big enough problem to make the national news
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/miles-long-freight-trains-cause-problems-for-communities-near-railroad-crossings
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
gregchttps://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/miles-long-freight-trains-cause-problems-for-communities-near-railroad-crossings
Overmod gregc https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/miles-long-freight-trains-cause-problems-for-communities-near-railroad-crossings Probably no so much a real 'problem' as a pretext that is part of the orchestrated scheme to get rid of long-train operations. See the language in the current Congressional bills and some of the discussion regarding both the Springfield derailment and the issue of crossing occupancy for other pieces.
gregc
Probably no so much a real 'problem' as a pretext that is part of the orchestrated scheme to get rid of long-train operations. See the language in the current Congressional bills and some of the discussion regarding both the Springfield derailment and the issue of crossing occupancy for other pieces.
This might be ,posibly, classed as a more RECENT p;roble,; due to some media type just noticeing it... You can bet, it has been around, in some areas, where Kids and trains have co-existed for years.
Train tracks near any school, where the train might be stoped, will have some kidsd, oir even adults;crossing under, to get to whatever destination they,ight perceive as necessary.
Growiung up,and later working, around Memphis; it was a problem,n many parts of town : NS(nee:Southern Rwy), same for other lines{;;MoPac>UPRR, all of thie [previous CSX lines; and the same for IC's preedcessors, simiolarly, SL-SF, et al.}
Probably,will never be far from 'News of the Day'; When some individual's actions will not be as fast as the action of train's .
gregc https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/miles-long-freight-trains-cause-problems-for-communities-near-railroad-crossings
Are you serious? Do you do any actual railfanning to see what's going on these days in the realm of reality? I have personally witnessed on numerous occassions crewless trains blocking major road crossings in small, rural towns for 12, 24, even 30+ hours at a time. In each case a passing siding or second main track was involved, so there was a danger that anyone, especially a child, not wanting to take a long walking detour could easily have gotten hit by a train moving on the other track.
Agreed, there is a lot political weaponization going on with this issue. But the problem is real. There is a real need for appropriate Federal regulation on just how long public roads can be blocked. And its coming because the railroads were too stupid to back off of their bad practices once the public furor began.
Exhibit A: https://www.flickr.com/photos/ns145/51865633501
P.S. Just calculated the minimum detour distance for the situation documented in the photo: 1.2 miles. You honestly think a kid in the winter is going to walk that far versus a few feet to get thru a parked train?
The problem isn't long trains - it's stopped trains, and that battle has been going on for years.
Even a fifty car train (short by today's standards) blocking the favored route between two points can lead to this.
Hammond, IN, is a rural town?
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...
tree68 The problem isn't long trains - it's stopped trains, and that battle has been going on for years. Even a fifty car train (short by today's standards) blocking the favored route between two points can lead to this. Hammond, IN, is a rural town?
Hammond is only the next stop on the South Shore from where I grew up and we were surrounded by tracks. And the favored route didn't necessarily involve a grade crossing. I saw enough of people crawling under stopped trains to know that it was dangerous.
[quote user="ns145"]
overmod gregc https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/miles-long-freight-trains-cause-problems-for-communities-near-railroad-crossings Probably no so much a real 'problem' as a pretext that is part of the orchestrated scheme to get rid of long-train operations. See the language in the current Congressional bills and some of the discussion regarding both the Springfield derailment and the issue of crossing occupancy for other pieces.
[/quote]
I can't argue that point, with any of the other Posters.
It simply illustrates the breadth of the problem of stopped trains; in locations other than 'secured' railroad facilities.... The solutiions and problems are all valid. .
SAFETY, Both ON THE RAILROAD PROPERTY, and OFF [Poss: TRESPASSING?]
Are the problem of the individual (and, their reasoning for crawling under that train) Issues, that are all problematic for the individual's and the Railroad...
Is, or are, more "LAWS" the answer? There are, even now, available appropriafe legal reliefs...'More problematic, is AVAILABLE, ENFORCEMENT !!
My town's old junior high building sits about two hundred yards from the BNSF double track.
