Passenger Trains > Signals on private crossings?

Private crossings range from informal paths over rails to access fishing holes to paved roadways with dozens of truck movements daily. Does the current haphazard system protect rail employees, passengers, vehicle operators, etc?

Maybe what is needed is a new approach to secondary warning. Like transponders on locomotives to activate solar powered flashing lights on the stop signs at the crossing. Perhaps with a StarLink connection from the transponder.

Posted from Android

What is needed is closure of all private crossings, period. That is what a 21st Century railroad has to be.

Question is who pays?

Railroad crossing systems are designed to be failsafe.  Duplicate circuits in crossing computers calculate track occupancy status and if they don't compare they activate.  If wires break in the circuitry the sytem activates. They are designed to turn on whenever something breaks to ensure that the public can depend on them to activate when a train is passsing. What would happen if there were thousands of these cheapo crossing systems in service and one day Starlink goes down and drivers start getting clobbard at crossings?  There are passive crossing signs that are cheap that leave responsibility to the driver. It is their choice whether they are going to respect the stop, look, listen process.  If that is not enough then there are reliable active options with lights, bells, gates and associated equipment available.

Todd Clark
Canyon Country, CA
Trainorders.com

ts1457 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What is needed is closure of all private
> crossings, period. That is what a 21st Century
> railroad has to be.
>
> Question is who pays?

How do you propose people access their property?

Posted from iPhone

webmaster Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ... What would happen if there were thousands of these cheapo
> crossing systems in service and one day and
> Starlink goes down and drivers start getting
> clobbard at crossings? 

You are exactly correct. I was thinking something along those lines.

>There are passive
> crossing signs that are cheap that leave
> responsibility to the driver. It is their choice
> whether they are going to respect the stop, look,
> listen process.

The entity with a private crossing needs to post a bond to cover potential damages to the railroad, if an incident wrecks a train.

>  If that is not enough then there
> are reliable active options with lights, bells,
> gates and associated equipment available.

Or public-private partnerships to provide access roads to public thoroughfares to eliminate the need for private crossings, or possibly for landowners who have their properties split by the railroad, single lane under-passes or over-passes.

Face it, "toot horn and blast through intersection" does not cut it any more.


Localities need to be able to set speed limits on rail lines

Maintenance must not raise the crossing levels

Rail companies must clear foliage on their properties to provide a complete view

Crossing blockage time must be limited with heavy fines for extended blockages. Five minutes should be maximum.

Michael

emd_mrs1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Face it, "toot horn and blast through
> intersection" does not cut it any more.

Why not for "private crossings"?


> Localities need to be able to set speed limits on
> rail lines

Totally WRONG!!!!!


> Maintenance must not raise the crossing levels

Why not,it's their track? The community should then adjust their street/streets.


> Rail companies must clear foliage on their
> properties to provide a complete view

Complete view for who? What if all that foliage is on public property?


> Crossing blockage time must be limited with heavy
> fines for extended blockages. Five minutes should
> be maximum.


Sure. Try and enforce THAT.


> Michael

It is my understanding that railroad crossing signals/signage is under control of the states. In California it's the California Public Utilities Commission that makes the rules through their General Orders.
These General Orders can be quite detailed and they specify exactly what is needed and where.

Did just about everyone miss my mention of the StarLink system activating flashing lights ON THE STOP SIGN

This is a relatively cheap option supplementing what mostly works. When the stop sign is ignored the results can be catastrophic

Posted from Android

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Did just about everyone miss my mention of the
> StarLink system activating flashing lights ON THE
> STOP SIGN
>
> This is a relatively cheap option supplementing
> what mostly works. When the stop sign is ignored
> the results can be catastrophic

The problem is who is liable when it fails to work.

Localities need to be able to set speed limits on rail lines
**Wow, this would be fun.  Every city or town would want a 15 mph speed limit so nothing would move, right up until an emergency vehicle is blocked and can't get acorss the track because the train is moving so slowly, then they will blame the railroad...yeah, not realistic in any sense of the thought.

Maintenance must not raise the crossing levels
**It's their property, they granted the cities and towns permission to cross.

