Level crossing stupidity...

[Hobby]

According to the report the rescue authorities had nothing to do with getting the pilot out, it was bystanders! No doubt "someone else" had told the railway authorities... But of course no-one had...

[Porcy Mane]

"Planes, trains & Automobiles"

 

Put aside the crap commentary. Some brave members of the Los Angeles emergency services in action yesterday.

 

 

[Michael Hodgson]

4 hours ago, Hobby said:

According to the report the rescue authorities had nothing to do with getting the pilot out, it was bystanders!

 

Makes a pleasant change ... bystanders these days see an accident about to happen, and prefer to get out their mobile phones and film the crash in the hope of "going viral". 

 

It's not surprising nobody phoned the railway - the general public don't understand railway braking distances and expect train drivers to see the line is obstructed and to stop short, the same as they would in a car. 

[jamie92208]

There is footage online now of LAPD officers pulling the pilot out just before the train hit the wreckagecof the plane.  Presumably they were reluctant to move him before the paramedics arrived in case of causi g further injury.

 

Jamie

[SamThomas]

Personally, I would have phoned the railway authotity emergency number anyway - far better to have more than one call at the control centre than none at all which is what appears to have happened here.

 

Forgetting the "getitonsocialmediaites" it's often human nature to get stuck in to help &/or rescue people.

 

The guy taking that clip nearly ended up wearing part of the plan.

 

I am aware that train brakes take a while to take effect but often watching these clips I get the impression that the trains brake very late, even when the engineer can probably see that there is an obstruction in front & one that is unlikely to move in time.

 

As usual, I stand to be corrected.

[Siberian Snooper]

I saw part of the clip on yesterday evening's BBC news.

[LMS2968]

11 hours ago, SamThomas said:

I am aware that train brakes take a while to take effect but often watching these clips I get the impression that the trains brake very late, even when the engineer can probably see that there is an obstruction in front & one that is unlikely to move in time.

 

As usual, I stand to be corrected.

So let's say a driver sees an obstruction straddling a level crossing a mile away, so in many cases beyond his stopping distance. He's doing 60 mph so a full minute from the crossing. Does he (i) throw the brake full in on the assumption that it's stuck and then watch the obstruction draw itself off the crossing; or (ii) keep going on the basis that it will clear the crossing but find out at a quarter mile distance that it won't, by which time the brake very definitely will not stop the train in time?

[Compound2632]

10 minutes ago, LMS2968 said:

So let's say a driver sees an obstruction straddling a level crossing a mile away, so in many cases beyond his stopping distance. 

 

What does their training say they should do?

Edited January 11, 2022 by Compound2632
Non gender specific language.

[big jim]

In your scenario I’d certainly be putting the brake in full service as soon as I’d evaluated the situation (which would probaly be in a few seconds) by that time you may have travelled another few hundred meters hoping I’d stop in time or the obstruction moves

 

Emergency brake would be a last minute option for me as once you hit that plunger you have no control of until the train stops, in full service you can release and reapply the brake

 

i had this happen when a tractor entered a crossing in front of me a few years back, I was only doing 50mph and when I blew the horn he reversed off the crossing I had plenty of time to safely bring the train to a stop in a controlled way, right across the crossing which I blocked with the loco, got his reg no and called the ‘box 

 

for a while afterwards I always used to blow the horn Long and hard at that crossing as that wasn’t the first time a vehicle had crossed in front of me so much so I got a call from my manager saying there had been a complaint from the farmer that the train I regularly drove was using it’s horn excessively, I told him to tell network rail that I would be continuing to use the horn in the same manner as I was concerned about vehicles crossing in front of me and pointed them to the incident in question,  the outcome was the crossing was then permanently closed a coupe of months later! 

 

 

 

 

[SamThomas]

LMS.

I did say "unlikely to move in time", so your answer is not 100% relevant to my comment.

So, lets take this a little further then - do you carry on regardless that there may be fellow human beings still in the obstruction ?

Are you telling me that you would not at the very least ease off &/or slow down ?

Of course I'm aware that a train takes a long time to stop & that it will often not be able to stop within sight of an obstruction.

There must be a huge difference between hitting an obstruction at say 60mph & 30mph - a difference to life/death/injury & that also applies to the train driver.

