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.

Oh, boy, it's good to see I wasn't the only one who ever did those things!!! (the fusee was tossed onto the hood of the idiot's car, not INTO it-- I salute you, Brother Laepple!)

It's always good for a laugh when the cop asks for the VIN number of the locomotive.......

hpincus@mindspring.com

AMEN to that, brother Howard! I've never had to go through that with the cops but some of my fellow conductors have. The responding officer that I dealt with had been to a NS presentation and readily accepted that locomotives have reporting marks and unit numbers, not a VIN.

As for fusees, I've found that using two of them per two lane crossing is most effective when placed in the right hand traffic lane. Of course, having the local police nearby helps on occasion. I had one occasion where a motorist ran a signaled crossing right in front of us, only to get nailed by a police unit half a block away. Officer Friendly was stopped by the crossing signal in the inside lane when the moron ran-made a 180 and nailed the guy. When we crossed the street, we looked over that way and the cop was leaning inside the car, having a very animated, one sided discussion with the driver. That made our day.

I'm certain that you've also had the bozos that didn't stop until they were fouling the track and didn't have enough sense to move. I had one who did that and wore my patience out after I repeatedly motioned and shouted at him to back up. After about a minute of that, I just signaled the engineer to come ahead. The engineer was in position to see what was going on, whistled off and started up. That convinced the moron motorist to back up a couple of feet. Like we've been saying, the traffic control signal and the 120 ton locomotive are your best friends where crossings are involved.

awalker2002@comcast.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.

I've had people drive past me, too. We were told that if you have to jump, leave the sign as evidence you were flagging. Next time I have to jump, I plan to leave the sign by giving it a little flick towards the offending vehicle. If it busts someting on the car, oh well...

Once in a while we have a jerk who deliberately runs a flagman. Now that we've been out there for a while, however, people seem to obey the flagmen for the most part. As long as the flagman watches the traffic and not the train (basic safety rule), he should be able to judge if it's going to be necessary to jump.

The South Carolina Railroad Museum
mconrad@compuzone.net

> I have whacked more than one side

> Oh, boy, it's good to see I wasn't the only
> one who ever did those things!!! (the fusee
> was tossed onto the hood of the idiot's car,
> not INTO it-- I salute you, Brother
> Laepple!)

> It's always good for a laugh when the cop
> asks for the VIN number of the
> locomotive.......

So, what did you give him, the builder's plate number or the the front number plate number?
dan

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

Thanks to all for the advice and stories. Right now we are in negotiations with ODOT Rail Division and I cannot divulge the details. I'll try to remember when this all gets settled, and post the results. It could be right away, but most likely several months out.
dan



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

> Thanks to all for the advice and stories.
> Right now we are in negotiations with ODOT
> Rail Division and I cannot divulge the
> details. I'll try to remember when this all
> gets settled, and post the results. It could
> be right away, but most likely several
> months out.
> dan

I didn't catch the first few messages in this thread, but have to agree with some of the other comments on crossing signals versus flagmen. Crossing signals are definitely the way to go from a liability standpoint. Not only can they help in an investigation (such as properly operating lights and bells when police respond to an accident), but they can cut down on liability expenses. All it takes is one employee or volunteer getting hit by a car while flagging, and the operation is going to take a huge hit financially. IIRC, in many instances, if a government authority pays for the crossing signal installation, it also frees the RR or museum up from liability should someone try and sue for inadequeate crossing protection following an accident. If the RR pays for the equipment on their own, they may be open to such a suit...

Fiv4HghStk@aol.com

> IIRC, in
> many instances, if a government authority
> pays for the crossing signal installation,
> it also frees the RR or museum up from
> liability should someone try and sue for
> inadequeate crossing protection following an
> accident. If the RR pays for the equipment
> on their own, they may be open to such a
> suit...

Tort claims in state courts based on a railroad's alleged failure to maintain adequate warning devices at a crossing are pre-empted if federal funds were employed in the installation of the warning devices used. The presumption is that the installation complies with the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970 (FRSA) and the FHWA implementing regulations at 23 C.F.R. § 646.214(b)(3) and (4). The U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed this pre-emption in CSX Transportation Co., Inc. v. Easterwood (1993) and in Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. Shanklin (2000). Interestingly, in the former case the railroad was open to liability because federal funds were NOT used at the crossing in question. Also note that in the latter case the warning devices installed (WITH federal funds) were simple reflectorized crossbucks. The 1993 Easterwood decision also affirmed FRA train speed regulations as a pre-emptive defense against claims of excessive train speed in state courts.

I do not know what the legal situation is in various states with regard to warning devices installed without the use of federal funds. Perhaps the best policy would be to make sure any state-funded project includes federal Section 130 money (Section 130 is the ISTEA/TEA-21 federal aid program for rail/highway grade crossing safety).


pnichol6@prodigy.net