Railroad Forums 

  • Southwest Chief on the Ground in MO

  • Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.
Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.

Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, mtuandrew, Tadman

 #1601436  by west point
 
Look at this map. Why in the world would a crossing gate even be needed.
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.5734184 ... a=!3m1!1e3

113 and 122 serve no homes on the NW side of the BNSF. The truck might have been hauling
riprap some where into the Yellow river conservation area? One time construction truck traaffic does not require a crossing gate system.
 #1601440  by STrRedWolf
 
west point wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 11:12 am Look at this map. Why in the world would a crossing gate even be needed.
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.5734184 ... a=!3m1!1e3

113 and 122 serve no homes on the NW side of the BNSF. The truck might have been hauling
riprap some where into the Yellow river conservation area? One time construction truck traaffic does not require a crossing gate system.
From the news reporting, it looked like the dump truck was empty (otherwise there would of been a different damage pattern). There were also some concerns from the locals in the area over having the crossings in the area signaled/protected as they knew the trains were going 90 mph and most farm equipment is “slow”… so asking for a crossing gate or even an advance warning system is not out of the question — the “politics of the situation” would demand one as the population is demanding it.
 #1601446  by MACTRAXX
 
RW - From still photos showing the large rocks that was on the tracks near the impact site - reports that
the dump truck was carrying at least some stone or ballast for that nearby mentioned land project...

Chariton County Road 113 crossing on Google Maps close-up (no street view) shows the wood planks(?)
that are on the two tracks at that location - but do not show the grade on either side - or how foliage growth
may have blocked adequate view of the tracks - and the ability to see in either direction in this flat rural area...
As previously mentioned there were STOP signs along with the crossbucks at this crossing...

As for mentions about the seven Superliner cars - they look to have held up well despite the extreme
circumstances of the derailment - and after release by the NTSB should be sent to Beech Grove, IN for
evaluation and repairs - they will be out of service for an indefinite period...Will any of these cars end
up being written off? That is Amtrak's decision to be made going forward...Locomotives 133 and 166
have repairable visible damage(s)...The Viewliner baggage car should be OK...MACTRAXX
 #1601449  by bostontrainguy
 
I absolutely hate speed bumps but I wonder if as simple a solution as a bright yellow speed bump at the crossbuck might have prevented this. I got a feeling trucks like this would not be kind to your backside if you ran over it quickly.
 #1601456  by west point
 
The dump truck(s) crossing the crossing should have been noted for the Corp of Engineers project EIS. Access is / was only available on roads 113 or 128 with both having to cross the BNSF RR. Wear and tear and crossing the RR on a high slope on either of those crossing should have been noetd on the EIS and contract to provide the riprap. Did the trucking company follow the need to mitigate the all gravel road and the crossing or not?
 #1601458  by neman2
 
bostontrainguy wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 1:39 pm I absolutely hate speed bumps but I wonder if as simple a solution as a bright yellow speed bump at the crossbuck might have prevented this. I got a feeling trucks like this would not be kind to your backside if you ran over it quickly.
That would never be allowed. The problem is unless you have a median the speedbump has to span the entire width (or people will drive around it) on both sides of the crossing. A vehicle crossing over the tracks has to slow for the first bump, and when the rear of their vehicle or trailer is OVER the tracks as they approach the speed bump on the other side, they will slow/stop again. Having a trailer will make them stop even more times.
 #1601481  by justalurker66
 
A design I have seen at road intersections for crosswalks paves the intersection higher than the approach roads. Vehicles "bump up" as they enter the intersection and "bump down" on the far side of the intersection. The down bump can be taken at a higher speed than the up bump. Such a design could theoretically be used at a railroad crossings ... but I would not want such a design for a road with trucks (where the driver would slow the truck for every axle). I find it is an interesting thought, but unworkable for a railroad crossing. A better design would be one where a vehicle could get across the crossing as fast as possible.
 #1601482  by photobug56
 
As opposed to a heavily loaded large dump truck getting caught on the track or other part of the crossing, as appears to have happened here.

