EJE818 Kolechovski, that is what the BNSF does on the racetrack. The bells stay active from the time the crossing starts up until the train reaches the crossing. Once that happens, the bell shuts off. If a second train approaches, the bell reactivates until the second train hits the crossing, and during rush hour when three train meets are a common thing, the bell will do the same process again for a third train. They just re-did the crossing at the Naperville station (Loomis Street) from ringing constantly to shutting off when the train reaches the crossing, so with that, the crossings at every station now shut off this way. However, this system does not entirely stop people from getting hit and killed by trains. People still walk in front of stopped local trains and get nailed by a express train despite the bell turning back on for that train, unfortunatly. Just look how many times people have been struck and killed in LaGrange alone by trains. LaGrange may have one of the worst rates of train/pedestrian incidents in the entire Chicagoland area, with Downers Grove, which is on the same line, probably being right up there with it. The UP-W has never had as big of a problem with pedestrian fatalities as the BNSF, but I'm sure even with ATWS, people are still going to be impatient.
Kolechovski, that is what the BNSF does on the racetrack. The bells stay active from the time the crossing starts up until the train reaches the crossing. Once that happens, the bell shuts off. If a second train approaches, the bell reactivates until the second train hits the crossing, and during rush hour when three train meets are a common thing, the bell will do the same process again for a third train. They just re-did the crossing at the Naperville station (Loomis Street) from ringing constantly to shutting off when the train reaches the crossing, so with that, the crossings at every station now shut off this way. However, this system does not entirely stop people from getting hit and killed by trains. People still walk in front of stopped local trains and get nailed by a express train despite the bell turning back on for that train, unfortunatly. Just look how many times people have been struck and killed in LaGrange alone by trains. LaGrange may have one of the worst rates of train/pedestrian incidents in the entire Chicagoland area, with Downers Grove, which is on the same line, probably being right up there with it. The UP-W has never had as big of a problem with pedestrian fatalities as the BNSF, but I'm sure even with ATWS, people are still going to be impatient.
Your description of the BNSF system is consistent with my experience. UP (and CNW before it), on the other hand, have long had a rule prohibiting trains from passing passenger trains loading or unloading in stations. What UP intends is that the new system will eliminate this procedure
I don't have any inside info. But I suspect the kissue UP had to face is that it would be changing its existing procedure, whereas the BNSF procedure had been in place since who-knows-when. UP must have felt that, since they were changing existing procudures, they needed to do more than just go to the BNSF system.
By the way, I'm not aware that BNSF's grade crossing accident experience on its Chicago-Aurora corridor has been any worse over the entire corridor than UP's experience on its Chicago-Genveva-Elburn corridor, either as to pedestrians or vehicles. If anyone has any contrary info, I'd sure like to see it.
A contemporary crossing protection I would think possible is that in addition to the gates opposite poles could have sensors so that a curtain of red lasers also falls across the tracks looking like a solid wall.. Also there is the idea that walls of iron or concrete could rise from the road up to form a solid barrier high enough that a vehicle would be stopped and not flip over it. But definitely the automobile driver has to carry most of the fault when not acting in awareness of what is happening upon approaching and crossing a railroad.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
That is where I think the simple, smarter use of bells would succeed. I think to simply have the bells reactivate and then stay on until the second train has passed by would be effective. People waiting at the crossing beforehand would have stopped hearing the bells after the gates have descended (assuming gates are used). Then, when the bells reactivate from another train approaching, that would grab their attention as a change in what's noticed around them. Have those bells ring until the second train has completely entered and filled the entire the island curcuit, then shut off once again. And then if a third train comes, etc. You get it. So will the public. I'd think reactivating bells would be the ATWS that's sought after.
Now for some other things to think about. Where there are multiple tracks, but no gates, it is general for people to wait a bit after the train has passed (at least those on the blind side) to check to be sure there isn't another train coming. Likewise, those even on the most visible side will often look both ways to be sure they're not entering another train's path. And this is where Operation lifesaver can try to do some-to educate those who DON'T check both ways at a multi-track crossing to do so. Now any crossing with gates (and virtually any high-speed line has these) will often block off sidewalks, too, but perhaps not all of them do. Either way, any crossing with gates means you just don't go around the gates, so anyone who does already has clearly broken the rule and often gets into trouble. As for the pedestrians, I'd feel it is even more likely to appeal to them, as drivers still have to typically wait for the gates to lift before moving on, so they wouldn't likely need ATWS so much as pedestrians do, and that is where my bell idea comes into play.
