CZ Train Truck Collision In Nevada (2011)

[DET63]

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

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

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

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

 

[PaulM]

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

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

 

[Ryan]

I must have missed that comment as well.

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

 

[AlanB]

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

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

 

[Dan O]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Devil's Advocate]

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

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

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

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

 

[DET63]

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

 

[Ryan]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Dan O]

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

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

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

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

 

[PRR 60]

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

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

 

[afigg]

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

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

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

 

[Devil's Advocate]

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

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

 

[AlanB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Ryan]

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

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

 

[PRR 60]

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

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

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

50 mph - no impact, stops in time

55 mph - impact @ 18 mph

60 mph - impact @ 30 mph

65 mph - impact @ 39 mph

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

75 mph - impact @ 54 mph

80 mph - impact @ 61 mph

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

 

[Tumbleweed]

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

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

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

 

[Cristobal]

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

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

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

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

 

[chandj]

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

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

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

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

 

[GAT]

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

There is also the possibility that the driver thought that it would be funny to beat this train and laugh at his buddies stuck behind it.

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

 

[john h]

Back on topic

Sorry if this is a repost hopefully not

Amtrak is sueing trucking company saying driver was not qualified

article here

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

 

[GAT]

Back on topic

Sorry if this is a repost hopefully not

Amtrak is sueing trucking company saying driver was not qualified

article here

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

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

jamesqf

 

9:56 AM on June 30, 2011

 

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

 

[Ryan]

In this particular case? Probably.

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

 

[jis]

In this particular case? Probably.

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

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

 

[john h]

In this particular case? Probably.

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

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

 

[jis]

In this particular case? Probably.

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

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

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