Convicted One Euclid If you withold an emergency application and hit a car, it can be your fault if the emergency application would have either prevented the collsion or slowed the train enough to make a difference in the severity of the collision That's subjective, no? Especially if you do drop anchor at SOME point before impact?
Euclid If you withold an emergency application and hit a car, it can be your fault if the emergency application would have either prevented the collsion or slowed the train enough to make a difference in the severity of the collision
That's subjective, no? Especially if you do drop anchor at SOME point before impact?
It can be calculated, but the accuracy can also be challenged. It is most likely to be argued in court. The main point is that when people say, "The train could not have stopped in time anyway," they are ignoring the fact that just slowing down the train might change a fatality outcome into an injury. It may also allow more time for a vehicle to clear.
In previous discussions here, I found this question to be interesting, so I found two experts and asked them about it. Otherwise, I have never seen a railroad rule that covers the situation.
No, I doubt you'll find a hard written rule specifying hit first(or nearly so), that's why I said "policy" in my initial thoughts.
(and) Isn't it interesting how the usual "critics" have fallen silent?
It makes sense in a skewed sort of way. Less likely total damage just hitting the violating vehicle than risk collateral damage from a possible derailment. Afterall, a potential jury might be less sympathetic to a wayward driver who is clearly in violation, than they might be to a line side Mercedes Benz dealer who just had two well cars push through his showroom full of customers. I admit that is wild speculation. But it supports the idea of pursuing the "lesser risk" alternative
EuclidIn previous discussions here, I found this question to be interesting, so I found two experts and asked them about it. Otherwise, I have never seen a railroad rule that covers the situation.
Regarding posing this question to the two experts as I mentioned:
I contacted the FRA and Operation Lifesaver. In both cases, each person I talked to had extensive experience in train service, and both had also been instructors. Both told me almost the same thing. Both said that they often hear engineers say they will not make an emergency application until after impact, but they said they do not know if they really would take that course of if they were just saying that.
Both told me that they always instructed their engineers to never withhold an emergency application because of a worry that it might derail a train. They said that emergency applications happen frequently and very rarely cause a derailment. They said the emergency application was available for a reason, and if that reason arises, the application should be made. They said nobody would be disciplined for a justified emergency application causing a derailment.
The OL rep said that he had experienced a trial involving an engineer who said he withheld the emergency application because he worried it could derail the train; and the company ended up paying a lot of money to the plaintiff because the lawyers challenged the reasoning of withholding braking in an emergency.
My final post in this thread. My intuition just tells me that if it had been a gasoline tanker across the tracks, the crew would have hit emergency sooner, and likely bailed out at some point.
Hindsight is always 20-20.
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...
Convicted OneMy final post in this thread. My intuition just tells me that if it had been a gasoline tanker across the tracks, the crew would have hit emergency sooner, and likely bailed out at some point.
If it was observed to be a Fuel Tanker - it would have been Run 8 and hit the brakes after the flames died down.
https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/fl-xpm-1993-03-18-9301310424-story.html
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
My God Balt, it doesn't get more horrific than that.
If this is a common occurance at this location the first responders should be trained to immediately send someone down the tracks in both directions to flag approaching trains. Actually that would be good policy everywhere. Calling from the incident location to an operation center to a central dispatcher and then to a train or multiple trains has many possibilities for delays. Train crews were and probably still are required to protect their trains in this manner when something happens that endangers other trains.
Mark Vinski
mvlandsw. Actually that would be good policy everywhere.
I did a training session at a monthly meeting of our county firefighters association and told them exactly that.
They do need to be a mile out in both directions, at least until it is confirmed that all rail traffic is stopped. This actually serves two purposes - one, it alerts the rail traffic to stop, and two, it protects the responders on the scene.
Well, I guess here is proof it has happened before so my guess is this is fairly common at this crossing. Don't live there though so only guessing. Kentucky is pretty confusing with the roads there changing names all over the place. I used to live there a long time ago. They like to name their roads after people but the problem is they sometimes use the same road and the name changes a few times while your on it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wgN8d2wXxg
CMStPnPWell, I guess here is proof it has happened before so my guess is this is fairly common at this crossing.
