Metro North, 6 dead

[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

 

 

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? 

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?  

 

[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?

[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]

"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.

[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.

 

[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]

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."

[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.

[jeffhergert]

There were some reproduced Burma Shave sign sets that were placed along the old Lincoln Highway/US30 routes in Iowa.  One went something like this.

"Train Approaching, Whistle screaming. Pause. Avoid that run down feeling. Burma Shave."

Jeff

 

[edblysard]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aH5CZvPUR54

 

Anyone who manages to get hit at something like this must be blind and deaf.

[Norm48327]

A safe crossing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goKnQ66VpWg

[Euclid]

I am working on this.  I will report back when I hear something.

[Murphy Siding]

vsmith

 

  Yes, but, I think we'd have to have a series of signs leading up to this sign that say "Be sure to pay attention to upcoming signs".

[vsmith]

[blue streak 1]

CSSHEGEWISCH

I wonder if anyone has considered the fact that any safety device for protecting the end of the third rail has to be designed to allow the passage of third-rail shoes on MU cars or locomotives.

That was why I stated that a buried guard rail has to start outside the plane of a third rail shoe travel. ( probably 12" or so outside the car truck  )  It then has to rise above the third rail shoe contact height before going toward regular rail to protect the third rail by moving over the top of the third rail .  

[Euclid]

I do realize that the third rail guardrail needs to allow the passage of the pickup shoe.  Without spending a lot of design effort, I do not see exactly what that guardrail should look like.  The photo of the highway guardrail is just food for thought.  I would not conclude that the proper third rail guardrail will throw the vehicle into the air like the highway guardrail has been shown to do.   

There are some significant differences in the two guardrail applications.  The highway guardrail is intended to protect drivers, whereas the third rail guardrail would be intended to protect people on the train.  It would have no function to protect the driver of a struck vehicle. 

The main relationship that I see between the third rail guardrail and the highway guardrail is the need to anchor the end, and the best way to do that is by a ground anchor.  My main point is that the third rail and its guardrail should be two separate and electrically isolated structures.   

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

I wonder if anyone has considered the fact that any safety device for protecting the end of the third rail has to be designed to allow the passage of third-rail shoes on MU cars or locomotives.

[rdamon]

Or the headline could be “Second death due to flawed third rail design”.

Why can we do both?

A simple guard or even a cement filled pipe to protect the blunt end seems like a low cost solution, or at least worth a study to see if it warranted.

 

Most safety improvements have come at the cost of someone’s life.

[tree68]

One must remember that the idea of burying the end of highway guardrails dates to the 1960's.  The design came about because of the number of cars that were being impaled on the blunt end of existing guardrails of the time.

That practice is now being replaced by collapsing end guardrails.  Why?  Because the parent of a young driver whose vehicle was launched airborne (or caused to roll over - don't recall specifics) by a sloped end of a guardrail sued, saying the design caused her child injury (or was it death?).  That might raise questions as to circumstances, but those are beyond this discussion.

Thus a practice that undoubtedly saved countless lives was blamed for taking one.

Rather than re-engineering the 25  junctures that exist with a solution that only benefits those 25, methinks we should concentrate on the basic problem of driver incursions into crossings - a topic we've been discussing at length here in numerous threads.  

Besides, the next headline might read "the occupants might have survived were it not for the structure that had been installed to protect the third rail..."

[Euclid]

When I first heard of this third rail impalement, I thought the problem should have been obvious to the designers.  But then I thought there must be hundreds of grade crossings with this type of third rail with maybe a century of practical experience with it.  And therefore it seemed unlikely that it was a problem with that much practical experience without the problem being recognized.

But then I learned that there are only a couple dozen grade crossings that have this underrunning third rail.  And, as I understand it, many, if not all of these have only existed since the early 1980s.  So the practical experience has not been relatively extensive, and therefore, I do not see the occurrence of just one third rail impalement as proving that "it is a problem that is virtually nonexistent." The fact that it has actually happened proves that the problem exists. 

We do put all sorts of guardrails along highways because designers recognize the dangers that warrant them.  I agree that not every grade crossing crash is going to send the third rail into the front of the train.  Not every grade crossing crash is going to push the vehicle into contact with the third rail.  But we all know that trains hitting vehicles at grade crossings is inevitable.  The proximity of the blunt end of the slightly elevated third rail provides a great opportunity for it to get struck by a train-struck vehicle.  And once that happens, the size and proximity of the train front presents great opportunity for it collide with the end of the dislodged third rail.    

[Norm48327]

"we are otherwise searching for a solution for a problem that is virtually nonexistant"

Standard procedure of some folks.

[tree68]

This assumes that the third rail will always be pulled into the rail cars.  Given different positioning of the struck vehicle, the third rail might have been deflected more or less harmlessly off to the side.

Underrunning third rail has been around for how many years?  And how many examples have been found of this particular manifestation?  While we can agree that it was a factor in this incident, methinks we are otherwise searching for a solution for a problem that is virtually nonexistant.

[Euclid]

blue streak 1

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

This would not work for third rail.   --------   but --------

Why not place this type guard rail outside of the plane of the third rail closer to the roadway ?  That way the guard rail would engage any vehicle and lift it over the third rail.  That might roll the vehicle but could prevent impaling the loco / cab car / MU.  

 

 

 

I see what you mean.  You could have a guardrail that is independent from the structure of the third rail.  That guard rail would catch an approaching vehicle being either thrown or shoved by a train during a grade crossing collision.  The guard rail would deflect the vehicle upward and away from the trailing crossing end of the third rail. 

As we have seen, this getting under the end of the third rail and prying it up can send its loose end right into a head on collision with the train that is pushing the car, or has thrown it as a result of a collision.

It is the blunt end of the massive third rail steel that must be protected from a wedging underrunning of a vehicle being driven toward it by the force of collision with a train.  This blunt end presents itself at every grade crossing because the rail is gapped at grade crossings in order to allow vehicles to pass over the crossing.

Having an independent guardrail would allow it to be solidly anchored without the need to isolate it from the ground with insulators.  Otherwise, the use of insulators would limit the structural strength of the guardrail function. 

The guardrail itself could be anchored into a deep ground in order to resist and tendency to pry up its end by a crashing vehicle.

Actually the guardrail should extend continuously with the third rail.  It would be like a strong roof over the third rail.  The need for this continuous protection stems from the fact that a struck vehicle can be pushed for a long distance.  So even if it is prevented from running under the blunt end of the third rail at crossings, it can still plow up the third rail anywhere along the distance that the struck vehicle is pushed.    

[blue streak 1]

After at least 283 replies this thread and countless others on other threads only one conclusion is apparent.  No matter much any effort is made you can not make a grade crossings potentially accident free.  There are too many scofflaws, persons who think they can beat anything on tracks, distracted drivers, missed judgments, missed signs, other drivers causing problems, etc  that will cause grade crossing accidents and deaths.

Even eliminating a grade crossing or building an overpass or underpass will not stop all accidents.  Look at what happened to the Texas prison bus.