Steam locomotives fall under another category according to the FRA. In fact, the first sentence in section 229 states:

Sec. 229.1 Scope.

This part prescribes minimum Federal safety standards for all
locomotives except those propelled by steam power.


I think the historical equipment rule might have to do with some E and F units still being used in daily commuter service at the time the rules were made. Metra and MARC come to mind.

Several interesting points have been made in this thread. Regarding them: I don’t like the look of ditch lights. The single bright headlight always struck me as being perfect for locomotives. Ditch lights produce a sort of automotive look.

It is indeed interesting that cars don’t often try to jump the gun by running traffic lights in an attempt to beat a 55 mph truck. So why do they do it with trains so often? I think the answer is that drivers associate the potential of an unreasonably long delay with trains. Railroaders ask why some idiot would risk his life to save two minutes. But the risk taker does not know whether it will be two minutes or fifteen. The risk takers anticipate the worst-case delay such as one lasting fifteen minutes with no predictable end in sight.

In many states, drivers are permitted to cross against the red flashing lights after stopping, if they determine that it is safe to do so. This can apply even in cases where a train is standing in the circuit or even approaching the crossing slowly. It leaves it to the discretion of the driver. This allowance of discretion, plus the fear of unreasonable delay is what makes grade crossings a sort of magnet for crashes compared to highway intersections. The allowance of driver discretion sets up the scenario for risk taking. In the case of passive crossings, every process of yielding to approaching trains is a calculated risk that drivers are permitted to make according to the terms of the yield law. One principle that always works against the risk taker is that trains appear to be moving slower than they actually are.

No discretion is allowed to drivers in the case of lowered crossing gates. Drivers are not allowed to pass lowered gates under any circumstances.

At crossings with flashing lights, or with flashing lights and gates, drivers are still required to look for trains and yield to any that are approaching even when the automatic warning system in not activated. This is required because active crossings have crossbucks and crossbucks mean the same as a yield sign. Very few drivers are aware of this rule and comply with it. Instead, they rely on the automatic warning system to protect them. The rule would protect them in the case the automatic warning system fails to activate, but most drivers to not anticipate a failure of the system.

Operation Lifesaver and the FRA will tell you that, because of the crossbuck at signalized crossings, drivers are supposed to slow if necessary, look for trains, and yield to any that are approaching even if the automatic flashers and gates are not activated.

However, recent studies have shown that most drivers do not realize that a crossbuck means yield. Instead, they think that it is just an advisory sign that identifies a railroad grade crossing. Therefore, passive (unsignalized) grade crossings are being equipped with YIELD signs in addition to the crossbucks. So you will have the redundancy of two signs that mean yield, but only one being understood to mean yield by the motoring public.

Since drivers are supposed to yield at active (signalized) crossings even when the signals are not activated, and YIELD signs are deemed necessary to supplement crossbucks at passive crossings, it seems to me that YIELD signs should be added to active crossings for the same reasons.

I was told by Minnesota D.O.T. that adding YIELD signs to active crossings would confuse drivers, and they are not needed because the automatic warning system at active crossings is required to be fail-safe, and therefore cannot fail to activate, so there is no need for a driver to be told to yield by a YIELD sign, even though a driver is required to yield to the crossbuck. But, of course, the automatic system at an active crossing can indeed fail to activate, because fail-safe is just an engineering term of art applying to part of the system.

What would actually confuse drivers if YIELD signs were added to active crossings is the question of why they were being asked to yield when they falsely assume full protection by the automatic warning system. The only answer would be that the automatic system can fail, but this admission might add fuel to the ongoing debate about the probability of signal failure-to-activate that comes into play in many legal cases arising from car/train crashes.

STOP signs could be added to all crossings. In particular, they would certainly lessen the chance of getting hit by a train at passive crossings because they reinforce the yield requirement by bringing the driver to a complete and unconditional stop. However, traffic engineers have found that with many crossings, the addition of stop signs would likely kill more people from rear-end collisions than the number of people that would get killed by trains. So the application of stop signs must take into account the frequency and speed of trains, the driver sight lines, and the road speed limit, in order to determine whether a stop sign would save more lives that it would cost.

One problem with yielding to the crossbuck at an un-activated active crossing is that many active crossings are on fast highways with almost zero driver sight distance for approaching trains. A driver has no way of knowing how fast a train may run though a crossing, so in order to properly yield, the driver must anticipate the fastest probable train speed, which would be at least 80 mph. At limited sight distance crossings, yielding would require a driver to come to a full stop in order to yield to a train possibly approaching at 80 mph.

But stopping at an un-activated signalized grade crossing on a 60-70 mph highway is certainly a recipe for a fatal rear end collision. I have been unable to get the Minnesota State Patrol to advise whether or not they want drivers to stop for short sight distance, un-activated, signalized crossings on fast highways, as Operation Lifesaver and the FRA require in order to comply with the crossbucks on these crossings.

