That´s it, Folks - this discussion has now gone completely .
schlimm You know, it is annoying when some argues without ever getting it straight , I guess b/c they don't bother to read or something. Again, I said the governments are responsible in most cases, which you should already know perfectly well. Only a new (built after the road) rail line would be responsible, and that would be a pretty rare occurrence.
You know, it is annoying when some argues without ever getting it straight , I guess b/c they don't bother to read or something. Again, I said the governments are responsible in most cases, which you should already know perfectly well. Only a new (built after the road) rail line would be responsible, and that would be a pretty rare occurrence.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm Looking at many of the accidents, many seem to be people going around lowered gates. Simply doing as Bucyrus suggests with four, more substantial gates and/or barriers to prevent going around would eliminate many accidents at a more reasonable price than complete separation. Of course, there will still be some folks who drive through the gates, but those are far from the majority. This need not be an all or nothing question. If even 50% of the accidents can be eliminated (and I think that is a lowball estimate) by fairly cheap and easy steps, that should be worth it.
Looking at many of the accidents, many seem to be people going around lowered gates. Simply doing as Bucyrus suggests with four, more substantial gates and/or barriers to prevent going around would eliminate many accidents at a more reasonable price than complete separation. Of course, there will still be some folks who drive through the gates, but those are far from the majority. This need not be an all or nothing question. If even 50% of the accidents can be eliminated (and I think that is a lowball estimate) by fairly cheap and easy steps, that should be worth it.
Another one friday
http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/pedestrian-struck-killed-by-amtrak-train-in-caledonia-d15nct2-158276095.html
To you, sir, I shall remain a mystery.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
zugmann 4. If we're not going for 100%, why bother?
4. If we're not going for 100%, why bother?
I could name a whole slew of things where we don't go for 100%. Your only argument is to throw out a false choice between doing nothing and going 100% (which is not what is proposed. Who knows your motivation? BaltACD was honest that he feared it might cost his company some money. And you? When actually the various governments have to pay in most cases.
Phoebe Vet The longest journey begins with a single step. The first step should obviously be STOP BUILDING NEW grade level crossings. Stop putting light rail tracks in the middle of a road. Etc, Then establish a list of priorities based on speed and traffic volume, both road and rail, to begin eliminating grade level crossings. It may take a hundred years, but it will take that hundred years from the day we actually start. If we had started in 1950 we would be half way there. Straighter ROW and fewer crossings would mean trains could run faster and safer. Just because fool proof isn't possible is no reason to give up on fool resistant. We did it for the Interstate Highway system, we can do it for rail. We don't allow grade level crossings or road intersections on interstate highways. We don't allow roads that cross a runway. Why is RR ROW any different?
The longest journey begins with a single step.
The first step should obviously be STOP BUILDING NEW grade level crossings. Stop putting light rail tracks in the middle of a road. Etc,
Then establish a list of priorities based on speed and traffic volume, both road and rail, to begin eliminating grade level crossings. It may take a hundred years, but it will take that hundred years from the day we actually start. If we had started in 1950 we would be half way there.
Straighter ROW and fewer crossings would mean trains could run faster and safer. Just because fool proof isn't possible is no reason to give up on fool resistant. We did it for the Interstate Highway system, we can do it for rail. We don't allow grade level crossings or road intersections on interstate highways. We don't allow roads that cross a runway. Why is RR ROW any different?
Stop building new grade-level crossings? This is an old policy at BNSF, and I suspect at the other Class Ones.
Obviously, BNSF recognizes that, in a dynamic economic situation -- which we're all supposed to want -- there will have to be new at-grade crossings. Its proposal to the political subdivisions: We'll trade you an old, less necessary, crossing for the new one. Just so there's no net gain of at-grade crossings.
Yeah, we did it for interstate highways (except for when someone crosses the median). But every roadway is not an interstate highway and never will be -- not even in a hundred hundred years. So Phoebe really is asking something extraordinary of grade crossings.
I've been holding my breath waiting for someone to say that, money and competitiveness be hanged, if the 100-percent solution saves even one life, IT'S WORTH IT.
