And the first time it disables a school bus full of kids that is still on the track will be the end of that system.
Norm
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.
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.
It is an interesting engineering problem all right. Something with the effect of that highway guardrail could work. But the guardrail is designed to deflect upwards, whereas the third rail is tapered on the end to defect downwards. The point is to deflect the pickup shoe downward so it is sure to go under the third rail rather than over it.
When the pickup shoe comes to a grade crossing, the third rail ends; and the shoe departs from it, and runs through mid-air. On the other side of the crossing, the third rail resumes and the shoe must reengage it. So the downturned guardrail design would be in the way of the pickup shoe when it tries to reengage the third rail.
However, it still may be possible to design a deflector that would allow the small pickup shoe to pass, while upward deflecting something as large as a vehicle. If you look at the photo of the highway guardrail, you can see that it is slightly curved in the horizontal plane as well as being curved downward to the ground. The curve is a helix. If you picture the train heading toward that guardrail on the left side, the pickup shoe may be able to clear the downward curve of the guardrail because that downward curve is also moving out of the path of the pickup shoe due to the rightward curve of the guardrail.
It is sort of threading a needle, but I think a sophisticated vehicle deflection design could be worked out. Obviously, as it is currently designed, there is no consideration whatsoever for the effect of catching a vehicle.
https://flic.kr/p/qRNW2Q
Just north of accident site on Harlem Line. You can get an idea of third rail construction.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
tree68 Euclid Ed, I mentioned that in a following comment. I said: "I agree that tearing up the third rail and the resistance of shoving the vehicle would have added some deceleration. But there is still a fair margin in the numbers. So I conclude that there was at least a good chance that the PTC-based obstacle detection system would have prevented the crash." Note, however, that the engineer made an emergency application. I would presume that a PTC system would initially make a service application (or a penalty application), which would not slow the train anywhere near as quickly. That 950' would have been well over 1,000 feet. Said application would merely serve as notice to the engineer that there was an issue - which he (or she) may already know. It would then be up to the engineer to decide to override the service/penalty application with an emergency application.
Euclid Ed, I mentioned that in a following comment. I said: "I agree that tearing up the third rail and the resistance of shoving the vehicle would have added some deceleration. But there is still a fair margin in the numbers. So I conclude that there was at least a good chance that the PTC-based obstacle detection system would have prevented the crash."
Ed, I mentioned that in a following comment. I said:
"I agree that tearing up the third rail and the resistance of shoving the vehicle would have added some deceleration. But there is still a fair margin in the numbers. So I conclude that there was at least a good chance that the PTC-based obstacle detection system would have prevented the crash."
Note, however, that the engineer made an emergency application. I would presume that a PTC system would initially make a service application (or a penalty application), which would not slow the train anywhere near as quickly. That 950' would have been well over 1,000 feet.
Said application would merely serve as notice to the engineer that there was an issue - which he (or she) may already know. It would then be up to the engineer to decide to override the service/penalty application with an emergency application.
Correct. So, stopping time is in the neighborhood of 45 seconds. I'd guess you wouldn't want to activate a penalty brake application because there is a vehicle temporarily stopped on a crossing when the gates are up, so the gate would have to come down about a minute ahead.
In freight territory, you'd need at least three minutes with the gates down.
Versus 25 seconds, now. I doubt the public would be pleased.
EuclidI don’t pretend to know exactly what PTC will include, and I doubt that it is entirely knowable at this time.
PTC requirements are described in the law and existing FRA rules. That is PTC. Anything else is something beyond PTC.
Paul_D_North_Jr*Pennsylvania name for what everyone else calls "guard rail" - it's a long, sordid story involving lawyers . . .
Oh, my! And all this time I thought it was just bad "type setting" in the DOT sign shop!
EuclidIn all references to PTC that I have been able to find, there is clear reference to this grade crossing control system being integrated as part of the PTC system.
