Eastern Railroad Discussion > Miles long trains block EMS, fire

The Washington Post has an article in Sunday's edition about the growing problem of 15,000+ feet long trains blocking multiple grade crossings. A baby died in one place as a stalled train blocked all routes for medical care.

Reports of fire trucks being obstructed, ambulances trapped on the "wrong" side of a train are reaching political leaders. Many seem to agree this is a bi-partisan issue.

Posted from Android



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/27/23 15:09 by Lackawanna484.

https://www.wpxi.com/news/local/trains-blocking-railroad-crossings-major-safety-concerns/XCBAIBNIJ5H7JL2G52XE5QRJPY/

66

The mayor of Niagara Falls Ontario goes bonkers when CN blocks the entire town durnbg tourist season when a train goes into emergency!

As much as I really think these long trains are a real issue and way to long, that doesn't excuse the town that should have recognised the problem long ago and made atleast one road an over crossing or subway just to make sure there is an alternate route for emergency vehicles. Redding Ca did just that many years ego because SP fouled the crossing through down town cutting off the Hospital.

Excuse me!   The town is not at fault for a railroad operating 15,000 ft trains.  I hope that the FRA & Congress bar any train over 9000 feet.  Too long; too dangerous; screws up operations; blocks crossings, etc.  

When my folks had some visitors from Germany some years ago, one of individuals was a retired German Federal Railway employee. Anyway, we got to talking and somehow we got to talking about freight trains and how long our trains are. He related to the length of a train by the number of axles. When I noted that a North American freight train could be 400 axles or more he almost called me a liar and said "No Way!" Das geht nicht! I wanted to take him out to the CSX main not far from my folks so he could make his own observation, but the two couples had to catch a flight. He sure would have been amazed.

Victor Baird



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/31/23 09:42 by wabash2800.

MEKoch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Excuse me!   The town is not at fault for a
> railroad operating 15,000 ft trains.  I hope that
> the FRA & Congress bar any train over 9000 feet. 
> Too long; too dangerous; screws up operations;
> blocks crossings, etc.  

Well EXCUSE me. If the crossings were blocked by a 5,000 foot train does that make it not a problem? You are trying to combine two different problems under the same heading. I think 9,000 feet is too long. According to you if its 9,000 feet the problem goes away. Any town that has grade crossings where a train must stop for whatever reason needs to have a work around. Yes the town is just as much at fault.

And I have been behind the wheel of a fire apparatus and have had to deal with grade crossing blocked by a train making a setout.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/27/23 18:52 by TomG.

TomG Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Well EXCUSE me. If the crossings were blocked by a
> 5,000 foot train does that make it not a problem?


I kind of depends upon the town. Is it more than 5000 feet between the two outermost crossings? If yes, then a 5000 foot train is not an insurmountable problem. More than 7000 feet? Then a 7000 foot train is not an insurbountable problem. etc.


> You are trying to combine two different problems
> under the same heading. I think 9,000 feet is too
> long.


Agree

According to you if its 9,000 feet the
> problem goes away. Any town that has grade
> crossings where a train must stop for whatever
> reason needs to have a work around. Yes the town
> is just as much at fault.

Depends upon the situation. If train length historically has been a maximum of e.g., 6000 feet and the outermost crossings are over 6000 feet apart, the town should bear no responsibility to accommodate 15000 foot trains..

TAW

MEKoch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I hope that
> the FRA & Congress bar any train over 9000 feet. 
> Too long; too dangerous; screws up operations;
> blocks crossings, etc.  


Lol....GOOD LUCK with that?!?!

The blocking of RR crossings happens a LOT more than what is normally discussed.

Posted from Android

ns1000 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MEKoch Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I hope that
> > the FRA & Congress bar any train over 9000
> feet. 
> > Too long; too dangerous; screws up operations;
> > blocks crossings, etc.  
>
>
> Lol....GOOD LUCK with that?!?!
>
> The blocking of RR crossings happens a LOT more
> than what is normally discussed.
>
> Posted from Android

Yes.

The article mentions a federal database to report blocked crossings. Some agencies use it, others do not.

Other problems include a reluctance to cut trains when a crew knows the train will be there for a while.

Sixteen state attorneys general have asked the Supreme Court to rule on whether states can impose crossing blockage rules or maximum length rules.

The article's little Northeast Texas community has the problem that its only two ways out cross the same UP siding and main line.The

In one example, EMT staff crossed under the train to assist a patient on the other side.

Posted from Android

A train going into emergency, even a short one, could block sole access, or require a extended detour for rescue vehicles.  No legislation can fix that.  But that's not where the focus should be.  It makes good headlines and yes it has and will happen, but that's not the real problem.  

The focus should be on trains deliberately stopped for railroad convenience that block crossings.  The longer the train, the more likely one or more crossings will be blocked..  Crews generally know which crossings shouldn't be blocked and will try to avoid blocking them.  It's not always possible.  The longer the train the harder it is to not block something more important on the road.

It's also not possible when putting trains together or picking up cars so that you're blocking almost, if not every, crossing in town waiting for the air to build to do required air tests.  

Maybe crews, and I'm as lax as anyone else-of course I'm not the one who would go back to cut the xings either, should start cutting crossings when stopped.  The rules require it.  Ask the  dispatcher how long and if they want to have crossings cut.  Put it on the RR if they say no and something bad happens.  The other side of the coin is then you have to do it if they should tell you to follow the rules.  It's to bad the time cars can be off air has been raised to 24 hours.   

57A26 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A train going into emergency, even a short one,
> could block sole access, or require a extended
> detour for rescue vehicles.  No legislation can
> fix that.  But that's not where the focus should
> be.  It makes good headlines and yes it has and
> will happen, but that's not the real problem.  
>


... although that is a secondary effect of the ridiculous train lengths - more mechanical failures, more UDEs.


