Texas Eagle (2/9/21) stopped due to trespasser incident

Advertise with us
shop deals on amazon
Shop deals on ebay
Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Qapla said:
I have seen places where flyovers were built to go over roads and/or tracks and people crossed on the road/tracks because they didn't want to climb the stairs to use the flyover - then complain that "more should be done to keep pedestrians safe"
Click to expand...
Jaywalkers are real, and safety advocates are real, but claims of jaywalking safety advocates might be an agenda.
 
Last edited:
Qapla said:
I have seen places where flyovers were built to go over roads and/or tracks and people crossed on the road/tracks because they didn't want to climb the stairs to use the flyover - then complain that "more should be done to keep pedestrians safe"
Click to expand...
I don't even know what to say.
 
I live in a college town. Students cross where they want not in the designated areas if walking to the intersection takes them "out of the way" and blame the car drivers for anytime a student gets hit or almost hit.
 
There are some poorly designed and marked crossing out there. I got caught on one in Indiana in December. There were two sets of main line tracks running parallel to each other with a total of 4 tracks. The tracks were running east-west. I was on a road driving south. There are a set of gates on the north side of both sets of tracks, and a set of gates on the south side of the tracks. I had just crossed the first set of tracks when the lights started flashing and the gates went down. It was possible for me to continue driving south to cross the second set of tracks but trees blocked my vision. There was room between both sets of tracks for two or three cars to stop and wait safely. I stopped and waited. My GF was freaked out. I explained that we were save because we were clear of both sets of tracks. I also explained that I was not about to cross tracks with the lights flashing because I could not see where the train was and I explained the thought process of expect a train on any track in any direction at any time. A freight train passed at about 60 mph on the tracks behind us. It was clear ahead, so I could have proceeded if I wanted to. I waited for the freight to pass, and the gates to go up, before proceeding. I looked carefully as I crossed the second set of tracks. My railfan knowledge protected us.

It is quite possible to "do most things right" and still get hit by a train at that crossing. Once the gates go down for one set of tracks, it is not possible to know if a train is approaching on the second set of tracks. Somebody in my situation could have easily pulled forward to cross the second set of tracks after they saw the first train behind them, and then be hit by an approaching train on the second set of tracks.
 
Qapla said:
I live in a college town. Students cross where they want not in the designated areas if walking to the intersection takes them "out of the way" and blame the car drivers for anytime a student gets hit or almost hit.
Click to expand...
Despite following the rules (most of the time) I don't feel safe walking/riding near roads after several near misses with aggressive drivers. Maybe they'd be fined for dangerous behavior but I could lose my life or limb because they wanted to make a point that day. There has been a push to give pedestrians and bicyclists a bigger share of the pavement here but most drivers refuse to compromise so we're stuck with narrow paths next to potentially lethal traffic.
 
Last edited:
And we have the opposite problem ...

They have made some nice, wide bicycle paths and widened many of the sidewalks. However, since it is "legal" many of the bicycle riders will swerve from the road to the sidewalk, cutting across the bike lane - making it difficult and dangerous for cars and pedestrians. They complain if cars drive into the bike lanes and argue with pedestrians if they use a bike lane - but they feel they can ride hazardously in the road and run pedestrians off the sidewalk.

The city tried to pass an ordinance that would require bicyclists to use the bike lane if on was available but it was lobbied against by bike shops and lawyers.
 
No - we have a problem with bicyclists not caring who they disrupt - be that cars on the road or pedestrians on the sidewalk and blaming everyone except themselves.

If they dart in front of a car or weave between traffic or turn left in front of oncoming traffic and get hit/dinged - they blame the car drivers ... if they hit a pedestrian on the sidewalk, they blame the pedestrian for being in the way. They think the bicycles should always have the right-of-way ... and many of the scooter people do the same.

The college kids think it is OK if they J-walk or cross against the light - and that if they get hit doing so, it is the car driver's fault - and something should be done about the cars!
 
Qapla said:
No - we have a problem with bicyclists not caring who they disrupt - be that cars on the road or pedestrians on the sidewalk and blaming everyone except themselves.

If they dart in front of a car or weave between traffic or turn left in front of oncoming traffic and get hit/dinged - they blame the car drivers ... if they hit a pedestrian on the sidewalk, they blame the pedestrian for being in the way. They think the bicycles should always have the right-of-way ... and many of the scooter people do the same.

The college kids think it is OK if they J-walk or cross against the light - and that if they get hit doing so, it is the car driver's fault - and something should be done about the cars!
Click to expand...
Ditto here in Austin, especially the Scooters!
 
Qapla said:
The college kids think it is OK if they J-walk or cross against the light - and that if they get hit doing so, it is the car driver's fault - and something should be done about the cars!
Click to expand...
At least you had enough restraint to avoid hitting them a second time. 👍
 
Last edited:
Steve4031 said:
There are some poorly designed and marked crossing out there. I got caught on one in Indiana in December. There were two sets of main line tracks running parallel to each other with a total of 4 tracks. The tracks were running east-west. I was on a road driving south. There are a set of gates on the north side of both sets of tracks, and a set of gates on the south side of the tracks. I had just crossed the first set of tracks when the lights started flashing and the gates went down. It was possible for me to continue driving south to cross the second set of tracks but trees blocked my vision. There was room between both sets of tracks for two or three cars to stop and wait safely. I stopped and waited. My GF was freaked out. I explained that we were save because we were clear of both sets of tracks. I also explained that I was not about to cross tracks with the lights flashing because I could not see where the train was and I explained the thought process of expect a train on any track in any direction at any time. A freight train passed at about 60 mph on the tracks behind us. It was clear ahead, so I could have proceeded if I wanted to. I waited for the freight to pass, and the gates to go up, before proceeding. I looked carefully as I crossed the second set of tracks. My railfan knowledge protected us.

It is quite possible to "do most things right" and still get hit by a train at that crossing. Once the gates go down for one set of tracks, it is not possible to know if a train is approaching on the second set of tracks. Somebody in my situation could have easily pulled forward to cross the second set of tracks after they saw the first train behind them, and then be hit by an approaching train on the second set of tracks.
Click to expand...
There are lights and gates at this crossing? There should be plenty of time after the lights start flashing for approaching drivers at the speed limit to stop (if possible without slamming on their brakes) or proceed across the tracks BEFORE the gates come down. Stopping between the tracks sounds like a terrible idea.

Suppose the speed limit is 50. There is a normal stopping distance at 50. According to Wikipedia, the stopping distance at 50 mph is 175 feet. If when the light starts flashing, you are more than 175 feet from the gate, you should stop. Otherwise you should proceed through. At that speed, the gates shouldn't start to come down until you have cleared the tracks. (If you are traveling more slowly, it will take longer to clear the tracks, but the stopping distance is much less.) The timing of the lights and gates should be set to accommodate this, for a reasonable range of speeds for the particular grade crossing.
 
One of the worst things I've seen people do at grade crossings, is to cross tracks, before the vehicles ahead leave enough room for you to clear the tracks, if they are backed up by a traffic light, or other obstacle...
IMHO, they don't emphasize this enough in driver education...
 
"Don't block the box! Or that train will drive right through you at 79 mph... "

railiner said:
One of the worst things I've seen people do at grade crossings, is to cross tracks, before the vehicles ahead leave enough room for you to clear the tracks, if they are backed up by a traffic light, or other obstacle...
IMHO, they don't emphasize this enough in driver education...
Click to expand...
 
Steve4031 said:
This is the crossing.
https://goo.gl/maps/5u1tUzj2LaGwWi7Y8
There is one set of gates on the north side of both sets of tracks. There were gates on the south side of the south set of tracks. We stopped in the area between the two sets of tracks.
Click to expand...
That's actually 2 separate crossings close together, with a side road running between the sets of tracks. It would be more accurate to say there are gates on the approaching side of each set of tracks.

Does a train approaching on either set of tracks activate the gates for both sets? I can see where that could be confusing, but it's necessary to reduce the chances of cars stopping on the first tracks while the gate is down for the 2nd set, and then being threatened by a train approaching on the 1st tracks.

