This car in the attached photo is at the end of a string of storage cars. To me, it looks like a safety hazard to drivers down this country road, especially at night. Two questions:

1. Is there some type of FRA or STB (or other federal) rule that states how far cars have to be parked beyond a highway right-of-way for safety?

2. If there is, is there a fine for such an occurrence, and what would that fine be?

Thanks.


Les

Hi,

You hint at an issue that many seem to forget.

Maybe 90% of all road / rail crossings were added AFTER the railroad was built.

The DOT had to petition the railroad for an easement to cross the railroad - not the other way around.

So you have an excellent point about road and driver safety. The other side what was in the easement documents about who controls what on the railroad's property.

Not as clear cut an issue as you might think.

The recent tour bus getting stuck on a CSX crossing in Mississippi causing a crash and the law suit against the railroad is funny because the DOT of MS probably has the duty to keep the crossing in good shape. However Citizens can not sue the Government (in the constitution I think) so they SHOULD go after the tour bus company for reperations but instead they think the railroad is sitting on a pot of money and claim that the railroad should keep the crossing in good shape. Why go for a company that is clearly in the wrong for a little money when they can go for a larger company with a lot of money?

Basically, the railroad should have used common sense with that box car so close to a road crossing and spot it on the other side.

FWIW

Doug vV

How is that too close? You would rip your axle off if you went that far off the side of the road....

The danger as I see it, is that there is a road that parallels the railroad (to the right in the photo) at that location. Someone making a left turn from there with headlights pointing straight ahead might not see the cars coupler as he, or she, swings onto the road pictured. The railroad operator could have pulled that very long string of storage cars up a car length for proper clearance, but didn't.

Maybe there is no federal safety rule, and if so, then so be it.

Les

There are no regulations that I am aware of, but most railroads will have operating rule and/or special instructions addressing crossings, but primarily regarding crossing with more than one track. I believe the current General Code of Operating Rules (GCOR) addresses parking cars no less than 250 ft. from a crossing with an adjacent track. the idea being that the car would block the view of the motorist from seeing a train approaching on that adjacent track. In this case, there is not an adjacent track that I can see and the car is not blocking the crossing. It would be better if it was further from the crossing just for general visibility, but not knowing the circumstances, it may have not been possible.

Mike Ramsey

Mike -

Although the storage string was long, there was plenty of room to move it up a car length. Just some sloppy railroading me thinks.

Les

From the traffic engineering side, the box car is in what should be a clear zone adjacent to the roadway. A distance 20' or more would be a good rule of thumb.

I can Imagine a snow plow coming down the road at night would have quite a surprise when the plow strikes the boxcar....

But... considering there are STOP signs on the crossbucks, it is unlikely anyone will hit the car at speed.

I suspect this is one of the cars stored on the disputed line the group wants to run on... unfortunately, I don't see this as providing much leverage.

I've been told that the county police will handle it.


Les

It looks like its just off the edge of the roadway, But mirrors hang out, I've seen some trucks with WAAAY out mirrors. I think it needs a nudge away tho if they can do it, but its passable.

It is interesting the stop signs and crossbuck are reversed from the MUTCD. it is also interesting that there is no stop bar pavement markings.

Robby Peartree

Hi,

I think the item in basic driving classes involved here is that if someone hits the basic stationary box car with an extended mirror that is affixed to his moving truck, he is not in proper control of the truck - the box car is not moving. If you run into a telephone pole along the side of a road, it is not the telephone pole's fault. It did not jump into your truck.

FWIW

Doug vV

But look how far the telephone poles are offset from the roadway.

There is a huge difference in being in control of one's vehicle to avoid common roadside structures and someone else placing an obstruction on, in or adjacent to the roadway.

Quite common in the Midwest, The road pavement appears to be "chip & seal", also known as tar and gravel. Every couple years the highway dept. sprays another coat of heavy oil on the surface, and spreads maybe an inch of washed pea gravel. The surface of the road is initially loose gravel; what doesn't adhere to the oil eventually migrates onto the shoulder. About the time the road surface is clear of loose gravel, it's time for another application. In the photo above, it's just about time, as the cracks are starting to show. I suspect these roads are classified as 'unpaved' and so are exempt from the required pavement markings.

Hi,

Point taken.

The original roads and highways were built with two (one for each direction) 8-10' wide lanes. The edge of the right of way was the edge of the pavement. The first place my Dad (one of the top Civil Engineers (road an highway design) in the US in the 1960s and 1970s) pointed this out was on the way from Sutter's Mill in 1970. The fences and road signs were right at the edge of the pavement (some 16-20' wide) with bridges a foot or two narrower.

Over the years, CEs learned about putting the grass easements and poles back from the edge of the pavement. Look at most any old downtown city street and you will see the telephone poles are right at the edge of the curb casting. I owned 21.8 acres of property in North Ga that still had the edge of road as the edge of land. 1400 feet of no-easement property.

Nowadays, we want all the easements and shoulders and so forth to help prevent accidents when a person runs off the road. But it is still the duty of the driver to control his vehicle.

I fully agree the box car was dropped too close to the pavement (not prudently done) but that does not change the driver's responsibility not to hit a stationary object. If the driver is so distracted that he hits a stationary box car so close to the road that he can not claim to have not seen it, then he should not have been driving at all.

Doug vV