The Tour de France is the major sports event in France from year-to-year. I believe it was four years ago that a train crossed in front of many riders, splitting the field. Several riders went around the barrier, incurring penalties from the Race Director.
If I recall, they had to fudge some times, and maybe even held up the advanced riders ahead of the train in order to try to make the race fair. It wasn't very fair in the end, but...poop happens.
When's train time? .........
Murphy SidingHeck- maybe I can just use beuclidian logic and consider your maybe as being a yes.
Make mine Bayesian!
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Nothing new under the sun department...
http://archive.boston.com/marathon/history/1907.shtml
“Passing along to Natick about a dozen of the runners had crossed the railroad track when along came a freight train. Down went the gates, and when the rest of the bunch came along they had to keep running in circles for nearly a minute until the train passed.”
schlimm It is possible the error was made by the marathon organizers, yes. But given the nine year history of the organizers making clear, correct arrangements with NS, it is more probable that the NS erred. The movie accident is a red herring.
It is possible the error was made by the marathon organizers, yes. But given the nine year history of the organizers making clear, correct arrangements with NS, it is more probable that the NS erred.
The movie accident is a red herring.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
schlimm Murphy Siding Because I'm not reading anything that says it was clearly either party at fault at this time. Just because this is the 10th year doesn't mean that everything was done correctly by either or both parties. Over the 10 years the people involved may have changed and perhaps some proceedures have changed. "I thought you called?" "No- I thought you called." I can see where that scenario could have happened with either or both parties involved. I don't see anything yet that pins it on one or the other. The marathon folks say they had "absolute assurances" from the NS. And the successful history is relevant. Why is that challenged? Why do you totally change the story to an Abbott and Costello scenario?
Murphy Siding Because I'm not reading anything that says it was clearly either party at fault at this time. Just because this is the 10th year doesn't mean that everything was done correctly by either or both parties. Over the 10 years the people involved may have changed and perhaps some proceedures have changed. "I thought you called?" "No- I thought you called." I can see where that scenario could have happened with either or both parties involved. I don't see anything yet that pins it on one or the other.
The marathon folks say they had "absolute assurances" from the NS. And the successful history is relevant. Why is that challenged? Why do you totally change the story to an Abbott and Costello scenario?
Murphy SidingBecause I'm not reading anything that says it was clearly either party at fault at this time. Just because this is the 10th year doesn't mean that everything was done correctly by either or both parties. Over the 10 years the people involved may have changed and perhaps some proceedures have changed. "I thought you called?" "No- I thought you called." I can see where that scenario could have happened with either or both parties involved. I don't see anything yet that pins it on one or the other.
Euclid BaltACD When it comes to getting 'permission' to do something; make sure you are dealing with someone that actually has the authority to make it happen, and get the understanding in writing. As a matter of reality, I suspect virtually ALL of the parties involved have changed over the period of 10 years - especially railroad personnel which has probably had signifigant turnover since last years event. I would not consider the fact that assurances have been given for several years in the past. I would get the assurance in writing, and that's all. If it is on the company letterhead, it is their problem if the wrong person in their company gave me the assurance.
BaltACD When it comes to getting 'permission' to do something; make sure you are dealing with someone that actually has the authority to make it happen, and get the understanding in writing. As a matter of reality, I suspect virtually ALL of the parties involved have changed over the period of 10 years - especially railroad personnel which has probably had signifigant turnover since last years event.
I would not consider the fact that assurances have been given for several years in the past. I would get the assurance in writing, and that's all. If it is on the company letterhead, it is their problem if the wrong person in their company gave me the assurance.
Paul3So at least the BAA learned how to make sure the railroad didn't cross the race route.
I take it you're saying the incident made them the black sheep of Northeastern railroading?
BaltACDWhen it comes to getting 'permission' to do something; make sure you are dealing with someone that actually has the authority to make it happen, and get the understanding in writing. As a matter of reality, I suspect virtually ALL of the parties involved have changed over the period of 10 years - especially railroad personnel which has probably had signifigant turnover since last years event.
A train blocking a crossing during a marathon has certainly happened before...in fact, it happened to the Boston Marathon back in 1907 where it runs through Framingham, MA. Just after the leading pack of runners ran by, a freight crossed the route (probably the NH's line from Lowell to New Bedford). It blocked the trailing runners, and gave the leading pack an insurmountable lead.
That rail line is still active today, and the Boston Marathon still crosses it. In the 99 years since, never again has a train crossed the Boston Marathon route during the race. And that covers NH, PC, CR and now CSX. So at least the BAA learned how to make sure the railroad didn't cross the race route.
BaltACDI asked a PFC in the Army if I could take the M1a1 tank home - he said go ahead. I talked to the Army and they said take it.
She who has no signature! cinscocom-tmw
EuclidI think the railroad should make sure that nobody in their organization grants operational clearance to an event without proper approval within the railroad organization. In the comments by the NS spokesman, I sense that he is blaming the race organizers for not contacting the correct people within NS. However, if the race organizers contact somebody at NS that gives them authorization, how are the race organizers supposed to know that the person they spoke to was unqualified to give the authorization? I would note, that if I were seeking such authorization, I would get it in writing. The news did not make that point clear. Verbal authorization would be equally valid, but hard to prove.
