SD70Dude... A small aside, I'm getting a headache trying to figure out how Missouri decides to name and number their rural roads.
A small aside, I'm getting a headache trying to figure out how Missouri decides to name and number their rural roads.
Have you come across Missouri's lettered roads?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Re-using some of the abandoned grade could help close a few other crossings in this area (CR 111, CR 107 and CR 132, going by their numbers on Google Maps), but I guess it wouldn't help traffic at this crossing.
The crossing in question (CR 113) and the next one to the northeast (CR 122) serve a few square miles of farmland that appears to contain only one house and a bunch of crop fields, nothing else. It looks like a bunch of fill was recently dumped immediately northwest of the intersection of these two roads, perhaps this was where the dump truck was headed?
The CR 122 crossing appears to have warning devices, there is a silver shack beside it and the long thin shadow of the west crossing sign resembles a raised gate. The CR 113 crossing could have been closed long ago with minimal negative effects, the area's minimal traffic would simply have to take a four or five mile detour via CR BB and CR 117, a small price to pay for closing a crossing that it seems was already known to be unsafe.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
greyhoundsIn PTC territory the expense and hard work have been already done. They've got the real time data on train location and speed. Use the available data to the greatest extent possible.
It's still going to cost $40,000 + for the on-site hardware. The "low cost" system MN proposed kinda puts a seal on that.
PTC relies on the "back office." I've heard too many stories about PTC failing to put a lot of faith in it for crossing protection, even if the necessary hardware and software is available. "Why didn't the crossing protection activate?" "The PTC was down..."
OTOH, we have the good, old-fashioned track circuit. Essentially fail-safe and a known, proven commodity. The railroad probably already has all the necessary supplies on a shelf right now. It apparently comes down to funding. That hurdle may get a little lower now.
Given what we've learned about the crossing, I'm kinda liking the option of using the existing (but unused) railroad bridge.
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...
I'll ask again : Did Denver RTD ever get their PTC xing system working fully? It was a big thing a few years back, but then the issue just kind of disappeared.
And from a quick look, I'm reading their crossings aren't stand alone PTC-activated, but more of an overlay system that built on top of cab signal/ATC and I'm assuming still has traditional xing circuits? So if the PTC system is down, or isn't working on a particular train*, the xings will still activate. <-- I'm still looking into that. But they had a hell of a time with the PTC + xings. I'm no signal maintainer, so not really clear on how that is set up.
And take a note: I'm not dismissing the idea or trying to find flaws with it. I'm curious how it works with another agency that already is using it. And I'm one of the few here (not the only one) that does have experience using PTC.
*- yes, that happens.
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
BaltACDThe railroad enviornment - in the middle of nowhere does not treat consumer grade products well. Railroad grade products cost! I suspect military grade products would cost even more. You are buying a product grade that is expected to last, without significant maintenance beyond required routine inspections, for 20 years or more
Well, I don't know about lasting 20 years. But these "Cat Phone" things are designed for use on construction sites. Give them a try.
https://cat.factoryoutletstore.com/details/1029307/caterpillar-cat-s42-smartphone-speaker-bundle.html?category_id=99733&catalogitemid=946293
Alternatively, they could look at using a communication device similar to those used on temperature controlled rail shipments. These devices allow two way communication with the rail car's refrigeration unit. Someone sitting at a computer can adjust the temperature as necessary.
There are several ways to make this work. But, as usual, we've got the operating people thinking of why it can't possibly work instead of how to make it work.
As to the cost. If someone gave me a consulting contract at around $350/hour, I'd work it out. But, for now, let's just say I'm going for a significant reduction from the current cost level. This will facilitate more crossings being protected by more than crossbucks. Why does anyone have a problem with that?
In PTC territory the expense and hard work have been already done. They've got the real time data on train location and speed. Use the available data to the greatest extent possible.
n012944 Nope, sorry to disappoint. It is correct phrase for someone too lazy to look something up themselves. Calling a spade a spade is not a sign of hurt feelings.
You do not disappoint at all.
Using the same term twice to insult a person would appear to be a demonstration of hurt feelings.
Or is there some other reason, beyond that, that you wish to insult me?
Ed
A Backshop I personally have seen one of my drivers spin their tires picking up a trailer on our lot on gravel that is flat. Let alone going up a grade that is steep. The torque multiplcation in the lower gears can be in the order of taking 1600Ft lbs to over 25K ft pounds in the lower side of the transmission.
