What happens when the Railscouts turn evil and try to take over the earth????
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
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.
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.
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...
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.
Semper Vaporo Why ask us???? Same reason for this thread and the whole forum... for the sake of discussion.
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...
zugmann Why ask us? Ask them.
Why ask us?
Ask them.
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
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
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
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.
Waterboarding would have been easier for both of you.
Well, I am quite pleasantly surprised to hear back from U.P. that they agreed with my point about that one sentence on their website conveying the wrong message. That was this sentence at the end of the page entitled, Rail Crossing Warning Systems:
“Signals, signs, lights and horns are important safety aids, but ultimately it is the motorist’s decision whether or not it is safe to cross the tracks.”
I explained my concern to them, as I have here, about their statement conveying the message that the crossing signals and gates are merely advisory rather than regulatory; and suggested that they change the wording to this:
“Signals, signs, lights and horns are important safety aids that impose legal requirements on motorists, but they can do no good if motorists do not comply with those requirements.”
I think that is actually what they meant to say in the first place, and today I learned that they agree, as they have changed their site to say this:
“Signals, signs, lights and horns are important safety aids, but they can do no good if motorists do not comply with the law.”
I don’t intend to suggest that this faulty statement on the U.P. website has anything to do with excusing the truck driver in the Nevada crash. The U.P. website issue is only obliquely related to the Nevada crash by the fact that both involve grade crossings. I stumbled across the website in researching the Nevada crash.
I also happened to find a very interesting study by the state of North Carolina concerning the discovery of patterns of driver misunderstanding of the law and what leads to that misunderstanding. That NC study is actually closely related to the faulty statement on the U.P. website.
The NC study finds that crossings pose many variables that accustom drivers to deal directly with those variables rather than consulting their copy of the crossing law. The study finds that many drivers are following their own belief system without realizing that it is contrary to the law. The study explores the crossing contingencies that lead to such beliefs.
The centerpiece of this errant belief system is the drivers’ assumption that the crossing protection system is merely advisory rather than regulatory as the law says. Based on the discovery of this misinterpretation, groups such as Operation Lifesaver and railroad companies such as the U.P. are focusing effort on dispelling this driver misconception about the signals being advisory.
I realize that the U.P. website does not have the force of law, but the U.P. dedicates part of their website to this effort to educate drivers. So it hardly seems irrelevant that their website makes a statement that conveys information that directly conflicts with their effort to inform drivers about the meaning of the crossing protection system.
I agree that the website will not reach many people, but U.P.’s point of it is to reach as many people as they can. So, I would think they would not want to accidentally say something on the site that conflicts with their basic purpose in having the site.
UP's statement is just that - UP's statement.
It does not carry the force of law and would get laughed out of court if someone tried to use it as a defense for running a crossing.
I'd bet that something well less than 1% of the driving public is even aware that said statement is even on UP's website. Probably much less than that, for that matter. I'd be amazed if one person in a thousand was even aware of UP's website, and particularly the statement in question.
I can put something on a website that says it's OK to totally ignore all warning signs and devices at a railroad crossing, and it wouldn't mean a thing.
What matters is what the law says. So what does Nevada law say about railroad crossings? It's all you need to know.
Methinks you're trying to find issues where there are none.
The driver of the truck didn't see the warning signs, flashing lights, gates across the road, or the big silver train. We don't know why, and probably never will.
A reasonable, attentive driver would have seen all of the above indicators and would have stopped.
End of story.
Schlimm,
Yes I realize that the signals are not advisory and are regulatory. My point is that the U.P. statement makes it sound as though the signals are advisory. The director of Operation Lifesaver thought so too. So does the second U.P. contact I spoke to.
I understand your point that ultimately every law, rule, command, edict or regulation is subject to the will of a person to obey it. That was the interpretation by the first U.P. contact I spoke to. However, the sentence does not say that there is a law or rule of any kind regarding grade crossings that an individual has the choice to obey or not. It does not mention any duty whatsoever regarding the signals. It calls them safety aides. It says that ultimately it is the motorist’s decision whether or not it is safe to cross the tracks.
So I don't believe that an uninformed driver hearing that would conclude that it means that running the red flashing lights is illegal, but they can break the law if they want to. Who ever tells people that?
If, in fact that sentence were actually describing a different scenario in which the signals were actually advisory, the sentence could not be worded any better than it is.
Ultimately, every law, rule, command, edict or regulation is subject to the decision of the affected party as to whether to obey or not. An advisory is just that. It gives you advice and/or information. The key difference is that a regulation carries an enforceable legal/criminal penalty if disregarded. An advisory (such as a NWS's severe weather advisory) does not.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm Call me dense, but I fail to see how the UP language implies that crossings are merely an advisory.
Call me dense, but I fail to see how the UP language implies that crossings are merely an advisory.
