charlie hebdocharlie hebdo wrote the following post 25 minutes ago: In your zeal to maintain the status quo, you didn't use a parallel analogy. Public pool? Read again.
The railroad did not ask for the road crossing, and derives vanishingly slight real benefit from it; in fact I could have gone a bit further and said 'public pool in which the property owner could not swim freely or even sunbathe around' for some reason. It was a 'public pool' because it is a metaphor for a public road, a very different thing from, say, a country-club pool built via eminent domain of some kind. You, on the other hand, misinterpret the applicability of 'attractive nuisance' in this context. The duty of care there is to preclude the access itself, not to make it 'safe' for trespassers to engage in various behavior once there that might pose risk to them -- lifeguards, pool intrusion alarms, non-skid decking, etc. I am reasonably sure that UP would happily eliminate the 'attractive nuisance' of flangeways the way it does everywhere else there is flange clearance: by at least good-faith preventing public access to its flangeways completely.
None of this, of course, rules out UP at least giving the impression of being a 'good citizen' by accepting, or even proactively requesting the required FRA waiver for, installation of some form of flangeways filler at pedestrian-enabled crossings. If I were more cynical I could easily imagine Lodi having Jim Thorpe-style 'activist' city management employees who would try punitive action of various kinds if UP fails to engage in what they consider appropriate 'citizenship' or whatever ... we are soon, I think, about to see this sort of practice in a different context in Kansas.
In your ideological** zeal to defend railroads from criticism of socially irresponsible behavior, you strain the analogy beyond reason with more logorrhea.
** Your use of the term activist in a pejorative manner exposes your real views.
Let me be clearer. I am not contending that existing laws or precedents are that railroads are responsible for the construction of safe ROWs and crossings. What I actually believe should be the goal would be to have ROWs nationalized and have railroads be free to do what they could do best: provide transportation as private entities, the same as trucks on public highways or airfreight on public airlanes - level the playing field. The compensation for the ROW land would inject capital into their coffers as well as free them from maintenance. The public would benefit from modern, safer state-of-the-art ROWs (and potentially excellent passenger rail service) by a logical rationalization of routes based on competiition in providing excellence in services, rather than an inefficient form of competition constrained by historical routes. Railroads would be aloowed to become integrated transportation companies as Ken Greyhounds has hinted at, rail, road, air and water.
charlie hebdoIn your ideological** zeal to defend railroads from criticism of socially irresponsible behavior, you strain the analogy beyond reason with more logorrhea.
[quote]Let me be clearer. I am not contending that existing laws or precedents are that railroads are responsible for the construction of safe ROWs and crossings. What I actually believe should be the goal would be to have ROWs nationalized and have railroads be free to do what they could do best: provide transportation as private entities, the same as trucks on public highways.[quote]This has, in fact, been proposed (with substantial justification, in my opinion) at least since the days of Federal control. I grew up with Kneiling's 'iron ocean' proposals, back in the days when there was still far more 'route diversity' to optimize what you propose, and while there are certainly arguments from other 'traditions and tribes' about the sorts of operational problems and distortions in either public or private ownership or administration of 'rail infrastructure entities ... expect 'The Permanent Way' stuff to be trotted out ad nauseam as if it actually governed American practice of the idea ... I do think it is a solution with great objective merit.
... compensation for the ROW land would inject capital into their coffers as well as free them from maintenance. The public would benefit from modern, safer state-of-the-art ROWs (and potentially excellent passenger rail service) by a logical rationalization of routes based on competiition in providing excellence in services, rather than an inefficient form of competition constrained by historical routes.
Your use of the term activist in a pejorative manner exposes your real views.
