FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 24, 2011, 1:15 p.m. PDT
ATK-11-095 Contact: Media Relations 510 238.4360
TRUCK STRIKES AMTRAK TRAIN IN NEVADA California Zephyr
OAKLAND -- At about 11:20 a.m. PDT time, a semi tractor-trailer rig drove into the side of an Amtrak train at a public railroad crossing east of Reno, Nev.
There are reports of injuries to Amtrak passengers and crew. At the time, there were approximately 204 passengers and 14 crew members aboard Train 5, the westbound California Zephyr, enroute from Chicago to Emeryville, Calif.
Amtrak managers and representatives of Union Pacific, the track owner, are enroute to the scene, along with emergency responders. We are saddened by any injury and appreciate the emergency response by local and state agencies.
We ask the news media to be respectful of our customers, our employees and their families.
Persons with questions about their friends and family aboard this train have a special number to call for information: 800-523-9101.
Posted by Henry Kisor (Member # 4776) on :
The AP is reporting that the semitruck driver and one person aboard the train were killed, and that ambulances are transporting injured to hospitals.
Posted by Henry Kisor (Member # 4776) on :
Reno Gazette-Journal reports that the conductor was killed and that there are some 150 injuries, mostly minor. Also that several passengers are trapped in two burning cars. Medevac helos are on the scene.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Not looking good:
"Raw" video; this may be considered "intense'.
Posted by cubzo (Member # 4700) on :
Gee this makes the accident that my wife and I were involved look like just hitting a speed bump. My condolences for those killed or injured.
Posted by The Chief (Member # 2172) on :
Map location, click on Hybrid (upper right), Zoom in on left nav bar.
NBC 4 report Posted by smitty195 (Member # 5102) on :
My heart sank when I heard the news. I've taken this trip so many times, and this is one of those areas where I've sometimes wondered "what if?"---meaning, "what if an emergency happens here?", because of how remote the area is. Unfortunately, I also know of the Conductor who was killed. I did not know her personally, but she was a familiar face from my AmTravels over the years. I'm almost positive that she also used to work out of the Oakland crew base---I remember her from way back when (maybe 10 or so years ago). The video and pictures just look horrible.
Posted by amtrak92 (Member # 14343) on :
I talked to a Amtrak employee and found out more details then most people knew at the time. Very scary, my heart goes out with the crew.
Posted by Henry Kisor (Member # 4776) on :
Some 22 hours after the incident, the death toll still is being reported variously as "at least two" and "five confirmed." This is curious, but there may be a good reason for it -- and for Amtrak's refusal to give a fatality count.
I understand that normally in an event like this there is an incident commander who delegates a spokesman to deal with the media and that all questions must go to that spokesman. But in this case a fire chief, a state trooper and a generic "law enforcement authority" have been quoted, all giving different death counts. This makes me wonder if law enforcement in that part of Nevada hasn't quite got its incident act together in the press relations department. (No evidence, however, that the incident response otherwise wasn't rapid and professional.)
It could be that the scene inside the burned cars is so grim that an accurate count hsn't been possible.
Posted by smitty195 (Member # 5102) on :
I've since found out that the Conductor is the person who also worked out of Oakland at one time. She was a professional.
From the witness statements in the various news articles, my guess is that there are charred remains inside the 2 Superliners. It happened so fast and was so violent that I would imagine that we won't know the true fatality count for a few more days. I'm not sure why they don't have a single point of contact or PIO yet. Since the NTSB is reportedly not on-scene yet, I could easily see different agencies thinking it is "theirs", thus the different reporting coming from the scene. The NHP thinks it's theirs, the fire dept thinks it's theirs, UP thinks it's theirs, Amtrak think it's theirs, etc....Definitely not the first time that has happened.
Posted by notelvis (Member # 3071) on :
Grim footage indeed..... Condolences to those affected and thanks to the emergency response people who have the thankless job of trying to make things right again.
Posted by SilverStar092 (Member # 2652) on :
I am so saddened for all involved. This brings to mind the City of New Orleans accident at Bourbonais, IL a few years back...very sad scene. I imagine there were several fatalities in the two badly burned cars as it had to happen so fast and be so intense. Hopefully some lives were saved by it being around lunch time. This surely saved some crew members who otherwise would have been in the transition sleeper. By the way, I saw the car numbers of the following cars in the video: baggage 1257, crew sleeper 39013 (burned up), coach 34033 (badly burned).