Thank god on the UP North line we don't have this kind of problem, Wilmette where I live is the meeting point for several North Line Scoots, for this reasson I frequently hear an inbound scoot calling an outbound express scoot, to gage there location. Do they do this on the other lines such as the UP West Line?
The orthodoxy is not just the belief that grade crossing crashes are the fault of the driver. Most of them in fact are. The orthodoxy is entrenched in extreme defensiveness of the position of being legally right most of the time. The trouble with that position is that it leaves room for only one explanation for crossing crashes, which is that drivers are all morons and idiots. And after 150 years of waiting for that to change without any luck, it appears that the problem of crossing crashes has no solution.
While the law may be almost 100% clear, many of the causes for crossing crashes are based on elements of human nature. And people are going to rely on their human nature rather than trying to decipher the Byzantine language of the crossing laws.
Consider the topic of this thread:
The second train coming on a second track has been bugaboo of crossings for a long time. It catches people off guard because of human nature. It has nothing to do with human intelligence. Bells ring and lights flash. They attract drivers’ attention to an approaching train. The train is the point, and the lights and bells are only there to make the point. The driver comes to that conclusion. It is only logical. So when the train clears, the point of yielding to it is thought to have passed as well. That too is only logical.
The bells and lights may keep going, but a driver just assumes they have not shut off in a timely manner. Even on a single track where there can be no other train approaching, drivers are accustomed to seeing the flasher take a few seconds to shut off once the train clears the crossing. So a driver concludes that the danger has passed, and therefore the bells and lights lose their meaning. Thinking it is all clear, the driver pulls out in front of a fast approaching second train that is obscured by the first train both visually and audibly. Did the driver break the law? Sure. Did the driver intend to? Of course not.
This is a death snare that catches drivers off guard just like the cheese in a mousetrap catches mice off guard. The mice always make the same mistake, but it is only a mistake. Likewise, people will continue to make the mistake of driving or walking into the path of the second train. But the stubborn orthodoxy draws a line in the sand over the letter of the law and refuses to recognize the gray area of human nature.
The development of the “Another Train Coming” warning system is a praiseworthy goal that does address human nature in order to actually fix the problem rather than complain about it. The problem is that an effective warning for the second train is very difficult to make in a way that is clear. In the past, the warning was only implied by a sign that specified the number of tracks. It was up to drivers to connect the dots and conclude that the clearing of a train did not necessarily to mean that the crossing was clear.
Automatic crossing signal installations coupled with the latest electronics and displays ought to be technologically capable of creating an execution of any warning that can be imagined. The challenge is to imagine a warning that makes the point without ambiguity. The ATS as shown in the video fails that mission. You have two trains standing short of the crossing with an annoying audio message warning about another train coming. There is too much noise, too much crying wolf, and an audible warning that makes no sense when no trains are moving. This has not been thought through, and it is just as likely to get someone killed as it is to save a life.
zugmann Bottom line: I don't want to see anyone hurt or killed at a grade crossing, period. That is all.
Bottom line: I don't want to see anyone hurt or killed at a grade crossing, period.
That is all.
Zug: you are correct. My earlier post of 27 deaths at grade crossings in Jan is very sobering. There was no breakdown of how many were predestrians. If you think of it there are not that many separate train movement miles in a month compared to number of vehicle miles driven every month.
That IMHO seems to indicate that there is a prevelant mindset by the public at large that they are invunerable around grade crossings vs regular driving. Operation lifesaver can only do so much? As rail fans we are too few to help law enforcement prevent the public from being idiots. Eliminate grade crossings ? Will only help 31 tresspassing deaths in Jan indicates that.
zugmann You missed my point. I don't consider many of the people hit to be blameless victims. But that still doesn't mean I would ever wish harm on them. And yes, I do believe that there is a lot of internet "tough talk". Probably a lot of it from people that do not work for railroads.
You missed my point. I don't consider many of the people hit to be blameless victims. But that still doesn't mean I would ever wish harm on them. And yes, I do believe that there is a lot of internet "tough talk". Probably a lot of it from people that do not work for railroads.
A couple of good reasons for reducing grade crossing fatalities (there are plenty of others as well):
#1 To reduce psychological trauma on the train crews involved.
#2 To reduce delays resulting from the investigation and clean-up.
I can relate to the comments about warning overload - after a while they become part of the background and lose effectiveness.
- Erik
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
see below.
