Should trains wait for cars, instead of cars waiting for trains?

Question

Should trains wait for cars, instead of cars waiting for trains?

Answer 1

Given the numbers, provided by Hoghead, I, personally would agree that it is more prudent for cars to stop for trains, whether Freight or passenger type. Plus, I would NEVER, NEVER "roll the dice". I have way too much respect for trains and their sheer power, size, momentum, etc., to take ANY chances! PERIOD!!

Answer 2

Don't know.  But if you are on the train you have to wait for freight cars.  Freight has priority.

Answer 3

I'm not trusting a train to stop for me.

Answer 4

Ummm...

NO!

The laws of physics are against such non-sense, as is the law. Trains have the right of way - trains were around before cars.

Answer 5

Absolutely no.  They are built to go on tracks and cars aren't.

Answer 6

Well said by all.  But, just for fun, let's plug in some numbers.

Freight trains are as small and light weight as a lite engine movement, 200 tons, or a multiple unit consist on the point of a unit train with trailing tonnage of 16,000 tons, plus three units, for a total of 16,600 tons.  It can take as much as six miles to make a nice and easy controlled stop, more than a mile to stop in full emergency.  If I can see you, it is already too late to stop for you.

Fuel expense?  Major.  Most fuel is consumed in starting and accelerating this tonnage up to maximum authorized speed.  Just like stopping, it takes several miles, and a considerably longer length of time with the engines wide open (run #8 or 'full rack') before the train is at speed and the throttle can be throttled back.  That's when the old ton / miles per gallon go waaaay down.  The newer locomotives are much more fuel efficient, but they are not the majority.  Most power is still in the form of an SD45 or SD40.  These, when in run #8, consume fuel at the rate of 196 gallons per hour, for each engine in the consist.  The newer ones are still drinking fuel at a rate of around 168 gallons per hour at full rack.

If one had to start and accelerate the train time after time after time for auto traffic in a single trip, fuel cost really wacks away at the profit margin.  It is bad enough when having to take the siding three or four (or more) times in a 100 mile trip.  Add the two together and the profit margin dissappears altogether.

Trains don't wait for cars and never will.  Are you going to wait for trains?  Or are you ready to "roll the dice"?

Answer 7

Sadly, trains have immense force, and take a long time to start and start up. It would only waste energy to start the thing back up again.

Answer 8

Absolutely not.  The amount of fuel needed to keep stopping a train, rather than letting them through unabated would FAR outweigh the fuel cars use to stop for a moment to let the train pass.

Not to mention, some trains carry enough cars that they'd end up stopping at one intersection while they block another.

Answer 9

lets see.....100,000 pound plus train going 40 mph. while 2000 pound car approachs crossing at same speed.

Train attempts to stop before hitting car...

Car is ground up and spit out about 2 miles down the track while train is still attempting to stop....shall we say mincemeat for the occupants....

Answer 10

The best solution, albeit not the most cost efficient is to grade separate crossings and eliminate the interaction between Cars and Trains. That being said, a car has a shorter stopping distance than a train and is able to resume speed more easily and efficiently, so the Cars should wait.

Answer 11

No, since trains don't usually show up as often as cars. Besides it would take too much fuel to keep starting and stopping a train. Most trains are used to transport goods to locations nation wide, and have time schedules to keep in order to keep the consumers happy. So the sooner they get to where they are going the sooner you can buy what you need.

Answer 12

in a word....NO

Answer 13

Cars can stop a lot easier than trains!  Duh!

Answer 14

No. In consideration of the size of trains, it wold take them way too long to come to a full and complete stop.

Answer 15

Simple. NO!

Answer 16

Ever tried to stop a train? It takes a helll of a long time.

Answer 17

I don't think so. Of course, you could try stopping in front of a train next time you see one coming if you want to know why.

Answer 18

yeah however when a train is going 50mph it takes a LLLLOOOONNG time to stop it. It wouldn't be feasible for them to stop that often.

Answer 19

no because that would be stupid. Imagine being on a train that has to stop each time a car wants to pass? It's a very dumb idea LOL

Answer 20

As a truck driver, I find this an amazing question. If you only knew more about physics. Larger mass equals greater momentum, of course cars should YIELD the right of way to ALL large vehicles.

Answer 21

No cause they would have to stop and start at every road crossing.

Answer 22

No.  It would not possible.  There are some crossing in areas that only 3 cars would cross in a day (many where I live).  It takes a train much longer to stop than it would a car.  You have to keep in mind that cars are only stopping one thing (itself).  Trains have to stop the engines as well as all of the cars it is pulling.  That and trains were first.

Answer 23

They'd never get a break in such a case.

Answer 24

trains can't stop in time for cars even if ther was one in the way, the train would run the car over.