greyhounds This is scary. It's the Metra line to Joliet (old Rock Island). Note that a signal maintainer is alread on site. The track is owned by Metra, a government agency. https://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/daily-southtown/news/ct-sta-slowik-mokena-rail-crossing-video-st-1227-story.html I can't make the link hot.
This is scary. It's the Metra line to Joliet (old Rock Island). Note that a signal maintainer is alread on site. The track is owned by Metra, a government agency.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/daily-southtown/news/ct-sta-slowik-mokena-rail-crossing-video-st-1227-story.html
I can't make the link hot.
Copy and paste is your friend.
Back when I was actively railroading, I had a couple of incidents with crossing signal failures. One just down the road from us-signal on the CSXT line would regularly fail to activate. I reported it multiple times and finally had it with the railroad police. The last time I reported it, I informed the desk officer that the crossing was a public danger in its current situation, that there was a large public housing development on that street and that the line of sight from the crossing was compromised by a sharp curve and trees to the north of the crossing. My last words were to the effect was that it was only a matter of time before a fatal accident would occur at that crossing. Fortunately, that was not to be the case.
Literally the next day, I saw a signal maintainer working on that crossing. He was there for at least three days in a row working on it. Never had a problem with that crossing after that.
Another time, I had to deal with a signal failure on a major crossing on the Norfolk Southern main line. I was preparing an excursion train for a trip the next morning and decided to go to dinner with a fellow crewman at the local Cracker Barrel. For whatever reason, we decided to drive on the surface roads towards the mall, knowing full well that we might get held up by a train. We did. What we saw after the train had passed was very scary.
After the train passed, the gates rose but did not go up far enough to shut off the flashers and bells. Worse, it was a Friday with very heavy traffic and cars began driving under the gates! We were in a railroad owned work truck and when we got to the crossing, I immediately parked the truck by the bungalow and got out to assess the situation. As no other trains were approaching, we raised the gates manually and waited for the next train to come. We didn't have to wait long-the yard was dispatching a number of trains that evening.
Just as before, the signals activated as the train approached and the gates failed to rise after the train had passed. This confirmed that there was an issue with the signals. I borrowed my co-worker's cell phone, pulled out my employee timetable and directly called the main tower at the yard. I identified myself and immediately gave him the location of the problem and a description. He informed me that the only signal maintainer on call was at Clinton-nearly a hundred miles from us.
What I described to the operator was his worst nightmare come true-the signals at the grade crossing with the most vehicle traffic in his district were malfunctioning at the worst possible moment-a lot of trains departing the yard and the signal maintainer is a hundred miles away. I informed the operator that we were fully equipped with flagging equipment, but didn't have a radio with the road channel-did he want us to flag the crossing until the signal maintainer arrived? Of course, his answer was "YES". So he put out a bulletin to the trains to approach the crossing prepared to stop and to look for hand signals.
We stayed there for over two hours, flagging several trains throught the crossing. Eventually the signal maintainer arrived and relieved us to go on to a belated dinner. We had found danger on the line and did our duty, remaining at the location until properly relieved. No accident occurred that night and my co-worker (who had been of the opinion that hand signals were old fashioned and obsolete) saw the light, literally. Once the signals activated and the the train came into view (about half a mile away), I gave the crew the "proceed" signal and was acknowledged with two toots on the whistle and the sound of the prime mover notching up. That made him a believer.
Everything works on PowerPoint!
mudchicken Had Light Squared happened with the sale of radio frequencies around the GPS bands (which surveyors yelled foul over and continue to make noise because the technocrats didn't get it and still don't), the issues would be worse.
Had Light Squared happened with the sale of radio frequencies around the GPS bands (which surveyors yelled foul over and continue to make noise because the technocrats didn't get it and still don't), the issues would be worse.
Whoever thought that GPS could co-exist with adjacent band terrestial transmiters obviously has no experience with real world radio equipment. Unfortunately this included a guy who worked on GPS, but apparently had more experience with theoretical system performance than real system performance. Not to mention sources of IMD that could cause a clean signal to bleed into the GPS band.
What most people don't realize is that actual GPS signal is well below the thermal noise for anything less than a highly directional antenna.
- Erik (formerly user "erikem")
(The problem is that the same players and hardware are having issues just like Denver in northern CA with the DUMB project (formerly known as SMART)...scary
The Denver A & G lines just happened to be the first to use the unproven technology, bugz and all. While the tall buildings playing hell with the timing coming out of Denver Union Station (ruining predicted arrival data), there are other issues as well..... Had Light Squared happened with the sale of radio frequencies around the GPS bands (which surveyors yelled foul over and continue to make noise because the technocrats didn't get it and still don't), the issues would be worse.
