As you can clearly see, the other UP truck is parked on the tracks at the intersection in front of the crossing gate. A passenger vehicle that appears to be a cadillac or buick is waiting outside for that UP truck to move.
By S.K. BARDWELL and LUCAS WALL Copyright 2004 Houston Chronicle
A Union Pacific Railroad employee was seriously injured Friday morning when he drove his utility truck under a railroad crossing barrier lifted by a co-worker and was struck by a Metro train in southwest Houston, police said.
Christopher McGinnis, 30, of Houston was in serious but stable condition at Memorial Hermann Hospital on Friday afternoon. He worked as a welder for Union Pacific, said company spokesman John Bromley.
The Metro train operator trainee, Walter McBride, 48, activated the emergency brake as the train traveled 50 mph and was thrown into the windshield. He suffered minor injuries and was transported to Ben Taub Hospital. After being released, he complained of glass in his eyes and was then taken to Memorial Hermann, said Metro spokesman Ken Connaughton.
The only passengers aboard the train were four other driver trainees who were taken to hospitals as a precaution, according to Metro. None suffered injuries.
The crash happened about 9 a.m. as the Union Pacific truck, southbound on Kirby, drove past railroad crossing arms blocking tracks along Holmes Road. It was struck by the eastbound light rail train, said Metro Police Chief Tom Lambert. The crash was the eighth involving a Metro train since testing began last fall.
Metro police said witnesses, including another railroad worker, saw a Union Pacific employee lift the crossing gate so McGinnis could drive past the red flashing lights indicating a train was approaching.
The employee who witnessed the collision said he and his co-workers were briefed that morning on safety precautions, including a warning that Metro was conducting train tests, according to a Metro police report.
Bromley said he had heard those reports but could not comment on the allegations until Union Pacific completes its investigation.
Ignoring, disabling or defeating safety barriers is against company policy, and all employees are well trained in safety policies and procedures, Bromley said. No decision will be made about any disciplinary action against McGinnis, who has been with Union Pacific since 1997, until the investigation is complete, he said.
Metro President & CEO Shirley DeLibero said she was shocked at the circumstances of the crash and intends to address safety concerns with UP officials. But, she noted, it appears the worker was properly briefed and chose to ignore his instructions.
The test track allows the trains to reach their maximum design speed of 66 mph. They may only travel up to 40 mph on the Main Street line.
Each light rail train must be driven 1,000 miles before it can carry passengers. Most of that "burn in" occurs on the Metropolitan Transit Authority's 1.7-mile test track, which runs parallel to two UP freight-railroad tracks near the light rail yard at Fannin and West Bellfort.
Train 115 suffered severe damage. Connaughton said it's not yet known if repairs can be made in time to put it back in service for next week's Super Bowl events. Metro has 16 other trains available.
The utility truck was badly mangled, and the train's front wheels were knocked off the tracks.
"These trains weigh 98,000 pounds," Lambert said. "They are going to probably win in any circumstance where there is a conflict with a truck or automobile."
So, um, remind me again...who's fault was the accident?
Based upon all the evidence I have seen, Metro appears to have a greater share in the fault. To the best of my knowledge though the investigations of that wreck have not been finalized yet, or if they have it hasn't been publicized.
It should also be noted that you CANNOT trust the Houston Chronicle to provide an accurate, complete, or even remotely objective story about anything that Metro is involved in. Why? Because they have a policy of intentionally slanting their news coverage to promote light rail - a fact that was inadvertantly revealed to the public last year when they accidently posted the memo detailing it onto the web. The story the wrote about the January 23rd wreck is no different.
As photos from the wreck site reveal, the truck that was hit was actually one of two UP crews working on the same section of track (Note: this was not reported by the Chronicle).
Those photos also reveal that the other truck was parked on top of the tracks in front of the crossing guard, which is part of the pre-existing freight railroad system and not metrorail's test track, which simply shares them and runs parallel to them. This also makes it equally if not more likely that the crossing bars were down due to the presence of the first repair crew and not metrorail. This is key because if the UP truck driver thought or knew that the other truck was in control of the crossing gates his own bypassing of those gates would have been perfectly legitimate (Note: this was not reported by the Chronicle)
As the photos from the scene also reveal, a civilian vehicle was waiting outside of the gates at the crossing that was blocked by the other UP vehice. It was waiting there because of that other UP vehicle, NOT metrorail (Note: this was not reported by the Chronicle)
And as reports of the accidents reveal, metrorail was travelling at a speed substantially in excess of the absolute fastest rate it will ever travel in normal operations, giving more than enough reason to question the need to operate it in such a manner (Note: this was not substantially considered by the Chronicle).
As I noted previously, an analogy demonstrates the clear bias of the Chronicle and others who assign blame upon UP. Suppose that the UP crew was a road repair crew working on an interstate. Suppose metrorail was a motor vehicle, and suppose that vehicle also recieved full notice that a road crew was working on the interstate where they travelled a few miles ahead. Now suppose a worker in that road crew, which consisted of several teams and was visible from at least a half mile back, briefly stepped around one of the orange cones to access the other side of the road he was working on. As he did so, other vehicles in the area (such as a car at a nearby intersection) waited for the crew to finish its work before proceeding on their own. Yet the motorist on the interstate, fully aware of that crew yet still travelling 20 mph above the normal speed limit to say nothing of standard construction zone reductions, decided he would plow through there anyway without making any adjustment or compensation for the fact that the road was being worked on. He hits the repair crewman in the crossing after making a late but ineffective attempt to brake and severely injures him in the process. QUESTION: Under the standard law of practically every single state in the union, who is at primary fault?
The answer will virtually always be the motorist, and so should it be with metrorail.
As you can clearly see, the other UP truck is parked on the tracks at the intersection in front of the crossing gate. A passenger vehicle that appears to be a cadillac or buick is waiting outside for that UP truck to move.