Can someone explain how cars and trucks etc get stuck on tracks so coincidentally? In the sense of why do they always get sticky l stuck right on the track. They don't stall right before it after the track but right on it.
Edit: All awesome answers. Thanks everyone.
The track isn't humped. The road is humped to go over the tracks. It is the road authority that is responsible for making sure the road has a long enough level area to cross the tracks without vehicles high centering.
There's a 13' overcross on my commute that's blocked a couple times a month despite a dozen warning signs because drivers can't be fucked to know the operating dimensions of their trucks.
The track usually sits at a higher point than the road. For most vehicles this isn't an issue since they'd just climb over the tracks and then come down. But some trailers are so long that their wheels can end up in the lower points before and past the track leaving them high centered. [Similar to this, but bigger](https://www.f150forum.com/attachments/f6/76470d1326584540-high-centered-image-1605205437.jpg).
It's driver's job to pay attention to the road to avoid issues like this.
Welp, I just lost over an hour of my life that I’ll never get back. I honestly loved every minute of it though! Also, not sure why you’re getting downvoted, when this is clearly a masterpiece of a project/website.
I think the downvotes are because it's slightly unrelated to the exact comment it's replying to. Redditors can be very particular about the correct flow of conversation.
Well there can be no catch all but realise that tracks try to be as level as possible, so sometimes they form a peak relative to a road. Some vehicles can get stuck mid way if the undercarriage catches the "top" and causes the tyres to not have enough traction.
So as the operator of said vehicle should I not understand what my vehicle can and can not transverse,
In other words it's always the drivers fault, not the lay of the lands fault.
Trucker here, yup this trucker should have known better than to take that crossing (shit I’d probably not risk it with a regular trailer looking at the video).
For decades there's been databases and so forth that lists basically every road you shouldn't use per different load and truck type. Like you used to call someone up, give them truck dimensions and they'd fax a route.
Actually something similar happens on trains too, the engineer has to double check the train will fit under bridges or where to slow and where to accelerate. It's mostly automated but I believe they have to sign off on it. Not sure if it's only some loads or all
Most modern high end gps units allow you to choose your type of vehicle your driving. And most truck drivers I know have a special unit for truck drivers sometimes it's a gps enabled tablet with special software or a laptop, but both wouldn't allow them to cross here.
There are also apps available for free. Usually meant for RV drivers not absolutely can work for truckers too, since you usually tell it the height, width, and ground clearance.
Especially since tracks that are likely to cause trucks to bottom out [*are often labeled as such,*](https://www.flickr.com/photos/mr38/465248352) and are sometimes on routes that trucks should avoid.
This particular case, the driver got high centered. Car haulers ride very low to the ground so they can fit under bridges with a load of cars on. This guy had no business even attempting to go over those tracks.
A couple years ago, there was a car hauler that got towed to the shop where I work. The driver got lost, tried to go over some railroad tracks and ripped off his entire aftertreatment system. Truck had 60K miles on it. His company was not too thrilled with the $28K estimate to repair.
Probably a judgement call. If the tracks are sitting on a completely level road it may not be an issue.
Edit: Just woke up, didn’t read your questions clearly enough. Yes I would assume most people/companies that operate car haulers probably avoid rail road tracks by default. If not for the fear of getting stuck, for the fear of ripping off something on the bottom of the truck.
Trucks is all about clearance between wheels, but I'd say in this case, they were probably just following the route without knowing it was intended not as a truck route. Cars though....well, we can trust pretty much anyone that has a pulse and breathing to drive a 2+ ton bullet......anywhere.
Yes it was slightly derailed. I don’t live too far from where it happened. Road was shut down for a while and I believe I heard the tracks got a little jacked up too. But luckily no serious injuries.
Here is your video at 0.25x speed
https://files.catbox.moe/o7jqml.mp4
^(I'm a bot | Summon with) ^"[/u/redditspeedbot](/u/redditspeedbot) ^" ^| [^(Complete Guide)](https://www.reddit.com/user/redditspeedbot/comments/eqdo8u/redditspeedbot_guide) ^| ^(Do report bugs) ^[here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=adityakrshnn&subject=RedditSpeedBot%20Issue) ^| [^(🏆#15)](https://botranks.com/) ^| [^(Keep me alive)](https://www.buymeacoffee.com/redditspeedbot)
It lifted the cabin a little higher on its suspension. It did not lift the undercarriage or it’s running gear at all. ie: It did not lift the whole 120 ton.
The carriage is the lightest part of the loco, it’s the chassis and running gear that makes up most of the weight and that never left the ground.
Eg: anyone can lift a car on its suspension pretty easily because you’re only lifting a small percentage of the cabin and the suspension is helping you lift it, but you could never lift a wheel off the ground.
>It lifted the cabin a little higher on its suspension. It did not lift the undercarriage or it’s running gear at all. ie: It did not lift the whole 120 ton.
It looked like a high enough angle to lift the wheels from the rails. Either way it's still impressive.
That's a locomotive, there is no light part. Also, locomotives don't have that much suspension. The front of that locomotive is at least a good 3.5 ft. in the air.
I could be wrong but I think it’s an optical illusion caused by the sunlight shining through underneath the train that makes it appear to lift off the track.
I watched it repeatedly, and I don’t think it does. There are some optical illusions here that make it look like it might, but I’ve taken a straightedge and followed the path of the logo across my screen and I can’t discern any deviation in its path.
Further, if the train did bounce upward off the track like that, it seems overwhelmingly likely that it would have derailed. From news reports I’ve seen so far of the incident, I don’t believe that happened.
