zugmann Bucyrus: That is understandable, but if they do, who's fault is it? My feeling it is STILL the driver's fault, but I guess the courts get to settle that stuff out. I just rather not get into the whole situation to begin with.... hence my favor of reflectors.
Bucyrus: That is understandable, but if they do, who's fault is it?
That is understandable, but if they do, who's fault is it?
My feeling it is STILL the driver's fault, but I guess the courts get to settle that stuff out. I just rather not get into the whole situation to begin with.... hence my favor of reflectors.
I agree with you that it would be the driver’s fault. My only objection is to the FRA saying that trains can be hard to see at night, which has to mean that the driver is not entirely at fault. When you have the entire industry, its advocacy groups, the law, and even railfans drawing the clear line in the sand about the fault for grade crossing crashes, it amazes me that the FRA would contradict that position.
What the FRA should have said as justification for the reflectors is this: Motorists are not always paying attention to their driving, so the reflectors might help attract their attention to the presence of a train.
Bucyrus That is understandable, but if they do, who's fault is it?
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
zugmann Bottom line is I don't want people hitting my train. Maybe that is selfish of me, but it is what it is.
Bottom line is I don't want people hitting my train. Maybe that is selfish of me, but it is what it is.
Yes, Bucyrus, in a perfect world drivers would not out-drive their headlights. But we do not live in a perfect world. First you have to consider the fact that probably 99%+ (my guess, not actual fact, but I'd be surprised if I'm mistaken) of crossbucks are reflective. Why? You shouldn't out-drive your headlights. But somewhere along the line, someone decided that punishment for out-driving your headlights should not involve slamming into a black LPG car (or an empty flatcar). Would it be the driver's fault? Yes. But so what? If someone can see a train before their headlights hit the actual car, it gives them just that more time to come to a safe stop. And hopefully the car behind them will see it and realize why the car in front of them is stopped.
We now have some pretty cool technology in reflectorization. So why not use it? The lawyers will find a way to blame railroads no matter what. You can't keep hiding in the corner afraid to make a move that may benefit other people (even those out-driving their headlights) becuase it may start a slippery slope. EVERYTHING is a slippery slope. Headlights were a slippery slope. So were ditchlights. So were crossbucks, advanced warning signs, flashing lights, gates, bells, and every other innovation in crossing technology.
It has always been a casual amusement to me that the very same people who rail viciously here about graffiti defacement of rolling stock , can at the same time have such antipathy for the tree huggers of Abo canyon and the sorts
The only explanation that a driver can give for running into the side of a train is that he did not see it. So either it is the driver’s fault for not paying attention or it is the railroad’s fault for putting the train in the driver’s way. It can’t be both.
Look at it this way: At night, a driver is suppose to have his headlights on, and not exceed the speed limit. In clear weather, if the driver complies with those requirements, and pays attention, the driver will be able to stop short of any obstruction that lies ahead. In limited visibility, the driver is supposed to drive slower than the speed limit to compensate for the lack of forward visibility. In such cases the proper legal speed must be slow enough to prevent the driver from over-driving his headlights. These rules are intended to prevent drivers from running into objects that lie ahead on the open road, such as boulders, trees, stopped vehicles with no lights, etc.
Now consider a passive grade crossing with just a pair of unlighted crossbucks. They require a driver to yield, and their presence alerts the driver that there may be a train either fouling the crossing or about to foul it. The driver has to look for trains in order to yield. The driver has to know that no trains are present in order to yield. Even if a train is not there, if the driver does not look and verify that the crossing is clear, the driver did not yield. If a driver runs into a standing train, the driver did not yield. No matter how dark a train is, the driver’s headlights will illuminate it sufficiently for a driver to see it in time to yield to it. There is simply no excuse for running into the side of a train at night.
That is there was no excuse until the FRA declared that trains can be hard to see at night, so the railroads must make them easier to see. Hard to see? Only if the driver is distracted, asleep, or impaired. Why should that be the railroad’s responsibility?
