CSX train blocks crossings while crew gets coffee
Jeff nor Lisa
delays in Kingston NY on account of the crew stopping the
train, blocking grade crossings, and going out for coffee.
Such long blockades prevent emergency vehicles from service.
(The fire chief was caught in this blockade and investigated
the cause).
See:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Train-Coffee.html
There are increasing examples of CSX' indifferences to the
communities it serves. There are numerous complaints from
small towns that CSX unreasonably block crossings for long
periods of time. Other towns protest train noise or unsafe
bridges without a response or action by CSX.
Perhaps CSX is too centralized by being in Jacksonville. We
know they shut down their entire network, wrecking havoc
on commuter and Amtrak trains, when Jacksonville had a
hurricane. The other riders in other parts of the country
failed to see why they should be inconvenienced by a Jacksonville
trouble. We also know CSX prematurely shut down its system
after some snow, again wrecking havoc on transportation.
(David Gunn was furious at them for what it did to Amtrak).
Railroads had too much power and abused it 100 years ago,
a regulation was introduced for the good of the public.
Now we have deregulation. Given the arrogance and distance
of railroads today, maybe it's time to bring back strict
regulation. At present, there's nothing a small town can
do against a huge corporation based 2,000 miles away and
the small towns--and the people and businesses in them--
are getting screwed.
Don Forsling
"Jeff nor Lisa" <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message
news:de64863b.03071...@posting.google.com...
> The New York Times reported that a CSX train caused serious
> delays in Kingston NY on account of the crew stopping the
> train, blocking grade crossings, and going out for coffee.
(snips)
> There are increasing examples of CSX' indifferences to the
> communities it serves. Perhaps CSX is too centralized by being in
Jacksonville.
And maybe UP is too centralized by being in Omaha?
And maybe BNSF is too centarlized by being in Ft. Worth?
And so on and so on?
What large railroad _isn't_ centralized?
John McCoy
news:8q4ehv0og0pgitkca...@4ax.com:
> On 17 Jul 2003 13:36:04 -0700, in misc.transport.rail.americas,
> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com (Jeff nor Lisa) wrote:
>
>>The New York Times reported that a CSX train caused serious
>>delays in Kingston NY on account of the crew stopping the
>>train, blocking grade crossings, and going out for coffee.
> Really it just says he was stopped at a crossing, doesn't it?
Exactly the thought I had when I read the article. All we know
is that the train was stopped, and a crewman went to get coffee.
We don't know that the train stopped _because_ the crew wanted
coffee, merely that it stopped for some reason.
Unfortunately it's all to common in today's newspapers for
"reporters" to write such articles, without making any
enquiry about even obvious details like that.
John
Philip Nasadowski
Bob Officer <bobof...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "The coffee break was exposed by city Fire Chief Richard Salzmann, who
> was stuck at one of the crossings. Eventually he went inside a donut
> shop where he saw a CSX employee carrying a tray of coffee cups back to
> the locomotive. Once the employee got on board, the train started up
> again."
My answer? Have a cop write up the crew for blocking traffic. Let 'em
fight it in court.
Blocking a grade crossing restricts traffic, not to mention emergency
services. Doing so for a cup of coffee is idiotic. Bad enough CSX does
it for long periods because they can't manage their traffic right...
--
To email me, chage 'usermale' to 'usermail'.
Buss Error
news:de64863b.03071...@posting.google.com:
snip
> There are increasing examples of CSX' indifferences to the
> communities it serves. There are numerous complaints from
> small towns that CSX unreasonably block crossings for long
> periods of time. Other towns protest train noise or unsafe
> bridges without a response or action by CSX.
EVERY one protests the noise of trains. As far as unsafe bridges, I don't
think I've seen a professional engineering report of an unsafe bridge
that wasn't closed. BLE would be all over them like white on rice. In
TX., TXDOT would be all over them too.
>
> Perhaps CSX is too centralized by being in Jacksonville.
Unsupported. Plenty of examples of highly centralized companies that
manage to do a good job.
> We
> know they shut down their entire network, wrecking havoc
> on commuter and Amtrak trains, when Jacksonville had a
> hurricane.
Then they should have disaster recovery plans in place like all
reasonable businesses do. Sounds like a matter for the stockholders to
take up with the board, and the board to take up with the CEO. David Gunn
can't throw a snit fit too badly at CSX, as CSX management would pass the
word that AmTrak wasn't playing nice, and delay thier movements even
more. On the QT, of course.
> The other riders in other parts of the country
> failed to see why they should be inconvenienced by a Jacksonville
> trouble.
As well they should.
> We also know CSX prematurely shut down its system
> after some snow, again wrecking havoc on transportation.
> (David Gunn was furious at them for what it did to Amtrak).
>
Point. Management should find out why this bad call was made and correct
it.
> Railroads had too much power and abused it 100 years ago,
> a regulation was introduced for the good of the public.
> Now we have deregulation. Given the arrogance and distance
> of railroads today, maybe it's time to bring back strict
> regulation.
I can see an arguement being made for this, but not with the points
you've raised so far. Just ask yourself, would the class 1's do a better
job the way they are now, or would they do better under control of
politicians that take large amounts of money from truckers? See:
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?ind=M03
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.asp?Ind=M03
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.asp?ind=M04
As you can see, of the top 20 politicians getting money from trucking, 18
are republicans. Of the money given by the class 1's, 15 of the top 20
are republicans. Any wonder why the current administration wants to kill
AmTrak? I imagine the class 1's would cry great big crocidile tears if
AmTrak got out of their way. (I wonder why Republicans are big on
"government getting out of the way of business" when the top contributors
to the republican cause are ... business.)
> At present, there's nothing a small town can
> do against a huge corporation based 2,000 miles away and
> the small towns--and the people and businesses in them--
> are getting screwed.
Just like a lot of people versus Big Money, Big Government, Big whatever.
The sky rarely falls for all of that though. Not to say it can't be
fustrating and maddening when it happens to you...
I'm no fool. I know there are abuses. CSX hasn't tried to be a good
neighbor, and in fact has made mistakes. I don't see how a crew going for
coffee relates to CSX management, other than maybe management might do
well to gather informaion about the report.
Having been involved with reporters several times, I know from personal
experience that what is reported doesn't bear much relationship to what
happened. We rarely see a headline saying "EVERYTHING FINE - NO NEWS
TODAY".
John Garrison
"Buss Error" <buss_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns93BBCA27169B3bu...@130.133.1.4...
While time will only tell if it helps but some people in CSX have realised
things aren't working just right, and nearly 200 mangement heads are
rolling. They do have a few, a precious few admitedly that know how to
railroad, and they are trying for all the good it might do.
William H. O'Hara, III
> The New York Times reported that a CSX train caused serious
> delays in Kingston NY on account of the crew stopping the
> train, blocking grade crossings, and going out for coffee.
> Such long blockades prevent emergency vehicles from
> service. (The fire chief was caught in this blockade and
> investigated the cause).
> Perhaps CSX is too centralized by being in Jacksonville.
> We know they shut down their entire network, wrecking havoc
> on commuter and Amtrak trains, when Jacksonville had a
Albany controls the riverline at Kingston, NY.
Bill
el...@no.spam
Philip Nasadowski <nasa...@usermale.com> wrote:
>Blocking a grade crossing restricts traffic, not to mention
>emergency services. Doing so for a cup of coffee is idiotic.
You have no idea what the reason for stopping the train was.
Assuming the crew did it just for a cup of coffee is moronic.
Merritt Mullen
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com (Jeff nor Lisa) wrote:
> The New York Times reported that a CSX train caused serious
> delays in Kingston NY on account of the crew stopping the
> train, blocking grade crossings, and going out for coffee.
> Such long blockades prevent emergency vehicles from service.
> (The fire chief was caught in this blockade and investigated
> the cause).
>
> See:
> http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Train-Coffee.html
>
> There are increasing examples of CSX' indifferences to the
> communities it serves. There are numerous complaints from
> small towns that CSX unreasonably block crossings for long
> periods of time.
That makes it sound like the crew stopped the train for a coffee break.
That is very unlikely--trains don't stop for coffee breaks. Probably the
train was stopped for some operational reason, not in the control of the
crew, and since it was known it would be stopped for some time, one crew
member took the opportunity to get some coffee from a nearby coffee shop.
Doesn't that seem much more reasonable? Can someone more knowledgeable
than me about train operations support the news story that crew simply
stopped for a coffee break?
I am not excusing CSX for blocking the crossing, and I don't know their
reason for doing so, but don't blame the poor crew. The crew, of course,
is responsible for stopping the train, but only on orders from the
dispatcher or a signal commanding them to do so.
Merritt
Jeff nor Lisa
> Exactly the thought I had when I read the article. All we know
> is that the train was stopped, and a crewman went to get coffee.
> We don't know that the train stopped _because_ the crew wanted
> coffee, merely that it stopped for some reason.
We DO know that CSX has stopped trains and blocked up towns
along its routes for no good reason. The towns complain and
CSX blows them off.
Jeff nor Lisa
> My answer? Have a cop write up the crew for blocking traffic. Let 'em
> fight it in court.
If that were done, the cop would go to jail, and CSX has pushed
for that in the past.
In one a group of towns where CSX was blocking streets unnecessarily,
the town attempted legal action. CSX promptly responded with Federal
Marshalls acting against the town officials. They could do this
because CSX claims to be above local regulation, answerable only
to Federal regulation. When a local town interferes in any way with
a railroad train, the town becomes a violator a Federal law
and subject to big trouble, and CSX is real quick to demand
enforcement.
Too bad CSX isn't very concerned about running its trains properly
so these blockades don't occur.
Jeff nor Lisa
> That makes it sound like the crew stopped the train for a coffee break.
> That is very unlikely--trains don't stop for coffee breaks. Probably the
> train was stopped for some operational reason, not in the control of the
> crew, and since it was known it would be stopped for some time, one crew
> member took the opportunity to get some coffee from a nearby coffee shop.
I don't know about the Kingston NY problem that started this
thread, but I do know elsewhere CSX has been a lousy neighbor.
CSX stopped trains blocking small towns along its SE PA route
for "operational reasons" and refused to cease the practice.
The towns didn't understand why CSX didn't hold the trains
at a different place where they weren't in the middle of a
town. CSX refused to even talk to the towns affected, and
things got ugly (see other posts).
I also know of a town concerned with bad cracks in a bridge.
The town requested CSX come out and look at it. CSX replied
"they were too far away and too busy" to do so, nor would
it provide any inspection records. The town has now filed
a formal FRA complaint.
Clearly, CSX knows it is big enough and powerful enough to
wear down small town officials and ignore their concerns.
I don't want to go back to the suffocating govt regulation
of years past, but I think the arrogance shown here by
CSX as well as other super railroads indicates a return
to some regulation is necessary--for the same reasons
regulation was introduced in the first place.
John Garrison
"Bob Officer" <bobof...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:do2fhvscbi2m7r7td...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 05:39:13 GMT, in misc.transport.rail.americas, Merritt
> Mullen <mmull...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <de64863b.03071...@posting.google.com>,
> > hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com (Jeff nor Lisa) wrote:
> >
> >> The New York Times reported that a CSX train caused serious
> >> delays in Kingston NY on account of the crew stopping the
> >> train, blocking grade crossings, and going out for coffee.
> >> Such long blockades prevent emergency vehicles from service.
> >> (The fire chief was caught in this blockade and investigated
> >> the cause).
>
>
> This assumption is unsupported by any evidence in the article.
>
> >> See:
> >> http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Train-Coffee.html
> >>
> >> There are increasing examples of CSX' indifferences to the
> >> communities it serves. There are numerous complaints from
> >> small towns that CSX unreasonably block crossings for long
> >> periods of time.
> >
> >That makes it sound like the crew stopped the train for a coffee break.
> >That is very unlikely--trains don't stop for coffee breaks. Probably the
> >train was stopped for some operational reason, not in the control of the
> >crew, and since it was known it would be stopped for some time, one crew
> >member took the opportunity to get some coffee from a nearby coffee shop.
>
>
> >Doesn't that seem much more reasonable? Can someone more knowledgeable
> >than me about train operations support the news story that crew simply
> >stopped for a coffee break?
> >
> >I am not excusing CSX for blocking the crossing, and I don't know their
> >reason for doing so, but don't blame the poor crew. The crew, of course,
> >is responsible for stopping the train, but only on orders from the
> >dispatcher or a signal commanding them to do so.
>
> Some times railroads run trains that was so long and the crossing are so
> close that it is nearly impossible to stop and not block a crossing.
>
> The UP has been running a few very large/long trains in the last few
months
> with a car count of about 175 cars or so in each train.
>
> using 60 feet per car that works out to 10,500 feet. Most of the cars are
> longer 70 and 80 footers. So the length could be as long as 12,500ft+.
> There are several places where a train might not be able to stop for 25+
> miles without blocking a crossing.
>
> Don't blame the crew...
>
Ditto, while crews are generally careful not to block crossings, it
sometimes can't be avoided. On my road 8000 and 10000 foot trains are the
rule, not the exception, and always have been. Luckily we don't have too
much trouble finding a place to stop.
James Robinson
>
> I don't want to go back to the suffocating govt regulation
> of years past, but I think the arrogance shown here by
> CSX as well as other super railroads indicates a return
> to some regulation is necessary--for the same reasons
> regulation was introduced in the first place.
They are regulated, and safety regulation was never reduced. It was
strictly economic regulation that was "deregulated". Even it is not
complete anarchy, as the Surface Transportation Board still regulates
railroads so they don't screw captive shippers, and don't engage in
monopolistic practices.
