Confess, though: it is fun to watch.
[I have been carefully avoiding the black-humor aspects that the I Hate Foamers site might have fun with, a bunch of people arguing about what road crossing the beautiful daughters were actually killed on. But I found the counterpart of it on the Facebook comments to the Panhandle video, where one guy says to another "your seniority just moved up two slots" -- I suspect it's intended as humor, but it really ain't funny.
Norm48327 You are likely right Larry. The proximity of the two crossings seems about right and the train probably stopped on the 75.1 crossing. Different news sources= different stories.
You are likely right Larry. The proximity of the two crossings seems about right and the train probably stopped on the 75.1 crossing. Different news sources= different stories.
I think we are all (Norm, Balt, Larry, myself) in agreement now with the police report. The car was struck at Cty. 32 (crossbucks only) and came to a stop at Cty 75.1 (flasher and bell).
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
I'm with you Overmod, there's nothing funny about death at a grade crossing, no matter what the reason.
Making snarky comments over an incident where a vehicle gets trashed at a crossing with no death or injuries involved is another matter, it'll probably wind up on one of those "Americas's Dumbest" TV shows anyway, but this certainly isn't one of those times.
Just horrible. Be careful out there people, all of you, please. Death is all around you and can come from anywhere. I passed three accidents today alone.
Sign says 632.9.
The reason it is of some importance to know which was the crossing where the van was initially struck is this. Here's a 79 mph passenger train with hundreds of passengers aboard. It strikes a van. It could have derailed with a large toll of dead and injured.
If it struck at Cty. Rte. 32, essentially an entrance drive to the family's ranch, it means those sort of crossings should be shut down, eliminated to improve the safety of passenger lines. Nothing is 100%, but crossings such as 32 and totally private crossings should be eliminated.
The CR 75.1 crossing in question is at MP 632.753 according to the DOT Crossing Inventory (dated 3/4/16). As the head end is in the same view as the MP, I would opine that the collision occurred at the CR 32 crossing and it took that long to stop the train. I don't think that runs counter to conventional wisdom.
The crossing inventory also indicates crossbucks only - no lights.
The private crossing is listed at MP 632.254, almost exactly a half mile from the CR 75.1 crossing. According to the DOT crossing inventory (dated 3/4/16), there are no signs.
If we assume (usual caveats) that the family lived at the residence at the private crossing, they would certainly be aware of its existance. It wouldn't be like it was a total stranger being surprised.
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...
schlimmIf it struck at Cty. Rte. 32, essentially an entrance drive to the family's ranch, it means those sort of crossings should be shut down, eliminated to improve the safety of passenger lines. Nothing is 100%, but crossings such as 32 and totally private crossings should be eliminated.
While I will certainly not disagree with the idea, I don't think it is possible, politically or otherwise, to eliminate existing private access across railroad ROW especially where there is no other convenient access to the property involved.
What I think is likelier to succeed in the short to 'medium' run, is better methods of warning or protection at these crossings. One approach would be a version of the interlocked gates used in Britain, where someone desiring to cross the ROW must stop, proactively notify dispatch and receive permission, and then open and afterwards close and lock a physical barrier (perhaps with enough strength and height to prevent inadvertent 'intrusion' of large accidentally-rolling vehicles).
The approach I was pursuing was to provide 'aftermarket' crossing warning devices that would be independently powered (battery/solar) and contain its own differential-enabled GPS core. Each device would communicate, probably via an extension of the PTC SBR system, with locomotives. Each would contain its own distinctive address (probably an assigned UUID or similar address harmonized with one of the developing IoT schemes). Locomotives would detect each of these devices within range, check it against a registry of locations, ensure the device battery state and programming were up-to-date, etc.; the device would give a variety of signals indicating relative proximity and speed of the approaching train and be capable of capturing and sending crossing-obstruction information (probably derived from machine vision and structured light) "in time" to permit proper response. I expect it would contain a sizable amount of variable-speed video recording, for example going to fast frame rate when it detects the presence of a vehicle or person.
