Railroad Ave. becomes South Center St. as it gets south of the "downtown."
CSX wanted to build a railroad bypass. But the town voted it down. Most townspeople realize that such unique character is not something you want to throw away.
If towns don't want trains running down the middle of the street; move the town!
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
Lithonia Operator. One road is one-way southbound, the other one-way northbound. The do share one street name, though.
Memphis has a street called 'Broadway'. Part of the west end was occupied by railroads, and over the years the full width was occupied by the railroad and there's now no 'road' there -- but it is still mapped as Broadway.
Ashland, on their 'official' maps, considers the whole width of road and track together as 'Railroad Avenue' and makes no distinction that any part may be different from a street; in fact the map is drawn as a street with only gray bars to denote there is a double track there.
Businesses along there would take a big hit if the road went to pedestrian only.
For those who haven't been there: it's not "street-running" as I define the term. In Ashland, "the road" is really two roads, with the railroad in between. One road is one-way southbound, the other one-way northbound. The do share one street name, though.
To me, "street-running" is like in Oakland.
SD60MAC9500 It might be best for Ashland to close this street to vehicular traffic make it pedestrian only. Fence off the RoW, and grade seperate all major east-west roads through town. Street-running, semi-street running of heavy rail should not be a thing in the 21st century..
It might be best for Ashland to close this street to vehicular traffic make it pedestrian only. Fence off the RoW, and grade seperate all major east-west roads through town. Street-running, semi-street running of heavy rail should not be a thing in the 21st century..
Easier said than done, brother. And that's not the only grade crossing in town, there's three more of them that bisect Ashland's downtown area. There's no room to grade separate and the town's residents wouldn't put up with a fenced right-of-way, it would block too many short-cuts across the tracks.
Ashland is literally a child of the old RF&P, the railroad was there first, and the town came about as a real estate development sponsored by the railroad. "Railroad Day" in Ashland is a big local festival, although it's not running this year due to COVID. Ashland residents are well aware of the railroad's presense and know how to deal with it.
SD60MAC9500 Street-running, semi-street running of heavy rail should not be a thing in the 21st century..
Street-running, semi-street running of heavy rail should not be a thing in the 21st century..
Below, we have street running of heavy rail through Oakland, CA. The trackage passes through Oakland to San Jose. It also features multiple passenger trains:
The trackage has been bracketed by double yellow lines, in recent years. There are five streets crossing the tracks.
I don't recall anyone calling for major change.
The trains run "relatively" slowly. And they're big and hard to miss. Figuratively.
Here's a view looking south, showing the trackage better. In the far distance is the pedestrian bridge for the Amtrak station:
Ed
Oh. Yes, correct. I missed his post.
Lithonia OperatorUnlike in the video linked in this thread, there is another YouTube video from Ashland, same crossing, that shows a car that did make multiple attempts to back back onto the roadway. But is was like hitting a wall; he had to give up; a train came, but stopped in time. A little bit of sloped pavement could save some lives there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wgN8d2wXxg
Even simple asphalt extension of the current 'edge' construction would have solved the problem in that video. If a car runs over the rails and can't get over to the central 'aisle' between tracks there might need to be extension between effective flangeways and on the outer edges of the ROW. It appears that road construction over the years has built street level higher than the tracks to the extent a car can't get out of the resulting 'trench' at the sides.
As I said, if the city assumes formal liability for putting ramp 'access' in, and then provides or contracts the work (the same people who made the existing crude asphalt edge could easily add it) the solution could be quick, perhaps even before flexible barrier poles could be 'arranged for' and installed.
It is also very long past time that navigation, including voice prompting,specifically include railroad awareness. This would include 'watch out when crossing tracks' as you near them, 'Don't turn on tracks' as you reach them, and (for the case previously mentioned) something like 'Cross the tracks and then turn left' for the correct turn-by-turn. (We've hashed over the pros and cons of the system 'knowing' a train is approaching, so I leave that unresolved.)