As far as local communities are concerned, they have absolutely no
authority over railroads, and never did. That power was always vested
in the individual states and the federal government. Since railroads
are considered interstate commerce, the power of the states is limited,
where they might use that power to affect the free movement of goods.
Therefore, if a local community has a problem with railroads, they can
appeal to the state or the feds to go after the railroads, assuming they
have broken any regulations that apply, and not just a whim of a local
city council. Just what the railroads would need is to have a city
inspector reviewing the wiring inside a signal bungalow to see if it
meets local codes.
John Albert
<<There are increasing examples of CSX' indifferences to the communities it
serves. Perhaps CSX is too centralized by being in Jacksonville. >>
I could be mistaken about this, but I believe the River Line is dispatched
from the office just up the way in Selkirk, NY (Bell Crossing Road
offices). It's possible that they transferred control of the River Line to
the offices [I believe] they have in southern Jersey.
In Kingston there is a long controlled siding (CP 87 to CP 90). I don't
recall any crossings in there, although again, it's been years and years
since I worked there. There _are_ some crossings _north of_ CP 90. It's
possible the train was headed south and was stopped at CP 90 for some
reason.
It's also possible the crew thought the train was a little shorter than
what it really was....
- John
John Albert
<< That makes it sound like the crew stopped the train for a coffee break.
That is very unlikely--trains don't stop for coffee breaks>>
Oh yes they DO, Merritt. Ask any "pro" in here.
We used to stop routinely for coffee while running train OPSE (Oak Point to
Selkirk) up the Hudson line on Metro-North at Peekskill; there was a diner
there just across from the Indian Point nuclear plant. Of course it was the
middle of the night, no crossings would be fouled, and other train traffic
was nonexistant.
It really depends on the train, where it is, what time it is, etc.
Even road freight crews used to request "dinner time" after a certain
number of hours out on the road (former NYC territory). Of course, I don't
think this would apply on the van trains. When you bid a job like that, you
_knew_ you were "time sensitive" and had to keep going. But I'll bet even
some vans made quick stops here or there to pick up coffee when the
situation permitted it.
Knowing where the coffee and food stops are (were) was almost a requisite
component of "being qualified" on the territory....
- John
Adam H. Kerman
>Jeff nor Lisa wrote:
>>I don't want to go back to the suffocating govt regulation
>>of years past, but I think the arrogance shown here by
>>CSX as well as other super railroads indicates a return
>>to some regulation is necessary--for the same reasons
>>regulation was introduced in the first place.
>They are regulated, and safety regulation was never reduced.
The ICC had been a rump regulatory agency since the Johnson administration and
the creation of FRA.
Hudson Leighton
The last Wisconsin Central Freight I rode, we got to the town,
stopped the train on the siding switch to keep the signals red, cut off
the power, ran into town, stopped across the street from the grocery
store, and went into the deli department and got dinner, back out to
the power and back on the train, started eating while the train was
pumping up. We didn't block any crossings.
-Hudson
Merritt Mullen
wrote:
Thanks for the clarification, John. It is always good to get the real
info from a pro. I would have thought that the one thing the crew would
have plenty of on board would be coffee!
My main point was that the movement of most trains on the mainline is
controlled by the dispatcher or by signals, and not by the whim of the
crew. The article seemed to jump to the conclusion that the only reason
the train stopped where it did was for a coffee break.
I suspect in very few cases where a crew member has been ticketed by local
law enforcement for blocking a crossing that the crew member had much
choice in the matter. He was probably just doing what the dispatcher or
signals told him to do.
I was once on the Amtrak Crescent northbound somewhere between
Charlottesville and Washington DC and the diner was without electricity.
The train stopped at some non-station location with a nearby MacDonalds
(or similar) and the crew bought sack lunches for all the passengers. I
suspect they had permission to make the stop, however.
Merritt
John Garrison
CSX ends up with a cavalier attitude on the matter, for good or bad, and
many upper crust see it as cost of conducting business, that is, the cost of
paying tie-up fines.
John Garrison
"John Albert" <j.al...@snet.net> wrote in message
news:3F180FD0...@snet.net...
That is entirely true but I was never going to admit it. Neverthless we have
picked our coffee and chicken wing stops so as to avoid crossing problems. I
don't doubt that detail gets overlooked in some places though.
John Garrison
"Hudson Leighton" <hud...@skypoint.com> wrote in message
news:hudsonl-ya0240800...@news.skypoint.com...
> -Hudson
>
> --
> http://www.skypoint.com/~hudsonl
John Garrison
"Merritt Mullen" <mmull...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:mmullen8014-3041...@netnews.attbi.com...
Merritt.....I carry a quart of coffee....sometimes it plays out
though......you just gotta come and work with us, we're short handed anyway.
Coffee anyone?
John Garrison
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 15:19:07 GMT, in misc.transport.rail.americas, John
> Albert <j.al...@snet.net> wrote:
>
> >Merrit Mullen wrote:
> ><< That makes it sound like the crew stopped the train for a coffee
break.
> >That is very unlikely--trains don't stop for coffee breaks>>
> >
> >Oh yes they DO, Merritt. Ask any "pro" in here.
>
> and I am a pro.
>
> Sorry to upset your apple cart but the right to eat en route was taken
away
> from road crews completely in 1985, by act of congress.
>
> >We used to stop routinely for coffee while running train OPSE (Oak Point
to
> >Selkirk) up the Hudson line on Metro-North at Peekskill; there was a
diner
> >there just across from the Indian Point nuclear plant. Of course it was
the
> >middle of the night, no crossings would be fouled, and other train
traffic
> >was nonexistant.
> >
> >It really depends on the train, where it is, what time it is, etc.
>
> stations and if we wanted to stop for a cup of joe or soda it was up to
the
> crew. But that is a real rarity. Most DS will not let anyone know what is
> happening that far in advance.
>
> >Even road freight crews used to request "dinner time" after a certain
> >number of hours out on the road (former NYC territory). Of course, I
don't
> >think this would apply on the van trains. When you bid a job like that,
you
> >_knew_ you were "time sensitive" and had to keep going. But I'll bet even
> >some vans made quick stops here or there to pick up coffee when the
> >situation permitted it.
>
>
> >Knowing where the coffee and food stops are (were) was almost a requisite
> >component of "being qualified" on the territory....
>
>
> I did however convince a "jack in the box" to serve me some coffee one
> morning about 5:00 in the morning. This was many years ago, it was also my
> birthday... I think it was my 35th...
>
> --
> I guess I am an old head know, people are asking me when I am going to
> retire... Trouble is I am only 51 :)
>
>
> --
> Aktohdi
We got a place that we can call orders in! When we stop the train they are
happy to hoop it up! No crossings though.
Merritt Mullen
Bob Officer <bobof...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 15:19:07 GMT, in misc.transport.rail.americas, John
> Albert <j.al...@snet.net> wrote:
> >Knowing where the coffee and food stops are (were) was almost a requisite
> >component of "being qualified" on the territory....
>
> Yes but most drive thru won't serve you without a car in this day and age.
Well, the double-stacks probably wouldn't fit through the drive-thru
anyway.
Merritt
Merritt Mullen
"John Garrison" <jonny...@youmustremovethis.adelphia.net> wrote:
> Merritt.....I carry a quart of coffee....sometimes it plays out
> though......you just gotta come and work with us, we're short handed anyway.
> Coffee anyone?
I'm too old to start working again, but when I was flying Navy transports
and patrol sea planes, we always had plenty of coffee on board. But, of
course, those planes has a galley where we could prepare meals as well.
I imagine when cabooses were still in use, the caboose crew kept plenty of
coffee brewing.
Merritt
John Garrison
I can almost guarantee it, and some tasty vittles too.
John Garrison
>
> Modern engines? Hell, we are lucky to get a bucket to keep ice and water
> most of the time.
>
>
> --
> Aktohdi
But there is a place atop the water tank on GE's and near the Turbo on EMD's
that is swell for cooking.
A bucket? You must work for UP....umm, those buckets get absconded with when
the engine visits a foreign road. Of course I don't have any myself, I leave
them in there to haul ice and water bottles in.
Merritt Mullen
"John Garrison" <jonny...@youmustremovethis.adelphia.net> wrote:
> "Merritt Mullen" <mmull...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
> > I imagine when cabooses were still in use, the caboose crew kept plenty of
> > coffee brewing.
> I can almost guarantee it, and some tasty vittles too.
I understand in the days of steam engines, the fireman could fry bacon and
eggs on his shovel.
Merritt
Jeff nor Lisa
> Therefore, if a local community has a problem with railroads, they can
> appeal to the state or the feds to go after the railroads, assuming they
> have broken any regulations that apply, and not just a whim of a local
> city council. Just what the railroads would need is to have a city
> inspector reviewing the wiring inside a signal bungalow to see if it
> meets local codes.
Except when one of those signal huts catches fire and it's up to
the local town's public safety forces to respond and contain it.
Jeff nor Lisa
> Ditto, while crews are generally careful not to block crossings, it
> sometimes can't be avoided.
Well, what are the people in the towns impacted supposed to do
during these blockades? Remember, we're not talking about a long
slow freight train _passing_ a grade crossing with a delay say of
five minutes. We're talking about a COMPLETE SHUTDOWN of EVERY
CROSS STREET in a town for the length of the train.
Maybe somebody in a helicopter would know where the nearest unblocked
crossing or bridge might be to get through. But drivers on the
ground, including police/fire/ambulance don't have that luxury.
It is one thing to delay a fire truck for five minutes, it is
something entirely different to delay it for a half hour, and
that is what is happening in many places. CSX has been notorious
for doing in suburbs south of Phila (former B&O Line) and completely
unresponsive to pleas for the small towns.
One of the reasons for these blockades is more single track
which means waits are more likely, and if the train waiting
happens to block crossings, so it goes. Another is the mega-
mergers, which has concentrated heavy traffic on former light
routes that have trouble handling the volume. A third reason
is the super long freight trains.
Let me tell you people something. In the days of the Reading
Company, if a community in its territory had a problem, they
responded to it. Likewise the B&O. Conrail wasn't quite as
good, but still tolerable. CSX is in Jacksonville FL, 2,000
miles away, and they are real quick to tell a community that.
They are also real quick to tell a community they are
Federally regulated and don't have to respond.
Why can't CSX and other mega railroads actually listen to the
complaints and try to reasonably accomodate them?
What kind of safety is it when you call to report trouble on
their tracks and they respond "it's too far away"?
re...@mailandnews.com
Drivers will try to beat trains thru the grade crossing, even if the
lights are flashing and gate is down, if they are accustomed to trains
blocking the crossing indefinitely.
Philip Nasadowski
> Except when one of those signal huts catches fire and it's up to
> the local town's public safety forces to respond and contain it.
Which is partly why fire codes exists - to protect the fire dept
personel. A nearby bussiness thaty does metal processing has a huge
signon the door to the building "Molten salt bath inside". There's a
reason.
Signal huts could be getting power at who knows what voltage, have who
knows what kinds of batteries and wiring, and whatever other dangers
might be in there.
Guess who gets to find out when it burns?
>Well, what are the people in the towns impacted supposed to do
>during these blockades? Remember, we're not talking about a long
>slow freight train _passing_ a grade crossing with a delay say of
>five minutes. We're talking about a COMPLETE SHUTDOWN of EVERY
>CROSS STREET in a town for the length of the train.
Apparently, CSX's answer is to suck up and deal.
*rant mode on*
>CSX is in Jacksonville FL, 2,000
>miles away, and they are real quick to tell a community that.
>They are also real quick to tell a community they are
>Federally regulated and don't have to respond.
The FRA can take their regulations and shove them. Cutting a toen in
two bewcause of shitty operations and poor management is a serious
safety issue. IMHO, an affected town has every right to ensure the
safety of their citizens, and if the RRs are so uncooperative it means
blocking the train's entrance into town, well, that sucks for CSX. The
FRA apparently doesn't care about this issue, and the RRs don't either.
>Why can't CSX and other mega railroads actually listen to the
>complaints and try to reasonably accomodate them?
Because they don't have to. The FRA says they can tell towns to fuck
off, so they do. Of course, this is the same FRA that's supposedly
regulating the class Is into oblivion...
>What kind of safety is it when you call to report trouble on
>their tracks and they respond "it's too far away"?
Same thing you get with UP out west. Runaway? Push a few buttons, hope
it's a poor town, and let the lawyers clean up. Hazmat? Evacuate
everyone and pray. Broken crossing gate? Get to it eventually. Fire?
Well, that's what the local FD is for, isn't it?
And rail advocates wonder why the public at large is skeptical about
railroads. The Class Is love to be out of the public's eye, yet
creating a mess for everyone in their wake. They're their own worst
enemy.
*rant mode off*
--
To email me, chage 'usermale' to 'usermail'.
Merritt Mullen
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com (Jeff nor Lisa) wrote:
> Why can't CSX and other mega railroads actually listen to the
> complaints and try to reasonably accomodate them?
They should, of course. But, on the other hand, why can't we as a nation
recognize the importance of rail freight transportation to our economy and
get serious about a federal program to eliminate grade crossings.
We would build highways across an airport runway. And of course all our
freeways and interstates are 100% grade separated from cross traffic.
There is no reason we can't do that with the railway/highway crossings.
Let's start with they ones that have rail passenger service and go from
there.
