dpeltierNow, maybe you meant to ask whether it is technologically possible to detect if a vehicle is STUCK on the tracks unable to move, and warn trains acordingly? I think the answer is "No"...
In my opinion little more than 'forwarding' video feed and some playback or interface controls to the railroad(s) or companies involved would be necessary; it would be their subsequent responsibility to arrange to determine affected trains and order them to slow or stop or update their electronic 'documentation' to ensure they make a safe and vigilant 'approach'.
Ulrich Would it not be possible to design a fail safe that would detect a vehicle fouling the tracks and automatically notify any oncoming trains?
Would it not be possible to design a fail safe that would detect a vehicle fouling the tracks and automatically notify any oncoming trains?
Crossing signals are required to activate at least 20 seconds before the train arrives. Typically a crossing with modern equipment and a "normal" traffic mix will be configured so that the signals activate about 30 seconds before arrival. A truck that starts across the crossing ~5 seconds after the lights start flashing (allowing for normal reaction times and stopping distance) may only clear the tracks 10-15 seconds before the train arrives. That is way less than the time it takes to stop a train. If you add a system that slows the train every time there is a vehicle on the tracks in front of it, to make sure the train can stop for that vehicle, you would essentially be limiting train speeds to maybe 20 MPH or so.
Now if you GREATLY increase the crossing warning time, then this kind of thing becomes a theoretical possibility. I believe on the Illinois higher-speed rail route they are using something like 80 seconds of warning time, 3-4 times what is normal. But they also have 4-quad gates at all the crossings. If you use 80 seconds of warning time at a 2-quad gate setup, people would get impatient and drive around the gates, and you'd be back to where you started.
Now, maybe you meant to ask whether it is technologically possible to detect if a vehicle is STUCK on the tracks unable to move, and warn trains acordingly? I think the answer is "No," although AI is progressing so fast that's conceivable it could happen some day. Then it will become a cost-benefit question. Train-hits-stuck-vehicle crashes can definitely be dangerous, including to the train crew, but my guess is that the are statistically less likely to result in injuries than any other type of train-vehicle crash. And if you consider lifecycle costs of maintaining such a system, it's might just be cheaper in most cases to fix the road profile.Or use all that AI to build a better truck driver.
Dan
Ulrich ATLANTIC CENTRAL Ulrich I didn't think it was such a bad idea. It's pretty easy to get hung up on a crossing, more so in bad weather. it's happened to me before.. snow and ice had changed the profile of the road.. pulling a drop frame trailer and BOOM.. just like that I had no millimetres to spare and hung up on a rail I became! Fortunately for me, a snow shovel and a bit of jostling got me released and on my way. But I suppose things could have ended differently. Would a phone number on a pole have helped? Not back then.. smart phones.. even flip phones and those massive brick phones were the realm of science fiction. But I would imagine using a smartphone with gloves on in freezing -40 degree temperatures would have been challenging even then when my fingers were young and nimble. Sensors and an automated stop mechanism makes sense to me..but who knows.. I'm no engineer. Stopping a train in Emergency has a special set of risks. The balance tips in favor of taking those risks if the object to be hit is another train. But taking those risks when the object is just a car, hopefully an empty one, is not good odds. The crew, and passengers, if it is a passenger train, are at less risk hitting a car than slaming on the trains brakes automaticly when the hazzard may not even exist by the time you get there. I could be wrong, but I think most of the professional railroaders here will agree. The answer is smarter humans and better grade crossing construction standards, one being easier to impliment than the other...... Sheldon Ok, so lets make the sensor and the whole shebang a little smarter and a little bit more interactive. Now it senses a tanker truck.. it "interacts" with the approaching train's onboard computer.. together they determine that a brake application of X lbs is optimal to stop the train without it derailing. Oh but hold on!.. the truck has cleared the crossing! The sensors relay that latest bit of information to the train, and just like that the brakes are released and back to normal. Star Wars tech? Not really.. Star Wars was 40 + years ago. I think we've got the technology to do it.. but maybe not! Or maybe it would be way too expensive.. I don't know. But to me it would seem possible to do that.