Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[jeffandnicole]

Besides which, is it even legal for active crossings to have no crossing gates? And are there any other known instances of yield signs at active crossings?

Easily over half the crossings in my general area don't have gates.  They've upgraded signals at many crossings, but rarely do they add gates.

This active crossing: https://maps.app.goo.gl/TR4FPQJnjpBcCBiB9 , doesn't have gates, signals, or a stop/yield sign.

[index]

Besides which, is it even legal for active crossings to have no crossing gates? And are there any other known instances of yield signs at active crossings?

Easily over half the crossings in my general area don't have gates.  They've upgraded signals at many crossings, but rarely do they add gates.

This active crossing: https://maps.app.goo.gl/TR4FPQJnjpBcCBiB9 , doesn't have gates, signals, or a stop/yield sign.

The terminology threw me off here for a bit. I was wondering how just crossbucks could be considered an active crossing and then I remembered active as in it's in use, not active as in active versus passive warning devices (crossbucks on sticks versus bells, lights, gates, or a combination of them).

[Revive 755]

There are supposed to be "EXEMPT" signs on inactive crossings. Are those signs not there?

Like this, which used to be on US-60 in Springfield (MO), before they redid the interchange and grade-separated the crossing.

The former US 60 example was active with the Exempt signs.  The Exempt signs only meant at least certain vehicles that would normally have to stop at the crossing do not have to.  My understanding is a train would stop and make sure all traffic on US 60 was stopped prior to proceeding through the crossing.

Wisconsin seems to have a decent number of active crossings with lower rail volume marked exempt.

The use of Exempt signs also varies by state - I believe in Iowa the signs could not be used unless the track was in the process of being removed (with only the section in the roadway still remaining) or paved over.

^^ Not sure if this is a general railroad crossing question.  Gates are not required except at high-speed crossings.  Yield or stop signs are required at crossings that don't have alternating red signals.

Not entirely true.  MUTCD 8B.04 Paragraph 02 allows a crossbuck without a yield or stop sign "where road users are directed by an authorized person on the ground to not enter the crossing at all times that an approaching train is about to occupy the crossing".

[webny99]

You're right in terms of "no maintenance" being too strong. They're maintained enough that they could be used if needed, but they aren't, at least beyond the county line. The only potential user would be Xerox, whose Webster plant is much less than what it once was.

The FRA grade crossing inventory claims one train per week for the Salt Road crossing with the train count data from last year.

If I'm looking at the same report, it also says 0 day, night, switching, or transit trains. The 1 per week is probably just a filler requirement to allow the tracks to keep active status in case they're needed. Without going into too much detail, I'm really familiar with the area and there definitely isn't one per week.. unless Xerox has some midnight activity going on that I don't know about. 

[webny99]

Besides which, is it even legal for active crossings to have no crossing gates? And are there any other known instances of yield signs at active crossings?

Easily over half the crossings in my general area don't have gates.  They've upgraded signals at many crossings, but rarely do they add gates.

This active crossing: https://maps.app.goo.gl/TR4FPQJnjpBcCBiB9 , doesn't have gates, signals, or a stop/yield sign.

Is this crossing active in name only or is it actually used regularly?

[TheHighwayMan394]

You're right in terms of "no maintenance" being too strong. They're maintained enough that they could be used if needed, but they aren't, at least beyond the county line. The only potential user would be Xerox, whose Webster plant is much less than what it once was.

The FRA grade crossing inventory claims one train per week for the Salt Road crossing with the train count data from last year.

If I'm looking at the same report, it also says 0 day, night, switching, or transit trains. The 1 per week is probably just a filler requirement to allow the tracks to keep active status in case they're needed. Without going into too much detail, I'm really familiar with the area and there definitely isn't one per week.. unless Xerox has some midnight activity going on that I don't know about. 

So for whatever reason they have to fudge the books to keep it an active line. It shouldn’t be exempt if there’s an active attempt (however silly) to keep the line “alive”  IMO.

[jeffandnicole]

Besides which, is it even legal for active crossings to have no crossing gates? And are there any other known instances of yield signs at active crossings?

Easily over half the crossings in my general area don't have gates.  They've upgraded signals at many crossings, but rarely do they add gates.

This active crossing: https://maps.app.goo.gl/TR4FPQJnjpBcCBiB9 , doesn't have gates, signals, or a stop/yield sign.

Is this crossing active in name only or is it actually used regularly?

At least twice per day, at least one train per direction.  The next nearest crossing, which had lights, was upgraded several years ago to include gates.  Other crossings along the route have either lights, or lights and gates. This one has remained as shown for the 48 years I've been alive.

[kphoger]

That particular building appears to have a spur directly to/from the rail line. If it was active at any point recently, it must have been to/from the east.

I believe you're correct.  FWIW, the line dead-ends to the west near Xerox, just before Phillips Rd.  West of that road, the grade has been converted into a trail.

