Bucyrus I questioned the performance of the quiet zone. People here apparently thought I was taking blame off of the truck driver by blaming the quiet zone. Probably some of those same people have themselves criticized quiet zones as being something unsafe that is foisted upon the industry. So we can say quiet zones cause crashes, but we can’t blame a quiet zone for a crash because that lets the driver off the hook.
I questioned the performance of the quiet zone. People here apparently thought I was taking blame off of the truck driver by blaming the quiet zone. Probably some of those same people have themselves criticized quiet zones as being something unsafe that is foisted upon the industry.
So we can say quiet zones cause crashes, but we can’t blame a quiet zone for a crash because that lets the driver off the hook.
In the first locked thread, I stated that we were talking about a possible 3 second difference between when a regular horn signal would have been sounded, and when the emergency signal was sounded by the engineer. Both would have been after the gates activated, according to the NTSB timeline.
I do not see how the quiet zone figures into this, when the truck was already going across the tracks when the horn would have been sounded in a normal, non quiet crossing. Remember, FRA states the horn should be sounded no more than 1/4 a mile away, which comes into play at a high speed crossing like this one.
PS. And here you go again: it must be the crossing's fault. Always. This time it must be the quiet zone. Nevermind the fact the truck driver blew the crossing for whatever reason, it must be the quiet zone.
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
John WR No, I am not saying that at all. If I were I would be the first one to hit the road. What I am saying is that simply because we spend some time on this road there are still other roads we might investigate. None of us is compelled to limit ourselves to any one road in this life; I think we are all well advised to check out several roads not only here but also in general.
No, I am not saying that at all. If I were I would be the first one to hit the road. What I am saying is that simply because we spend some time on this road there are still other roads we might investigate. None of us is compelled to limit ourselves to any one road in this life; I think we are all well advised to check out several roads not only here but also in general.
Many of us do spend time on other roads. This is (imo) the best road out there. I hate to see it become a lesser road through tons of moderation and stale "where is the Bangaldesh & Romulan heritage unit now?" posts.
Slight correction: Not just two (bad enough) but a whopping THREE threads on the Midland TX crossing accident that were locked. Perhaps this one could make it four?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Murphy SidingAs long as the participants in a thread are civil, what is the harm of allowing a *great taste / less filling* discussion?
Futuremodal was always civil, as I recall. Articulate and well spoken, too.
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...
tree68 zugmann I just get tired of every time there is a wreck, that *something* has to be inherently wrong with the crossing that caused it. Whether you intend to steer the discussion that way all the time or not, I do not know, but I'll continue to participate in the argument either way. This.
zugmann I just get tired of every time there is a wreck, that *something* has to be inherently wrong with the crossing that caused it. Whether you intend to steer the discussion that way all the time or not, I do not know, but I'll continue to participate in the argument either way.
I just get tired of every time there is a wreck, that *something* has to be inherently wrong with the crossing that caused it. Whether you intend to steer the discussion that way all the time or not, I do not know, but I'll continue to participate in the argument either way.
This.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
John WR Murphy SidingAre you saying that if we don't like it, we should just hit the road? No, I am not saying that at all. If I were I would be the first one to hit the road. What I am saying is that simply because we spend some time on this road there are still other roads we might investigate. None of us is compelled to limit ourselves to any one road in this life; I think we are all well advised to check out several roads not only here but also in general.
Murphy SidingAre you saying that if we don't like it, we should just hit the road?
Are you sure you are not exaggerating? I don’t steer the discussion that way all the time. I only steer the discussion that way if I feel there is something there to see. And this is a conversation, so others can steer it back if they want to.
I don’t know if the agencies ask lots of questions because they are trying to justify their existence or not. But the reason they give for asking all the questions is to discover how future crashes might be averted. Why can’t we do the same thing? We are only engaging in informal discussion. We are not a trier of facts here.
In the case of the Nevada crash, I did conclude that the crossing warning was not long enough when you consider the speed of approach. But it is only my opinion. If that is found to be true, does that excuse the driver? Will it cause the crossing to be changed? The state of Nevada must have had the same question about the crossing because they went out after the crash and investigated five or six of their crossings on the highest speed roads to see if the warning was long enough considering the road speed.