Unlike in the video linked in this thread, there is another YouTube video from Ashland, same crossing, that shows a car that did make multiple attempts to back back onto the roadway. But is was like hitting a wall; he had to give up; a train came, but stopped in time. A little bit of sloped pavement could save some lives there.
BaltACD Convicted One My final post in this thread. My intuition just tells me that if it had been a gasoline tanker across the tracks, the crew would have hit emergency sooner, and likely bailed out at some point. If it was observed to be a Fuel Tanker - it would have been Run 8 and hit the brakes after the flames died down. https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/fl-xpm-1993-03-18-9301310424-story.html
Convicted One My final post in this thread. My intuition just tells me that if it had been a gasoline tanker across the tracks, the crew would have hit emergency sooner, and likely bailed out at some point.
If it was observed to be a Fuel Tanker - it would have been Run 8 and hit the brakes after the flames died down.
https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/fl-xpm-1993-03-18-9301310424-story.html
So, if this vehicle on the track had been a fuel tanker, would the engineer have went to notch 8 to speed up and blast through to escape the fireball; or would he have just stopped so they would not hit the truck?
CMStPnPWell, I guess here is proof it has happened before so my guess is this is fairly common at this crossing.
Well, I guess here is proof it has happened before so my guess is this is fairly common at this crossing. Don't live there though so only guessing. Kentucky is pretty confusing with the roads there changing names all over the place. I used to live there a long time ago. They like to name their roads after people but the problem is they sometimes use the same road and the name changes a few times while your on it.
mvlandsw. Actually that would be good policy everywhere.
I did a training session at a monthly meeting of our county firefighters association and told them exactly that.
They do need to be a mile out in both directions, at least until it is confirmed that all rail traffic is stopped. This actually serves two purposes - one, it alerts the rail traffic to stop, and two, it protects the responders on the scene.
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...
If this is a common occurance at this location the first responders should be trained to immediately send someone down the tracks in both directions to flag approaching trains. Actually that would be good policy everywhere. Calling from the incident location to an operation center to a central dispatcher and then to a train or multiple trains has many possibilities for delays. Train crews were and probably still are required to protect their trains in this manner when something happens that endangers other trains.
Mark Vinski
My God Balt, it doesn't get more horrific than that.
Convicted OneMy final post in this thread. My intuition just tells me that if it had been a gasoline tanker across the tracks, the crew would have hit emergency sooner, and likely bailed out at some point.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Hindsight is always 20-20.
My final post in this thread. My intuition just tells me that if it had been a gasoline tanker across the tracks, the crew would have hit emergency sooner, and likely bailed out at some point.
EuclidIn previous discussions here, I found this question to be interesting, so I found two experts and asked them about it. Otherwise, I have never seen a railroad rule that covers the situation.
Regarding posing this question to the two experts as I mentioned:
I contacted the FRA and Operation Lifesaver. In both cases, each person I talked to had extensive experience in train service, and both had also been instructors. Both told me almost the same thing. Both said that they often hear engineers say they will not make an emergency application until after impact, but they said they do not know if they really would take that course of if they were just saying that.
Both told me that they always instructed their engineers to never withhold an emergency application because of a worry that it might derail a train. They said that emergency applications happen frequently and very rarely cause a derailment. They said the emergency application was available for a reason, and if that reason arises, the application should be made. They said nobody would be disciplined for a justified emergency application causing a derailment.
The OL rep said that he had experienced a trial involving an engineer who said he withheld the emergency application because he worried it could derail the train; and the company ended up paying a lot of money to the plaintiff because the lawyers challenged the reasoning of withholding braking in an emergency.
No, I doubt you'll find a hard written rule specifying hit first(or nearly so), that's why I said "policy" in my initial thoughts.
(and) Isn't it interesting how the usual "critics" have fallen silent?
It makes sense in a skewed sort of way. Less likely total damage just hitting the violating vehicle than risk collateral damage from a possible derailment. Afterall, a potential jury might be less sympathetic to a wayward driver who is clearly in violation, than they might be to a line side Mercedes Benz dealer who just had two well cars push through his showroom full of customers. I admit that is wild speculation. But it supports the idea of pursuing the "lesser risk" alternative
Convicted One Euclid If you withold an emergency application and hit a car, it can be your fault if the emergency application would have either prevented the collsion or slowed the train enough to make a difference in the severity of the collision That's subjective, no? Especially if you do drop anchor at SOME point before impact?