When it appeared that digital FM was going to catch on, I was lobbying for an extension of the old Nixon-era 'automatic on' version of civil-defense broadcasting, with the idea that crossings could contain low-power broadcasting stations which would automatically turn on and tune FM radios (including simple radios built into new MP3 players or smartphones -- this dates when this was going on, doesn't it? -- and would then broadcast an alert signal which would then cause a customized response on those radios. This would specifically include a louder mode or distinctive signal that would be toggled by particular horn activation or emergency broadcast from the locomotive (or local police or fire equipment).
These alternatives spread much of the cost of the technology across a large installed base, with common and expandable standards, and allow capable alert devices (with little theft potential or resale value) to be provided even for private users at nominal cost and prospective maintenance expense. They are several orders of magnitude cheaper than grade separation -- and grade separation is itself no sure guarantee of safety whether via bridge or underpass.
In the short term, a solution might be to add a placard under the crossbuck arms that simply reads:
Stop
Look
Listen
LIVE
Not a perfect solution, but better than none.
The CR75 crossing is bureaucratically due for improvement.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2918902/LAC-PUC-Railroad-Crossing.pdf
Firelock76Not a perfect solution, but better than none.
In my opinion, nothing 'passive' will make much of a difference when the time comes. It makes me think a bit of the parable of Dives and Lazarus, where he says 'if they would not listen to Moses and the prophets, what makes you think they would listen to you if you returned from the dead'. Signage is signage; the only things that matter are those that actively tell you a train is coming and about to be there.
The American propensity to speed up on yellow lights and jackrabbit to the other side of crossings when the red lights start to flash may have to be changed, too, but that in itself is a very different thing from reading sun-faded words on signs.
Be interesting to ask the loss-mit people in stores whether more aggressive signage about shoplifting actually cuts down on the theft rate ... and which signs are most effective in producing the result. That would be your guide to figuring out better signage. I suspect they involve active supervision coupled with dreadful civil -- not, please note, "Darwinian" -- consequences for technical breach of the law.
wanswheel The CR75 crossing is bureaucratically due for improvement. https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2918902/LAC-PUC-Railroad-Crossing.pdf
But that would have done nothing to protect the family. They appearenty ended up at that crossing after being hit at Co. Rd. 32.
Norm
OvermodIn my opinion, nothing 'passive' will make much of a difference when the time comes.
I agree with that. In my area there are a lot of crossings marked only with crossbucks and people frequently disregard them on a regular basis. There are also many private crossings that have signs designating them as such and tell the motorists to look both ways. Adding to their ineffectiveness, trains do not normally sound their horns at them.
Norm48327There are also many private crossings that have signs designating them as such and tell the motorists to look both ways. Adding to their ineffectiveness, trains do not normally sound their horns at them.
Train is approaching public crossings at grade with engine in front. Signal starts not less than 15 seconds but not more than 20 seconds before reaching the crossing. If movement is 45 mph or greater, signal starts at or about the crossing sign, but not more than 1/4 mile before the crossing if there is no sign. Signal is prolonged or repeated until the engine completely occupies the crossing(s).
In addition, this signal is used when approaching private crossings if pedestrians or motor vehicles are at or near the crossing. (In the states of California, Idaho and Montana, the whistle is sounded at all crossings, public and private.)
From this UP link.
ChuckCobleigh Norm48327 There are also many private crossings that have signs designating them as such and tell the motorists to look both ways. Adding to their ineffectiveness, trains do not normally sound their horns at them. = = o = Train is approaching public crossings at grade with engine in front. Signal starts not less than 15 seconds but not more than 20 seconds before reaching the crossing. If movement is 45 mph or greater, signal starts at or about the crossing sign, but not more than 1/4 mile before the crossing if there is no sign. Signal is prolonged or repeated until the engine completely occupies the crossing(s). In addition, this signal is used when approaching private crossings if pedestrians or motor vehicles are at or near the crossing. (In the states of California, Idaho and Montana, the whistle is sounded at all crossings, public and private.) From this UP link.
Norm48327 There are also many private crossings that have signs designating them as such and tell the motorists to look both ways. Adding to their ineffectiveness, trains do not normally sound their horns at them.
And in the other 47???
Norm48327And in the other 47???
