schlimm Falcon48 Rather than try to fathom the study, an easier approach is to just run particular crossings in the FRA quiet zone calculator program. I googled it and got the FRA quiet zone calculator site, but one needs to apply for a password to enter and use it. http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/quiet/login.aspx
Falcon48 Rather than try to fathom the study, an easier approach is to just run particular crossings in the FRA quiet zone calculator program.
I googled it and got the FRA quiet zone calculator site, but one needs to apply for a password to enter and use it.
http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/quiet/login.aspx
Replying to an earlier post.
I stated earlier that in Canada, a crossing with protectiong is at minumum a crossing with lights and a crossing bell.
10000 feet and no dynamics? Today is going to be a good day ...
Falcon48Rather than try to fathom the study, an easier approach is to just run particular crossings in the FRA quiet zone calculator program.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm The study I posted is not easy reading. However, it becomes clear that the total costs of a railroad crossing incident are considerable, even more so when the standard cost of life value (nearly $10 million each) is included.
The study I posted is not easy reading. However, it becomes clear that the total costs of a railroad crossing incident are considerable, even more so when the standard cost of life value (nearly $10 million each) is included.
Falcon48,
Okay, I see that point. You convert a non-quiet crossing into a quiet zone crossing and it is as safe or safer than it was before it was converted. But if the horn blowing was retained for the converted quiet zone crossing, it would be safer yet.
Maybe U.P. means they would prefer four quadrant gates and dividing median just for the safety they add, and then retain the horn blowing. Overall, that would make the crossing more safe than it was before.
However, that would not be a quiet zone. So if that is what U.P. means, it would be incorrect for them to say that quiet zones compromise safety as they do say.
Euclid Falcon48 FRA's view is that routine horn blowing can be eliminated if safety improvements "make up" for horn blowing at a crossing (in other words, the "post improvement" safety in a quiet zone isn't less than the pre-quiet zone safety. If (according to the FRA) the post improvement safety added to a quiet zone leaves it more safe than what it was before being converted to a quiet zone; then why does U.P. say this? “Union Pacific believes quiet zones compromise the safety of railroad employees, customers, and the general public. While the railroad does not endorse quiet zones, it does comply with provisions outlined in the federal law." I cannot understand why you say that the FRA agrees with the U.P. The words mean they disagree on this point.
Falcon48 FRA's view is that routine horn blowing can be eliminated if safety improvements "make up" for horn blowing at a crossing (in other words, the "post improvement" safety in a quiet zone isn't less than the pre-quiet zone safety.
FRA's view is that routine horn blowing can be eliminated if safety improvements "make up" for horn blowing at a crossing (in other words, the "post improvement" safety in a quiet zone isn't less than the pre-quiet zone safety.
The disagreement is in the regulatory policy that flows from this. Should FRA allow a quiet zone to be created where the improvements at least "make up" for the routine sounding of a horn. FRA says "yes". Now, you may say "of course not, if horn blowing is safer". But it's not that easy. For example, is "improvements + horns" a realistic option? How many communities would even bother to install expensive crossing improvements such as 4-quads or medians if the expenditure doesn't buy them a quiet zone.
EuclidNo doubt politics are involved. My only point is that the FRA and UP are NOT saying the same thing. Yet Falcon 48 says they are. I am at a loss to see how he can possibly come to that conclusion.
Since Falcon 48 was involved in the FRA study, he would know far better than any of us, including you.
tree68 Euclid I cannot understand why you say that the FRA agrees with the U.P. The words mean they disagree on this point. It's called politics. FRA is simply trying to strike a balance between what's best and what politicians and some members of the general public want. I'm betting they're as opposed to quiet zones as UP. But they can't say so. As noted in Falcon's last post, even FRA computations show that a crossing is safer with horns, regardless of other improvements. By setting up a rating system, it is apparently possible for a crossing to rated "as safe as" without the use of horns. And that's how quiet zones get established. As has been noted before, the only true solution is crossing elimination. Unfortunately, in many areas, that is physically impossible, or at least economically extremely challenging.
Euclid I cannot understand why you say that the FRA agrees with the U.P. The words mean they disagree on this point.
It's called politics. FRA is simply trying to strike a balance between what's best and what politicians and some members of the general public want. I'm betting they're as opposed to quiet zones as UP. But they can't say so.
As noted in Falcon's last post, even FRA computations show that a crossing is safer with horns, regardless of other improvements.
By setting up a rating system, it is apparently possible for a crossing to rated "as safe as" without the use of horns. And that's how quiet zones get established.
As has been noted before, the only true solution is crossing elimination. Unfortunately, in many areas, that is physically impossible, or at least economically extremely challenging.