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Ulrich I didn't think it was such a bad idea. It's pretty easy to get hung up on a crossing, more so in bad weather. it's happened to me before.. snow and ice had changed the profile of the road.. pulling a drop frame trailer and BOOM.. just like that I had no millimetres to spare and hung up on a rail I became! Fortunately for me, a snow shovel and a bit of jostling got me released and on my way. But I suppose things could have ended differently. Would a phone number on a pole have helped? Not back then.. smart phones.. even flip phones and those massive brick phones were the realm of science fiction. But I would imagine using a smartphone with gloves on in freezing -40 degree temperatures would have been challenging even then when my fingers were young and nimble. Sensors and an automated stop mechanism makes sense to me..but who knows.. I'm no engineer. Stopping a train in Emergency has a special set of risks. The balance tips in favor of taking those risks if the object to be hit is another train. But taking those risks when the object is just a car, hopefully an empty one, is not good odds. The crew, and passengers, if it is a passenger train, are at less risk hitting a car than slaming on the trains brakes automaticly when the hazzard may not even exist by the time you get there. I could be wrong, but I think most of the professional railroaders here will agree. The answer is smarter humans and better grade crossing construction standards, one being easier to impliment than the other...... Sheldon
Ulrich I didn't think it was such a bad idea. It's pretty easy to get hung up on a crossing, more so in bad weather. it's happened to me before.. snow and ice had changed the profile of the road.. pulling a drop frame trailer and BOOM.. just like that I had no millimetres to spare and hung up on a rail I became! Fortunately for me, a snow shovel and a bit of jostling got me released and on my way. But I suppose things could have ended differently. Would a phone number on a pole have helped? Not back then.. smart phones.. even flip phones and those massive brick phones were the realm of science fiction. But I would imagine using a smartphone with gloves on in freezing -40 degree temperatures would have been challenging even then when my fingers were young and nimble. Sensors and an automated stop mechanism makes sense to me..but who knows.. I'm no engineer.
I didn't think it was such a bad idea. It's pretty easy to get hung up on a crossing, more so in bad weather. it's happened to me before.. snow and ice had changed the profile of the road.. pulling a drop frame trailer and BOOM.. just like that I had no millimetres to spare and hung up on a rail I became! Fortunately for me, a snow shovel and a bit of jostling got me released and on my way. But I suppose things could have ended differently. Would a phone number on a pole have helped? Not back then.. smart phones.. even flip phones and those massive brick phones were the realm of science fiction. But I would imagine using a smartphone with gloves on in freezing -40 degree temperatures would have been challenging even then when my fingers were young and nimble. Sensors and an automated stop mechanism makes sense to me..but who knows.. I'm no engineer.
Stopping a train in Emergency has a special set of risks. The balance tips in favor of taking those risks if the object to be hit is another train. But taking those risks when the object is just a car, hopefully an empty one, is not good odds.
The crew, and passengers, if it is a passenger train, are at less risk hitting a car than slaming on the trains brakes automaticly when the hazzard may not even exist by the time you get there.
I could be wrong, but I think most of the professional railroaders here will agree.
The answer is smarter humans and better grade crossing construction standards, one being easier to impliment than the other......
Sheldon
Ok, so lets make the sensor and the whole shebang a little smarter and a little bit more interactive. Now it senses a tanker truck.. it "interacts" with the approaching train's onboard computer.. together they determine that a brake application of X lbs is optimal to stop the train without it derailing. Oh but hold on!.. the truck has cleared the crossing! The sensors relay that latest bit of information to the train, and just like that the brakes are released and back to normal. Star Wars tech? Not really.. Star Wars was 40 + years ago. I think we've got the technology to do it.. but maybe not! Or maybe it would be way too expensive.. I don't know. But to me it would seem possible to do that.
Trains on Main tracks with authority to move at maximum authorized speed are not line of sight vehicles.
