NTSB preliminary report on Missouri crash

[BEAUSABRE]

Amtrak overloaded?

Must have been the hoboes riding the rods. Anyway,the NTSB says there were 275 passengers and 12 crew on board = 287 total. The consist was 1) a Superliner Transition with crew quarters only - presumably empty at that the time 2) Two Superliner Sleepers with a capacity of 44 each 3) A Superliner Diner with a capacity of 72 4) A Superliner Lounge-Cafe with a capacity of 73 5) Two Superliner Coaches with a capacity of 68 each (I’ve seen 68 to 74 so I’ll be conservative). Total 369. If the on board staff staff keeps the diner empty, puts some coach passengers in any open space in the sleepers (call it an “upgrade” the way the airlines do) and uses about 20 percent of the lounge car as a coach, you’ve got seats for everybody, Crowded, but you’ve got a seat. And you can serve drinks in the dining car when it’s not serving meals.The crew will be on their feet when working and they have their accomodations in the Transition car when not. Of course, whether the staff has that level of flexibility is the question.

[Murphy_Siding]

I don’t think there would be any issues about crossing safety if they just built up the road approches for less gradient, and cleared the trees that inhibit the view. It seems like a simple, relatively low cost solution, and it is what the local residents have been asking for.

It does not need to by improved by making the passive crossing into an active crossing. The actual problem is that this is a defective passive crossing. Eliminate the defect.

Well, that’s a unique and innovative thought.

From the other thread>>>

Look at the video starting at about the 40 second mark. With those bushes gone the train would still appear to be out of sight, over the hill. To be fair, it looks like the video was filmed from the bottom of the incline on the gravel road. Maybe the easiest fix in this situation would be to cut the brush and to raise the gravel road level with the tracks for about 100 feet on each side of the rails. That would allow traffic to stop, check for approaching trains, and continue without having to putt-putt up the hill.

[Murphy_Siding]

I don’t think there would be any issues about crossing safety if they just built up the road approches for less gradient, and cleared the trees that inhibit the view. It seems like a simple, relatively low cost solution, and it is what the local residents have been asking for.

It does not need to by improved by making the passive crossing into an active crossing. The actual problem is that this is a defective passive crossing. Eliminate the defect.

There’s always some guy that would argue with you on those points, for example>>>

How do you know that if you removed the trees, there would be other obstructions behind them? How do you know the tracks go over a hill and out of sight? That guy making the video said it is all river bottom land through that area. I agree that easing the approach grades would help too, and that it would be ideal to remove the trees and ease the approaches. But I suspect that getting the road project going would be a lot harder than removing the trees.

[Euclid]

Amtrak overloaded?

Yes, Amtrak overloaded. Look at the link. It tells the whole story. There was also a news report right after this happened that said there was one guy in charge of inspecting the crossing along with others in the same general location. As I recall, the story indicated that the crossing had defects that this guy should have reported and gotten action to fix the problems, which was said to include the trees obscuring the view. But I am looking for that story and so far, no luck. I know the story gave the guy’s name.

[tree68]

Simply raising the approaches is going to be an expensive proposition. That is a LOT of fill.

A recent road project here on a county road raised the road surface about 5 feet over 100 yards, removing a significant dip. It took hundreds of truck loads of fill.

I think they should have raised it another few feet, but, once again, it would have taken hundreds of truckloads of fill. And the fill was available in the area (a lot of gravel hereabouts).

That’s not to say that the approaches shouldn’t be raised, but understand what’s involved in such an undertaking.

[charlie_hebdo]

charlie hebdo

Backshop

The most effective way to make the crossing safer is to close it. Does it really have enough traffic on a regular basis to make it worth the money for the improvements needed? I doubt it. Of course, the locals will just complain for a different reason then.

As I have been suggesting. Many on here object, saying that can never happen.

That’s true of any crossing. I doubt you’ll see any disagreement here.

I don’t think that most here feel it can’t happen. Rather it’s a matter of local interest - if if it’s high enough, the closing won’t happen.

That locals know that the crossing is dangerous suggests that it’s used enough to indicate possible pushback if closing it is brought to the table.

I tend to doubt that anyone here has actually been over the crossing, so it’s hard to say, from hundreds of miles away, what the most desirable solution for the situation would be.

