I read in a TXDot document somewhere that the railroad was only responsible in Texas for maintaining railroad crossings, specifically the portion immediately above the cross ties and that was it. Not sure about crossing signalling systems.
I have noticed that when there is a grade crossing improvement project the railroads financial contribution is pretty tiny.
I wonder if that is the standard in all states or just Texas?
Along the UP West row in my western Chicago suburb, I see UP maintenance crews frequently working on signaling for crossing gates.
Who is responsible for the actual work on road crossings and their protective devices and who PAYS for that work can be two different things.
I suspect there are individual agreements between the parties on each and every crossing.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
The general rule as I understand it is that the municipality (state, city, town, etc.) is responsible for the costs associated with any improvements on a grade crossing (i.e. upgrade from crossbucks to lights/ gates). The railroad then becomes responsible for any costs associated with the ongoing maintenance of those improvements. Said another way, municipality pays the capital costs, and the railroad pays the annual maintenance expenses. I'm sure there are variations to this arrangement in certain circumstances.
Prior to the pandemic, several of Norfolk Southern's grade crossings here were renewed. Based upon the order the materials arrived in, and their "pre-project" placement....it appears that the railroad provided all new ties, as well as the molded vinyl flangeways. (there were bundles of ties placed for hundreds of yards in either direction for the crossing I am most familiar with, so it appears that NS doubled down on the scope of the project).
The City handled all barricades and traffic detours, and at least the asphalt work to the outboard sides of the crossing (street tie-ins) that I am sure of. I suspect they did all the asphalt work, but I'm just speculating there.
Years ago when they jointly did a grade separation in our downtown, the City was responsible for all street and sidewalks, the railroads imported all the fill, built the embankments, and laid the track, and the state paid for the actual bridge spans . This last paragraph provided just as illustration that the parties can work together.
When Ames IA had the automated horn system, since removed, the city was the ones who maintained the horn system. The railroad maintained the actual crossing signals and gates.
When the indicators showed that the AHS had failed, we would report it to the dispatcher. Who in turn often said, "I'll let the city know." When the system failed, we would blow the engine horn for the crossing.
Jeff
In the past when this question of " responsibility" has come up. It has been noted that the question of 'responsibility' was laid at the feet opf whatever 'civil' uitilty was involved.
The specifics of the type, and location of the rail-highway crossing were laid at the specific government entities door step. { Probably, after consultations with the specific railroad envolved. as to location, and its' detailed specifics} You can bet the individual specifics would be complicated and detailed in meetings with the governmental and various railroad's organizational entities.
Growing up in Memphis, Tn. in the late 1960's I was aware of the entracies of the processes of rebuilding and upgrading the railline east from N-S's Forrest Yard to Collierville, Tn. Many crossings and several municipal entities and County governements were envolved.
Out here in Kansas, as part of a Planning Commision job, and a local highway re-construction, as well as a local land-owners request for an automated highway-Rail crossing; I gpt schooled on the costs of that crossing (approx: $250,000.)..
Ultimately, it was decided that whatever the requested improvements (signalizations) were needed in each case. The governmental entity would pony-up the costs for that 'imporovement' and the railroad would order the specific equipment they desired, and then the railroad would install said equipment to their requirements.
When the specific equipment was installed and working as required; the railroad would maintain that equipment, make repairs as needed, and keep it functioning as designed.
CMStPnP I read in a TXDot document somewhere that the railroad was only responsible in Texas for maintaining railroad crossings, specifically the portion immediately above the cross ties and that was it. Not sure about crossing signalling systems. I have noticed that when there is a grade crossing improvement project the railroads financial contribution is pretty tiny. I wonder if that is the standard in all states or just Texas?
Until last year I was a railroad public projects manager who had responsibility for four states at one time or another (3 at a time). Every state I worked in had some kind of a law that said the railroad was responsible for performing the maintenance of what is referred to as the "crossing surface" - the rail, ties, and ballast, and the timber or concrete panels OR asphalt directly on top of them. In one state this responsibility actually extended a little bit past the ends of the ties - something like 4' from each rail, if I remember correctly. In most cases, the railroad was also responsible for restoring the pavement that gets removed when the crossing planks are pulled, as well as adjusting the road approaches for any change in the track elevation.
In practice, the railroad did the rail, ties, ballast, and planks 100% of the time, and did the asphalt approach work maybe 75% of the time. (We don't use asphalt over the ties for crossings like some other roads do.) The rest of the time the road authority did the paving. Who did the paving depended on things like: was the road being paved anyways as part of a larger project? Did the road agency have its own paving crews? Was the agency contributing paving as part of it's contribution (see below)?
