A Big Change for Grade Crossings?

[schlimm]

The railroads were responsible for crossings long before automatic signaling.  I remember many manned crossings with 4-quadrant gates when i was a kid.

[PNWRMNM]

This is not an FRA document.

I find it flawed in two important aspects. First, it does not evaluate the existing detection technology, so there is no baseline for comparison. Second, it is all about the cheapest part of a grade crossing installatiion, the detection system.

Looks to me like somthing to keep Aggies in funds.

Mac

[tree68]

The results of the study are summed up on page 62 of the report:  Tort Liability.

[Anonymous]

I don’t know if this will actually happen, but it seems like a rather broad swipe at the grade crossing problem.  It is a uniquely interesting model of increasing crossing safety which amounts to increasing the collective crossing safety by raising the safety of non-signalized (passive) crossings.  It does that by adding signal protection to the most dangerous existing non-signalized (passive) crossings. 

It gets the funding for this by reducing the cost of signalized (active) crossings.  It reduces the cost of signalized crossings by relieving the railroad from responsibility and ownership of all crossings, including the signalized ones.  

The cost of fully signalized grade crossings is substantial, and that high cost limits the number of crossings that can be so equipped.  Therefore, the application of automatic crossing protection is prioritized to equip the crossings where it can do the most good.  However, the high cost still results in a net shortage which prevents many crossings that could benefit from signalization from receiving it.

According to the linked report, it would be possible to reduce the cost of the automatic crossing protection systems, and that would allow the protection to be broadened to cover more crossings that could benefit from automatic protection.  They explain that reducing the cost is based on the fact that the cost is higher than it needs to be.  They explain why that is, and what to do about it.   

The report explores the origin of the automatic crossing protection and what led to the relatively high cost of such systems.  It explains that railroads began to run electric current through their rails as a means of insuring continuity that would give an indication of track problems, and this evolved to control railroad signal systems.  Once this was in place, it was only natural to use the same railroad signal technology to control grade crossing flashers.  Therefore because the flashers were controlled by the basic track electric signal circuitry, the entire grade crossing protection system was part of the railroad infrastructure, and the company was therefore responsible for it.

This responsibility included the legal liability for the crossing protection being borne by the railroad companies.  Because the companies bear legal liability for the performance of their crossing protection, they insist on an extremely high level of robustness in the system components and engineering.  This drives up the costs, and this is where the report concludes that costs could be cut to reduce the cost of signal protection so it could be applied to more crossings.  However, the railroad signal union opposes any cost reduction in the crossing protection system being generated by new product development by the labor force within the railroads companies.

Therefore the report concludes that to get “outside the box” so to speak, and develop lower cost crossing protection systems, the entire protection system must be taken out of the purview of the railroads and placed in the hands of the public sector.  To do this, the crossing activation system has to be separated from the railroad tracks and made part of a public sector warning system.

Then as a final component of the plan, the railroads must be shielded from the crossing liability.  Then they will just run their trains on their track, and the entire crossing installation will be completely outside of their ownership, control, and responsibility.   

But until that that shielding from liability is put in place, the railroad industry resists the cost reduction of crossing systems.  The report sums up that resistance with the following quote:

 

“It is also clear to some that looking to the railroads for “out of the box” solutions, when the railroads wish to stay in the box, will not yield great progress. This, coupled with the fact that the principal railroad union involved in grade crossing installation and maintenance, the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen, does not support change, suggests that new ideas will have to come from outside the railroad industry.”

 

The report mentions that not only must this new development come from outside of the railroad industry, but also, that crossing installation cost can be reduced by taking the work out of the purview of unionized railroad workers. 

This report goes into a lot of detail about the type and numbers of different crossing and trespassing accidents as well as the liability cost to the railroads for these accidents.  It also discusses the relatively high maintenance cost borne by the railroads for crossing protection systems due to the stringent quality control to protect railroad companies’ liability for the crossings.  The report also examines tort liability and how it applies to U.S. railroad versus how it works in other countries.  It also describes the impediment to new crossing system development imposed by the MUTCD with their minimum standards that apply to all aspects of grade crossing warning system presentation.

The bulk of this paper is devoted to exploring a variety of signal activation methods that could replace the track shunt system used by the railroads.

 

SYNOPSIS:

Railroads currently own and maintain crossing protection systems and bear legal liability for them.  To minimize liability losses, railroads insist on the highest quality, highest cost systems.  The high cost limits safety coverage.  Action Plan:  Transfer ownership of the crossing and protection system from the private railroads to the public sector, and relieve the railroads of crossing liability.  Public sector redesigns the crossing protection system to reduce the cost.  Public sector further reduces cost of labor for installation and maintenance of crossings and protection systems.   

Here is the link to the paper: 

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/archive/NotesDocs/3-76B%20Report.pdf