Rails With Trails, a Non-starter

[Anonymous]

As the article below illustrates even being near the ROW can be dangerous. A key reason why the new darling of some local planners the so called "Rails with Trails are a dangerous idea and shouldn't be entertained. Again, note that this article is not about a track with a trail on the ROW. Still the man and dog involved were very lucky to have escaped with their lives...

LC

Derailment dumbfounds dog-walker just feet away
(The following story by Kirk Mitchell appeared on the Denver Post website on May 14.)

DENVER -- The gigantic object falling in front of Bob Small onto the bike trail was so large he thought a train bridge was crashing to the ground.

"All of a sudden, I'm almost underneath the trestle, and I heard a sound like an earthquake," said Small, a retired telephone company executive. "Debris was flying all over. You can't run. It's happening too fast."

But what Small mistook for a train trestle was the first of 15 freight cars to derail about 1 p.m. Thursday as the train crossed over the South Platte River at Fox Street near Coors Field.

Three of the cars plunged into the fast-moving river, Denver police spokeswoman Teresa Garcia said. No one was injured in the crash, she said.

After witnessing the first car fall, the 58-year-old Small saw a set of train wheels cra***o the ground not more than 10 feet in front of him.

Like dominoes, Small said, other empty cars from the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Co. train dropped.

The concussions caused the earth to vibrate, he said.

"Large metal pieces landed and flew in all directions," Small said. "They would have gone right through me."

Small, who has been staying with his son at the Flour Mill Lofts, was taking his daily 3-mile walk along the bank of the river with his son's black Labrador, Brandy.

The train was traveling about 10 mph, Small estimated.

"After it happened, we both just stared at each other," Small said of the dog. "There was not a soul around. It was like 'The Twilight Zone."'

It was one of about 60 BNSF freight trains that usually carry coal and other items through Denver every day, said BNSF's terminal superintendent, James Perdew.

The cause of the accident is under investigation, Perdew said.

The train company does not have a damage estimate, he said.

Small and his dog searched for victims and then ran back to his son's apartment, where he called police.

"It's not every day that a train drops right in front of you," Small said. "My heart is still racing."

A second train derailed in Grand County on Thursday night, trapping two rail employees for a while, said detention officer Jason Nichols of the Sheriff's Department.

One of the trapped men was reportedly uninjured. The other's condition was unknown, he said.

Nichols said a rockslide in a remote area about 2 miles north of Tabernash, along the Fraser River, caused the Union Pacific coal train to derail about 9:15 p.m.

[Modelcar]

...The "Rails with Trails" idea for planners being dangerous....Local planners, etc....??
Not sure what is so dangerous about rails to trails......maybe I'm taking the wrong meaning from the statement....No matter what would have been in existence below that railroad tressle, with falling railroad cars it would have been distaster for whatever they might have fallen on...As luck had it, they fell on no one so no one hurt or worse.....
Rails to Trails as we know them being created in many locations....since the railroad Co.'s are giving up the RoW....at least creates uses for the great space that the public can enjoy....Using the very light grades for walking and biking that would otherwise be "lost" to urban renewal, etc. forever....
"We" here in Muncie have 20 miles of paved ex C&O [CSX]....RoW, with 7 miles more under construction and it is great...pulling in people from a wide area to use it....and as of June 5th we will have a beautiful Trail Head...ex. C&O Depot fully restored to original to go along with it....

[Anonymous]

Let's put signs up on all trails within a mile of a railroad track, including those that haven't seen a train in decades. It will say “Danger! Falling Trains! With a drawing of Thomas the Tank Engine body slamming a dog walker.

[JoeKoh]

I saw someone painted that on a viaduct near my work. do we have graffiti artists about?
stay safe
Joe

[Nora]

I may be wrong but I get the impression that LC is talking about "rails WITH trails" as something distinct from "rails TO trails" -- I'm presuming this means a trail adjacent and parallel to an active track? If so, that does sound like an iffy proposition to me...

[Modelcar]

...Nora, I believe the situation that spiked this conversation was the train accident in the Denver area and if that is the case the Trail passed under the railroad tresstle perpendicular to it....so I can't see how that should influence the safety of the trail any more than any other method of travel passing under a railroad overhead.

[Mookie]

And the one of the concrete bridge span overhead that fell on the SUV and killed all three in a family. Still glad cows don't fly.