Posted by smitty195 (Member # 5102) on :
For those following this news story, something odd is going on. As Henry noted previously, the flow of information is odd. By now, that should have been ironed out. Additionally, one of the Reno TV stations had video on their website that showed Homeland Security agents taking evidence photos of something that they had covered up with a portable tent. Maybe it was a dead body---I really don't know. But that video is gone from the website, and there has been NO mention of HomSec being on-scene. The number of fatalities has not been released yet, and I have a feeling the actual number killed is going to be a shocking number that is not reported yet. Stay tuned....
Posted by smitty195 (Member # 5102) on :
Okay, I'm being told now that 28 people are unaccounted for. This was from the NTSB briefing, which I did not see...Wow...
Posted by dmwnc1959 (Member # 2803) on :
How fast was that truck driver going?
From USA Today:
Skid marks show the driver of the truck slammed on his brakes, sliding more than 300 feet before hitting the train, Weener said.
And this update just now:
(CNN) -- Six people were killed when a tractor-trailer truck slammed into a Chicago-to-California Amtrak passenger train at a railroad crossing east of Reno, Nevada, authorities said late Saturday.
The second comment on the california beat reference is from a truck driver who states that the visitility at the crossing is excellent.
There is another article on the news that estimatad the missing at around 45 and sstated that firemen saw burned bodies that they were not able to reach due to the damage to the structure of the coach.
I put together a preliminary summary of the situation. Some of what is written is in response to issues raised elsewhere. Here it is:
The truck was empty. It appears to have been a double trailer, or else a fairly long single unit with a trailer behind that.
Here is what I get out of what I see in the pictures and the map plus some things pulled out of what others have said. There is quite a bit I have read that comes out of what people know from their own interests and professions that help in understanding what happened.
Location on the railroad: About milepost 318.6. Somebody should be able to give that more exactly since it can be read off the housing at the road crossing. It appears from Google Maps to be about 4/10 mile west of the west end of Ocala siding, which is at milepost 319.0. From the 2005 ETT, the speed limit here is 79P/70F. Given the terrain, all trains not using the siding, freight and passenger should be going fairly fast. The speed in the siding is shown as being 20 mph, so a train entering or leaving the siding would be going fairly slow but this is CTC territory, so there is no stop to throw the switch involved.
Location on the highway: South of the crossing the highway is more or less parallel to the railroad, but not close, probably about 1/4 mile east of the railroad. Going north toward the railroad crossing, before the crossing, there is a large radius curve to the left and the crossing is just north of the end of the curve.
First, this is a fairly low angle crossing, somewhere around 35 to 45 degrees. The truck was going northbound on US95, which in this area means pretty well due north after running parallel to the railroad. The train was going westbound (obviously), which in this area means southwest. Therefore, they were near facing each other. In fact, given the openness of the country, the headlight of the train should have been in sight of the truck before he entered the curve that is in advance of the crossing.
This leaves us with two scenarios: One, that the truck driver saw the train and tried to beat it. That would seem irrational, to say the least, as the time of observation that he would have had would tell him that the train was moving fast. Two, and somewhat more reasonable to consider that the truck driver was unaware until he saw the headlight, or, maybe heard the horn. Whether he was distracted or had headphones on a loud engine, who knows. Anything said in this area is completely speculation, and useless at this time. Suffice to say, when he did become aware, he swerved to the left. That would be the natural reaction when perceiving a threat from the left. He would probably have made the situation better by swerving right, but that would be an unnatural reaction, and there was no time at all for thought.
Second: With the crossing angle, at best the angle of impact would be somewhere in the 45 degree to 60 degree range. That would give a closing speed of around 110 mph or greater.
Third: Given the closing speed, the front part of the cab including engine, and probably fuel tanks, would almost certainly have ended up inside the car they hit. It would not be surprising to find that some parts of the front of the truck went clear through the car.
Fourth: Given this impact, the total fuel in the truck ended up inside and splashed underneath the car. I would go with inside, as there is no evidence in the pictures I have seen of fuel on the roadbed in the vicinity of the crossing, which would be the case if any significant quantity went under the car. Likewise, there is no evidence of fire inside or under the train beyond this one car.
Fifth: The smoke and flames say diesel fuel fire plus combustion of diesel fuel soaked car furnishings and contents. Someone else probably could give a better quantity, but I would say somewhere between 50 and 200 gallons of diesel fuel were involved. The fire has nothing to do with the relative flammability of the vehicle or contents. Some of what we see in the pictures is evidence of melted metal. For the passengers and crew to do anything about this fire other that put as much distance as they could between the fire and themselves would be an act of stupidity. In my opinion, the presence or absence of fire extinguishers, a fire fighting plan, or anything else on the train, including the materials in the car and an on-board fire suppression system is completely irrelevant to the situation.