Euclid If you withold an emergency application and hit a car, it can be your fault if the emergency application would have either prevented the collsion or slowed the train enough to make a difference in the severity of the collision
That's subjective, no? Especially if you do drop anchor at SOME point before impact?
It can be calculated, but the accuracy can also be challenged. It is most likely to be argued in court. The main point is that when people say, "The train could not have stopped in time anyway," they are ignoring the fact that just slowing down the train might change a fatality outcome into an injury. It may also allow more time for a vehicle to clear.
In previous discussions here, I found this question to be interesting, so I found two experts and asked them about it. Otherwise, I have never seen a railroad rule that covers the situation.
Lithonia Operator I got my van packed up, hot to go home and have dinner, then drove quickly and confidently up the dirt road
Misspent confidence can be the most damning intoxicant of them all.
EuclidIf you withold an emergency application and hit a car, it can be your fault if the emergency application would have either prevented the collsion or slowed the train enough to make a difference in the severity of the collision
Any driver can be bone-headed.
I once had a photo shoot on a dairy farm, shooting the milking process for the regional dairy plant (Oakhurst, Maine's largest dairy-products company).
By the time I got done, it was pitch dark, and raining cats and dogs. I got my van packed up, hot to go home and have dinner, then drove quickly and confidently up the dirt road (I thought) I'd come in on. Until the truck just stopped, but without any impact. I was in a bog among the fields. I stepped out into mud up to my mid-calves, and had to walk back to the farmhouse, interrupt the family (which was just sitting down to their own dinner), and get the farmer to tow me out with his tractor.
When I had gotten there, I thought "I hope that don't see me as some dumb city-slicker." Well, they sure did by the time I was finally on my way.
EuclidI think you have the best chance of finding the right mix of braking in a life/death crisis if you forget about saving the soup.
Seeing the 13,000 foot monsters that CSX is running these days introduces the possibility that something could happen almost three miles behind the locomotives, with who knows what damage to go along with it. Would it do to have people killed two miles from the collision point, to save an empty auto? I'm not talking hazmat here - I'm talking plain mechanical damage.
It appears that the engineer had a full service brake application on coming up to the crossing - the train was being slowed as fast as possible short of an emergency application. Recall that the engineer was blowing the horn almost from the point where we could see the train on the video.
Convicted One Euclid I think you have the best chance of finding the right mix of braking in a life/death crisis if you forget about saving the soup. How about this? If you throw the train into emergency, and avoid the car.....but drop even one wheel on the ground.;....who is going to have to answer for it? But, if you hit the car.....how can that be the engineer's (or the railroad's) fault? (no matter if you derail or not)
Euclid I think you have the best chance of finding the right mix of braking in a life/death crisis if you forget about saving the soup.
How about this? If you throw the train into emergency, and avoid the car.....but drop even one wheel on the ground.;....who is going to have to answer for it?
But, if you hit the car.....how can that be the engineer's (or the railroad's) fault? (no matter if you derail or not)
If you withold an emergency application and hit a car, it can be your fault if the emergency application would have either prevented the collsion or slowed the train enough to make a difference in the severity of the collision.
Yep, I'm actually crazy enough to think that way.
I would think that the data recorders would show exactly when the emergency application was made, and when the collision happened (which is about 4.5 seconds after the air dump), and the speed at the time of the collision. All of that would seem to me to show that the engineer misjudged pretty badly.
Si I'm not sure how that helps him cover his a$$. In fact, I'm not sure it wouldn't cause some manager to ask, "Why, once you knew you were going to hit the car anyway, did you then go to emergency and risk jack-knifing the train?" It seems like a pointless risk by then. That train was going to stop within a hundred yards or so anyway.
They could really use those flexible posts there. That would seem like a small investment, all things considered.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.