To which the only response is: worth it to whom?
schlimm 1. Good. 2. Yep, but where are our priorities? The first of the new Gerald R. Ford class aircraft carriers costs $9 billion, not including the aircraft and the support ships in a typical 10-15 ship strike force (another ~$10 bil.?). Perhaps we could forgo one of the 10 planned? 3. Sidings, branches etc. crossing seldom used roads? Eliminate the road crossing, not the rail line. 4. I agree that little can stop someone "hellbent" on self and/or other destruction, but improved gates, barriers and separations would prevent the bulkof the accidents. We don't need to build for 100% safety, if that were even possible. Just build for the ~75-90% of accidents that could be prevented.
1. Good.
2. Yep, but where are our priorities? The first of the new Gerald R. Ford class aircraft carriers costs $9 billion, not including the aircraft and the support ships in a typical 10-15 ship strike force (another ~$10 bil.?). Perhaps we could forgo one of the 10 planned?
3. Sidings, branches etc. crossing seldom used roads? Eliminate the road crossing, not the rail line.
4. I agree that little can stop someone "hellbent" on self and/or other destruction, but improved gates, barriers and separations would prevent the bulkof the accidents. We don't need to build for 100% safety, if that were even possible. Just build for the ~75-90% of accidents that could be prevented.
1. Yep, it's a good thing.
2. There's always another use for funds. We could even go more local than your example: put up gates or buy a new aerial truck for the local fire dep't. Wonder what would get more support?
3. I don't think a lot of towns want all their back streets closed off because of the twice-a-week local that comes through. Good luck in trying, though. I know I said it 15 times, but here goes again: the ability of a railroad to cross public thoroughfares is what makes it viable.
4. If we're not going for 100%, why bother? A regular set of gates is enough to prevent most collisions. A set of flashers to a lesser extent, too. How much is "enough"?
zugmann schlimm: My question is why the professional railroaders on here are so resistant to such a program? 1. We know that there are already crossing elimination programs in place with most of our companies. 2. M-O-N-E-Y. A million here, a million there, then you are talking about real money. We know that this stuff isn't cheap. 3. What about all the sidings, branches and industrial lines? Is it worth making someone pay millions of dollars to gate a little-used crossing that is used twice a week? If the railroads have to do that, we know what will happen - the track will be TORN OUT. As I said 14 times before, and I will continue to say it again: the ability of railroads to cross public thoroughfares is what makes it viable. Nobody is going to pay to improve a little used siding track over a little used road for the benefit of a few carloads. 4. We've seen crossings get more gates, more lights, more bells, medians, but in the end, if someone is hellbent on getting in front of the train, then they will. Unless you have a physical barrier that will actually prevent a car or truck from getting on the tracks, well, it's all money that could be spent elsewhere. (laws of equivalent exchange). And if you do make a barrier that strong and someone gets "trapped" on the crossing and hit, then the lawyers will have a field day. Can't win, I'm afraid.
schlimm: My question is why the professional railroaders on here are so resistant to such a program?
My question is why the professional railroaders on here are so resistant to such a program?
1. We know that there are already crossing elimination programs in place with most of our companies.
2. M-O-N-E-Y. A million here, a million there, then you are talking about real money. We know that this stuff isn't cheap.
3. What about all the sidings, branches and industrial lines? Is it worth making someone pay millions of dollars to gate a little-used crossing that is used twice a week? If the railroads have to do that, we know what will happen - the track will be TORN OUT. As I said 14 times before, and I will continue to say it again: the ability of railroads to cross public thoroughfares is what makes it viable. Nobody is going to pay to improve a little used siding track over a little used road for the benefit of a few carloads.
4. We've seen crossings get more gates, more lights, more bells, medians, but in the end, if someone is hellbent on getting in front of the train, then they will. Unless you have a physical barrier that will actually prevent a car or truck from getting on the tracks, well, it's all money that could be spent elsewhere. (laws of equivalent exchange). And if you do make a barrier that strong and someone gets "trapped" on the crossing and hit, then the lawyers will have a field day. Can't win, I'm afraid.
