Overmod The AARP 'chair' pictured a few posts up would need more substantial redesign for safe structural integrity, but that is laughably far from a true zero-turn 'mobility' scooter...
There is no doubt a considerable inventory of chairs already in use that would, IMO, present problems in modifying. So I envision a plethora of "bolt on" upgrades, that likely would widen the track of the chairs.
And I already get "clipped" from time to time as I am picking merchandise off bottom shelves in stores, without so much as an "excuse me" from the chair operator, so I must insist upon seeing such upgrades as potentially making a bad situation worse.
You might think that risk to be unlikely, but my local library has actually thrown out a couple users for their serial disregard for the patrons around them....
charlie hebdo Euclid Open this link to the patent on SHALLOW FLANGEWAY RAIL SEAL. https://patents.google.com/patent/US20120000987 Below the abstract are 8 illustrations. Open the one nearest the left side of the page. That is image 1 of 8. The other images show various separate details, but image 1 shows everything assembled with all detail shown. The image can be blown up to very large size if necessary. The main point is that it is not the width of the flangeway that is the safety issue for small wheels. It is the depth that is the issue. Much current practice is a flangeway that is the full height of the rail, such as maybe 8-10 inches. This patent reduces that maximum flangeway depth to about 1 inch. The width appears to be about 2.5” maximum. And there is some angular and fillet radius easing of the flangeway wall opposite the flange. It seems to me that casters of wheel chairs could be forced to climb out of this flangeway. Because the flangeway is so shallow, it does not need a lot of width to allow the caster to turn on its swivel. With a 6” caster wheel dropping into a 1” deep flangeway, the caster would probably be able to pivot say 45 degrees before it encountered any interference with the flangeway sides. Also, wheel chair wheels could probably be design optimized to ideally interact with these new shallow flangeways. Altogether, I believe this new shallow flangeway coupled with improved wheel chair wheels completely solves the wheelchair problem for grade crossings. What is does not solve completely is the ability to catch and track a bicycle wheel off its course and cause the bicycle to tip over sideways. It also does not prevent pedestrians from stepping on a rail. Seems pretty good.
Euclid Open this link to the patent on SHALLOW FLANGEWAY RAIL SEAL. https://patents.google.com/patent/US20120000987 Below the abstract are 8 illustrations. Open the one nearest the left side of the page. That is image 1 of 8. The other images show various separate details, but image 1 shows everything assembled with all detail shown. The image can be blown up to very large size if necessary. The main point is that it is not the width of the flangeway that is the safety issue for small wheels. It is the depth that is the issue. Much current practice is a flangeway that is the full height of the rail, such as maybe 8-10 inches. This patent reduces that maximum flangeway depth to about 1 inch. The width appears to be about 2.5” maximum. And there is some angular and fillet radius easing of the flangeway wall opposite the flange. It seems to me that casters of wheel chairs could be forced to climb out of this flangeway. Because the flangeway is so shallow, it does not need a lot of width to allow the caster to turn on its swivel. With a 6” caster wheel dropping into a 1” deep flangeway, the caster would probably be able to pivot say 45 degrees before it encountered any interference with the flangeway sides. Also, wheel chair wheels could probably be design optimized to ideally interact with these new shallow flangeways. Altogether, I believe this new shallow flangeway coupled with improved wheel chair wheels completely solves the wheelchair problem for grade crossings. What is does not solve completely is the ability to catch and track a bicycle wheel off its course and cause the bicycle to tip over sideways. It also does not prevent pedestrians from stepping on a rail.
Open this link to the patent on SHALLOW FLANGEWAY RAIL SEAL.
https://patents.google.com/patent/US20120000987
Below the abstract are 8 illustrations. Open the one nearest the left side of the page. That is image 1 of 8. The other images show various separate details, but image 1 shows everything assembled with all detail shown. The image can be blown up to very large size if necessary.
The main point is that it is not the width of the flangeway that is the safety issue for small wheels. It is the depth that is the issue. Much current practice is a flangeway that is the full height of the rail, such as maybe 8-10 inches. This patent reduces that maximum flangeway depth to about 1 inch. The width appears to be about 2.5” maximum. And there is some angular and fillet radius easing of the flangeway wall opposite the flange.
It seems to me that casters of wheel chairs could be forced to climb out of this flangeway. Because the flangeway is so shallow, it does not need a lot of width to allow the caster to turn on its swivel.
