Metro North, 6 dead

[Deggesty]

Yes, there were Burma-Shave signs that gave good advice. Most were amusing, such as Rip a fender Off your car Send it in For a half-pound jar. Burma-Shave. I understand that some people did take fenders off toy cars and send them in; I do not recall if they got their half-pound jars, though.

I do not remember any of the signs that I read.

[tree68]

Deggesty

I do not remember any of the signs that I read.

As we wander far afield...

To jog your memory

I wonder if they would have changed with the times and become " Myanmar Shave."

[Euclid]

THIRD RAIL CRASH PROTECTOR

I have thought about a third rail protector.  I would not use any form of added guardrail.  I would use a concrete crash barrier that would prevent debris from underrunning the end of the third rail.  The concrete barrier would also prevent the lifting of the end of the third rail.    

The barrier would be an 8- ft. cube of concrete with 4 ft. above grade.   The concrete cube would have a horizontal notch for the pickup shoe to access the third rail.  The notch would open from the concrete block toward the train.  So concrete would extend up and down from the notch.  The notch would be approximately 1 ½ ft. wide vertically, and 3-4 ft. deep horizontally.    

The pickup shoe would pass through the notch, but a pushed vehicle will be stopped by the massing of concrete on three sides of the notch opening. 

Regardless of whether a vehicle approaches the crash barrier over or under the line of the third rail, it will encounter a solid mass of concrete beforehand.  Any debris making it through the notch on the underside of the third rail will still not be able to lift the third rail because it will be held down by the top of the notch.   

Of course, this presents a crash death trap to the driver whose car is being shoved down the track.  But there is no alternative.  Even without the protective structure, the third rail itself would present a formidable hazard for vehicles to hit.  For the driver to hit the crash barrier, he/she will already have been struck by the train.  So at this point, the driver will probably have been killed in the initial impact from the train.  The next impact of the pushed vehicle with the crash barrier will protect the passengers on the train.

The impact face of the crash barrier should also be angled somewhat to deflect the debris outward from the location of the train.

[tree68]

Euclid

The barrier would be an 8- ft. cube of concrete with 4 ft. above grade.  

In today's world of breakaway everything, you could get some resistance on that from the highway safety gurus, especially if hitting it from the track side would disable a vehicle on the tracks.

A slanted design (a la buried guardrail ends) with that same notch might get a better reception.

 

[Norm48327]

"The barrier would be an 8- ft. cube of concrete with 4 ft. above grade."

The perfect "immovable object" for the rail cars to hit if they should derail, thereby causing more damage and injury.

[Euclid]

I don’t know how the safety experts would look at it.  The existing third rail itself presents a lethal crash obstacle to a vehicle struck by a train.  The basic problem is that if a vehicle is has been caught by the train and is being pushed, any barrier to arrest the track overhang of the vehicle will either pull the vehicle off of the train, or tear the vehicle in two.  

In thinking of this idea, I decided that once a vehicle is struck by the train, the crash protection reverts to protecting the passengers at the expense of protecting the driver.  I don’t see a way to do both.

A crash barrier would indeed be a hazard to trains as well as the struck vehicle.  Trains can derail upon striking a vehicle. But the odds are far greater for a vehicle to be pushed or thrown without derailing the train.  And a train is unlikely to excursion sideways quick enough after hitting a vehicle to foul the third rail crash barrier. 

The crash barrier could certainly be angled as a deflecting ramp to avoid a straight line impact.  It could deflect away from the train, toward the train, or upward.  All three directions have pros and cons. 

[Norm48327]

Using the standard weight of concrete at 150 lb per cu ft, that block would weigh 76,800 lbs. Do you think that would be safe for a rail car to hit at speed?

[schlimm]

Norm48327

Using the standard weight of concrete at 150 lb per cu ft, that block would weigh 76,800 lbs. Do you think that would be safe for a rail car to hit at speed?

 

Perhaps you would volunteer for the test?  

