Note the observation near the end of this brief article:
"The trains will be running through small towns with children playing on both sides of the tracks, especially in summer,‘’ Blair said. “In the case of a 110-mph train that is 500 feet away, you, the pedestrian, have 3 seconds’ reaction time. That simply is not long enough to process the information in your brain.”
I’m sorry, but I was completely underwhelmed by that article.
The paragraph you quoted, Mr. Schlimm, although a valid thought, has little to do with the rest of the article. What does the Northeast Corridor do about “children playing on both sides of the tracks” along its 135-mph corridor? This is a trespassing and education issue, not a case requiring the railroads to defend themselves. These lessons should be taught to little children along the tracks much sooner than three seconds before the first high-speed train goes through.
Short of fencing off the entire right-of-way, there’s little, if anything that can be done to “protect” people who are distracted or otherwise lose their focus around railroad rights-of-way. There will be flashers and gates at most places where people can legally cross the tracks, and–at least on the St. Louis corridor–the added protection, in the form of four-quadrant gates, is already in place. Devices that would warn the train about obstacles on the track ahead would have done very little good in the incidents described in the article, either in Spain or in North Chicago. In neither case were the “obstacles” on the tracks by the time the train could stop short of them.
Fencing between the tracks would have helped in the Spanish incident, but I don’t know how compatible it would be with existing track upgraded to high-speed standards.
Safety is certainly a very important consideration. Starting with some kind of boundary controls on the ROW.
(Surely, Fencing), but then again; How high/low should it be? Should it be just in remote areas or over the entire ROW? What type is appropriate?
Again, Most of the recently reported, and inclusive of those mentioned by the Professor in his original post.; Seem to happen in the area of stations. Platforms on either side of ‘Active lines’ ( maybe a situation, where three or more tracks are available) routed trains through the station either to service a stop, or to allow through expresses to transit the station area when there might be a couple of stopped trains at the platform area.
That seems to be the case in some of the pedestrian accidents involving the Chicago area Metra Trains ( as on Youtube Videos). A train is stopped at the platform and there is an available at grade crossing across active tracks, and an individual (s) make the choice to cross and are impacted by a thru express, in spite of warning devices.
Such a grade level choice is made for what reason ( Costs to build overhead or under track pedestrian crossings)? Even where there might be such a protected crossing, the individuals make the choce to do the dangero
This problem was solved 80 to 100 years ago, at least here in the urbanized NorthEastern US - ‘intertrack fences’ at most of the station areas, usually coupled with tunnels or other underpasses, or overhead bridges, etc. There are any number of examples and photos of same on the former PRR and RDG lines radiating out of Phila., and I’d be really surprised if that wasn’t also done on most of the ex-NYC, LIRR, CNJ, DL&W, Erie, and NH, etc. commuter lines out of New York City, the NH and B&M out of Boston, and some of the Chicago-area commuter railroads - though evidently not all, judging from the list of incidents referenced in the article.
Can someone here compile a list of the Chicago stations and lines that are so equipped, and those that aren’t ? Is there any pattern or commonality to that ? (The former RR owner would be the most useful basis, not today’s Metra.
Thirteen people were mowed down and killed by an express train Wednesday when a group of mostly young people who had gotten off a separate train at a station in Castelldefels Playa, Spain, tried to race across the tracks instead of using an underground pedestrian tunnel.
Lights and bells signaled the approach of an oncoming train. Spradlin, 43, thinking she was on the wrong side of the tracks, ran across a pedestrian crossing, despite the activated warning devices.
Then in March in North Chicago, Blanca Villanueva-Sanchez, cradling her 18-month-old goddaughter, ignored warning devices and ran across tracks as a 70-mph Metra train approached
All of these have one common thread, one single point that explains why these incidents happened.
Anyone want to guess what that is?
From the article:
“The commission wants IDOT to install grade-crossing occupancy detectors that warn the engineers of approaching trains whether a vehicle or a pedestrian is on the tracks, and also systems to confirm that the crossing warning systems work properly”
Tell me somebody didn’t just make this up. If the detector goes off, then what?
Don’t ya just love the inflammitory rhetoric this alleged reporter uses? First, he called the incident a “horrific train crash”; secondly, “Thirteen people were mowed down and killed by an express train…”, thirdly, “The carnage reminded me of a crash on the North Shore…”, and lastly, “The trains will be running through small towns with children playing”. I’m surprised that he didn’t mention the threat to Mom’s Apple Pie or Homeland Security somewhere.
With the use of such terms as “mowed down and killed” and “carnage”, the columnist was certainly trying to evoke an emotional response against railroads. Interestingly, nowhere in the article were the words “stupidity” or “inattentiveness” or “impatience” used regarding the people that went in front of the trains, which, of course, would have shifted the responsibility from the mean heartless old railroads to the poor helpless innocent pedestrians.
Additionally, who are the “experts” he refers to in his headline? Some IDOT spokeperson? Some expert! The columnist quotes, “IDOT spokeswoman Marisa Kollias confirmed no decisions have been made to upgrade pedestrian crossings for high-speed rail. Eliminating crossings would be the best result, but we understand that may not be possible at every location,” Kollias said. “Tunnels, overhead walkways or gate protection with additional warning systems will be some of the options…”. Interesting that he would even use this quote, as the second paragraph in his article admits that the casualties did not use the provided tunnel.