I would in fact suggest that there are ways to achieve 'socially responsible' safety-infrastructure improvements well short of a high-expenditure (and likely forced, at least until ttrraaffiicc's predictions begin to become visibly true) public acquisition of the assets in question. The most obvious would be a recasting of applicable Federal law, which is becoming increasingly possible in the current House and probable if there are Senate and executive 'regime change' for next year. The specific issue of crossing safety is both an express 'safety' issue under the current government self-restriction of railroad regulation to safety-related concerns and a subject for further interpretation or even amendment where the ADA is concerned. Activism (of the proper sort, which of course I support and (although embarrassingly, far too seldom) engage in) would be best directed there, in no small part because it will reach attentive ears connected to the authority to cut any Gordian knots of assumed liability or prior 'precedent' at least expeditiously and expediently.
charlie hebdo There was no attempt at commenting on Larry's education level,
Well, your exact wording was
You clearly do not have even an introductory psychology course level of understanding
Your use of the pronoun 'you' does tend to personalize the exchange, and the attempt to fault the level of education of your adversaries seems a clear attempt to attack their intelligence. Put the two together, and you'll see that I am right. Perhaps this is something you are doing and not even aware of? This isn't the first time , others have mentioned this to you before.
Erik_MagI'd like to see testing of the flangeway protection technologies to show that they do not increase the chances of a derailment.
I think there is now enormous practical evidence, both pro and con, from current implementations of flangeway protection. Data from Illinois alone, where there may be a statistically-significant number of crossings, ought to be indicative 'enough' of most of the objective hazards and failure modes. The only real 'solution' for weird complex-interaction derailments will be either liability caps combined with 'mandatorily-regulated' cost of insurance (like Price-Anderson or Amtrak's 'our-fault') or some sort of arrangement for pooled remediation with local authorities ... watch the screaming and recall efforts and vicious campaigning that would follow revelation of that!
As I said in the other thread, the real solution to this issue lies in Federal legislation that specifically mandates the installation of fillers, and ideally addresses the issue of 'who pays' definitively. My opinion is against unfunded mandates as a general rule, on principle, so I would naturally prefer to see the installation and marginal repair and maintenance costs paid out of tax revenue or (in the case of railroads) deductible without positive limit from any local, or perhaps income, taxes they would otherwise owe. But having the thing nailed down is key to getting approved designs in place, and funds allocated to put them in, before the situation with flangeway trapping comes up again.
None of this of course interfering with the expeditious legal action to compel scooter and wheelchair makers to revise their defective designs wherever they are used in this context, and pay the whole cost of recall and refit to make them safe.
Overmod None of this of course interfering with the expeditious legal action to compel scooter and wheelchair makers to revise their defective designs wherever they are used in this context, and pay the whole cost of recall and refit to make them safe.
I'd been wondering about product recall as well. Another thought was in changing the rules on what qualifies for Medicare reimbursement.
Another line of thought is requring some sort of permit for operating motorized wheelchairs and other mobility devices on public sidewalks and streets. The permit would require passing a simple written test about the rules of the road for such devices. A simple (perhaps draconian) enforcement would be requiring a current permit in order to initiate any lawsuit from injuries received while riding on a public street or sidewalk.
Perhaps you should desist from putting words in others' mouths. I never said flangeway fillers were in widespread use in Illinois. I commented on their use in at least a few towns along the UPWest line.
Convicted One charlie hebdo There was no attempt at commenting on Larry's education level, Well, your exact wording was You clearly do not have even an introductory psychology course level of understanding Your use of the pronoun 'you' does tend to personalize the exchange, and the attempt to fault the level of education of your adversaries seems a clear attempt to attack their intelligence. Put the two together, and you'll see that I am right. Perhaps this is something you are doing and not even aware of? This isn't the first time , others have mentioned this to you before.
1. No. You like to construct distorted generalizations. To say someone did not appear to have an understanding of an intro college psych class is not a comment on their level of education. I never took a sociology class but I did earn degrees beyond high school. The same is true of many people. Folks with engineering degrees may have a few or many courses in a variety of liberal arts fields. You seem unaware of this for whatever reason.
2. I think Larry is quite capable of explaining himself without your assistance. And I hold no personal animus towards him. Our difference of opinion is about mental states in emergency situations.
charlie hebdo I never said flangeway fillers were in widespread use in Illinois. I commented on their use in at least a few towns along the UPWest line.
Frankly I thought the case for flangeway filling at crossings had been 'settled science' years ago, with cost and liability assumption being the principal 'real' barriers to its adoption. I still think much as you probably do that they should be a default in new construction, possibly in new street construction in general. The real issue remains whether the cost for the additional protection should be borne by those incrementally protected, as would be 'fair', or whether the government should mandate this additional protection 'free' to the public, which is certainly expedient and, in a sense, 'just'.
I do not conclude that the railroad should pay for the flangeway fillers or that anyone would expect them to. I have no idea what legal agreements govern such details of providing grade crossings for the public roads and sidewalks.
As we have seen, if a disabled user of a mobility scooter is able to get a wheel stuck in a deep flangeway, and is also unable to get off and clear of the scooter because of their disability, you have a life threatening situation. It is simply unacceptable, and all such crossings with deep open flangeways should be immediately closed to all devices that have wheels than can get trapped in the deep flangeways. The danger is real and obvious. It also extends to bicycles because their speed is capable of killing a rider if they are launched during a wheel snagging in a deep flangeway.
The ultimate goal has been to totally fill the flangeway flush with the rail top. Then the train just rolls over that flange interference and compresses it in order to pass. When the train passes, the flangeway rebounds, and is once again filled flush with the rail head. But this ideal goal seems to be not fully attainable for some reason, and also, it may not be allowed by the FRA for some reason.
However, aside from the objective of totally filling the flangeway flush with the rail top, the problem has already been practically solved by eliminating the deep groove that extends far below the actual flange space. The deep groove extends down to the top of the rail base, whereas the flange space only extends down about one inch from the top of the rail.
If all that is allowed is that shallow, flange groove, there would be no trapping of narrow wheels because that shallow flange groove can be rounded over the edge on the side away from the rail. The cross section of the wheels is also typically rounded.
So there is no way that the shallow, rounded flange groove can get a bite on a rubber tire or wheel. Where it gets a bite is with a 3”-wide rubber tire dropping 6” deep into a 3”-wide groove with vertical walls on the side away from the rail, and an effective wall “hook” comprised of the rail itself on the opposite side. When you combine that entrapment feature with somewhat pliable rubber tire that can compress slightly as it is wedged deep into the groove, you have a death trap.
Therefore from a practical sense, I see the use of deep groove fillers without filling the actual flange clearance groove, as totally solving the problem for mobility scooters and for bicycles. These deep groove fillers are already in widespread use, and appear to finally perfect grade crossings by eliminating the pesky grade crossing snag problem without the need to fill the actual flange groove.
So the problem has been 100% solved except for places where no upgrade has yet been made such as the crossing in Lodi that we have been focused on.
EuclidTherefore from a practical sense, I see the use of deep groove fillers without filling the actual flange clearance groove, as totally solving the problem for mobility scooters and for bicycles.
The problem with any flange groove is that AAR and other standards dictate its width, and any wheel, whether bicycle or scooter, narrower than this can fall into that gap. The subsequent difficulty is lateral extrication, which I think for most bicycle rims with Presta-valve 'road'tires and rims is already posing a twist risk at minimum ¾ to 1" depth that avoids risk of bozo no-no flange bearing. Any compression in a 'deep flangeway' filler would only exacerbate the problem for bicycles, perhaps posing an even greater risk if 'common knowledge' becomes that flange fillers reduce bicycle accidents.
I suspect (and it would be easy to test) that the casters in power chairs that are thin enough to drop into flangeways are fitted with gray 'non-marking' solid tires, and this might be 'sticky' enough to resist being cammed out of even a shallow flangeway with just the lateral power from the zero-turn wheel drive. If you could power that wheel out of 'stiction' it might well be able to mount one side or the other ... but preventing the wedging entirely is a more appropriate design goal. And if everything goes wrong with policy response... I'll bet it's cheaper to register all the Hoveround users in a given municipality, and pay for caster upgrades, than to pay for the whole cost to do and amortize maintenance on a crossing...
