More Typical Level Crossing Accident North of LA

Why not find out why there was a tractor trailer on the level crossing?

It might look dramatic, but despite 4 double deck commuter cars derailing and falling on their sides, nobody was killed in a more "typical" US style level crossing accident.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/southern-calif-train-derails-hitting-truck-tracks-article-1.2127210

The culprit was a tractor trailer, the driver of which fled the scene before being later apprehended by police. After a series of accidents Metrolink purchased a set of stainless steel coaches and driving van trailers that could perform better in an accident than their older aluminum bodied Bombardier "coffin car" split level coaches. It appears that one of the new DVT's was in the lead, but failed to adequately batter the obstruction off the tracks. Only the road vehicle caught fire and was reduced to a smoldering pile of metal.

If the NTSB chooses to investigate it will only be to evaluate the crash performance of the new rolling stock.

" said:

Why not find out why there was a tractor trailer on the level crossing?

I'm guessing because the crossing is right next to an intersection.

It might look dramatic, but despite 4 double deck commuter cars derailing and falling on their sides, nobody was killed in a more "typical" US style level crossing accident.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/southern-calif-train-derails-hitting-truck-tracks-article-1.2127210

The culprit was a tractor trailer, the driver of which fled the scene before being later apprehended by police. After a series of accidents Metrolink purchased a set of stainless steel coaches and driving van trailers that could perform better in an accident than their older aluminum bodied Bombardier "coffin car" split level coaches. It appears that one of the new DVT's was in the lead, but failed to adequately batter the obstruction off the tracks. Only the road vehicle caught fire and was reduced to a smoldering pile of metal.

If the NTSB chooses to investigate it will only be to evaluate the crash performance of the new rolling stock.

Starting to clutch at straws here guys. Whether you like it or not, the fact that there were injuries only does play into the design and build of the trains itself. I have personally seen people killed in substandard rolling stock in crashes less dramatic than this. I don't want to go there again.

No fatalities, to be sure, but 30 injured including four critical. I suspect those 30 might prefer the lorry had been kept out of the way rather than everything being down to the crashworthiness of their train.

I think everyone's glad that there haven't been any fatalities, and obviously the rolling stock has done its job in protecting people. However, the fact remains that the train tipped over and it could well be pure luck that no-one was killed. Were the injuries life-changing?

I agree that the stock appears to have stood up well to the crash, but I still object to Mike's philosophy of "No-one was killed, let's clean up and forget about it". If a thorough report is done and finds that there's no practical way of reducing the risk further, then fair enough, but that conclusion should be come to after carrying out the investigation.

And given only 51 passengers on the train, that's a pretty high number.

Starting to clutch at straws here guys. Whether you like it or not, the fact that there were injuries only does play into the design and build of the trains itself. I have personally seen people killed in substandard rolling stock in crashes less dramatic than this. I don't want to go there again.

Like your DVT's, or indeed New Zealand's SD class Driving Trailer (which is rebuilt from BR Mark 2 Stock anyway), they are designed to withstand collision safely. They are not designed to act as a battering ram with a Truck and Trailer unit that is probably of a similar weight. They would need to be significantly heavier to perform that function, which increases axle weights, or you would need to look at triple axle bogies. That's where the trade-off with cost starts to creep in.

Okay, the cars rolled, but by the looks of the imagery, they sustained fairly minor damage, and nobody was killed. They did what it said on the can in other words...

From the BBC News web-site.

"Mr Johnson said initial reports from the scene indicated the arms and lights were working."

The driver, Jose Alejandro Sanchez Ramirez from Yuma, Arizona, has been detained and hospitalised for observation.
He told police he wanted to turn right at a junction, but turned too soon and drove on to the railway tracks, said Oxnard Assistant Police Chief Jason Benitez.
The lorry was driven some way along the tracks before being abandoned and was facing the train head-on when it was hit.

There have been six accidents at the crossing in the past seven years

I'm quite surprised that given six other incidents in seven years that there hasn't been a serious safety review, because it seems rather predictable that it's going to happen again at some point..

I'm quite surprised that given six other incidents in seven years that there hasn't been a serious safety review, because it seems rather predictable that it's going to happen again at some point..

Most places yes but it is America and from the posts in the last few weeks we've seen it appears to be a shrug shoulders move on culture when it comes to accidents and safety.

I would suggest that what you really want for these particular examples is signaller-monitored interlocked full barrier crossings, or some object detection equivalent. Are those a thing in America?

You don't need a safety review to know that these crossings are dangerous, there is just very limited resources and political will to actually fix the problem.

When the cause of the accidents are usually "driver error" and only the vehicle occupants are hurt, you will be hard pressed to find much public support to spend money on the issue. Moreover many of the fixes, like ticketing drivers, interlocking traffic signals with the crossing gates or even closing the dangerous crossings, will anger the road users who see it as another government imposed inconvenience.

It's funny because I was going to launch into some sort of cost benefit argument, but just looking at the crossings its clear that not even the low cost fixes have been applied. These include setting the light back before the crossing, dynamic no turn signs and brightly painted "no standing" boxes over the crossing.

Indeed, I agree the best solution (close the crossing) isn't terribly practical - though there are areas where exactly this has been done. I used to live near the LA Sub where originally there were grade crossings at least every few blocks. Now it's down to maybe half a dozen in a 10 mile stretch, pretty much just those where a bridge over or under is impractical. Crossings are expensive to signal and to maintain, not to mention complex with frequent crossings where the strike-in for one crossing overlaps 1-2 more crossings - lots of your favourite track circuits! So closing them does actually save money over time - a long time.

The problem is that replacing a crossing can cost upwards of $30 million dollars each.

At the end of the day crossings aren't that expensive to maintain. If they were the entire shortline business wouldn't work.