Join the discussion on the following article:
Union Pacific adjusts timing at Texas crossing where vets died
Union Pacific is doing the right thing by doing that,& something else the railroads should do is install camera’s @ the crossings i live in west virginia & seen people drive around gates to beat the trains while i’m videoing.
The adjustment will help in the event another train is moving 2 mph or more over the speed limit of 60mph. It probably will not do a lot of good if a vehicle travelling at parade route speed enters the crossing after the warnings begin to activate.
“Over and above federal regulations”? More like going over the top to some idiot that was running the parade vehicle
Well alright then. Now the gates come down sooner. Some idiot unwilling to wait for the train will drive around the gates. We are back to where we started with nothing solved. Instead of addressing the technology, which is clearly not the problem, how about shifting full responsibility to the idiot driver who decided it was a good idea to go around the gate in the first place and the parade organizers who decided it was a good idea to not notify the railroad in question?
Good to see that change. When I first read of the incident I thought right away that 20 secs was a bit too short of a time interval. Another 10 secs may have saved some lives. I retired from an aviation career and of course the FAA regulates the airlines/general aviation just like the FRA regulates the rail industry. Most if not all airlines go above and beyond the minimum FAA mandated standards as an extra margin of safety, so from my perspective I would think the RR’s could do the same–maybe they do, I just don’t know if they do. Anyway, waiting 30 secs for a train to reach the grade crossing doesn’t seem long to me.
It is a tragedy, but you would think that the driver would be as sure as he could be that the crossing was clear and that he could safely make it a across.
The “Quiet Zone” (no horns allowed) killed them.
The Guse-ter is right about extending the interval will prompt the impatient to run around the lowered gates.
Tho’ the technology is part of the problem; shifting the responsibility to the idiots will satisfy the survivors of the collisions, but won’t make the coffins any more comfortable for the others involved.
A technological cure to prevent intrusion of trespassing people or vehicles on that 11 feet wide hole in the world a train occupies at a crossing…all vehicles nationally fitted with a kill switch activated by an approaching train’s radio; the vehicles engine dies, the vehicles brakes apply stopping short of the crossing’s occupancy by the approaching train.
Auto collision repair shop owners would, of course, be gazzilionaires upon activation of the technology.
Keeping the railroad clear ahead of…that is the problem, not shifting responibility.
Inviting other outlandish, screwball, weird, fantastic, ways to keep that 11-foot wide crossing hole in the world clear, Happy An(y)o Nuevo!
I agree with JEFFERY GUSE in that the longer you make a motorist wait the more likely the dumb ones will go around the gates. Trying to solve the problem this way creates a problem the other way. Bring back the horns.
This is what sets Union Pacific above the others. It did the right
thing for the right reason, knowing that plaintiffs attorneys will
will use this against them in court.
The only way to solve this problem is to close the crossing and bridge over or tunnel under the tracks.
I think UP adjusting the timing makes them look guilty. If the crossing was already in compliance why adjust, especially since the accident wasn’t their fault.
SP in IL had a similar timing and track speed combination. They decided to lengthen the interval spread at a crossing to protect buffoons. Subsequent, the estate of another buffoon sued and accused SP of essentially an attractive nuisance. The “long delay time of over 30 seconds was unreasonable” and “encouraged” drivers to go around the gates. An Illinois Circuit court, in a lapse of intelligence, agreed.
In aviation, the insurance carriers set the effective standards, typically far above and beyond those of the FAA minimums.
Just what percentage of NTSB accident determinations in aviation are attributed primarily to pilot error? It’s well over 50%. So I fail to see the relevance.
This looks like nothing more than a public relations gimmick designed to minimize any damage to Union Pacific if the matter of the accident ever goes to court. Adjusting the timing of warning devices at one grade crossing ignores the same problem at the thousands of other crossings in the country. Even if warning devices at all grade crossings were adjusted in the same manner, it would not affect the tendency of careless drivers to ignore warning gates and signals.
In fact, activating the warning devices sooner means that drivers have to wait even longer before a train appears. Impatient drivers will fret and squirm even more, increasing the chance that they will try to beat the train to the crossing.
Motorists run crossings a lot at 20secs, I see more now. At 60mph, or avg about 88-90ft per second. That is 1,760ft in 20secs. That equates to approx. 1/3 of a mile warning. I see more impatient people going around gates and lights. IMO
Twenty seconds is a very long time for gates to be lowered and the warning lights activated. If some idiot is going to ignore 20 seconds an additional 10 is not going help. My math is probably way off; at 30 miles per/hr my guess would be that a vehicle would travel about 300/yds in 20 seconds. If that is not enough warning then an additional 10 seconds wont help. The Driver and the origination sponsoring the parade should be held fully accountable for their negligence for the deaths and damage, not UP.
A public project to solve this problem is not the answer. But how about a criminal charge for stupidity…
Jeffrey, Jacob and Stephen make good points. An NS signal installer once explained to me that the FRA warning activation time is 20 seconds because studies show that most drivers won’t wait any longer before trying to cross. Never mind that they’ll put their lives at risk. I’m with William, too, on the hazards of quiet zones. As a vet, I’m also sorry for the deaths.
Jeffrey has a point. As I understand it, the FRA set warning time at 20 seconds before a train traveling at track speed reaches the crossing because studies show that manybmoterists won’t wait any longer before theybtry tom cross the