Rescue workers free man hit by train and trapped under engine; extent of injuries unclear
A man was struck by a train hauling cargo in Ann Arbor early this morning, but it's not clear how badly he was injured, firefighters said.
The man was on the tracks about 4:45 a.m. when the train hit him on the overpass on North Main Street, a press release from the Ann Arbor Fire Department said. The man became trapped under the front of the engine, the release said.
Five of the city's six fire trucks as well as police and Huron Valley Ambulance workers rushed to the scene. Police determined the man was breathing, and firefighters and ambulance workers freed him from under the train. According to the press release, firefighters used a ladder truck to lower him to the ground from the bridge. He was able to move his arms and was talking with rescuers, firefighters said.
Huron Valley Ambulance took the man to the University of Michigan Hospital, but no information on his condition was available.
Fire Battalion Chief Steven Lowe said it is not clear why the man was on the tracks, and he did not have information on how rescue crews managed to free him.
View Train strikes man in a larger map
Comments
Ann English
Sat, May 14, 2011 : 11:37 p.m.
Thanks, Chapmaja and Top Cat, From the article alone, I couldn't tell which railroad track was involved, the Norfolk Southern or the Ann Arbor Railroad. The Norfolk Southern itself crosses Main Street and follows the Huron River and accommodates both freight and passenger trains. The Ann Arbor Railroad is for freight only. This accident happened right where they both are; usually I hear about such accidents happening on the Norfolk Southern. I know the Ann Arbor Railroad basically runs north and south, but takes an S-shaped path through downtown Ann Arbor
CynicA2
Sat, May 14, 2011 : 7:07 a.m.
Gee... not counting the command vehicles and the boat, I still count only 7 bona fide fire trucks for a city of about 110,000 people. Not that I'm an expert on what is the appropriate number, but I don't think the powers that be are erring on the side of caution. I don't see much margin for error, not to mention the staffing issue. Remember the million dollar fountain the next time some poor soul dies or is seriously injured in a fire, or, God forbid, we have two big fires at the same time. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Ricebrnr
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 6:07 p.m.
AAFD info here: <a href="http://www.a2gov.org/government/safetyservices/Fire/Pages/Fireoper.aspx" rel='nofollow'>http://www.a2gov.org/government/safetyservices/Fire/Pages/Fireoper.aspx</a> PERSONNEL: The Ann Arbor Fire Department is budgeted for 88 uniformed positions. STATIONS: Station 1, 111 N. Fifth Avenue 1 Rescue 1 95' Ladder Tower 1 Command Vehicle Station 3, 2130 Jackson Avenue 1 Engine Station 4, 2415 Huron Parkway 1 Engine Station 5, 1946 Beal 1 75' Ladder 1 Water/Ice Rescue Boat Station 6, 1881 Briarwood Circle 1 Engine 1 Haz Mat Unit SPECIALIZED Equipment: Units for Special Operations: Technical Rescue Water Rescue Ice Rescue MUSAR Strike Team Hazardous Materials Team STANDARD RESPONSE TO A REPORTED STRUCTURE FIRE: 2 Engines, 1 Ladder, 1 Rescue Pumper, 1 Command Vehicle, 13 Personnel SECOND ALARM RESPONSE: 1 Engine, 1 Ladder, 6 Personnel Safety Officer, Chief Officers
CynicA2
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 5:42 p.m.
The really scary thing revealed by this article is that A2 only has 6 fire trucks to cover the whole city. God forbid we ever have a significant natural disaster, or some other type of major emergency. Send your "Thank You" notes to the Hieftje and his buddies on Council. Maybe the Dreiseitl Urinal can be put on wheels and towed to fires to spritz the flames!
Ricebrnr
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 6:02 p.m.
I'm pretty sure we have more than that. We just don't have the people to man them...
Mi resident
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 5:27 p.m.
I wonder why the need to put the amount of trucks responding in the article. Seems like more slams to A2 Fire Service? MAYBE the article was trying to explain how much manpower is required to secure the scene, direct traffic, possibly search for for things as well as secure the patient since HVA often times only has one or two people in an ambulance at a time which probably isn't enough considering some situations. I'd say this is nother example of excellent work done by the AAFD. Kudos to them and everything they do.
PR of AA
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 5:23 p.m.
Am I the only one that can't understand why in the world 5 out of the 6 city Fire trucks responded to a single person hit by a train. Good thing there wasn't an emergency or fire anywhere else in the city.
Ricebrnr
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 5:50 p.m.
Because, 1) Know one can know how many FD people and what equipment will be needed until they are on scene. The flip side of your question is that they send one scout to assess a scene and then call in what they think is needed. Do you think that is a good model for EMERGENCY services to follow? 2) Corollary to the above each truck transports about 3 firefighters with our current staffing. That many trucks are needed to get them to the scene. Sure they could fit more FD per vehicle but then if they need certain equipment, or need to roll to another scene, who's going to roll the vehicles still back at the station to the scene? Now do you get it?
Tom Joad
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 5:17 p.m.
I jog along the Huron River near Argo Pond. I see droves of people cross the tracks to get to the dam and the park on the other side. Each one of them is trespassing. They have pulled stings there, so watch out. You don't want to have to answer to the man in blue.
Moscow On The Huron
Sat, May 14, 2011 : 4:04 a.m.
Nobody said it's the biggest problem facing the world today. By the way, your disagreement for the concept of private property rights only affirms my screen name.
amlive
Sat, May 14, 2011 : 2:59 a.m.
Wow. All I can say is you guys really take the cake. Walking across the railroad tracks at the only point within a reasonable distance by which you can access a public park, by far one of the biggest problems facing society today. Get a life you guys.
