Train strikes "lost" car in Bedford Hills - 1/2/08

What makes you believe the intelligence of motorist is such that they will look for a callbox ???, fist they did not see tracks or railroad crossing but now you want them to find a box ??????
Keep up with the Idea's to raise ticket prices, your doing great job.

What makes you so sure that;

1) EVERYBODY has a cell phone?

and

2) That everybody's carrier isn't in a BLIND SPOT at every crossing? There are a lot of cellphones that are useless scrap in large parts of Westchester, and that crossing is in a wide ravine between two hills.

Noel is right; follow the rules. If you put a fire bell lever that would bring things to a halt, even a camera isn't going to dissuade a Botard from pulling the switch for fun.

Phones at the Level Crossings in the UK, a great idea. Such a busy line should try it as an experiment.

D/

DutchRailnut wrote:What makes you believe the intelligence of motorist is such that they will look for a callbox ???, fist they did not see tracks or railroad crossing but now you want them to find a box ??????
Keep up with the Idea's to raise ticket prices, your doing great job.

I have no faith in their intelligence, but maybe they just became disabled on the tracks, and as Dieter says, can't get a signal/don't have a phone? We can beat this horse to death (I think we have), and just disagree.

No one is advocating a huge system which will require fare increases - how many crossings do you think there are? I'm sure you can quote me the number off of the top of your head since you're an insider (I'll give you one: Katonah). This isn't Long Island!

The box would be right where the phone number would be that you think is sufficient for them to find.

Just a few days before this incident, I was riding the train back from
Grand Central to Wassaic, and we were halted for a car stuck in the Green Lane crossing. We had to wait about 45 minutes for a tow truck to remove the vehicle. The conductor said that the car's rear bumper had hung up on the third rail. I don't see how that could happen unless the driver had tried to drive around the gates.

How do I know "everyone" has cell phones? Try to find a public phone booth (even the pay phones in restaurant lobbies are becoming scarce).

An idiot who drives around gates or drives onto tracks wont find a phone, emergency pullbox, or anything else. Just like that truck driver who sat around waiting for help the last time something like this happened at Green Lane.

-otto-

For the low number of crossings on the system, in this day and age, as Otto points out it's hard to find a pay phone, another idea comes to mind;

Isn't it strange that the railway doesn't have a Webcam for themselves to see a crossing remotely? Cameras would pay for themselves in $$$ saved from repairs from collisions.

This location has been so problematic through the decades (we might even now be able to say CENTURYS), it's time to TRY something like a camera, or a telephone, if they will not close the road.

D/

With near 80 crossings on MNCR who is gone monitor those minute by minute ?? and at what expense.
Monitoring crossings does shift the brame of accidents to MNCR, instead of the motoring retards.

With a camera system, a Dispatcher receiving a distress call could dial-up the camera at the crossing to determine the authenticity of the call. It could be with the local 911 Dispatcher, and not with the railway at all.

D/

"With near 80 crossings on MNCR who is gone monitor those minute by minute ?? and at what expense?"

In theory, it should be possible to install basic low-cost cameras at all grade crossings, hooked into a centralized system via a single dedicated fiber-optic line, microwave relays, and/or via the internet. This signal (composed of all cameras on multiple digital sidebands) could be broadcast out via a new cellular-based relay along MNCR rail lines, or even contracted out to existing cellular carriers. Each train would be equipped with a basic GPS, cell antenna, receiver, and monitor. As the GPS tracked the train’s progress, it would automatically flip the monitor channel to display the next grade crossing in line, which the engineer himself could glace at and make the appropriate adjustments should he see something suspicious a few miles down the track. Normally, the engineer would only be interested in the next grade crossing, but he could also flip to view any other grade crossings of interest, or even have 2 monitors available if grade crossings on his line are set close together.

The technology for all this exists, but just needs to be pieced together into a functional package. The cost isn’t very much in the scheme of things, and might even save more than a few bucks on fewer repairs and service disruptions… not to mention eliminate a few recurring nightmares from the train drivers. There might even be some Federal money out there to research the thing in partnership with a good engineering school (UB?) True, it doesn’t do anything to place responsibility on the motorists where it belongs, but wouldn’t an engineer want to know what’s going on at the next grade crossing up ahead anyway?

I agree- it's a good idea on paper. Someone trips an alarm, the dispatcher looks at the remote camera, stops rail traffic. However, you're still relying on a human to find the call box and activate the alarm... this is the SAME MORON who ended up on the tracks in the first place. What's more, the technology is there, but all that expense for cameras, call boxes, etc. What if the camera or call box fail? Then it's MN's fault.

Instead of assigning more cost and responsibility to MN, let's put more pressure on motorists to stay off the rails.

-otto-

The Port Authority has a massive network of cameras tied in to law enforcement entities. A camera network for the railway is not as costly as one might think in this day and age.

What about sensors in the crossing to detect something stopped above it, or something having gone to one side or the other where there shouldn't be anything? Sounds like an invention for Mr. Wetzel to develop and get a patent on?

D/

It would be really neat if a crossing gate could be reinforced and designed to work horizontally instead of just vertically, so if something was spotted at the grade crossing ahead, the engineer could have the ability to have the arm push it off to the side, like a bowling pin resetter :-)

Okay, so maybe that idea isn't so good to do. But it is good to wish for :-)

Dieter wrote:The Port Authority has a massive network of cameras tied in to law enforcement entities. A camera network for the railway is not as costly as one might think in this day and age.

What about sensors in the crossing to detect something stopped above it, or something having gone to one side or the other where there shouldn't be anything? Sounds like an invention for Mr. Wetzel to develop and get a patent on?

D/

Do you actually believe that someone is sitting there watching the monitors? Cameras are for after the incident happens not to prevent it.
Cameras, sweeping gates, ground sensors and GPS are fine in the fantasy world. Reality is, If you are dumb enough to park on the tracks, drive onto the tracks or ignore railway crossing protection, HOW is that the Railroads responsibility? No matter what method the railroad puts into effect to protect crossings the stupidity of the public will find a way around it. Are you going to revamp all the crossings each time after some moron finds a way around the latest technology. Crossing protection as is works as long as you abide by it. Those who ignore it are the same ones who in the past would have been eaten by the wild animals

Another downside to a callbox or lever is that it would have to be sufficiently close to the crossing for a panic-stricken person to identify and get to it instantaneously, but I'd imagine the *last* thing you want to do is create a safety procedure where you require someone to hang around near the crossing as a train approaches. So then you have to install multiple boxes at a safe distance on each side, big signs pointing the way, worry about pranks/vandalsm, it gets kind of complex...

I'm sure there's a suitable, cheap technology - like the induction loops used at dynamic traffic lights or even cameras that perform simple optical recognition - that can sense the presence of a large thing that shouldn't be there at a given time (i.e., when a train can proceed). That can then be linked to signaling, an alarm for the RTC, whatever. Anyone know of something like that in use? Of course, my cynical side says that even if this were feasible, it would just not be visible and popular enough to justify action by local government or big government agencies.

The moment you start using induction loops or motion detectors our fine motoring public would just abuse it and get on a crossing and stopping in traffic.
A crossing by traffic law is to be treated as a intersection and its up to individual driver to clear the crossing or not occupy it.
With the options some of you propose we would have every train going restricted speed at any and all crossings because of abuse by the motorist and pedestrians. You guys seemt be great in inventing stuff to slow the trains down and favor the retards behind the wheel.