car/train incident in West Redding

The train blew its horn as it approached the crossing, but the engineer did not see the car in time, Anders said.

ExCon90 wrote: What bothers me is that the person quoted in the story is a railroad spokesman, who should have known better than to put it that way.

You guys are really tough! Wow.

Btw, Marjorie Anders is a spokesperson not a spokesman.

The crash has now claimed its second victim!!
http://www.newstimes.com/local/article/ ... 168819.php

I nominate the JAPPMEISTER[DUTCH] as the spokesman and head of the MTA.The organization needs someone who is knowledgeable of all the facets of equipment and how the agencies operate and do so without implying fault on behalf of the personnel.In this case,put the blame where it belongs-on the driver of the vehicle.I'll remember to my dying day doing 110 mph on the Hudson with a gasoline tractor trailer going through the gates.Playing dodge ball with motor vehicles or anyone or anything crossing the path of an oncoming train was not an experience I enjoyed.I cannot imagine the sadness this engineer must feel.

Joe, I leave it to court or God to put blame, I only report what is common knowledge.

That's the trouble:some lugnuts don't have common knowledge-you do.Those who are lacking in this area need someone to explain clearly and in simplest form what it is they are missing.It is not right that people who represent the company are not well versed in matters and present the employees in a negative manner.We know all we can do in some instances is put it in emergency and hope for the best.This the public should be made aware of and be attentive and take responsibility for their mistakes.Don't blame us for doing our jobs.

No one is putting blame Joe, its just a fact that engineer did not see a thing.
On a BL20 the sight is very limited, yet Conductor at Firemans side did not see anything either. the car came flying out of nowhere.
Long ridge Rd is a bad crossing and southbound the sight is obstructed by tree's in curve, why do tree's not get cut ? Due to treehuggers.
There is a withness who clearly stated speed of car, loudness of music and fact she knew the car was not gone stop, nuff said.
then there might be a camera who recorded incident, and showed the car not even stopping at stop sign on intersection of Sympaug turnpike and Long ridge Rd.

We're not here to assign or affix blame to anyone. It was an accident - we leave it at that. We are also not here to decide who we believe is most capable to act as a PR/Media Rep for the railroad. It is what it is - get over it and move on.

DutchRailnut wrote:The crash has now claimed its second victim!!
http://www.newstimes.com/local/article/ ... 168819.php

So sad. Tragic for all involved. Thankfully by this time next year that crossing should have gates and this should never happen again. It's a dangerous location-- the way the railroad, Long Ridge Rd., Sidecut Rd. and the Simpaug Turnpike intersect, a southbound train will be approaching you from behind at about a 20 degree angle if you're driving west on Sidecut. I can't imagine what it was like in the old days before there were even flashers.

Tommy Meehan wrote:Btw, Marjorie Anders is a spokesperson not a spokesman.

Just a word about this. I've had to speak with reporters in the past in connection with my job. What eventually gets printed is sometimes only a fragment of what you tell them. After the reporter, the re-write man and the editor are done with it, a 20 minute interview gets reduced to a 5-word sentence that's completely out-of-context.

And now its somehow the railroads fault ?
http://www.newstimes.com/local/article/ ... 189726.php

^Of course. Here's another slant on it in the same paper: Danbury News-Times

As rail projects stall, questions arise

REDDING -- In 2009, state Department of Transportation officials earmarked $1.48 million to help revamp a railroad crossing near the West Redding train station, a project that called for, among other things, the installation of signal gates to deter pedestrians and motorists from crossing the tracks when a train is approaching.

But the plan has languished, because of -- depending on whom you ask -- environmental obstacles and Metro North's ongoing $67 million signal reconstruction project along the Danbury Branch line, which is slowed by delays of its own.

State officials announced Friday that they will look at ways to expedite the modernization project, as questions arise about whether an accident on Dec. 30 between a car and a Metro-North train at that particular crossing could have been averted had crossing gates already been in place.

...

