Maybe horn use should be left to the engineer's discretion. Why does there need to be a rule for everything? There are two well paid people on most every train... why not allow them to exercise their judgement?
Ulrich Maybe horn use should be left to the engineer's discretion. Why does there need to be a rule for everything? There are two well paid people on most every train... why not allow them to exercise their judgement?
Lawyers.
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
Yeah, how could I forget..
Euclid I just talked to the city engineer for Wayzata, MN who was closely involved with the creation of their quiet zone on BNSF. He said that there was a lot of public interest in having it confirmed that removing the horn signals in the quiet zone would not decrease safety. Clearly, the public did not want any part of a quiet zone that made the crossings more dangerous. The City assured the public that adding the quiet zone would not increase danger whatsoever. The engineer explained how the FRA process involves a complex math formula that must prove that a quiet zone does not increase danger, and that no quiet zone will be approved by the FRA if it does not satisfy that condition. However, the Union Pacific states that they believe that quiet zones compromise the safety of railroad employees, customers, and the general public. Yet there appears to be no factual basis for that claim, so it seems to me that Union Pacific owes the public an explanation for their assertion that quiet zones increase the danger.
In response to the above quote:
Zugmann asked why I don’t call U.P. and ask them for an explanation. I did call them yesterday after talking to the City Engineer for Wayzata. I left a message at the appropriate department, but they have not yet returned my phone call.
To answer the point about simply letting engineers use their own discretion:
Engineers are allowed the discretion to blow the horn, but only in response to some emergency or contingency such as to warn an animal or pedestrian on the track, or to warn an approaching vehicle that appears to have no intention to yield. However, engineers are not permitted to blow the horn simply because they believe that quiet zones are fundamentally more dangerous than non-quiet zones, as Union Pacific asserts. The whole point of quiet zones is to not sound the horn.
The whole point is is it safe for railroad operations? The quiet part comes second.
The rubber tired bubbas in the equation leave a lot to be desired and along with the politicians, have too much weight in the decision.
Overmod samfp1943 Seemingly, this whole argument ["Quiet Zones"] fall under the category of " Rish Management". I have to ask: Is that using Larry Niven's definition of 'rish'?
samfp1943 Seemingly, this whole argument ["Quiet Zones"] fall under the category of " Rish Management".
I have to ask: Is that using Larry Niven's definition of 'rish'?
I can't speak for the UP, but I am guessing that they may be looking at it from the point of view that by not blowing the horn, you have removed a layer of protection.
I've seen people drive through the wrong lane, then weave into the correct lane over the tracks, to bypass lowered gates at a crossing that had median protection. This crossing was one with two tracks.
I've seen crossing gates, in certain situations, time out and begin to raise while a train is approaching a crossing. I've also seen where a damaged gate or mechanism kept the gate from fully lowering to protect the roadway.
In those cases the added physical protections either failed or were bypassed. Forget for the moment liability, although the lawyers won't. The point is avoiding the collision in the first place. The horn is that last measure of protection and because of those added protections, it has been removed.
Now before you say I have the discression and responsibility to sound the horn in those situations, sometimes that is easier said than done. Approaching a crossing at track speed and with the balance of the warning devices working, one may not realize a gate isn't fully lowered until you are on or very near the crossing. You would think that people seeing the balance of the crossing signals working would exercise caution, but many would see the gate isn't down and they have time to beat the train.
I can see where it could be argued that a crossing is more dangerous without the regular sounding of the horn. Even if those circumstances rarely happen.
Jeff
Jeff, you mentioned gates that are not fully down, and peoples' ignoring the flashing lights; in the Salt Lake City area, there are several street crossings which have both flashing lights and gates--at times, people will start across the Trax tracks before the gates are fully up. However, from time to time, UTA feels it is necessary to warn that no one is to cross, even on foot, as long as the lights are flashing--and they begin flashing before the gates start coming down and do not stop until the gates are fully up.. Sometimes, it seems that the crossing is blocked off too soon, as when a train is to stop at a station that is just north of the street the crossing is blocked before the train even stops--which seems a bit too soon. However, they system is set so that if a train is approaching--even if it is going to stop--the crossing is protected in such time that if a train should not stop the crossing belongs to UTA, and not street traffic.
