Metro north hits car in crossing killing 7

[cteno4]

Ugly and sad.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/04/nyregion/metro-north-train-hits-vehicle-on-tracks.html?smprod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share

 

Jeff

[HantuBlauLOL]

It's a yearly event here.

[bikkuri bahn]

Ugh at some comments I have seen.  "We need seatbelts in trains!"

[ozman2009]

Seat belts in trains? We need SUV drivers with brains!

 

Yes, I know it's sad, but there have just been so many accidents like this. Are there really that many car drivers who do not understand that a train (or tram) can't stop in as short a distance as they can?

[kvp]

I think most of these deaths could be prevented if the trains had something heavy and hard on the front, like a locomotive or at least a reinforced cab car. Last year there was a similar accident in Hungary with a car and a railjet, but in that case luckily the train was moving locomotive forward, so only the locomotive burnt out and no deaths. It would have been much worse if the train had run control car first as it does 50% of the time. As far as i see metro north has rather soft driving trailers on the front. For some time in the past there was a rule around the world (including the UK and Hungary) that there could be no passengers within the first or first half of a driving trailer while the train was moving. Usually that space was reserved for a baggage/bicycle compartement and/or hep/hvac systems. This rule is still followed by many new trains, even though the regulations have been lifted.

[marknewton]

If the news reports are accurate, it was an act of breathtaking stupidity that caused this collision.

 

This is precisely the reason that I utterly loathe and detest level crossings. You cannot trust motorists to do the right thing at them. I'm sure I'm not the only one on this forum who has experienced that sick feeling of helplessness that comes from seeing a vehicle go around or under the crossing gates as you're approaching them at speed.

 

Mark.

[kvp]

Level crossings are dangerous and some people will try to make mistakes, but it is possible to make them better with a bit of engineering. For example full size gates, that cover the crossing to the ground is a good option. Adding obstruction detectors to the line so the train could be stopped with signalling if the gates are not down and cleared of any objects. Getting the gates down well before the train comes also helps. In the past there were crossings with human operators, who made sure that they are closed and locked before allowing a train to approach them. Nowdays this can be automated to a rather high degree of security and it would save quite a lot of lives. Of course not having level crossings is also a great way to achive this, but that costs more than a few extra sensors and signals.

[railsquid]

If the news reports are accurate, it was an act of breathtaking stupidity that caused this collision.

 

This is precisely the reason that I utterly loathe and detest level crossings. You cannot trust motorists to do the right thing at them. I'm sure I'm not the only one on this forum who has experienced that sick feeling of helplessness that comes from seeing a vehicle go around or under the crossing gates as you're approaching them at speed.

 

A couple of years ago the Keikyu line around Kamata station was being converted to elevated track. Being Japan, the only way to do this was to construct pillars immediately to either side of the existing line and build the elevated track over it, which meant the train was effectively travelling through a curving tunnel with very limited visibility on each side, but with the existing density of level crossings (every couple of hundred metres) - at Keikyu's typically high speeds. I remember standing at the front of the train and wondering how the hell the drivers managed to cope with that, because there was no way of anticipating what might happen at any given crossing - it was scary just watching.

 

See e.g. this video from about 5:50

 

Edited February 5, 2015 by railsquid

[katoftw]

For example full size gates, that cover the crossing to the ground is a good option.

Wouldn't have saved this accident from happening, as the car was already inside the rail danger zone/corridor. Not sure if a flimsy boom would be any better than a flimsy boom to ground gate.

 

Adding obstruction detectors to the line so the train could be stopped with signalling if the gates are not down and cleared of any objects.

Trains do not slow down that quickly. The system can tell the difference between train and car and human?

 

Getting the gates down well before the train comes also helps.

This will never happen in the real world. The time the gates are down is a fine balance bettwen safety and minimizing congestion. Adding to these will cause unwanted complaints and larger congestion.

 

Have a chat to someone that works inside the rail indrustry. You may find a better understand of what actually go into makings of a rail crossing. It is not just a simple as add this, add that.

 

The human component is the biggest factor. And all you suggestion do not eliminate the human factor. Only overpasses/bridges eliminate the human factor.

Edited February 6, 2015 by katoftw

[kvp]

The classical concept of the railway crossing gate at the dawn of the railway age was a pair of actual gates. They either fully blocked the road traffic or fully blocked the railway traffic. The gates had to be moved from one position to the other by a human operator. Later a simple locking mechanism was added that didn't allow trains to approach the crossing until it was in the closed and locked position. This was part of the railway signalling system.

 

An automated system works by first blocking vehicle entry into the crossing, then checking if there are no objects blocking it, then if they are clear closing the exit routes. After both entry and exit routes are blocked (all 4 gates are closed) there should be an obstruction check to know if there are any stray cars or humans on the crossing. It it's clear, then the crossing could be signalled as clear. Any object entering the protected zone (like a truck crashing through the gates) will set the signals on the line to danger, so depending on train distance from the gates a normal or emergency brake application can happen on all trains going towards the crossing. Old signalling sysytems that used station to station signalling required all crossings to be locked before a train could start from a station. Extending this to block signalling, means a block is occupied unless it doesn't have a train in it and all crossings are locked. Locking should happen when there is a train one block away that is moving towards the block and should finish before the train reached the block's signal. In hungarian practice, block signals at danger can be passed, but only with proceed on sight rules, meaing a top speed of 15 km/h with good visibility and 5 km/h with bad. This ensures that the train can stop if any cars or other obstructions are detected on the tracks. This also means huge delays in case of equipment malfunction or theft.

 

It might be a surprise but some japanese railway lines actually do have obstruction detectors for crossings and while they are not really useful against a human hopping though a gate just before the train arrives, but they are very good to warn train drivers of cars or other larger objects that got stuck on the tracks. By extending this system, it's possible to make cheap and safe crossings. Upgrading the crossing booms to be more crash protected is also a relatively cheap and simple thing to do and it stops most cars accidentially sliding onto the rails after the crossing is locked. This way the human factor is not completly eliminated but human stupidity is more confined, just like with platform gates. Normally you would think you don't need them and a warning that a train is coming is enough. Then you add optical sensors to warn drivers and station staff. If this is not enough, you install hard to pass barriers. The same is true for railroad crossings.

 

Of course complete grade separation is always better, but costs much more than a few sensors and a slightly larger wait time for road users. Personally i wouldn't mind having longer wait times at crossings if that means less crossing accidents.