While it's always terrible to hear about accidents, I love the standard quote in these things: "The train hit maybe six or eight cars" So I guess the train swerved out of its' way to hit them? Sorry to sound callous, but this kind of thinking annoys me.
It's interesting to note the claims of no lights flashing. If testing shows otherwise, I'll not be surprised. Am betting the lights did work. And people were just so used to crossing, when they weren't flashing, it was a habit..... Boxcab E50
No doubt the signal didn't work properly in that case. I have become so cynical about those mechanical parts that I just will not trust my life to them whether they are on or not. I know that doesn't affect liability and all, but I am going to slow down and look no matter what. Maybe that is from reading all this on the forum here. Maybe it is from getting old. I use hand rails going up and down steps now, too.
What's wrong with Railroads that they can't turn their trains to avoid cars on the tracks or stop on a dime to not hit them.
Whether the lights were working or not does not excuse anyone from placing their vehicle across the tracks in backed-up traffic. The fact still remains they were trapped on the crossing when (if) it operated. One even admitted to being trapped out there with nowhere to go! Think of blocking an non-railroad intersection. Fortunately, for those concerned, they will receive an Honourary Mention in the Darwin Awards at best. As for the signalling working or not, I would be interested to know if the approach signals are interlocked with the crossing gates so that they will only clear once the gates are down and proved down. Maybe they need to use the UK system of CCTV controlled gates? An alarm is given to the signaller on approach and the CCTV system turns on so the signaller can assure himself that the crossing is safe and clear before operating the gates down and clearing the signal. It may cause a slight delay for each train as it slows for a restrictive signal but removes the idiot factor from the car drivers and worse delays from an accident. * Good NTSB report link, Doofus. On the face of evidence it was a fundermental mistake by the UP maintainer (providing of course that is what happened). The monitoring equipment (part of the predictor crossing in this case) provide valuable insight to the operation, or non-operation, of the signalling system and helps immeasurably in piecing together the conditions prior to an incident. No amount of training will replace bad habits, unfortunately. [ November 23, 2005, 10:38 PM: Message edited by: Gats ]
The NTSB link was meant to be an example of how the initial investigation by the RR does not always prove to bear out the facts of the accident. The crossing protection system was tested by the RR after this particular incident. Eventually, video tape of the actual collision provided the facts about the accident. Mclean Ill.
Exactly, the link did that. Thanks again for providing it. The glaring issue with the McLean accident was the lack of independance during the initial attendance. The person presumed later to have circumvented the crossing operation was left unattended whilst entering the location where the crossing controls were. No doubt company procedure, let alone any legal requirement, would have required the maintainer not to enter the location without an independant witness at hand, and that could not be the attending signal technician. So, the subsequent testing of the crossing protection would have proved the crossing to be working correctly since the alleged strap had been removed prior to the investigation and testing process. The second link you have provided deals with the railroad and it's agent's behaviour after the accident, both unethical and amoral. The fact still remained that the railroad and it's employee were at fault, a fact that couldn't be denied unless there was extreme obstruction to the investigative process. With the knowledge of the facts it was therefore in the railroad's best financial and public interest to attempt to deflect any inquiry as to available evidence, i.e. the predictor log and the video footage. All in all it appears to be a poor showing on behalf of the railroad, it's agent and employee. I should add that I (and Colonel) are Signal Engineers with over 25 years experience and have been involved in investigations at varying levels and these types of incidents are of interest to me. That's why I would like to learn more of the incident in Elmwood Park - whether the signalling and crossing were working correctly. It all helps in reminding myself, and others, of the need to maintain safeworking practices whilst working on live signalling equipment. This has reminded me of an incident I attended many years ago where a large tabletop truck was struck by a train at a signalled, but not gated, crossing where the initial claim was the lights weren't working. The truck was travelling towards the main road from an industrial area and had been hit on the tail and spun around 180 degress coming to rest beside the crossing location only after wiping out one of the crossing lights (on the entry side of the crossing). Initially on hearing the allegation, I walked around the train and checked the lights on the other side of the train, which was the truck's approach side, and they were working as the train was still straddling the crossing. The fire brigade then approached me to remove power to the damaged lights so they could commence removal of the truck and clean-up of spilt fuel and were concerned of sparks from the demolished lights. This where it gets sticky because the alleged failure of the crossing. A few phone calls later to managers, etc. gave me the go ahead disconnect the lights but I did it with the fire brigade crew leader in attendance before opening the location case door. Independance. I stepped him through what I was doing so if anything was to come of it I had an independant witness to corroborate. Eventually, the driver admitted to following two trucks ahead of him through the crossing whilst the lights were flashing without considering looking if there was a train approaching.