Sixth: The large hole in the side of the car behind the car on fire was caused by the first trailer coming around and slamming up against the car.
Seventh: The train did not derail because the point of impact was between the trucks. If one of the wheel sets of the train had been hit by the truck a derailment would have been a near certainty.
I have not looked much yet today for further information on injuries / deaths, but being on the upper level of the car hit by the trailer and on the side the trailer hit would almost certain result in serious injury or death. Likewise, being on the lower level of the car hit by the front end of the truck would be nearly a death sentence. Being on the upper level would not be so good, either.
Posted by MDRR (Member # 2992) on :
Nice summary, George, Thank You.
Posted by dmwnc1959 (Member # 2803) on :
'The speed of the truck hasn't been determined, but Weener said it was going "at a considerable speed" because the impact left the tractor embedded in one of the train cars'.
quote:Originally posted by George Harris: Third: Given the closing speed, the front part of the cab including engine, and probably fuel tanks, would almost certainly have ended up inside the car they hit. It would not be surprising to find that some parts of the front of the truck went clear through the car.
Posted by PullmanCo (Member # 1138) on :
5AM NPR newscast June 26: Still 6 dead, but also still 28 missing. My gut tells me the death toll will go higher.
Condolences and prayers to the families...
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
The Associated Press is one of the more valued newssources with regards to railroad industry affairs. The material located by Mr. DMW is certainly indicative of that.
Here is Los Angeles Times coverage of the incident including video from the AP:
I'm sorry, volks, but it is simply astounding, given that all conditions - weather, visibility, signals, (reportedly) equipment - were optimal that "the system' issues Commercial Driver Licenses' to persons capable of such negligence. It is difficult to dismiss that, at some point during the chain of events, this represented an intentional act.
I normally avoid the "hearts and flowers drill" prevalent at many a site after such an incident occurs, but in this instance, the message within the material Mr. Kisor posted to originate this topic, rings so true. Over at another site at which serveral here participate, there are Amtrak Passenger Engineers having seniority within that Zone and that regularly handle 5-6. Obviously "they're OK", but one of their Conductor colleagues is, I'm afraid, not.
That Dorm 39013 and Coach 34033 WILL be written off is simply not of consequence.
Posted by smitty195 (Member # 5102) on :
300 feet of skid marks??? I never worked as a traffic officer (where you learn complex accident reconstruction equations), but just from the basic stuff that I do know, 300 feet on a big rig indicates that he was flying. REALLY flying.
Posted by Stephen W (Member # 6059) on :
I find this extract from the LA Times extremely disconcerting:
"Amtrak has had 36 accidents at grade crossings from January through March of this year, resulting in 11 deaths, according to the Federal Railroad Administration's safety office. In the five-year period ending in 2010, the passenger train service was involved in crashes that took the lives of 309 people, an average of 62 per year. Amtrak's media relations officials did not return calls Saturday for comment."
That doesn't exactly make happy reading for anyone contemplating a first trip by rail in the US.
According to a report in the Reno Gazette Journal the truck driver was a man in his mid-forties working for John Davies Trucking of Battle Mountain.
Incidentally, I find it strange, taking a look at a selection of Sunday newspapers throughout various States, that I could find few, if any, reports of this dreadful accident. Does this reflect a general lack of interest in an event that happens outwith a newspaper's State or is it that, because of the statistics mentioned above, it is viewed as almost commonplace? If either case is true that I find it sad.
My condolences to all concerned.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Stephen W; I realize that most of your major newspapers in the UK are national in scope, but over here there are really only three; Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and Gannett News' USAToday. That third paper, often called McPaper, is simply a "bash' of newswire stories. Twelve column-inches is their idea of "in-depth" reporting, but I think that is what their market wants.
I defer to Mr. Mike Smith to critique the quality of The New York Times' journalism.
Posted by Henry Kisor (Member # 4776) on :
Stephen, the trend in U.S. journalism in the last decade -- even in major metropolitan newspapers -- has been to focus on local events and relegate world and national events to the back of the bus. It's what focus groups tell the marketers they want.
In Chicago both the Sun-Times and Tribune have had fair coverage of the Amtrak crash, but that's because No. 5 originates and No. 6 terminates here, and many of the riders therefore are local, so it's a local story. (Same with the San Francisco Bay dailies and the Reno paper.)
I concur, by the way, with GBN about McPaper. Strong on graphics, short on substance. I hate to find it outside my hotel door. But Gannett provides it free to hostelries.