Years ago, a girl lost her legs crawling under a stopped train.
In our case, an undertrack pedestrian crossing is only two blocks away. Evidently the kids didn't want to walk that far.
After the accident, the city built an elevated pedestrian crossing at the school.
York1 John
York1 My town's old junior high building sits about two hundred yards from the BNSF double track. Years ago, a girl lost her legs crawling under a stopped train. In our case, an undertrack pedestrian crossing is only two blocks away. Evidently the kids didn't want to walk that far. After the accident, the city built an elevated pedestrian crossing at the school.
Reminds me of my 4 years at Illinois State University back in the early 90's. SP's former GM&O mainline ran along the south edge of campus. Immediately south of the railroad was where all the off campus housing was located. Things got really interesting at night when drunk students would take shortcuts across the tracks. The night local to Joliet always had to struggle with trying to keep track of trespassing students passing thru their train as they attempted to depart Bloomington Yard for Joliet. One night they thought they had run a girl over, but fortunately no body was ever found.
Let me make it very clear that there are increased problems with long consists blocking crossings, and while I'm not particularly sympathetic to neighborhood people cutting gaps in fences to facilitate impromptu crossings, that's an issue to be dealt with outside of train length.
A fair approach would be to enforce the prospective provision that trains over a certain length will receive 'strict scrutiny' to be clear of established crossings -- and those need not be limited to road grade crossings -- in 15 minutes or less. As noted, it's an issue regardless of train length in some circumstances, but if you need a safety-related concern, any substantial or 'habitual' blocking of real crossings for the time indicated needs to be factored into operations cost and hence perceived profitability. Made so in the same spirit as the grossly enhanced permissible fines... to serve as a positive deterrent in the language modern 'stakeholders' will understand and appreciate.
What is important here, in my opinion, is to discriminate 'kids crossing under monstrains' from long trains parked where legal crossings have been closed or restricted, or when legitimate cutting at required crossings has been done. It would be interesting to see if the "kids" were cutting across the train at a blocked sidewalk... or expediently cutting across the ROW so as 'not to be seen'.
My objection is to the presentation of yet another 'think of the children!' moment being spun, as Euclid indicated, based on where interested parties sit. There's a place for that in negotiation and discussion... just don't go calling it a problem necessarily induced by trains above a certain representative length or consist.
Euclid It is actually railroad labor union advocacy that opposes and speaks out against the ultra-long trains. Obviously they oppose the long trains because those long trains reduce crew jobs. ...
Cute story. There are lots of people that aren't in favor of super-long trains blocking xings. But keep writing your own narrative.
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
It's an issue about blocking crossings, not just long trains. I've seen children and adults cross through trains at my home terminal (We often block 4 of the 5 crossings when picking up cars. I'm not talking about switching over them, but sitting on them while trying to pump air into a 2 mile plus train to do an air test.) and Council Bluffs. Usually for building air for brake tests, often blocking 3/4 of the city's crossings - sometimes all of them.
I've even seen an adult out for a run, climb on a slow moving train (Iowa Interstate transfer run) and crossover between the cars. He didn't do it quite the approved way, but pretty close.
It's not a new phenomena. It is probably under most people's radar. Eventually it'll be really big news when someone is killed.
Jeff
samfp1943This might be ,posibly, classed as a more RECENT p;roble,; due to some media type just noticeing it... You can bet, it has been around, in some areas, where Kids and trains have co-existed for years.
It certainly was going on when I attended Glassboro State in NJ back in the early 1970s. A former Pennsylvania-Reading Seashore Line branch, then operated by the Winchester & Western, ran through part of the campus and trains frequently stopped for extended periods blocking grade crossings and sidewalks. It wasn't unusual to see students crawing under the cars or over couplers trying to get to class. Fortunately no-one was ever hurt or killed.
The blockings stopped when the local police ticketed one of the trains. As they were short locals anyway it wasn't hard for the W&W to figure out how to stop without causing problems.
jeffhergertIt's not a new phenomena.
