jeffhergert Zug's the winner. When the QZ was established, all the other crossings in town (all to the west) were modified with median lane dividers. The only thing they did at Story Street was to add the "No Train Horn" sign. (Which I didn't include in the view.) The pedestrian gates were already there. Sidewalks at other crossings in town had a sort of zig-zag fence added. I guess to get people's attention, since there isn't any barrier when the signals are activated. I asked a company officer why Story was included in the QZ without modifications. He said it was allowed because it was close to the other crossings in the zone. It doesn't make much sense to me to do that. I could maybe see if it was close to crossings where the horn was regularly sounded, so maybe there are other reasons at play. Jeff
Zug's the winner.
When the QZ was established, all the other crossings in town (all to the west) were modified with median lane dividers. The only thing they did at Story Street was to add the "No Train Horn" sign. (Which I didn't include in the view.) The pedestrian gates were already there. Sidewalks at other crossings in town had a sort of zig-zag fence added. I guess to get people's attention, since there isn't any barrier when the signals are activated.
I asked a company officer why Story was included in the QZ without modifications. He said it was allowed because it was close to the other crossings in the zone. It doesn't make much sense to me to do that. I could maybe see if it was close to crossings where the horn was regularly sounded, so maybe there are other reasons at play.
Jeff
jeffhergert I did a little looking (FRA site) and Durand's QZ was grandfathered in. It existed before the current rules were adopted. I also learned that a crossing only needs lights and regular gates if it meets or beats certain safety statistics. (Chances of an accident relative to other crossings.) Only if it doesn't does it then need something more, like lane dividers or 4-quad gates. There is a calculator to figure out whether a crossing needs the upgrades, but it wanted a username and password to access. It makes me wonder though on how they come to their figures. Story Street is the main N/S route through the business section of town. I would have thought if any crossing wouldn't have needed upgrades, it would be one of the lesser used side streets. Jeff
I did a little looking (FRA site) and Durand's QZ was grandfathered in. It existed before the current rules were adopted.
I also learned that a crossing only needs lights and regular gates if it meets or beats certain safety statistics. (Chances of an accident relative to other crossings.) Only if it doesn't does it then need something more, like lane dividers or 4-quad gates.
There is a calculator to figure out whether a crossing needs the upgrades, but it wanted a username and password to access. It makes me wonder though on how they come to their figures. Story Street is the main N/S route through the business section of town. I would have thought if any crossing wouldn't have needed upgrades, it would be one of the lesser used side streets.
With respect to the question of how "they" (presumably FRA) come to their figures, I just posted a note on the "Quiet Zone Questions" thread, which has links to pertinent FRA documents that have most of these gory details.
In response to K. P. Harrier's recent post, the crossing in his second picture is not a quiet zone crossing. It's a crossing with a wayside horn (sometimes called "horn-on-a-stick"). In other words, there's an electronic apparatus at the crossing which blows a horn down the street so that the locomotive doesn't have to sound its own horn. The "flashing light on a pole" shows the engineer of an oncoming train that the wayside horn device is functioning. If the light isn't flashing, the engineer must sound the locomotive horn.
Paul_D_North_JrI don't hear near the number of horn signals that I would expect for a train on that line, especially in the middle of the night . . .
The small community of Hancock, NY is located on the former Erie main, hard by the east branch of the Delaware River. (The O&W went through Hancock, too, but that's another story.)
In addition to a big truss bridge and a pretty sharp curve, there are at least a half dozen crossings in town. Speeds are pretty slow, so every crossing needs to be blown for.
At six AM on a Sunday morning, the crews usually try to keep the noise to a minimum. And that's one time when they usually seem to come through...
If you're camping on the fireman's field (right next to the river and across the river from the tracks) and you might have had one or two too many the night before (as several of our group did), you might be known to say that you thought the train was coming right through your tent. I, on the other hand, was hustling to get out and get a good view...
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...
zugmann Kind of off-topic, but I was wondering who owned that single track just past the crossing. Then I saw the overhead wire. Answered my own question. I have got to get out there to see that oepration first hand some day.
