Dragoman I think it was worth the effort, even if only one person gets the right message!
I think it was worth the effort, even if only one person gets the right message!
Well, I am not sure how many will get the correct message, but at least U.P. won’t be telling people they can go on red if they feel like it; even though that is absolutely is true.
I am just relieved they saw the point I was making because several people I mentioned it to refused to see that point. I was beginning to wonder if everyone was just exercising their free will to interpret words the way they wanted to.
Here is a drawing of the Active Advance Warning Signals installation. This set of signals could be placed about 1000 feet from the Nevada crossing in order to give extra distance warning for the 70 mph highway traffic. They would activate at the same time as the signals at the crossing.
Nevada DOT has not yet announced the results of their safety review of their grade crossings on roads with speed limits above 60 mph. I expect they will decide to add this type of active advance warning to these crossings.
Ron Kaminkow, the engineer of the Amtrak train hit in the 6/24/11 crash has called for this type of added safety measure. He considers the existing crossing protection to be inadequate, and he does not want to see any more railroaders killed at that crossing.
http://www.ctre.iastate.edu/educweb/ce353/lec09/tcdh/tcdh31.gif
In my original post, I suggested that having a grade crossing on a 70 mph highway was unusual, and that the high speed limit may add to the inherent danger. However, throughout this thread, there was a lot of resistance to that suggestion. The consensus here seems to be that if the signals and gates operated as they were intended to, the crossing was adequately protected, regardless of the highway speed limit.
In looking up some information on crossing closures for the NC thread, I noticed that on page 151 of the Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook by the USDOT, it says that grade crossings should be eliminated in instances where the road speed limit is 70 mph or higher. I wonder why they advise that. What difference would it make what the road speed limit is?
RHGC Handbook: http://www.ite.org/decade/pubs/TB-019-E.pdf
Why ask us?
Ask them.
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 Why ask us? Ask them.
Why ask us???? Same reason for this thread and the whole forum... for the sake of discussion.
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
Semper Vaporo Why ask us???? Same reason for this thread and the whole forum... for the sake of discussion.
We can discuss it, but it's pointless to ask us why THEY put it in their report. They have the reasoning, not us. All we can do is speculate, guess, and/or pee into the wind.
I mean, we could discuss what we think of the recommendation...
Well then let me take a stab at an explanation.
The RHGC Handbook also says grade crossings should be eliminated in instances where the train speed limit is 110 mph or higher. So, for grade crossings, there is an upper speed threshold for the trains and for the highway vehicles, which is 70 mph for vehicles, and 110 mph for trains.
I can see some rationale that could explain these limits, and it falls into two distinct categories as follows:
1) The ability for a vehicle or train to avoid a collision.
2) The consequences of a collision.
Regarding item #2: For the train speed, the higher the train speed, the greater the potential to cause damage to the train, either by the impact with a vehicle, or by a derailment caused by striking a vehicle.
Generally, for average vehicles, a higher vehicle speed will not have a greater potential to cause damage to a train or cause a derailment. However, in the case of the Nevada crash, we have seen that with the heaviest class of vehicles, a higher speed can indeed inflict serious damage to the train, including a derailment.
The consequences to the vehicle in a train/vehicle crash would seem relatively unaffected by vehicle speed unless the vehicle runs into the side of the train. In cases of a train broadside colliding with a vehicle, a higher vehicle speed might actually reduce the effect of the impact on the vehicle.
Regarding item #1: I cannot see any reason why increasing train speed should have any effect in reducing the crossing protection system’s ability to provide adequate warning to drivers. Increasing the train speed does increase the stopping distance, but train stopping distance does not often play a role in a collision with a vehicle (even though train stopping distance is routinely cited as the most important factor in grade crossing danger). In any case, it is an accepted premise that trains require a long stopping distance, even at low speeds.
