BucyrusI’m not making a generalization. I said “many drivers consider the signals and gates to be only advisory to indicate an approaching train.”
Perhaps not an over-generalization but definitely lacking specificity. How about some hard data to put the "many" into the proper context?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
tree68 traindriver98...Train crews no longer have to sound the horn at Private crossings, ... We have a number of trail crossings on our line, as well as some private crossings. We blow for all of them. I've had hikers suddenly pop into sight at those crossings, and we've had a close call or two at otherwise little used vehicle crossings.
traindriver98...Train crews no longer have to sound the horn at Private crossings, ...
We have a number of trail crossings on our line, as well as some private crossings.
We blow for all of them.
I've had hikers suddenly pop into sight at those crossings, and we've had a close call or two at otherwise little used vehicle crossings.
We've never been required to blow for most private crossings in my area. (There are a couple of exceptions for high-traffic private crossings that even have lights and gates, and the proper whistle posts.) I think the requirement depends on local laws in effect.
That dosen't mean I don't blow for a private crossing if I feel the need to. Most of ours are farm field access roads. If I see a vehicle heading towards the crossing, I'll blow the standard crossing warning. If I'm on double track meeting a train that obscures my view during times it could be expected that something could cross the tracks, I'll blow for the crossing.
Jeff
zugmann,
I’m not making a generalization. I said “many drivers consider the signals and gates to be only advisory to indicate an approaching train.” I did say that the signals and gates teach this, but not every driver accepts that teaching. And some drivers who run the lights and gates know that they are breaking the law, but just take the chance anyway.
But driver surveys have shown that many drivers do believe the warning system is advisory and not regulatory. And traffic authorities are looking for ways to eliminate this misunderstanding. I am just pointing out one way that the misunderstanding comes about. I wonder if traffic authorities have ever noticed it.
I did lump the gates in with the lights when I said they are perceived as advisory. I think that gates might be perceived as advisory in cases where drivers go around them when they are lowered. But I don’t believe that cases of drivers breaking through a lowered gate would result from the belief that the gate is advisory. That would be likely due to misjudging the ability to get under the gate in time. But leading to that point might be the perception that the lights are only advisory.
People think a physical barrier across the road as "advisory"?
Some may, but I think your generalization is way too broad.
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
Bucyrus However, if for instance, the lights began flashing yellow for ten seconds and then switched to red, and if the law were re-written to define the flashing yellow phase as a “prepare to stop” warning, then it would all make sense to the driver.
However, if for instance, the lights began flashing yellow for ten seconds and then switched to red, and if the law were re-written to define the flashing yellow phase as a “prepare to stop” warning, then it would all make sense to the driver.
Traffic lights turning yellow are generally translated by the motoring public these days not as "prepare to stop," but rather "step on it so you don't get caught by the light."
In fact, it's not only "these days." Early traffic signal designs had the lights going from red to amber to green at the same time the other direction was going from green to amber to red. This created some interesting situations at "ground zero" as the motorists anticipating a green light ventured into the intersections at the same time the motorists that had the green were trying to beat the red.
I can't imagine RR crossings being any different, and probably worse, as motorists know that if they get caught by a traffic light, they'll probably be on their way in well less than a minute. With a train, they "know" they'll be there for a "substantial" amount of time.
While I understand your sentiment, I don't see the current scheme of things as broken. Adding a new phase to the crossing signal operation simply complicates the whole thing from a technical and driver understanding viewpoint, and with a few limited exceptions, will do little to change things.
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 one reason why many drivers consider the signals and gates to be only advisory to indicate an approaching train:
When the red lights start flashing, drivers must stop. Of course, they cannot possibly stop in time if they are traveling too fast to stop within their distance from the crossing when the lights start. Unlike a traffic light, which has a yellow light warning to give time for a driver to decelerate in preparation for stopping short of the red light, there is no advance warning that the inviolable red lights of a grade crossing are about to flash.
With grade crossing flashers on a fast highway; because of the long stopping distance; an approaching driver too close to stop short of the flashing lights upon their startup; could pass through the crossing several seconds after the red lights start flashing.
At 50-60 mph, a driver will probably require 6-8 seconds to stop. In a sense, there is warning built into the crossing activation due to the 20 seconds between activation and train arrival at the crossing. But, of course a driver cannot consider that 20 seconds as available warning time because it would take him or her right up to the point of collision, and that is cutting it too close. Furthermore, the gate lowers before that 20 seconds elapses, and the gate is the practical end point of vehicle passage. And still further; the law does not permit a driver to pass the red flashing lights, so none of the 20 seconds can be considered a warning for the start of the flashing red lights.
