Wizzing without a clue - isn’t that someone’s modis operandi?
Like a Chinese racehorse even…geez[banghead]
“Someone” must be thinking in 2D with blinders on.
I can relate an incident that happened quite awhile ago: East bound on U.S.Hwy70 out in the Western ‘Burbs of Nashville,TN. Went through before dawn, the Bridge was labeled 14’ {official TnDOT signage-white signs ! }. Returning back that way, in rain, on ‘same’ Highway rolling West, signs were still same. Toped out an almost brand new 13’6" 45’ trailer. Highway Bubba’s had caused to be added by a contractor, about 4" of new aphalt. Work order to change the signs was ‘missed’. Insurance carrier said it was not enough money to fight it, and bought my company a new 45’ ‘possum belly’ trailer. [sigh]
Highway bubba aren’t the only ones that overlook ‘upgrading’ of the traveling surface.
Back in the day, MofW had a surfacing gang working on B&O’s Philadelphia Sub between Philadelphia and Baltimore.
No my attitude does not suggest that at all. My point is that the sign tells the driver nothing that they can use to determine whether their vehicle will clear. This is in contrast to a low overhead clearance sign that does give the driver specific information that they can use.
But with the warning for low ground clearance, a driver is confronted with the choice of either
Look at the crossing on Google. The solution is not rocket science. Just raise the grade in the appoach to reduce the angle of elevation change. It looks like one of those shovel-ready jobs.
Not all that easy. Note that there are streets parallel to the tracks on both sides. You might be able to do something on the north side of the tracks (you’ll have to raise the side street on both sides, too), but the south side will be a challenge.
Yes I understand that there are streets running parallel to the tracks in addition to the streets crossing the tracks. So you have to raise those parallel streets too where they approach the crossing streets. It is not difficult. Out where those parallel streets cross the crossing streets, the raising will probably be only 6 inches.
The maximum elevation difference right at the crossing is probably only 14-16" or so. The hang up problem is that the rise occurs withing 6 feet of horizontal distance on the road. That has to be feathered out to begin the elevation change 30-50 feet from the crossing. I am sure that the City does not want to pay for it however. But the sign is not a realistic solution.
Be a lot easier to just rip the crossing out.
Sure, if they don’t want the crossing.
Damn! the peace and quiet of the past week has been disturbed. You said you were moving far away from home and never coming back Appearently your move was not far enough away.
[quote user=“Norm48327”]
Bucky:
Your credibilty here is suffering from your lack of facts and information.
You base your posts on speculation sans facts; the latter be damned if they don’t fit your opinion. In your warped mind, the NTSB and others overlook facts you think are important but are things they consider incidental. Who appointed you “lord and master” with insight over and above those who inspect accidents and are digging for factual information? You take particular pains to demean those who do so. Why is your information in yourposts sitting at a computer keyboard so much better than theirs? In an aviation forum your posts would be dismissed as garbage and trolling and I suspect you are doing the same here just to attract attention. IOW, You are nothing more than a troll and an uninformed fool.
OK, we have know-it-alls on aviation forums too but they are soon outed as trolls. You fit the mold here. You post a lot of speculation without knowledge of actual events. At what point do you stop being a jerk and get in touch with reality? Is that even possible given your mental condition? Given your inability to see other’s opinions I don’t think it is Your mind is made up when you read the thread title.
You said you were moving far away and would never return. Please do that. It would be beneficial to the forum. Please get permanently lost and let this forum return to a rational discussion of events without your garbage being constantly interjected.
I am not alone in my opinion of you. I’m just more expressive of that opinion. GIGO applies and your posts are mostly “garbage in”. If your posts were worthy of discussion I would participate. To date, most of them haven’t been worthy of a reply.
Yep, I’m nasty and demand facts before speclation.
Many years ago I read a quote from an Eastern philosopher:
“You become what you hate.”
It didn’t make sense to me at first, but it stuck in my mind, and as I observed people’s behavior and events in the news, it made more and more sense.
[quote user=“Euclid”]
Murphy Siding
Euclid
Yes, the sign message is simple enough: Every driver approaching that crossing should stop and perform an engineering analysis to see if the geometries of their vehicle and the crossing are compatible.
So the elevation of the track is raised higher than the general surrounding roadways. Does that really require that the crossing has to come off like a giant speed bump? A few cubic yards of fill on either side of the crossing would be sufficient to eliminate the hang up hazard.
Any driver operating a low slung vehicle should have the training and expericence to know where and how he or she might get in trouble with that vehicle. Additionaly, that driver should have been aware there could be a problem just from seeing marks where other low slung vehicles gouged the pavement.
Your attitude suggests that anyone driving anything should be able to wiz right on down the road without a clue and not have to pay attention. That’s far from the truth, especially driving a vehicle with passengers in it.
