The Butler Bucyrus: The proposed law is to solve the problem of pedestrians being delayed by false alarms of signals activating when there is no danger. ...snip I disagree. The article states the gentleman that proposed the law was ticketed after crossing against the signals behind a departing train.
Bucyrus: The proposed law is to solve the problem of pedestrians being delayed by false alarms of signals activating when there is no danger. ...snip
I disagree. The article states the gentleman that proposed the law was ticketed after crossing against the signals behind a departing train.
What train danger did the activated signals represent?
Bucyrus The Butler: Bucyrus: The proposed law is to solve the problem of pedestrians being delayed by false alarms of signals activating when there is no danger. ...snip I disagree. The article states the gentleman that proposed the law was ticketed after crossing against the signals behind a departing train. What train danger did the activated signals represent?
The Butler: Bucyrus: The proposed law is to solve the problem of pedestrians being delayed by false alarms of signals activating when there is no danger. ...snip I disagree. The article states the gentleman that proposed the law was ticketed after crossing against the signals behind a departing train.
However, I believe the impetus behind the proposed legislation is the pedestrian's right to decide when it is safe to cross the tracks, regardless of signal indication, whether false or real. I state this because there is (in the reporting) nothing in the proposed bill about crossing in front of a moving train.
Your question brings up another question. How soon after a train clears a crossing should the warning signals and devices deactivate?
James
Actually, I am not really sure what this thread is about. Since there is a call for a new law that permits pedestrians to pass activated warning signals, I assume that this permission would be granted when the signals are activated when there is no train danger present. However, I do not know if this happens, and if it does happen, I do not know how often it happens, or under what circumstances it happens.
A standing train activating the warning system would be producing a false alarm if no other train danger existed. But in another circumstance, a standing train could be producing a false alarm for itself, but it might be that the same alarm is jointly being produced by a second train that does represent a train danger.
So, a standing train might obscure an approaching train by either visually masking it, or by offering an apparent explanation for the activated warning system. In either or both cases, the approaching train would represent a train danger, so the law would not permit pedestrians to pass activated warning signals and pass in front of a standing train because they may not see a second train approaching on the next track.
However, if a pedestrian were to check the track beyond the standing train, he or she could easily determine whether or not a second train was approaching.
Likewise, if a pedestrian were granted permission to pass an activating warning signal where no standing train is present, and when no other train danger exists, that pedestrian would have to be capable of checking the tracks for train danger, which would be indicated by the activated warning. If a pedestrian is capable of checking for train danger in that circumstance, he or she ought to be capable of checking for train danger on tracks next to a standing train.
If a pedestrian is capable of determining that it is safe to cross against a signal indication to the contrary, then the pedestrian should be capable of determining that it is safe to cross in the abscence of any signal installation at all.. Save an awfol lot of money to just not install any signal or even a sign. If you get run over it is your own fault.
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
(1) Repeal the law, just charge them with JayWalking.? Are they also going to let the i-Zombies back behind the wheel because that is an inconvenience to some? Declare the entire State of Illinois a stupid zone?
(2)Illinois/ Chicago is also home to the mandated pedestrian barricades between tracks. No place else in this country have I seen the struggle be harder to bar humans from being stupid. Ironically, the pedestrian barricades in many places violate Illinois/ICC's IAC Title 92; Section 1500 clearance regulations because there are insufficient track centers to erect a fence.
I sincerely hope the thing dies quickly in committee. (I hate doing train/pedestrian accident surveys.)
The Butler In the '80s and '90s, I would watch people crawl under stopped commuter trains to be able to board said train or worse, get to their automobiles before the rest of the commuters!
In the '80s and '90s, I would watch people crawl under stopped commuter trains to be able to board said train or worse, get to their automobiles before the rest of the commuters!
I suppose I got jaded over the years, but I sure got tired of seeing people risk their lives for mere impatience. So to help me keep my sanity in the cab, at the stations where that sort of activity was common, I would frequently wait until I saw someone go under the train, at which time I would do something with the train air (set or release) which would cause lots of scary noises to emanate from under the train--the yuppies would come out from under the train so fast they looked like they were goosed with a high-voltage cattle prod (which, of course, they deserved).
However, there was also the incident back in the mid-70's, where a commuter crawled through a stopped (on track 3 west of Arlington Heights) freight train in order to get to his train, which was due shortly on track 1; unfortunately, this person did not count on my train, which was an express, that was going through the station at the same time as the commuter came out from through the freight train. He landed directly in front of me on track 2 (center track). Without going into too many details, lets just say that we needed the fire department to hose off the equipment before we could proceed.
So, can anybody please explain what exactly are the circumstances where this proposed law intends to let people pass activated warning signals?