Try reading the rule. Start here: https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0152
and proceed to CRF Title 49 part 236. This, and this alone, is PTC. Everything else is not.
EuclidIn any case, I expect the primary issue coming out of this crash will be the danger of vehicles snagging and lifting the third rail in grade crossing crashes.
Yes, and the NTSB is going to recommend all sorts of things. I would like to hope that they will be practical and effective. One can hope....
EuclidBut let’s say you have a lowboy truck that has become high centered and stuck on the track 30 minutes before train time. Then the system will detect the truck and stop the train.
There is already a process in place for this.
A stuck truck calls the 800 number on the Xing, and the dispatcher is in radio contact with trains on the line two minutes later.
oltmannd Euclid In all references to PTC that I have been able to find, there is clear reference to this grade crossing control system being integrated as part of the PTC system. Try reading the rule. Start here: https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0152 and proceed to CRF Title 49 part 236. This, and this alone, is PTC. Everything else is not.
Euclid In all references to PTC that I have been able to find, there is clear reference to this grade crossing control system being integrated as part of the PTC system.
I do not see any reference to public grade crossings.
There quite a bit in part 236 of CFR49; I did not take the time to read carefully enough to find a reference to public grade crossings. Can someone who knows just where in part 236 such is found please tell the rest of us?
Thank you.
Johnny
As one who sits on hold with the dispatcher during a non busy time, I would rather have someone run down the track as far as they can waving a shirt or jacket. The concept of calling the dispatcher, explaining where the crossing is and then getting on the radio to stop trains is problematic. Assuming the right-of-way is not to rough, you might be able to get 1/2 mile down the track to flag the train in 3 minutes. Rules say that anyone waving along the track is a signal to stop.
oltmannd Paul_D_North_Jr *Pennsylvania name for what everyone else calls "guard rail" - it's a long, sordid story involving lawyers . . . Oh, my! And all this time I thought it was just bad "type setting" in the DOT sign shop!
Paul_D_North_Jr *Pennsylvania name for what everyone else calls "guard rail" - it's a long, sordid story involving lawyers . . .
ftp://ftp.dot.state.pa.us/public/Bureaus/design/PUB72M/RC-52M.pdf
Which illustrates my post above what it's called in Pennsylvania.
Also, if you see Note 5., it's now even more essentially restricted / limited in new installations to the 'trailing' end (only) of divided highways, for the reasons that Larry mentioned in his first post about it above a page or two.
- Paul North.
Deggesty Thank you.
From this FRA site:
https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0309
Note: ITS means Intelligent Transportation Systems.
Quote from the site:
“Intelligent Grade Crossings are those locations where ITS for roadways come together with Intelligent Railroad Systems, and in particular, Positive Train Control (PTC) systems. PTC systems, unlike traditional railroad signal systems, provide continuous information on train location and speed.
FRA, working with the ITS Joint Program Office, intends to sponsor Intelligent Grade Crossing projects on railroad corridors in Michigan, Illinois, and Alaska where FRA-sponsored communication-based PTC systems are being implemented and demonstrated. Coordination will take place with the State highway departments so that these grade crossing projects are integrated with other projects that are underway.
For example, warning to motor vehicles of oncoming trains, as well as advice on alternate routes to avoid blocked crossings, would be transmitted through the standardized ITS dedicated short-range communications system and displayed on standardized in-vehicle information displays and roadside variable-message signs”
Euclid“Intelligent Grade Crossings are those locations where ITS for roadways come together with Intelligent Railroad Systems, and in particular, Positive Train Control (PTC) systems. PTC systems, unlike traditional railroad signal systems, provide continuous information on train location and speed."
ITS Could interface with PTC, but is not a part of it.
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...
tree68 Euclid “Intelligent Grade Crossings are those locations where ITS for roadways come together with Intelligent Railroad Systems, and in particular, Positive Train Control (PTC) systems. PTC systems, unlike traditional railroad signal systems, provide continuous information on train location and speed." ITS Could interface with PTC, but is not a part of it.