Merritt
Adam H. Kerman
>>Why can't CSX and other mega railroads actually listen to the
>>complaints and try to reasonably accomodate them?
>They should, of course. But, on the other hand, why can't we as a nation
>recognize the importance of rail freight transportation to our economy and
>get serious about a federal program to eliminate grade crossings.
Let's put things in perspective. How many cups of coffee could be delivered to
railroad crews for the cost of one grade separation?
>We would build highways across an airport runway. And of course all our
>freeways and interstates are 100% grade separated from cross traffic.
>There is no reason we can't do that with the railway/highway crossings.
>Let's start with they ones that have rail passenger service and go from
>there.
I'd rather spend the money building new railroads than improving highways.
James Robinson
>
> James Robinson <was...@212.com> wrote
>
> > Just what the railroads would need is to have a city inspector
> > reviewing the wiring inside a signal bungalow to see if it meets
> > local codes.
>
> Except when one of those signal huts catches fire and it's up to
> the local town's public safety forces to respond and contain it.
Why would it catch fire? Signals are wired according to standards
maintained by the AAR and approved by the FRA. Electrically, the
regulations are probably more stringent than most local codes, since
railway signaling is a very specialized activity. They are different,
however. Since they have a major safety function on railways, they do
not lend themselves to uninformed regulation by local communities.
James Robinson
>
> Jeff nor Lisa wrote:
>
> > Except when one of those signal huts catches fire and it's up to
> > the local town's public safety forces to respond and contain it.
>
> Which is partly why fire codes exists - to protect the fire dept
> personel.
There is a code. It's just national, and not local. Railroad signaling
is a specialized field that operates on a network basis, independent of
local political jurisdictions. Imagine the anarchy that would prevail
if every local building inspector could demand changes to signaling
practices at whim. The safety of the overall system would be seriously
jeopardized.
> Signal huts could be getting power at who knows what voltage, have who
> knows what kinds of batteries and wiring, and whatever other dangers
> might be in there.
>
> Guess who gets to find out when it burns?
Other than the standard feed from a local utility, signal bungalows
operate at low voltage, and have a wet cell battery to provide backup
power. From a safety perspective, not really much different than the
wiring in most cars or trucks. Local fire departments seem to be able to
handle such things.
> >CSX is in Jacksonville FL, 2,000
> >miles away, and they are real quick to tell a community that.
> >They are also real quick to tell a community they are
> >Federally regulated and don't have to respond.
>
> The FRA can take their regulations and shove them. Cutting a toen in
> two bewcause of shitty operations and poor management is a serious
> safety issue. IMHO, an affected town has every right to ensure the
> safety of their citizens, and if the RRs are so uncooperative it means
> blocking the train's entrance into town, well, that sucks for CSX. The
> FRA apparently doesn't care about this issue, and the RRs don't either.
You guys are totally off base. The FRA has little to do with it, since
such regulations rest with the individual states. They are the ones who
enforce things like crossing protection requirements and blocked
crossing violations. In most states, they pass some authority to local
jurisdictions to enforce the blocked crossing regulations, by allowing
them to issue citations for violations.
> >What kind of safety is it when you call to report trouble on
> >their tracks and they respond "it's too far away"?
I doubt they have ever said that. They have local people all over their
network to respond to safety issues.
Bill Blomgren
>You guys are totally off base. The FRA has little to do with it, since
>such regulations rest with the individual states. They are the ones who
>enforce things like crossing protection requirements and blocked
>crossing violations. In most states, they pass some authority to local
>jurisdictions to enforce the blocked crossing regulations, by allowing
>them to issue citations for violations.
When I was commuting to work in Tampa, one local radio station had hired a
policeman to fly in their plane to give traffic reports. His reports
regularly covered trains blocking the crossings several miles from the port
of Tampa, and resulted in traffic fines for the railroad.. When a crossing
was blocked more than 7 minutes, a fine resulted. The usual place he caught
them was at State Rd 60 just outside their yards, where the trains were
traveling slowly because of the curve and grade to the bridge to cross the
Alafia River.
Whether the city actually collected any of the fines, I have no idea, but
Captain Dan (as he was called) frequently crowed about their success. And
the RR then tried a LOT harder to avoid blocking the intersections.
Part of that could have been that CSX was a Florida operation, and the City
could have possibly locked up the operations center...
RJ
wrote:
>Jeff nor Lisa wrote:
Yeah, railroad technology is known to be sophisticated and complex.
---
Bob
John Garrison
> good as a Microwave oven.
>
> >A bucket? You must work for UP....umm, those buckets get absconded with
when
> >the engine visits a foreign road. Of course I don't have any myself, I
leave
> >them in there to haul ice and water bottles in.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Aktohdi
And let us not forget the ubiquitous sidewall heater/ cooking range!
Silas Warner
fined, the engineer doesn't give a rat's ass because:
1) His orders come from the dispatcher, not some local in a cop suit, and
2) if he does get fined, the railroad is responsible to pay it.
So he calls the dispatcher, who doesn't give a rat's ass because:
1) He's in another state, and
2) the FRA says interstate railroads aren't subject to state and local laws.
The best move the cops can make is to haul the crew off to jail, That
doesn't get the train out of the way, but it does get the railroad's
attention when the crew stops responding to calls and the relief crew
finds an abandoned train sitting in the middle of town. Of course, they
don't give a rat's ass about the engineer: there's always another sucker
on the extra board.
As for the ticket, the railroad's lawyer usually sends a polite letter
saying that the local authorities can go to blazes.
Silas Warner
el...@no.spam
Bob Officer <bobof...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>The UP has been running a few very large/long trains in the last few months
>with a car count of about 175 cars or so in each train.
Gawd, they're up to SP's old tricks!
el...@no.spam
Jeff nor Lisa <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>Well, what are the people in the towns impacted supposed to do
>during these blockades?
If it's a real problem, they end up doing what other towns
have done; they build a grade seperation.
el...@no.spam
Jeff nor Lisa <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>Except when one of those signal huts catches fire and it's up to
>the local town's public safety forces to respond and contain it.
The railroad pays plenty of taxes to support that service.
Adam H. Kerman
>The city of Lodi in California is an example. The closure of two small and
>lightly used crossings raised such a cry the closures were almost reversed.
Perhaps grade crossings should be closed automatically, perhaps for a month,
should the number of grade crossing violations exceed a threshold over any
7-day period. I wonder if that would get the attention of errant motorists.
Or there could be tire spikes.
James Robinson
>
> Yeah, railroad technology is known to be sophisticated and complex.
While not particularly complicated, railroad technology is unique, and
not something that local inspectors would understand. Even electrical
engineers are not trained in the technology at school, since the
specialized relays aren't used in many other industries.
The wiring don't meet local codes in many areas, such as they use all
one color for wiring, and the wire connectors are different than those
used in building codes. In short, it is a specialized application.
Merritt Mullen
"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.chinet.com> wrote:
> Merritt Mullen <mmull...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> >hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com (Jeff nor Lisa) wrote:
>
> >>Why can't CSX and other mega railroads actually listen to the
> >>complaints and try to reasonably accomodate them?
>
> >They should, of course. But, on the other hand, why can't we as a nation
> >recognize the importance of rail freight transportation to our economy and
> >get serious about a federal program to eliminate grade crossings.
>
> Let's put things in perspective. How many cups of coffee could be delivered to
> railroad crews for the cost of one grade separation?
Fagaddabout the coffee. Think of the lives lost, the trauma induced, and
the economic cost of dealing with accidents.
> >We would build highways across an airport runway. And of course all our
> >freeways and interstates are 100% grade separated from cross traffic.
> >There is no reason we can't do that with the railway/highway crossings.
> >Let's start with they ones that have rail passenger service and go from
> >there.
> I'd rather spend the money building new railroads than improving highways.
Eliminating grade crossings improves both the highway and the railway.
Why build a new railroad, when we have plenty of old ones that could be
improved? I am thinking mainly of freight, not passengers.
Merritt
el...@no.spam
<Railroad Cop RR...@badge.cop> wrote:
>Then the 1st thing the engineer or conductor does as a properly
>authorized representative of the railroad is arrest the local
>police clown under federal authority for interfering with a
>interstate railroad crew/train/and trespass.
Perhaps you are forgetting which side is armed?
el...@no.spam
Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.chinet.com> wrote:
>Perhaps grade crossings should be closed automatically, perhaps
>for a month, should the number of grade crossing violations
>exceed a threshold over any 7-day period. I wonder if that would
>get the attention of errant motorists.
I suspect that just stationing a couple of cops at the crossing
from time to time and having them write lots of tickets would
change things a bit. It'd also generate revenue ;)
James Robinson
>
> 2) the FRA says interstate railroads aren't subject to
> state and local laws.
No it doesn't. Here is a "COMPILATION OF STATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS
AFFECTING HIGHWAY-RAIL GRADE CROSSINGS," from the FRA web site:
http://www.fra.dot.gov/safety/statelaws.htm
The states are the ones that enact laws that prevent blocked crossings.
Some states haven't done so. The FRA only acts if the state laws impede
interstate commerce, which crossing laws don't.
> The best move the cops can make is to haul the crew off to jail
They won't do that, unless they want false arrest charges brought
against them. Most states that have laws prohibiting the blocking of
crossings for extended periods identify violates as low level
misdemeanors. You can't arrest people for that.
> As for the ticket, the railroad's lawyer usually sends a polite letter
> saying that the local authorities can go to blazes.
No, they pay the fine, if they in fact violated the law.
Adam H. Kerman
>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.chinet.com> wrote:
>>Merritt Mullen <mmull...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>>hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com (Jeff nor Lisa) wrote:
>>>>Why can't CSX and other mega railroads actually listen to the
>>>>complaints and try to reasonably accomodate them?
>>>They should, of course. But, on the other hand, why can't we as a nation
>>>recognize the importance of rail freight transportation to our economy and
>>>get serious about a federal program to eliminate grade crossings.
>>Let's put things in perspective. How many cups of coffee could be delivered
>>to railroad crews for the cost of one grade separation?
>Fagaddabout the coffee. Think of the lives lost, the trauma induced, and
>the economic cost of dealing with accidents.
It's not reasonable to spend money to make things safer for people with no
regard for their own safety, in lieu of spending money to make transportation
improvements more people can benefit from.
>>>We would build highways across an airport runway. And of course all our
>>>freeways and interstates are 100% grade separated from cross traffic.
>>>There is no reason we can't do that with the railway/highway crossings.
>>>Let's start with they ones that have rail passenger service and go from
>>>there.
>>I'd rather spend the money building new railroads than improving highways.
>Eliminating grade crossings improves both the highway and the railway.
Not the railroad as railroad traffic is superior to highway traffic at a
grade crossing. It's of pure highway benefit.
RJ
wrote:
>RJ wrote:
>>
>> Yeah, railroad technology is known to be sophisticated and complex.
>
>While not particularly complicated, railroad technology is unique, and
>not something that local inspectors would understand. Even electrical
>engineers are not trained in the technology at school, since the
>specialized relays aren't used in many other industries.
Electrical engineers don't spend a lot of time studying specific
relays. Or relays at all.
>The wiring don't meet local codes in many areas, such as they use all
>one color for wiring,
That sounds stupid.
> and the wire connectors are different than those
>used in building codes.
For what reason?
>In short, it is a specialized application.
Unnecessarily so.
---
Bob
Gerry Burridge
->In article <q63mhv8de730mlhae...@4ax.com>,
-> <Railroad Cop RR...@badge.cop> wrote:
->>Then the 1st thing the engineer or conductor does as a properly
->>authorized representative of the railroad is arrest the local
->>police clown under federal authority for interfering with a
->>interstate railroad crew/train/and trespass.
->Perhaps you are forgetting which side is armed?
Let him try and shoot out the tires all he wants...
______________________
\
\ Gerry Burridge
\ Montreal, Que.
\_____________________
John McCoy
> Which is the result of the mergers and such. The railroad was pre-
> existing. the communities have the obligation to plan and build
> overpasses and underpasses around the railroad. much as they would
> have to do if there was river or other feature which pre-existed.
One of the noteworthy features of taking US30 across Nebraska,
paralleling the UP mainline, is that pretty much every little
burg along the way has one road with a big huge overpass over
the UP's tracks. Obviously with a train every 10 to 15 minutes
they found grade crossings, even in a town of 400 folk, to have
become impractical, so one crossing per town got replaced by
an overpass.
Clearly this is an idea which should be more widespread.
FWIW, I beleive UP paid ~10% of the cost of the overpasses,
with the state/local gov'ts covering the rest.
John
John Garrison
"Silas Warner" <si...@value.net> wrote in message
news:3F1B013A...@value.net...
The citations, when issued are issued to the company. Whether paid or not I
haven't a clue.
James Robinson
>
> James Robinson wrote:
>
> > The wiring don't meet local codes in many areas, such as they use all
> > one color for wiring,
>
> That sounds stupid.
It works for them, and it makes it easy to figure out what kind of wire
to bring to a field site. Locomotives have all one color wire as well.
They just label each end so you know where it goes.
> > and the wire connectors are different than those
> >used in building codes.
>
> For what reason?
Probably because the standards were set far before local building codes
were even thought of.
> >In short, it is a specialized application.
>
> Unnecessarily so.
Interesting comment from someone who seems unfamiliar with the
application.
el...@no.spam
The railroad is responsible for maintaining the crossing. Therefore the
railroad gets some benefit when the crossing is eliminated.
el...@no.spam
RJ <re_jo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>and the wire connectors are different than those
>>used in building codes.