Based on what I read in the article, this would be legal (note the green line crossing from the station to the far platform):
While this would not (note the red line crossing between the station and the far platform):
If my conclusion is accurate, then theoretically a pedestrian/commuter would have clear vision in both directions and thus be able to cross the tracks safely.
I suspect this is what the disgruntled commuter is trying to accomplish.
On the face of it, this makes sense, but we all know that there are those commuters who would simply remember "I can cross even if the signals says not" and not bother looking both ways, etc.
As K points out in "Men in Black," a person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, etc.
Too many things could go wrong there, most of which would result in a negative outcome...
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...
Yes, it is my understanding that crossing in your second illustration would not be permitted. In that case, the standing train would have the warning signal activated (I am assuming there would be some type of pedestrian crossing signal at these crossings). And a pedestrian would not be permitted to cross against that signal even though the train is standing still because of the danger of stepping in front of a second train on the middle track.
With your first illustration, there is no reason a pedestrian cannot cross because there are no trains approaching, and the pedestrian can plainly see that to be the case. However, where does this newly proposed law come into play here? If there are no trains coming, there are no warning signals activated. Or are they? Are they active because of the train standing on the far track? If there are no signals activated, why do they need a law permitting pedestrians to cross against activated signals?
Bucyrus snip... If there are no trains coming, there are no warning signals activated. Or are they? Are they active because of the train standing on the far track? ...snip
snip... If there are no trains coming, there are no warning signals activated. Or are they? Are they active because of the train standing on the far track? ...snip
The Butler Bucyrus: snip... If there are no trains coming, there are no warning signals activated. Or are they? Are they active because of the train standing on the far track? ...snip My experience at METRA stations is that the pedestrian crossing signal sounds the entire time the train is at the station, moving or not.
Bucyrus: snip... If there are no trains coming, there are no warning signals activated. Or are they? Are they active because of the train standing on the far track? ...snip
Well, if that is the case, then that is the heart of the problem. Warning signals operating when there is no danger are the biggest danger of all. They sow the seeds of disaster. It would be much safter to have no warning signals at all than to have warning signals that routinely give false alarms.
Signals giving false alarms create danger for two reasons:
1) Warning devices cause people to let their guard down and rely on the warning device.
2) Falsely activating warning devices cause people to ignore warning devices after they have caused people to lower their guard and rely on the signals.
I went back and read the article again. It utterly fails to explain why signals give warnings that are not serious enough for pedestrians to heed.
Bucyrus The Butler: Bucyrus: snip... If there are no trains coming, there are no warning signals activated. Or are they? Are they active because of the train standing on the far track? ...snip My experience at METRA stations is that the pedestrian crossing signal sounds the entire time the train is at the station, moving or not. Well, if that is the case, then that is the heart of the problem. Warning signals operating when there is no danger are the biggest danger of all. They sow the seeds of disaster. It would be much safter to have no warning signals at all than to have warning signals that routinely give false alarms. Signals giving false alarms create danger for two reasons: 1) Warning devices cause people to let their guard down and rely on the warning device. 2) Falsely activating warning devices cause people to ignore warning devices after they have caused people to lower their guard and rely on the signals. I went back and read the article again. It utterly fails to explain why signals give warnings that are not serious enough for pedestrians to heed.
The Butler: Bucyrus: snip... If there are no trains coming, there are no warning signals activated. Or are they? Are they active because of the train standing on the far track? ...snip My experience at METRA stations is that the pedestrian crossing signal sounds the entire time the train is at the station, moving or not.
Because the warning devices are designed for highway Xings and just happen to apply to pedestrians as well. Redesigning for this particular circumstance so that Xing devices would behave differently for boarding passengers would be expensive.
This situation surely doesn't deserve legislation and it surely doesn't deserve a lot of fancy signalling just so a passenger can cross a couple of tracks to a boarding platform as the train arrives.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
This is the issue:
There are multiple track mainlines with pedestrian grade crossings protected by automatic warning flashers. A train on any one of the mainline tracks activates flashers that apply to all of the mainline tracks. This would be identical to the set up for a multiple track grade crossing on a road. If a train is coming, the driver is required to yield to the entire crossing, including all of the tracks even though the train is on just one of those tracks.
But in a station, passengers board trains that stop. The way the law is now, if a train is standing on the third track from the station, and if you want to board that train, and if there is a pedestrian crossing all three tracks, then that standing train will be activating the crossing signals for the entire crossing. That means that you are prohibited from crossing tracks #1 and #2 in order to board your train on track #3. And this would be the case even if no other trains are approaching on tracks #1 and #2. So, in this example, the activated warning signals are pointless, and they prevent people from boarding the train.
