Senin, 22 April 2013

Re: [CanPassRail] PTC was Perceived Risk on Various Modes

 

I think I'll celebrate. After only 55 posts to this group, it appears my posts may no longer be under moderation. Time for a high-calorie lunch.

Knut:

I believe that LED lamps are currently being used under a waiver of regulations. Typically, to get a waiver you have to prove that it is just as safe or safer than the current designs.

As to locking the gates down, currently they drop with gravity. The power is removed from the motor that raises the gates and holds them in the upright position, and they drop to horizontal. That is fail-safe in that if the power fails, the gates drop.

As to people manually raising the gates, yes that has happened occasionally in the past, but is very rare. Broken gates are more of a problem. Personally, I don't think a locking mechanism is that necessary, when you consider that more than have the crossings in the country have no automatic protection at all, and maybe half of those with protection have no gates. Any extra money should be spent on those rather than eliminating an extremely rare possibility.

James

--- In Canadian-Passenger-Rail@yahoogroups.com, Knut <knut@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks,
>
> I see the regulation could use updating in other areas as well, for instance:
>
> 10. Electric light units shall be equipped with a lamp having a rating of at least 18 watts and operated within 10 per cent of rated voltage.
>
> This pretty well eliminates LEDs or other high efficiency light sources.
> The requirements should really be minimum light intensity in lumens rather than wattage
>
> There is also no mention that the gates should be designed so that they cannot be easily lifted manually.
> I have seen that requirement in other jurisdictions and as previously discussed, a few of the really bad crossing accidents happened that way.
>
> The regulation describes a fail-safe mechanism with the gate lowered permanently, so locking them in that position seems reasonable with someone in authority required to unlock them if they do fail in the locked position.
>
> As to the proposed regulation - I find it great that a worse case situation was looked at that I didn't think of - not that I spent much time on it.
> A vehicle stopped at a crossing (that is clear) because company regulations (or legislation ) requires it and then starting to proceed across just as the warning lights start to activate, seems to be the worst scenario - also pedestrians whose mobility is impaired which is also mentioned.
>
> Interesting subject, but I think we have pretty well exhausted it.
>
> Knut
>
> -----------------
>
>
>
> On 2013-04-22, at 11:25 AM, James wrote:
>
> > Knut:
> >
> > The references in the previous post were to a draft regulation, which has not yet been put into force. Here is a link to the current regulation:
> >
> > http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/C.R.C.,_c._1183/page-2.html#docCont
> >
> > The pertinent part:
> >
> > =======================
> > 12. (1) Signals shall operate for not less than 20 seconds before the crossing is entered by a train at a speed in excess of 10 m.p.h.; provided that where the distance as measured parallel to the centre line of the highway between the governing signal and clearance on the opposite side of the farthest protected track on which trains operate in excess of 10 m.p.h. is more than 35 feet, the operation time of 20 seconds shall be increased one second for each additional 10 feet or fraction thereof; signals shall continue to operate until the train has cleared the crossing.
> > =======================
> >
> > That is where the 20 second requirement is defined. As noted by other posts, railways typically add 10 percent margin to the minimum, so it often becomes 22 seconds in actual application.
> >
> > As I understand it, the railways may be voluntarily designing new crossing protection based on the draft regulation, but I believe it is also supposed to be phased in, so existing crossings won't have to be changed immediately.
> >
> > James
> >
> > --- In Canadian-Passenger-Rail@yahoogroups.com, Knut <knut@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks for posting those details.
> > > I'm glad to see that all this is spelled out in detail and specifically covers the long commercial vehicles in use today.
> > >
> > > But somehow perhaps I misunderstood the 20 seconds (or 22 seconds) that have consistently been quoted.
> > > I thought that was the minimum time between the activation of the warning signals and the actual arrival of the train.
> > >
> > > If I add up the times in the post below I get as a "normal" minimum interval:
> > > 7 seconds from the start of the warning signal to the onset of lowering the gates
> > > 15 seconds worst case to lower the gates to the final position
> > > 5 seconds after that the earliest time a train should arrive
> > > …which adds up to a total time of 27 seconds, not 20 or 22.
> > > That just happens to be the same number as was posted previously for the UK.
> > >
> > > Does the 20 second interval only apply for crossings without gates?
> > > Seems a bit confusing.
> > >
> > > Knut
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (59)
Recent Activity:
For help, send an email to Canadian-Passenger-Rail-help@yahoogroups.com
MARKETPLACE


.

__,_._,___

Tidak ada komentar:

Poskan Komentar