Euclid “Intelligent Grade Crossings are those locations where ITS for roadways come together with Intelligent Railroad Systems, and in particular, Positive Train Control (PTC) systems. PTC systems, unlike traditional railroad signal systems, provide continuous information on train location and speed."
Isn’t that a distinction without a significant difference? If we say that Intelligent Grade Crossings are simply a part of ITS (Intelligent Transportation Systems), and it works by talking to PTC, why split hairs over whether ITS is part of PTC or a separate entity?
The basic point that matters here is that a new system will automatically sense obstructions on grade crossings and stop trains if necessary in order to prevent collisions. And this new system will rely on PTC. It seems to me that there is an incredible amount of denial going on regarding this topic.
EuclidThe basic point that matters here is that a new system will automatically sense obstructions on grade crossings and stop trains if necessary in order to prevent collisions. And this new system will rely on PTC. It seems to me that there is an incredible amount of denial going on regarding this topic.
Denial or resistance, either way, of more importance is the why, the motivation to do so. One would think that enhancing the safety of rail crews, rail passengers and the general public would be a rather non-controversial topic. But au contraire!
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimmDenial or resistance, either way, of more importance is the why, the motivation to do so. One would think that enhancing the safety of rail crews, rail passengers and the general public would be a rather non-controversial topic. But au contraire!
Ideas are nice, but who pays? Safety is expensive.
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
petitnj As one who sits on hold with the dispatcher during a non busy time, I would rather have someone run down the track as far as they can waving a shirt or jacket. The concept of calling the dispatcher, explaining where the crossing is and then getting on the radio to stop trains is problematic. Assuming the right-of-way is not to rough, you might be able to get 1/2 mile down the track to flag the train in 3 minutes. Rules say that anyone waving along the track is a signal to stop.
A 3 minute half-mile is a good time for a fit person to run down a jogging track, but would be really something running down a RR track. Also, I doubt a driver would know from which direction the next train is coming from.
BaltACD Why are we not AUTOMATICALLY stoping vehicular traffic when crossing protection is activated, thus preventing them from occupying the crossing. Today's vehicles have computers and Wi-Fi out the ying yang. My personal vehicle has keyless entry, activated by my keyfob from a distance of little more than 50 feet by activating a RFID signal to the vehicle. When the crossing protection is activated - the crossing protection sends a narrowly defined Wi-Fi signal up the highway and the vehicles within range of the signal are brought to a STOP prior to entering the crossing. An appropriate indication of the reason for the stop would appear on the dashboard of the vehicle. Vehicles of 1/2 ton to 40 tons can be stopped in much shorter distances than can vehicles of 500 to 20,000 tons with steel wheels operating on steel rails.
Why are we not AUTOMATICALLY stoping vehicular traffic when crossing protection is activated, thus preventing them from occupying the crossing. Today's vehicles have computers and Wi-Fi out the ying yang.
My personal vehicle has keyless entry, activated by my keyfob from a distance of little more than 50 feet by activating a RFID signal to the vehicle.
When the crossing protection is activated - the crossing protection sends a narrowly defined Wi-Fi signal up the highway and the vehicles within range of the signal are brought to a STOP prior to entering the crossing. An appropriate indication of the reason for the stop would appear on the dashboard of the vehicle. Vehicles of 1/2 ton to 40 tons can be stopped in much shorter distances than can vehicles of 500 to 20,000 tons with steel wheels operating on steel rails.
This system would hardly be fail-safe in good conditions. In wet or snowy conditions, a vehicle may slide into the crossing, with no way to drive out of it. With truck brakes, it's a crap-shoot if you can come to a calculated stop even on dry roads. And I would really hate to be in such an equipped vehicle, if the truck following me is not equipped with the system.
oltmannd Euclid But let’s say you have a lowboy truck that has become high centered and stuck on the track 30 minutes before train time. Then the system will detect the truck and stop the train. There is already a process in place for this. A stuck truck calls the 800 number on the Xing, and the dispatcher is in radio contact with trains on the line two minutes later.
