Is it just me or do Truck vs Train collisions get more media attention than Car vs Train collisions? Is it because it is a bigger issue or that Trucks do more visible damage? Just curious. Might be my perception of the news tending to focus on big and sensational vs the issue of grade crossing concerns overall.
1 Like
So itâs not just me then, I guess.
1 Like
The results of truck collisions are generally more spectacular, with trailer parts flying about and the cargo strewn everywhere. Trucks are also more likely to result in derailments. In the age of ubiquitous cell phone videos, trucks just make a better visual.
Car-train collisions seem to get local media attention in my area. Truck-train collisions probably get more national attention because the damage is usually more serious. Unless the car involved as some additional newsworthy item, police car stopped on the tracks, etc., itâs not worth the national mediaâs time.
Jeff
1 Like
School bus v train deservedly get the most.
1 Like
I think itâs all relative to the damage (vehicle and human) involved.
Hitting a box truck full of something that will make a mess (eggs?) will certainly get some attention. So will five teens being hit by Amtrak at speed after they ignore crossing signals will, too.
What bugs me is regardless of what happened, itâs always a âtrain accidentâ. Some truck driver gets stuck on a grade crossing or some hotshot goes around the lowered gates and gets smashed. Always seems to imply itâs the railroadâs fault.
1 Like
As with the Midnight Rider case⌠they didnât use their brake properly*. It doesnât help when railroads promulgate the idea that you put the train in emergency only after youâve actually hit something, which to legal types looks like a form of negligence.
- /s
I think I read somewhere as well that putting a train in emergency is a risk in and of itself. Is that true?
You read it here over and over with Bucyrus/Euclid.
Putting a train in emergency poses many risks, often non-trivial risks. In my not-so-humble opinion, emergency should never be preferred to full service. Also in my opinion, putting the train in emergency after contact has been made is little better than an attempt at virtue signaling, even if it reduces the distance vehicles are dragged; the risk of derailment from emergency application may go up greatly afterward.
1 Like
âBias in mediaâ âvirtue signalingâ This whole thread has an underlying political tone.
âVirtue signalingâ isnât political; on the other hand it smacks of being a lame practice whatever the underlying politics or ethical system may be.
I have reasonably sound technical reasons for considering âmandatory emergency only after contactâ to be more risk than benefit. Euclid would disagree⌠but then, he would advocate big-holing at the first sign of a potential collision to get as much way off the train as possible, as quickly as possible. Whether or not it flats the wheels, or locks the train up for many minutes while the crew has to walk it for damage and then to confirm release, or⌠if it derails or breaks into sections because the application is extreme and nonproportional.
This thread reminds me of two trips on The Crescent traveling through Gastonia NC, not once but twice, in the same place we hit a dump truck!
We were almost home, Charlotte, the next stop, but NO, both times we were delayed because of dump trucks LOL
The pejorative conceptual term originated with rightist Brexit-favoring British journalist James Bartholomew in a 2015 article in The Spectator.
Euclid also pushed for requiring US rail to adopt electro-pneumatic brakes since we seem to have 2 mile (or longer) trains.
One important point of ECP (electrically/electronically-controlled proportional) brakes is that the stop time and distance of a âfull-serviceâ controlled set are much lower than ordinary one-pipe air brakes. This was what supposedly led to the mandate to phase in ECO for âkey trainsâ in the Feinberg years at FRA.
The problem, which apparently was never disclosed correctly, was that most incidents involving actual need for rapid braking of key trains would involve emergency application. And emergency ECP is only about 3% better than âregularâ (itâs related to the speed of sound in compressed air) which is a very poor return on an over-three-trillion-dollar ultimate investment supposedly being made for âsafetyâ. Hence overturn of the mandate in 2017.
The conversion to ECP by both of the major manufacturers was specifically designed to retain compatibility with one-pipe operation via a relatively simple switchover. The problem was (and is) that actual ECP operation is incompatible with one-pipe in the same train â so the ECP parts of a converted car would be expensive deadweight nonetheless requiring maintenance until a whole equipped consist was present. That would make interchange loose-car railroading difficult and far more complicated.
In addition, operating a train to make best use of ECP with passenger-style graduated release involves different thinking and reflexes from the evolved one-pipe âstandardâ, which I consider potentially dangerous.
Emergency brake application can also be initiated from the EOT. Two way EOTâs are required on most all trains. A engineer can initiate a Emergency application from the brake valve on his control stand AND by flipping a switch on the control stand that sends a radio command to the EOT to start an Emergency application at the EOT propagating forward in the train to meet the Emergency application that the brake valve commanded.
2 Likes
Itâs only peripherally a Trump thing. Read the opinion â they were very stinging about the objective details of the way it was done.
I donât put much stock in coincidences.
As I think you should not. Read the opinion and tell me if you agree with it.
As Iâve said, Iâm in full favor of a transition to functional ECP, not just for key and unit trains. What Iâm not in favor of is an unfunded mandate on the grounds of safety based on a misunderstanding of the technology.