Rail companies must clear foliage on their properties to provide a complete view
**Most railroads I have seen do this already, it's the neighboring properties that don't do it and because of the angles needed to see, it blocks the view.

Crossing blockage time must be limited with heavy fines for extended blockages. Five minutes should be maximum.
**How about better yet, any crossing that has a normal recurrence of extended train blockages gets closed?  Seems like a better idea.

And don't forget, most railroads don't blow the horn for private crossings...so the days are now Stop and Look....  The only listen is trying to hear the engine noise.  

I have no information on where this took place or when. There was a community that placed a 10mph on the PRR for all trains passing through the town. Instead of fighting it the Pennsy staged trains so when one cleared the next one was starting through town. After about five trains and no one was able to cross for hours the town had enough.

Posted from Android

Stop look and listen.... isn't rocket science

Posted from Android

goduckies Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Stop look and listen.... isn't rocket science

Listen for what?

Who has statistics on how big a problem this really is?  I live near Sandpoint, in North Idaho.  BNSF's Northern TransCon runs through here, as well as UP, with probably hundreds of private crossings within 50 miles of here.  That 50 miles is roughly the distance covered by local news reporting and Sheriff's traffic alerts.  I can remember exactly one incident at a private crossing in the last five years.  Of course, there may have been more.

There may be other investments that would contribute more to safety.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/05/26 17:21 by sf1010.

HotWater Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> goduckies Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Stop look and listen.... isn't rocket science
>
> Listen for what?

The engines do make noise.... granted not as much as when we are blowing the horn... especially if they are working hard up a hill....

Posted from Android

sf1010 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Who has statistics on how big a problem this
> really is?  I live near Sandpoint, in North
> Idaho.  BNSF's Northern TransCon runs through
> here, as well as UP, with probably hundreds of
> private crossings within 50 miles of here.  That
> 50 miles is roughly the distance covered by local
> news reporting and Sheriff's traffic alerts.  I
> can remember exactly one incident at a private
> crossing in the last five years.  Of course,
> there may have been more.
>
> There may be other investments that would
> contribute more to safety.

We have far more issues at the public gated crossings

Posted from Android

sf1010 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Who has statistics on how big a problem this
> really is? 
> There may be other investments that would
> contribute more to safety.

The FRA does a rather exhaustive statistical analysis of grade crossing safety.   Every crossing, including private, and pedestrian, is given an FRA crossing number.   And it's on the blue sign.

So you can look up all manner of statistics on private grade crossing accidents, and look up individual crossings by that number to find out history, details, etc.   FRA website, check it out.

It's very much state sensitive though as to who does what and how much at a private crossing.   The railroad has to allow a permit and a contract for it, some date back to the 1800's.   The railroad maintains anything inside the gauge and can even charge for it.  And if it's not paid, remove it.   Either side of the track is not their problem.   Many date back to the original property deeds to the railroad construction.
Here in PA you'll see most private crossings now with a smaller 'stop' sign at them to try to get the point accross.  

Railroads are obligated by FRA to blow for public crossings (unless a quiet zone)  but not private.   The majority tend to be farm crossings and private driveways, those historically are with people that fully understand the railroad speed, visiblity, etc.   The dangerous ones are industrial and commercial crossings, as in the garbage truck incident.    I've seen a couple private crossings in industrial settings where crossing protection devices (some nonstandard) have been installed.   There's no rule AGAINST that. inside a plant site where they own the railroad and the property.   But I've also seen 'private' crossings on things like a Walmart driveway that has full quad gates, and a prison driveway in PA that got full gates and lights.   It's not perfectly consistent.  The railroad can insist on additional protection paid for by the property owner as part of the agreement.   I've also seen that on city-owned trail crossings, Jamestown NY has full gates and flashers on a trail crossing downtown that 'might' see one train a week - it was a new crossing agreement and that was what the railroad demanded.