>For what reason?
Just because.
Adam H. Kerman
>Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.chinet.com> wrote:
>>>Eliminating grade crossings improves both the highway and the railway.
>>Not the railroad as railroad traffic is superior to highway traffic at a
>>grade crossing. It's of pure highway benefit.
>The railroad is responsible for maintaining the crossing. Therefore the
>railroad gets some benefit when the crossing is eliminated.
Then they become responsible for inspecting the bridge. There's always
maintenance.
el...@no.spam
John Garrison <jonny...@youmustremovethis.adelphia.net> wrote:
>The citations, when issued are issued to the company.
Oh? I think you'll find the citations are issued to
whomever the cop wants to issue them to.
Merritt Mullen
"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.chinet.com> wrote:
> Merritt Mullen <mmull...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> >"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.chinet.com> wrote:
> >>Let's put things in perspective. How many cups of coffee could be delivered
> >>to railroad crews for the cost of one grade separation?
>
> >Fagaddabout the coffee. Think of the lives lost, the trauma induced, and
> >the economic cost of dealing with accidents.
>
> It's not reasonable to spend money to make things safer for people with no
> regard for their own safety, in lieu of spending money to make transportation
> improvements more people can benefit from.
The "people" I am talking about are the railroad crew members, which be
both agree have a high regard for safety. In the case of passenger
trains, I am also talking about the passengers. The economic cost is the
cost to the railroad.
> >Eliminating grade crossings improves both the highway and the railway.
>
> Not the railroad as railroad traffic is superior to highway traffic at a
> grade crossing. It's of pure highway benefit.
No, see above. Grade crossing accidents kill RR workers and passengers,
cause mental trauma to RR workers, cause significant economic damage to
the RR. And where you do not have grade crossings, even without
accidents, the RR incurs the cost of maintaining the crossing protection
and signals.
I agree it is mainly a problem for the highway user (they are usually the
ones who get killed), and that most of the cost of eliminating crossings
should be considered a highway expenditure.
Merritt
el...@no.spam
>>The wiring don't meet local codes in many areas, such as they
>>use all one color for wiring,
>That sounds stupid.
These things evolve over time; they may be "stupid" but that's
the way it is and bitching about it won't change anything.
Merritt Mullen
"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.chinet.com> wrote:
> el...@no.spam wrote:
> >The railroad is responsible for maintaining the crossing. Therefore the
> >railroad gets some benefit when the crossing is eliminated.
>
> Then they become responsible for inspecting the bridge. There's always
> maintenance.
Not if it is a highway bridge over a RR. And a short RR trestle over a
highway requires much less maintenence than a protected grade crossing.
Merritt
SP&S 700
factories used to run on steam too. The door factory I used to to work at
used steam to run a lot of machinery and heat the plant too. We got real
good at cooking our meals at work on steam heat. We had to hand fire the
boilers when the electricity went out every once in a while.These boilers
were the size of a big 4-8-4 or 2-10-4 boiler.We had three of them. I would
have hated to make a living of it. Ever tried making even 125PSI on wood as
fuel. It isn't easy.
.
"Merritt Mullen" <mmull...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:mmullen8014-7C2F...@netnews.attbi.com...
> In article <w4iSa.5311$KZ.22...@news1.news.adelphia.net>,
> "John Garrison" <jonny...@youmustremovethis.adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> > "Merritt Mullen" <mmull...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
>
> > > I imagine when cabooses were still in use, the caboose crew kept
plenty of
> > > coffee brewing.
>
> > I can almost guarantee it, and some tasty vittles too.
>
> I understand in the days of steam engines, the fireman could fry bacon and
> eggs on his shovel.
>
> Merritt
Dan Peltier
> > The best move the cops can make is to haul the crew off to jail
>
> They won't do that, unless they want false arrest charges brought
> against them. Most states that have laws prohibiting the blocking of
> crossings for extended periods identify violates as low level
> misdemeanors. You can't arrest people for that.
Yes, you can. Just a year or two ago, the Supreme Court upheld
the actions of a cop who arrested a woman for a minor traffic
violation and dragged her down to the station. They ruled, IIRC,
that a "full custodial arrest" is (constitutionally) allowable
_any_ time someone is caught breaking a law.
Whether any given state authorizes such action is another question -
but clearly some state did. (I think it was Texas.)
Plus, cops seldom if ever get charges brought against them for false
arrest. In some limited cases, people have a right to sue the police
for violations of their right to due process, but that's generally a
private action.
Dan
Jeff nor Lisa
> There is a code. It's just national, and not local. Railroad signaling
> is a specialized field that operates on a network basis, independent of
> local political jurisdictions.
Almost every industry out there would like to claim that it
is a "specialized field" and be independent of local jurisdictions.
But that is just a lame excuse to get out of being regulated.
Having seen a railroad structure blow up (probably due to age)
I know that inspection is important. There is too easy a
tendency for managers or those in the field to take shortcuts;
esp when so much work today is done by sub-contractors.
Today, I find it interesting that cellular telephone companies
claim to have federal regulated authority and need not answer
to local zoning codes (eg where they're gonna put up a tower),
yet also claim to be free market and not subject to any
price or service regulation. In some areas cable TV is doing
the same thing.
> Imagine the anarchy that would prevail
> if every local building inspector could demand changes to signaling
> practices at whim. The safety of the overall system would be seriously
> jeopardized.
The old Bell Telephone System used to make the same claim about
hooking up non-Bell equipment to the phone system, or if the
company were to be broken up. Yet the network still runs with
customer-owned phones on it and separated companies providing
service. Interesting to this discussion, though, is how certain
UNREGUALTED calls, such as toll calls from pay phones, have
become ridiculously expensive.
> In most states, they pass some authority to local
> jurisdictions to enforce the blocked crossing regulations, by allowing
> them to issue citations for violations.
As I understand it, most states are PROHIBITED from issuing
citations for violations.
> > >What kind of safety is it when you call to report trouble on
> > >their tracks and they respond "it's too far away"?
>
> I doubt they have ever said that. They have local people all over their
> network to respond to safety issues.
They (CSX) sure as heck did. The local police told me I had to call
the railroad, and the railroad was not interested. Fortunately,
nothing bad came out of the problem I wanted to report.
Recently CSX had a nasty derailment just outside Philadelphia;
took several days to clean up, and did a lot of damage to
adjacent properties. I wonder if someone tried to report the
track damage to the railroad in advance only to get rebuffed,
or perhaps the railroad's lack of interest to its neighbors
contributed to a lack of interest to the railroad.
The modern US corporation has been with us for 100 years. Time
and again history has shown that genuine good citizenship is
good for business in the long run for corporations.
Top railroad managements are digging a grave for their companies.
They're upsetting too many people with their callowness nationwide
and as a result, new onerous operating regulations will be imposed
on the railroads. Compliance will be far more expensive than if
the railroads today volunteered on their own to be good neighbors.
Adam H. Kerman
>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.chinet.com> wrote:
>>el...@no.spam wrote:
>>>The railroad is responsible for maintaining the crossing. Therefore the
>>>railroad gets some benefit when the crossing is eliminated.
>>Then they become responsible for inspecting the bridge. There's always
>>maintenance.
>Not if it is a highway bridge over a RR.
That probably has less implication for railroad if future expansion needs are
taken into account when placing the abutments. But unless the railroad is
already in a cut, or the highway on fill, you normally want highway to go
under the railroad given that it's cheaper to build.
>And a short RR trestle over a highway requires much less maintenence than
>a protected grade crossing.
I was counting "inspection" as part of maintenance. There's always something
to do. They really should be painted on a regular basis, even though painting
may be neglected for decades.
But looking at transportation spending in aggregate (versus which mode is
responsible for what by historic happenstance), there's no way to argue that
grade separation is cheaper than maintaining a grade crossing. Railroads should
receive a fee for maintaining grade crossings anyway.
Adam H. Kerman
>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.chinet.com> wrote:
>>Merritt Mullen <mmull...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>Let's put things in perspective. How many cups of coffee could be delivered
>>>>to railroad crews for the cost of one grade separation?
>>>Fagaddabout the coffee. Think of the lives lost, the trauma induced, and
>>>the economic cost of dealing with accidents.
>>It's not reasonable to spend money to make things safer for people with no
>>regard for their own safety, in lieu of spending money to make transportation
>>improvements more people can benefit from.
>The "people" I am talking about are the railroad crew members, which be
>both agree have a high regard for safety. In the case of passenger
>trains, I am also talking about the passengers. The economic cost is the
>cost to the railroad.
That's the same uneconomic argument made by I.C.C. in setting speeds in dark
territory or the FRA in setting car crash survivability standards. You're
doing nothing more than arguing for a result in which railroad transportation
shall be relatively more expensive than highway, with the end result that
more people and goods will travel by highway, jeapordizing other highway
users, as such "protections" don't exist.
>>>Eliminating grade crossings improves both the highway and the railway.
>>Not the railroad as railroad traffic is superior to highway traffic at a
>>grade crossing. It's of pure highway benefit.
>No, see above. Grade crossing accidents kill RR workers and passengers,
>cause mental trauma to RR workers, cause significant economic damage to
>the RR.
Despite recent tragedies like Bourbonais and on the South Shore, neither
railroad crews nor passengers are the ones in primary jeapordy from criminally
reckless motorists violating grade crossings.
The long term solution to saving lives, both the lives of those who operate
transportation rolling stock and those who travel in it, is to change the
relative cost of railroad transportation and to increase the amount of public
transportation available. This goal is not compatible with grade crossing
separation.
>And where you do not have grade crossings, even without accidents, the RR
i>ncurs the cost of maintaining the crossing protection and signals.
Not an argument in favor of grade separation! That's merely an argument in
favor of funding grade crossing operation in another manner.
>I agree it is mainly a problem for the highway user (they are usually the
>ones who get killed), and that most of the cost of eliminating crossings
>should be considered a highway expenditure.
It's not even a cost that should be charged to highway users.
More grade separation will result in more highway use.
Did you read about the "accident" in which the elderly driver killed a number
customers at an open air market? Turned out he wasn't just "confused", but
fleeing the scene of another accident he'd just caused in which he'd damaged
a parked Mercedes.
Which do you think is more likely to keep the elderly from causing death with
their driving, grade separations or more public transportation?
Adam H. Kerman
>el...@no.spam () schrieb:
>>I suspect that just stationing a couple of cops at the crossing
>>from time to time and having them write lots of tickets would
>>change things a bit. It'd also generate revenue ;)
>That's inefficient. Install video, front + side, in every new loco on
>order, make the function an easy-reach knob, forward the data to the
>local police.
That could capture the driver's face if locomotive was approaching from that
direction, but it wouldn't capture the license plate reliably. The cameras
would have to be part of the crossing signals themselves.
Merritt Mullen
"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.chinet.com> wrote:
> Merritt Mullen <mmull...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> >The "people" I am talking about are the railroad crew members, which be
> >both agree have a high regard for safety. In the case of passenger
> >trains, I am also talking about the passengers. The economic cost is the
> >cost to the railroad.
>
> That's the same uneconomic argument made by I.C.C. in setting speeds in dark
> territory or the FRA in setting car crash survivability standards. You're
> doing nothing more than arguing for a result in which railroad transportation
> shall be relatively more expensive than highway, with the end result that
> more people and goods will travel by highway, jeapordizing other highway
> users, as such "protections" don't exist.
I don't think so. All those things I talked about COST the RRs money. I
am trying to allows RRs to become more efficient by getting highway
interference off of the railways. In almost all cases, the economic
burden of removing grade crossings must be charged to highway funding.
Since that is passed onto the users, it should make highway use more
expensive and railway use cheaper.
> >>>Eliminating grade crossings improves both the highway and the railway.
>
> >>Not the railroad as railroad traffic is superior to highway traffic at a
> >>grade crossing. It's of pure highway benefit.
>
> >No, see above. Grade crossing accidents kill RR workers and passengers,
> >cause mental trauma to RR workers, cause significant economic damage to
> >the RR.
>
> Despite recent tragedies like Bourbonais and on the South Shore, neither
> railroad crews nor passengers are the ones in primary jeapordy from
> criminally reckless motorists violating grade crossings.
True, but it is the impact on the railroads I am concerned about. Almost
all injuries to motorists are the fault of the motorist. Why should the
railroads have to bear this economic burden?
> The long term solution to saving lives, both the lives of those who operate
> transportation rolling stock and those who travel in it, is to change the
> relative cost of railroad transportation and to increase the amount of public
> transportation available. This goal is not compatible with grade crossing
> separation.
Increasing railway usage and speeds only increases the need for grade
crossing separation. Until railways can operate without being interrupted
by grade crossing accidents, or slowed by fear of grade crossing
accidents, they will never reach their full potential. Remember railroad
productivity is directly related to speed. Today railroads operate at
much less than what is currently technically possible, and one of the
reasons it problem of grade crossings.
> It's not even a cost that should be charged to highway users.
Who would you charge it to? We are all highway users.
> More grade separation will result in more highway use.
I don't see any corelation there. Especially when a lot of grade crossing
elimination results in the complete closing of the cross street. It is
freeways and interstates that encourage highway useage and they are
already 100% grade separated (from both other highways and railways).
Most grade crossings are on local city streets and rural roads. A large
number are private crossings used only for agricultural/commercial use,
and it is the latter that have distroyed a lot of California's valuable
passenger cars.
Merritt
James Robinson
>
> James Robinson wrote
>
> > There is a code. It's just national, and not local. Railroad signaling
> > is a specialized field that operates on a network basis, independent of
> > local political jurisdictions.
