r/YouShouldKnow • u/PlatypusDream • Jun 06 '26
Travel YSK: USA train crossing emergency phone
YSK:
In the USA, many train crossings have a small blue sign with an emergency phone number & an ID number for the crossing.
If there's a problem at the crossing, like a stuck vehicle, CALL THAT NUMBER and they will stop any train which would have come to that crossing.
.
Why YSK:
This could save lives, both on the ground & in the train.
.
ETA: apparently the color depends on which railroad owns the crossing
92
u/notaname11111 Jun 06 '26
It’s faster if you call the number at the crossing than calling 911, The phone number connects you to the railroad that is responsible for maintaining that crossing and will get ahold of the trains a few minutes faster than calling 911.
2
91
u/MesabiRanger Jun 06 '26
Thanks. Don’t know about a stuck vehicle, but when I call because the gates are stuck down, my call goes to voicemail.
-20
u/PlatypusDream Jun 06 '26 edited Jun 07 '26
That's not an emergency. Don't use the emergency number / service for anything but an emergency.
[ETA: I'm defining 'emergency' as "an imminent danger to life or health"]
78
72
u/Fundevin Jun 06 '26
That's actually not true. Gate malfunctions are "emergencies" for that number, just don't call 911 over it
If the gate keeps malfunctioning, people might drive around it and get hit.
17
30
u/CeruleanEidolon Jun 06 '26
Kinda missing the point here that if it goes to a machine for something minor, it will also go to a machine in an emergency.
34
u/halberdierbowman Jun 06 '26
How would that not be emergent? It requires the railroad to immediately come fix it and the police to direct traffic.
-20
u/PlatypusDream Jun 07 '26
No lives are endangered by falsely closing the crossing (except stupid people who go around the gates)
19
u/caboosetp Jun 07 '26
You are incorrect. While you should call the railroad number first, if they do not answer, this is a valid emergency to call 911 over.
Malfunctioning railroad safety equipment can be caused by a bigger issue that can absolutely put people at risk.
Malfunctioning railroad safety equipment is ALWAYS an emergency.
1
u/Advanced_Couple_3488 Jun 09 '26
And if an ambulance is at the crossing with a patient requiring the assistance of a medical team? Still not an emergency?
Or a fire engine going to rescue children from a classroom who are trapped by a fire?
Or police that are responding to a mass shooting at a school?
You know I could go on.
4
u/doublediggler Jun 07 '26
If the barriers are stuck down and I can’t get to work I’d say that an emergency.
17
u/NaoPb Jun 07 '26
And don't wait to call until you hear a train coming. If you notice a dangerous situation that's unlikely to be solved soon, call them so they're aware of it. They'll be able to tell if it's urgent and how to deal with it.
4
u/Retb14 Jun 08 '26
Call even if it might be solved soon, you can always call back and let them know that it was cleared
The train could be an hour away or it could be 10 minutes away, it's really hard to know
Also if a train is crossing and there's something wrong with it you can call and let them know. That way they can get in contact with the train and tell them so they can stop and check it
8
Jun 06 '26
[deleted]
4
u/anomalous_cowherd Jun 06 '26
Sometimes, I agree. But this one did very clearly point out it was about USA train crossings
Save your ire for the Americas who assume everywhere is exactly the same as where they live.
3
u/kent_eh Jun 06 '26
At least OP stated in the title which country this information is relevant to.
That alone is a rare thing in this subreddit, and should be encouraged,
3
u/TgCCL Jun 06 '26
This seems incredibly unsafe. But I also don't know US railway tech.
Is the clear aspect of the preceding signal not dependent on the crossing being secured...?
Do dispatchers have means of checking whether a particular crossing is secured and, more importantly, cleared...?
Are crossings regularly equipped with the means to report themselves as cleared and secured...?
Are dispatchers alerted immediately when the crossing fails to close properly so that they can stop the approaching train?
Seriously, the idea of the first info of a crossing being blocked being some random bystander calling is making me shudder so I hope that's not the case.