[jchnhtfd]

Nora -- the problem is with rails WITH trails and, in my humble, it is decidedly worse than iffy -- as most of us are aware (both fans and those of us who work on them) 'things' do stick out from cars now and then, and 'things' do come off and go bouncing around, and, now and then, the whole 'thing' comes wandering off the track...

but to me the real problem is keeping the trail users off the track, not the track users off the trail: a continuous fence isn't likely to be part of the scene, and that's the ONLY way I'd be even vaguely comfortable with the idea. Pedestrian trespassers don't even do as well as cars do, if they are on the rails when the train goes by...

[JDV5th]

Despite what accidents may happen, I think these trails are excellent. A great way to help get people out to exercise and enjoy the outdoors. If we can also use old depots and such, it is a classy way to "preserve" some of the railroad nostalgia. I think trails next to rails are not a good idea, but rails to trails I like, despite some freak accidents.

[jchnhtfd]

no problem with rails to trails, good buddy, none at all -- particularly if the right of way enters, or is kept in, the public domain and care is taken to keep it intact so that when a demand arises for rail service again (it will!) it's there.

I'm not even sure that the trail in the Denver accident was a rails to trails trail -- I suspect it was just a trail. Anyone know? But it must have been just a tad scary, nonetheless!

[rrnut282]

I would love a trail next to an active track, as I;m sure others here would. Might get some railfans out of the lawnchair. It would need a good fence though. Non fans would be using the rail as a tightrope or balance beam and not paying attention to their surroundings. As far as protecting the trail users from a derailment, it would take a massive concrete barrier wall, which would make a project prohibitively expensive. Besides life is not without risk, reguardless of what some people think is possible.

[Modelcar]

....The photo that I have seen at the scene in Denver indicates to me it was a rails to trails RoW....Not certain but the grading indicated that to me.
As for rails with trails....I've never seen any of such...I would think that is something very rare. Here in Muncie....our trail is on the ex CSX RoW and at the Depot and farther out from it is another railroad and it is active...[NS], and they run about 3 to 400 ft. just about parallel before swinging away from each other but they are separated by a wroght iron fience about 6 ft. high. It was two different RoW's and just happens to be close as it passes the depot. I can't imagine this is dublicated very often. Trails are constructed on the RoW and after it's in place there is no more rail activity for most installations.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Nora

I may be wrong but I get the impression that LC is talking about "rails WITH trails" as something distinct from "rails TO trails" -- I'm presuming this means a trail adjacent and parallel to an active track? If so, that does sound like an iffy proposition to me...

Nora is absolutely correct. The concept of "Rails WITH Trails" is completely separate from "Rails to Trails". "Rails WITH Trails is the new concept of some planners that trails can share the ROW with active rail lines.

LC

[Modelcar]

....I can't imagine any active railroad would EVER agree with a stupid idea like that. I remember several years ago down in the Orlando area they were [probably still are], fighting about installng a light rail system and considered running it along side CSX in the area and the word flared up that the railroad would never adhere to such a plan as it would be too dangerous....And that was another rail transit plan...not a walking path..!

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Modelcar

....I can't imagine any active railroad would EVER agree with a stupid idea like that. I remember several years ago down in the Orlando area they were [probably still are], fighting about installng a light rail system and considered running it along side CSX in the area and the word flared up that the railroad would never adhere to such a plan as it would be too dangerous....And that was another rail transit plan...not a walking path..!

They won't voluntarily. his idea has come up in areas where governmental agencies control or own the ROW and are in a position to impose this as a condition of operating the line or an outside group is attempting to assert that because the government owns or controls the ROW they have an obligationo to provide public access for a trail, regardless of the risks...

LC

[Modelcar]

....I can't believe any sane person is propossing such action....but I suppose we shouldn't be surprised as compared to the news what is actually happening in our world.

[Mookie]

Amen

[Anonymous]

There is a Rails WITH Trails in the Dallas area. The little used (1-2 trains per day) former Cotton Belt line from Wyllie to Fort Worth has a RWT segment through some of the cities near the DFW airport. Personally I was against it for safety reasons, however the city planners, whose cities were members of DART (owner of the track) put pressure on the DART board to approve the trail.

WR Watkins, retired member of the DART board

[mudchicken]

An absolute nightmare of an idea. DO NOT EVEN CONSIDER IT.

AREMA was asked (by ASCE and AASHTO) to comment on the idea and write a proposed standard for such an arrangement (trail/ live track)....After much discussion (a lot of it heated), the policy to be stated in the manual came down to one sentence: "Trails sharing rail corridors with active rail lines should be discouraged at all costs." I sat through two of those discussions.

