Amtrak California San Joaquin

Vincent wrote:The truck driver's attention might have been focused on trying to get around the gates...it was 3:55pm on a Friday afternoon.

A driver's attention should never be on trying to get around the gates.

Tyburn RR tries to get the truckers who drive onto our property to furnish evidence of One Million Dollars insurance coverage. Even some who haul placarded hazardous cargoes (and are required to have Five Million Dollars) can't show us sufficient coverage. Some of them are Contract Carriers instead of Common Carriers, and so escape the Federal requirement. Some state requirements for getting a truck's license tag are as low as Five Thousand Dollars! Of course, Amtrak can sue for the excess, but some of the large and wealthy truckers have separate subsidiaries without net assets who have the actual collisions.

I can understand, Mr. Boylan, your reluctance to allow any trucker on your property without a Certificate of Insurance (I won't let anyone work on my house until I've been provided such) is fully understood - there is always a smart lawyer that will try to pierce a corporate "shield' (I really have to question to what extent Wal-Mart limits their liability with their Wal-Mart Transportation subsidiary), but again there was no assurance this trucker was doing work for any party requiring specified amounts of coverage. Odds are, it was a small farmer moving his product to market.

Oh, after having met the girl I mentioned from Atherton (I met her on a cruise; we went out a few times when I was in the area) who student taught in Shafter (that is where UC-Davis sent her; you wanna teach? that's where you go), I made it my business to drive through that "town' once when driving from SF to LA. Uh volks, it ain't Silicon Valley.

jamesinclair wrote: The good news about this article is that I believe its actually good publicity for Amtrak.

Sorry, but the well-publicized photograph of the injured child trumps any of that. That is bad publicity. Real bad.

For many parents out there, injured child equals "don't-ride-Amtrak." It does not matter who is at fault. That is the line of thinking of irrational parents.

Ironically, they won't think twice about placing their child in a car.

I liked the picture of the guy smoking on the gurney better. My child loves riding the train since she can draw, wrap presents, do craft projects and explore the train instead of being bolted into a car seat for hours on end.

Amtrak hits truck , the whole article does not mention that it was the truck at fault . we can infer from the police statement at the end that he was , but can your average joe blow .???
until this media and public attitude changes , the train will always be seen to be the culprit . failing that it will be the crossing , and the obvious solution is to get rid of the crossing . Drivers not actually crossing when they shouldnt just isnt in the picture .

David Benton wrote:until this media and public attitude changes , the train will always be seen to be the culprit.

True. Too many headlines that make it seem like the train went out of it's way to hit a road vehicle. Generally speaking, trains stay on their rails. When people stay out of their way everything is fine.

justalurker66 wrote:

David Benton wrote:until this media and public attitude changes , the train will always be seen to be the culprit.

True. Too many headlines that make it seem like the train went out of it's way to hit a road vehicle. Generally speaking, trains stay on their rails. When people stay out of their way everything is fine.

I disagree.

The headline says

"Amtrak train hits truck"

The front of the train hit the side of the truck.

If it were the reverse, the front of the truck impacting the side of the train, then the correct headline would be "truck hits train".

This reminds me of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjeUrfjB8dE

jamesinclair wrote:

justalurker66 wrote:

David Benton wrote:until this media and public attitude changes , the train will always be seen to be the culprit.

True. Too many headlines that make it seem like the train went out of it's way to hit a road vehicle. Generally speaking, trains stay on their rails. When people stay out of their way everything is fine.

I disagree.

The headline says

"Amtrak train hits truck"

The front of the train hit the side of the truck.

If it were the reverse, the front of the truck impacting the side of the train, then the correct headline would be "truck hits train".

The headline: Amtrak train hits truck near Bakersfield; passengers receive minior injuries (spelling left as published)

And as Mr Benton noted, no mention of the truck driver being at fault in the article. They did bother to note the train derailing and people getting hurt and a final comment: "Police said the signals and caution arms at the crossing were working properly at the time of the crash." But they didn't say how that truck managed to be on the crossing at the time when the train arrived.

The overall gist of the article ... train hits truck - 20 on train injured and the truck driver walks away. I wouldn't consider that a positive article.

BTW: Searching for the story for updates at that website ---

YOUR SEARCH: Amtrak
DID YOU MEAN?: amtrack

The story from KGET 17 included ... "One witness said the semi-truck stalled on the tracks and the train plowed through the middle of it, splitting it in two."
http://www.kget.com/news/local/story/Am ... 2ghVA.cspx

There doesn't seem to be a good update to these reports giving full details.

Authorities say 16 people were hurt when two passenger trains collided at the Amtrak station in Oakland Thursday night.

Oakland Fire Department battalion chief Emon Usher says one of the trains was stopped and unloading passengers when the second train ran into it about a speed estimated to be about 15 to 20 miles per hour around 10 p.m.

Full (short) article at:
http://news.yahoo.com/18-hurt-amtrak-co ... 14617.html

Not much to say really, until we get more details.

This article features a few pictures.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 1LH8OE.DTL

Amtrak service at Jack London Square in Oakland has resumed this morning, hours after 16 people were hurt when a passenger train ran a red signal and hit another train head-on, authorities said.

About 150 people were onboard the trains, which were on the same track and headed in opposite directions, authorities said. Most of the 16 passengers and employees who were hurt were on the stopped train, authorities said.

The injured were taken to local hospitals. The most serious injury was a broken arm, Usher said.

More at link.

"What was it the engines said,
touching pilots head to head"

Somebody's going to trial for this one.

Gilbert B Norman wrote:"What was it the engines said,
touching pilots head to head"

Somebody's going to trial for this one.

Some body definitely made a big mistake.

Based on the picture, I wonder about the 15-20mph estimate. I'm no expert, but I'd have thought there would be far more damage to the locos if one was traveling that fast at time of impact.

Brings to mind a few lines from 101 Dalmations:

Good evening, ma'am.

We're here to inspect the wiring and the switches.

- We're from the gas company.
- Electric, electric.

Electric company.

But we didn't call for any inspection.

There's a new act just been passed in Parliament.

Comes under the heading of "Defence of the Realm Act".

It's for your own safety, ma'am.

I expect that the wiring and the switches are going to get a thorough inspection.