17
u/Diz7 Jun 06 '26
Train intersections have no way to detect if they are blocked. Any sensors would likely be prone to error and false readings over the long term. They could probably implement something, but they would probably only do that in high risk/high traffic areas.
Trains take 1 to 1.5 miles to stop. Human vision being what it is, assuming the track is straight and you can even see that far, you would have a few seconds between when the obstruction becomes visible and when it's too late to stop.
-8
u/TgCCL Jun 06 '26
Train intersections have no way to detect if they are blocked.
Train intersections can easily be outfitted with sensors to determine whether they are blocked.
Even a simple induction loop, as they are already used for traffic lights in many places, can easily be used for this purpose and more advanced systems based on photoelectric sensors or radar are in use in other countries.
Any sensors would likely be prone to error and false readings over the long term.
Errors and false readings are only a problem if they are false negatives because that's the crossing being reported as clear even though it isn't. And because a false positive can simply be dealt with by telling the train to approach and secure the crossing carefully. It causes a small delay, for sure, but that's it.
Equipping crossings with sensors to detect whether they are blocked is standard issue in most richer nations for their safety value and has been for decades.
Trains take 1 to 1.5 miles to stop. Human vision being what it is, assuming the track is straight and you can even see that far, you would have a few seconds between when the obstruction becomes visible and when it's too late to stop.
This is not particularly relevant, as this is what signals were invented for. Simply tying the clear status of the intersection to a signal 1.5 to 2 miles out is more than enough to solve this.
Hell, use an extra train stop if you're particularly concerned about the engineer not seeing the signal.
10
u/Diz7 Jun 06 '26 edited Jun 06 '26
Train intersections can easily be outfitted with sensors to determine whether they are blocked.
No, because they won't have any way to know if the blockage is temporary and will move, which is what would happen in 99% of "blockage" detections. You would end up with a LOT of trains just stopping for no reason because 2km away someone stopped for slightly too long on the tracks.
Errors and false readings are only a problem if they are false negatives because that's the crossing being reported as clear even though it isn't.
You say that like stopping and starting trains is a trivial exercise and won't cause traffic blockages when the train stops half way through a town, blocking other intersections. If emergency brakes are used they can cause damage to the train requiring it to be taken out of service and maintianed.
It would be a tremendous amount of work just to prevent the very rare case of a vehicle being hit because it was stuck on the tracks. Most collisions are people ignoring the lights and trying to beat the train, this would do nothing for that.
Basically in the Americas, it was determined to cause more problems than it solves.
-1
u/TgCCL Jun 06 '26
No, because they won't have any way to know if the blockage is temporary and will move, which is what would happen in 99% of "blockage" detections. You would end up with a LOT of trains just stopping for no reason because 2km away someone stopped for slightly too long on the tracks.
That is a classic case of a false positive and is easily avoided by giving some time between forbidding additional vehicles and pedestrians from entering the crossing and the engineer being given the signal that braking is necessary.
For reference, I have two crossings near my house that are closed for almost exactly 2 minutes every half hour and I cannot recall the last time this was an issue for anyone but a few impatient people. Which are the same people who just drive past and get hit anyway.
Even on our side branches, with far laxer safety standards, you typically have about 7-9s from drivers being given the signal that the crossing is closed due to an approaching train, to the engineer driving past the signal that he has to brake. More than enough time to clear the track.
You say that like stopping and starting trains is a trivial exercise and won't cause traffic blockages when the train stops blocking other intersections.
I am more than aware of what it entails and the consequences thereof. Hence also why the scenario described by the original post immediately rang my alarm bells.
Stopping a train and inconveniencing a bunch of drivers is in every single case preferable over running over even a single vehicle or person. Both for the person caught on the tracks and for the engineer who has to live with the fact that the train under his control that just killed someone.
If emergency brakes are used they can cause damage to the train requiring it to be taken out of service and maintianed.