If people would just follow the rule of not entering a crossing until there's room to clear it, as @railiner said, there wouldn't be a problem. But unfortunately that rule is widely ignored.
 
It was night time. I was aware of both sets of tracks. If a train approaches on one set of tracks all the gates go down.

The gates and lights activated after I crossed the firs set of tracks and before I reached the second set. There were bushes and trees obstructing my view. So I waited. I was well clear of both sets of tracks.

My point is that someone not familiar with railroads might proceed after they see the train passing behind them on the first set of tracks. I knew that a second train could be approaching on the second set of tracks so I waited.
 
Steve4031 said:
This is the crossing.
https://goo.gl/maps/5u1tUzj2LaGwWi7Y8
There is one set of gates on the north side of both sets of tracks. There were gates on the south side of the south set of tracks. We stopped in the area between the two sets of tracks.
Click to expand...
Yikes! Southbound cars can't be certain they can actually make the right turn onto the highway south of the tracks before they cross. What if there is an accident or a truck jackknifes just west of the intersection, blocking westbound traffic? Plus the bizarre train station with parking lot between the two pairs of tracks! My suggestion: move. Don't live or drive anywhere near there. It's a catastrophe waiting to happen.
 
Qapla said:
And we have the opposite problem ...

They have made some nice, wide bicycle paths and widened many of the sidewalks. However, since it is "legal" many of the bicycle riders will swerve from the road to the sidewalk, cutting across the bike lane - making it difficult and dangerous for cars and pedestrians. They complain if cars drive into the bike lanes and argue with pedestrians if they use a bike lane - but they feel they can ride hazardously in the road and run pedestrians off the sidewalk.

The city tried to pass an ordinance that would require bicyclists to use the bike lane if on was available but it was lobbied against by bike shops and lawyers.
Click to expand...
Having rode a bicycle to work on a regular basis for awhile, I did in fact go back and forth between the bicycle lane and sidewalk due to frequent hazards in the bicycle lane (gravel, potholes, multiple ridgelines...). I preferred the bike lanes over sidewalks because the former was faster when they do not contain road hazards. Road hazards in the bike lane are frequent and is probably the reason why the biking community lobbied against mandates. Not to mention the occasional drivers who drove too close the bike lane. I took care of them by deliberately swerving around in the bike lane to make me look erratic so that the drivers would move over into the further lane if they could or at least give me plenty of room. My strategy seemed to work. I am not a confident or even competent bicycle rider, so I wanted to increase my chances of not getting killed or injured as much as I could. I also rode on the dirt roads lining the canals (Phoenix/Tempe/Mesa) when available even though they considerably slowed me down. It just isn't possible to always take side streets with less traffic, although I certainly tried. Got to meet some nice yard llamas that way though.

Never hit a pedestrian, however, the one time I did get in an accident while bicycling, I was in fact hit by another bicyclist, lol. Lost most of my 2 front teeth that way and now I have 2 crowns on said fronters.
 
Last edited:
Steve4031 said:
This is the crossing.
https://goo.gl/maps/5u1tUzj2LaGwWi7Y8
There is one set of gates on the north side of both sets of tracks. There were gates on the south side of the south set of tracks. We stopped in the area between the two sets of tracks.
Click to expand...

I had a feeling that was the area you were talking about actually. My gut was correct.

joelkfla said:
Does a train approaching on either set of tracks activate the gates for both sets? I can see where that could be confusing, but it's necessary to reduce the chances of cars stopping on the first tracks while the gate is down for the 2nd set, and then being threatened by a train approaching on the 1st tracks.
Click to expand...

Yes for a train on either it will activate them.

For instance for a train on the former New York Central (NS/Amtrak) there both sets of gates will activate for the water level route, and the South Shore Line gates on the south side will activate (entrance to the crossing gate) while the North side gate stays up to allow exits from the Water Level Route.

For trains on the South Shore the same principal works in reverse both South Shore gates go down and the entrance gate on the north side of the Water Level Route goes down.

Now sometimes both will go down at the same time fully when a train on the Water Level Route and South Shore are operating at the same exact time. NS Maintains theirs, and SS maintains theirs but the two systems are daxed together.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top