Answered my own question. I have got to get out there to see that oepration first hand some day.
http://www.instantstreetview.com/2i094rz1mdm00z30bzs6z2u
Appears to be the East End Electric Traction Company (a division of the iowa Railroad Historical Society):
http://www.scenic-valleyrr.com/electric.html
http://www.scenic-valleyrr.com/directions.html
On the ConRail "handshake" quiet zones that you also mentioned a few posts above: A few years ago I read that a lot of them were private crossings, and some had no authorization or approval at all - people just made them to suit their convenience.
A few miles from me is a rail line, where I have to wonder about strict compliance with the horn rules, especially for the second crossing in the middle of the residential area just behind the downtown main street, and also a few similar private crossings further up the line. I don't hear near the number of horn signals that I would expect for a train on that line, especially in the middle of the night . . .
- Paul North.
Norm48327 Jeff, Durand, MI, on the CN mainline, has four quiet zone crossings. None have more than the standard gate, no center divider, no pedestrian gates, no audible warning other than bells. TTBOMK, there has not been an accident there since they went quiet. It's a town of 4,000 and all the locals know about no horns.
Jeff,
Durand, MI, on the CN mainline, has four quiet zone crossings. None have more than the standard gate, no center divider, no pedestrian gates, no audible warning other than bells. TTBOMK, there has not been an accident there since they went quiet. It's a town of 4,000 and all the locals know about no horns.
The Village Idiot hasn't been granted his driver license ....... yet!
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Norm
Kind of off-topic, but I was wondering who owned that single track just past the crossing. Then I saw the overhead wire.
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
Overmod Paul_D_North_Jr Is this the NPR radio piece ? http://www.kunc.org/post/feds-review-train-horn-rule-quiet-zones-2015 Yes. I only heard part of the story in the background, and didn't realize it involved the situation with Mason Street in Fort Collins, which is a somewhat unusual case that, among other things, shows how a legal horn rule can become a problem (I think in the same way that strict "anti-drug" regulations in schools sometimes result in kids being suspended for being caught with evil aspirin tablets in their backpacks). See this story for more on the situation. Apparently the 'waiver' in the story was for the 2005 horn rule, not the quiet-zone provisions... but it took some work to figure that out.
Paul_D_North_Jr Is this the NPR radio piece ? http://www.kunc.org/post/feds-review-train-horn-rule-quiet-zones-2015
http://www.kunc.org/post/feds-review-train-horn-rule-quiet-zones-2015
Yes. I only heard part of the story in the background, and didn't realize it involved the situation with Mason Street in Fort Collins, which is a somewhat unusual case that, among other things, shows how a legal horn rule can become a problem (I think in the same way that strict "anti-drug" regulations in schools sometimes result in kids being suspended for being caught with evil aspirin tablets in their backpacks). See this story for more on the situation.
Apparently the 'waiver' in the story was for the 2005 horn rule, not the quiet-zone provisions... but it took some work to figure that out.
As usual, the NPR and local media story are a little one sided.
Look at it in Google earth street view. As you cross 9th St. There is a "No Train Horn" sign under the RR sign on the pole holding the stoplight. Same thing crossing 10th St going south.
No quad gates or center lane barriers.
Back in the 80s/early 90s, Conrail had tons of wink-wink, handshake agreements with towns around here for quiet zones. The one town near me had some crossings that led to river access points (ant not much else). They nailed No Trespassing signs below the crossbucks and made them quiet crossings. I don't understand the logic or legal justification for that, and apparently it didn't hold up for very long.
Now they are standard crossings, complete with horns.
No sign telling street traffic that there is no horn warning sounded?
Johnny
Here is a picture of Story Street in Boone, IA.
http://www.instantstreetview.com/2i087iz1mdm0az30bzs6z2u
It is a quiet zone crossing. Notice anything missing that you usually see at Quiet Zone crossings?
PS, the parking lot to the right is the front lot for the UP's Boone terminal office.
Paul_D_North_JrIs this the NPR radio piece ? http://www.kunc.org/post/feds-review-train-horn-rule-quiet-zones-2015
Andrew Falconer Then the signals and gates at Grade Crossings need to be re-thought to keep drivers and pedestrians completely off the tracks while the train is occupying the right-of-way.
Then the signals and gates at Grade Crossings need to be re-thought to keep drivers and pedestrians completely off the tracks while the train is occupying the right-of-way.
