kids crawl under stopped trains to get to school

[Euclid]

zugmann

 

 

Euclid

They blame the evils of PSR on management greed just like you guys do.

 

 

I find it amusing some people are more upset about kids trying to get to school than they are about trains parking on crossings.  Weird flex, but whatever...

 

Local town has a control point that is used for staging trains out of a yard in one direction, and used as a common recrew/holdout point for trains going the other.   Back before PSR, the longest trains were 130-150 cars.  They fit at the signal fine.  These 200+ trains?  They end up blocking crossings near their rear end.  While they are not real busy xings, it's still something that didn't happen until the long trains of PSR/PSR Lite came about.  

So yeah, these issues are not completely mutually exclusive.  I know that's hard for the PSR fanboys and fangirls to understand at times. 

 

 

Okay, thanks for that explanation.  So, the claim that no additional crossing blockage has been produced by PSR is false.  PSR has increased crossing blockage as you mention above. 

 

As I understand it, the track in the video of kids going under stopped trains is owned by Norfolk Southern.  And the Company’s response has been to humbly accept the criticism and vow to do everything possible to correct the problem.  They did not say, “Hey, our railroad was there before the crossing was put in, so we have a right to block the crossing when necessary.” 

 

Regardless of whether the kids in the video that were interacting with the stopped trains were acting spontaneously, it is a brilliant production in terms of making the point.  It is widely understood that the best way to promote changes in laws is to link the cause with safety, and especially the safety of children. 

 

The issues of PSR causing more derailments is nebulous  to the public, but small children being forced to crawl around the wheels of freight trains parked on crossings sends a potent message that is instantly understandable. 

[tree68]

Euclid

They did not say, “Hey, our railroad was there before the crossing was put in, so we have a right to block the crossing when necessary.” 

That would likely come out in the case of a lawsuit...

[azrail]

In WW2 we had very long trains. In fact during the war the Feds overturned states like Arizona that had minimum train length laws. Those state train length laws were never reinstated.

[Cotton Belt MP104]

Reference: Posted by ns145 on Monday, June 5, 2023 9:52 PM.  This post cites the 10 minute news article.  If one will view the "news" clip, the story is VERY clear. There were no kids "acting" or being prompted to do the dangerous act. They were not even acting as a "dare" to impress someone. It shows numerous incidents. And with one train being stationary for 4 hours, the problem is very real for locals. At least NS CEO is trying to do something, but the solution will be difficult and costly. Result, probably not much until "the tragedy" of a fatal incident occurs. Sad situation for BOTH, general public and RR. endmrw0614230019

[BEAUSABRE]

Zugman Cute reply, ignoring the facts

[zugmann]

What facts?

 

Please explain. 

[Overmod]

BEAUSABRE

Cute reply, ignoring the facts

Zug, you forgot the /s tag.  Sarcasm can be wasted on the whooooosh crowd.

The "fact" that matters here is that longer trains are blocking more crossings, for a longer aggregate time, as he said.  Whether the longer trains are due to greed or operating (in)efficiencies is immaterial to the people that need, or want, to cross, and are now increasingly unable to do so without 'trespassing' on or under equipment.

You won't solve this with cameras and legislation, even though prosecutions for this might be attractive to prosecutors who want fine revenue from fundamentally nonviolent 'perpetrators'.  You'll only solve it with fence maintenance, and pedestrian bridges near school routes, or careful timing of precision scheduling around school travel hours... or mandatory increasingly-punitive fines after 15 minutes 'until morale improves'.

(Incidentally, that was sarcasm too)

[Backshop]

azrail

In WW2 we had very long trains. In fact during the war the Feds overturned states like Arizona that had minimum train length laws. Those state train length laws were never reinstated.

 

Trains back then were much shorter than the ones today. A 100-car train of 40ft boxcars back then was only 4000ft.  They are 4-5x as long now.

[Euclid]

Overmod

 

 

BEAUSABRE

Cute reply, ignoring the facts

 

 

Zug, you forgot the /s tag.  Sarcasm can be wasted on the whooooosh crowd.

 

The "fact" that matters here is that longer trains are blocking more crossings, for a longer aggregate time, as he said.  Whether the longer trains are due to greed or operating (in)efficiencies is immaterial to the people that need, or want, to cross, and are now increasingly unable to do so without 'trespassing' on or under equipment.