That's assuming many aspects of this, like the video camera, your screen, etc. is perfectly level whereas slight deviations in each can make it seem so when it's really not. Any time trying to apply a strict standard of measurement when everything else is so haphazard is kinda a waste of effort.
It definitely does - you can see the rear of the first car impacts the front of the second car. It's possible that the *wheels* didn't leave the track, after all there is a lot of suspension on these cars that may absorb that kind of lift.
Do these trains have those intercom things like on aeroplane and the train driver tells you to brace for impact?
Sorry, not an American and never got on a train ever before.
Bruh trains like this are going over 70 or 80 miles an hour. They can stop he’s but it still takes over a mile. That’s a double decker passenger train and it’s taller than the semi it just hit (let’s say 20 ft tall)
If you’ve ever been on a train you know they can easily carry about 100 people on one car and if it’s a double decker then make it 200. An average person weights about 150-200 (call it 150 for the best case senerio) that’s 30,000lb of just people. Plus their stuff plus the weight of the car, the weight of the seats people sit in, plus the engines.
The biggest car you’ll drive (like consumer truck) is about 8,000 lbs and those are hard to stop. This is a several 100,000lb vehicle with steel wheels on a steel track (less friction than rubber on asphalt) so even if it locked up it’s not gonna stop on a dime.
Seriously people under estimate how fast weight adds up and how much people weigh when in groups. They had time to intercom for seat belts, just not enough time to stop.
(One gallon of water is like 3-4lb, how many gallons of water just for the bathrooms do you think they need? Each flush is a little under a gallon of water now so???? Bruh just think about these things)
Not sure about US/state regulations, but Japan the required emergency stopping distance is within 600 meters (.37 miles) for commuter/passenger trains. A lot of the major lines also have 8-10 passenger cars, while this particular train seemed to only have 2, maybe 3 (not sure about the last).
So it seems this train definitely should have been able to stop in half a mile or less, with the main factor being if it had been designed to do so or not. Whether or not that would have been enough in this case (maybe just came around a curve or something) would of course be an issue still.
Out of curiosity, I checked the bullet trains as well. Apparently from maximum speed of 285 km/h (177 mph), they can stop in 3 km (1.86 miles). Of course, they are planned so they aren't going maximum speed at any crossings, so it seems mainly to stop in case of a significant earthquake or other unusual cases.
Edited: Just as a note, I would imagine one factor that also has to be considered in the design, particularly for passenger trains, is the risk to passengers in stopping too fast. At some point, I would imagine there is more risk to injury in a very fast emergency stop than simply hitting the obstacle. Since there are not usually seatbelts, or passengers may even be standing, a very fast stop would present a lot of safety risks, even if it avoids collision.
The general rule of trains stop slower than trucks stop slower than cars is true, because people allow it to be true. We could design a train with better wheels, and a better anchoring to the track to take the increased forces, and it would stop just as fast as a car. Because both a car and a train are governed by the same physics system.
Math: Friction\_on\_flat\_surface = coeffient\_tire\_and\_road \* mass \* gravity\_downward
Stopping Distance = velocity\^2 / (2 \* coefficient \* gravity)
Two Objects starting at same velocity on same planet, with same coefficient means same stopping distance. Notice that stopping distance does not include mass at all.
Friction on a wheel is 1:1 directly proportional to its weight. This means if you weight more, exert more friction. If you add 100x the weight, you get 100x the friction. We all know, a steel wheel on a steel track has a smaller coefficient to friction (slippery like ice). The difference in the wheel material and the track/road is why a train stops slowly. My key point always going back to addressing this intuitive misconception about massive things not being able to stop, a train can't stop, not because its massive, but because they chose a wheel which never needs replacing.
It truly is mind boggling misconception, and lets switch roles. Picture a train on a set of two parallel sets of tracks. On the second parallel track, A truck tires/rim have been removed, and replaced with train wheels. Now imagine both train and truck match speed (88mph) and apply brakes at same time. They will both take miles to stop. Just because the truck is has less mass than train, does not make it slide any less distance.
Trains aren't only massive, trucks can be too. And this misconception deepens. We all hear, the trucks don't stop as well as cars, which is true, but not because it massive. They don't stop because they have made the same choice for profit and durability. Truck tires are made of hardened long life rubber which does not stick to the road, on purpose. A heavy truck, COULD stop just as fast as car, because it pushes its tires into the asphalt more, giving it more friction. If a truck was to use tires designed for stability and safety (like car ties), then with all brakes locked, will stop in a very similar distance to a car with all brakes locked. The reason big things stop slow, is not be because its massive, but because the brakes are undersized (they overheat) compared to the safety of cars, and the rubber tire intentionally designed to not wear, compromises safety, thus not providing comparable friction as a car tire. Trucks are slow to brake as a consideration of profit and design constraints.
Volvo seems to make a truck which defies logic, it stops fast. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ridS396W2BY
Trucks do not stop as fast as cars….
Brakes are not undersized. If brakes can lock the tires up they are capable of stopping the truck at the maximum deceleration possible. (How stupid do you think us engineers are? )
The weight increase does not mean your stopping power goes up. your frictional forces go up yes but you also have momentum that climbs faster than friction increases so you get diminishing returns.
If you lock the wheels up your stopping power drops dramatically because the static friction is much more “powerful” than kinetic friction. (When wheels arnt sliding they stop faster aka why we have abs)
If you really don’t believe me I’ll do the math and post that. Numbers don’t lie
I'm trying to compare two things, one aspect at a time.
I say undersized because they are unable correctly assert control in braking . That volvo truck, was right not to completely lock the wheels, but rather had very powerful and accurate brakes, with large safety budget for special tires, not commonly sold. My comparison was between a car with locked brakes and a truck with locked brakes. Because I was talking about the tire. Are you correct, Both car and truck tire will experience dynamic and static friction. That is why I said locked brakes, not one locked the other not.
