FRA Trots Out New Reflector Rule

[Anonymous]

FRA’s final reflectorization rule to take effect March 4, 2005

The Federal Railroad Administration has issued its final rule on reflectorization, which requires railroads to install reflective materials on the sides of locomotives and freight cars to make trains more visible to motorists at grade crossings.

Beginning March 4, 2005 railroads are required to install yellow or white reflective materials on locomotives within five years and on cars within 10 years. Railroads must install the materials on all new locomotives and cars, and on existing rolling stock must be retrofitted during periodic maintenance or repairs unless they implement alternate plans that meet the FRA's requisite timetables.

From Progressive Railroading and Railway Age web postings

[mudchicken]

Stay tuned LC, Volpe Center (DOT) has more on tap......

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken

Stay tuned LC, Volpe Center (DOT) has more on tap......

Oh, great. Probably have to have flashing lights on all trains now...

Christmas all year long...

LC

[BaltACD]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken

Stay tuned LC, Volpe Center (DOT) has more on tap......

Oh, great. Probably have to have flashing lights on all trains now...

Christmas all year long...

LC

What do you think Ditch Lights are?

[Anonymous]

I notice a lot of the new DTTX intermodal cars already have them.

All the new CP intermodal cars have them too.

I don't think I've seen a boxcar with them yet, though.

[locomutt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken

Stay tuned LC, Volpe Center (DOT) has more on tap......

Oh, great. Probably have to have flashing lights on all trains now...

Christmas all year long...

LC

LC,You didn't have to suggest that;
now "battery" stock will go 'sky high'

[locomutt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by BaltACD

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken

Stay tuned LC, Volpe Center (DOT) has more on tap......

Oh, great. Probably have to have flashing lights on all trains now...

Christmas all year long...

LC

What do you think Ditch Lights are?

Only on the Front of Trains!

[Anonymous]

Is this new rule mostly for grade crossings without gates and signals? Just wondering. I would think it would be easy to see a train with the ditch lights but I may be off base. Please straighten me out. Thanks.
Mike

[Anonymous]

It's the Mel Brooks Rule from "Blazing Saddles": "Harump! Harump! Gentlemen, we must protect our phoney-baloney jobs!"

It's just like the Power Brake Law changes last year. Every few years they reshuffle the papers and bring in some more people to keep this vile railroad scum in line.

I would LOVE to retire and get out...

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by locomutt

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken

Stay tuned LC, Volpe Center (DOT) has more on tap......

Oh, great. Probably have to have flashing lights on all trains now...

Christmas all year long...

LC

LC,You didn't have to suggest that;
now "battery" stock will go 'sky high'

Hey, I'm already looking at a few shares of 3M...(just kidding)...

LC

[Anonymous]

Its amazing they have to do this, its bad enough that people get infront of trains and get hit, BUT TO RUN INTO THE SIDE OF ON AT A CROSSING??? DUMB! People are really stupid anymore....

[Anonymous]

Some of our Operation Lifesaver friends may be able to veriify this, but there are a suprising number of accidents where a motorist hits the side of a train, especially at rural crossings with no nearby lighting. When told at an OL presentation once, I was amazed.

"Did you hear about the Aggie that tried to beat the train? He hit the 23rd car." (a very old joke for you people from TX)

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by BaltACD

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken

Stay tuned LC, Volpe Center (DOT) has more on tap......

Oh, great. Probably have to have flashing lights on all trains now...

Christmas all year long...

LC

What do you think Ditch Lights are?

Nah. Like the CP Rail Christmas train or KCS...

LC

[tree68]

Having seen an "invisible" line of empty flats passing through an unprotected industrial crossing at night, I can tell you that it is possible to not see a train (no - I didn't hit it. I already knew it was there). Because all of the street lights and other such clues were still visible, it was only the occasional interruption of headlights that gave any clue. No headlights - no visual clues at all. Remember that many of the above mentioned rural crossings are far from flat - there is a "ramp" up to the track, and your headlights might not pick up the train until you start up that little hill, probably at speed.

Many RRs in the past have included reflective material on certain rolling stock, usually engines and cabeese. The inclusion of the red and white reflectors on semi's seems to be a good thing, and guidelines for fire trucks now call for at least a 4" reflective strip all the way around the vehicle. Color can vary.

It probably wouldn't be a bad idea to include a little of the stuff on the ends of the cars, to increase visiblility from that perspective.

