Amtrak train, truck collide in North Carolina

[casanova419]

It looks like traveling by plane or train is getting dangerous

http://news.yahoo.com/amtrak-train-truck-collide-north-carolina-reports-181059333.html

 

[MeowRailroad]

NOT AGAIN! Another accident.

 

[cascaderailroad]

There is a minor, to major, derailment in the US each and every 7 minutes, 24-7-365 (the same statistic says a person is killed in a car crash on that same frequency) Who exactly is this "statistic making up" person, that states that the US consumes enough ketchup in a year to fill a major sports coliseum up to the second level (and does that include outside concourses and basements) ?

If I ever take a train, I am going to take out a million dollar life insurance policy on myself, so that if I die, I will be a rich man !

 

[oknotsen]

http://forums.auran.com/trainz/showthread.php?118045-amtrak-train-hits-truck

 

[MeowRailroad]

That life insurance policy reminds me of:
Touching tram wires causes instant death. $200 fine.

 

[norfolksouthern37]

There is a minor, to major, derailment in the US each and every 7 minutes, 24-7-365

Out of your supposed 75,000 derailments a year at that figure, according to the FRA only about 4-6 a year result in loss of life (except last year it was only 2). if your other quoted figure about 'killed in a car crash' is even close to reality, that puts travelling by train much safer than anything you did today.

Personally I think your every 7 minutes figure is just some made up nonsense or a mistake on your part that you quote very often, further attempts at misinforming those who should chance to read your meandering posts, but it also doesn't say what the scope is - if covers the US, or the entire world, if it is supposed to be one railroad or all. According to official sources, the TOTAL amount of derailments in the US is around 1,200 in 2014 (trending down from the previous year and down from a few thousand 30 years ago but still nowhere near 75,000 annually).

it would make more sense to say about 1 derailment every 7.25 hours - at least then you would come up with a figure close to reality.


now on to the topic at hand. the train was Amtrak 80 the Carolinian. The locomotive and a baggage car have derailed.

 

[210009222]

I live within 30 miles of were this crash happened and its kinda sad to see 185 (A usual in North Carolina) in a crash like this. Thank goodness no one was killed.

 

[LandShark229]

You also have to take into consideration that around 90% (perhaps even more than 90%) of all railroad accidents involve freight trains, not passenger trains.

As for flying, there's a 1 in 20,000,000 chance that your next commercial flight will end in an accident.
In the US alone, it's a 1 in 40,000,000 chance.

 

[LandShark229]

Remember, these are estimates, so please take that into consideration. That doesn't detract from the message though, the point is that in the end, rail travel is a very safe method of travel. This crash actually strengthens that claim. With a fast moving train, large steel object blocking it, and enough force to throw the lead unit on its side, and derail the baggage car behind it as well as the first coach, there have so far been no reports of major injuries.

 

[LandShark229]

I live within 30 miles of were this crash happened and its kinda sad to see 185 (A usual in North Carolina) in a crash like this. Thank goodness no one was killed.

The sister engine to 184 (phase IV heritage), the pair made a few trips leading the Coast Starlight every so often. 185 still looks like it's in good condition if you look at the photo taken at the front of the unit. I image Amtrak will probably have it back running not too long from now

 

[wholbr]

Hi everybody.
Looking at the layout of this railroad crossing from news broadcasts here in the UK, it must leave any average person wondering why any comprehensive risk assessment(s) carried out by a trained competent person did not bring forward the inherent risks of abnormal load vehicles using this crossing.

Obviously I can only speak for industrial safety legislation and practice here in the United Kingdom, but I believe that similar legislation and practice is also enacted and undertaken in the United States. The foregoing legislation operates with regard to health and safety within all industries but especially in transport. Under the encompassing legal acts all companies and employers must undertake risk assessment with regard to all operations they regularly carry out where hazards can be identified. In this case the train operating company would have been under legal obligation to compile a full risk assessment of all possible foreseeable hazards at this and all other road crossing points they use.