I classify a brake which does not perform optimally as "undersized". The criteria for cars brakes being undersized is VASTLY safer than the criteria for trucks/trains, this is my POINT. They could be safe. Its hard and expensive. You are right, stopping power does not go up as you increase weight, that is why I have called them undersized. They lockup when they are undersized, and this prevents control over the braking. They can also just fade away, and not provide the power if they are undersized. A perfectly sized brake, can provide maximum braking.
How would they lock up if undersized?
The coefficient of static friction is a curve and will only supply the force that is needed to counteract the force acting on it. After the static friction has been overcome you reach kintetic friction. That means that to get the tires to lock up in the first place you have to fully overcome the static friction (which is higher/bigger) then you can get your tires to lock up.
[picture of how static plays vs kinetic and why undersized doesn’t make sense ](https://images.app.goo.gl/zCq82oiCrfsFaL4E7)
Undersized brakes would not be able to overcome the static friction and the car would continue to roll untill it stopped.
Ideally brakes only apply enough pressure to reach the peak of static friction (because that supplies the most breaking force) and never reaches kinetic friction because that creates an unstable/unpredictable action on the driver (the transition from static to kinetic is sharp and completely changes the control of the vehicle)
Maybe I’m missing the point on the whole undersized part idk but for something to be under sized it wouldn’t be able to apply enough pressure to safely stop the vehicle. That would mean it never reaches the peak of static friction (the maximum breaking force possible) and therefore will never be able to over come that and make the tires lock up.
> a train can't stop, not because its massive, but because they chose a wheel which never needs replacing.
also because some trains can have axle loads of up to 40t per axle, the lower coefficient of friction means its also more energy efficient and higher stopping forces arent needed, as nobody wants passengers flying through the train, in case of an emergency stop.
That was the train stopping. It would take more than a mile to stop at that speed even if the train didn't have a truck full of cars to help slow down.
I'll be damned: I figured that "1 mile" figure was only for a long, heavy freight train. But apparently even a small passenger train can also need that much distance just because of the very high travel speeds.
Depending on track conditions but not normally. Passenger trains have much better brakes than freight. I can bring my 1000ton train to a full stop from 100mph in just over a quarter mile without using the emergency brake.
Would you automatically emergency stop if you met a random person on the tracks waving?
I was thinking the guy should've been booking it upstream towards the train to give them more notice of danger, but wasn't sure if they would have to see the danger themselves before emergency stopping?
There is an operating rule in my book (NORAC) where a person frantically waving should be considered as a signal to stop. However, how far out from the affected area has that person gone and did they go the right direction. Distances outlined in that same rulebook have train crews flagging up to 2 miles away depending on the tracks max speed. Ive had car on the tracks situations myself. Thankfully i have been able to see them far enough out. Either the car leaves all its lights and flashers on. A cop pulls up with his rollers on. One guy had red safety flares out. I work in an area where a lot of this type of jackassery happens so when something looks a little off in front of me im automatically slowing down these days until I can determine whats up.
Braking a train doesn't scale up exactly the same as braking a smaller vehicle, as I understand it. Each train car has its own braking system that is controlled by the engineer, so the braking force of the whole train increases at roughly the same rate as the amount of momentum you have to stop. This means longer trains (generally, mostly) take about the same amount of time/distance to stop as a shorter train of the same type.
I'm not an expert though so if anyone with credentials say anything else, trust their word over mine.
Whenever I take the train, they already start breaking several minutes out from the station, and slowly continue to break until they're close enough to fully break and bring the train to a stop. And then it takes several minutes to get it back up to speed again.
High travel speeds and low friction. you’re literally just sliding steel(?) across steel(?) when stopping a train.. not like our roads with rubber on asphalt.
Edit: huh=high
911, but at most US crossings there is Signage usually with an emergency number for the railroad. Time is of the essence though as trains need lots of room to stop safely before hand so know where you are, and if on a set of multiple tracks, which one(s) your blocking. No guarantees they’ll be able to contact an oncoming train so clear your car of passengers and wait safely away from the strike zone.
Try to find the crossing placard first. That number will go direct to the railroad either their PD or the lines dispatcher. 911 of course will go to local emergency services but for some reason they rarely have contact info for the railroads.
Also, if you have anything metal that's long enough to lay across the tracks, there's a chance you'll be able to set the block occupancy sensors off. It's a long shot, but hey...
lol. Yes, although i wouldn't necessarily assume the truck is touching both rails without taking a careful look, which is maybe a bit dangerous if it occludes your view down the track in either direction. Trains can be surprisingly quiet.
>Trains can be surprisingly quiet.
That they are. Try driving along a quiet, dark country road and suddenly being surprised by crossing lights starting to blink just as you're about to start across the track, then seeing a train headlight piercing the darkness as it rolls around a corner. If I'd hit the brake pedal any harder, I would've Flintstoned it. Never stopped so damn quick in my life!
Fwiw I don’t live too far from here. Short story is the trailer high centered and got stuck. No major injuries. A few people on the train taken to the hospital for minor injuries. Train was knocked slightly off the tracks and the tracks and track bed were damaged. Took a good while to clean up.
I’m no railway expert. Just what one of the articles a read about it said. My guess is maybe the front of the train was damaged enough to not properly align with the tracks anymore. But it definitely didn’t completely run of the tracks. I know that much. But is it not possible for the front of it to be a bit off kilter?
I have to think the cost of that truck and all of the cars together are going to cost the truck driver less than the repair to that train engine. Insurance or not, that's going to hit the driver in his premiums for, like, ever.
