We are planning to install antique wig-wag crossing signals. Does anyone out there know if their use is still legal? Has anyone installed them, for any reason (cosmetic or functional), in recent years? What are the Fed rules on wig-wags?

I would greatly appreciate any info you may have on this subject.

dan

http://www.svry.com
svry@pacifier.com

I'm pretty sure the answer is no. Follow the link below for questions regarding new crossings in Oregon.

Richard Wilkens

> We are planning to install antique wig-wag
> crossing signals. Does anyone out there know
> if their use is still legal? Has anyone
> installed them, for any reason (cosmetic or
> functional), in recent years? What are the
> Fed rules on wig-wags?

> I would greatly appreciate any info you may
> have on this subject.

> dan


Oregon Dept. of Transportation Rail Division.

Try Title 49 CFR Part 234.
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/wais ... 34_02.html
and also your state PUC or similar regulatory body.

Electric City Trolley Museum Association

While there are still wig-wags in service (e.g., Oak St. in Ashland, Oregon on the Central Oregon and Pacific), they are no longer shown in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) which governs new installations. If a public crossing is involved, that would seem to require an "exception" from the State DOT.

The Monticello Railway Museum in Illinois has a wig-wag in service at a private (driveway) crossing of the yard lead. This is more for demonstration purposes than as a real warning device.

pnichol6@prodigy.net

In my Humble opion, with law suits and lawyers running the world and having had to payoff Black mail lawsuits, I would think you would want the best protection out there.

I know Wig wags are cool but About the only thing that will keep you from running into some Dumb a@# is a bridge grider that goes across the road. The only problem with that is When Joe a@#hole drives into the bridge grider drunk, he just hit the lottery and if he live's he's rich if not his family is.

You just can't win. the one who really suffers is the engineer that get's to spend the rest of his/her life with the faces of the one's looking at him when the train hits.

irss@eriecoast.com

> We are planning to install antique wig-wag
> crossing signals. Does anyone out there know
> if their use is still legal? Has anyone
> installed them, for any reason (cosmetic or
> functional), in recent years? What are the
> Fed rules on wig-wags?

> I would greatly appreciate any info you may
> have on this subject.
You may want to do what Paul Krout of O.E.R.M. did. He wanted rail fans of all ages to see and hear the old signals so he built what we call the "signal garden". Each one has its own button mouted on a 4x4 post along with a sheet under glass telling when and where it was used. I think there are 6 or 7 set up sofar more to come. the kid love it. Dave
> dan


davewolven@msn.com

> While there are still wig-wags in service
> (e.g., Oak St. in Ashland, Oregon on the
> Central Oregon and Pacific), they are no
> longer shown in the Manual on Uniform
> Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) which
> governs new installations. If a public
> crossing is involved, that would seem to
> require an "exception" from the
> State DOT.

> The Monticello Railway Museum in Illinois
> has a wig-wag in service at a private
> (driveway) crossing of the yard lead. This
> is more for demonstration purposes than as a
> real warning device.

Peter: Are you sure that wig-wag works? I have been to Monticello a number of times through the years and, although I have seen the wig-wag, I have never seen it in operation.

Dan: Rather than put the wig-wag on an active street or road, I would think the better place would be on a museum "service" road. Here at our museum, we have a couple of dirt crossings of the tracks that are infrequently used. It is my hope to one day put a working wig-wag on one of them. The only problem is; we don't HAVE a working wig-wag at the present time (and quite possibly, may never be lucky enough to get one.)

BTW, we also have an old cast iron crossing buck. It is non-reflectorized of course and probably does not meet current regulations. Our plans are to put that up on one of our museum service road crossings.

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

midlandblb@cs.com

> We are planning to install antique wig-wag
> crossing signals. Does anyone out there know
> if their use is still legal? Has anyone
> installed them, for any reason (cosmetic or

> functional), in recent years? What are the
> Fed rules on wig-wags?

The minimum FRA requirements for new installations of protection devices on public grade crossings are flashers. This means: no wig wags may be put in as "new" installations. So if one isn't already there (i.e. "grandfathered"), you can't put one in.

I believe you can install one on a private crossing because since it isn't public, there are no applicable regulations.

You can use non-uniform traffic control devices on private driveway type crossings. My personal opinion would be to restrict a signal such as a wig wag to a pedestrian crossing since the wig wag does not meet present traffic control device standards and could possibly present a legal liability at a motor vehicle crossing, regardless of its being a private driveway. The signals used on the main driveway crossing at our Cromwell Road site are modern highway signals donated by Safetran about twenty years ago. They are equipped with flashers, a gong and the unit between the public street and the crossing is equipped with a vertical four lamp stop signal. As far as reliability is concerned, you're better off with a modern flasher equipped signal.

awalker2002@comcast.net

> We are planning to install antique wig-wag
> crossing signals. Does anyone out there know
> if their use is still legal? Has anyone
> installed them, for any reason (cosmetic or
> functional), in recent years? What are the
> Fed rules on wig-wags?