It is true that actively warning drivers of a train blocking a crossing will cut down on crashes that do result from drivers being distracted, asleep, or impaired. And there is great benefit in preventing a crash. Certainly that benefit would justify much stronger measures than just reflectors. For that matter, the FRA could just as well conclude that locomotives are hard to see at night, their horns can be hard to hear when drivers have their windows up and music playing, and locomotive headlights can be mistaken for fixed lighting. So by the logic of the FRA, motorists might be excused from the blame of getting hit by a train at a passive crossing.
Yes, it is almost always the motorists fault if they run into the side of a train. But I don't WANT them to run into the side of a train, no matter who is at fault. And I suspect my feelings are in common with any other sensible railroader.
I don't think the stripes pardon the driver in as so much may give them those few extra seconds to see the train to hopefully avoid the "oh ---- !" moment. Plus those reflectors can come in handy for train crews as well (as I have already pointed out).
Ulrich Reflectors are a good idea...anything that makes it easier to see is a help...
Reflectors are a good idea...anything that makes it easier to see is a help...
The point I made at the end of the previous page is one that I have made here before. However, I am not sure if it has ever been clearly understood. What always gets in the way is the obvious conclusion that reflectors can prevent crashes, and how can there be anything wrong with that? I agree with that. In fact, I put up a big reflector today to keep my neighbors from running into my mailbox. I understand that benefit of reflectors. But the larger point that I have made has nothing whatsoever to do with that.
When a car and driver gets hit by a train, the train bears no fault. Unless there is some unusual aberration such as grade crossing flashers failing to activate, the car/train crash is always 100% the fault of the car driver. Railfans and railroaders all know this, and they shout it from the mountaintop all the time.
It used to be the same with run-into-train crashes, but no more. Now, R.I.T. crashes can be the fault of the railroad because a driver might not see the train in time to stop. It amounts to a moron pardon for a particular type of grade crossing sin, whereas before, there was zero tolerance. This is an amazing sea change, and even more amazing that nobody seems to recognize it.
Maybe it is not recognized because the safety benefit of reflectors seems so obvious, and the pardoning by the FRA of drivers failing to yield, as the rationale for reflectors, is not widely known.
Reflectors are a good idea...anything that makes it easier to see is a help...I don't know about how rigorous rail enforcement of reflective safety markings is; however, trucking regs are enforced rigorously...reflective material that isn't of the right type or which isn't placed properly, or which is damaged, frayed, or obscured by dirt may result in a fine and even an out of service violation.
Slope has already been started years again. Been started by the Canadien roads, reflective stripes on engines, and even the trucking industry.
This just puts some kind of standard to it all.
Maybe it won’t present any practical problem, but the reflector mandate comes with an official proclamation that freight cars can be hard to see at night, which conveys the implication that a driver might not be fully at fault for running into one. Prior to that, a driver was 100% responsible to avoid running into a train that was blocking a grade crossing because the crossbucks require a driver to yield to a train. I am amazed that the railroad industry has given up that principle without a fight.
Reflectors probably will prevent some run-into-train crashes that would have occurred if there were no reflectors. But some RIT crashes will still occur in spite of reflectors, so in such cases, it will be easy to argue that the reflectors did not do enough. And so there will be a call to make railcars even more conspicuous at night. That is the slippery slope I was referring to.
Now that business is returning to the rails....lack of power & manpower appears to be hitting all the carriers. Locally the carrier did furlough a number of train service employees during the downturn....my understanding is that only 20% of those furloughed returned to the carrier when they were called back to duty, which has resulted in the need to hire and train new people....a process that takes much longer than bringing back a furloughed employee.
zugmann Besides, it can't delay as many trains as the lack of engines and manpower is doing around here. And that's an easily fixable problem that they refuse to remedy.
Besides, it can't delay as many trains as the lack of engines and manpower is doing around here. And that's an easily fixable problem that they refuse to remedy.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Canada has been using reflectors for years. Sure it's a cost to the car owners, but as we do some switching at night on country roads (including a customer that gets black propane cars), I really think the cost is worth it. No, it won't keep the drunk going 85mph from hitting the side of the car, but maybe it'll help someone that is in some control of their senses.