BaltACD Convicted One My final post in this thread. My intuition just tells me that if it had been a gasoline tanker across the tracks, the crew would have hit emergency sooner, and likely bailed out at some point. If it was observed to be a Fuel Tanker - it would have been Run 8 and hit the brakes after the flames died down. https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/fl-xpm-1993-03-18-9301310424-story.html
Convicted One My final post in this thread. My intuition just tells me that if it had been a gasoline tanker across the tracks, the crew would have hit emergency sooner, and likely bailed out at some point.
So, if this vehicle on the track had been a fuel tanker, would the engineer have went to notch 8 to speed up and blast through to escape the fireball; or would he have just stopped so they would not hit the truck?
Unlike in the video linked in this thread, there is another YouTube video from Ashland, same crossing, that shows a car that did make multiple attempts to back back onto the roadway. But is was like hitting a wall; he had to give up; a train came, but stopped in time. A little bit of sloped pavement could save some lives there.
Lithonia OperatorUnlike in the video linked in this thread, there is another YouTube video from Ashland, same crossing, that shows a car that did make multiple attempts to back back onto the roadway. But is was like hitting a wall; he had to give up; a train came, but stopped in time. A little bit of sloped pavement could save some lives there.
Even simple asphalt extension of the current 'edge' construction would have solved the problem in that video. If a car runs over the rails and can't get over to the central 'aisle' between tracks there might need to be extension between effective flangeways and on the outer edges of the ROW. It appears that road construction over the years has built street level higher than the tracks to the extent a car can't get out of the resulting 'trench' at the sides.
As I said, if the city assumes formal liability for putting ramp 'access' in, and then provides or contracts the work (the same people who made the existing crude asphalt edge could easily add it) the solution could be quick, perhaps even before flexible barrier poles could be 'arranged for' and installed.
It is also very long past time that navigation, including voice prompting,specifically include railroad awareness. This would include 'watch out when crossing tracks' as you near them, 'Don't turn on tracks' as you reach them, and (for the case previously mentioned) something like 'Cross the tracks and then turn left' for the correct turn-by-turn. (We've hashed over the pros and cons of the system 'knowing' a train is approaching, so I leave that unresolved.)
Oh. Yes, correct. I missed his post.
It might be best for Ashland to close this street to vehicular traffic make it pedestrian only. Fence off the RoW, and grade seperate all major east-west roads through town. Street-running, semi-street running of heavy rail should not be a thing in the 21st century..
SD60MAC9500 Street-running, semi-street running of heavy rail should not be a thing in the 21st century..
Street-running, semi-street running of heavy rail should not be a thing in the 21st century..
Below, we have street running of heavy rail through Oakland, CA. The trackage passes through Oakland to San Jose. It also features multiple passenger trains:
The trackage has been bracketed by double yellow lines, in recent years. There are five streets crossing the tracks.
I don't recall anyone calling for major change.
The trains run "relatively" slowly. And they're big and hard to miss. Figuratively.
Here's a view looking south, showing the trackage better. In the far distance is the pedestrian bridge for the Amtrak station:
Ed
SD60MAC9500 It might be best for Ashland to close this street to vehicular traffic make it pedestrian only. Fence off the RoW, and grade seperate all major east-west roads through town. Street-running, semi-street running of heavy rail should not be a thing in the 21st century..
Easier said than done, brother. And that's not the only grade crossing in town, there's three more of them that bisect Ashland's downtown area. There's no room to grade separate and the town's residents wouldn't put up with a fenced right-of-way, it would block too many short-cuts across the tracks.
Ashland is literally a child of the old RF&P, the railroad was there first, and the town came about as a real estate development sponsored by the railroad. "Railroad Day" in Ashland is a big local festival, although it's not running this year due to COVID. Ashland residents are well aware of the railroad's presense and know how to deal with it.
Businesses along there would take a big hit if the road went to pedestrian only.