Regarding the U.P. website saying this:
In the above sentence, the word, ultimately seems to set forth a premise that rises above the preceding stipulations about the importance of the crossing signals, and other warning system components and their indication of whether or not it is safe to cross. And that premise that rises above the importance of the signals is that it is the motorist’s decision as to whether or not it is safe to cross. That suggests that the motorist gets to decide whether it is safe to cross regardless of what the signals say. That interpretation would mean that the signals are advisory rather than regulatory.
Yet the fact is that the law compels a motorist to obey the signals. So if a motorist is required to obey the signals, he or she cannot possibly get to decide whether it is safe to cross. So which way is it? Does a driver get to decide whether it is safe to cross regardless of the signals; or does a driver have to set aside his or her personal discretion and obey the signals?
People try to beat trains to the crossing every day because they decide that they can make it without getting hit by the train. Some of these people know this is illegal, but studies have shown that many people do not know it is illegal. This is because they believe that the signals are just meant to inform them that a train is coming, but they get to decide whether it is safe to cross. In other words, they believe the signals are only advisory.
This false belief that the signals are only advisory has become inculcated due to a variety of factors. Part of the cause is switching operations that activate signals even though no train intends to occupy the crossing. Another part is trains moving very slowly and obviously giving plenty of time to cross even though the signals are activated. Another factor is false activations that are obviously not associated with a train. These occurrences all tell drivers that the signals do not properly cover all conditions, and that therefore, a driver must use his or her personal judgment to sometimes override the advice of the signals. Another big factor in this misunderstanding is the long tradition of crossings protected only by crossbucks where drivers had to rely more on their judgment as to whether it was safe to cross.
So many drivers have simply become habituated to recognize a grade crossing, look for train hazards, and make a decision whether or not to cross based on those factors alone. They regard the purpose of the signals as being only to tell them to look for a train. Once they accept the belief that they are allowed to use their own discretion in this way, it is very easy to “push the envelope” when they are in a hurry and don’t want to be delayed. So you find them running around the lowered gates in front of a fast train that is only a couple hundred feet away. Sometimes, when they cut it too close, their luck runs out.
LOL!!
Before you beat yourself up, read the whole thread and see if you still feel dense.
As I mentioned, I initially contacted U.P. and talked with somebody in their public communications department. He gave me a baffling explanation of what the statement on their website means that seemed to boil down to the fact that everybody has free will, so they are free to decide what rules they will follow.
I don’t believe the U.P. statement is actually intended to convey that free will point. It probably was the only explanation he could think of, but it is not convincing. There are ten commandments. Why would you want to add an eleventh commandment saying that ultimately it is everyone’s decision whether or not to obey the first ten? Wouldn’t it go without saying and wouldn’t it sort of water down the authoritative gravity of the Ten Commandments?
It is rather obvious that what U.P. was actually trying to say is something like this:
Signals, signs, lights and horns are important safety aids that impose legal requirements on motorists, but they can do no good if motorists do not comply with those requirements.
But, whatever they were trying to say, the statement conveys another meaning that suggests that the crossing protection system is advisory rather than regulatory. To me, that meaning is obvious. It is far more obvious and fitting than the free will interpretation. Yet, I simply could not get the U.P. rep to understand my advisory/regulatory interpretation of their website statement. I was surprised that he found it so hard to grasp.
So I wrote an explanation of my point in the clearest manner that I could, and sent it to another contact person at U.P. I have been told by that person that she understands my point about the second meaning, and that another individual has been tasked with reviewing the matter and presenting it to the owners of the webpage to see if they understand it and want to revise the language.
I have taken note of what I do at this sort of crossing. I drove through here recently and when I see the pavement markings or yellow warning sign, I look right and left to see if there are any trains. It doesn't occure to me to look at the grade crossing lights to see if they are activated. I only rely on them if there are obstructions and that is kind of spooky sometimes. I kind of trust the lack of train horn even over the lights to convince me it is safe. I would think it is rarer for an engineer to forget the horn than to have messed up lights. I even turn the radio down for a moment. Maybe this is all because I'm a railfan.
In this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HplaB7EB0L4&feature=relmfu
The NTSB representative clearly implies that the crossing signals were visible at least one mile before reaching the crossing, and should have been seen by the truck driver involved in the 6/24 crash. Forum member Falcoln48 reported being able to see activated grade crossing signals at another crossing from one mile.
Yesterday, I tried to confirm the one-mile visibility near where I live, but was unable to find any type of signal light that had an unobstructed view for over ½ mile. But my checking did make me realized just what a mile along a road looks like in terms of the visibility of objects looming into view and fading into the distance.
Certainly it is possible to project a light to be visible from one mile. Locomotive headlights can be easily seen from one mile. And I do not know the light intensity of projection capability of the Nevada crossing, nor that of the crossing that Falcon48 was looking at. But generally, grade crossing signals seem to be roughly equivalent in projection to traffic lights. I find it impossible to believe that lights of that intensity would be visible from one mile in the bright sun of midday. At a distance of just ¼-mile, traffic signal lights I was looking at were barely visible.
