Murphy Siding schlimm Murphy Siding Euclid Nah. The automatic system has the ability to see a giant box on the crossing that does not move for several thousand feet of the train’s approach. So it makes a nice gentle service application, and saves a bunch of lives. It’s pretty simple stuff. So would parking all the trains, but you're the only one that's advocating that. I can understand why you are a personal injury lawyer and not a mathematician. Several thousand feet equals at least 2000 feet. A train moving at 60 MPH covers that 2000 feet in 23 seconds. That nice gentle service application is going to have to come pretty quickly. Not defending Euclid's contention, but you seem to have misread his admittedly confusing post. He makes it easy to misread. It's part of the plan. Can you explain what in the world he is trying to say? He doesn't seem to be able to.
schlimm Murphy Siding Euclid Nah. The automatic system has the ability to see a giant box on the crossing that does not move for several thousand feet of the train’s approach. So it makes a nice gentle service application, and saves a bunch of lives. It’s pretty simple stuff. So would parking all the trains, but you're the only one that's advocating that. I can understand why you are a personal injury lawyer and not a mathematician. Several thousand feet equals at least 2000 feet. A train moving at 60 MPH covers that 2000 feet in 23 seconds. That nice gentle service application is going to have to come pretty quickly. Not defending Euclid's contention, but you seem to have misread his admittedly confusing post.
Murphy Siding Euclid Nah. The automatic system has the ability to see a giant box on the crossing that does not move for several thousand feet of the train’s approach. So it makes a nice gentle service application, and saves a bunch of lives. It’s pretty simple stuff. So would parking all the trains, but you're the only one that's advocating that. I can understand why you are a personal injury lawyer and not a mathematician. Several thousand feet equals at least 2000 feet. A train moving at 60 MPH covers that 2000 feet in 23 seconds. That nice gentle service application is going to have to come pretty quickly.
Euclid Nah. The automatic system has the ability to see a giant box on the crossing that does not move for several thousand feet of the train’s approach. So it makes a nice gentle service application, and saves a bunch of lives. It’s pretty simple stuff.
Nah. The automatic system has the ability to see a giant box on the crossing that does not move for several thousand feet of the train’s approach. So it makes a nice gentle service application, and saves a bunch of lives. It’s pretty simple stuff.
So would parking all the trains, but you're the only one that's advocating that. I can understand why you are a personal injury lawyer and not a mathematician. Several thousand feet equals at least 2000 feet. A train moving at 60 MPH covers that 2000 feet in 23 seconds. That nice gentle service application is going to have to come pretty quickly.
Not defending Euclid's contention, but you seem to have misread his admittedly confusing post.
He makes it easy to misread. It's part of the plan. Can you explain what in the world he is trying to say? He doesn't seem to be able to.
Here is what I said that you are unable to understand:
“The automatic system has the ability to see a giant box on the crossing that does not move for several thousand feet of the train’s approach. So it makes a nice gentle service application, and saves a bunch of lives.”
This is how the FRA explains it. Is it something you are able to understand?
“The main objective of rail intruder and obstacle detection systems (IODS) is to provide train engineers, railroad dispatchers, and security organizations timely information on the status of sections of railroad track and crossings. The intent is to allow them sufficient time to perform the appropriate emergency actions to decrease train speed or stop a train to avoid or mitigate the effects of a collision or security breach.”
The “giant box” I referred to is the stalled bus. When I said it does not move, I meant it was stationary. When I said thousands of feet, I meant 1,000 feet minimum. When I said “gentle service application,” I meant that there was no need for an emergency application and the worry about derailing the train. When I said “automatic system,” I was referring to the IODS system, which the FRA uses as an acronym for the “rail intruder and obstacle detection system.
When I said it was pretty simple stuff, I was referring to the function of scanning the track for obstacles before they becomes visible to the crew. That way, they will have more time to react and stop short of an obstacle.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
I was referring to the situation in this Biloxi crash. The bus was stalled for about five minutes. The track was straight, and the train was moving around 30 mph. I don't know the exact line of sight distance, but the map looks like at least a half mile if not a mile. So say it is about 2500 feet. So the automatic system should not have been necessary to prevent this crash.
But the automatic system finds obstacles before they come into view, so it provides maximum stopping distance. That is the point. So had it been in place at Biloxi, it would have detected the stalled bus as soon as it stalled. They could have probably rolled to a stop without using any brakes.
