WHAT IS THE LIFE EXPECTANCY OF GRADE CROSSING SIGNAL EQUIPMENT?
By: Mr. Keith Wilson, Past railroad signal maintainer, Electrical engineering student

What is the life expectancy of a railroad crossing? When this question was posed to me I thought it would be an answer easily found and a very short topic to write about. When I investigated further I found it is impossible to give a straightforward answer. Of the topics I have written about, this subject has raised more questions than I have been able to answer.

Doing research, I have tried contacting the major manufacturers of electronic components and various government agencies that are involved in oversight and research of railroad products. All gave me the same response: Due to “substantial litigation” our response is no response. So the following is my opinion based on my experience and education.

In theoretical terms an electronic component should last forever. But the real world is not a theoretical vacuum; there are too many variables that would shorten the useful lifespan of a given component. When you think of it in railroad terms the variables are very harsh: extreme temperature variation, spikes in electric service, lightning hitting the track, vibration etc.  But we must also not think of railroad electronics as consumer electronics, for example, a TV.  If you bought a TV five years ago you may find yourself in a rush to get a new one before the switch to digital in February. Railroad components are designed and built with safety and longevity in mind. But as I mentioned in the opening paragraph, this subject raises a lot of questions. Although the electronics are built with longevity in mind we all know technology changes at a rapid pace. And we may not want to think of them as consumer electronics, but when does the technology change enough to warrant a change?

With the rapid change in technology over the last 30 years it leads me to another question. Has the legislation kept up, when is maintaining a 30-year-old crossing to the level of the technology from the ‘70s not good enough anymore. We must also consider the reasons for not advancing technology within the sector.  Are the people responsible for oversight properly trained and equipped to handle the rapid change within the industry? I also think it may be time to take another look at ideas that were not feasible in the past. I.E. DOT HS-801 569 Feasibility Study of In-Vehicle Warning Systems. In 1975 this may not have been possible with the technology available at the time, but it could be the right time for integrating this into future grade crossings and automobiles.

And with this change in technology, do we have the proper funding? Since we lack definitive legislation on the topic of funding we can look toward litigation to define it for us. Unfortunately time has been a determining factor with the Supreme Court. They have defined it from “mutual and reciprocal” to “senior-junior” principle based on Justice Brandeis in 1935 saying:

“The railroad has ceased to be the prime instrument of danger and the main cause of collisions. It is the railroad which now requires protection from dangers incident to motor transportation”.

Although some of us may not agree that the railroad is not the “prime instrument of danger”,  we can agree that this terminology points toward who Brandeis thought was responsible for funding. The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: (SAFETEA-LU) is the main source for highway grade-crossing funding. Out of $286 billion, grade crossings get only $220 million, and that has to be distributed across 147,681 crossing nationwide. When you work that out it ends up being $1489 for each crossing. If you stretch that out and say a crossing needs to be replaced every 25 years that leaves $37,242 for every crossing to be replaced within that year. With my understanding of the current cost of grade crossings there would only be enough funding for fewer than 900 crossing each year. Using that as a model for replacing crossings, that would put us on a 167-year replacement cycle. I only use this as a dramatic example of how our current funding system is in great need of being addressed before our rail infrastucture has a catistrophic failure. With President-elect Obama’s focus on infrastucture, my hope is there is a concern for rail infrastructure outside of Amtrak that will be addressed.

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/safetealu/factsheet1401drhxhazards.htm
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/safetealu/factsheets/railcrossings.htm
http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/86
http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/767395
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook, Second Edition. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 1986.

(Disclaimer:  The views, opinions, and subject matter are based upon Mr. Wilson’s personal experiences/research and are not those of the Foundation.  The Foundation in no way expresses expertise or common knowledge of its content)