Denver incident involved a trail along the South Platte River thru Confluence Park that crossed under a BNSF(CB&Q) Bridge. The trail has been a headache to the Denver railroads for years with people taking shortcuts over the railroads, cutting down chain link fences and illicit activities. (Denver City Parks is responsible for the trail...it is not rails-to-trails)

RRNUT: You may be responsible but there are plenty of folks who are not. Running rule of thumb is that railroad R/W's , especially within 50 ft. of an active track are "stupid zones" to the general public, most of whom are deficient in the "common sense" department......

Fences will not stop lading falling off a train at speed or rocks out of a hopper car.

(1) Keep lawyers in the unemployment lines (don't do it!)[:(!]
(2) Shut the nuts up at NARPO (morons )[:(!]
(3) In the few cases where a line comes back to life, the trail users stupidly cling to the concept that it is theirs in perpetuity, no matter what the deed or contract says...
(4) Planners are absolutely stupid around railroads (an awful lot of civil engineers, architects and surveyors are as well...I spend an awful lot of my workday cleaning up their bad guesses and assumptions.). Municipal ones tend to be the worst (political tenured hacks) and most likely not to think things out.[:(!][:(!][:(!]

'nuf sed - could go on for hours about why trails, etc. are a bad idea around, over or under active rail lines.

[soapbox][soapbox][soapbox]

[jeaton]

Among other problems, add the occasional metal strapping hanging out a boxcar doorway that someone failed to close. That a little more than an ouch.

[Anonymous]

Before automobiles train tracks were the trails. Two generations walked the tracks by the millions and they were a thousand times less likely to be hit by a train or metal strapping hanging out a boxcar then they are likely to be hit by a car or truck crossing the street. You're also more in danger of being hit by a train standing on the platform at the station. You may fall onto the tracks. Which reminds me of an ironic factoid, Abe Lincoln's son Robert was standing on a station platform, slipped and began to fall into the path on an oncoming train. He was saved by Edwin Booth, the assassins brother.

[enr2099]

The E&N Railway and the City of Nanaimo have constructed a paved trail along their mainline through Nanaimo. The reason behind the decision to build the trail? To keep people off the tracks, and it works. There has been no reports of a tresspasser being hit by a train since the trail was constructed, the amount of people tresspassing on the E&N Railway mainline has dropped. It has worked so well that other cities along the E&N Railway are looking at doing it as well.

Rails with trails can work...

[Modelcar]

...This is so surprising to me to hear of this concept....and then of actual construction having been done in some areas....How much space between the railroad and the trail in the Nanaimo situation and is there a substantial fence between the two...?

[Anonymous]

the county in which i live has gone from an old agricultural community to a revitalized tourist and yuppie community. in the process the old warehouse districts which had developed along the southern railraod right of way have been brought back from abandonment and redeveloped as shops and walk in businesses. these areas are characterized by businesses and parking areas built within yards of the tracks, pedestrian traffic at grade level as well as several grade level vechicle crossings. the trains in this district are large coal and general freight and they move at a fair clip as they enter and leave the yards along the river. plenty of pace and weight to cause a great deal of hardship should there ever be a mishap.
i suspect that there are many such "reclaimed districts" in quite a few of the new south towns. "rails with trails" not withstanding a whole lot of people are being brought into close contact with the "row" all over the country.

[UPTRAIN]

QUOTE: Originally posted by garyaiki

Let's put signs up on all trails within a mile of a railroad track, including those that haven't seen a train in decades. It will say “Danger! Falling Trains! With a drawing of Thomas the Tank Engine body slamming a dog walker.

Not THAT'S and idea!!! LOL!!![:D]

[Anonymous]

Delighted to have found your Forum on Rails WITH Trails. In Santa Cruz County, CA, the county transportation commission wants to buy a 31 mile Union Pacific ROW. This branch line (connection to Monterey County plus old broken up connection to San Jose over mountains) now runs from 7 to 10 long freights each weekday from Davenport (isolated coast with cement plant, lumber, sm pop) to Watsonville (growing ag city with not enough housing/jobs). The commission got itself legislative approval to become a "Rail Trail Authority." It wants to go into the PASSENGER railroad business as well as the Trail business. They have concocted a way to get $11 million from a state rail building proposition by putting a "tourist train" on 6 miles of the track. This tourist train was first passed off as a "trolley," and everyone said, "Oh, how cute." Truth is its 3 old BUDD stainless steel diesel monsters. The county has allowed new homes and remodeling along parts of this line, and the homeowners are raising a ruckus over having tourists rumble and whistle by 18 times a day during "tourist season," and also probably then have freight service run at night. This is a single track. It's had several derailments over last 2 years and UP of course did some fixup. I don't think the public knows the difference between Rail to Trail and Rail with Trail. Any suggestions to stop this thing? My daughter is expecting a baby. Their home is 30 feet from these tracks.