A neighbor lady who grew up near the Erie RR in Meadville, PA told me (c.1958) that when she was a girl, in the early 1920's, some kids in her class routinely did this to get to school, so it's been going on for at least a century. Even as a kid, the mental image of children crawling under railroad cars gave me the shivvers.
jeffhergert... It's not a new phenomena. It is probably under most people's radar. Eventually it'll be really big news when someone is killed. Jeff
These actions have been happening since the dawn of railroading with trains consisting of more than a car or two. People don't want to take the time and effort to walk around the train - even when they can EASILY see where it ends. Even when either overpasses or underpasses are constructed for pedestrian crossing of the tracks - many will still crawl over or under stopped trains.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
EuclidIOWA CODE Blocked crossing complaints have increased in recent years as railroads are striving to reduce operating costs by increasing train lengths causing crossings to be blocked for a longer time period. In some cases, trains need to stop due to disabled equipment, switching operations, safety protocols, etc.
There's a big difference between crossings blocked for longer periods by longer trains and crossings blocked by standing trains.
Clearly, a 200 car train will take about twice as long as a 100 car train to pass a point at a given speed. Unless the train is creeping along for some reason, it's just a somewhat longer wait.
A train stopped will block a point for as long as it's stopped. I've seen trains sitting on the west siding at South Deshler for 10-12 hours, usually waiting for a crew. At night, you can see the crossing lights flashing merrily away...
Some such stops can't be helped (ie, equipment problems, etc). Others can be engineered around - perhaps by making yard air available so the time waiting for the air to come up is significantly less, f'rinstance. Or having crews available.
See the Council Bluffs thread for another discussion of blocked crossings.
Virtual Railfan's "Grab Bags" often include folks going under or through trains.
tree68 Euclid IOWA CODE: Blocked crossing complaints have increased in recent years as railroads are striving to reduce operating costs by increasing train lengths causing crossings to be blocked for a longer time period. In some cases, trains need to stop due to disabled equipment, switching operations, safety protocols, etc. There's a big difference between crossings blocked for longer periods by longer trains and crossings blocked by standing trains.
Euclid IOWA CODE: Blocked crossing complaints have increased in recent years as railroads are striving to reduce operating costs by increasing train lengths causing crossings to be blocked for a longer time period. In some cases, trains need to stop due to disabled equipment, switching operations, safety protocols, etc.
I don’t understand the point of the distinction. Blocked is blocked. And if anything, the total issue of ultra-long trains has the most overall potential for both longer blocking time while passing, and blocking while parked. And for blocking when parked, the longer trains are likely to block more crossings than shorter trains. I don’t understand the urgency to exempt the longer trains from being part of the problem.
EuclidI don’t understand the point of the distinction.
A train in motion will eventually pass. Maybe not as fast as you'd like, but it will pass.
A train that's parked isn't going to pass. It's going to sit there until it's ready to move - might be 20 minutes, might be 20 hours.
I think you'll find that most laws regarding blocking crossings speak to stopped trains, not trains in motion.
Traditionally, there has been some 'grace' for slowly-moving trains to clear crossings subject to something like a 15-minute rule. And I believe the language of some statutes calls for 15 minutes without moving, not 15 minutes "starting and stopping" or moving painfully slowly.
But if Federal law specifies 15 minutes, as I understand the current language of both bills does, expect interpretation of any local enforcement to follow the exact form of the enacted legislation. Which I suspect will be couched -- sensibly -- as whether an emergency vehicle could traverse the crossing within the 15 minutes given. If not, the train will have to be cut, or the vastly enhanced penalties (also provided in the bills) can be expected to start running, probably at some cumulatively-increasing level clearly intended as a deterrent to even the worst financial-robber-baron management. (If they are smart, they will specify those fees cannot be incorporated in any tariff or surcharge arrangement...)
As I write this, a southbound on the Toledo line at Deshler is stopped just short of the Main Street Crossing. The lights are off - usually if they're just being held for traffic the headlight will be on.
They've been there for almost 45 minutes at this point, with three crossings blocked just in the village...
Edit - they were there for just over an hour.
