FRA’s final reflectorization rule to take effect March 4, 2005
The Federal Railroad Administration has issued its final rule on reflectorization, which requires railroads to install reflective materials on the sides of locomotives and freight cars to make trains more visible to motorists at grade crossings.
Beginning March 4, 2005 railroads are required to install yellow or white reflective materials on locomotives within five years and on cars within 10 years. Railroads must install the materials on all new locomotives and cars, and on existing rolling stock must be retrofitted during periodic maintenance or repairs unless they implement alternate plans that meet the FRA’s requisite timetables.
From Progressive Railroading and Railway Age web postings
Is this new rule mostly for grade crossings without gates and signals? Just wondering. I would think it would be easy to see a train with the ditch lights but I may be off base. Please straighten me out. Thanks.
Mike
It’s the Mel Brooks Rule from “Blazing Saddles”: “Harump! Harump! Gentlemen, we must protect our phoney-baloney jobs!”
It’s just like the Power Brake Law changes last year. Every few years they reshuffle the papers and bring in some more people to keep this vile railroad scum in line.
Its amazing they have to do this, its bad enough that people get infront of trains and get hit, BUT TO RUN INTO THE SIDE OF ON AT A CROSSING??? DUMB! People are really stupid anymore…
Some of our Operation Lifesaver friends may be able to veriify this, but there are a suprising number of accidents where a motorist hits the side of a train, especially at rural crossings with no nearby lighting. When told at an OL presentation once, I was amazed.
“Did you hear about the Aggie that tried to beat the train? He hit the 23rd car.” (a very old joke for you people from TX)
Having seen an “invisible” line of empty flats passing through an unprotected industrial crossing at night, I can tell you that it is possible to not see a train (no - I didn’t hit it. I already knew it was there). Because all of the street lights and other such clues were still visible, it was only the occasional interruption of headlights that gave any clue. No headlights - no visual clues at all. Remember that many of the above mentioned rural crossings are far from flat - there is a “ramp” up to the track, and your headlights might not pick up the train until you start up that little hill, probably at speed.
Many RRs in the past have included reflective material on certain rolling stock, usually engines and cabeese. The inclusion of the red and white reflectors on semi’s seems to be a good thing, and guidelines for fire trucks now call for at least a 4" reflective strip all the way around the vehicle. Color can vary.
It probably wouldn’t be a bad idea to include a little of the stuff on the ends of the cars, to increase visiblility from that perspective.
The RRs have been fighting this one for at least 20 years that I can remember. The arguement against was the fear that there would be an expectation (at least in a court of law) that reflectors would have to be cleaned if they got dirty. Wonder how that will work out? Will car inspectors be responsible for wiping them clean each trip?
I’d think this would be a no-brainer. If the cost of some reflective tape prevents one litigation, then it’s money and better yet one less PR damaging injury well spent.
Unfortunately the lawyers have warped the legal system (hardly news, but) …Can think of 4 major grade crossing cases where RR was assigned part of the liability because crossbucks were dirty or non-reflective. (Including a case where trucker struck a train 6 cars behind the engines after ramming the gates without even slowing down, in a snowstorm)[X-)][X-)][X-)]
Well I’m not trying to be a pain, but so the alternative would be to do nothing? In my business, things that are meant to be hidden, are painted or treated to be low observable. Things that aren’t, things that we want to be seen, are painted / taped etc to be as visible as possible. Anything that makes a train more visible seems like it would be a good idea, particularly something relatively inexpensive and easy to do. Its hard to give even lip service to safety and fight something as simple as putting conspicuity striping and reflective tape on things like say a oxide red boxcar, which turns in to a light sink at night. Aircraft run into each other fairly infrequently, yet they run with a variety of anti-collision lights.
On the one hand, people will still run into trains. It is a given.
On the other - sitting reasonably close to them in broad daylight, I have commented more than once about how quiet those rail cars are when moving. Even the engines (SD70’s only) are pretty quiet when they are just moving by themselves.
And since most of the coal cars that come through here, at least, look reasonably clean, maybe the cleaning of reflectors won’t be that big of a problem. And don’t some cars already have a reflecting type strip around an old reader or something in that area?
Just checked the Galls website - a $150 foot roll of 3" wide reflective tape (which would be able to provide a continuous strip all the way around a 60’ car, basically) is $200. In practice, that would probably do upwards of 2-3 cars, depending on the reflective area requirements.
That’s pure retail. Purchasing hundreds of feet at wholesale prices would be much cheaper. In fact, I just found truckers “conspicuity” tape (with alternating red and white), 2" wide, 50 yards, for less than $100. Figure $50 per car. A $100,000 settlement avoided marks 2000 cars (not counting labor).
Not sure what freight cars are going for these days, but it would seem that $50 would be peanuts in the overall scheme of things.