Moscow On The Huron
Sat, May 14, 2011 : 1:41 a.m.
Also... if, in your driveway scenario, you became tired of people crossing your driveway and getting killed under your car because once you saw them in the driveway you couldn't stop your car in time to avoid killing them, you would most likely tell them to stop crossing your driveway.
Moscow On The Huron
Sat, May 14, 2011 : 1:38 a.m.
"I'll put it this way - if my driveway was a few hundred miles long, and ran between a park and a parking lot, would I enforce trespassing laws if people wanted to walk across it? I'd say no. " If it were your driveway, it would be your choice. The railroad isn't yours, it's not your choice. The fact you think it's stupid doesn't relieve you of the obligation of obeying the wishes of the owner. of the property.
Ricebrnr
Sat, May 14, 2011 : 1:11 a.m.
"Would I want to enforce it, or think it was fair? No, that would be stupid. A simple "cross at your own risk" sign would be much more sensible and fair, though I don't think it serves as a legal waver of liability." I believe you are correct it wouldn't. When someone drunk cracks their head on you driveway and then sues you, how will you feel about it then? Would you enforce your stupid rules then? I suggest you look up "attractive nuisance" laws.
markguy
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 7:42 p.m.
Pretty sure this was on the AA Railroad bridge over the Main (and the river), not the Norfolk Southern tracks you are talking about crossing. I run there a lot as well. On occasion you will see people up on that trestle. It's long -- probably a couple hundred yards at least. You easily could imagine someone near the Argo canoe livery end noticing a train coming southbound, turning and running back towards Main, and not making it...
amlive
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 6:56 p.m.
Come on people, give me a break. You really think this way? I'll put it this way - if my driveway was a few hundred miles long, and ran between a park and a parking lot, would I enforce trespassing laws if people wanted to walk across it? I'd say no. Of course my lawyer would probably tell me to put up no trespassing signs, and once in a while to enforce them against some poor unsuspecting sap, just so I could protect myself from lawsuits if someone slipped on a pebble and sprained their ankle. Would I want to enforce it, or think it was fair? No, that would be stupid. A simple "cross at your own risk" sign would be much more sensible and fair, though I don't think it serves as a legal waver of liability. So crossing over a set of railroad tracks to get from Main street to a city park at the only available path for over a half mile in either direction, this is somehow the equivalent of ignoring traffic rules or building a railroad through a back yard? Come on folks. I'm sure it's fun to be absurd, but have some common sense. A parking lot. A park. A well beaten path that traverses the railroad tracks in between. Really, come on...
Moscow On The Huron
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 6:05 p.m.
"I cross those tracks all the time, and I view the "trespassing" rules as absolutely absurd. " Darn those pesky property rights! So it's OK then if those of who consider your property rights to be absolutely absurd all come over and do things like maybe build railroads across it?
Ricebrnr
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 5:53 p.m.
Right, property rights, maintenance and liability aside, if it's a stupid law, we should ignore it... Why stop at lights and stop signs? All you have to do is look both ways.
amlive
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 5:41 p.m.
I cross those tracks all the time, and I view the "trespassing" rules as absolutely absurd. The danger of walking across those tracks is no more than crossing them from the sidewalk at Summit, Liberty, or South Main. Whatever happened here one could only speculate on, which I know is against commenting rules surrounding tragic events such as this, and therefore make clear that I am not speculating on this particular incident. That said, I cannot see walking across the tracks to get from point A to point B as being a terribly risky maneuver. If someone were intoxicated, sat down and passed out on the tracks (again, in no way speculating this instance to be anything like that) and were hit by a train, I would hardly see this as justification to prevent people from crossing from a parking lot to a public park area. All I could say about this case, is that given that the accident reportedly occurred on the railroad bridge, it does not seem in any way related to people crossing a well-traveled path across the tracks between a parking lot and a park. People are going to cross the tracks to get to the river park by Argo dam, trespassing rules or not, and they're not going to walk down to Longshore Drive / Bandemeer park to do so. Nor would it be any more or less safe if they did. If anything, the city should have a marked walkway to cross here just as though it were a sidewalk crossing the tracks, though I'm sure there are mountains of property rights and insurance red tape that could make this unfeasible. In any case, all you have to do is look both ways....
Top Cat
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 5:13 p.m.
It is fortunate for the victim that the Ann Arbor Railroad is speed restricted at this area and usually only pulling a modest amount of cars.
Mr. Ed
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 4:44 p.m.
AAPD needs to enforce the trespassing on RR tracks more often. The danger of walking on the tracks is clear. Walk up AA stay off the tracks.
Ricebrnr
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 4:31 p.m.
Thanks AAFD!
Angela
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 4:14 p.m.
I was trying to go through there at 5:30am and the road was blocked in both directions with firetrucks, etc. However, it looked like they were South of the bridge far enough that we thought it was an accident at the intersection with Depot Street. We also saw a police car driving down Main with his spotlight aimed towards the river. It has to be the same incident but I'm wondering why the vehicles were so far from the bridge (it sounds like they fire truck would have been almost under it) and what the police car was looking for.
amlive
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 3:20 p.m.
How bizarre and sad. Do you have any idea as to how far he was carried/dragged between the time he was hit and where the train was actually able to stop?
chapmaja
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 8:52 p.m.
I would guess he wasn't dragged very far by the train. The railroad has a 10mph speed limit in the area. The question I have is was the training heading NB or SB when the accident occurred? A NB train would have just come onto the bridge when he was hit. A SB train would have been going across the entire bridge. when they hit this guy. My guess is they were heading NB and he was coming across the bridge from the opposite side. As for traffic levels on the railroad. They are hauling more now than in recent years because of some operational changes. With that said, they still normally run NB and SB only once per day.