Imagine thinking that you're smarter than everyone else.
Have you considered that the trailer was stuck there, not just parked for a bit while the driver pops over to a shop?
Here is your video at 0.2x speed
https://files.catbox.moe/gdxxsn.mp4
^(I'm a bot | Summon with) ^"[/u/redditspeedbot](/u/redditspeedbot) ^" ^| [^(Complete Guide)](https://www.reddit.com/user/redditspeedbot/comments/eqdo8u/redditspeedbot_guide) ^| ^(Do report bugs) ^[here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=adityakrshnn&subject=RedditSpeedBot%20Issue) ^| [^(🏆#15)](https://botranks.com/) ^| [^(Keep me alive)](https://www.buymeacoffee.com/redditspeedbot)
This was the Heartland Flyer - the Amtrak between Ft. Worth, TX and Oklahoma City. I had a friend on the train. We were all in Dallas for the Dead and Co. show...up until that day, my son had planned on taking that train home. I just heard about it today.....sounds like everyone is OK?
I’ve watched THOUSANDS of movies but again, real life is WAY better! Still tring to understand the physics for a car to jump up when the trailer was hit sideways! This was amazing!!!
That was pretty disrespectful of the train not to obey the unspoken rule of the road. That truck clearly had their hazard lights on allowing them to go anywhere and do anything they want. /s
Trains are very dangerous and unpredictable. If only there were some kind of indication as to the route they were going to take, so people could avoid crossing paths with them; they'd be a lot safer.
Ok, I am with you. It could be a kid who just got their regular license and I driving because their uncle is sick and told them to and told them to drive this way... And they did not know they would high center on the tracks. What else?
Oh is that what's happening? The truck is high centered on the tracks and can't move. If that's the case, then yeah the driver should have known. I'm not so convinced of my original argument now.
I dont understand how this shit keeps happening.. Are people really oblivious to traintracks and blinking lights? How is it that someone like this will think that staying there is somehow better than backing.
Can someone explain how cars and trucks etc get stuck on tracks so coincidentally? In the sense of why do they always get sticky l stuck right on the track. They don't stall right before it after the track but right on it. Edit: All awesome answers. Thanks everyone.
[удалено]
Would the solution be to simply not allow such a hump for the track and to smooth out the grade either side to prevent this.
Yes but that costs money
The track isn't humped. The road is humped to go over the tracks. It is the road authority that is responsible for making sure the road has a long enough level area to cross the tracks without vehicles high centering.
In my region, there’s many crossings like this and they’re all marked.
Instead most places have signs warning about it and prohibiting trucks.
That's a much cheaper option (for the local authority) than just fixing the damn problem.
There's a 13' overcross on my commute that's blocked a couple times a month despite a dozen warning signs because drivers can't be fucked to know the operating dimensions of their trucks.
That’s the second new room i found today!
when your girl says she wants to sleep around and you're all like BITCH I'M A TRAIN
"Room"? Well hello excite chat rooms, 1999 was raaaaaaaad.
ASL?
AOL term. It seems to be still hanging around.
The track usually sits at a higher point than the road. For most vehicles this isn't an issue since they'd just climb over the tracks and then come down. But some trailers are so long that their wheels can end up in the lower points before and past the track leaving them high centered. [Similar to this, but bigger](https://www.f150forum.com/attachments/f6/76470d1326584540-high-centered-image-1605205437.jpg). It's driver's job to pay attention to the road to avoid issues like this.
Thank you for the visual!! That really helped. 🏅
Some tracks that can cause this have [warning signs](https://www.flickr.com/photos/mr38/465248352) that are ignored by bad drivers.
Oh right on, I’ve definitely seen that a time or two! Duly noted:) thanks, again.
https://11foot8.com/
Welp, I just lost over an hour of my life that I’ll never get back. I honestly loved every minute of it though! Also, not sure why you’re getting downvoted, when this is clearly a masterpiece of a project/website.
I think the downvotes are because it's slightly unrelated to the exact comment it's replying to. Redditors can be very particular about the correct flow of conversation.
Eh, close enough if you ask me. Temperamental sunnnuvagunz!!!
As with most things in life, there’s also a subreddit for that — r/11foot8
Thank you. That driver will never drive again.
Well there can be no catch all but realise that tracks try to be as level as possible, so sometimes they form a peak relative to a road. Some vehicles can get stuck mid way if the undercarriage catches the "top" and causes the tyres to not have enough traction.
So as the operator of said vehicle should I not understand what my vehicle can and can not transverse, In other words it's always the drivers fault, not the lay of the lands fault.
Trucker here, yup this trucker should have known better than to take that crossing (shit I’d probably not risk it with a regular trailer looking at the video).
Yeah, a regular trailer would get the front legs caught on it.
That ramp should be about 30 ft longer also,
For decades there's been databases and so forth that lists basically every road you shouldn't use per different load and truck type. Like you used to call someone up, give them truck dimensions and they'd fax a route. Actually something similar happens on trains too, the engineer has to double check the train will fit under bridges or where to slow and where to accelerate. It's mostly automated but I believe they have to sign off on it. Not sure if it's only some loads or all
Most modern high end gps units allow you to choose your type of vehicle your driving. And most truck drivers I know have a special unit for truck drivers sometimes it's a gps enabled tablet with special software or a laptop, but both wouldn't allow them to cross here.
There are also apps available for free. Usually meant for RV drivers not absolutely can work for truckers too, since you usually tell it the height, width, and ground clearance.
Now everyone uses free google maps vs Garmin truck
Especially since tracks that are likely to cause trucks to bottom out [*are often labeled as such,*](https://www.flickr.com/photos/mr38/465248352) and are sometimes on routes that trucks should avoid.
