Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
Ed, I understand your point about their references to passive crossings.  I assumed that they intended to apply this to all grade crossings, but I cannot find that clearly stipulated.  They do focus on passive crossings because that is where they expect to gain safety.  So this is about passive crossings.  But I saw nothing indicating that present active crossings would not be a part of it.  If cost could be saved on new crossing installations, it makes sense to save it on existing installations as they are maintained and upgraded.  And if we can relieve the railroads from liability at crossings with cheap signals, we should not have anything to lose by relieving them from liability at crossings with expensive signals.    It seems to me that the paper assumes there will be no resistance from the railroads once the railroads are shielded from liability.  So the report is ultimately an appeal to the public sector to make this happen.  It would amount to nationalizing all railroad grade crossings. However, doing this requires a legal sea change restructured by the government.  If this were granted, I would expect it to apply to all existing and new crossings.   Or at least, I can’t see why it would not be.  So the railroads would be liberated from the entire crossing spectrum simultaneously.  Why would railroads oppose that? But even if the existing active crossings were grandfathered in to the old liability system; and the railroads owned and operated them as they always have; why would the railroads oppose the signalization of passive crossings under the new terms of public sector responsibility?
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