4 ms·

For some reason this reminded me of the Ray Bradbury story, "The Town Where Noone Got Off" which is a dark little story indeed about two men and a small town on

For some reason this reminded me of the Ray Bradbury story, "The Town Where Noone Got Off" which is a dark little story indeed about two men and a small town on a railroad line. This one is a bit more positive. However, it turns out this whole incident was apparently due to the lack of a railroad crossing guard system of any kind at the intersection. The most basic system has flashing lights warning of oncoming trains, and even that wasn't present. https://www.kwch.com/2022/06/30/amtrak-derailment-places-spotlight-uncontrolled-railroad-crossings/ https://www.kwch.com/2022/06/30/amtrak-derailment-places-spo... In that respect it's also a story about the poor state of American infrastructure.

kodah 4y ago
Interestingly, it's the line operator that usually has to establish and maintain those according to federal and (whatever) state guidelines might exist.
- cagey 4y ago
  I believe that this is incorrectly simplistic, if only because these sorts of situations by definition exist at the interface between a railroad and either a private or government road. Having the line operator (which I'm taking to mean railroad owner, in this case BNSF) bear 100% of the burden of providing full crossing protection creates an unbalanced situation (in terms of the cost to be borne). I'm not an expert, but have been following a forum thread on this topic (this Amtrak-truck collision and how to prevent repeats)[0] which points to articles stating that this particular crossing has been "on the list" of not the RR owner (BNSF) but MODOT (Missouri [state] Dept of Transportation) for receiving a "crossing gates and lights" (automated protection) deployment, and that the cost of this prospective deployment is approximately USD400K (per crossing) which would be shared by the state (MODOT) and BNSF, and that, as noted by others posting in this thread, there are a large number (probably the majority) of RR/road crossings in the state (and country) which are similarly unprotected, and whose low use rate has historically not justified the installation and ongoing maintenance costs of full crossing protection. A cynic on the linked[0] thread mentioned it was possible that MODOT had put every unprotected RR/road crossing "on the list" to receive a full protection equipment deployment, so that in case of any similar accident, they could claim to "already be working on a solution, just didn't get there in time" as in bureaucratic CYA. Given the costs involved, IMO it would probably be better to close at least half of the crossings in (e.g. relatively flat farmland) areas where the road grid incurs these crossings at a rate more than one per mile. But as with decisions to spend money, choosing which crossings to close (ostensibly so that the remainder may have automated protection added) becomes a political "hot potato" that can easily cause the process to stall. [0] https://cs.trains.com/trn/f/111/t/292768.aspx https://cs.trains.com/trn/f/111/t/292768.aspx [1] https://www.kansascity.com/news/state/missouri/article263049938.html https://www.kansascity.com/news/state/missouri/article263049...
  - mindslight 4y ago
    This cost sharing hot potato is itself part of the problem. It's ridiculous to have privately-owned infrequently-used tracks having precedence over well-used public roads, and then making mitigating the resulting contention into a shared responsibility. It's akin to someone putting up a yield sign on the road next to their driveway, and then just pulling out without caring because they technically own up until the center of the road. Rather BNSF et al should be paying for the full cost of their own infrastructure, either by building out the necessary safety devices or simply ending the full-speed aspect of the crossings they don't want to pay for. And I say this as someone who like trains, has taken the Southwest Chief cross country a few times, and wishes we had more passenger rail in general.
    - cagey 4y ago
      The RR line on which the collision near Mendon, MO occurred is the furthest thing from "infrequently-used tracks"; these tracks are part of the "BNSF Southern Transcon[tinental]" line[0] between Los Angeles, CA and Chicago, IL, which carries (per previously linked Trains Forum thread: "Posted by tree68 on Thursday, June 30, 2022 7:59 PM") "The FRA/DOT crossing data shows over 50 trains a day..." (wikipedia[0] provides a higher number). And the vast majority of the BNSF Southern Transcon in MO (and elsewhere) is double-tracked, meaning trains can (and usually do) run near full track speed (90 mph in my understanding) without the frequent need to stop for opposing-direction traffic as would be typical on single-track lines. Also, I don't know if you were applying the term to the road of the crossing involved in this crash, but this road is not one I would characterize as "well used"; more like "exceedingly rarely used" (thus the lack of active crossing protection). Finally according to the previously referenced Trains Forum thread ("Posted by blue streak 1 on Wednesday, June 29, 2022 11:32 AM"), the railroad existed 60-70 years prior to the road in question. I believe it is this circumstance which places the onus on MODOT to defend the users of their later-arriving road from hazards associated with rail traffic on the preexisting BNSF line (with BNSF being an involved party). I understand citing posts another public forum does not necessarily meet the gold standard of citations, but all of these facts align with my preexisting understanding of the situation. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Transcon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Transcon calls out Mendon, MO as a station on the Marceline subdivision
rustymonday 4y ago
You must not drive out in the country often. Railroad crossing with lights are not common outside busy roads. The most you'll have is a railroad crossing sign. Certainly a flashing light system is safer, but you (and that news article) make it sound like it's absence is unusual.
- InefficientRed 4y ago
  On the contrary, OP correctly identified that lacking even basic safety systems is a pervasive issue and not a one-off oversight in the case of this small town: >> In that respect it's also a story about the poor state of American infrastructure.
- mindslight 4y ago
  The absence of traffic control devices isn't unusual, but it's most certainly condemnable. Being in a denser area where crossings generally have a light and a gate, it really irks me when I see a no-visibility at-grade crossing with just an intended-to-be-ignored "yield" sign for the road. It's nothing more than a pathetic fiction to legally cover the railroads ass after the fact, and the setup should be outright illegal. I've experienced different expectations in less dense areas with generally clear landscapes, say where a single main road runs parallel to the tracks and all the branches on one side cross the tracks. But overall US railroad standards are stuck in the 19th century and we shouldn't just accept that state of affairs.
  - VictorPath 4y ago
    This is the real story behind the story - a giant corporation creating a dangerous situation for the sake of profit, a government which does not protect people but corporate profits, and a small town that sits by and allows this to happen, but will pitch in and carry off the bodies when tragedy inevitably strikes. One person in the town did try to prevent this, but one person is not enough in the face of everyone else. "The national tapestry that is The Great American Small Town" indeed.
    - solardev 4y ago
msrenee 4y ago
I can find you a dozen such crossings within an hour of my house. If you care to head into the properly rural part of any state, you'll find they're everywhere. There ought to be flashing lights and arms at every one, but no one wants to foot that bill. Was the truck actively crossing the tracks when it got hit or was it disabled? I haven't found any explanation of why it was there.
- dreamcompiler 4y ago
  It seems to have been at least trying to cross, as it had been crossing for the past couple of days delivering rock to a levee project [1]. If you look at the crossing on Google maps [2] it's clear that the crossing is not at right angles. If the dump truck had been northbound at the crossing (and I don't know if it was), the driver would have had to turn his head more than 90 degrees to the left to see the train (which was coming from the west). Local residents had apparently been warning of the danger of this particular crossing for some time [1]. A mockup of the accident scene is at [0]. The lawsuits have begun [3]. One of the suits alleges that the trucking company failed to properly maintain its equipment, which suggests to me the possibility that the truck stalled on the tracks. [0] https://www.kansascity.com/news/state/missouri/article263060528.html#storylink=related_inline https://www.kansascity.com/news/state/missouri/article263060... [1] https://www.kansascity.com/news/state/missouri/article262969938.html https://www.kansascity.com/news/state/missouri/article262969... [2] https://goo.gl/maps/n7WNSFMiqYgbEQQp9 https://goo.gl/maps/n7WNSFMiqYgbEQQp9 [3] https://www.kansascity.com/news/state/missouri/article263084073.html https://www.kansascity.com/news/state/missouri/article263084...
- SamPatt 4y ago
  I don't care about such crossings, it's trivially easy to check for a train. I live in a rural area with many of these crossings and (to my knowledge) there haven't been any problems. I don't think this is an infrastructure failing as much as it is a "Why would we need that?"