Traffic control (barricades, detour signage, etc.) was like paving - sometimes the agency did it, sometimes the railroad hired a contractor for it.
Who was responsible for PAYING for work was a much more complicated question. There's only one situation where it's pretty clear -cut: FHWA guidelines say that, on federally funded road improvement projects (like for widening a road), the railroad doesn't to contribute anything, so they get reimbursed for whatever they do for such a project. Often this means rebuilding the whole crossing from the ballast up.
There are also some cases in which federal crossing safety funds, which are normally dedicated to safety devices, can be spent on replacing crossing surfaces (from the ballast up) as well. These instances are pretty limited (can only be done as part of a bigger safety project) and not all states are willing to spend their federal crossing safety allocation on surfaces.
Everything else depends on state law which - of course - varies by state.
For at-grade crossings on the primary highway system (US and state highways plus a few other random roads), the state DOT usually would pay a significant share of the cost when a full replacement (ballast up) was needed, and sometimes also for smaller maintenance.
For local roads, some states have state-aid programs that can contribute a share of the cost when a full crossing replacement is needed. The railroad and / or road agency pays the rest. These programs don't usually fund maintenance, and don't have adequate funds to pay for all the replacements needed in a given year. The railroad, which has to maintain the crossings no matter how shot they are, sometimes winds up funding full replacements in their own in these states, because they have no other option.
One state that I worked in simply said that all crossing surface maintenance and replacement on public roads off the primary highway system was the railroad's financial responsibility, period. Another said that the railroad and the local government should agree on how to divide up the cost, with a never-used procedure where the parties could appeal to the DOT to settle disputes. Of course, the law usually only requires the railroad to maintain things to a safety standard, so sometimes agencies would contribute in order to get a "rough but safe" crossing fixed up.
When a local road was being widened, the railroads would not agree to do the work unless the agency paid the cost of the widening. Sometimes, it made a lot more sense to do a replacement at the same time as the widening, and then in some instances the railroad might kick in some funds for combined widening + replacement.
And then there are some public crossings where costs are allocated according to a contractual agreement between the road agency and the railroad. Generally these are newer crossings, and the maintenance costs were agreed to when the crossing was installed; or possibly, they were agreed to when the road was widened or otherwise improved. The terms of these contracts take precedence over the general state regulations.
Private crossings are another matter. In theory the railroad says that the user of the private crossing has to pay for maintenance. In practice, if a timber crossing gets pulled while a tie gang is working through an area, and the old timbers get replaced in the process, the railroad often doesn't get around to sending a bill.
All of this concerns the crossing surface only. In terms of signals, the railroad always maintains the flashing red lights, bells, and gates, while the highway agency always maintains any interconnected traffic signals or blackout signs. But how the cost of that maintenance works out would require a whole separate post - or possibly a whole separate post for each state.
Dan
(1) in every state, there is an MOU somewhere where the feds defer to a local state agency (RR Commission/ PUC/ DOT etc) to act as ombudsman at a crossing to apportion costs and responsibilities. (Who owns/ operates/maintains/pays). It also figures into signage, drainage and other considerations. Usually, but not always, there is a license agreement/contract and a PUC docket/decision that can be found for each crossing or grade separation. The wives tales, wrong hearsay, lies, fraud and bad assumptions that are out there are downright scary.
(2) the railroads typically pick up the maintenance and mandated routine testing of the signal system. (a cost thatis NOT included in the claimed "pittance" above)...Tends to be a hefty annual budget.
(3) Railroad signalling and highway traffic signaling are very specialized critters, best left to their individual technicians and don't interlock well at all (where they do, there are a rediculous amount of headaches)
(4) The bulk of the damage to crossing surfaces is due to impact damage by the overweight highway vehicles (compounded by the lack of concern over approach grades)....Agree with Peltier that the only place asphalt should be in a crossing (a dynamic structure) is under the ballast as as an underlayment, never over the top of the ties or touching the rail. (and then you have the goofy state highway rubber-tired engineers in Oklahoma with concrete poured over and up to the track section...no understanding of the dynamic track structure and track modulus).
(5) Most state statutes have codified rules with something to the effect that maintaining the crossing surface by a railroad ends at two feet beyond the outside of the rail plus anything between tracks.
Every state is guaranteed to have its own weirdisms. Railroads as well. Iowa and its town hall meeting/ group-hug ideas can get really weird.
You don't dare open, close, change or improve a crossing without the permission of that PUC , RRC, DOT or similar such agency. That agency also has final say over the technology used.
Federal Section 403 funds for crossing improvements are limited and fought over every year and are a source of friction in just about all states. Plenty of the taxes collected from railroads that should be used on crossings wind up in the general funds...
When things change and an upgrade is needed, the apportionment pretty much goes against who wants the changes.