Euclid But let’s say you have a lowboy truck that has become high centered and stuck on the track 30 minutes before train time. Then the system will detect the truck and stop the train.
I have no idea whether the 800 number on grade crossings would obviate the need for intelligent grade crossings. One might consider that a truck driver might hesitate to call the 800 number because it would get him in trouble and he might be better off just trying to get the truck un-stuck. That is what happened at Intercession City, FL. in the 1990s. They had plenty of time to call the CSX about their high centered trailer stuck on the track, but they decided to jack up the trailer instead.
MidlandMike BaltACD Why are we not AUTOMATICALLY stoping vehicular traffic when crossing protection is activated, thus preventing them from occupying the crossing. Today's vehicles have computers and Wi-Fi out the ying yang. My personal vehicle has keyless entry, activated by my keyfob from a distance of little more than 50 feet by activating a RFID signal to the vehicle. When the crossing protection is activated - the crossing protection sends a narrowly defined Wi-Fi signal up the highway and the vehicles within range of the signal are brought to a STOP prior to entering the crossing. An appropriate indication of the reason for the stop would appear on the dashboard of the vehicle. Vehicles of 1/2 ton to 40 tons can be stopped in much shorter distances than can vehicles of 500 to 20,000 tons with steel wheels operating on steel rails. This system would hardly be fail-safe in good conditions. In wet or snowy conditions, a vehicle may slide into the crossing, with no way to drive out of it. With truck brakes, it's a crap-shoot if you can come to a calculated stop even on dry roads. And I would really hate to be in such an equipped vehicle, if the truck following me is not equipped with the system.
The realtity is - AUTOMATICALLY STOPPING ANY VEHICLE BEYOND THE OPERATORS CONTROL - is dangerous to the vehicle being stopped without the operators actions. No matter if that is a highway vehicle or a railway vehicle.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
EuclidIsn’t that a distinction without a significant difference? If we say that Intelligent Grade Crossings are simply a part of ITS (Intelligent Transportation Systems), and it works by talking to PTC, why split hairs over whether ITS is part of PTC or a separate entity?
Because ITS is not a part of PTC any more than the cap on my pick-up is part and parcel with my truck rather than an accessory. Any implication that it is is simply incorrect.
There seem to be those who think that if we all gather together and sing Kumbaya that problems like people getting hit at crossing will go away. Ain't gonna happen.
The truth is that any "fool proof" system isn't. The fools always seem to find a way to get around it.
And, as several have pointed out, sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.
Euclid [snipped; emphasis added - PDN] . . . The basic point that matters here is that a new system will automatically sense obstructions on grade crossings and stop trains if necessary in order to prevent collisions. And this new system will rely on PTC. It seems to me that there is an incredible amount of denial going on regarding this topic.
Or in any other document, webpage, etc. from either the FRA, AAR, a Class 1 RR, or any organization other than an individual ?
Because I'm not aware of it, and I haven't seen it here (yet). If that's denial, so be it - I'm going to deny seeing it, because I haven't. Wishes, good intentions, and/ or a fervent belief that it's a better system is simply not going to make it appear out of thin air, when no such statement or representation to that effect has been made by any organization.
As others have pointed out, if we are going to have crossings that can force automatic train stop, then (if I was a railroad) would want it to be in a way that will permit safe train handling.
That means no emergency stopping, and no sudden penalty brake aplpications. To prevent a situation like this one on Metro North (where the car was on the tracks before the crossing activated), the gates have to activate in such a manner to provide ample time for an approaching train (whether a 79mph commuter or 50mph 18,000 ton coal train) ample time to stop prior to the crossing consistent with safe train handling procedures. So in essence the trian, if runnign on a clear indication, would also receive an approach, then a restricting.
