Don't know how appropriate this may be for this forum. However, I was wondering if anyone involved in operating museum trains has an opinion about flagging crossings. We currently flag one, but the county is beginning to fuss about it (getting complaints from locals because we make them stop up on a hill about 60 yds from the crossing due to visibilty) Furthermore, their lawyers advise we are leaving ourselves open to liability. Their opinion is that the crossing has all the proper signs, pavement markings, crossbucks, etc etc and that is all that is needed.

Anybody got any input? It's beginning to become real issue in our organization.

Thanks!

We used to flag crossings, but came to the same conclusion. Now we blow the train horn on the diesel (or caboose if backing up) since the crossings have the proper protection (crossbucks, RR warning sign posts, etc.) We do however, flag the crossing right at the "platform" when the train is first leaving, and the flagger boards the caboose as the train very slowly backs out.

During flagging operations in the past, we have had more than one vehicle ignore the flagman and "race through" to beat the train, representing a distinct danger to the person trying to do the flagging.

Les Beckman (Hoosier Valley Railroad Museum/North Judson, Indiana)

I always figured that crossings were flagged if the automatic crossing protection was not operating since the motorist assumes that the warning devices will operate correctly.

Les
Thanks for the info...
That's one of the issues...the danger to the flagman. I personally have had vehicles blow by me when flagging.

Another issue is that people will come to expect the flagman if there is a train and may not stop if for some reason we don't flag it one time. In other words, either we stop flagging or commit to doing it forever.

The crossing in question is about 4 miles down the line on a 2 lane country road. It does not have lighted signals or gates, but has signs, pavement markings, crossbucks, etc which meet all the MUTCD requirements. The road is mostly travelled by locals. However, the crossing has limited sight distance from the highway due to a curve. If people travel the 45 mph limit this is not a problem. But most do 60!

The tourist line I worked for many years ago was required to flag all crossings not equipped with working, automatic protection devices. We were approached by someone involved with Operation Lifesaver and asked not to flag the non-equipped crossings as it could send a false message to motorists that any non-equipped crossing would then be flagged. The owner of the tracks still required us to do the flagging of non-equipped crossings. I think that may have changed now but I have been gone from there for over 14 years.

Another concern was that by flagging non-equipped crossings we could get drawn into a lawsuit from somewhere else that may have had an incident in which a motorist was struck and then says "but that railroad at so and so has people out so I thought they all do".

My thought would be if marked properly and legally safety of the crew should be the priority. Of course in cases of shoving, any rule book I have ever worked under required flagging at all non-equipped crossings unless the shoving platform or rear unit was equipped with working headlights, horn and bell.

For years, we had to flag a major 4-lane highway, US 321. We still flag a state secondary road, but now have gates and flashers on US 321.

By South Carolina law, a crossing without active warning devices must be flagged for the first six months it is back in service. After that, flagmen aren't necessary. Our insurance carrier "suggested" that we continue flagging the crossing, however.

We use stop/slow signs like the highway department uses in work zones, and our flagmen all wear orange safety vests. This tends to get drivers' attention better as we look like a SCDOT work crew -- in fact, the same laws apply for us as those work crews. Ignoring one of our flagmen carries the same penalty as ignoring a SCDOT flagman.

In SC, crossings that are flagged have to be flagged according to a strict procedure. If you don't follow the procedure to the letter, then legally you haven't flagged the crossing at all. We were also told that if a motorist ignores your stop sign, abandon it in the road to prove you were flagging the crossing. I interpret this as giving the sign a bit of a push in the direction of the driver's windshield, although I never got a chance to put this into practice. :o)

It sounds to me like you aren't taking the flagging seriously enough. Talk to the local police about people ignoring your flagmen. And ask the complainers if they'd rather be inconvenienced for a minute or two or be dead.

We have public crossings w/o signals (2), and with signals (2). We do not flag the ungaurded crossings. If a gaurded crossing's signals fails to operate, the train is stopped and a crew member flags the crossing. The Flagger has instructions to stand on the side of the road. If a motorist blows by the Flagger and there is imminent danger of collision, orders are to dump the air, take their license number, and report them to the local gendarme. Fortunately we have not had any trouble with our signals, nor had to report any violations.

Our two ungaurded crossings have limited visibility in one direction. Crews approach them about 5 ~ 7 mph. Our long term plans are to place signals at both of these public crossings. All private crossings (3) are not flagged. We ring the bell at all private crossings. We also blow the whistle at one private crossing due to poor visibility.