For those who haven't been there: it's not "street-running" as I define the term. In Ashland, "the road" is really two roads, with the railroad in between. One road is one-way southbound, the other one-way northbound. The do share one street name, though.
To me, "street-running" is like in Oakland.
Lithonia Operator. One road is one-way southbound, the other one-way northbound. The do share one street name, though.
Memphis has a street called 'Broadway'. Part of the west end was occupied by railroads, and over the years the full width was occupied by the railroad and there's now no 'road' there -- but it is still mapped as Broadway.
Ashland, on their 'official' maps, considers the whole width of road and track together as 'Railroad Avenue' and makes no distinction that any part may be different from a street; in fact the map is drawn as a street with only gray bars to denote there is a double track there.
If towns don't want trains running down the middle of the street; move the town!
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
CSX wanted to build a railroad bypass. But the town voted it down. Most townspeople realize that such unique character is not something you want to throw away.
Railroad Ave. becomes South Center St. as it gets south of the "downtown."
It gets worse on crApple Maps. BOTH sides are labeled 'S. Center St. south of town, both sides 'N. Center St. north of town, and in the historic district both sides are S. Railroad Ave, although you have to zoom in heavily to get the east side road to show this. It would be highly interesting to see how the Apple navigation renders a turn when someone has just visibly crossed S. Railroad Ave. in the dark and rain and the nav system instructs them to 'turn now' on S. Railroad Ave...
Here you go folks, a map of downtown Ashland VA.
The track driving incident took place at the corner of England St. and Railroad Ave. northbound.
https://www.ashlandva.gov/DocumentCenter/View/268/Downtown-Ashland-Map-2013?bidId=
Here's the Virtual Railfan live feed as of this time ( 4:00 PM EDT) so you can see what it looks like in daylight. Or you can tune in later and see what it looks like after dark.
By the way, I was watching last night and saw a guy in an SUV make a right turn from that left turn lane just to the right of the tracks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSazQn9xn4M
Point of interest: That building with the white gable right-of-center in the background is the old RF&P station built in the 1920's. It's now the Ashland Visitor Center and has an interesting RF&P mini-museum.
And looking south from the train station.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NermPL_3Dc0
Vehicles getting stalled on the tracks in Ashland, VA is routine with an estimated one case per month. So the city is looking for solutions.
https://www.nbc12.com/story/34345572/after-alarming-track-incidents-ashland-looks-to-improve-railroad-safety/
Interesting story, but it's three years old.
The important paragraph, to me at least, is the one that begins with "Anecdotal evidence..." In a way, it kind of says it all.
Flintlock76 Interesting story, but it's three years old. The important paragraph, to me at least, is the one that begins with "Anecdotal evidence..." In a way, it kind of says it all.
Yes it is, but look at the photo on the news link posted. This is the incident from the OP's video. Perhaps this was the incident that prompted the improvements lined out in the article.
Looking at the OP video, it appears that the driver intended to turn left onto the the street beyond the tracks but mistook the pavement between the tracks for the actual street. It seems to me that re-striping would help avoid confusion. There should be a continuous solid wide white or yellow stripe on each side of the crossing all the way across the tracks until it reaches the actual street.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Paul of Covington Looking at the OP video, it appears that the driver intended to turn left onto the the street beyond the tracks but mistook the pavement between the tracks for the actual street. It seems to me that re-striping would help avoid confusion. There should be a continuous solid wide white or yellow stripe on each side of the crossing all the way across the tracks until it reaches the actual street.
Based on the news report I'd opine that all the paint in the world wouldn't have made a difference. It was reported that the driver was following his GPS. Anyone who has used a GPS knows that the machine probably said "Turn Left Now." And, he did.
Unfortunately, the box usually says so several feet before you're actually supposed to turn. This has caused numerous people to do exactly the same thing, ending up everywhere but the street where they wanted to go.
Because of the tracks, there is no visual clue at eye level that this is not the street.
What's needed there, and what would be virtually impossible to implement, is a vertical barrier. The flexible traffic delineators would be about the only thing that could work.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.