Emergency contact signs to go up near rails

Metro-North Railroad will improve emergency contact signs at its crossings, and a state transportation board is expected to recommend that a bridge be built to carry motorists over the tracks at Green Lane in Bedford.

Railroad officials announced those developments yesterday at a meeting of Metro-North's Commuter Council, five months after a Harlem Line train going 42 mph slammed into a tractor- trailer's empty car carrier stuck on the Green Lane crossing.

In the Sept. 20 accident, the train's engineer had let up on the throttle upon seeing the car carrier, then pulled the emergency brake 750 feet north of the crossing, slowing the train from 60 mph to 42 mph at impact. With some 300 passengers and 12 railroad employees aboard, George Walker, the railroad's vice president of operations, said it was a miracle that just 54 people were injured. No one was killed.

A sign facing away from the truck driver at the crossing stated, "To report a malfunction of signal at crossing, call 888-MTA-911-PD,'' but offered nothing about whom to call in an emergency.

http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs ... 80321/1018

I seem to recall some PSA saying that in the event of a railroad emergency (or any emergency, really) that you should call 911; the rationale being that the 911 operator can get in touch with the proper authorities (in this case, MN's RTCs) faster than the person reporting the situation can.

Wouldn't it be simpler to just say "IN AN EMERGENCY, CALL 911!"...? It's simple and easy to use/remember.

BTW...that Green Lane exit is really a problem. I always wondered when an accident like that would happen...it's really a bad spot for a crossing.

ALL grade crossings are VERY dangerous by nature, and they should really be eliminated wherever possible...especially in high-speed/commuter territory.

I'm particularly interested to see how they engineer an overpass in such a tight space there.

We had discussed previously that calling local 911 puts three or four people between you and the people who can actually prevent an accident- losing valuable time to prevent a grade crossing collision. Most railroads post their own 800 number that goes to their own call center, which then immediately contacts the right person on the railroad to get rail traffic halted as quickly as posisble.

Green Lane exit on the Saw Mill is a bad situation waiting to get worse. Closing the exit would be the easiest soltuion, but it would force additional traffic to the Bedford Road/NY 117 exit a mile ahead, or force long detours from Kisco Ave two miles behind. An overpass might be the answer, but the costs involved might be more than the state is willing to spend.

I doubt the signage was to blame for the accident late last year--extreme driver incompetence was--but improved signage might not be a bad idea.

-otto-

It is not fair to single ths crossing out as being so much more dangerous then others due to this accident alone. FIRST) Trucks are not allowed on the Saw Mill, therefore the driver had absolutely no right to be there anyway. If that wasn't the case, I would not be blaming him for having gotten stuck. The fact remains, however, that trucks are NOT ALLOWED on the saw mill due to physical constrictions (among other things) and this hump is one of them. SECOND) He had plenty of time to call a tow truck, but didn't think to call the railroad or 911. I personally think that he should be charged with negligence and possibly attempted murder. Before you yell at me for saying that, keep in mind that the guy in Cali is being charged with murder for that derailment!

I'm willing to bet the state decides to close the exit rather than build an overpass.

But instead of SIGNS at crossings, why not install emergency PHONES that connect directly to those that can stop the train? Not every crossing is near a phone, and not every driver carries a cell phone. It couldn't be THAT expensive, could it?

Phones are expensive, which is why many banks have removed them from ATM locations. Some banks have installed ATM panic buttons, which tie into their photo monitoring.

Push the panic button, and a light flashes at the control center, keying the rep to look at your booth (as the guy is stabbing you, etc on camera). That's not a bad model for the railroad, if they want to spend the money to repair the crossing.

I wouldn't be surprised if they shut the crossing "temporarily" and just don't reopen it.

Thats what happened after a grade crossing accident on the New Canaan Branch a few summers ago. The crossing was a private road, which was protected only by lights. The accident killed one of the two passengers, but it was totally their fault, they were making a three point turn on the tracks. Shortly after the accident jersey barriers were placed blocking the crossing, I don't know if the signals were taken down, but I doubt that crossing will ever re-open.