If the crossing is

[Euclid]

Euclid

I don’t think there would be any issues about crossing safety if they just built up the road approches for less gradient, and cleared the trees that inhibit the view. It seems like a simple, relatively low cost solution, and it is what the local residents have been asking for.

It does not need to by improved by making the passive crossing into an active crossing. The actual problem is that this is a defective passive crossing. Eliminate the defect.

There’s always some guy that would argue with you on those points, for example>>>

Euclid

How do you know that if you removed the trees, there would be other obstructions behind them? How do you know the tracks go over a hill and out of sight? That guy making the video said it is all river bottom land through that area. I agree that easing the approach grades would help too, and that it would be ideal to remove the trees and ease the approaches. But I suspect that getting the road project going would be a lot harder than removing the trees.

I don’t understand your point. I advocated solving the problem by removing the trees and reducing the gradient of the

[Euclid]

According to that news report I linked a few posts up, they already brought in lots of new fill to raise at least one of the approaches in order to be able to get the trucks onto the site that were used to help pick up the wreck. When they first attemped to get those trucks over the crosing, they found it was impossible to do.

Importing, spreading, compacting, and grading the fill would cost some money, but I bet it would be the cheaper than converting the crossing to active protection. Even with that, you would probably need the approaches to be raised.

Also keep in mind that the law does not allow a driver to pull right up to the track to look for trains. He cannot get closer than 15 ft. from the nearest rail before stopping to look. If he knew no trains were approaching, he is allowed to stop 50 ft. from the nearest rail. Then he could make a run for steepest part othe climb without stopping right at the track and then needing to restart.

[Backshop]

If they used Hulcher or someone similar, their trucks, especially their lowboys, are a lot bigger and heavier than the dump truck. Remember, most of that news video was about a lawyer suing the railroads; it just might be slightly biased. I’ve dealt with news reporters a few times in my career and most know nothing about their subject matter. They can’t, they’re reporting on different subjects every day.

[Fred_M_Cain]

Amtrak overloaded?

A guy that I have personally heard from who was on the train said that they loaded a bunch of people they did not have seats for at K.C. so they put them in the sightseer lounge. However, I’m not sure why that would make a difference. I don’t see that that was unsafe in anyway.

[Fred_M_Cain]

Here is some interesting information in this report. There is concern now that fixing the crossing will make the legal point that the crossing had specific safety shortcomings that were allowed to persist until they caused or contributed to this fatal crash. Also mentioned is the fact that the train was overloaded, and people were riding in unsafe areas of the train, which made them vulnerable to injury caused by this crash.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeU6KfKly3s

A couple of questions I’ve had from the beginning, although the crossing could be made safer, what I’m really wondering about, did the driver of the truck actually stop? After all, there IS a stop sign there, not?

If there was a video cam on the locomotive, it might tell us if the driver stopped.

Then, if he did stop, did he look? Did the engineer blow for the crossing? If he did, why didn’t the truck driver hear it?

The roads that go over some rural crossing are by far too lightly travelled to justify automatic half barrier gates. If this is such a crossing, then would it be an option to simply close it? What few local motorists need to use the crossing would have to drive a little further but such is life.

[Euclid]

Euclid

Here is some interesting information in this report. There is concern now that fixing the crossing will make the legal point that the crossing had specific safety shortcomings that were allowed to persist until they caused or contributed to this fatal crash. Also mentioned is the fact that the train was overloaded, and people were riding in unsafe areas of the train, which made them vulnerable to injury caused by this crash.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeU6KfKly3s

A couple of questions I’ve had from the beginning, although the crossing could be made safer, what I’m really wondering about, did the driver of the truck actually stop? After all, there IS a stop sign there, not?

If there was a video cam on the locomotive, it might tell us if the driver stopped.

Then, if he did stop, did he look? Did the engineer blow for the crossing? If he did, why didn’t the truck driver hear it?

The roads that go over some rural crossing are by far too lightly travelled to justify automatic half barrier gates. If this is such a crossing, then would it be an option to simply close it? What few local motorists need to use the crossing would have to drive a little further but such is life.

There was a news report that

[Cotton_Belt_MP104]

The above posts, well reflect my observation. I tried to get several post included in this post.

With an actual incident similar, here in my area…the “fix”… before gates were finally installed…was to reduce foilage FARTHER than that required.

