Railroad Crossing

[blue streak 1]

Here in Georgia in my town all three crossing were paid 90% state DOT and 10% RR. Upgrades to two of them were 1 - 100% RR and the other 10% RR. Note: some of the Ga DOT funds were passed thru from the FEDS Don't know %s.

[mudchicken]

That Purdue grad may be one of the last of his breed. Kudos to your employer for investing in those of his type (from Purdue or anywhere else)...

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

mudchicken

[snip] I'll take the railroad mapping and x-ing database over just about any state/city/county level GIS or mapping program. (Surveyors sarcasticly think GIS means "Get It Surveyed", Railroaders look at it as "Garbage In - Standard" for the total lack of metadata integrity around railroads) 

- -

You betcha !  A print-out will go on my bulletin board this morning - fortunately my division's GIS expert is a recent Purdue B.S. Surveying graduate, so he'll understand exactly what you mean, too.

Thanks for sharing.

- Paul North.

[mudchicken]

Put the pointless argument about what grade crossing protection aside for a moment. 

I'll take the railroad mapping and x-ing database over just about any state/city/county level GIS or mapping program. (Surveyors sarcasticly think GIS means "Get It Surveyed", Railroaders look at it as "Garbage In - Standard" for the total lack of metadata integrity around railroads) 

[NP Red]

Maybe the correct wording would be to refer to their "primary" function and their "secondary" function rather than one or the other.

[trainfan1221]

I have seen local crossings malfunction several times, and the local police usually do try to take care of things til the railroad gets it fixed.  I have, in the past, helped out by holding a gate up to allow traffic through, with an officer's supervision of course.  I don't recall seeing the number for calling on the NJTransit crossings but CSX and NS have them posted on the gates usually.

[mphill66]

 I can answer for at least one situation, I was riding Metrolink to Los Angeles, and being in the Cabcar (leading) could hear the BNSF (San Bernardino Sub) DS give the crossing warning..When we got there, I went to the front of the car for the "cab view" -- the train came to a complete stop, also arriving eastbound was the Surfliner.. Both trains sent out the conductor with their Red Flags in hand.. They walked the intersection then signaled the trains to move into the intersection where again, they stopped and the conductors re-boarded and off we went.. I haven't seen the BNSF in this situation but the Rule is the same.. The Rule used is 6.32.2


 

 

[zugmann]

 Here, crossings are regulated by the state utility commission.  And they don't give a *** about the railroad's financial interests.   They'll bad order a car 10x faster than the FRA.  If the railroad wants to protect its interests (how much damage does a car cause to a c40-9w anyhow) they would have a LOT more crossings protected.  But the costs of implementing and maintaining the things far outweighs the few cars that may stop and not swerve around them. As long as the train is blowing its horn, using its lights and ringing its bells (with the on board cameras and event recorders saving it all) then any case of a car being hit at a xing is a simple matter to settle.  As long as a crossbuck is standing, its doing its job.

 

The biggest impact of squishing a car is probably the lost time in delay of train, and the pending court cases/settlements. 
 

[Anonymous]

GraniteRailroader

Yes, one of the benefits of having automatic warning devices at a road crossing at grade is that it offers another level of safety to motorists. The automatic warning devices are there to protect the railroads investment, though. Not to say that the added safety to the public isn't welcomed.....

 

So, if I understand, you are saying that the lights and gates do prevent the public from getting hit, and that result protects the railroad’s investment, but the purpose of the lights and gates is to protect the railroad’s investment, not to prevent motorists from getting hit. 

[Falcon48]

GraniteRailroader

 Yes, in fact, I am quite serious.

All of the safety equipment on a railroad is to protect it's investment. The same applies to flaggers working with contractors working on / around the railroads property. The flagger (or other said "Employee In Charge") is there to protect the railroad's "investments", not necessarily to protect the contractor and the contractor's investment. Note: that while the intended purpose is to protect the railroads investments, safety for "the other party" (whether it be a car at a grade crossing, or a contractor working on underground utilities that go under the ROW) is also accomplished at the same time.

When railroads spend money, it's all about what they can get for their dollar. If installing a crossing is going to protect their equipment from getting hit & damaged, the railroad getting sued and losing in court, and will protect their crews from receiving injuries, then it's a good investment. The cost of installing a road crossing isn't anywhere near close to the cost of buying or repairing heavy damage to a locomotive once you consider all outside factors. 

Yes, one of the benefits of having automatic warning devices at a road crossing at grade is that it offers another level of safety to motorists. The automatic warning devices are there to protect the railroads investment, though. Not to say that the added safety to the public isn't welcomed.....

  I have years of personal experience working with railroad officials responsible for grade crossings, and this isn't the way they think at all.  They are very concerned about public safety. I've never heard any official attempt to justify crossing projects based on potential savings in repairing locomotives or other rail assets damaged in grade crossing accidents.  Further, to my knowledge, this factor isn't even measured in determining their job performance. Railroads look at accidents, regardless of whether they damage railroad assets (and most grade crossing accidents don't).  You may not believe that railroads are concerned about public safety, and you are entitled to your opinion.  But that's not the way railroads work.