There are, of course, four-quadrant gates, and I've seen info/pictures on columns that rise out of the roadway to make passage impossible, both to be used at crossings.
That doesn't address the pedestrians, who seem to be pretty adept at finding ways around the railroad's attempts to keep them off the ROW (where such attempts are made).
The current grade crossings are viewed as a casual suggestion, not life-or-death warnings that will restrain large vehicles from passing into the train's path.
Unfortunately, we have to chalk that up to human nature, especially in today's rush-rush world, where a delay of even a few seconds is seen as intolerable. Despite repeated warnings that crossing protection is a life-or-death issue, the common driver seems to ignore that fact.
Saw the result of a young man who didn't want to wait at a blocked crossing. Thinking his big, bad four-wheel-drive pickup would clear the rails, he drove across an open field and tried to drive over the tracks. He got hung up. Fortunately, the crew was switching and not doing 40 MPH.
The current grade crossings are viewed as a casual suggestion, not life-or-death warnings that will restrain large vehicals from passing into the train's path.
Watch my videos on-line at https://www.youtube.com/user/AndrewNeilFalconer
Yes, in downtown Reno the mainline runs through a trench--passengers on board do not see much downtown except the walls of the trench and the station, which does have an elevator as well as a stairway down to the track from street level. The ticket office is on the upper level. I did not make a note of the number of streets that cross the trench any time that I went through Reno since the trench was dug.
Perhaps the various city governments would consider paying to depress the tracks in the places where street traffic is stopped by "too many trains"?
aricat A few days ago a Minnepolis TV station had a story about how the volume of BNSF freight trains has increased to 80+ trains a day through the northern suburb of Coon Rapids. The story complained about long waits at grade crossings and congstion created by the passage of trains. They did not blame this upon oil trains. The Fire Chief complained about response times to fires since both of the city's fire stations are near BNSF trackage. Anoka County built an overpass over the BNSF's Duluth Line on a heavily traveled county road but other streets still cross the BNSF at grade. This line has around 20+ trains over this single track line; but often times trains are backed up at 121st street in Coon Rapids waiting to enter Northtown. Many of the crossings cannot be made into overpasses simlpy because there will be housing removed to build the overpasses.
A few days ago a Minnepolis TV station had a story about how the volume of BNSF freight trains has increased to 80+ trains a day through the northern suburb of Coon Rapids. The story complained about long waits at grade crossings and congstion created by the passage of trains. They did not blame this upon oil trains. The Fire Chief complained about response times to fires since both of the city's fire stations are near BNSF trackage. Anoka County built an overpass over the BNSF's Duluth Line on a heavily traveled county road but other streets still cross the BNSF at grade. This line has around 20+ trains over this single track line; but often times trains are backed up at 121st street in Coon Rapids waiting to enter Northtown. Many of the crossings cannot be made into overpasses simlpy because there will be housing removed to build the overpasses.
It would seem like the Community Leaders in Coon Rapids are skirting the real issues of THEIR Infrastructure not matching current community needs?
This would seem to in some ways hearken back to the Bru-ha-ha that the railroad(MD&E) in Rochester(Mn) suffered with their issues of increasing railroad thru traffic on the MD&E (/CPR?), and Mayo Clinic. I am not sure how that one turned out; it seemed to drop off the news cycle.
It would seem to be one of those which came first arguments,"...The Chicken, or the Egg..". The railroads were there first in many cases, and the communities grew up around them. It was the community that failed to keep up with the local traffic needs to deal with the increasing railroad traffic ( ie: build over or under passes) as the traffic needs of specific crosssings required for traffic flow).
AS aricat seemed to infer the local probelem has been exacerbated to the point of 'no solution' as the community has built up around the railroad crossings to the point, any solution will be disruptive to the community;
"... Who is going to pony up the funding to fix this fine mess we've gotten ourselves into...(?)" A classic problem of local political leadership.
Was it in Reno,Nv. that they had to build a sort of open-top tunnel to free up the crosstown railroad from fouling the ability of the road traffic to move through the Downtown area(?) Same thing around the LA area, to get trains off the Docks areas, and out of town....A very expensive process but somehow they resolved the funding betiween governmental agencies (Federal, State and Local) and the railroads.. Possibly, that is a solution in Coon Rapids, Minnesota, or some kind of railroad by-pass there?