Posted by Stephen W (Member # 6059) on :
GBN and Henry; Thank you for your amplifications. I suppose because I come from a smallish island that I can't quite get into my head how vast a country yours is.
I've always been suspicious of focus groups, incidentally, as they are often led - sometimes unconsciously - into the answers that are wanted by those asking them. We see this a great deal in the political world of the UK.
Posted by TwinStarRocket (Member # 2142) on :
Since the second burned car is a coach, does that mean sleepers are now at the rear of the CZ? When I rode it last summer sleepers were up front.
So many unlikely and possibly illegal circumstances had to come together for this event to happen. I would guess this was a regular familiar run for the trucking company and they were used to regular train traffic at this location. This is truly tragic. And it may be good this is missed by major news outlets lest we give some ideas to the wrong people.
Posted by Henry Kisor (Member # 4776) on :
A touching tribute to Laurette Lee, the conductor who died in the crash, is here. Posted by smitty195 (Member # 5102) on :
quote:Originally posted by TwinStarRocket: Since the second burned car is a coach, does that mean sleepers are now at the rear of the CZ? When I rode it last summer sleepers were up front.
As of a few weeks ago, the sleepers were in the front. I had business in the Amtrak yard in Oakland when the Zephyr pulled in for it's overnight servicing, and the sleepers were up front. When the wye'd the train, the sleepers remained up front for the trip back east. The only reason I can think of for the sleepers being on the rear again is that maybe they are adding a sleeper (and thus, removing one as well) at Denver like they used to do. Maybe for the summer peak period, an extra sleeper gets added at Denver, and that would explain why they are on the rear again.
There is some good updated information on this crash here:
If you read this morning's update at the top, as well as last night's update, you will see the name of the trucking company and that the driver was a man in his 40's. According to the article, there was a "convoy" of three trucks, and the 2 rear trucks came to a stop for the RR crossing but the lead truck did not slow down. He was going so fast that the cab became embedded in the Superliner.
Posted by ehbowen (Member # 4317) on :
quote:Originally posted by smitty195: He was going so fast that the cab became embedded in the Superliner.
He was going so fast that the cab became embedded in the Superliner AFTER laying down more than 300 feet of skid marks.
There is an old saying that covers my expressing my thoughts about this driver. Is it true? Probably, but not certainly. Is it kind? Hell no. Is it necessary? Not at this time. So I will refrain from discussing it further.
Posted by sbalax (Member # 2801) on :
I believe this is the same spot where our eastbound Zephyr stopped when a waiter in the dining car went down with a heart attack. I remember thinking how isolated it was and how distant the lights of the emergency vehicles appeared. It seemed to take forever to reach the train. I believe the waiter, who was near retirement as was this conductor passed away at the nearest hospital.
My thoughts are with the conductor's family and the families of all who lost their lives in this tragic accident.
Frank in sunny SBA
Posted by smitty195 (Member # 5102) on :
Sort of off-topic, but Frank's comment about the emergency lights seeming so far away reminds me of my previous occupation. When things got heated and dangerous and I would call for emergency backup, I could hear the sirens coming but it always seemed like an eternity for backup to arrive. I was also a 911 supervisor at one time, and I would sometimes have to make copies of phone calls for complaints that would come in. People would say that they called 911 and "it took a half hour" for help to arrive, but the tapes clearly showed that help was there within 3 or 4 minutes of the first call. Our sense of time is very skewed when we are under stress.
Posted by smitty195 (Member # 5102) on :
I found the TV report very touching and my heart and prayers go out to the family.
Posted by mgt (Member # 5479) on :
What I find disconcerting here is the statement that Amtrak has had 36 accidents at grade crossings. Apart from there being less stringent separation of road and rail traffic in the USA than in Britain, I know that sites where road and rail cross in the USA are not always as well or as obviously protected as in the UK. We do also have collisions at such sites and these are usually caused by road-users taking undue risks. I presume such sites in the USA are provided by at least visible fixed signs and flashing warning-lights when a train is approaching. Most such sites are also usually fairly obvious. Surely the onus must be on the road user to approach such crossings with extreme care. I witnessed an incident from the station platform on my first Zephyr trip, probably at Ottumwa, where a train was approching from the west, its headlight was visible and whistle audible but that did not prevent a pick-up truck from shooting across the tracks just before its arrival. It was a freight train travelling at considerable speed. I have read as an explanation for collisions that the public are more accustomed to the slower speed of freight trains and are taken unawares by the speed at which Amtrak services can operate. Again that does not explain the foolhardiness of taking risks at visibly signed positions. One can only sympathise with the stress caused to the locomotive drivers in such situations and also those in the police, fire and ambulance services who have to deal with the aftermath.