Overmod charlie hebdo I never said flangeway fillers were in widespread use in Illinois. I commented on their use in at least a few towns along the UPWest line. You seem to think I am being critical when I was not. My point is that there are a substantial enough number of them there, very likely installed long enough in severe enough weather to give reasonable 'statistically-valid' data on the issues associated with flangeway filling, including derailment risk or conditions that might reasonably predispose to derailment risk (not quite the same thing, but in my opinion as important to record and track). Frankly I thought the case for flangeway filling at crossings had been 'settled science' years ago, with cost and liability assumption being the principal 'real' barriers to its adoption. I still think much as you probably do that they should be a default in new construction, possibly in new street construction in general. The real issue remains whether the cost for the additional protection should be borne by those incrementally protected, as would be 'fair', or whether the government should mandate this additional protection 'free' to the public, which is certainly expedient and, in a sense, 'just'.
You seem to think I am being critical when I was not. My point is that there are a substantial enough number of them there, very likely installed long enough in severe enough weather to give reasonable 'statistically-valid' data on the issues associated with flangeway filling, including derailment risk or conditions that might reasonably predispose to derailment risk (not quite the same thing, but in my opinion as important to record and track).
Maybe so, but without inspecting crossings all over Illinois, I don't actually know that flange fillers of some sort are in widespread use, nor do you. It's your supposition, not mine, and *it ain't necessarily so* at this time.
Sorry; it took me too long to see it was the implied attribution that was the problem. Now fixed in the original.
I do still think the point I was making (now better properly qualified) is that there are enough flangeway fillers in regular service that we can get a reasonable grasp of the real risks to be associated with them.
Overmod Sorry; it took me too long to see it was the implied attribution that was the problem. Now fixed in the original. I do still think the point I was making (now better properly qualified) is that there are enough flangeway fillers in regular service that we can get a reasonable grasp of the real risks to be associated with them.
Thanks and I hope there are enough in service in a variety of states.
Overmod Euclid Therefore from a practical sense, I see the use of deep groove fillers without filling the actual flange clearance groove, as totally solving the problem for mobility scooters and for bicycles. I would not go there. The problem with any flange groove is that AAR and other standards dictate its width, and any wheel, whether bicycle or scooter, narrower than this can fall into that gap. The subsequent difficulty is lateral extrication, which I think for most bicycle rims with Presta-valve 'road'tires and rims is already posing a twist risk at minimum ¾ to 1" depth that avoids risk of bozo no-no flange bearing. Any compression in a 'deep flangeway' filler would only exacerbate the problem for bicycles, perhaps posing an even greater risk if 'common knowledge' becomes that flange fillers reduce bicycle accidents.
Euclid Therefore from a practical sense, I see the use of deep groove fillers without filling the actual flange clearance groove, as totally solving the problem for mobility scooters and for bicycles.
I would not go there.
What is the size of the groove dictated by the AAR standards? I am suggesting as groove cross section of 2" wide X 1" deep, with a generous round-over radius at the top surface approaching the gap the non-rail side, and a fillet radius in the lower corner of the gap on that side. This would completely clear the flange. Why would any wheel get stuck in that?
That size appears to be what there is after installing the rubber rail seals that do not fill the flangeway. Without those rubber seals, the gap appears to be 4" wide X 7" deep. It looked to me in the video that this may have been size of the gap in the Lodi crossing.
EuclidI am suggesting as groove cross section of 2" wide X 1" deep, with a generous round-over radius at the top surface approaching the gap the non-rail side, and a fillet radius in the lower corner of the gap on that side. This would completely clear the flange. Why would any wheel get stuck in that?
What this suggests, though, is that a quick fix for the entrapment might be to relieve the inner face of the flange gap with shallow flangeway, just as you indicate, only in the pedestrian part of the crossing. This could easily extend for 'part of a panel length' into the roadway portion as few if any vehicles would be so wide.
