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
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.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
zugmannTrick would be getting them to wear the reflective vest.
The driver or the monkey?
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.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
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.
Few?
And now we are left with half a solution. Not really going to garner much support for that, I'm afraid.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Firelock76 "In 1895 there were only two automobiles in the state of Ohio. One day, guess what happened?"
"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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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:
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!"
??? That assumption seems erroneous.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Norm
It seems Met Life recommended spending about $12 billion to eliminate grade crossings. Then the stock market crashed.
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.
Having been unsuccessful in finding more information I will offer the following:
If the Millers resided on the private property lying east from the Rd 32 crossing then it would seem logical they were headed WEST toward their church services.
If on the other hand the church was located east from the Rd 32 crossing then it would be logical that they were headed for the services; but that does not fit the story from the church saying there was a question about why they were late.
If the Millers resided east or south from the Rd 75.1 crossing and the church was north or west from the crossing that would explain why the Patrolman's report said they were driving NORTH when struck by the southbound train.
Further news accounts discuss six (6) accidents at this crossing since 1986 and that the establishment of bells and flashers are being delayed by ???. This info does not suggest that the accident in question occured at the private crossing at the end of Rd 32 which would not qualify for public funded protection.
Perhaps someone can access the FINAL State Patrol report to further clarify this.
Overmod There is more involved here than I think you realize. First, in many cases there is inadequate space between the adjoining road and the ROW to give safe approach and departure angles to an underpass, and there will be safety concerns in winter. Second, I'd be concerned in a number of respects about the strength and maintenance of the structure under the trackwork that constitutes the roof of the overpass; I'd expect it to be ballasted-deck construction, and as you note, the security of the railroad operation while the underpass itself is dug out, framed, and reinforced will involve care. This can't really be 'minimum height and width', either. I think you are right about that 'over $200,000' figure, but mainly in the 'over' part. And it won't likely be property owners who do that, so expect an increasing battle between the DPW of the various towns (who do 'road maintenance') and the railroad as to whose due diligence is the more necessary when something starts to go wrong. There is also the issue of drainage, which is nontrivial for many of the prospective underpasses, and unlikely to be something a property owner cares to pay to provide.
And it won't likely be property owners who do that, so expect an increasing battle between the DPW of the various towns (who do 'road maintenance') and the railroad as to whose due diligence is the more necessary when something starts to go wrong. There is also the issue of drainage, which is nontrivial for many of the prospective underpasses, and unlikely to be something a property owner cares to pay to provide.
Don’t get me wrong. I am not underestimating the cost of an underpass. I don’t know what the cost would be, so I only throw out the cost of “over $200,000” just to make the point that I believe that it would be highly unlikely that any landowner would be willing or capable of paying the cost, even if it were only $200,000.
So, $200,000 would be a showstopper. I would expect that the actual cost would likely be in the millions.
Furthermore, the life cycle cost including all of the inspection and maintenance would run into endless millions. So I doubt that there is the slightest chance that a landowner would be able or willing to pay for their own underpass. It would be far, far cheaper to simply buy out the landowner to eliminate a private crossing, even if that requires paying 100 times the market value as an incentive for the owner to sell.
I'm going to say something (tongue-in-cheek) that ought to just thrill every railroad worker right down to his shoe laces: Maybe they ought to teach foamer classes in all schools, including college.
She who has no signature! cinscocom-tmw
schlimm Euclid Overmod schlimm I believe vulnerable trains, especially those carrying passengers, need better protection from vehicles. Separation is needed on busy crossings - expensive - so prioritize these low volume ones (where passenger trains run) that can be closed first. There are many crossings like 32 that can and should be closed. It costs little. there are whole neighborhoods on the ex-Southern line, on blind curves no less, where the driveways go across the ROW from Poplar. If you close these, how do you propose to recompense the property owners? What is the basis of the right to cross at these private crossings? Is there some type of perpetual title, or can the railroad companies close these crossings if they want to? I do not think it will be feasible to get property owners to pay for an underpass. I suspect that the cheapest possible underpass would be over $200,000 by the time it includes all of the necessary engineering to protect the railroad. And from there on, it will be a maintenance item. So once again, do nothing? Or wait until a tank truck gets hit at a private crossing, the flames engulf the locomotive, the train derails and 40 are killed, including the crew?
Euclid Overmod schlimm I believe vulnerable trains, especially those carrying passengers, need better protection from vehicles. Separation is needed on busy crossings - expensive - so prioritize these low volume ones (where passenger trains run) that can be closed first. There are many crossings like 32 that can and should be closed. It costs little. there are whole neighborhoods on the ex-Southern line, on blind curves no less, where the driveways go across the ROW from Poplar. If you close these, how do you propose to recompense the property owners? What is the basis of the right to cross at these private crossings? Is there some type of perpetual title, or can the railroad companies close these crossings if they want to? I do not think it will be feasible to get property owners to pay for an underpass. I suspect that the cheapest possible underpass would be over $200,000 by the time it includes all of the necessary engineering to protect the railroad. And from there on, it will be a maintenance item.