>
> Almost every industry out there would like to claim that it
> is a "specialized field" and be independent of local jurisdictions.
Except the railroad does have a reasonable claim with their signaling
systems, which are safety-related installations. Their safety regulator
is the FRA, combined with the state agencies.
> But that is just a lame excuse to get out of being regulated.
No, the railroads follow local codes with any of their buildings, it's
just the signaling systems that fall under specialized regulation.
> Having seen a railroad structure blow up (probably due to age)
> I know that inspection is important.
That's hard to believe, since there really isn't anything inside a
signal bungalow that could "blow up", with the exception of the wet cell
battery. It's a fairly rare event, and I don't see how inspections
would prevent it.
> There is too easy a tendency for managers or those in the field
> to take shortcuts; esp when so much work today is done by
> sub-contractors.
Not with signaling they don't, since trains stop if things aren't
working properly, or they have collisions. Further, signal regulation
and inspection is fairly strict.
> > Imagine the anarchy that would prevail if every local building
> > inspector could demand changes to signaling practices at whim.
> > The safety of the overall system would be seriously jeopardized.
>
> The old Bell Telephone System used to make the same claim about
> hooking up non-Bell equipment to the phone system, or if the
> company were to be broken up.
Not the same. That was strictly an economic argument, related to a
non-safety related system.
> > In most states, they pass some authority to local jurisdictions
> > to enforce the blocked crossing regulations, by allowing them to
> > issue citations for violations.
>
> As I understand it, most states are PROHIBITED from issuing
> citations for violations.
Not correct. The states that have laws on the books issue citations,
and collect fines. Many states have no laws, so they can't issue
citations.
> Recently CSX had a nasty derailment just outside Philadelphia;
> took several days to clean up, and did a lot of damage to
> adjacent properties. I wonder if someone tried to report the
> track damage to the railroad in advance only to get rebuffed,
> or perhaps the railroad's lack of interest to its neighbors
> contributed to a lack of interest to the railroad.
You mention that the cost was high. Why would the railroad turn a deaf
ear to neighbors reporting a problem, when they know the consequences
can be expensive? It just doesn't make sense.
> Top railroad managements are digging a grave for their companies.
> They're upsetting too many people with their callowness nationwide
> and as a result, new onerous operating regulations will be imposed
> on the railroads. Compliance will be far more expensive than if
> the railroads today volunteered on their own to be good neighbors.
Railroads still move freight an passengers with a safety record that is
far better than the competition. Where is the clamor for improved
trucking safety or highway safety? Shouldn't the starting point be with
the worst safety offenders?
What do you define as being good neighbors? Closing down yards because
people move in next to them and start complaining about switching
noise? Reducing speeds to ridiculous levels through every settlement
because the city fathers don't want trains running through at more than
10 mph? Running trains no longer than 20 cars because people don't want
to be delayed more than it takes a traffic signal to change because they
want to rush home to sit around watching TV with beer in hand? Where do
you draw the line?
Adam H. Kerman
>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.chinet.com> wrote:
>>Merritt Mullen <mmull...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>>The "people" I am talking about are the railroad crew members, which be
>>>both agree have a high regard for safety. In the case of passenger
>>>trains, I am also talking about the passengers. The economic cost is the
>>>cost to the railroad.
>>That's the same uneconomic argument made by I.C.C. in setting speeds in dark
>>territory or the FRA in setting car crash survivability standards. You're
>>doing nothing more than arguing for a result in which railroad transportation
>>shall be relatively more expensive than highway, with the end result that
>>more people and goods will travel by highway, jeapordizing other highway
>>users, as such "protections" don't exist.
>I don't think so. All those things I talked about COST the RRs money. I
>am trying to allows RRs to become more efficient by getting highway
>interference off of the railways.
Shouldn't effect train operations (despite speed restrictions in federal
regulations).
>In almost all cases, the economic burden of removing grade crossings
>must be charged to highway funding. Since that is passed onto the users,
>it should make highway use more expensive and railway use cheaper.
Even if I acknowledged that registration fees and motor fuel excise taxes
were user fees (which I don't), the highway sector is less reliant on these
as time passes, but that's another conversation.
If we had to prioritize spending that could make railroads more efficient,
grade separation wouldn't be close to the top of the list.
>>>>>Eliminating grade crossings improves both the highway and the railway.
>>>>Not the railroad as railroad traffic is superior to highway traffic at a
>>>>grade crossing. It's of pure highway benefit.
>>>No, see above. Grade crossing accidents kill RR workers and passengers,
>>>cause mental trauma to RR workers, cause significant economic damage to
>>>the RR.
>>Despite recent tragedies like Bourbonais and on the South Shore, neither
>>railroad crews nor passengers are the ones in primary jeapordy from
>>criminally reckless motorists violating grade crossings.
>True, but it is the impact on the railroads I am concerned about. Almost
>all injuries to motorists are the fault of the motorist. Why should the
>railroads have to bear this economic burden?
Building a few grade separations each year won't eliminate the need for
tort reform.
>>The long term solution to saving lives, both the lives of those who operate
>>transportation rolling stock and those who travel in it, is to change the
>>relative cost of railroad transportation and to increase the amount of public
>>transportation available. This goal is not compatible with grade crossing
>>separation.
>Increasing railway usage and speeds only increases the need for grade
>crossing separation.
This is hardly the primary danger of highway use.
>Until railways can operate without being interrupted by grade crossing
>accidents, or slowed by fear of grade crossing accidents, they will never
>reach their full potential.
Trains traveling faster through grade crossings should reduce collisions.
>Remember railroad productivity is directly related to speed. Today railroads
>operate at much less than what is currently technically possible, and one
>of the reasons it problem of grade crossings.
It's political, not technical.
>>It's not even a cost that should be charged to highway users.
>Who would you charge it to? We are all highway users.
I hope that's rhetorical; my answer is always the same.
>>More grade separation will result in more highway use.
>I don't see any corelation there.
Any time you improve a particular highway route, you attract more traffic.
>Especially when a lot of grade crossing elimination results in the complete
>closing of the cross street.
How often doesn't the street get closed? In my home town, I observed a
street relocation (that included a grade separation) that had occurred in
the early '60's that closed two grade crossings, yet one of the original
grade crossing was re-opened a few years ago. Politically, you cannot even
replace the blasted things with overpasses nearby!
>A large number are private crossings used only for agricultural/commercial
>use, and it is the latter that have distroyed a lot of California's valuable
>passenger cars.
No attempt was made to collect damages?
Jeff nor Lisa
> > Having seen a railroad structure blow up (probably due to age)
> > I know that inspection is important.
> That's hard to believe, since there really isn't anything inside a
> signal bungalow that could "blow up", with the exception of the wet cell
> battery. It's a fairly rare event, and I don't see how inspections
> would prevent it.
I would agree that it's rare, but it did happen. I don't know
the cause (the cops wouldn't allow anyone to get close). The
point is that stuff still happens.
> > There is too easy a tendency for managers or those in the field
> > to take shortcuts; esp when so much work today is done by
> > sub-contractors.
> Not with signaling they don't, since trains stop if things aren't
> working properly, or they have collisions. Further, signal regulation
> and inspection is fairly strict.
Yes, and two trains collided (sideswiped) as a result of
defective new signal installation in Philadelphia. Fortunately
they were creeping and damage was slight, but they both got a
green. Bad wiring by the contractor. Point is--it does happen.
Quite frankly, in the days of the Reading Company, I had
confidence in the company and its people and took them at
their word. Unfortunately, the demonstrated arrogance of
CSX, to both me personally (in reporting trouble) and to
local public officials, makes me question their integrity.
How do I know for sure they or their sub-contractors are
cutting costs and skimping? Their priority is clearly
proven to be $$$, despite the costs to its neighbors along
its tracks.
Geez, if I were running a restaurant and wanted to maximize
my profits, there are things I could skimp on. Just like a
railroad, odds are nothing would happen, but the risk of
accident is increased.
In the recent UP runaway wreck, I didn't think it was right
for people to be jumping to conclusions condemning the railroad
before learning all the facts (and not just quick blurbs from
ignorant reporters). But on the other hand, I don't think
it's good when people blindly follow the railroad party line
either. Some participants in this disucssion seem to think
that the railroad is always right and complaints by its
neighbors are always unfounded.
> > The old Bell Telephone System used to make the same claim about
> > hooking up non-Bell equipment to the phone system, or if the
> > company were to be broken up.
> Not the same. That was strictly an economic argument, related to a
> non-safety related system.
No. First off it is safety related, because (1) the telephone
network is a critical resource and (2) improper high voltages
put on the lines could hurt people or cause a fire.
Secondly, the Bell System felt that connecting non Bell equipment
to its lines would hurt the network reliability. Was it really
a reliability issue or an economic issue in disguise? Critics
of the Bell System claimed it was really economic.
> You mention that the cost was high. Why would the railroad turn a deaf
> ear to neighbors reporting a problem, when they know the consequences
> can be expensive? It just doesn't make sense.
Just because a company is a big business doesn't mean it is making
good decisions for itself. Univac came out with the first commercial
electronic computer and had the market all to itself, then made some
decisions that "didn't make sense". I don't know why they did, but
they fumbled, and IBM grabbed the ball from behind and ran with it.
Of course, much later on IBM made some bad decisions.
Please don't assume that every decision a corporation makes is the
right one for the public, its employees, or its stockholders.
Plenty of corporations tried to save money and shot themselves
badly by alienating their customers or losing their best people.
I don't know why CSX is so unresponsive. My guess is that they
figure in the long run it will be cheaper for them. After all,
the local towns do not generate any on-line business for them
and basically have little political clout, so why should CSX
care if they're upset?
> Railroads still move freight an passengers with a safety record that is
> far better than the competition. Where is the clamor for improved
> trucking safety or highway safety? Shouldn't the starting point be with
> the worst safety offenders?
I hope their safety record stays that way.
Despite all the airline troubles, they have managed to operate
safely. However, the public satisfaction level is horrible.
People are not flying--and the airlines have lost business--
partly because of poor service.
> What do you define as being good neighbors? Closing down yards because
> people move in next to them and start complaining about switching
> noise? Reducing speeds to ridiculous levels through every settlement
> because the city fathers don't want trains running through at more than
> 10 mph? Running trains no longer than 20 cars because people don't want
> to be delayed more than it takes a traffic signal to change because they
> want to rush home to sit around watching TV with beer in hand? Where do
> you draw the line?
Please note that I never made any of the complaints you cite above.
How about addressing the complaints that were made? For instance,
how about building additional passing sidings outside developed
areas so waits won't occur blocking crossings? Where trains might
be delayed, how about breaking them down--perhaps 75 cars instead
of 150 cars--so the crossing blockages won't be as widespread?
How about having managers in regional branch offices, ready to
visit sites FIRST HAND where there is trouble, and being willing
to listen to town officials? If a town complains that a bridge
is falling down, how about sending out an inspector or at least
the last inspection record to reassure the town? (Now they ignore
the complaint altogether).
RJ
wrote:
>> The old Bell Telephone System used to make the same claim about
>> hooking up non-Bell equipment to the phone system, or if the
>> company were to be broken up.
>
>Not the same. That was strictly an economic argument, related to a
>non-safety related system.
No, the Bell System used to make a claim that it would be unsafe to
allow 'foreign' equipment to be connected to Bell equipment.
You should probably follow your own advice about not commenting on
things you don't know.
---
Bob
RJ
Railroads actually evolve?
---
Bob
Merritt Mullen
"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.chinet.com> wrote:
> Merritt Mullen <mmull...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> Shouldn't effect train operations (despite speed restrictions in federal
> regulations).
Well, there are federal speed restrictions that require elimination of
grade crossings if trains travel above a certain speed (110 mph?). I
agree it only currently affects passenger trains, and very few of those.
But even without federal restrictions, most RRs try to be good citizens
and avoid blasting though congested areas at 80 mph. They also would be
happy to avoid citizen complaints about whistles and blockage, which get
eliminated when the grade crossing is eliminated.
> >In almost all cases, the economic burden of removing grade crossings
> >must be charged to highway funding. Since that is passed onto the users,
> >it should make highway use more expensive and railway use cheaper.
>
> Even if I acknowledged that registration fees and motor fuel excise taxes
> were user fees (which I don't), the highway sector is less reliant on these
> as time passes, but that's another conversation.
Whether or not the charges are reflected in so-called "highway user fees",
they are a government (not railroad) expense, and make the cost of
operating highways more expensive, therefore encouraging investment in
non-highway transportation.
> If we had to prioritize spending that could make railroads more efficient,
> grade separation wouldn't be close to the top of the list.
It would be close to the top of the list of highway improvements that make
RRs more efficient. I am trying to level the playing field here.
Highways should not put an unnecessary economic penalty on the railways.
> >>>>>Eliminating grade crossings improves both the highway and the railway.
>
> >>>>Not the railroad as railroad traffic is superior to highway traffic at a
> >>>>grade crossing. It's of pure highway benefit.
>
> >>>No, see above. Grade crossing accidents kill RR workers and passengers,
> >>>cause mental trauma to RR workers, cause significant economic damage to
> >>>the RR.
>
> >>Despite recent tragedies like Bourbonais and on the South Shore, neither
> >>railroad crews nor passengers are the ones in primary jeapordy from
> >>criminally reckless motorists violating grade crossings.
