Western Railroad Discussion > Effectiveness of Ditch Lights

I'm posting this on the Western board because it was a one-woman crusade of Kansas Senator Nancy Kassebaum that led to ditch lights being mandated. The reason she took up the cause was due to teenagers being killed near Hutchison on the SP at a crossing. The loco's headlight was alledgedly too high for them to see.

My question is this: was there ever any followup study to see if the addition of ditch lights decreased the number of collisons at grade crossings without gates or other safety devices? I'd be curious to know if the investment had a positive return in the way of improved safety. 

I do not know of any followup studies however I really like ditch lights.
My career was working on the right of way and with ditch lights the visual separation of the lights, and how they changed as you watched them, was a very good indicator of how far away and how fast an approaching train is.
Blinking lights seem much less useful, especially to roadway workers.
Strobe lights, with their bluish tint, almost disappear in bright sunlight.
I look forward to other comments.

This very topic was mentioned at a grade crossing seminar I attended this past week. Ditch lights were cited as one of the reasons for the decline in vehicle vs. train collisions.

Posted from iPhone

I just wished the US railroad had stuck with the canadian design for ditchlights. Instead of setting ditchlights straight ahead (US standard), the canadians angled them so that they crossed and shone toward the opposite ditches (hence the name). But that design works great for seeing much further around curves than the straight ahead lights. But I'm sure trackside motorists would be even less happy with those lights than the current standard.

Ted Curphey
Ontario, OR

funnelfan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I just wished the US railroad had stuck with the
> canadian design for ditchlights. Instead of
> setting ditchlights straight ahead (US standard),
> the canadians angled them so that they crossed and
> shone toward the opposite ditches (hence the
> name). But that design works great for seeing much
> further around curves than the straight ahead
> lights. But I'm sure trackside motorists would be
> even less happy with those lights than the current
> standard.

Is the crossed lights really the "Canadian" standard or just what was used on BC Rail?
Because all of the lights that I've seen on the few CN and CP units that make it down here to Southern California seem to have lights that are pointed ahead.
And BC Rail even upped the ante by using four ditch lights instead of two.

personally, I prefered a mars light, figure 8 or just a circle.

I recall that when it was announced ditch lights would be mandated in the U.S., that no motorist or pedestrian could possibly fail to see trains coming and thus collisions with them would become a thing of the past. Well, considering all the carnage I--and many. many others--have seen and dealt with since then, I have my doubts.  

You'd have to be a proper muppet to think that ditchlights would totally and utterly eliminate all accidents forever...

       The teens that were killed in that incident ran into the side of the engines and NOT the front one. They were not paying attention ( like 99% of others killed at crossongs ) and most likely the parents did not want to admit it SO, the railroads had to do something. It had to be their fault. Big write up in the Hutchinson News when that happened and very typical.
        In order for the ditch lights to be any more effective than the headlight and horn is that the driver has to pay attention and react.

PHall Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Is the crossed lights really the "Canadian"
> standard or just what was used on BC Rail?

BC Rail, if I remember correctly. I remember reading about them in Railway Age or some such when they were first applied.

TAW

When I taught Driver Ed. I stressed that exact concept.
I also told them that the coupler is the last thing you will see before the train hits your car.

railstiesballast Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I do not know of any followup studies however I
> really like ditch lights.
> My career was working on the right of way and with
> ditch lights the visual separation of the lights,
> and how they changed as you watched them, was a
> very good indicator of how far away and how fast
> an approaching train is.
> Blinking lights seem much less useful, especially
> to roadway workers.
> Strobe lights, with their bluish tint, almost
> disappear in bright sunlight.
> I look forward to other comments.

A skilled politician knows how to make points with the low information voters by coming
up with some grandstanding railroad "safety" law (see also PTC).  It is a slam dunk because
1. It will not cost the government anything
and
2. How can the nasty railroads possibly argue against some new safety device that will prevent our
darling children from getting killed?

If two more lights are good wouldn't four or eight more be even better?  Perhaps the lead of the 
locomotive should be turned into one massive anti-aircraft searchlight.

What I find humorous about the whole thing is that when the 765 or Big Boy come to town
with thousands of people on and around the tracks the ditch lights are not necessary.

In addition to the law requiring the ditch lights there is also the penalty of 20 mph over crossings
when the ditch lights are not working.  I know of at least one case where a weed weasel wanted
to decertify an engineer who went over a crossing at more than 20 mph when he forgot to turn
the ditch lights back on.  Weed weasel said train was grossly exceeding the 20 mph limit

In homage to the honorable congresswoman who came up with the idea I have always referred
to the two pretty lights as b**** lights.

If horns are not necessary through dense urban areas where all crossings are "properly" protected
why are ditch lights necessary at the same locations?  

I remember the first time I saw a train with ditch lights. It was in Windsor on a CN passenger train.
This was well before the law in the U.S.  The impression I got was of a circus train.  All the more
appropriate in today's railroad world.

Speaking of circus trains reminded me of the Amtrak turboliners used on the ex-GM&O.
Some people got taken out at a grade crossing where old US 66 parallels the tracks.  The
excuse for getting hit was the two headlights on the turbo, mounted side by side, confused
the driver into thinking the train was another automobile on 66 at the intersection. I forget how, but somehow, Chicago
mayor Jane Byrne was involved.  I would have liked to see Jane and Nancy K. get into a cat fight
over low mounted "headlights".   
 



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/16/19 06:13 by Englewood.

BC Rail initially started with the standard two ditch lights. They were slightly angled outward and basically shine  into the ditch. Originally the ditch lights were applied by the loco shops as an experiment on one locomotive. The VP of Operations, Norm McPherson rode the loco with ditch lights and thought it was a great safety feature and ordered ditch lights be applied to all freight units on BC Rail.
Eventually BC Rail added a second set of lights, "corner lights" and they were aimed and angled crosswise in an attempt to give better illumination around curves. On some locos the ditch / corner lights had separate toggle switches and in misty or foggy conditions by turning off one or other ditch / corner lights you could really see how the lights were aimed. Eventually newer locos were delivered with both sets of lights operated from a single toggle switch and interconnected to the main headlight switch. With the toggle switch in the on position the ditch / corner lights would illuminate when the main headlight was in full power position. The ditch / corner lights extinguished when the headlight was in medium or dim position.
Photo of the ditch / corner light toggle switch on BCOL 4642
Doug

TAW Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> PHall Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Is the crossed lights really the "Canadian"
> > standard or just what was used on BC Rail?
>
> BC Rail, if I remember correctly. I remember
> reading about them in Railway Age or some such
> when they were first applied.
>
> TAW

---

In my experience, ditchlights have attracted motorist's  and trespassers' attention and prevented accidents.  Prior to ditchlights, we frequently would dim and bighten headlights at crossings at night to get attention.  The ditchlights shine more on the level of motorists and trespassers.  Older engines may have resistor defects in the main headlights, but the ditchlights will make up for that in the added illumination.  Motorists will slow up and even stop at a crossing when they see the bright ditchlights. You can see trespassers a whole lot better and sooner with ditchlights.  Other safety advantages are seeing switches and fixed signals better, seeing debris on the track better, and as an aid when you have to travel at restricted speed.  In my long experience the only thing better in attracting visual attention at night was the genuine Mars figure 8 oscillating headlight set for fast operation.

It is true that as long as people continue to deliberately do stupid things, no safety system will be 100% effective. But I certainly have observed how ditchlights make it easier to perceive a train's speed at closer range, and can't escape concluding that for people who might be "confused" about an approaching train, they are a help.
 