In all seriousness, the lack of sympathy for grade crossing "victims" isn't just "internet tough talk." Many of us are just plain tired of the excuse making for irresponsible behavior in general and the "it's not my fauuuuuult" whining. People who get themselves killed or injured at grade crossings are just as likely to cause themselves injury or death by misuse of motor vehicles, or power tools, or household appliances, or any one of a number of things that require responsibility on the part of the user. That's a sad fact of life that's never going to change. I don't quote Him often, but Jesus once said "The poor you will have with you always." He might have just as well said the foolish. Most people don't need a 2x4 swung at them to get their attention. Those that do are beyond help to begin with.
Just saw something that is sobbering. 60 deaths on RRs in Jan 2011. 27 were result of collisions at grade crossings. 27 in one month wow.
For your information 31 were tresspassers and 2 undefined (maybe employees?)
zugmann I think a more realistic orthodox is that if people aren't going to wait until the bells and lights stop before crossing the tracks - then even more bells and lights won't be of much help. Same thing without the talk of people being splattered. I never want to see anyone hurt or killed. I'd like to think the majority sides with me when dealing with real situations - and not just internet tough talk.
I think a more realistic orthodox is that if people aren't going to wait until the bells and lights stop before crossing the tracks - then even more bells and lights won't be of much help.
Same thing without the talk of people being splattered. I never want to see anyone hurt or killed. I'd like to think the majority sides with me when dealing with real situations - and not just internet tough talk.
Zug: Your comments are reasoned and from an inside perspective, not the internet tough talk. But the majority? Maybe on this forum, but in the real world most folks think of trains in general and grade crossings in particular as noisy and dangerous [and I am using highly sanitized language]. I thought your earlier comment on the old PC quiet crossings was a good contribution towards increasing safety effectiveness, but no one on here seemed interested. Wonder why not?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
zugmann So the orthodoxy is that the splattered person is always to blame. I fail to see the relevance here, esp. in regards to the signals that failed to activate thread. The railroads/city/state/feds/whomever is paying big bucks for these extra warning signals. They are acknowledging the dangers of 2 trains passing a siding, despite the popular belief stated here that railfans/industry types think the people crossing the tracks should be aware of that danger already, and if they get splattered it is their fault.
So the orthodoxy is that the splattered person is always to blame.
I fail to see the relevance here, esp. in regards to the signals that failed to activate thread. The railroads/city/state/feds/whomever is paying big bucks for these extra warning signals. They are acknowledging the dangers of 2 trains passing a siding, despite the popular belief stated here that railfans/industry types think the people crossing the tracks should be aware of that danger already, and if they get splattered it is their fault.
Well yes and no. The orthodoxy is what you say, as far as it goes. The relevance here is the first two posts of this page. That is the orthodoxy. The "Another Train Coming" system is not part of the orthodoxy. In fact it borders on a dangerous idea. The orthodoxy would say that if pedetrians are too stupid to wait for the bells and lights to stop before they cross, then we are that much better off without them.
I am not critical of the ATC concept. Although, as I mentioned earlier here, I believe the execution is somewhat flawed.
Then some would argue that these signals may make people expect extra warnings (sort of like the whole crossing protection argument (gates/flashers vs. crossbucks only) at all crossings.
Can't please everyone. Can only try to come out $1 ahead at the end of the day, I suppose.
zugmann Bucyrus: I see once again the crossing orthodoxy rears its head. Can you refresh my memory and state that orthodoxy again?
Bucyrus: I see once again the crossing orthodoxy rears its head.
I see once again the crossing orthodoxy rears its head.
Can you refresh my memory and state that orthodoxy again?
I touched on the grade crossing orthodoxy in the first post of this thread entitled, “Dangerous Ideas.”
http://cs.trains.com/TRCCS/forums/t/187934.aspx?PageIndex=1
Here is that first post:
We have a whole list of rules to follow on this forum. So when a thread that is complying with the rules generates enough interest to run to 16 pages, 237 posts, and almost 3000 views, and is locked with no explanation of why; I have to assume that it is because the ideas being expressed are offensive to either the moderators or forum members who cannot tolerate such ideas.
It is obvious that the problem with that thread is that it was running against the grade crossing orthodoxy. It is perfectly fine to have a thread run on endlessly, dancing on the grave of some grade crossing victim. This is the industry template, and most railfans embrace it. But when the signals fail, it amounts to a fly in the ointment of this orthodoxy. And that leads into dangerous ideas that challenge the orthodoxy.
If you want to see an example of this orthodoxy, look at the three pages of comments following this Chicago Tribune report:
http://discussions.chicagotribune.com/20/chinews/chibrknews-2-cars-crash-into-freight-train-on-south-side-4-injured-20110214/10?page=2
By “dangerous ideas” I was referring to the ideas that challenge the crossing orthodoxy. I started the thread in response to the earlier one that got locked due to its exploration of dangerous ideas.
