Well, we usualy read about people getting hit by trains at grade crossings but apparently it’s the other way around in this MSNBC Story.
Drivers running into trains is actually more frequent than one might think. Generally does not make widespread news because the driver most often survives.
dd
Yes those are called RIT collisions for, “run into train.” They are usually caused by inattentiveness or impairment on the part of the driver. These RIT crashes are the reason the FRA has made the railroads place reflectors on the sides of all their freight cars. RIT crashes are often fatal, and quite common. Since their only cause is inattentiveness compared to T-bone collisions, which are sometimes cause by inattentiveness, and sometimes by the motive of trying to beat the train, you would think that the RIT would be much less frequent than T-bone collisions. However, for the T-bone, you have to be in exactly the right spot at the right time, whereas with the RIT, you have a window of opportunity that lasts as long as it takes for the train to pass.
What exactly is the difference between a T-bone and a RIT?
T-bone is slang for getting hit broadside by the train from being right in front of it when it arrives at the crossing. The term also refers to collisions between two vehicles. It is where one vehicle is hit at another traveiling at a right angle to the first. The right angle is the “T.”
RIT is when a car runs into the side of the train while it is passing over the crossing. I guess you could say that’s a T-bone too, but in that case, it is the train that gets T-boned instead of the car.
the cars on the train generally are not damaged much in a RIT but a T-bone may derail the engine
dd
Early yesterday morning some guy lost control of his car and slammed into a DM&E train just outside of Brookings, South Dakota. He was driving in heavy fog and apparently did not see the train. He struck a covered hopper and was killed instantly. Accidents like this probably happen more often than what you might think.
CANADIANPACIFIC2816
I have noticed some freight cars with reflectorized tape on the sides, like trucks have. I haven’t seen that much in the way of reflectors, but then again, I haven’t been looking closely. I do know that locomotives light up like Christmas trees when headlights hit them, but not freight cars.
My question is this: Would not a different, brighter paint scheme on freight cars provide a better contrast for drivers? Freight trains are pretty dull, color wise, in my neck of the woods. You have gray covered hoppers, rust red boxcars, and sometimes white tank cars. In fog, it could be easy to miss a freight train on an unmarked crossing. (Come to think of it, I have been surprised by NS locomotives idling next to a crossing at night. They had their headlights and ditch lights off.)
One might think that the noise of a passing freight train would alert a driver, but I have been amazed at how quiet those things can be once the locomotives have gone by.
Schneider Trucking paints their trucks and trailers International Orange- it is for safety (and is a recognizable trademark, too.) I wonder if statistically, the Tropicana train has been hit less in RIT’s than say, a coal train. The Tropicana train is pretty colorful.
I realize that auto drivers are almost always at fault in these accidents, but sooner or later someone will come up with the argument that the train “faded into the background” because of lighting conditions and lack of noise. Railroads would seem to be pretty proactive when it comes to guarding against any kind of problem that might cause them to be found “negligent” or “indifferent”… or, that nightmare of all CEO’s in any industry, “liable”.
Erik
The Long Island Railroad’s equipment is all stainless steal and we never here of these types of accidents. A brighter paint sceme might be just the key. By the sounds of things it seems like a trains goes through a car like a deli slicer through pastrami in an RIT situation.
Only if the return on investment is positive - ie, the savings realized by stopping these accidents are greater than the cost of changing the color of the rolling stock. Since the vast majority of the accidents are the fault of the driver, the railroad bears no part of that cost, and could even bill the driver for damages (if any) to the railroad, that will be a hard case to make.
A couple square feet of reflective material, suitably placed, will have a similar effect.
The point you raise about freight cars being dull, drab, dark, and hard to see, particularly at night, is the exact argument that persuaded the FRA to mandate that all freight cars must be equipped with reflectors on their sides. I beleive they have a certain amount of time to comply. You raise an interesting point about the railroads being proactive about guarding against liability.
In my opinion, these reflectors, while possibly preventing certain accidents, will neverthless, substantially increase the net liability to the railroad companies. I could be wrong. Or maybe the FRA overlooked this issue. Yet, I w
I forgot the details but by year X (?2009?) all rolling stock in interchange will be required to have white or yellow scotchlight tape placed along the frame like some truck trailers have.