However, if the race organizers contact somebody at NS that gives them authorization, how are the race organizers supposed to know that the person they spoke to was unqualified to give the authorization?
I would note, that if I were seeking such authorization, I would get it in writing. The news did not make that point clear. Verbal authorization would be equally valid, but hard to prove.
I asked a PFC in the Army if I could take the M1a1 tank home - he said go ahead.
I talked to the Army and they said take it.
_______________________________________________________________
When it comes to getting 'permission' to do something; make sure you are dealing with someone that actually has the authority to make it happen, and get the understanding in writing. As a matter of reality, I suspect virtually ALL of the parties involved have changed over the period of 10 years - especially railroad personnel which has probably had signifigant turnover since last years event.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
schlimm Murphy Siding schlimm Paul_D_North_Jr schlimm [snipped - PDN] . . . Via Marathon organizers say Norfolk Southern gave them "absolute assurances" that trains would be suspended from 7 a.m. to 10 a.m. as has happened in past years. . . . 3 hours is an awfully long time to completely shut down a major rail facility. The point is that was the NS arrangement for the past 9 years, which worked fine and was supposed to be this year as well until someone, likely at NS, screwed up. Given the information, why are you thinking it likely that NS is the party that screwed up? Why aren't you? They contacted the NS 10 years for permission. The first 9 it went fine. This year the word did not get through to that locomotive crew. Logically it was probably a fault of internal communication in NS.
Murphy Siding schlimm Paul_D_North_Jr schlimm [snipped - PDN] . . . Via Marathon organizers say Norfolk Southern gave them "absolute assurances" that trains would be suspended from 7 a.m. to 10 a.m. as has happened in past years. . . . 3 hours is an awfully long time to completely shut down a major rail facility. The point is that was the NS arrangement for the past 9 years, which worked fine and was supposed to be this year as well until someone, likely at NS, screwed up. Given the information, why are you thinking it likely that NS is the party that screwed up?
schlimm Paul_D_North_Jr schlimm [snipped - PDN] . . . Via Marathon organizers say Norfolk Southern gave them "absolute assurances" that trains would be suspended from 7 a.m. to 10 a.m. as has happened in past years. . . . 3 hours is an awfully long time to completely shut down a major rail facility. The point is that was the NS arrangement for the past 9 years, which worked fine and was supposed to be this year as well until someone, likely at NS, screwed up.
Paul_D_North_Jr schlimm [snipped - PDN] . . . Via Marathon organizers say Norfolk Southern gave them "absolute assurances" that trains would be suspended from 7 a.m. to 10 a.m. as has happened in past years. . . . 3 hours is an awfully long time to completely shut down a major rail facility.
The point is that was the NS arrangement for the past 9 years, which worked fine and was supposed to be this year as well until someone, likely at NS, screwed up.
Given the information, why are you thinking it likely that NS is the party that screwed up?
Why aren't you?
They contacted the NS 10 years for permission. The first 9 it went fine. This year the word did not get through to that locomotive crew. Logically it was probably a fault of internal communication in NS.
I think the railroad should make sure that nobody in their organization grants operational clearance to an event without proper approval within the railroad organization. In the comments by the NS spokesman, I sense that he is blaming the race organizers for not contacting the correct people within NS.
schlimm Paul_D_North_Jr schlimm [snipped - PDN] . . . Via Marathon organizers say Norfolk Southern gave them "absolute assurances" that trains would be suspended from 7 a.m. to 10 a.m. as has happened in past years. . . . 3 hours is an awfully long time to completely shut down a major rail facility.
The race organizers say they received assurances from NS.
The NS suggests that the assurances came from the wrong people in the NS organization; so it sounds like NS did give assurances.
Paul_D_North_Jrschlimm [snipped - PDN] . . . Via Marathon organizers say Norfolk Southern gave them "absolute assurances" that trains would be suspended from 7 a.m. to 10 a.m. as has happened in past years. . . . 3 hours is an awfully long time to completely shut down a major rail facility.
schlimm[snipped - PDN] . . . Via Marathon organizers say Norfolk Southern gave them "absolute assurances" that trains would be suspended from 7 a.m. to 10 a.m. as has happened in past years. . . .
- Paul North.
Daddy, what's a train?
Situation like this come up quite often in cycling and running events. Standard etiquette is for the paricipants that have past the obtruction to wait for the others to catch up. There was a story in the news last week where a cyclist had crashed and the other cyclists did not wait for him becouse he had crashed on his own which is a totaly different situation. But his father was still so enraged that he drove out ahead of the pack and pulled a section of chain link fencing in front of them causing a massive pileup .
I carried what looked like a credit card in my wallet for a number of years. It was very much like the chip carrier used for races - and contained no battery. All it had was a number, which the security system would compare to its list of known users.
In fact, many places put the sensor at wallet level (for men). You just had to place your wallet near the sensor and the door would unlock. Didn't even have to take your wallet out of your back pocket.
The fobs I speak of work the same way - not to be confused with the fobs used for unlocking your car. Again, passive - no battery.