OvermodTraditionally, there has been some 'grace' for slowly-moving trains to clear crossings subject to something like a 15-minute rule. And I believe the language of some statutes calls for 15 minutes without moving, not 15 minutes "starting and stopping" or moving painfully slowly. But if Federal law specifies 15 minutes, as I understand the current language of both bills does, expect interpretation of any local enforcement to follow the exact form of the enacted legislation. Which I suspect will be couched -- sensibly -- as whether an emergency vehicle could traverse the crossing within the 15 minutes given. If not, the train will have to be cut, or the vastly enhanced penalties (also provided in the bills) can be expected to start running, probably at some cumulatively-increasing level clearly intended as a deterrent to even the worst financial-robber-baron management. (If they are smart, they will specify those fees cannot be incorporated in any tariff or surcharge arrangement...)
Too many people think of cutting a train as a inconsequential, immediately happening occurence. It is NOT. In the world of the two man crew and 10K and longer trains. Cutting a train can easily take an hour or more after the train has come to a stop. Putting a train back together after it has been cut is also a time consuming affair. There are no 'free lunches'.
BaltACDToo many people think of cutting a train as a inconsequential, immediately happening occurence. It is NOT.
Perhaps they'll change the law to make this more 'practical' by allowing the train to have bottled air if the electric parking brakes successfully deploy on all the segments after the cut is made. I think you know what I'd think of that approach, but watch for some version of it being rolled out once the extra people and their superconductor vehicles, drones, hi-rail pickups and whatever have been deployed appropriately to get to their stations...
BaltACD Overmod Traditionally, there has been some 'grace' for slowly-moving trains to clear crossings subject to something like a 15-minute rule. And I believe the language of some statutes calls for 15 minutes without moving, not 15 minutes "starting and stopping" or moving painfully slowly. But if Federal law specifies 15 minutes, as I understand the current language of both bills does, expect interpretation of any local enforcement to follow the exact form of the enacted legislation. Which I suspect will be couched -- sensibly -- as whether an emergency vehicle could traverse the crossing within the 15 minutes given. If not, the train will have to be cut, or the vastly enhanced penalties (also provided in the bills) can be expected to start running, probably at some cumulatively-increasing level clearly intended as a deterrent to even the worst financial-robber-baron management. (If they are smart, they will specify those fees cannot be incorporated in any tariff or surcharge arrangement...) Too many people think of cutting a train as a inconsequential, immediately happening occurence. It is NOT. In the world of the two man crew and 10K and longer trains. Cutting a train can easily take an hour or more after the train has come to a stop. Putting a train back together after it has been cut is also a time consuming affair. There are no 'free lunches'.
Overmod Traditionally, there has been some 'grace' for slowly-moving trains to clear crossings subject to something like a 15-minute rule. And I believe the language of some statutes calls for 15 minutes without moving, not 15 minutes "starting and stopping" or moving painfully slowly. But if Federal law specifies 15 minutes, as I understand the current language of both bills does, expect interpretation of any local enforcement to follow the exact form of the enacted legislation. Which I suspect will be couched -- sensibly -- as whether an emergency vehicle could traverse the crossing within the 15 minutes given. If not, the train will have to be cut, or the vastly enhanced penalties (also provided in the bills) can be expected to start running, probably at some cumulatively-increasing level clearly intended as a deterrent to even the worst financial-robber-baron management. (If they are smart, they will specify those fees cannot be incorporated in any tariff or surcharge arrangement...)
Irrelevant how difficult it is, its a public safety issue. And totally preventable in most cases if trains are built to proper lengths that work with the available infrastructure. If railroads want to run longer trains, fine. I'm all for maximizing productivity. Take some of the stock buyback money and expand the yard terminal and passing siding infrastructure to accomodate it, including grade seperations where appropriate.
In the case of the Dawson, IL NS photo that I linked earlier, the real stupid thing is that the passing siding could have been constructed to a 12,000 foot length with no grade crossings. As it is currently constructed, its a 10,000 foot siding that can only accomodate a 7,600 foot train before the main road crossing is blocked.
