Euclid This system would activate according the location of the train and provide, a powerful, focused, and directed light signal from the locomotive to the vehicle target area at the crossing. It would be a locomotive-borne device that would protect all crossings, although, maybe it would be made to activate only for passive crossings rather than to add to already active crossings.
Sounds like you are talking about headlights/ditchlights.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
There's been a lot of solutions to this problem posted here, some better than others, but all heartfelt and sincere with a genuine desire to save human life and prevent suffering.
But a casual perusal of todays papers, both local and online show the "beat goes on" in various forms. Auto accidents, boat accidents, power equipment accidents, you-name-it accidents. Sad fact of the matter is there are people out there that you just can't save from themselves. We can try, in many cases we should try, but in the end you can only meet people half-way, the rest is up to them.
Human beings have various reasons for failing to do what they should at any given time and they can range from short attention spans, lack of common sense, or maybe borderline sociopathy, as in "rules are made for other people, not me!"
In the case of railroads I'd say most of us on this Forum find it impossible to understand how something that's been a part of the American scene for over 175 years just doesn't seem to register with the average person, but fact is real and we just have to deal with it the best we can. Crossbucks have been around in various forms since the 1850's, for most people they work, for others they never will.
Maybe the only solution is to post a quote from an old John Wayne film in every classroom in the country, from first grade to graduate school:
"Life's hard, but it's a hell of a lot harder if you're stupid!"
Pardon my ramblings, but maybe I just posted this to try to clear my own head.
It seems Met Life recommended spending about $12 billion to eliminate grade crossings. Then the stock market crashed.
zugmann Euclid This system would activate according the location of the train and provide, a powerful, focused, and directed light signal from the locomotive to the vehicle target area at the crossing. It would be a locomotive-borne device that would protect all crossings, although, maybe it would be made to activate only for passive crossings rather than to add to already active crossings. Sounds like you are talking about headlights/ditchlights.
From my post on this idea:
"One idea that I had that would overcome the limitation of passive crossings without the need to replace them with active crossings is to place the crossing protection signal system on the locomotive rather than in a fixed position at the crossing site. This system would activate according the location of the train and provide, a powerful, focused, and directed light signal from the locomotive to the vehicle target area at the crossing. It would be a locomotive-borne device that would protect all crossings, although, maybe it would be made to activate only for passive crossings rather than to add to already active crossings."
zugmann,
What I had in mind would have the same purpose as headlights and ditchlights, but with far more effectivness. I have not developed the specific details.
But it would use a targeted beam of light directed exactly at the road where vehicles stop for trains. It would automatically activate by GPS location of the train or some means of knowing the train's proximity to the crossing. It would be programed for each crossing to adjust the beam as the train approaches the crossing. The point would be for the beam to lock onto the crossing target independently of any curving action of the locomotive as it approaches the crossing.
This is not intended to be a better active crossing, but rather, to improve passive crossings. The theory is that this locomotive-borne signal system would be cheaper than converting all passive crossings to active crossings by adding gates and signals. But it remains to be seen whether equipping all locomotives with this system would be cheaper than converting all passive crossings to active crossing. And even if that were the case, such a locomotive-borne device would not provide the effect of gates at active crossings.
Euclid zugmann Euclid This system would activate according the location of the train and provide, a powerful, focused, and directed light signal from the locomotive to the vehicle target area at the crossing. It would be a locomotive-borne device that would protect all crossings, although, maybe it would be made to activate only for passive crossings rather than to add to already active crossings. Sounds like you are talking about headlights/ditchlights. From my post on this idea: "One idea that I had that would overcome the limitation of passive crossings without the need to replace them with active crossings is to place the crossing protection signal system on the locomotive rather than in a fixed position at the crossing site. This system would activate according the location of the train and provide, a powerful, focused, and directed light signal from the locomotive to the vehicle target area at the crossing. It would be a locomotive-borne device that would protect all crossings, although, maybe it would be made to activate only for passive crossings rather than to add to already active crossings." zugmann, What I had in mind would have the same purpose as headlights and ditchlights, but with far more effectivness. I have not developed the specific details. But it would use a targeted beam of light directed exactly at the road where vehicles stop for trains. It would automatically activate by GPS location of the train or some means of knowing the train's proximity to the crossing. It would be programed for each crossing to adjust the beam as the train approaches the crossing. The point would be for the beam to lock onto the crossing target independently of any curving action of the locomotive as it approaches the crossing. This is not intended to be a better active crossing, but rather, to improve passive crossings. The theory is that this locomotive-borne signal system would be cheaper than converting all passive crossings to active crossings by adding gates and signals. But it remains to be seen whether equipping all locomotives with this system would be cheaper than converting all passive crossings to active crossing. And even if that were the case, such a locomotive-borne device would not provide the effect of gates at active crossings.