... They blow at the appropriate distance when they see a vehicle or person there. Or, I guess, as soon as they come into view of the crossing and someone is there.
Whereupon hangs the point of 'something' that can identify when something is on or near (or critically approaching) a crossing before the train gets in view ... back at the point a whistle post for a private crossing would have indicated it appropriate to begin the required blow even if the view were blocked at that point.
Railroads are between a rock and a hard place with the 47 state policy, which minimizes the amount of neighborhood-blasting horn use. I think it's clear that an alert attorney can tie a hapless trainman up in knots as to exactly where he sounded the horn, and how he should have been prepared to see the client's car approaching while still around the curve, in the rainy dusk, etc.
Note that one aspect of a 'proximity' signal is a variant of crossing horn, downscaled and located 'lower' on the smaller private crossing than it can be for a "normal" grade crossing. This would allow very good SPL in the 'approach zone' of a typical private crossing, while minimizing 'sound pollution' at greater distances. It does not take much battery power to actuate a good loud device as well as some strategic lighting ... or, as one poster noted, oriented mirrors or light-pipe arrays that direct and lense some of the locomotive's light at right angles to constitute a good warning for minimal power and complexity.
OvermodI don't think it is possible, politically or otherwise, to eliminate existing private access across railroad ROW especially where there is no other convenient access to the property involved.
I believe the federal program to eliminate private and lightly-used crossings exists, but needs more funding to effect.
The rules are the same for all designated crossings nationwide (quiet zones notwithstanding). We have several trail crossings - not even open to vehicles - that we blow for. Local practice may vary.
The way I read the emphasized comment is that those states don't recognize "quiet" crossings. I don't know if that's actually the case and I'm not going to dig for it.
I could envision a radio-based, standalone private crossing warning system that would include sensors a certain distance out from the crossing. When the sensors detected a train, they would send a signal back to the crossing to activate whatever the warning was. This could all run on solar/battery and could be completely independent of the railroad.
The warning at the crossing could be as simple as flashing lights. There are even solar powered farm/fence gate closers on the market that could be adapted to provide crossing gates, if one wanted to get fancy...
tree68I could envision a radio-based, standalone private crossing warning system that would include sensors a certain distance out from the crossing. When the sensors detected a train, they would send a signal back to the crossing to activate whatever the warning was.
The problem with this is that the failure modes are cumulative -- if any piece of the thing breaks, the whole of its function fails. The owner of the system has to check and maintain the remotes, fix them if they leak or break, replace them if they are vandalized or stolen, adjust them if they cause RF interference or are themselves 'interfered with'.
To me it made better sense to adapt the approach used on the QNS&L, where the locomotives themselves are the transmitter and receiver of 'train presence', and modifying that slightly so that any locomotive is 'connected' so it can program, administer, troubleshoot, etc. any given device it comes into communication range of, every time. So a new system identifies itself, issues its GPS coordinate as installed and becomes registered in the crossing database, etc. just by turning it on and waiting for the first train to pass, if it wasn't preconfigured right at install time. And if it is moved, it 'remembers its history' but also reconfigures dynamically so the chance of even intentional misprogramming can be minimized or at least mitigated.
Part of the device I was working on involved MEMS, with condensing lenses concentrating ambient light from the direction of an approaching train and 'modulating' it to give a flashing or moving effect, then using lenses again to increase the visible spot size, all on very low required system power. It is not very far 'up' from there to adapt the reflector-gunsight monitor I developed in the '80s, with microscreens, so that the MEMS system produces moving color video images and animated messaging on ambient projected light, again at very low power.
Overmodwhere the locomotives themselves are the transmitter and receiver of 'train presence
Thirty thousand plus locomotives later...
The nice part of what I suggested is that it could be assembled using almost all commercial-off-the-shelf components (a microcomputer, such as Raspberry Pi would easily handle the logic, and even logging) and requires no interface with the railroad whatsoever, aside from permission to install the components along the ROW. I would opine that such an installation could be made operational within a month from now, if someone was so inclined.
