NJT Montclair/Boonton Line Train Hits Trailer

25Hz wrote:

sullivan1985 wrote:

25Hz wrote:

glennk419 wrote:Any word on the engineer? He was listed as one of the injured (obviously).

There is the possibility that the employee listed in serious condition was standing up by the cab when the door was knocked inward. If this is the case, i hope they have a speedy recovery.

On a positive note, the damage could have been a lot worse, and i think the car will be put back into service once they cycle it through repairs. Who knows how long that will take though.

The engineer is listed in "serious condition." Being that, who cares if the cab car comes back into service? Is it really that important? Based on the photos I've seen, the bulkhead door failed to do it's job and is most likely the primary reason for the injuries sustained by the crew and passengers. Sometimes you train buffs just don't get it.

Yea, i do get it. I also get that i have absolutely no technical knowledge of the incident, the technical specs of the cab car, or what did and did not function properly in the impact, and so i did not make any such comments pertaining to that aside from "gee i hope the car gets back into service" as it was purchased with the taxpaying public's money with car shortages still ongoing.... And if there was a problem with the door, i'm in no position to comment on it aside from the comments i all ready made based on visual observations.

Next time if you have a problem with something i say, PM me about it, i'd be happy to talk. Thanks!

Are you a railroad employee? No? Then you don't get it.

sixty-six wrote:

25Hz wrote:

sullivan1985 wrote:

25Hz wrote:

glennk419 wrote:Any word on the engineer? He was listed as one of the injured (obviously).

There is the possibility that the employee listed in serious condition was standing up by the cab when the door was knocked inward. If this is the case, i hope they have a speedy recovery.

On a positive note, the damage could have been a lot worse, and i think the car will be put back into service once they cycle it through repairs. Who knows how long that will take though.

The engineer is listed in "serious condition." Being that, who cares if the cab car comes back into service? Is it really that important? Based on the photos I've seen, the bulkhead door failed to do it's job and is most likely the primary reason for the injuries sustained by the crew and passengers. Sometimes you train buffs just don't get it.

Yea, i do get it. I also get that i have absolutely no technical knowledge of the incident, the technical specs of the cab car, or what did and did not function properly in the impact, and so i did not make any such comments pertaining to that aside from "gee i hope the car gets back into service" as it was purchased with the taxpaying public's money with car shortages still ongoing.... And if there was a problem with the door, i'm in no position to comment on it aside from the comments i all ready made based on visual observations.

Next time if you have a problem with something i say, PM me about it, i'd be happy to talk. Thanks!

Are you a railroad employee? No? Then you don't get it.

Didn't you know, foamers know more than the RR employees?! [/sarcasm]

How does the old saying go?

'Tis better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.

If injuries were sustained due to a failure of the bulkhead door how does that impact the never-ending discussion on strength and weight of rail vehicles? Is there potentially a design/build flaw in this car? Is it more fodder for the FRA to require even stronger/heavier cars? Is it reason to move to a different design altogether combining aspects of European crash management along with the end of blunt nosed cab cars and a move towards fixed/semi-fixed consist trains with control cars that can't be placed mid-consist?

andegold wrote:If injuries were sustained due to a failure of the bulkhead door how does that impact the never-ending discussion on strength and weight of rail vehicles? Is there potentially a design/build flaw in this car? Is it more fodder for the FRA to require even stronger/heavier cars? Is it reason to move to a different design altogether combining aspects of European crash management along with the end of blunt nosed cab cars and a move towards fixed/semi-fixed consist trains with control cars that can't be placed mid-consist?

I think the issue that is sometimes overlooked, or at least it seems to me, is that the cars can be built to be as strong as anything on earth and conform to computer models that they would pass and keep everyone safe in a certain type of collision - say head on for example. However, there are so many other factors that go into an accident that there are other parts of the car, or other types of accidents or even maintenance practices that need to be looked at which can contribute to a failure of a part and lead to injuries. In this case, it is obvious that a door was the weakest link. Why is that and what happened and how can it be prevented in the future?

Of course its not realistic to be able to prepare for every type of accident (we would live in padded rooms surrounded by air bubbles) but a grade crossing accident with a tractor trailer is unfortunately one of the more frequent occurances in passenger railroading. More frequent than "cornfield meets", (head on collisions) with passenger railroads at least, and id suspect freight as well, but the number of souls is MUCH less in freight, obviously. Everything is tied in together, but maybe there are some things that could have a new focus on in the future.

It is good that this accident happened with a C5 and not a C1 for example. Or even a C3/4 cab car. As much as some of us (myself included) might like a certain older model car for whatever reason, the newer cars are safer. MUCH safer. If this was a C1 cab car.....I fear it would have been much uglier

Jtgshu wrote:

andegold wrote:If injuries were sustained due to a failure of the bulkhead door how does that impact the never-ending discussion on strength and weight of rail vehicles? Is there potentially a design/build flaw in this car? Is it more fodder for the FRA to require even stronger/heavier cars? Is it reason to move to a different design altogether combining aspects of European crash management along with the end of blunt nosed cab cars and a move towards fixed/semi-fixed consist trains with control cars that can't be placed mid-consist?

I think the issue that is sometimes overlooked, or at least it seems to me, is that the cars can be built to be as strong as anything on earth and conform to computer models that they would pass and keep everyone safe in a certain type of collision - say head on for example. However, there are so many other factors that go into an accident that there are other parts of the car, or other types of accidents or even maintenance practices that need to be looked at which can contribute to a failure of a part and lead to injuries. In this case, it is obvious that a door was the weakest link. Why is that and what happened and how can it be prevented in the future?

