2013 UP-BNSF collision report

Wyhog, I don't have any HARD numbers, or sources to cite, but I remember reading in the past about the cost to install traffic signals at an intersection, costing something north of $250,000, each intersection will vary a bit, but that is the number that I recall.

 Unfortunately, our Dept. of Trans. is planning on installing a *&#@% Round-about at the intersection of Thatcher/Verboort RDs and HWY 47. This intersection is stop for Thatcher RD(west of Hwy 47) and Verboort RD (east of Hwy 47) with just a flashing Yellow caution for hwy 47. Entirely too many accidents, simply because people are too impatient, and take STUPID chances crossing/pulling onto Hwy 47. Good unobstructed lines of sight, just POOR judgment being used all too often.

Unfortunately, it is NOT just at Grade Crossings, that drivers do STUPID things.

Doug

I Definitely Agree with you, that those systems seem way over-priced to me as well. I don't know where the expense is, neither is cutting edge technology.

Doug

In the city just north of us there is a debate going on about too much train noise (even though the rail roads and tracks were there LONG before the houses were built). I have been sort of following the debates off and on. I copied this is from a recent public report in December 2014 on estimated costs to add signaling to some crossings to make a 'Quiet Zone'. Parts were deleted to shorten it up to just the costs for some of the crossings in the report.

Clip.......

No Train Horns (Silence Train Horns at Both Crossings)

1. Quiet Zone

 Installation of new signals and equipment at each public crossing at an estimated $275,000-$300,000 each per BNSF

 The installation of any new signals and equipment will require the relocation of existing equipment that currently convey information to train engineers that is located closest to 7315 Martindale at an estimated cost of $500,000 per BNSF

End Clip......

I would imagine there is a lot more to this than we are considering, like incorporating it into the existing system and other connections that might be needed for a fully functioning system that works with all the other stuff they already have in place. Probably has to be tied in some how with the PTC systems that are being installed as well.

Our O gauge trains are expensive to purchase and create a layout with, the big boys make purchasing our stuff look a whole LOT better!

People are buying $2,000 toy train engines then complaining about the cost of real RR signals ??

How much Extra $ was spent DPU equipped locomotives? The demand seems to have brought the price down.

The cost of these signals sounds like $600 or $6,000 toilets.

Hello. I am a retired Chief Air Traffic Controller. I spent 25 years in radar control facilities and air traffic control towers in New York City. A typical taxi instruction at JFK could involve as many as six or seven elements to get to or from the active runway. Couple this with dealing with  many taxiing aircraft at the same time and the idea that a ground controller could possibly operate a system such as you describe is not realistic.

Believe me when I tell you that stopping errant aircraft and vehicles from entering active runways without permission is a difficult problem to solve. No lack of effort has been spared by the FAA and the air traffic system users in trying to come up with new equipment ( i.e. microwave ground radar) and procedures.

Do the RRs inflate the numbers most often when they are seeking contribution from a city or state to install a crossing? 

Why not register with these guys and get some quotes?

Rusty

I do not have any material to post on this, but, in the late 1940's, Union Switch and Signal did some preliminary work on developing a fixed signal system for airports that would have governed use of runways and taxiways by signal indication, in a manner similar to CTC governing the movements of trains.  There was no interest, and it died on the vine.  There may be some old records of this on some airliner or FAA website.

Wyhog, the only thing I can think of that makes railroad signals so expensive is the exposure to tort liability and the elaborate interaction of track circuits (all installed, tested, and maintained manually).  Everything has to work as intended every time in any weather, and be tamper-proof and protected from lightening damage.  A highway traffic signal controls one intersection and is usually not linked to adjacent intersections, does not detect occupancy or the integrity of the road between signals, and usually only detects approaching vehicles by a non-fail safe system such as movement detectors.  The only thing that has to be fail-safe on a traffic signal is that it must not allow two interesting routes to proceed at the same time.  Railroad signals are usually linked to: two or more adjacent blocks in each direction; all the turnouts and some derails within their track circuits; some road crossing warning devices; and they require batteries, commercial power, and a lot of digging.  Whenever we did any track project, the signal cost was usually more than half the total cost.  And the Signal Department would not negotiate the price at all.

Somebody told me that, when the Milwaukee Road built the new Milwaukee, Wisconsin, station in the 1960's, they used Eagle highway traffic lights at the depot.  Perhaps a Forumite can confirm or deny this and also tell us whether they were used as actual block signals or merely as switch indicators?

You can always get lower prices, but you get what you pay for.

The average new interlocking cost $1 million just for C&S.