As with all hazard assessment it can be the case that one generic risk assessment can be used for any number of similar operations or as in this case any number of rail crossing points. However, a competent trained person in risk assessment always has to visit any site to assess whether a generic assessment would be sufficient for any particular crossing. In the case of this particular crossing a trained person would or should have immediately realised that any abnormal load/size vehicle would encounter particular risks when turning onto the crossing from the road junction(s). Therefore, risk reduction measures and safety procedures should have been in operation at the site to forestall what is without doubt an entirely preventable accident.

As in all cases we have to wait for the results of at least the preliminary enquiry before drawing any conclusions. However, in this particular operation we had an abnormal sized vehicle which was accompanied by a police escort getting into difficulty while manoeuvring over this rail crossing and then finding there was no procedure in place to contact the rail operating company when the above difficulty came about, with all the consequential results.

With all the above in mind, I feel I have to say that this incident based on present police statements smacks of gross negligence and incompetence by those who are responsible for operating safety at the train operating company. At least on the face of it the passengers on that train, the road haulier and perhaps the police will have “one hell of a claim” against the train operators and I wish them well in it as it will be no more than they deserve.

Bill

 

[JCitron]

And to add to this...

Since this is state-owned tracks which Amtrak is running, this may explain why a lot of what happened, happens. The states do not want to invest in rail infrastructure any more than they have to. This is why there are so many grade crossing accidents. Grade crossing elimination and improvement programs cost money and no one wants to spend money on this kind of thing.

It always seems that it takes an awful accident such as this to wake officials up and to actually do something about grade crossings, or even dangerous intersections for that matter. How many areas have those terrible crossroads which only have stop signs, or in effective traffic signaling. The state government will wait until n-number of accidents or fatalities occur before an intersection is improved because the traffic signals cost too much money to put in in the first place.

John

 

[torino72]

Thank God this was not one of those push-pull trains running in push mode. The passengers at least had a little collision protection.

 

[LandShark229]

Instead of blaming the railroad and forcing harsher restrictions on the industry, we need to focus more on removing the crossings themselves. In the places where a crossing is simply inevitable, more work needs to be done on preventing this in the first place.

When Amtrak was first exploring options for the Acela trainsets, there were many companies competing at first. The incredibly high price of making an FRA compliant high speed set, a result of the strict regulations on the railroads themselves and less regulation on the crossings and trackside equipment, forced every single manufacturer to drop out. All of them.

The only reason we have the Acela is because the two biggest manufacturers then, Bombardier and Alstom, partnered up for it.

 

[MeowRailroad]

The crossings are the problem, like you said, but it's weird how Amtrak doesn't get the money to remove them, and then people start complaining. It is kind of a Catch-22.

 

[norfolksouthern37]

In the case of this particular crossing a trained person would or should have immediately realised that any abnormal load/size vehicle would encounter particular risks when turning onto the crossing from the road junction(s). Therefore, risk reduction measures and safety procedures should have been in operation at the site to forestall what is without doubt an entirely preventable accident.

I agree, however I think that the truck should not have occupied the crossing at all. one look by the operator should have been enough and they should not have crossed it. when moving a special load such as this where the clearance to ground is very low they should not take those risks. There are other routes in the area, even with bridges over the track. there is really no reason that the truck should have stuck on the rails because it shouldn't have been there in the first place. The truck was not turning here but rather moving across the track and then attempting a turn. In this case the rails here are in a sweeping turn and that is why the train did not have time to stop before contacting the truck's hung trailer on the track. at all crossing locations there is a contact card for the railroad by law, if the truck+load was being escorted by police then this problem becomes even more confusing as the law enforcement should have been able to contact the line operator and have the train stopped. I dont see how this can be the fault of Amtrak, as they did not route the truck there or get it stuck on the track.

 

[LandShark229]

The only trackage owned by amtrak (a generalization, there are a handful of tiny exceptions) is on the NEC. They've been doing a great job there removing crossings and adding safety barriers. For the rest of the country, freight railroads own the tracks.

Edit: Please be a little careful when bringing up the railroad staff and crew, wholbr. Some of us here work in, or have loved ones in the railroad industry, so in times like these there is a natural tendency to get defensive of the people who experienced it.

Let's not start blaming people, and instead start focusing on what can be done better to prevent these things.