No doubt politics are involved. My only point is that the FRA and UP are NOT saying the same thing. Yet Falcon 48 says they are. I am at a loss to see how he can possibly come to that conclusion.
EuclidI cannot understand why you say that the FRA agrees with the U.P. The words mean they disagree on this point.
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...
Euclid Union Pacific says this: “Union Pacific believes quiet zones compromise the safety of railroad employees, customers, and the general public. While the railroad does not endorse quiet zones, it does comply with provisions outlined in the federal law." I am sure that the FRA disagrees with them, but I have never seen a simple and clear statement on that topic from the FRA. Unlike the U.P., the FRA does explain their rationale, but it is so complex and wrapped in statistical probabilities that I doubt that it could be assimilated, let alone challenged. Therefore, it is fascinating that these two titans of authority are diametrically opposed on such an important matter of safety, and nobody can tell who is right.
Therefore, it is fascinating that these two titans of authority are diametrically opposed on such an important matter of safety, and nobody can tell who is right.
The "disagreement" between the two has to do with regulatory policy, not horn effectiveness. FRA's view is that routine horn blowing can be eliminated if safety improvements "make up" for horn blowing at a crossing (in other words, the "post improvement" safety in a quiet zone isn't less than the pre-quiet zone safety. They also believe horn blowing can be eliminated in area where crossing safety is already below certain national measures (the NSRT).
As I pointed out in a prior post, "no quiet zones anywhere" was never a realistic option for FRA. Had they attempted to mandate something like this, Congress would have quickly repealed FRA's authority to regulate this area and left it up to states and localities. There's no question this would have happened. I was heavily invoved in the development of FRA horn rule, and the politics at the time were crystal clear to everyone. A repeal of FRA's authority would have been the worst possible outcome from a safety standpoint, since state and local horn bans in most states have historically been driven more by noise abatement issues than by safety. Of course, that's the way it had been prior to the FRA rule. But a political firestorm in response to a FRA rule mandating "whistle everywhere" coupled with a Congressional repeal would have "galvanized" state and local interests and led to a deluge of new whistle bans. There's an old saying that politics is the art of the possible. That certainly was true here. FRA's outcome was the safest outcome that was "possible".
If there is a significant difference in how railroads view the hazards of grade crossings between the US and Canada, I would submit that it has less to do with an operational philosophy and more to do with the legal climate.
The US view seems to be to sue, sue, sue. Eventually, someone will pay, even if an incident was the fault of the complainant. There just has to be something that alleviates their guilt.
It's been my impression that Canadians are more likely to accept the blame if they make a mistake - or else the legal system doesn't suffer fools as readily. Or both.
Here is a link to some factual numbers and an analysis:
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_755.pdf
EuclidIn my opinion, the railroad industry generally has a frustrated and cynical view on preventing crossing crashes, and I think you are presenting that view. The cynical view is understandable because the industry has been adding safety protection to crossings for over a century, and still fails to eliminate the problem. So they resort to the Darwin promise that the crashes have a silver lining because they eliminate the crossing violators. Limiting or reducing the redundant protection and giving the driver only the bare minimum of warning would be one way of speeding up the Darwinian purification of the driver pool.
That is a very warped opinion of how others view grade crossing crashes. Do you think train crews go out of their way to cause crashes? You voiced a similar opinion in the theread about the Metro North incident. You give no credit to the crews who would much prefer not to see these crashes happen. The problem is not the railroads but is the motorists and pedestrians who think the rules don't apply to them and people who prefer to blame the innocent for their own failings.
Norm
traisessive1 That's right, it is my own opinion that there is no reason to blow the horn at a crossing with protection. In Canada we are indeed still required to blow the horn unless there is an exemption on the crossing. If you get hit at a crossing with automatic protection, how is the train blowing the horn going to change anything? If you didn't see the flashing lights and the lowered gate you shouldn't be allowed to drive, walk, ride a bike, whatever. Chances are it was willful disobedience. If you drove onto the tracks before you could fully cross them, it's the same thing. The horn changes nothing. If you step out or drive out behind a train while the protection is still operating and get hit by a second train, that is again willful disobeidence and the horn changes nothing. If a child runs onto the tracks whilst chasing a ball or dog, will said child understand what the crossing sequence for the blowing horn means? There is a good chance that no, it won't. So, while unfortunate, the crossing sequence in a case like that still probably wouldn't change the end result. If you slide onto the tracks or a freak incident occurs, again, the horn wouldn't have prevented it. We've got a lot of stupid drivers here in Canada as well. Boy do we ever.