This system is not my idea. It has already been invented. All it needs is a govnerment mandate. Some good photos of children killed in a crossing crash should be all that is needed to get the President to take action.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
EuclidNah. The automatic system has the ability to see a giant box on the crossing that does not move for several thousand feet of the train’s approach. So it makes a nice gentle service application, and saves a bunch of lives. It’s pretty simple stuff.
Just like the Denver RTA and the signal maintainer who really screwed up. Even the "big hole" being automatically applied couldn't have fixed that one.
Your warped imagination runs wild but is entertaining to watch thanks to the lack of reality in your thoughts. Like Balt said, reality and you are basically strangers to each other.
Norm
Murphy Siding I had a vision. It was a vision of euclid tied to a railroad track, Snidely Whiplash style as a train approached. It was test of the new crossing system. Any time there would be any kind of obstruction on the tracks at a crossing, or the possibility of one, or even the thought of one, the train would automatically shut down and sit still for a half hour until everything got sorted out. This system would prevent any driver from ever having to take responsibility for his actions around rail crossings ever again. Because the system would be *foolproof*, the railroad requested that euclid be tied to the track to test the Beta product.
OHMYGOSH!
The analogy is great.
I dont' think you or anyone else here is old enough to remember the cartoon strip "Perils Of Pauline" without researching it. She, like Bucky had considerable knowledge of railroad tracks, tethers and ropes. Somehow, by hook or by crook, she always survived till the next episode. It would be interesting to see Bucky test his theories against reality. Can't help but wonder if Bucky would be that successful. Can Bucky pay the rent or does he come up short? I'm betting he can't.
The other cartoon strip that comes to mind is "Born Forty Years Too Soon". Perhaps Bucky was born forty years too late. The other applicable cartoon strip you forgot was "Sad Sack". That, too was relevant a long time ago.
Thanks for the memories, but no, not dating myself. Researched things. I'm not that old.
Design it. Sell it. Stop wasting your time on here.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
Reality calling Euclid!
No Answer!
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
I notice that the Bilox, Missippissi (oops) city council has voted to close 6 of their 29 grade crossings. The closings are based on a study done in 2014. Which had apparently been ignored until slightly after the bus crash. Main Street is not on the list.
Mayor FoFo (yes, really) says 29 crossings are too many. I wonder what Goldilocks would say.
Mayor FoFo says he personally knew three people who died in car-train collisions. One might wonder if he's hanging around with the wrong crowd.
Ed
I had a vision. It was a vision of euclid tied to a railroad track, Snidely Whiplash style as a train approached. It was test of the new crossing system. Any time there would be any kind of obstruction on the tracks at a crossing, or the possibility of one, or even the thought of one, the train would automatically shut down and sit still for a half hour until everything got sorted out. This system would prevent any driver from ever having to take responsibility for his actions around rail crossings ever again. Because the system would be *foolproof*, the railroad requested that euclid be tied to the track to test the Beta product. In a related jobs program, Snidely Whiplash was brought out of retirement on a subcontract basis to handle the small details and knot tying.
As long as we're into sillyness if the bus driver had got it going fast enough it would have skipped over the crossing and there would not have been a problem. Get it going fast enough it don't wedge.
Bucky's solutions, as always, are lacking in reality and are based on wishful thinking. Look back at other crossing accidents and derailements like the one in North Dakota where the engineer had only seconds to react. Hindsight, as we say in aviation forums, is always 20/20. Yep, a lotta "I wouldda, he shoulda" done this or that. A few seconds could have made a difference. Problem is we speculators were not in the engineer's driver's pilot's seat. Second guessing is easy from your armchair. Try it when you are on short final in an airplane. It's different then. The ground is coming at you.For an engineer there may be only seconds to react. Life or death ahngs in the balance. What do you do? I'm sure Larry can relate to that question considering he is in the fire service and has to deal with that question daily.
Bucky proposes scenarios that can always be handled by technology and those that consider safety over all else. They ignore the realities of life but support his wishful agenda of a perfect world. He has a lot to learn about reality.
amen!
In the interests of economy and safety - close the crossing!
Other methods to fix the crossing:
Have a guy on a horse out front with a red flag, warning people a train's a-comin'. It worked pretty well back in the day. AND. He can help get the people off the bus.
