Whether there is snow, ice, wet from rain or semi trailers bottoming on the track, do raised crossings contribute to RR crossing accidents? In saying this I would not put blame on the railroad.
Why put the blame on the railroad? A lot more than the gates being up contribute to a working crossing…lights and bells should also be light and ringing, train should be blowing horns, and the road driver should be more cautious than normal. Raised crossing gates contribute to crossing accidents only if everything else has failed, too, especially highway drivers. Your question is very rhetorical and vague and can be used to ignite a fuse rather than open a conversation.
I think that the raised nature can be a contributing factor, under certain conditions.
Because tank cars have so much space beneath them, if one was sitting across an unsignaled crossing, at night, with poor light. And a driver was utilizing the headlights of on coming traffic to navigate by, I think that the combination of raised track and high car clearance could work in concert to allow the driver to deceive them self.
It has happened. I have read where a car’s headlights did not illuminate the reflective strips on a black tank car because of a raised grade crossing and the driver went right into the side of a tank car that he did not see.
To clarify, I meant raised height of where the road crosses the tracks and the road for cars and trucks is lower on one or both sides of the track.
Biggest problem with crossing having this geometric shape is that long and low trailers will high center themselves on the track. Most such crossings have warning signs errected to such vehicle to keep them from attempting to use the crossing - how many drivers of such vehicles pay attention to the signs is debateable.
The problem of the tracks being higher than the street contributed to a truck colliding with tank cars at night on the south side of Chicago. It was discussed and argued on here about a year ago, as i recall.
NJT train 1006 struck a trailer blocking the tracks 8:15 this morning in Little Falls, NJ…engineer and school crossing guard seriously injured, 4 passengers hospitalized and 4 passengers treated and released. Truck had crossed the track and tried to turn left but because of fog and tight squeeze, driver had to back up onto the crossing as the gates started down. School crossing guard was directing him but did not get off the track before being struck…truck driver ok.
Basically, that is false. In research at rural crossings, even tungston lamps reflected sufficient light off of the stripes to warn drivers. The tape reflects the specs of CFR 49 - Part 224, which includes as it does on other markings, the off center reflectiveness of the markings.
I personally intervened in a situation here in Memphis, on NS (ex-Southern) about a mile east of Forrest Yard. Some students had hired a truck to move into one of the apartment buildings just south of the track, in a 26’ straight truck. As they crossed the track to turn, they caught the rear overhang and got the back wheels completely off the ground, and were trying to block underneath as I went by. Drove a bit further east, and here comes the train! (Fortunately running at controlled speed going up to the yard approach, and someone in the engine crew saw me waving stop!)
So yes, raised crossings can be a hazard. A better approach … when possible… is to grade the approaches for proper slope and vertical curve, and (where necessry) inprove the road grade adjacent to crossings to give minimum slope on that side. Wish it were practical to get rid of roads closely parallel to the track that have crossings – if it were up to me, I’d close most of them and improve just the most importabt ones. Or, best solution if you have the means, put in grade separation over BOTH the road and the railroad, as was done with Airways Boulevard over the west end of Forrest Yard.
RME
My old hometown in MI had two such crossings. One, the worst of the two, is now closed to auto traffic.
Many of these crossings predate longer vehicles.
The line in question (CSX’s Saginaw Sub) was built in the late 1800’s (the date on one bridge is 1888), and is elevated on embankments to maintain some semblance of level track as it passes through the town, which straddles a river valley.
When built, the steep approaches to the crossings were not a problem - today’s long-wheelbase trucks and trailers did not exist.
I know of one incident, probably 50 years ago, in C&O days, where an auto carrier got lost (isn’t that often the case?), went over the worse of the two and got hung up. There were red and yellow “Wynn’s Friction Proofing” vans scattered all over the place… Chatter on a FB page for the town has indicated another, similar, collision some years later.
All that said - I think the character of the crossing, with regard to line-of-sight and other such issues, is probably the bigger issue, particularly if crossing has lights and gates. Even if a driver can’t see the reflective strips on the cars, they can certainly see the crossing gate (most are reflective now) and the lights.
This thread and the other one about calling the railroad to get the trains stopped reminds me of the CSX Amtrak crash at Intercession City, Florida. A truck hauling a power plant generator got hung up on a crossing. It was not the driver’s fault because the whole move had been approved by the state, and there was a lot of escort activity. It was a bureaucratic snafu that overlooked the hazard that the crossing posed to such a heavy haul truck move.
Then they tried to call the railroad to get the trains stopped, but ran out of time. The engineer of the Amtrak train said he rounded the curve only to find a giant green box crosswise on the track. A lot of people got hurt.
Some of their escort cops should have just driven down the ROW a ways and lit some fusees. As I recall, there was a fair amount of time such as 15-30 minutes from the time the truck got stuck and the arrival of the train.
Since when are police officers qualified to flag trains? How would they know what is sufficient distance? Most local officers don’t even have any idea other than at grade crossings where tracks go, much less how to follow them.
In the case as you state it, there is a lot of liability to spread around. And more questions than answers, especially when in order to make such a move the railroad in question would have to have signed off on it.
Does a person need to be qualified and signed off to flag a train in an emergency?
It doesn’t matter about railroad qualifications when it comes to public safety! What kind of a question is this? If there is an emergency situation whereby someone could be injured or serious damage done, then anybody can flag a train. You raise your hand or both hands in frantic motions, wave a cloth, piece of clothing, paper, anything to get the engineer’s attention. Or you could just stand there and let the train pile into that school bus or your new Caddy.
And living within fifteen miles of Milford I know precisely which crossings you cite.
If I may ta
With auto haulers (trucks) hauling ten cars they have a very low ground clearance. It doesn’t take a steep grade crossing to get them stranded. Woe be upon the driver who loses a semi and ten cars because he got stuck on one.
Henry,
That’s the way I would look at it too. Regarding the Intercession City wreck I mentioned, I don’t think the cops considered that they could take direct action. But if they had thought of it, I doubt they would have worried about being qualified to flag trains. It would have saved a lot of passengers from blunt force trauma.
A dozen years ago in Erlanger, Ohio a fire truck got stuck on a raised crossing and was hit by a train:
New term to me - but I’ll add it to my “vocabulary.”
The viaduct in Milford has been known to trip up the occasional truck on the underside, too. They’ve got some truck routes that go around town now, reducing the problem.
There’s a picture on the Milford FB site of the area of the Huron Street crossing (adjacent to the station) showing three tracks there… I recall two at one time.
The bridge I mentioned is “the arch,” at one time a favorite swimming hole.
Back to our regularly scheduled discussion.