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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Johnny
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.
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 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.
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'?
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.
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.
Yeah, how could I forget..
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?
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
As edblysard said, the only way to make crossings safe is to eliminate them. People are too stupid to be allowed to cross the tracks in an automobile. Last week, I was riding the light rail here in Charlotte. The train came to a dead stop and sat there blowing the horn. I stood so I could see out the front window where I observed TWO automobiles that were stopped INSIDE the crossing gate, waiting for the train to pass.
That crossing, incidentally, was created during the construction of the Blue Line. A parallel road was reconfigured so that just the southbound lane crossed over the tracks and after a couple of hundred yards, crossed back. Someone apparently thought the station needed to be in the middle of the road.
http://binged.it/1zUH7z3
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
So contact up and ask them.
Euclid This is the question that has no answer. Which of the following does a quiet zone result in? 1) Makes a crossing more dangerous than if there were no quiet zone. 2) Makes a crossing less dangerous than if there were no quiet zone. 3) Leaves the danger the same as without a quiet zone. The Union Pacific RR says this: “Union Pacific believes quiet zones compromise the safety of railroad employees, customers, and the general public. While the railroad does not endorse quiet zones, it does comply with provisions outlined in the federal law.”
1) Makes a crossing more dangerous than if there were no quiet zone.
2) Makes a crossing less dangerous than if there were no quiet zone.
3) Leaves the danger the same as without a quiet zone.
samfp1943Seemingly, this whole argument ["Quiet Zones"] fall under the category of " Rish Management".
Seemingly, this whole argument ["Quiet Zones"] fall under the category of " Rish Management".
The trend for a number oif years has been growing in the Transportation Industry: Not many Coporate Management types want to be blind-sided by comments made in the field by someone who gains "Company Spokesperson" Status in a media interview ( or some prefer: Ambush) on the scene of an incident; status gained by simply wearing a shirt with a corporate logo, or desgnated, and required work clothing.
Such film segments seem to gain a life of their own, and can come back to haunt a Court preceeding. An innocent remark can be 'spun' in Court to demonstrate or show something totally not intended in the original circumstance.
Such reasoning is why many companies do not allow their own employees to be on the scene of an incident (accident). Such that an errant statement to a media person could be interpreted as a Corporate Policy, and repeted in a Curtroom under questioning, ruin the situation, and it's outcome for the involved parties. Many Companies have professiional, corporate risk managers. Those organizations that will be on the scene of an incident, and deflect the media attention, who are authorized in some cases to speak for a Company, and to also write checks to the injured parties (checks when signed, are 'hold harmless' statements of liability release).
The Companies that contract to perform Corporate Rish(k) management, are all focused on the goal of protecting a Corpration in a potential legal action. The most recent ncident of the MM&A's 'Lac Megantic Train Wreck' could be sited as an example of adverse risk management, as well as a corporate environment that was not prepared for anything of that kind of magintude to their operations.
EuclidPlease; I never said that U.P. did not have the right to their opinion. If you read carefully, you will see that I actually said that I tend to agree with them. I only asked what they based it on.
Reading between the lines, they base it at least partly on what is essentially CYA: if anyone tries to sue them for an accident in a QZ they're on record as unconditionally opposing their safety, but going along with the Government edicts. Keep in mind that indemnity agreements may violate State constitutions (they do in Texas, for example) and that FRA was thinking of prohibiting them, but did not do so in the final rule, saying that this was a matter for state law. At present, I think the law is still undecided about what happens if a municipality fails to enforce crossing intrusions 'strictly enough' to prevent accidents; about the best I can see is that "suit will most likely be filed to determine the legal answer" -- in other words, it's a crapshoot and the Union Pacific (and other railroads) would want to make their position as firmly and unambiguously as possible in that sort of situation.
Some of the details available in this page from Union Pacific may help in demonstrating UP's intentions, and establishing a basis for SSMs and ASMs that are required or advisable in a particular QZ project. Note sections 9 and 11 of the downloadable "Quiet Zone Warning Devices Agreement".
edblysard [Excerpt] Again, you will not find a member of railroad management that will order an engineer to not sound the whistle, it leaves them liable if something happens.
In response to Wanswheel, we're saying the same thing. Prior to the FRA rule, government imposed "no whistle" restrictions were commonly called "whistle bans". These were imposed by state or local governments, not FRA. I'm not aware of any of these pre-FRA restrictions being called "quiet zones". The "quiet zone" tag is introduced in the FRA train horn rule.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.