Just like garage door openers, each system could have its own "private" code, so if several were installed in close proximity, they wouldn't interfere with each other.
tree68 Overmod where the locomotives themselves are the transmitter and receiver of 'train presence Thirty thousand plus locomotives later... The nice part of what I suggested is that it could be assembled using almost all commercial-off-the-shelf components (a microcomputer, such as Raspberry Pi would easily handle the logic, and even logging) and requires no interface with the railroad whatsoever, aside from permission to install the components along the ROW. I would opine that such an installation could be made operational within a month from now, if someone was so inclined. Just like garage door openers, each system could have its own "private" code, so if several were installed in close proximity, they wouldn't interfere with each other.
Overmod where the locomotives themselves are the transmitter and receiver of 'train presence
Both are good ideas. However, I believe vulnerable trains, especially those carrying passengers, need better protection from vehicles. Separation is needed on busy crossings - expensive - so prioritize these low volume ones (where passenger trains run) that can be closed first. There are many crossings like 32 that can and should be closed. It costs little.
schlimm I believe vulnerable trains, especially those carrying passengers, need better protection from vehicles. Separation is needed on busy crossings - expensive - so prioritize these low volume ones (where passenger trains run) that can be closed first. There are many crossings like 32 that can and should be closed. It costs little.
As an aside: it might be remembered that the 'push' for automatic train control after passage of the Esch Act in 1920 was officially 'deprioritized' in 1928 ... in favor of grade-crossing safety. And with all the development of the iconic Holley Rudd flasher-and-bell 'crossing signal' and other devices, the primary emphasis then, and since then, has been closure of unnecessary crossings. If I remember correctly, something like 25,000 of them have been closed and a great push is on today to close more ...
... but those tend to be on existing roads where there are alternate routes. That is manifestly not the case for the crossing on "Rt. 32" that is actually someone's driveway; there are whole neighborhoods on the ex-Southern line, on blind curves no less, where the driveways go across the ROW from Poplar. If you close these, how do you propose to recompense the property owners? Or give them access to their home and land by anything more than cable car or zipline?
In most cases the railroad preceded the property owner, as many point out here with regard to NIMBYs and horn blowing. The owner should pay for a cheap underpass, as many farmers used to have in the Midwest (one lane, minimal depth) or pay for an access road along the RoW easement.
Overmod schlimm I believe vulnerable trains, especially those carrying passengers, need better protection from vehicles. Separation is needed on busy crossings - expensive - so prioritize these low volume ones (where passenger trains run) that can be closed first. There are many crossings like 32 that can and should be closed. It costs little. there are whole neighborhoods on the ex-Southern line, on blind curves no less, where the driveways go across the ROW from Poplar. If you close these, how do you propose to recompense the property owners?
there are whole neighborhoods on the ex-Southern line, on blind curves no less, where the driveways go across the ROW from Poplar. If you close these, how do you propose to recompense the property owners?
What is the basis of the right to cross at these private crossings? Is there some type of perpetual title, or can the railroad companies close these crossings if they want to?
I do not think it will be feasible to get property owners to pay for an underpass. I suspect that the cheapest possible underpass would be over $200,000 by the time it includes all of the necessary engineering to protect the railroad. And from there on, it will be a maintenance item.
Euclid Overmod schlimm I believe vulnerable trains, especially those carrying passengers, need better protection from vehicles. Separation is needed on busy crossings - expensive - so prioritize these low volume ones (where passenger trains run) that can be closed first. There are many crossings like 32 that can and should be closed. It costs little. there are whole neighborhoods on the ex-Southern line, on blind curves no less, where the driveways go across the ROW from Poplar. If you close these, how do you propose to recompense the property owners? What is the basis of the right to cross at these private crossings? Is there some type of perpetual title, or can the railroad companies close these crossings if they want to? I do not think it will be feasible to get property owners to pay for an underpass. I suspect that the cheapest possible underpass would be over $200,000 by the time it includes all of the necessary engineering to protect the railroad. And from there on, it will be a maintenance item.