And, no, I wouldn't want the signal system to be affected for cars on the tracks prior to the crossing being activated. Such would really screw up the signal system (approaches/restrictings EVERYWHERE!) and would play absolute hell with any kind if dispatching software/auto routing, etc.
Those gates are going to be down a LOOOOOONG time.
zugmann, I hope you meant "on the right of way" and not "on the track".
I and others have already mentioned reports, at the least the witness in the automobile behind, said the SUV was not on the track when the gate came down, but rather in the space between the gate and the 1st track, the driver got out of the car, got back in, then drove forward over the 1st track and onto the 2nd track which was the one the train was on.
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
Rockland County NY has the pollyanna idea of 'vehicle presence detection'. Quiet Zones they may be able to afford - beyond that they are in a dream world.
http://www.lohud.com/story/news/transit/2015/02/09/rockland-quiet-zones/23136091/
zugmann As others have pointed out, if we are going to have crossings that can force automatic train stop, then (if I was a railroad) would want it to be in a way that will permit safe train handling. That means no emergency stopping, and no sudden penalty brake aplpications. To prevent a situation like this one on Metro North (where the car was on the tracks before the crossing activated), the gates have to activate in such a manner to provide ample time for an approaching train (whether a 79mph commuter or 50mph 18,000 ton coal train) ample time to stop prior to the crossing consistent with safe train handling procedures. So in essence the trian, if runnign on a clear indication, would also receive an approach, then a restricting. And, no, I wouldn't want the signal system to be affected for cars on the tracks prior to the crossing being activated. Such would really screw up the signal system (approaches/restrictings EVERYWHERE!) and would play absolute hell with any kind if dispatching software/auto routing, etc. Those gates are going to be down a LOOOOOONG time.
+1 Well put.
As others have mentioned.... In this case the car WASN'T on the crossing when the gates came down. Similar situations can exist where the car drives completely through gates that are down - perhaps because of slippery roads, for example.
There have been experiments that uses netting or posts to physically prevent cars from entering the crossing. Either of these would be far more effective than presence detection.
EuclidPTC systems, unlike traditional railroad signal systems, provide continuous information on train location and speed.
This is very misleading.
PTC (in I_ETMS form) does NOT provide "continuous information on train location and speed." outside of the train. Only the train knows where it is on a continuous basis. The back office just keeps track of movement authorities. The train will tell it when it has cleared points along the way in the authority. Train location resolution isn't going to be any better than it is right now - each fixed block signal OS. (Yes, overlay I-ETMS has fixed block signals. PTC just enforces them)
Integrating highway systems with grade crossings in hopes of stopping trains when vehicles are on the crossing is a fool's errand.
Keeping cars off the crossing as a train passes is a much more realistic goal. An intelligent highway can manage traffic to keep cars from entering the crossing before there is space on the other side to exit, for example. Some of this is already done in places where the crossing system is tied to the traffic lights on adjacent intersections.
Add some presence detection on the highway along with some phyical barrier systems and you can greatly improve saftey and maintain traffic flow.
You could even detect low-boy trucks before they reach verboten crossings and put the gates down and barriers up before they get there.
But, I think all of these ideas are a waste of time and energy. Eliminating crossings is the best bet. Works every time. Can't have software bugs. The Harlem Line is full of trains and road Xings. Westchester County needs to figure out the best way to manage safety at their crossings.
The FRA et. al. are solving the wrong problem.
BaltACD Rockland County NY has the pollyanna idea of 'vehicle presence detection'. Quiet Zones they may be able to afford - beyond that they are in a dream world. http://www.lohud.com/story/news/transit/2015/02/09/rockland-quiet-zones/23136091/
Agree.
The presence detection is for four-quadrant gates. You don't lower the "exit" gates until the presence detector says there are no vehicles on the Xing. That's it.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.