Phoebe Vet People don't get killed at little used industrial sidings. The trains are moving at very slow speeds there. Protection of industrial sidings should be the financial responsibility of the industry that needs the siding.
People don't get killed at little used industrial sidings. The trains are moving at very slow speeds there. Protection of industrial sidings should be the financial responsibility of the industry that needs the siding.
People still get hurt and killed at those sidings. Many times they run smack dab into the side of a train on them. I'm sure there's people that crossed those tracks for years without ever seeing a train on them, then one day, there it is!
What if an industry or two is at the end of a RR-owned branchline? Are we going to force small companies to pay for the crossing protection, too? As a RRer, I don't want to see branchlines and sidings getting torn out because nobody has the money to put in 15 sets of gates.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
schlimm My question is why the professional railroaders on here are so resistant to such a program?
It is not a Federal issue, and the Federal Government has zero dollars in the issue.
The RAILROAD generally owns the ROW and the government takes (took) an easement across the tracks. They could have built an overpass, they could have built an underpass, this they dis not do because they are cheap.
In some places the railroad was required to build off grade crossings over state highways. Usually these roads predated the railroad. It was a good idea in those days, but these existing crossings are now so inadequate as to require trucks to take local routes to cross the tracks.
The way to abate crossings is to have the city/county/state build an overpass. In Merrick (NY) the state elevated the railroad, but by this time the state owned all of the stock in the railroad. But then they were elevating a 10 mile segment of the railroad.
ROAR
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
I never said the railroads should pay for it. There are probably some crossings that should be railroad responsibility, but they are probably a minority. It is easier to move a road than a railroad. Cars can deal with steeper bridge approaches than trains can. Road bridges don't have to support as much weight as a railroad bridge. Sometimes crossings can be consolidated. Each project needs to be evaluated on it's own merits.
Here in Charlotte, as part of the Gateway Station project, we are even eliminating a crossing where CSX and NS cross each other. CSX is being lowered and NS is being raised. I don't think NC was crazy about the idea of the new commuter train crossing a busy freight line.
BaltACD, I appreciate your thoughtful answer. Perhaps you and the other railroaders and the unions should join with the rest of us, who see this as a problem, in pushing the various governments to do so. The amounts the feds allocate to state and local under several programs seems insufficient to get much done.
schlimm By no means are level crossing eliminated in Germany, except on dedicated HSR lines. But the level crossings are more substantial, with 4 gates and barriers to prevent going around when the road has much traffic. Even country roads are gated, but with less expensive barriers. Private roads outside cities do not appear to have crossings. In England, there are more total separations, but most of those go back 70+ years. Both counties have similar percentages of "idiorts" as we do, so clearly that is not the explanation for lower death rates. As Phoebe Vet says, we should be making steps in a program. My question is why the professional railroaders on here are so resistant to such a program?
By no means are level crossing eliminated in Germany, except on dedicated HSR lines. But the level crossings are more substantial, with 4 gates and barriers to prevent going around when the road has much traffic. Even country roads are gated, but with less expensive barriers. Private roads outside cities do not appear to have crossings. In England, there are more total separations, but most of those go back 70+ years. Both counties have similar percentages of "idiorts" as we do, so clearly that is not the explanation for lower death rates. As Phoebe Vet says, we should be making steps in a program. My question is why the professional railroaders on here are so resistant to such a program?
The governmental authorities that built the roads that crossed the pre-existing railroads are the resistant parties as it is their obligation to pay for it. As a professional railroader I would love such a program, however, I do not want my companies finances to be used to fix a problem that governmental authorities shortsightedness created.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Guess what..full gates, medians....we still had some person drive around the gate...on the left..ie..the sidewalk. Poor guy who was standing there(me) had to make a dive for the ditch to avoid getting hit.
Train clipped his car...he still took off...
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
Zugmann,
You say I am wrong, but I don’t see why you say that. None of what I said disagrees with your point of view. I certainly never said that eliminating all grade crossings is the right approach. Eliminating some of them might be. All I am talking about is the need to understand the problem, and I believe the motivation to beat the train is the largest part of the problem.