No my attitude does not suggest that at all. My point is that the sign tells the driver nothing that they can use to determine whether their vehicle will clear. This is in contrast to a
[quote user=“Murphy Siding”]
Euclid
Murphy Siding
Euclid
Yes, the sign message is simple enough: Every driver approaching that crossing should stop and perform an engineering analysis to see if the geometries of their vehicle and the crossing are compatible.
So the elevation of the track is raised higher than the general surrounding roadways. Does that really require that the crossing has to come off like a giant speed bump? A few cubic yards of fill on either side of the crossing would be sufficient to eliminate the hang up hazard.
Any driver operating a low slung vehicle should have the training and expericence to know where and how he or she might get in trouble with that vehicle. Additionaly, that driver should have been aware there could be a problem just from seeing marks where other low slung vehicles gouged the pavement.
Your attitude suggests that anyone driving anything should be able to wiz right on down the road without a clue and not have to pay attention. That’s far from the truth, especially driving a vehicle with passengers in it.
No my attitude does not suggest that at all. My p
[quote user=“Euclid”]
Murphy Siding
Euclid
Murphy Siding
Euclid
Yes, the sign message is simple enough: Every driver approaching that crossing should stop and perform an engineering analysis to see if the geometries of their vehicle and the crossing are compatible.
So the elevation of the track is raised higher than the general surrounding roadways. Does that really require that the crossing has to come off like a giant speed bump? A few cubic yards of fill on either side of the crossing would be sufficient to eliminate the hang up hazard.
Any driver operating a low slung vehicle should have the training and expericence to know where and how he or she might get in trouble with that vehicle. Additionaly, that driver should have been aware there could be a problem just from seeing marks where other low slung vehicles gouged the pavement.
Your attitude suggests that anyone driving anything should be able to wiz right on down the road without a clue and not have to pay attention. That’s far from the truth, especially driving a vehicle with passengers in it.
<
Getting back to the actual subject of original discussion, I agree that drivers SHOULD have training, including appropriate training in handling low-slung vehicles. And that they should follow that training rigorously.
Judging by the scrape marks, it appears plain that quite a number of untrained drivers had already used the crossing. Either that, or they ignored their training. Or they used their training and incorrectly believed they were safe in crossing.
Consider that a Pepsi truck had been hit recently at that crossing. And another truck in 2014. And THOSE were only the ones that got hung up. And hit.
So, it appears quite a number of “untrained” drivers, including one for a major US corporation, used that crossing.
And it also appears that the street people knew or should have known, as there was plain evidence.
And it also appears they failed to act on that evidence. Adequately.
If street builders install a dangerous bit of streetwork, EVERY driver should be adequately trained to act accordingly. I do not see failure of the latter excusing the former.
Ed
I suspect that some portion of the problem lies with the railroad. I know, it’s their property and they can do what they wish, but…
I’d be willing to bet that when that crossing was built it was flat as a billiard table.
Over the years, the railroad(s) have surfaced the line by adding more stone and tamping. Each time, the rail gets that much higher.
I’ve seen pictures of a bridge in my old hometown that date back nearly to when it was built. The rail is now easily several feet higher than back in the day. The bridge is a concrete arch (known locally as “The Arch”), with full roadbed above.
I suspect this is the issue with many similar crossings. Just about any time we have an incident of this kind, there is a parallel road which limits the ability of the highway folks to reduce the grade approaching the tracks. In this case, there is a paved road on one side, and a dirt road on the other.
It might be possible to raise the dirt road on the north side, but raising the paved road on the south side will be quite the endeavor. And it’ll be good until the tracks get surfaced a few more times and the hump returns.
Per Google Streetview, a number of the crossings in that vici
Murphy Siding,
What is a trained driver supposed to do when encountering a sign that warns about close ground clearance? There is only one answer, and it is obvious. The critical point is that the he only way a driver could know whether his vehicle would not hang up would be to attempt crossing and take the risk that his vehicle might hang up.
It is easy for armchair quarterbacks to condemn the driver after the fact if he takes that chance and loses. But for drivers facing that decision, there is no way to know the outcome of crossing. And if he takes the chance and does hang up, it is a potential death trap as this Biloxi crash demonstrates.
So the answer to the question as to what a trained driver should do is unequivocal: Don’t cross.
As much as railfans rejoice in blaming drivers for grade crossing crashes, the sheer stupidity of this crossing design shares the blame.
It’s a thought. I just “drove” down the street, and there doesn’t seem to be much of a raise to the roadbed itself. And the ballast height looks pretty typical.
It looks to me like the height of rail-top over surrounding land didn’t change much over time.
For the crossing to have been flat, it looks to me like the track would have to have been laid without ballast. Which I s’pose might have been done. Not at all best practice, as we know. But then the street people are blind-sided when the railroad later adds ballast. Yikes, what to do. I know. Let’s make really crappy street crossings here and here and here. What could go wrong? And who cares, anyway?
Ed