CZ Train Truck Collision In Nevada (2011)

[George B]

I'm still leaning towards the theory that the truck driver was indeed trying to beat the train and tragically misjudged it's speed. I'm thinking this for a couple of reasons...

There is also the possibility that the driver thought that it would be funny to beat this train and laugh at his buddies stuck behind it.

We're perhaps getting way off topic here, but the above comment makes me mad - not at Cristobal, but at the thought that the driver might possibly have thought that way. He was the convoy leader; he had a responsibility to his truck-mates if not any driver following him. If he had made it through and if the second driver had not been able to stop, and had deaths occurred, he would in my opinion be guilty of at least voluntary manslaughter if not indeed murder (which might very well have been the case in California if his motivations could have been proven to a jury).

If that makes you mad, then you really don’t want to know what games and tricks most drivers (both commercial and non-commercial) like to play when they get bored, complacent, or are in an altered state of mind. That is why in aviation we always say the most dangerous part about flying is the drive to the airport.

 

[PaulM]

If you have never driven while you are distracted, you have never driven with anyone in your car, never taken a bite to eat, never drank a sip of water, never put on sunglasses, never listened to music, never changed anything on your dashboard (heat/etc), etc. Just because one hasn't plowed into a train or a pole doesn't mean one has not driven while distracted, if just for a second or if the truck driver was distracted in this case for maybe a half minute.

My claim that distracted driving is reckless has nothing to do with whether I've done it or not.

Question: What is a conservative? Answer: a liberal who got mugged.

Dan's philosophy reminds me that the opposite is equally true.

Question: What is a liberal? Answer: a conservative who got caught.

Maybe I don't have too much sympathy for bleeding heart liberalism when it comes to driving an automobile. Not long ago my wife, while riding a bicycle, was left-hooked by a distracted/reckless driver and broke her leg.

 

[Ryan]

I'm going to shamelessly use those at every opportunity, Paul.

The focus on distraction has really taken away from the point I was trying to make, which is that if you drive your truck into the side of a train, by definition you've been operating your truck in a reckless (and NOT wreck-less) fashion (barring edge cases like a legit, undiagnosed medical issue).

 

[George B]

One thing that you also have to keep in mind when we are trying to guess why the truck driver went through the crossing is that you can’t always use logic to determine why the truck driver did what he did. The fact that investigators are/were on-scene that were also used for the commuter aircraft accident in Buffalo, NY is an interesting parallel in many ways. In that aircraft accident, the pilots stalled the airplane repeatedly, eventually leading to the crash.

Now, from day one, pilots have it hammered in to their heads that stalls are a major cause of accidents, and they must demonstrate proficiency in being able to recognize a stall in various aircraft attitudes and successfully recover from it. The pilots in Buffalo, NY ignored all of their training, and kept pulling up the nose of the aircraft while the airspeed kept dropping. Not only did the stall warning system alert them of an impending stall, but the stick-pusher engaged several times and tried to force the nose of the aircraft down so the aircraft would recover, but the flight crew fought it all the way to impact with the ground. Very illogical, and a rather basic error that most pilots find unbelievable.

So, in the end, the investigation for the CZ accident might just show that the trucker was not speeding, driving recklessly, distracted by his phone, high on meth, exhausted, or playing a game of chicken with his buddies. He might have just had a moment of stupidity and put himself on the short end of stopping distance. It doesn’t make him any less guilty of negligence, nor does it diminish the consequences of his actions. But, don’t be shocked if we never find an answer as to why the trucker did what he did.

 

[DET63]

Thanks, Alan and PRR, for the figures. I'm sure those will come up a lot during the investigations, hearings, etc.

I do think that overpasses probably should be required for crossings involving rural highways with high speed limits (60-65 mph or higher) that are crossed by railroad tracks that also feature high speed limits.

 

[The Journalist]

How many Amtrak crosses grades are there on roads that have speed limits of 65 or more? Just curious, also are there any interstaes that Amtrak has crossing on? I would think that it would be prohibbited on interstates but I am not sure

Interstates, by being called that rather than "US Routes," do not have any grade crossings at all-either with railroad tracks or other roads. I think there are a few exceptions to the other roads rule, but not to the railroad rule.

 

[Ryan]

You're right, there are a handful of exceptions to the rule, but none involve railroad tracks:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gaps_in_Interstate_Highways#At-grade_intersections_and_traffic_lights

 

[The Journalist]

US95 in Nevada has several other railroad crossings-some of the are labeled "exempt," whatever that means, and another is in a slow zone through some small town so it wouldn't apply really.

 

[AlanB]

US95 in Nevada has several other railroad crossings-some of the are labeled "exempt," whatever that means, and another is in a slow zone through some small town so it wouldn't apply really.