> I would greatly appreciate any info you may
> have on this subject.

To add to the info posted by others...

I am rapidly reaching the conclusion that the absolute safest way to protect a grade crossing is the way we protect the US 321 crossing at SCRM. We stop and manually flag the train across. It's a royal pain in the behind, but it's a LOT safer than flashers or gates. The train doesn't cross the highway until the flagmen KNOW that traffic is stopped. If someone did manage to drive into the side of the train, I very much doubt that they'd be able to sue since they would have had to have ignored a flagman which is usually considered a pretty serious violation. If I were the flagman, I'd sue THEM (or their estate).

Another advantage is that the crossing process offers an excellent opportunity for the carhosts to give a little Operation Lifesaver talk.

Every couple years, someone investigates adding flashers at the 321 crossing. The fact that we'd have to pay for them kills it every time. I used to want flashers there, but the more I hear about idiots igniring flashers and gates, the more I think I'd rather stick with the flagmen. Cheaper by a long shot and quite a bit safer!

The South Carolina Railroad Museum
mconrad@compuzone.net

Using a flagman is cheaper but not necessicarily safer from the flagman's point of view. In my nearly ten years of railroading, I've had plenty of times that I was either nearly run down by motorists or they flew right past me as if I wasn't even there! Other fellows I know have had similiar experiances. It took about a year for the reflective vests to catch on with the flagmen after we introduced them as we were not doing much night operations at the time and they were viewed as giving the motorist a better target rather than providing the flagman more protection at the time. Signals are the better investment when possible.

awalker2002@comcast.net

If someone did manage to drive
> into the side of the train, I very much
> doubt that they'd be able to sue since they
> would have had to have ignored a flagman
> which is usually considered a pretty serious
> violation. If I were the flagman, I'd sue
> THEM (or their estate).

About 10 years ago, Mid-Continent paid out some serious dinero ($10,000+, as I recall) to settle a lawsuit where some meathead kid on a motorcycle went into the side of the train at the main crossing near the N. Freedom station. Broad daylight, train going 5 mph, flagman plainly visible, kid exceeding the speed limit, and guess who gets sued, and guess who collects.

hpincus@mindspring.com

Another reason that signals are worth their weight in gold when working properly. If it can be determined that the signals were working properly at the time of an incident that can give the local law enforcement grounds to cite the motorist with a moving violation. This is usually pretty effective at stopping lawsuits.

I was conductor on a train that was involved in a grade crossing incident about four years ago at a crossing that had good visability and was marked only with crossbucks. The motorist involved there was charged with failure to yield since the engineman had properly sounded the horn and bell. Had the crossing been signaled, she could also have gotten charged with failure to observe a traffic control signal.

I don't know what authority is given to crossing flagmen in other areas but here in Tennessee, that authority is left up to the municipalities. Chattanooga's municipal codes give flagmen the authority to cite motorists for failure to stop on signal at crossings under flag protection. In present day terms, it means that for all practical purposes the police won't ask any questions once they determine that the train crew was performing their responsibilities, they'll just ticket the motorist. So far as I know, we didn't hear anything more after that or at least none of my crew did.

All things equal, signals are worth the investment. It's better for it to be the motorist's word against a traffic control signal and the police than for it to be their word against yours.

awalker2002@comcast.net

> We are planning to install antique wig-wag
> crossing signals. Does anyone out there know
> if their use is still legal? Has anyone
> installed them, for any reason (cosmetic or
> functional), in recent years? What are the
> Fed rules on wig-wags?

> I would greatly appreciate any info you may
> have on this subject.

After having read the responses so far, I wish to amplify some comments and add one.

1. Any public crossing should meet your current state or federal requirements.

2. If you want to use an antique crossing device use it on a private crossing at your terminal site where the visiting public and railfans can appreicate it. It should be within sight and earshot of your platform or other public area.

3. In California, a public crossing registered with the CPUC becomes eligible for a maintenance stipend from the agency. If you have volunteer maintainers, the funds can go further than if you had to pay at the commercial rate. Think of the blubs, relays, power supplies, or arms you can help pay for. Maybe other states may have a similar program.

Brian Norden

bnorden49@earthlink.net

In Pennsylvania, the Motor Vehicle Code is quite clear that the motorist is required to stop in any and all circumstances. I can't quote exactly, but if the train is moving in the direction of the crossing, with or without bell, whistle, flagman or whatever, the motorist MUST stop. Period. When I was railroading, I always requested the police who responded to a grade crossing accident to cite the motorist under that section of the law, and never lost a case.

As far as flagging, I have had too many close calls to favor flagging from the ground. I have had people actually veer across two lanes toward me in an attempt to scare me. I have whacked more than one side mirror with my flag stick, and I once tossed a lit fusee into the rear window of a passing car when the fool wouldn't stop. The car went up in flames about a half mile down the road, and we never heard a word about it. I would much rather flag with a 120-ton locomotive than little old me.

K4s1361@hotmail.com