There's an idea. Put "drawbridges" on either side of the tracks. When the train comes, it triggers the "drawbridge" to go up. Anyone who wants to try to beat the train will just fly over the train. :giggle:
Downeaster collission
- Thread starter TransitGeek
- Start date
Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
- Status
Ispolkom
Engineer
And stupid drivers who don't know the height of their loads will then get wedged in the underpasses.
LOL to the last remark. Seriously, though, don't drawbridges use constantly ringing, loud bells ("RRRRRRRRRiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnnnnnnngggggggggggggggg) rather than the ding-ding (not all that loud IMO when your windows are up and the AC is on full fan) of a track crossing? Maybe that's part of the answer. Another sound like the drawbridge is heard on the Ballard Locks in Seattle.
Devil's Advocate
⠀⠀⠀
Here in San Antonio we're modifying areas with tracks into no-horn zones to cut down on the noise pollution. I'm not sure if I'm agree or disagree with that position. I see both sides in that I wouldn't want to live with constant train horns but neither would I want a bunch of derailments either. Supposedly the changes required to make a horn-free zone are just as safe if not safer than a conventional crossing but in the case of pedestrians it seems less safe to me.
Ryan
Court Jester
As I read several of the ideas to make crossings safer, one comment popped out but not, I believe as an answer to crossing safety. I have seen the videos from locomotives of the constant running of warning signals. Why not start to equip crossings with the equivalent to a red light camera? Position a sign up the road from the crossing stating that the crossing is equiped with a camera to catch people illegally crossing the tracks. The cost effectiveness issue will be raised I'm sure, but it is an alternative. Of course, in the latest two incidences with the CZ and the Downeaster, the driver would be unavailable to pay the fine.
Another idea would be to use the videos already, if I recall, available from locomotives. The worst incidences involve trains and large trucks. In my experience driving around Ohio, almost every large truck has signage on its side advertising it's company. If a truck ignores a crossing signal, then the engineer could make a note of it, when the run is over, the tape could be reviewed, and fines levied against the company that owns the truck as seen from the advertising on the truck.
In any case, maybe the fines should be increased substantially for violating crossing signals. After all, as one has always said, there are only two types of engineers, those that have had a crossing accident, and those that are going to have one. I have little sympathy for people injured or killed trying to beat a train, but I feel terrible for the engineers, crew and passengers of a train involved is such accidents.
Another idea would be to use the videos already, if I recall, available from locomotives. The worst incidences involve trains and large trucks. In my experience driving around Ohio, almost every large truck has signage on its side advertising it's company. If a truck ignores a crossing signal, then the engineer could make a note of it, when the run is over, the tape could be reviewed, and fines levied against the company that owns the truck as seen from the advertising on the truck.
In any case, maybe the fines should be increased substantially for violating crossing signals. After all, as one has always said, there are only two types of engineers, those that have had a crossing accident, and those that are going to have one. I have little sympathy for people injured or killed trying to beat a train, but I feel terrible for the engineers, crew and passengers of a train involved is such accidents.
Devil's Advocate
⠀⠀⠀
Exactly. We're on the same page here. Let the truck driver kill himself and destroy his rig. No need to drag the train down with all these half-arsed trucking companies. My only question is, would this actually stop a commercial truck at a high rate of speed?
NY Penn
OBS Chief
The problem is that it might make the truck (or the remains of the truck) stop right on the crossing. This would be kind of what happened in the 1987 crash (locomotives ignored a stop signal and halted in the train's path).Exactly. We're on the same page here. Let the truck driver kill himself and destroy his rig. No need to drag the train down with all these half-arsed trucking companies. My only question is, would this actually stop a commercial truck at a high rate of speed?
Yeah, that's what I was picturing as the "drawbridge".
Devil's Advocate
⠀⠀⠀
The side you're looking at is the side the oncoming traffic would see. I guess you could say it's a drawbridge in reverse. However, these devices are not designed to support the weight of a vehicle on the inclined side. It is likely they would buckle and close if a large commercial truck struck the inclined side at speed.Yeah, that's what I was picturing as the "drawbridge".Even better:
True, this would need to be considered as well. Perhaps the anti-ramming devices would need to be pushed back further away from the tracks to give room for the debris to land before reaching the tracks?
Last edited by a moderator:
Ryan
Court Jester
I don't have YouTube access here at work, but I've seen some video of dump trucks running into them that are pretty dang impressive.
FriskyFL
OBS Chief
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2008
- Messages
- 782
Unfortunately Amtrak will run out of locomotives way before the roads are purged of moron drivers.
On horn-free zone, the crossing requires quad crossing arms which the vehicle cannot go around, even on opposite traffic. However, it doesn't stop the runaway vehicles. Some areas have pedestrian crossing arms. On high traffic flow area such as 4 lanes, it has protected median such as cement wall. It is still relatively new and still adding some tweaking to it such as rising barricades.
Put the burnt-out locomotives on new trucks, and run them in front of the working ones. They'll still weigh as much.
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
Doesn't address the issue of trains getting hit from the side on the 3rd or 4th car as happened to the CZ.
BTW, for speeds above 110mph it is exactly those sorts of barriers, only higher, that are required. That is why all concerned choose to simply grade separate or shut down grade crossings on such segments.
And above 125mph no grade crossings are allowed. But as of now there are no requirements to protect the side of the track so an incursion like in Fullerton in the post below can still happen.
On the NEC between Philly and Wilmington where it runs parallel to an interstate they installed all sorts of guard rails protecting the track after an incident in which a truck showed up on the railroad track (125mph main) after losing control on the highway. Fortunately no Acela came by to have a meet with it at the time.
