Speed cameras for trains
Discussion
Why not? speed kills. If that train had been going slower, it could have stopped before it hit the parked car. All facts, yet we have the laughable notion of fitting BULL BARS to trains.
Christ, if we said fit bullbars to ALL CARS so as to get other vehicles/pedestrians out the way, we'd be called dangerous loons.
Christ, if we said fit bullbars to ALL CARS so as to get other vehicles/pedestrians out the way, we'd be called dangerous loons.
Would it not be more intelligent to address the inherent shortcomings of unmanned crossings?
In the "old days" the bloke on duty at the crossing would have seen the whole thing and averted the disaster.
Now that technology has progressed, why not a video camera with image recognition that could spot an obstruction on the crossing and alert the driver of the approaching train?
Or even more low-tech, why not a regional control room with a camera pointed at ever crossing? They have them for motorways so why not for crossings?
In the "old days" the bloke on duty at the crossing would have seen the whole thing and averted the disaster.
Now that technology has progressed, why not a video camera with image recognition that could spot an obstruction on the crossing and alert the driver of the approaching train?
Or even more low-tech, why not a regional control room with a camera pointed at ever crossing? They have them for motorways so why not for crossings?
paolow said:Perhaps they are the same people who insist on all cars having crumple zones, x no. of airbags, no mascots, pedestrian friendly fronts, and, now, cotton wool on the bonnet.
did you hear the prat on radio 2 who rekoned there should be 2 'sacrificial' carriages on the front of every locomotive to absorb the impact of a crash? im surprised these people have the intelligence to breathe in and out...
If you ask me, bull bars for trains isnt actually a stupid idea at all.
Train carrying many people should be built to smack obstacle out of the way and prevent harm to the many people on the train. If youre in the way of a train, bull bars or not, you are going to be in some serious trouble. Better to let the many survive.
Train carrying many people should be built to smack obstacle out of the way and prevent harm to the many people on the train. If youre in the way of a train, bull bars or not, you are going to be in some serious trouble. Better to let the many survive.
lanciachris said:
If you ask me, bull bars for trains isnt actually a stupid idea at all.
Train carrying many people should be built to smack obstacle out of the way and prevent harm to the many people on the train. If youre in the way of a train, bull bars or not, you are going to be in some serious trouble. Better to let the many survive.
Good point - except that if the train *nearly* stops and the cow-catchers spear Mr and Mrs Pratt's car, the hoi polloi will be up in arms again
Chris
lanciachris said:
If you ask me, bull bars for trains isnt actually a stupid idea at all.
Train carrying many people should be built to smack obstacle out of the way and prevent harm to the many people on the train. If youre in the way of a train, bull bars or not, you are going to be in some serious trouble. Better to let the many survive.
Cow catchers and bull bars are fitted to many US trains, trucks and Australian land trains for very functional reasons. The fact they are completely inappropriate for Chelsea Tractors shouldn't matter too much
Strange isn't it...motorists are being bombarded with campaigns to slow down in case some random nutter/pedestrian/child runs out in front of them, yet the minute a similar sytle incident happens on the railways everyone is clamouring for a huge rebuilding programme. If we can't build our way to better road safety with better junctions, bypasses, flyovers and so on, why should the railways be any different?
Motorists are being told to slow down in areas of perceived high risk, so why shouldn't trains? Speed is the only factor after all....
"If this train had been travelling at 30mph, it would have stopped *here*".
Motorists are being told to slow down in areas of perceived high risk, so why shouldn't trains? Speed is the only factor after all....
"If this train had been travelling at 30mph, it would have stopped *here*".
hornet said:
Strange isn't it...motorists are being bombarded with campaigns to slow down in case some random nutter/pedestrian/child runs out in front of them, yet the minute a similar sytle incident happens on the railways everyone is clamouring for a huge rebuilding programme. If we can't build our way to better road safety with better junctions, bypasses, flyovers and so on, why should the railways be any different?
Motorists are being told to slow down in areas of perceived high risk, so why shouldn't trains? Speed is the only factor after all....
"If this train had been travelling at 30mph, it would have stopped *here*".
good analogy, if I had my way trains would be built with big barbed spikes sticking out of the front, unfortunately the technology is in reverse here too, current rolling stock is quite capable of 140mph but trying to get parts of the network to allow more than 110mph seems to be a problem for all sorts of reasons,
Existing obstruction protection is based upon objects on the line shorting the track circuit. The track circuit is a voltage between the rails, which is shorted in the presence of a train (or conducting obstruction) and registers the track section as occupied. This is interlocked with the signals so that the signals automatically set to danger if the track section ahead is blocked.
If the track over a level-x is track circuited (track circuits are not used everywhere in the UK, other forms of train protection such as RETB and axle counter detection are used on some lines) in theory this should set the signals to danger if the cicuit is shorted. This will also set signals beyond the first to yellow and double yellow respectively, giving the train warning of the up and coming red signal.
However, this requires that:
a) the obstruction occurs whilst the train still has sufficient stopping distance
b) that the obstruction shorts the track ciruit.
In practice, if a) doesn't occur, you're stuffed.. so all you can do is ensure that the barriers clos before this happens,
and if b) occurs, this is where CCTV comes in.