Your tanker gets 'stuck' and initiates 'your technology' when the train is two or three miles from the tanker and the train stops - out of sight of the tanker, that has extracated itself from its situation and had moved on. Now someone has to walk to the location the tanker WAS to see if it is OK for the train to proceed. With PSR size trains is is taking the 2 1/2 to 3 mile long trains well over a mile to bring the train to a SAFE stop from maximum allowed speeds.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
UlrichWould it not be possible to design a fail safe that would detect a vehicle fouling the tracks and automatically notify any oncoming trains? Maybe even apply the train's brakes without the need for the engineer to do so depending on how close the train is. A phone number on a pole might not be quick enough when every precious second matters.
Equipping locomotives with ESP devices - yep that is the ticket.
Stupid is as stupid does and the stupidity deserves whatever the outcome is.
Would it not be possible to design a fail safe that would detect a vehicle fouling the tracks and automatically notify any oncoming trains? Maybe even apply the train's brakes without the need for the engineer to do so depending on how close the train is. A phone number on a pole might not be quick enough when every precious second matters.
The biggest question I'd like answered - was the emergency notification number called? If not - then we may need to rethink the ENS system and design of the signs.
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
tree68 I feel like Hammy the squirrel... Ran up and down the line from the scene of the collision. The next crossing north is even higher - makes the subject crossing look flat. The next crossing south is pretty much flat. Continuing further north - the railroad passes over the next road it encounters. I doubt flooding is the issue - more like trying to level out a short grade.
I feel like Hammy the squirrel...
Ran up and down the line from the scene of the collision. The next crossing north is even higher - makes the subject crossing look flat.
The next crossing south is pretty much flat.
Continuing further north - the railroad passes over the next road it encounters.
I doubt flooding is the issue - more like trying to level out a short grade.
The driver was trying to detour around a construction zone. I would opine an asphalt milling operation based upon another video showing a Wirtgen milling machine attempting to pull the semi backwards off the crossing.
For long stretches of this road between Pendleton and Lawrence (Indy), the INDOT R/W and the RR R/W are one and the same. This doesn't leave a lot of room to lessen the vertical grade.
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...
blue streak 1Lets be a devil's advocate. Near here are two crossings that flooded in the past. No way the RR is going to allow lowering the track for the crossing that would prevent trains to operate with water just over tracks.
Lets be a devil advocate. Near here are two crossings that flooded in the past. No way the RR is going to allow lowering the track for the crossing that would prevent trains to operate with water just over tracks.
charlie hebdoSo does the railroad have any responsibility for the impact the changes it made in its ROW have on the crossing?
While the short answer is "not really" (and for the reasons MC gave, including the 2' rule) the slightly longer answer is more involved, and perhaps more will in fact be made of it in future.
There are quite a number of these situations in modern practice, where a road initially paralleled a railroad line and has subsequently been widened and opened to heavier traffic or now sees traffic incapable of negotiating the kind of vertical transition possible in the now-existing space. Meanwhile older practice in ballast maintenance has often resulted in elevating the height of the effective prism in these areas over time, probably above what initial drainage required.
It occurs to me that modern ballast-maintenance equipment, and modern practice in aligning and operating it, easily allows for a one-time undercutting to proper grade, perhaps at the same time the drainage is cleared or improved to allow a lowered subgrade. At the same time in most locations PSR (or legitimate operating restrictions on passenger-train speed) might allow more vertical approach curvature to these locations, meaning that only the detailed undercutting near or involving these crossings need be undertaken, and no additional liability or real safety concern would be added by reducing the prism height 'through town'.