Last edited by a moderator:
VentureForth
Engineer
Another car that was struck by Amtrak in Fullerton, CA.
I don't know why workers didn't run up the track and give the universal flailing of the arms to keep the train from hitting the car left on the tracks... I guess they didn't know a train was coming, but it's a pretty busy corridor. Someone HAD to have a radio. According to the article, three minutes passed from the time the driver was extracated from the vehicle until it was hit.
I don't know why workers didn't run up the track and give the universal flailing of the arms to keep the train from hitting the car left on the tracks... I guess they didn't know a train was coming, but it's a pretty busy corridor. Someone HAD to have a radio. According to the article, three minutes passed from the time the driver was extracated from the vehicle until it was hit.
Three minutes is very little time if you don't know who to contact or call. The 2 workers were from the Fullerton maintenance department, not railroad workers. They or someone else presumably called 911. Even if someone called the railroad contact numbers from nearest posted sign, the information still have to be passed on through the system and 3 minutes is not much time for info to be verified and to get it to the right train operator.
Devil's Advocate
⠀⠀⠀
Good point. If you call the 800 number posted on crossings in my area you get Texas Highway Patrol IIRC. Then they have to contact the railroad as part of a separate communication. I guess this is done so the taxpayer can be billed for the cost of running the phone bank, but also presumably adds several minutes to the process of getting the train dispatcher notified if there is an actual emergency. Oh well, no matter what happens the fees and liabilities are Amtrak's burden anytime an Amtrak train is involved in an accident. Which is just another way of saying they get passed onto the taxpayer.
Last edited by a moderator:
transit54
Conductor
Or, perhaps that if it is an actual emergency, emergency services are alerted before the railroad? Don't think that everything is a conspiracy to defraud the taxpaying public.
But even if you're right, my tax dollars go to pay for phone banks to respond to highway accidents...as a non-car owner why should I be paying for that? Should be added to the gas tax if we want things to be equitable, right?
What's fair for one mode is fair for the other.
VentureForth
Engineer
First of all, this collision didn't happen at a crossing. No phone number posted. I do know that the phone number on my crossing goes straight to CSX. The first answer is a selection - 1 if and emergency and 2 if there is a crossing malfunction (like a crossing malfunction isn't an emergency?).
Second, this is a VERY heavily used corridor. There is a universal signal that you don't have to be a railfan to know that flailing your arms is an indicator to the engineer to stop. There were several people at the scene. Two could have run in each direction.
Second, this is a VERY heavily used corridor. There is a universal signal that you don't have to be a railfan to know that flailing your arms is an indicator to the engineer to stop. There were several people at the scene. Two could have run in each direction.
Last edited by a moderator:
Devil's Advocate
⠀⠀⠀
There is nothing in my post that refers to any sort of a conspiracy. I just found it rather surprising that on the occasion of actually having a reason to call the number posted on our crossing gates it went to the Texas Highway Patrol that has no reason or responsibility to be anywhere near the gates in question. Nor did the lady answering seem to know where I was or what I was talking about. It seemed like it would make more sense to have the phone calls go straight to the railroad that has direct control over movements and has service trucks routinely traveling through the area. If it's an actual in-progress emergency I doubt anybody is going to hesitate to call 911 so your routing explanation sounds like an erroneous assumption to me.
I couldn't agree more.
Last edited by a moderator:
This seems to me to be a quick judgement call by the maintainance workers.
a) Send someone running each direction to flag an approaching train and hope to get far enough (1/2 to 1 mile stopping distance?) in time for an approaching train to stop.
or,
b) Quickly remove the driver before a train arrives to impact the car. (I would hope that after this is done someone would think to flag the train also... the report does not say)
As both are reasonable calls the "Monday Morning Quarterbacks" should back off a hair...
I'm not familiar with the location in question, but would there even be a safe place for these guys to walk/run (given that it is absolutely unsafe to run in the track gauge) alongside the tracks to get to where they could signal an engineer?
Even if we assume that there was a paved sidewalk immediately adjacent to the tracks, how far could they have gone in three minutes (the time between when the person was removed and when the train hit)? No more than a quarter mile, I'm guessing. Likely not enough distance to get a train to stop if it was moving at any decent sort of speed.
Even if we assume that there was a paved sidewalk immediately adjacent to the tracks, how far could they have gone in three minutes (the time between when the person was removed and when the train hit)? No more than a quarter mile, I'm guessing. Likely not enough distance to get a train to stop if it was moving at any decent sort of speed.
The Chief
Lead Service Attendant
Here's an example (Link) of modifying highway safety processes following a recent increase in accidents.
In a nutshell, over the last two years, Dallas North Tollway suffered a lot of wrong-way drunk drivers causing axys, and some fatalities.
After needs analysis and study, decision reached today to lower warning signs, and add LED signs. Will it work? We shall see. Point being an increase in axys prompted brainstorming, analysis, and Yankee ingenuity.
re: the Fullerton Surfliner-Cadillac axy, the loco doesn't appear to be damaged. I wonder what train speed was at time of impact?
That Fullerton axy is an anomaly, in that Caddy was involved in roadway accident, and slammed/driven across two parking lots and through fence onto tracks. No RR crossing involved. Talk about Murphy's Law for Amtrak in 2011,,,
On the KTLA page report, with video, I noticed sidebar of five related stories, depicting recent train axys, including a horse strike story, and a dog strike story. Nothing about a
however,,,
- Status
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Eric & Pat’s May 2024 Trip Report: San Diego - Toledo - San Diego- Latest: Eric in East County
