Home Open Account Help 258 users online

Eastern Railroad Discussion > A Follow Up To Today's IOTD


Date: 03/11/19 13:55
A Follow Up To Today's IOTD
Author: NSSpike

At the time of posting “Two NS Dispatchers Answering An Emergency Tone” I didn't think it would have ever had as many reply posts that it has.
https://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?2,4749406
Rather then do an update follow-up within that post and it get lost I have elected to create a follow up post on the subject. I will attempt to address two areas of discussion that seamed to be talked about the most aside from Driver Incompetence.

A. Amount / Type / Location of WARNING signs. (Key word: Warning)
B. Track Elevation 

# 1 & 2  The pictures below indicate what type warning signs are currently in placed on US 78 hi-way. First view traveling west. Second the view traveling east. Although I wasn't on site when it happened, I am inclined to believe they were approaching the crossing on US 78 from the west heading east. Within each of the two pictures below I have inserted in the red box for what I believe to be the correct warning signs that should be installed. Key WARNING with a Yellow Background!!! To me the current signs are more as an “information” with a white background. Maybe used as a deterrence to reduce trucks from taking a short cut through a residential neighborhood perhaps.
… more to follow...

Phil Maton
Villa Rica, GA



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/11/19 14:01 by NSSpike.






Date: 03/11/19 14:00
Re: A Follow Up To Today's IOTD
Author: NSSpike

Track Elevation
#3. Looking north at Ringer RoadHere is a look that better shows the elevation difference of the road crossing between US 78 and the tracks. At this location the tracks, main and siding are on the western end of a curve. Lowering the tracks is not an option here. Of note is the sign in the red box. I believe this is a new sign that replaced one that just said NO TRUCKS. To me.. YELLOW background required.  

#4. Looking south at Ringer Road. Siding then main line. Note the gouge in the asphalt at the far rail. 

#5. Looking toward the east. Note the new cantilever signal bridge that replaced the old bridge that was demolished when an east bound IM train hit a flat bed that was going south toward US 78 and got stuck. I posted a few photos here on TO taken from the other side of the crossing gate as east bounders dig into that curve. 
Perhaps this post paints a better picture of the location and existing conditions of this “Ringer Crossroads” crossing. 

Thanks for stopping by and always be safe when out enjoying this hobby!!!

Phil Maton
Villa Rica, GA








Date: 03/11/19 14:04
Re: A Follow Up To Today's IOTD
Author: toledopatch

The white sign with a red circle/slash is not informational, it is regulatory. It means NO TRUCKS. Any truck that makes the turn there has violated a traffic law.
 



Date: 03/11/19 14:12
Re: A Follow Up To Today's IOTD
Author: NSSpike

toledopatch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The white sign with a red circle/slash is not
> informational, it is regulatory. It means NO
> TRUCKS. Any truck that makes the turn there has
> violated a traffic law.
>  

Thanks for clarifying that fact!!  In your opinion is that sufficient enough given the conditions as the photos indicate?
Perhaps sufficient enough for an officer of the law to issue a ticket I guess. Maybe both signs are required?
Again thanks for your input!!

Phil Maton
Villa Rica, GA



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/11/19 14:13 by NSSpike.



Date: 03/11/19 14:22
Re: A Follow Up To Today's IOTD
Author: icancmp193

White sign. Yellow sign. The fact of the matter is the driver has to read it!

TJY



Date: 03/11/19 14:29
Re: A Follow Up To Today's IOTD
Author: toledopatch

NSSpike Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> toledopatch Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The white sign with a red circle/slash is not
> > informational, it is regulatory. It means NO
> > TRUCKS. Any truck that makes the turn there has
> > violated a traffic law.
> >  
>
> Thanks for clarifying that fact!!  In your
> opinion is that sufficient enough given the
> conditions as the photos indicate?
> Perhaps sufficient enough for an officer of the
> law to issue a ticket I guess. Maybe both signs
> are required?

I don't think it would be harmful to have an auxiliary sign explaining why the turn is prohibited, but legally it's not necessary.



Date: 03/11/19 15:37
Re: A Follow Up To Today's IOTD
Author: blackmetal2002

going by the fact that it was a double wide manufactured home, is it possible they were delivering it to a site for a property owner to set up a residence and that is the only way to get there? and if that was the case, the company doing the transporting should have known about the route to get there and the crossing as well.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/11/19 15:39 by blackmetal2002.