That's right, it is my own opinion that there is no reason to blow the horn at a crossing with protection. In Canada we are indeed still required to blow the horn unless there is an exemption on the crossing.
If you get hit at a crossing with automatic protection, how is the train blowing the horn going to change anything? If you didn't see the flashing lights and the lowered gate you shouldn't be allowed to drive, walk, ride a bike, whatever. Chances are it was willful disobedience. If you drove onto the tracks before you could fully cross them, it's the same thing. The horn changes nothing.
If you step out or drive out behind a train while the protection is still operating and get hit by a second train, that is again willful disobeidence and the horn changes nothing.
If a child runs onto the tracks whilst chasing a ball or dog, will said child understand what the crossing sequence for the blowing horn means? There is a good chance that no, it won't. So, while unfortunate, the crossing sequence in a case like that still probably wouldn't change the end result.
If you slide onto the tracks or a freak incident occurs, again, the horn wouldn't have prevented it.
We've got a lot of stupid drivers here in Canada as well. Boy do we ever.
traisessive1 Manitoba has a ton of crossings, the majority being unprotected.
Manitoba has a ton of crossings, the majority being unprotected.
A ton is 2000 pounds or 2200 if you are a metric ton. So Manitoba has 2200 crossings?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Minutiae.
The variables may change, but the rules are still the same.
As for #4 - interesting, as many locomotives now automatically start the bell when the horn is blown.
And for #2 - we still haven't defined "protected." If we use Euclids reductio ad absurdum argument, then a crossing with a small sign that says "Railroad Crossing" the crossing is protected...
We've got dumb drivers here but our society isn't looking for a free payout over the smallest things. For the most part we don't chase ambulances and have lawyers on speed dial.
Laws are different here in Canada. I'm no legal expert so I can't list specific things. I don't think crews can be fined and charged for things like they can be in the USA.
When you compare the EXCEPTIONS and the crossing exemption requirements for Canada vs. the USA it's clear that Canada has less restrictions. There has to be a reason for that.
Is it solely the laws?
Is it that our people aren't as greedy and looking to file a lawsuit even when they're clearly in the wrong?
Is it that our drivers and pedestrians are held to higher accountability?
Is it more deregulation allowing the railroads more freedom?
If you guys would read through the thread you would see why Canadian crossing rules are more relaxed, specifically when it comes to special circumstances. 5 and 6 I just now added.
1. When a crossing is flagged, the horn does not need to be blown.
2. Horn failure: 25mph over unprotected crossings and track speed on crossings with automatic protection.
3. Headlight AND Ditchlgihts failure: 10mph over unprotected crossings and track speed over protected crossings.
4. We have horn exempted crossings here in Canada that do NOT have gates. Only the lights and the crossing bell.
5. The bell does not have to be rung, at all, when the horn is sounded for a crossing.
6. Bell failure: Turn the bell on on a trailing unit and if that isn't available, oh well.
So technically, if you have no horn, no bell and no headlights whatsoever you're still okay to do 60mph through a crossing with automatic protection.
We are required to blow all crossings (unless exempted) and have the lights on full power, as well as the ditch lights. But when it comes to horn and headlight failure, the rules that cover that nearly make the rules that cover 'everything working' redundant.
traisessive1I think the fact that Canadian (and European) crossing rules are so much more relaxed than ones in the US ...
I think your supposition is wrong.
From the Canadian Rail Operating Rules (14l):
(l) ___ ___ o ___
(i) (#) At public crossings at grade:A whistle post will be located 1/4 mile before each public crossing where required. Whistle signal must be sounded by movements:
exceeding 44 MPH, at the whistle post
operating at 44 MPH or less, in order to provide 20 seconds warning prior to entering the crossing.
Whistle signal must be prolonged or repeated until the crossing is fully occupied.
EXCEPTION: Not applicable when manual protection is to be provided or when shoving equipment other than a snow plow over a crossing protected by automatic warning devices.
(ii) (#) At other whistle posts indicated in special instructions.
(iii) (#) At frequent intervals when view is restricted by weather, curvature or other conditions.
(iv) Special instructions will govern when such signal is prohibited in whole or in part.
From NORAC (10th Edition, rule 19b):
(b) Sound: ——o—
Indication: 1. When approaching a public highway-rail crossing at grade and at a whistle sign displaying “W,” “W/MX,” or other specified aspect, with the engine in front, start whistle signal at least 15 seconds but not more than 20 seconds before occupying the crossing. The signal must be prolonged or repeated until the engine occupies the crossing. For multiple crossings, the signal must be prolonged or repeated until the last crossing is occupied.