The FRA has mandated car side reflectors because they say that freight trains are hard to see at night. So reflectors have become a safety device needed on every freight car in order to protect drivers. Therefore, any freight car operating without reflectors would pose an increased safety hazard relative to the cars that do have reflectors, and the operation of that car without reflectors would be an act of negligence on the part of the railroad operating it. So in trials arising from run-into-train crashes, the condition and/or existence of the reflectors on the car that was struck will play an important role in determining if the railroad is liable. Therefore, since railroads have applied federally mandated side reflectors as an official safety device, one would expect that no train would be permitted to move unless it was known that all car side reflectors were in perfect condition.

It's hard to judge speed from a single point of light. That's why the triangle pattern. Single point of light = far away, 3 separate lights = train right there. Add in the flashing function, and you have some awesome warning power. As anyone who has seen an approaching police car can attest, the first thing you usually see are the wig-wagging high beams. Then you see the red and blue lights (although with LED technology, it may be a draw now). Blinkies are always good.

I don't know if reflective stripes are classified as a safety device though. A requirement? Yes. A safety device, though? I would think it would be in the same class as a brake rig decal. There is no way to keep them clean from grime and spray paint, or by the leasing company that just peels and sticks them to the rust and dirt. But as long as we have scumbag ambulance chasing lawyers...

Isn't it spelled "misspellings"?

Alright I am all for the reflective tape yes it does make things much safer, but when it is required on a vintage coach that is when I think the line has been over stepped.

A local tourist railroad making a rare night run was clobbered by a motorist at a grade crossing about 15 years ago. The poor guy hit the second truck of the third car in the train. There was a burning fusee lying on the road, which was perfectly straight for about half a mile in either direction. There was no reflective tape on the cars. The driver died. The paint was chipped on the truck frame and a journal box lid on the truck was bent.

An individual railroad might have decided to place reflectors on the sides of their own equipment such as locomotives. They might have figured that it would help attract the attention of some drivers who were tired or impaired. I would not call those reflectors an official safety device. And I don’t suppose a company applying them would be too worried about running the same locomotive after some of the reflectors had fallen off or gotten dirty. They would reason that they had the right to run with no reflectors at all, so they were doing more than they had to by adding any reflectors.

But the has FRA said that freight trains can be hard to see at night, and reflectors will make them easier to see for all drivers. This statement alone would seem to take some of the responsibility away from drivers and place it on the railroads. The FRA focused on trains being hard to see for all drivers, rather than focus on a sight deficiency of some drivers who might be inattentive, tired, or impaired. The FRA has declared that a freight car with reflectors is safer for drivers than one without reflectors. They have required all freight cars to eventually be equipped with reflectors. It seems reasonable to conclude that if a car is required to have reflectors, then the reflectors must be in place as required, and also be clean, undamaged, and free of ice, snow, and graffiti. Otherwise, the operator will be running a freight car that the FRA says endangers drivers.

I don’t know if there is a formal definition of a safety device, but the FRA mandated car side reflectors seem like they would qualify as a safety device, considering the mandate and its purpose. They would be as much of a safety device as the headlight or horn.

On the surface, reflectors seem like a good idea. They are cheap, and if they prevent an accident, why not use them? But in my opinion, the reflectors are a bad idea because of the way they shift the liability because of the FRA mandate. Previously it was up to drivers to not run into trains. Road vehicles have headlights, and grade crossings have reflectorized crossbucks. From there, it is up to the driver to look for trains and yield to them. That is the way it was until the FRA said that trains are hard to see at night and the railroads must add reflectors to make them easier for motorists to see.

Frankly, I don’t think they have thought it through, and in these early stages of the program, the problems have not yet become apparent. If it is up to the railroad companies to make their trains more conspicuous to drivers, then why shouldn’t they add electric illumination to the freight cars?

The FRA seems to be real careful in using the term 'visibility' instead of 'safety'. It also says that you can have up to 20% of the striping defective before it would be in violation. Then if it is in violation, the owner of the reporting marks would have 9 months to correct said problem.

For your reading pleasure (I only glanced at it as its bedtime):

http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/ ... 6480333629

And yes, there is a process where you can apply for a waiver.

Some excellent points made on this thread. Some more random thoughts -- is there someone at the FRA keeping a database on all the cars out there with defective striping? And do they follow up with the car owner after 9 months? If a car has defective striping and no other mechanical defects, do you shop that car exclusively for the striping defect? Do the railroads have carmen walking around through classification yards (far more dangerous than operating a freight car with no striping) looking for cars with striping defects to make note of and/or repair? Regarding dirt & snow (etc) build up, what's next -- a federal mandate that all freight cars must get cycled through a wash rack every 6 months (or some other scheduled interval)???

Seriously, where does it end people??? There needs to be some responsibility on the part of the person behind the wheel of his/her vehicle....

Here's a hypothetical...

