You’d think…
But what could happen is that you’d lose several that you would have won because of claims that dirty/missing/worn out reflective material contributed.
Over on Railpictures.net a while back, there was a “responsible” graffitti artist who claimed he only painted over the “unimportant” stuff![:D]
Or the coffee was too hot…
[quote]
QUOTE: Originally posted by theNomad
LC- Good point about the “invisible” tank car. I know of a lawsuit in California where some dang fool drove around the gates and got clobbered, fortunately by a slow moving train, and STILL won his case. I don’t remember all the particulars now ( it was a number of years ago ) but at the time I actually thought about finding a new career. The engineer was named in the suit as a liable party! The way these stinkin’ lawyers are now, I’m surprised the dispatcher wasn’t named too. Point is, any one of us can be sued by anyone. The hoghead in that case wasn’t held liable, but a different jury might well have done otherwise. Forgive me for being a cynic, but close calls are almost a daily occurrence these days, so I dread any new government so-called safety rule. As I said before, I know these things are well intentioned, but I wonder how many of these bright-eyed and bushy-tailed young government weenies have even been in a rail yard, let alone in the cab of a locomotive. Such is the nature of bureaucracy, I suppose, but gee, guys, don’t you drive a car? If you don’t, then I guess I have to cut you some slack, but if you do, then you darn well ought to be aware of how stupid people can be behind the wheel! And that’s not even taking pedestrians and bicyclists into account. I had an example of bicycle idiocy no more than a week ago at a suburban grade crossing. Damn fool went around a pedestrian gate so close in front of us that I was just SURE we got him. Thankfully, he made it, but my heart rate probably didn’t get back to normal for two days. Worst part of it was, he had stopped at the gate like he was going to wait. Then, at the last possible second, he changed his mind and went for it. We were at track speed ( 38 MPH at that point ) with only 33 cars. Now, how many seconds of time did he risk his life for? Anyway, people, you see where I’m coming from. The bureaucrats can make all the rules they want, but they’ll never succede in outlawing st
Mac-
I think you may have missed my point.
As I understand the AAR Rules (and I am no mechanical/AAR Billing Expert) if the repairs are to safety appliances you may NOT bill the car owner for them. The railroad making the repairs must absorb the cost of the repairs, in this case replacing failed reflective tape.
LC
The new Amtrak Superliner Cars have the relective stuff on the bottum of it, I really don’t like the look of the new Superliner, I think that It ruins the nice clean look the rest of the Superliner cars show. Also, the new cars don’t have the words Superliner on them. And now the words coach class is stencilled where the big black Amtrak used to be. Give me the old paint job any day!
Brad
LC- I definitly hear ya about “well lit” yards. Just to clarify, I never said I was against reflective tape, only against the government mandating it. The points that have been made about accident prevention ( you’ll never know how many you prevented ) are exactly right. I would also agree that the saving of only one life makes the whole effort worthwhile. No question. I guess I’m probably a little too cynical, but it seems to me that the more we do to protect people, the less they do to protect themselves. So many people these days expect Big Brother to look out for them, but even Big Brother can’t be everywhere at once. Take the idiot on the bicycle the other day. If we had hit that fool, somehow it would have been our fault. Maybe we should have had a sign that said “Caution, instant death ahead”! I guess what I’m trying to get across here is this: When the government steps in with new rules, there’s a perception on the public’s part that the railroad industry has to be forced to be safe. Certainly there have been times when that’s been true, but those times , thankfully, are gone. Just as certainly, we’re not the only ones that are looked at that way. For me, at least , it all comes back to personal responsibility. I’m very much aware of the fact that I’m a long way from being perfect. So are we all. I go out each day and do my level best to do my job safely, but I’m human. I make mistakes. Thank God, I’ve never made a mistake that hurt anyone, but I’ve come close. Point is, when I do get my head “where the sun don’t shine”, I don’t blame anyone else for it. It’s on me. The problem these days is that with government regulation, public perception, and hungry lawyers, the other guy’s mistakes are on me too! That’s my real point here. Where is the personal responsibility on the part of the person who drives into the side of the train? Or the guy that driv
I have tried very hard not to squeak out a opinion about reflective tape on trains. Here goes.