In my opinion this is not something the railroads should have to 'subsidize' or that should be required as an unfunded mandate; however, they would derive some theoretical benefit from clean ballast and proper drainage. The key is to make modern complete track replacement more cost-effective here. I note that more than one equipment manufacturer even has YouTube videos showing how their equipment can be used even on branch lines to restore proper grade in what is essentially one pass; if we are to have a 'stimulus' benefiting railroads in a Biden or Harris administration, this seems like a remarkably useful opportunity for 'pump priming' to provide the equipment and training, and then subsidize some large percentage of 'local' or 'state' responsibility as is the case for many improvement projects at present. This would lower the absolute crossing height; local and state would then be fully responsible, as they are at present and in my opinion always should be, for the approach grading to that 2' margin and for appropriate signage (and assumption of full responsibility for all traffic across the crossings).
tree68 charlie hebdo So does the railroad have any responsibility for the impact the changes it made in its ROW have on the crossing? I would opine that, based on the usual arrangements for crossings - ie, the railroad was there first thus the road is the interloper - that the railroad has no legal responsibility to coordinate their actions with the highway people. On the other hand, being a good neighbor might dictate some sort of cooperation, particularly if there are a number of such crossings when a highway parallels a ROW. I'm going to defend MC - he's got a lot of years in the railroad business, much of it work in relation to incidents such as this. You don't tolerate people who offer opinions, etc, that run counter to your profession - he does that same.
charlie hebdo So does the railroad have any responsibility for the impact the changes it made in its ROW have on the crossing?
I would opine that, based on the usual arrangements for crossings - ie, the railroad was there first thus the road is the interloper - that the railroad has no legal responsibility to coordinate their actions with the highway people.
On the other hand, being a good neighbor might dictate some sort of cooperation, particularly if there are a number of such crossings when a highway parallels a ROW.
I'm going to defend MC - he's got a lot of years in the railroad business, much of it work in relation to incidents such as this. You don't tolerate people who offer opinions, etc, that run counter to your profession - he does that same.
I simply raised question. Someone with his expertise should be able to answer minus the rancor. But instead his response is to attack the driver, InDOT and anyone who questions the pat, predictable answers he gives.
BaltACD The hump over the tracks is painfully obvious to someone that can see and think. Obviously the driver was not able to do either.
It also appears that the construction guys got the rig a good part of the way 'off' as the impact on the far track never involves the container nose, whereas in the first shot the tractor is wholly over the crossing. That at least suggests that with only a couple more minutes the truck could have been pulled the 10 feet or less back, or actually started and driven back, to clear.
BaltACD I have my doubts that it was ever a 'level' crossing - traditionally railroads have built their lines on a bit of a fill so as to enhance drainage of water away from the right of way. Just like highways are constructed with a crown to to drain water off the traveling surface to the sides of the road.
I have my doubts that it was ever a 'level' crossing - traditionally railroads have built their lines on a bit of a fill so as to enhance drainage of water away from the right of way. Just like highways are constructed with a crown to to drain water off the traveling surface to the sides of the road.
zugmann I think sometimes we think what is common knowledge isn't so.
Common knowledge, like common sense, is mostly uncommon, it would seem.
charlie hebdo tree68 Part of the problem with crossings such as this is that the tracks get raised, a little at a time, through the years. I'd bet there was a time when that was a level crossing. So does the railroad have any responsibility for the impact the changes it made in its ROW have on the crossing? I'm simply asking a question. I"m not blind and resent the petty ad hominem attacks by MC. People who are secure don't need to engage in such childish behavior that is pretty disrespectful of the handicapped as well.
tree68 Part of the problem with crossings such as this is that the tracks get raised, a little at a time, through the years. I'd bet there was a time when that was a level crossing.
Part of the problem with crossings such as this is that the tracks get raised, a little at a time, through the years.
I'd bet there was a time when that was a level crossing.
So does the railroad have any responsibility for the impact the changes it made in its ROW have on the crossing?
I'm simply asking a question. I"m not blind and resent the petty ad hominem attacks by MC. People who are secure don't need to engage in such childish behavior that is pretty disrespectful of the handicapped as well.