Overmod schlimm I believe vulnerable trains, especially those carrying passengers, need better protection from vehicles. Separation is needed on busy crossings - expensive - so prioritize these low volume ones (where passenger trains run) that can be closed first. There are many crossings like 32 that can and should be closed. It costs little. there are whole neighborhoods on the ex-Southern line, on blind curves no less, where the driveways go across the ROW from Poplar. If you close these, how do you propose to recompense the property owners?
schlimm I believe vulnerable trains, especially those carrying passengers, need better protection from vehicles. Separation is needed on busy crossings - expensive - so prioritize these low volume ones (where passenger trains run) that can be closed first. There are many crossings like 32 that can and should be closed. It costs little.
there are whole neighborhoods on the ex-Southern line, on blind curves no less, where the driveways go across the ROW from Poplar. If you close these, how do you propose to recompense the property owners?
What is the basis of the right to cross at these private crossings? Is there some type of perpetual title, or can the railroad companies close these crossings if they want to?
I do not think it will be feasible to get property owners to pay for an underpass. I suspect that the cheapest possible underpass would be over $200,000 by the time it includes all of the necessary engineering to protect the railroad. And from there on, it will be a maintenance item.
So once again, do nothing? Or wait until a tank truck gets hit at a private crossing, the flames engulf the locomotive, the train derails and 40 are killed, including the crew?
I don't think the answer is to do nothing. And I think you make a good point about the risk to the train. That point is often downplayed in the quest to end grade crossing crashes. The hazard is widespread, and applies to the people in the vehicle, the train crew, and the all of the passengers as well.
Certainly closing a crossing or building an underpass or overpass is a good choice if it is economically feasible.
One option that is often suggested is to find a low cost method of better protecting passive crossings, without converting them to conventional active crossings. There have been many ideas to somehow add attention-getters to passive crossings such as things that move in the wind, or move by solar power, etc. The theory is commonly expressed that even if the enhancement is not perfect, it is better than a passive crossing without the enhancement.
However, this misses one critical point. An active crossing that fails to acivate is far more dangerous than it would be if it were only a passive crossing.
When you add some type of low cost attention-getter to a passive crossing, it creates driver dependence. So then if it fails, the driver is less wary than he/she would be had the dependence-inducing enhancement never been added.
So it is hard to find some type of middle-ground between passive crossings and full-fledged active crossings. Perhaps a better solution would be to steamline the process, thus reducing the cost of active crossing application. Particularly the active crossings with center medians, or full gates seem to offer the best possible remedy.
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.
EuclidWhat is the basis of the right to cross at these private crossings? Is there some type of perpetual title, or can the railroad companies close these crossings if they want to?
I'm not qualified to answer that question, except to note that alternative access that does not cross the ROW would involve easements across neighboring properties, some of which have extensive improvements. I'd ask MC or one of the other people here and at RyPN who know the details and alternatives.
I do not think it will be feasible to get property owners to pay for an underpass.
There is more involved here than I think you realize. First, in many cases there is inadequate space between the adjoining road and the ROW to give safe approach and departure angles to an underpass, and there will be safety concerns in winter. Second, I'd be concerned in a number of respects about the strength and maintenance of the structure under the trackwork that constitutes the roof of the overpass; I'd expect it to be ballasted-deck construction, and as you note, the security of the railroad operation while the underpass itself is dug out, framed, and reinforced will involve care. This can't really be 'minimum height and width', either. I think you are right about that 'over $200,000' figure, but mainly in the 'over' part.
And from there on, it will be a maintenance item
Against all this, we have a fairly 'hard' opportunity cost, which is the price and then maintenance of some form of gate system. That's unlikely to be a 'flasher, gate, and median' system with dedicated track circuits the railroad has to maintain, though -- I'd start with something like tree68 was proposing, establishing a system of 'railroad approval' for ongoing inspection and maintenance that encourages the right kind of detail design.
schlimm Euclid Overmod schlimm there are whole neighborhoods on the ex-Southern line, on blind curves no less, where the driveways go across the ROW from Poplar. If you close these, how do you propose to recompense the property owners? What is the basis of the right to cross at these private crossings? Is there some type of perpetual title, or can the railroad companies close these crossings if they want to? I do not think it will be feasible to get property owners to pay for an underpass. I suspect that the cheapest possible underpass would be over $200,000 by the time it includes all of the necessary engineering to protect the railroad. And from there on, it will be a maintenance item. So once again, do nothing? Or wait until a tank truck gets hit at a private crossing, the flames engulf the locomotive, the train derails and 40 are killed, including the crew?