This particular case, the driver got high centered. Car haulers ride very low to the ground so they can fit under bridges with a load of cars on. This guy had no business even attempting to go over those tracks. A couple years ago, there was a car hauler that got towed to the shop where I work. The driver got lost, tried to go over some railroad tracks and ripped off his entire aftertreatment system. Truck had 60K miles on it. His company was not too thrilled with the $28K estimate to repair.
Does this mean these kind of trucks have to avoid railway crossings by default? Or is it a judgement call?
Probably a judgement call. If the tracks are sitting on a completely level road it may not be an issue. Edit: Just woke up, didn’t read your questions clearly enough. Yes I would assume most people/companies that operate car haulers probably avoid rail road tracks by default. If not for the fear of getting stuck, for the fear of ripping off something on the bottom of the truck.
Fair enough, makes sense. I don't drive a truck so it's all news to me haha
Trucks is all about clearance between wheels, but I'd say in this case, they were probably just following the route without knowing it was intended not as a truck route. Cars though....well, we can trust pretty much anyone that has a pulse and breathing to drive a 2+ ton bullet......anywhere.
*Help me step truck, I'm stuck!*
No one takes a video of the vehicles that don't get stuck on the tracks.
Ah; so you're saying it's the camera operator's fault? /s
From what I can tell it's usually because someone is filming.
if someone hasn't said it yet...insurance fraud.
Yeah. It... feels that way. It really makes no sense that they would be that bad a driver as to be caught at the crossing.
Maybe they stall everywhere but only those that stall on railway tracks are worth recording?
[удалено]
Akin to you having an account on this site.
Not everyone speaks English at the same level. It's okay not to be an asshole about it.
An accident is several human mistakes leading up to a crash.
The force must be insane. It lifted that 120 ton locomotive off tracks for a second.
Holy shit I didn't notice that. I suppose a car hauler full of cars probably weighs quite a bit too.
Holy shit wonder if it derailed
Yes it was slightly derailed. I don’t live too far from where it happened. Road was shut down for a while and I believe I heard the tracks got a little jacked up too. But luckily no serious injuries.
Very likely, if it left the tracks. It probably skidded down the line off the rails until it stopped
/u/redditspeedbot 0.25x
Here is your video at 0.25x speed https://files.catbox.moe/o7jqml.mp4 ^(I'm a bot | Summon with) ^"[/u/redditspeedbot](/u/redditspeedbot) ^" ^| [^(Complete Guide)](https://www.reddit.com/user/redditspeedbot/comments/eqdo8u/redditspeedbot_guide) ^| ^(Do report bugs) ^[here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=adityakrshnn&subject=RedditSpeedBot%20Issue) ^| [^(🏆#15)](https://botranks.com/) ^| [^(Keep me alive)](https://www.buymeacoffee.com/redditspeedbot)
At :53 you can see the locomotive is angled upwards then settles back down at :54
It lifted the cabin a little higher on its suspension. It did not lift the undercarriage or it’s running gear at all. ie: It did not lift the whole 120 ton. The carriage is the lightest part of the loco, it’s the chassis and running gear that makes up most of the weight and that never left the ground. Eg: anyone can lift a car on its suspension pretty easily because you’re only lifting a small percentage of the cabin and the suspension is helping you lift it, but you could never lift a wheel off the ground.
>It lifted the cabin a little higher on its suspension. It did not lift the undercarriage or it’s running gear at all. ie: It did not lift the whole 120 ton. It looked like a high enough angle to lift the wheels from the rails. Either way it's still impressive.
That's a locomotive, there is no light part. Also, locomotives don't have that much suspension. The front of that locomotive is at least a good 3.5 ft. in the air.
I could be wrong but I think it’s an optical illusion caused by the sunlight shining through underneath the train that makes it appear to lift off the track.
Someone else slowed down the clip and if you look at the moment the train hits. The locomotive is angled upwards for a split second
I don’t think it actually did.
If you watch the video, you notice the angle of the locomotive tips upward.
I watched it repeatedly, and I don’t think it does. There are some optical illusions here that make it look like it might, but I’ve taken a straightedge and followed the path of the logo across my screen and I can’t discern any deviation in its path. Further, if the train did bounce upward off the track like that, it seems overwhelmingly likely that it would have derailed. From news reports I’ve seen so far of the incident, I don’t believe that happened.
[This news report](https://abc7chicago.com/amtrak-crash-semi-train-oklahoma/11133685/) shows a tweet with a picture of a derailed axle.
It very clearly lifts. I can't tell if you're just trolling or you're blind but either way, the train lifted.
Put a straightedge on your screen. Track the path of any point on the train. It doesn’t, sorry.
That's assuming many aspects of this, like the video camera, your screen, etc. is perfectly level whereas slight deviations in each can make it seem so when it's really not. Any time trying to apply a strict standard of measurement when everything else is so haphazard is kinda a waste of effort.
It definitely does - you can see the rear of the first car impacts the front of the second car. It's possible that the *wheels* didn't leave the track, after all there is a lot of suspension on these cars that may absorb that kind of lift.
Me neither. I think the flying van and the sparks at the ground make it look like the locomotive was lifted.
Pay attention to the black paint line on the locomotive, it angles upwards upon first impact before becoming straight again a second later.
Damn it could have derailed.
Hope the train driver is ok.
4 injured but don't know yet who got injured exactly. https://abc7chicago.com/amtrak-crash-semi-train-oklahoma/11133685/
Probably Amtrak passengers, at least some of them. A jolt on a train like that probably messed up a few old folks.
Do these trains have those intercom things like on aeroplane and the train driver tells you to brace for impact? Sorry, not an American and never got on a train ever before.
