After the Amtrak train killed Katie Lunn at a grade crossing in Chicago last month, it was reported that an official investigation would follow. Who was to conduct that investigation, and how much time is it likely to take? It has been over a month now, and I have not heard any news about the results of the investigation.
I sure would like to hear the facts of this incident because, so far, all I have heard are news reports generally detailing this astounding account of what occurred:
CN personnel had been working within a window of time to correct a crossing signal problem. During the time window, various procedures such as flagging and slow orders for trains were in effect because the signals had been taken out of service for the repair work.
Nearly convinced that they had fixed the problem, the CN signal maintainers cancelled the time window hours before it was set to expire. Then to test their probable fix, the signal maintainers came back to the scene some time later to observe the passage of the Amtrak train to make sure the signals functioned properly. The signals did not funct
Not only is it a stupid method, it probably is against Federal regulations. Now maybe it passed all normal testing methods and they just wanted to confirm their tests by observing the passage of an actual train, nevertheless if they were that uncertain of the quality of their work then the real live testing should have been conducted in a controlled manner.
I have read that it is the FRA that is conducting the investigation.
I cannot think of any facet railroad operation that would be even close to the danger of taking grade crossing signals out of operation without stopping trains and flagging them across and/or flagging each vehicle across while making sure that they do not conflict with passing trains.
It would be highly flawed thinking to assume that a signalized crossing with the signals disabled simply then amounts to just another non-signalized crossing in terms of risk. I am not saying that was the rationale, but something has to explain this apparent act of reckless negligence.
I, too, am at a loss as to what the signal folk(s) on site was/were thinking. If there was one speck of doubt that the gates and lights might not work as expected, why would you not flag the crossing? One would think one would err on the side of caution when lives are at stake. The more I think about it, even if one hundred per cent sure the signals will work, be at the ready to flag the crossing anyways. If someone knows more about what rules/actions were being followed, speak up, please. I will admit very limited knowledge.
I do feel for the maintainer that was there and tried to warn/stop Ms. Lunn. I do not doubt he is re-living his decisions and that horror daily.
Above, I speculated about this issue two years ago right after this crossing crash happened. Now that the final report has come out with so many perplexing questions left unanswered or unasked, I conclude that my speculation was correct.