Hire a whole buncha guys (good for the employment numbers) to hang out at the crossing. When a vehicle gets stuck, they all gather around and lift it off the crossing. You're right, it'll take a lot of people. Which is GOOD for employment. Thought should be given to making them government employees, so that they have good job security. And perhaps even pensions. Also, there will have to be supervisory personnel. They will need college degrees (being supervisory), so that will raise employment among those who have huge student debt. Another plus!
A more high-technology approach (but with less impact on employment, sadly) would be for the railroad to put some giant springs between the rails. If something got stuck, the engineer could send a WiFi signal (or is that Bluetooth?) and the springs would launch the obstuction off of the tracks. To minimize damage to the vehicle and buildings nearby, parachute packs could be attached with solenoid operated grappling hooks. The vehicle would thus descend gently to the ground.
Still another approach: Since the problem might have been caused by adding ballast under the track and raising it to cause the bump, why not take that a bit further? Come through with a MASSIVE re-ballasting and raise the track up high enough to put tunnels underneath for the streets. That's a win-win all around. Not only will the streets be continually open, but the undertrack drainage will be absolutely top rank.
mudchicken ...and just like PTC, nothing reliable happens when you attach "absolutes" with no real world credibility to it (ie- make something foolproof and only a fool would use it) ... the con job originally used to pitch PTC is still at it and going strong. (turn the tables and have the feds force an unfunded mandate on state, county, city & town road agencies would be amusing to watch however as it "saves lives" and drains the coffers.)
...and just like PTC, nothing reliable happens when you attach "absolutes" with no real world credibility to it (ie- make something foolproof and only a fool would use it) ... the con job originally used to pitch PTC is still at it and going strong. (turn the tables and have the feds force an unfunded mandate on state, county, city & town road agencies would be amusing to watch however as it "saves lives" and drains the coffers.)
MC: The proponent of such schemes has to be one of those highway Bubbas you speak of.
...and just like PTC, nothing reliable happens when you attach "absolutes" with no real world credibility to it (ie- make something foolproof and only a fool would use it) ... the con job originally used to pitch PTC is still at it and going strong. (turn the tables and have the feds force an unfunded mandate on state, county, city & town road agencies would be amusing to watch however as it "saves lives" [how many if any?]and drains the coffers.)
Murphy Siding Euclid The problem with these hump crossings is no doubt obvious to everyone familiar with them. Since the obvious problem has not been fixed, it also seems obvious that there is an impasse based on the question of who will fund the remedy. I suspect that the crossings will remain as they are, but the danger will be addressed by mandated obstacle detection systems that will stop any approaching trains short of a crossing if that crossing is being fouled on a sustained basis. This system will eliminate the need to rely on the train crew to recognize the likelihood of a collision resulting from a vehicle that appears stationary on a crossing for thousands of feet of train approach. With this type of smart crossing, vehicles can get hung up all day long, but everyone goes home safe. https://ntl.bts.gov/lib/42000/42800/42875/rr0721.pdf How about making the *smart crossings* so they stop the offending rubber tired vehicle? Or maybe mandate that drivers be qualified to drive their vehicles correctly?
Euclid The problem with these hump crossings is no doubt obvious to everyone familiar with them. Since the obvious problem has not been fixed, it also seems obvious that there is an impasse based on the question of who will fund the remedy. I suspect that the crossings will remain as they are, but the danger will be addressed by mandated obstacle detection systems that will stop any approaching trains short of a crossing if that crossing is being fouled on a sustained basis. This system will eliminate the need to rely on the train crew to recognize the likelihood of a collision resulting from a vehicle that appears stationary on a crossing for thousands of feet of train approach. With this type of smart crossing, vehicles can get hung up all day long, but everyone goes home safe. https://ntl.bts.gov/lib/42000/42800/42875/rr0721.pdf
The problem with these hump crossings is no doubt obvious to everyone familiar with them. Since the obvious problem has not been fixed, it also seems obvious that there is an impasse based on the question of who will fund the remedy.
I suspect that the crossings will remain as they are, but the danger will be addressed by mandated obstacle detection systems that will stop any approaching trains short of a crossing if that crossing is being fouled on a sustained basis.
This system will eliminate the need to rely on the train crew to recognize the likelihood of a collision resulting from a vehicle that appears stationary on a crossing for thousands of feet of train approach.