With a 6” caster wheel dropping into a 1” deep flangeway, the caster would probably be able to pivot say 45 degrees before it encountered any interference with the flangeway sides.
Also, wheel chair wheels could probably be design optimized to ideally interact with these new shallow flangeways.
Altogether, I believe this new shallow flangeway coupled with improved wheel chair wheels completely solves the wheelchair problem for grade crossings.
What is does not solve completely is the ability to catch and track a bicycle wheel off its course and cause the bicycle to tip over sideways.
It also does not prevent pedestrians from stepping on a rail.
Seems pretty good.
Yes, I think that if that Shallow Flangeway Rail Seal were installed in the flangeways of a crossing, no existing wheelchair could get stuck in a flangeway of that crossing. Even that wheelchair shown in Balt's post on the previous page would not get stuck in a flangeway that was equipped with the Shallow Flangeway Rail Seal. The product solves 100% of the problem for wheelchairs.
The only problem is that, as I understand it, the product is not yet approved for use. Such approval will require extensive testing, not only for the passage of wheelchairs, but also for the ability of passing trains to demonstrate a reliable ability for the Shallow Flangeway Rail Seal to be self-cleaning of ice frozen into the flangeway. If that is proven to be successful, not only will the crossing be safer for pedstrians, but it will also require less maintenance.
I looked at the crossing on the UP mainline today. It is flush with the railhead on the outside, depressed somewhat, then slanting up on flangeway . You can even see where a flange on a heavy car that bounced left a depression. Seems safe for all. But I don't know the maker.
Euclid. This patent reduces that maximum flangeway depth to about 1 inch. The width appears to be about 2.5” maximum. And there is some angular and fillet radius easing of the flangeway wall opposite the flange.
Well, I certainly wish them well. Finding a material that is resilient at 120 degrees, as well as -20 degrees.......that is also impervious to UV degradation, I expect will be challenging. And then you throw in 10,000 wheelsets passing per week...I expect maintenance will be important.
I too noticed that the person in the trapped wheelchair seemed unalarmed as the train was approaching. I want to review that video again. It poses the question of what such a person might do to evade the train.
I assume that people using wheelchairs may have some bodily mobility in their limbs that might enable them to get out of the chair and clear of the track. I also assume that some people are so disabled that getting out of the chair and into the clear would be absolutely impossible. If this is the case, it is too dangerous to allow them to pass over a railroad grade crossing without the assistance and protection of one or more able bodied persons.
Otherwise, if they are incapable of exiting the chair and moving themselves into the clear, and considering that it is impossible for the train to yield in many cases, crossing the track in a wheel chair is a risk that should be legally prohibited. It is a known and demonstrated fact that wheel chairs can and do get stuck in crossing flangeways.
Such a law would require that the wheelchair user be tested for their ability to get out the chair and into the clear in time. If they cannot do that and require the assistance of others, those people would be tested for their ability to assist the wheelchair user in case of getting the wheelchair stuck in grade crossing flangeways.
In that crossing death of a wheelchair user in Canada, that I posted earlier, there were two other people working together to get the wheelchair unstuck or get the person out of the chair and into the clear. They failed to accomplish that and the person in the chair was killed. Also, one of the two helpers was struck by the train and injured in the attempt to rescue the person in the wheelchair.
Euclid... Such a law would require that the wheelchair user be tested for their ability to get out the chair and into the clear in time. If they cannot do that and require the assistance of others, those people would be tested for their ability to assist the wheelchair user in case of getting the wheelchair stuck in grade crossing flangeways. In that crossing death of a wheelchair user in Canada, that I posted earlier, there were two other people working together to get the wheelchair unstuck or get the person out of the chair and into the clear. They failed to accomplish that and the person in the chair was killed. Also, one of the two helpers was struck by the train and injured in the attempt to rescue the person in the wheelchair.
Just what is needed - a 'Wheelchair License'. [/sarcasm] Since we are in a Covid-19 world, should 'the authorities' issue a 'Breathing License'?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
EuclidI too noticed that the person in the trapped wheelchair seemed unalarmed as the train was approaching. I want to review that video again. It poses the question of what such a person might do to evade the train.
Or, at minimum,.. assist the police officer trying to rescue them. Doesn't appear to be one stitch of cooperation there. And that one fleeting glimpse we get of the person's face, didn't really look like an expression of enthusiasm.