7j43k n012944 7j43k I'm sorry to have hurt your feelings, such that you feel you need to insult me with that "spoon feed" comment. When one is trying to prove a point by using a citation, it should be readily available by those you are addressing. You assumed that "Facebook" was such a source (or you just didn't care). Facebook is readily available to anyone, all you need is a e-mail address to get an account. Just because you choose to not have an account, does not change that fact. I spoon fed the information to you, which by the way was found with an easy 2 second Google search. Something you could have done yourself, unless you just didn't care. Wow. You used "spoon fed" twice. I must have REALLY hurt your feelings. Ed
n012944 7j43k I'm sorry to have hurt your feelings, such that you feel you need to insult me with that "spoon feed" comment. When one is trying to prove a point by using a citation, it should be readily available by those you are addressing. You assumed that "Facebook" was such a source (or you just didn't care). Facebook is readily available to anyone, all you need is a e-mail address to get an account. Just because you choose to not have an account, does not change that fact. I spoon fed the information to you, which by the way was found with an easy 2 second Google search. Something you could have done yourself, unless you just didn't care.
7j43k I'm sorry to have hurt your feelings, such that you feel you need to insult me with that "spoon feed" comment. When one is trying to prove a point by using a citation, it should be readily available by those you are addressing. You assumed that "Facebook" was such a source (or you just didn't care).
I'm sorry to have hurt your feelings, such that you feel you need to insult me with that "spoon feed" comment.
When one is trying to prove a point by using a citation, it should be readily available by those you are addressing. You assumed that "Facebook" was such a source (or you just didn't care).
Facebook is readily available to anyone, all you need is a e-mail address to get an account. Just because you choose to not have an account, does not change that fact. I spoon fed the information to you, which by the way was found with an easy 2 second Google search. Something you could have done yourself, unless you just didn't care.
Wow. You used "spoon fed" twice. I must have REALLY hurt your feelings.
Nope, sorry to disappoint. It is correct phrase for someone too lazy to look something up themselves. Calling a spade a spade is not a sign of hurt feelings.
An "expensive model collector"
For those who, keep saying, flat farm land, no bushes......half truth.....BUT
This video....... (in the middle of the interview).....
https://www.kansascity.com/news/state/missouri/article263049938
There is an excellent view of a passing train at this deadly crossing. That is one can see the train AFTER it passes the tree line blocking a clear view.
endmrw0702221610
charlie hebdo And what is the basis for your remark?
And what is the basis for your remark?
High centering happens in two major situations, neither of which applies here. The first is with a lowboy trailer. The trailer frame contacts the pavement and lifts the drive axles off the pavement or at least takes enough weight off of them so that they lose traction. The other is when the high center is beyond the vertical pivoting limits of the fifth wheel. Same thing, weight gets taken off the drive axles and they lose traction.
blue streak 1 The truck was a straight frame single body with at least four axels. More than enough to high center one or more axels not contacting gravel. The grade is shown going up to a outside rail. No flat approach to crossing.
The truck was a straight frame single body with at least four axels.
More than enough to high center one or more axels not contacting gravel.
The grade is shown going up to a outside rail. No flat approach to crossing.
The three axles on the back end are equalized, so it is unlikely for them to high center, and if one did, they have wheels so they can roll off of any situation that raises one to the extent that it lifts others off the ground. The only way that truck could have gotten hung up was on the frame between the front wheels and the wheel group on the rear.
That is not a long distance compared to a lowboy trailer, and it is also much higher clearance than a lowboy.
Backshop blue streak 1 The truck was a straight frame single body with at least four axels. More than enough to high center one or more axels not contacting gravel. The grade is shown going up to a outside rail. No flat approach to crossing. Nope.
Nope.
I just watched the video again.
Unless it was taken down in the accident (the crossbuck is still standing), there was no stop sign in view northbound. If that's actually the case, the truck driver was under no obligation to stop.
ricktrains4824 I have seen the facebook video. Who, when crossing railroad tracks, stops that far back of the rails? I've even railfanned from closer than that in Horseshoe Curve Park. (From the park side of the fence!)
I have seen the facebook video. Who, when crossing railroad tracks, stops that far back of the rails? I've even railfanned from closer than that in Horseshoe Curve Park. (From the park side of the fence!)
Did you see how steep the approach was? My guess, a heavy dump truck would stop that far back, to get a run at the hill.