The highway vehicles, however, are required to yield to trains, so if you increase the highway vehicle speed, it will affect the ability to stop if yielding requires a stop. To comply with the yield requirement, drivers must be informed of its existence by a warning system consisting of signs or a combination of signs and automatic warning devices. Therefore, an increase in vehicle speed will require extending the reach of the warning system.
Theoretically, the highway vehicle speed could be increased indefinitely if the warning system were extended correspondingly. However, one problem with that is that if you create too large of a gap between the advance warning and the crossing, a driver might forget about the warning by the time he or she arrives at the crossing. Therefore, not only would the advance warning need to be extended for increases in vehicle speed, but also advance warning continuity would need to be provided between the advance warning and the crossing.
BucyrusTheoretically, the highway vehicle speed could be increased indefinitely if the warning system were extended correspondingly. However, one problem with that is that if you create too large of a gap between the advance warning and the crossing, a driver might forget about the warning by the time he or she arrives at the crossing. Therefore, not only would the advance warning need to be extended for increases in vehicle speed, but also advance warning continuity would need to be provided between the advance warning and the crossing.
Thirty seconds of warning is thirty seconds of warning, whether you're doing 25 MPH or 125 MPH. The distance is going to change, but if warning distance is based on the average speeds involved, the time should remain relatively constant.
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 am just referring to a general principle that the higher the vehicle speed, the more crossing warning distance is needed. The amount of time between the train activating the signals and arriving at the crossing is the duration of the warning. But there is also the issue of the visual reach distance of the warning. Just to clarify, when I mentioned extending the warning, I meant extending the visual reach distance of the warning, not extending the duration time of the warning, although both might be necessary to compensate for increasing vehicle speeds.
It is true that the duration has to be long enough to allow the driver to react and stop. But also, since the warning is conveyed to the driver visually, the driver has to be close enough to see it before he can react to it.
For a vehicle moving at say 50 mph, both the duration and the warning distance are more than adequate. But say a vehicle was going 500 mph on a collision course with an approaching train. For one thing, the 30-second duration of the warning would not be enough time to stop the vehicle. But in addition to that problem, the driver will have missed most of the warning duration because he would have been too far away to see it. You could increase the duration of the warning to 2 minutes, but it would not make any difference if the driver were still in the next county when the warning began.
So, fundamentally, you would have to move the advance warning RXR signs out much further from the crossing, or install additional flashers that would extend the visual reach of the flashers at the crossing.
That other point I was making is that I read somewhere that there is a concern that if you move the advance warning too far out from the crossing to get the message to a driver earlier, the driver will have more time to forget the message by the time he gets to the crossing. I guess that’s the law of unintended consequences.
Here is an interesting idea that I ran across. A robotic rail vehicle runs ahead of a train and looks for trouble. The engineer of the train sees a remote video view that is taken from the robotic vehicle, so it extends the engineer’s forward view way beyond the normal view ahead from the cab.
For grade crossing protection, this robotic vehicle, running some distance ahead of the train, stops on grade crossings to secure the route for the train. Then as the train catches up, the robotic vehicle speeds ahead just at the train is about to hit the crossing.
http://water.tsar.ri.cmu.edu/~gwp/WhitePapers/RailScout/RailScout200502.pdf
If I had invented this, I think I would be showing it to Congress rather than to the railroads. Maybe they would make it a part of PTC.
What happens when the Railscouts turn evil and try to take over the earth????
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-nevada-officials-to-soon-submit-amtrak-crash-report-to-ntsb-20111223,0,2661309.story
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
zugmann What happens when the Railscouts turn evil and try to take over the earth????
Or when they fail and get run over by the train they are supposed to be protecting?
Besides, you expect the engineer to watch TV while he's running the locomotive? I think there are rules against that.
How many drivers are going to go around the gates as the Railscout pulls away, only to get nailed by the train the Railscout is supposed to protect?
