Major grade-crossing accident in Valhalla 2/3/15

The cheap, most effective solution is a greater public safety campaign. OL is great but it needs to be standard in schools and in drivers ed. It's not. It's not that hard to get everyone to understand the dangers of rail, and it's certainly cheaper than a grade-separated ROW and we won't be outsourcing our jobs to computers with PTC.

PTC despite what politicians believe, changes nothing in regards to crossings. they are separate circuits.

We've spent a lifetime on Long Island and have seen our share of derailments and grade crossing accidents. Displaced over-riding third rails are not uncommon here as they are attached to nothing. They simply sit on their insulators.

We wonder if the NTSB will pick up on the effect that the frozen ground had in guiding that third rail upward. In the accidents we've seen here, the rail usually gets poked into the ground or wildly displaced to the side.

NTSB noted the third rail hit SUV wheel, then M-7 wheels and got deflected upwards , perfect storm ??

Did anyone mention that four-quadrant gates also would not have prevented this collision?

DutchRailnut wrote:NTSB noted the third rail hit SUV wheel, then M-7 wheels and got deflected upwards , perfect storm ??

Thats so perfect its almost incomprehensible... Wow, what are the chances of that...

GE45tonner wrote:The cheap, most effective solution is a greater public safety campaign. OL is great but it needs to be standard in schools and in drivers ed. It's not. It's not that hard to get everyone to understand the dangers of rail, and it's certainly cheaper than a grade-separated ROW and we won't be outsourcing our jobs to computers with PTC.

This has to happen no matter what. Common sense is the greatest weapon against poor decision making.

Interestingly enough I went to elementary school in the "Northern Suburbs" and never once (unless I was out sick that day..) did anyone come in and talk about RR crossing safety. There weren't any crossings in the vicinity so perhaps that was a factor, but with children, parents, young adults, middle-aged, elderly, you name it driving everywhere nowadays the chances of one encountering a railroad crossing on a daily basis is not low.

LongIslandTool wrote:We've spent a lifetime on Long Island and have seen our share of derailments and grade crossing accidents. Displaced over-riding third rails are not uncommon here as they are attached to nothing. They simply sit on their insulators.

In a way that might be what makes overrunning third rail less "dangerous" in a grade crossing accident. If something strikes it it'll just move with the force of impact, not get force-fed into the train.

DutchRailnut wrote:NTSB noted the third rail hit SUV wheel, then M-7 wheels and got deflected upwards , perfect storm ??

No doubt some will question if an overrunning third rail would have had the same effect. And my gut says no simply due to the low-to-the-ground profile. Whenever a train derails are the rails in the track misplaced? Yes. But do they pierce THROUGH the train in a manner such as what happened here? Especially since an underrunning third rail can be tapered downward before and after a crossing/switch/gap?

This accident reminds me of the Ufton Nervet crash in the UK in Nov. 2004 when an HST trainset collided with a car and derailed killing 7. IIRC the HST125 upon impact "rode up" on top of the car due to the design of the front of the power car rather than hitting the SUV head-on and dragging it down the track. This was a type of train that had been in use for about 25 years up to that point btw.

The third rail in this recent accident was in use for over 30 years on the Upper Harlem and for over 100 years elsewhere in the ex-NYC RR electric zone. This could simply be a case of a design simply gone wrong so many years later (particularly with automobile usage in the greater NYC area growing and growing since the 1960s). And the presence of grade crossings or not is beside the point. Cars can -and have been known to- roll off a hill or end of a street onto the ROW and be struck by a train and have the same consequences if the third rail changes sides right down the tracks.

As much as Metro-North appears to be more or less NOT at fault here (my personal jury is still out on the crossing bells not ringing, but in this particular case IMO the lights and gates should have been enough to warn the driver to not drive forward) the underrunning third rail itself just might be the biggest piece of the puzzle as to why this accident went from being tragic enough to beyond horrific.

And yes there have been a fair share of diesel vs car/truck/tractor trailer crashes (including as mentioned in prior posts on the LIRR in their electric zone), but a good number of those didn't end with passengers on the train dying. A collision on the Amtrak Downeaster in 2011 is one such example. The engine struck a tractor trailer, caught fire and I believe began to spread to the first car. The engineer nevertheless was able to stop the train, uncouple the coaches + NPCU, and move the loco down far enough out of harms way. In this recent crash the cab of the train caught fire, but the engineer survived. It was only when the passenger section of the train also caught fire that a truly unfortunate accident became a living nightmare.

