What do you think of this? - bad crossings and good drivers

[Anonymous]

WOW! You know, lets blame the big bad railraod for eveything! They make too much noise blowing their horns. Pass a law! Can't use your horn. Now, crossing accidents triple! (many examples of this stupidity across the country!) The drivers aren't just idiots when they drive, but also when they vote for these kind of laws. AND WHEN THEY DECIDE NOT TO PAY FOR CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS WITH TAXES! It is the responsiblity of the following in this order:
1. YOU, as the driver.
2. YOU, as the voter.
3. YOU, as the taxpayer.

I think its a great idea for the railroads to just shut the crossing down if people can't start acting responsibly on RAILROAD PROPERTY! Of course, then what happens when people drive their cars off of the overpasses. How do we sue the railroad then?

[Modelcar]

282: I mentioned back a ways in our posting of the work on the line to Frankfort from here in Muncie....Well, tomorrow they close one of the main thoroughfares, Tillilotson Ave. for a week to redo the crossing. We were over there in McDonalds parking lot late this afternoon and a train came though headed towards Frankfort loaded with general freight and it was headed with 5 engines...One of them was a BNSF six axle unit.............I'll keep my eye on the track work about to start.

[edblysard]

Most of the crossings down here are like that, if the circut reads no movement after a few seconds, the gates go up and the light & bells stop.
As soon as we beging to move again, it all comes back on.

Lucky crew that you were around to clue them in.

Ed

[tree68]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

Hi Larry,
The GCOR tell us that we may not leave a train within 250 feet of a crossing not equiped with automatic safety devices, and if we have to cut a crossing not equiped with automatic crossing safety devices, and we may not leave either part of the train within 250 feet of the the crossing.
If equiped with automatic devices, we may not leave any standing equipment within the circut for said device, unless we position a member of our crew to provide flaging protection and traffic control.

Ed

This crossing clears after the train stops, and will activate again as soon as they start moving. Have watched it several times. I know they've stopped there many times. Had to go in and tell them the DS was looking for them one time - they couldn't hear him on their portable. They were off like a shot - had the line tied up and there was traffic to move.

[edblysard]

Hi Larry,
The GCOR tell us that we may not leave a train within 250 feet of a crossing not equiped with automatic safety devices, and if we have to cut a crossing not equiped with automatic crossing safety devices, and we may not leave either part of the train within 250 feet of the the crossing.
If equiped with automatic devices, we may not leave any standing equipment within the circut for said device, unless we position a member of our crew to provide flaging protection and traffic control.

Ed

[Anonymous]

someone commented about "common sense", the truth of the matter is, that not enough people actually have this strain of DNA anymore, thus , making it "uncommon sense" . Stupid people shouldn't breed, and apparently, they shouldn't DRIVE either. They should include an I.Q. test as part of the reqirement for a driver's license, SO MANY PEOPLE WOULD BE WALKING INSTEAD OF ENDANGERING EVERYONE, INCLUDING THEMSELVES!!!!!!!!!! The railroads have the right of way! The roads cross RAILROAD property, therefore if you are stupid enough to zip through ANY grade crossing, without looking, AND listening for rail traffic, you deserve what you get !! .........................HERE'S YOUR SIGN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Anonymous]

Ironhorseman- here's the link, I think
http://www.train-sim.com/dcforum/DCForumID1/8049.html

[corwinda]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jchnhtfd

I'm not quite sure how a 'good' driver manages to get hit at a railroad crossing,

There is the ordinary traffic accident that leaves a vehicle (or more) fouling the tracks. There was an accident here in Oregon recently where a truck swerved to avoid another vehicle (someone pulled out in front of the truck, I think) and got stuck on the track.

[rrnut282]

What I find interesting is that "they" decided to find fault with the RR even though:
1 they don't have the facts to back it up
2 it is not up to the RR what crossing gets advanced protection (gates and flashers)
3 they aren't even polite enough to listen to the other side
that's 3 strikes, yer out!
4 their emotional involvement clouds their judgement
5 almost every crossing is built to the standards in place at the time. What was good 30 years ago isn't up to snuff today. Taking that a step further, the safest crossing today will soon be obsolete as standards evolve. So where does that leave us?
6 you cannot legislate or design a 100% safe crossing.