Lets suppose one of your loved ones runs into the side of a train and is killed. The crossing has flashers but no gates, and the cars did not have reflectorized tape.

A personal injury attorney comes to you and says that because the crossing did not have gates and since the cars did not have reflectorized tape he could get the railroad to soothe your pain with mucho dollar signs, would you out of principle decline to pursue it? Or would you, full of anger and grief over your loss want to "stick it to the bastards"?

How much money would it take for you to sell out your convictions?

Those folks turn unreasonable at the drop of a hat, however I do agree with their premise of "meet us halfway on the crossing safety thing". Dangerous crossings do exist.

I also agree that the motivation for running lights is fear of being trapped for 15 minutes. Americans don't do "trapped". Answer: make every crossing a boulevard with a Michigan Left at the track. There's the escape. Also makes the crossing airtight if it has gates.

From what I understand after reading the maintenance part of the legislation:

The company doing the inspection is to keep record of the notifications. So if a CSX car inspector notices missing striping on a FURX hopper, he notifies First Union railcar. CSX keeps the record of the notification, and must make it available to the FRA if they so demand.

And looking for the striping is supposed to be a part of the class-1 airbrake test (where each side of the car is supposed to be examined, unless conditions do not allow). Now, in my terminal, we have places where the conductor has to do a class-1 air test. So I wonder how that will work. I'll have to figure that out when the time comes, I guess.

FRA seems trapped in this issue. Just about every 53' trailer on the road is decorated with reflective striping. So is every sign, barricade, and ambulance. They had to do something...

And you ask where will it end? I say tort reform. But there's too many lawyers posing as lawmakers, so that will never happen.

To bring this back on forum topic in some way:

§ 224.3 Applicability.
This part applies to all railroad freight
cars and locomotives that operate over
a public or private highway-rail grade
crossing and are used for revenue or
work train service, except:

...

(c) Locomotives and passenger cars
used exclusively in passenger service;

*emphasis mine.

There's always the waiver process. Think about what your comfort level with risk is, make your case and get a waiver.

I agree that the single biggest reason people run active crossing warnings is delay time. As an engineer I've witnessed many close calls, one of them is currently on YouTube. That particular train only took about a minute-and-a-half to clear the crossing where the impatient driver pulled in front of me less than 20 feet before my head-end fouled the crossing (he disappeared from my view below the locomotive hood), but he would have had no way of knowing how long it would have taken for my train to clear the crossing. Since that time, that particular crossing (Queensbury Rd. in Riverdale Park, MD) has been made a completely gated crossing.

The problem with putting a stop sign at every crossing is that drivers "know" there are certain crossings where they never see a train, so once they ignore that stop sign, it's easier to ignore others. In Owosso last weekend I saw at least one grade crossing with stop signs on an obviously abandoned piece of track. Bad idea from a psychological standpoint. Even I eventually started ignoring it.

I have a suggestion. From personal experience driving in states currently without adequate highway funding, like Ohio and Michigan, nothing slows down drivers at grade crossings like knowing they will likely lose the undercarriage of their car if they zip through the crossing. Maybe the answer is to put speed bumps on the road right before every non-main highway grade crossing, across all of the pavement on both sides of the tracks - including any shoulders - so they can't drive around them? If they can't zip across ahead of the train painlessly, then they will have to stop when the warnings are activated.

I'm not a fan of speed bumps. Wither they are too low and people will zip right across them, or they are too high and cause potential damage. Or someone sees one at the last minute, freaks out, slams their brakes on, stalls their manual transmission car... liability nightmare!


By the time you put that much effort into a crossing, you might as well start searching for the cash to put up gates. I love it when you are sitting on the tracks right at a crossing for some reason and you watch the motorists driving right across. They won't even look until the final minute, then they get that "oh ****" a train!" look on their face (we're stopped) and then they SLAM ON THEIR BRAKES! Usually slowing to a crawl ON the tracks. It is not like the train is hidden - usually sitting out there plain as day. But people don't even bother to look. Flashers? That's like saying "go ahead... race that train!" There are also the idiots that have to drive the road that crosses the lead to a yard. They get all upset when a train is shifting across the crossing, and even blow their horns. The yard isn't new, and I'm sure these people end up sitting here on a fairly regular basis. You'd think they'd find a new route? People are hamsters without all the fur.

TAN, but with some historical information:
Some grade crossings have had stop signs. In modern times, they can be cheap protection, and also effective, if enforced. In more ancient times, there was the wig-wag or banjo signal. Normally the swinging sign with the word "STOP" would be hidden until activated. If power failed, gravity would make it swing down and be visible. Other crossings had rotating highway stop signs, so they would have the force of highway law when activated. Sometimes there were 4 lights, with the letters "S T O P" on the lenses.
Regulation traffic lights hung over the tracks, popular in upstate New York about 1980, still have to be enforced, or the motorists will learn that "it's just a railroad signal". What if it fails dangerously to steady green when a train is coming?