Overmod charlie hebdo How strange then that I see flangeways safeguards used at crossings on the UP/Metra line used by over 100 freight and heavy-rail commuter trains daily. I guess they didn't read the report about "completely eliminating the flangeways gap." Or is mitigating the gap problem to a large extent not good enough? The criterion for eliminating wheelchair/scooter risk is considerably less difficult than 'eliminating the flangeways gap concerns entirely'; in fact I think comparatively simple and cheap material, particularly in most trafficked areas in California, should work well for that purpose. (And yes, by extension I think that commenting on more ideal 'perfection' as if to deny this counts as a red-herring argument...) But the issue with the Chicago crossings is more who's paying to provide the added safety, and how the agreement to use the fillers apportions maintenance cost and legal risk. My guess is it's either some appropriate department of Chicago or IDOT, perhaps with Federal money of some kind for 'grade crossing safety' or METRA, but not Union Pacific. It might be interesting to research who would be responsible for flangeway fillers in Lodi; I'll bet a hat lawsuits to compel their installation there and perhaps more statewide are already in process. As I will not argue there should be. Just that the railroads should not be the ones to have to pay...
charlie hebdo How strange then that I see flangeways safeguards used at crossings on the UP/Metra line used by over 100 freight and heavy-rail commuter trains daily. I guess they didn't read the report about "completely eliminating the flangeways gap." Or is mitigating the gap problem to a large extent not good enough?
The criterion for eliminating wheelchair/scooter risk is considerably less difficult than 'eliminating the flangeways gap concerns entirely'; in fact I think comparatively simple and cheap material, particularly in most trafficked areas in California, should work well for that purpose. (And yes, by extension I think that commenting on more ideal 'perfection' as if to deny this counts as a red-herring argument...)
But the issue with the Chicago crossings is more who's paying to provide the added safety, and how the agreement to use the fillers apportions maintenance cost and legal risk. My guess is it's either some appropriate department of Chicago or IDOT, perhaps with Federal money of some kind for 'grade crossing safety' or METRA, but not Union Pacific.
It might be interesting to research who would be responsible for flangeway fillers in Lodi; I'll bet a hat lawsuits to compel their installation there and perhaps more statewide are already in process.
As I will not argue there should be. Just that the railroads should not be the ones to have to pay...
Why not? Why should railroads be immune from paying their way? I am not sure, but in my town (not in Chicago or Cook County) and probably several others along the former G&CU (UP), the original landholders gave the ROW to the railroad.
MC seems to think protection of flangeways is prohibited. Then what was the FRA report about? What are my eyes seeing? A mirage?
But then he seems to be operating under the delusion that I said anything about women's heels and flangeways. Not so. Try reading and citing more accurately.
charlie hebdoWhy not? Why should railroads be immune from paying their way?
I do think we need to establish the effective conditions for that specific crossing, in that specific town and state, before we do more than speculate from other jurisdictions or circumstances. It does have to be said that Federal law regarding railroad responsibilities has been important in other respects regarding what locals or even state governments considered their prerogatives... but I think there is nothing that would forbid UP from, say, allowing municipalities to place the same type of protection used in the Illinois crossings.
... he seems to be operating under the delusion that I said anything about women's heels and flangeways.
mudchickenThe best thing they could do is place some common sense signage (kinda hard in CA) in advance of the crossings and hope the clueless heed the signage.
"Handicapped people not allowed to use the sidewalk and road here".
Sure, why not?
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
The insufficient width of the sidewalk could be fixed, unless there are adjacent property owner issues. Given the layout of the area, I doubt that would be of consequence.
The flangeway issue could be somewhat resolved with signage, as suggested. "Cross Rails At Right Angles" together with suitable pictograms should cover most situations.
If the vision distances are suitable, perhaps signs to the effect of "Do not start across until the way is clear. Once you start across, continue until you are clear of the tracks. Do not attempt to turn around."
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...
zugmannHandicapped people not allowed to use the sidewalk and road here". Sure, why not?
Take the risk of suits out of the mix and you'll likely get much more effective compliance...
Overmod charlie hebdo Why not? Why should railroads be immune from paying their way? They should not be ... where it is their concern. Use of the sidewalk is not. I have to wonder whether since Lodi is making a push for 'bicycle-route' crossings elsewhere, ADA requirements for disabled crossing could be interpreted as requiring use of the improved 'safer' accommodation, and therefore marking the crossing in question as 'Cross at your sole risk'... or in fact closing it to pedestrian traffic with 'detour' paths to adjacent ones. I do think we need to establish the effective conditions for that specific crossing, in that specific town and state, before we do more than speculate from other jurisdictions or circumstances. It does have to be said that Federal law regarding railroad responsibilities has been important in other respects regarding what locals or even state governments considered their prerogatives... but I think there is nothing that would forbid UP from, say, allowing municipalities to place the same type of protection used in the Illinois crossings. ... he seems to be operating under the delusion that I said anything about women's heels and flangeways. I have the ugly suspicion from my reading comprehension that your and Euclid's masculinity is being subtly impugned...
charlie hebdo Why not? Why should railroads be immune from paying their way?