[Anonymous]

Delighted to have found your Forum on Rails WITH Trails. In Santa Cruz County, CA, the county transportation commission wants to buy a 31 mile Union Pacific ROW. This branch line (connection to Monterey County plus old broken up connection to San Jose over mountains) now runs from 7 to 10 long freights each weekday from Davenport (isolated coast with cement plant, lumber, sm pop) to Watsonville (growing ag city with not enough housing/jobs). The commission got itself legislative approval to become a "Rail Trail Authority." It wants to go into the PASSENGER railroad business as well as the Trail business. They have concocted a way to get $11 million from a state rail building proposition by putting a "tourist train" on 6 miles of the track. This tourist train was first passed off as a "trolley," and everyone said, "Oh, how cute." Truth is its 3 old BUDD stainless steel diesel monsters. The county has allowed new homes and remodeling along parts of this line, and the homeowners are raising a ruckus over having tourists rumble and whistle by 18 times a day during "tourist season," and also probably then have freight service run at night. This is a single track. It's had several derailments over last 2 years and UP of course did some fixup. I don't think the public knows the difference between Rail to Trail and Rail with Trail. Any suggestions to stop this thing? My daughter is expecting a baby. Their home is 30 feet from these tracks.

[mudchicken]

Grandma:

This board tends to be pro-railroad, and your question gets blurred as you try to explain what goes on here. However:

(1) As how the "Rail Trail Authority" plans to insure itself against the obvious. The "pie in the sky stuff" will get somebody killed. (Especially that close to the center of the great granola bowl just to the north). Insurance carriers tend to either not offer insurance or charge exorbitant rates for Railroad Protective Policies because of the risk and track record of "stupid people" killing and maiming themselves around operating railroads.
(2) http://www.oli.org and http://www.foothill.net/~caol/
(3) At some public meeting, someone needs to ask who has LEGITIMATE railroad experience on the board (I'm willing to bet none - including the so-called transportation planners that might be around...they're all bus people and whistling in the dark here)
(4) Talk to Ken Gault at CalTrans/ Rail Section - Technology (Sacramento) about your concerns.
(5) The railroad was there long before most of those adjacent homeowners showed up. (Call it ambiance or whatever, the rail line is not going away and federal rule will trump local rule every time...should have figured that out before they bought) As long as freight still runs on the line, those "BUDD Monsters" (RDC-4's??? on lease?) are the only thing that can share the right of way by federal rule with the freight trains and are considerably safer than the "toy" trains that you expected for light-rail or trolley use.
(6) As long as UPRR owns the R/W, the trail issue is moot (unacceptable risk) and the railroad side of CALTRANS will most likely fight it as well if their funds are applied.
(7) And just how are they going to protect trail users against train mishaps? (Hint: fences do NOT work and a simple physics lesson may be in order regarding mass and momentum.)

[banghead][banghead][banghead]

[Anonymous]

I apologize, Mudchicken, for possibly sounding anti-railroad. Hey, I grew up in Decatur, Ind and considered the rail yard my playground before I was six!. Then, to FORUM members reading this, I made a big typo in my earlier message: we have 7 to 10 freight runs a "week," not a "weekday!" Thanks for your good suggestions. I can't wait to ask the transp commission how many of them have legit railroad experience. And I've written to rail insurers about policy costs with no reply . People here have brought up the Operation Lifesaver guidelines for where a trail would be "safe." (Nowhere unless totally necessary, which it's not.)-- 100 feet from center of tracks. Pretty much impossible here since corridor at places is 30 feet wide. Re BUDD cars, I didn't know anything about them and wrote to Customer Service at FRA . Got reply there are less than 25 in service in all US. The "pie in the sky" people say that they can replace the BUDD diesel engines with natural gas engines, to eliminate dangerous diesel emissions (from landing on my new grandbaby). FRA person said it has never been done. Do you think the engine retrofit is possible? Also, as mitigation against 100 decibel whistles, Pie People suggest double pane windows in all homes less than 25 feet from tracks. I kid you not. I'll talk to Ken Gault. If you have more ideas about how we can dissuade this Tourist--oh, I mean, Transportation Commission from purchasing the line and spending millions in unsafe projects, please let me know. Thank you. Grandma

[Anonymous]

Google "dangerous california highways" and the top result is "California Highway 17" the main road to Santa Cruz. Commuters plan their trips assuming delays from fatal crashes. Highway 17 will kill more people in a typical month than a little spur line will in a century.