You won't solve this with cameras and legislation, even though prosecutions for this might be attractive to prosecutors who want fine revenue from fundamentally nonviolent 'perpetrators'.  You'll only solve it with fence maintenance, and pedestrian bridges near school routes, or careful timing of precision scheduling around school travel hours... or mandatory increasingly-punitive fines after 15 minutes 'until morale improves'.

(Incidentally, that was sarcasm too)

 

 

Sarcasm is way overused in these contentious days.  And while launching zingers is satisfying, it does literally reverse the meaning of your message.  If your closing comment above is referring to your paragraph which I have highlighted in red, I do not understand why it is sarcasm rather than the straight truth. 

 

If longer trains are increasing crossing blockage in both number of crossings affected and time blocked, something has to be done.  And this is regardless of the fact that crossings have been being blocked for over 100 years.  The issue is the increase of the practice.  So the only solution would seem to include all of the items in your paragraph, plus others that have not been thought of yet. 

 

The “legislation” component of your paragraph should also include enforcing laws such as trespassing to beat the train, or to go over or under parked trains.  Legislation might also cause the legal limiting of train length, to reduce the current problems such as parking trains over crossings because there is no other place to put them. 

 

It is widely believed that railroads have a perpetual right to block crossings because they are only governed by Federal law, and that allows the blockages to occur as operations call for.  But there is no reason why the Federal law cannot be changed.  All it takes is sufficient political pressure from the public.  Obviously that is where Propublica comes in.  Their agenda is right there in their name.  And their videos of the endangered children are brilliant in making their point. 

 

So I see the following remedies to the problem:

 

1)   Limit train length by law.

2)   Make additional grade separation.

3)   Make more room to park long trains.

 

Items #2 & #3 have the disadvantage of requiring a vast amount of time measured in decades.  To be a practical solution, the work would have to be speeded up. 

[zugmann]

For an interesting "other side of the coin" situation - take a look at the battle between Brightline/FEC and the Coast Guard/boat owners over that one drawbridge. 

[tree68]

Euclid

So I see the following remedies to the problem:   1)   Limit train length by law. 2)   Make additional grade separation. 3)   Make more room to park long trains.   Items #2 & #3 have the disadvantage of requiring a vast amount of time measured in decades.  To be a practical solution, the work would have to be speeded up. 

The question becomes how short to mandate the train must be.  A 6,000 foot train can block two crossings a mile apart.  And, do the railroads have the available crews to staff the two 6,500 trains that necessarily replace the one 13,000 foot train?

Grade separation can be a challenge, especially in built up areas.  There simply isn't enough geography in many areas to accomplish it.  And while closing crossings is fine for vehicles, given acceptable alternative routes, it does nothing for the foot traffic taking shortcuts across the track.  Even pedestrian overpasses can be a challenge unless all other access to the tracks is effectively blocked.  Who wants to climb the stairs (or ramp) if they can walk straight across?

Making more space to park trains may be easier than it sounds, given the track rationalization that occurred some years ago.  It may simply be a matter of replacing a second main track that used to exist.  Of course, you still may have the blocked crossing problem.  In fact, you might make it worse...

Doubling out trains is going to be a problem in those areas where it occurs.  Replacing/removing crossings does take care of a lot of that, though.

A huge solution would be having more crews available.  This would help eliminate trains that sit for hours waiting for a recrew.  Of course, this flies in the face of cost reduction efforts, not to mention the issues the railroads are having even hiring people.

A significant problem all over this country is the NIMBY/BANANA mindset that has become the norm.  One reason projects of this nature take so long is the endless lawsuits.

[jeffhergert]

The idea of railroads can do what they want because they are governed by Federal law is a recent idea.  Before a few years ago, railroads were fined for blocking crossings.  Local ordinances limited train speeds in places.

The railroads complied with these laws and ordinances.  It wasn't until one, I think it was BNSF, decided to challenge them in Federal District court.  A more business friendly Federal District Court.

I wonder how much the railroads are really saving on ultra long trains.  Obviously it's enough or they wouldn't do it.  But there is a high number of them that get recrewed.  Any savings goes out the window then. 

There are some trains, because of their planned work events, almost get recrewed daily.  

A few weeks ago, we were pulling up to stop our 2 1/2 mile manifest.  We were being held out about 25 miles out because the yard wasn't ready for us.  Other trains working the terminal ahead of us.  I saw a farmer working in his field.  I told the conductor I hope he has another way out. 

I thought he might through an adjacent field.  I guess he didn't because after about 90 minutes, the dispatcher said he was going to move us up to let the farmer out of his field.