I do think that fillers as 'flush' with the railhead as possible will still be better. A caveat for bicycles is the same as for some "promising' riad pavements: any flush filler cannot be slippery when wet. I'm sure MC is amused at the 'highway bubbas' who had the bright idea of recycling tires by chewing them up, extracting the steel belt pieces, and loading asphalt with the resulting 'traction assisting aggregate'. The result was just nifty ... until it rained or iced. Then we're going to Skid City... here we come, where the stopping distance is two to one...
Here's some discussion on the topic: https://rns.trb.org/details/dproject.aspx?n=13462
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...
tree68Here's some discussion on the topic: https://rns.trb.org/details/dproject.aspx?n=13462
Euclid needs to scroll to the end, see if the committee's contact information is still live, and provide them the comparatively recent patent and company information he has been discussing...
This from Michigan DOT ca 2015/6.
https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/2016_MDOT_RR_TYPICALS_528022_7.pdf
[quote user="Euclid"]
What is the size of the groove dictated by the AAR standards? I am suggesting as groove cross section of 2" wide X 1" deep, with a generous round-over radius at the top surface approaching the gap the non-rail side, and a fillet radius in the lower corner of the gap on that side. This would completely clear the flange. Why would any wheel get stuck in that? [/qoute]
(1) AAR has zero to do with depth or width of the flangeway.
(2) Hope the feds have your name and address so they can send you the Code 1's. (The FRA would appreciate the funding at $ 10K+ per Code 1)
(3) Take the blinders off, please. Solving one issue creates scores of others. This kind of nonsense is what created AREA/AREMA and drove the academics of ASCE out of the railroad technical professions 120 years ago.
mudchicken (3) Take the blinders off, please. Solving one issue creates scores of others. This kind of nonsense is what created AREA/AREMA and drove the academics of ASCE out of the railroad technical professions 120 years ago.
I'd be pretty sure that one of the problems would be dealing with ice, or flangers taking out the gap filling hardware.
Out of curiosity, are there any online sources for the AREA/AREMA vs ASCE battle? I imagine the discussions would have been -um- interesting.
Erik_Mag mudchicken (3) Take the blinders off, please. Solving one issue creates scores of others. This kind of nonsense is what created AREA/AREMA and drove the academics of ASCE out of the railroad technical professions 120 years ago. I'd be pretty sure that one of the problems would be dealing with ice, or flangers taking out the gap filling hardware.
Flangers have to be raised or they will take out the whole crossing.
tree68 Here's some discussion on the topic: https://rns.trb.org/details/dproject.aspx?n=13462
Thanks for posting those two links. The first one gives good insight into the wheelchair problem and shows that the problem is very well recognized. But the solution is very perplexing. Also, there is an indication that actual flangeway fillers are used on LRT, but not on Heavy Rail application. The reason seems to be that LRT has a tighter tolerance on wheel wear, and perhaps a tighter wheel gage which reduces the amount of lateral drift of the wheelset compared to Heavy Rail.
So maybe complete flangeway filling is not possible or not allowed with Heavy Rail, but is allowed with LRT. But the total solution has to include both rail concepts.
I see the Michigan link indicates a flangeway of 2.5” wide by 2” deep. I assume this design applies to Heavy Rail, but have not read it thoroughly yet. This flangeway size would seem small enough to completely eliminate the wheelchair/mobility scooter wheel trapping issue. For one thing, the rail head on the flange side is quite smooth and even polished to some extent, and it has a generous radius (approx. ¼” radius) round-over at the upper edge.
The wall of the flangeway furthest from the flange could be also generously rounded over on the upper edge. That edge could have a 2” round-over radius, thus extending all the way to the bottom surface of the flangeway. That side of the flangeway could even be generously tapered outward as it rises. It could be tapered outward as much as 45-60 degrees. The only limitation to that would be that the greater the taper, the more of a bump will be felt by vehicles passing over the crossing. But 45 degrees would probably be okay, and that would entirely eliminate the small wheel wedging and sticking in the flangeway. This flangeway is just too large and too shallow to get anything stuck in it.