kodah 4y ago

Interestingly, it's the line operator that usually has to establish and maintain those according to federal and (whatever) state guidelines might exist.

cagey 4y ago
I believe that this is incorrectly simplistic, if only because these sorts of situations by definition exist at the interface between a railroad and either a private or government road. Having the line operator (which I'm taking to mean railroad owner, in this case BNSF) bear 100% of the burden of providing full crossing protection creates an unbalanced situation (in terms of the cost to be borne). I'm not an expert, but have been following a forum thread on this topic (this Amtrak-truck collision and how to prevent repeats)[0] which points to articles stating that this particular crossing has been "on the list" of not the RR owner (BNSF) but MODOT (Missouri [state] Dept of Transportation) for receiving a "crossing gates and lights" (automated protection) deployment, and that the cost of this prospective deployment is approximately USD400K (per crossing) which would be shared by the state (MODOT) and BNSF, and that, as noted by others posting in this thread, there are a large number (probably the majority) of RR/road crossings in the state (and country) which are similarly unprotected, and whose low use rate has historically not justified the installation and ongoing maintenance costs of full crossing protection. A cynic on the linked[0] thread mentioned it was possible that MODOT had put every unprotected RR/road crossing "on the list" to receive a full protection equipment deployment, so that in case of any similar accident, they could claim to "already be working on a solution, just didn't get there in time" as in bureaucratic CYA. Given the costs involved, IMO it would probably be better to close at least half of the crossings in (e.g. relatively flat farmland) areas where the road grid incurs these crossings at a rate more than one per mile. But as with decisions to spend money, choosing which crossings to close (ostensibly so that the remainder may have automated protection added) becomes a political "hot potato" that can easily cause the process to stall. [0] https://cs.trains.com/trn/f/111/t/292768.aspx https://cs.trains.com/trn/f/111/t/292768.aspx [1] https://www.kansascity.com/news/state/missouri/article263049938.html https://www.kansascity.com/news/state/missouri/article263049...
- mindslight 4y ago
  This cost sharing hot potato is itself part of the problem. It's ridiculous to have privately-owned infrequently-used tracks having precedence over well-used public roads, and then making mitigating the resulting contention into a shared responsibility. It's akin to someone putting up a yield sign on the road next to their driveway, and then just pulling out without caring because they technically own up until the center of the road. Rather BNSF et al should be paying for the full cost of their own infrastructure, either by building out the necessary safety devices or simply ending the full-speed aspect of the crossings they don't want to pay for. And I say this as someone who like trains, has taken the Southwest Chief cross country a few times, and wishes we had more passenger rail in general.
  - cagey 4y ago
    The RR line on which the collision near Mendon, MO occurred is the furthest thing from "infrequently-used tracks"; these tracks are part of the "BNSF Southern Transcon[tinental]" line[0] between Los Angeles, CA and Chicago, IL, which carries (per previously linked Trains Forum thread: "Posted by tree68 on Thursday, June 30, 2022 7:59 PM") "The FRA/DOT crossing data shows over 50 trains a day..." (wikipedia[0] provides a higher number). And the vast majority of the BNSF Southern Transcon in MO (and elsewhere) is double-tracked, meaning trains can (and usually do) run near full track speed (90 mph in my understanding) without the frequent need to stop for opposing-direction traffic as would be typical on single-track lines. Also, I don't know if you were applying the term to the road of the crossing involved in this crash, but this road is not one I would characterize as "well used"; more like "exceedingly rarely used" (thus the lack of active crossing protection). Finally according to the previously referenced Trains Forum thread ("Posted by blue streak 1 on Wednesday, June 29, 2022 11:32 AM"), the railroad existed 60-70 years prior to the road in question. I believe it is this circumstance which places the onus on MODOT to defend the users of their later-arriving road from hazards associated with rail traffic on the preexisting BNSF line (with BNSF being an involved party). I understand citing posts another public forum does not necessarily meet the gold standard of citations, but all of these facts align with my preexisting understanding of the situation. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Transcon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Transcon calls out Mendon, MO as a station on the Marceline subdivision