[GraniteRailroader]

 Yes, in fact, I am quite serious.

All of the safety equipment on a railroad is to protect it's investment. The same applies to flaggers working with contractors working on / around the railroads property. The flagger (or other said "Employee In Charge") is there to protect the railroad's "investments", not necessarily to protect the contractor and the contractor's investment. Note: that while the intended purpose is to protect the railroads investments, safety for "the other party" (whether it be a car at a grade crossing, or a contractor working on underground utilities that go under the ROW) is also accomplished at the same time.

When railroads spend money, it's all about what they can get for their dollar. If installing a crossing is going to protect their equipment from getting hit & damaged, the railroad getting sued and losing in court, and will protect their crews from receiving injuries, then it's a good investment. The cost of installing a road crossing isn't anywhere near close to the cost of buying or repairing heavy damage to a locomotive once you consider all outside factors. 

Yes, one of the benefits of having automatic warning devices at a road crossing at grade is that it offers another level of safety to motorists. The automatic warning devices are there to protect the railroads investment, though. Not to say that the added safety to the public isn't welcomed.....

And to sort of sum up what I've said here - sitting in a room having a conversation with one of the nation-wide safety directors of a large railroad corporation, we got on this exact same conversation. His view is that exactly above - railroad installed and maintained crossings at grade are there to protect the trains.

In response to above ;

There's quite a different attitude "out there" then there is on the forums. Railroaders don't panic like is implied on forums such as here when there's a car or person in the ROW where they shouldn't be. At a grade crossing the situation will be different, but "stuff happens" and you just can't hold yourself responsible for hitting someone when you've got a few thousand trailing tons behind you and can't stop on a dime.

Now, a publicly funded crossing may have different intentions of being installed versus a railroad funded installation. A publicly funded crossing has one purpose over any of the others, and that's to protect the public. In my response above I hadn't made that distinction (public funding vs. "the railroads money"). I still stand by the words that railroad funded installations are there to protect the investment of the railroad.

[Falcon48]

Bucyrus

GraniteRailroader

Remember, the gates and lights aren't there to protect the public from getting hit. They are there to protect the railroads investment (rolling stock, personelle, etc) from receiving damage.

 

Are you serious?

  Two points:

(1) The suggestion that gates and lights are installed, not to protect the public, but to protect the railraods and their personnel is simply untrue. I doubt if any railroader involved in grade crossing safety matters would make such a statement, even in jest.  Believe it or not, these people are very concerned about the safety of the public as well as the railroad.  Further, public agencies these days frequently provide much of the financing for gate/light installations, which they obviously wouldn't do if it were only to benefit the railroad.

(2) Several of the posts ask what the railroad is supposed to do in the event of a crossing signal malfunction.  FRA has rules governing this very subject (49 CFR 234.103-234.107).  The responsive action required is triggered by the railroad receiving a "credible report" of a malfunction (a report from a public official acting in an official capacity, like a police officer, is by definition a "credible report").  For an "Activation Failure" (failure of the signals to activate), the responsive action is that train crews must stop and flag (unless there are flagmen on the ground protecting the crossing in both directions, in which case trains may operate normally). For a False Activation and a Partial Activation, trains may operate across the crossing without stopping, subject to a maximum speed of 15 mph (again, they may operate normally if there are flagmen on the ground protecting the crossing in both directions).  In any of these failure situations, trains must sound horns regardless of any whistling restrictions otherwise applicable. There are some other requirements as well (for example, if non-crew flagmen are used, they must either be law enforcement personnel, or have specified clothing and equipment), but these are the main ones. All major railroads have procedures for quickly transmitting malfunction reports they receive at their "crossing hotlines" (the phone number posted at a crossing) to the appropriate dispatchers and from them to the affected trains.  The "hotline" office I'm particularly familiar with has software to permit a crossing and the appropriate dispatcher to be quickly identified even if the caller has only partial information.

[kolechovski]

The railroads will have maps to look at even if you lack the crossing ID.  I noticed that when I contacted NS police, they didn't seem to have small roads on the map.  I guess maybe just major highways and signal locations, or something of that sort.

[Anonymous]

henry6

Let's be serious. Everyone gains if there is a safe railroad crossing.  An accident ties up the railroad, its equipment and crews and no one makes money.  Employees don't get hurt, equipment and right of way doesn't get destroyed.  The public doesn't get hurt, cars don't get demolished.  Such destruction of life and property brings higher insurance rates and active lawyers. But I bet you knew that's what I meant. 

I don’t disagree with that at all.  It is perfectly logical, sensible, and reasonable.  However it is not what Granite Railroader said.  He said:

 

“Remember, the gates and lights aren't there to protect the public from getting hit. They are there to protect the railroads investment (rolling stock, personelle, etc) from receiving damage.”

 

When I asked if he was serious, you chimed in seemingly to explain what he meant.  Now you have modified your explanation to explain the obvious rather than what Granite Railroader said.  You have said:

 

“Everyone gains if there is a safe railroad crossing.  An accident ties up the railroad, its equipment and crews and no one makes money.  Employees don't get hurt, equipment and right of way doesn't get destroyed.  The public doesn't get hurt, cars don't get demolished.  Such destruction of life and property brings higher insurance rates and active lawyers. But I bet you knew that's what I meant.”

 

If you look at what GR said and what you have explained about what he said, you will see that they have two entirely different meanings.  Your statement is fine.  But I still want to know what Granite Railroader means by saying that the gates and lights aren’t there to protect the public from getting hit. 

[CShaveRR]

Call the number provided by the railroad for that purpose.  Most of the time observed malfunctions will be a false activation (i.e., signals working but no trains).  Give them the information they ask for.  Usually the call will result in the dispatcher telling crews to approach the crossing prepared to stop until signals are seen to be working.  If the problem is a non-activation, I would also notify local police (though the crossing-hotline folks will probably beat you to it) to provide protection.  You do not want local police flagging people around lowered gates under any circumstances.

[henry6]

Let's be serious. Everyone gains if there is a safe railroad crossing.  An accident ties up the railroad, its equipment and crews and no one makes money.  Employees don't get hurt, equipment and right of way doesn't get destroyed.  The public doesn't get hurt, cars don't get demolished.  Such destruction of life and property brings higher insurance rates and active lawyers. But I bet you knew that's what I meant. 

[Anonymous]

henry6

Bucyrus

GraniteRailroader

Remember, the gates and lights aren't there to protect the public from getting hit. They are there to protect the railroads investment (rolling stock, personelle, etc) from receiving damage.

 

Are you serious?

 

Two words:  Lawyer.  Insruance.

henry6,

Can you elaborate?  Are you confirming what GR said?---- that the gates and lights aren't there to protect the public from getting hit. They are there to protect the railroads investment (rolling stock, personelle, etc) from receiving damage.

[tree68]

henry6

One time I called a local police department about a crossing with gates down and flashers on constantly; traffic was going around the gates as there was no train in sight.  Police declined to go to the crossing because of 'insurance" purposes but "would try to call the railroad".

Had a similar experience, except the PD dispatcher simply said "yeah, we know."  CSX knew, but the maintainer hadn't gotten there yet.

I wouldn't have called at all, but traffic on the two-lane road was backed up more than a half-mile in both directions as drivers carefully looked both ways and drove around the gates.  Fortunately the sight distance is long in both directions at that crossing.

[henry6]

Bucyrus

GraniteRailroader

Remember, the gates and lights aren't there to protect the public from getting hit. They are there to protect the railroads investment (rolling stock, personelle, etc) from receiving damage.

 

Are you serious?

 

Two words:  Lawyer.  Insruance.

[Anonymous]

GraniteRailroader

Remember, the gates and lights aren't there to protect the public from getting hit. They are there to protect the railroads investment (rolling stock, personelle, etc) from receiving damage.

 

Are you serious?

[henry6]

There is at least one sign at each crossing with crossing identification and an 800 number.  However, first call local police.  They should notify the railroad unless they tell you to.  Then call the railroad police or nearest operations office (agent, yardmaster, etc.) and tell them, too anyway. And yes, a train may be required to stop and flag a crossing if the safety appuratus is not working.

One time I called a local police department about a crossing with gates down and flashers on constantly; traffic was going around the gates as there was no train in sight.  Police declined to go to the crossing because of 'insurance" purposes but "would try to call the railroad".

So, do what you think is right. 

[GraniteRailroader]

 What kind of "malfunction" are you talking about?

Notification of the railroad should be the first thing you can do. Notifying police will just have them calling the railroad anyways. They're going to dispatch a maintainer either way.

Depending on the crossing and the actual circumstances, trains may proceed as normal with no change. Remember, the gates and lights aren't there to protect the public from getting hit. They are there to protect the railroads investment (rolling stock, personelle, etc) from receiving damage.

If you can give a railroad a street address of the crossing, that's all the information they will need. I know if I call my dispatcher and say "XYZ crossing on the ABC Sub in town PQRS is not working properly. Gates will not stay down" they know exactly where I'm talking about. If someone from the general public calls up and says "The crossing at _____ isn't acting appropriate and is stuck with the gates and lights on" they'll be able to figure out where you are talking about as well. If you try to give them a milepost, unless it's actively marked right on the crossing signal box, they will simply ask you for the name of the street and the town. 

 

 

[wilmette2210]

When reporting a railroad crossing malfunction should you call the police railroad or booth?Also when I have called the railroad to report suspected malfunctioning crossing they do not ask for a Mile post number or a crossing ID number do the railroads now have accurate maping software?  And last but not least are train crews requiered to flag the crossing and if so how do they do it?  Dose the conductor get off the train walk up to the crossing, stop traffic, and signal the enginer to mave forward, then once the train is in the crossing reboard?  Please let me know thank you.