Your response indicates denial of that part of that cause, as I believe is generally the case with the industry and fans. Interestingly, it does not appear to be the view of the police, highway patrol, and regulatory authorities. They see this as a problem that can be solved, although money is always an issue. The railroad industry sees the problem as having no solution, except for the total elimination of crossings.
Sure, everybody on the road is gambling, but if you believe that fact refutes my point, you are either refusing to accept my point or don’t see it. People who go around the lowered gates obviously know a train is coming. They don’t care how much the locomotive weighs since they don’t plan on getting hit by it. They are making a spontaneous, conscious calculation to avoid a delay. They are gambling and they know it.
Somebody who gets killed by something falling off of a truck might be said to be a gambler for being on the road, but they are not consiously gambling that nothing will fall off of a truck.
If I had to pick a solution, the most effective one for the least cost would be full gates or median barriers that prevent running around a lowered gate. I am sure that would be far less cost than an overpass or underpass. But at least the insurmountable gate makes the gamble practically impossible.
Other than that solution, the only thing that would help would be to un-instill the age-old belief that trains can cause major delays. I don’t know how you do that without a ministry of propaganda. All it takes is one delay experience, and the driver applies it to every encounter with an activated crossing.
Ulrich To put rail related fatalities into perspective, the number of motor vehicle related fatalities in the US is somewhere around 33 thousand a year... As bad as that is, its down by over ten thousand from just 1o years ago.
To put rail related fatalities into perspective, the number of motor vehicle related fatalities in the US is somewhere around 33 thousand a year... As bad as that is, its down by over ten thousand from just 1o years ago.
I've done research that required me to read old newspaper on microfilm from the 50s & 60s. Back then the highway carnage was just God awful. Monday papers would list a 8-12 fatalies every weekend, with 6-8 people dying in a single accident about once a month. Entire families being wiped out. And THAT was in lightly population South Dakota.
The highways were crap, way too many drunk drivers, high centered 2 ton cars with drum brakes that couldn't stop in a hurry, which lead to lots of rollovers, no seat belts. And now they call it "The Happy Days".
Reality TV is to reality, what Professional Wrestling is to Professional Brain Surgery.
Bucyrus I don’t know about Europe, but in the U.S., the railroaders and railfans believe this grade crossing problem cannot be solved. They say so all the time. That is why they use the terms, morons and idiots to describe grade crossing victims. If you can’t solve the problem, there needs to be a reason why. And drivers being morons and idiots is the perfect excuse because you cannot make anything idiot-proof.
Sorry, but you're absolutely wrong, IMO.
First, even if you do eliminate all grade crossings you will still have people getting hit by trains. You don't need a crossing to wonder in front of a train.. the NEC around Philly is fenced off, but the locals simply cut the fence if they want to take a shortcut.
As far as eliminating all grade crossings - it is not impossible. But it will be expensive, and will come at the cost of rail service and hurting industries. Are we going to eliminate every crossing just on a main line with speeds above x, or do we want to eliminate every crossing on every secondary, branch, siding, and/or industrial lead crossing every avenue, back street, rural highway, dirt road, and/or private driveway?
I've said it before, and I'll say it now: the beauty of the railroad system is that it is heavy machinery (Almost conveyer belt-like) that can interact with the public to reach many places. The fact that we CAN have grade crossings is what makes it successful. Who is going to be willing to pay for 3 overpasses so the old mill in town can get their hopper cars 3x a week? They get trucks, too, so maybe we better put traffic lights up at every intersection in town.
You say that people that blow through crossings are gamblers. Sorry, but everyone who is on the road is a gambler. Every time you drive out on the road you are taking chances with people that have poor driving skills, people that are texting as they drive, people that are distracted, people that are tired, people that are drunk, people that are high, people that are suicidal, large animals in the road, debris on the road or falling off other vehicles, tree limbs in the road, airplanes falling out of the sky, sinkholes opening up, the rapture coming and creating craters straight to hell that the un-chosen will fall into, zombie apocalypses and vampire invasions.