That last comment is perhaps unfair, because I have no way of knowing what's going on in the person's mind. But I know that if it was me in that position, I'd be overflowing with gratitude.
We'll never know.
EuclidSuch a law would require that the wheelchair user be tested for their ability to get out the chair and into the clear in time.
I don't believe that is gonna happen.
The whole ADA thing is about freeing the disabled to become independant by removing barriers. They aren't IMO going to add a layer of restriction. It would be seen as a step backwards.
One would think that any chair-bound individual who was unable to enter and exit the chair on their own would have a care giver. And it does seem questionable that a responsible caregiver would allow such a person to go out in public unattended. Perhaps better vetting of caregivers is an answer?
A key phrase in the ADA is "reasonable accomodations", which implies that the accomodations should not adversely affect safety. For example, how many airliners are equipped to handle motorized wheelchairs in the cabin?
Another question is who pays for the installation and maintennance of these accomodations?
Something the Canadian accident demonstrated rather dramatically is, as with some firearm trauma, even just contact with the train will produce immediate damage. The inertia of the woman's arm was enough to cause the loss of her hand.
The stark reality of this situation is that, depending on the crossing flangeways, a wheelchair rider may become locked into a position where it is impossible to yield to a train, and it will also impossible for the train to yield to the wheelchair rider. Even if a rider is extremely careful, it is too much of a risk. I cannot think of another traffic situation that is comparable. The accommodation in this case can only be the elimination of the flangeway hazard. Otherwise the crossing has to either be closed to wheelchairs or closed to trains.
Elimination of the flangeway hazard can only be accomplished by perfecting a safe flangeway or developing an entirely different wheelchair. It would not be safe enough to allow cars and trucks to pass over a grade crossing if there was no possibility of the drivers to extricate themselves from their vehicles.
Convicted One Euclid Such a law would require that the wheelchair user be tested for their ability to get out the chair and into the clear in time. I don't believe that is gonna happen. The whole ADA thing is about freeing the disabled to become independant by removing barriers. They aren't IMO going to add a layer of restriction. It would be seen as a step backwards. One would think that any chair-bound individual who was unable to enter and exit the chair on their own would have a care giver. And it does seem questionable that a responsible caregiver would allow such a person to go out in public unattended. Perhaps better vetting of caregivers is an answer?
Euclid Such a law would require that the wheelchair user be tested for their ability to get out the chair and into the clear in time.
Ah yes - The disabled need to be vetted, supervised and trained more effectively.
BaltACD.Ah yes - The disabled need to be vetted, supervised and trained more effectively.
From the post you were responding to: Perhaps better vetting of caregivers is an answer?
EuclidElimination of the flangeway hazard can only be accomplished by perfecting a safe flangeway or developing an entirely different wheelchair.
Have to be mindful that the expense of reaching perfection does not exceed the cost of the risk.
As in so many of these type discussions, a train runs over a conductor, so "we" embark upon devising a ruleset so strenuous that such occurance can NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN, ..or an engineer is found intoxicated on thejob, so "we" attempt to design a system so elaborate that any engineer will be unable to start his locomotive without satisfying a lockout device.
And now here we are designing the "perfect" handicap grade crossing appliance?
I supect that the principle of diminishing returns need neccessarily factor into these deliberations, where we recognize that reaching a reasonable level of protection is worthwhile, whereas expecting "perfection" is a folly.
Convicted One BaltACD .Ah yes - The disabled need to be vetted, supervised and trained more effectively. From the post you were responding to: Perhaps better vetting of caregivers is an answer?
BaltACD .Ah yes - The disabled need to be vetted, supervised and trained more effectively.
In as much as the incident that has generated this thread was from a diabled individual without caregiver - it applies to the disabled individual.
The alternative concept to the SHALLOW FLANGEWAY RAIL SEAL (SFRS) is the FANGEWAY FILLER (FF). With FF, when no train is passing, the flangeway is 100% filled, flush with the crossing surface and rail head. In effect, there is no flangeway when no train is passing. So bicycles and wheelchairs will be unaffected by a flangeway.
However, the flangeway filler is resilient, so as a train passes, its flanges can depress the filler and make room for its flanges to pass. After a flange passes, the filler rebounds to its normal full elevation. This depress-and-rebound action occurs with the passage of each wheel. Because the train is so much heavier than road vehicles and further concentrates that weight onto each flange, the train will be able to depress the flange filler material, whereas road vehicles will not compress it at all. With so much weight difference to work with, the train flanges will be able to completely depress the filler with no chance at all of lifting the wheels off of the rail and thus disengaging a flange.
