Mile-long US freight trains face ban after baby death

[SamYeager]

I noticed this article today from which the title comes.

Fair use excerpt:

Freight trains more than a mile long could be banned in a number of US states after paramedics were prevented from reaching a dying baby while waiting at a level crossing.

It took emergency services half an hour to reach the home of the three-month-old boy, who had stopped breathing, due to the delay in Leggett, Texas.

The infant died in hospital two days later.

“Unfortunately, the delay has cost my child’s life,” his mother Monica Franklin, 34, told the Washington Post.

She has since launched legal action against train operator Union Pacific following the tragedy in September 2021.

On another occasion in the same town, paramedics could not reach a man who suffered a stroke for an hour after being held up at a crossing.

Deaths attributed to similar delays have also been reported in Tennessee and Oklahoma.

It comes amid growing concern at how trains in the US have been getting longer over the past decade, testing the patience of residents living near crossings.

Federal regulators are also coming under increasing pressure to clamp down on the length of freight trains, which can cause additional delays when they come to a complete stop to switch crews.
Several states – including Arizona, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Nevada and Washington – have all now proposed limiting train lengths.

There have been 1,400 cases since 2019 in which emergency responders have reported delays caused by lengthy freight trains, according to statistics compiled by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA).

Is this just another case of a paper hyping it up or is it a realistic prospect?

 

[etr221]

How realistic a prospect it is will boil down to politics...

But the problem (of stopped (freight) trains blocking grade crossings for a significant time) is real enough - I doubt a 7500 ft train length limit will make much difference. And I heard of one town which had a city ordinance (bye-law) agains trains blocking crossings for more than 10 or 15 minutes - and the resultant fines paid by the RRs were a significant part of its income.

 

[duncanp]

How realistic a prospect it is will boil down to politics...

But the problem (of stopped (freight) trains blocking grade crossings for a significant time) is real enough - I doubt a 7500 ft train length limit will make much difference. And I heard of one town which had a city ordinance (bye-law) agains trains blocking crossings for more than 10 or 15 minutes - and the resultant fines paid by the RRs were a significant part of its income.

If there is a limit on the length of an individual train, then it will require more (but shorter) trains to carry the same volume of freight.

More frequent freight trains could cause just as many delays as fewer (but longer trains) especially in rural parts of the United States where the line is frequently single track, with a distinct lack of passing loops.

When I travelled on Amtrak from Chicago to St Louis a couple of weeks ago we got stuck behind a slow moving freight train and were not able to pass it until the next station, and consequently ended up being an hour late into St Louis.

 

[AdamWW]

If there is a limit on the length of an individual train, then it will require more (but shorter) trains to carry the same volume of freight.

More frequent freight trains could cause just as many delays as fewer (but longer trains) especially in rural parts of the United States where the line is frequently single track, with a distinct lack of passing loops.

There was a mention of trains blocking crossings while they were stopped to change crews.

With shorter trains there's perhaps more chance of finding somewhere to stop that isn't blocking any crossings?

 

[XAM2175]

The limit should be on the amount of time that crossings are closed. In many cases that will probably be a de facto limit on train length, but starting from the position of length limits does nothing for the situations where it's a shorter train blocking crossings for ages.

 

[eldomtom2]

As I understand it, while many states would like such a ban, legally this sort of thing is generally considered the federal government's responsibility alone.

 

[158756]

There was a mention of trains blocking crossings while they were stopped to change crews.

With shorter trains there's perhaps more chance of finding somewhere to stop that isn't blocking any crossings?

From my understanding of US railroads, the move towards running fewer, longer trains (to improve profit margins) has also been accompanied by reductions in staffing, infrastructure, locomotives etc. So the long stoppages which cause these problems are probably more likely now. And moving back to shorter trains might not cut the blockages back to previous levels because other factors have changed. There are probably places where the infrastructure wouldn't be able to handle more frequent trains anymore.

In any case, I'd be surprised if anything actually came of this.

 

[Trainguy34]

Could they not just make the freight companies pay fines if a Crossing is down for X minutes or morenwith no suitable method of Crossing in however far? Or they could just build tunnels....

 

[ac6000cw]

As I understand it, while many states would like such a ban, legally this sort of thing is generally considered the federal government's responsibility alone.

Correct - for the most part, railways are regarded & regulated as part of 'interstate commerce', so individual states can't place restrictions on them. However states can encourage them in certain directions, like providing incentives to use lower-emission locomotives in some areas e.g. Houston and LA/Long Beach port areas and offering public-private partnership deals for infrastructure upgrades e.g. double-stack clearances, capacity improvements and improving/replacing highway crossings.

Could they not just make the freight companies pay fines if a Crossing is down for X minutes or morenwith no suitable method of Crossing in however far? Or they could just build tunnels....

The 'Alameda Corridor' between downtown LA and Long Beach is a prime example of fixing the 'grade crossing' problem by putting a triple-track (freight only) rail line in a trench for 10 miles, getting all the port traffic off urban streets.

 

[zwk500]

Could they not just make the freight companies pay fines if a Crossing is down for X minutes or morenwith no suitable method of Crossing in however far?

The freight would just pay the fines, it won't actually change behaviour

Or they could just build tunnels....

Very pricey, especially when you consider just how many towns in the USA have some form of level crossing or street running for mainline trains. Bigger cities will be able to help finance and get access to other funding (State and federal) but a small town of a couple of thousand to build a tunnel under it for double-stack freight? The best they can hope for is getting funding to build a bridge for road traffic at one or both ends of town.

 

[Rhinojerry]

Watch Virtual Railfan site,quite a few places where crew changes can occupy crossings for quite a while at times.
Fort Madison,Revelstoke and La Grange to name a few.

 

[Dr_Paul]

I bet some of us have been held up for longer at our local level crossings (thinking here of Manor Road, Richmond...).

 

[zwk500]

I bet some of us have been held up for longer at our local level crossings (thinking here of Manor Road, Richmond...).

It might feel like it, but US trains can sever towns for the better part of hours. In some areas the emergency services have stations on each side of the line because of the problems.

The only viable solution for most towns would be to try and get enough funding cobbled together to build a passing siding outside the town, then at least the trains wouldn't be standing across the crossing even if it still took the thick end of 10 minutes for a rolling train to clear one.

 

[WAB]

As Rail Profits Soar, Blocked Crossings Force Kids to Crawl Under Trains to Get to School

When crossings are blocked for hours, kids risk their lives to get to school by crawling through trains that could start at any moment. Ambulances and fire trucks can’t get through. The problem has existed for decades. But it’s getting worse.

www.propublica.org

But communities like Hammond routinely face a different set of risks foisted on them by those same train companies, which have long acted with impunity. Every day across America, their trains park in the middle of neighborhoods and major intersections, waiting to enter congested rail yards or for one crew to switch with another. They block crossings, sometimes for hours or days, disrupting life and endangering lives.

News accounts chronicle horror stories: Ambulances can’t reach patients before they die or get them to the hospital in time. Fire trucks can’t get through and house fires blaze out of control. Pedestrians trying to cut through trains have been disfigured, dismembered and killed; when one train abruptly began moving, an Iowa woman was dragged underneath until it stripped almost all of the skin from the back of her body; a Pennsylvania teenager lost her leg hopping between rail cars as she rushed home to get ready for prom.

In Hammond, the hulking trains of Norfolk Southern regularly force parents, kids and caretakers into an exhausting gamble: How much should they risk to get to school?

The trains, which can stretch across five or six intersections at a time in this working-class suburb of 77,000, prevent students and teachers from getting to school in the morning. Teachers must watch multiple classrooms while their colleagues wait at crossings; kids sit on school buses as they meander the streets of an entirely different city to be dropped off a half-hour late. Brandi Odom, a seventh grade teacher, estimates that at least half her class is delayed by trains multiple times a week.

The adults entrusted with their safety — parents and teachers, police and fire officials, the mayor — say they are well aware of the pressures on students’ minds when they face a blocked crossing on foot. They know some are hungry and don’t want to miss breakfast; the vast majority in this 86% Black and Latino district qualify for free or reduced-price meals at school. And they know that many of their parents commute to work an hour away to Chicago, trusting older brothers or sisters to pick up or drop off their siblings.

“I feel awful about it,” said Scott E. Miller, the superintendent. His district has asked Norfolk Southern for its schedule so that the schools can plan for blockages and students can adjust their routines. The company has disregarded the requests, school officials said.

Mayor Thomas McDermott Jr. said that his experience with the rails has been similar, and that company officials have reminded him the rails “were here first,” running through Hammond before it was even a city. “To them, I am nobody,” he said. “They don’t pay attention to me. They don’t respect me. They don’t care about the city of Hammond. They just do what they want.”

 

[Signal Head]

As Rail Profits Soar, Blocked Crossings Force Kids to Crawl Under Trains to Get to School

When crossings are blocked for hours, kids risk their lives to get to school by crawling through trains that could start at any moment. Ambulances and fire trucks can’t get through. The problem has existed for decades. But it’s getting worse.

www.propublica.org

Appalling attitudes on display there, the suggestion of providing louder warnings before restarting basically accepts, and perpetuates, the necessity of people climbing or crawling to cross the track.

I wonder what would be the response if the locals were taught how to disconnect brake pipes!

 

[zwk500]

Appalling attitudes on display there, the suggestion of providing louder warnings before restarting basically accepts, and perpetuates, the necessity of people climbing or crawling to cross the track.

I wonder what would be the response if the locals were taught how to disconnect brake pipes!

I imagine the response from the Railroads would be to threaten the strongest possible legal action for tampering with a train. It's not an option anybody should look to go down, because it won't solve the problem.

There are two realistic solutions - build road bridges/underpasses, or move the trains stopping locations to out of town. Both are very expensive, and the likelihood of the rail companies contributing a substantial portion of the costs is very low, so it would rely on public funding, which in the US means the wonderful game of multi-dimensional horse-trading and backscratching that passes for politics. You have City, County, State and Federal agencies potentially involved, with hefty amounts of tax dollars at stake.

 

[Narrowgauge725]

It would be great if in the UK we could get an ambulance in 30 mins!

 

[yorksrob]

Perhaps they ought to consider putting in some bridges ?

 

[zwk500]

Perhaps they ought to consider putting in some bridges ?

A lot of these lines are physically in the middle of roads, you'd have to clear half the town out to get enough room for a double-stack compatible bridge. The most cost-effective solution is to provide additional sidings (loops in UK parlance) out of town for these trains to await clearance forward into the occupied section. However the rail companies don't see why they should bother moving for somebody else's problem, so they won't pay to build the loop.

As ever in America, it will get caught up in a bunfight of who pays and how much and by what means is the funding attained. As mentioned above, you'll have city officials saying it's a federal issue, federal people saying they should talk to the state house and so on. And all in a far more polarised and much more dynamic political environment than over here.

 

[yorksrob]

A lot of these lines are physically in the middle of roads, you'd have to clear half the town out to get enough room for a double-stack compatible bridge. The most cost-effective solution is to provide additional sidings (loops in UK parlance) out of town for these trains to await clearance forward into the occupied section. However the rail companies don't see why they should bother moving for somebody else's problem, so they won't pay to build the loop.

As ever in America, it will get caught up in a bunfight of who pays and how much and by what means is the funding attained. As mentioned above, you'll have city officials saying it's a federal issue, federal people saying they should talk to the state house and so on. And all in a far more polarised and much more dynamic political environment than over here.

I'd never realised that America was so full of Weymouth Tramways !

I have read that the USA (perhaps like us to an extent) has difficulty spending on routine infrastructure.

 

[zwk500]

I'd never realised that America was so full of Weymouth Tramways !

I think it's more common to have roads directly adjacent with ballasted track, but tramway-type street running definitely does exist and is reasonably common across the country. Remember in the US many railroads were built through unsettled country (there were native Americans there of course, but there's a chequered history with that), and the rail companies given land either side of their lines to develop in order to make a profit, so towns sprang up around loco servicing points, hence the term jerkwater towns. There wasn't a pre-existing core village that exploded like in the UK (generally). When roads were built, the easiest place was just to run next to or on the tracks, as trains would be measured in terms numbers per week at times.
see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_running_train#/media/File:South_Shore_512_(3542718093).jpg for a passenger example of street running. And https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_running_train#/media/File:CCH_3348_Broadway9thst_2254.jpg for freight in Columbus, Georgia - a city of 200,000 people.

I have read that the USA (perhaps like us to an extent) has difficulty spending on routine infrastructure.

The USA is far, far worse than the UK at routine maintenance and refurbishment of it's infrastructure. It suffers from a far more acute case of our ribbon-cutting problem, as well as having a political system set up to force compromise and dicussion but a political arena where any kind of compromise is seen largely as treason. John Oliver has a pretty good video of it on youtube from his Last Week Tonight show.