The immediate question is 'how wide is that underpass'. You'd need to provide pads near each end for a "one lane bridge" and I'd cast a set of curbs to ensure no equipment strikes on the abutments, not just level and gravel the prior grade.
Might be able to close and remove more than one private crossing in that area?
My curmudgeonly perspective is that it shouldn't be the railroad's responsibility to furnish and maintain the required 'steep approach' signage, both approaching and at the crossing zone. An argument could be made, and appropriate state or Federal laws passed, to require the railroad to provide new signage when they conduct ballasting or other operations that put the crossing height in the 'critica apprach zone', and to WORK WITH STATE AGENCIES to adjust such portion of their crossing to meet the State's regraded approaches past the railroad ROW line.
It should have escaped no one that the Federal Constitutional proscription of ex post facto legislation won't allow states or Federal agencies to mandate the railroads remediate prior track raising, even where it evidently postdates construction or even improvement of pre-existing crossings. It is possible that some scheme could be arranged that would mandate that, but it would be expensively reversed on appeal (if the railroad lawyers are any good, better at least than counsel in the Midnight Rider case...)
Personally, I think the states should look at installing light manual hinged gates, like fence gates, crossing the ROW, locked across the road and requiring dispatcher or railroad permission to open, interlocked with the PTC system. This would be similar to some of the gated crossings in Britain (where the whole ROW is fenced by mandate). The issue of train delay if more than usual 'dwell' is involved in crossing is something that could be billed to the truck or other equipment, perhaps via a permitting system arranged like EZ-Pass for ag equipment or other local vehicles.
If the crossing can be scheduled reasonably in advance, "real" PTC would allow rail traffic to be bunched or stretched to provide actual windows.
The throw the book at any operator who goes around, damages, or tampers with the gates.
It would be ery cheap to provide some sort of sola
Backshop This appeared to be a straight truck, not a semi trailer. As such, "high centering" is nonexistent. Of course, it's hard to tell by just looking at what's left of the truck.
This appeared to be a straight truck, not a semi trailer. As such, "high centering" is nonexistent. Of course, it's hard to tell by just looking at what's left of the truck.
charlie hebdo 7j43k When one is trying to prove a point by using a citation, it should be readily available by those you are addressing. You assumed that "Facebook" was such a source (or you just didn't care). Of course social media is not the best source. However, better than just stating an opinion with zero evidence.
7j43k When one is trying to prove a point by using a citation, it should be readily available by those you are addressing. You assumed that "Facebook" was such a source (or you just didn't care).
Of course social media is not the best source. However, better than just stating an opinion with zero evidence.
1) The risk on “high centering” large trucks due to the crossing being perched much higher than the approaching roadway.
2) The risk of the steepness of the approaches hindering the ability of the vehicle to accelerate quickly, which causes heavy vehicles to dwell in the foul zone for a prolonged time.
SD70DudeMy turn to suggest a silly idea that will never happen.
My turn to suggest a silly idea that will never happen.
There happens to be a bridge where the BNSF main goes over an abandoned rail line* about 1.65 miles southwest of the crossing where this accident happened. For the cost of about 1.15 miles of new gravel road (half of which would be on the old rail grade) there could be a road underpass, which could justify closing several crossings in the area.
*Wabash's route to Omaha.
And you think transportation guys have any say in these decisions?
zugmannCan't remember the last time I saw a marketing guy out there working on crossing gates.
I wasn't in the union.
BTW, as a child I was in school bus that was nearly hit by a C&IM SD18. It was at a crossing with no automatic protection. They fired the driver and rerouted the busses to use crossings with flashers.
I just remember this big green diesel coming right at me.
ricktrains4824So clearly, DOT feels that all railroad crossings are inherently dangerous. Otherwise, the law(s) would stipulate passive versus signalled crossings.
You're just jumping to conclusions without any real evidence. I could say those laws are written in a way to help protect the state from liability, and not as an accurate measurement of risk. No hard numbers or raw data are involved. And they might not even exist.
And I don't think we know how the DOT "feels".
I've run over active xings, I've run over passive. I've run over passive that became active. I'll take the active (with gates) any day. Purely anecdotal, but that's my preference.
7j43kWhen one is trying to prove a point by using a citation, it should be readily available by those you are addressing. You assumed that "Facebook" was such a source (or you just didn't care).
DOT requires "not less than 15 feet, but no more than 50 feet." Then, after making certain the tracks are clear, proceeding?