I'm starting to think that the US Class I's need a little taste of their own medicine. We need some First Nation types to start randomly barricading major mainlines at critical locations for 12, 24, 30+ hour intervals like what happened in Canada a few years back. Then have law enforcement and the politicians tell the rail industry that because of the sensitivities involved nothing can be done when it happens. The Class I CEO's and stockholders would lose their minds, and understandably so. But the general public is subjected to this same nonsense every day and told nothing can be done about it.
Overmod BaltACD Too many people think of cutting a train as a inconsequential, immediately happening occurence. It is NOT. And you already know the Government answer: phase two of 'let's solve the issues with the inside row of axle roller bearings with more extensive stationary inspections conducted by more carmen'. Can't arrange to cut the train at the (admittedly lower number of) "critical" grade crossings? Hire more crew and put them where they can get easily to the crossing and make the cut. Perhaps they'll change the law to make this more 'practical' by allowing the train to have bottled air if the electric parking brakes successfully deploy on all the segments after the cut is made. I think you know what I'd think of that approach, but watch for some version of it being rolled out once the extra people and their superconductor vehicles, drones, hi-rail pickups and whatever have been deployed appropriately to get to their stations...
BaltACD Too many people think of cutting a train as a inconsequential, immediately happening occurence. It is NOT.
And you already know the Government answer: phase two of 'let's solve the issues with the inside row of axle roller bearings with more extensive stationary inspections conducted by more carmen'. Can't arrange to cut the train at the (admittedly lower number of) "critical" grade crossings? Hire more crew and put them where they can get easily to the crossing and make the cut.
And I already know the rail industry answer: keep reaming the public until somebody appears on the political scene who might actually try to stop us.
Economic externalities are real and are the reason why regulations (yes, oftentimes well intended but poorly/stupidly implemented) exist. Unless a corporation is held to finanicial account for the damages that they are doing, then those costs aren't accounted for. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" would short circuit most of this nonsense, but human nature is what it is.
If the Government mandates 15 minutes (and it passes muster as a legitimate 'safety' action, as I said it arguably was) then expect it to be strictly applied, with enforcement being kicked down to more local level a la enforcement of the 55mph national speed limit in the '70s. And expect the penalties for statutory violation to be set at a 'punitive' level, and then increased further if there's a pattern of 'noncompliance'.
Regretfully, don't expect the current generation of railroads to give up something they perceive they 'have', whether that is priority to dawdle at crossings, call people to work on 2 hours' random notice and then not have something for them, or meaningfully relieving fatigue. Even when the longer-term results of change would provide better overall operation...
I am waiting to see whether Canada, which iirc has already mandated automatic 'parking brake' application, will revise their power-brake-law practice to permit bottling air on separated consists without need for a full brake test upon reconnection. I don't see a very practical way to cut and recouple long consists without that.
Could be an interesting situation.
We've long since discussed the fact that the streets and highways are often the interlopers on the railroad, which were frequently there first.
It's been said before that the railroads can easily say "if you don't like it, build an over/underpass, or we'll just close the crossing and it won't be a problem."
Likewise, those who cross under/through a train on foot are generally trespassing. If the railroads start prosecuting those students who trespass, solutions may suddenly appear, at the expense of the local municipality.
EuclidIf the FRA decides to regulate railroads to limit train length and not block crossings with parked trains, what difference will it make whether the railroad was there before the crossing was?
That a proposed national law will need to have a clear and rational 'safety' purpose is something the government will need to establish, probably via legal challenges up to Supreme Court level. The FRA may still be smarting over the rebuke the NRC gave them over the fibbing relating to ECP brake 'safety' in the Obama-administration mandate. There may have to be a crossing-by-crossing determination of where actual 'safety' (rather than voter convenience or expediency) requires a train to be cut, and I expect that will go hand-in-hand with accelerated funding for crossing closings, or over/underpass construction, for those crossings that cannot be closed with reasonable alternative.
Something that may get enhanced scrutiny is whether the 15-minute requirement is a 'stalking horse' to impose shorter train lengths on PSR-addled railroad operations management. The problem is that if so, it may be difficult to substantiate actual 'safety' basis... just as it was with the ECP brakes.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.