[oltmannd]

The RRs have been fighting this one for at least 20 years that I can remember. The arguement against was the fear that there would be an expectation (at least in a court of law) that reflectors would have to be cleaned if they got dirty. Wonder how that will work out? Will car inspectors be responsible for wiping them clean each trip?

[dharmon]

I'd think this would be a no-brainer. If the cost of some reflective tape prevents one litigation, then it's money and better yet one less PR damaging injury well spent.

[mudchicken]

Dan:

Unfortunately the lawyers have warped the legal system (hardly news, but) ....Can think of 4 major grade crossing cases where RR was assigned part of the liability because crossbucks were dirty or non-reflective. (Including a case where trucker struck a train 6 cars behind the engines after ramming the gates without even slowing down, in a snowstorm)[X-)][X-)][X-)]

[dharmon]

Well I'm not trying to be a pain, but so the alternative would be to do nothing? In my business, things that are meant to be hidden, are painted or treated to be low observable. Things that aren't, things that we want to be seen, are painted / taped etc to be as visible as possible. Anything that makes a train more visible seems like it would be a good idea, particularly something relatively inexpensive and easy to do. Its hard to give even lip service to safety and fight something as simple as putting conspicuity striping and reflective tape on things like say a oxide red boxcar, which turns in to a light sink at night. Aircraft run into each other fairly infrequently, yet they run with a variety of anti-collision lights.

[Mookie]

On the one hand, people will still run into trains. It is a given.

On the other - sitting reasonably close to them in broad daylight, I have commented more than once about how quiet those rail cars are when moving. Even the engines (SD70's only) are pretty quiet when they are just moving by themselves.

And since most of the coal cars that come through here, at least, look reasonably clean, maybe the cleaning of reflectors won't be that big of a problem. And don't some cars already have a reflecting type strip around an old reader or something in that area?

Mook

[tree68]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon

I'd think this would be a no-brainer. If the cost of some reflective tape prevents one litigation, then it's money and better yet one less PR damaging injury well spent.

Just checked the Galls website - a $150 foot roll of 3" wide reflective tape (which would be able to provide a continuous strip all the way around a 60' car, basically) is $200. In practice, that would probably do upwards of 2-3 cars, depending on the reflective area requirements.

That's pure retail. Purchasing hundreds of feet at wholesale prices would be much cheaper. In fact, I just found truckers "conspicuity" tape (with alternating red and white), 2" wide, 50 yards, for less than $100. Figure $50 per car. A $100,000 settlement avoided marks 2000 cars (not counting labor).

Not sure what freight cars are going for these days, but it would seem that $50 would be peanuts in the overall scheme of things.

[espeefoamer]

The reflective tape will work only until it is covered by grafitti[:(!]!

[tree68]

QUOTE: Originally posted by espeefoamer

The reflective tape will work only until it is covered by grafitti[:(!]!

Too true... [V] Maybe they'll be "kind" enough to spare it like some apparently do the reporting marks. Mind you I'm mostly hopeful on that count...

[Anonymous]

I can just see the headline now: "Railroad Guilty of Negligence in Grade Crossing Death". (Like we haven't seen that one before!) And why? Because there wasn't enough reflective tape on a few cars, or it was covered with graffiti. I know that these rules and regulations are made with the best of intentions, but I think all too often they just create income opportunities for slimeball lawyers. J.D. Nomad

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by theNomad

I can just see the headline now: "Railroad Guilty of Negligence in Grade Crossing Death". (Like we haven't seen that one before!) And why? Because there wasn't enough reflective tape on a few cars, or it was covered with graffiti. I know that these rules and regulations are made with the best of intentions, but I think all too often they just create income opportunities for slimeball lawyers. J.D. Nomad

JD-

Just as you suspect, the issue of visibility has already been litigated many times. I know of at least one case where a car drove under a haz mat (propane) tanker and took out the brake rigging. The tank car and others in the train were black, but had already been equipped with reflective tape. Didn't stop the crash. Nor did it stop the plaintiff from claiming the cars were "invisible"...

LC

[dharmon]

Okay you guys win ....it's a stupid idea.

What the &^%$ was I thinking.

