is very little time if you don't know who to contact or call. The 2 workers were from the Fullerton maintenance department, not railroad workers. They or someone else presumably called 911. Even if someone called the railroad contact numbers from nearest posted sign, the information still have to be passed on through the system and 3 minutes is not much time for info to be verified and to get it to the right train operator.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jul 13, 2011)

afigg said:


> VentureForth said:
> 
> 
> > Another car that was struck by Amtrak in Fullerton, CA.
> ...


Good point. If you call the 800 number posted on crossings in my area you get Texas Highway Patrol IIRC. Then they have to contact the railroad as part of a separate communication. I guess this is done so the taxpayer can be billed for the cost of running the phone bank, but also presumably adds several minutes to the process of getting the train dispatcher notified if there is an actual emergency. Oh well, no matter what happens the fees and liabilities are Amtrak's burden anytime an Amtrak train is involved in an accident. Which is just another way of saying they get passed onto the taxpayer.


----------



## transit54 (Jul 13, 2011)

Texas Sunset said:


> *I guess this is done so the taxpayer can be billed for the cost of running the phone bank*, but also presumably adds several minutes to the process of getting the train dispatcher notified if there is an actual emergency.


Or, perhaps that if it is an actual emergency, emergency services are alerted before the railroad? Don't think that everything is a conspiracy to defraud the taxpaying public.

But even if you're right, my tax dollars go to pay for phone banks to respond to highway accidents...as a non-car owner why should I be paying for that? Should be added to the gas tax if we want things to be equitable, right?

What's fair for one mode is fair for the other.


----------



## VentureForth (Jul 13, 2011)

First of all, this collision didn't happen at a crossing. No phone number posted. I do know that the phone number on my crossing goes straight to CSX. The first answer is a selection - 1 if and emergency and 2 if there is a crossing malfunction (like a crossing malfunction isn't an emergency?).

Second, this is a VERY heavily used corridor. There is a universal signal that you don't have to be a railfan to know that flailing your arms is an indicator to the engineer to stop. There were several people at the scene. Two could have run in each direction.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jul 13, 2011)

transit54 said:


> Or, perhaps that if it is an actual emergency, emergency services are alerted before the railroad? Don't think that everything is a conspiracy to defraud the taxpaying public.


There is nothing in my post that refers to any sort of a conspiracy. I just found it rather surprising that on the occasion of actually having a reason to call the number posted on our crossing gates it went to the Texas Highway Patrol that has no reason or responsibility to be anywhere near the gates in question. Nor did the lady answering seem to know where I was or what I was talking about. It seemed like it would make more sense to have the phone calls go straight to the railroad that has direct control over movements and has service trucks routinely traveling through the area. If it's an actual in-progress emergency I doubt anybody is going to hesitate to call 911 so your routing explanation sounds like an erroneous assumption to me.



transit54 said:


> But even if you're right, my tax dollars go to pay for phone banks to respond to highway accidents...as a non-car owner why should I be paying for that? Should be added to the gas tax if we want things to be equitable, right? What's fair for one mode is fair for the other.


I couldn't agree more.


----------



## Karl1459 (Jul 13, 2011)

VentureForth said:


> Another car that was struck by Amtrak in Fullerton, CA.
> 
> I don't know why workers didn't run up the track and give the universal flailing of the arms to keep the train from hitting the car left on the tracks... I guess they didn't know a train was coming, but it's a pretty busy corridor. Someone HAD to have a radio. According to the article, three minutes passed from the time the driver was extracated from the vehicle until it was hit.


This seems to me to be a quick judgement call by the maintainance workers.

a) Send someone running each direction to flag an approaching train and hope to get far enough (1/2 to 1 mile stopping distance?) in time for an approaching train to stop.

or,

b) Quickly remove the driver before a train arrives to impact the car. (I would hope that after this is done someone would think to flag the train also... the report does not say)

As both are reasonable calls the "Monday Morning Quarterbacks" should back off a hair...


----------



## Trogdor (Jul 13, 2011)

I'm not familiar with the location in question, but would there even be a safe place for these guys to walk/run (given that it is absolutely unsafe to run in the track gauge) alongside the tracks to get to where they could signal an engineer?

Even if we assume that there was a paved sidewalk immediately adjacent to the tracks, how far could they have gone in three minutes (the time between when the person was removed and when the train hit)? No more than a quarter mile, I'm guessing. Likely not enough distance to get a train to stop if it was moving at any decent sort of speed.


----------



## The Chief (Jul 13, 2011)

The Chief said:


> My point is a notable increase in RR crossing axys involving commercial trucks may mean a need exists for railroad crossing educational awareness program *targeting trucking companies and independents*. Or how about a needs analysis to determine what may help?


Here's an example (Link) of modifying highway safety processes following a recent increase in accidents.

In a nutshell, over the last two years, Dallas North Tollway suffered a lot of wrong-way drunk drivers causing axys, and some fatalities.

After needs analysis and study, decision reached today to lower warning signs, and add LED signs. Will it work? We shall see. Point being an increase in axys prompted brainstorming, analysis, and Yankee ingenuity.

re: the Fullerton *Surfliner*-Cadillac axy, the loco doesn't appear to be damaged. I wonder what train speed was at time of impact?