Posted by Geoff Mayo (Member # 153) on :
quote:Originally posted by George Harris: First, this is a fairly low angle crossing, somewhere around 35 to 45 degrees. The truck was going northbound on US95, which in this area means pretty well due north after running parallel to the railroad. The train was going westbound (obviously), which in this area means southwest. Therefore, they were near facing each other.
It's this angle (and sharper, as in towards head-on) that apparently makes it very difficult to judge the speed of anything approaching. Though, in this case, that would appear not to be relevant.
quote:Originally posted by smitty195: 300 feet of skid marks??? I never worked as a traffic officer (where you learn complex accident reconstruction equations), but just from the basic stuff that I do know, 300 feet on a big rig indicates that he was flying. REALLY flying.
And not necessarily under his control. It would appear that a heavy load pushing a tractor downhill with failed brakes was not the situation here but there are other reasons why there could be long skid marks (Toyota anyone?).
Amazing there was no derailment which would undoubtedly have added to the injuries. The engines in the pictures are a distance away from the train - I wonder whether the engineers had the foresight to get that additional fuel source away from the fire, or they became uncoupled during the incident, or just detached later on?
Posted by smitty195 (Member # 5102) on :
According to numerous news sources, the Assistant Conductor was able to unhook the passenger cars from the locomotives so that the engineer could pull the power away from the burning cars. He reportedly did this with a compound fracture and one of his fingers barely hanging from his hand. I am also amazed that the train did not derail from the force of the impact.....almost a miracle.
Posted by Geoff Mayo (Member # 153) on :
quote:Originally posted by smitty195: According to numerous news sources, the Assistant Conductor was able to unhook the passenger cars from the locomotives so that the engineer could pull the power away from the burning cars. He reportedly did this with a compound fracture and one of his fingers barely hanging from his hand. I am also amazed that the train did not derail from the force of the impact.....almost a miracle.
Ah, didn't see those reports. Thanks.
Posted by City of Miami (Member # 2922) on :
quote:Originally posted by smitty195: I am also amazed that the train did not derail from the force of the impact.....almost a miracle.
Perhaps it is a testatment to the design of the Superliner RR passenger car. As ungainly and top-heavy as they appear to be, they seem to rarely derail and almost never topple over.
Posted by RR4me (Member # 6052) on :
Sorry for the departed and the injured. As I read the reports over time, it is clear that 1) there are many theories as to the cause, and 2) we aren't really going to know for certain for quite some time, if at all. So I'll follow the story and wait.
Posted by PullmanCo (Member # 1138) on :
As for the gory details, I intend to wait for the NTSB accident report. To my way of thinking, everything else fuels rants and speculation.
I note the trucking company has doubled down and gone silent. I guess they have competent attorneys. If they see even a smidgen of liability, their best recourse is to just be quiet.
The fault (and I do have a gut feeling where it lies) will not bring back the dead :-(
Posted by Konstantin (Member # 18) on :
I have been reading these posts since I learned of the tragedy. Like most everyone in this forum, my heart and prayers go out for the victims. Thank you for all of the information posted here.
Posted by smitty195 (Member # 5102) on :
Here's a quick video where you can "meet" Conductor Lee. The pictures that have been in the media might not jog your memory, but for those who have ridden the Zephyr in recent years, you might remember her once you've seen this video. I remember her very clearly:
He shouldn't have been behind the wheel in the first place. Unfortunately, I have experience with these types of people...one of them ruined my career and caused great pain in my life.
Posted by TwinStarRocket (Member # 2142) on :
Re: that "professional" driver's driving record. I am speechless.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephen W: I find this extract from the LA Times extremely disconcerting:
"Amtrak has had 36 accidents at grade crossings from January through March of this year, resulting in 11 deaths, according to the Federal Railroad Administration's safety office. In the five-year period ending in 2010, the passenger train service was involved in crashes that took the lives of 309 people, an average of 62 per year. Amtrak's media relations officials did not return calls Saturday for comment."
This sort of stuff is simply sensationalism. I don't know how close this is to the real number, but best I remember traffic deaths in this country are about 40,000 per year. There is also nothing here to say how much of this is road related idiocy and how much if any is Amtrak's fault. Look at the article as primarily a way to cover a piece of blank paper with some words.
quote:Incidentally, I find it strange, taking a look at a selection of Sunday newspapers throughout various States, that I could find few, if any, reports of this dreadful accident. Does this reflect a general lack of interest in an event that happens outwith a newspaper's State or is it that, because of the statistics mentioned above, it is viewed as almost commonplace?