So that is what the proposed new law wants to remedy by making it legal for pedestrians to cross tracks against activated warning signals, provided that there are no trains approaching on those tracks, and provided that the pedestrian does not walk in front of a stopped train in the process of crossing the tracks.
However, here is the other side of the argument. If a standing train has activated the warning signals for all three tracks, and if no other trains are approaching, that warning will be a false alarm. If people are allowed to dismiss the warning as a false alarm and cross the tracks, and if another train happens to approach, then the false alarm will change to a real alarm. And yet, the pedestrians, by listening to the alarm alone, will have no way of knowing that the false alarm has changed into a real alarm. It sounds the same either way.
And as a backdrop to this scenario, pedestrians will have become habituated to the protection of the warning signals over time, and will have consequently let their guard down. Therefore, because they are relying more on the signals and less on their own natural attention and wariness, it becomes extra dangerous to permit them to decide some warnings are false alarms and some are not.
Methinks NORAC Rule S applies here:
S. Safety; Following the Safe Course Safety is of first importance. These rules provide for a safe and efficient operation. In case of doubt, the safe course must be followed.
Safety is of first importance. These rules provide for a safe and efficient operation. In case of doubt, the safe course must be followed.
Especially the last sentence.
Well changing the law to give permission to pass activated signals would make it less safe, but I can see the point of not making people miss their train just because signals are activated for no reason. That is the part they are referring to when they say the present law is too paternal.
It seems to me that what is needed is a way for the standing train to shut off its contribution to the activation of the signals.
They are activated for a reason - a train is in the close proximity of the crossing.
How do the rules play with these pedestrian crossings? I'm familiar with the highway versions, but not the pedestrian only.
Plenty of highway grade crossings have motion-sensors that allow the gates/lights to shut off if a train stops before occupying it. But the train still has to be x number of feet away from the crossing (and off the island circuit - do new crossings even have a real island circuit anymore?) for the protection to shut off. If you stop on the crossing (or pretty close to it), the lights keep flashing and the bells keep clanging.
So the question is - how far away from the stopped train are these crossings? Why would it matter? Well, if the train stops, and the crossing protection shuts off, then the moving train will re-activate it. But you just can't blow through the crossing (at least in the highway case, I'd assume the pedestrian crossings are similar). No, you have to give adequate time for the people to clear the crossing before you occupy it. Otherwise you risk people getting stuck on the track waiting for the departing train, and a few of these people may not be smart enough to step back off the tracks before the 5:10 to Skokie come blasting through at 59mph on a second track.
The train that was stopped now has to crawl up to the crossing so the allotted time passes before it occupies the crossing. When commuter trains are making fast stops and starts, those seconds add up. Maybe it is better to just keep the people waiting as the train does its thing.
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
Yes, the situation I was describing would have a train standing short of a pedestrian crossing, but close enough to have activated the warning signals. When I say they are activated for no reason, I mean their activation serves no purpose. But worse than that, the activation by the standing train amounts to a false alarm, and if another through train approaches, the false alarm of the standing train will become a true alarm with no perceptible indication of the change. That is a major danger.
That danger is the reason behind the “Second train coming” warning that they have recently developed. That is basically a second alarm in addition to the false alarm of the standing train. That second alarm, which is a true alarm, enables pedestrians to distinguish the true alarm from the false alarm.
The first thing that occurred to me would be to simply not give false alarms. You could accomplish that by a switching system whereby a stopped train could shut off its contribution to the alarm activation. I don’t know how you would accomplish that switch, but there must be many possible ways to do it.
However, the danger of a false alarm from a train standing on one of multiple tracks is not much different than the danger of a real alarm being triggered simultaneously by more than one approaching train. So, overall, the “Second train coming” warning is probably the best remedy. Although, even with the “Second train coming” warning applied to a crossing, eliminating the false alarms of a standing train would add safety. This is because it would leave the “Second train coming” warning to address only the real dangers of multiple approaching trains, rather than including the false alarm for standing trains.
The situation with road grade crossings is a little different than with pedestrian crossings at stations. Road grade crossings are either open or closed to through traffic on the road. Station crossings can be closed to pedestrians by the very train that a pedestrian needs to board, and that closure can prevent them from boarding. This problem is the heart of the proposed Illinois law, and it does indeed seem like a problem that needs fixing. The only question is whether the proposed law is the best fix.
Simple solution would be to tell the people to get to the station a few seconds earlier. I don't know how much we should attempt to stop the world from turning just for them. Train blocking the crossing? Oh well. Sucks to be you.
You would need some sort of 2nd train coming signal, otherwise people would think the crossing devices were just activating for the stopped train. Which I believe was the situation in the infamous gruesome video that we probably have all seen. It would be stupid to only use the 'second train' for multiple approaching trains, since there is already one train there. You would need a "3rd train" coming signal to address that. Most people can count, and they would probably count that giant train sitting at the station as "one".