My only recommendation is that stripes should be added to the ends of the car. Anyone that has had to make a coupling to a dark car in the pitch black knows why. I think the WC boxcars have this... man is it nice.
zugmann Bucyrus: When those are fully required, it will be interesting to learn whether there will be a requirment to keep them free of dirt and grafitti paint. If you take a stab at translating this: http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=0900006480333629 It seems is a certain percentage of the reflector stripe is obscured, then it must be eventually replaced. Not an instant FRA defect, unless we don't want to move cars anymore.
Bucyrus: When those are fully required, it will be interesting to learn whether there will be a requirment to keep them free of dirt and grafitti paint.
When those are fully required, it will be interesting to learn whether there will be a requirment to keep them free of dirt and grafitti paint.
If you take a stab at translating this: http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=0900006480333629
It seems is a certain percentage of the reflector stripe is obscured, then it must be eventually replaced. Not an instant FRA defect, unless we don't want to move cars anymore.
Thanks for posting that link Zugmann. I have been a critic of the reflector rule since I first heard about it. On the surface, it seems like a good idea with nothing to lose. But it is an FRA mandate that is likely to impose a lot more cost on the railroads than what one might expect on casual consideration.
I think there will be a slippery slope of improvements and modifications to the reflector rules and to the basic reflector concept. Just reading that massive set of rules and specifications confirms my expectations, and this is only the beginning. When you throw the effect of graffiti into this complex set of regulations, I think it will evenually delay trains.
Freight cars always had stuff scribbled on their sides. Some of it was switchmen notations, and some was just mindless graffiti. The fact that no one seemed to object to this kind of practice, coupled with the fact that freight cars go everywhere, led to the mindset that one could make a statement that would get wide exposure. Certain hobos and trainmen left their trademark brand on the cars. Around the 1900 era, somebody scrawled the signature, J. B. King on thousands of freight cars.
It is a shame that graffiti has gotten out of hand since the debut of spray paint. I can remember when just chalk was used, mostly by yard men. That didn't last long , rain was a great eraser. Respect for private property was apparent in the early 40s. My my how times have changed.
Respectfully, Cannonball
Y6bs evergreen in my mind
MarknLisa While at North Platte last summer during Rail Fest we took the bus tour of Bailey Yard. I asked our tour guide, a Bailey Yard manager, if the graphitti caused a problem while sorting the cars in the hump yard. He said it's not a problem...with the reporting marks on all 4 sides they are usually visible somewhere. Particularly the ones up high on the ends of the cars. And also the AEI tags get scanned during the humping process.
While at North Platte last summer during Rail Fest we took the bus tour of Bailey Yard. I asked our tour guide, a Bailey Yard manager, if the graphitti caused a problem while sorting the cars in the hump yard. He said it's not a problem...with the reporting marks on all 4 sides they are usually visible somewhere. Particularly the ones up high on the ends of the cars. And also the AEI tags get scanned during the humping process.
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...
we have something like that bylaw up here as well--the only problem is that it penalizes the good kids as well...
Then we also have supposed adults doing this--do we want further licenses just to buy a can of spray paint? Oh well----more stuff to do before you can do that simple thing...*sigh*
Might as well defrag this hot potato now...
Look at the cat...
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
In Chicago the stores aren't supposed to sell spray paint to anyone under 18. At least, it isn't taxed (or they haven't thought of it yet).
desertdog In other words, I, who use spray paint responsibly, should pay a tax to make sure that some moron somewhere doesn't commit a crime? Sorry, that reasoning is a bit too convoluted for me. John Timm
In other words, I, who use spray paint responsibly, should pay a tax to make sure that some moron somewhere doesn't commit a crime? Sorry, that reasoning is a bit too convoluted for me.
