News   Apr 26, 2024
Sustainability Month: ReHousing — A Multiplex How-To Guide Explores What’s Possible in the Yellowbelt
 2.1K     4 
News   Apr 26, 2024
Mattamy's Soleil and Mile & Creek Condos in Milton’s Flourishing Landscape
 470     0 
News   Apr 26, 2024
Galleria on the Park Soon to Welcome First Residents of Masterplanned Community
 1.1K     1 

GO Transit: Service thread (including extensions)

afransen said:
I feel for the parents, but these kids are old enough to have been informed several times of the danger of walking on tracks. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Click to expand...
It's tempting to write it off as "kids being stupid". But we should not be lead into thinking we couldn't have done more.

I will admit to walking on tracks as a teenager, on low-speed CN tracks serving local auto plants. One time, I was even playing with a friend on a 50 foot high wooden trestle, hauling weird shit like bikes and barrels to throw it off the side. And we almost got caught up there, after about a half-hour, a train came sailing around a curve into our view. If we had forgot to look as frequently as we did, or if we mis-stepped between the ties bolting off of the trestle, we could have been killed or seriously injured (from the train and/or the fall)

We did it because we believed, from previous observation, that the trains ran slow. We were confident that if a train came, we'd had enough time to get out of the way, we even discussed it at length before doing it. We were invincible and smart teenagers. But we could have been wrong about the train speed, and we certainly didn't factor in the risk of snags or falls.

Side note: the sign waning "Danger: High Speed Trains" with a picture of an ICE 1 train did little to convince us, as that's not what we really saw. That's a lesson in effective signage.

I haven't been to a GO / Metrolinx school presentation, and it's been a long time since I went to an Op Lifesaver presentation. But I hope it factors this in, especially for the older kids. You think you know, but teenagers have a lot of brain development still going on, and risk-taking and analysis is still not fully developed I know I'm preaching to a lot of other parents and former teenagers here, but it's an important point to highlight: accidents happen, risk factors pile up. Cases like this serve as a good example of 'you think you know, but they didn't'. There's also the anti-authority element. But if we can do better to reinforce the real danger, there's a greater chance of kids *telling each other* to avoid the danger. Another 15 year old saying "Bruh, that's crazy, stick to the side" is likely going to work better than a guy in a shiny vest saying anything in a school gym.

Anyway, stepping off the soapbox here, I am curious how Metrolinx responds, and if that means better fencing along rights of way.
 
Metroscapes said:
It's tempting to write it off as "kids being stupid". But we should not be lead into thinking we couldn't have done more.
Click to expand...

I'm of two minds on this.

I'll start with:

1) Its important to value life and not be cavalier and show a sense of empathy.

2)In urban areas where risks of intrusion are numerically more likely and train movements more frequent, there is certainly an argument for fencing corridor access; that said, chain link fences in Toronto blocking popular access routes across tracks are cut with regularity; just ask CP about trying to keep up with that activity in Leaside, where people, not just kids, want to cut across the ROW from the homes to get to Crothers Woods and the hiking/biking trails, and/or the Loblaws, its a massive shortcut.

If you're going to do it, you need to prevent that with non-scalable, 10ft fences that are very hard to cut (metal/composite faux wrought-iron style would be the recommendation) but that's quite expensive and there's a lot of track.

Its inconceivable to control for access in more rural areas and indeed, where the railways balk at intrusion in Toronto, the Bruce Trail runs directly across and along side rail corridors at times. (briefly)

3) Education is almost always a good idea, but also almost always a challenge. Try telling parents we're going to teach your kid the safest way to do drugs, with the strong recommendation that they don't do them at all. Try telling many parents about detailed sex-ed at a relatively young age, get the same issue. Yet, the limited-scope, 'never do the bad thing' message; or wait til you're an adult is a non-starter.

Now I offered than intro to suggest, do you want to teach kids how to walk along a rail corridor safely? How would the railways feel about "You shouldn't trespass, but if you're going to do it, this is how"?

****

I offer the above in service of, when I've been in a rural area, usually on a hiking trail, and had to follow rail for a bit, I learned a long time ago to not only check both ways properly and stick to the side if feasible, but before stepping between the rails, put your ear to the rail. The vibration of an oncoming train can be heard literally 15x further than listing for the sound of a train traveling through air. It can give you a very clear indication of whether its safe to traverse a trestle that will take 2 minutes to get across.