(*) Denver RTD's woes and federal intervention can be traced back to what happened 20 years ago at McLean IL and what happened when you mix new technology, a forgotten jumper wire, exhausted maintainer and insufficient precautions that resulted in two fatalities...
blue streak 1 BaltACD To my knowledge crossing protection and PTC have not been connected to each other. Others will have to comment on other installations. However the Denver "A", "B" & "G" lines do have that set up . We know how well that works ? NOT ! ! ! Just ask MC.
BaltACD To my knowledge crossing protection and PTC have not been connected to each other.
To my knowledge crossing protection and PTC have not been connected to each other.
I believe it has been proven by the results that those in charge of the Denver debacle have all the common sense of humanoids trying to have sexual congress with a rolling confectionary - thus their problems with their toy train outfit.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
OvermodIn this current Metra 'incident', I think the story mentions that the signal maintainer was there working on the railroad signals, by which I understood the block signals or PTC equipment, and not the crossing signals. Which raised an immediate question of whether the PTC equipment might be tied into variable crossing activation in some way that might silently cause crossing-signal activation to fail as late as observed here. (I'd like to think 'of course not', but after the idiocy observed in S-4200, I no longer put implicit trust in the people doing the design and whatever passes for systems analysis and testing)
99.8% of the time when a maintainer is called to a crossing it is because 'someone' has reported some kind of malfunction with the crossing. I am certain METRA will have a record of why the maintainer was at the crossing. Many times the maintainer is called when the protection activates with no train in sight To my knowledge crossing protection and PTC have not been connected to each other.
zugmannGave him some more ground clearance, if that was the case. Able to jump that curb pretty easy.
Interesting how the crossing protection remained active throughout the length of the video.
In watching the video, I noted that the gates did activate at the last moment - possibly when the train hit the island circuit.
A switch or relay failure might have caused the approach circuit to malfunction - ie, not activate the lights and gates. First of all, I'm not a maintainer, second, I have no idea which switch or relay had the reported short, so at this juncture, it's virtually impossible to determine what should have happened in that case.
Some may opine that the maintainer realized at the last moment that there was a problem and activated the protection. I believe this equipment has logging, so that may be detectable.
As the locomotive passes, the maintainer can be seen coming out of the shelter and donning his hardhat. He goes in and out of the shelter several more times during the remainder of the video.
Perhaps more significant - the gates did not go back up after the train cleared the crossing. That might indicate that the gates were manually activated, or be a further indication of the failure that occurred.
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...
Katie is one of the 'poster children' for the plaintiff's-attorney sites that specialize in things like grade-crossing accident cases. There is plenty of mention of gross negligence there.
As with malpractice ... while there's a chronic problem with frivolous or manipulative claims, there are also genuine hair-raising cases of incompetence causing pain and death. As you point out, it's important not to judge one way or the other without assessing the facts first.
In this current Metra 'incident', I think the story mentions that the signal maintainer was there working on the railroad signals, by which I understood the block signals or PTC equipment, and not the crossing signals. Which raised an immediate question of whether the PTC equipment might be tied into variable crossing activation in some way that might silently cause crossing-signal activation to fail as late as observed here. (I'd like to think 'of course not', but after the idiocy observed in S-4200, I no longer put implicit trust in the people doing the design and whatever passes for systems analysis and testing)
BaltACD I seem to recall a Chicago area incident 8-10 years ago where the maintainer wanted a 'track speed test' and a vehicle was struck when the protection did not operate as intended. As I recall 4 to 6 deaths was the result.
I seem to recall a Chicago area incident 8-10 years ago where the maintainer wanted a 'track speed test' and a vehicle was struck when the protection did not operate as intended. As I recall 4 to 6 deaths was the result.
Except for the number of fatalities, that sounds a crossing crash in Chicago that killed Katie Lund. Signal maintainers had spent a day working on the crossing, then left in the evening. Later that evening, they returned to conduct a final test with an Amtrak train. They did not restrict the train speed or flag and hold traffic at the crossing in case the test should fail. The test did fail, the signals did not activate, and the train struck Katie Lund’s vehicle at 80 mph. There should be a lot of coverage on Google, but all I find at the top of the search is this deceitful, little gem blaming Katie Lund for negligence in failing to yield to the train. No mention of the gross negligence of the maintainers testing their work with no protection should the test fail. Brilliant.
http://www.archboldbuckeye.com/news/2010-04-28/Opinion/Horrible_Tragedy_Teaches_Important_Lesson.html
Video was on CBS tv this morning. May result in a delayed investigation by FRA ?