I am relieved if coverage of out of area railway accidents are being considered more as local news. In general, a railroad related accident gets far wider coverage than a road related accident resulting in equivalent disaster and disruption. This sort of stuff leads to the percention that road is as safe as or safer than rail, which is definitely not the case.
Posted by dmwnc1959 (Member # 2803) on :
"Amtrak has had 36 accidents at grade crossings from January through March of this year, resulting in 11 deaths, according to the Federal Railroad Administration's safety office. In the five-year period ending in 2010, the passenger train service was involved in crashes that took the lives of 309 people, an average of 62 per year. Amtrak's media relations officials did not return calls Saturday for comment."
Using the above statistic regarding train/grade crossings of 11 deaths in the first quarter of this year, it could average out to be approximately 44 per year of the 62 averaged for the last five years? How many of those deaths would have occurred had the motorist involved in the grade crossing (deaths) accidents obeyed the law and not violated crossing gate warnings? What would the per annum death rate then be?
Posted by Geoff Mayo (Member # 153) on :
And so the lawsuits start, despite lack of probable cause: Link. Quite a small amount claimed but one wonders whether it would be put on ice until the investigation has at least published initial findings?
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
One very safe assumption is that John Davis Trucking Co's insurance limits are "blown". What I find astounding is that a trucking company with 48 state interstate authority is required only to have ($500K) public liability coverage - and that is all many of 'em carry (you couldn't 'get me near" the wheel of any vehicle if that was all the coverage in force). It is possible that to hold intRAstate authority, higher coverage limits prevail, but somehow Nevada is the kind of place where such is less likely the case.
So, just one more "who's got the deep pockets, fault notwithstanding, ponies up".
Posted by PullmanCo (Member # 1138) on :
I think not, GBN. The employee was working for the company on their clock. If what happened was the responsibility of him taking drugs/alcohol, the company has a leadership/discipline problem (think Rule G). OTOH, if the truck had a mechanical problem, the company did not have solid maintenance procedures.
The circumstantial evidence already on the table is enough; the trucking company has some explaining to do ... in a court of law.
Posted by notelvis (Member # 3071) on :
I would imagine that one area that will be explored in court will revolve around whether or not the trucking company bothers to check the driving records of prospective employees.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
quote:Originally posted by PullmanCo: I think not, GBN....
Wholly correct, Mr. Pullman, as well as every thought you immediately expressed - if all parties had equally deep pockets.
But they don't.
I hate to think how many trucking companies out there have only the coverage prescribed by law - and "last time I checked", $500K is all an interstate trucking company was required to have. I knew from a trucking company client (I had three at one time in my practice), he only carried what he had to. I guess I once sort of implied "is that morally right?'...."Gilbert, when you go into court (or just conference) the two lawyers will ask "how much coverage'....(say) $500K,,,,'let's shake hands and be donw with it".
Guarantee you I'm not driving around with only $500K.
Finally, regarding Mr. Presley's immediate thought, not only are backgrounds properly investigated before saying "your hired', but also the effectiveness of on-going safety instructional meetings? The "big boys"...the JB Hunts....Swifts....Covenants...out there in the trucking world all do a good job - they can't affort NOT to....the littles? Well, their insurance companies all sell "canned" programs, but who knows how many are really taken to heart.
Posted by notelvis (Member # 3071) on :
To clarify, there is 'checking previous driving records - wink-wink' and then there is actually 'checking previous driving records'.
Then there is making a prudent hiring decision based on what checking those previous driving records determined.
A fly-by-night firm carrying only the minimum prescribed coverage is more likely to be subscribing to the 'wink-wink' version.... as with the firm who employed a driver with a long history of faking his log book who then fell asleep at the wheel and plowed into the back of a traffic jam killing five other motorists near us last fall.
Posted by Henry Kisor (Member # 4776) on :
Taken from another site, a story about the heroism of Amtrak conductors:
Obviously, John Davis Trucking's insurance is "blown'. Anyone care to place their bets that they have a higher limit than required under Nevada law?
Possibly Amtrak's strategy here is to be first in line to file suit and beat other claimants to the starting gate. Since Amtrak is liable for damages sustained by any passengeror employee, this action will minimize any possibllity that an injured party will be double indemnified.
Even though the two Superliners lost will never be replaced, lest we forget they were leased - and the leesor expects to be made whole for the loss.