Exempt means that school buses and trucks with hazardous materials don't have to come to a complete stop before proceeding across the railroad crossing. Generally a line that is no longer in daily use, or perhaps a line that has a very low speed limit 10MPH, will have an exempt crossing. Otherwise, to avoid major disasters, school buses and hazmat trucks must come to a complete stop, look both ways, before proceeding over the crossing.

 

[George Harris]

First, and perhaps foremost, is that even if this is a regular route for these drivers there is a good chance that they almost always only encounter slower freights.

The freight train speed limit at that location is 70 mph. Given the near flat terrian the normal freight train speed limit is probably reasonably close to that speed, which means the time between seeing train and train occupying crossing is about the same regardless of type of train. It also means that the time it would take a 100 car train to pass the crossing would be in the range of one minute, that is 60 seconds. Hardly a significant delay.

I do think that overpasses probably should be required for crossings involving rural highways with high speed limits (60-65 mph or higher) that are crossed by railroad tracks that also feature high speed limits.

Until there is such a thing as unlimited money that will not happen. What does happen is that there are legitimate methods of applying monetary values to hazardous locations so that the money available is spent most effectively in reducting hazards. However, the real world also says that he who controls the checkbook controls how the money is spent which means that those with political power get their pet projects built regardless of how they prioritize in the needs analysis.

For this particular case, a wide open rural road with excellent visibility the needs analysis probably said that application of flashers and gates was the best use of funds for this location and money for grade separations was better spent where the return in safety improvements was higher.

If he saw the lights start flashing (which happens a few seconds before the gates start to come down), he would have had to make a stop/don't-stop decision. Assuming he was paying proper attention to what he was doing (which he may or may not have been), how close to the nearest rail would he have been where it would have been best for him to simply disregard the signal, as he would be unable to safely stop in time (i.e., without locking the brakes, jackknifing, etc.)?

The warning time on the flashers was 25 seconds (which is the standard warning time). As to the statement that the driver had to make his decision on whether or not to stop after he saw the flashing start. No, legally he did not. When the flashers start flashing, that says stop, not to think about whether or not to stop, but you must stop.

 

[The Journalist]

Ah. The exempts are primarily around the Hawthorne Army base, which probably doesn't see many trains these days.

 

[PRR 60]

US95 in Nevada has several other railroad crossings-some of the are labeled "exempt," whatever that means, and another is in a slow zone through some small town so it wouldn't apply really.

"Exempt" crossings are very low train frequency and speed crossings. Normally, hazmat trucks and buses are required to stop at rail crossings before proceeding. At "exempt" crossings, a stop is not required. If a train actually has to pass through an exempt crossing, the crew will stop, flag the crossing, then proceed.

 

[PA Traveler]

As I posted in a travelogue last night, this train was running three to three and a half hours' late out of Salt Lake City. When we got there to take the eastbound train, the people who were taking the westbound train were still in the station. There was an announcement made about the accident on our train after the accident the next day (we arrived at the station about 2 AM the same morning as the accident). They knew almost immediately that the conductor had been killed and made that announcement as she had been on our train earlier. I don't know where she changed trains.

My husband is a forensic engineer who investigates accidents. He said immediately that it had to be the truck driver and that it would be a year or more easily before there would be any preliminary or final results in an investigation like this.

It's so tragic, and I'm so sorry for the loss of life and for those who were injured or just had to be a part of this.

 

[DET63]

I do think that overpasses probably should be required for crossings involving rural highways with high speed limits (60-65 mph or higher) that are crossed by railroad tracks that also feature high speed limits.

Until there is such a thing as unlimited money that will not happen.

BS. There are not that many crossings that will fit those criteria. "Unlimited" money would not be needed to build overpasses where (comparatively) high-speed trains cross high-speed rural highways.

As to the statement that the driver had to make his decision on whether or not to stop after he saw the flashing start. No, legally he did not. When the flashers start flashing, that says stop, not to think about whether or not to stop, but you must stop.

Again, BS. It's simply not possible to stop a truck on a dime. If he was doing 70 mph (103 ft/sec) only a couple of hundred feet away from the crossing when the lights came on, he would have been able to cross the intersection within a couple of seconds, well before the train got there or even the gates came down. Obviously, he was probably really several hundred feet further away, and if he made a conscious decision about whether or not to stop, the (incorrect) decision cost him his life and that of several others.

"Exempt" crossings are very low train frequency and speed crossings.

Some may be abandoned lines where the tracks have not yet been removed.

If the tracks are still in use, though only a few times a week, school buses may be required to stop even if other vehicles are allowed to proceed without stopping. Usually signs in the area will inform drivers as to the exact status of the crossing.

 

[jis]

I do think that overpasses probably should be required for crossings involving rural highways with high speed limits (60-65 mph or higher) that are crossed by railroad tracks that also feature high speed limits.

Until there is such a thing as unlimited money that will not happen.