Of course not, but the RRs still bear most of the cost. A totaled
automobile and a funeral for a dead driver is a lot less expensive than
the damage frequently caused to the railway and train.
> >True, but it is the impact on the railroads I am concerned about. Almost
> >all injuries to motorists are the fault of the motorist. Why should the
> >railroads have to bear this economic burden?
> Building a few grade separations each year won't eliminate the need for
> tort reform.
Nobody is making that claim.
> >Increasing railway usage and speeds only increases the need for grade
> >crossing separation.
> This is hardly the primary danger of highway use.
But we are talking about hazards to the RR and grade crossing accidents
are very high on the list of dangers of railway use. It is the RR I am
concerned about.
> >Until railways can operate without being interrupted by grade crossing
> >accidents, or slowed by fear of grade crossing accidents, they will never
> >reach their full potential.
> Trains traveling faster through grade crossings should reduce collisions.
I don't think so. Although a faster train passes the crossing quicker,
most collisions occur because the automobile or truck is in front of the
train, not because they run into the side of the train. The faster the
train, the more energy and the more damage to the train and the railroad
(not to mention whatever it hits).
> >Remember railroad productivity is directly related to speed. Today
> >railroads
> >operate at much less than what is currently technically possible, and one
> >of the reasons it problem of grade crossings.
> It's political, not technical.
Yes. Almost all problems causing inefficiencies in RR operation are
political and economic, not technical.
<snip>
> >A large number are private crossings used only for agricultural/commercial
> >use, and it is the latter that have distroyed a lot of California's valuable
> >passenger cars.
> No attempt was made to collect damages?
An owner-operator of a dilapidated truck operated by a farm worker (who
might not even survive the collision) or his insurance (assuming he is
even licensed and insured) is not going to reimburse Amtrak the $2 million
cost of a wrecked Surfliner car. Amtrak's insurance might cover it, but
that is an expense to Amtrak.
Merritt
Thomas White
"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.chinet.com> wrote in message
news:vhp0uvo...@corp.supernews.com...
> Merritt Mullen <mmull...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> >I don't think so. All those things I talked about COST the RRs money. I
> >am trying to allows RRs to become more efficient by getting highway
> >interference off of the railways.
>
> Shouldn't effect train operations (despite speed restrictions in federal
> regulations).
>
> >In almost all cases, the economic burden of removing grade crossings
> >must be charged to highway funding. Since that is passed onto the users,
> >it should make highway use more expensive and railway use cheaper.
>
> Even if I acknowledged that registration fees and motor fuel excise taxes
> were user fees (which I don't), the highway sector is less reliant on
these
> as time passes, but that's another conversation.
>
> If we had to prioritize spending that could make railroads more efficient,
> grade separation wouldn't be close to the top of the list.
>
From the point of view of someone who has dealt with the effect of grade
crossings on railroad operation and who recommends spending money on grade
sparations, the whole conversation is missing some important points.
First - the start of the whole conversation. The train crew had the
audacity for whatever reason to get coffee. Most people on here that are
employed get a meal period and a couple of breaks per day. A union contract
and/or the law guarantee it. Two kinds of people associated with the topic
don't - train crews and train dispatchers. I can't count the number of times
that I have told a train crew that they don't need to be here or there until
this time so if you want to stop on the way up ok, just be there when I want
you. Believe it or not, the train and engine crews appreciate being treated
like people. I think they'll tell you that doesn't happen much. Where
there are laws about crossings, it generally says that the train can't stop
on a crossing for five minutes, so if they can't stop clear and don't stop
too long, cool.
That leads to the second point - crossings. Most districts I have worked,
with the exception of the boondocks where there are only snakes and bears,
have an ever-increasing profusion of crossings. Just like highways need
traffic signals at intersections, railroads need traffic control signals.
Believe it or not, it is sometimes necessary to stop a train. It is really
hard to do when so many crossings have been built that there are only a few
places, if any, to stop one. Sometimes there are horrendous delays because
they can't meet here and they can't meet there and they can't meet somewhere
else, or they have to lay back from the signal so far that you need to call
them on the radio and tell them it is time to pull up to a place they can
see. If there are any local industries left, sometimes the rest of the
train must be left many miles away (blocking other trains) while the
industry gets its delivery because it is the closest place to leave the
train. It gets to be a big pain, and when you have a railroad full of
trains, sometimes you reach the point of not caring any more because you
can't. I complained about one new highway to a division engineer who was
right on in responding - "we have Eminent Domain, and they have Eminent
Domain, and theirs is more Eminent than ours". What is truly incredible is
when one of these new crossings that shouldn't have been built becomes a
"problem" for the motorists and the railroad is expected to build the grade
separation that should have been built in the first place.
That gets to the third point. Why have grade separations? Who is the
beneficiary? Adam is right that crossings are not an operating problem
because rail traffic has right over highway traffic...well, more or less,
because that is only a theory. When you can't stop them for traffic control
reasons because of the profusion of highways, it is a big problem. When
some moron gets him/her/itself erased at a crossing and ties up the railroad
for hours, it is a big problem, and that doesn't count psycological problems
for the engine crew, equipment damage, derailments, idiotic lawsuits and the
repercussions of idiotic lawsuits. What kind of repercussions? Railroad
crossing signals are ridiculously redundant. A highway traffic signal has
one red light. Generally new installations have two signals if the street
is wide, or maybe one over each lane and one or two at the side of the road.
Railroad crossing signals (with gates) have a standard 7 facing each way.
Newer installations have 9 or more (one near me has 19), but on BN[SF if the
policy hasn't changed] because of a lawsuit award in the 80s, if _one_ of
those lights is out, the signal is inoperative and every train must stop and
flag the crossing. That requires issuing each train written instructions to
stop and protect the crossing and if they are too close to copy it before
reaching the crossing, they have to be stopped first. I have gone through
this procedure a dozen times a shift in urban areas, each involving several
trains, for everything from a light out to a broken off gate. Guess
what...while the train dispatcher is dealing with this idiocy...trains are
stopping all over the place....and some of them are on crossings. (Back to
the other side of the first point - there are no breaks and no meal period,
and when this is going on, forget about trying to take two minutes to run to
the coffee pot --- or the toilet, because it won't be a happenin' thing for
hours unless you reach the point of can't take it and don't care any more.)
That leads to the fourth point - maintenance. Crossings take a lot more
maintenance than bridges. Every relay case/instrument house, including the
ones that control crossings, have specific tests that must be performed on a
regular basis (monthly, quarterly, annual if I remember right). (For the
other part of the argument, about railroad signaling not being subject to
the local inspectors, have you performed the monthly tests on your house
wiring? Car? Check every circuit for cross and ground? Check every
connection? Every one in every circuit is tight? Every switch operates
properly?) In between are the trouble calls, a large part of which are
vandalism and inattentive driving. After the regular shift, those are
generally overtime. The signal maintainers are under Hours of Service and
you can burn up all of your maintainers and have nobody left. Signal
maintainers sometimes are sent many hours from home to handle a trouble call
because the nearby maintainers are all dead on the law. All of that is not
cheap. Then there's the crossing surface. That's something like $600-1000
per track foot, and traffic pounds it into oblivion.
That brings up the fifth point. I sometimes advise on grade separations.
With few exceptions, I think grade separations should be highway projects,
not railroad projects, but not especially for the nominal safety reasons -
having had many cars taken out where there isn't a crossing in sight, and
having a few taken out after falling off of a bridge, I have been led to
believe that grade separations are not foolproof. Many are, however, for
the convenience of drivers. Don't believe it? It is not unusual to fund a
big grade separation project and have the local government then refuse to
close any of the street crossings - one per block for 5 blocks, 2 per mile,
they stay - or at least until the battle is over. But, that's just personal
opinion. Being realistic, it is sometimes necessary to recommend including
grade separation in the cost of a rail project, especially a passenger
project. You can't have reliable service if trains are regularly being
delayed for hours, service being cancelled, etc. because of crossing
accidents. "Dangerous" crossings have to go. Some have terrible geometry,
awful sight distance, and should never have been built. Some were two lane
country roads and now are central elements in gridlock with traffic stopped
on the tracks because people aren't smart enough to not do that. Sure, the
car loses...but for the railroad it's like winning nuclear war --- big deal.
It also does no good to design new traffic control, build crossovers,
sidings, controlled signals, etc. and not be able to stop trains because
there are too many crossings, so by default the rail project winds up
including grade separations so that the millions sunk into track and signals
can be used. If the project is lucky, there might be a little highway
funding, but it can't be depended upon.
TAW
http://www.halcyon.com/tawhite
John Garrison
"RJ" <re_jo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ahephvk89r62m2obp...@4ax.com...
Err, close, actually they devolve.
James Robinson
>
> James Robinson wrote:
>
> >> The old Bell Telephone System used to make the same claim about
> >> hooking up non-Bell equipment to the phone system, or if the
> >> company were to be broken up.
> >
> >Not the same. That was strictly an economic argument, related to a
> >non-safety related system.
>
> No, the Bell System used to make a claim that it would be unsafe to
> allow 'foreign' equipment to be connected to Bell equipment.
>
> You should probably follow your own advice about not commenting on
> things you don't know.
I know perfectly well what Bell was claiming, but in the end it was an
economic argument. They didn't want other people's equipment because it
would reduce sales of their own, and was the "camels nose in the tent"
as far as broad interconnection into their network, leading to a loss of
monopoly. Compatibility was simply a good excuse.
Jeff nor Lisa
> I know perfectly well what Bell was claiming, but in the end it was an
> economic argument. They didn't want other people's equipment because it
> would reduce sales of their own, and was the "camels nose in the tent"
> as far as broad interconnection into their network, leading to a loss of
> monopoly. Compatibility was simply a good excuse.
I think the big railroads are doing the same thing in response
to local complaints. They say "operationally it won't work",
when they really mean "we don't want to spend the money to
make it work".
Dan Peltier
> First - the start of the whole conversation. The train crew had the
> audacity for whatever reason to get coffee. Most people on here that are
> employed get a meal period and a couple of breaks per day. A union contract
> and/or the law guarantee it. Two kinds of people associated with the topic
> don't - train crews and train dispatchers. I can't count the number of times
> that I have told a train crew that they don't need to be here or there until
> this time so if you want to stop on the way up ok, just be there when I want
> you. Believe it or not, the train and engine crews appreciate being treated
> like people. I think they'll tell you that doesn't happen much. Where
I approve of treating people with dignity and courtesy, BUT...
I also get pissed off when I see a contractor's truck double-parked
or parked next to a hydrant outside a Dunkin' Donuts, and it's not
because I don't think the contractor should be allowed to take a
coffee break.
Assuming there aren't any other parking spaces for him to stop
in, explain how that's any different from the train.
> That leads to the second point - crossings. Most districts I have worked,
> with the exception of the boondocks where there are only snakes and bears,
> have an ever-increasing profusion of crossings. Just like highways need
> traffic signals at intersections, railroads need traffic control signals.
> Believe it or not, it is sometimes necessary to stop a train. It is really
> hard to do when so many crossings have been built that there are only a few
> places, if any, to stop one. Sometimes there are horrendous delays because
How much of this is the fault of the roads, and how much is the
fault of increased train lengths?
It's easy (and relatively accurate) to say, "The trains were there
first." But in many cases the trains that were there first were a
completely different animal from today's beasts.
> reasons because of the profusion of highways, it is a big problem. When
> some moron gets him/her/itself erased at a crossing and ties up the railroad
> for hours, it is a big problem, and that doesn't count psycological problems
> for the engine crew, equipment damage, derailments, idiotic lawsuits and the
> repercussions of idiotic lawsuits. What kind of repercussions? Railroad
> crossing signals are ridiculously redundant. A highway traffic signal has
Here's a question: does the FRA currently approve crossing signals?
Are their regulations any less reactionary than the railroad policies
that are brought on by lawsuits? Would increased regulation in
exchange for some liability protection be a net gain or a net loss for
the railroads?
Dan
James Robinson
>
> Here's a question: does the FRA currently approve crossing signals?
> Are their regulations any less reactionary than the railroad policies
> that are brought on by lawsuits?
The FRA approves the railroad industry designs, which include minimum
requirements. The railroads can add features as they see fit. In most
cases, the railroads go far beyond the minimums, such as adding event
recorders, mostly to protect themselves from liability.
> Would increased regulation in exchange for some liability
> protection be a net gain or a net loss for the railroads?
It really wouldn't make much difference. The railroads already have
liability protection in that the states specify what type of protection
has to be provided at individual crossings. As long as the railroads
meet the requirements, it is difficult to claim any money from them if
there is an accident. Most lawsuits focus on questions about whether
the protection was functioning properly, or if the crew was blowing the
whistle, or if undergrowth prevented adequate sight lines. Those are
railroad responsibilities.
James Robinson
I don't see any connection at all.
Railroads do not make their own signaling equipment, nor have they for
at least a hundred years. The design of the equipment is based on an
open specification, which was permitted by anti-trust legislation almost
50 years ago. Even the latest ATCS communication specification is an
open specification, without royalty, to encourage competition. Anybody
who meets the basic qualifications, can manufacture and sell their
equipment to anyone in the industry. There are dozens of manufacturers
who do exactly that.
This is in contrast to the telephone industry who wrote their own
specifications, manufactured and rented their own equipment, and
initially wouldn't permit the sale of their own equipment or any that
competed, and wouldn't allow interconnection, even if the equipment met
the functional specification. The telephone company position was
specifically aimed at preventing competition.
