On-going Calgarians hit by trains thread

[M*A*S*H 4077]

If a driver hits a train and is deemed to be at fault they should have their license revoked with no chance of ever getting it back. It's a fricken train!

[Northendzone]

thier picture should be posted on the side of the train car they hit.

What was the count of the carnage today?

[JonDuke]

Originally Posted by SebC

[SebC]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Ive heard that as well and I just dont understand why they wouldnt put the NW/SW line under. It has more movements than the W/NE line. I wonder if the reason is how they get it underground after Sunnyside.

Huh? The NW/SW (which I referred to as S-NW) line is going underground before W/NE. Probably much, much before, as first line to go underground debottlenecks both, whereas the second one is merely for extreme capacity reliability and collision avoidance. W/NE tunnel isn't even in RouteAhead plan.

As to why the busier line would be the one shifted away from the core... the simple answer is constructability. It's much easier to build under 8th than under 7th, so 8th will be done first (although the 8th St - Sunnyside stretch could also be problematic). SW/NW line will get 8th because it needs the capacity more. I suppose they could look at switching them at some point after both tunnels are constructed, but that would likely provide only very marginal benefits and changing the configurations around Mewata and East Village would probably be quite difficult.

Also, in the long term (very long term?), the "City Centre" will like shift South a bit from where it currently is, because we'll run out of development opportunities closer to the Bow River (where they're sometimes limited by the shadow bylaw as well). Not saying it'll get to the point where 8th is better than 7th, but it's something to consider.

[llwhiteoutll]

Apparently people can't go two weeks without hitting a train. Maybe it's time for a city bylaw that levies a five figure fine for hitting trains and causing road closures and loss of service along the entire line.

http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/car-collid...core-1.1610813

[puckluck2]

Calgarians aren't hit by trains. Trains are hit by Calgarians.

[Acey]

^ The frontal damage to the vehicles in many of the crashes seems to confirm that hypothesis. Eventually, the city is going to have to weigh the exorbitant cost of train repairs against the cost of either improved warning lights, or a stiff fine for drivers.

[KelVarnsen]

People just need to pay the #### attention.

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by Acey

^ The frontal damage to the vehicles in many of the crashes seems to confirm that hypothesis. Eventually, the city is going to have to weigh the exorbitant cost of train repairs against the cost of either improved warning lights, or a stiff fine for drivers.

I'm pretty sure the city does alright once the insurance settles out. I'd say this is probably a reason people have 1-2 million liability for incidents like this.

[Ahuch]

Some of the crossings are less than ideal... but it's really just common sense. I'm mostly just amazed that people haven't been hurt more severely from all of these crashes.

[ken0042]

All the crossing improvements in the world won't help if somebody is going the wrong way down a one way street.

[GirlySports]

the guy was from BC, explains everything

[billybob123]

I think the big issue for Calgary Transit isn't the cost, it's having to pull cars out of service until they're repaired.

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by billybob123

I think the big issue for Calgary Transit isn't the cost, it's having to pull cars out of service until they're repaired.

I think both are significant. The man hours of service it takes to do repairs after collisions like these rack up into the hundreds and thousands and takes resources away from doing regular planned maintenance.

Out of all the collisions over the years, there's only been 3 LRV units that have been fully retired. 2 other units have had their wrecked ends taken off and the good ends combined to form a "new" unit.

All other units that have been in collisions have been fully repaired and put back into service.

[I-Hate-Hulse]

Originally Posted by jar_e

I'm pretty sure the city does alright once the insurance settles out. I'd say this is probably a reason people have 1-2 million liability for incidents like this.

So... shouldn't CT be hoping that LRV's get written off in accidents? Should give them a decent chunk of the new funds needed for a new one at $3.2M....

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

I think both are significant. The man hours of service it takes to do repairs after collisions like these rack up into the hundreds and thousands and takes resources away from doing regular planned maintenance.

Out of all the collisions over the years, there's only been 3 LRV units that have been fully retired. 2 other units have had their wrecked ends taken off and the good ends combined to form a "new" unit.

All other units that have been in collisions have been fully repaired and put back into service.

Wrecked end? Nearly killed 'em!

The people who are involved in these accidents really should be compelled by CPD to give an explanation to the public for what the hell they were thinking. Just to satisfy my own curiosity, I want to know what they were doing that caused that to happen.

[para transit fellow]

I think part of the problem is that we have level crossings downtown without any additional warning signals usually associated with a railway crossing. While some of the downtown collision have involved the crossing arms - it appears to me that more collisions occur along 7 ave... where traffic lights are not synchronized for the north/ south traffic. (they favor the east west flow of the trains)

Maybe we need to boost the signalization at each intersection through downtown. I'm thinking those rail road crossing dual flashing lights in addition to the standard traffic light.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by para transit fellow

I think part of the problem is that we have level crossings downtown without any additional warning signals usually associated with a railway crossing. While some of the downtown collision have involved the crossing arms - it appears to me that more collisions occur along 7 ave... where traffic lights are not synchronized for the north/ south traffic. (they favor the east west flow of the trains)

Maybe we need to boost the signalization at each intersection through downtown. I'm thinking those rail road crossing dual flashing lights in addition to the standard traffic light.

The light is red though. What more indiction to not cross the road do you need? These people would be hitting cars the same way they hit trains.

[Acey]

Yeah but they are hitting trains, and not cars... the former is far more detrimental to the city, thus additional measures should be in place. Calgary drivers are beyond moronic and instead of being flabbergasted at their stupidity, which is the general sentiment in here, it seems we have to take additional measures to protect the trains.

[billybob123]

I'm sure it would be exhorbitantly expensive to put up barriers at each crossing. How many level crossings are there downtown? I doubt the blinking signals would make a lot of difference. I have seen stats about level crossing accidents where barriers eliminate >90% of accidents while lights only eliminate something like 40%? I can't seem to find the stats, though.

I count (Northwest to Southeast):

4 Ave SW
5 Ave
6 Ave (all three above have signals, which seem to do nothing at the 4 Ave crossing - multiple collisions here)
8 St
7 St
6 St
5 St
4 St
3 St
2 St
1 St SW
Centre St
1 St SE
Macleod Tr
2 St SE

There are already gates at 10 St SW and 4 St/6 Ave SE. This seems to be the norm for new crossings. I count 15 crossings that would need barriers. How much would this cost? Given the length of time these LRVs are out of service, it might be worth it?