 

[Euclid]

Norm,

There are already plenty of crash hazards for trains including other trains on double track.  I would trade the risk of a train striking the third rail crash barrier for the risk of a train ingesting the third rail in relation to a vehicle strike.  I think the latter is far more probable.

[Norm48327]

schlimm

 

 

Norm48327

Using the standard weight of concrete at 150 lb per cu ft, that block would weigh 76,800 lbs. Do you think that would be safe for a rail car to hit at speed?

 

 

 

 

Perhaps you would volunteer for the test?  

 

 

Right behind you.

[Paul of Covington]

rdamon

I can imagine if the end/beginning of the third rail is just a square end it would tend to impale things.

 

I wonder if a design like this would reduce the chances of something getting under it. There could be an insulated joint that keeps them from electrocuting the worms.

 

 

   Let's just go back to this idea that rdamon brought up, but turn it upside down.   Bend the end of the under-running third rail several feet up and out.   The third rail would be deflected outward, preventing it from spearing the train.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

There is still the problem that the third rail is energized at 600-750 volts DC.

[Murphy Siding]

schlimm

 

 

Norm48327

Using the standard weight of concrete at 150 lb per cu ft, that block would weigh 76,800 lbs. Do you think that would be safe for a rail car to hit at speed?

 

 

 

 

Perhaps you would volunteer for the test?  

 

 

  Is your snarky, rude comment on norm48327's  post aimed at him; or aimed at euclid?  What's your issue with pointing out a concrete figure- the weight of euclid's prpoposed monolith- into the discussion? 

[schlimm]

Murphy Siding

 

 

schlimm

 

 

Norm48327

Using the standard weight of concrete at 150 lb per cu ft, that block would weigh 76,800 lbs. Do you think that would be safe for a rail car to hit at speed?

 

 

 

 

Perhaps you would volunteer for the test?  

 

 

 

 

 

  Is your snarky, rude comment on norm48327's  post aimed at him; or aimed at euclid?  What's your issue with pointing out a concrete figure- the weight of euclid's prpoposed monolith- into the discussion? 

 

 

 

Snarky?    1.  There was an emoji suggestive of levity. Perhaps you'd prefer something else?    or     2.  The comment was aiming at the absurdity of both posters' comments.    3.  To paraphrase: If you have to ask, you probably aren't really interested in an answer anyway.

[Murphy Siding]

schlimm

 

 

Murphy Siding

 

 

schlimm

 

 

Norm48327

Using the standard weight of concrete at 150 lb per cu ft, that block would weigh 76,800 lbs. Do you think that would be safe for a rail car to hit at speed?

 

 

 

 

Perhaps you would volunteer for the test?  

 

 

 

 

 

  Is your snarky, rude comment on norm48327's  post aimed at him; or aimed at euclid?  What's your issue with pointing out a concrete figure- the weight of euclid's prpoposed monolith- into the discussion? 

 

 

 

 

 

Snarky?    1.  There was an emoji suggestive of levity. Perhaps you'd prefer something else?    or     2.  The comment was aiming at the absurdity of both posters' comments.    3.  To paraphrase: If you have to ask, you probably aren't really interested in an answer anyway.

 

  Prefer something else?  Like what?  A semi-colon?

[Norm48327]

So you think questioning the advisibility of having a 40 ton block of concrete where rail cars can impact it is absurd? I guess you'd prefer to throw safety to the winds.

[Paul of Covington]

CSSHEGEWISCH

There is still the problem that the third rail is energized at 600-750 volts DC.

   I was well aware of the voltage on the third rail, but I still think I would rather have it outside the train than inside.

[rdamon]

MTA chief calls for safety improvements at railroad grade crossings

 

http://www.newsday.com/long-island/thomas-prendergast-mta-chief-calls-for-safety-improvements-at-railroad-grade-crossings-1.9977486

"Grade crossing safety is one of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's highest priorities, agency chairman and chief executive Thomas Prendergast said, and all strategies to reduce crossing accidents are on the table, including investments in new technology and possibly eliminating some crossings."