James Robinson
>
> James Robinson wrote
>
> > working properly, or they have collisions. Further, signal regulation
> > and inspection is fairly strict.
>
> Yes, and two trains collided (sideswiped) as a result of
> defective new signal installation in Philadelphia. Fortunately
> they were creeping and damage was slight, but they both got a
> green. Bad wiring by the contractor. Point is--it does happen.
Yes, even with inspections. I found many wiring errors when I moved
into my house: Three-way and four-way lights were wired incorrectly,
two baseplugs had the hot and neutral transposed, and one baselug wasn't
wired at all. So much for a licensed electrician and city inspections.
But in the case of railroad signaling, we were discussing the need for
local inspection. I submit that it would be nearly impossible to teach
railroad signaling to every local inspector that might have jurisdiction
where railroads run. The railroads would also have to endure a
Babelesque set of regulations, if local codes applied to signaling. (I
envy the Canadian system were only the federal regulators have
authority, meaning the railways only answer to one regulator, rather
than almost 50 in the US.) This is not to say that railroads aren't
regulated, or installations aren't inspected.
Railroads submit their plans for a proposed signal installation or
modification to state and federal agencies for approval. Those same
agencies make inspections of the installations before they are put in
service. The railroads also have a team of people who do new
installation testing, and who are separate from those that do new
installations or maintenance. The whole process has evolved over the
years, and is necessary to both ensure that the systems work properly,
thereby protecting the public, and to protect the railroads themselves
from litigation.
> Geez, if I were running a restaurant and wanted to maximize
> my profits, there are things I could skimp on. Just like a
> railroad, odds are nothing would happen, but the risk of
> accident is increased.
Yet the statistics show that the railroad industry as a whole is far
safer than it was even 10 years ago, and is pretty well the safest it
has ever been. The accident and fatality rate in the dark days of the
Penn Central was something like five times what it is now. The
railroads seem to be doing things right, from that measure, in spite of
your concern about motives.
> Some participants in this disucssion seem to think
> that the railroad is always right and complaints by its
> neighbors are always unfounded.
That goes without saying. The industry is misunderstood by everybody
else.
> > What do you define as being good neighbors? Closing down yards because
> > people move in next to them and start complaining about switching
> > noise? Reducing speeds to ridiculous levels through every settlement
> > because the city fathers don't want trains running through at more than
> > 10 mph? Running trains no longer than 20 cars because people don't want
> > to be delayed more than it takes a traffic signal to change because they
> > want to rush home to sit around watching TV with beer in hand? Where do
> > you draw the line?
>
> Please note that I never made any of the complaints you cite above.
I never suggested you did. They were rhetorical questions in an attempt
to define the boundaries of what could be considered a "good neighbor".
Every one of those complaints has been put to the railroads, and they
have been accused on not being good neighbors because of their supposed
inaction. If every city got their way, the railroads would simply cease
to operate, because they wouldn't be competitive.
I recall riding the City of New Orleans a number of years ago, and was
amazed at how the train would be operating at over 80 mph in rural areas
in southern Illinois, but slowed to something like 20 mph every time
they got to a town. That doesn't make the train very competitive with
adjacent interstates, but I'm sure the restrictions are something that
grew over time, and were part of making the railroad a good citizen. If
I were that railroad's management, I would have fought every one of
them. Call me a poor neighbor.
> How about addressing the complaints that were made? For instance,
> how about building additional passing sidings outside developed
> areas so waits won't occur blocking crossings?
The is because the railroads don't have complete flexibility in where
they locate sidings for operating purposes. Passing sidings are spaced
according to the operating speeds of trains and the time it takes to run
between them. When planning an installation, the railroad tries to
locate sidings such that the sum of the eastbound and westbound (or
SB/NB) running times are similar between sidings. This is to provide
the greatest capacity for the amount of money being spent. The farther a
siding is located from its ideal location, the lower the capacity of the
line. This can be significant where the running times are the greatest
between sidings, to the point where a siding built in the wrong location
is essentially a waste of money.
When a railroad eventually picks a location to build a siding, they will
attempt to find a spot where there are no level crossings, such that a
train can sit without blocking anybody. Unfortunately, finding such
places is becoming almost impossible with the number of level crossings,
and the resistance to allowing any to be closed.
> Where trains might be delayed, how about breaking them down--perhaps
> 75 cars instead of 150 cars--so the crossing blockages won't be as
> widespread?
In the first place, that doubles the crewing cost of the trains in an
industry that is barely able to keep their economic head above water. It
also has a huge impact on the capacity of the rail line, since twice as
many trains would have to be operated. If you consider that every train
has to met every other train on a route at some point, but doubling the
number of trains, the number of meets goes up by four times, train
delays increase significantly, and the reliability of the railroad
drops. If such a restriction applied in say the LA area, every train
running from there to Chicago would be crippled in length just because
of about 30 miles over its entire route of a couple of thousand miles.
> How about having managers in regional branch offices, ready to
> visit sites FIRST HAND where there is trouble, and being willing
> to listen to town officials?
They do. That is the job of the local trainmasters and
superintendents. Railroads have managers all over their territories,
and don't just run things by remote control from the 15th floor of the
headquarters building.
> If a town complains that a bridge is falling down, how about
> sending out an inspector or at least the last inspection record
> to reassure the town? (Now they ignore the complaint altogether).
Nonsense. Any such safety call would mean the railroad would dispatch
someone to investigate. I've been in enough railroad network operations
centers to know how they work, and they do not ignore anything that even
smells of a safety issue. But figure that they also get dozens of calls
every day from people who are convinced that a passing train sounds
funny, or believe that every tank car they see is going to blow up. I'm
sure they apply a filter to some of those calls in establishing
priorities and urgency in response. I know I've always gotten an
immediate response whenever I have called in a problem.
Merritt Mullen
dpel...@my-deja.com (Dan Peltier) wrote:
> "Thomas White" <taw...@halcyon.com> wrote in message
> news:<bfil8m$g65$1...@brokaw.wa.com>...
> > First - the start of the whole conversation. The train crew had the
> > audacity for whatever reason to get coffee. Most people on here that are
> > employed get a meal period and a couple of breaks per day. A union
> > contract
> > and/or the law guarantee it. Two kinds of people associated with the topic
> > don't - train crews and train dispatchers. I can't count the number of
> > times
> > that I have told a train crew that they don't need to be here or there
> > until
> > this time so if you want to stop on the way up ok, just be there when I
> > want
> > you. Believe it or not, the train and engine crews appreciate being
> > treated
> > like people. I think they'll tell you that doesn't happen much. Where
>
> I approve of treating people with dignity and courtesy, BUT...
>
> I also get pissed off when I see a contractor's truck double-parked
> or parked next to a hydrant outside a Dunkin' Donuts, and it's not
> because I don't think the contractor should be allowed to take a
> coffee break.
>
> Assuming there aren't any other parking spaces for him to stop
> in, explain how that's any different from the train.
Parking next to a fire hydrant is illegal. Blocking a crossing for less
than the allowed time is not.
> > That leads to the second point - crossings. Most districts I have worked,
> > with the exception of the boondocks where there are only snakes and bears,
> > have an ever-increasing profusion of crossings. Just like highways need
> > traffic signals at intersections, railroads need traffic control signals.
> > Believe it or not, it is sometimes necessary to stop a train. It is really
> > hard to do when so many crossings have been built that there are only a few
> > places, if any, to stop one. Sometimes there are horrendous delays because
>
> How much of this is the fault of the roads, and how much is the
> fault of increased train lengths?
Increasing numbers of crossings because of development has nothing to do
with train length.
> It's easy (and relatively accurate) to say, "The trains were there
> first." But in many cases the trains that were there first were a
> completely different animal from today's beasts.
Not necessarily true. There have always been long (100 car) trains. At
least today the trains generally move faster, so don't block the crossing
for so long. Also there are many fewer active tracks than there were in
past.
> Here's a question: does the FRA currently approve crossing signals?
Sure, but I expect it is a joint regulation between the FRA and the FHWA.
After all, crossing signals are there to contol highway traffic, not rail
traffic.
> Are their regulations any less reactionary than the railroad policies
> that are brought on by lawsuits?
Almost all safety regulations (in any industry) are reactionary in nature.
No one wants to put restrictions on people until it becomes clear that
they are needed after reviewing actual accidents. By its very definition
an accident is something that is unanticipated, therefore difficult to
prepare for in advance.
> Would increased regulation in
> exchange for some liability protection be a net gain or a net loss for
> the railroads?
I don't think that is the issue. The big issue is money to improve and
eliminate crossings.
Merritt
Merritt Mullen
wrote:
> Dan Peltier wrote:
> > Would increased regulation in exchange for some liability
> > protection be a net gain or a net loss for the railroads?
>
> It really wouldn't make much difference. The railroads already have
> liability protection in that the states specify what type of protection
> has to be provided at individual crossings. As long as the railroads
> meet the requirements, it is difficult to claim any money from them if
> there is an accident. Most lawsuits focus on questions about whether
> the protection was functioning properly, or if the crew was blowing the
> whistle, or if undergrowth prevented adequate sight lines. Those are
> railroad responsibilities.
The problem is, although the RRs are protected from liability, they aren't
fully protected from loss (they do have insurance, of course). When RR
equipment or property is damaged as result of a motorist's illegal action,
it is difficult for the RR to fully recover damages.
Perhaps a portion of the Highway Trust Fund should be reserved for
reimbursing RRs for damage caused by motorists (just kidding, as I know
there is absolutely no chance of that happening).
Merritt
John Garrison
Straying a bit for a point of conversation.....I still haven't figured out
how anybody thinks of 100 cars as a long train. That was what the feeblest
steamer pulled eons ago, 100 50 tonners. Today, 286's are normal......150 to
180......occasionally 200. That's coal, grain, and even manifests will
stretch out that long time to time.
John Garrison
Insured yes.....and you might find probably self insured for much of their
coverage. They have no choice, LLoyd's of London wouldn't even touch certain
railroad coverage needs. Basic liablility may have an underwriter, but
consider the wreck of a train of private coal cars, and the loss of lading
that goes with it. Now wreck a similar train several times a year; for that
type of liability the road is plain uninsurable. That's why among other
things that the private car that could be repaired gets scrapped. The
railroad bought it to compensate the owner for it's loss. And true enough,
the road could scarcely get any money when it is damaged by the acts of a
motorist. And even if they could the cost of getting it isn't worth the
amount they might recover.
Hudson Leighton
> >
> > The problem is, although the RRs are protected from liability, they aren't
> > fully protected from loss (they do have insurance, of course). When RR
> > equipment or property is damaged as result of a motorist's illegal action,
> > it is difficult for the RR to fully recover damages.
The last time I was involved in a Fan Trip, we had to get a $50 million
policy, this was to cover the Railroads deductible.
-Hudson
Adam H. Kerman
>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.chinet.com> wrote:
>>Merritt Mullen <mmull...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>Shouldn't effect train operations (despite speed restrictions in federal
>>regulations).
>Well, there are federal speed restrictions that require elimination of
>grade crossings if trains travel above a certain speed (110 mph?). I
>agree it only currently affects passenger trains, and very few of those.
I'm just saying it's social/political, and not technical. If anything, perhaps
there's more economic justification to grade separating 40 mph single-track-
but-used-to-capacity-because-used-to-be-more tracks railroads than grade
separations associated with mostly-passenger projects. On the former, delay
caused by motorists violating grade crossings probably has greater repurcusion
(despite rush-hour passengers screaming "I'm late for work!").
>But even without federal restrictions, most RRs try to be good citizens
>and avoid blasting though congested areas at 80 mph.
Why? That makes no sense at all. That's Metra's operating speed (when the
schedule allows trains to accellerate to speed). Metra serves plenty of
territory with frequent grade crossings, lots of highway traffic, and plenty
of people living near the tracks. That's exactly what Q territory is like.
The faster the train moves, the less time the grade crossing is occupied.
>They also would be happy to avoid citizen complaints about whistles and
>blockage, which get eliminated when the grade crossing is eliminated.
Those kind of complaints are ignored. There's the famous case in which the
mayor of a certain suburb was one of the complaintants. Illinois law allows
municipalities to impose no-whistle ordinances. The mayor was quietly informed
that the railroad would be pleased to honor his request and that he could
expect his municipality to assume the liability for prospective grade
crossing accidents.
For the last several years, federal regs have pre-empted any local options
on whistle blowing, so it's not relevant. The feds are stalling on the no-
whistle crossing rules; jeeze.
>>>In almost all cases, the economic burden of removing grade crossings
>>>must be charged to highway funding. Since that is passed onto the users,
>>>it should make highway use more expensive and railway use cheaper.
>>Even if I acknowledged that registration fees and motor fuel excise taxes
>>were user fees (which I don't), the highway sector is less reliant on these
>>as time passes, but that's another conversation.
>Whether or not the charges are reflected in so-called "highway user fees",
>they are a government (not railroad) expense, and make the cost of
>operating highways more expensive, therefore encouraging investment in
>non-highway transportation.
I don't agree that that follows. It's entirely possible that society could
look at it as an added burden on non-highway transportation as that's how
it's always looked at it. Pre-WW1 grade separations were imposed on railroads!
Their responsibility.
>>If we had to prioritize spending that could make railroads more efficient,
>>grade separation wouldn't be close to the top of the list.
>It would be close to the top of the list of highway improvements that make
>RRs more efficient. I am trying to level the playing field here.
>Highways should not put an unnecessary economic penalty on the railways.