On a normal railroad with a public crossing, the railroad is obligated to put up and at least maintain crossbucks, maintain the surface around the track structure, pay for utilities and maintenance of any devices.   NOT to control approach sgnage, highway grades, or even device type - gates, flashers, cantilevers, etc.   The FRA and DOT's maintain enough records of collisions that they focus the improvement funding based on history and need; that includes number and speed of trains, number of vehicles, etc., etc.   That makes for a very 'reactive' rather than 'proactive' approach that the railroad can't control even if a hazard is pretty well identified.    Federal Sec. 130 funding for 80/20 is a good program the railroads and DOT's can use, we see it a lot, chipping away at publc crossing hazards.

The speed at which things get done under 130 is also limited by who's coming up with the local 20%.   If you want to see that at it's worst, look at the Southwest Chief accident in Missouri with the stone truck (NTSB report) where 130 money was allocated but the local/state match wasn't moving, too late.   Not the railroad's fault, either.   That crossing did ultimately get closed.   Not a private crossing but an example of terrible results from delay.

But the private grade crossings are a different matter.   It's basically a situation of accepting known risk to the property owner.     I worked with one shortline that had 65 crossings in about 20 miles, half-public and half private, and an enviable safety reccord of only one low speed collision in the last decade with no injuries.   Good visibility and 10mph despite heavy local traffic of all kinds.    Up that to 40-79 mph with heavy rail and commercial density, and it's a different matter.   We did an investigation of Amtrak hitting a farm harvester on a private farm crossing in Illinois - nothing was left of the harvester, farmer killed, locomotive cab full of corn, and his insurance company got hammered for the rail damage including to the locomotive.  Crew was OK despite getting buried in corn when the windows blew out.   

I personally think there's been an increase in 'grounding' accidents with oversize loads where the GPS and clearance information are outdated.   If a driver is using a commercial GPS, they get routed the most 'direct' route, despite all manner of clearance hazards.   The escort services also seem to be amazingly ignorant of vertical rail clearances, contacting dispatchers, etc.    Understanding blue signs and what to do should be a major part of CDL licensing, maybe it is, but results seem to indicate it's not.

randgust Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

Up that to
> 40-79 mph with heavy rail and commercial density,
> and it's a different matter.   We did an
> investigation of Amtrak hitting a farm harvester
> on a private farm crossing in Illinois - nothing
> was left of the harvester, farmer killed,
> locomotive cab full of corn, and his insurance
> company got hammered for the rail damage including
> to the locomotive.  Crew was OK despite getting
> buried in corn when the windows blew out.   
>
> I personally think there's been an increase in
> 'grounding' accidents with oversize loads where
> the GPS and clearance information are outdated. 
>  If a driver is using a commercial GPS, they get
> routed the most 'direct' route, despite all manner
> of clearance hazards.   The escort services also
> seem to be amazingly ignorant of vertical rail
> clearances, contacting dispatchers, etc.   
> Understanding blue signs and what to do should be
> a major part of CDL licensing, maybe it is, but
> results seem to indicate it's not.

That's an excellent perspective, thank you.

I'm surprised that the insurance companies covering the companies which own / use private crossings aren't more involved in this. Wrongful death of the truck driver, usafe work area, damages to the rail locomotive, etc can add up to substantial claims amounts.  That something their site inspectors should be noting.  

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> That's an excellent perspective, thank you.
>
> I'm surprised that the insurance companies
> covering the companies which own / use private
> crossings aren't more involved in this. Wrongful
> death of the truck driver, usafe work area,
> damages to the rail locomotive, etc can add up to
> substantial claims amounts.  That something their
> site inspectors should be noting.  

I figure private crossing accidents are still not that common so extensive mitigations would not be cost effective. We have a bit of a bias here because folks on this forum are posting every accident of this type, but across all insured farms and farm equipment level crossing accidents are an afterthoughts.

You can look to the UK for more cost effective methods of active farm crossing safety systems, many of which involve interlocked gates. Automated systems can look at if a signaled route haas been displayed into a track segment which is then displayed to crossing users via a red or green lamp. Other systems require the road users to call the signalman for permission to cross. Instead of being open these crossings are protected by farm style gates that have an electric lock similar to those on hand throw switches in CTC territory. 

TLDR I don't see these catching on in the US as not only do they cost money to install and maintain, but they can use up dispatcher time and be prone to user error that might result in delys to rail traffic.