Have you tried checking with the FRA? They may have some guidelines to go by.

Bill

Thanks. Strange things happen in Sacramento. Can you imagine having to flag a crossing where the only things moving are cows. Bells, horns, whistles, by all means. Flags, I don't think these cows would understand.
Max

The FRA only has guidelines for flagging malfunctioning crossings. Here is the only thing the FRA says about signs.



My personal opinon is that crossings should not be flagged unless they are considered to be malfunctioning. Flagging at crossing that are properly protected opens up a much bigger Pandora's Box than just blowing the horn.

I worked for a Class 1 railroad and currently a 40mph Short Line and I can tell you that flagging is very dangerous to the flagger. I once tried to flag a one way street at night with flares and almost got hit twice.... while holding a flare! Cars and trains can be repaired much easier than people so, if you don't have to flag, don't do it!

Yes I did, and no, they did not have much in the way of guidelines.
dan

When we first applied for our Austin St. Crossing, we were discouraged by ODOT Rail Division to not even apply! The director of Rail Division had a mandate to reduce rail crossings in Oregon. Long story and three + years later we are finally crossing Austin St. with bell and lights, no gates.

In all my professional career in electronics dealing with large companies like IBM and with government agencies I have never experienced a bureaucracy like ODOT Rail Division application office. And, I plan to never deal with them again. The inspectors were great to work with and very helpful. It was the desk jockeys who thought it was their responsibility to prevent us from installing signals.

Fortunately, our existing crossings were grandfathered in without signals. Although, we plan to eventually put signals up because we believe it is the right thing to do for safety.

dan

Let us know how it went with your board.

dan

The Cal PUC would get involved in a new crossing - not an existing one unless you are going to remove some form of protection.

Since this thread started, I had an online chat with our lawyer and assistant superintendent. All of us pretty much agree that we're going to continue to flag Rion Road and that it's the safest thing to do.

Yes, there's a risk to the flagman. However, in my experience drivers are actually more likely to obey a human (provided they see him) than a mechanical warning device. People know that a human can get their license number while a set of flashers can't. Part of the secret is to do just that -- any time somebody ignores a flagman, report them. Either word will get around or the cops will get sick of hearing from you and do something.

As our assistant superintendent put it, if somebody hits the train he wants to be able to stand up in court and say the person blew by a flagman. Our lawyer (who is also one of our engineers) took essentially the same tack. So, I take it, has our insurance carrier.

The argument about people saying they expected a crossing would always be flagged sounds slightly ridiculous to me. Any case that used such tenuous "logic" would surely be subject to overturn on appeal. Juries HAVE brought in some stupid verdicts (i.e. Stella Liebeck), but most have been reduced or overturned on appeal -- we never hear about that part.

Good luck to ya! Good discussion, each RR has to make it's own decision based on local laws etc. Sounds to me like you have taken it seriously and acted accordingly, which one would assume will go well in the courts. But, let's all hope and pray that none of us ever encounters an accident regardless of flagging, gates or whatever.

dan

Dan

Thanks for everyone's input....
The board voted to discontinue flagging. I have mixed emotions and understand both sides of the argument.

Trains currently stop to let the flagman off and to pick up on return. The crossing is very close to the end of the line. In the future we will approach at +/- 5mph and lots of horn. We only do about 20 mph the entire 6 mile trip anyway, so the slowdown is no big deal. Plus we eliminate stopping to drop off & pick up the flagman. (This required blocking the crossing when picking up on the return)

We are going to do all we can to increase visibily and let the locals know we are no longer flagging.

Bill
Heart of Dixie RRM
Calera, AL

In Pennsylvania we are subject to the regulation of our Public Utility Commission. They can set different requirements for individual railroads. On our line, we are required to flag all public crossings that are not protected by warning signals.

HOD Bill,

Best of luck. I am sure all of us enjoy working the tourist/historic trains, but I constantly remind myself accidents can and do happen. But they can be prevented with safe operations. Even at slow speeds train operations are a serious business.

Road crossings are a very serious matter, and I believe you are fully aware of that. I make certain all is clear before proceeding across all crossing and also make certain my Fireman is ringing the bell and looking closely on the other side. I keep my hand on the brake handle at the crossings.

I'm sure you have thought of this, but I suggest you post the change in procedure everywhere possible including a large sign at the crossing itself. You might even consider a mailing to the locals.

dan

It sounds very reasonable to me, and it's been documented by quite a few railroads. If you routinely flag the crossing, then people will expect it. If they don't see a flagger, they won't expect a train.

Now whether or not you can win in court doesn't really matter. If you hit and kill somebody because they thought the crossing was always flagged, winning in court won't be much consolation.

As Operation Lifesaver says, you have to always expect a train. By flagging the crossing, you're teaching folks to only expect a train when they see a flagman. Are you sure that's the message you want to send?




I suggest you look into that case before you blow it off as frivolous. As an example, quoting a site regarding the case "Stella was burned badly (some sources say six percent of her skin was burned, other sources say 16 percent was) and needed two years of treatment and rehabilitation, including skin grafts. McDonald's refused an offer to settle with her for $20,000 in medical costs." We're not talking about simply burning your tongue, we're talking serious steam burns.

http://www.stellaawards.com/stella.html

I realize that case has become the poster child for silly lawsuits, but the reality is much different from what the press and public have made it out to be.

I suspect most engineers do that unless it's not an option. (For example if you're blowing the whistle and bringing up the throttle, you can't also have a hand on the brakes).

One of the SLE's that I worked with early in my career went one step further and made an initial brake application when approaching a crossing whenever possible. His theory was that by having the brakeshoes already against the wheels, any emergency application would take effect quicker. Another benefit is that the slack would already be bunched, reducing the chance of slack run in should you take a fast set.

I've often wondered if it makes much difference. The slack part certainly seems to, and even if it's not much faster, it might help. Since I figured it can't hurt, and I often like the idea of slowing down a touch as I approach a busy crossing, I tend to do it, but I'm wondering if it's a common practice and if there's any real value to it?

I remember issues with this at both NH&I and Wilmington & Western.....

NH&I had mostly unprotected crossings at the time (1980's). On their regular excursion runs, they only flagged the two crossings in town, the one at 413/Durham Road and the southern Upper Mt Road crossing both of which are in the Buckingham area. All 4 of these crossings had lights that did not work and high traffic volume. Two of them also had issues with nearby traffic lights crating a vehicular block at said crossing. All their other crossings were approached at normal speed with normal warning from the loco.

There was a case where a motorcycle tried to beat the train at Street Road (Lahaska) and wound up loosing his bike to the underside of the SW1. The crossing at the time had just bucks...no lights or gates.

I know of a case further back in the 1970's where they hit a car at Lower Mt Road killing the driver.

On the W&W, several of their lesser traveled crossings are still not lighted...but clearly marked with bucks. One is completely blind to the crew as it is approached on the Westbound trip...they did not flag these crossings. They were approached at Regular Speed, both when pulling the train and or pushing.

There was a case here where a dump truck tried to beat the train at RT48 and was knocked into the ditch by their SW1. The Crossing had/has working overhead and sidemast lights.

My point would be, no matter what you do, there is going to be the idiot that tries to get away with something. Why risk loosing the life of one of your members over something that is state law?

I really believe that STOP signs should be placed below the crossbuck at all non-signaled crossings in the country (unless exempt)....that way, there is NO way that any lawyer can say that their client "didn't know a train was coming." You ran a stop sign, you pay the price...sometimes the ultimate price.