[kphoger]

unless Xerox has some midnight activity going on that I don't know about.

I'm not even sure where Xerox would load/unload a railcar at this point.

[CovalenceSTU]

In line with both the conversations: I looked up the crossing on the freeway section of WA-432 and it has the same 1/week fudging, but was exempted a few years before the trains stopped running.

[kphoger]

You're right in terms of "no maintenance" being too strong. They're maintained enough that they could be used if needed, but they aren't, at least beyond the county line. The only potential user would be Xerox, whose Webster plant is much less than what it once was.

The FRA grade crossing inventory claims one train per week for the Salt Road crossing with the train count data from last year.

If I'm looking at the same report, it also says 0 day, night, switching, or transit trains. The 1 per week is probably just a filler requirement to allow the tracks to keep active status in case they're needed. Without going into too much detail, I'm really familiar with the area and there definitely isn't one per week.. unless Xerox has some midnight activity going on that I don't know about. 

OK, so I looked into this even more.  Apparently, the cutoff in current rail traffic is at Williamson, NY.  The November DOT inventory forms for the Lake Avenue crossing and points east to the railroad HQ in Sodus all list two daily trains.  The forms for the Tuckahoe Road crossing and points west all list one weekly train–including, as you say, Salt Road.  Between that fact and 2019 GSV imagery, my assumption is that this means K. M. Davies Co, Inc. is a current customer of the Ontario Midland Railroad with weekly scheduled runs, but that there are currently no customers west of that point.

2019 GSV imagery does also show some railcars off on the siding between Furnace Road and Knickerbocker Road, so perhaps there is/was an occasional customer near there as well.

[webny99]

... because the tracks dead end at Xerox and have been converted to a gravel walking path beyond there.

FWIW, the line dead-ends to the west near Xerox, just before Phillips Rd.  West of that road, the grade has been converted into a trail.

  Indeed, I've used that very trail myself a time or two.

OK, so I looked into this even more.  Apparently, the cutoff in current rail traffic is at Williamson, NY.  The November DOT inventory forms for the Lake Avenue crossing and points east to the railroad HQ in Sodus all list two daily trains.  The forms for the Tuckahoe Road crossing and points west all list one weekly train–including, as you say, Salt Road.  Between that fact and 2019 GSV imagery, my assumption is that this means K. M. Davies Co, Inc. is a current customer of the Ontario Midland Railroad with weekly scheduled runs, but that there are currently no customers west of that point.

2019 GSV imagery does also show some railcars off on the siding between Furnace Road and Knickerbocker Road, so perhaps there is/was an occasional customer near there as well.

Now that would make sense. I believe that's about the furthest west that I've seen railcars. There's also a large MOTTS factory just west of Pound Rd, which, when I first read your post, I immediately thought of as the likely westernmost customer. But that wouldn't account for the Lake Ave crossing itself unless they're going past Lake Ave to turn around or something.

[kphoger]

From Newark, west to Salt Road, sorted by milepost:











Looks like the Wolcott branch doesn't see any/much current traffic either.

You're welcome.

[webny99]

The FRA grade crossing inventory claims one train per week for the Salt Road crossing with the train count data from last year.

If I'm looking at the same report, it also says 0 day, night, switching, or transit trains. The 1 per week is probably just a filler requirement to allow the tracks to keep active status in case they're needed. Without going into too much detail, I'm really familiar with the area and there definitely isn't one per week.. unless Xerox has some midnight activity going on that I don't know about. 

So for whatever reason they have to fudge the books to keep it an active line. It shouldn’t be exempt if there’s an active attempt (however silly) to keep the line “alive”  IMO.

I agree with this, FWIW. It's just annoying that a dozen plus buses per school day have to stop when there doesn't seem to be any good reason why the line is kept active.

[Big John]

unless Xerox has some midnight activity going on that I don't know about.

I'm not even sure where Xerox would load/unload a railcar at this point.

copy that.

[webny99]

Looks like the Wolcott branch doesn't see any/much current traffic either.

Confirmed:

NY is not allergic to EXEMPT signage: here's one on the eastern branch of the same railroad. There may be a safety aspect here as well, as buses stopping on a super-2 could be dangerous.

[webny99]

unless Xerox has some midnight activity going on that I don't know about.

I'm not even sure where Xerox would load/unload a railcar at this point.

copy that.

Alright, toner down now...

[epzik8]

The old Baltimore and Hanover Railroad in Maryland-Pennsylvania has to apply.

[vdeane]

You're right in terms of "no maintenance" being too strong. They're maintained enough that they could be used if needed, but they aren't, at least beyond the county line. The only potential user would be Xerox, whose Webster plant is much less than what it once was.

The FRA grade crossing inventory claims one train per week for the Salt Road crossing with the train count data from last year.

