Southwest Chief on the Ground in MO

bostontrainguy wrote: ↑Tue Jun 28, 2022 3:51 pm For the first time I saw the statement "The train didn't hit the truck . . . the truck hit the train". Looking at the pictures in this Yahoo news report, that may be why things ended up the way they did.

https://news.yahoo.com/ntsb-investigato ... 20118.html

Given that the train doesn't look to have much damage, especially the locomotives, that makes sense. i doubt much would've been left of the front locomotive if it'd hit a dump truck at 90 mph...

This may have been discussed already, but does anyone know if the crossing had warning lights / bells, gates, etc.?

[/img]

David Benton wrote: ↑Tue Jun 28, 2022 1:29 am Was the train running late? I thought it left Kansas city about 7 a.m ?

We were running about 3 hours late (estimated time into Chicago last I checked) and had just refueled in BNSF's yards in Kansas City. Even got delayed leaving the yard too.

farecard wrote: ↑Tue Jun 28, 2022 9:58 am At ~1300 in the above video, there's a clear view of the track. Aft of the last car, and forward from there, where is the outside rail? It appears to have vanished,

South/outer rail rolled over which is consistent with the direction the consist rolled.

And upon closer inspection of my photo, the north rail rolled that direction too

photobug56 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 28, 2022 11:55 pm This may have been discussed already, but does anyone know if the crossing had warning lights / bells, gates, etc.?

Only crossbucks and stop signs on wooden posts guarding the crossing. No gate mech, or lights.

The dump mangled the adjacent track's eastbound signal

This crossing is protected only by a crossbuck and a stop sign. The Chairwoman of NTSB is not at all happy about that.

John_Perkowski wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 1:15 am This crossing is protected only by a crossbuck and a stop sign. The Chairwoman of NTSB is not at all happy about that.

I've heard through a lot of the published reporting that the crossing was to be upgraded but funding was not available.

John_Perkowski wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 1:15 am This crossing is protected only by a crossbuck and a stop sign. The Chairwoman of NTSB is not at all happy about that.

You know I have some very sophisticated cheap solar lights around my house. They charge up all day on sunshine and burn all night through. They have motion detectors and come on whenever my dog runs by. They work surprisingly well.

I wonder if a low-cost solar-powered flashing red strobe light, that can detect an approaching train (or maybe a radio activated one), can be placed on the top of every static crossbuck. Wouldn't cost much per crossing and would be better than nothing.

Why not run 319 &318 with the Chief's equipment? the connections are scheduled any way.
Granted the CHI 0900 departure is very early but it could be offered. The bus takes how much longer? #3 left Kansas City 5:10 late. Was that bus delays? If I was in that situation I would have accepted the 319 option if possible. Connections from the east will not work of coure. But connections to the east are not either.

Railway Age 6/29 update:
https://www.railwayage.com/passenger/in ... e-injured/

STrRedWolf wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 7:33 am

John_Perkowski wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 1:15 am This crossing is protected only by a crossbuck and a stop sign. The Chairwoman of NTSB is not at all happy about that.

I've heard through a lot of the published reporting that the crossing was to be upgraded but funding was not available.

Shouldn't that be a mandatory requirement for any railroad wanting to increase the speed or operate at a certain speed at a location?

There are already some requirements about types of grade crossings, but they are only for speeds of: 110mph, and 125mph and above. I presume you want to regulate passive crossbucks, which make up approx. 65,000 public crossings and a large majority of the 85,000 of private crossings (as of 2104).

typesix wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 9:33 am Railway Age 6/29 update:
https://www.railwayage.com/passenger/in ... e-injured/

It appears that the Chief did not start deraling until 3 - 4 car lengths beyound the crossing? Base that on the Railway age picture and the Trains picture on news wire. The track behind the last car appears to only be torn up maybe 1 car length behind the last car. Of course the pictures can deceive. If that was the stopping distance that would be about 920 feet. It is hard to stop a 90MPH car in that distance. Anyone have that figure?.

EDIT: Cannot say it was 90 MPH. Depends on when the emergency brakes started: end edit.

The front of the loco has most damage on the left side. (firemens side). That may mean either the truck was northbound and almost cleared or truck was southbound and loco hit front of truck. Either way the truck seemed to fly northward taking out the north track's block signal. This speculation does not tell us yet if truck was stalled. Loco camera may tell us and truck's destination with its rock load direction.

bostontrainguy wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 8:24 am I wonder if a low-cost solar-powered flashing red strobe light, that can detect an approaching train (or maybe a radio activated one), can be placed on the top of every static crossbuck. Wouldn't cost much per crossing and would be better than nothing.

There's similar equipment for regular stop signs right now. Be better than nothing? Maybe.