Bicycle riders have their own unique problems with grade crossings, and so to pedestrians for that matter.
Erik_Mag mudchicken (3) Take the blinders off, please. Solving one issue creates scores of others. This kind of nonsense is what created AREA/AREMA and drove the academics of ASCE out of the railroad technical professions 120 years ago. I'd be pretty sure that one of the problems would be dealing with ice, or flangers taking out the gap filling hardware. Out of curiosity, are there any online sources for the AREA/AREMA vs ASCE battle? I imagine the discussions would have been -um- interesting.
What was that conflict about in 1900?
Some additional resources from the highway -- i.e. the more responsible-for-proposing-solutions -- side. Look here for the logical place to start discussion of flangeway-filler incentives in the wake of this incident; the AAR/AREMA/FRA concerns would be in response to their proposals, no doubt containing the kinds of reality check and jurisdictional issues MC has been mentioning. (And of course, as with so much else from FHWA, some of their proposals being, shall we say, tainted with bubbadom...)
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/xings/ - section 130, 90% Federal funding...
Note to Euclid: check out Tamara Redmon (tamara.redmon@dot.gov) (202) 366-4077, who is the point of contact for FHWA pedestrian and bicycle safety. If she is not the appropriate person for handicapped crossing safety, she assuredly knows or can find the appropriate people for you to reach. Please do not embarrass me.
She may not be the ultimate point of contact for developing mandated 'safe' modification of power chairs on unimproved crossings, but again, getting her 'woke' early about the possibility can't possibly hurt the effort to make both new production and older equipment safe.
I was all gung-ho to post the link to the FRA's vaunted crossing-locator app technology -- with reasonable HA-NDGPS beaconing this might even serve well enough to automate flanger operation at subject crossings. But then I follow the link...
https://appcomm.org/rail-crossing-locator
Ah, well, give it time. Plenty of legal wrangling in the offing before they have to finish their 'reconstruction'... I see the Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook is also missing in action, perhaps for its Revised Third Edition or whatever. There is this handy Grade Crossing Resource Guide which apparently contains a sentence beginning :"Note: FRA does not have regulations pertaining to the crossing surface..." which might have bearing on just what they think, or thought in 2015 anyway, could be installed at or above rail level... I certainly can't find anything in CFR 49 234 that says anything about either levels or flange fillers. Where is that stuff?
Two things come to mind for light rail vs heavy rail.
One, fairly easily resolved, is the wheel profiles. If they are the same, then this point is moot.
The issue with freight vs LR, I would think, would be that the LR can be maintained to tighter tolerances by virtue of the fact that is it 'home' every night.
I could be wrong.
charlie hebdo What was that conflict about in 1900?
MC would be able to give a much more informed answer than I would. I suspect it was from ASCE people with little direct experience with maintenance of way trying to give advice to people with lots of MOW experience.
This is fairly common in the engineering world, where people with a good grasp of the general discipline have little or no clue what goes on in specialized niches.
Erik_MagI suspect it was from ASCE people with little direct experience with maintenance of way trying to give advice to people with lots of MOW experience.
There was a very funny discussion that used to be on the Catskill web site, about the methods of eliminating locomotive smoke. The Cornell boy was all thermodynamically gung-ho about visible smoke being inefficiency; experienced heads could tell him differently from experience, but without knowing theory...
I guess those locomotive dynometers and other railroad testing facilities at UofI and Purdue were pointless?
charlie hebdoI guess those locomotive dynamometers and other railroad testing facilities at ... Purdue ... were pointless?
Sorry Erik and others; I still haven't forgiven them for scrapping the Toleman locomotive...
Illini perhaps in the same boat at some points, although the Experimental Station certainly produced more than its share of meaningful research reports.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.