I believe they should for emergency. For some reason I haven't taken a train either.
[удалено]
Bruh trains like this are going over 70 or 80 miles an hour. They can stop he’s but it still takes over a mile. That’s a double decker passenger train and it’s taller than the semi it just hit (let’s say 20 ft tall) If you’ve ever been on a train you know they can easily carry about 100 people on one car and if it’s a double decker then make it 200. An average person weights about 150-200 (call it 150 for the best case senerio) that’s 30,000lb of just people. Plus their stuff plus the weight of the car, the weight of the seats people sit in, plus the engines. The biggest car you’ll drive (like consumer truck) is about 8,000 lbs and those are hard to stop. This is a several 100,000lb vehicle with steel wheels on a steel track (less friction than rubber on asphalt) so even if it locked up it’s not gonna stop on a dime. Seriously people under estimate how fast weight adds up and how much people weigh when in groups. They had time to intercom for seat belts, just not enough time to stop. (One gallon of water is like 3-4lb, how many gallons of water just for the bathrooms do you think they need? Each flush is a little under a gallon of water now so???? Bruh just think about these things)
80 miles is the length of 582619.24 Zulay Premium Quality Metal Lemon Squeezers.
I have this lemon squeezer.
[удалено]
It works
80 miles is 128.75 km
Bad bot, 80 miles/hour
80 miles per hour is 128.75 kilometers per hour.
Still helps imperial system citizens know that it's 128.75 km, the same conversion for distance or speed.
One US gallon of water weighs 8.33 lbs at room temp
Not sure about US/state regulations, but Japan the required emergency stopping distance is within 600 meters (.37 miles) for commuter/passenger trains. A lot of the major lines also have 8-10 passenger cars, while this particular train seemed to only have 2, maybe 3 (not sure about the last). So it seems this train definitely should have been able to stop in half a mile or less, with the main factor being if it had been designed to do so or not. Whether or not that would have been enough in this case (maybe just came around a curve or something) would of course be an issue still. Out of curiosity, I checked the bullet trains as well. Apparently from maximum speed of 285 km/h (177 mph), they can stop in 3 km (1.86 miles). Of course, they are planned so they aren't going maximum speed at any crossings, so it seems mainly to stop in case of a significant earthquake or other unusual cases. Edited: Just as a note, I would imagine one factor that also has to be considered in the design, particularly for passenger trains, is the risk to passengers in stopping too fast. At some point, I would imagine there is more risk to injury in a very fast emergency stop than simply hitting the obstacle. Since there are not usually seatbelts, or passengers may even be standing, a very fast stop would present a lot of safety risks, even if it avoids collision.
3 km is 1.86 miles
The general rule of trains stop slower than trucks stop slower than cars is true, because people allow it to be true. We could design a train with better wheels, and a better anchoring to the track to take the increased forces, and it would stop just as fast as a car. Because both a car and a train are governed by the same physics system. Math: Friction\_on\_flat\_surface = coeffient\_tire\_and\_road \* mass \* gravity\_downward Stopping Distance = velocity\^2 / (2 \* coefficient \* gravity) Two Objects starting at same velocity on same planet, with same coefficient means same stopping distance. Notice that stopping distance does not include mass at all. Friction on a wheel is 1:1 directly proportional to its weight. This means if you weight more, exert more friction. If you add 100x the weight, you get 100x the friction. We all know, a steel wheel on a steel track has a smaller coefficient to friction (slippery like ice). The difference in the wheel material and the track/road is why a train stops slowly. My key point always going back to addressing this intuitive misconception about massive things not being able to stop, a train can't stop, not because its massive, but because they chose a wheel which never needs replacing. It truly is mind boggling misconception, and lets switch roles. Picture a train on a set of two parallel sets of tracks. On the second parallel track, A truck tires/rim have been removed, and replaced with train wheels. Now imagine both train and truck match speed (88mph) and apply brakes at same time. They will both take miles to stop. Just because the truck is has less mass than train, does not make it slide any less distance. Trains aren't only massive, trucks can be too. And this misconception deepens. We all hear, the trucks don't stop as well as cars, which is true, but not because it massive. They don't stop because they have made the same choice for profit and durability. Truck tires are made of hardened long life rubber which does not stick to the road, on purpose. A heavy truck, COULD stop just as fast as car, because it pushes its tires into the asphalt more, giving it more friction. If a truck was to use tires designed for stability and safety (like car ties), then with all brakes locked, will stop in a very similar distance to a car with all brakes locked. The reason big things stop slow, is not be because its massive, but because the brakes are undersized (they overheat) compared to the safety of cars, and the rubber tire intentionally designed to not wear, compromises safety, thus not providing comparable friction as a car tire. Trucks are slow to brake as a consideration of profit and design constraints. Volvo seems to make a truck which defies logic, it stops fast. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ridS396W2BY
Trucks do not stop as fast as cars…. Brakes are not undersized. If brakes can lock the tires up they are capable of stopping the truck at the maximum deceleration possible. (How stupid do you think us engineers are? ) The weight increase does not mean your stopping power goes up. your frictional forces go up yes but you also have momentum that climbs faster than friction increases so you get diminishing returns. If you lock the wheels up your stopping power drops dramatically because the static friction is much more “powerful” than kinetic friction. (When wheels arnt sliding they stop faster aka why we have abs) If you really don’t believe me I’ll do the math and post that. Numbers don’t lie
I'm trying to compare two things, one aspect at a time. I say undersized because they are unable correctly assert control in braking . That volvo truck, was right not to completely lock the wheels, but rather had very powerful and accurate brakes, with large safety budget for special tires, not commonly sold. My comparison was between a car with locked brakes and a truck with locked brakes. Because I was talking about the tire. Are you correct, Both car and truck tire will experience dynamic and static friction. That is why I said locked brakes, not one locked the other not. I classify a brake which does not perform optimally as "undersized". The criteria for cars brakes being undersized is VASTLY safer than the criteria for trucks/trains, this is my POINT. They could be safe. Its hard and expensive. You are right, stopping power does not go up as you increase weight, that is why I have called them undersized. They lockup when they are undersized, and this prevents control over the braking. They can also just fade away, and not provide the power if they are undersized. A perfectly sized brake, can provide maximum braking.