The card I had was linked directly to my identity, as noted - when the powers that be changed access to certain areas and I didn't make the list, my card no longer worked there.
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...
tree68One might surmise that the key fobs and cards used to unlock doors would be very similar...
They are very often not. But some of the EZ-Pass systems are.
The ChampionChip system uses a passive transponder - the chip is actually powered up when it crosses the special 'mat', and then does the necessary handshaking for data transfer. There are no batteries in the chip carrier itself (which is normally tied specially into a runner's shoelaces in a way that would make it difficult to switch it from one runner to another easily). Note that for this application a very short range is desirable, as is rapid shutoff when away from the actual timing antenna.
Normally a keyfob has a radio transmitter inside, with a desired long range, and it is sensitive to battery condition. There are circuits that can be used to 'ping' an active transmitter (a good historical example is in pagers) but there's a lot more circuitry and expense involved in such a thing, and checking batteries, connectivity, etc. each race, and making the devices immune to shock, weather, etc. is not only more difficult but less tolerant of some more sneaky kinds of 'abuse'.
Most of the existing door card access systems that would come to mind will probably use different technology, probably involving some form of scanning inside a slot or pad in the door that requires alignment.
Note that there are approaches out there, like some of the old 'digital wallet' ideas, where devices could energize and read cards or chips 'without your having to take them out of your pocket'. I have never considered these either prudent or safe, although there are certainly areas -- the Exxon Speedpass is an example of one -- where getting a token of some kind reasonably close to a device can share data with it. Note, however, that Speedpass is only a discount and 'points' program, NOT anything that has direct access to your personal or financial data...
mudchickenAEI detector for humans? hmmmm.....
Very common in such races. One was in use here for a local triathlon.
One might surmise that the key fobs and cards used to unlock doors would be very similar...
zugmann Murphy Siding What's a chip mat? http://www.marathonguide.com/features/Articles/RaceTimingWithChip.cfm
Murphy Siding What's a chip mat?
http://www.marathonguide.com/features/Articles/RaceTimingWithChip.cfm
EuclidYou are not being [led] to believe that by me. I would conclude that any runners that were delayed by the train, and did not have qualifying times have a case that the contest was unfair.
It is perhaps typical that no one has researched the actual range of overall time that was affected by the stoppage. Quicker runners, and slower runners, would be little affected by this. The primary issue for purposes of the Boston Marathon would appear to be whether times in the 'window' were critical for making the qualifying cut. And absent mentioning what the criteria in question are, or whether the delay did in fact 'make the difference' for some of the affected people, there is little particularly reasonable basis for speculating.
Yes, it was a problem for many of the runners in the event, particularly if they (like me) are badly affected by an enforced stop in the middle of a distance run. If they are keeping a log of best times, here is a wasted one, and at the very least they should be entitled to a return of any fees they paid and, perhaps, costs they incurred getting to and parking at the event. I do not get the impression that the delay resulted in any loss of points or prize money -- please correct me if that is not the case.
Perhaps the 'fair' thing would be for Boston to admit any 'borderline' underqualifications if the window corresponded to the cutoff time range. Might even be fair to figure out on some pro-rata basis what a given runner's estimated finishing time, net of all pace and finish efforts, would have been ... if anyone were recording the arrival times at the blockage. Bet that didn't happen reliably!
BaltACD Euclid rdamon But how do you compare times with runners who have had a 10 min rest break? For that reason and others, there is no way to adjust the race for the delay imposed on some of the runners midway through the race. If they tried to make such an adjustment, both sides would dispute the results. The only solution would be to run the race over again. I'll bet the circumstances were a stong motive for runners to try to beat the train. It would be interesting if there were more video of the whole episode including the alleged cases of runners climbing over and under the moving train. Are we being lead to believe that ALL runners that made it ahead of the train had times that qualified them for entry to the Boston Marathon and ALL those blocked by the train didn't have good enough times? How many Kenyan's were participating?
Euclid rdamon But how do you compare times with runners who have had a 10 min rest break? For that reason and others, there is no way to adjust the race for the delay imposed on some of the runners midway through the race. If they tried to make such an adjustment, both sides would dispute the results. The only solution would be to run the race over again. I'll bet the circumstances were a stong motive for runners to try to beat the train. It would be interesting if there were more video of the whole episode including the alleged cases of runners climbing over and under the moving train.
rdamon But how do you compare times with runners who have had a 10 min rest break?
But how do you compare times with runners who have had a 10 min rest break?
For that reason and others, there is no way to adjust the race for the delay imposed on some of the runners midway through the race. If they tried to make such an adjustment, both sides would dispute the results. The only solution would be to run the race over again.
I'll bet the circumstances were a stong motive for runners to try to beat the train. It would be interesting if there were more video of the whole episode including the alleged cases of runners climbing over and under the moving train.
Are we being lead to believe that ALL runners that made it ahead of the train had times that qualified them for entry to the Boston Marathon and ALL those blocked by the train didn't have good enough times? How many Kenyan's were participating?
You are not being lead to believe that by me. I would conclude that any runners that were delayed by the train, and did not have qualifying times have a case that the contest was unfair.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.