From personal experience, local road agencies (and some states) do a absolutely horrible job keeping custody of the agreements/contracts/licenses associated with the crossings - Most are clueless about PUC decisions/ applications et al. (which is part of the reason why you see very few easements unless they are federal highways)...Highway Engineers and Agencies acting badly?
Watch what happens when local govt. complains about a crossing, the railroad fixes the perceived problem and bills local government under the terms of an existing contract they conveniently forgot about. CONSTERNATION! (They do NOT like finding out they are not the only 800 Lb. gorilla in the room (never bothered to check in the shadows in the corners of the room)...Watch them howl while you sit there and grin.)
Private crossings are their own nightmare, dependant on how the thing got to exist in the first place. Deed language, contracts, permits, occassional easements (rare and state dependent, usually in landlocked cases) and a host of who-got-there-first rules play into what happens. Real estate tranfers really screw-up the reliability of crossing agreements settling issues (title companies and real estate people screw this up constantly. The contract user of the pvt. crossing may be three or four owners back in the chain of title. [HINT: current user is in physical breach of contract and may lose the use of the crossing and the crossing becomes a removal candidate]
....and my personal headache, dealing with towns that think you can rebuild a crossing without completely shutting down a road. (half and half under traffic does NOT work ... track surface will never settle evenly. There will be a surface dip.
mudchicken... ....and my personal headache, dealing with towns that think you can rebuild a crossing without completely shutting down a road. (half and half under traffic does NOT work ... track surface will never settle evenly. There will be a surface dip.
Not to mention where crossings are built on railroad curves that have superelevation.
Here in Pennsylvania, the railroads maintain the crossings. Twice the CSX has rebuilt their crossing on route 30 (The Lincoln highway) which is an exceptionally busy road since it is the only road connecting Philadelphia and Pittsburgh without using the Pennsylvania Turnpike. There are a number of small towns between the two cities that commuters and trucks go through.
BaltACD mudchicken ... ....and my personal headache, dealing with towns that think you can rebuild a crossing without completely shutting down a road. (half and half under traffic does NOT work ... track surface will never settle evenly. There will be a surface dip. Not to mention where crossings are built on railroad curves that have superelevation.
mudchicken ... ....and my personal headache, dealing with towns that think you can rebuild a crossing without completely shutting down a road. (half and half under traffic does NOT work ... track surface will never settle evenly. There will be a surface dip.
mudchickenRE: Dennison IA all over again
There is one of those in Fort Meyers, FL on the former ACL formerly used by the West Coast Champion now owned and maintained by Seminole Gulf Railway. Forget the street though but rode over it on their tourist train with the old Bay Colony Coaches with the springs that should be replaced. They rocked back and forth so badly you could not maintain your balance if you were standing up and we were only doing 10-15 mph.
Today - Main Street crossing in Sykesville over CSX's Old Main Line. Cross it most every day - you just don't want to do it at speed.
https://earth.google.com/web/search/sykesville,+md/@39.36405452,-76.96892874,115.24561795a,276.78190837d,35y,-0h,0t,0r/data=CnkaTxJJCiUweDg5YzgyNWE4MDNkMTBlNzU6MHg4NDg1ZGVjZjJjOWUyMWRjGZLDzOPVr0NAIT7fYLnvPVPAKg5zeWtlc3ZpbGxlLCBtZBgBIAEiJgokCXPoIxJR1zlAEVHd1GtsyzlAGU4f9v9PB1TAIYbxFjw0DlTA
BaltACDToday - Main Street crossing in Sykesville over CSX's Old Main Line. Cross it most every day - you just don't want to do it at speed.
Wow - no gates...
Nice old station, though.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
tree68 BaltACD Today - Main Street crossing in Sykesville over CSX's Old Main Line. Cross it most every day - you just don't want to do it at speed. Wow - no gates... Nice old station, though.
BaltACD Today - Main Street crossing in Sykesville over CSX's Old Main Line. Cross it most every day - you just don't want to do it at speed.
Track speed is 25 MPH. The bridge just South of the crossing is a replacement for the one that got washed away in the flood occasioned by Hurricane Agnes that hit the area in early June 1972. Agnes washed out most of the Old Main Line where if followed the Patapsco River ie. from its start at Relay, just outside Baltimore all the way to East Plane. Railroad was not rebuilt until 1975 and had an additional wash out experience in 1976 that had it out of service for several months.
During the construction of the B&O Sykesville was the location of a riot between the Irish workers and the German workers that took the Governor of Maryland calling out the 1830 equivalent of the National Guard to quell the riot and separate the combatants.
For the past 30+ years the station has housed some highly regarded restaurants.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.