It has been some time now since anyone or anything has been injured at such a crossing.
In downtown Salt Lake City, where TRAX runs down the center of streets, there are no gates; only traffic lights provide the protection (of course, in such places there is cross vehicular traffic as well). There are a few places with warnings not to drive on the tracks--such as at the few places where the tracks swerve from beside the street to the center or around a corner.
Johnny
jeffhergert I can't speak for the UP, but I am guessing that they may be looking at it from the point of view that by not blowing the horn, you have removed a layer of protection. I've seen people drive through the wrong lane, then weave into the correct lane over the tracks, to bypass lowered gates at a crossing that had median protection. This crossing was one with two tracks. I've seen crossing gates, in certain situations, time out and begin to raise while a train is approaching a crossing. I've also seen where a damaged gate or mechanism kept the gate from fully lowering to protect the roadway. In those cases the added physical protections either failed or were bypassed. Forget for the moment liability, although the lawyers won't. The point is avoiding the collision in the first place. The horn is that last measure of protection and because of those added protections, it has been removed. Now before you say I have the discression and responsibility to sound the horn in those situations, sometimes that is easier said than done. Approaching a crossing at track speed and with the balance of the warning devices working, one may not realize a gate isn't fully lowered until you are on or very near the crossing. You would think that people seeing the balance of the crossing signals working would exercise caution, but many would see the gate isn't down and they have time to beat the train. I can see where it could be argued that a crossing is more dangerous without the regular sounding of the horn. Even if those circumstances rarely happen. Jeff
I feel certain, that with TRAX, as with other systems, the speeds in the downtown area, where there is only traffic-light control, are lower than on the private right-of ways protected by lights and gates. The TRAX cars are fitted with magnetic track brakes and can stop about as quickly as an automobile, a far different sitation than a freigh train.
Dave, yes, the speed when in the streets or by the streets (there are at least two such places) is much less that the speed on the former Salt Lake Line.
Where there are crossing gates, there are two on each side of the tracks--this, along with a raised median between the two directions of traffic, makes it less appealing to the people who would cross to the left and then go back to the right after crossing the tracks.
Also, where the tracks are in or by the street, there are signals, at the intersections, that warn that a train is coming. I do not recall seeing mention of collisions in those areas; all that I can remember were at the intersections with the TRAX right of way (being subsidized by my tax money, it is not a private right of way).
Off hand, I do not remember hearing any horn; the signals usually do a good job of warning that the track is off limits to all but the trains when the lights are flashing.
I called Union Pacific on 11/24 to ask why they believe that converting a crossing to a quiet zone makes that crossing more dangerous. I received a callback on 11/25 from a person at U.P. who left a message that he had received my question. However, he said that he could not answer it, so he forwarded the question to another person in the U.P. organization. He said that person would call me and provide the answer. So far, I have received no further response from U.P.
Since I was involved in FRA's "quiet zone" rulemaking and the subsequent implementation of the rule, let me make a further observation on the "quiet zone" question.
One can, I suppose, debate whether UP's view that whistling at crossings is safer than quiet zones is valid. But it's academic - the "whistle everywhere" choice was never really on the table when FRA adopted its train horn/quiet zone rule. Rather, the choice was between allowing state and local governments to continue having the authority to create quiet zones, as they historically had done, or have FRA take on this role based on some sort of safety related standards. To my mind, transferring this role to FRA was a significant safety enhancement, since state and local whistle bans were usually (although not always) created strictly for noise abatement with little or no consideration of safety implications.