Of course its not realistic to be able to prepare for every type of accident (we would live in padded rooms surrounded by air bubbles) but a grade crossing accident with a tractor trailer is unfortunately one of the more frequent occurances in passenger railroading. More frequent than "cornfield meets", (head on collisions) with passenger railroads at least, and id suspect freight as well, but the number of souls is MUCH less in freight, obviously. Everything is tied in together, but maybe there are some things that could have a new focus on in the future.

It is good that this accident happened with a C5 and not a C1 for example. Or even a C3/4 cab car. As much as some of us (myself included) might like a certain older model car for whatever reason, the newer cars are safer. MUCH safer. If this was a C1 cab car.....I fear it would have been much uglier

Although I still wish the C1s still ran
Anyway, I'm surprised that this didn't happen in Montclair.

NJT4115 wrote: Anyway, I'm surprised that this didn't happen in Montclair.

and why is that?

fishball wrote:

NJT4115 wrote: Anyway, I'm surprised that this didn't happen in Montclair.

and why is that?

I'm curious too? Why would Montclair be a more logical location?

Jtgshu wrote: Of course its not realistic to be able to prepare for every type of accident (we would live in padded rooms surrounded by air bubbles) but a grade crossing accident with a tractor trailer is unfortunately one of the more frequent occurances in passenger railroading. More frequent than "cornfield meets", (head on collisions) with passenger railroads at least, and id suspect freight as well, but the number of souls is MUCH less in freight, obviously. Everything is tied in together, but maybe there are some things that could have a new focus on in the future.

Of course there are some incidents that the laws of physics are going to win no matter how much crash protection we try to implement. At least twice a week I go head to head with a freight train at a certain interlocking....he diverts one way (3 to 2) and I divert the other (3 to AF siding) simultaneously at 45mph, with no more than a switches distance between us. This is CSX after all, and the Possum Point incident is in the back of my head hoping to God the switch holds. If one of us picks a switch its all over.

For those wondering what I meant, I did not mean that it would be better in Montclair, it is a quiet zone (at least it was the last time I went there). I apologize to those I might of offended.

cobra30689 wrote:

Jtgshu wrote: Of course its not realistic to be able to prepare for every type of accident (we would live in padded rooms surrounded by air bubbles) but a grade crossing accident with a tractor trailer is unfortunately one of the more frequent occurances in passenger railroading. More frequent than "cornfield meets", (head on collisions) with passenger railroads at least, and id suspect freight as well, but the number of souls is MUCH less in freight, obviously. Everything is tied in together, but maybe there are some things that could have a new focus on in the future.

Of course there are some incidents that the laws of physics are going to win no matter how much crash protection we try to implement. At least twice a week I go head to head with a freight train at a certain interlocking....he diverts one way (3 to 2) and I divert the other (3 to AF siding) simultaneously at 45mph, with no more than a switches distance between us. This is CSX after all, and the Possum Point incident is in the back of my head hoping to God the switch holds. If one of us picks a switch its all over.

That happens at Aldene sometimes, and its enough to make you get yourself up into a pucker....

Trainlawyer wrote:This appears to have had absolutely nothing with whether or not the horn was blown!

1. There is a law of physics,often incorrectly attributed to Sir Issac Newton, that two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time. The train and the truck attempted to violate this principle.

2. The driver appears to have violated several simple safety rules:
2.1. He was backing on a public street.
2.2. He was backing the truck without a ground guide.
2.3. He entered the crossing in reverse
2.4. He entered the crossing without any way (because he was backing) of ascertaining whether or not the crossing was safe to enter.
2.5. He attempted to shift gears on the crossing. DO NOT TRY TO TELL ME HE HAD TO BECAUSE HE WAS IN REVERSE!! See 2.3.

There are enough motor vehicle and safety violations on the part of the truck driver to, at one per line, fill a standard sheet of foolscap. What, pray tell, does this have to do with a Quiet Zone?

GME

I stand corrected.

NJT4115 wrote:For those wondering what I meant, I did not mean that it would be better in Montclair, it is a quiet zone (at least it was the last time I went there).

A "Quiet Zone" wouldn't have made any difference in this incident. The driver has already stated that he did not hear the horn or notice the crossing activation anyway.

If this driver had any sense in his head at all he would have continued down the road to find a more suitable location to turn around. Instead he decided to blindly back over a railroad crossing in a fog right into the path of a train. If his CDL ever gets renewed, whoever approves it needs their head examined.

sullivan1985 wrote:

NJT4115 wrote:For those wondering what I meant, I did not mean that it would be better in Montclair, it is a quiet zone (at least it was the last time I went there).

A "Quiet Zone" wouldn't have made any difference in this incident. The driver has already stated that he did not hear the horn or notice the crossing activation anyway.

If this driver had any sense in his head at all he would have continued down the road to find a more suitable location to turn around. Instead he decided to blindly back over a railroad crossing in a fog right into the path of a train. If his CDL ever gets renewed, whoever approves it needs their head examined.

Now I understand.

To expand upon what others have said, had this same incident occurred in a quiet zone, that would not prevent the engineer from blowing the horn upon seeing a vehicle had disregarded the crossing signals. Also, the grade crossings in Montclair do not see the same volume of truck traffic as Main St in Singac.

Also it had been reported earlier that the crossing guard was attempting to assist the truck driver when the driver backed into the path of the train.