Lackawanna484 wrote:Phones are expensive, which is why many banks have removed them from ATM locations. Some banks have installed ATM panic buttons, which tie into their photo monitoring.

I agree that phones are cost prohibative. I like the panic button idea. Push it, and all the signals go to red automaticly on either side of the crossing (not sure how feasable this is, but I'm sure something could be worked out), and then the dispatcher will then flag the train by the red signal and they can do a stop and protect on that crossing. Because on a high speed passenger route that has frequent trains, calling the dispatcher might not be quick enough, seconds count here, that's why I like the idea of having the button interface with the signal system. But then you have to worry about vandals just pushing the buttons to mess with the trains. But to me it sounds like a neat concept.

mncommuter wrote:I'm willing to bet the state decides to close the exit rather than build an overpass.

But instead of SIGNS at crossings, why not install emergency PHONES that connect directly to those that can stop the train? Not every crossing is near a phone, and not every driver carries a cell phone. It couldn't be THAT expensive, could it?

That is an idea, but I doubt that the actual infrastructure is in place for that (like, I think they would have to run new wires all along the ROW). I've been toying with an idea of installing pull-stations, like those connected to a fire alarm, that would cause the signal to drop to restricted in the area (forcing the trains to approach at 15 mph, which should be slow enough to stop). Now, of course, there would be a huge problem with these being pranked a lot. If anyone can think of a solution to this, without installing survalance cameras, or something silimiarly outrageously expensive, please speak up.

The reason I am thinking about a system that connects directly to the cab signal system is that would probably not require too much new infrastructure to be installed.


As I said before, I think the solution is to make an example of this SOB and show people that they have a moral responsibility to CALL THE FRIKIN RAILROAD in this type of situation! At least give 911 operators a hotline to the MNR control room (or just give the 911 operators a little red button that would drop the signals, but that would probably require a lot of new infrustructure).

Otto,
Regarding your post about when calling 911 putting 3 or 4 people into the loop. Thats the problem right there. The FIRST person in the system should have mitigated the problem by calling MNCR. They all have the proper emergency number. Too many times the operators have a habit of passing the buck to another rather than taking the "bull by the horns." From what I understand, this problem bounced between 3 or 4 Public Emergency agencies before Metro North was contacted.
Thats what happens when you put "off the street" civilians instead of experienced, uniformed personel into the this so called loop. But thats another subject to debate another day.

>>>That is an idea, but I doubt that the actual infrastructure is in place for that (like, I think they would have to run new wires all along the ROW).<<<

Highway emergency phones use radio or cellular, no need for wire. The problem is that phones are targets for vandals and false alarms. Not a real issue on a limiited access hignway where anyone stopping or on foot attracts police attention, but a grade crossing has lots of foot traffic so no one would notice, particularly at night.

Also, many cities have removed fire pullboxes because of the false alarm problem, since most bona fide alarms were called in from nearby buildings or cellular.

Ken W2KB wrote:>>>That is an idea, but I doubt that the actual infrastructure is in place for that (like, I think they would have to run new wires all along the ROW).<<<

Highway emergency phones use radio or cellular, no need for wire. The problem is that phones are targets for vandals and false alarms. Not a real issue on a limiited access hignway where anyone stopping or on foot attracts police attention, but a grade crossing has lots of foot traffic so no one would notice, particularly at night.

Also, many cities have removed fire pullboxes because of the false alarm problem, since most bona fide alarms were called in from nearby buildings or cellular.

A Newark fire department official said they haven't received a box only fire notification since 1999. The presence of cell phones, etc makes the boxes superfluous

Lackawanna484 wrote: A Newark fire department official said they haven't received a box only fire notification since 1999. The presence of cell phones, etc makes the boxes superfluous

Well and the difference is though that a box fire signal only calls you to an area. This system would notify which crossing it was. Vandals, sure, I guess that would be a problem. But when was the last time you saw someone pull an emergancy pull cord on a train or subway?

The Roaring Brook Road crossing is just as dangerous as the Green Lane crossing, and I had to cross that daily when I went to school at Horace Greeley High School - there's always a threat, just look out for the lights - driver incompitence will cause 99% of these accidents.