Closed circuit TV monitoring of all USA grade crossings

[morseman]

There is an interesting item in Trainweb's news wire re Alaska Railroad
In Anchorage, the people living near a grade crossing were complaining
of the trains blowing their horns at the crossing. Alsaska RR installed
concrete walls for 100 feet divifing the highway lanes, so that cars could
not get around the lowered crossing gates.

They also installed horns which sounded at the gates which were directed
towards the roads & were not as audible to the nearby residences or
nearby buildings & the trains need not blow their horns now at the
crossings. These horns also sound the usual two long, one short
and one long signal.

[richardy]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

More to the point: Being a fairly respected sound system designer, I have some familiarity with the closed circuit TV trade as well, and read SOUND AND VIDEO CONTRACTOR and SOUND AND COMMUNICATIONS regularly. So my estimates and design won't be far from what is real:

Cost: ONLy about $20,000 per crossing

If only 20-25 crossings are observed by one supervisor, than one screen for each crossing. Up to 500 crossings by one supervisor, one regular screen and one for backup, the regular screen scrolling to give a 10 second snapshot of each crossing in turn. The second screen is backup for the first, also lights up if there are two blockages at once.

The wave-pattern recognition digital equipment recognizes when there is a fixed object in the square, rectangle, or parallelogram that is the actual crossing. This can be a car, truck, or bus, or also a train stopped and blocking the crossing. At that point an alarm is activated to call the supervisor's attnetion. A red light next to the screen in a multi-screen installation, and with the single screen, it stops on the affected crossing and stays there until released by the supervisor. Presumably, the supervisor has radio or telephone contact with all train crews and dispatchers and can take the necessary action.

No it would not be worthwhile for a crossing in Kansas where one farmer crosses the tracks twice each week.

But for all crossings on Metrolink, or Chciago's Metra?

I don't think you can buy as much ADDED protection for crossings by any other technique. And it keeps railroads running the way they are now and not investing in something replacing all those cabcars.

You are not factoring in the installation and maintenance cost of the transmission system. It would have to be a combination of copper, fiber and RF (including possibly satellite). I am a broadcast engineer, I deal with all of these circuits everyday, they are expensive and they do require extensive maintenance. Even low bandwidth (snapshot) would be expensive when the number of sites are added together.

A small system like Metrolink is very possible with a dedicated fiber link following the railroad but the cost of breaking the fiber at each grade crossing would be prohibitive. The main fiber would have to be broken at set intervals (stations??) with copper or a small fiber system feeding the cameras of each grade crossing to the closest main fiber interface.

The costs for Metrolink would be in the millions to install the transmission system and even if they own the transmission system the annual cost for maintenance would be at least seven figures. Someone has to pay the bill.

[Anonymous]

Dave, While most train/railfans would prefer not to read about somebody blasting through the grade xings, putting camers at every one of them is not only impractical but cost prohibitive as I doubt the railroads want to be responsible for that since it's not their fault people try to beat the train. There are already programs where troopers ride the cabs and call to other troopers to issue citations in these instances. There is little or no effect since we keep reading about another loser in a hurry to get somewhere. This 'guy' in CA is a little more off the deep end than most but cameras wouldn't have prevented what happened. Sorry to burst your balloon (I've had what I thought was a good idea shot down in here too). But I'm with you when it comes to being disgusted with people trying to beat a train. I'd rather watch it instead. So what if I'm late.

[daveklepper]

I should have pointed out that the $20,000 per crossing is on a mass basis, at least 1,000 crossings initially, basis. The equipment is pretty much off the shelf, but the programing time and adjustment and installation on the very first crossing equpped might run to $500,000, with the second coming in at about $75,000, and so forth.

[Anonymous]

Thats means the Originator(s) of this thread is going to pay, right?

[wabash1]

BNSF Railfan

The ns railroad has been letting troopers ride trains . twice a year we have troopers ride and have county and city with other troopers waiting at crossings and pacing the trains the trooper on the engine will notify other cops at crossing of near misses or in otherwords when someone runs the gates or lights. now with this being said people will go past the gates after looking at a cop sitting thier to get cought on the other side . the fines in illinois are now 500.oo for going around the gates . the thing is it dont stop anyone they still do it.

the other thing we do is have cameras in the cab of the engine with mics. they have moved the mics out of the cab the original thnking was to have the human side of the accedent recorded but some of the other conversations recorded did not fair to well in court. and all they wanted was the horn and bell noise and the crew screaming dont do it. now the mics are in the compartment under the engineer seat. recording the bell and horn. on the display it records what is going on when the horn is blowed and it stays lit the hole time the horn is blowing speed and everything else going on . the big problem with these cameras is they can hang a crew also from not blowing at the right time, to catching someone at a rule violation. it helps but hurts also.

but with all this technology the only thing that will stop grade crossing accidents is education. and the stupid ones will still get killed.

[daveklepper]

More to the point: Being a fairly respected sound system designer, I have some familiarity with the closed circuit TV trade as well, and read SOUND AND VIDEO CONTRACTOR and SOUND AND COMMUNICATIONS regularly. So my estimates and design won't be far from what is real:

Cost: ONLy about $20,000 per crossing

If only 20-25 crossings are observed by one supervisor, than one screen for each crossing. Up to 500 crossings by one supervisor, one regular screen and one for backup, the regular screen scrolling to give a 10 second snapshot of each crossing in turn. The second screen is backup for the first, also lights up if there are two blockages at once.