I believe that the authorities must certainly recognize that some amount of warning interval is necessary for the stopping requirement for the red flashing lights, and so they reason that the warning interval is the time between the start of the red flashing lights and the blockade of the gate. The authorities realize that the laws of physics require stopping distance, and they see no danger in accepting drivers violating the pre-gate phase of the red light activation because as long as the driver stops for the gate he or she will not get hit by a train.
However, this is a flawed concept because the driver is not in on the deal. The driver is being told by the authorities and the law that he or she must stop short of the red flashing lights. There are no excuses.
However, if for instance, the lights began flashing yellow for ten seconds and then switched to red, and if the law were re-written to define the flashing yellow phase as a “prepare to stop” warning, then it would all make sense to the driver. But expecting drivers to stop on a dime doesn’t make sense to drivers.
So without getting out the law book, any reasonable driver is going to simply conclude that he or she cannot possibly be expected to stop on a dime should the red lights suddenly activate. And therefore, to a driver, the red lights are just a warning that a train is coming rather than a command to stop. Simple common sense leads to that conclusion. What other conclusion could there be?
So the flaw in the concept is not that running the flashing red lights before the gate comes down is going to lead to a crash. That won’t happen. The flawed concept is that the system teaches drivers that they are to use their own discretion as to whether or not it is safe to pass the flashing lights. Of course, this is not what the system, the law, or the authorities intend for a driver to do.
Furthermore, the raised gate of the system tells a driver that it is completely safe to cross even though the red lights are flashing. The raised gate is like a clear signal telling the driver there is still time to make it across. The “clear signal” (the raised gate) tells the driver that there is no need to look for a train to judge its speed or proximity to the crossing, so the driver can just focus on getting across the tracks as quickly as possible.
So it is not just that drivers will naturally use part of the red flashing light phase to get through if they are too close to stop. They will go further and use more of the red flashing light phase to get through rather than wait for the train—even if they are close enough to stop.
So you can see that the whole system encourages drivers to violate the lights and gate in order to try to beat the train, so they don’t have to wait for it. It just leads drivers to that natural conclusion and behavior.
DMUinCT Fifty years ago, the worlds largest Elevator Company ran tests to determine how long people would wait for an elevator without getting impatient. They found that 20 seconds after pressing the call button, they, on average, would again be pushing the button. After 30 seconds some people would actually head to the stairs rather than wait. You can draw your own comparison between elevators and railroad crossings. We handed out small 30 second "hour glasses" to our customers to judge elevator service in his building.
Fifty years ago, the worlds largest Elevator Company ran tests to determine how long people would wait for an elevator without getting impatient. They found that 20 seconds after pressing the call button, they, on average, would again be pushing the button. After 30 seconds some people would actually head to the stairs rather than wait.
You can draw your own comparison between elevators and railroad crossings.
We handed out small 30 second "hour glasses" to our customers to judge elevator service in his building.
LION has heard of that test, it was used in advertizing. As far as I recalled, that second button push was usually six seconds after the first. If I had to wait 20 seconds for an elevator I would really be climbing the wall! The meds help.
ROAR
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
I wonder how many train crashes result from drivers trying to beat the train by running under the lowering gate.
Don U. TCA 73-5735
CSSHEGEWISCHJudging by the number of times I've seen signal maintainers near grade crossings with their truck and replacement parts, I would say that the gates get hit more often than we care to admit.
Dr. Frankendiesel aka Scott Running BearSpace Mouse for president!15 year veteran fire fighterCollector of Apple //e'sRunning Bear EnterprisesHistory Channel Club life member.beatus homo qui invenit sapientiam
Judging by the number of times I've seen signal maintainers near grade crossings with their truck and replacement parts, I would say that the gates get hit more often than we care to admit.
traindriver98,
Thanks for your comment and welcome to the forum. I agree that people trying to beat the train is a big part of the problem. They think they have the time to make it across. They worry that the delay will be longer than will actually be the case, and they don’t want to take a chance that it won’t.
But another key part of the problem is that studies have shown that many drivers believe that the crossing signals and gates are only meant to tell them that a train is approaching; and that they are permitted to use their own discretion as to whether or not it is safe to cross.
I am wondering how drivers get around the four-quadrant gates, as you mention. How often do drivers try to beat the train by running straight though before the gate is fully lowered, but misjudge and hit the gate?