Overmod [snipped - PDN] . . . However, there is a new (to me) issue emerging in this discussion, which was pointed out in a NPR radio piece that ran yesterday afternoon. Municipalities can apparently request 'waivers' from some of the FRA requirements as part of the application process, and at least one municipality (in the story) was making waivers an important part of their 'negotiations' establishing a quiet zone. I would think that ALL parts of the FRA-mandated requirements are, almost by necessity, part of what the FRA's safety analyses consider a safe and effective alternative to horn signals, and I don't think I have seen either an analysis or a cogent discussion of the actual safety of a crossing design for which bureaucratic waivers had been secured. Hopefully this is a Chicken Little issue in actual practice.
Overmod [snipped - PDN] . . . Another would be to provide or legislate statutory immunity for railroads at crossings, and other stretches of track, where a 'horn ban' is in effect. (OK, I'm being a bit sarcastic, but that would almost certainly clear up any municipal 'confusion' over the relative importance of peace and quiet from important safety provisions...) . . .
Which would leave the motorist the sole responsible party - in effect, the city will have bargained away any claim that a person absent/ not present and not participating or represented at the negotiations - i.e., the motorists of the community - might have had against the railroad.
Which might be as it should be - and not far from the present state of the law, where a crossing equipped and maintained per FRA standards and funding makes the railroad immune to most claims (without equipment malfunction or maintainer's mistakes/ errors/ ommissions, etc.).
To put it simply, NIMBYism. BNSF plans to double trains through the city, on top of a recent increase, and so most people believe that they "should" pay for the upgrades to counteract the extra noise. Of course, these people don't care that the tracks have been there since 1891, and that BNSF does not exist to please them. About a year ago, to protest a planned coal export terminal, they tried to get an initiative on the city ballot to ban coal transport through the city... They are the type that moves next to the tracks and then complain about the vibrations. The whole attitude annoys me.
NorthWest The city is looking at costs of up to 6 million for what is actually a pretty short stretch. Surprisingly, there have been few calls for BNSF to bear the cost.
The city is looking at costs of up to 6 million for what is actually a pretty short stretch. Surprisingly, there have been few calls for BNSF to bear the cost.
My city has announced that they are trying to get a quiet zone, and the newspaper published an interview with an FRA official. They noted that eliminating whistling at crossings with lights and gates created a 66.8% greater risk of a collision, and that in a Florida test in the 1980s there was a 195% increase in collisions without horns.
Andrew FalconerAll of the city managers who would like to have quiet zones through their cities have to build the roads on overpasses to eliminate all the road crossings.
The Cities will fare much better if they work with the railroads via the State level.
mudchickenFortunately, Federal rule trumps local good-'ol-boy rule.
Which if I recall correctly is one of the principal reasons for the FRA developing its 'quiet zone' rules...
There are alternatives to 'the only safe quiet-zone crossing is a grade-separated crossing' that might be more palatable... or financially/technically possible... to city managers concerned with quiet. One of them, of course, is physically closing crossings. Another would be to provide or legislate statutory immunity for railroads at crossings, and other stretches of track, where a 'horn ban' is in effect. (OK, I'm being a bit sarcastic, but that would almost certainly clear up any municipal 'confusion' over the relative importance of peace and quiet from important safety provisions...)
It might be remembered that the ICC's dropping ATC enforcement in 1928 was directly related to shifting cost and emphasis toward better crossing safety. (And even then it was understood that 'the only good crossing is a dead crossing' when that was feasible...)
However, there is a new (to me) issue emerging in this discussion, which was pointed out in a NPR radio piece that ran yesterday afternoon. Municipalities can apparently request 'waivers' from some of the FRA requirements as part of the application process, and at least one municipality (in the story) was making waivers an important part of their 'negotiations' establishing a quiet zone. I would think that ALL parts of the FRA-mandated requirements are, almost by necessity, part of what the FRA's safety analyses consider a safe and effective alternative to horn signals, and I don't think I have seen either an analysis or a cogent discussion of the actual safety of a crossing design for which bureaucratic waivers had been secured. Hopefully this is a Chicken Little issue in actual practice.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.