I'll gladly stand corrected on Strasburg, but I couldn't remember if it had gates or not. I do know that they stopped at least eastbound.

The law is pretty firmly on the side of the railroad, but that's not the public perception, and in our business, ignoring that perception can be pretty fatal, no matter how right you may be.

A few years ago we did a study for reactivation of a line that had many, many rural grade crossings, only crossbuck protected. The infrequent freight operations were at night. Putting excursion service on it with change things from three times a week to three times a day. Several of the crossbucked crossings were in small towns, some on roads leading to schools. One was so bad it had mirrors up to it, completely invisible to cars. None had gates, several at least had flashers.

At the final public hearing to approve local matching funds for the project, the locals showed up in force, and were PRIMARILY concerned about grade crossing safety with their children. The railroad supporters, otherwise good guys, literally got up on their "we're a railroad, and we don't have to stop, and we'll blow the horn, and just look out for us!" approach. They were 100% correct, of course, legally.

But that had nothing to do with the outcome. The railroads supporters were actually booed, the County-level politicians took note, and summarily withdrew their support and matching funds in a split 3-4 vote; one vote killed it. Without that firm local support, the state caved, and in the end, the entire project folded due to that single remark in a public hearing. The 501c(3) group is now even dissolved and nothing ever happened on the line. Up until that moment, they were the good guys.

That's where it gets tricky. I think they should have VOLUNTEERED to stop and flag at those sensitive crossbuck-only school crossings until the community was satisfied with the safety efforts, even if they didn't have to. Dangerous precedent? Perhaps. But we'll never know as the community made sure they never got to turn a wheel to find out.

As an active RRer, I have a few words to the above: NO NO NO NO NO NONO NO NO NO NO!!!!!!!!!!!!

Never, EVER volunteer to manually flag a crossing. If they want the crossing flagged, let the community take it up with the state's PUC (or whomever has authority for the crossing). You start flagging some crossings, then people in that area will expect EVERY crossing to be flagged at all times.

The group should have said that they will follow all federal laws in regards to the crossing, and keep quiet about anything else. If someone isn't paying attention enough to stop for a train blowing its horn, then why in the heck would you VOLUNTEER one of your guys to stand out there holding a litttle red flag? Like I said, if it is required as per law, that is one thing. But don't volunteer to turn your guys into hood ornaments.

Much as it may extend the antagonism between railroads and residents, I have to respectfully agree with Brother Hetter. If you chaps want a default position to fall back upon, here it is: The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, issued by the Federal Highway Administration:

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/
Specifically, Part 8:
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/HTM/2003r1/pa ... t8-toc.htm

I don't favor flagging if it can be avoided, but the diagnostics of each crossing must be considered on a case by case basis. Safety is the first rule of railroading and that means not only for our own employees but our obligation to the public as well. If a road is too dangerous to put a flagman out and all you have are crossbucks, you should be talking to your DOT about an active warning system.

Randy's point, which I think is important, is that a righteous position at a time when political finesse was called for topedoed an entire project. Sometimes you have leverage and sometimes you don't. Choose your battles.

Alan Maples
Everett Railroad

Unfortunately, a lot of crossings will not get needed gates due to traffic levels or funding issues. Then what? My answer: have a working horn and light on your engine? Blow and go. (unless the rulebook, state utilitiy commission, or some other higher authority says to "flag").

Safety first, yes. But we're also not nannies. I'm not going above and beyond what is required (and therefore expected) of me only to be tossed over the hood of a car and be fired for being down there anyhow.

I agree with you and I don't think any of this discussion is about train crews flagging where it is not called for by regulation, rulebook or timetable special instruction. Rather I believe the original point was to discuss the variables that management must take into account when deciding what is the most prudent course of action at any given crossing. Whether this translates into specific operating practices (special instructions for flagging) or capital improvements (clearing sight lines, active warning devices) depends on risk analysis, funding availability, and cooperation of public agencies. The only wrong answer is to simply ignore a highly dangerous situation.

I've had to deal with grade crossing issues throughout my career and have had a lot of success with our state DOT folks; in fact I attended final inspection on a new set of crossing lights just last week - on a local road that I thought would never be eligible for funding. Improvements don't happen overnight, but a little cooperation goes a long ways.

Keep in mind FRA is in the game now with specific rules for flagging shove movements over crossings.

Alan Maples
Everett Railroad

Trust me Mr. Maples, even with what I said, there are still a lot of places I have to flag (and always do). All I was saying (before I got us off track again) was that there needs to be a limit with cooperation. And I beleive a great spot to make that limit is volunteering to flag at crossings that don't require it. I think there comes a point where you have to admit that you have done all you can feasibly do, and that it is in the hands of the responsible (yeah right) ndrivers.

Also, there is a belief out ther in certain planning circles that dangerous road parcels can actually be safer, becuase it forces drivers to slow down and think about how to navigate through it. Whether this theory would apply to "dangerous" crossings or not is a debate that I am not qualified to participate in.

You can always find yourself in a position where the legal position simply isn't sustainable politically. In a much larger playing field, NS and CSXT had to come to terms with the City of Erie to get NS off of 19th St. street running and move up to the ex-NYC alignment as part of the Conrail deal, despite being direct competitors. One of the most notorious track-in-the-street lines ever, mainline traffic. NS operated the line just as safely as could be done in the situation. They had every legal right to say NO, and lean on interstate commerce. CSX sure didn't want to help speed up their competitor, either.

NS had every right to be there, but that line was clearly a safety hazard and had the deaths to prove it. Erie publicly stated they would hold that situation hostage as part of the STB approval process in advance. The political signals were loud and clear that it was up to the two railroads to offer a solution and a deal, not to be taken to court and sued to get it.

That's the 'volunteer' part; who has the responsibility to be proactive in a safety judgement (atypical) situation? If NS and CSXT can see it is in their advantage when not legally compelled, we should do no less. In the end, the track was moved and the railroads looked like heroes instead of villains.

As railroad preservation - not railroad transportation - there's really a need to recognize there's a different reality here. Most museums and excursion operators are either directly or indirectly responsible to a different set of "shareholders" and community stakeholders that will make those value judgments differently, and shape the willingness for public support for the enterprise. The legacy of 'we're a Railroad', can hold true within reason, but in the end you still have to be accountable to those shareholders, and they can effectively vote you out through entirely different means. That's the danger, and to fail for lack of support is no less dead than to be the direct victim of a lawsuit.

The group in question was perceived (and I think unfairly) of being absolutely callous about public safety with their response in a public hearing setting. It was painful to witness. They were absolutely correct in the law, but it was like watching a person get hit in the crosswalk with a car. He's right to be there, and as soon as he can get out of the hospital, he'll see you in court. On the other hand, he really didn't have to step in front of the speeding car to make a point...