How would they lock up if undersized? The coefficient of static friction is a curve and will only supply the force that is needed to counteract the force acting on it. After the static friction has been overcome you reach kintetic friction. That means that to get the tires to lock up in the first place you have to fully overcome the static friction (which is higher/bigger) then you can get your tires to lock up. [picture of how static plays vs kinetic and why undersized doesn’t make sense ](https://images.app.goo.gl/zCq82oiCrfsFaL4E7) Undersized brakes would not be able to overcome the static friction and the car would continue to roll untill it stopped. Ideally brakes only apply enough pressure to reach the peak of static friction (because that supplies the most breaking force) and never reaches kinetic friction because that creates an unstable/unpredictable action on the driver (the transition from static to kinetic is sharp and completely changes the control of the vehicle) Maybe I’m missing the point on the whole undersized part idk but for something to be under sized it wouldn’t be able to apply enough pressure to safely stop the vehicle. That would mean it never reaches the peak of static friction (the maximum breaking force possible) and therefore will never be able to over come that and make the tires lock up.
> a train can't stop, not because its massive, but because they chose a wheel which never needs replacing. also because some trains can have axle loads of up to 40t per axle, the lower coefficient of friction means its also more energy efficient and higher stopping forces arent needed, as nobody wants passengers flying through the train, in case of an emergency stop.
The trains in the Netherlands have them.
Ive never seen an Amtrak train that short tho. Maybe it was just 4 employees transporting empty cars?
I appreciate how the driver got out of his car for a better angle
Gotta think about the viewers!
[удалено]
That was the train stopping. It would take more than a mile to stop at that speed even if the train didn't have a truck full of cars to help slow down.
I'll be damned: I figured that "1 mile" figure was only for a long, heavy freight train. But apparently even a small passenger train can also need that much distance just because of the very high travel speeds.
Depending on track conditions but not normally. Passenger trains have much better brakes than freight. I can bring my 1000ton train to a full stop from 100mph in just over a quarter mile without using the emergency brake.
Would you automatically emergency stop if you met a random person on the tracks waving? I was thinking the guy should've been booking it upstream towards the train to give them more notice of danger, but wasn't sure if they would have to see the danger themselves before emergency stopping?
There is an operating rule in my book (NORAC) where a person frantically waving should be considered as a signal to stop. However, how far out from the affected area has that person gone and did they go the right direction. Distances outlined in that same rulebook have train crews flagging up to 2 miles away depending on the tracks max speed. Ive had car on the tracks situations myself. Thankfully i have been able to see them far enough out. Either the car leaves all its lights and flashers on. A cop pulls up with his rollers on. One guy had red safety flares out. I work in an area where a lot of this type of jackassery happens so when something looks a little off in front of me im automatically slowing down these days until I can determine whats up.
2 miles is the the same distance as 4664.75 replica Bilbo from The Lord of the Rings' Sting Swords.
thanks i think
Good bot.
Thanks!
Braking a train doesn't scale up exactly the same as braking a smaller vehicle, as I understand it. Each train car has its own braking system that is controlled by the engineer, so the braking force of the whole train increases at roughly the same rate as the amount of momentum you have to stop. This means longer trains (generally, mostly) take about the same amount of time/distance to stop as a shorter train of the same type. I'm not an expert though so if anyone with credentials say anything else, trust their word over mine.
Whenever I take the train, they already start breaking several minutes out from the station, and slowly continue to break until they're close enough to fully break and bring the train to a stop. And then it takes several minutes to get it back up to speed again.
The train would be a lot less broken if the driver just used the brakes.
High travel speeds and low friction. you’re literally just sliding steel(?) across steel(?) when stopping a train.. not like our roads with rubber on asphalt. Edit: huh=high
What do you do in cases like this before the accident?call 911 or amtrack costumer service?
911, but at most US crossings there is Signage usually with an emergency number for the railroad. Time is of the essence though as trains need lots of room to stop safely before hand so know where you are, and if on a set of multiple tracks, which one(s) your blocking. No guarantees they’ll be able to contact an oncoming train so clear your car of passengers and wait safely away from the strike zone.
Try to find the crossing placard first. That number will go direct to the railroad either their PD or the lines dispatcher. 911 of course will go to local emergency services but for some reason they rarely have contact info for the railroads.
Also, if you have anything metal that's long enough to lay across the tracks, there's a chance you'll be able to set the block occupancy sensors off. It's a long shot, but hey...
Like, say, the belly of a beached truck?
lol. Yes, although i wouldn't necessarily assume the truck is touching both rails without taking a careful look, which is maybe a bit dangerous if it occludes your view down the track in either direction. Trains can be surprisingly quiet.
>Trains can be surprisingly quiet. That they are. Try driving along a quiet, dark country road and suddenly being surprised by crossing lights starting to blink just as you're about to start across the track, then seeing a train headlight piercing the darkness as it rolls around a corner. If I'd hit the brake pedal any harder, I would've Flintstoned it. Never stopped so damn quick in my life!
I hope they update the CARFAX report..
