A BNSF mainline runs through the bedroom community in whichI work. Track speed is about 40 mph on trains running through, an average of maybe 6 times a day. Where it intersects that track, the main drag through town has crossbucks and lights. This crossing probably sees 4-5,000 cars a day as it’s a main thoroughfare accessing the school, post office, city office, etc.
A thousand feet away is the other crossing in town. It has crossbucks, lights and flashing arms that come down to block the street. This crossing might see 2-300 cars a day.
Why would the lesser used crossing have the higher test safety equipment?
Could also be because the lesser used crossing has had more fatal or at least more expensive (maybe PR expensive rather than $'s) accidents and was thus upgraded to have higher safety equipment.
Your state’s PUC/RRC probably made a decision more recently on the lesser used crossing. In your state it’s the South Dakota Dept. of Transportation/ Office of Air Rail & Transit. Each public crossing has an application/decision document attached to the installation of protection or changes to the size or geometry of the crossing. That Application & Decision becomes a fixed contract - no additions, removal or changes w/o a new hearing, application and decision. (otherwise somebody is in breach of agreement and in serious deep doo-doo)… what you are looking at is an application of the “if it ain’t broke - don’t fix it” addage. Nothing will happen on the main drag untill there is a new petition/application to upgrade or change what’s there.
Take a gander at Title 49; Chapter 294 and Chapter 307 of your state statute follies (SL’s). Then look at Chapter 31-27 of your state’s codified laws.
Is there a school or something in the vicinity of the crossing with gates? In the city where I grew up, the street nearest the high school was the only one with gates from the late 1950s into the 1970s.
Here in Lombard, the crossing with a school next to it is the only one in town with four gates to protect the two lanes (all others have one gate per lane). That could be because of a high-profile grade-crossing accident that took place there, but I’m sure the presence of the adjacent school had some influence.
I did a little more studying of the crossings. The main drag is a county road through town that’s probably more than a century old. The sightlines are not so good on acount of a grain elevator and a century old, big brick building. The crossing with the gates has houses nearby built in the 50’s, 60’s & 70’s. That one has good sight lines.
Long and short of it, I suppose, is that a rural county that doesn’t like to spend money and a small bedroom community that doesn’t seem to have any money had some differing priorities when paying for crossing protection.
I’ve seen old photos showing human crossing guards at some grade crossings. Were such people typically employed by the railroad or by the local government?
I do know that the old CA&E had some crossings manned by employees no longer fit for previous job, whether by age or injury. I don’t know who paid them.
rural county or town has zero choice in the matter - It pays what the ombudsman determines (acting as an administrative law judge, in this case SD-DOT Rail section) the local entity has to contribute. (Failure to pay = bye-bye crossing and a court order)… Town portion is usually pretty small with most of the $$$ being federal section 103 funds distributed to the states for this purpose.
Murphy: Section 130 funds are administered by the state. It’s not free money for the local bubbas. It is a finite amount and the PUC/RRC/DOT administers the yearly amount based on priority. (and is there ever a waiting list for those funds)
You also might want to look at the SD-DOT Railroad groups “Applications and Decisions” about those two crossings. Like most states, those ought to be available somewhere, probably online if they are more recent installations.