As a locomotive engineer I thought I would add my two cents worth to this line. Quiet zones are NOT a good ideal. As others have posted the local politicians create the zones due to complaints by the people who live near these crossings. If you live in an area that the Union Pacific operates you might have noticed that the signs at some grade crossings have changed. Train crews no longer have to sound the horn at Private crossings, and I have come close to hitting someone due to this policy. As an engineer for about 15 years I have seen about everything at grade crossings. The use of double gates will keep most people from going around them but not all. The biggest problem that I've seen is people just don't want to wait for the train to go by. In some cases nothing is going to keep people from going around crossing gates except the train. Most of the time they make it, but it only takes the one time they don't.
schlimm Extra warning time at a properly constructed four-quadrant gated crossing with a concrete median barrier should eliminate almost all accidents. You aren't suggesting most crossing accidents are caused by vehicles breaking through the lowered gates, are you?
Extra warning time at a properly constructed four-quadrant gated crossing with a concrete median barrier should eliminate almost all accidents. You aren't suggesting most crossing accidents are caused by vehicles breaking through the lowered gates, are you?
Heavens no! I believe the finding on longer lead times concerned conventional crossings (not extra-fortified quiet zones) with only one gate on each side being where the problems occur.
I could also see collisions occuring at crossings where there is a center barrier, but not four quadrant gates, if such configurations exist. In fact, in that case the extra time would likely contribute to the problem if a driver saw that the gates were down but no train was yet in sight before he reached the leading end of the barrier, allowing him to drive up the wrong side of the road (traffic permitting).
You basically have to trap the driver with no recourse to avoid having to wait for the train to clear.
The problem is driver impatience. Give them a chance to act on that impatience, and they'll take it.
OTOH, I wouldn't be surprised to see a driver in a "beater" compact car decide he could push his way under the gates. Especially if he's tried it successfully before.
schlimm Even if the top speed is only 75 mph in that urban stretch, the crossings better all be four-quadrant with medians and the timing before the train gets to the crossing better be more than 20 seconds; try 30 or more. Hard to imagine those trains going at 110 through Blue Island or the south side.
Even if the top speed is only 75 mph in that urban stretch, the crossings better all be four-quadrant with medians and the timing before the train gets to the crossing better be more than 20 seconds; try 30 or more. Hard to imagine those trains going at 110 through Blue Island or the south side.
What I'm finding from numerous sources is that it's required that the lights be flashing at least 20 seconds before the train enters the crossing.
And that the gates be fully down five seconds before the train enters the crossing.
At 60 MPH, a train will be a third of a mile from the crossing when the lights start to flash.
At 75 MPH, a train will be almost a half mile out when the lights come on.
Either way, that means if the lights are flashing (even for crossings without gates, which still exist) a train will be at the crossing in 20 seconds, more or less.
Obviously, hard wired crossings will be subject to more variation (due to being set for a certain speed - trains faster or slower will change the result) than predictive crossings.
Regs call for the horn to be sounded (in non-quiet zones) beginning not more than 20 seconds nor less than 15 seconds from the crossing, but not more than 1/4 mile from the crossing, regardless of speed.
As Bucyrus has pointed out, longer warnings actually translate into more attempts to beat the trains and thus more collisions.
Since a train at speed isn't going to stop before reaching the crossing, the extra ten seconds gained by increasing the warning time to 30 seconds isn't going to make any difference in the outcome if someone decides to chance it.
Paul of Covington The old memory is a little fickle at my age, but I kinda remember something about adding a horn to the crossing warning when a quiet zone was imposed. The horn need not be as loud as the locomotive horn, but since it would be closer and directed toward the traffic, it would be as effective without disturbing the whole neighborhood as much.
The old memory is a little fickle at my age, but I kinda remember something about adding a horn to the crossing warning when a quiet zone was imposed. The horn need not be as loud as the locomotive horn, but since it would be closer and directed toward the traffic, it would be as effective without disturbing the whole neighborhood as much.
That was an option. Those automated horn systems may still be in use, but some have been converted into full (un)blown quiet zones.
Many citizens in Ames, IA, at least those that like to complain about such things, didn't like them. Even though the sound is supposed to be directed towards the oncoming traffic, the sound still can be heard away from the intended target area. Evidently still too loud for some. Ames took them out a couple years ago.
A lot depends on how well the quiet zone is engineered. The quiet zone in Chicago on the CSX Blue Island Subdivision is set up well with four-quadrant crossing gates at most locations and median dividers which extend about 150 feet back from the grade crossing at the others. The bell is still sounded and using the whistle is allowed in emergency and certain other situations, such as the thick fog (1/8 mile visibility) that Chicago had on the Wednesday before Thanksgiving.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
BroadwayLionIts simple enough. You want a quiet and safe crossing, you build an overpass.