So, blinding the driver so he couldn't see the train would stop him from crossing the tracks?
Norm
??? That assumption seems erroneous.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Interesting post Wanswheel, reminds me of the old saying "The more things change, the more they stay the same!"
I'm also reminded of an magazine ad for an auto insurance company (don't remember who) from back around 1970 or so. It showed two "horseless carriages" speeding toward an intersection and the caption (priceless!) said:
"In 1895 there were only two automobiles in the state of Ohio. One day, guess what happened?"
I'm also reminded of a quote attributed to Lee Iaccoca:
"The biggest design flaw in American cars are all the loose nuts on the steering wheels!"
Norm48327 Euclid zugmann Euclid This system would activate according the location of the train and provide, a powerful, focused, and directed light signal from the locomotive to the vehicle target area at the crossing. It would be a locomotive-borne device that would protect all crossings, although, maybe it would be made to activate only for passive crossings rather than to add to already active crossings. Sounds like you are talking about headlights/ditchlights. From my post on this idea: "One idea that I had that would overcome the limitation of passive crossings without the need to replace them with active crossings is to place the crossing protection signal system on the locomotive rather than in a fixed position at the crossing site. This system would activate according the location of the train and provide, a powerful, focused, and directed light signal from the locomotive to the vehicle target area at the crossing. It would be a locomotive-borne device that would protect all crossings, although, maybe it would be made to activate only for passive crossings rather than to add to already active crossings." zugmann, What I had in mind would have the same purpose as headlights and ditchlights, but with far more effectivness. I have not developed the specific details. But it would use a targeted beam of light directed exactly at the road where vehicles stop for trains. It would automatically activate by GPS location of the train or some means of knowing the train's proximity to the crossing. It would be programed for each crossing to adjust the beam as the train approaches the crossing. The point would be for the beam to lock onto the crossing target independently of any curving action of the locomotive as it approaches the crossing. This is not intended to be a better active crossing, but rather, to improve passive crossings. The theory is that this locomotive-borne signal system would be cheaper than converting all passive crossings to active crossings by adding gates and signals. But it remains to be seen whether equipping all locomotives with this system would be cheaper than converting all passive crossings to active crossing. And even if that were the case, such a locomotive-borne device would not provide the effect of gates at active crossings. So, blinding the driver so he couldn't see the train would stop him from crossing the tracks?
That would have to be carefully worked out so it does not blind the driver in a way that adds danger. In the first place, the light beam would not be coming in line with the driver's line of sight to the crossing and down the road. It would be coming in line with the locomotive headlight and ditchlights. Certainly the headlight blinds the driver to seeing the train behind it, but the point is to get the driver's attention to become aware of the train, so seeing the train (other than its lights) to become aware of it is not necessary.
And, as I said, this is not to discourage or prevent drivers from trying to beat the train. It is instead intended for passive crossings to add an active warning that overcomes driver failure to look for and see an approaching train.
Firelock76 "In 1895 there were only two automobiles in the state of Ohio. One day, guess what happened?"
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Q27aZswg2kU/TqVTfFHY0HI/AAAAAAAARbc/CKoolrPcFGE/s1600/mobil+1967.jpg
wanswheel Firelock76 "In 1895 there were only two automobiles in the state of Ohio. One day, guess what happened?" http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Q27aZswg2kU/TqVTfFHY0HI/AAAAAAAARbc/CKoolrPcFGE/s1600/mobil+1967.jpg
THAT'S IT! Wanswheel scores again!
I was wrong on the ad sponsor, after all it's been 40-plus years, but I'd advise all to click on the link and read the ad copy, what's said is just as true today as it was all those years ago.
Thanks again Wanswheel, you never fail to amaze.
EuclidThat would have to be carefully worked out so it does not blind the driver in a way that adds danger. In the first place, the light beam would not be coming in line with the driver's line of sight to the crossing and down the road. It would be coming in line with the locomotive headlight and ditchlights. Certainly the headlight blinds the driver to seeing the train behind it, but the point is to get the driver's attention to become aware of the train, so seeing the train (other than its lights) to become aware of it is not necessary.
