Deggesty Thank you.
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”
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 . . .
Oh, my! And all this time I thought it was just bad "type setting" in the DOT sign shop!
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.
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 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.
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.
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?
Johnny
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.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
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....
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.
Paul_D_North_Jr*Pennsylvania name for what everyone else calls "guard rail" - it's a long, sordid story involving lawyers . . .
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.
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.
https://flic.kr/p/qRNW2Q
Just north of accident site on Harlem Line. You can get an idea of third rail construction.
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.
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
BaltACDWhy are we not AUTOMATICALLY stoping vehicular traffic when crossing protection is activated, thus preventing them from occupying the crossing.
Oh don’t worry, the vehicle based warning is right around the corner, as I have predicted here in the past. It will stop cars at grade crossing plus a whole lot more. The entire driving experience will become a giant red light camera. This will be a mandatory, factory installed, part of every vehicle. It will require drivers to fund a bond deposit that will be debited on the move as violations are committed. If the bond reaches zero, the vehicle stops until more money is deposited. And, trust me, there will be no snipping of the wires to disable this dashboard wonder.
It will be a control freak’s dream, and the government is full of them. This actually will catch up with rail transit and render it obsolete overnight. It will turn your car into public transit.
rdamonAn "Alert" beacon that overrides any music or phone call in the car could also be used for emergency vehicles and EAS alerts.
The technology has been around for nigh on to twenty years, at least with regard to emergency vehicles. If people bought into the idea, it should have been in virtually every vehicle by now.
Using a cell phone (hands-free excepted) and texting while driving have been illegal in NYS for several years. But that doesn't seem to deter folks.
If people are annoyed enough by such devices, they'll find a way to defeat them, if it means crawling up under the dash with a pair of wire cutters, figuratively or actually.
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...
BaltACDWhy 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.
great idea!!
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
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.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Regarding under running vs. Over running third rail, don't we always hear how bad it is out on the LIRR when there is ice, etc. and how the should have gone with the NYC system. The securement method needs to be looked at, but this is really a black-swan event. Lot of noise, if you include the pundits and the pol's, but it really does not need to change.
Euclid Thanks LION, I did notice a photo of a section of the third rail being cut with a torch in one of the news photos. It looks like a sort of “H” section with an extremely massive “web” feature. I was just wondering about the weight and mass of these rails in connection with them being ingested by the first car. It looks like they may be 80-120 pounds per yard.
Euclid Also the investigation will look at the design of the underrunning third rail to see if that played a role in presenting a hazard of snagging a vehicle in a grade crossing crash. In my opinion, it did indeed present that hazard, and I expect the investigation to bear that out.
Also the investigation will look at the design of the underrunning third rail to see if that played a role in presenting a hazard of snagging a vehicle in a grade crossing crash. In my opinion, it did indeed present that hazard, and I expect the investigation to bear that out.
If a car getting snagged on the third rail is as much of a problem as you are trying to make it out to be, then the most rational answer is to immediately block off the grade crossings and let the communities figure out what to do about it. My guess is that more people ride the train over the crossing than drive over it.
Anther approach would be to set up cameras to catch people violating the vehicle code pertaining to the crossing, with some real teeth to enforcement, such as revocation of their driver's license and confiscation of their car/truck.
BroadwayLion More Information from Railway Age.
Apparently RA just reprinted it on Monday, Feb. 9th.
Euclid:
OK, thanks for your clarifications and further explanation.
Larry's right. But a couple months ago there was an out-of-control car - from sliding on the ice after an early-season freezing rain - on Route 611 southbound, just north of Mt. Pocono. It encountered the tapered end, mounted it - and when it stopped, it was balanced on top of the guide* rail !
*Pennsylvania name for what everyone else calls "guard rail" - it's a long, sordid story involving lawyers . . .
What about inadvertently grounding it in a heavy rain, or snow as we've had recently - especially if the salt brine from the road gets thrown that far ?
Doubt this kind of collision occurs that often in 3rd rail territory that this feature would be effective enough to be worthwhile - or that it would have changed the result here ? Maybe.
Interestingly, this design, which dates back to the 1960's, was designed to remove the battering ram end of existing guard rails. Now it's falling out of favor and being replaced by cushioning devices, as the result of several incidents in which cars rolled or otherwise went airborn after running up the tapered end.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.