The wave-pattern recognition digital equipment recognizes when there is a fixed object in the square, rectangle, or parallelogram that is the actual crossing. This can be a car, truck, or bus, or also a train stopped and blocking the crossing. At that point an alarm is activated to call the supervisor's attnetion. A red light next to the screen in a multi-screen installation, and with the single screen, it stops on the affected crossing and stays there until released by the supervisor. Presumably, the supervisor has radio or telephone contact with all train crews and dispatchers and can take the necessary action.

No it would not be worthwhile for a crossing in Kansas where one farmer crosses the tracks twice each week.

But for all crossings on Metrolink, or Chciago's Metra?

I don't think you can buy as much ADDED protection for crossings by any other technique. And it keeps railroads running the way they are now and not investing in something replacing all those cabcars.

[SteelMonsters]

I would make it reckless driving. That is 6 points a pretty big fine and could result in arrest.. Throw in public endangerment for more severe cases..

[BaltACD]

QUOTE: Originally posted by mucable

Instead of installing expensive detection devices at every crossing, wouldn't it be cheaper, easier and more effective to install radar detection devices on the locomotives that would at least give the crew a warning that there is an obstruction ahead? Some of the wheel-slip technologies already do that with a downward-looking radar, and the automakers are working on smart cruise-control that uses radar to give a vehicle situational awareness. [?]

Warnings and actions are two different things. A normal 10,000 ton freight train traveling 60 MPH requires in excess of a mile to stop, even in emergency. There are no sight lines that will give 1 mile and 1 minute of warning. Trains don't stop on a dime, never have and never will.

The NS and some other road have begun fitting video cameras to their locomotive fleet so that the circumstances visible to the front of the crew can be recorded. In the REAL WORLD, that is about all that can be done with a reasonalbe monetary outlay.

Trains cannot stop for vehicles and tresspassers that impinge upon their space, the only real thing that can be done is to document the occurence so the railroads will have the FACTS to combat the invevitible law suit.

[mucable]

Instead of installing expensive detection devices at every crossing, wouldn't it be cheaper, easier and more effective to install radar detection devices on the locomotives that would at least give the crew a warning that there is an obstruction ahead? Some of the wheel-slip technologies already do that with a downward-looking radar, and the automakers are working on smart cruise-control that uses radar to give a vehicle situational awareness. [?]

[espeefoamer]

Who would you get to pay for it?The pure logistics alone makes the idea impossible.
Chpennsylvania,your idea requires common sense,something that is totally lacking for most people.

[Anonymous]

Come on!!!! Who is going to pay for that?? What if I just waited until the last minute to park? Then what?

Lets put really big parachutes on 747's so they don't fall from the sky. We can also foam down every runway for every landing. That will save lives too!!!

[kenneo]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CHPENNSYLVANIA

I have an idea. Why dont people drive safer??

Too simple and cheap. Would not create economic activity. When workers (of any stripe) get killed in a crossing accident, another worker gets an economic boost and someone unemployed gets a job.

Now, with this camera idea, there is great economic potential. As has been mentioned above, more government employment, more railroad employment, the manufacture and installation of the devices, tort lawyers, yadda yadda.

If the above sounds sarcastic and callas, it is a bean counter attitude and it was written to poke their little (big??) bloated selves. I don't like people who look at accidental death as an economic opportunity.

I will now get off my soap box.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CHPENNSYLVANIA

I have an idea. Why dont people drive safer??

Not to rude but,Mabe if the States or the Government would start paying our Lawenforcement a specical grant to crack down on this kind of law breaking drivers then RR grade crossings "might" become safer. And also make the fines up to over 2 to 4 hundred dollars a pop just might do the trick.

[Anonymous]

I have an idea. Why dont people drive safer??

[richardy]

Millions and millions and more millions to install. Millions per year to operate and maintain.

[JoeKoh]

[#ditto]
I agree with the 2 gentleman above.
stay safe
Joe

[Anonymous]

You can spend all the money in the world you want and still that is not going to stop the everyday MORON from not trying to beat the Train. Pointless.
Hell the RR's have Video Cameras on Locomotives now and even "THAT" is not going to stop them for the need for speed.

[adrianspeeder]

Show me the $$$

Adrianspeeder

[88gta350]

It seems cost prohibitive to me. Who would monitor all these cameras. Maybe some of the busiest or most dangerous crossing should have cameras, the same way intersections now have red light cameras, but I believe some crossings already do have cameras. Cameras to provide real time alerts of blockages I don't think would work. Cameras that digitally record and perhaps are motion activated so that fault can be pinned on the offending party after an accident might be more realistic.

[BNSFGP38]

Spenind money to put a camera at a railroad crossing in the middle of Kansas that maybe see's a tractor once a month seems to stupid to me.

[daveklepper]

Many urban transit systems have complete TV monitoring of all station platforms which contributes to the safety of their passengers.

Should not all USA grade crossings have this type of security?

Note that there is pattern-recognition computer software and hardware so alarms can altert people when either a car is stuck or stalled or placed on the tracks or a train is stopped blocking the crossing.