Problem is that not all crossings are the same. All sorts of different approach angles and directions, cars don't stop at the same spot, sight lines aren't always perfect, highways parallel the tracks (liability concern there) and I doubt the people in the house next to the crossing will be appreciative of a lighthouse beam shining in their bedroom window at 3am.
Probably be easier to just put up a damned set of gates.
Or maybe bring back the Mars light? I know, still some in use for commuter roads.
zugmann Euclid That would have to be carefully worked out so it does not blind the driver in a way that adds danger. In the first place, the light beam would not be coming in line with the driver's line of sight to the crossing and down the road. It would be coming in line with the locomotive headlight and ditchlights. Certainly the headlight blinds the driver to seeing the train behind it, but the point is to get the driver's attention to become aware of the train, so seeing the train (other than its lights) to become aware of it is not necessary. Problem is that not all crossings are the same. All sorts of different approach angles and directions, cars don't stop at the same spot, sight lines aren't always perfect, highways parallel the tracks (liability concern there) and I doubt the people in the house next to the crossing will be appreciative of a lighthouse beam shining in their bedroom window at 3am. Probably be easier to just put up a damned set of gates. Or maybe bring back the Mars light? I know, still some in use for commuter roads.
Euclid That would have to be carefully worked out so it does not blind the driver in a way that adds danger. In the first place, the light beam would not be coming in line with the driver's line of sight to the crossing and down the road. It would be coming in line with the locomotive headlight and ditchlights. Certainly the headlight blinds the driver to seeing the train behind it, but the point is to get the driver's attention to become aware of the train, so seeing the train (other than its lights) to become aware of it is not necessary.
Yes, the Mars light was similar in purpose to what I am suggesting, but not as strong. I don't know what the tradeoff would be for just making an passive crossing into an active crossing, but the cost of that is the obstacle preventing all passive crossings from being made into active crossings.
So maybe, in this day and age, with gps, computers, and high technolgy, maybe the time has come where it could be more cost-effective to place the entire system on the locomotive rather than installing it at each crossing site. The few passive crossings that have curves or other features that prohibit the use of such a light beam system could be left as passive crossings.
EuclidThe few passive crossings that have curves or other features that prohibit the use of such a light beam system could be left as passive crossings.
Few?
And now we are left with half a solution. Not really going to garner much support for that, I'm afraid.
zugmann Euclid The few passive crossings that have curves or other features that prohibit the use of such a light beam system could be left as passive crossings. Few? And now we are left with half a solution. Not really going to garner much support for that, I'm afraid.
Euclid The few passive crossings that have curves or other features that prohibit the use of such a light beam system could be left as passive crossings.
It was never intended to be the 100% solution to the grade crossing problem. I say a few crossings would be omitted from conversion, and you say that means it is only a 50% solution.
I don't expect to garner support for the idea. I know how hard that would be for any such large change.
EuclidIt was never intended to be the 100% solution to the grade crossing problem. I say a few crossings would be omitted from conversion, and you say that means it is only a 50% solution.
May I suggest a CO2 canon that fires a trained monkey at cars approaching the grade crossings? The monkey would then slap the phone out of the driver's hand and point to the oncoming train.
Trick would be getting them to wear the reflective vest.
zugmannTrick would be getting them to wear the reflective vest.
The driver or the monkey?
zugmann Euclid May I suggest a CO2 canon that fires a trained monkey at cars approaching the grade crossings? The monkey would then slap the phone out of the driver's hand and point to the oncoming train. Trick would be getting them to wear the reflective vest.
Euclid
PETA might object.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD zugmann Euclid May I suggest a CO2 canon that fires a trained monkey at cars approaching the grade crossings? The monkey would then slap the phone out of the driver's hand and point to the oncoming train. Trick would be getting them to wear the reflective vest. PETA might object.
Johnny
Deggesty BaltACD zugmann Euclid May I suggest a CO2 canon that fires a trained monkey at cars approaching the grade crossings? The monkey would then slap the phone out of the driver's hand and point to the oncoming train. Trick would be getting them to wear the reflective vest. PETA might object. Object to the vest?
Object to the vest?
I suspect the G loading of the CO2 cannon.
BaltACDI suspect the G loading of the CO2 cannon.
Trebuchet, then?
EuclidThe point would be for the beam to lock onto the crossing target independently of any curving action of the locomotive as it approaches the crossing.
The phrase "deer in headlights" comes to mind for some reason...
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
zugmann BaltACD Trebuchet, then?
