A Lower Cost Grade Crossing Protection System

[jeffhergert]

From DOT's Highway Rail Crossing Handbook.  

The Yield sign is the preferred default.  Stop signs can be substituted.

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/xings/com_roaduser/fhwasa18040/chp2e.cfm

Jeff

[zugmann]

Euclid

I believe there is also a major problem with a yield sign in that it is almost universally misunderstood as meaning only that, “You don’t have to stop.”  Its message is taken to relieve the driver of a requirement that is otherwise often required.  The subjective judgment of how yield will actually apply where posted is overlooked by most drivers.  They just worm their way into conflicting traffic, and if they make it without a collision, they feel they have yielded.  And actually they have, if the act was not so risky as to be considered “dangerous.”

some actual studies on that would be neat.   I'm sure there were some studes done when they decided to add the yield to begin with. 

Until then...*shrugs*

 

-------

We have xings in town (public) that used to just have the crossbuck.  Then the town decided to toss up a stop sign.  Then the railroad, following the current standards, added yield signs to the crossbucks.  So now you get a stop and yield.  (Kind of a highway equivalent to a stop and proceed situation). 

 

While we're doing studies, I wonder if adding a Yield sign would draw attention because the red can stand out a little more than just the white crossbuck?  

---

 

[Euclid]

The Perfect Solution versus Good Enough:

 

The theme is to somehow upgrade several thousand passive crossings to make them as safe as other active crossings, but not to make all crossings 100% safe.  However, in contemplating that 100% goal, the solution always lands on barriers that automatically place a crossing into a vault so no vehicles or pedestrians can possibly foul the crossing clearance zone. 

 

Walls or bollards rising out of the road surface to make a vault/fortress effect is overkill because it will vastly increase the price.  Also, regulators will instantly reject the idea because it poses a fatal collision risk to drivers by colliding with solid impediments.   Besides, this idea is driven by the presumed need for an absolutely 100% effective crossing protection system. 

 

Why do we need that?  None of the transportation infrastructure meets that objective.   The most practical, ultimately protective crossing protection is 4-quadrant gates, flashing lights, and bells.  The gates eliminate circumvention by drivers trying to beat the train, which is the main cause of going around the gates.  While the gates cannot physically stop a vehicle, they will damage a vehicle that breaks through them.  So drivers are generally not intentionally crashing the gates in order to beat the train.

 

A unique problem with grade crossings is that there is a long historical legacy of crossing protection being advisory rather than regulatory.  Advisory means that the system merely warns the driver of an approaching train, and the driver is allowed to use their own discretion as to whether it is safe to cross.  In order to overcome this perception, there must be gates blocking the crossing across the entire width of the roadway in both directions.  Even then, it creates a new potential problem of vehicles getting trapped on the crossing by lowered gates. 

 

 

Adding Yield Signs to Passive Crossings:

 

Passive crossings with only a crossbuck are entirely advisory, except when a train is in dangerous proximity.  In other words, there is no requirement to stop unless an approaching train is dangerously close.  The proper warning for that condition is a “YIELD” sign.  The crossbucks actually mean yield, but that requirement still allows drivers to use their own discretion.  A stop sign added to a passive crossing does mandate a stop and yield.  But again, the “yield” condition allows the use of driver discretion.

 

Regulators object to stop signs at passive crossings because they cause rear end collisions with following vehicles, so they have begun replacing stop signs with yield signs at passive crossings.  This eliminates the routine mandatory stop, which a stop sign requires even when it is safe to cross.  Yet the yield sign is redundant because the crossbuck legally means yield.  The problem with that is that hardly any drivers know that the crossbuck means yield, so they regard the crossbuck as being 100% advisory and not regulatory.  But even a yield sign is only regulatory if a train is so close that it is in what is called a “dangerous proximity” to the crossing.  Determining whether that condition of dangerous proximity exists is still a matter of opinion, unless it is made by a law enforcement officer observing the site.

 

I believe there is also a major problem with a yield sign in that it is almost universally misunderstood as meaning only that, “You don’t have to stop.”  Its message is taken to relieve the driver of a requirement that is otherwise often required.  The subjective judgment of how yield will actually apply where posted is overlooked by most drivers.  They just worm their way into conflicting traffic, and if they make it without a collision, they feel they have yielded.  And actually they have, if the act was not so risky as to be considered “dangerous.”

