EuclidThis is the first that I have seen a proposal to warn vehicles by an in-vehicle display. Does this mean that every vehicle will have such a display device? How will that come about?
The original proposals concerned emergency vehicles, not crossings, but it probably would not be a reach to include crossings in the capability.
I have no information on the technical specs of such a system other than it would involve low power transmitters in emergency vehicles, and corresponding receivers in all other vehicles.
Odds are it would take years to attain near 100% coverage as new vehicles replaced old. I can't see it as a do-it-now mandate, and if it were, there would certainly be a lot of push-back, at least where crossings are concerned. Emergency vehicles not so much, other than cost.
While millions of vehicles cross tracks virtually every day, millions more come no where near any tracks at all.
In addition to consumer vehicles, equipment would have to be installed at crossings - no cheap task. The same would be true of emergency vehicles.
I don't think it's a bad idea - we could have used it this morning, when a jerk whose windshield had apparently frosted on the inside failed to note our fire truck behind him despite blaring siren and flashing lights. But it's one more cost to be added to all factors involved.
It might have possibilities for blind intersections, too.
But I'm not holding my breath...
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...
Paul_D_North_Jr 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. 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. - Paul North.
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.
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.
- Paul North.
oltmannd Euclid She was in an unusually heavy flow of congested traffic because it was being detoured over the crossing due to an accident on the nearby artery road. Ordinarily, the crossing would have very light traffic. Read the USA article. Yes, it was detour traffic, but the road through the cemetary is kind of a "sneaky back way". Normally, it would have no commuter traffic at all - it is just one of many access roads to the massive, Gate of Heaven cemetary. It obviously didn't have the entire flow of the Taconic Pkwy on it as the guy behind her said there was no one behind him, and he backed up quickly to give her room.
Euclid She was in an unusually heavy flow of congested traffic because it was being detoured over the crossing due to an accident on the nearby artery road. Ordinarily, the crossing would have very light traffic.
Read the USA article. Yes, it was detour traffic, but the road through the cemetary is kind of a "sneaky back way". Normally, it would have no commuter traffic at all - it is just one of many access roads to the massive, Gate of Heaven cemetary. It obviously didn't have the entire flow of the Taconic Pkwy on it as the guy behind her said there was no one behind him, and he backed up quickly to give her room.
EuclidShe was in an unusually heavy flow of congested traffic because it was being detoured over the crossing due to an accident on the nearby artery road. Ordinarily, the crossing would have very light traffic.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Good article.
Here is a link for the crossing: https://goo.gl/maps/OMrhp
Looks like the sign is on the other side.
https://goo.gl/maps/kFkzQ
Viewing this somewhat skewed crossing from an on-the-road view (Google's "Ferdinand" ?), there might be enough distance from the crossing gate to the track - or the nearest rail - for a short SUV to fit in there, with perhaps some overhang at the front end.
What seems to be under discussion here is a railroad version of "Don't Block the Box!", a well-known initiative in New York City - just 20 miles to the south (and others) - to keep drivers from creating gridlock by coming to a stop in the common/ overlapping area in the core of an intersection. See (photos are not mine):
http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/7073/dont-block-the-box-or-else/
http://s20.photobucket.com/user/Eric1218/media/blockthebox.jpg.html
So perhaps instead of "DO NOT STOP ON TRACKS", to achieve more recognition by drivers the sign should read "DO NOT BLOCK THE TRACKS".
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.
23 17 46 11
I agree. I'm just nitpicking about when the gate came down you saying it wasn't on the crossing, and zugmann saying it was on the tracks. It was on the crossing, but not on the tracks when the gate came down, if there's enough space between the gate and the tracks and the witness report is accurate.
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
gardendance oltmannd zugmann ... To prevent a situation like this one on Metro North (where the car was on the tracks before the crossing activated) +1 Well put. As others have mentioned.... In this case the car WASN'T on the crossing when the gates came down. If I'm going to nitpick about zugmann saying the car was on the tracks before the gates came down I'll also have to nitpick about you saying it wasn't on the crossing. I guess this is kind of like the nitpicking about if ITS's car on crossing detection is part of PTC. In my opinion the area after the gate IS part of the crossing, so I say the SUV was on the crossing before the gate came down, otherwise the gate wouldn't have hit the SUV's back.
oltmannd zugmann ... To prevent a situation like this one on Metro North (where the car was on the tracks before the crossing activated) +1 Well put. As others have mentioned.... In this case the car WASN'T on the crossing when the gates came down.
zugmann ... To prevent a situation like this one on Metro North (where the car was on the tracks before the crossing activated)
...
To prevent a situation like this one on Metro North (where the car was on the tracks before the crossing activated)
+1 Well put.
As others have mentioned.... In this case the car WASN'T on the crossing when the gates came down.
If I'm going to nitpick about zugmann saying the car was on the tracks before the gates came down I'll also have to nitpick about you saying it wasn't on the crossing. I guess this is kind of like the nitpicking about if ITS's car on crossing detection is part of PTC. In my opinion the area after the gate IS part of the crossing, so I say the SUV was on the crossing before the gate came down, otherwise the gate wouldn't have hit the SUV's back.
If the car had stayed put after the gate hit it, it wouldn't have been hit by the train.
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/
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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."
ITS Could interface with PTC, but is not a part of it.
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.
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."
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.