That Fullerton axy is an anomaly, in that Caddy was involved in _roadway_ accident, and slammed/driven across two parking lots and through fence onto tracks. No RR crossing involved. Talk about Murphy's Law for *Amtrak* in 2011,,,

On the KTLA page report, with video, I noticed sidebar of five related stories, depicting recent train axys, including a horse strike story, and a dog strike story. Nothing about a 


 however,,,


----------



## Trogdor (Jul 13, 2011)

In the Surfliner incident, the locomotive didn't hit the car, the cab car did.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jul 13, 2011)

The Chief said:


> In a nutshell, over the last two years, Dallas North Tollway suffered a lot of wrong-way drunk drivers causing axys, and some fatalities.


Is "axy" some sort of overly cutesy euphemism like "boo-boo?"



The Chief said:


> After needs analysis and study, decision reached today to lower warning signs, and add LED signs. Will it work? We shall see. Point being an increase in axys prompted brainstorming, analysis, and Yankee ingenuity.


I'd rather have the kind of ingenuity that removes bad drivers from the roads and provides them with a public transportation network able to reach all the places they'd like to go at the hours they want to be there.


----------



## Grandpa D (Jul 13, 2011)

The Chief said:


> Yankee ingenuity.


In Dallas??? :blink:


----------



## Oldsmoboi (Jul 13, 2011)

Ryan said:


> AmtrakBlue said:
> 
> 
> > Oldsmoboi said:
> ...


I saw these outside the parking garage of the Federal Court here in Pittsburgh and immediately thought of this thread. The ones there have "*STOP*" in the crosshatch area.


----------



## afigg (Sep 26, 2011)

Saw this news report update about the official police report on the Downeaster truck collision in July. Amtrak is suing the truck company for $3 million and I doubt it will go to court if the police report findings hold up to examination by the truck operator insurance company lawyers.

Portland Press Herald report:

http://www.pressherald.com/news/Police-Trucker-distracted-speeding-before-train-collision.html

"NORTH BERWICK — A New Hampshire trucker hauling a load of trash was distracted and speeding before his tractor-trailer skidded more than 200 feet into the path of an Amtrak train, causing a fiery collision that killed him and injured several others in July, investigators concluded.

Peter Barnum, 35, of Farmington, N.H., took a five-minute phone call from his employer just before the collision and his truck was traveling 20 mph faster than the posted speed limit when he hit the brakes, according to a report by the North Berwick Police Department. A motorist following Barnum reported that the truck had been weaving on the road.

Barnum was distracted, possibly by his cellphone, and "didn't see the crossing until it was too late," Police Chief Stephen Peasley said today.

Investigators cannot say with absolute certainty whether Barnum was on the phone at the moment of impact on July 11. A conversation between Barnum and his boss ended at about the same time as the accident, though the boss insisted that the call ended before the collision, Peasley said."

It goes on and gets worse for the truck operator and company:

...

"A driver who was following the truck, Greg Daigneault of North Berwick, told investigators that Barnum was driving erratically and didn't slow down when the speed limit dropped."

"Cellphone records indicate there were 14 incoming and outgoing calls between 7:37 a.m. and the time of the crash. The report indicates the last call came from his employer at 11 a.m. and ended at 11:05 a.m., the same time police received the first 911 calls, the report said."

If the driver was talking to his employer up to just before the accident, the truck company can not claim that he was breaking rules - if the company has any - about not using the cell phone while driving.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Sep 26, 2011)

> Cellphone records indicate there were 14 incoming and outgoing calls between 7:37 a.m. and the time of the crash. The report indicates the last call came from his employer at 11 a.m. and ended at 11:05 a.m., the same time police received the first 911 calls, the report said. Stephen Foye of Triumvirate Environmental told police he couldn't remember what the two discussed in that last call but said it ended before the crash, according to the report.


Considering that it can take minute or two to get an emergency call dialed and routed to the police I'd say this is pretty open and shut. Never mind the "can't recall" deflections of the employer. I seriously doubt Amtrak will see anything close to the three million they're asking for however.


----------



## GAT (Sep 26, 2011)

The caller may have thought the call ended before the crash, but if the driver had not terminated the call on his phone, the line may have still been open when he hit the train, hence the timing being roughly the same as when the 911 call was placed. I agree the employer probably doesn't have a leg to stand on if he called his driver in contravention of the rules.

By the way, Texas Sunset....Do we now have to call you Rick Perry? You look awfully similar, and I won't even start with the irony of the word Sunset in relation to his (your) candidacy. :giggle:


----------



## VentureForth (Sep 27, 2011)

Seriously - anyone think that the Company Employee will admit to "...and we were talking on the phone when I heard the driver scream then silence..."?


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Sep 27, 2011)

VentureForth said:


> Seriously - anyone think that the Company Employee will admit to "...and we were talking on the phone when I heard the driver scream then silence..."?


If he was an honest man, absolutely. But these days honest men appear to be in short supply while liars, cheats, and crooks seem to be everywhere.


----------