Its simple enough. You want a quiet and safe crossing, you build an overpass.
Several years ago, the chief of my fire department at the time tried to take a neighboring fire department off our mutual aid card for traffic accidents. A review of our responses showed that of over 80 incidents, the neighboring fire department was needed (they provide extrication tools - the "Jaws of Life") only three times.
Small town politics being what they are, several members of the neighboring department were incensed and wrote to a fire service lawyer, asking if they were incurring a liability by not responding to all accident calls.
Anyone not guessing that the answer was yes has something to learn.
Had they asked "which incurs the larger liability - not responding the three times the rescue tools were needed (in which case they would have been requested anyhow), or responding the 80 times they weren't (risking accidents, mostly), I'm sure the answer would have been different - much different. But it probably wouldn't have been the answer they were looking for.
The point here is that any time someone faces a risk, they're going to characterize it in a worst case scenario.
As noted, making a crossing (or series thereof) a quiet zone involves a lot more that just not sounding the horn. IIRC, there has to be some manner of a barrier (four-quadrant gates, median barriers, etc) to prevent motorists from entering the crossing. That there was such a drastic increase in crossing incidents says to me that there was an engineering failure.
I guess the FRA would know that.
Yes, I see that. I wonder if the older unsafe quiet zones have been grandfathered in with their original unsafe nature.
The whole thing raises a lot of questions. One question is about what U.P. means in their statement. Another question goes to how they are able to measure crossing safety in a way that you can deduct the horn, which deducts safety; and add something that adds enough safety to make up for the safety deduction.
At least with Gary Schatz, the meaning is clearly that quiet zones that meet FRA standards are safe now, but were not prior to 2005.
schlimm,
That is interesting. I did think that second sentence starting with the word “But” did not seem quite right for the context. That is a case of bad writing in the article I linked. It really has two different meanings, but I think the meaning that you have found is the correct one.
When he talks about the danger arising from the lack of a train horn, he means that you just can’t get rid of the train horn to make the crossing quiet. You need to compensate for the lack of the train horn with the quiet crossing concept.
The other meaning would be that the lack of a train horn with the quiet crossing concept adds danger. Or in other words, the quiet zone crossing is more dangerous than a non-quiet zone crossing. But that point does seem to be the point that Union Pacific is making in their statement leading the quote. But it leaves it as being entirely the opinion of U.P. with no quantification or references for their position. I wonder what the U.P. bases their quiet zone belief on.
Bucyrus The railroad’s website says: "Union Pacific believes quiet zones compromise the safety of railroad employees, customers, and the general public." But Schatz said the absence of the loud warning of an approaching freight train compromises safety. "It's known that, if the train does not sound its horn at the crossing, the chance of a crash occurring increases 68 percent,” he said.
The railroad’s website says: "Union Pacific believes quiet zones compromise the safety of railroad employees, customers, and the general public."
But Schatz said the absence of the loud warning of an approaching freight train compromises safety.
"It's known that, if the train does not sound its horn at the crossing, the chance of a crash occurring increases 68 percent,” he said.
This is misleading. In a paper http://www.walterpmoore.com/downloads/knowledge/mooreknowledge/QuietZones.pdf, Schatz says:
"Fortunately, a solution exists that lowers the volume on train noise without compromising crossing safety — the quiet zone, which is a stretch of track along which trains do not routinely sound their horn at the at-grade crossings. Gated railroad crossings have a statistical risk for a train-vehicle crash. Without a horn being sounded, the crash risk increases 68 percent. [and then it goes on] To meet quiet zone requirements, transportation engineers must design and implement a variety of safety measures that reduce the risk to a level at or below the risk level associated with train horns. Various U.S. communities were able to establish quiet zones in the past. But without national standards, in some cases the number of at-grade crashes increased so dramatically that the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) had to reinstate the use of train horns. In April 2005, the FRA enacted national uniform rules that enable communities to establish safe quiet zones. If the FRA approves a proposed mitigation strategy, train engineers are directed to only sound their horns in the event of an emergency or imminent safety risk, such as someone walking along the tracks."
The key is the FRA standards since 2005.
I am familiar with the UP's line through Midland. On the South side of the tracks are a refinery and carbon black plant. On the North are I20 and a bazilion oilfield service companies, equipment dealers, machine shops and such. NO ONE lives anywhere near the line. But there are a few hotels on I 20 that probably don't want to upgrade their tissue paper walls and squawk about noise. Let 'em buy some insulation and let's have a safe series of crossings.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.