Its also a great idea to be a train geek and get the scheduled runs; or gain access to real-time tracking of runs on your phone, though such is no guarantee of a safe crossing, as there is always the risk of unscheduled/untracked runs, work equipment etc.

But can I imagine anyone explaining that to a class of teens/pre-teens w/the railways blessing?

4) Finally, I would note the specific issue described here seems to be that the teens may have seen one train coming and in an effort to avoid it they stepped from the track they knew was active, to one w/an oncoming UPX vehicle they did not see coming. This is a common feature in train/trespasser collisions that are not suicides. Here again is there a sensible instruction to give? In a two-track scenario, the obvious thing to say is always step to the side of the active track, not to the opposing track (assuming that's feasible). But if you're walking down the middle of 3 tracks or 4 tracks etc. Other than.....don't do that, I can't think of clear advice on the lowest risk option if you see a train coming, do you step to the left or the right?
In theory, properly positioned, you probably have room to stand between 2 moving trains, but not much (approximately 2.5ft, assuming neither train has a wide load, and there is no shaking/shifting at all) , and I would not recommend anyone try.

****

In the end one must have empathy for both the kids and the parents here. But I'm not sure there are any 'easy' solutions.
 
Last edited:
Dan416 said:
I love when they say they added 2 trains to Milton but it's really just 1 extra trip in the morning and an extra trip in the evening. Even if they doubled that, it's not much and not back to pre-Covid service.
Click to expand...
If they doubled the number of added trips (+2 round trips instead of +1) they would be back to pre-Covid service. Currently there are 8 round trips (increasing to 9 in April), and pre-pandemic there were 10.

You can refer to my GO Timetable Archive for pre-pandemic service.
 
^We are in transition between a culture where railway tracks are porous and one where they are not, and shouldn't be.

Sadly, not everybody will get the memo on day one. Added to that is the problem that there aren't enough places where people can cross the tracks safely, and added to that is the youthful sense of indestructability.

The challenge in any physical security is that there only has to be one hole.

I am encouraged by the amount of fencing that ML has already added. What's needed is a more OCD maintenance strategy that plugs every last hole, and hardens fencing at spots where people persist in cutting holes. And adding places to cross without walking forever. Just as we add sidewalks that cut across large lawns, we need to build safe pathways where we find people are habitually crossing the tracks.

There is even a culture that thinks train tracks are the perfect place for wedding photos. I have seen this myself, an entire party of men in tuxedos and women in long gowns getting out of limos and invading a railway track to take their photos. Someone in a bridal gown and heels is not going to get clear when a train shows up. Those are adults not adolescents, but the self absorption is palpable. Nuts.

- Paul
 
Northern Light said:
4) Finally, I would note the specific issue described here seems to be that the teens may have seen one train coming and in an effort to avoid it they stepped from the track they knew was active, to one w/an oncoming UPX vehicle they did not see coming. This is a common feature in train/trespasser collisions that are not suicides. Here again is there a sensible instruction to give? In a two-track scenario, the obvious thing to say is always step to the side of the active track, not to the opposing track (assuming that's feasible). But if you're walking down the middle of 3 tracks or 4 tracks etc. Other than.....don't do that, I can't think of clear advice on the lowest risk option if you see a train coming, do you step to the left or the right?
In theory, properly positioned, you probably have room to stand between 2 moving trains, but not much (approximately 2.5ft, assuming neither train has a wide load, and there is no shaking/shifting at all) , and I would not recommend anyone try.
Click to expand...

Just in the remote chance that anyone on list ever does find themselves on a railway track - the second hand official advice would be - if you are anywhere near a railway track, expect trains on any track at any time. Keep your head on a swivel. Don't walk or stand inside the gauge. Look both ways regularly. And, if you are truly caught between tracks with two trains approaching, get out of the gauge and crouch or hit the ground between the tracks.

This is not advice that I would freely offer the public, especially youth, as it may create the misimpression that being on a railway track is doable or manageable. Even railway workers cringe at doing this, and they actually do so a lot less than one might think, if you observe them there, they are likely to have obtained formal track occupancy protection and/or flagging and/or spotters applied. If you are out there between the rails, the hair on the back of your neck should be standing straight up.