 

So, while a yield sign is technically perfect for a passive crossing in terms of what it actually means, most drivers operate within a long tradition of not understanding what it means.  So in practical terms, a yield sign has the potential to make a passive crossing more dangerous than one with just a crossbuck. 

 

So a passive crossing with a crossbuck and a yield sign is equivalent to a crossing with two yield signs.  Not only is that redundant, but the message is poorly understood.  In general, adding a yield sign to a passive crossing has the unintended potential of increasing the danger rather than lowering it, because its underlying implied message dismisses the danger.

 

This is another one of those unintended consequences that I mentioned.  

[charlie hebdo]

The issue is uniformity over the 50 states plus the thousands of municipalties instead of lax regularity in some, overregulation in others.  We hear on this forum so many times that the rails have precedence on this because they were there first (arguably not necessarily so in many areas). So this is a federal concern. And it needs to be done so we don't have more fatal accidents on lightly traveled crossings.

[Overmod]

BaltACD

 

charlie hebdo

Sensibly and in accord with the Constitution's commerce clause, uniform regulation of railroad crossings should become s federal function.

Railroads' track structure can be viewed as Interstate.  Streets and Roads within a State are Intrastate.  It is up to the states to design and pay for the crossing of their Intrastates with the Interstate railroads.

I think what he is saying is that the Federal government, under the current interpretation of the 'commerce clause', can regulate the precise type and requirement of the portion of crossings that are on 'railroad property'.  They could logically be given the power to mandate closing that narrow but effectively 'controlling' portion of a crossing unless and until "somebody" responsible for the approaches and their signage or signaling has fixed their part to the standards charlie hebdo finds essential.  That is how the Government could effectively put teeth into which is otherwise largely a Tenth Amendment sort of issue, and it thoroughly satisfies the 'safety' remit that the Government has chosen as grounds for its federal regulation of railroad matters.

[Overmod]

.

[BaltACD]

charlie hebdo

Sensibly and in accord with the Constitution's commerce clause, uniform regulation of railroad crossings should become s federal function.

Railroads track structure can be viewed as Interstate.  Streets and Roads within a State are Intrastate.  It is up to the states to design and pay for the crossing of their Intrastates with the Interstate railroads.

[tree68]

charlie hebdo

Sensibly and in accord with the Constitution's commerce clause, uniform regulation of railroad crossings should become s federal function.

I would opine that regulation of crossings already is.  It's the funding that's the issue.

[charlie hebdo]

Sensibly and in accord with the Constitution's commerce clause, uniform regulation of railroad crossings should become s federal function.

[Overmod]

Since it's been pointed out that the states are responsible for enacting crossing legislation to facilitate any of this... how many states have used the FRA 'model language' for one of the intended purposes?  What state laws of any kind are currently in consideration, or pending?

THAT is where the change will start.

[charlie hebdo]

So, after the 7 barriers to progress are noted, let's do nothing.

Nichts.

Nada.

[BaltACD]

This link may work

https://railroads.dot.gov/legislation-regulations/legislation/model-state-legislation

[Overmod]

https://railroads.dot.gov/.../files/fra_net/1259/BackgroundOverviewModelLaw.pdf

Link returns only "permission denied" on my systems

[mudchicken]

(1) The FRA and FHWA sponsored a model law in 2007 that addressed line of sight and vision distance issues.  The states failed to adopt any of it. It is still out there if you know where to find it.  https://railroads.dot.gov/.../files/fra_net/1259/BackgroundOverviewModelLaw.pdf

(2) Opening and closing/ modifying of crossings is a state responsibility (not federal). Each state has a memorandum/ letter agreement with the states over this.

(3) The approaches are the county/city/state agencies responsibility.  None of them appears to even know there is an engineering standard (long published) that exists in the AREMA and AASHTO manuals (published jointly) ... The road agencies continually ignore it. (Engineers acting badly ... just caused a big derailment in Dennison IA on UP)

(4) Who is this crossing assessment team gonna be? (If it's gonna be like the QZ teams, don't even start.  A cluster of the highest order would result.) The locals will insist Uncle Sugar will pay for it , never mind the fact that local negligence created most of the deficiencies.

