overlength stalled wind blade smacked by UP freight. Reminds us of the Palmetto hiting that electrical box. When will these oversize load companys call the RRs before transiting these tight curves ? Has the Palmetto accident ever been resolved ?
Watch a freight train slam into truck carrying a wind turbine blade in Texas (msn.com)
Look carefully. He’s been hung by the crossing-signal spacing making the turn. When the gates go down he apparently thinks ‘the hell with signal damage’ and starts pulling through the crossing anyway, but had too little time.
If I had to apportion blame, it would be whoever was supposed to map and check the route. It does not look to me as if there’s enough area to swing that blade to get it ‘clear’ between those standards – this should be checked on Google Earth or GPS/GIS maps.
And wouldn’t that be something a Pilot car catch?
Then there’s that blue placard on the crossing equipment…
The vehicle is too long to cross without track authority from the railroad.
100% - plotting movements of oversized loads is not the mere operation of plugging starting location and ending location into GPS and driving the results. Railroads have a entire department dedicated to the safe movement of oversized loads across the railroads.
Normal carriers of oversized loads on the highways are specialized on their task - as such it is also their responsibility to plot out SAFE routes considering the particular size and characteristics of the load and the known characteristics of the routes being traversed.
Huh?
The overall vehicle length is too long to be able to make a turn from the street parallel to the railroad across the railroad at that location. The article mentions that prior blade movements had traveled a different route through the town and were able to make a straight on perpendicular crossing of the railroad without issue.
The vehicle was too long to make the turning and crossing move within the time allowed by the crossing warning activation. The vehicle may have required stopping, reversing, and realigning. It may have required spotters on the ground in communication with the driver. Under the circumstances, it would require notifying the railroad and arranging for a time slot with no trains to make the crossing move. After making the crossing move successfully, they would notify the railroad that they were clear and finished.
We got a heads up on this one from our insurance company. Seems the highway Bubba in that county department decided to close the roads that were normally used and they were the ones that routed the oversized load on that route. Driver and pilot car both said we can’t make the turn sheriff’s department threatened arrest for not obeying orders of a law enforcement officer. Both the wind farm and carrier involved have filed a lawsuit against the county involved for the damages incurred as well as failure to provide proper protection and planning for this load movement. The repairs to the road involved were planned for next year but from what has been found out some big shot on the county board has their car damaged by the area a said either fix it now or the entire highway department loses it budget. That’s one expensive mistake they made.
And the Texas DOT rail section (successor to the RR Commission of TX after 2005) was left out of the loop? NOBODY touches or reconfigures that crossing without TxDOT’s express permission. FUBAR, fire or fine them all.
Backshop, just ignore Bucky. Don’t get in a war of wits with an unarmed individual.
Do you really need a war of wits to figure this out?
I think they are taking exception to your use/abuse of the term “track authority”?
Well, looks like they just lost the budget for next year, those oversize rigs and blades aren’t cheap, just the rig is close to a half million…
Why would they take exception to my use of the term, “track authority?” What else would you call it? From the moment the crossing warning activates, there is as little as 25 seconds before the train arrives at the crossing.
That is way too short of a warning for a vehicle that might take 15 minutes to cross and clear. It absolutely requires a commitment from the railroad company to guarantee an adequate timeframe during which no trains will pass over the crossing. During that time, the crossing vehicle has the right of way over the track in the crossing. That is “track authority” for the crossing vehicle.
If a permit was granted for the routing of this special load, it most certainly should have required this track authority to have been sought and granted as a condition of entering the crossing. If that was done, and if the vehicle was adhering to the track authority, the collision is the fault of the railroad. If it was not done, the collision is the fault of the permitting authority. If no permit was obtained, the collision is the fault of the driver and others associated with the truck movement.
Well, I have no way of knowing on absolute terms what is on the minds of others. But think back to the discussions we’ve had in times past where a civil authority tried to demand a locomotive engineer’s license, or where a community has tried to implement blocked crossing penalties…there has always been a “stay in your lane” mentality here whenever civil authority attempts to exercise influence over the sacred ground between the rails.
Isn’t “track authority” part of the official RR lexicon? Expanding that to include civil involvement might violate someone’s sense of sanctity…that’s what I was thinking anyway.
Not that I really care.
I understand. Track Authority may be part of the official RR lexicon, but that does not mean that they own the phrase. Also, they do define it as being granted to vehicles that may be working on their track or have some need in relation to their track. It does not stipulate who has to own the vehicle. And the process of aquiring track authority to for a special vehicle using a grade crossing does require asking the railroad for it, and they have the right to grant it or refuse it entirely on their terms.
If the idea of granting track authority to an oversize vehicle using a grade crossing violates someone’s sense of sanctity, I would advise that they get their sense of sanctity under control.
To C.O.'s point, “track authority” in RR realm usually means authority for train or piece of equipment (like a high-rail vehicle) to occupy and use some defined section of track. Under NORAC rules, in a situation like this, where something was going to foul (but not actually use) the track for some limited period of time, the dispatcher would give “foul time”. It might seem like hair splitting on the terminology, since getting track authority or getting foul time requires someone to get that permission from the dispatcher. But there are different procedures involved between the two (at least in NORAC) that affect what and how the dispatcher gives the permission.
Also, whoever calls the dispatcher needs to be a rules qualified individual, presumably an employee of the railroad. The truck driver cannot drive up and call the number on the blue sign and ask for foul time.
I’m not sure there can’t be a procedure to request foul permission by calling ‘a number on a blue sign’. There are gated crossings in Britain that require calling ‘control’ and getting permission to cross – after any nearby rail traffic has cleared without delay – with the understanding that other trains approaching will know to watch, go to restricted speed, etc. until the vehicle is fully across.
Probably a good time to check permitting, GPS and GIS data, etc. before the vehicle comes into foul or gets ‘surprised’, too.
This would apply by regulation to vehicles above a certain size and weight, or needing a special movement permit, but could easily be applied to buses now required to ‘stop and open the door’ or some other less-than-fully-effective thing.
In this age of nearly pervasive 3G or better wireless, I think it would be easy to assure cell-phone connectivity at any potentially dangerous crossing… and to require that drivers, even if forbidden to use devices while moving, have one that can be activated and used for these purposes.
I am not suggesting that. I agree that it would have to be a much more formal process. The request and granting of permission would need to be established in a certified record.
It would not be done by the truck driver calling a phone number on a sign or by a simple phone call and verbal discussion. Instead, it would be done by the permitting authority probably hours or days prior to the date of use.
I think it might require spotters on the ground, including railroad employees to make sure nothing about the crossing has been damaged in the oversize move, and to make sure that the terms of the permission are complied with.
I suspect this entire procedure is exactly what is in place and used for these extra-oversize highway loads. They probably call it Track Authority For Special Highway Movements.