I am not worried that the NTSB is wasteful. I am worried that they lob their recommendations over their departmental wall like hand-grenades.
The NTSB does find out useful information, but they don’t carry the work across the goal line.
You must have missed the part where the chair of NTSB scolded the FRA over PTC, “They have been recommending it for over 20 years!” (implying the FRA was delinquent in not mandating it, waiting for Congress to act)
If finding responsibility was their mission, then let it end before “recommendations”. If they want to recommend stuff, at least give it a “sniff test”! They don’t have to dot every i and cross every t.
NTSB recommendations are just that; RECOMMENDATIONS. What the authorities do with them is something else.
NTSB recently made a recommendation regarding aircraft piston engines. The recommendation was sane, however the FAA turned it into an airworthiness directive that would cost some private aircraft owners a huge amount of money and may put one manufacturer out of business. I think it was the FAA that threw the hand grenade; not the NTSB.
I think there is some misunderstanding of the role of the NTSB. The making of recommendations is part of their direct legeslative mandate that created the agency. It’s roots go back to 1926 investigating air accidents. Other modes were added later. It is the role of the oversite agencies, the FRA, the FAA, the DOT etc. to review these recommendations, do the cost benifit studies, obtain input for the effected parties, such as the carriers, the operatiing unions, the public, and taking all of his into account develop regulations. The PTC is a good example where for 20 plus years the NTSB recommended, but the analysis said it was not cost effective, so it wasn’t pushed out as a mandate. It took the Congress, not understanding the technical realities to do that.
The mandate and history is at: http://www.ntsb.gov/about/index.html
[:)] No doubt… There are many lobbed grenades in DC these days.
In the case of PTC, who was right and who was wrong is still not settled, and won’t be until years after a PTC system is nationwide on the routes that apply and years of experience have accumulated, with the financial as well as the operational and safety results fairly evaluated. But the point is the the NTSB could not force the FRA to do its bidding. There are two agencies, and the FRA is the one that evaluates financial impacts and balances those against pure safety. The balancing is the FRA’s job and not the NTSB’s.
This thread seems to be about cost, rather than safety.
I wonder what it would be like standing in a room with a grieving widow or parent explaining that an accident like the one that cost them their relative had happened before at the same intersection and an investigation determined that it could have been prevented by a certain change, but we decided it was too expensive to implement.
The NTSB is charged by law with finding that causes of certain accidents and making recommendations that would prevent a reoccurrence. I agree with Henry. Don’t shoot the messenger.
After reading the release, I came away with this.
The NTSB is recommending that in future installations, the manual include the implementation of some type of visual signal to alert police and other “first responders” that
A: a train is somewhere near, and moving toward this particular crossing, and
B: Digicons and other devices used may not clear the automobile traffic signal system because the rail crossing detection protection system may have preempted them.
These “early warning “ devices can be as simple as a lighted sign on the signal box that simply says “TRAIN” or more complex as each situation requires, but should include training LEOS and other first responders where the sign is and what it means.
As most states grade crossing protection are designed by that states DOT, such devices can be as complex or as simple as each state requires.
The system will do nothing more that warn that a train is somewhere near and approaching, regardless of what the crossing protection devices are indicating…the train may be a mile away, or one crossing down the line, each installation will require location specific design.
Part of the initial NTSB report stated that both the parade participants and the local police had unintentionally created a false sense of security and safety because they, the police escort, had preempted several traffic safety devices at earlier intersections with no incidents, and expected the same at this particular location, partly because there was an automobile traffic intersection just on the near side of the rail crossing, and they had focused on that instead of the grade crossing.
As a railroader, I would welcome such a device, and I can see where it does not have to be any more complex that a simple magnetic detection loop that activates a flashing light on the signal box or near the appropriate road side of the crossing.
I can also see where t
I can see value in the recommendations as Ed describes, but the devil is in the details.
A city near here has exactly two crossings (all others have been eliminated over time).
It is dark territory, so there is not block signaling from which to draw “train is near” information. Further the two crossings, well over a mile apart, are separated by a permanent 15 MPH slow order. The nearest traffic light is several hundred yards away. And while a couple of parades do use one of the crossings, the intersection is at a near 90 degree angle, so there is no situation like the one in the Texas incident. The application of the recommendations here would be of extremely limited use.
Which makes the recommendations highly situational.
I would argue that they could actually be counter productive, once the public finds out what the chosen indicator means - unless it is very difficult for the general public to see under normal circumstances. And in a case like the Fox River Grove incident, it would have to be located somewhere other than the signal box, which may not currently be placed such that it can be viewed by a bus driver in such a situation.
The education part, however, while carrying a cost, could be priceless. One of the problems with preventive teaching, though, is that you can’t usually measure the success. Incidents that don’t occur don’t generally get reported. In the Texas incident,
There is one Federal Law that should be passed as quickly as possible, on the basis of protecting interstate commerce. “Use of whistles or bells or other audio devices manufactured for the specific purpose of warning of railroad operatons shall be prohibited from any other use withiin 1/2 miles of any active railroad or rail transit line, unless indoors in a clearly concert situation with sufficient sound isolation to prevent audible recognition outside the building.” I think such a law would make a great deal of sense, and perhaps the same kind of thinkiing should be applied to fire alarms and lighthouse horns.
This seems to be a system much like the SP occupancy indicators that were very much a magnetic ( ? ) indicator that had a vertical indication when block clear and horizontal indication when block occuppied. They were about 4 - 6 " in diameter looking like a very minature position light signal but no light.
Has UP discontinued most of them ? Did not notice any on my latest trip.