 

[yorksrob]

I think it's more common to have roads directly adjacent with ballasted track, but tramway-type street running definitely does exist and is reasonably common across the country. Remember in the US many railroads were built through unsettled country (there were native Americans there of course, but there's a chequered history with that), and the rail companies given land either side of their lines to develop in order to make a profit, so towns sprang up around loco servicing points, hence the term jerkwater towns. There wasn't a pre-existing core village that exploded like in the UK (generally). When roads were built, the easiest place was just to run next to or on the tracks, as trains would be measured in terms numbers per week at times.
see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_running_train#/media/File:South_Shore_512_(3542718093).jpg for a passenger example of street running. And https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_running_train#/media/File:CCH_3348_Broadway9thst_2254.jpg for freight in Columbus, Georgia - a city of 200,000 people.

The USA is far, far worse than the UK at routine maintenance and refurbishment of it's infrastructure. It suffers from a far more acute case of our ribbon-cutting problem, as well as having a political system set up to force compromise and dicussion but a political arena where any kind of compromise is seen largely as treason. John Oliver has a pretty good video of it on youtube from his Last Week Tonight show.

I must admit, my knowledge of US railroads is mainly from the films (Close Encounter, Duel etc). Level crossings seem to feature prominently.

 

[Signal Head]

I imagine the response from the Railroads would be to threaten the strongest possible legal action for tampering with a train. It's not an option anybody should look to go down, because it won't solve the problem.

There are two realistic solutions - build road bridges/underpasses, or move the trains stopping locations to out of town. Both are very expensive, and the likelihood of the rail companies contributing a substantial portion of the costs is very low, so it would rely on public funding, which in the US means the wonderful game of multi-dimensional horse-trading and backscratching that passes for politics. You have City, County, State and Federal agencies potentially involved, with hefty amounts of tax dollars at stake.

So basically the decent sensible approach isn't going to happen ?

Re brake pipes - it would solve part of the problem, that of trains setting off and injuring members of the public left with no option but to crawl under.

It sounds to me like the rail cos know they can act as they want, the courts have sided with them, even the police acknowledge they are inconvenienced and essentially powerless.

Given all the above, a bit of NVDA which protects people might prove an incentive to deal with the problem.

Unless the rail co post staff at every crossing each time they're never going to catch people who did it, and if they were willing to do that, then they could give them radios and require confirmation that each crossing is clear of people before restarting.

 

[zwk500]

I must admit, my knowledge of US railroads is mainly from the films (Close Encounter, Duel etc). Level crossings seem to feature prominently.

Yes, according to the ARR there's 200,000 of them. Towns like Ashland, Virginia (which has a youtube livestream if you're interested

, with Amtrak and plenty of freight) is fairly typical of a railroad town setup: https://visitashlandva.com/ (scroll down for a photo of an Amtrak train picking up passengers). You also get towns like La Grange, Kentucky,

which have actual street running.
To build bridges capable of fitting doublestack containers under them would be as high as most buildings in the town.

So basically the decent sensible approach isn't going to happen ?

This is the USA, why fix problems when you can point-score for the next election?

Re brake pipes - it would solve part of the problem, that of trains setting off and injuring members of the public left with no option but to crawl under.

It would, but only to a point - these trains have distributed power (locos in the middle) connected by satellite, if you split the brake pipes it's not guaranteed to stick fast.

It sounds to me like the rail cos know they can act as they want, the courts have sided with them, even the police acknowledge they are inconvenienced and essentially powerless.

Yes it's a massive problem, the rail companies known they are valuable nationally and that the towns can do nothing.

Given all the above, a bit of NVDA which protects people might prove an incentive to deal with the problem.

Unless the rail co post staff at every crossing each time they're never going to catch people who did it, and if they were willing to do that, then they could give them radios and require confirmation that each crossing is clear of people before restarting.

Given the US's recent safety record, I wouldn't be encouraging people to dive under trains and unhook brake pipes. It's not guaranteed to hold the train. And US railroads have had their own battles with the unions, they're not going to be suddenly employing more staff. They will just continue giving payouts to families of the people they run down until serious money comes from Congress to move passing sidings and the like out of town.

 

[Randomer]

The 7500ft limit has been proposed in legislation in several states before but never got to a vote and as previously mentioned wouldn't stand up to a challenge in federal court it really needs the Federal Railroad Administration to make a new rule preventing it. However, as with a lot of US agencies regulatory capture is a very real problem.

It is also not so much the problem of moving passing sidings or building new ones more that the existing ones are almost all designed for a train length of under 1.5 miles, they can't be used with the longer formations now being used and incidents have occurred due to this.