> The focus should be on trains deliberately stopped
> for railroad convenience that block crossings. 
> The longer the train, the more likely one or more
> crossings will be blocked..  Crews generally know
> which crossings shouldn't be blocked and will try
> to avoid blocking them.  It's not always
> possible.  The longer the train the harder it is
> to not block something more important on the
> road.

Once upon a time, when train dispatchers managed the railroad, not the signals, they managed those situations by knowing where the crossings were and how big of a train fit where... and where to send the crew for coffee (or ice cream at Gold Bar or Baring WA for example) while waiting. For a standoff meet, they would not line the first train into the siding (or down the main) until the second train was close enough to make a slider-by meet through the town. If there was nowhere for a train to go, they would make a point of using that time for other trains or for gandys instead of making them stand at attention for a train that would be held. Depending upon the situation, they might tell the engineer 'I need you at (place) at (time) and let the engineer run accordingly.

Of course, in train order operation, a lot of this is left up to the crew because the dispatcher doesn't have the detailed information and often not the communication it takes.

So much railroading has been unnecessarily lost (well, I suppose unnecessary depends upon point of view. Executives and stockholders see the loss as a necessary cost reduction.

>
> It's also not possible when putting trains
> together or picking up cars so that you're
> blocking almost, if not every, crossing in town
> waiting for the air to build to do required air
> tests.  

When necessary, leave your rear end outside of town where it won't block crossings.It takes as long as it takes.


>
> Maybe crews, and I'm as lax as anyone else-of
> course I'm not the one who would go back to cut
> the xings either, should start cutting crossings
> when stopped.  The rules require it. 


There is very little understanding (no counts as very little) of what is involved in cutting crossings. Yeah, it could be pretty quick with one or two on the engine and/or two or three on the caboose. Of course, 'tain't that way any more.

I worked on the environmental report for a facility that would receive 120 car unit trains, but was located in a place that it was only possible to take 20 at a time. The only place, literally only as in absolutely no alternative for miles and miles and miles, to leave the train had crossings every block or two. In this work, you can't just say it's impractical or will take a long time. You must prove it. I figured the whole move, walking speed, cutting, pulling ahead, coupling, air test to prove that it was impractical, figuring the time for each of the crossings individually. Cutting that many crossings took somewhere far north of a long time, during which many of the crossings from the head end back were blocked during the process.

In another case, I demonstrated the difference in crossing blockage cutting vs waiting it out. Cutting could take much longer than just parking. Of course, the just parking because the crossing would be blocked less might violate rules or laws. That would be a good time to push the decision up the food chain.



> Ask the 
> dispatcher how long and if they want to have
> crossings cut.  Put it on the RR if they say no
> and something bad happens. 



Do it the other way around. Don't ask if Spatch wants the crossing cut. If the figure you get would require cutting, state the intention to do that and let 'they' tell you no. (my experience is that railroad managers avoid responsibility by telling you that 'they' want you do....)


> The other side of the
> coin is then you have to do it if they should tell
> you to follow the rules. 

Other way around. They should not tell you to violate rules. Follow the rules is the default.

> It's to bad the time
> cars can be off air has been raised to 24 hours. 
>  

Funny how convenient those things can be. Think of all the unsafe, dangerous things that magically became ok because the 'unsafe, dangerous' things cost too much.

• 500 mile inspections became 1000 mile inspections. Some trains are exempt from those. They used to be complete mechanical inspections, now there are effectively a terminal brake test.
• Backing required someone on the point. That had to be eliminated so cabooses could be eliminated.
• Leaving a main track switch wrong was prohibited until it became convenient for companies to allow/require it so they could eliminate cabooses
• Leaving train movement documents (e.g., orders, warrants, lineups) unattended was prohibited until fax machines and computer printers allowed documents to be transmitted to a machine in an otherwise empty room.

That's just at first thought.

TAW

I remember being on a trip to Huntsville, Ala in the 1960s. An L&N switching movement was crawling across one of the main streets. An ambulance came up, the train crew saw it, and the engineer threw the throttle wide open. By the time the end of the cut cleared the crossing, I'm pretty sure it was moving faster than the timetable allowed -- but the cut stayed on the rails. 

The railroads will simply pay off the parents of the dead baby. Just like the explodinding Pintos. Cheaper to pay the survivors than fix the problem.

I seem to recall back in the mid to late fifties the New York Central would run their trains short, fast and frequent.  I wonder how that would work these days.

DubyaM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I seem to recall back in the mid to late fifties
> the New York Central would run their trains short,
> fast and frequent.  I wonder how that would work
> these days.

Much better than what they are doing (given the knowledge and skill now that accomplished it then).

TAW

as long as there are 10K'+ trains with a crew member responding from the head-end to make the cut, traffic will be waiting for a while if crossings need to be cut towards the rear of the train...............

66

TAW Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> DubyaM Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I seem to recall back in the mid to late
> fifties
> > the New York Central would run their trains
> short,
> > fast and frequent.  I wonder how that would
> work
> > these days.
>
> Much better than what they are doing (given the
> knowledge and skill now that accomplished it
> then).
>
> TAW


Except we don't have that kind of manpower anymore. Oh wait, computers/automation fixes everything.....

Posted from Android

ns1000 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Except we don't have that kind of manpower
> anymore. Oh wait, computers/automation fixes
> everything.....
>

That's why I qualified it as I did. We have to remember that people who make the money are not as important as the people who count the money, knowledge is dangerous, and skill is irrelevant.

TAW