In short, I wouldn't be surprised to hear/see more calls for the third rail to be replaced with a LIRR/NYC Subway style third rail. It's still a third rail and has its drawbacks (trespassers being more easily electrocuted, snow buildup cutting off power to trains, etc.) but with the risk of a repeat of this recent accident being practically zilch compared with keeping the current third rail in place that might force the issue.

justalurker66 wrote:

pnaw10 wrote: 3) Is the traffic light at the TSP/ Commerce St. intersection linked to the RR Crossing? I recall coverage on a bad Chicago Metra accident 15-20 years ago (maybe more?) in a similar situation -- tracks parallel to one highway, and another road crossing both. In order to prevent a "red light backup" from potentially trapping someone on the tracks (which was the cause of the Metra crash), they linked the traffic light to the RR crossing... so that if a train is approaching, the traffic light immediately cycles through to give the cross-street (just the side coming out of the railroad crossing) a green light. Ideally, this would be set up in such a way that the traffic light goes green a few seconds before the crossing gates activate, so that a vehicle stopped on the tracks doesn't get hit by the gate.

That traffic light seems to be too far away to make a difference to the crossing under normal traffic conditions. (The time of the accident was abnormal traffic conditions.)

I like the design where a traffic light turns green to empty the tracks before a train arrives. But part of that design needs to be to prevent new cars from entering the tracks ... which means a second traffic light at the tracks that goes red when the intersection light goes green. Which signal does traffic obey?

No, you don't necessarily need two different traffic lights. Let's suppose we're driving east on Commerce toward the tracks and the TSP. A train trips the crossing circuit. If the Commerce Street light isn't already green, the first step in the crossing logic is to give the TSP yellows, then reds, so Commerce Street EASTBOUND gets a green. This allows anyone ignorant enough to stop on the tracks to get out. As soon as the light turns green, the crossing lights begin and the gates go down. So even if you see the green light up ahead at the intersection, you're encountering the crossing gates and lights first. When a huge gate blocks your path, I think it's pretty clear which signal is to be obeyed first.

Notice I said only eastbound Commerce gets the green; westbound traffic remains red with the Parkway, so we don't wind up with the opposite effect; the parkway being fouled because there wasn't enough room for westbound traffic to get all the way across the parkway before stopping for the RR crossing.

Stopping the TSP for "too long" would be a concern, especially if one train is nearly out of the crossing zone when another train (likely in the opposite direction) comes along and keeps the crossing circuit active. The signal logic would keep the "forced green" on Commerce limited to 20-30 seconds, which should be plenty of time to serve the intended purpose. Then, the TSP gets its green light back and it stays that way at least until the RR crossing is clear.

Aside from the programming logic to interconnect the RR crossing and the traffic light, the only other impact is that the crossing circuits might need to be extended so the circuit is "tripped" about 5-6 seconds earlier, to allow for the traffic signal change before the gates are activated.

As for distance between crossing and intersection... I used Google Maps satellite view and got directions from one stop line to the other (because I'm not about to go visit the scene and tape-measure it out by hand). It was 56 feet. Some of the most popular pick-up trucks out there are almost 22 feet long. A Mercedes Benz GL-Class SUV is nearly 17 feet long. Can't fit more than 2 or 3 of those (with a few feet between each) in the amount of space legally provided between the tracks and the parkway. I'd say it's short enough to warrant linking the two signal systems together.

I'll give my 10c. I'm a British-born American, currently living in NZ, travelled a lot, so I've seen how things are done in a lot of different places.

There are NO dangerous grade crossings. None. Only dangerous drivers. That's the problem. So, a two-pronged attack:

1. Education.
2. 100% enforcement of new stricter laws:

You do NOT enter a crossing unless your exit is clear. Never ever. Not for any reason. To do so is a misdemeanor.
You do NOT stop within a crossing. Never ever. Not for any reason. That's a misdemeanor conviction too.
You do NOT run a red light, or a stop sign if no lights, on a crossing. Never ever. That one is a felony. Yes, a felony.

100% enforcement camera coverage, 100% aggressive prosecution of every single offense. It won't work overnight, but word will get around quickly; if you don't obey the crossing laws you WILL lose your license and/or lose your vehicle and/or go to jail, guaranteed. That takes care of everything except the real genuine black swan freak events - car breaks down immovably, or driver has a heart attack in the middle of the crossing.

Sure, add extra safety equipment, improve crossings, eliminate them where cheap and practical. But the emphasis has to be on getting people to use them safely, and nothing much else has worked in that regard, so time to crack down hard on bad driving there.

Mike

Per abaduck's list, I would add corrugation to the road surface approaching a GC to make life very uncomfortable for anyone who tries to floor it to beat the lights.

And if all else fails - install these:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_Cw0QJU8ro" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

All those Idea's are marvelous, she was past all warning devices when she stopped.
Having 4 x 200 000 Candela headlights did not work for her.
A 102 Decibel train horn did not get her attention.
The guy warning her from car behind her did nothing for her.

you really think any of goofy idea's uttered here would have changed a thing ???

DutchRailnut wrote:

B9fg1f8CEAAkm40.jpg

That is a pretty good poster. Will try to put is up around my town.

Dutch, spoken as a true triebfahrzeugführer. The Tool is with you 100%.