According to Federal Railroad Administration records, there have been three accidents at the Long Ridge Road crossing since 1970. The crash on Dec. 31 was the first fatal accident in that time.

While funding for the modernization plan was apparently dispersed in 2009, officials last week did not shed light on why the project hasn't gotten off the ground since then.

DOT spokesman Judd Everhart said that planners were faced with serious environmental hurdles.

"This reconstruction will relocate the existing railroad crossing approximately 25 feet to the east. The reconstruction will also address drainage issues at the intersection," Everhart said in an email. "Due to some environmental permit issues, construction is scheduled to commence in the fall of 2014. Some preliminary work has already been done."

Anders, the Metro-North spokesperson, offered a different analysis of the problem, pointing to the work left to be done on the transit signalization project.

"We can't put in a crossing gate at the existing location, because we are in the process in a totally separate project, of upgrading the signal system," Anders said. "If we install a crossing gate at the existing crossing, it will not be compatible with the design of the signalization project, which calls for a grade crossing 25 feet away from the existing one."

Read more: http://www.newstimes.com/news/article/A ... z2Hss0NW8s

Jeff Smith wrote:^Of course. Here's another slant on it in the same paper: Danbury News-Times

As rail projects stall, questions arise

REDDING -- In 2009, state Department of Transportation officials earmarked $1.48 million to help revamp a railroad crossing near the West Redding train station, a project that called for, among other things, the installation of signal gates to deter pedestrians and motorists from crossing the tracks when a train is approaching.

But the plan has languished, because of -- depending on whom you ask -- environmental obstacles and Metro North's ongoing $67 million signal reconstruction project along the Danbury Branch line, which is slowed by delays of its own.

State officials announced Friday that they will look at ways to expedite the modernization project, as questions arise about whether an accident on Dec. 30 between a car and a Metro-North train at that particular crossing could have been averted had crossing gates already been in place.

...

According to Federal Railroad Administration records, there have been three accidents at the Long Ridge Road crossing since 1970. The crash on Dec. 31 was the first fatal accident in that time.

While funding for the modernization plan was apparently dispersed in 2009, officials last week did not shed light on why the project hasn't gotten off the ground since then.

DOT spokesman Judd Everhart said that planners were faced with serious environmental hurdles.

"This reconstruction will relocate the existing railroad crossing approximately 25 feet to the east. The reconstruction will also address drainage issues at the intersection," Everhart said in an email. "Due to some environmental permit issues, construction is scheduled to commence in the fall of 2014. Some preliminary work has already been done."

Anders, the Metro-North spokesperson, offered a different analysis of the problem, pointing to the work left to be done on the transit signalization project.

"We can't put in a crossing gate at the existing location, because we are in the process in a totally separate project, of upgrading the signal system," Anders said. "If we install a crossing gate at the existing crossing, it will not be compatible with the design of the signalization project, which calls for a grade crossing 25 feet away from the existing one."

Read more: http://www.newstimes.com/news/article/A ... z2Hss0NW8s

25' away? In which direction?

I can see now why the Town might be fighting it, since relocating the crossing to the north would involve taking private land and knocking out a bunch of parking for the businesses on both sides of the track.

Why can't they put gates on the current crossing, which seems to have done OK in the same location since 1852 or so?

Ask CDOT or Redding, MNCR had planned to put gates at current crossing, but its town of redding fighting it "it does not fit in Ambiance of town"

My guess would be north, so that Long Ridge Rd. and Sidecut Rd. are aligned and Simpaug Tpk. forms a T-intersection rather than a fork. If they move it south, they could make Long Ridge T-intersect with Sidecut/Simpaug. Although this would prevent speeding over the crossing and increase the sight distance, it would also likely result in people stopping on the tracks due to the adjacent stop sign. In addition to the incomplete CTC project, the railroad is probably holding out on gates if the road is being realigned. It doesn't make a lot of sense to improve something that will be ripped out in a few years' time, though I'm sure we'll see gates there within the next month given the media attention.