Senin, 22 April 2013

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

 

Maybe not yet. I remember one interesting crossing in Winnipeg in the late
1960s/early 1970s, where the CP La Rivière Subdivision and the Burlington
Northern Manitoba Limited line both cross Corydon Avenue. The bells rang
only while the gates were being lowered or raised; once they were down, the
bells were muted.

Mark Walton
mark.walton@sympatico.ca

-----Original Message-----
From: Canadian-Passenger-Rail@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:Canadian-Passenger-Rail@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Knut
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 12:13 PM
To: Canadian-Passenger-Rail@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [CanPassRail] PTC was Perceived Risk on Various Modes

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

__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (61)
Recent Activity:
For help, send an email to Canadian-Passenger-Rail-help@yahoogroups.com
MARKETPLACE


.

__,_._,___

Tidak ada komentar:

Poskan Komentar