(5) Closing crossings? Good luck with that. (employment for questionable lawyers hoping to find similarly unqualified judges?)

(6) Slowing down the trains? NOPE Not gonna happen. Especially the knee jerk stuff.

(7)If a crossing protection system goes into general use, then it must be properly vetted and tested. Brand-new/ outta da box is a prescription for failure - a fools errand (RTD Denver discovered this - what sounded good on paper did not translate into success..and the actual railroaders involved in the project warned that the system would fail just like it did (RTD would not listen) - With all the band-aids since, the system still fails and has reliability issues)

[charlie hebdo]

Overmod

We're already at the nanny-state point 

Perhaps those who use this rightist term forgot that the fundamental point of a state and a Western government (as opposed to anarchy) is order, safety.and a sense of predictable continuity.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

That situation occurs with vertical lift bridges on railroads.  I'm not sure how successful that would be.  I've seen pictures in TRAINS some years back where a PC freight train in Cleveland overran the signal and the locomotives were sheared at the frame when they hit the counterweight.  The frame of the lead locomotive just missed the boat in the channel. 

I've not seen the counterweights lowered to street level on vehicular vertical lift bridges.

[BaltACD]

CSSHEGEWISCH

I've seen bollards used on movable bridges where an opening over the edge exists when the bridge is raised.  They are relatively rare and safety cables that are lowered into place are more common.

Some movable bridges use the counterwieght that helps in the movement of the bridge as the device to keep trains from 'falling' into the abyss.

https://planeandtrainwrecks.com/Document?db=DOT-RAILROAD&query=(select+4+(byhits+(general+(anyof+Cleveland))))

[tree68]

SD70Dude

I could see the drone idea becoming a thing, but why continue after the vehicle once you've got pictures of the license plate and perhaps the driver's face as well?

There are already the railroad crossing equivalent of red light cameras in use.

I recall one reported incident where the first violator caught was a patrol car...

 

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

I've seen bollards used on movable bridges where an opening over the edge exists when the bridge is raised.  They are relatively rare and safety cables that are lowered into place are more common.

[SD70Dude]

Overmod

We're already at the nanny-state point where some are advocating for those hydraulic rising bollards to be installed, stopping people from running gates.  What's next might be devices to disable ignition (I've actually seen nitwits propose this!) or drones to tail violators until they can be caught and fined.

Yes, because those would never screw up and get stuck in the raised position, especially not in our winters.  And imagine if the ignition disabler messed up by a few feet and started shutting down engines as the vehicles entered the crossing.......

I could see the drone idea becoming a thing, but why continue after the vehicle once you've got pictures of the license plate and perhaps the driver's face as well?

[BaltACD]

charlie hebdo

It's about time (frankly, long since past) that a thorough census of all crossings and then categorizing by type and traffic flow, both toad and rail. My personal belief is a lot of crossings are an archaic remnant of horse and buggy days,where in rural areas family farms were 100-200 acres max.  Times change. Many crossings should be closed.

The FRA database and identification of road crossings has all the information you desire.

https://railroads.dot.gov/safety-data/crossing-and-inventory-data/crossing-inventory-lookup

 

Asking the data base for the information you desire is another question entirely.

[charlie hebdo]

It's about time (frankly, long since past) that a thorough census of all crossings and then categorizing by type and traffic flow, both toad and rail. My personal belief is a lot of crossings are an archaic remnant of horse and buggy days,where in rural areas family farms were 100-200 acres max.  Times change. Many crossings should be closed.

[Overmod]

He and I are going to have a fundamental disagreement on this subject.

My response to this involved development of crossing design that would be distinctly different from current gated crossings, but still recognized as railroad crossings requiring additional diligence and safe lookout when approached.  Think of it as an improved way to announce 'stop, look, and listen' that comes to be as recognizable to the public as crossbucks were many years ago.

We don't generally acknowledge this today, but Holley Rudd specifically intended his design of crossing signal to serve as an 'unmistakable and iconic' railroad-crossing alert, by contrast with various kinds of mechanical-signalman wigwags.  It succeeded remarkably well in this role, and continues to be a significant element in gated crossings.

