Southwest Chief derailment (June 2022)

[PerRock]

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

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

peter

 

[Metra Electric Rider]

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

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

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

 

[frequentflyer]

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

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

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

 

[Kirk2266]

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

 

[frequentflyer]

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

 

[jwhit27237]

The last tracking point before 0 mph was 90.6 mph!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-dead-Amtrak-derailment-near-Kansas-City.html

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

 

[jebr]

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Cimarron_train_derailment

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

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

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

 

[John819]

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

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

 

[PaulDobbs]

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

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

 

[Barb Stout]

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

Good point.

 

[Asher]

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

 

[rrdude]

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

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

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

 

[rrdude]

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

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

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

 

[PRR 60]

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

 

[cirdan]

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

peter

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

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

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

 

[billosborn]

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

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

 

[alpha3]

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

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

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

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

 

[F900ElCapitan]

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

 

[Amtrak25]

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

 

[F900ElCapitan]

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

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

 

[Brian_tampa]

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

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

 

[Bob Dylan]

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

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

 

[F900ElCapitan]

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

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

 

[NSC1109]

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

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

 

[Tlcooper44]

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





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

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

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