 

 

 

[Euclid]

rdamon

MTA chief calls for safety improvements at railroad grade crossings

 

http://www.newsday.com/long-island/thomas-prendergast-mta-chief-calls-for-safety-improvements-at-railroad-grade-crossings-1.9977486

"Grade crossing safety is one of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's highest priorities, agency chairman and chief executive Thomas Prendergast said, and all strategies to reduce crossing accidents are on the table, including investments in new technology and possibly eliminating some crossings."

 

 

 

 

That is good news.  I will send him my third rail crash protector idea.

[NorthWest]

Interesting sign installation:

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=520676&nseq=75

[Jim in Fla]

The LIRR had stop signs at some of the "country road" RR crossings out in the Hamptons back in the 1960s. No gates at those crossings though, at the time.

[samfp1943]

Jim in Fla

The LIRR had stop signs at some of the "country road" RR crossings out in the Hamptons back in the 1960s. No gates at those crossings though, at the time.

 

Warning signs, Active Crossing Components(gates/lights,etc) are effective, ONLY if the motor vehicle operator is inclined to obey those warnings.  If said motorist is judging their own risk at that time( to make it/or not make it across BEFORE The train arrives).

The argument seems to become somewhat academic.  NO amount of warning signage, or warning devices will be effective in precluding a collision between the train, and the motor vehicle.   Those devices count on the individual, and that person's sense of obeying laws or their own sense risk management.[

Some time back I worked with a Traffic Engineer whose big complaint then, was that even with the best traffic signal program, the biggest fault was that the motorists could screw it up at every change of the lights.                      It's  People. People are the problem!

[Electroliner 1935]

I hope you are not saying "Eliminate People". 

[edblysard]

Pretty simple.

[Euclid]

Who are we to mock the stupid?

[jeffhergert]

I received my March issue of Railway Age today.  The editor, in his front column, talks about this accident.  The question has been asked why the driver didn't back off the crossing, but instead pulled forward.

The editor said the design of the vehicle's steering column mounted electronic gearshift may have contributed to the accident.  It operates a little differently then most automatic gearshifts people are used to.  The driver had only purchased the vehicle a few weeks prior and the editor speculates that she may, while in a panic, inadvertently put the vehicle into forward instead of reverse.

Jeff   

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

As Tom Clancy once wrote a Russian Army general as saying to a Petroleum Minister engineer-type inhis book Red Storm Rising:

"Your precious numbers have their own kind of precision.  People remain people no matter what we try to do with them."

- Paul North. 

[zugmann]

Consumer Report's views on new fangled shifting mechanisms:

 

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2015/02/can-unfamiliarity-with-a-gear-shift-lever-cause-a-tragedy/index.htm

[samfp1943]

edblysard

Pretty simple.

 

 

Maybe Charles Darwin was too much of an optimist?

    In the Gene Pool , it is sink or swim.

[Deggesty]

There used to be an advertisement that declared, "It isn't nice to fool Mother Nature." Certainly it is not nice to introduce a new pattern of shifting in a motor vehicle without giving careful instruction to all drivers of such a vehicle.

Back when more car manufacturers were beginning to put automatic transmissions into their products, it seemed that each manufacturer had its idea as to the shift pattern--which could well have caused confusion to buyers. Eventually, all manufacturers realized that there should be one pattern, no matter who made the vehicle.

And, when car manufacters began putting three on the floor, some built them with reverse and low on the left and second and high on the right--but Buick built them with second and high on the left and reverse and low on the right (no, I am not old enough to remember when these came out, in the late twenties; I have ridden in one or two,though).

The most sophisticated gear pattern that I have used was one with "grandma," or double low, which used a toggle on the stick to put it into use--and I do not remember now just how it was used (more than fifty years since I drove the truck).

There is the tale of man who, in the late forties, was seen driving a Model T with pieces of the manila paper used to wrap it when it was sold sticking to it in places--when he had learned that Ford was going to start building cars with a "new-fangled shift," he decided to buy two or three of the car he knew how to drive so he would not have to learn how to use the three on the floor.