The difference is degree of risk. There's the guy that buys a lottery ticket once in awhile, then there's the guy that puts every single thing he owns on the table for one play. I liken the guy that drives his little piece of crap tinfoil and plastic car in front of a Dash-9 as the latter. And I will still call him an idiort or moron. Not because they are breaking the law, but because they have that little regard for their life or the lives of others. Getting hit by a train is a STUPID way to die.
US railroaders and railfans (do you not include yourself in that?) do understand that grade crossing elimination is not impossible. But nothing is free. The money has to come from somewhere... the question is: where?
I don’t know about Europe, but in the U.S., the railroaders and railfans believe this grade crossing problem cannot be solved. They say so all the time.
That is why they use the terms, morons and idiots to describe grade crossing victims. If you can’t solve the problem, there needs to be a reason why. And drivers being morons and idiots is the perfect excuse because you cannot make anything idiot-proof.
But the key to solving a problem is understanding it, and not only does the moron and idiot explanation mean the problem cannot be solved, but it is also the wrong explanation.
Those labels clearly mean that crossing victims did not perceive the danger or even perceive the train. Sure, that is sometimes the reason for the crash, but the overwhelmingly most common reason is the powerful motivation to beat the train.
You can say someone is an idiot for trying to beat the train, but the better label is “gambler.” Gambler is the proper term for risk-taker, and that is what most crossing victims were doing when they got hit.
Gamblers and idiots have far different motives and require different approaches to crash prevention. If you think the problem is that drivers are idiots, you add bells and flashing lights to get their attention. But those attention getters have no effect on the gambler. The bells and lights just tell the gambler it’s time to gamble.
We have a few bomb craters around here...called construction destruction...
And bomb craters do make excellent underpasses, pre dug and all....another plus is that all the noise made the rabid moose move to Canada....
23 17 46 11
Phoebe Vet blownout cylinder: mmmm...well, let us see here. Europe had most of its collective infrastructure blown up or in poor shape about 65 years ago..and most of it was, in fact, rebuilt in a purposeful manner.... We. in North America, had our rail infrastructure built over a 150 year period without being blown up, or otherwise destroyed in like manner... So, unless someone is willing to use the hyperbole of completely tearing the infrastructure apart and rebuilding it..we will just have to deal with this simple historicomaterial point as is... Ahhh, now I understand. We are not allowed to upgrade our 150 year old rail network because no one has blown it up.
blownout cylinder: mmmm...well, let us see here. Europe had most of its collective infrastructure blown up or in poor shape about 65 years ago..and most of it was, in fact, rebuilt in a purposeful manner.... We. in North America, had our rail infrastructure built over a 150 year period without being blown up, or otherwise destroyed in like manner... So, unless someone is willing to use the hyperbole of completely tearing the infrastructure apart and rebuilding it..we will just have to deal with this simple historicomaterial point as is...
mmmm...well, let us see here.
Europe had most of its collective infrastructure blown up or in poor shape about 65 years ago..and most of it was, in fact, rebuilt in a purposeful manner....
We. in North America, had our rail infrastructure built over a 150 year period without being blown up, or otherwise destroyed in like manner...
So, unless someone is willing to use the hyperbole of completely tearing the infrastructure apart and rebuilding it..we will just have to deal with this simple historicomaterial point as is...
Ahhh, now I understand. We are not allowed to upgrade our 150 year old rail network because no one has blown it up.
No. It's just easier to do massive rebuildings when everything else has been obliterated by war. Much less nimby opposition when the b-y is gone.
Jeff
blownout cylinder mmmm...well, let us see here. Europe had most of its collective infrastructure blown up or in poor shape about 65 years ago..and most of it was, in fact, rebuilt in a purposeful manner.... We. in North America, had our rail infrastructure built over a 150 year period without being blown up, or otherwise destroyed in like manner... So, unless someone is willing to use the hyperbole of completely tearing the infrastructure apart and rebuilding it..we will just have to deal with this simple historicomaterial point as is...
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.