It is absurd. Those who plan on a parade or even that may put people on or near railroad tracks have the responsibility to notify the railroad of the activity well in advance. The police or fire or other safety department should do this automatically. The idea that the railroad should set up a warning system beyond a track circuit to activated grade crossing signals is absurd, ridiculous. Yes it can be done. If there is a signal system. It would be no different than a train being “on the bell” when entering an interlocking tower’s jurisdiction or starting a grade crossing warning system to operate. No big deal but no reason to be done. Common sense, complete planning, and being aware of the characteristics of the town and event by the town fathers; police, fire and safety departments; and the planners of events is all that should be needed: notify the railroad ahead of time (months in advance); no need to get the Feds involved.
Beyond the float driver being directly responsible for the operation of his vehicle, the organizers of the event and the local police are even more directly responsible if they did not notify the railroad of the event. Ideally the carrier would get OFFICIAL notification several weeks prior to the event - AT THE VERY LEAST NOTIFICATION ONCE THE EVENT STARTED. There does not appear to be any evidence of either the organizers or the police taking this step AT ANY TIME.
All carriers strive to be good neighbors to the communities they serve and operate through. A simple notification of the date and time of the event and road crossings that will be used is all that is necessary for the carrier to put in place protection for the event.
On my territory we receive protection requests for parades, running events, bicycle events, sports events, ambulance crossings and any other kind of event that will have the public either crossing the tracks or gathering in great numbers along side the tracks - we NEVER deny the request for protection and I am sure no other carriers will deny requests for protection for such events.
The event organizers and the local police are both guilty of GROSS NEGLIGANCE in failing to request protection for the parade.
Yeah, BALTACD, you’ve got it right…
Couple years ago I was reading a planning book*. It discussed a dangerous intersection that needed improvement. Roads coming in at odd angles, sight line issues, and to top it all off, a railroad crossing in the middle of the mix. So millions of dollars were spent on revamping the intersection - straightening roads, improving the RR crossing, all the stuff to make it more normal.
Fatalities at the intersection went up.
Why? The people that did this study figured that the intersection was not normal, therefore it was perceived as being more “dangerous” so people paid more attention and were more cautious when approaching. When they “fixed” it, that sense of caution went away, people were less fearful and there were more wrecks.
Just because something is supposedly changed or improved, does not necessarily make it better. Even if there was a light that proclaimed TRAIN at the crossing, the truck driver still wondered out onto the activated crossing (with big flashing red lights, etc). Seems to be a loss of situational awareness, pure and simple.
*- I can’t recall what the book was. After that, it got preachy talking about urban utopias and TODs - stuff I never bought into.
Clearly, the NTSB recommendation is about cost AND safety. If it was just safety, they would always recommend that all Xings be eliminated. That prevents all Xing accidents of all kinds, everywhere. Why don’t they recommend that? Cost. What other rationale, non-political reason could there be?
So, why is it too much to ask them to do an “order of magnitude” cost/benefit analysis? Or, at least some ranking of alternatives?
According to an article in the Dallas Morning News, the parade has been cancelled and will be replaced by a luncheon in Midland.
Familiarity breeds contempt is a saying that we had in the electric utility business. People get careless because of it and frequently get hurt or killed. This appears to have been an issue re: the accident in Midland. Over the years those in charge become complacent about permitting, rules enforcement, and safe operating practices. Happens all the time!
NTSB Press Release on the Incident
[quote]
NTSB finds parade float accident that killed four veterans caused by lack of advance safety planning
November 5
A fatal accident in which a freight train struck a parade float in Texas last November was caused by the failure of both the city and the parade organizer to address the risks associated with routing a parade through an active grade crossing, the National Transportation Safety Board said today.
“This terrible collision between a fast-moving freight train and a slow-rolling parade float of veterans and their loved ones should never have occurred,” said NTSB Chairman Deborah A.P. Hersman. “Parade and event organizers must identify and manage hazards in advance to ensure a safe outcome for participants and spectators.”
At about 4:35 p.m. CT on November 15, 2012, a truck-tractor flatbed trailer combination unit being used as a parade float as part of a procession honoring wounded veterans approached a section of the parade route that traversed an active highway-railroad grade crossing in Midland, Texas. The float, which carried 12 veterans and their spouses and was escorted by two law enforcement vehicles, entered the grade crossing after the grade-crossing warning system had activated. The float continued across the railroad tracks at an estimated speed of 5 mph.
At about the same time, an 84-car Union Pacific freight train approached the crossing from the west at a speed of 62 mph. As the front of the float crossed the tracks, the train engineer sounded the horn and placed the train into emergency braking. Seconds later, the train reached the crossing and struck the right rear section of the float.
As a result of the collision, four float passengers were killed and 11 passe
Isolating the driver of the float, consider the route and how long he drove his float down it (how long he was exposed to/habituated) to the din, the flashing lights and sirens, the blowing of horns prior to encountering the level crossing. Is it inconceivable that the ‘salience’ of the crossing signals, which were surely flashing as intended, was reduced over what those signals would have been on a 10 minute drive through town for a quick delivery? When indicators fail to stand out, they fail to indicate…to warn…to force consideration.
-Crandell
In my wife’s hometown of Aberdeen, S.D., Northern State University has a homecoming parade each fall for Gypsy Days. The parade runs down main street, and crosses highway 12, the busiest highway in that corner of the state. The organizers and local authorities have it down to a science. At the intersection of main and highway 12, it works like a 4-way stop, but with a traffic policeman in charge. A couple parade floats go thru main, then 20-30 cars go through highway 12, etc…
This works, because everybody is organized, and all the details are worked out in advance. There is no reason to believe that the parade in Texas couldn’t be run with the same type of planning and organization. From what I’ve read, the Texas parade seems to have had that type of organization and planning at one time, but that it had been slipping away.