Bucyrus Laws or rules to prevent people from getting squooshed are not what is at issue with the proposed Illinois law. The issue is a warning system sending a false alarm that prevents people from boarding the train. By false alarm, I mean a train danger warning when no train danger exists.
The current system does not prevent people from boarding their trains. What it prevents is the late arrivals being able to reach the trains they could have boarded if they arrived a few minutes earlier.
The problem can be easily fixed if somebody wants to find the money. In the meantime, just leave home a few minutes earlier.
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...
I don’t know what you mean by “late arrivals.” It would seem to me that if somebody arrives at the station before train departure time, they are not a late arrival. But what would be necessary to solve this problem would be for passengers to be on the platform next to the arrival track before the train arrives.
If you got to the station ten minutes before the train arrival, and waited in the station for the train to arrive, you would not be able to board the train because you were not on the platform before the train arrived.
Are people told that they cannot board the train unless they are on the platform before the train arrives?
You are mixing two concepts:
1. boarding a train
-and-
2. crossing tracks
To be able to board, you better be able to access the platform the train is on. If you are too late and the warning devices are activated, then you are not able to access the train to board.
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
I understand the two concepts perfectly, and they interrelate exactly as you say. I suppose those commuter trains do not have much time between their scheduled arrival and departure. But I would assume that if I arrived at the station with enough time to board the train before its departure time, I would not be considered to be a late-arriving passenger. I would think that it is accurate to say that a true late-arriving passenger is one who arrives after the departure time of the train. Then that passenger would simply miss the train.
But what some are saying here is that passengers are considered to be late arriving unless they arrive before the train arrives. They would have to arrive before the train arrives because they must be on the platform before the train arrives. After the train arrives, they can no longer walk to the platform. That seems ridiculous to me.
Bucyrus But what some are saying here is that passengers are considered to be late arriving unless they arrive before the train arrives. They would have to arrive before the train arrives because they must be on the platform before the train arrives. After the train arrives, they can no longer walk to the platform. That seems ridiculous to me.
That's the issue when you have to use grade crossings to access platforms. Either you are in position to board the train or you are not. I can go to my local train station. Let's say the train departs at 8am. Ok, so I arrive at the front door of the station at 8am. Now I just have to go through the station, up the steps to the bridge, then down the steps to the platform...and wait..... I was at the station at 8am! Is that ridiculous?
No that is not ridiculous because you missed the train because you did not board prior to departure time of 8 AM.
But we are not talking about arriving at 8 AM for a train that departs at 8 AM. What is the arrival time for your train that departs at 8 AM?
I have not ridden commuter trains lately, but maybe the arrival time and departure time are within the same minute. If that is the case, I could see the need to be on the platform before the train arrives.
97TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY State of Illinois 2011 and 2012 SB2504 Introduced 10/24/2011, by Sen. Matt Murphy SYNOPSIS AS INTRODUCED: 625 ILCS 5/11-1011 from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-1011 Amends the Illinois Vehicle Code. Provides that a pedestrian may traverse over a pedestrian walkway crossing a railroad track in order to reach a waiting train, provided that the waiting train is stationary and no other trains are approaching, the pedestrian does not cross the same track as the waiting train, or a railroad employee indicates that it is safe to cross the track. LRB097 13964 HEP 58575 b
97TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY
State of Illinois
2011 and 2012
SB2504
Introduced 10/24/2011, by Sen. Matt Murphy
SYNOPSIS AS INTRODUCED:
625 ILCS 5/11-1011 from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-1011
Amends the Illinois Vehicle Code. Provides that a pedestrian may
traverse over a pedestrian walkway crossing a railroad track in order to
reach a waiting train, provided that the waiting train is stationary and no
other trains are approaching, the pedestrian does not cross the same track
as the waiting train, or a railroad employee indicates that it is safe to
cross the track.
LRB097 13964 HEP 58575 b
samfp1943 My thoughts are back to a You tube video of a suburban service train that has stopped to let passengers off, and while it is stopped a man and woman cross on a provided crosswalk across the three tracks in the station. The woman is struck by a through express train. jeffhergert's, analogy is also another situation that could also put people in jeopardy. Sounds like this proposed law has not been very well thought through...
My thoughts are back to a You tube video of a suburban service train that has stopped to let passengers off, and while it is stopped a man and woman cross on a provided crosswalk across the three tracks in the station. The woman is struck by a through express train. jeffhergert's, analogy is also another situation that could also put people in jeopardy.
Sounds like this proposed law has not been very well thought through...
If this is the incident I think it is, I'm pretty familiar with it. Ironically, it happened in Illinois, at the BN/METRA Fairview Avenue station in Downers Grove. It was photographed by a railfan taking movies of the last days of the old BN "E" units in commuter service. I saw the enitre sequence shortly after the accident occurred. None of the versions I've subsequently seen go all the way to the end of the footage (fortunately).
.
Falcon48 If this is the incident I think it is, I'm pretty familiar with it. Ironically, it happened in Illinois, at the BN/METRA Fairview Avenue station in Downers Grove. It was photographed by a railfan taking movies of the last days of the old BN "E" units in commuter service. I saw the enitre sequence shortly after the accident occurred. None of the versions I've subsequently seen go all the way to the end of the footage (fortunately).