1- Crossings are marked. Most people especially locals understand how to live and avoid the train at the crossing. The few people who drive around gates that are already down put thier own lives at risk.
2- A train that is blocking the crossing is usually in a area during switching, the truckers who go into these areas are off the beaten path and they understand the danger. Not the commuter who is trying to get to work with other commuters in the morning.
3- Reflective tape on trucks have saved my live as bad weather occured. Once a truck equippted with reflective tape moved across my road and I was able to see the tape and execute the speed reduction prior to seeing the truck itself. If that tape was not on the truck I would be dead today.
Trains dont need reflective tape any more than they need crossings to be well marked and well equippted. I would prefer this:
The money to be spent to replace crossings that allow vehicles to overhang onto tracks like that school bus did some time ago…
And to equipt all crossings with gates and proper markings and signage so EVERYONE traveling towards it will know that there is potential for train activity.l
and finally it is my humble opinion that a TRAIN has the right of way regardless of it’s travels versus a car or truck on the road trying to cross against it. The number of accidents prevented by reflective tape is not enough to be justified by the cost.
If they MUST tape those trains then do it along the bottom of every rail car. The grafitti artists will eventaully reduce the effectiveness of the tape and cause further headaches by requiring the tape to be replaced.
There are far more urgent needed things requireing railroadmen’s attention and time than stripping off and replacing a 10 dollar roll of tape on a box car that is not at the customer being loaded a
JD
Your points are taken and I agree with most. There is almost no way, barring the locomotive falling from a bridge on top of you, to be hit by a train without being on the tracks. And unless you were tied to the tracks by some dastardly fiend with a curly moustache and black hat or some similiar act completely beyond your control…then you are at fault. Period. And I am a huge supporter of personal responsibility, constitutionality and limited regulation…So do I think the government should have to regulate reflective tape…no, not at all. Because that is something the RRs should have done themselves along time ago, and had they, it wouldn’t have become an issue. I would want everyone to see my train, so there is no mistaking what it is and when it’s around…public and employees. The object is not to protect people from themselves…a freaking piece of tape isn’t going to achieve that…it’s to make it more visible, more prominent, stand out against the darkness, particularly in places that don’t have gates. Unfortunately it comes to this because industries, not just RRs will do the letter of the law. If the FRA said 8 square feet have to be covered and that’s it, then they’d cover eight square feet in the easiest way possible…an 8 sf reflective square on the roof. It requires the gov’t to specifically spell out the requirements or the intent will never get met.
Lawyers are going to find something. That’s what they do. But the one accident that it does prevent…the one that will never get any press …because there was no accident…will cover the cost of putting the damn tape on the cars. But that is a savings that cannot be shown. I find it remarkable that that RRs would have to be mandated to do this and with things like the NYT articles and “Danger on the Tracks” they’d want to go on record fighting it. And it’s not like this is a surprise, either. It’s been five years in the making.
As far as interchange goes, I was under the impressio
Dan
My sentiments exactly!!
Thanks.
