NTSB has issued guidance on the incident that happened in a steel facility in Cleveland.
The article identifies the area where it happened as being ‘lighted’. For someone to ‘see’ a brakemans lantern in a lighted industrial area and have it ‘register’ would take ‘super human accuity’.
The actual FRA safety bulletin:
https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/2023-03/Safety%20Bulletin%202023-02%20(031623).pdf
There is nothing more invisible in a generally lighted area than a 6 volt brakeman’s lantern bulb.
That DOES NOT ABSOLVE the truck driver of his responsibilities to LOOk and SEE what is approaching the crossing.
We have, as I suspect others do also, rules prohibiting riding the bottom step of an engine or the stirrup on the side of a car over crossings. Public and private, including in railroad yards.
That’s not to say that’s the case here. A dump truck would be tall enough to hit you riding up higher on the car.
Jeff
I’ve seen far too many hi-viz documents that were anything but, due to dirt and wear.
Garments/apparel … even when new, high-viz gear can disappear when spotlights and construction lighting is aimed at the viewer.
I seriously hope MSHA/FRA/OSHA comes down hard on the facility operator and the construction truck driver. (Agree 100% with BALT)
Protecting the shove … and the dump truck driver can’t see the railcar that’s as big as the mining equipment to judge relative positions? I certainly do not want to be on foot in that environment.
Why not fuses?
Fusees are quite bright but they can be hazardous in their own right, especially for a conductor riding on the side of a freight car in a back-up move.
I have holes in my turnout gear to prove it…
As a former supplier to a railcar builder of graphics and related material…railcars have very effective conspicuity reflective film applied in the range of 700-1000 candlepower.
Granted the NS locomotives are black, but my guess is those had reflective tape.
Horrible incident.
ed
When I was ATM at Locust Point Yard in Baltimore, we had a 2nd trick yard job that worked its way out of the yard and down the middle of Key Highway to the intersection of Light Street and then further on Light Steet to the intersection of Pratt Street where the track ended just past the McCormack Spice plant, which was the final customer on the line.
A day or two before Christmas in 1974 or 1975 the crew was shoving their train with a caboose in the lead - the cab was lit up ‘like a Christmas tree’ with both red and yellow fusees - multiple fusees!. Someone in a Ford stationwagon driving ‘up’ Key Highway ran head on into the fusee lit caboose, at speed. The vehicle was littered with multiple beer cans and Christmas presents. The driver did not survive.
Impaired drivers tend to obsess and aim at the most conspicuous stuff out there, especially at night. Instead of avoiding the high viz colours, the impaired driver winds up aiming at it.
Too many night-time crossing repairs/replacements will teach you that.
[quote user=“Railway Age”]
On March 7, a NS conductor on NS train C75B106 was killed when the train he was riding collided with a dump truck as they simultaneously entered a private highway-railroad grade crossing (private grade crossing) in the Cleveland-Cliffs Incorporated steel plant in Cleveland, Ohio.
The conductor was riding on the end platform of the lead railcar during a shoving movement when he was pinned between the railcar and the dump truck during the collision. NS and TMS International (the truck owner) estimated total damages to equipment to be about $42,000. Visibility conditions at the time of the accident were dark and clear; the weather was 34°F with no precipitation.
The crew of train C75B106 consisted of an engineer in the locomotive cab and the conductor. The train was composed of one locomotive and 12 mixed railcars: four residue tank cars and eight empty covered hopper cars. The dump truck was driven by a TMS International employee and was hauling rock at the time of the collision. Cleveland Cliffs surveillance camera data reviewed by NTSB investigators show the dump truck traveling south through the plant, stopping at the private grade crossing, and then proceeding through the crossing. Based on event recorder data, the train was traveling about 9 mph at the time of the collision; the maximum authorized speed within the steel plant was 10 mph. The private grade crossing where the accident occurred was equipped with stop signs facing both directions of approach.
According to the preliminary report, NTSB investigators, while on scene, reviewed data from surveillance cameras and the locomotive event recorder, conducted sight distance observations at the private grade crossing, and completed interviews.
As a result of this accident, the FRA on March 16, 2023, issued “Safety Advisory 2023-02: Highway-Rail Grade Crossin
. It’s hard to mention this since there is a death involved in this incident. However, for the future, two things remain: 1. The safety advisory mentions, " understand what “track is clear” means related to a highway-rail grade crossing. 2. as a person who observes train operations, many times I have heard/seen the person riding the shove will report to the engineer…“track is clear”
On the other hand this truck driver, surely made a fatal mistake. Something that crews deal with the rest of their life, after a fatal grade crossing crash. endmrw0321232208
Clearly the accident was the truck driver’s fault, but to me, the circumstances of the crossing with the conductor riding the point of a blind shove entering the crossing at 9 mph with just a lit lantern seems excessively dangerous. The passive crossing protection is technically adequate, but approaching it with just dark freight cars, not intend to stop, and with no locomotive headlight or horn signal seems clearly inadequate.
In this case, I assume that the truck driver stopped for the stop sign and not the train he didn’t notice. Yet that stop sent a message to the conductor that the crossing was, in effect, clear. What would the conductor have done if he had determined that the driver was not going to stop?
One could conclude that the crossing would have been safer without the stop signs. That way, the truck driver’s intent could have been judged earlier.
And the crossbucks alone would have conveyed the message for the driver to look for trains and yield if any were approaching.
In this case, the stop signs were a distraction from the main point.
I would opine that the oncoming railcars were in a bit of a blind spot for the truck driver - over his right shoulder and possibly blocked by the rear of the cab.
He reportedly stopped at the crossing, apparently saw nothing, and proceeded. Note that the conductor, with his lantern was on the side of the car closest to the truck.
The train was moving at a shade more than 13 feet per second (9 MPH, per the report). That means that just ten seconds before the collision the leading end of the movement was 130 feet (~110 meters) from the crossing - a third of a football field.
I’m not trying to absolve anyone of anything. This was a case of all the holes lining up. Even having the conductor on the other side of the car would have changed the outcome.
Industrial settings such as the Cleveland-Cliffs plant are nearly perfect camouflage in being able to hide obvious movements of rail cars and/or trucks. Such areas are full of different shapes that create a multiplicity of light and shadow with various levels of illumination be that daylight sunshine, overcast or nightime electric illumination.
I was wondering about that. I know what you mean by your description of the plant setting causing camouflage and distraction with the wide variety of shapes and lighting. The best preventative would have been to require such shoving moves to stop and flag through the crossing.
Complacency can be a major consideration.
One has to wonder how often such interfaces take place.
If the answer is “infrequently” then it’s possible that neither the driver nor the conductor had had to deal with the situation before.
Too, it’s been recorded that the driver did stop. The conductor may have assumed (and we all know the phrase) that the truck would stay stopped as the train went over the crossing.
From a previous post (from Balt) with more detail, he wasn’t riding the actual side of a car. He was riding the end platform of a tank car on the side where they collided. Tank cars are one of the few types our trainmen can ride the end platform, provided they can place themselves behind the handrail that runs across the end of the car.
Trainmen’s lanterns have two settings, one provides a beam the other a more general illimunination. The beam is used more for walking or riding because you can see further ahead. The other can be used for walking and is usually used when using hand signals at night. Both can be seen from the side, but the general illumination setting is more visible from tje side, that’s why