Do Crossing gates/lights ever fail to work?

Does this ever happen? I saw on tv a story about a railroad electrtion who forgot to turn the signals back on and a few people got killed. Never heard of anything other than that. Ive seen crossing signals going nuts once put there was no train. So....... does this ever happen?

barring human interference , crossing signals usually fail in fail safe mode.
Gates down and lights work till batteries are exhaused. hopefully a signal maintainer will be called before battery dies.

There is also the problem of loss of contact between the wheel and the rail due to rust, sand, or dirt on lightly used tracks. The railroad will put out "Stop and Flag" instructions in that case.

Absolutely they fail. At least now, they send an error message to a central point so that Signal can dispatch a technician to remedy the situation. Usually before he gets there Signal has more than enough data to know where the potential problem lies. It is quite rare that both systems in the cabin go down. Also mixing both analog and digital systems in close proximity are a challange at times, what few analog systems remain.

HoggerKen wrote:Absolutely they fail. At least now, they send an error message to a central point so that Signal can dispatch a technician to remedy the situation. Usually before he gets there Signal has more than enough data to know where the potential problem lies. It is quite rare that both systems in the cabin go down.

Not all crossings have remote reporting nor do all crossings have solid state control. It is not an FRA requirement. Where i work alone there are still hundreds of crossings that have not been updated with PMS or even simple Motion Sensors and remote reporting is even more rare. Many of the crossings have not been upgraded for over 30 years.

In the incident mentioned in the thread starters post, a maintainer had used a jumper to disable the crossing while performing work and forgot to remove the jumper. They now have jumper storage racks for C&S vehicles that sound an alarm in the truck if all the jumpers are not returned to the storage rack. Not all railroads use them, but they exsist.

NV290 wrote:
Not all crossings have remote reporting nor do all crossings have solid state control. It is not an FRA requirement. Where i work alone there are still hundreds of crossings that have not been updated with PMS or even simple Motion Sensors and remote reporting is even more rare. Many of the crossings have not been upgraded for over 30 years.

In the incident mentioned in the thread starters post, a maintainer had used a jumper to disable the crossing while performing work and forgot to remove the jumper. They now have jumper storage racks for C&S vehicles that sound an alarm in the truck if all the jumpers are not returned to the storage rack. Not all railroads use them, but they exsist.

Such an incident happend on UP in IL. Amtrak train came by and wiped out a carload of people. Now the routine is before leaving the site, they must clear the call with Signal, and they will ask him if all jumpers, shunts, and protective measures have been removed.

I really have to ask, what line do you work for that is so far back in the dark ages? Every installation out here in the last 10 years has been with computer controlled equipment and cellular modems. Only on industrial leads does analog crossing protection exist out here.

HoggerKen wrote: I really have to ask, what line do you work for that is so far back in the dark ages? Every installation out here in the last 10 years has been with computer controlled equipment and cellular modems. Only on industrial leads does analog crossing protection exist out here.

It's not that it's the dark ages, you simply work for a railroad who chooses to spend more on modernization. Just because railroads like UP throw concrete ties everywhere, LED signals and state of the art signal equipment does not mean other railroads are in the dark ages. Railroads spend their money different ways.

I work for CSX. But there are plenty of mainline railroads that have not upgraded all their crossings to remote reporting. And PMS systems are coming, but they too are not the norm most anywhere. Those items are luxuries, not requirements. There is nothing wrong with older systems. In fact, they are more reliable in many aspects, especially issues with lightning. That is why many railroads are not rushing to replace them. Same with older interlockings. Way more reliable.

I see the same thing when I look at IT on other railroads. Quite soon, the "Green Screen" of IBM (i.e. 3270 emulators) are going the way of all flesh on the UP in favor of Windows Technology. Friends from CN and NS talk about the availability of information as it is woefully inadequate. Having the ability to view train mapping, line-ups with detail, and other information helps crews better govern themselves as far as rest. Nothing however is perfect.

Also reporting defects of equipment, car billing, details of inbounds (for yard crews) without having to trudge all the way back to the yard office, saves time. Calling your cell phone when you hit first out or a lay off has occured in front of you. These are conviences not available with 3270's, or so darned difficult because you must know the exact commands and variables to enter. And I see the crews adapt to Windows far easier than 3270 screens.

shlustig wrote:There is also the problem of loss of contact between the wheel and the rail due to rust, sand, or dirt on lightly used tracks. The railroad will put out "Stop and Flag" instructions in that case.

I have also seen Conrail spray painted in big bright orange block letter DO NOT SALT THE RR CROSSING! on the side of a signal cabin once up in North Syracuse by the P&C Ware House off of Van Vleck Rd. I have not been up there in a while so I would assume that this message is still there.

scharnhorst wrote:
I have also seen Conrail spray painted in big bright orange block letter DO NOT SALT THE RR CROSSING! on the side of a signal cabin once up in North Syracuse by the P&C Ware House off of Van Vleck Rd. I have not been up there in a while so I would assume that this message is still there.

I think anytime someone else wants to salt our lightly used crossings, it would be a blessing. Nothing worse than having to stop for every crossing to chip and dig out the flangeways on industrial spurs and sidings. The rule is, cut off you engines, and cut the crossings with them. However, more than a few times, we went on the ground because the ice would not yield. The elevators use potash or urea in their switches or crossings, even with crossing protection and few if any problems, and you don't have to stop.

The past few years, section was sent to all crossing prior to a trains departure to salt them down. It makes a big difference as you tend to get the work done and light power home. The last thing you want to do in the winter is take a taxi. Worse comes to worse, you send out the CATs.

A wet road and salt will actually activate the crossing, as Salt is a conductor and will short the track circuit into believing there is a train.

DutchRailnut wrote:A wet road and salt will actually activate the crossing, as Salt is a conductor and will short the track circuit into believing there is a train.

Correct. That is why railroads do not want crossings salted. It also rusts the hell out of everything under the crossing deck material. I have seen 10 year old track hardware look 100 years old after being pulled out.

DutchRailnut wrote:A wet road and salt will actually activate the crossing, as Salt is a conductor and will short the track circuit into believing there is a train.

It is not the salt, but the water to which salt bonds which may cause a short circuit in the crossings island circuit. Easily trimmed out if such a case occurs, but does not happen with any great frequency in these climes.

Using something more corrosive, such as urea or potash will damage track parts far more than NaCl. But it has been quite common to salt crossings here.

I've lived within 100 yards of gate-protected crossings (in two separate locations) on NS' (former Reading) mainline into New York/New Jersey for the past 34 months. The line sees about 30 moves daily, dowm from perhaps 36 before the economy slowed. During that time, I've reported four incidences of gates functioning when no traffic was present. I cannnot recall an incident in which the gates failed to activate.

The only story I've heard about was one crossing that was a block from my church that went off during/after a hard rain. I think it works now but i know of another that I encountered going off with no train in sight.