So once again, do nothing? Or wait until a tank truck gets hit at a private crossing, the flames engulf the locomotive, the train derails and 40 are killed, including the crew?
schlimm Euclid Overmod schlimm there are whole neighborhoods on the ex-Southern line, on blind curves no less, where the driveways go across the ROW from Poplar. If you close these, how do you propose to recompense the property owners? What is the basis of the right to cross at these private crossings? Is there some type of perpetual title, or can the railroad companies close these crossings if they want to? I do not think it will be feasible to get property owners to pay for an underpass. I suspect that the cheapest possible underpass would be over $200,000 by the time it includes all of the necessary engineering to protect the railroad. And from there on, it will be a maintenance item. So once again, do nothing? Or wait until a tank truck gets hit at a private crossing, the flames engulf the locomotive, the train derails and 40 are killed, including the crew?
Euclid Overmod schlimm there are whole neighborhoods on the ex-Southern line, on blind curves no less, where the driveways go across the ROW from Poplar. If you close these, how do you propose to recompense the property owners? What is the basis of the right to cross at these private crossings? Is there some type of perpetual title, or can the railroad companies close these crossings if they want to? I do not think it will be feasible to get property owners to pay for an underpass. I suspect that the cheapest possible underpass would be over $200,000 by the time it includes all of the necessary engineering to protect the railroad. And from there on, it will be a maintenance item.
Overmod schlimm there are whole neighborhoods on the ex-Southern line, on blind curves no less, where the driveways go across the ROW from Poplar. If you close these, how do you propose to recompense the property owners?
schlimm
You finance it, they'll do it. $200K might pay for the preliminary engineering drawings - real work would be 10 to 20 times that figure or more.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
EuclidWhat is the basis of the right to cross at these private crossings? Is there some type of perpetual title, or can the railroad companies close these crossings if they want to?
I'm not qualified to answer that question, except to note that alternative access that does not cross the ROW would involve easements across neighboring properties, some of which have extensive improvements. I'd ask MC or one of the other people here and at RyPN who know the details and alternatives.
I do not think it will be feasible to get property owners to pay for an underpass.
There is more involved here than I think you realize. First, in many cases there is inadequate space between the adjoining road and the ROW to give safe approach and departure angles to an underpass, and there will be safety concerns in winter. Second, I'd be concerned in a number of respects about the strength and maintenance of the structure under the trackwork that constitutes the roof of the overpass; I'd expect it to be ballasted-deck construction, and as you note, the security of the railroad operation while the underpass itself is dug out, framed, and reinforced will involve care. This can't really be 'minimum height and width', either. I think you are right about that 'over $200,000' figure, but mainly in the 'over' part.
And from there on, it will be a maintenance item
And it won't likely be property owners who do that, so expect an increasing battle between the DPW of the various towns (who do 'road maintenance') and the railroad as to whose due diligence is the more necessary when something starts to go wrong. There is also the issue of drainage, which is nontrivial for many of the prospective underpasses, and unlikely to be something a property owner cares to pay to provide.
Against all this, we have a fairly 'hard' opportunity cost, which is the price and then maintenance of some form of gate system. That's unlikely to be a 'flasher, gate, and median' system with dedicated track circuits the railroad has to maintain, though -- I'd start with something like tree68 was proposing, establishing a system of 'railroad approval' for ongoing inspection and maintenance that encourages the right kind of detail design.
schlimm Euclid Overmod schlimm I believe vulnerable trains, especially those carrying passengers, need better protection from vehicles. Separation is needed on busy crossings - expensive - so prioritize these low volume ones (where passenger trains run) that can be closed first. There are many crossings like 32 that can and should be closed. It costs little. there are whole neighborhoods on the ex-Southern line, on blind curves no less, where the driveways go across the ROW from Poplar. If you close these, how do you propose to recompense the property owners? What is the basis of the right to cross at these private crossings? Is there some type of perpetual title, or can the railroad companies close these crossings if they want to? I do not think it will be feasible to get property owners to pay for an underpass. I suspect that the cheapest possible underpass would be over $200,000 by the time it includes all of the necessary engineering to protect the railroad. And from there on, it will be a maintenance item. So once again, do nothing? Or wait until a tank truck gets hit at a private crossing, the flames engulf the locomotive, the train derails and 40 are killed, including the crew?