rustymonday 4y ago

You must not drive out in the country often. Railroad crossing with lights are not common outside busy roads. The most you'll have is a railroad crossing sign. Certainly a flashing light system is safer, but you (and that news article) make it sound like it's absence is unusual.

InefficientRed 4y ago
On the contrary, OP correctly identified that lacking even basic safety systems is a pervasive issue and not a one-off oversight in the case of this small town: >> In that respect it's also a story about the poor state of American infrastructure.
mindslight 4y ago
The absence of traffic control devices isn't unusual, but it's most certainly condemnable. Being in a denser area where crossings generally have a light and a gate, it really irks me when I see a no-visibility at-grade crossing with just an intended-to-be-ignored "yield" sign for the road. It's nothing more than a pathetic fiction to legally cover the railroads ass after the fact, and the setup should be outright illegal. I've experienced different expectations in less dense areas with generally clear landscapes, say where a single main road runs parallel to the tracks and all the branches on one side cross the tracks. But overall US railroad standards are stuck in the 19th century and we shouldn't just accept that state of affairs.
- VictorPath 4y ago
  This is the real story behind the story - a giant corporation creating a dangerous situation for the sake of profit, a government which does not protect people but corporate profits, and a small town that sits by and allows this to happen, but will pitch in and carry off the bodies when tragedy inevitably strikes. One person in the town did try to prevent this, but one person is not enough in the face of everyone else. "The national tapestry that is The Great American Small Town" indeed.
  - solardev 4y ago

msrenee 4y ago

I can find you a dozen such crossings within an hour of my house. If you care to head into the properly rural part of any state, you'll find they're everywhere. There ought to be flashing lights and arms at every one, but no one wants to foot that bill. Was the truck actively crossing the tracks when it got hit or was it disabled? I haven't found any explanation of why it was there.

dreamcompiler 4y ago
It seems to have been at least trying to cross, as it had been crossing for the past couple of days delivering rock to a levee project [1]. If you look at the crossing on Google maps [2] it's clear that the crossing is not at right angles. If the dump truck had been northbound at the crossing (and I don't know if it was), the driver would have had to turn his head more than 90 degrees to the left to see the train (which was coming from the west). Local residents had apparently been warning of the danger of this particular crossing for some time [1]. A mockup of the accident scene is at [0]. The lawsuits have begun [3]. One of the suits alleges that the trucking company failed to properly maintain its equipment, which suggests to me the possibility that the truck stalled on the tracks. [0] https://www.kansascity.com/news/state/missouri/article263060528.html#storylink=related_inline https://www.kansascity.com/news/state/missouri/article263060... [1] https://www.kansascity.com/news/state/missouri/article262969938.html https://www.kansascity.com/news/state/missouri/article262969... [2] https://goo.gl/maps/n7WNSFMiqYgbEQQp9 https://goo.gl/maps/n7WNSFMiqYgbEQQp9 [3] https://www.kansascity.com/news/state/missouri/article263084073.html https://www.kansascity.com/news/state/missouri/article263084...
SamPatt 4y ago
I don't care about such crossings, it's trivially easy to check for a train. I live in a rural area with many of these crossings and (to my knowledge) there haven't been any problems. I don't think this is an infrastructure failing as much as it is a "Why would we need that?"