While PSR isn't specifically mentioned in the article, "current railroad practices" kind of sounds a lot like it.
This article appears on the Firefighter Nation website, coming originally from the Kansas City Star:
https://www.firefighternation.com/apparatus/18-states-sue-to-stop-parked-trains-blocking-fire-apparatus/?fbclid=IwAR2ecdS6FHFK2zfg_zTsp7vakXqWUlxA9Slre7FNJz3TIrXgLUHA0qEX_mg
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...
STB's pervue is the economic regulation of common carriers. Perhaps since crossings also involve roads, that regulation should be kicked upstairs to DOT which oversees rail and road regulation. It would be better to have discussions now, rather than to have something imposed by courts.
The FRA was taking information on blocked crossings but so far nothing has come of it. I have noticed some slight improvement about having trains cut crossings when they tie down. At least in one area where fire trucks couldn't get over a blocked crossing where a train was tied down. I thing they were able to access the house on fire through a private road with a long detour.
I don't recall ever in my years of a train cutting a crossing when being held for a meet or pass. We do try to stay off crossings when we know about being held, but it's not always possible. There's darn few places a 15000 ft train fits off crossings. Even a 7500 ft train is often going to block something if stopped.
Jeff
jeffhergertThe FRA was taking information on blocked crossings but so far nothing has come of it. I have noticed some slight improvement about having trains cut crossings when they tie down. At least in one area where fire trucks couldn't get over a blocked crossing where a train was tied down. I thing they were able to access the house on fire through a private road with a long detour. I don't recall ever in my years of a train cutting a crossing when being held for a meet or pass. We do try to stay off crossings when we know about being held, but it's not always possible. There's darn few places a 15000 ft train fits off crossings. Even a 7500 ft train is often going to block something if stopped. Jeff
Cutting crossing is not a inconsequential use of time - both making the cut and when putting the train back together. Add in the regulations about the time cars can be 'off air' before requiring a Class 1 brake inspection before getting on the move again.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD Add in the regulations about the time cars can be 'off air' before requiring a Class 1 brake inspection before getting on the move again.
24 hours now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
There are too many variables where one or more items might have an effect on crossing problems.
1. Who was first
2. private or public crossing
3. Permitted crossing from RR How permit worded
4. Adverse occupancy laws.
5. Other closed crossings and by whom
6. Max allowed heights of vehicles
7. Did emergency stations built to take in the RR crossing be blocked
8. Other Emg stations closings causing new call routes
9. New highways changing traffic mix and paterns
10. Many other that will be noted on posts
Of possible interest, here's a recent GAO (U.S. Government Accounting Office) report entitled "Freight Rail - Information on Precision Scheduled Railroading".
https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-105420
This is basically a review of PSR and PSR related issues. Indulge.
Direct link to the accessible PDF version of the complete GAO report:
https://www.gao.gov/assets/820/814068.pdf
MidlandMike STB's pervue is the economic regulation of common carriers. Perhaps since crossings also involve roads, that regulation should be kicked upstairs to DOT which oversees rail and road regulation. It would be better to have discussions now, rather than to have something imposed by courts.
Since the railroad ROW's including sidings were designed many years ago, they clearly are not adequate for 7500 to 15000 foot train lengths. Possible solutions:
1. Reconfiguration? Much too expensive and disruptive.
2. Regulate train length? Possible but higher costs.
3. Where existing alternative routings exist, bypass major metro area.
Of course status quo will prevail.
Two other 'correct' options: Increased use of fleeting, and establishment of directional running where two routes or paths are available.
One of the early 'advantages' of level 4 autonomy is that a mostrain consist with midtrain DPU could be split into sidings and then re-formed with minimal delay. The train will stop on the main with the DPU just ahead of the siding signal, and the head end will progress toward the next siding. As it clears minimum CBTC distance, the siding switch will be opened and the now-autonomous DPU will run into the siding, not requiring any further delay to do so, and will stop with its head end ahead of the fouling point at the end of the siding. As the opposing traffic clears the leading consist's head end, that consist can start proceeding out of the siding onto the main, while the autonomous section likewise starts as soon as the end of the opposing movement clears it. This will have the lead move fully on the main at the time the trailing consist is clearing its siding, so there is minimal dwell.
Ideally there will be a 'midtrain device (I won't speculate on cute acronyms) that has the automatic brake coupling matching that on the DPU, so that recoupling and re-establishment of DPU can take place quickly with minimal human tinkering; I think this is an example of something that can be 'remote monitored' from camera or drones except in unusual conditions.
OvermodTwo other 'correct' options: Increased use of fleeting, and establishment of directional running where two routes or paths are available. One of the early 'advantages' of level 4 autonomy is that a mostrain consist with midtrain DPU could be split into sidings and then re-formed with minimal delay. The train will stop on the main with the DPU just ahead of the siding signal, and the head end will progress toward the next siding. As it clears minimum CBTC distance, the siding switch will be opened and the now-autonomous DPU will run into the siding, not requiring any further delay to do so, and will stop with its head end ahead of the fouling point at the end of the siding. As the opposing traffic clears the leading consist's head end, that consist can start proceeding out of the siding onto the main, while the autonomous section likewise starts as soon as the end of the opposing movement clears it. This will have the lead move fully on the main at the time the trailing consist is clearing its siding, so there is minimal dwell. Ideally there will be a 'midtrain device (I won't speculate on cute acronyms) that has the automatic brake coupling matching that on the DPU, so that recoupling and re-establishment of DPU can take place quickly with minimal human tinkering; I think this is an example of something that can be 'remote monitored' from camera or drones except in unusual conditions.
The dream world of 2022.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.