Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
Reply to Missouri. Yours is another rhetorical distraction. 1. Your argument for the Florida crossing seems to be that traffic volume has some bearing upon right-of-way. This is false. Federal law dictates that maritime traffic has precedence over land-based traffic, and railroads have priority over other land-based vehicles for obvious reasons of control. Just ask people stopped in Chicago at one of the many lift bridges for barges through the middle of the city, even for some guy in his sailboat! The approach circuits for crossings are speed-based, so that a minimum of 20 seconds must elapse before the train enters the crossing, whether it is 60 mph or 15 mph. Most railroads exceed this minimum. Stats on crossing accidents are used by states to upgrade rail crossings. So what you are really saying is that Florida isn't doing their job. Good for you! 2. Regardless of an NTSB cover-up in Bourbonnais (yet more conspiracy theories), even if the gates had failed, all gated tracks have flashing lights as a safety redundancy. If by chance you are claiming that the entire crossing circuit failed, realize that crossings have failsafes so that even if the electricity was cut, battery back-up automatically TURNS ON the crossing lights. 3. Failure to interconnect traffic signals is not a failure of the railroad, but of the municipal government which changed the traffic patterns. 4. Regarding the Oregon case: had the crossings been "iced up" as you claim, general track warrant orders would be issued to train crews for the simple reason: a) track circuits would fail to operate properly, under which case the train must stop before all crossings and operate the length of the line at restricted speed, and b) "iced up" crossings cause flange blockage which can derail a train. I suspect what you really mean to say is that severe weather made conditions hazardous, but we might very well ask why extra caution was not taken by the drivers of the cars, since conditions for the track vs. the road might have been drastically different (snow melts faster on steel rails because of ambient temperatures). Additionally, road engines have automatic sander activation whenever the locomotive bell is activated (along with the horn), so your argument about providing traction for braking is simply moot. I can think of at least one instance where crossing equipment (grandfathered under Federal law) was not upgraded to updated newer safety standards because the State admitted that not enough grade-crossing accidents had occurred at the crossing to justify the expediture. Which means that enough people were smart enough to stop for the train without having to install extra traffic restrictions, and that the State considered safety sufficient over cost. And in NS v. Shanklin, the Supreme Court decision was that the State accepts responsibility for grade-crossing safety devices as setting the threshold for safety of particular crossings (with no liability to the railroad), even if those devices (as installed with Federal funding) are regarded as insufficient under Federal MUTCD guidelines. The best to all of you.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag