The Failed Dream of the Easy Commute | Hacker News Reader

The Failed Dream of the Easy Commute

newyorker.com

33 pointsthrowaway34410 comments

"only two of the nation’s eighteen state or local railways, Metro-North and the Long Island Rail Road, operate on a third-rail system powered by overhead lines"

For anybody else who was confused by this: the author is (I think) trying to say that Metro-North has some lines equipped with both third rail and overhead wires. Although the accident occurred because of a crash at a level crossing, and had nothing to do with electrification per se.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro-North_Railroad#Electric_...

It did relate to electrification. Metro-North uses a third rail system where the pickup runs on the underside of the third rail, rather than the top. That style of third rail isn't as solidly mounted as ones where the pickup runs on top. In this accident, the third rail broke loose and penetrated the first car of the train, with the power still on.

There's a solution available to prevent railroad crossing accidents, but it requires blocking the highway for much longer.[1] This is a fully interlocked grade crossing. There are gates on both sides of the tracks, vehicle detectors for cars on the tracks, and interlocking with the railroad signals. As a train approaches, first the bells and lights come on. Then the entrance side gates go down. The control system checks that there are no vehicles on the crossing; there are traffic detectors and radars for this. Only then do the exit side gates go down. When all gates are fully down, and the crossing is clear of vehicles, the train gets a clear signal. If there's an obstruction or a damaged gate, the train will slow and stop if necessary.

This requires that the gates go down about a minute before the train arrives, because the stopping distance for trains is so large. Drivers hate that. Railroads aren't too happy with it either, because they're going to have to stop trains when someone is still on the crossing a minute before the train gets there. Current FRA rules are that such a setup will be required for grade crossings with trains operating above 110 MPH. Only the Northeast Corridor has such speeds.

There's been one accident at the US at a fully interlocked gate. A car went through a lowered gate into the path of an Acela high speed train.[2] Barrier gates capable of stopping a truck are being considered.

[1] http://www.ansaldo-sts.com/sites/ansaldosts.message-asp.com/...

[2] [http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/30/nyregion/30acela.html]

This would be a lot of engineering for an issue that shouldn't need it. In the case described in the parent article, the gates, lights, and signal bells worked as designed. The driver had warning and ample time to react -- even enough time to react poorly and recover. The driver did not react or recover. An elegant engineering solution is not appropriate in this scenario.

Surely an elegant engineering solution would have saved lives in this instance? I think you mean one is not required for all the times that people don't die. Then it's just redundant.

What engineering solution would have prevented this driver's death? She knew a train was coming from the bells, flashing lights, and closing gates. She had at least 30 seconds to react.

If you mean a more elegant solution -- a different 3rd rail design, e.g. -- would have saved the lives of the people aboard the train, that's possible. In the event of a mutli-ton train at 60MPH hitting a multi-ton truck sitting on the tracks, we should not presume that's the case.

The better scenario is to heed the bells, flashing lights, and protective gates and get off the tracks. It's a difficult engineering task to ensure people heed clear warnings.

A solution like the one mentioned higher up - which physically blocks entrance (though allows exit) a longer time ahead, and also automatically warns train drivers that there is something blocking the line and prompting them to slow down a reasonable distance ahead.

Well, the real solution is to not have level crossings in the first place, and I'm pretty astonished to hear that even Acela still has these! Third rail for suburban lines that are not fully grade-separated also seems like a really bad idea.

Here in Sydney, an extensive campaign replaced virtually all level crossings with >1 train/hr with bridges and underpasses in the 1970s, and fatalities dropped to virtually zero as well (with the tail end being mostly intentional). Melbourne didn't, and around 8 people/year still die there.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/general/on-the-wrong-track/200...

It's a scandal and a travesty that this occurred, killing five people needlessly. A simple collision with a vehicle at a crossing is one of the most easily anticipated incidents, how is it possible that this collision led to the third rail penetrating the car and electrocuting those people? They should be alive right now.

Why are Americans so casual about safety and accepting of needless death?

Metro-North's signaling equipment is a nightmare. There was a scheduled upgrade that was supposed to have been in play by January 1st of this year, and the project is still not yet done. Proper monitoring of crossing combined with automatic breaking could have prevented this accident. But Metro-North has neither.

Our transportation infrastructure is being pushed to its limits. If you are a a business owner, please let employees telecommute. I know it's difficult to transition from working in an office to having a fully or partially remote workforce. But the cost savings, benefits to the environment, and impact on employee's morale are worth it. Plus, less chance of dying in a traffic accident.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com