Does anyone know the “term” given to the amount of clearance (probably FRA mandated) at crossings. It’s my understanding this clearance distance coincides with the spotting of cars if a train is broken to open the grade crossing. In the Mindon case due to the acute angle of intersecting and high speed of RR traffic, seems FRA would wisely mandate extrordinary distance of clearance. IMHO endmrw0726221359

[Cotton_Belt_MP104]

" the crossing is on railroad property and this line engages in interstate commerce, then a strong case can be made that the federal government view can overrule any local desire."

Obviously my attempt to post quotes is failing

reference: the above quote

And to add to it, if it is a Federal matter in any way, looks like the Corps of Engineers could build the expensive approach improvement. After all the deceased driver was on delivery to COE project.

Remember - everytime you make a design to ‘Idiot Proof’ a situation - the World just generates more idiotic idiots.

I can atest to this. At a retirement job we tried to idot proof equipment. Simply impossible. Maybe make a slight improvement but Walt is correct.

endmrw0726221414

[mudchicken]

• CFR

FEDERAL RULE

49 CFR § 213.37 Vegetation.

Vegetation on railroad property which is on or immediately adjacent to roadbed shall be controlled so that it does not -

(a) Become a fire hazard to track-carrying structures;

(b) Obstruct visibility of railroad signs and signals:

(1) Along the ri

[Euclid]

The railroad press release listing the violations and failings of the truck driver is perfectly justified in protecting the railroad from the grandstanding efforts of the ambulance chaser that is trying to try the railroad in the press before any legal proceedings start. (Sorry you can’t see that Bucky - it’s a common defensive tactic. Railroads learned the hard way that the legal process has been set up to be skewed by the legal trade. )

Yes I know what the point of the press release is, but I have no idea whether its claims are factual.

[Backshop]

mudchicken
The railroad press release listing the violations and failings of the truck driver is perfectly justified in protecting the railroad from the grandstanding efforts of the ambulance chaser that is trying to try the railroad in the press before any legal proceedings start. (Sorry you can’t see that Bucky - it’s a common defensive tactic. Railroads learned the hard way that the legal process has been set up to be skewed by the legal trade. )

Yes I know what the point of the press release is, but I have no idea whether its claims are factual.

Yet, you consider the amateur video factual without standing on the ground and seeing its angle, camera lens length, distortion, etc.

[Murphy_Siding]

Euclid

mudchicken
The railroad press release listing the violations and failings of the truck driver is perfectly justified in protecting the railroad from the grandstanding efforts of the ambulance chaser that is trying to try the railroad in the press before any legal proceedings start. (Sorry you can’t see that Bucky - it’s a common defensive tactic. Railroads learned the hard way that the legal process has been set up to be skewed by the legal trade. )

Yes I know what the point of the press release is, but I have no idea whether its claims are factual.

Yet, you consider the amateur video factual without standing on the ground and seeing its angle, camera lens length, distortion, etc.

And consider the reports on a local TV channel as being objective.

[Backshop]

Too many people have lost their critical thinking skills. They see something on the internet and think “it must be true, I read it on the internet”. The correct way is to see what the railroad says from their biased viewpoint, see what the litigator says from their biased viewpoint, do some of your own research and then determine what the “real truth” is. Much has been said about viewpoints, but until we see the cam from the locomotive, if the driver didn’t attempt to stop and look, it’s all moot. I’ll wait for more FACTS.

[Euclid]

Euclid

mudchicken
The railroad press release listing the violations and failings of the truck driver is perfectly justified in protecting the railroad from the grandstanding efforts of the ambulance chaser that is trying to try the railroad in the press before any legal proceedings start. (Sorry you can’t see that Bucky - it’s a common defensive tactic. Railroads learned the hard way that the legal process has been set up to be skewed by the legal trade. )

Yes I know what the point of the press release is, but I have no idea whether its claims are factual.

Yet, you consider the amateur video factual without standing on the ground and seeing its angle, camera lens length, distortion, etc.

I do not consider anything yet to be proof of what happened during this crash. All I see is a variety of evidence. I agree that the key point is whether the driver stopped within the prescribed 15-50 feet short of the nearest rail.

I consider the video to be good evidence of the site conditions. The fact that it is amateur is irrelevant.