John Timm
Yes. That would be the price you pay. When you get on an airplane (or even as a tax payer in general) you pay for all kinds of security measures even though you have no intention of blowing up a plane. Sadly, people like you and me and others who are responsible for our actions must pay for the idiots, the criminals, and the weaklings. That's why we fork out our hard earned money for security..for police forces..for alarm systems... for security cameras etc... may as well add spray paint to the long list..
Bucyrus When those are fully required, it will be interesting to learn whether there will be a requirment to keep them free of dirt and grafitti paint.
Railfans stick to some well-known visible places. But vandals will venture into the middle of a railyard in the middle of a night, or at an industrial lead - not great places for foaming. And I would venture to guess that authorities are more worried about theft and major vandalism than painting a railcar owned by a lease outfit...
Perhaps coating the decals and reflective stripes with the anti-graffiti coating after they have been applied to the cars is a good approach? I know that there has been success in this approach for the waste/dumpster industry. Furthermore, the GPA-300 has anti-corrosive properties as well.
Lastly, some cities and corporations actually take the approach of graffiti proofing a mural or art as a way of encapsulating it.
Just an idea.
Bucyrus Ulrich: Instead of anti graffiti why not tax the spray paint to cover the cost of graffiti removal? The clowns who fowl others' property like this may think twice about it if they had to pay $100.00 for a can of paint. What do you think the paint manufacturers will think of that idea?
Ulrich: Instead of anti graffiti why not tax the spray paint to cover the cost of graffiti removal? The clowns who fowl others' property like this may think twice about it if they had to pay $100.00 for a can of paint.
Instead of anti graffiti why not tax the spray paint to cover the cost of graffiti removal? The clowns who fowl others' property like this may think twice about it if they had to pay $100.00 for a can of paint.
What do you think the paint manufacturers will think of that idea?
Johnny
Ulrich I'm surprised that the railroaders have let this go to the point it has...If it were my property I'd be more active about it...especially about curbing the racial slurs and profanity type hate graffiti.. not great for the old public perception..
I'm surprised that the railroaders have let this go to the point it has...If it were my property I'd be more active about it...especially about curbing the racial slurs and profanity type hate graffiti.. not great for the old public perception..
Yes, I think the railroads just roll with the punches when it comes to graffiti. Railcars are made with a high performance industrial paint coating to keep them from rusting. As long as the graffiti just goes on top of that, the railcar is not jeopardized. The graffiti is just a little more weight to haul around. However, covering up car numbers is a significant issue. But these items are a railroad company issue. Covering up the reflectors will be an FRA issue, and the maintenance of the reflectors against graffiti could be a significant cost issue if that maintenance should become mandated by the FRA.
A couple years ago, the city of Minneapolis passed a law that required property owners to remove graffiti within a certain time limit or face fines.
I'm surprised that these people rarely are caught..or it appears that way...apparently it is easy to paint an expansive mural on a rail car...but your chances of offending someone with a camera are somehow greater...it doesn't add up.
It used to be that the odd rail car had graffiti on it..now it is almost every rail car...it is rare to see a car that hasn't been vandalized.
My idea of a government imposed tax on paint may not be the best idea...but it might be easier than going after the perpetrators. I'm surprised that the railroaders have let this go to the point it has...If it were my property I'd be more active about it...especially about curbing the racial slurs and profanity type hate graffiti.. not great for the old public perception..
zugmann Now the new issue is the reflective stripes that are soon to be required on all cars.
Now the new issue is the reflective stripes that are soon to be required on all cars.
Ulrich Instead of anti graffiti why not tax the spray paint to cover the cost of graffiti removal? The clowns who fowl others' property like this may think twice about it if they had to pay $100.00 for a can of paint.
That is assuming that they are actually paying for the paint. And I've been told that some of the more (what's a good word?) experienced vandals use stuff from overseas.
I've noticed that in the past couple years, some outfits are using vinyl(?) decals for their reporting marks and numbers. I've seen some cars from another outfit that seems to have given up and painted their marks on the top quarter of the side of the cars.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.