I don't think the answer is to do nothing. And I think you make a good point about the risk to the train. That point is often downplayed in the quest to end grade crossing crashes. The hazard is widespread, and applies to the people in the vehicle, the train crew, and the all of the passengers as well.
Certainly closing a crossing or building an underpass or overpass is a good choice if it is economically feasible.
One option that is often suggested is to find a low cost method of better protecting passive crossings, without converting them to conventional active crossings. There have been many ideas to somehow add attention-getters to passive crossings such as things that move in the wind, or move by solar power, etc. The theory is commonly expressed that even if the enhancement is not perfect, it is better than a passive crossing without the enhancement.
However, this misses one critical point. An active crossing that fails to acivate is far more dangerous than it would be if it were only a passive crossing.
When you add some type of low cost attention-getter to a passive crossing, it creates driver dependence. So then if it fails, the driver is less wary than he/she would be had the dependence-inducing enhancement never been added.
So it is hard to find some type of middle-ground between passive crossings and full-fledged active crossings. Perhaps a better solution would be to steamline the process, thus reducing the cost of active crossing application. Particularly the active crossings with center medians, or full gates seem to offer the best possible remedy.
One idea that I had that would overcome the limitation of passive crossings without the need to replace them with active crossings is to place the crossing protection signal system on the locomotive rather than in a fixed position at the crossing site. This system would activate according the location of the train and provide, a powerful, focused, and directed light signal from the locomotive to the vehicle target area at the crossing. It would be a locomotive-borne device that would protect all crossings, although, maybe it would be made to activate only for passive crossings rather than to add to already active crossings.
I'm going to say something (tongue-in-cheek) that ought to just thrill every railroad worker right down to his shoe laces: Maybe they ought to teach foamer classes in all schools, including college.
She who has no signature! cinscocom-tmw
Overmod There is more involved here than I think you realize. First, in many cases there is inadequate space between the adjoining road and the ROW to give safe approach and departure angles to an underpass, and there will be safety concerns in winter. Second, I'd be concerned in a number of respects about the strength and maintenance of the structure under the trackwork that constitutes the roof of the overpass; I'd expect it to be ballasted-deck construction, and as you note, the security of the railroad operation while the underpass itself is dug out, framed, and reinforced will involve care. This can't really be 'minimum height and width', either. I think you are right about that 'over $200,000' figure, but mainly in the 'over' part. And it won't likely be property owners who do that, so expect an increasing battle between the DPW of the various towns (who do 'road maintenance') and the railroad as to whose due diligence is the more necessary when something starts to go wrong. There is also the issue of drainage, which is nontrivial for many of the prospective underpasses, and unlikely to be something a property owner cares to pay to provide.
Don’t get me wrong. I am not underestimating the cost of an underpass. I don’t know what the cost would be, so I only throw out the cost of “over $200,000” just to make the point that I believe that it would be highly unlikely that any landowner would be willing or capable of paying the cost, even if it were only $200,000.
So, $200,000 would be a showstopper. I would expect that the actual cost would likely be in the millions.
Furthermore, the life cycle cost including all of the inspection and maintenance would run into endless millions. So I doubt that there is the slightest chance that a landowner would be able or willing to pay for their own underpass. It would be far, far cheaper to simply buy out the landowner to eliminate a private crossing, even if that requires paying 100 times the market value as an incentive for the owner to sell.
Having been unsuccessful in finding more information I will offer the following:
If the Millers resided on the private property lying east from the Rd 32 crossing then it would seem logical they were headed WEST toward their church services.
If on the other hand the church was located east from the Rd 32 crossing then it would be logical that they were headed for the services; but that does not fit the story from the church saying there was a question about why they were late.
If the Millers resided east or south from the Rd 75.1 crossing and the church was north or west from the crossing that would explain why the Patrolman's report said they were driving NORTH when struck by the southbound train.
Further news accounts discuss six (6) accidents at this crossing since 1986 and that the establishment of bells and flashers are being delayed by ???. This info does not suggest that the accident in question occured at the private crossing at the end of Rd 32 which would not qualify for public funded protection.
Perhaps someone can access the FINAL State Patrol report to further clarify this.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.