W-a-a-a-a-y too much technology there. Just one more thing to fail.
schlimm Nevada officials to soon submit Amtrak crash report to NTSB http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-nevada-officials-to-soon-submit-amtrak-crash-report-to-ntsb-20111223,0,2661309.story
My first reaction was, “finally we get the report.” But after reading the piece, I am guessing that this report will not be made public, but rather will be just one more brick added to the massive structure that will be NTSB report, which is still probably many, many moons away.
What I would really like to know is what Nevada concluded after their study to determine whether there were safety problems with their handful of grade crossings on their fastest highways.
Here is something Else teh NTSB wants a COMPLETE BAN on all cellphones for EVERYONE that is Driving FInally except for Bluetooth devices ONLY. That means if your a driver of a car no phone on your ear anymore nationwide. http://www.pantagraph.com/news/national/ntsb-recommends-ban-on-driver-cell-phone-use/article_cd9da6e0-25b4-11e1-81bc-0019bb2963f4.html?mode=story Yes so maybe OTR drivers will stop being targets for Soccermoms Posting on Facebook what lil JIMMY did at school today.
The only perfect crossing protection is crossing elimination - and even then some wayward soul will manage to find their way to the tracks to be hit.
Bucyrus Here is an interesting idea that I ran across. A robotic rail vehicle runs ahead of a train and looks for trouble. The engineer of the train sees a remote video view that is taken from the robotic vehicle, so it extends the engineer’s forward view way beyond the normal view ahead from the cab. For grade crossing protection, this robotic vehicle, running some distance ahead of the train, stops on grade crossings to secure the route for the train. Then as the train catches up, the robotic vehicle speeds ahead just at the train is about to hit the crossing. http://water.tsar.ri.cmu.edu/~gwp/WhitePapers/RailScout/RailScout200502.pdf If I had invented this, I think I would be showing it to Congress rather than to the railroads. Maybe they would make it a part of PTC.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
The Rail Scout will not be perfect solution to the grade crossing problem, but it does represent the much touted “out of the box” thinking that we hear so much about these days. In that respect, the idea has a lot in common with the FRA, which is so much outside of the box that they want to couple and uncouple freight cars by remote control. So this inventor of the Rail Scout surely knows how to play the right tune.
And since he does, he surely knows that he does not have to waste time trying to sell his idea to the railroads. Just sell it to Congress and they will impose it on the railroads. Congress is really attracted to thinking outside of the box.
BaltACD The only perfect crossing protection is crossing elimination - and even then some wayward soul will manage to find their way to the tracks to be hit.
A couple of years ago the exact example in northern Britain. A car towing a trailer somehow left the motorway just before it crossed overhead, and landed on the tracks. I can't remember the exact details, but I think a passenger train hit it and derailed. Unfortunately a goods train was also approaching on the other track. It might have been the other way round. Fatalities were invoIved among the passengers and train crew. I believe there was a subsequent programme to extend and beef up the crash barriers along the roads in similar locations. But no doubt some enterprising driver will still manage to flip his vehicle over any barrier.....
You just can't win. If you replace all the overpasses with underpasses, it is the overheight trucks taking out the bridge instead of vehicles falling from above.
In terms of keeping cars and people from being struck by trains, perfection is not attainable unless you stop running trains. But that does not mean that improvements are not possible. As a result of the Nevada crash, the state is studying ways to improve safety at their grade crossings on highways with a speed limit over 60 mph. They are not content to just assume that nothing can be improved because drivers will always find a way to get hit by trains.
Except when that out of the box thinkings focus is on the inept performance of Congress.
Bucyrus And since he does, he surely knows that he does not have to waste time trying to sell his idea to the railroads. Just sell it to Congress and they will impose it on the railroads. Congress is really attracted to thinking outside of the box.
Of course how many motorists would see the scout move off the crossing and proceed to cross thinking the "train" had passed?