Englewood Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A skilled politician knows how to make points with
> the low information voters by coming
> up with some grandstanding railroad "safety" law
> (see also PTC).  It is a slam dunk because
> 1. It will not cost the government anything
> and
> 2. How can the nasty railroads possibly argue
> against some new safety device that will prevent
> our
> darling children from getting killed?
>
> If two more lights are good wouldn't four or eight
> more be even better?  Perhaps the lead of the 
> locomotive should be turned into one massive
> anti-aircraft searchlight.
>
> What I find humorous about the whole thing is that
> when the 765 or Big Boy come to town
> with thousands of people on and around the tracks
> the ditch lights are not necessary.
>
> In addition to the law requiring the ditch lights
> there is also the penalty of 20 mph over
> crossings
> when the ditch lights are not working.  I know of
> at least one case where a weed weasel wanted
> to decertify an engineer who went over a crossing
> at more than 20 mph when he forgot to turn
> the ditch lights back on.  Weed weasel said train
> was grossly exceeding the 20 mph limit
>
> In homage to the honorable congresswoman who came
> up with the idea I have always referred
> to the two pretty lights as b**** lights.
>
> If horns are not necessary through dense urban
> areas where all crossings are "properly"
> protected
> why are ditch lights necessary at the same
> locations?  
>
> I remember the first time I saw a train with ditch
> lights. It was in Windsor on a CN passenger
> train.
> This was well before the law in the U.S.  The
> impression I got was of a circus train.  All the
> more
> appropriate in today's railroad world.
>
> Speaking of circus trains reminded me of the
> Amtrak turboliners used on the ex-GM&O.
> Some people got taken out at a grade crossing
> where old US 66 parallels the tracks.  The
> excuse for getting hit was the two headlights on
> the turbo, mounted side by side, confused
> the driver into thinking the train was another
> automobile on 66 at the intersection. I forget
> how, but somehow, Chicago
> mayor Jane Byrne was involved.  I would have
> liked to see Jane and Nancy K. get into a cat
> fight
> over low mounted "headlights".   
>  

Touche!

Englewood Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
<snip>
> In homage to the honorable congresswoman who came
> up with the idea I have always referred
> to the two pretty lights as b**** lights.
<more snip>
>  I would have  liked to see Jane and Nancy K. get into a cat
> fight  over low mounted "headlights".   
>  

Sorry, but these two "comments" do nothing the further the discussion.

Are you going to say the same thing about the persons that sponsored the bill that became the law requiring school buses to stop at crossings? Or do they have to be female?
 

kevink Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Englewood Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > In homage to the honorable congresswoman who
> came
> > up with the idea I have always referred
> > to the two pretty lights as b**** lights.
>
> >  I would have  liked to see Jane and Nancy K.
> get into a cat
> > fight  over low mounted "headlights".   
> >  
>
> Sorry, but these two "comments" do nothing the
> further the discussion.
>
> Are you going to say the same thing about the
> persons that sponsored the bill that became the
> law requiring school buses to stop at crossings?
> Or do they have to be female?


No, I am an equal opportunity detractor of worthless grandstanding politicians interfering with
industries they know nothing about.
I would be just as excited to see a lumberjack match between Delta Dick Anderson,
and the honorables Sen. Durbin and Congressman Lipinski over the progress of the Chicago - St. Louis
(never to be) high speed line.

As for the assumed decline in crossing deaths attributed to ditch lights, what did the study use for comparison?
Is there a railroad in the U.S. that does not use ditch lights with which to compare?

I am sure a lot of groups could make the same claim, Operation Lifesaver, crossing gate salesmen, etc.





 

Englewood Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As for the assumed decline in crossing deaths attributed to ditch lights, what did the study use for comparison?
> Is there a railroad in the U.S. that does not use ditch lights with which to compare?

They can compare before and after - but I am sure that you would refuse to accept any statistic that didn't support your ingrained viewpoint, so what is the point of asking?

justalurker66 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> They can compare before and after - but I am sure
> that you would refuse to accept any statistic that
> didn't support your ingrained viewpoint, so what
> is the point of asking?

I do not just swallow any statistic that people throw out.
Just read the latest statistics from the PSR railroads.
Figures lie and liars .............