 

[wholbr]

snip~ Instead of blaming the railroad and forcing harsher restrictions on the industry, we need to focus more on removing the crossings themselves. In the places where a crossing is simply inevitable, more work needs to be done on preventing this in the first place. ~snip

LandShark229, in any incident industrial legislation dictates that liability for that incident must be awarded where it is due so that those who are affected by any organisations negligence can seek recompense. Always remember the timeless and very true statement that “there is no such thing as an accident somebody somewhere is always responsible”.

Also, If you are referring to my posting in this thread at #11 regarding forcing harsher restrictions on industry, then those safety restrictions already exist here in the UK and I believe also in the United States. If they do not, then in my humble opinion they very much need to be put in place. Risk assessment is the very basis of industrial safety and has saved many hundreds of thousands of lives in Britain since the Health and Safety at Work Act and encompassing legislation was introduced in 1975.

With regard to this particular incident at the crossing, no great expenditure would need to be forthcoming to prevent any similar accidents in the future. In Britain and throughout the rest of Western Europe, vehicles on approach to any rail crossing are always met with a sign which states that all abnormal load/size vehicles and low loader trailers (known as lowboys in the United States) must stop at the telephone provided and inform the rail dispatcher of his wish to proceed over the crossing.

The driver of the vehicle is then told to wait at the telephone while the dispatcher brings to a halt all rail traffic approaching the crossing, following which the vehicle driver is rung back and told to proceed. Once over the rail crossing the vehicle driver rings again to inform the dispatchers of his clearance and then proceeds. Failure to comply with any of the above by the vehicle driver is an endorsement offence which can result in action being taken against the vocational part of the driver’s license.

Therefore, the only expenditure needed for what has been 100% safety for abnormal load vehicles that are crossing Britain’s railways is a sign and the telephone. The foregoing is what is known as an industrial safety professionals dream (LOL).

LandShark229, I would wholeheartedly agree with you that the only way to drastically improve road and rail safety is to eliminate rail crossings completely. The British government has now agreed to the foregoing and the work will be carried out with regard to mainline rail crossings or where any crossing intersects a class a trunk road. The construction work is to be carried out over the next five years and may run into several billion pounds. However, the above is to eliminate incidents involving normal traffic and has nothing to do with abnormal load traffic which I believe no incidents have been reported over many years with the above procedure in place.

Bill

 

[MeowRailroad]

Let's not start blaming people, and instead start focusing on what can be done better to prevent these things.

I 100% agree. This is the way most problems could be solved, but most of the time, people start bickering and nothing really gets done.

 

[wholbr]

HI again everybody.
What has been reported on the BBC News here in Britain, the police have stated that once the vehicle encountered difficulties while trying to manoeuvre over the rail crossing there was nothing in place for all those involved with the vehicle to be able to contact the dispatchers or train operating company.

If the above is correct then that is negligence on behalf of the train operating company and those responsible for the track. It is not a question of attacking everyone who works in the railway or train operating company, it is a question of finding those responsible for the negligence and bring them to account. The same pervades in any industry and railways are no exception.

As someone who has worked in industrial safety from the last 35 years mainly in the road haulage industry here in Britain, you always look for who is responsible when any incident occurs. Many years ago I was a driver in the road haulage industry and therefore I am well aware of the responsibilities carried by of drivers of heavy goods vehicles. However, in my role as industrial safety officer I very often have to to point the finger when failures occur in what was and still is my industry.

That said, when negligence occurs and incidents happen those responsible have to be brought to book whether they are in road haulage, railways or any other industry. When people endanger others by their negligence the full force of the law should be brought against them and recompense offered those affected, and that’s how it should be.

Norfolksouthern 37 the vehicle in question in this incident proceeded within the law accompanied by a police escort. Therefore if the driver was instructed by his company or the police in escort to proceed as he did then there can be no question of responsibility on his part. Road traffic vehicles have precedence over rail traffic on that crossing or any other when the signs and signalling are in their favour, that is the law

I can understand the anti-road haulage sentiment that often pervades this forum. However, once more referring back to old saying there is one of particular sentiment when it comes to road over rail. That saying being “if you’have got it, a truck brought it”. Look around your house or local supermarket and ask yourself, how much of the goods you see in front of you was delivered from the back of a truck and how much was delivered from the back of a train. In the answer you will realize the importance and predominance of the road transport industry.

Bill