I'm aware that shedules need to be kept but surely its better to loose a "couple of minutes" here & there by slowing down than lossing a few hours following a collision.

 

Compound.

Be interesting to learn what the book says.

 

Jim.

Thanks for explaining the way full service & emergency brakes operate.

I certainly sympathise with you regarding horn use.

 

 

[LMS2968]

1 hour ago, SamThomas said:

Are you telling me that you would not at the very least ease off &/or slow down ?

Possibly my fault for trying to explain something in only a few words, but I was referring to the distances and time lapses involved, which are more complicated than might be thought. I suggested an arbitrary one mile as the distance. In practice, it might be much further than that, but might be much less depending on weather conditions, ambient light or the intervention of obscuring structures, such as bridges - or other level crossings. The important distance is not the one where you can see the obstruction but the much closer one where you can see that it is not only there but isn't going to move, and that's the point where you put the brake in. Remember that level crossings are more common in the USA than Britain, and there might be several one after the other with only a few hundred yards between them. Remember too that road traffic will still legitimately be crossing over in front of you when you're only twenty seconds away, but in practice quite a bit after that, up to - and sometimes after - the last second. But if you're scheduled to be doing 60 mph at that point, it's what you'll be doing. If you reduce right down to a slow pace in case one of these drivers leaves it too late, you're going nowhere. You say, correctly, that trains take time to stop, but they take longer to accelerate, especially if there's 10,000 or 15,000 tons on the drawbar. It's not only a test of the engines' power output but also the tensile strength of the couplings. You'll lose more than 'a couple of minutes', especially if there are multiple crossings, and here in Britain there's the likelihood of your employer having to pay compensation to Network Rail and other TOCs (does that apply in the States too? As the home of the compensation culture, I'd be surprised if it didn't).

 

Yes, once you've realised that the obstruction is there and is not going to move, then you put the brake full in. But if you do that every time you see something in your path a long, long way in front, you won't be keeping your job for long. You watch it carefully, but ultimately it's a matter of judgement and there isn't a simple answer.

[PhilJ W]

7 hours ago, big jim said:

In your scenario I’d certainly be putting the brake in full service as soon as I’d evaluated the situation (which would probaly be in a few seconds) by that time you may have travelled another few hundred meters hoping I’d stop in time or the obstruction moves

 

Emergency brake would be a last minute option for me as once you hit that plunger you have no control of until the train stops, in full service you can release and reapply the brake

 

i had this happen when a tractor entered a crossing in front of me a few years back, I was only doing 50mph and when I blew the horn he reversed off the crossing I had plenty of time to safely bring the train to a stop in a controlled way, right across the crossing which I blocked with the loco, got his reg no and called the ‘box 

 

for a while afterwards I always used to blow the horn Long and hard at that crossing as that wasn’t the first time a vehicle had crossed in front of me so much so I got a call from my manager saying there had been a complaint from the farmer that the train I regularly drove was using it’s horn excessively, I told him to tell network rail that I would be continuing to use the horn in the same manner as I was concerned about vehicles crossing in front of me and pointed them to the incident in question,  the outcome was the crossing was then permanently closed a coupe of months later! 

And I bet he complained long and hard about the crossing being closed.

[Michael Hodgson]

7 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

What does their training say they should do?

Repeat after me :

"Our father, which art in heaven ...."

[big jim]

42 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

And I bet he complained long and hard about the crossing being closed.

there was a long list of crossing abuse there, a collegue at colas also nearly a JCB on the same crossing on the Boston steel job, so close he even ran into the engine room and braced for impact, again the tractor quickly reversed out of the way

 

i however was a good 3-4 years after that incident that the crossing shut so I don’t know if the closure has been a long running thing and my incident was the last straw 

Edited January 11, 2022 by big jim

[corneliuslundie]

Re the crashed aircraft, it was stated in the news item that bits of the level crossing were scattered around. if that included the signs with the emergency phone numbers it might explain why no-one phoned the railway.

I imagine that the plane came off very much the worst in the argument.

Jonathan

[Michael Hodgson]

1 hour ago, corneliuslundie said:

I imagine that the plane came off very much the worst in the argument.