[Train Guy 3]

Machines malfuction, lights blow out, something fails, .... stuff happens.... If you cross a track without listening for a train and looking for train or depend on a gate and flashing lights to tell you a train is coming, then you desrve to be hit!

[ironhorseman]

QUOTE: Originally posted by p42dcboy

QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith

I like p42dcboy's attempt to aurgue his point, but The reply from this Vicky Moore is as bad headed logicly as anything from Misery! I think p42dcboy just got a taste of that bitter little pill we all had to spit out.

I copied that from train-sim.com, there is a big war going on there, and I wanted to see what people here thought.

Interesting that this topic would be brought up on a train simulator forum. Can I get the link to it to see what all's been said?

You, and anyone else who joined after about August of 2003, are probably not familer with the "war" that when on here for several months that thank the Trains staff they put a stop to it. Just to recap, whatshisname's argument/position was all railroads were in a conspirousy to commit muder against civilians by means of faulty, poor, flawed, etc, RR crossing. It was all bogus. This person could not carry on a civil discussion and beat a dead horse in the ground over and over again. Nobody agreed with him except his alter egos he created. I think he had a split personality disorder, but that's beside the point.

What it all boils down to is: STOP, LOOK, LISTEN, LIVE! I could go on and on about how society expects warning labels on everything from power tools to shampoo to paper cups. You could put lights, bells, whistles, alarms, guards, walls, gates, etc at RR crossings and people will still ignore them and seek fault from the RR. The advocacy groups are all in a tizzy about every grade crossing how it's not up to this or that standard or code or the sight triangles or some other non-sence, but they don't want to help pay for the upgrades. No, to them that's the state's or the RR's responsibilty. Blah, Blah, Blah, whatever. It doesn't matter what condition the crossing is in it's the duty of the pedestrian or motorist to take the precautions before crossing, it's federal law. The train has the right out way over the tracks. You have the responsibility to look out for yourself.

To the jerk who is gonna cross the tracks because he's not paying attention because he thinks the universe revolves around him has got another think coming.

To the good driver who gets hit by a train at any crossing, good or bad, I'm sorry but that person ceases to qualify as a good driver in my book.

To the drivers who can sucessfully cross the tracks at designated crossings in the proper and legal manner and survive and not cause a wreck then that's a good driver in book and I congradulate them.

I'm not gonna hang around this debate any longer because there is no debate. The motorist and pedestrians need to pay attention and be aware of their surrondings when driving or being around train tracks. If motorists can't take safety into their own hands around tracks they don't need to be on the road in the first place.

You've come to right place to ask about this since most of us have already seen this movie and all it's sequels (good analogy don't you all think?).

[tree68]

More than a few times I've crossed one particular crossing, looked left and right, and been greeted by the front end of a loco. No lights, not in motion, crew gone for beans. Then again, the gates were up and the lights weren't flashing. Still pretty startling...

[zardoz]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Mookie

QUOTE: Originally posted by zardoz

There is a crossing south of Burlington, WI (Hoosier Creek rd), that is (or was, last time I was there) protected only by crossbucks and stop signs; in addition, the road crosses the tracks at about a thirty degree angle and on a slight rise.

While there I like to take pictures. When all is quiet I sometimes sit in my vehicle (with lots of antennas and lights on top) parked somewhat near the tracks on the side of the road. But sometimes I park in the little park down the road and hike to the tracks.

My point is that when my car is NOT nearby, MOST drivers barely slow down for this semi-blind crossing, much less actually stop (it has stop signs below the crossbucks); but when I am parked near the tracks, almost ALL drivers come to a complete stop and look both ways (they must think I'm some sort of authority figure).

If my observations are somewhat typical, then these "innocent" lives that are being lost may not be so "innocent" as they first appear.

The problem at crossings is not visibility, it's mentality.

With a handle like Zardoz - I always thought of you as some kind of an authority figure! [bow]

Thank you, M'lady. [:I]

[zardoz]

Look again at the photo. No headlights. No crew. Train probably parked.

Not to take the side of the morons, but the crew of that train did nothing to promote safety. All they did was to pish lots of people off. And what if a train was approaching on one of the other tracks? BAM! To me, they guys in the truck look a bit nervous. Although if one of those guys in the truck was me, one of us would have gotten off our kiesters and walked to the tracks to "look and listen".

