The track on which the Amtrak train and the SUV had a collision are CN (ex-IC). The tracks in the background on which a Metra train is visible are metra-owned (also ex-IC), but.are irrelevant to the accident story.
Schlimm is right, the grade crossing at Steunkel Road (spelling?) involves the CN main line only, the Metra Electric line terminates just short of the grade crossing, the MU cars in the picture are in a storage yard.
Aside from all of this silly debate over punctuation, it ought to be noted that a young woman was killed in this tragic accident, apparently by malfunctioning crossing gate signals:
Now that is a very interesting development to the story. I know that drivers often claim that crossings signals failed to activate, leaving the railroad company in the position of needing to prove the signals did activate. In this case, it seems that there are third party witnesses to a signal failure to activate.
Generally, I have gotten the impression that this type of signal failure is a very touchy subject in the industry because the more that it occurs with documentation, the more it will likely be claimed by other accident victims.
Even if signals do fail to activate, the onus is still on the driver to look for trains and yield to any that are approaching. This is required by the crossbuck, which is equivalent to a yield sign. However, recent polling has discovered that most drivers do not realize that a crossbuck means yield, so there is a move underway to equip all p
So, greyhounds, if it wasn’t the grammar and punctuation that was the problem (as you stated), and since the description of the scene was not inaccurate (contrary to what you stated), what exactly was your point in calling the reporter “incredibly stupid?”
The article conveyed the basic facts.
1. Vehicle struck at crossing…driver killed.
2. Amtrak train operating on CN tracks
3. A number of organizations are investigating the incident.
4. The deceased was a dance instructor
Beyond that everything else is open to conjecture and the various organizations that are investigating the incident will, hopefully, find the proper answers. The Internet grammar teachers are out in full force.
It certainly appears at this time that the CN has a big problem on its hands.
From the coverage on our local news, there seem to be credible local folks indicating that there have been problems at this crossin in the recent past. It will be interesting to see how this story develops.
Sounds like negligence on the part of a signal maintainer. UP had an incident like this years ago on the ex-GM&O main line, where a maintainer failed to restore a crossing’s signals to operation. Still, I’d never drive onto a railroad crossing anywhere without knowing I could get all the way across. I’ve been across that crossing myself, and don’t especially like the sight lines because of the Metra storage. That shouldn’t have bothered her, though, coming from the east. The Amtrak train would have come from her left; I’m not sure what the terrain (and visibility) was like on that side of the street (it’s been a while).
[quote user=“Bucyrus”]
Now that is a very interesting development to the story. I know that drivers often claim that crossings signals failed to activate, leaving the railroad company in the position of needing to prove the signals did activate. In this case, it seems that there are third party witnesses to a signal failure to activate.
Generally, I have gotten the impression that this type of signal failure is a very touchy subject in the industry because the more that it occurs with documentation, the more it will likely be claimed by other accident victims.
Even if signals do fail to activate, the onus is still on the driver to look for trains and yield to any that are approaching. This is required by the crossbuck, which is equivalent to a yield sign. However, recent polling has discovered that most drivers do not realize that a crossbuck means yield, so there is a move underway to equip all passive crossings with a YIELD sign in addition to the crossbuck.
Here’s the latest info on this accident from the Chicago Tribune website.
Briefly, the Amtrak train involved in the accident had a locomotive camera, and it showed that the grade crossings signals failed to actuate. CN appears to have admitted that its maintenance personnel inadvertently deactivated the signals. My guess is that they failed to perform all of the required tests after they thought they had restored the signals, to make sure they were really operating properly.
Here is a local story about the accident which occurred after dark:
http://www.southtownstar.com/news/2176650,042010uptrain.article
Seems that a track repair crew forgot to reactivate the warning lights.
Rich
In the 20 years I ran both passenger and freight trains in the Chicago area, averaging ~125 miles per day, going over countless crossings, only ONE time did I encounter failed crossing protection. Sure, there were many instances of “gates being stuck down”, but only the one instance where the protection FAILED to operate. Luckily, there was no traffic at the time, so there was no incident.
Over the years of operating, and having a near-miss (either pedestrian or vehicle) being a daily occurrence, I tended to get a bit callous towards the morons who insist on taking risks or getting thrills around trains. Perhaps as a mental defense mechanism, I lost any sympathy for those idiots.
However, I always dreaded the accident where the victim was not at fault. The realization of the failed protection must have been an awful feeling for the engineer.
I’m wondering about this…
If the train hit the car after 9:00 p.m., were there no other trains through here that observed the failure before that time? I can’t imagine traffic being so light that nothing passed through in the previous three or four hours, and which should have reported a failure, thus putting procedures in place.
You’re right, Jim–the track is straight there, but the engineer suddenly realizing, at most 20 seconds before hitting the crossing, that the gates weren’t properly working, had to leave a pain in the gut. Not nearly enough reaction time was left. It will be interesting to see what was desperately attempted.
If the gates aren’t working properly when a train goes through, does the engineer report it to the dispatcher?
YES!
Or at least he is supposed to.
Yes - the ‘‘Which dog didn’t bark ?’’ analysis - which I started wondering about too earlier this morning. The most recent article linked about says ‘‘nine freight trains and six Amtrak trains had moved over the Stuenkel Road crossing in the 24 hours from Sunday night to Monday night, and the grade crossing protection system had activated each time.’’ But the on-line Grade Crossing Inventory data (below) indicates 42 trains per day, of which 20 are during daylight hours. It also says ''Avg Passenger Train Count: 0 ‘’ even though ATK is also listed with NS as operating over these tracks . . . [:-^]
But in view of the statements that the work on the signals was related to work on a track switch beyond one side of the crossing, I’m wondering if any of the trains through there in those critical hours before the collision were in the same direction as the Amtrak train
Oddly, and for a reason I can’t explain, the Canadian Armed Forces Manual on Writing directs that the comma you and I would prefer to see be dropped. Or it did 12 years ago.
Very sad that this bright young woman’s violent end had to be the concrete evidence everyone would need to learn that there was unfinished work on the crossing signals.
-Crandell
Are the keys to gain entrance to the signal cabinets not tightly controlled? If no qualified maintainer was there, why would some other crew open the cabinet and what would they be trying to fix? Yikes…
[color=blue][b]Disabling malfunctioning crossing protection while awaiting parts to repair it, or taking the protection out of service during major track work are not uncommon occurrences.
There are procedures to be followed first of which is to notify the Train Dispatcher so that the appropriate ‘Stop & Flag’ train order can be issued to all trains operating over the crossing(s) that have disabled crossing protection. If this was done, and the train order was issued to the train involved then the responsibility flows to the train crew involved. If it wasn’t done, the onus is on the Signal Maintainer. If the Maintainer got the appropriate information to the Train Dispatcher, but the Dispatcher did not get it to ALL the affected trains then the onus is on the Train Dispatcher.[/color][/b]