Let's see a video shot from where a vehicle would stop at the crossing....
zugmann ricktrains4824 And, actively protected crossings have just as much danger as unprotected crossings do. Signals are not foolproof, and far too many drivers often ignore the signals when they are active. How do you figure that?
ricktrains4824 And, actively protected crossings have just as much danger as unprotected crossings do. Signals are not foolproof, and far too many drivers often ignore the signals when they are active.
How do you figure that?
If DOT thought that active signalled crossings were not as dangerous as unsignalled passive ones, why do vehicle law codes still require all drivers to approach railroad crossings with caution, prepared to yeild to any and all trains? Why are buses, hazmat trucks, and certain other vehicles required to stop at all railroad crossings, whether they are fully signalled or not?
Minnesota law here:
[Quoted MN vehicular law code copy/paste directly from their website.]
169.28 CERTAIN VEHICLES TO STOP AT RAILROAD CROSSING.
§Subdivision 1.Requirements. (a) The driver of any motor vehicle carrying passengers for hire, or of any school bus whether carrying passengers or not, or of any Head Start bus whether carrying passengers or not, or of any vehicle that is required to stop at railroad grade crossings under Code of Federal Regulations, title 49, section 392.10, before crossing at grade any track or tracks of a railroad, shall stop the vehicle not less than 15 feet nor more than 50 feet from the nearest rail of the railroad and while so stopped shall listen and look in both directions along the track for any approaching railroad train or other on-track equipment, and for signals indicating the approach of a railroad train or other on-track equipment.
[End quote from MN law code.]
PA law code at 75 § 3342 reads similar. (I pulled MN law from their state gov website, PA state gov website lists very close to the exact same wording.)
Here is PennDOT's exact wording for all other (non-commercial) motor vehicle operators:
[Quoted by copy/paste from PennDOT driver manual, chapter 2.]
RAILROAD CROSSING SIGNALS
Drivers are alerted when approaching a railroad crossing by the railroad crossing sign. Railroad crossings should be approached with caution at all times. You should always look both ways and listen for any approaching trains or signals before proceeding across the railroad tracks. You are required to stop at all railroad crossings when there is a signal of an approaching train. These signals include flashing red lights, a lowered crossing gate, a flagger signaling or a train’s audible signal of warning. Do not move forward or attempt to go around any gate or ignore any signal of an approaching train. If there are no signals at the railroad crossing, you should slow down and prepare to stop, if you see or hear a train approaching. Proceed with caution only after all signals are completed and then only when there is evidence no trains are approaching the crossing.
[End Quoted PennDOT text]
So clearly, DOT feels that all railroad crossings are inherently dangerous. Otherwise, the law(s) would stipulate passive versus signalled crossings.
Ricky W.
HO scale Proto-freelancer.
My Railroad rules:
1: It's my railroad, my rules.
2: It's for having fun and enjoyment.
3: Any objections, consult above rules.
n012944 7j43k 3 seconds at 90mph means 396' away. A bit over 100 yards. Is the view obstructed from 400' and out farther? Can you only see the approaching train when it is at a 396' distance, and closer? Citing a source that cannot be linked (Facebook) is hardly a source. Examining the few photos of the site that CAN be found online, I don't see any close obstructions. Certainly not the crops. Ed The source is available to anyone with a Facebook account. If you chose to not have one, that is on you, it is still a source. However I will spoon feed you the information, here is a news article that used the farmers Facebook video. https://www.kansascity.com/news/state/missouri/article263049938.html
7j43k 3 seconds at 90mph means 396' away. A bit over 100 yards. Is the view obstructed from 400' and out farther? Can you only see the approaching train when it is at a 396' distance, and closer? Citing a source that cannot be linked (Facebook) is hardly a source. Examining the few photos of the site that CAN be found online, I don't see any close obstructions. Certainly not the crops. Ed
3 seconds at 90mph means 396' away. A bit over 100 yards. Is the view obstructed from 400' and out farther? Can you only see the approaching train when it is at a 396' distance, and closer?
Citing a source that cannot be linked (Facebook) is hardly a source.
Examining the few photos of the site that CAN be found online, I don't see any close obstructions. Certainly not the crops.
The source is available to anyone with a Facebook account. If you chose to not have one, that is on you, it is still a source. However I will spoon feed you the information, here is a news article that used the farmers Facebook video.
https://www.kansascity.com/news/state/missouri/article263049938.html
Thank you!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.