Fairly good coverage here: http://cbs2chicago.com/topstories/local_story_327181544.html Lots of pics on the link at the top. What strikes me initially is just how big this crossing is! When they said it was angled they weren't kidding, any more of an angle and you could start calling it street running! While they shouldn't have been on the crossing (and how big is that huge sign saying so!), how aware would you be of just how big a gap to leave - especially in the dark.
The final report of the NTSB tells the whole story. It is too bad that it takes so long for such reports to be published. I think such detailed reports would have more of an effect nationwide (and possibly worldwide) if they could be delivered in a timely manner. But the nature of the beast prevents this from happening. I don't know the maintainer or his thoughts. He does have to live with what happened for the rest of his life. Others too, have made mistakes with fatal consequences. The dangerous enviornment of the RR is often overlooked. How many other crossings are set up the same way as Elmwood Park? Will something be done about these? The Fox River Grove Ill. crossing has some similarities to Elmwood Park Ill. Fox River Grove Ill.
It's not from getting old I do this myself also. I hear comments from my wife like "why are you slowing down the lights are not on" I say I don't care I am still going to look for my self.
I would have thought very few other crossings have that tight an angle - check the map on Metra's home page - even the rest of the E-W roads there would be less of an angle than the crossing (Grand Ave) where it took place. http://www.metrarail.com/Sched/md_w/elmwood_park.shtml I think much of this was at least made worse by a really poor intersection - if it were 90 degree's it would have hit 2 or 3 cars at most - as it was it shoved cars forward into the standing queue of traffic. This Image shows the area - the crossing is behind the train.
doofus i knew that signal maintainer he was a friend of my old train club, yes he was the one solely responsible for the incident and he took the blame and it eventually caused him to take his own life a few years later. as far as crossing like elmwood and fox river grove, the signs say do not park on tracks well that certainly means DO NOT PARK HERE OR YOU WILL BE HIT. i don't run out in front of semis on the interstate because they will hit me oh wait that is just common sense, like a train on the tracks, common sense.
I don't know about UP, but I have seen signals on the BNSF racetrack that show clear over an open LC, so it doesn't appear to be interlocked (like Liverpool or most LC's on the Richmond line here in Sydney)
Drivers like this are bred through lack of consequence. They pass us on the right, tailgate, talk on their precious cell phones, try to get just one more car ahead and speed around because they do not leave enough time for their travels. Police are too overworked to go after minor offenses so these drivers constantly get away with their terrible driving and develop an invulnerability complex. Eventually, one day, it catches up with them and they wreck. If they are lucky, they survive and find someone, anyone but themselves, to blame. Sometimes they do not survive and the family left behind get to find someone to blame. Gates working or not, the driver is always responsible to be aware of his surroundings. Russ
Is it really reasonable to expect that 100% of drivers would respond correctly to this junction - especially allowing for most having very little formal training, and potentially little experience and maybe even little knowledge of the area. In heavy stop-start urban traffic - you have to apparently judge a gap that i'm guessing must be around 20 vehicles long due to the angle (versus maybe 3 or 4 vehcles long for a normal 90deg crossing), in the dark, with very few references to try and guess wether the vehicle ahead is far enough beyond the tracks for your vehicle to cross as well? What would your point of reference be for wether they were across or not? The actual track would be a pretty hard thing to judge unless the vehicle in front was actually sat on it so you know he's blocking it? Would you look and see wether the guy in front was past the signal gantry on the other side? If that's yes (and doesn't that logically seem a reasonable visual test of 'he's past the crossing'?) then you're going to end up slap bang in the middle of the tracks as it's skewed so far that the signal gantries are half way into the crossing! It just seems to me that this is a much more unusual and individual hazard to drivers than you're average crossing, and simply putting a big yellow sign up and telling them to sort it out themselves may not be the most safe & reliable way of working this crossing!