I am interested in hearing where the estimated cost to implement effective drop gates and perimeter framing and fencing to prevent 'going around' is going to be found.  A case might be made for 'special assessments' for landowners with private roads, but they will rightly scream at many thousands of dollars, plus maintenance assessment yearly, for the 'privilege' of being kept safe from themselves.

I continue to think that a low-cost addition of active signaling to additional approach signage is a reasonable approach to protection.  Most laws currently mandate stopping (and looking and listening) at ungated or unlighted crossings already -- I see no reason why more clearly indicating where and when to stop, when not to negotiate a crossing, when there is limited sight distance, and when trains are present or approaching requires a greater standard of care than what is in the law.

We're already at the nanny-state point where some are advocating for those hydraulic rising bollards to be installed, stopping people from running gates.  What's next might be devices to disable ignition (I've actually seen nitwits propose this!) or drones to tail violators until they can be caught and fined.

The question becomes more difficult when, as Ron indicates, 'safety' means preventing vehicles from actually fouling the crossing.  At every crossing.  All the time.  The British already do this -- their standards required full fencing and gating of all 'private' railway ROW from nearly two centuries ago.  We could relatively easily install heavy cattle gates across all private crossings, kept locked with a key requiring a permit to use (and various safeguards a la switch locks to spread the annoyance beyond the rail world).  But even with the police coming out and unlocking/relocking the gates (which is the least illogical way to manage nanny security) there will still be accidents, and until all road crossings are grade-separated underpasses with no ability for vehicles to damage the railroad bridge structure, accidents can still be expected.  Even the thought of doing this every couple of miles, with clearance for ag equipment, and pumps and whatnot to keep them unflooded, is not particularly sensible either.

In short, there isn't a real reason why 'better' needs to be considered mortal enemy of 'best' -- as long as distinctive signage for passive crossings is different from full gate-protected ones.

[charlie hebdo]

I suspect you are just guessing.

[Euclid]

tree68

 

 

Euclid

2)   Compromise the provision of warning and reliability.  Under that compromise model, the theory would be, “Better to have some safety improvement than none at all.” 

 

 

 

 

Otherwise known as "payday for lawyers."

 

It would certainly do that.  It would also make the crossing actually more dangerous for injury and death.  Many drivers probably make no distinction between passive crossings and active crossings like railroad people do.  To the average person, if no train is coming, both types of crossings are likely to look about the same.  They see no difference between lights not displayed and lights not existing.  Likewise, an open gate is no gate. 

The reason I mention this is that I have seen various proposals for devices to make passive crossings more conspicuous.  None of them replicate the full protection of a crossing with an active protection system.  They all are claimed to be an improvement because even though they don’t offer full active protection, they falsely conclude: “It is better to have some safety improvement rather than being just a passive crossing.”

Aside from the actual increase in danger that might result from this short sighted thinking, there is also the problem of failing to meet all of the safety and reliability standards that are likely to be required for grade crossing protection equipment. 

I suspect that this type of equipment is heavily regulated, and the regulations simply would not allow a new system that in any way compromises the existing standards.  I also suspect that the Minnesota passive crossing, low cost upgrade to active protection did not go forward for the same reason.  I think it is unlikely that they could have taken 90% of the cost out of contemporary active crossing protection and still have retained the same level of protection and reliability.   

[tree68]

Euclid

2)   Compromise the provision of warning and reliability.  Under that compromise model, the theory would be, “Better to have some safety improvement than none at all.” 

 

Otherwise known as "payday for lawyers."

[Euclid]

Regarding my point on the preceding page as follows in blue:

 

“So, it follows that every active grade crossing today makes every passive grade crossing more dangerous than it would be if all crossings were passive.  This is because drivers have become habituated to relying on the maximum protection of the flashing lights, bells, and gates of active crossings, which lowers their wariness accordingly.  Then with that habitual state of lowered wariness, they apply that to passive crossings.  Primarily they forget the need to look for trains.”

 

It is true that eliminating all crossing active protection would eliminate this disparity, but it is not a practical solution because it would reduce current protection provided by active crossings. 