Therefore, regarding any goal of a “perfect” solution, the FF is closer to perfection than is the SFRS. The main difference is that FF prevents the flangeway from catching a bicycle wheel and causing it to run in the flangeway and thus veer off track to the course of the bicycle. The SFRS cannot eliminate this danger to bicycles, but it does eliminate the danger of bicycles getting a wheel stuck in a flangeway. So the only remaining part of the hazard is to pedestrians stepping on the rail, which is the smallest component of the overall hazard involving pedestrians on foot, on bicycle, or in wheelchair.
From what I gather, FF is widely used and accepted for transit railroads but not for heavy rail freight railroads. One reason given is that freight trains are too heavy for the filler material, and this quickly wears out the filler. However, this seems like nonsense because freight trains or transit trains can only depress the filler to the depth of their flanges, and both do so easily with their inherent weight, so there is no way a freight train can harm the flange filler that cannot be harmed by a transit train.
So, I assume the actual reason is that the railroad industry cannot countenance the idea of closing the flangeways at crossings and then forcing the trains to open them in order to pass. This rejection of the principle may be based on the practical experience of flangeways getting filled with dirt or ice to the point where opening them with a train is not 100% feasible. Flangeways filled with ice or dirt are known to derail trains. So, apparently the common thinking is that flangeways must be kept clear out of respect to the flange.
But flangeway fillers are not dirt or ice, and they have been proven to reliably yield to the weight of transit trains, so why can’t they do likewise with freight trains? If there is a practical reason, I have not heard it. But perhaps the cultural reason is enough to prevent flangeway fillers to be used for freight trains.
In any case, SFRS minimizes the flangeway size to the point of being practically safe without obstructing any of the flange path. However, it does reduce the respect to the flange by reducing the margin of extra space in the flangeway. That extra space is used to accommodate ice and dirt entering the flangeway before it accumulates to the poing of fouling the the actual flange path. So the extra space in the flangeway buys time before ice melts or dirt needs to be removed. With the SFRS, any accumulation of ice or dirt immediately fouls the flange path. So, for that reason, the SFRS appears to be a non-starter.
But there is another side of the coin with this issue. Ice fouling is much more common than dirt fouling. Dirt fouling has practical solutions that can eliminate the occurrence. But ice fouling is part of weather. The only way to eliminate it would be to heat the crossing. But here is the key. With the SFRS, ice fouling begins immediately upon formation of ice. There is no extra space in the flangeway to fill with ice before fouling the flange path. So ice will begin flange contact once it fills the flangeway to say ¼ inch above the flangeway floor.
Ice is brittle and the flangeway floor of SFRS is somewhat flexible even though it is not made to yield to flange interference as is the case with the Flangeway Filler (FF). When the ¼ inch of ice buildup on the SFRS floor reaches the height of the flange tip, the flange will depress the ice layer which is supported on a flexible floor of the SFRS. This interfering flange contact will depress the ice layer as it also bends it, thus causing it to easily fracture and disintegrate. So the shattered ice layer will be ejected from the flangeway by the passing flanges. This effect of immediately clearing ice from flangeways will also apply to clearing dirt. Either material will be cleared by the flanges because the clearing begins when the layer of the interfering material is very thin and supported on a flexible floor of the flangeway.
Therefore, while there is a customary belief that flangeways need extra space to hold debris while provding clearance to the flange; there is a counterpoint that eliminating the extra space makes the flangeway self-cleaning.
Bucky: That makes a lot of sense to me, as an amateur. I wonder what the real objections would be? Cost? Maintenance? Arrogance of ownership?
charlie hebdo Bucky: That makes a lot of sense to me, as an amateur. I wonder what the real objections would be? Cost? Maintenance? Arrogance of ownership?
This was Mudchicken's answer back in the first wheelchair thread on Aug 14:
Paul of Covington mudchicken Mod: anything placed above the top of rail is a bozo no-no. (FRA/CaPUC/AREMA)....the same goes for any striping in the foul zone How about filling the gaps with something resilient that would support the weight of people but squish down under the rail traffic? I seem to remember seeing that somewhere, but I'm trying to remember where. Maybe it was streetcar tracks.
mudchicken Mod: anything placed above the top of rail is a bozo no-no. (FRA/CaPUC/AREMA)....the same goes for any striping in the foul zone
How about filling the gaps with something resilient that would support the weight of people but squish down under the rail traffic? I seem to remember seeing that somewhere, but I'm trying to remember where. Maybe it was streetcar tracks.