If I'm looking at the same report, it also says 0 day, night, switching, or transit trains. The 1 per week is probably just a filler requirement to allow the tracks to keep active status in case they're needed. Without going into too much detail, I'm really familiar with the area and there definitely isn't one per week.. unless Xerox has some midnight activity going on that I don't know about. 

Those other boxes are for when there are multiple trains per day.

[freebrickproductions]

Besides which, is it even legal for active crossings to have no crossing gates? And are there any other known instances of yield signs at active crossings?

Easily over half the crossings in my general area don't have gates.  They've upgraded signals at many crossings, but rarely do they add gates.

This active crossing: https://maps.app.goo.gl/TR4FPQJnjpBcCBiB9 , doesn't have gates, signals, or a stop/yield sign.

Is this crossing active in name only or is it actually used regularly?

If it was "active in name only", it'd most likely be filed as "no train traffic" with the FRA, as the since ripped NS AG Branch in Gadsden, AL, was.

My guess is that the line, even if it doesn't have any customers directly on it, still sees the occasional storage or transloading move, which a lot of shortlines across the US do to make money. My local shortline, the Huntsville & Madison County Railroad, is one-such example, as they no longer have any customers directly on either of their lines, but here in Huntsville you can still semi-regularly catch them running twice a day a few days every week (sometimes more) to pull stored/transloaded cars in or out from the south end of their line. Of course, if the line is used for car storage, said storage moves might not even be once a week. They could easily be once a month, or a handful of times a year (at best).

That being said, looking at the crossings in question, the rails around the crossing seem rather dull in the street view images and the tracks on the edges of the crossing grade are very much rusty, so, if there is any service, it's rather infrequent.

[US 89]

Inactive rail crossings are a dime a dozen. Utah alone probably has hundreds of them. Here's one on the old Tintic branch line in Payson.

Also re: the conversation about whether active crossings need gates... in my experience, only crossings in relatively well populated or on high traffic roads that also get a moderate amount of train use will have them. This active but lightly used crossing in a relatively suburban area, for example, doesn't have any gates. Same deal with this one, and the same line just down the road has a crossing with only a yield sign.  For one in a more urban context, here's a lightly used but very much active crossing with no gates and only a couple small side signals, despite the fact that it is crossing a busy six lane arterial. In more rural areas, you can often find fairly busy crossings without gates of any kind (example).

To me, a gate is an explicit indication that a crossing is going to be active and well-used. Absence of one doesn't tell me much.

[freebrickproductions]

A couple of those have some very nice classic cantilever signals at them, even if the lights are newer 12 inch ones, lol.

[jeffandnicole]

Besides which, is it even legal for active crossings to have no crossing gates? And are there any other known instances of yield signs at active crossings?

Easily over half the crossings in my general area don't have gates.  They've upgraded signals at many crossings, but rarely do they add gates.

This active crossing: https://maps.app.goo.gl/TR4FPQJnjpBcCBiB9 , doesn't have gates, signals, or a stop/yield sign.

Is this crossing active in name only or is it actually used regularly?

If it was "active in name only", it'd most likely be filed as "no train traffic" with the FRA, as the since ripped NS AG Branch in Gadsden, AL, was.

My guess is that the line, even if it doesn't have any customers directly on it, still sees the occasional storage or transloading move, which a lot of shortlines across the US do to make money. My local shortline, the Huntsville & Madison County Railroad, is one-such example, as they no longer have any customers directly on either of their lines, but here in Huntsville you can still semi-regularly catch them running twice a day a few days every week (sometimes more) to pull stored/transloaded cars in or out from the south end of their line. Of course, if the line is used for car storage, said storage moves might not even be once a week. They could easily be once a month, or a handful of times a year (at best).

That being said, looking at the crossings in question, the rails around the crossing seem rather dull in the street view images and the tracks on the edges of the crossing grade are very much rusty, so, if there is any service, it's rather infrequent.

As I mentioned in my other response, this line is truly active, with at least 2 trains per day, one per direction. 

[freebrickproductions]

As I mentioned in my other response, this line is truly active, with at least 2 trains per day, one per direction. 

Fair point.

Anyways, have an abandoned-ish crossing on the former TAG:
http://www.rxrsignals.com/Georgia/A-F/Chattanooga_Valley/South/

Further down the line is this rather neat 4-way crossing:
http://www.rxrsignals.com/Georgia/G-Q/Kensington/GA136_GA193_2/

[Road Hog]

My dad was (and is) a fan of railroads and would take us to show remnants of old lines not far from where we lived. He showed me the hump where the highway used to cross the railroad until the 1940s and the hump is still there, sonofagun. Fence lines and tree rows can still be seen on satellite views of where the railroad used to run.

The rails and ties were of course long gone but the old telegraph poles were still up into the 1980s.