Passenger Trains > NTSB: Nevada crash caused by truck driver, trucking co.

Driver inattention and poorly maintained brakes caused the collision
of a big rig into Amtrak Train 5 in Nevada on Friday, June 24, 2011.

NTSB summary:

http://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/2012/miriam_nv/Abstract_Miriam_NV.pdf

Animated accident reconstruction:

http://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/2012/miriam_nv/animation.html

ADDENDUM: I guess it took a minute longer for me than Toledopatch, to post the story with the link to the animation!



Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 12/11/12 13:56 by GenePoon.

The side impact recommendation caught my eye. Its already hard to design rail cars to meet current specifications compared to European designs. This would make it even worse.

I just wonder HOW is it remotely POSSIBLE to build ANY passenger car
that could stand that massive SIDE--IMPACT (T-Bone) impact at those high SPEEDS ???
I can not fathom how anything could be engineered to do this.
I look forward to reading more feedback on this important issue !
--- Daneil

howeld Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The side impact recommendation caught my eye. Its
> already hard to design rail cars to meet current
> specifications compared to European designs. This
> would make it even worse.

Wonder what the NTSB was smoking to come up with that idea. I would really like to see how they plain to stop a 18 wheeler going say 80MPH down a hill with no brakes from ramming into the side of a train car and not kill any passengers and the train continues on its way like nothing happened. Yeah Good luck with that.

Guys, NTSB recommendations are just that, recommendations. The FRA does not have to accept them.
Between 70 - 80% of the NTSB's recommendations are not implemented.

PHall Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Guys, NTSB recommendations are just that,
> recommendations. The FRA does not have to accept
> them.
> Between 70 - 80% of the NTSB's recommendations are
> not implemented.

I do sometimes think they shoot for the stars in hopes of getting the moon -- but who doesn't?

John Davis Trucking will just flip this report the bird and keep on trucking the way they have

WAF Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> John Davis Trucking will just flip this report the
> bird and keep on trucking the way they have

Until either the liability award well over their policy limits for this, or insurance premium rise/lack of insurance bankrupts them. Financially, over the medium term, they're probably toast.

Regarding making passenger cars side-impact-resistant: It reminds me of the fellow who suggested that airplanes be made out of the same material that the flight-data-recorders (so-called "black boxes") are.

It's so easy in Star Trek..."Shields up!"

Carl Shaver
Lombard, IL

If the side of a vehicle collapses somewhat, it lessens the energy that might otherwise cause the car to derail, which at the speed #5 was going would probably have caused more damage, injuries, and deaths. An absolutely rigid rail car is not necessarily a safer rail car.

Rick

rdb3 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If the side of a vehicle collapses somewhat, it
> lessens the energy that might otherwise cause the
> car to derail, which at the speed #5 was going
> would probably have caused more damage, injuries,
> and deaths. An absolutely rigid rail car is not
> necessarily a safer rail car.
>
> Rick

No, it will just derail. Just like your HO models do when you push on their sides!

I work for a trucking company so I am somewhat aware of what the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) is doing to improve truck safety.

You can bet the owner of this truck will be visited frequently by safety inspectors, if they haven't been already. There is a program called CSA that gathers information from all truck inspections. This is then made available to all persons who do truck inspections, especially those that operate scales. Getting a high score under CSA guarantees your inspection rate will go up.

FMCSA has closed down more at least six trucking companies in recent months for just the kind of issues that came up during the investigation of this accident. It is not easy for the feds to close down a company, but they are doing it more and more.

Will it totally stop that company from its practices. Yes, it eventually will.

pdxfan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I work for a trucking company so I am somewhat
> aware of what the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
> Administration (FMCSA) is doing to improve truck
> safety.
>
> You can bet the owner of this truck will be
> visited frequently by safety inspectors, if they
> haven't been already. There is a program called
> CSA that gathers information from all truck
> inspections. This is then made available to all
> persons who do truck inspections, especially those
> that operate scales. Getting a high score under
> CSA guarantees your inspection rate will go up.
>
> FMCSA has closed down more at least six trucking
> companies in recent months for just the kind of
> issues that came up during the investigation of
> this accident. It is not easy for the feds to
> close down a company, but they are doing it more
> and more.
>
> Will it totally stop that company from its
> practices. Yes, it eventually will.

This is good, but how do we deal with the drivers?

Don't train the drivers properly..but spend
thousands strenthening the cars side..always
blame 'big pockets'....

Agt-Highland Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Don't train the drivers properly..but spend
> thousands strenthening the cars side..always
> blame 'big pockets'....

I'm sure all drivers are trained to pay attention, obey warning signals, not drive into the sides of trains....I think it's hard to blame this accident on a lack of training. This particular driver didn't follow his training.

Dave

I have a solution to keep trucks (or cars) from running into the sides of trains. Instead of just gates and flashing lights install those rising posts like they have at security gates at military gates or around Federal Buildings. Install them about 50' from the tracks so if some inattentive driver comes barrelling down the road the posts will stop them Before they run into the side of the train.
Of course this will cost billions and billions to implement. But just think how many jobs this will create, to install these at every crossing. I don't know who would be wanting to pay for a boondoggle like this. Just think how much "safer" all of the crossings would be. You wouldn't have to worry about the gates coming down on your head, you would only have to worry about being "flipped" from the posts shooting out of the ground and flipping your car.
Mike

The lawyers will LOVE this one! Think of the lawsuits when the vehicle hits the immovable object... <Evil Grin>

As the NTSB report notes, the truck driver WAS trying to stop. He simply started his braking too late, locked up the wheels on the trailers, and struck the train will still moving forward between 20 and 30 MPH. Had he started his braking 2 or 3 seconds earlier, he would likely have skidded to a stop just short of the track. WHY he didn't start braking earlier will never be known, unfortunately.

lapklub Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have a solution to keep trucks (or cars) from
> running into the sides of trains. Instead of just
> gates and flashing lights install those rising
> posts like they have at security gates at military
> gates or around Federal Buildings. Install them
> about 50' from the tracks so if some inattentive
> driver comes barrelling down the road the posts
> will stop them Before they run into the side of
> the train.
> Of course this will cost billions and billions to
> implement. But just think how many jobs this will
> create, to install these at every crossing. I
> don't know who would be wanting to pay for a
> boondoggle like this. Just think how much "safer"
> all of the crossings would be. You wouldn't have
> to worry about the gates coming down on your head,
> you would only have to worry about being "flipped"
> from the posts shooting out of the ground and
> flipping your car.
> Mike

I know you are being facetious, but unfortunately, many in our society would read your suggestions and think it is a great idea. Some of those people are politicians and others that work in government/regulatory agencies that have the power to demand such things (think PTC).

You just can't prevent accidents from happening, period. Yes, we should make efforts to minimize them, but sometimes the regulations get out of hand and increases costs for all of us to protect a few idiots and their unfortunate victims.