Jay
dharmon-- Some excellent points. I think the best among them is the idea that the railroads should have done this themselves a long time ago. I can only speak about our front office, and admittedly it’s mostly guesswork, but it seems that the attitude is “We’re going to get sued no matter what we do, so don’t make any extra effort”. I can’t say I blame them. I asked my conductor, a guy I’ve known for ten years or so, what he thought about this. ( This was just a few hours ago.) I knew I could count on him to be an even bigger cynic than me, and he didn’t let me down. His response? " Yeah, go ahead and put tape all over everything. Know what’ll happen? The first dumb s–t that runs into a train after that will say that he was confused by the reflection!" Worst part of it is, the dumb s–t will sue the railroad, not the FRA. And win. I don’t think this kind of attitude is confined to the railroads, and maybe that’s the real problem. Certainly, the railroads should have done something like reflector tape on their own. Had they done so, as you said, it wouldn’t be an issue now. For all we know, some such thing may have been discussed, but then shot down on the basis of “Why spend the money? It won’t keep us from getting sued!” And if, in fact, such discussions have occurred in railroad boardrooms, then how many other industries have had similar ones? OK, I know I’m reaching here, but I’m not reaching all that far. It goes a long way toward explaining why the railroads are willing to be seen as fighting against safety regulations. Again, I can’t say I blame them, but I think I’d have approached it a little differently. We’re now back where we started. The railroads should have beaten the FRA to the punch, especially since they knew this was coming anyway. By doing so, they would have taken away just a little of the bureaucracy’s power over them, and at the same time appeared to be the good guys. How can you lose on that? As for the lawyers, no one wins there. The only good lawyer is one that’s worki
Speaking from my experience at Conrail, we did look at reflective material for locomotives and freight cars in late 1980s. The one issue that kept popping up was the maintainability of the tape. If you put it on, you HAVE to maintain it. You can’t rest on the arguement “well, it was better than nothing at all”. Maintaining it was part of the whole deal.
There is more to applying this stuff than just rolling on some reflective tape.
In order to keep the material from peeling off and/or delaminating, you have to edge seal it. The best way to do this is to apply it when painting. An alternative is to apply some clear along the edges after you apply it.
Locomotives tend to get repainted every 5 to 10 years and washed several times a month. Freight cars tend to get painted every 20-40 years and never get washed.
Conrail believed that they could apply the reflective material as part of the repainting process and would be able to maintain it in reasonable condition until the next repainting. They did not believe the same to be true for freight cars and therefore chose only to apply it to locomotives - voluntarily.
Don-- Thanks, good info! I didn’t know about the installation issues with this stuff. All the more reason the railroads have fought against it. Obviously, it’s more expensive than I thought, even if only in time spent. As you point out, though, the issue is maintainability. That’s always been my point. I won’t re-ha***he previous discussion, except to agree with you that “If you put it on, you HAVE to maintain it.” Failure to do so creates liability, and we certainly don’t need more of that. --JD
[quote]
QUOTE: Originally posted by theNomad
LC- I definitly hear ya about “well lit” yards. Just to clarify, I never said I was against reflective tape, only against the government mandating it. The points that have been made about accident prevention ( you’ll never know how many you prevented ) are exactly right. I would also agree that the saving of only one life makes the whole effort worthwhile. No question. I guess I’m probably a little too cynical, but it seems to me that the more we do to protect people, the less they do to protect themselves. So many people these days expect Big Brother to look out for them, but even Big Brother can’t be everywhere at once. Take the idiot on the bicycle the other day. If we had hit that fool, somehow it would have been our fault. Maybe we should have had a sign that said “Caution, instant death ahead”! I guess what I’m trying to get across here is this: When the government steps in with new rules, there’s a perception on the public’s part that the railroad industry has to be forced to be safe. Certainly there have been times when that’s been true, but those times , thankfully, are gone. Just as certainly, we’re not the only ones that are looked at that way. For me, at least , it all comes back to personal responsibility. I’m very much aware of the fact that I’m a long way from being perfect. So are we all. I go out each day and do my level best to do my job safely, but I’m human. I make mistakes. Thank God, I’ve never made a mistake that hurt anyone, but I’ve come close. Point is, when I do get my head “where the sun don’t shine”, I don’t blame anyone else for it. It’s on me. The problem these days is that with government regulation, public perception, and hungry lawyers, the other guy’s mistakes are on me too! That’s my real point here. Where is the personal responsibility on the part of the pers