Posted by TwinStarRocket (Member # 2142) on :
Now I know I am not crazy. Even though I initially read this was the first accident at this crossing, the article provided by rr4me says there was another Amtrak incident recently at this crossing. I remember viewing this crossing on the Google map thing after the first incident, and thinking "How could anyone not see a train here?'.
It would be interesting to know if the first incident involved the same trucking firm. Too bad they can't be required to build an overpass, or at least some 15mph turns on the approach. It would make me feel safer riding through Nevada again.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
At this time, Mr. Ainsworth's site has been updated to reflect out of service status of equipment involved with this incident (it appears that it will be identified as "Trinity"), however, his site does not yet reflect that the heavily damaged cars, 39013 and 34033, will be struck from the roster.
Quite likely, the remains of these cars will be held as evidence for the inevitable array of litigation arising from the incident; at what point in time must the leesors ("I once heard" that AIG subsidiary, ILFC, was one of such, but have no documentation at hand to substantiate) be paid for the loss of their equipment is an "I don't know".
Anyone?
Posted by Henry Kisor (Member # 4776) on :
It's not clear if it was the baggage car door to the transdorm or the transdorm door to the baggage car that was locked. In either case, off the top of my head I'd think that it would be good sense to lock one of those doors so that night-riding light-fingers couldn't enter the car to steal things.
Or maybe I'm wrong.
Posted by Geoff Mayo (Member # 153) on :
It's not clear if it was the baggage car door to the transdorm or the transdorm door to the baggage car that was locked. In either case, off the top of my head I'd think that it would be good sense to lock one of those doors so that night-riding light-fingers couldn't enter the car to steal things.
Or maybe I'm wrong.
Does it form part of an escape route though? (I've never been in a transition sleeper so I've no idea)
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Amtrak was unquestionably wise to get their suit against the trucking company first in line. Amtrak is of course liable to both its employees and passengers. Getting first in line minimizes the possibility that some injured party will get double indemnity, although be it assured some will try.
Posted by Ocala Mike (Member # 4657) on :
If I were an injured party in this mishap, I would file against any and all entities who might have any liability at all, and let the courts figure it out.
This will probably end up as some kind of "joint and several liability" case, with the trucking company bearing the brunt of the costs.
Don't be surprised if you read about claims against the truck manufacturer and the submanufacturer who supplied the truck's brakes.
Disclaimer: I'm not an attorney, and I don't play one on TV.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
From this non-lawyer (but a CPA; which means I have worked in a legal environment), Mike is likely correct; injured parties will go after any and all - maybe even the brake system's subcontractor CEO's Labrador Retriever - he wanted to be walked too late, caused the CEO to lose focus (honest folks, when I was in Labor Relations I was actually looking at tripe like that).
Presumably Amtrak lawyers will argue that "hey, were liable to our passengers, employees, and equipment lessors; the trucking company's insurance is blown - they're going to petition for bankruptcy so there will be nothing left there (if there ever was to begin with), and hence we should be the sole loss-payee."
However, any such proceedings will likely be private; "out of court' kind of stuff.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
It appears that Amtrak will not emerge from Trinity without having some measurement of fault assessed:
Here is the document in its entirety relating to Crescent City and passenger accountability. For ready reference, the Executive Summary adequately addresses the issue:
If there ever were an incident at which difficult to assess fault against Amtrak, it has to be Trinity. It appears that parties attempting to assess blame against Amtrak are overlooking that some passengers could well have walked away from the incident, and quite unhurt. They seem to hold that after an aircraft incident, involving a hull loss, that everyone ends up accounted for - ususlly deceased.
However, but recognizing that I have no documentation at hand to support, I'd dare say that aircraft incidents in which the hull has maintained integrity, somewhere passengers have gone unaccounted.
All told, until the NTSB releases the Railroad Accident Report (RAR); cheap shot (IMHO).
Posted by TBlack (Member # 181) on :
Gilbert, I agree with you. In the first article that you've referenced, I believe I read that 2 people are unaccounted for? Obviously, awkward for AMTRAK, but from the Executive Summary of the Cresent City incident that you've cited:
"Although having an accurate passenger manifest can be useful, the development and implementation costs associated with such a system would likely be substantial and there is no significant safety benefit in having an accurate passenger manifest immediately available at the accident scene."
Doesn't this statement give AMTRAK some kind of relief?
Tom
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Again Mr. Black, all I can note is cheap shot by media; hopefully wiser heads will prevail between now and release of the Trinity RAR and recognize that a train is not an "encapsulated" environment such as an aircraft.