Just remember one of Murphys Laws "You make something foolproof and only a fool will break it"
Rgds IGN
BaltACD The only perfect crossing protection is crossing elimination - and even then some wayward soul will manage to find their way to the tracks to be hit. Bucyrus: Here is an interesting idea that I ran across. A robotic rail vehicle runs ahead of a train and looks for trouble. The engineer of the train sees a remote video view that is taken from the robotic vehicle, so it extends the engineer’s forward view way beyond the normal view ahead from the cab. For grade crossing protection, this robotic vehicle, running some distance ahead of the train, stops on grade crossings to secure the route for the train. Then as the train catches up, the robotic vehicle speeds ahead just at the train is about to hit the crossing. http://water.tsar.ri.cmu.edu/~gwp/WhitePapers/RailScout/RailScout200502.pdf If I had invented this, I think I would be showing it to Congress rather than to the railroads. Maybe they would make it a part of PTC.
Bucyrus: Here is an interesting idea that I ran across. A robotic rail vehicle runs ahead of a train and looks for trouble. The engineer of the train sees a remote video view that is taken from the robotic vehicle, so it extends the engineer’s forward view way beyond the normal view ahead from the cab. For grade crossing protection, this robotic vehicle, running some distance ahead of the train, stops on grade crossings to secure the route for the train. Then as the train catches up, the robotic vehicle speeds ahead just at the train is about to hit the crossing. http://water.tsar.ri.cmu.edu/~gwp/WhitePapers/RailScout/RailScout200502.pdf If I had invented this, I think I would be showing it to Congress rather than to the railroads. Maybe they would make it a part of PTC.
If the robotic vehicle is essentially a small and light weight toy, it won't reliably actuate either the grade crossing signals or the train signals, which means that it is likely to be struck by either a highway vehicle or a train. It certainly won't be able to operate at passenger train speeds, since even small obstructions would throw it off the track. Why do you think railroads don't let hi-rail vehicles zip along at passenger train speeds? That means it won't be able to stay ahead of a passenger train, unless the train's speed is limited to the speed the robotic vehicle can safely operate. Kiss good-bye to "high speed rail" or even today's passenger train speeds.
If, on the other hand, the robotic vehicle is heavy enough to address these issues (which means it would have to be heavier than a hi rail vehicle), it will have to be treated as a train for purposes of rail signalling and dispatching. That's because a "heavy" robotic vehicle would itself be a serious hazard to a train (whether the following train or an opposing or converging train) that hits it. The vehicle would be at least as hazardous to other trains as a highway vehicle on the tracks. If the robotic vehicle is treated as a train, it would have to operate many miles ahead of a passenger train in order to allow the passenger train to operate at track speed. This means that, if grade crossing signals actuate for the robotic vehicle and then stay activated for the following train, they will remain activated for a very long time, which would lead motorists to believe the crossing signals had malfunctioned and to run the crossing signals.
The notion that such a vehicle would stop on the crossing until the following train "catches up" is ridiculous. Think about that a second. Where's the "fail safe" feature, if the vehicle can't start back up in time to get out of the the way of the following train? The reality is that the vehicle would have to clear the crossing sufficiently in advance of the following train so that the signal system would allow the following train to proceed at track speed. That means, if the following train is operating at normal passenger train speeds (let alone "high speed"), the vehicle would have to clear the crossing miles ahead of the approaching train.
Bottom line: This "solution" is far worse than the "problem" it's designed to address. Just the type of thing Congress likes to do.
Falcon48 Are you really serious about this "robotic vehicle"? If so, you need to think this one through a whole lot better.
Are you really serious about this "robotic vehicle"? If so, you need to think this one through a whole lot better.
Gee, I only said it was interesting. I don’t see any technological barrier to the idea, but there will be the devil in the details, no doubt. The problem will be getting all of that complexity to solve enough problems to make it worth the cost.
I don’t see much benefit in the grade crossing protection component except that it could enhance the protection of passive crossings. But I have ideas for locomotive-borne crossing signals that could accomplish that at far less lost. But either way, for the most part, the issue is not a need to warn the driver. The issue is that frequently, drivers strongly want to beat the train because they worry about a big delay. So they take risks.