Even if the crew went dead, someone from the crew should be flagging the crossing!

This would be a case where the RR would indeed be at fault.

[jchnhtfd]

I'm not quite sure how a 'good' driver manages to get hit at a railroad crossing, or (witness the newswire for Thursday the 18th) manages to hit a train at a railroad crossing, although, on the freak chance that his or her car actually physically breaks down in such a way as to stop on the crossing, immobilized, it could happen that the car might get hit (about the only thing I can think of is a rear wheel drive vehicle, and the driveshaft coming off and lodging in the track...). However, there are very few good drivers out there. Very few. As entertainment, for example, I count the folks running red lights on my morning commute; it averages 3 to 4 per light cycle. So... but given the drivers who ARE out there, it is inevitable that grade crossing accidents will happen -- no matter what gates and devices are there.

The idiots are alive and well...

[vsmith]

QUOTE: Originally posted by p42dcboy

http://207.44.222.57/images/images2/c/CSX8954FX03-14-04.jpg.80471
Although I'm not familiar with the above local, it would appear from the picture that the driver had an unobstructed view of the tracks, yet decided to ignore the gates and take his chances...He (and his passenger) was very lucky.

P42
your picture says it all, the 99% vast majority of crossing accidents are caused by people ignoring warning lights, ignoring the oncoming train, going around the gates and getting smacked!

Stupid people get killed doing Stupid things.

[JoeKoh]

Well it took an accident to get a crossing upgraded here in ohio.people just need to stop look listen and live.
stay safe
Joe

[Mookie]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

After reading all the posts on this thread, I changed my mind. She has only a part of the story. The real tragedy was when the railroads took the steering wheels off locomotives, thus preventing the engineers from swerving in an effort to avoid hitting cars on the tracks. And what about brakes? The railroads are so cheap they use air instead of brake fluid on the trains. Ever tried to stop an automobile with air in the brake lines? No wonder it takes a mile or more to stop a long train.

And talk about conspiracies-what about the mysterious disappearance of the guy who designed the foam rubber train locomotive? They never even found a trace of his plans. Mulder, where are you when we need you?

I love this!

[wabash1]

Ive started writing several times only to erase it. seems what needs to be said takes to long and to wordy. truth is if they are safe drivers they wouldnt get hit at crossings. and to those that keep pressing your luck at crossings my motto is sooner or later im gonna get ya. morbid yes. fact of life yes will i lose sleep over it NO. And it wont do any good to tell the police as ive witness them brake the same law they are to enforce. even turn the lights on run thru the crossing and turn them off. I am sure they wrote them selves a ticket later for their actions. right after they finished their coffee and donuts.

[jeaton]

After reading all the posts on this thread, I changed my mind. She has only a part of the story. The real tragedy was when the railroads took the steering wheels off locomotives, thus preventing the engineers from swerving in an effort to avoid hitting cars on the tracks. And what about brakes? The railroads are so cheap they use air instead of brake fluid on the trains. Ever tried to stop an automobile with air in the brake lines? No wonder it takes a mile or more to stop a long train.

And talk about conspiracies-what about the mysterious disappearance of the guy who designed the foam rubber train locomotive? They never even found a trace of his plans. Mulder, where are you when we need you?

[Anonymous]

http://207.44.222.57/images/images2/c/CSX8954FX03-14-04.jpg.80471
Although I'm not familiar with the above local, it would appear from the picture that the driver had an unobstructed view of the tracks, yet decided to ignore the gates and take his chances...He (and his passenger) was very lucky.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith

I like p42dcboy's attempt to aurgue his point, but The reply from this Vicky Moore is as bad headed logicly as anything from Misery! I think p42dcboy just got a taste of that bitter little pill we all had to spit out.

I copied that from train-sim.com, there is a big war going on there, and I wanted to see what people here thought.

[mudchicken]

Kinda tough to lump all of the states together on how the crossing issues are tackled. Ed, Texas is halfway sane. Iowa and California are two of the more bizzare states to deal with. California behaves like a control freak on an acid trip and Iowa tries to use a touchy-feely town hall meeting approach that rarely works smoothly.