The other benefit of CCTV signals is that this goes to the signaller and they can radio the driver to stop whether they have reached the next signal or not..
In the future (ERTMS level 2) signallers will be able to revoke a trains 'movement authority' direct from the signal room, causing the train to come to an automatic halt.
But none of this will stop someone getting hit by a train if they try hard enough..
If the track over a level-x is track circuited (track circuits are not used everywhere in the UK, other forms of train protection such as RETB and axle counter detection are used on some lines) in theory this should set the signals to danger if the cicuit is shorted. This will also set signals beyond the first to yellow and double yellow respectively, giving the train warning of the up and coming red signal.
However, this requires that:
a) the obstruction occurs whilst the train still has sufficient stopping distance
b) that the obstruction shorts the track ciruit.
In practice, if a) doesn't occur, you're stuffed.. so all you can do is ensure that the barriers clos before this happens,
and if b) occurs, this is where CCTV comes in.
The other benefit of CCTV signals is that this goes to the signaller and they can radio the driver to stop whether they have reached the next signal or not..
In the future (ERTMS level 2) signallers will be able to revoke a trains 'movement authority' direct from the signal room, causing the train to come to an automatic halt.
But none of this will stop someone getting hit by a train if they try hard enough..
Issues with Cameras, etc
I have looked at this problem in the past for Railtrack, as in places like East Anglia there are many un-manned level crossing/farm crossing etc. So its not a new problem.
Even for today's technology it is a challenge as quite a small object could derail a train (eg housebrick size - high resolution cameras would be required from multiple angles to cover all bases). Even using a combination of technologies (machine vision - intelligent CCTV), radar and thermal technology (heat radiating objects, people to sheep!) it is still very difficult as you have to be able to operate effectively and reliably in all weather conditions, including heavy fog and snow!
There was also very limited bandwidth available in the trackside communication for additional messages/images, though this could be covered using wireless techniques. Then failsafe systems would have to be put on the trains as well.
I'm afraid its not just a simple a putting a CCTV camera up, I wish it was as lives would have been saved. Also usless intelligent motion tracking software was used to look for irregular movements in the objects using the crossing then issues may still arise with animals, suicide missions etc actually leaving the crossing and travelling down the track.
Putting a camera on the front of a train to look ahead and stop the train is definitely a non-runner, think about the speed of the train say 50m/second and how long it takes to stop a 100mph train - now just how far does that camera have to see?
I would love someone to be able to solve the issue, but at the end of the day its down to a money-risk situation. This type of accident however tragic is infrequent, and yes in more densely populated areas maybe there should be more bridges, but this won't happen for every rural farm crossing.
My deepest sympathy goes out for the families involved.
davidy
I have looked at this problem in the past for Railtrack, as in places like East Anglia there are many un-manned level crossing/farm crossing etc. So its not a new problem.
Even for today's technology it is a challenge as quite a small object could derail a train (eg housebrick size - high resolution cameras would be required from multiple angles to cover all bases). Even using a combination of technologies (machine vision - intelligent CCTV), radar and thermal technology (heat radiating objects, people to sheep!) it is still very difficult as you have to be able to operate effectively and reliably in all weather conditions, including heavy fog and snow!
There was also very limited bandwidth available in the trackside communication for additional messages/images, though this could be covered using wireless techniques. Then failsafe systems would have to be put on the trains as well.
I'm afraid its not just a simple a putting a CCTV camera up, I wish it was as lives would have been saved. Also usless intelligent motion tracking software was used to look for irregular movements in the objects using the crossing then issues may still arise with animals, suicide missions etc actually leaving the crossing and travelling down the track.
Putting a camera on the front of a train to look ahead and stop the train is definitely a non-runner, think about the speed of the train say 50m/second and how long it takes to stop a 100mph train - now just how far does that camera have to see?
I would love someone to be able to solve the issue, but at the end of the day its down to a money-risk situation. This type of accident however tragic is infrequent, and yes in more densely populated areas maybe there should be more bridges, but this won't happen for every rural farm crossing.
My deepest sympathy goes out for the families involved.
davidy
Whatever they decide, there are far too many unmanned crossings in this country to make it a worthwhile exercise.
Why spend countless millions on a system that will save less than 100 lives per year, when you can spend that same money on pensioner's heating bills, or more police, or free smoke alarms?
Shit happens. Its unfortunate, but hey thats life.
Why spend countless millions on a system that will save less than 100 lives per year, when you can spend that same money on pensioner's heating bills, or more police, or free smoke alarms?
Shit happens. Its unfortunate, but hey thats life.
I'm sure that if there was a will, trains could be designed to knock small obstacles out of the way rather than be derailed. I'm also sure that if there was a will, the sort of vehicle sensors used at traffic lights could be used to detect when a crossing is blocked, and automatically activate signals to stop the train. You will never stop people who want to kill themselves from doing so, but in this day and age there's no reason people should ever die by accident at crossings.
apache said:You mean out of the control panel pointing at the driver, I take it. That'll make them think twice about doing more than 20mph in their ballistic battering rams. At 30mph half of all people hit by trains die a horrible death. At 40mph 85% are fatally flattened. But at 20mph 85% survive. Think of the children - if it saves just one life!
if I had my way trains would be built with big barbed spikes sticking out of the front
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff