Re: Dubbo XPT hits truck

[david <david@nmit.vic.edu.au>]

HXP1 wrote:

> James C. <james_ccj@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8eb611$pn8$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> > > Unless the booms were long enough to cover both lanes. I'm serious.
>
> > I think I saw it in "Trains magazine" once, UP railroad testing a
> > special kind of boomgate that can cater a heavy truck collision at
> > 80kph or fater without letting truck on to the crossing. No doubt it
> > would be expensive thou.
>
> IIRC these booms were designed to be installed on divided carriageways, and
> the tip of a reinforced/braced boom barrier engaged with a fixture of some
> description in the island between the carriageways.  Therefore if a road
> vehicle hit the booms, it would 'bounce' off.  I remember reading about the
> 'prototype' installation, possibly in Trains, but I've seen nothing more
> about it.  Perhaps installing F/L at unprotected Xings gave better value for
> State money (who pay for alot of US Xing work).
>

As another poster pointed out, many  booms are destroyed as it is. Then you may
have that syndrome that if a cars under one of these crash proof booms - the
damage as they decend..........is this another factor???

David