Date: 03/11/19 17:12
Re: A Follow Up To Today's IOTD
Author: Retired_Chief

I concur with Patch.



Date: 03/11/19 17:36
Re: A Follow Up To Today's IOTD
Author: CSX602

Yellow signs are warning signs.  They are for information and advisory (i.e. for your safety).
White signs are regulatory signs and police can (and do) write tickets for disobeying regulatory signs.

The crossing drag hazard warning signs are intended for roadways where some trucks are allowed (it is to warn tractor trailer drivers with drop bottom trailers that they could drag on the crossing and get stuck).  The sign is not intended for roads where trucks are not allowed because those trucks should not be there in the first place.   As a general rule warning signs regarding trucks are not put up on roads where trucks are not supposed to be.   And BTW most No Trucks signage is due to roads or bridges not being designed for the weight (at bridges or culverts) or turning radius of trucks so any truck on such a road might soon regret going there.

White/black signs (speed limit, no turns, no trucks, one way...) and red/white signs (Stop, Do Not Enter) are the strongest signs and anybody who has a drivers license should recall that from the test to get one.

And as a professional traffic engineer, I will attest from experience that posting more or larger signs can't correct the utter stupidity of some drivers.   
A growing percentage of drivers pay no attention to signs at all and that increases the danger to every other driver on the road.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/11/19 17:48 by CSX602.



Date: 03/11/19 18:07
Re: A Follow Up To Today's IOTD
Author: NSSpike

toledopatch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> > > The white sign with a red circle/slash is not
> > > informational, it is regulatory. It means NO
> > > TRUCKS. Any truck that makes the turn there
> has
> > > violated a traffic law.
>
> I don't think it would be harmful to have an
> auxiliary sign explaining why the turn is
> prohibited, but legally it's not necessary.

I guess what is somewhat puzzling to me is that at several locations in west Georgia where hi-way US 78 that parallels the tracks, has 
an intersecting road crossing of the tracks, the pictured sign with the tractor trailer straddling the tracks is used where applicable. And yet, may
or may not include the white red circle/slash sign. So the fact that this US hi-way is not consistent with signage applied makes it more puzzling.
 

Phil Maton
Villa Rica, GA



Date: 03/11/19 18:47
Re: A Follow Up To Today's IOTD
Author: NSSpike

CSX602 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yellow signs are warning signs.  They are for
> information and advisory (i.e. for your safety).
> White signs are regulatory signs and police can
> (and do) write tickets for disobeying regulatory
> signs.
>

> White/black signs (speed limit, no turns, no
> trucks, one way...) and red/white signs (Stop, Do
> Not Enter) are the strongest signs and anybody who
> has a drivers license should recall that from the
> test to get one.
>
CSX602 as a professional traffic engineer, thanks for the professional input on this topic.
At the top of this post the third picture shows what I indicate as a New sign. One on each side of the tracks at the intersecting cross road intersection.
It has replaced the NO TRUCKS sign at both locations. It is more specific. Over 6 Wheels. Both have been recently installed. I understand and agree
with the color / regulatory aspects indicated by you and Patch!  I just believe the Tractor / Trailer over the tracks sign should be applied as indicated in
pics #1 & 2.
Thanks 



 

Phil Maton
Villa Rica, GA




Date: 03/11/19 19:35
Re: A Follow Up To Today's IOTD
Author: kevink

As another highway engineer let me add my thoughts. If anything, I would add the W10-5 low clearance crossing sign with a supplemental arrow panel pointing in the direction of the crossing between the W10-3 warning sign and regulatory trucks prohibited sign. Under the W10-3 warning sign, I would put the “Truck use of crossing prohibited” panel.

As others have noted, all the signs in the world won’t matter if the driver ignores them.

Posted from iPhone



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/11/19 19:38 by kevink.



Date: 03/11/19 19:42
Re: A Follow Up To Today's IOTD
Author: CSX602

If trucks of some types are allowed on that road, and I were the local highway engineer, then I'd have the W10-3 and W10-5 signs as kevink described.  And he makes good point that if used on the other (main) highway the signs would need the supplimental signs with arrows toward crossing on that side road.

One other aspect that creates some abiguity...   There is difference between No Trucks and No Through Trucks signage.   The latter doesn't include trucks making deliveries on that road/street, and in some states and localities even the No Trucks does not apply to trucks making deliveries (such as delivery trucks or UPS).   (I'm not sure how GA is on that)  Every road/street that has a truck restriction has to have that in the local code of laws (including penalty) and more details would be found there.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/11/19 20:00 by CSX602.