 

It would make the passive crossing less dangerous but make the active crossings more dangerous.  I would expect the net result would be that the increase of danger of active crossings would far outweigh the decrease in danger of passive crossings.  One reason would be that active protection is already provided for the most dangerous crossings in terms of train and vehicle traffic counts plus other external factors.  

 

I am just stating the principle of unintended consequences.  My overall point is related to the popular idea of improving passive crossings by adding active protection, and the idea of reducing the cost of the added protection in order to afford the upgrades.  The same unintended consequence would apply to that upgrade to passive crossings—UNLESS—they are upgraded to at least the same protection performance as today’s active crossings. 

 

This adds a lot of challenge to the desire to reduce the cost of the passive crossing upgrades.  In fact, if this cost were reduced, such new lower cost features would also be applied to current active crossings as part of their ongoing maintenance and eventual preplacement. 

 

There are two ways to reduce the cost:

1)   Come up with an improved design that somehow reduces the cost.

 

2)   Compromise the provision of warning and reliability.  Under that compromise model, the theory would be, “Better to have some safety improvement than none at all.” 

 

But this goes back to what I was saying about drivers lowering their guard and making up for it by relying on the automatic safety device.  Let’s say you convert passive crossings to active crossing by installing an active protection that is not as effective as the active protection on true active crossings.  In that case, people will rely on that limited protection just as much as they rely on the full active protections of the fully equipped active crossings.  So people will become less wary at passive crossings, and collisions may actually increase there as a result. 

 

So if you come up with a reduced cost passive protection just to add an increment of safety to passive crossings, you might actually make passive crossings more dangerous than they are now before adding the limited improvement.  That would be the unintended consequence that I mention. 

 

For this reason, I believe that any safety improvement added to passive crossings must bring them up to the same level of protection and reliability as is the case with today’s existing active crossings.  So the only way this can be accomplished at a lower cost than today’s active protection is if the cost reduction comes from a design improvement that reduces manufacturing cost. 

 

Such an improvement of passive crossing safety cannot come, for instance, from adding a small wind turbine that is illuminated with solar/battery powered LEDs just to help get a drivers attention to focus on the fact that they are approaching a crossing.  That would be an example of adding protection less than the fully active protection.  The cost-reduced active protection must be at least as effective in terms of providing protection as today’s active crossing systems. 

 

All of this gets to one point about the Minnesota experiment to add a lower cost active protection to passive crossings.  I don’t recall that they ever clarified whether the new active system they designed provided at least the same safety and reliability as today’s standard active protection technology.  The report claims they have cut the cost of the full active protection system by 90%, and that will make it affordable to convert many if not all passive crossings to this new, safer protection system. 

 

I would bet that this new, low cost system is not as reliable and safe as today’s typical fully active protection crossing.  I suspect they are justifying this on the basis of, “Better to have some safety improvement than none at all.” 

 

If it does provide the same safety and reliability, then it would also be applied to replace current active crossing protection systems with this new system to achieve the same cost reduction as would be the case with passive crossings.  Does anybody know whether this point was clarified about the new Minnesota system? 

 

This is a key question. 

[charlie hebdo]

As to grade crossings:

When the CHI-STL UP/Amtrak line was upgraded to higher speed (up to 110 mph), by the end of 2017, they made major safety upgrades at 203 grade crossings by installing four-quadrant gates and loop detectors to detect vehicles on the tracks when trains are approaching. In addition, 39 crossings were permanently closed.

[SD60MAC9500]

 

BaltACD

 

Went to the hardware store yesterday afternoon - 'startled' a doe and two fawns less than a mile from my house.

Have several videos of deer that have been browsing around my driveway and back yard - the back yard is enclosed in your everyday chain link fence.

 

 

Deer have no problem clearing a 6' fence. A backyard chain link fence would be a breeze to clear for deer. 

I hit a small doe years back on I-75 up in Mt Morris, MI. It must been about 7' in the the air when it landed in front of me. After leaping over the center barrier which is about 48" in height. Ended up blasting it at 70. $8000 worth of damage to the front end of my vehicle.. Thank goodness for insurance..