It is not beyond reason that a passenger, say, going to Reno, simply said "enough of this...', went out to the highway and hitched a ride or cell phoned people who were meeting the passenger anyway. The last concern of this passenger is Amtrak's potential liabilities and a need for "#5(22); all present or accounted for, SIR".
Related, it seemed like 2009 was my personal "year of the hotel evacuation", as I was involved with two incidents of such (Marriott Courtyard, Maitland FL and Hyatt Regency, Greenwich CT). There was no roll call; staff simply searched each room to determine if anyone was still there. When hotel management was satisfied the property was clear and the Fire Chief released the premises, it was "all clear'.
Thankfully during the forty or so nights I have spent in hotels since those incidents, none further have occurred.
Posted by smitty195 (Member # 5102) on :
The "all clear" call is something that is part of the nationalized ICS, or Incident Command System. There is pre-determined phraseology, and one of those phrases is the term, "All Clear". For example, if there is a residential fire alarm in the middle of the night, and PD happens to arrive before FD (which is normal, since the patrol cars are already out on the road, but the fire trucks are in quarters and the crew in bed asleep), the police officer will check with the resident(s) and ask, "Is everybody out of the house and accounted for?". That person will usually say something like, "Yes, I live alone" (or whatever response is appropriate). The officer can then talk on the radio and tell the dispatcher that they have an "All Clear". This information will be passed along to the Captain of the first responding engine when they pull out of the barn.
ICS began back in the 1980's (I want to say 1982?) and was quickly adapted nationwide as "the" system that is used at any large or potentially large incident. There are job titles that can be used (or not used, depending on the size of the incident) so that other departments responding in will understand it as everyone will be speaking the same language. Right around the time period that ICS was introduced, many departments also went to "clear text" language on the radio. Clear text eliminates all codes so that when other department come in for major incidents, everyone is speaking the same language. This is not the case with police departments, however. For example, "meet the officer" on the California 10 code system is "10-87", but with CHP on the 11 code system, it is "1198". Officer needs assistance/emergency on the 10 code system is Code 20, and on the CHP 11 code system it is 1199. It gets very confusing for both dispatchers and cops when crossing borders. I once had to work patrol in Fremont (not the city where I was employed) so that their officers could attend a funeral of one of their officers killed in the line of duty. Fremont PD's dispatchers remained the dispatchers because that is where the 911 calls come into. Anyway, we all had to use clear text for the day because our codes didn't even come close to their codes. It was a very interesting day, driving around looking at street signs constantly to figure out where I was. Slowly but surely, I am starting to see police departments switching to clear text as well. Personally, I prefer codes, but that's only because I've been speaking in code since 1980 and it seems natural after all this time.
Posted by Henry Kisor (Member # 4776) on :
quote:Originally posted by Henry Kisor: Now the trucking company is suing Amtrak:
[link]
Warning to those with little patience for pop-ups and badly designed websites with major CPU resource usage: don't click that link. It didn't work on an iPhone earlier either, it was that badly designed.
Anyway, no offense Mr. Kisor. So the trucking company claims that UP *and* Amtrak failed to give their drivers enough warning of approaching trains? All I can think is that it's some sort of legal delay tactic than a serious attempt to absolve themselves of any blame... surely?
Posted by Henry Kisor (Member # 4776) on :
It loaded fine on my Mac Mini and my iPad 2. I'm puzzled. Salon.com is a major U.S. news website. Why do its pages not appear on iPhones?
Posted by ehbowen (Member # 4317) on :
I originally tried the link on Firefox and a video popped up. Upon closing an advert popped-up instead (pop-up blockers don't block when you "click"). Jerky scrolling.
Tried today with Safari, IE9, and Chrome. Though only Chrome showed the video pop-up, all had varying degrees of jerky scrolling.
On the iPhone the site tries to redirect itself to mobile.salon.com and eventually ended in a blank screen.
Posted by PullmanCo (Member # 1138) on :
Countersuit. Standard tactic. Allows them some degree of discovery.
Sigh.
Posted by Vincent206 (Member # 15447) on :
The NTSB has released its preliminary report for this accident. Five recommendations are made to the FRA and three of them would affect Amtrak:
quote:9. Develop side impact crashworthiness standards (including performance validation) for passenger railcars that provide a measurable improvement compared to the current regulation for minimizing encroachment to and loss of railcar occupant survival space. 10. Once the side impact crashworthiness standards are developed in Safety Recommendation 9, revise 49 Code of Federal Regulations 238.217, “Side Structure,” to require that new passenger railcars be built to these standards. 11. Require that passenger railcar doors be designed to prevent fire and smoke from traveling between railcars.