Date: 03/12/19 10:02
Re: A Follow Up To Today's IOTD
Author: robj

Following this late but what I see is a patched crossing, possibly done by highway, possibly by railroad, certainly not a good job. 
Hard to tell but look like a hump in middle, possibly ROW was raised and crossing redone at the tracks but not the approach.
So just let the RR and Hwy dept off the hook for a poor job and blame the trucker only.

Wonder what engineer if any signed off on the crosing as it exists and does it meet standards.
Just doing lousy work and then put up a sign?

We can delve into CDL's etc but often problems accidents or near ones are not single caused.

Bob



Date: 03/12/19 10:25
Re: A Follow Up To Today's IOTD
Author: CSX602

The area of the grade crossing would be done by the railroad or a contractor working for the railroad.  It is likely railroad owned ROW.
The roadway at that crossing looks pretty good (except for one gouge likely result of prior truck) and the "patched" area just the partial overlay done by the railroad probably last time they did crssing work there.  To make that crossing totally flat and usable for all trucks would likely be a $1+ million project (for which I'm sure the truckers wouldn't want to pay additional taxes to cover, nor would normal taxpayers of that county/town/state, nor would Norfolk Southern).

Actually most roadway accidents are indeed single cause - often somebody driving too fast for the conditions, distracted, or thinking a warning sign didn't apply to them.  I monitor traffic cameras every day and you would be amazed/shocked at some things commonly seen (both with cars and trucks).



Date: 03/12/19 12:12
Re: A Follow Up To Today's IOTD
Author: robj

I don't think we are talking about a flat crossing.  What I see it was raised, seems obvious.  A few inches on a crest can make all the difference in the world.  Not at all absolving driver.

As far as blame, I read an interesting article about Sweden.  They are not so much in the blame game.  They look at accidents and try to look at ways to prevent them.

I live in a rural area not that far from Chicago.  Major fatalaties pretty regular are missed stop signs and leaving the roadway.
Yes the drivers fault and I see some who treat stops signs as optional.
However, Improvements done or needed. Pre-stop sign warnings. Warning stripe on road. Illuminated lights around stop sign.  Brush clearing and trees limiting view of highway
and signs.

Rurals roads themselves are from the 20's or before. Poor pavement, terrible curves, little shoulder, low shoulder, no shoulder.  You would not believe how deficient  Hwy 20 a major state highway is compared to the standard Wisconsin Highway.  There are still crossings where the intersections are still at 45 degree angle with limited sight.

Bob Jordan



Date: 03/12/19 19:12
Re: A Follow Up To Today's IOTD
Author: CSX602

Bob,
I'll agree that roads are not maintained to the form they used to be.  The reason is manpower...   Most local and state highway agencies now have half or less of the crews they had 30 years ago.  The reason?  Budget cuts to not have to increase taxes.  That's why you don't see the tree clearing and brush clearing, or as much shoulder work.

Meanwhile on roadway striping the older style paint that used to last for 10+ years (and was cheap) was outlawed (environmental regs), so now what has to be used is thermoplastic ($$, and a petroleum product that increases in price every time petroleum prices go up, but never comes down) or water based paint (which lasts until it rains a few times)...  On top of that putting up one new warning sign now means checking that sign every year for reflectiveness (at night) or having a program where all the signs in that area are replaced every 8-12 years (that new federal requirement is a big change when signs used to be put up and last 15-30 years and without having to be checked).  That $250 for a sign now also means likely $350-400 for its replacement in 8-12 years.

Bottom line is every new marking or any new sign is an additional expense, and most road maintenance staffs are short handed and under-budgeted as it is...  That's why many, for necessary cost reductions, are now only doing signs that are absolutely required.

They can probably maintain highways a bit better in Sweden (and Europe) since their taxes are several times higher than what is common (or would be tolerated) in the US, and their highway use and traffic levels much less than seen in US.  Here in US the FHWA does studies and makes recommendations, and since driver habits are different in US, what works in other parts of the world sometimes has different/worse results here.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/12/19 21:34 by CSX602.



[ Share Thread on Facebook ] [ Search ] [ Start a New Thread ] [ Back to Thread List ] [ <Newer ] [ Older> ] 
Page created in 0.0983 seconds