So we moved up to the next spot.  Our first one blocked the farmer, but we were off public crossings.  The next hold spot had us blocking a public crossing.  I think we made it to the terminal limits where the outbound crew could relieve us so it wasn't dogcatch crew recrew.

Jeff

 

[Euclid]

tree68

 

 

Euclid

So I see the following remedies to the problem:   1)   Limit train length by law. 2)   Make additional grade separation. 3)   Make more room to park long trains.   Items #2 & #3 have the disadvantage of requiring a vast amount of time measured in decades.  To be a practical solution, the work would have to be speeded up. 

 

 

The question becomes how short to mandate the train must be.  A 6,000 foot train can block two crossings a mile apart.  And, do the railroads have the available crews to staff the two 6,500 trains that necessarily replace the one 13,000 foot train?

Grade separation can be a challenge, especially in built up areas.  There simply isn't enough geography in many areas to accomplish it.  And while closing crossings is fine for vehicles, given acceptable alternative routes, it does nothing for the foot traffic taking shortcuts across the track.  Even pedestrian overpasses can be a challenge unless all other access to the tracks is effectively blocked.  Who wants to climb the stairs (or ramp) if they can walk straight across?

Making more space to park trains may be easier than it sounds, given the track rationalization that occurred some years ago.  It may simply be a matter of replacing a second main track that used to exist.  Of course, you still may have the blocked crossing problem.  In fact, you might make it worse...

Doubling out trains is going to be a problem in those areas where it occurs.  Replacing/removing crossings does take care of a lot of that, though.

A huge solution would be having more crews available.  This would help eliminate trains that sit for hours waiting for a recrew.  Of course, this flies in the face of cost reduction efforts, not to mention the issues the railroads are having even hiring people.

A significant problem all over this country is the NIMBY/BANANA mindset that has become the norm.  One reason projects of this nature take so long is the endless lawsuits.

 

Yes, I agree that these three solutions will be fantastically expensive and difficult.  All three are likely to be rejected for thousands of good reasons.  It is just that these are the only three that I can think of that would solve the problem. 

 

The fact that blocking crossings is not new seems to be an argument that railroads have a right to block them based on the precedent that they have always blocked them.  So the right is assumed to be kind of “grandfathered in.”  But longer trains increase the need to block crossings for the following reasons, and this is unprecedented.  An assumed right to bock crossings may be grandfathered in, but a great increase in the dimensions of the problem is not going to be automatically accepted just because the act of blocking is generally accepted.  Here are the reasons why today’s blocking of crossings has increased:

 

1)   To allow a longer time for the passage of longer trains.

2)   To provide space needed for parking longer trains.

3)   To hold trains parked on crossing for longer times.

4)   A parked longer train will tend to occupy more crossings.

 

The public has learned a long time ago that freight trains car cause major blocking of grade crossings due to their length, even if they are not stopped on the crossing.  So it is no surprise that the public will be keen to notice this new trend.  Yet the indifference that their complaints are met with seems to be that the railroads simply have the right to park trains anywhere they want regardless of the public inconvenience. 

 

Generally, the public sees railroads as having the right of way at crossings that allows them to pass through without needing to stop or yield to pedestrians and road vehicles.  But it is a whole new issue when trains are simply parked over several busy grade crossings in a town.  No matter the delay, drivers and pedestrians expect the trains to keep moving, although they mostly realize that trains can sometimes stop for some minutes.  But nobody expects the company to park trains on busy crossings for many hours. 

[ns145]

As Jeff points out, the current "devil may care" attitude towards blocking crossings is a recent development.  One of the "gifts" bequeathed to the industry by E. Hunter Harrison and his ilk in the absolute pursuit of stockholder value.  D**n the customers, d**n the employees, d**n the public, d**n everyone in our way. 

Who could have ever guessed that attitude might provoke a backlash?

[Overmod]

I was sarcastic because it's really been understood since the late Twenties what would be involved to improve safety when crossing railroads -- in fact, it was understood in England far earlier, and there too by Government dictate: railroads were responsible for fencing and securing the whole of their 'property' and assuring safe crossings, for example at stations (which as a consequence frequently had overhead passenger crossover bridges of considerable structural complexity).