BaltACD
Even a Trebuchet will have large starting G loads.
I don’t think it would need siege engines tossing moneys with messages to drivers. Keep it simple stupid. Police cars have lots of blue and red flashing lights that get people to pull over or stay out of the way. The idea works most of the time. They run through intersections with conflicting traffic without needing special flagging machines staged at each intersection to hold the conflicting traffic.
The only difference is that drivers don’t expect big delays when yielding to police pursuits. So they take chances with trains whereas they don’t take chances with cops.
Actually, if you could just make locomotives look like big highway patrol cruisers, it would probably end the grade crossing problem.
EuclidPolice cars have lots of blue and red flashing lights that get people to pull over or stay out of the way.
I think the officers would say otherwise.
EuclidThe only difference is that drivers don’t expect big delays when yielding to police pursuits. So they take chances with trains whereas they don’t take chances with cops.
Plus it's the whole police thing. Badge and gun, powers to write tickets and arrest. Things we don't have.
As an aside - isn't it funny how many intersections don't need traffic lights? Just a simple stop sign. So why the need for all those fancy lights and timers/sensors at the other intersections?
Nothign is ever black and white, Bucky. Except some police cruisers.
Euclid I don’t think it would need siege engines tossing moneys with messages to drivers. Keep it simple stupid. Police cars have lots of blue and red flashing lights that get people to pull over or stay out of the way. The idea works most of the time. They run through intersections with conflicting traffic without needing special flagging machines staged at each intersection to hold the conflicting traffic. The only difference is that drivers don’t expect big delays when yielding to police pursuits. So they take chances with trains whereas they don’t take chances with cops. Actually, if you could just make locomotives look like big highway patrol cruisers, it would probably end the grade crossing problem.
zugmannNothign is ever black and white, Bucky. Except some police cruisers.
You are acting like it is indeed black and white. One little problem, and it's a showstopper.
I see shades of gray. I think we can save most of the people most of the time.
DeggestyAll too often, I have seen ambulances with flashing lights being ignored by drivers--are they ignorant of the laws that direct other traffic to get out of the way of such--or do they think themselves to be more important than such?
New cars are also amazingly quiet inside. So a siren isn't heard as easily as before - and that's if the driver is actually paying attention to his/her surroundings and not their facebook feed.
But your point is also true. It's amazing to see oncoming emergency vehicles approaching (in plain site), and people can't be bothered to stop or pull over. They won't change lanes for tow trucks in the shoulder. Don't have the patience to wait until it is safe to pass a mail or trash truck. Won't adhere to construction zone speed limits when people are working literally feet away. Speed through parking lots like it's a NASCAR race. Whether it is ignorance or selfishness, people exist in their own little world anymore. No invention will change that. We need a huge societal shift. Hence: the monkey canon.
EuclidI don’t think it would need siege engines tossing moneys with messages to drivers. Keep it simple stupid.
Says the man that wants to have a light canon (or whatever stupid silly invention you will think of this week) on a locomotive? If we want to keep it simple, a sign or crossing gates are pretty damned simple.
C'mon... the KISS principle was never your modus operandi. Don't pretend it is.
EuclidYou are acting like it is indeed black and white. One little problem, and it's a showstopper.
Yeah, little problems like "it probably wouldn't work". But hey, feel free to prove me wrong (wouldn't be the first time). I look forward to the Euclid, Inc. warning device on my next locomotive and would smile every time I used it.
zugmann Euclid I don’t think it would need siege engines tossing moneys with messages to drivers. Keep it simple stupid. Says the man that wants to have a light canon (or whatever stupid silly invention you will think of this week) on a locomotive? If we want to keep it simple, a sign or crossing gates are pretty damned simple. C'mon... the KISS principle was never your modus operandi. Don't pretend it is.
Euclid I don’t think it would need siege engines tossing moneys with messages to drivers. Keep it simple stupid.
Well, the KISS principle must be relative to the application it takes to get the job done. Locomotives are not simple, but are still quite KISS. The light canon is not simple either, but I am betting that for what it will accomplish, it will be simpler than making all passive crossings into active crossing. But maybe not. By the time the bureaucracy signs off on it, and all the consultants jump on the gravy train, the cost per locomotive will be $1.5 million.
But no matter what, you have to admit that the light canon is simpler than the big air bag on wheels pushed down the track ahead of each locomotive.
EuclidBut no matter what, you have to admit that the light canon is simpler than the big air bag on wheels pushed down the track ahead of each locomotive.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.