In some crossings like this, it would likely be pretty cheap to start the 'ramp' up to the tracks farther out, lessening the chance of something getting stuck.
 #1601492  by photobug56
 
We have piles of grade crossings on LIRR in Suffolk. I remember one that got flattened out, improving visibility and making it harder to get stuck. Yes, they have crossing gates, but the flattening still helped.
 #1601511  by John_Perkowski
 
photobug56 wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 11:42 pm We have piles of grade crossings on LIRR in Suffolk. I remember one that got flattened out, improving visibility and making it harder to get stuck. Yes, they have crossing gates, but the flattening still helped.
Rather hard to flatten out here. The grade supports drainage in our rainstorms.
 #1601513  by STrRedWolf
 
John_Perkowski wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 10:01 am
photobug56 wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 11:42 pm We have piles of grade crossings on LIRR in Suffolk. I remember one that got flattened out, improving visibility and making it harder to get stuck. Yes, they have crossing gates, but the flattening still helped.
Rather hard to flatten out here. The grade supports drainage in our rainstorms.
I think the idea here is to build the road up to the rail with relevant culvert drains so at the grade crossing, it’s essentially flat. Still, at least some better protection is needed.
 #1601522  by BR&P
 
John_Perkowski wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 2:02 pm Again, do not speculate on the cause, please.

We know, from Amtrak and BNSFs suit against the dump trucks owner, they believe they have a cause. We will need to see what the preliminary report says.
I have a couple questions I’d like to respectfully ask Mr. Perkowski to clarify. While most forums ask you to PM a mod or admin with questions, these seem to affect quite a few posters on various pages from time to time. This thread is no exception, and it likely would lessen the load on the mods if we could get some specifics.

We are cautioned, time and again, against “speculation”. Reading the Forum Rules, unless I missed it, there is no mention at all about this. The closest I see is Rule 1 m: Do not disclose, either directly or indirectly, information that is not generally available to the public or is otherwise privileged or confidential. (2007-09-19)

This would seem different from speculation, as it seems to be aimed at factual information known to a poster which for one reason or another is not intended for public disclosure.

Speculation, especially when general in nature, is a natural and important part of a forum’s function. Indeed, if someone asks the date of the last train to Podunk, and a reply says “I think it was late 2002”, that is speculation. I am sure it’s not the intent of the Admins to preclude such answers. Earlier in this thread, I pointed out in good humor that the Moderator’s post guessing at the size of the truck involved in this incident was itself speculation. Speculation can be a very useful tool, especially if identified as such.

Even in the case of accidents, derailments and other unpleasant things, most speculation can be helpful in furthering discussion and understanding. An obvious exception would be for things that might prove slanderous - “I bet Mr. Jones, the engineer, was drunk when it happened, that’s not uncommon”. Obviously out of line. But “it appears to me the train may have been sent up the wrong track” hurts nobody and invites readers to consider and analyze whether that may be the case. While the OFFICIAL cause is determined by government and railroad officials, the ability to discuss UNofficial scenarios is a big part of why forums such as this exist. It’s about impossible that speculation on a railfan forum would somehow corrupt or misdirect the formal investigation process.

So my questions, which I know are shared by some others on here are

1. Is there a formal policy on rr.net prohibiting speculation of any sort, or is this a personal preference by one or more mods?

2. If there is not a formal policy banning all speculation, what are the specific guidelines for what kind of speculation is, and is not, allowed?

Understanding these points will keep some of us out of trouble, and will lighten the load of mods trying to put out fires caused by those not aware of what the limits are.

Thank you!
 #1601525  by BR&P
 
We have numerous posts suggesting improvised lights, speed bumps, and numerous other changes to be made randomly at crossings. The fact is even a simple post with a crossbuck is, in the laws of every state, a YIELD sign. It indicates the train has the right of way. Lights, gates and other extra measures add a layer of redundancy to account for human nature - the possibility to be distracted by traffic, inattention etc.

The Three E's of Operation Lifesaver are Education, Engineering and Enforcement. Engineering over decades has provided universal practices such as the flashing lights and other precautions. Adding extra, local gizmos would be a step back in safety. Enforcement - in the form of a cop sitting in a cornfield watching 5 dump trucks a day for violations, is of course not an answer. Education has the highest likelihood of getting through to people - if EVERY driver approaches EVERY crossing thinking a train may be coming, virtually every such incident could be prevented.

Inventing new and different things is not the answer.
  • 1
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 13