Something I have been tinkering with over the years is a lightweight, easily-constructed, but safe kind of overhead crossing, ideally accessible by people with the ADA range of 'compromised ability'.  This proves difficult from a liability standpoint, and from a vandalism standpoint.  The University of Memphis recently spent $35 million on a 'land bridge' across the ex-Southern... which is fundamentally unusable by anyone who cannot climb long flights of stairs, unless they wait for slow and probably poorly-maintained elevators at either side.  Everyone else just continues over the several pedestrian grade crossings as before... but now the ROW between those crossings is fenced on both sides to "preclude" the cutting across that everyone did before.

At some point, a pedestrian bridge was built over the ex-Frisco near the Kellogg's plant.  It takes the form of a long winding ramp with square corners, armored with those gratings the whole way, a long tedious way up and then a long, tedious way down.  It's probably more work and time for the occasional wheelchair-bound user or bicyclist to wait for any trains to pass and just wobble across -- I've never seen anyone on the ramp actually using it, and now that it is decrepit, graffiti'd and bepissed I sort of doubt I will.

Railroads are a victim of their own claimed prosperity.  In the old days, crossing bridges and underpasses were more a sort of public works, because railroads had no money or personnel to build them unless coerced (and perhaps not then).  Now that the pockets are deeper, we hear more about 'doing their fair share' or whatever. while the railroads fall back on 'trespasser' logic and think that barriers 'breaking' bicycle speed just before a crossing, and silly little gates, are going to be sufficient.

[Psychot]

I'm continually fascinated by the differences in railroad infrastructure between the U.S. and Europe. Having ridden trains all around Europe, it has been my empirical observation that Europe -- and particularly "Old Europe" -- has a lot fewer grade crossings than the U.S. Sure enough, there are something like 212,000 of them in the U.S. vs. 105,000 in the entire EU-28, which has a much denser rail network (i.e. more secondary and tertiary lines). 

Looking specifically at France, they had 25,000 grade crossings as recently as 1980 and had reduced that number to 15,000 by 2016. By comparison, the U.S. had 235,000 grade crossings in 1933, when our rail network was much denser than it is now, vs. 212,000 today. So we basically have made zero progress in cutting down the number of grade crossings, despite the fact that there are huge public safety and convenience implications.

[gregc]

Psychot

I'm continually fascinated by the differences in railroad infrastructure between the U.S. and Europe.

which, most often, came first, RR or roads in Europe and US?

[NKP guy]

gregc

which, most often, came first, RR or roads in Europe and US?

I thought everyone knew it was the Romans who built and opened the B&O RR in 1830.  Ever seen their viaduct at Relay, Maryland?

More evidence of high school history not being what it used to.

 

[Psychot]

gregc

 

 

Psychot

I'm continually fascinated by the differences in railroad infrastructure between the U.S. and Europe.

 

 

which, most often, came first, RR or roads in Europe and US?

 

If you could elaborate on the point you're making, I'll be happy to address it.

[gregc]

Psychot

If you could elaborate on the point you're making, I'll be happy to address it.

RRs in europe had to fit into existing cities which haven't grown much compared to the US.   the population of europe grew from 208M in 1850 to 518 today while the U.S. population grew from 23M to 313M

cities/town/villages in the US often grew up around RRs with tracks dividing the town.   some cities have a tracks down the middle of main street.

 

[mudchicken]

The governments there bankroll the railroads and the railroads do not have to pay their own weight (do not come close to being profitable, even with their funky accounting rules)

Not true over here ....even though the railroads are taxed for fuel and property...which ironically winds up funding roads for trucks

...and then there is the problem with fences , that government won't spend the funds on to herd their "finer citizens" to a safer crossing location. 

[Flintlock76]

NKP guy

I thought everyone knew it was the Romans who built and opened the B&O RR in 1830.  Ever seen their viaduct at Relay, Maryland?

Damn right, Julius Caeser loaned the B&O some of his best engineers!

That's why that viaduct's still standing!  

ROMA  AETERNA EST! 

[BaltACD]

Flintlock76

 

NKP guy

I thought everyone knew it was the Romans who built and opened the B&O RR in 1830.  Ever seen their viaduct at Relay, Maryland? 

Damn right, Julius Caeser loaned the B&O some of his best engineers!

That's why that viaduct's still standing!  

ROMA  AETERNA EST! 

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

mudchicken

...and then there is the problem with fences , that government won't spend the funds on to herd their "finer citizens" to a safer crossing location. 

 

A prime example being beach access along the Surf Line.  Everybody seems to opposed to fencing the right-of-way for safety reasons since the fences would prevent them from doing something stupid on the way to the beach.