I noted how easily the car went over the median... the curb would have steered my car right into the train!
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
From the dash cam video, it looks like he was driving a ford explorer police interceptor?
Gave him some more ground clearance, if that was the case. Able to jump that curb pretty easy.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
blue streak 1 BaltACD Did the maintainer radio the train and indicate that the protection was operating properly? Read in another forum that the malfunction was caused by a short in a switch position hardware that caused the gate malfunction.
BaltACD Did the maintainer radio the train and indicate that the protection was operating properly?
Did the maintainer radio the train and indicate that the protection was operating properly?
I saw a link to a different news story where they said the same thing, a problem with a short linked to a switch caused it. Thinking out loud, but usually I would expect a problem like that to actuate the crossing signals. I'm wondering if the "fix" to the short may be the actual cause for them not to activate. I believe something like that has caused problems, in block signals as well as crossing signals, before.
Jeff
BaltACD tree68 BaltACD If the maintainer was on the scene - which the truck next to the signal bungalow would tend to indicate, the train SHOULD have had some form a crossing protection malfunction order and SHOULD not have been operating at track speed. I would opine that it would depend on why the maintainer was there. Might have been routine maintenance, so no special orders. If the maintainer was there for regular maintenance, then I would opine that he was the cause of the situation. I am not sure of the test period for signal maintainers to test each crossing, somehow 30 days sticks in my mind. It has been my experience that signal maintainers don't always report to the Train Dispatcher when they come on the property to effect repairs or to perform tests. The lack of communication CAN result in a train showing up that the maintainer didn't count on.
tree68 BaltACD If the maintainer was on the scene - which the truck next to the signal bungalow would tend to indicate, the train SHOULD have had some form a crossing protection malfunction order and SHOULD not have been operating at track speed. I would opine that it would depend on why the maintainer was there. Might have been routine maintenance, so no special orders.
BaltACD If the maintainer was on the scene - which the truck next to the signal bungalow would tend to indicate, the train SHOULD have had some form a crossing protection malfunction order and SHOULD not have been operating at track speed.
I would opine that it would depend on why the maintainer was there. Might have been routine maintenance, so no special orders.
If the maintainer was there for regular maintenance, then I would opine that he was the cause of the situation.
I am not sure of the test period for signal maintainers to test each crossing, somehow 30 days sticks in my mind.
It has been my experience that signal maintainers don't always report to the Train Dispatcher when they come on the property to effect repairs or to perform tests. The lack of communication CAN result in a train showing up that the maintainer didn't count on.
The article states the maintainer arrived a few minutes earlier for an unrelated reason. That he immediately started investigating the failure and placed additional protections in place.
I saw my neighbor, a signal maintainer, out in a crossing signal bungalow today as we went by. Some of the things they need to do require permission from the dispatcher, some don't.
SD70Dude tree68 BaltACD If the maintainer was there for regular maintenance, then I would opine that he was the cause of the situation. That thought did cross my mind... Didn't a similar incident end in a crossing collision in Utah last year?
tree68 BaltACD If the maintainer was there for regular maintenance, then I would opine that he was the cause of the situation. That thought did cross my mind...
BaltACD If the maintainer was there for regular maintenance, then I would opine that he was the cause of the situation.
That thought did cross my mind...
Didn't a similar incident end in a crossing collision in Utah last year?
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
BaltACDIf the maintainer was there for regular maintenance, then I would opine that he was the cause of the situation.
BaltACDIf the maintainer was on the scene - which the truck next to the signal bungalow would tend to indicate, the train SHOULD have had some form a crossing protection malfunction order and SHOULD not have been operating at track speed.
greyhoundsThis is scary. It's the Metra line to Joliet (old Rock Island). Note that a signal maintainer is alread on site. The track is owned by Metra, a government agency. https://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/daily-southtown/news/ct-sta-slowik-mokena-rail-crossing-video-st-1227-story.html I can't make the link hot.
If the maintainer was on the scene - which the truck next to the signal bungalow would tend to indicate, the train SHOULD have had some form a crossing protection malfunction order and SHOULD not have been operating at track speed.
I believe I have heard of METRA having trouble protecting crossings in the past. I don't have the incidents at my fingertips.
And that in a nutshell is why mandated quiet-zone crossings are a dumb idea.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.