Euclid Overmod schlimm there are whole neighborhoods on the ex-Southern line, on blind curves no less, where the driveways go across the ROW from Poplar. If you close these, how do you propose to recompense the property owners? What is the basis of the right to cross at these private crossings? Is there some type of perpetual title, or can the railroad companies close these crossings if they want to? I do not think it will be feasible to get property owners to pay for an underpass. I suspect that the cheapest possible underpass would be over $200,000 by the time it includes all of the necessary engineering to protect the railroad. And from there on, it will be a maintenance item.
Overmod schlimm there are whole neighborhoods on the ex-Southern line, on blind curves no less, where the driveways go across the ROW from Poplar. If you close these, how do you propose to recompense the property owners?
schlimm
You finance it, they'll do it. $200K might pay for the preliminary engineering drawings - real work would be 10 to 20 times that figure or more.
In most cases the railroad preceded the property owner, as many point out here with regard to NIMBYs and horn blowing. The owner should pay for a cheap underpass, as many farmers used to have in the Midwest (one lane, minimal depth) or pay for an access road along the RoW easement.
As an aside: it might be remembered that the 'push' for automatic train control after passage of the Esch Act in 1920 was officially 'deprioritized' in 1928 ... in favor of grade-crossing safety. And with all the development of the iconic Holley Rudd flasher-and-bell 'crossing signal' and other devices, the primary emphasis then, and since then, has been closure of unnecessary crossings. If I remember correctly, something like 25,000 of them have been closed and a great push is on today to close more ...
... but those tend to be on existing roads where there are alternate routes. That is manifestly not the case for the crossing on "Rt. 32" that is actually someone's driveway; there are whole neighborhoods on the ex-Southern line, on blind curves no less, where the driveways go across the ROW from Poplar. If you close these, how do you propose to recompense the property owners? Or give them access to their home and land by anything more than cable car or zipline?
tree68 Overmod where the locomotives themselves are the transmitter and receiver of 'train presence Thirty thousand plus locomotives later... The nice part of what I suggested is that it could be assembled using almost all commercial-off-the-shelf components (a microcomputer, such as Raspberry Pi would easily handle the logic, and even logging) and requires no interface with the railroad whatsoever, aside from permission to install the components along the ROW. I would opine that such an installation could be made operational within a month from now, if someone was so inclined. Just like garage door openers, each system could have its own "private" code, so if several were installed in close proximity, they wouldn't interfere with each other.
Overmod where the locomotives themselves are the transmitter and receiver of 'train presence
Thirty thousand plus locomotives later...
The nice part of what I suggested is that it could be assembled using almost all commercial-off-the-shelf components (a microcomputer, such as Raspberry Pi would easily handle the logic, and even logging) and requires no interface with the railroad whatsoever, aside from permission to install the components along the ROW. I would opine that such an installation could be made operational within a month from now, if someone was so inclined.
Just like garage door openers, each system could have its own "private" code, so if several were installed in close proximity, they wouldn't interfere with each other.
Both are good ideas. However, I believe vulnerable trains, especially those carrying passengers, need better protection from vehicles. Separation is needed on busy crossings - expensive - so prioritize these low volume ones (where passenger trains run) that can be closed first. There are many crossings like 32 that can and should be closed. It costs little.
Overmodwhere the locomotives themselves are the transmitter and receiver of 'train presence
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...
tree68I could envision a radio-based, standalone private crossing warning system that would include sensors a certain distance out from the crossing. When the sensors detected a train, they would send a signal back to the crossing to activate whatever the warning was.
The problem with this is that the failure modes are cumulative -- if any piece of the thing breaks, the whole of its function fails. The owner of the system has to check and maintain the remotes, fix them if they leak or break, replace them if they are vandalized or stolen, adjust them if they cause RF interference or are themselves 'interfered with'.
To me it made better sense to adapt the approach used on the QNS&L, where the locomotives themselves are the transmitter and receiver of 'train presence', and modifying that slightly so that any locomotive is 'connected' so it can program, administer, troubleshoot, etc. any given device it comes into communication range of, every time. So a new system identifies itself, issues its GPS coordinate as installed and becomes registered in the crossing database, etc. just by turning it on and waiting for the first train to pass, if it wasn't preconfigured right at install time. And if it is moved, it 'remembers its history' but also reconfigures dynamically so the chance of even intentional misprogramming can be minimized or at least mitigated.
Part of the device I was working on involved MEMS, with condensing lenses concentrating ambient light from the direction of an approaching train and 'modulating' it to give a flashing or moving effect, then using lenses again to increase the visible spot size, all on very low required system power. It is not very far 'up' from there to adapt the reflector-gunsight monitor I developed in the '80s, with microscreens, so that the MEMS system produces moving color video images and animated messaging on ambient projected light, again at very low power.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.