Tried multiple times & fails all the time...could only be used in warm weather states and cigarettes set the pliable flangeway filler on fire. FRA flangeway rules needed a special exemption before the stuff was used.
______________
(edit): I tried copying the post and pasting it here. It may not be obvious, but the last reply is Mudchicken's answer. Here is the thread:
http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/111/t/283776.aspx
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Paul of Covington charlie hebdo Bucky: That makes a lot of sense to me, as an amateur. I wonder what the real objections would be? Cost? Maintenance? Arrogance of ownership? This was Mudchicken's answer back in the first wheelchair thread on Aug 14: Paul of Covington mudchicken Mod: anything placed above the top of rail is a bozo no-no. (FRA/CaPUC/AREMA)....the same goes for any striping in the foul zone How about filling the gaps with something resilient that would support the weight of people but squish down under the rail traffic? I seem to remember seeing that somewhere, but I'm trying to remember where. Maybe it was streetcar tracks. Tried multiple times & fails all the time...could only be used in warm weather states and cigarettes set the pliable flangeway filler on fire. FRA flangeway rules needed a special exemption before the stuff was used. ______________ (edit): I tried copying the post and pasting it here. It may not be obvious, but the last reply is Mudchicken's answer. Here is the thread: http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/111/t/283776.aspx
Yeah, that covers it. As Don Oltmann has said about rail culture. "We don't it that way because we've always done it that way." And the corollary: "Any idea to the contrary? Wrong!!!"
A “rail seal” is comprised of two slightly different rubber extrusions, each placed against the side of the rail in a grade crossing. The difference in the two extrusions is that the one on the gage side of the rail contains a flangeway as part of the extrusion, and other one on the field side of the rail has its top surface flush with the top of the rail head.
The main purpose is to seal the rail against intrusion of water, snow, dirt, and trash, which otherwise can get under the rail and into the ballast, which then can foul the ballast and impede drainage. So a rail seal is basically a rubber gasket.
As a train passes over a crossing, there is often up and down movement of the rail bed as the crossing bed remains stationary. The flexible nature of the rubber rail seal accommodates the track movement while maintaining a tight seal between the moving rail and the stationary crossing bed.
In my most recent post just above, I described two products capable of reducing the flangeway hazard. One is the SHALLOW FLANGEWAY RAIL SEAL. As I understand it, this is a rail seal with the shallowest flangeway that will not interfere with the flange. As I understand it, this SFRS is just now being introduced, and may need regulatory approval.
The other of the two products I am describing is what I call a FLANGEWAY FILLER (FF). As I understand it, the FF is not approved for use in heavy rail system grade crossings, but only used for transit rail crossings.
Therefore, the main product that promises to be the solution to flangeway dangers of heavy rail systems is the SHALLOW FLANGEWAY RAIL SEAL. It differs from the basic rail seal by having a shallower and wider flangeway than does the basic rail seal.
I find nothing to verify that assertion quoted above that says about these rail seal products that they have been:
“Tried multiple times & fails all the time...could only be used in warm weather states and cigarettes set the pliable flangeway filler on fire.”
These products are being manufactured and sold, and seem to be in widespread use. The SHALLOW FLANGEWAY RAIL SEAL may not be in use, but it is just a new version of the basic RAIL SEAL, and they use the same pliable rubber material as will the SHALLOW FLANGEWAY RAIL SEAL. So what is it exactly that has been “tried many times and fails all the time” ?
Perhaps you should ask MC (or whoever said that) why he posted an unsubstantiated opinion as though it were an established fact?
charlie hebdoPerhaps you should ask MC (or whoever said that) why he posted an unsubstantiated opinion as though it were an established fact?
Salesmen for products make many 'claims of fact' (their words) about their product - real world experience with those products in many cases refute those 'facts' and change them to bald faced lies. As in everything involving humanity - buyer beware.
BaltACD charlie hebdo Perhaps you should ask MC (or whoever said that) why he posted an unsubstantiated opinion as though it were an established fact? Salesmen for products make many 'claims of fact' (their words) about their product - real world experience with those products in many cases refute those 'facts' and change them to bald faced lies. As in everything involving humanity - buyer beware.
charlie hebdo Perhaps you should ask MC (or whoever said that) why he posted an unsubstantiated opinion as though it were an established fact?