In the case of the Texas crash, the part I find most interesting is the question of who will be blamed. So I am not just going to put blinders on and say the railroad is always right and the driver is always wrong. I don’t think this one is going to play out with that kind of clarity.
Bucyrus I am interested in the difficult problems posed by grade crossings, and have done a lot of research on the topic, including communication with the MUTCD, FRA, OL, State Highway Patrol, railroad companies, and local police. So when a crossing crash occurs, I naturally want to know how it happened. This Texas accident, while certainly tragic, is also unusually interesting on so many levels. But asking questions about how these things happen seems to make some people very defensive because they believe that questioning the cause is somehow letting the perpetrator escape blame. Strangely enough, this attitude is not shared by the official authorities such as the NTSB. They ask questions just like I do. The only difference is that when I ask the same questions that the NTSB asks, the thread gets locked. That Nevada Amtrak crash thread was locked twice, and on both occasions I was able to persuade the moderators to unlock it because it had not violated any rules. Meanwhile, the NTSB has been asking questions about that crash for 1½ years, and they are still not finished. So I don’t think it is a cut and dried as some people want it to be.
I am interested in the difficult problems posed by grade crossings, and have done a lot of research on the topic, including communication with the MUTCD, FRA, OL, State Highway Patrol, railroad companies, and local police. So when a crossing crash occurs, I naturally want to know how it happened. This Texas accident, while certainly tragic, is also unusually interesting on so many levels.
But asking questions about how these things happen seems to make some people very defensive because they believe that questioning the cause is somehow letting the perpetrator escape blame. Strangely enough, this attitude is not shared by the official authorities such as the NTSB. They ask questions just like I do. The only difference is that when I ask the same questions that the NTSB asks, the thread gets locked.
That Nevada Amtrak crash thread was locked twice, and on both occasions I was able to persuade the moderators to unlock it because it had not violated any rules. Meanwhile, the NTSB has been asking questions about that crash for 1½ years, and they are still not finished. So I don’t think it is a cut and dried as some people want it to be.
Sometimes I think the alphabet agencies continue to ask questions solely to justify their own existence. I just get tired of every time there is a wreck, that *something* has to be inherently wrong with the crossing that caused it. Whether you intend to steer the discussion that way all the time or not, I do not know, but I'll continue to participate in the argument either way.
BaltACD Beware of
Beware of
That and greyhound's post regarding mr. blownout cylinder's impatience with threads he feels are going nowhere raises two larger questions.
1. Has it now become possible when one is impatient with repetitive threads to call that offensive and report that to a moderator?
2. Have the/some moderator(s) decided that they will lock threads in which there is some controversy, but which do not violate rules or engage in personal attacks or "flaming" without any explanation?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Bucyrus Well, I don’t agree with everything said on this forum, but I can’t imagine wanting a thread locked to prevent people from saying things I disagree with.
Well, I don’t agree with everything said on this forum, but I can’t imagine wanting a thread locked to prevent people from saying things I disagree with.
Nor can I.
Bucyrus That Nevada Amtrak crash thread was locked twice, and on both occasions I was able to persuade the moderators to unlock it because it had not violated any rules. Meanwhile, the NTSB has been asking questions about that crash for 1½ years, and they are still not finished. So I don’t think it is a cut and dried as some people want it to be.
The more I read about the Texas accident, the less cut and dried it appears. Having said that, there's almost nothing to say that the UPRR acted improperly before the accident, nor was there anything to suggest that the engineer acted in an improper or unsafe manner. The reports suggest that blame for the accident is shared among the driver, the organizers and maybe the city, but by no means do I have enough of the facts to even give an approximate guess as how that blame should be shared.
The accident was preventable, the question is what could have prevented it, e.g. better driver training, better enforcement of existing laws or new laws or regulations?
Any grade crossing accident is one too many, not only for the lives lost but also for the disruption rail operations particularly where there is heavy passenger traffic.
- Erik
BaltACD [And when a thread was locked - was it explained as a server storage issue?
[And when a thread was locked - was it explained as a server storage issue?
I know it was to the mods, and I am pretty sure Bergie posted his reason at the time. It has been five years, so.....a lot of water under the bridge.