They should not be ... where it is their concern. Use of the sidewalk is not. I have to wonder whether since Lodi is making a push for 'bicycle-route' crossings elsewhere, ADA requirements for disabled crossing could be interpreted as requiring use of the improved 'safer' accommodation, and therefore marking the crossing in question as 'Cross at your sole risk'... or in fact closing it to pedestrian traffic with 'detour' paths to adjacent ones.
I have the ugly suspicion from my reading comprehension that your and Euclid's masculinity is being subtly impugned...
I realized that but I let it go, chalking it up to a guy out of touch with the 21st century.
Railroads and some of their fans and employees are not much on community relations, etc.
I am getting kinda unsteady on my feet these days... I think all crossings should have handrails across the tracks to help me cross. I suppose they'd have to be tied to the crossing gates so that when the gates go down, the handrails go up to allow the train to pass. Might be kind of fun to hang on for dear life as the handrails go up before I get across!
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
mudchicken ...Even with flangeway fillers, women (plus Charlie & Bucky ?) have this issue with heels and those heels quite often damage the field side filler of the rail crossing, usually sticking in the seam where the rail and rubber meet. Hardly a new issue. RTD-Denver has dealt with it since they began rail operations. (Ironically there are Denver Tramway complaints from the 1940's over the same issue)
...Even with flangeway fillers, women (plus Charlie & Bucky ?) have this issue with heels and those heels quite often damage the field side filler of the rail crossing, usually sticking in the seam where the rail and rubber meet. Hardly a new issue. RTD-Denver has dealt with it since they began rail operations. (Ironically there are Denver Tramway complaints from the 1940's over the same issue)
1940s. Wow had not even thought of that.. Of course any one who walks out on public locations with heels ?
As far as to who pays. We get to that very old argument. Is the crossing a public owned crossing or as at most locations a RR owned crossing with a road easement with the road owner responsible for everything about the crossing?
mudchicken Unless they ask for a variance from FRA, aint gonna happen. The FRA 213 rules won't allow it (flangeway must be open per 213.133c and 213.137a)....The best thing they could do is place some common sense signage (kinda hard in CA) in advance of the crossings and hope the clueless heed the signage. Within sight of the Colorado Railroad Museum is a skew crossing owned now by RTD and operated by BNSF serving the Coors brewery that has signage and special side crossings for bikes to cross the track at right angles - Blown off by idots sitting on his/her brains with predictable results (Golden EMS knows the place by heart, calls to that location on a regular basis) ...Even with flangeway fillers, women (plus Charlie & Bucky ?) have this issue with heels and those heels quite often damage the field side filler of the rail crossing, usually sticking in the seam where the rail and rubber meet. Hardly a new issue. RTD-Denver has dealt with it since they began rail operations. (Ironically there are Denver Tramway complaints from the 1940's over the same issue)
Unless they ask for a variance from FRA, aint gonna happen. The FRA 213 rules won't allow it (flangeway must be open per 213.133c and 213.137a)....The best thing they could do is place some common sense signage (kinda hard in CA) in advance of the crossings and hope the clueless heed the signage.
Within sight of the Colorado Railroad Museum is a skew crossing owned now by RTD and operated by BNSF serving the Coors brewery that has signage and special side crossings for bikes to cross the track at right angles - Blown off by idots sitting on his/her brains with predictable results (Golden EMS knows the place by heart, calls to that location on a regular basis)
Your embittered attitude towards matters you detest (lawyers, counties, California, etc.) seems to lead to errors in reading correctly and/or proper attribution. I never said anything about issues with heels and I don't think Bucky (Euclid) did either. Perhaps an acknowledgement of your snide remark/error?
blue streak 1 mudchicken ...Even with flangeway fillers, women (plus Charlie & Bucky ?) have this issue with heels and those heels quite often damage the field side filler of the rail crossing, usually sticking in the seam where the rail and rubber meet. Hardly a new issue. RTD-Denver has dealt with it since they began rail operations. (Ironically there are Denver Tramway complaints from the 1940's over the same issue) 1940s. Wow had not even thought of that.. Of course any one who walks out on public locations with heels ? As far as to who pays. We get to that very old argument. Is the crossing a public owned crossing or as at most locations a RR owned crossing with a road easement with the road owner responsible for everything about the crossing?
Amen; Ironically the statement about easements gets twisted and rarely holds true or is the reverse. The further west you go, the more common is the fact that the railroad was there first. (In CA there are easements for crossings, but the railroad is the underlying fee owner and the easement (in place of a contract, railroads hate easements with a passion) puts the ONUS on the road agency anyhow for the right to use the crossing.) Finding an easement in a railroad DV-107 land schedule is infrequent, almost rare, and usually not for railroad road crossing purposes. Yet the hearsay persists.
MC has pretty much 'nailed it' for western railroads. My experience found that my predecessors preferred contracts and that the later contracts had 'boiler plate' to protect from bad experiences with contracts, especially those with cities.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.