A lot of the inventor’s objective here is to extend the vision of the engineer so he can spot trouble earlier. But there are ways to accomplish that without preceding the train with a physical vehicle. For that matter, it won’t be long before they take the engineer off of the locomotive and have him watching ahead and running the locomotive from the safety of the terminal office. It is dangerous to have personnel riding the point of a train. And for seeing danger far ahead, the engineer will be able to zoom ahead through the computer and lineside optical sensors to look for broken rails, trees on the track, etc. There will be no need for a robotic vehicle to take the view point ahead.
After all, the FRA is looking at ways to couple and uncouple cars by remote control because they say that it too dangerous to have a man on the ground performing those functions near the couplers. So they are way outside of the box too.
"After all, the FRA is looking at ways to couple and uncouple cars by remote control because they say that it too dangerous to have a man on the ground performing those functions near the couplers. So they are way outside of the box too. "
No they are just stupid. They are I fear, like you, zealous to the point of foolishness. If you don't want the man to go between the cars, then no big deal. He doesn't have to go there to make a cut, only to close the angle$1****$2 So if you make the angle$1****$2accessable from either side he will have no need to go there. Of course it shouldn't be a problem now since the engineer should not not move unless the man on the ground tells him to. So if you can't keep a man from calling an engine to run over himself then what can you do ?
These accidents happen because of human failure, not because of inherent danger. The kind of ideas you are promoting will foster a false sense of security and result in even worse accidents.
I remember a safety manager asking an employee in a meeting if he thought that the place was a safe place to work. The employee answered that it was. "Then why do I have you wearing a hard hat, gloves, safety glasses, and steel toe shoes if it is safe?" was his reply. Do you think in your wildest dreams that a guy in an air conditioned, sound controlled room watching a video screen will have a grip on the dangers involved? He is completely detached from reality and his actions will reflect that.
Hey don’t drag me into it. I am only the messenger. If it were up to me, I would rather be running the locomotive from on board than from the office. But then I would just as soon go high to pass signs and set brakes; and get on and off moving equipment.
The FRA says: “When uncoupling, individuals have to position themselves between two cars, grab the cut-lever and exert a force to lift the coupler’s lock to allow release of the car’s mechanical couplers. In this scenario, the individual is exposed to physical stress…”
So it is the dangers of physical stress that the FRA is worried about, not getting run over.
Here is the full story: http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/research/rr0829.pdf
The investigation results of the state of Nevada’s report on the 6/24/11 Amtrak-truck crash have been completed and handed over to the NTSB, but they will not be made public by the state of Nevada now or at any time. They will be part of the NTSB report, which will be made public when it is finished and released. There is no way of knowing when that will be.
The crash mentioned earlier was at a place called Great Heck in Yorkshire (UK). The driver of the vehicle fell asleep, ran down an embankment onto the tracks where he was hit at c90mph by one train followed by 54mph by c2000 tons of coal train (one engine). The road vehcile (with car on trailer) was driven by a Gary Hart (not your one). He was sucessfully prosecuted for causing death by dangerous driving and given 5 years in prison. The prosecution proved recklessness by showing he'd been awake for much of the previous night despite knowing he was going to make the motorway journey.
There were issues relating to the fencing on the motorway to protect the railway itself. It's not the first and it won't be the last example in this country of road vehicles leaving the road and being hit by trains, and being able to do so because of poor roadside barriers.
Not Amtrak's fault.
http://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/2012/miriam_nv/Abstract_Miriam_NV.pdf
Still messy though.
rather damning of the trucking company but tainted by calling the trailers "side dump" trailers. What kind of cops let the tow truck guy back off the brakes before any measurements?
Rather damning of the trucking company but tainted by call the trailers "side dump". What kind of cops let the tow operator back off the brakes before a measurement?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.