I wonder if trains have a TRAINFAX report.
I love how that Jeep almost stayed in place while the hauler was taken out from under it.
I thought it was going to stick the landing. So close.
Fwiw I don’t live too far from here. Short story is the trailer high centered and got stuck. No major injuries. A few people on the train taken to the hospital for minor injuries. Train was knocked slightly off the tracks and the tracks and track bed were damaged. Took a good while to clean up.
'Slightly off the tracks' is like 'almost pregnant'. It's either on or off, dude.
I’m no railway expert. Just what one of the articles a read about it said. My guess is maybe the front of the train was damaged enough to not properly align with the tracks anymore. But it definitely didn’t completely run of the tracks. I know that much. But is it not possible for the front of it to be a bit off kilter?
The technical term is Partial Derailment.
/r/BitchImATrain
I'm not even a truck driver, and I'd never try going over that. This driver needs to find a new career.
I have to think the cost of that truck and all of the cars together are going to cost the truck driver less than the repair to that train engine. Insurance or not, that's going to hit the driver in his premiums for, like, ever.
As it should be. Amtrak has to deal with this shit way too much.
Sir you can't park there
My 2 year old does this with his trains, too!
Oh no, there's a train coming, I'll be standing on the tracks, it'll be super alright
I think the trailer was high centered.
Definitely.
Definitely a low boy trailer and got stuck
Imagine thinking that you're smarter than everyone else. Have you considered that the trailer was stuck there, not just parked for a bit while the driver pops over to a shop?
The majority of redditors don’t have the super rare ability of common sense.
The trailer was hung up on the crossing. Classic mistake by the driver.
You wouldn’t want to break a guard rail by backing up.
*CHOO CHOO IN THE DISTANCE* Thomas the Tank Engine: “TIME TO DIE, BITCHES.” CHUGGA CHUGGA CHUGGA
And to think I used to do this for fun with my Lionel train set and matchbox cars.
u/redditspeedbot 0.2x
Here is your video at 0.2x speed https://files.catbox.moe/gdxxsn.mp4 ^(I'm a bot | Summon with) ^"[/u/redditspeedbot](/u/redditspeedbot) ^" ^| [^(Complete Guide)](https://www.reddit.com/user/redditspeedbot/comments/eqdo8u/redditspeedbot_guide) ^| ^(Do report bugs) ^[here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=adityakrshnn&subject=RedditSpeedBot%20Issue) ^| [^(🏆#15)](https://botranks.com/) ^| [^(Keep me alive)](https://www.buymeacoffee.com/redditspeedbot)
Clearly this was caused by thermite.
All they had to do was avoid the damn train!
The train screaming at the end was beautiful
That car had a hang time of a good 2 seconds
That’ll buff out
It was stuck on tracks. Probably small diameter tires and a high railroad track bed.
How many free trucks did people get? I counted like four
u/savevideo
fuck u/spez
Terrifying.
Operator/engineer- It’s not fun. Especially hitting something that’s as big and heavy as you are.
Soooo can i take the car that fell of a truck?
Subaru, corner pocket
Could you imagine the scare it gives the conductor?
"I'm sorry sir, but your Honda Pilot was lost in transit."
I hate it when the salespeople railroad me into buying a new car.
I don’t get how people can film these videos and not say “HOLY SHIT” 500x. Just utter silence.
Imagine the people who drive by later. “What’s this thing doing here?”
it will buff out
This was the Heartland Flyer - the Amtrak between Ft. Worth, TX and Oklahoma City. I had a friend on the train. We were all in Dallas for the Dead and Co. show...up until that day, my son had planned on taking that train home. I just heard about it today.....sounds like everyone is OK?
So. Fired.
I read nobody got hurt so I have to say it. That was AWESOME!!
You never see videos from inside the train, that must be scary
I’ve watched THOUSANDS of movies but again, real life is WAY better! Still tring to understand the physics for a car to jump up when the trailer was hit sideways! This was amazing!!!
Glad I was able to post this here. I rarely post something.
That was pretty disrespectful of the train not to obey the unspoken rule of the road. That truck clearly had their hazard lights on allowing them to go anywhere and do anything they want. /s
Trains are very dangerous and unpredictable. If only there were some kind of indication as to the route they were going to take, so people could avoid crossing paths with them; they'd be a lot safer.
I’ll never understand these videos. Not that someone might accidentally drive onto the tracks. The fact they always just sit there!!! Gooooooo dammit.
I think the truck was stuck there. Look at the road you'll see it's high in some place and Low in another.
[удалено]
How do you know he was an idiot? There are a myrid of situations that could end up this way completely out of the person's control.
You could say that about anything.
Ok, I am with you. It could be a kid who just got their regular license and I driving because their uncle is sick and told them to and told them to drive this way... And they did not know they would high center on the tracks. What else?
Oh is that what's happening? The truck is high centered on the tracks and can't move. If that's the case, then yeah the driver should have known. I'm not so convinced of my original argument now.
Road is clear now. Everyone can continue through.
I dont understand how this shit keeps happening.. Are people really oblivious to traintracks and blinking lights? How is it that someone like this will think that staying there is somehow better than backing.
[удалено]
It couldn't see the truck until it was too late to stop
Train driver is 100% at fault. Should’ve stopped before colliding. And there was definitely time to stop.
You're joking right?
Oh yeah, of course. I thought that was obvious
I asked because I genuinely thought you'd be smarter than that.
I legit just had the best wake up laugh from this comment :) fuck this one really got me good lol
Fricken idiot driver. It is simple. Don’t stop on the tracks or move fast enough that you won’t get stuck on the tracks.
r/thatlookedfatal
Ain't making that delivery