Crandell
Bucyrus But asking questions about how these things happen seems to make some people very defensive because they believe that questioning the cause is somehow letting the perpetrator escape blame. Strangely enough, this attitude is not shared by the official authorities such as the NTSB. They ask questions just like I do. The only difference is that when I ask the same questions that the NTSB asks, the thread gets locked.
Although quoting Bucyrus, this isn't necessarily directed at him.
I think some get defensive because often times there are those that start questioning everything to deflect as much blame as possible. I suppose it's because of the litigious country we've become. If even 10% of fault can be shifted to some other entity, that might reduce the amount of judgement by 10% that will have to be paid out. Before you know it, an incident goes from being "cut and dried," to one where everyone who has been within 50 feet of the location within the last 5 years has played a part in why it happened.
The NTSB isn't so much about the assessing of blame, but how to avoid or at least mitigate future accidents. I think personally that sometimes this can just feed the fire for those who do want to assess blame, especially when they want it directed away from where most of it would otherwise lie. It doesn't help either when the NTSB finally releases recommendations that in some instances aren't realistic. (I'm thinking of a blurb in Trains years ago about a train-school bus crash. The NTSB said the accident was made worse by the "accessories" or words to that effect, on the front of the locomotive. You know things like the coupler, snow plow etc. If some of those items wouldn't have been there the accident wouldn't have been as bad.) Then when the recommendations aren't totally followed, it just reinforces those that wanted to shift the blame in the first place.
Jeff
John WR I came to this forum after I subscrbbed to Trains and as of now there is more to keep me here than there is to send me away. However, this is not the only train forum on the web. A little net surfing will show several others. People interested in discussing a specific topic might be well advised to scout our several forums because a topic that is taboo on one forum will be perfectly acceptable on another forum. I support trains, particularly passenger trains, because I believe in diversity of transportation options. Perhaps diversity in forum options is also a good idea.
I came to this forum after I subscrbbed to Trains and as of now there is more to keep me here than there is to send me away.
However, this is not the only train forum on the web. A little net surfing will show several others. People interested in discussing a specific topic might be well advised to scout our several forums because a topic that is taboo on one forum will be perfectly acceptable on another forum.
I support trains, particularly passenger trains, because I believe in diversity of transportation options. Perhaps diversity in forum options is also a good idea.
I participate in several other RR forums - can't say that I am impressed about the knowledge displayed or the questions asked in them by their participants.
greyhounds I’d still like to know more about the time prediction system. Does is always perfectly activate a signal at the set timing, or does it produce a range of activation timings with the set timing as an average? If so, what does the distribution of the actual activation time look like? (The bell curve thing, you know, there’s 99% probability that the signal will activate within +/- 0.5 seconds of the set timing. Or something like that.)
I’d still like to know more about the time prediction system. Does is always perfectly activate a signal at the set timing, or does it produce a range of activation timings with the set timing as an average? If so, what does the distribution of the actual activation time look like? (The bell curve thing, you know, there’s 99% probability that the signal will activate within +/- 0.5 seconds of the set timing. Or something like that.)
That sounds like a very reasonable question to me and I'd also be interested in the answers.
I've got a guess on how they work - by measuring the current magnitude and phase of the audio frequency applied across the rails with respect to the applied voltage, it is then possible to measure the inductance of the circuit formed by the two rails and axles that short the rails. The higher the inductance, the further away the train is from the measurement point. Using another circuit to measure or calculate the change in inductance with respect to time will give you speed. The speed will then give the distance (inductance) at which the crossing signals should be activated.
There are always some errors (AKA noise) in measurements, so the question about the range of activation timings is a good one.
As I said, I get really tired of the "yes, but..." and "what if" stuff. If the sign says "STOP," the sign says "STOP." Does it really matter whether it's three feet across, or four? Yes, but, what if the sign was FIVE feet across?
Let's face it. The guy blew a perfectly appropriate stop sign.