Even after making the video acceptable for Youtube, it is still an incredibly chilling thing to see, particularly how it unfolded. I wonder if the woman who was killed was with that guy alongside of her, or if they were strangers and just happened to be in the same place at the same time. It appears as though they made a mutual decision to make a dash to get across without even seeing the train and how fast it was coming. I have a feeling that she would not have gotten hit if she was alone.
I am not sure what specific event others here have referenced, but the video I am referring to was of a pedestrian fatality in 1991. The woman killed was accompanying the man walking alongside of her. I was wondering if she was acquainted with him, or if they just happened to be two strangers side-by-side. The reason I wondered is that the video indicates that the interaction between the two of them played a significant role in her death.
With a little checking, I found out that they were acquainted and walking together. He was her lawyer, and they were heading for a meeting with the woman’s ex-husband to finalize a divorce.
Prior to the accident, the video shows other pedestrian activity, which indicates some degree of collective, general ambivalence toward the warning signals and bell. Presumably, many pedestrians here are habituated to the warning, and are accustomed to the practical need to override it with their own judgment in times when the warning is not indicating an actual train danger.
In this case, there was a real train danger from a fast express train that was approaching on the middle track, and was hidden by a standing commuter train. The woman and her lawyer approached side-by-side with the man slightly ahead of her. The hidden train was sounding its horn, and the man quickened his pace, as he decided that they could make it across, but they would have to speed up. The woman apparently accepted her lawyer’s advice, perhaps suspending her own judgment.
But, as the man speeded up his pace, the woman fell momentarily behind. So she made a sudden effort to catch up with him. He was taller than her, and was on her left side as the train approached from the left, so even when they passed the standing train, her view of the approaching train was probably blocked by the man beside her.
What is obvious, is that she had accepted his judgement that they could make it across, and therefore, she was not looking for the train to make that judgement for herself. All of her attention was on keeping up with him because if she relied on his judgment that they could make it across, she must not cross any later than he. It would be okay for her to cross earlier than him, but not later than him. So, in effect, she was racing him to the crossing with all of her attention on the race, while deferring to his judgment about the approaching train.
However, at the last instant, when he saw the train, he realized that the train was approaching too fast for them to make it across, and he abruptly stopped. But this need for reversing their decision was not communicated to her as she was relying on his judgment, so she kept going; not realizing the train danger herself until she had actually entered the fouling space of the track. At that point, she made an abrupt stop, but was not able to reverse quick enough to clear the train.
Bucyrus, you are wasting your time on here. I think the gov't is always looking for people that can read people's minds (even dead people)!
We don't know what the parties involved were thinking, unless they come out and tell us. And that poor victim isn't about to be doing that.
Bucyrus No that is not ridiculous because you missed the train because you did not board prior to departure time of 8 AM. But we are not talking about arriving at 8 AM for a train that departs at 8 AM. What is the arrival time for your train that departs at 8 AM? I have not ridden commuter trains lately, but maybe the arrival time and departure time are within the same minute. If that is the case, I could see the need to be on the platform before the train arrives.
They can pass all the laws they want, put up all the fences they want, install bells, lights and gates, and still the commuters are going to continue to do what they want, regardless of the danger to either themselves or to others. When one operates suburban trains as long as I did, one is rarely surprised at the foolishness of some riders.
zugmann That's the issue when you have to use grade crossings to access platforms. Either you are in position to board the train or you are not.
That's the issue when you have to use grade crossings to access platforms. Either you are in position to board the train or you are not.
And unfortunately having grade crossings essentially in the middle of boarding areas for (suburban) passenger trains is the problem, with no really effective solution except to block the crossings (unlikely) or relocate the stations (impractical and very expensive) away from any road crossings.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
All the newly proposed law does is allow pedestrians to cross a track when the signals are activated, but no train is coming on that track. What’s wrong with that? At grade crossings with flashing lights (but no gates) drivers are allowed to cross when the signals are activated and no train is coming. Why shouldn’t pedestrians be allowed to do the same?
edbenton My point in that rant Zugman was IL were Politicans have no BRAINS and want the Taxpayers to kill themselves off then SUE the RR's for OBEYING a LAW they PASSED. It will happen watch. IL passed a law for Motorcyle riders where they can go thru Red Lights now if the light does not change for them. How soon til someone gets Splattered by a SEMI and his family goes after the Trucking company for hitting him even though the Trtucker by LAW had the RIGHT OF WAY with the light being GREEN.
My point in that rant Zugman was IL were Politicans have no BRAINS and want the Taxpayers to kill themselves off then SUE the RR's for OBEYING a LAW they PASSED. It will happen watch. IL passed a law for Motorcyle riders where they can go thru Red Lights now if the light does not change for them. How soon til someone gets Splattered by a SEMI and his family goes after the Trucking company for hitting him even though the Trtucker by LAW had the RIGHT OF WAY with the light being GREEN.
No one quite cares about the trucking companies or what have you. This is Trains.kom, and the subject matter is railroading, not bloody trucks.
This thread has drifted into a direction which urges me to pull the plug.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.