BS. There are not that many crossings that will fit those criteria. "Unlimited" money would not be needed to build overpasses where (comparatively) high-speed trains cross high-speed rural highways.

Since you are so sure about the BS-ness of George's statement with such high level of certainty (apparently), could you perhaps provide an estimate of how many such crossings are there and what it would cost to convert all of them? Or are you happy just calling some statement BS based on just a strong, warm and fuzzy feeling?

 

[George Harris]

US95 in Nevada has several other railroad crossings-some of the are labeled "exempt," whatever that means, and another is in a slow zone through some small town so it wouldn't apply really.

"Exempt" crossings are very low train frequency and speed crossings. Normally, hazmat trucks and buses are required to stop at rail crossings before proceeding. At "exempt" crossings, a stop is not required. If a train actually has to pass through an exempt crossing, the crew will stop, flag the crossing, then proceed.

If you were to look at the railroad's rules for trains at that crossing, you would probably see that they say "stop and flag" In other words, the train will not be going across that road until a member of the train crew is on the ground in the middle of the road to make sure traffic is either non-existant or stopped. If the track speed is low, that is probably not enough to allow hazmat and busses to go across the track without stopping.

Since from the pictures it looks like that crossing has all the latest "lights bells and whistles", so it probably had constant warning time circuitry, so regardless of train speed there would be the same warning time.

Someone was talking about "sun in their eyes" Huh?? The road is almost north-south in orientation. Last I looked the sun's path was fairly close to east-west.

For frequent users of a road, speed limits have little effect. The main thing we got out of the national 55 mph speed limit, now long gone and unmourned, was a general disrespect for speed limits and other road regulations. It may have played well in the postage stamp size states in the north east but in the larger states with lots of wide open road, they were senseless.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

For frequent users of a road, speed limits have little effect. The main thing we got out of the national 55 mph speed limit, now long gone and unmourned, was a general disrespect for speed limits and other road regulations. It may have played well in the postage stamp size states in the north east but in the larger states with lots of wide open road, they were senseless.

So you're saying that lowering speed does nothing to reduce fuel consumption or reduce fatalities?

 

[George Harris]

For frequent users of a road, speed limits have little effect. The main thing we got out of the national 55 mph speed limit, now long gone and unmourned, was a general disrespect for speed limits and other road regulations. It may have played well in the postage stamp size states in the north east but in the larger states with lots of wide open road, they were senseless.

So you're saying that lowering speed does nothing to reduce fuel consumption or reduce fatalities?

Lowering speed LIMITS has little to nothing to do with reducing fuel consumption and nothing to even being counterproductive to reducing accidents/fatalities. Why? Because steady driving of most vehicles at about the same speed is beneficial in reducing speed and reducing accidents. Thus, if everybody is driving 70 mph, on a road that is safe for 70, the overall situation is better than if you have a proportion of people driving 50 when another proportion are trying to drive 70.

Another factor that clouds any form of statitical analysis concerning highway accidents: Without exception, throughout the world the accident rate and traffic death rate per miles driven has a long term declining trend. There have been up and down wobbles, but the trend has been downward throughout the time that records exist. Yes, roads are safer. Yes, vehicles are safer. But, you would be hard put to find the points of beginning for the improvements from the statistics. There are many factors in the trends besides road and vehicle improvements. Improved awareness by drivers and pedestrians is a big factor. "Darwin" effects are another. Of course improvements in the roads and vehicles do spread gradually. Better signage relevant to hazards is beneficial.

Yes, gasoline usage and accidents both dropped during the "gas shortage crisis" of the mid 1970's. They dropped because a lot of trips were simply not made, so milage driven dropped. To state things in simplistic terms: It is hard to have a colission when there is not another vehicle out there to colide with.

 

[George Harris]

Found it for Illinois, but not Nevada:

40-1.03© Exempt Railroad Crossings
625 ILCS 5/11-1202 allows abandoned, industrial, or spur track railroad grade crossings to be designated as exempt by the Illinois Commerce Commission.

Exempt crossings must be signed according to the ILMUTCD before officially being considered exempt. Signs for exempt railroad crossings are intended to inform drivers of vehicles carrying passengers for hire, school buses carrying children, or vehicles carrying flammable or hazardous materials that a stop is not required at the designated grade crossing.

for a good bit of information on railroad crossings, see: www.techtransfer.berkeley.edu/railroad06downloads/nizam_macdonald.pdf

 

[jdcnosse]

So you're saying that lowering speed does nothing to reduce fuel consumption or reduce fatalities?

Lowering speed LIMITS has little to nothing to do with reducing fuel consumption and nothing to even being counterproductive to reducing accidents/fatalities. Why? Because steady driving of most vehicles at about the same speed is beneficial in reducing speed and reducing accidents. Thus, if everybody is driving 70 mph, on a road that is safe for 70, the overall situation is better than if you have a proportion of people driving 50 when another proportion are trying to drive 70.

A good example of this is the Autobahn in Germany. It has no speed limit (at least in the rural areas) so if we follow the "lower speed = less accidents" theory, they should have more accidents/fatalities, however that is totally the opposite. Apart from the fluid speed limits in the urban areas that change based on traffic conditions and weather, the Autobahn has specific rules that help maintain a steady driving of the vehicles all traveling around the same speed. If I recall correctly, it is also illegal to drive in the left lane there. It is only used for passing and that's it.

What's more important than the speed limit is the road and driver condition leading up to this railroad crossing.

 

[DET63]

I do think that overpasses probably should be required for crossings involving rural highways with high speed limits (60-65 mph or higher) that are crossed by railroad tracks that also feature high speed limits.

Until there is such a thing as unlimited money that will not happen.

BS. There are not that many crossings that will fit those criteria. "Unlimited" money would not be needed to build overpasses where (comparatively) high-speed trains cross high-speed rural highways.

Since you are so sure about the BS-ness of George's statement with such high level of certainty (apparently), could you perhaps provide an estimate of how many such crossings are there and what it would cost to convert all of them? Or are you happy just calling some statement BS based on just a strong, warm and fuzzy feeling?

Logic, not "warmth" and "fuzziness." There are not that many rural two-lane highways in the U.S. where speed limits (or even average speeds) are in the 65-70mph or higher range. There are also not that many stretches of track (compared to overall railroad mileage) where speed limits are in the 70 mph or higher range. There would logically be only a few places where (a) those two cross; and (b) where there isn't already a grade separation.

 

[GG-1]

There are not that many rural two-lane highways in the U.S. where speed limits (or even average speeds) are in the 65-70mph or higher range. There are also not that many stretches of track (compared to overall railroad mileage) where speed limits are in the 70 mph or higher range. There would logically be only a few places where (a) those two cross; and (b) where there isn't already a grade separation.

Aloha

US 95 which is where the accident occurred continues south and passes my house. I use it to go to the Nevada Southern Rail museum in boulder City, near Hover Dam. It has many places with 70mph speed limits. On many of the roads in the Southern Nevada have 70mph limits. Except for real bad roads and in the towns most limits are 50mph.

Not supporting it but many drivers in this state drive 15-20mph over the limits. Last month on my trip to LA I was a slowpoke doing the limit on I-15, so vould not be suprised to hear reports that the driver of that truck was doing 80-90 mph before the accident.

 

[George Harris]

Since you are so sure about the BS-ness of George's statement with such high level of certainty (apparently), could you perhaps provide an estimate of how many such crossings are there and what it would cost to convert all of them? Or are you happy just calling some statement BS based on just a strong, warm and fuzzy feeling?

Logic, not "warmth" and "fuzziness." There are not that many rural two-lane highways in the U.S. where speed limits (or even average speeds) are in the 65-70mph or higher range. There are also not that many stretches of track (compared to overall railroad mileage) where speed limits are in the 70 mph or higher range. There would logically be only a few places where (a) those two cross; and (b) where there isn't already a grade separation.

How about some numbers? If you get into the less densely populated states, particularly those west of the Mississippi, there are lots of miles of wide open two lane. There are also lots of miles of railroads in this country with 70 mph freight speed limits as well, again a lot of them west of the Big Muddy. As to how many grade crossing of the two there are, that I do not claim to know.

 

[jis]

I do think that overpasses probably should be required for crossings involving rural highways with high speed limits (60-65 mph or higher) that are crossed by railroad tracks that also feature high speed limits.

Until there is such a thing as unlimited money that will not happen.

BS. There are not that many crossings that will fit those criteria. "Unlimited" money would not be needed to build overpasses where (comparatively) high-speed trains cross high-speed rural highways.

Since you are so sure about the BS-ness of George's statement with such high level of certainty (apparently), could you perhaps provide an estimate of how many such crossings are there and what it would cost to convert all of them? Or are you happy just calling some statement BS based on just a strong, warm and fuzzy feeling?

Logic, not "warmth" and "fuzziness." There are not that many rural two-lane highways in the U.S. where speed limits (or even average speeds) are in the 65-70mph or higher range. There are also not that many stretches of track (compared to overall railroad mileage) where speed limits are in the 70 mph or higher range. There would logically be only a few places where (a) those two cross; and (b) where there isn't already a grade separation.

Ah OK. So you don't have the numbers to back up your "warm and fuzzy" . OK. Just checking.

 

[Dan O]

http://www.rgj.com/article/20110630/NEWS/110630006/Amtrak-train-crash-Nevada-crossings-investigated-after-report-near-miss-9-months-ago?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|Local News

This does not take culpability away from the truck driver but it makes me think that something should be done there, be it lower speed limit or something else.

Dan