To put the truck in that position the driver had to be either mentally handicapped or visually impaired or both. The hump over the tracks is painfully obvious to someone that can see and think. Obviously the driver was not able to do either.
zugmann Juniata Man I have concluded the vast majority of drivers are completely unaware these signs are posted or what their purpose is. Perhaps if the railroads could divert a bit of money away from the shareholders and run public service announcements on TV and radio, it might serve to increase people's awareness of these signs. At the very least, operators of commercial truck fleets should be sure to include this in their training and safety programs. They need a catchy jingle. "Stuck on the tracks - what should you do? Call the number on the sign that's blue!" The signs do seem to blend in with all the other stuff tacked on to the xing gate poles (lights, bells, other signs, gate arm bracket thingies). Maybe add a big exclamation point to the sign or something? I dunno.. PS. On one of the popular general picture/duiscussion sites, there was a video of a fire at a gas station. Many people commenting had no clue many gas stations have emergency shut-off buttons. I think sometimes we think what is common knowledge isn't so.
Juniata Man I have concluded the vast majority of drivers are completely unaware these signs are posted or what their purpose is. Perhaps if the railroads could divert a bit of money away from the shareholders and run public service announcements on TV and radio, it might serve to increase people's awareness of these signs. At the very least, operators of commercial truck fleets should be sure to include this in their training and safety programs.
They need a catchy jingle.
"Stuck on the tracks - what should you do?
Call the number on the sign that's blue!"
The signs do seem to blend in with all the other stuff tacked on to the xing gate poles (lights, bells, other signs, gate arm bracket thingies). Maybe add a big exclamation point to the sign or something? I dunno..
PS. On one of the popular general picture/duiscussion sites, there was a video of a fire at a gas station. Many people commenting had no clue many gas stations have emergency shut-off buttons. I think sometimes we think what is common knowledge isn't so.
Since it has been years since I had to go through the testing procedure on highway laws and practices to get my Drivers License - if a section of the 'Drivers Manual' does not explain the ENS signs - there should be such a section and it should also be tested on the written exam. Such a section should be a REQUIRED part of the CDL exam - especially since those operating vehicles that require CDL's are the ones most likely to get their vehicles in situations that would require the railroad to be contacted for their own protection.
M636CI'm familiar with "low (rail) bridge" signs that were repeatedly ignored until the local authority finally fitted a height detector with flashing lights to stop truck drivers blindly following their GPS device.
Such warnings don't always help - someone hit the rail bridge in Liverpool this past week.
Sometimes I wonder if telltales wouldn't be appropriate. Having your overheight vehicle hit by a bunch of maple dowels might get your attention. Or not.
York1 zugmann beat me to it. If you enlarge the videos, it seems the yellow sign is not there (from what I could see, anyway).
zugmann beat me to it.
If you enlarge the videos, it seems the yellow sign is not there (from what I could see, anyway).
No, there seems to be something on what looks to me to be the same pole in the same location as the warning, although it is seen side on...
However, the sign isn't very prominent and could easily be missed.
I'm familiar with "low (rail) bridge" signs that were repeatedly ignored until the local authority finally fitted a height detector with flashing lights to stop truck drivers blindly following their GPS device.
Peter
1. For the first high center trucking company will have to pay for serious warning signs denoting the hazard. Within 90 days of incident
2. Second high center trucking company will have to help pay to raise approaches.
3. Third city, county, state, trucking company will be required to raise approaches to highway standards +any future possible raising of tracks further. No more than 90 days before starting project.
4. Fourth close crossing within 90 days or underpass or bridge construction started owner of crossing and trucking company fully liable for all expenses to mitigate closing.