There is an interesting Pro Publica investigation which is too long to post here in its entirety however to quote the relevant section:

The reports revealed that some long trains were too big to fit into sidings off of main tracks that were often built to accommodate trains no longer than 1.4 miles, and passing trains were crashing into their rear ends. It happened in September 2005 when a 1.5-mile-long BNSF train tried to fit into a siding in Missouri that was 1.4 miles long. The same thing happened the following year in Utah to a 1.5-mile-long Union Pacific train.

 

[Signal Head]

Given the US's recent safety record, I wouldn't be encouraging people to dive under trains and unhook brake pipes.

They're already 'diving under the trains', irrespective of whether or not they interfere with anything.

Perhaps it would be OK if they shot holes in the pipes instead? Seems to be the preferred option for lots of other things over there.

Agree with all your other points, this is fundamentally broken.

The suggestion of louder warnings (while still forcing people to 'go under') reminded me of the US attitude to other aspects of crossings.

Many years ago a school bus which had 'blocked back' onto a auto crossing at a T junction was hit by a train. Seven fatalities.

The crossing (at Fox River Grove) was linked to the traffic light controls at the road junction such that an approaching train triggered a green phase so that any waiting vehicles were given a chance to get out of the way.

In the UK such a crossing would never have been allowed with that road layout, road traffic would have been held on the approach side of the crossing to prevent them getting into a dangerous place to begin with.

For a country with such a large 'pro life' contingent, they seem to be particularly adept at coming up with ways to create entirely avoidable risks to life and limb.

 

[zwk500]

For a country with such a large 'pro life' contingent, they seem to be particularly adept at coming up with ways to create entirely avoidable risks to life and limb.

They're not pro-life, they're pro-control. I won't go any further off-topic though.

Fundamentally, this needs the Federal transport authorities to take a lead and put packages in place that allow trains to wait outside towns, not inside. A 1.5mile train travelling at 30 miles an hour will take between 3 and 5 minutes to clear a specific crossing.

 

[XAM2175]

It would, but only to a point - these trains have distributed power (locos in the middle) connected by satellite, if you split the brake pipes it's not guaranteed to stick fast.

LOCOTROL uses radio (and possibly cellular data as a backup in some newer implementations). I'm not aware of any uses of satellite linkages, and I'd have thought that latency would make it impractical regardless.

I'm also fairly confident in saying that the vast majority of US operators have systems that monitor brake line continuity along the whole train so in theory a disconnect should immobilise the train, but I certainly wouldn't condone the practice (let alone risk my life on it).

 

[33101]

LOCOTROL uses radio (and possibly cellular data as a backup in some newer implementations). I'm not aware of any uses of satellite linkages, and I'd have thought that latency would make it impractical regardless.

I'm also fairly confident in saying that the vast majority of US operators have systems that monitor brake line continuity along the whole train so in theory a disconnect should immobilise the train, but I certainly wouldn't condone the practice (let alone risk my life on it).

Some companies like CSX have used satellite uplink to monitor location & performance status of locos / cars, so control might be aware of a disconnected brake (and so contact the crew), but I don't think that it's used as part of the distributed power control setup.

 

[ac6000cw]

As far as I'm aware, venting the brake pipe to the atmosphere i.e. disconnecting the pipe between cars without closing the valves on either side of it, will generate an emergency brake application on the whole train, irrespective of whether there are DPUs in the train or not. If that happens while it's moving, the DPUs detect it and if under power will drop to idle. If they are in dynamic braking at the time I think it depends on how they are set up as to whether they drop to idle or continue in dynamic braking.

If there is no DPU on the rear (and no caboose, as is normal today) there'll be an End-of-Train device (EOT, ETD or FRED) at the rear which monitors the brake line pressure and reports it by radio to the lead loco. Some EOTs are 'active' ones which can also vent the brake pipe (via a radio command) in an emergency - these are generally mandatory on trains which descend long steep gradients. If there is a rear DPU then that serves the purpose of an EOT (and as an aside, usually shows dimmed headlights at the rear instead of the flashing red light an EOT has).

DPU = Distributed Power Unit = radio-controlled loco.
FRED = Flashing Rear End Device.

Some companies like CSX have used satellite uplink to monitor location & performance status of locos / cars, so control might be aware of a disconnected brake (and so contact the crew), but I don't think that it's used as part of the distributed power control setup.

AFAIK that's mostly about monitoring loco performance for maintenance purposes (and also tracking usage of run-through/'borrowed'/hired/power-by-the-hour locos for accounting purposes).