[Anonymous]

Of course, nobody has bothered to mention that it's a LAW to at LEAST slow down for a railroad crossing. That's why they put the big round yellow signs out- to warn motorists of a crossing ahead, so they can slow down and be prepared to stop if there is a train nearby. Some places have stop signs at crossings, and people STILL don't stop! One teenager died here a few years back when he obviously ignored a stop sign and hit a parked CN train! What a brewhaha followed after the mother complained that the crossing should have had gates and flashers and air bags and armed guards... well, that's what she pretty much wanted! [banghead] The general public has no knowledge of the cost of grade crossing protection, but refuses to acknowledge the fact that they still have to be alert when approaching the tracks! ESPECIALLY the people who live near those tracks! Insanity runs rampant, that's why those lawyers make out like they do!

Message here folks, is when you approach the tracks, just slow down and look, even with gates and lights! Just doing THAT would cut down the number of crashes dramatically!

[Anonymous]

See today's Minneapolis Star Tribune article on grade crossings.

[fuzzybroken]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Mookie

On the one hand, people will still run into trains. It is a given.

On the other - sitting reasonably close to them in broad daylight, I have commented more than once about how quiet those rail cars are when moving. Even the engines (SD70's only) are pretty quiet when they are just moving by themselves.

And since most of the coal cars that come through here, at least, look reasonably clean, maybe the cleaning of reflectors won't be that big of a problem. And don't some cars already have a reflecting type strip around an old reader or something in that area?

Mook

Interesting concept... EPA demands "quiet" trains, so now the FRA needs "more visible" trains...

QUOTE: Originally posted by DTIDave

Of course, nobody has bothered to mention that it's a LAW to at LEAST slow down for a railroad crossing. That's why they put the big round yellow signs out- to warn motorists of a crossing ahead, so they can slow down and be prepared to stop if there is a train nearby. Some places have stop signs at crossings, and people STILL don't stop! ...

<snip>

Message here folks, is when you approach the tracks, just slow down and look, even with gates and lights! Just doing THAT would cut down the number of crashes dramatically!

I always slow down for RR crossings, but that's 'cuz I want to see a train! Maybe a law should be made requiring everybody to be a railfan... [swg][banghead]

LOL!
-Mark
http://www.geocities.com/fuzzybroken

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

The RRs have been fighting this one for at least 20 years that I can remember. The arguement against was the fear that there would be an expectation (at least in a court of law) that reflectors would have to be cleaned if they got dirty. Wonder how that will work out? Will car inspectors be responsible for wiping them clean each trip?

True, this was and is one of the big points of contention. I understand that the railroads managed to keep any cleaning requirements out of the final regulation. That won't stop people from bringing lawsuits on the issue, of course.

The other thing that no one has brought up in this conversation is that when tracing interests it is useful to "follow the money". In any safety regulation requiring alteration to freight cars, locomotives or other rail equipment one has to consider how such alterations will be paid for and maintained. Keep in mind that the railroads are one national (OK, North American) system.

How do railroads maintain their equipment. They have car and locomotive shops, on their property. Off property, other railroads repair the cars for the owner (RR or private) and bill the owner pursuant to the AAR Car Service Rules. Owners must accept and pay the railroad's AAR car repair bills. Locomotive repairs are handled by agreements between the railroads involved. Under the AAR Car Service Rules repairs to safety appliances are not covered by the provisions permitting railroads to bill the owner. Thus, railroads must bear the costs of repairs to safety appliances (such as ladders, grabs, end platforms, etc).

So, why is this important in the great reflective tape debate?

If I am a railroad that owns few cars yet I receive many in interchange owned by others, and reflective tape is considered a safety appliance I will be on the hook for replacing a lot of reflective tape at my expense over time. I will need additional personnel, inventory of tape and tools (powerwasher at least) and track space on my R.I.P. track for these cars. All of this is at my cost. If I need to pass this through to my customers I will have to raise rates and won't see anything at ther bottom line.

So, the railroads oppose reflectorization both for liability and cost considerations. Also, did I mention it may not work after all of this?

LC

[miniwyo]

Mookie had a comment that made me think.(Happens rarley, Thanks Mookie!) With the cleaning of the coal car reflectors. This would probably work for all cars. If all the reflectors are put at the same height off the rail they could build some sort of apparattus that could clean the reflectors as the train passes by. Some sort of brush on a flexible post that maybe hangs in a bit so there is pressure to keep the brush on the car, also allowing for the small variations in width(if any) of the cars. Useing a brush ro somthing that could remove anything but graffitti. Just a suggestion.