If we are serious about this issue, then let railroads be allowed to make an
economic argument that must be given full weight at the state PUC level to
let them close grade crossings. Grade separation is no kind of political
solution if grade crossings cannot be closed, and if they're closed, they
reopen at some point in the future. Also, municipalities and counties MUST be
forced to pay for inexpensive pedestrian subways at frequent intervals
(where there are no legal street crossings) in an attempt to keep pedestrians
off the tracks. Pedestrian subways sure don't have the same kind of cost
that highway subways have, especially if the tracks on already on fill.
>>>True, but it is the impact on the railroads I am concerned about. Almost
>>>all injuries to motorists are the fault of the motorist. Why should the
>>>railroads have to bear this economic burden?
>>Building a few grade separations each year won't eliminate the need for
>>tort reform.
>Nobody is making that claim.
Tort reform is the only way to address unfair economic burdens. Grade
separations will never be built quickly enough to eliminate the liability.
>>>Until railways can operate without being interrupted by grade crossing
>>>accidents, or slowed by fear of grade crossing accidents, they will never
>>>reach their full potential.
>>Trains traveling faster through grade crossings should reduce collisions.
>I don't think so. Although a faster train passes the crossing quicker,
>most collisions occur because the automobile or truck is in front of the
>train, not because they run into the side of the train. The faster the
>train, the more energy and the more damage to the train and the railroad
>(not to mention whatever it hits).
Automobiles and trucks aren't designed to survive such collisions. Someone
will die with the train moving at 40mph too. You forget that the train is in
conflict with errant motorists for less time the faster it moves. I wasn't
thinking of side-impact violations. For the life of me, I don't understand
how those occur at signalled and well-lit crossings.
>>>Remember railroad productivity is directly related to speed. Today
>>>railroads operate at much less than what is currently technically possible,
>>>and one of the reasons it problem of grade crossings.
>>It's political, not technical.
>Yes. Almost all problems causing inefficiencies in RR operation are
>political and economic, not technical.
Then let's address the fundamental politics as it's much too expensive to
build around it.
>>>A large number are private crossings used only for agricultural/commercial
>>>use, and it is the latter that have distroyed a lot of California's valuable
>>>passenger cars.
>>No attempt was made to collect damages?
>An owner-operator of a dilapidated truck operated by a farm worker (who
>might not even survive the collision) or his insurance (assuming he is
>even licensed and insured) is not going to reimburse Amtrak the $2 million
>cost of a wrecked Surfliner car. Amtrak's insurance might cover it, but
>that is an expense to Amtrak.
Whatever assets he has should be seized. Of course, Murphy's Law states that
the judgment-proof are capable of the greatest damages...
Were there even criminal charges brought? Why do I ask.
Adam H. Kerman
>This is a safety issue.
>Drivers will try to beat trains thru the grade crossing, even if the
>lights are flashing and gate is down, if they are accustomed to trains
>blocking the crossing indefinitely.
Nonsense. They'll rush through attempting to avoid being stuck by a lengthy
freight train operating at speed. They'll attempt to rush through to avoid
a passenger train operating at speed that won't even occupy the grade crossing
for much more than 30 seconds! That's exactly what happened in the South Shore
steel coil disaster.
They are not thinking of anyone but themselves.
Adam H. Kerman
>>>That leads to the second point - crossings. Most districts I have worked,
>>>with the exception of the boondocks where there are only snakes and bears,
>>>have an ever-increasing profusion of crossings. Just like highways need
>>>traffic signals at intersections, railroads need traffic control signals.
>>>Believe it or not, it is sometimes necessary to stop a train. It is really
>>>hard to do when so many crossings have been built that there are only a few
>>>places, if any, to stop one. Sometimes there are horrendous delays because
>>How much of this is the fault of the roads, and how much is the
>>fault of increased train lengths?
>Increasing numbers of crossings because of development has nothing to do
>with train length.
Sure it does. I suppose adding a crossing within a block or two of an existing
crossing won't have greater impact WRT train length. But what if a grade
crossing is added half way between grade crossings that are four miles apart?
A freight train could be 3 miles long. The railroad has just lost a location
in which to ditch a freight train waiting for congestion ahead to clear!
RJ
wrote:
>RJ wrote:
Like the railroad's claims.
---
Bob
Merritt Mullen
"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.chinet.com> wrote:
> Merritt Mullen <mmull...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> >Increasing numbers of crossings because of development has nothing to do
> >with train length.
>
> Sure it does. I suppose adding a crossing within a block or two of an existing
> crossing won't have greater impact WRT train length. But what if a grade
> crossing is added half way between grade crossings that are four miles apart?
> A freight train could be 3 miles long. The railroad has just lost a location
> in which to ditch a freight train waiting for congestion ahead to clear!
Right, I realize that, I just meant that without a grade separation
program, development will cause an increasing number of crossings (and
probably reduced distances between crossings) independently of whatever
happens to train length.
And having to worry about train length blocking too many crossings at one
time is just another unfair burden the highway system put on the railroad.
Merritt
James Robinson
We were talking about the need for local inspection of signaling
equipment. There is no competitive issue with that, strictly
practicality.
As far as equipment is concerned, anybody can manufacture signaling
equipment to the railroad's open specification. There is no monopoly,
and no similarity in the claims or circumstances.
Dan Peltier
That's not why I get pissed off. People often do illegal things that
don't bother me a bit.
The point is, I get upset because they have put their desire for
coffee above the safety of people relying on the fire hydrant - or,
if they're double parked, above the convenience of drivers. Since a
blocked crossing impedes drivers and can impede fire trucks, the
situation seems analogous to me.
> > > That leads to the second point - crossings. Most districts I have worked,
> > > with the exception of the boondocks where there are only snakes and bears,
> > > have an ever-increasing profusion of crossings. Just like highways need
> > > traffic signals at intersections, railroads need traffic control signals.
> > > Believe it or not, it is sometimes necessary to stop a train. It is really
> > > hard to do when so many crossings have been built that there are only a few
> > > places, if any, to stop one. Sometimes there are horrendous delays because
> >
> > How much of this is the fault of the roads, and how much is the
> > fault of increased train lengths?
>
> Increasing numbers of crossings because of development has nothing to do
> with train length.
But "so many crossings... that there are only a few places" to stop a
train does.
> > It's easy (and relatively accurate) to say, "The trains were there
> > first." But in many cases the trains that were there first were a
> > completely different animal from today's beasts.
>
> Not necessarily true. There have always been long (100 car) trains. At
> least today the trains generally move faster, so don't block the crossing
> for so long. Also there are many fewer active tracks than there were in
> past.
1.) I don't believe that 100-car trains were at nearly as common in
the late 1800's, when most railroads were laid out.
2.) Even so, "100 cars" was a much shorter length in 1890 than in 2000.
3.) As another poster mentioned, 100 cars is not even considered long
by today's standards.
I think it's safe to say that average train length has increased by a
much greater factor than average train speed in the last, say, 100
years - and even in the last 50.
> > Are their regulations any less reactionary than the railroad policies
> > that are brought on by lawsuits?
>
> Almost all safety regulations (in any industry) are reactionary in nature.
> No one wants to put restrictions on people until it becomes clear that
> they are needed after reviewing actual accidents. By its very definition
> an accident is something that is unanticipated, therefore difficult to
> prepare for in advance.
By "reactionary", I didn't mean "responsive". I meant regulations based
on response to a single (or very small set) of incidents without proper
analysis or consideration.
I don't think that auto safety regulations are generally reactionary.
They are based on broad statistics plus experimental design.
Airbags were mandated because they were estimated to save a significant
number of lives, not because "someone died in a head-on collision
once." That's "responsive".
TAW's description of a broad and cumbersome regulation based on a
single incident is what I call "reactionary".
Dan
Dan Peltier
> Dan Peltier wrote:
> > Would increased regulation in exchange for some liability
> > protection be a net gain or a net loss for the railroads?
>
> It really wouldn't make much difference. The railroads already have
> liability protection in that the states specify what type of protection
> has to be provided at individual crossings. As long as the railroads
> meet the requirements, it is difficult to claim any money from them if
> there is an accident. Most lawsuits focus on questions about whether
> the protection was functioning properly, or if the crew was blowing the
> whistle, or if undergrowth prevented adequate sight lines. Those are
> railroad responsibilities.
The regulation could specify when a signal is to be considered
"functioning properly". This might avoid the situation described
by TAW, where a gate with signal with nine red lamps is considered
"out of order" if any one lamp doesn't work. But it would only
avoid it if the FRA's regulation were reasonable, and allowed for
a single burned-out light.
Dan
Merritt Mullen
> Merritt Mullen <mmull...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
> The point is, I get upset because they have put their desire for
> coffee above the safety of people
See, that is your premise. How did you decide that the desire for coffee
was put before safety?
> > Increasing numbers of crossings because of development has nothing to do
> > with train length.
>
> But "so many crossings... that there are only a few places" to stop a
> train does.
Increasing numbers of crossings is a result of development. It is not
corelated to train length. And RRs are not going to shorten their trains
just to fit between crossings.
> > Not necessarily true. There have always been long (100 car) trains. At
> > least today the trains generally move faster, so don't block the crossing
> > for so long. Also there are many fewer active tracks than there were in
> > past.
>
> 1.) I don't believe that 100-car trains were at nearly as common in
> the late 1800's, when most railroads were laid out.
Yeah, I shouldn't have said "always", but 100+ car trains have been common
since the 1930s (my lifetime). And even though a lot of RRs were laid out
in the late 1800s, doesn't mean the crossings were.
> 2.) Even so, "100 cars" was a much shorter length in 1890 than in 2000.
> 3.) As another poster mentioned, 100 cars is not even considered long
> by today's standards.
OK, I won't quibble about it.
> I think it's safe to say that average train length has increased by a
> much greater factor than average train speed in the last, say, 100
> years - and even in the last 50.
Well, it is the last 50 that I was thinking of, but so what. It just
means that the highway system is increasing interferring with the
operation of railway transportation. That is a bad thing, as
transporttion is the life blood of commerce and anything that interferes
with it hurts us all economically.
> > > Are their regulations any less reactionary than the railroad policies
> > > that are brought on by lawsuits?
> >
> > Almost all safety regulations (in any industry) are reactionary in nature.
> > No one wants to put restrictions on people until it becomes clear that
> > they are needed after reviewing actual accidents. By its very definition
> > an accident is something that is unanticipated, therefore difficult to
> > prepare for in advance.
>
> By "reactionary", I didn't mean "responsive". I meant regulations based
> on response to a single (or very small set) of incidents without proper
> analysis or consideration.
If you mean "stupid regulations" you won't get any arguement from me.
> I don't think that auto safety regulations are generally reactionary.
> They are based on broad statistics plus experimental design.
Basing them on statistics is the definition of "reactionary". It is a
proper way to do things. You can not always predict in advance accident
modes, you have to wait tell they happen and then change something. I
have been in aviation all my life, and that is how safety works in
aviation. The current accident investigation into the space shuttle is a
good example of how the system works.
> Airbags were mandated because they were estimated to save a significant
> number of lives, not because "someone died in a head-on collision
> once." That's "responsive".
Airbags are mandated in reaction (or response) to the fact that a lot of
people have died in collisions, not just one person. But sometimes one
event is enough. Again I give the example of the space shuttle.
I have a hard time distinguishing between your definition of a "response"
and a "reaction" to an event.
> TAW's description of a broad and cumbersome regulation based on a
> single incident is what I call "reactionary".
If that's how you want to use the English language, that is your
priveledge. I would call it "broad and cumbersome" or "stupid".
Merritt
James Robinson
>
> ... if the FRA's regulation were reasonable, and allowed for
> a single burned-out light.
The FRA has not been known to be particularly reasonable in the past, at
least in how they interpret regulations.
Classification lights on locomotives are a good example. When the
railroads eliminated the rules on classification lights, they had no
further need for the lights. Their intent was to just stop using them.
The FRA in their wisdom said that the railroads had two choices: as long
as the lights were there, they had to be periodically tested, and be in
good working condition, or a railroad could physically remove the light
fixtures, and blank over the resulting holes in the carbody. If the
light fixtures were left in place, a burned out bulb was considered to
be an FRA defect, and the locomotive had to be immediately repaired.
Keep in mind that no railroad was using the lights for any purposes at
all.
Another example I can think of was the case of a railroad that made a
modification to a series of locomotives to add a spare knuckle holder.
It turned out the location of the holder violated FRA rules, but the
locomotives operated for about five years before the error was
discovered by an FRA inspector. The inspector insisted that the
particular locomotive could not be moved from the place it was
inspected, which didn't have any mechanical employees, until the
offending bracket had been cut off. He would not allow the locomotive to
move to a repair shop, but insisted that a crew be sent to the
locomotive instead. Little matter that there had been no reports of any
injuries from the modification over the five years that it was in place,
or that other locomotives from the same series were operating around the
country, and were not forced to be parked where they were. So much for
rationality in the application of regulations.
AM
> Just because a company is a big business doesn't mean it is making
> good decisions for itself. Univac came out with the first commercial
> electronic computer and had the market all to itself, then made some
> decisions that "didn't make sense". I don't know why they did, but
> they fumbled, and IBM grabbed the ball from behind and ran with it.
> Of course, much later on IBM made some bad decisions.
I think you will find that the first commercial computer was called a
LEO.
Check out the London School of Economics web site:
http://www.is.lse.ac.uk/businesscomputing50/
IBM's forte was excellent sales staff and superb support. That made up
for the lower quality hardware and software.
Regards
A.