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.
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
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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
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.
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/)
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
James
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?
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...
So, can anybody please explain what exactly are the circumstances where this proposed law intends to let people pass activated warning signals?
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.
(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.)
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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
To see the Palitine train station punch in these coordinates in to your favorite map:
N 42.11309 W 88.04838
This is old CNW track so the trains run on the left (south track westbound north track east). The center track is bi-directional.
If standing at the station building and a west bound train was at the station, a person would have to cross the north and center track to get to the platform where the train is boarding.
CSSHEGEWISCH It's a bit unfair to blame this proposal strictly on the members of the Illinois General Assembly. Elected representatives are expected to be responsive to their constituents. When a constituent submits a reasonably written (albeit stupid) proposal, the constituent expects his representative to submit it for consideration by the entire body. Presumably, the proposal will either be voted down or die in committee.
It's a bit unfair to blame this proposal strictly on the members of the Illinois General Assembly. Elected representatives are expected to be responsive to their constituents. When a constituent submits a reasonably written (albeit stupid) proposal, the constituent expects his representative to submit it for consideration by the entire body. Presumably, the proposal will either be voted down or die in committee.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Bucyrus Warning signals activated when no train danger exists.
Warning signals activated when no train danger exists.
Soooo... when no train is present, or when one is stopped? Or both?
zugmann But what do you mean by false alarms?
Cynical! (?) Maybe, but laws like the proposed Illinois law; do seem to be aimed at one goal....Cleansing the gene pool. Possibly the final result might be to propose an award for the most creative stupidity while attempting suicide. Something like a reverse Darwin Award.
Bucyrus If pedestrians were capable of determining whether it is safe to cross, there would be no need of automatic warning systems.
If pedestrians were capable of determining whether it is safe to cross, there would be no need of automatic warning systems.
While the greatest majority would be capable, it only takes one idiot. But what do you mean by false alarms?
The proposed law is to solve the problem of pedestrians being delayed by false alarms of signals activating when there is no danger. But the core of the problem is not pedestrians being delayed by false alarms.
The core of the problem is false alarms. They are like the little boy crying “Wolf!” It dilutes the warning, so people pay less attention to it; and then when there is actual danger accompanying the warning, people are caught off guard.
The law's proponent claims that the current law is parental, it protects us from ourselves.
There is some of that, and lord knows that we need protection because of the deaths that occur every year. The law also protects the railroads, keeps them from being sued. Every fatality that is prevented probably saves in the millions of dollars from lawsuits, cleanup, delays in the train schedule during the investigation etc.
A proposed law in Illinois like this doesn’t surprise me abit. As a congressional friend said of Chicago politicians, “ they were intelligent men with pieces of “ I’m smarter than you papers” [collage degree], but with no common sense what so ever.
http://www.trainboard.com/railimages/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/4309
mudchicken Dumb .... Would the promoters and sponsors of this bill like to assume all liability for this as well? (and I'm not sorry at all that the scofflaw that initiated this had his widdle feelings hurt - the citing officer was trying to correct defective behaviour, not harass the lower portion of the gene pool where this clown resides.)
Dumb .... Would the promoters and sponsors of this bill like to assume all liability for this as well?
(and I'm not sorry at all that the scofflaw that initiated this had his widdle feelings hurt - the citing officer was trying to correct defective behaviour, not harass the lower portion of the gene pool where this clown resides.)
Spot On! M.C.
I guess Illinois does not have a corner on "Challenged Politicians" .
One has to wonder what kind of air was in the Washington, D.C. Council Chamber when Councilwoman (Councilperson(?) Mary Choh proposed, and it was passed that in Washinton, D.C.
C.P. Choh's law says, in part: It would henceforth be illegal to kill vermin (Rats,etc.). In the Washington, D.C. areas The rats would have to be rounded up, in 'family groups' ,and then transported to another jurisdiction ( Northern Virginia(?) . This upon the heels of the stories that New York City, Subway employees were having to work in surroundings over run with those same vermin.
It just plain seems to be in that same line of thought that Illinois would allow walkways across multiple tracks in stations, while allowing Express Trains to move through a station at track speed, and allowing detraining passengers to cross unimpeded around stopped equipment. Some rules don't make any sense.