When we depart Sumpter Depot, which is new for us this year, the Head Brakeman key initiates the Austin Street signals. He then walks to the Engineer's side of the train. The Engineer waits 20 seconds minimum, checks to make certain the Head Brakeman is safely in view, then proceeds cautiously across the street. As he slowly passes over the street the Head Brakeman gets on board.

We are in the process of replacing all crossbuck signs. The new ones have an additional triangular "Yield" sign below the crossbucks. The new ones are highly luminiscent and can't be missed by a motorist.

Hope this helps.

dan

It seems to me that flagging a non-signaled crossing sets up the expectation for motorists that it is ok to proceed across if not flagged. Then the one time the crew does not flag, for whatever reason, and a motorist collides with the train, the RR is subject to a law suit.

dan

Matt,
Trust me. We ARE taken the flagging seriously. I don't disagree with anything anyone has posted here. Our biggest problem is the county hwy dept. Being a county rd its their juristiction. While they tend to be coorporative, they continue to cite Alabama code that does not require flagging under these circumstances. Furthermore, all the issues discussed by others, liabilty, etc etc have all come up.

I guess it will be up to the board of directors as to whether or not we continue.

Bill H

This issue is very serious as well as the potential consequences. Not flagging a crossing that is not required to be flagged is the safest and most responsible action the railroad can take. It does not place their employees in danger, it does not give the public the ability to build a false sense of added security around railroad crossings.

Plain and simple there are laws that govern what a motorist should be doing around railroad crossings and flagging when not needed actually places the laws and responsibilty back at the railroad. What if the train still hits a car even with the flagger in place. The arguement now becomes did your flagger make enough effort to stop traffic? Did the flagger actually confuse the driver as they would have obeyed the law had they not seen a flagger wave the car ahead by?

This is a very tough subject but one that taking what you feel is an added precaution may actually cost in the end.

Andy and Dand hit the nail right on the head.

We have on public crossing blind to both train and autos in one direction. We used to stop and flag. I suggested we rethink that.

Our primary job is the safety of our passengers and crew. If a car hits our flagger, safety was not followed. If a car hits our train, the car violated our right of way. Our crew and passengers most likely would not be hurt by the car hitting the train. You also bring up more liability of how was it flagged, training for flagman, proper clothing, etc. Simply put, it's safer to slow and blow - which we do at about 5 mph and lots of horn.

Jim

Last season we made plans to push from McEwen to Sumpter, a distance of 5 miles. We decided to do this because stopping at the Sumpter Depot increased the distance to the run-around to about 1/2 mile. I set up training for Flaggers. I got no help from ODOT, they directed me to talk with the mainline folks. I got no real help there, each have their own proceedures and they didn't seem formal enough and they just didn't fit.

I started with a highway construction flagging instruction manual. Well, actually two different manuals. I then developed training for our Flaggers. We purchased orange vests, paddle stop signs and flaggers flashlights. We had a two hour session on flagging including a quiz at last season's Safety Weekend.

Fortunately, pushing to Sumpter was reconsidered and we decided against it in favor of the lenghty run-around with coupling/uncoupling and switching. This was in my opinion a good decision. Most of the train crew were very uneasy about pushing and were relieved that we decided to continue doing a run-around.

The point of all this is that we had to develop our own Flaggers training by a non-Flagger, myself. We will still use the procedure when necessary, but that will be infrequent. Had there been an accident, would our procedure hold up in court? I honestly do not know.

dan
Dan Denham,
SVRy Trainmaster

Thanks Dan & everyone...
I'm off to a board meeting. I will present your views with mine. It will be the board's decision. Engineers & flaggers don't like flagging since we are not pushing, but pulling and run slow thru there anyway.

Thanks

Bill H

Jim,
A while back I was discussing grade crossing protection for a proposed track extension with some of our County engineers. Thay said that Cal PUC had been making noises about having all public crossings protected with lights, gates, etc. Did you get any feed back from from Cal PUC?
The roads we were discussing were dirt roads used by fishermen to get to the river. These roads are on Los Angeles Dept of Water and Power land, so they are not quite public or privite.
Max

A bill was introduced in Sacramento to require such protection, but the
last I heard it had been completely gutted and that bill number now deals with something not related to railroads. For some reason the legislator
decided to re-use the bill number rather than creating a new one for
a new topic.