Chad, that’s true about most truck trailers requiring not only tape, but lights. The only exceptions to the rule appear to be logging trailers (and darn near every rule does not apply to them for some reason) and a lot of intermodal trailers as well. (The frames on IM trailers are I shaped and when loaded, are hidden from view.)
I am not sure I buy off on the interesting argument presented above, which appeared to say: If a safety device is not required, then it serves the interest of the railroad not to put it on. What interested me was the thought that a railroad could be held liable if even one reflector on a train was missing, damaged, or obscured. The railroads take some pretty draconian steps all on their own when it concerns safety. No one has told the railroads to install cameras in their cabs, but they are doing it to prove that crews are on the job. They seem to believe the cost of installation is worth the price of proving their innocence.
Speaking as a cop, I am all in favor of big, noisy, colorful objects that attract my attention before they run me over. Speaking as a railfan, I am all in favor of nearly ANYTHING (except grafitti) that takes a uniform, drab, boooooring unit train from something that is an interesting obstacle to photograph and count cars on. Not only can it be justified from a safety point of view, but you can throw in the intangible value of good public relations as well.
Erik
I guess I took that adifferent way. Now, if I run into the middle of a train, it’s because I wasn’t paying attention. The inference is, that in the future, if I run ito a train, my attorney will point out that it is because the reflectors the railroad installed weren’t perfect enough for me to see. In a twisted, backwards sort of way,it may serve the interests of the railroad not to seek more liability due to (inevitable) lawsuits.[:(]
What I am saying is that a safely device that sometimes fails is worse than no safety device, because the one protected by the device comes to expect and rely on it. So it if fails, the one to be protected is caught off guard because they were relying on the safety device warning. And this premise is the most applicable in cases where the hazard is obvious, and where common sense would prevail if no dafety device were applied. An example would be the obvious hazard of running into the side of a moving train.
It is certainly in the railroads’ interest to prevent accidents and the resultant liability cost. However, the industry did oppose the FRA reflector mandate. Upfront cost was one obvious issue. I’ll bet they also cited some of the unintended consequences of added liability that I mentioned above as a basis of their objection. Not only does that liability add potential cost, but guarding against it adds cost as well. When a train leaves the yard, who will be responsible to make sure that all the reflectors are fully functioning? Who will keep them clean? Will a car that has had its reflectors covered with graffiti en-route be set out so that new reflectors can be applied? Will the graffiti paint be stripped to expose the original enamel substrate so the reflector properly adheres?
Thanks for the clarification. Knowing little to nothing about civil litigation, what you say makes sense.
I would suspect that there are a few lawyers out there who don’t neccessarily buy the “common sense” case and make a living out of pointing out that it is industry’s responsibility to protect people from all harm, even if they have taken measures mandated under law. The lawsuits against railroads that arise from “I didn’t hear the horn/whistle” or “the engineer didn’t blow his whistle” at crossing accidents prove the point.
Common sense doesn’t seem to stop lawsuits from happening. No one told McDonalds to label their coffee cups until the infamous spilled coffee burn. People still sue gun manufacturers because the weapons produced acted in such a way as to cause them “pain and suffering.” We all know tobacco products cause harm, yet people sue tobacco companies because they get sick from using their products… and even claim ignorance about potential harm caused by using those same products.
People are the heros of their own autobiographies, and in today’s society, anything they do is right; anything done by a large corporation is wrong. I believe railroads try their best to reenforce common sense, because it’s easier to prove someone is stupid if you can also show you had independently taken steps to keep them from being stupid. The argument of “How could you be dumb enough to drive into the side of this moving train lit up like a brothel on payday?” is much more powerful than “you are guilty of failing to yield the right of way.”
As a railfan, my perfect world would include pristine freight cars with huge logos and colorful paint jobs, led by locomotives with melodic whistles. Sooner or later, I am positive the lawyers will pose the very same cogent debate points you have ably pointed out… to be thwarted by the more theatrically oriented types who would say, "Yeah, but you can SEE the train better if it’s painted y
Quite right. If a train has no flat spots and is on straight welded rail, it can be very (relatively) quiet.
When welded rail was first installed on the (soon to be Metra) suburban train lines, we had problems with people not hearing the train approaching, especially when operating cab-car leading.