[Overmod]

CSSHEGEWISCH

Everybody seems to opposed to fencing the right-of-way for safety reasons since the fences would prevent them from doing something stupid on the way to the beach.

But they're Californians!  Everyone out there knows that it's been the law for decades now that pedestrians have an absolute right-of-way in traffic!

[Psychot]

gregc

 

 

Psychot

If you could elaborate on the point you're making, I'll be happy to address it.

 

 

RRs in europe had to fit into existing cities which haven't grown much compared to the US.   the population of europe grew from 208M in 1850 to 518 today while the U.S. population grew from 23M to 313M

cities/town/villages in the US often grew up around RRs with tracks dividing the town.   some cities have a tracks down the middle of main street.

 

 

Good point. It still doesn't explain why France, as an example, has been able to reduce dramatically the number of grade crossings while the U.S. has made very little progress in that regard.

[Psychot]

mudchicken

The governments there bankroll the railroads and the railroads do not have to pay their own weight (do not come close to being profitable, even with their funky accounting rules)

Not true over here ....even though the railroads are taxed for fuel and property...which ironically winds up funding roads for trucks

As I think Overmod mentioned, it shouldn't be the railroads' responsibility in the first place. It should be a state/municipal issue.

[gregc]

Psychot

It still doesn't explain why France, as an example, has been able to reduce dramatically the number of grade crossings while the U.S. has made very little progress in that regard.

how many crossing has france fixed and the # fixed in the U.S?

[ns145]

Psychot

 

 

gregc

 

 

Psychot

If you could elaborate on the point you're making, I'll be happy to address it.

 

 

RRs in europe had to fit into existing cities which haven't grown much compared to the US.   the population of europe grew from 208M in 1850 to 518 today while the U.S. population grew from 23M to 313M

cities/town/villages in the US often grew up around RRs with tracks dividing the town.   some cities have a tracks down the middle of main street.

 

 

 

 

 

Good point. It still doesn't explain why France, as an example, has been able to reduce dramatically the number of grade crossings while the U.S. has made very little progress in that regard.

 

Using bad stats would.  This FRA presentation is 9 years old, but it shows that public and private rail crossings in the US declined by 17,443 between 2008 and 2014: https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/2019-11/Grade%20Crossing%20Resource%20Guide%20022015.pdf

Obviously, the US will never be as cool and sophisticated as Europe , but progress is being made.

Another thing to consider is that not all grade crossings are anywhere close to being equal in terms of traffic volume.  I can count only 5 major grade separation projects that have been completed over the past 20+ years in the city where I live.  That sounds like a pathetically low number until you take into account that all 5 projects involved major thoroughfares where 10's of thousands of vehicles per day now no longer cross a railroad at grade.  And five more major grade crossing seperations are planned and funded to be constructed by 2025.      

[Psychot]

ns145

 

 

Psychot

 

 

gregc

 

 

Psychot

If you could elaborate on the point you're making, I'll be happy to address it.

 

 

RRs in europe had to fit into existing cities which haven't grown much compared to the US.   the population of europe grew from 208M in 1850 to 518 today while the U.S. population grew from 23M to 313M

cities/town/villages in the US often grew up around RRs with tracks dividing the town.   some cities have a tracks down the middle of main street.

 

 

 

 

 

Good point. It still doesn't explain why France, as an example, has been able to reduce dramatically the number of grade crossings while the U.S. has made very little progress in that regard.

 

 

 

 

Using bad stats would.  This FRA presentation is 9 years old, but it shows that public and private rail crossings in the US declined by 17,443 between 2008 and 2014: https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/2019-11/Grade%20Crossing%20Resource%20Guide%20022015.pdf

Obviously, the US will never be as cool and sophisticated as Europe , but progress is being made.

Another thing to consider is that not all grade crossings are anywhere close to being equal in terms of traffic volume.  I can count only 5 major grade separation projects that have been completed over the past 20+ years in the city where I live.  That sounds like a pathetically low number until you take into account that all 5 projects involved major thoroughfares where 10's of thousands of vehicles per day now no longer cross a railroad at grade.  And five more major grade crossing seperations are planned and funded to be constructed by 2025.      

 

I'm happy to hear progress is being made! FYI I was not implying that Europe is "cooler and more sophisticated" than the U.S. I'm merely fascinated by the differences between the European and U.S. rail networks, as I said several posts ago.