He further mentions that last year six people were killed at crossings, according to the ICC. I submit that when one considers the
While I would think that some additional protections for the high speed stuff should be provided, indeed, many cases of death will result from people who would’ve died doing the same stupid stuff with slower trains. Too bad it’s impossible to statistically determine which falls into which category. Reporters also often don’t know crap about railroads, as was evident in that read.
Sometimes I think the editors ask their staff about their RR knowledge, then they assign the dumbest one.
It is always the fault of the pedestrian if they get hit by the train, but there can be contingencies of the location that might contribute to the pedestrian making a mistake. Railroad companies countenance the presence of pedestrians in close proximity to trains at stations, tending to contribute to pedestrian complacency.
There can be issues of pedestrians failing to judge a train’s speed, especially if they anticipate that an approaching train intends to stop at a station when it does not intend to stop. Multiple trains on multiple tracks can contribute to a misinterpretation of warning signals. Crowds of people are distracted by each other. They can also be influenced by each other.
Trains are always right and pedestrians hit by them are always wrong. But rather than draw a line in the sand solely on that principle of right and wrong, the industry would be w
Warning to “Experts”: Leave the railroading to the professional guys/gals who know what they’re talking about. Stay in your lab and test something.
Historically, and pragmatically, such incidents erode the position of the big corporations who silently and glumly point to rule books and The Law. The law, over time, reflects the tempora and the mores, and I can see it being mutable under the desired changes necessary to make people safer around trains.
It’s just a matter of time, outrage, and money.
This is not to say any one person is wrong or right…obviously, someone who flouts locally posted rules and policies takes the ultimate responsibility for the outcomes, but, practically…in the long run…it’ll be different in 5 or ten years.
-Crandell
I’ll be down to Chitown in the fall to ride at 110 mph from Chi. to St.Loo and a year or so later ride the same train at 225 mph. I’m already packing my bags.
Unfortunately, this guy has been the Chicago Tribune’s “Transportation Reporter” for 13 years. He seems to lack the ability to provide context. He also seems to lack a basic background understanding of his subject. I find that strange. If they sent a reporter out to cover baseball, and they do that, after 13 years you’d think the reporter would have a decent understanding of baseball.
I’ve thought about writing him, but what’s the use. I fought with the media when I was involved with Greyhound racing. They’d print/show some sillly accusation from the animal rights folks. I’d call 'em up and try to explain reality. The media types rarely, if ever, cared about the truth. They had a sensational story and it didn’t matter to them if it was true or not.
I’m not going through that again. They are what they are. And what they are is rarely good.
None of the fatalities, plans, or lack of plans cited by the Tribune reporter involved corporations.
I can attest to the use of intertrack fencing on the Erie and DL&W lines in northern NJ. There wasn’t always an overpass or tunnel provided, at least on the Erie. At the Upper Montclair station, for example, the intertrack fence simply meant you had to cross at the ends of the platform (where there are streets crossing the track anyway) or right in the center of the platform. That particular station no longer has an intertrack fence; on the other hand, the station’s on a curve between two grade crossings, so speeds aren’t very high anyhow, and I can’t remember anybody ever getting killed at that station in the roughly 20 years I lived in the area.
Paul, I know that the BNSF and UP (at least on UP West, but probably on the other two lines as well) use intertrack fencing at station platforms. The big problem is that it has to be taken up any time major track work is done, so it can’t be very permanent in nature. BN’s used to be chain-link fencing; CNW used to have barbed wire. UP has gone to straight wire, three strands.
I don’t see why so many find the article troublesome, or would find the people behind the article to lack credentials. The article does bounce around between the issue of trains striking pedestrians and striking vehicles. For vehicles, it simply raises the question of how HSR will modify vehicle grade crossings for the higher train speed. Is this not a valid concern?
I thought most members of this forum agreed with the premise that HSR routes need to be free of most, if not all grade crossings, because of the higher train speed. It is true that simply lengthening the track circuit to provide warning time commensurate with the higher speed should technically suffice within the context of the crossing law.
However, one must also consider that every grade crossing crash poses the possibility of derailing the train. And the higher the train speed, the greater the forces dissipated during the derailment, and the greater the likelihood of passengers and crew being killed or injured.
It is true that if every driver obeyed the signals, there would
BN used to have chain-link intertrack fencing (about 2-3’ high) all the way through Berwyn, not just at the stations. It has since been replacing by fences just inside the sidewalk along the right-of-way.
One would think that safety for pedestrians, vehicle and trains would be the paramount concern in ROW safety. As Bucyrus points out, why should this article be troublesome? Clearly additional measures need to be taken when a ROW changes in its nature from hosting a few trains per day at speeds no greater than 79 mph (and often much lower) to one with greater numbers of trains traveling at 110 mph or higher. As a corollary, dramatic changes in traffic volume, such as on the UP West suburban line or the former EJ&E line require some responses other than an all or nothing NIMBY whining as opposed to “The railroad was there first. If folks don’t like it, move!”