So, why didn't FRA just mandate whistling at all crossings without exceptions? The reason is simple - it couldn't have been done. Any attempt to mandate universal whistling would have led to a political uproar, and to Congressional repeal of the underlying law that gave FRA authority to regulate this area. There's no question this would have happened, and FRA and the railroads were well aware of it at the time. Repeal would have been a disaster from a safety standpoint, as it would have left creation of quiet zones in the hands of state and local governments. And it wouldn't have just been a continuation of the status quo. The political uproar surrounding a repeal would have led to blizzard of new quiet zones across the country. Giving FRA authority to create quiet zones based on safety related standards may not have theoretically been the "best" alternative, but it was the best alternative possible, and much better than the "system" which had existed prior to the FRA rule. As some wise sage observed log ago, politics is the art of the possible.
Falcon48 To my mind, transferring this role to FRA was a significant safety enhancement, since state and local whistle bans were usually (although not always) created strictly for noise abatement with little or no consideration of safety implications.
EuclidI conclude that the FRA position, although stated as fact, is basically unprovable.
By your "standard" the UP position is also unprovable, with an even smaller data base. The descriptive and inferential statistics are there and likely Falcon 48 knows what and where they are.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm Euclid I conclude that the FRA position, although stated as fact, is basically unprovable. By your "standard" the UP position is also unprovable, with an even smaller data base.
Euclid I conclude that the FRA position, although stated as fact, is basically unprovable.
By your "standard" the UP position is also unprovable, with an even smaller data base.
Oh yes indeed, the U.P. position is definitely unprovable. I meant that to go without saying. They say their position is a “belief.” They offer no explanation, let alone proof.
Falcon48 could probably shed some light on the data from which the FRA derived its conclusions. Perhaps the UP has a different data set and conclusions. But this is not about beliefs. It is about applications of factual knowledge.
schlimmPerhaps the UP has a different data set and conclusions. But this is not about beliefs. It is about applications of factual knowledge.
Union Pacific states their position as being something they “believe.” They offer no factual knowledge that supports that belief. So the U.P. position is indeed about beliefs.
schlimm Falcon48 could probably shed some light on the data from which the FRA derived its conclusions. Perhaps the UP has a different data set and conclusions. But this is not about beliefs. It is about applications of factual knowledge.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2003-12-18/pdf/03-30606.pdf
There's some additional explanation in the April 27, 2005 final rule, at the following web address:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2005-04-27/pdf/05-8285.pdf
One of the products of this study is a value called the "Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold" (NSRT), which purports to be the average of the risk indexes for gated public crossings nationwide where train horns are routinely sounded. This value is then used to determine whether a quiet zone can be permitted (in general, a quiet zone will only be permitted if the resulting risk is at or below NSRT). NSRT is periodically updated, and the last update was in November, 2013 (see following web address):
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-11-26/pdf/2013-28298.pdf
I know that logic would seem to indicate that blowing the horn should increase safety. However... There is a red and white wooden barricade that lowers across the road, there are bright red flashing lights, there is a bell on the crossing, and, except for light rail, the train itself makes enough noise that it can be heard several blocks away. If that is not sufficient, I doubt that the train horn adds much.
Grade separation is the only safe answer.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Phoebe Vet Grade separation is the only safe answer.
Do you believe that applies to light rail systems as well?
zugmann Phoebe Vet Grade separation is the only safe answer. Do you believe that applies to light rail systems as well?
There also signs warning drivers not to drive on the tracks at locations where it might be easy to not make the proper turn and drive on a track instead of in the street.
I do. I am also not a fan of street running.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLyCkeTcm40
Phoebe Vet zugmann Phoebe Vet Grade separation is the only safe answer. Do you believe that applies to light rail systems as well? I do. I am also not a fan of street running. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLyCkeTcm40
Fair enough. I'm a bit surprised, though. You seemed to be a proponent of the TIDE. Do you believe that system could have been built grade separated?
My opinion is that part of the beauty of the rail system is that it is able to cross and interact with roads, allowing it to get places that would otherwise be hard if not impossible. Is it perfect system? Nope. But what is?
I am a proponent of light rail. I just don't believe that people are smart enough to be allowed to cross RR tracks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CV2rdGX4JYc
Phoebe Vet https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CV2rdGX4JYc
According to the date line - all of those were over 10 years ago, and I will presume drivers in the are are just as dense today.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.