With this type of smart crossing, vehicles can get hung up all day long, but everyone goes home safe.
https://ntl.bts.gov/lib/42000/42800/42875/rr0721.pdf
How about making the *smart crossings* so they stop the offending rubber tired vehicle? Or maybe mandate that drivers be qualified to drive their vehicles correctly?
It does not have to be an "either/or" choice. If you can add something that saves lives, what is wrong with that? I am pretty sure the regulators will see my point and require these crossing obstacle detection systems in the name of public safety. There has been a lot of talk about incorporating this type of system into PTC. It will stop the train so the train crew does not have to be involved in the decision.
It did not escape me that the railroad, in the interest of safety, could slow their trains down to a speed that would allow stopping in, say, 200 feet. No, let's make that 100 feet (at least until they install those special Qwikstop retro-rockets on the equipment).
The fact that the larger street crossing over to the west would be blocked for about forever must be met with the reminder that "We are doing this for your safety and security."
Who could complain about that?
PS: I tried to find out who has official responsibility for the crossing under discussion. Nothing turned up for Mississippi (whee!), but in Michigan, the railroad is responsible out to 1 foot beyond the tie ends--no farther.
Immediately after Katrina
The myopia over road crossings between the railroad field engineers and the highway engineers has been in place for too many years. I just got reminded how bad it gets by a crossing in Indiana which got compounded by a none too bright state statute that clearly was written without input from the railroads. (in essence, IDOT and the local road agencies can do & deem as they please and the railroads have to pay for it)
An awful lot of rough crossing complaints go back to what the road agencies did to the crossing approaches. It's not only humps like discussed here, but also getting paved into a hole (and then there are the instances of being paved over all together )
Hoping NTSB's final report takes FHWA and FRA to task over the reluctance to address this festering old problem. (also wish that states would quit merging railroad commissions into state DOT's (and then staffing the quasi independent ombudsman's post with highway people with zero(!) railroad experience, but that is another story)
I wish I could be surprised by the actions of the bus driver, but a visit to the 11'8" (?) website proves that there are a small minority of drivers who appear incapable of processing signs warning about clearance problems. Locally, two low ground clearnace hot spots I'm aware of are the Leucadia Blvd crossing of the AT&SF (Coaster) Surf line, though truck drivers appeaer to be getting the message, the other was a driveway to a strip mall with an impressive breakover angle - seen several trucks get hung up on that.
One possible solution is to require long/low rating for drivers licenses that would include regular recertification. A related measure would be to require any GPS unit used on such a vehicle to include database of low ground clearance crossings. What does surprise me is that there hasn't been much in the way of news about GPS makers being sued for directions that lead to danger (e.g. some "roads" in Death Valley).
tree68 7j43k And that's OK? Never said it was.
7j43k And that's OK?
Never said it was.
I know. Nor do I think anyone else here would.
That was a follow on to the mini-play in the previous paragraph and was meant for the wizards at the Mississippi DOT.
Gosh, it's fun to type Mississippi. I should do it more often.
7j43kAnd that's OK?
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...
I don't think there's a chance in hell that the railroad is going to lower their tracks because the City/State asked them. They would point out that the problem is the City/State's, and that they should fix it themselves. They might offer to do the job for money (as opposed to for free, which would likely be how it starts), but the cost of lowering the track might very likely be more than raising the street. And then, with less ballast under the ties...........
The point about the railroad raising their track is surely an interesting one. I can certainly see the point about how the streets were just fine, thank you, until you mucked about with your stupid railroad. Hence my suggestion of a lawsuit, if the railroad blew them off.
However, that is not an excuse to not fix the problem.
Really.
Imagine, please. The railroad raises their track. The City/State says "Hey, you messed up our roads with that trick. Give us money to fix it." Railroad says "Bite me." (with more and bigger words). City/State then gives up and does nothing except maybe putting up signs costing almost $300. And people die.
And that's OK?
I offered that this is partly the railroad's "fault" due to track maintenance that likely raised the profile of the rail over the years. This was not a one-time action. Aside from a few vehicles getting hung up, it's possible no one really noticed and/or put two and two together.
On the other hand, it's well established that once the crossing is in, it's the road owner's responsibility. I doubt a suit by the city (or whoever) would be successful, and if a decedent's family sued the railroad for the hump under discussion, it would fall back on the municipality.
IF the municipality felt that the railroad should help deal with the issue, they could always request that the RR take a little off the top, if you will. If there is sufficient roadbed under the track with some ballast removed, they might agree to do so. Or not.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.