- Paul
 
crs1026 said:
^We are in transition between a culture where railway tracks are porous and one where they are not, and shouldn't be.

Sadly, not everybody will get the memo on day one. Added to that is the problem that there aren't enough places where people can cross the tracks safely, and added to that is the youthful sense of indestructability.

The challenge in any physical security is that there only has to be one hole.

I am encouraged by the amount of fencing that ML has already added. What's needed is a more OCD maintenance strategy that plugs every last hole, and hardens fencing at spots where people persist in cutting holes. And adding places to cross without walking forever. Just as we add sidewalks that cut across large lawns, we need to build safe pathways where we find people are habitually crossing the tracks.

There is even a culture that thinks train tracks are the perfect place for wedding photos. I have seen this myself, an entire party of men in tuxedos and women in long gowns getting out of limos and invading a railway track to take their photos. Someone in a bridal gown and heels is not going to get clear when a train shows up. Those are adults not adolescents, but the self absorption is palpable. Nuts.

- Paul
Click to expand...

Adding more proper footbridges and underpasses is also key. This seems to be completely off the radar for GO/Metrolinx
 
crs1026 said:
There is even a culture that thinks train tracks are the perfect place for wedding photos. I have seen this myself, an entire party of men in tuxedos and women in long gowns getting out of limos and invading a railway track to take their photos. Someone in a bridal gown and heels is not going to get clear when a train shows up. Those are adults not adolescents, but the self absorption is palpable. Nuts.
Click to expand...
That is indeed nuts. If a professional photographer is involved, there is an elevated level of liability.

ShonTron said:
Adding more proper footbridges and underpasses is also key. This seems to be completely off the radar for GO/Metrolinx
Click to expand...
That would no doubt reduce, but not eliminate, trespassing. To some, they still wouldn't be direct enough. I would imagine some people feel tunnels/underpasses are dangerous places, and it is hard to argue.
 
crs1026 said:
^We are in transition between a culture where railway tracks are porous and one where they are not, and shouldn't be.

Sadly, not everybody will get the memo on day one. Added to that is the problem that there aren't enough places where people can cross the tracks safely, and added to that is the youthful sense of indestructability.

The challenge in any physical security is that there only has to be one hole.

I am encouraged by the amount of fencing that ML has already added. What's needed is a more OCD maintenance strategy that plugs every last hole, and hardens fencing at spots where people persist in cutting holes. And adding places to cross without walking forever. Just as we add sidewalks that cut across large lawns, we need to build safe pathways where we find people are habitually crossing the tracks.

There is even a culture that thinks train tracks are the perfect place for wedding photos. I have seen this myself, an entire party of men in tuxedos and women in long gowns getting out of limos and invading a railway track to take their photos. Someone in a bridal gown and heels is not going to get clear when a train shows up. Those are adults not adolescents, but the self absorption is palpable. Nuts.

- Paul
Click to expand...
Relevant https://www.caledonenterprise.com/n...le_91987dce-96be-5e63-a95c-689b5db88fff.html?

At least with the train service gone there is plenty of time now for wedding photos on that bridge /s
 
Sadly, there is no real way to 100% stop this kind of stuff. Education, fencing and pedestrian crossings can only go so far. If someone wants to get on the tracks, they will. We should keep doing these things, But like every tragic thing, people will do things like this regardless of what barrier is put in place. No different than people driving through crossings that don't have gates or even driving around gates.
 
micheal_can said:
Sadly, there is no real way to 100% stop this kind of stuff. Education, fencing and pedestrian crossings can only go so far. If someone wants to get on the tracks, they will. We should keep doing these things, But like every tragic thing, people will do things like this regardless of what barrier is put in place. No different than people driving through crossings that don't have gates or even driving around gates.
Click to expand...
If we just electrified the two rails, it would solve every problem. No more trespassers and cheap and easy electrification. But I digress.
 
ShonTron said:
Adding more proper footbridges and underpasses is also key. This seems to be completely off the radar for GO/Metrolinx
Click to expand...
It not only applies to ML, but every RR out there. I have seen cases in NA as well Europe where people are forced to cross tracks to get from one side to another without walking miles to a crossing

ML has refused to put in an underpass where a road is to be closed that it's a 10-minute drive to get around it, an hour walk for pedestrian and the city refused to allow the crossing to be closed.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top