Read a report that the train’s speed prior to being placed in Emergency was 68 MPH
This is really unknown. The load appears to be extremely long. If so the full trailer may have had many axels (more than 5) . Even a crossing that is 12 or more inches above the surrounding approaches can cause hang ups. Also a trailer that slides longer than standard can have problems.
Early reports were that the load was a “wind turbine base” on a hydraulic platform trailer – which if I understand correctly, should be capable of shifting vertically to clear obstructions if high-centered, albeit slowly and perhaps with external power needing to be hooked up to it.
The crossing number, if anyone wants to search for references to it, was 796254N.
The NTSB number for their report is RRD25FR005. Interestingly when you attempt to reach the docket site
https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket/forms/Searchdocket
you get a http 400 error; perhaps this is due to a high number of requests or accesses. The only early ‘resolution’ of conflicting details and speculation will be in the detail files in the docket.
I got a page not working error.
I have contacted the NTSB IT support about the issue.
I found a video purporting to be dashcam video of the ‘rig’. Judging by what I’ve seen in the photos of the aftermath there certainly seem to be similarities, especially in the lagging and welded pipe flanges.
I could see how the center dollies could hang up on a raised crossing OR if there was hydraulic lifts on the axles it might take a little time to raise the end dollies in order to support the load as the truck traversed the crossing.
Speculation, of course.
Regards, Ed
Do we know if the lead engine in this incident was constructed to the most recent safety requirements of locomotive cab construction?
Vasars the escort company that was being used in the video put it to you this way. They are considered the Delta Force of pilot cars. They get the contracts for loads valued at 10 million or above in non breakdown sections of freight or super dimensional movements. When the load gets assigned to them as an escort they know the height weight and ground clearance needed for the load and the roads they’re going to be on and if needed scout out the route with height and minimum clearance poles and sensors. So what the hell was the failure here that trapped this load on the crossing it was straight through no turning unlike that windmill blade also in Texas. That’s going to be the big question here.
If Vasars is the cream of the Escort industry - they totally dropped the ball in this incident.
Just as I figured Texas Department of Transportation routing instructions. Texas trying to be stupid about routing oversized loads finally bites them in the freaking butt. We’ve been screaming about this crap in Texas for decades to the FMCSA and USDOT but they stated oversize routing was a state issue. Maybe finally after this accident we’ll finally get the 3 things we’ve been asking for in this industry. A measurement of all major railroad crossing approaches and departure angles and height drops at 20 feet centering why that length most drop decks and double drop trailers the center of the trailer is 20 feet from the trailer tires and drive tires. NTSB is going to have a field day with this final report.
I guess the part I am missing here is why the route is not scouted by the transportation firm first? Seem to remember in the Army we would never follow transportation instructions in the Infantry as a given without first sending out Scouts first to see if they were viable instructions. If it was my trucking firm I would employ an approach where I would review the route myself prior to sending an oversize loaded truck down it. Just me though.
The companies try to run these routes prior to moving these loads but the Texas DOT has a history of changing permits on carriers sometimes on a daily basis. You’re thinking okay we’re going this way this get informed that nope your route got changed because someone who has zero clue decides that you need to go this way. Yeah it happens.
Perhaps is is time for the STB to require that any oversize load get permission from the railroad’s dispatcher prior to crossing the tracks.
Another is to make the shipper share liability for any accident caused by the movement of an oversized load. GE wanted to vet any shipper used by their subsidiaries due to the fact that GE had very deep pockets.
Those sound like good ideas Erik_Mag.
xyz
You’re coming through loud and clear, Lithonia Operator! Welcome back!
Hey, L. O.! I thought you’d left us. Welcome back.
Can’t argue with your last comment.
Thanks! Well, I was on hiatus, sort of. I’d look but not post. The xyz was just a test to make sure I could still post.