 

With a gross weight of not much more than a ton, it would be no contest.

[PhilJ W]

13 hours ago, corneliuslundie said:

Re the crashed aircraft, it was stated in the news item that bits of the level crossing were scattered around. if that included the signs with the emergency phone numbers it might explain why no-one phoned the railway.

I imagine that the plane came off very much the worst in the argument.

Jonathan

Just as well it crashed onto the level crossing where the rescuers could easily get the pilot out. If it had crashed onto the tracks somewhere less accessible it might have had a very different outcome.

[Nick C]

Another one in Poland - luckily no-one hurt this time: https://www.rynek-kolejowy.pl/wiadomosci/wypadek-pod-niemojkami-lokomotywa-pkp-ic-wykolejona-szynobus-polregio-uszkodzony-106296.html

 

Google translation: 

Quote

On January 19, at 8:35 a.m. on a railroad crossing, secured by traffic lights, near the village of Stok Lacki, on the Siedlce - Czeremcha railway line, the truck was at the crossing. There was a collision with the TLK Żubr train of the PKP Intercity company on the Białystok - Warsaw route. The Intercity train locomotive was damaged and derailed. The driver of the car left the vehicle earlier.

 

[SamThomas]

On 11/01/2022 at 13:22, LMS2968 said:

Possibly my fault for trying to explain something in only a few words, but I was referring to the distances and time lapses involved, which are more complicated than might be thought. I suggested an arbitrary one mile as the distance. In practice, it might be much further than that, but might be much less depending on weather conditions, ambient light or the intervention of obscuring structures, such as bridges - or other level crossings. The important distance is not the one where you can see the obstruction but the much closer one where you can see that it is not only there but isn't going to move, and that's the point where you put the brake in. Remember that level crossings are more common in the USA than Britain, and there might be several one after the other with only a few hundred yards between them. Remember too that road traffic will still legitimately be crossing over in front of you when you're only twenty seconds away, but in practice quite a bit after that, up to - and sometimes after - the last second. But if you're scheduled to be doing 60 mph at that point, it's what you'll be doing. If you reduce right down to a slow pace in case one of these drivers leaves it too late, you're going nowhere. You say, correctly, that trains take time to stop, but they take longer to accelerate, especially if there's 10,000 or 15,000 tons on the drawbar. It's not only a test of the engines' power output but also the tensile strength of the couplings. You'll lose more than 'a couple of minutes', especially if there are multiple crossings, and here in Britain there's the likelihood of your employer having to pay compensation to Network Rail and other TOCs (does that apply in the States too? As the home of the compensation culture, I'd be surprised if it didn't).

 

Yes, once you've realised that the obstruction is there and is not going to move, then you put the brake full in. But if you do that every time you see something in your path a long, long way in front, you won't be keeping your job for long. You watch it carefully, but ultimately it's a matter of judgement and there isn't a simple answer.

Thanks for adding some more detail - puts a whole new aspect to the subject.

I appreciate your time.

[melmerby]

Another one from Ashland VA

 

[Keith J]

He stopped right outside what looks like a model shop. Tiny Tims Trains & Toys.

[Michael Hodgson]

Perhaps the Americans should paint double yellow lines along their railway tracks.

[Hroth]

2 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

Perhaps the Americans should paint double yellow lines along their railway tracks.

 

One on each railhead? 

 

Chunky track too, must be Code 125 at least! 

[melmerby]

10 hours ago, Keith J said:

He stopped right outside what looks like a model shop. Tiny Tims Trains & Toys.

Yes, they probably wanted a look in but the road is currently closed, so had use the tracks instead.

 

I'm a little surprised there isn't a ramped delineation between the tarmac and the ballast on US crossings, that way any miscreant drivers would be able to reverse out, without causing huge delays to the trains whilst vehicles are recovered.

In this case the driver was lucky and did managed to reverse out, but many can't. Still took best part of an hour though..

[Michael Hodgson]

If it happens as frequently as it clearly does, this indicates that there's a problem with signage, road layout or whatever.  They ought to do some sort of redesign of the arrangements so as to reduce the incidence of disruption to the railway service, to say nothing of the obvious safety issues