Sure there are bogus products that are marketed as lies. But this rail seal line of products seems to be in widespread use with extremely clear videos and illustrations explaining the purpose and installation details. There are also many posted photographs of them installed on active grade crossings. They are manufactured by companies that make other railroad related products. And the explanations of how they work is not at all hard to believe or comprehend.
So when somebody says this, it does not seem to fit the pratical reality:
I don't doubt that there were trials and failures. Temperature performance of the rail seal material was probably tested extensively to get it to work with all conditions. But I doubt that temperature and cigarettes were a showstopper as the above comment implies.
It is well known that MC has a job involving track maintenance. By the sounds of it he had some first-hand experience with the stuff.
If cigarette butts set it on fire, what the heck is it made of? Nitrate film!?
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
SD70Dude charlie hebdo Perhaps you should ask MC (or whoever said that) why he posted an unsubstantiated opinion as though it were an established fact? It is well known that MC has a job involving track maintenance. By the sounds of it he had some first-hand experience with the stuff. If cigarette butts set it on fire, what the heck is it made of? Nitrate film!?
Quote:
Rail seal products are made from thick rubber just like tires, and that is why tires have been tried multiple times and fail all the time because they can't be used in cold weather and cigarettes set them on fire.
Euclid SD70Dude charlie hebdo Perhaps you should ask MC (or whoever said that) why he posted an unsubstantiated opinion as though it were an established fact? It is well known that MC has a job involving track maintenance. By the sounds of it he had some first-hand experience with the stuff. If cigarette butts set it on fire, what the heck is it made of? Nitrate film!? Quote: “Tried multiple times & fails all the time...could only be used in warm weather states and cigarettes set the pliable flangeway filler on fire.” Rail seal products are made from thick rubber just like tires, and that is why tires have been tried multiple times and fail all the time because they can't be used in cold weather and cigarettes set them on fire.
+1
I strongly believe that trained and experienced experts' opinions are generally the ones that take precedence. But sometimes well-meaning folks are so entrenched in their positions that they can't accept change and can only make rather silly. comments.
charlie hebdoI strongly believe that trained and experienced experts' opinions are generally the ones that take precedence
That's why we tend to take MC's word for it.
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...
tree68 charlie hebdo I strongly believe that trained and experienced experts' opinions are generally the ones that take precedence That's why we tend to take MC's word for it.
charlie hebdo I strongly believe that trained and experienced experts' opinions are generally the ones that take precedence
And that's why you snipped and pasted only the first part of my comment and ignore the posts of Euclid. No one is infallible and we all have an axe to grind: myself, you and MC, though he is the only one with a stake in the game.
EuclidRail seal products are made from thick rubber just like tires, and that is why tires have been tried multiple times and fail all the time because they can't be used in cold weather
Run over an automobile tire with a 100 car loaded coal train, and then (try to) put it on your car and drive with it.
And then do the same thing with a tire that has sat outside over night at 20 degrees below zero, and note the difference.
As bad as the first tire is, the second will be far worse.
Take two identicle rubberbands. Put one in the freezer over night, and then compare the two the following morning.
Convicted OneTake two identical rubberbands. Put one in the freezer over night, and then compare the two the following morning.
Seriously, the reason MC is 'important' here is not because of some appeal-to-authority fallacy but because he knows the law and others don't. That counts for a great deal more than an acquired knowledge of advanced polymer chemistry and preparation.
One might as gainfully read John White's description of rubber car springs from even the era before 1834 ... which neatly contains all the pratfalls so far named in this thread ... and then look at the solutions for air-suspension bag springs and rubber isolators and snubbe in the railroad industry in the past half-century or so.
I personally can't imagine any problem in developing a combination of face material, core foam, and blowing-agent compositions and pressures that would not produce a reliable, UV- and contaminant-resistant strip that would bottom-anchor to a "legal" HDPE or whatever flangeway bottom filler across the width of a crossing (with approach nose pieces either end) which would reliably compress away in flange contact but not substantially under transient bicycle content or even sustained contact by even suicide-minded scooter pilots. While Euclid's sources may be selective in addressing how they handle their materials selection and fabrication, it should not be difficult to evolve a standards-type set of test requirements for a 'safe' device of the kind, which would suit agencies and Congressional committees well enough to "harmonize" the law with certain perceived 'social' improvements...
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.