EuclidI would suggest a better sign to cover the issue of getting trapped on the track by traffic congestion.
"Do Not Stop on Tracks" seems to fit the bill.
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
zugmann Euclid I would suggest a better sign to cover the issue of getting trapped on the track by traffic congestion. "Do Not Stop on Tracks" seems to fit the bill.
Euclid I would suggest a better sign to cover the issue of getting trapped on the track by traffic congestion.
Seems to be proof that signage and an actively signaled crossing is no insurance that a motorist will hed a warning that a train is coming? According to reports the speed of train in the area of this accident was 60 mph.
FTL:"...Metropolitan Transportation Authority Chairman and CEO Thomas Prendergast said the third rail entered the SUV and then went up through the first car of the train, causing the SUV to burst into flames and starting the fire in the train.
Prendergast said the 5:45 p.m. express train carries an average of 655 passengers, and the speed limit for trains in the area is 60 mph..." see link @ http://westfaironline.com/69028/six-killed-15-injured-in-valhalla-trainsuv-collision/
tree68
Euclid:
Looking on Google Maps, I do not see a "Do Not Stop on Track" sign facing either direction. Is there another map site that shows a more current view? In any case, nobody should drive a car without knowing not to stop between the gates. Too me, it looks like panic and/or confusion are the most likely explanations. Truly tragic.
carnej1There are first person eyewitness accounts that say that the third rail did in fact penetrate the car...
See picture three at this link:
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ntsb-heads-westchester-investigate-metro-north-crash-article-1.2102750
That's the third rail at the TOP of the car!
Official NTSB photos: https://www.flickr.com/photos/ntsb/sets/72157650647203205/
She never stopped on the tracks. She stopped short of the track, got hit by the gate, and hesitated, apparently not sure what to do. Then she made the wrong decision and proceeded across the track.
With a gate on top of their vehicle, a driver should simply back out from under it. As others have said, the gate will yield or break if necessary. But how many drivers know this? Does Operation Lifesaver inform the public of this procedure?
Having never thought about the situation of fouling the gate, a driver is bound to consider the potential of damaging their vehicle in the act of breaking free of the gate. They will also worry about damaging the gate and worsening their offense if they get caught. And they will consider that if they are not fouling the track, there will be no need to get out from under the gate on top of their vehicle, so it may be best just to wait until the train passes and the gate rises.
Maybe the driver will need stand on the rail with his/her arm extended to check whether their vehicle is within the fouling point of the track before deciding what to do.
On the national evening network news broadcast (not sure which) Thursday, mention was made of the short interval between when bells and light start to flash and gates descend. Given the driver got trapped, perhaps that timing interval needs to be revisited.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
http://news.yahoo.com/york-train-not-speeding-crash-car-002000199.html
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Also Euclid if you're going to suggest a better sign please tell us what the sign should say.
Patrick Boylan
Free yacht rides, 27' sailboat, zip code 19114 Delaware River, get great Delair bridge photos from the river. Send me a private message
Couple of thoughts ...
Maybe if the crossing gates were more like elevator doors and would momentary raise and then return. This may help with “Driver Paralysis”
If the crossing gates are unable to indicate a fully down position could there be some sort of signal to the crew?
Also, when a train running 3rd rail goes into emergency shouldn’t there be a mechanism to depower the line?
We could always bring back the siren crossings!!
rdamon Couple of thoughts ... Maybe if the crossing gates were more like elevator doors and would momentary raise and then return. This may help with “Driver Paralysis” If the crossing gates are unable to indicate a fully down position could there be some sort of signal to the crew? Also, when a train running 3rd rail goes into emergency shouldn’t there be a mechanism to depower the line? We could always bring back the siren crossings!!
Johnny
rdamonMaybe if the crossing gates were more like elevator doors and would momentary raise and then return. This may help with “Driver Paralysis”
As I understand it, crossing arms lower by gravity and are raised under power. This is a failsafe - if the power is lost to the crossing, the arms will drop.
So they're counterbalanced to be heavy on the gate, but no so much that a heavy duty motor is needed to raise them and hold them in position.
As such, if someone is caught with the arm on their hood, or trunk, the arm will either move up or will pivot on the mount.
Adding a sensor like that on garage doors would simply add a level of complexity (and possible failure) to a simple system that's been working for years.
Methinks much of the problem is that people either can't appreciate the speed and size of the oncoming train, or when faced with said oncoming train, freeze - just as they might under any number of scary circumstances.
While such instances certainly garner a lot of attention, I have to wonder just what percentage of potential car vs train incidents actually involve this problem?
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...
zardoz zugmann Euclid I would suggest a better sign to cover the issue of getting trapped on the track by traffic congestion. If someone is dumb enough to stop on railroad tracks, what are the chances that they will comprehend the sign?
zugmann Euclid I would suggest a better sign to cover the issue of getting trapped on the track by traffic congestion. If someone is dumb enough to stop on railroad tracks, what are the chances that they will comprehend the sign?
If someone is dumb enough to stop on railroad tracks, what are the chances that they will comprehend the sign?
EDITED TO ADD: A quick look at this crossing via Google Maps shows that it did indeed have "stop bars" on the pavement.
A R10-6 "STOP Here On RED" arrow sign (see MUTCD Fig. 2B-27. at: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part2/fig2b_27_longdesc.htm ) could be added as well, but now we're getting ridiculous - more signs are not going to cure the basic problem, which is the quality of the drivers.