The point being made above is that if you let a highway engineer design and construct an at-grade crossing without railroad input,. the result is a piece of crap that kills. Even if the railroad controls what happens between the R/W lines, the approaches are usually screwed up by factors beyond the railroad's control. Part of the struggle is to get the parties to cooperate (especially political entities), check the egos at the door and work for the common goal: safety. Each crossing has to be treated as a separate case with its own mitigating circumstances. Wittless wonders like angels on the track, stooges for trial lawyers, will never see the light unless it runs over them. A name and a website is not to be confused with a legitimate concern.

[banghead][banghead][banghead]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

Surprised mudchicken didnt point this out before, so here goes.
A: Railroads dont get to chose where the crossing goes, in fact, almost every at grade crossing is the result of a local or state lawsuit, where the railroad was sued to gain access across their private property.
The city wants a road across UPs Clinton branch line, they have to sue UP to get across.

B: Railroads dont design the crossings, or decide what kind of crossing protection is installed.
The State DOT, or local street dept do make those decisions.
One the other hand, railroads do, (here in Texas) have to pay 75% of the construction cost, and 100% of the maintainance.

So, if these Angels want to gripe, then they should complain to the people how desige the crossing, not thoses of us who have to use it every day, and hope the driving public, which sued us to cross our tracks in the first place, stop in time.

Ed

You serious ED?

Up here, Railroads TELL the town what kind of Railroad crossing Equipment to Establish, ands if they say gates, sometimes you can get away with just putting lights, but there will be a tussle over it, and each side will come out scared, but the town usually wins.

If the RR jsut sais Lights, and the town wants to put a friggin' stick with a bib X, if the Railroad doesn't like that, they'll deny the right to the crossing, too bad, until the town complies.

When the device is constructef, the Town pays 80-100%, the maintenace done by the Railroad, btu the cost is 100% paid by the town.

No If and's or But's about.

If the town doesn't like it, they don't get to cross private property.

Owner of the land Rules All.

[edblysard]

Surprised mudchicken didnt point this out before, so here goes.
A: Railroads dont get to chose where the crossing goes, in fact, almost every at grade crossing is the result of a local or state lawsuit, where the railroad was sued to gain access across their private property.
The city wants a road across UPs Clinton branch line, they have to sue UP to get across.

B: Railroads dont design the crossings, or decide what kind of crossing protection is installed.
The State DOT, or local street dept do make those decisions.
One the other hand, railroads do, (here in Texas) have to pay 75% of the construction cost, and 100% of the maintainance.

So, if these Angels want to gripe, then they should complain to the people who design the crossing, not thoses of us who have to use it every day, and hope the driving public, which sued us to cross our tracks in the first place, stop in time.

Ed

[Anonymous]

Well this is interasting but all crossing need gates I don't care if it has 1 train a day THEY ALL NEED THEM so beancounter excutives SPEND MONEY ON THIS

DOGGY

[vsmith]

QUOTE: Originally posted by espeefoamer

Remember the saying;"as soon as they make somethiing idiotproof,along comes a new class of idiots."

I always thought it was

"design a system that even an idiot can use, and only an idiot will use it"

[vsmith]

Hey Katwoman,

Get this, in South Pasadena, Ca. their is an active campaign to have the Gold Line light-rail trains prohibited from using their horns at any crossings! Its TOO NOISY for the weinies that live there. They also want the train to SLOW DOWN to 20 mph through the lenth of the entire town. It already takes 30 minutes to 15 miles to downtown. I have been at the main street crossing when the trains cross and the horns are no louder than a automobile horn. You just want to slap some people sometimes!

[northwesterner]

That's part of the problem, I'm not in a big hurry to get anywhere, so I slow down at crossings with gates and lights, and STOP at unguarded crossings. But, the other people out there (especially big SUV drivers) are so much into this "I'm important, I'm in a hurry, get out of my way" frame of mind, they cause problems for everyone. (Crawling @10 MPH in an expressway traffic jam, when an IIP (I'm Important Person) goes flying by on the shoulder @60 MPH.

When I first joined these forums, I too SLOGGED through the M&M threads, irritating, mind-numbing, and just plain stupid in many instances. I agree with Ookie, Vsmith, Tree68, and others, let it go.[V]