CZ Train Truck Collision In Nevada (2011)

[amamba]

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

 

[jis]

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

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

 

[AlanB]

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

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

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

 

[Everydaymatters]

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

 

[jis]

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

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

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

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

 

[gswager]

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

 

[The Chief]

Bump.

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

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

Contra Costa Times 07/09/2011 Interview with PAX.

 

[George Harris]

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

DO WHAT??

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

 

[Dan O]

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

DO WHAT??

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

That didn't make sense to me either.

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

Dan

 

[trainman74]

There's also this from the article:

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

Very convenient for Northwestern University students!

 

[Henry Kisor]

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

 

[George Harris]

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

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

 

[Devil's Advocate]

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

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

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

 

[AlanB]

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

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

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

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

 

[Dan O]

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

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

Dan

 

[AlanB]

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

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

Dan

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

 

[PRR 60]

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

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

Dan

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

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

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

 

[AlanB]

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

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

 

[PRR 60]

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

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

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

 

[afigg]

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

Excerpt from the accident summary:

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

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

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

 

[SP&S]

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

 

[Dan O]

Excerpt from the accident summary:

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

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

Dan

 

[George B]

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

 

[GaSteve]

The latest chapter

 

[afigg]

The latest chapter

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

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

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

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

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