And as David Schanoes has pointed out, no signage or signal changes is going to solve or prevent the problem of a driver who gets onto the tracks after the train has gone past the point of not being able to stop in either time or distance - see the last half of his blog/ column of Feb. 5, 2015, at: http://www.ten90solutions.com/say_hello_to_my_little_friends .
EDITED TO ADD: Then again, see the critical comment (only one so far) by "horseswaggled" at the end of this article: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/apnewsbreak-safety-work-ny-rail-crossing-28781090
- Paul North.
The TV news shots of the crossing show a "DO NOT STOP ON TRACKS" sign just before the crossbuck, light, and crossing gate unit. The sign was very visible on the video footage. Simply driver error: Don't go past the crossing gates, even if up, unless you can clear the crossing on the other side of the tracks. Too many drivers are in the habit of creeping along in heavy traffic even at intersections; that's a good way to get a hefty ticket in California if you are caught blocking an intersection.
Kurt Hayek
Do you think people would actually read and comply with your sign? If yes, it's wishful thinking.
Norm
Norm,
I think people are plenty smart enough to read and understand the sign.
Euclid Norm, I think people are plenty smart enough to read and understand the sign.
I wouldn't be so optomistic.
Reports/comments indicated that one reason for the backed up traffic was that they had been redirected onto this street as the result of an accident elsewhere. If you look at the road leading to the crossing (N 41.08637 W 73.78800), you'll see it winds through a cemetary. It doesn't appear to me to be a road people would use unless they had a reason, as it runs parallel to the Taconic State Parkway - a four lane road easily accessed at an intersection (not limited access, ie ramps) at the south end of Commerce Road.
Taking those points into consideration, one might conclude that the driver of the SUV was at least frustrated and distracted by the delay to her trip home. She was probably paying more attention to the vehicle in front of her (and wishing traffic would move faster) than an 18" square sign at the side of the road. And it was after dark.
Add to that frustration the gate coming down on her luxury SUV, and she was likely distracted enough not to realize the danger she was in. In addition, if she did not frequent that crossing (or any crossing - much of that line appears to be grade separated), she may not have understood the circumstances.
She certainly should have been aware of all of those factors. But it appears she may not have been (we'll never know), and as a result we are mourning six people.
I heard on NBC news tonight (I think it was an NTSB spokesman) that the crossing did not have a bell because there was no pedestrian crossing.
The photo in the Daily News link shows the North bound train on the nominally South bound track.
As soon as you make something considered 'idiot proof'. The world creates more idiotic idiots.
Euclid In the case of the New York accident, a detour created a large flow of congested traffic over the crossing that normally does not experience that situation. The police should have anticipated the danger and had officers there to flag that crossing during the detour. With the coming PTC, grade crossings will get smarter. They will monitor road traffic, and if there is stop-and-go heavy congestion of traffic, the system will slow down or stop rail traffic.
This is not an intent or function of PTC!
Euclid With the coming PTC, grade crossings will get smarter. They will monitor road traffic, and if there is stop-and-go heavy congestion of traffic, the system will slow down or stop rail traffic.
And you heard of this feature where?
All I've ever heard is that advanced PTC, not the current version being deployed, will monitor the "health" of the warning devices. If there is any indication of a malfunction of some sort, then it will slow or stop rail traffic.
If you think PTC will slow or stop rail traffic because of heavy auto traffic, I have a question. In the first paragraph of this original post (which I didn't quote) that when you say police should have flagged the crossing because of heavy auto traffic, do you mean they should have stopped autos or trains? Because the second paragraph seems to indicate the latter.
If PTC stopped rail traffic because of heavy auto traffic, some lines would be closed for hours at a time during certain parts of the day.
Jeff
jeffhergert Euclid With the coming PTC, grade crossings will get smarter. They will monitor road traffic, and if there is stop-and-go heavy congestion of traffic, the system will slow down or stop rail traffic. And you heard of this feature where?
Intelligent Grade Crossings
The result is a system that would have the capability for getting advance warning of approaching trains through interconnected information systems that link the motorist to the traffic management and rail operations systems. It also allows for the capability of warning the locomotive engineer of obstacles or trapped vehicles at grade crossings, and potentially for trespassers along the right-of-way.
…These standards will be the basis for projects that will tie grade crossing warning systems to local traffic management systems and will include communication to the PTC systems now being developed to increase safety for both motor vehicle users and rail passengers and crewmembers.
All that says is "warning the locomotive engineer" - absolutely nothing about affecting train operations.
It'll be a cold day in He-l-l before railroad managements will voluntarily agree to such an arrangement on a broad scale.
EDITED TO ADD: If the road traffic is that heavy, then the solution is to eliminate the grade crossing by building a bridge - either under or over - not to leave the risk "as-is", or to interfere with train operations every time some goof stops on the tracks (or decides to stop the train for political, social, or environmental reasons . . .). Might also get people out of their cars and onto trains or other mass transit (not necessarily public), but that isn't always feasible.
Just think, teenagers playing "chicken" could then bring rail traffic to a halt. Advocacy groups unhappy with some aspect of railroads could do the same.
Unless they do what JGK said once in one of his columns. Something along the lines that if the detected object was small enough that it wouldn't derail the train, to let the train continue along without stopping. That IIRC, was for completely automated train operation, no one on board.
I always had the impression that private autos, including most SUVs, would be deemed too small to stop rail traffic in JGK's take on things.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.