To Kolechovski: I almost split a gut when I read your post! Yes, you can save the whales, save the seals, save the dolphins, save whatever, but you can't save some people from themselves!
Bucyrus I see once again the crossing orthodoxy rears its head.
Too complicated...just have something simple:
"DARWIN ZONE ACTIVE"
Instead of "Danger- Another Train Coming!" how about having the speaker say this: "Fine! DON"T stop, look and listen! Get yourself squashed! See if I care! Serves you right!" Tough love, baby!
The UP used to have the bells on the crossings only ring when the gates were going down or coming back up down in the St. Louis area, but the UP recently changed those crossings to constantly ring from start-up to shut-down too. It does seem UP either has the bells constantly ring in most places on their system, and the crossings that don't do that now are being changed to do so.
"I don't know where to find the video of the lady getting clobbered by a BN E9 at Fairview Avenue, but that is exactly what happens there, IIRC."
The video of the woman being hit by the train is now censored by youtube. It is very hard to find. I did find one copy, a very short version, here:
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/e37d817b83/faces-of-death-woman-hit-by-train
When they say Funny or Die, they must mean the content is funny, or someone dies!
As for my earlier statement, I didn't mean for it to sound political, but if you're going to blow good money on some kind of warning system, you'd better do it right. Now if the guys did a better job of designing the thing, so it wasn't filled with false warnings, then it would be a much diffrent thing. There is way too much noise at the crossing, and the whole thing is stupid. Now given the earlier comments, if the bells stopped, then they could simply reactivate when a train actually is coming. But something other than all the noise is just a waste of money, especially if the system clearly doesn't work as it should.
Right, I was just going to say...
while this is certainly a solution that needs some further development, its a step in the right direction to avoid a gruesome repeat of at infamous video featuring an express being pulled by an old BN E-unit flying past the first train stopped at the platform
-Gabe
Check out Purdue RR Club -- World's Fastest Railfans -- My Photos
<In the video clip shown I fully expected a train to blast past on the middle track....not announcing the <two trains that plainly visible and were already at the stationHence the reason the AWTS system at York Rd in the video is still going. The train has NOT crossed the road yet, so technically the train is still approaching the crossing. I agree that once both trains have either cleared or are on the crossing the system should shut off, unless of course a third train shows up. The automated horns on our line at Elburn and Dekalb do that. As soon as the train occupies the road crossing the horns shut off. As for the comment about interpretation of the warning, that sounds like something a lawyer has already thought up in case someone gets belted. Bottom line is, people are going to do what they are going to do. We had two at Geneva yesterday afternoon that decided to wait in their car till I pulled into the platform. I put the cab car into the road, forcing them to blatantly violate the law if they wanted to get on. I gave the conductor a heads up on the radio, and when they went across I hit the horn. Needless to say they didnt get on.
Oh yeah you have to factor the Metra automated announcements into this. There is just too much noise between those announcements, the danger warnings at the crossings and the e-bells constantly ringing.
zugmann Conrail shared assets in New Jersey has several "quiet crossings" put in place after they upgraded the line. They either have quad gates or proper curbing to prevent cars from driving around the standard gates, No wayside horns needed, as the gates, lights and bells are proving to be ample warning to stop cars. Many places I've been, the cars stop for the lowered gates/lights/bells at non-quiet, traditional crossings long before a train starts sounding its horn. So, is the pole-mounted horn (or even locomotive) horn really necessary? To rephrase: what does the wayside horn do that a properly functioning crossing bell doesn't? Another added benefit of quiet crossings (IMO) is the train horn can be sounded in real emergencies, and not just sounded all the time, thereby maybe reducing its effectiveness? Maybe I've just been watching too many European crossing videos on youtube...
Conrail shared assets in New Jersey has several "quiet crossings" put in place after they upgraded the line.
They either have quad gates or proper curbing to prevent cars from driving around the standard gates, No wayside horns needed, as the gates, lights and bells are proving to be ample warning to stop cars. Many places I've been, the cars stop for the lowered gates/lights/bells at non-quiet, traditional crossings long before a train starts sounding its horn. So, is the pole-mounted horn (or even locomotive) horn really necessary? To rephrase: what does the wayside horn do that a properly functioning crossing bell doesn't?
Another added benefit of quiet crossings (IMO) is the train horn can be sounded in real emergencies, and not just sounded all the time, thereby maybe reducing its effectiveness? Maybe I've just been watching too many European crossing videos on youtube...
Sounds like a good idea.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.