Here is a link showing a highway view of the Nevada crossing at different distances. In the view showing the advance warning signs, those signs are 897 feet from the crossing, according to what the NTSB has stated:
http://misterhippity.tumblr.com/post/6946429634/ive-been-using-google-street-view-to-conduct-my
Photo quality is not the greatest, and there may be a little haze in the air, but it does give an idea of what the view looks like at about 900 feet in full sun, at midday. Granted, the lights are not activated, but you can see how small the crossing signals appear to be. A mile is almost 6 times further.
Bucyrus tdmidget: I believe, however that you, I, everyone responding to this thread, and indeed virtually everyone with a drivers license, has no problem with any of the signals discussed, including grade crossings. The engineer of the Amtrak train doesn’t think so. Neither does the engineer of Amtrak train that was almost hit a year ago.
tdmidget: I believe, however that you, I, everyone responding to this thread, and indeed virtually everyone with a drivers license, has no problem with any of the signals discussed, including grade crossings.
I believe, however that you, I, everyone responding to this thread, and indeed virtually everyone with a drivers license, has no problem with any of the signals discussed, including grade crossings.
The engineer of the Amtrak train doesn’t think so. Neither does the engineer of Amtrak train that was almost hit a year ago.
"Virtually everyone with a drivers license" could successfully maneuver through the streets without any signals or signs at all, by just being careful (which most people are). It seems to me that the laws, and the signals, aren't designed for the people who think, but rather for those drivers who do need to be told what to do. And for them, the message should be unequivical.
tdmidget I believe, however that you, I, everyone responding to this thread, and indeed virtually everyone with a drivers license, has no problem with any of the signals discussed, including grade crossings. Therefore these remote possibilities that you repeatedly assail us with
I believe, however that you, I, everyone responding to this thread, and indeed virtually everyone with a drivers license, has no problem with any of the signals discussed, including grade crossings. Therefore these remote possibilities that you repeatedly assail us with
But the rest of the world doesn't get it. Many times I got to do the fun task of trying to shove a cut of cars over a crossing with just a set of flashers. Apparently flashing red lights do mean "go".
Every special advocacy group wants their "own" set of lights with a special meaning to make them feel all warm and fuzzy inside. That's the only solution I can reach. Amazing how many streets I was able to cross without a HAWK light.
tdmidget I believe, however that you, I, everyone responding to this thread, and indeed virtually everyone with a drivers license, has no problem with any of the signals discussed, including grade crossings.
just wondering... Bucyrus, do you spend a lot of time sitting at traffic signals wondering what to do? If so, then I guess that that explains your obstinance. If not then you must be confident that you are smarter than everyone else, whom you claim to be concerned about.
I believe, however that you, I, everyone responding to this thread, and indeed virtually everyone with a drivers license, has no problem with any of the signals discussed, including grade crossings. Therefore these remote possibilities that you repeatedly assail us with are a non issue.
If the rest of the world gets it, then why are you campaigning for this one loser who managed to take out 5 people with him. Absent the grief to others, this might be a good thing , a Darwin award. Why is it so hard to conclude that a professional driver, with a valid CDL,running this route regularly, has no excuse for running into a huge shiny object 13+ feet high, over a quarter mile long, plainly visible, protected by no less than 3 warning signs and devices, and blowing a horn loud enough to deafen you?
I talked to the DOT contact person for information on the HAWK prototype in Minnesota:
They use double red lights for redundancy, which is common practice with traffic lights.
Originally, they used double red lights that either were lit continuous meaning stop-and-wait; or flashed simultaneously meaning stop-and-yield. But they found that many drivers went through the flashing red without stopping. So, as a remedy, they changed the double simultaneously flashing red to the alternating flashing red like a grade crossing.
Here is the kicker:
The reasoning for the change was that with alternating flashing red, you always have one of the two red lights lit, so in effect, the red signal is continuous. I am not convinced that that is an accurate conclusion, but set that aside. The reason for presenting a driver with this presumed continuous red is to increase the restrictiveness of the signal in the hope that it will prevent drivers from going though without stopping.
However, if it is perceived as continuous red, a law abiding driver will stop and wait, and that is not the intention of the signal. So to convey the intention of stopping and yielding, they put up a sign that defines that meaning for the alternating flashing reds as being stop-and-yield.
So, to get people to stop for a stop-and-yield light, they made the light say stop-and-wait, and then they put up a sign that says the light really means stop-and-yield.
They are not worried about the alternating flashing reds diluting the warning at grade crossings because the HAWK installation does not look like a grade crossing signal installation. Maybe so, but the point is the meaning of the signal, and the meaning is in the driver’s mind, so it goes with the driver from HAWK to grade crossing, and vise versa.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.