mudchicken CSX also is NOT responsible for the approach grades. (Clear violation of the AASHTO-AREMA joint standard.) CSX's responsibility for the crossing ended 2 ft beyond the outside rails. The driver clearly did not understand the limits of his rig. (incompetance on his part) InDOT should have raised the highway intersection long ago and the city/county should have participated in that. They placed flashers/lights/bell and gates at the crossing and must have done a diagnostic evaluation at the crossing (standard procedure for over 50 years) at the crossing, ignoring the aproach grades and elevation in the curves of the two tracks that appear to be correctly in the same plane. The crossing should not have been allowed to even remain open to trucks. The railroad could not have closed the crossing, but InDOT has the legal authority to do so....and didn't. When they hand out white canes for InDOT and the driver, make sure to include Charlie. (The proof is right in front of him and he's still trying to make apologies for bad judgements) .... My initial comment, made before this thread began, stands. There have been fatals and injuries at this location, but all back in the Conrail era and incidents into the CSX era. There is no detail on how many high-centered trucks and other vehicles. Madison Street 538 971C Pendleton IN
CSX also is NOT responsible for the approach grades. (Clear violation of the AASHTO-AREMA joint standard.) CSX's responsibility for the crossing ended 2 ft beyond the outside rails.
The driver clearly did not understand the limits of his rig. (incompetance on his part)
InDOT should have raised the highway intersection long ago and the city/county should have participated in that. They placed flashers/lights/bell and gates at the crossing and must have done a diagnostic evaluation at the crossing (standard procedure for over 50 years) at the crossing, ignoring the aproach grades and elevation in the curves of the two tracks that appear to be correctly in the same plane. The crossing should not have been allowed to even remain open to trucks. The railroad could not have closed the crossing, but InDOT has the legal authority to do so....and didn't.
When they hand out white canes for InDOT and the driver, make sure to include Charlie. (The proof is right in front of him and he's still trying to make apologies for bad judgements) .... My initial comment, made before this thread began, stands.
There have been fatals and injuries at this location, but all back in the Conrail era and incidents into the CSX era. There is no detail on how many high-centered trucks and other vehicles. Madison Street 538 971C Pendleton IN
Exactly, the superelevation of the track, and the fact that there are two tracks, creates a fall away from the crest that the driver might not have been aware of until it was too late.
He may have looked forward at the crest, assuming it was level across the tracks, and felt the angle was acceptable.
Not everyone knows about railroad civil engineering, or understands superelevation and the gentle but banked nature of railroad curves.
If he was unfamiliar with the area, it may have looked fine - until it didn't.
And again, we don't know which direction of the three choices he was coming from. It is a very short distance from the intersection to the crossing, not providing time or space to assess all these condtions - which should have been more clearly signed as I suggested above.
Had there been reasonable advance signage, I would agree, the drive would be at fault.
The various google images also suggest the gates and lights have been worked on in the same time frame as the power line upgrade and the disappearance of the poorly placed sign, since the latest images show the blue sign on the cross bucks, not present in earlier images.
Seems to me everybody responsable to make this crossing safe for strangers to the area failed.
SD60MAC9500 charlie hebdo It's revealing how some on here, including a person experienced with crossings, have a knee-jerk reaction to blame the driver and then the IDOT without proof, as though the railroad has zero responsibility. CSX's responsibility ends at maintaining the crossing. Not placing DOT signs to warn "professional drivers" who don't pay attetion to ground clearance.. Depending on landing gear condition some are just 4-6" above the pavement.. I will say this container chassis don't always get the best maintenance either..
charlie hebdo It's revealing how some on here, including a person experienced with crossings, have a knee-jerk reaction to blame the driver and then the IDOT without proof, as though the railroad has zero responsibility.
It's revealing how some on here, including a person experienced with crossings, have a knee-jerk reaction to blame the driver and then the IDOT without proof, as though the railroad has zero responsibility.
CSX's responsibility ends at maintaining the crossing. Not placing DOT signs to warn "professional drivers" who don't pay attetion to ground clearance.. Depending on landing gear condition some are just 4-6" above the pavement.. I will say this container chassis don't always get the best maintenance either..
This also looks like a local road and not US36, IN9/67 Et al so would I-DOT have any role here?
I am assuming everyone and everything will be named on the lawsuits.
I drove a semi and I blame the driver. You do nor drive around hauling a trailer chassi in the full back position. That causes all sorts of potential problems of bottoming on any hump not just RR crossings. If the tandems could not be moved forward that is aother problem. if so you make sure the landing gear is all the way up. You will be surprized how many units I saw with gear not all the way up.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.