Downeaster collission

[Paul Dow]

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

 

[PRR 60]

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]

Some good video of the damaged P42 at this site:

WCHS Portand

 

[Anderson]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

I wonder what all that "stuff" is?

The new Dining Car menus? :giggle:

 

[Devil's Advocate]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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).

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]

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]

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).

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 use to it 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 drivers 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.

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]

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]

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]

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.