New Canaan Branch Discussion

Keep on topic here - This is not about the benefits of eye testing and who or who should not be driving.

kevin

try to interpret before commenting.the correlation is this woman had no business operating a motor vehicle.due her age and inability not to get hit by a train.fact is,as long as old people become less stable,accidents at rail crossings will be more common.

Everyone: I saw a News 12 Connecticut interactive video on this accident (Cablevision-available to other Cablevision-
served regions by way of channel 612) and I noticed that when they showed an aerial map of the area in which the
accident happened that the MNCR New Canaan Branch was labeled "New York,New Haven and Hartford Railroad"
which really surprised me...

Thankfully the woman was rescued quickly and just the car she was driving was demolished-and that she drove literally
into the side of the moving train was mentioned...

MACTRAXX

New Canaan Crossing Accident Again!!

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/ar ... to-1762267

starting to think the people around there are not to bright ?

DutchRailnut wrote:starting to think the people around there are not to bright ?

It's possible that the lights aren't working right. The driver said the lights and bell weren't on when she started to cross, and another witness reported seeing (12 hours earlier) that the lights didn't come on until a second or two before a train came.

My own policy with grade crossings has been to always slow down or even stop and look down the track both ways before crossing, in case the crossing signals aren't working.

I've only heard of one situation where the lights weren't working right, the fatality on the combined CNIC/Metra lines in far south suburban Chicago. There was a signals crew on site and they inadvertently turned off the crossing signals. It was a tragic accident that killed a friend of a friend. It was also very clear from an early point that the lights were at fault. There was no question of light performance and I believe CN fessed up real quickly.

I've heard of many situations where the driver *claimed* the signals weren't working right. Usually they forget to mention they were in a hurry/texting/not paying attention... This is why we can't have nice toys (and nice toys are so expensive - manufacturer insurance premiums).

I'm sure Dutch or one of the other railroaders here can pull the regs that state how often a gate and lights are to be tested or inspected for safe working conditions. OSHA regs on heavy industrial machinery state that, for every shift worked, each function of machinery must be tested to ensure safe operation before use in normal conditions. I wouldn't be suprised if FRA or railroad demands frequent testing or inspection of gates and lights. Further, if you've ever looked at the lights, they have little side lenses to allow motormen to see if the light is indeed working. See this link - one can see the side-mounted lenses on each lamp pod. http://www.flickr.com/photos/photos_by_ ... 227190574/

Edit: I just noticed in the news story they report that another paper employee drove through the crossing with malfunctioning lights earlier the same day. What they don't explain is how the lights malfunctioned - erratic flashing is much different than failing to flash to protect a train. Also, what drivers forget, is that erratic flashing doesn't mean "ignore me for the rest of the day".

Connecticut drivers are the worst I've ever seen at obeying grade crossing laws. It's not the crossing equipment; it's something in the drinking water.

Agreed, and it's not just the drivers. At the grade crossings in New London, pedestrians cross under the gates all the time, with a train coming,

Tadman wrote:Edit: I just noticed in the news story they report that another paper employee drove through the crossing with malfunctioning lights earlier the same day. What they don't explain is how the lights malfunctioned

Are you referring to this?

stamfordadvocate.com wrote:Henderson said as she was approaching the crossing heading to Hope Street as Mojica did 12 hours later, she saw the lights begin blinking and only a few seconds later the train was there.

Sure sounds like they did "explain ... how the lights malfunctioned."

Specifically: the lights did not turn on until just before the train reached the crossing.

I've seen a situation where the crossing gates went up just before a train crossed the road, which is one reason why I'm not willing to rely on crossing signals to tell me when a train is coming. I'm not willing to assume that regular testing will guarrantee that it is going to work right the time that I'm crossing the tracks. I've seen too many problems that kept happening but never showed themselves when the mechanics were around (cf.: "Heisenbugs".)

I also see a certain "my mind is made up, don't bother me with facts" attitude in this thread. The fact that most grade crossing accidents^H^H^H^H^H^H^H collisions occur because of motorist error (or stupidity) does not mean that that is what happened here. The fact that there was a second witness to the problem suggests that signal malfunction should be considered here. FWIW, it's conceivable that the test procedures being used would not catch this particular kind of malfunction. I suggest we wait for the results of the Metro-North/CDOT/FRA accident investigation.

Whether or not the lights malfunctioned (they didn't!!) traffic laws in all states require all vehicles to "Stop. Look & Listen" at all railroad crossings so labled. I would hope that this last crossing on the New Canaan Branch that still does not have crossing gates, will get them installed soon.

It might be a possibility that since this crossing does not have gates that when people come up to it and see lights but no gates down they may think they have more time until the train comes since at other crossings the sequence is lights and bells and then gates. So someone used to a crossing with flashers and gates might not realize that this particular crossing has just lights and that if there is no gate down they might reason they have enough time to cross.

RearOfSignal wrote:It might be a possibility that since this crossing does not have gates that when people come up to it and see lights but no gates down they may think they have more time until the train comes since at other crossings the sequence is lights and bells and then gates. So someone used to a crossing with flashers and gates might not realize that this particular crossing has just lights and that if there is no gate down they might reason they have enough time to cross.

Hence the danger of railroad crossings without gates!!!

perhaps tire spikes in the road about 100' before the crossing would fix these issues


in this particular crossing doesnt the county/township/state or FRA have a standard for the crossing that factors in the amount of trains passing through this area and the heavy car traffic?

perhaps a ROFL copter hovering above any un-gated crossings...

That avatar gives me a good laugh whenever I see it...