This would change the meaning of crossing signals for pedestrians from regulatory to advisory in some, but not all circumstances. So there would be 5 possible conditions:
1) No signals activated.
2) Signals activated with clear view and train approaching.
3) Signals activated with clear view and no train approaching.
4) Signals activated with obstructed view and train approaching.
5) Signals activated with obstructed view and no train approaching.
Response required from pedestrian correlated with 5 possible conditions:
1) No response required.
2) Pedestrian must stop.
3) Pedestrian may proceed.
4) Pedestrian must stop.
5) Pedestrian must stop.
Semper Vaporo henry6: There should be a test period for the law. The State congressman and one or two of his supporters should be required, at a designated multi track station, to cross back and forth over the tracks continuously within an 8 hour period. To make it more challengine, at least one of those participating should be chatting on a cell phone, one listening to an IPod, and another reading a newspaper.Test ends at the end of 8 hours or when one of them gets hit by a train. Snow, rain, or otherwise unfavorable weather would be ideal testing times, too. SIgns should also be posted with the first rule of safety: There could be a train movement on any track, in any direction, at anytime. Similar tests, control tests if you will, should be done crossing major expressways and busy downtown streets to see how effective it is to explain to people about safe crossing of anythng with traffic. If this passes the Illinois legislature, even get to be discussed in the legislature, there has to be something wrong with the people and or the system. Safety has been proven to be a factor that has to be practiced to the fullest, extremist extent in order to be effective. One wiggle, and it is no longer safety. I dissagree... the test should NOT stop when the 1st person is killed... nor end after 8 hours. A single death might have been a fluke. The test must be carried out until all the people are dead, Then there could be some statistical measure of why they each died... old age, or as bug splatter.
henry6: There should be a test period for the law. The State congressman and one or two of his supporters should be required, at a designated multi track station, to cross back and forth over the tracks continuously within an 8 hour period. To make it more challengine, at least one of those participating should be chatting on a cell phone, one listening to an IPod, and another reading a newspaper.Test ends at the end of 8 hours or when one of them gets hit by a train. Snow, rain, or otherwise unfavorable weather would be ideal testing times, too. SIgns should also be posted with the first rule of safety: There could be a train movement on any track, in any direction, at anytime. Similar tests, control tests if you will, should be done crossing major expressways and busy downtown streets to see how effective it is to explain to people about safe crossing of anythng with traffic. If this passes the Illinois legislature, even get to be discussed in the legislature, there has to be something wrong with the people and or the system. Safety has been proven to be a factor that has to be practiced to the fullest, extremist extent in order to be effective. One wiggle, and it is no longer safety.
There should be a test period for the law. The State congressman and one or two of his supporters should be required, at a designated multi track station, to cross back and forth over the tracks continuously within an 8 hour period. To make it more challengine, at least one of those participating should be chatting on a cell phone, one listening to an IPod, and another reading a newspaper.Test ends at the end of 8 hours or when one of them gets hit by a train. Snow, rain, or otherwise unfavorable weather would be ideal testing times, too. SIgns should also be posted with the first rule of safety: There could be a train movement on any track, in any direction, at anytime. Similar tests, control tests if you will, should be done crossing major expressways and busy downtown streets to see how effective it is to explain to people about safe crossing of anythng with traffic.
If this passes the Illinois legislature, even get to be discussed in the legislature, there has to be something wrong with the people and or the system. Safety has been proven to be a factor that has to be practiced to the fullest, extremist extent in order to be effective. One wiggle, and it is no longer safety.
I dissagree... the test should NOT stop when the 1st person is killed... nor end after 8 hours. A single death might have been a fluke. The test must be carried out until all the people are dead, Then there could be some statistical measure of why they each died... old age, or as bug splatter.
If we are going to do it this way can we have the SAMPLE BE THIS THE IL LEGISLATURE AND OUR REPRESENATIVES TO THE US HOUSE AND SENATE. Wonder how long it would take to get them to Realize that Trains are HEAVY and maybe PEOPLE need to be kept out of the WAY OF THEM.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.