For trains and engines exceeding 60 MPH, the whistle signal must not be started more than ¼ mile in advance of the public grade crossing, even if the advance warning provided by the locomotive horn will be less than 15 seconds in duration.
When a train or engine is stopped at a location such that it will take less than 15 seconds for the movement to occupy a public grade crossing, the whistle signal may be sounded for less than 15 seconds provided: (a) The public grade crossing is equipped with automatic flashing lights and gates and the gates are fully lowered; or (b) There are no conflicting highway movements approaching the public grade crossing.
EXCEPTION: This warning must not be sounded at a whistle sign indicating “W/R” or in areas otherwise designated as Quiet Zones, except in an emergency. 2. Approaching and passing standing trains.
GCOR (7th Edition, Rule 3.8.2(7)):
(7) — — o — When approaching public crossings at grade with the engine in front, sound signal as follows:
A. At speeds in excess of 45 MPH, start signal at or about the crossing sign but not more than 1/4 mile before the crossing.
B. At speeds of 45 MPH or less, start signal at least 15 seconds, but not more than 20 seconds, before entering the crossing.
C. If no crossing sign start signal at least 15 seconds, but not more than 20 seconds before entering crossing but not more than 1/4 mile before the crossing.
D. If movement starts less than 1/4 mile from a crossing, signal may be sounded less than 15 seconds before the crossing when it is clearly seen traffic is not approaching the crossing, traffic is not stopped at the crossing or when crossing gates are fully lowered. Prolong or repeat signal until the engine completely occupies the crossing(s)
Looks to me like the Canadian rules are the same as the US rules. Nothing "more relaxed" about them.
traisessive1 I think the fact that Canadian (and European) crossing rules are so much more relaxed than ones in the US is clear evidence that crossing incidents in the US are indeed a problem of the people and not those noisy trains.
I think the fact that Canadian (and European) crossing rules are so much more relaxed than ones in the US is clear evidence that crossing incidents in the US are indeed a problem of the people and not those noisy trains.
How many crossings are there in Manitoba?
traisessive1I think the fact that Canadian (and European) crossing rules are so much more relaxed than ones in the US is clear evidence that crossing incidents in the US are indeed a problem of the people and not those noisy trains.
How are Canadian crossing rules more relaxed?
Obviously crossing incidents in the U.S. are a problem of drivers, as you say. You suggest that it is not so in Canada. If Canadian crossing incidents are not a problem caused by drivers, what is it that causes your Canadian crossing incidents?
What? You base this statement on a video that shows a train plowing through deep snow at a crossing. Your statement has no merit and nothing to back it up.
1. He's blowing the horn for a crossing - by rule.
2. He's blowing the horn frequently because of a) impaired visibility and b) doing his best to keep the horn from potentially getting plugged.
So by all means please give me any evidence that shows the engineer's personal opinions differ from my own.
Looks like not all Canadian engineers share traisessive1's opinion on horn blowing.
Deggesty Euclid North West, That is certainly strong proof that simply eliminating the horn signal from typical crossings does increase crashes despite the fact that horn signals are redundant to the flashing lights and gates. But, as I understand it, the study you cite is not for the so-called "quiet zones" as now offered by the FRA. U.P. is saying that those quiet zones are more dangerous than non-quiet zones. The FRA says that the added danger of removing the horn signal in formal quiet zones is fully offset by added provisions such as four-quadrant gates and median barriers. So, we save on the power used to blow horns, and the savings that accumulate pay for the quad gates and median barriers?
Euclid North West, That is certainly strong proof that simply eliminating the horn signal from typical crossings does increase crashes despite the fact that horn signals are redundant to the flashing lights and gates. But, as I understand it, the study you cite is not for the so-called "quiet zones" as now offered by the FRA. U.P. is saying that those quiet zones are more dangerous than non-quiet zones. The FRA says that the added danger of removing the horn signal in formal quiet zones is fully offset by added provisions such as four-quadrant gates and median barriers.
North West,
That is certainly strong proof that simply eliminating the horn signal from typical crossings does increase crashes despite the fact that horn signals are redundant to the flashing lights and gates.
But, as I understand it, the study you cite is not for the so-called "quiet zones" as now offered by the FRA. U.P. is saying that those quiet zones are more dangerous than non-quiet zones. The FRA says that the added danger of removing the horn signal in formal quiet zones is fully offset by added provisions such as four-quadrant gates and median barriers.
So, we save on the power used to blow horns, and the savings that accumulate pay for the quad gates and median barriers?
well, the reason for paying for quad gates and median barriers is to appease the people living nearby who can't stand to hear the horns all the time. I understand that making a quiet crossing does cost an awful lot of money.
Johnny
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.