I think the best solution would just to keep the crossings closed when there's a train there. Build an overpass or underpass if people have to get on that train so bad.
Well, warning for the multiple train event is one thing, but I cannot see any reason why a passenger should be prevented from boarding their train simply because a warning system is inadvertently activated without any need for a warning.
Bucyrus Well, warning for the multiple train event is one thing, but I cannot see any reason why a passenger should be prevented from boarding their train simply because a warning system is inadvertently activated without any need for a warning.
They can board. They just can't cross. Go back to my other post. If you deactivate signals, you need to reactivate them, then give y-number of seconds for the warning to sound, then occupy said crossing.
If they need to cross in order to board, and if they are prevented from crossing; then does it not follow that they are prevented from boarding?
I understand that if you deactivate the signals for a stopped train, you need to reactivate them when the train is about to resume moving. You seem to be suggesting that would be a problem. I do not understand why that would be a problem.
Bucyrus If they need to cross in order to board, and if they are prevented from crossing; then does it not follow that they are prevented from boarding? I understand that if you deactivate the signals for a stopped train, you need to reactivate them when the train is about to resume moving. You seem to be suggesting that would be a problem. I do not understand why that would be a problem.
1. Not if they learn that teleportation thing. But then they wouldn't need the train...
2. Depends on the distance from the stopped train to the crossing. And rules in effect about minimum crossing activation time.
Bucyrus If they need to cross in order to board, and if they are prevented from crossing; then does it not follow that they are prevented from boarding?
They can cross as many times as they want if there are no trains in the circuit. As would be the case before the train arrives.
I have trouble believing that there is so much traffic through the station that there are no times when the crossing isn't blocked.
As has been said - get there a few minutes early and you won't have a problem.
tree68 Bucyrus: If they need to cross in order to board, and if they are prevented from crossing; then does it not follow that they are prevented from boarding? They can cross as many times as they want if there are no trains in the circuit. As would be the case before the train arrives. I have trouble believing that there is so much traffic through the station that there are no times when the crossing isn't blocked. As has been said - get there a few minutes early and you won't have a problem.
Bucyrus: If they need to cross in order to board, and if they are prevented from crossing; then does it not follow that they are prevented from boarding?
It has nothing to do with there being so much traffic through the station that the crossings are blocked. It has nothing to do with blocked crossings. The only point is that the train they want to board is on the circuit and producing a warning alarm that has no purpose because the train is standing still for people to board.
And they cannot board because they are prevented from crossing against the activated signals that have no purpose.
Why should they have to arrive early just because the railroad cannot figure out how to avoid sending a false warning after the train arrives?
After learning about this nonsense, it is no wonder to me that this law would be proposed.
Bucyrus Why should they have to arrive early just because the railroad cannot figure out how to avoid sending a false warning after the train arrives?
Because that is life, sir. Of course it does go against the "me me me" attitude that is ever so present in the general public.
BucyrusWhy should they have to arrive early just because the railroad cannot figure out how to avoid sending a false warning after the train arrives?
You know, we have a similar problem on our tourist railroad. Some people seem to think that if the train is scheduled to leave at 12:30, that they need to arrive at the station at 12:30...
Fortunately for them, we aren't really in a hurry to leave on time, such as a commuter train would be, and we're generally more than willing to hang loose for a couple while they saunter in and buy their tickets, and mom visits the restroom, and...
These people generally ride the same train - day in and day out. They should know that if they want to get on the 8:33, they need to be on the platform when it arrives, not pulling into the parking lot. It's not rocket science.
zugmann Bucyrus: Why should they have to arrive early just because the railroad cannot figure out how to avoid sending a false warning after the train arrives? Because that is life, sir. Of course it does go against the "me me me" attitude that is ever so present in the general public.
Bucyrus: Why should they have to arrive early just because the railroad cannot figure out how to avoid sending a false warning after the train arrives?
That kind of reminds me of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZ3AOmZ2fps
You want to ride this train? No train for you!
Bucyrus That kind of reminds me of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZ3AOmZ2fps You want to ride this train? No train for you!
yeah, we get it Buc. You think when it comes to railraod crossings, the railroads must bend over backwards to cater to every ignorant and lazy person on earth.
At airports, they have resonable laws and safety procedures to keep passengers from getting squooshed by 747 on the way to boarding their plane. Why is it unreasonable to expext passengers to obey similar laws when getting on a train?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Laws or rules to prevent people from getting squooshed are not what is at issue with the proposed Illinois law. The issue is a warning system sending a false alarm that prevents people from boarding the train. By false alarm, I mean a train danger warning when no train danger exists.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.