I've got no problem with such threads getting locked.
selector Gawd, I'm glad I'm no longer doing this. (Someone is applauding....somewhere... ) Used to be that the server storage limitations was a problem. When I first offered to moderate, the rationale for locking seemingly endless or redundant threads that had begun to amass 200-500 posts and more was that the server began to act up when it had more than one or two such threads. This was according to Bergie. Not long after, with a new rollout of forum software and a server upgrade, that problem seemed to go by the bye. So, it isn't a storage problem. Or a software one. My
Gawd, I'm glad I'm no longer doing this. (Someone is applauding....somewhere... )
Used to be that the server storage limitations was a problem. When I first offered to moderate, the rationale for locking seemingly endless or redundant threads that had begun to amass 200-500 posts and more was that the server began to act up when it had more than one or two such threads. This was according to Bergie. Not long after, with a new rollout of forum software and a server upgrade, that problem seemed to go by the bye. So, it isn't a storage problem. Or a software one.
My
And when a thread was locked - was it explained as a server storage issue?
blownout cylinder Well, this topic has been going around and around and round and around and around and around in circles. Crossings are going to be an issue every time someone tries to cross in front of a train. Come now. We all know that it would not matter how long the lights, horns, crossings gates, metal barriers would turn on when a train approaches. We have a few crossings here that leave 30 seconds and STILL we get people trying to cross...even 15 seconds...nothing will stop somebody from trying. And notice I do not accuse this fellow of anything..I was not there when it happened, and neither were any of us as well... Do you guys have the perfect system to keep people from doing harm to themselves and others? No? Yes? Didn't think so....I'll let this one ride....for now
Well, this topic has been going around and around and round and around and around and around in circles.
Crossings are going to be an issue every time someone tries to cross in front of a train. Come now. We all know that it would not matter how long the lights, horns, crossings gates, metal barriers would turn on when a train approaches. We have a few crossings here that leave 30 seconds and STILL we get people trying to cross...even 15 seconds...nothing will stop somebody from trying. And notice I do not accuse this fellow of anything..I was not there when it happened, and neither were any of us as well...
Do you guys have the perfect system to keep people from doing harm to themselves and others?
No? Yes?
Didn't think so....I'll let this one ride....for now
In the past I have received some criticism for being straightforward and forthright (even blunt). I’ve always regarded these as good qualities. Some folks seem to prefer a softer approach. But straightforward and forthright, maybe blunt, is how I am.
So it is with no personal animosity that I say your post seems to mean that we can discuss a topic until you think it has been discussed enough, and then we have to stop. At least that’s what’s coming through to me.
That’s a real question about the real world of railroading and I was hoping to get some insight here. Looks like that ain’t gonna’ happen.
I hadn't spent much time in that newly-locked thread, certainly not in recent days. It seems to me that if a thread still gets relevant observations, or even questions that have apparently long since been answered, it doesn't hurt for someone to summarize the details periodically so that a more focused progression can take place. As long as people are being civil, curious, contributory, and cogent in their contributions (whew, that's a lot of alliteration!), one should expect some redundancy after three, six, twelve pages of discussion, particularly when people formerly on vacation or deployed for work come back to their leisure time at their computer/tablet and wish to offer something after some determination of facts or opinions and don't want to read all that has transpired...pages and pages of it...in order to get those facts or opinions.
I learned some things about this forum and about myself as I went along. Sometimes, once or twice, I felt I had to undo what I thought I had done justifiably.
While the first thread on the incident did get a bit contentious, the latter two were conducted in a very civil manner as both Greyhounds and Schlimm stated.
I participate in a activity that can have life or death consequences to the participants and who's administration and policing is all done by volunteers. Observations learned from this activity and the performance of it's volunteers is that those that wield the least 'power' in their day to day jobs and lives try to wield their club 'power' with the heaviest hand and the least understanding of the situation where they are trying to use that power. In one memorable example, one official thought he knew better than multi-national manufacturers, subject to product liability laws, how a fitting should be attached to a required piece of gear - he used his power to enforce his thoughts and directly caused the very situation he was ostensibly trying to prevent - all at the cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars to the participants affected.
On thing new holders of 'power' need to learn, power is best used when it is least used. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.
Well, I guess we could discuss DS verses DSS (whatever that is). Over on the Model Railroad forum, those discussions are allowed to go round and round. 'Seems to me, that as long as we're not breaking any forum policy rules, or calling each other *straight- party votin', graffitti spraying hobos*, that going round and round is pretty harmless to those who read the tread, and irrelevent to those who don't...... I'm just sayin'
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.