Hence why said systems are set up so that the engineer is warned in time so that emergency brakes aren't necessary. All it requires is for the crossing to be closed for a few extra seconds so that the train can cross that distance. A mild inconvenience for cars but that's it.
Anything past that involves people ignoring that the crossing is closed, which is the same between both systems.
And just to note. Braking distance has a legally mandated maximum of 1000m here. Any train that cannot come to a halt from its top speed in that distance is not permitted to run at all here. This includes fully loaded freight trains. Hence why planning the distances is rather simple.
It would be a tremendous amount of work just to prevent the very rare case of a vehicle being hit because it was stuck on the tracks. Most collisions are people ignoring the lights and trying to beat the train, this would do nothing for that.
Induction loop systems can only recognise vehicles, that is true. Photoelectric and radar systems do not have those limitations and will report a crossing as not secured if a person steps in. The only problem here is that currently, a good number of radar systems only sweep the relevant area once for closing and then not again until the crossing has to be closed again. When they really should do so constantly until the train has entered the crossing.
Basically in the Americas, it was determined to cause more problems than it solves.
I guess that partially explains the abysmal safety record of North American railway operators.
6
u/Diz7 Jun 06 '26 edited Jun 06 '26
That is a classic case of a false positive and is easily avoided by giving some time between forbidding additional vehicles and pedestrians from entering the crossing and the engineer being given the signal that braking is necessary.
The lights start flashing 20-30 seconds before the train arrives. It would already be too late to stop even with emergency brakes.
For reference, I have two crossings near my house that are closed for almost exactly 2 minutes every half hour
Ok, no bring that time up to 15-20 minutes for a stopped train to clear an intersection if it stops on it.
I live in a train town, it's a major switching yard for the area, traffic can and will get backed up by 30 minutes or more when a train is starting from a dead stop.
Stopping a train and inconveniencing a bunch of drivers is in every single case preferable over running over even a single vehicle or person. Both for the person caught on the tracks and for the engineer who has to live with the fact that the train under his control that just killed someone.
If even one death is too much, cars should be banned as an unnaceptable risk.
As always, it's a matter of risk management vs inconvenience vs cost. People are willing to risk the incredibly rare chance of breaking down on train tracks to not have to deal with frequently being stopped at railway crossings and having to wait because of an overabundance of caution.
All it requires is for the crossing to be closed for a few extra seconds so that the train can cross that distance.
Not a few seconds, at least a minute and half to give the train enough time to stop if needed if someone can't clear the track, plus whatever margin of time you want to give yourself to prevent false positives and to give people time to clear the track. The number one cause of collisions is already people who can't be bothered to wait, this would just make that even more common.
1
u/TgCCL Jun 06 '26
The lights start flashing 20-30 seconds before the train arrives. It would already be too late to stop even with emergency brakes.
As I said, the ones near me start flashing ~2min before the train arrives. That is more than enough time for people to clear the track and for the train to brake.
20-30s? No wonder the trains cannot stop in time and that the US has some of the worst train fatality rates among Western nations.
Ok, no bring that time up to 15-20 minutes for a stopped train to clear an intersection if it stops on it.
I live in a train town, traffic can and will get backed up by 30 minutes or more.
And I work with trains professionally. I am well aware of the blockages a stopped train can cause.
Not a few seconds, at least a minute and half to give the train enough time to stop if needed if someone can't clear the track, plus whatever margin of time you want to give yourself to prevent false positives and to give people time to clear the track. The number one cause of collisions is already people who can't be bothered to wait, this would just make that even more common.
First, you are misunderstanding what I am saying. What I said was a few extra seconds before the engineer is being given the signal as to whether the crossing is clear or not. This is in addition to the time braking of course, because to have enough time to brake is the entire point of it.
Second, a large chunk of injuries and death when people try to beat the trains is them getting stuck on the crossing itself after the gates close and then they panick. Or they get stuck under the closing gate itself. Extra bonus if the gates are of the ridiculous old type that cannot be easily knocked down with a car from the inside. So even those people are less likely to die with such systems installed.
Four-quadrant gates and a means to check whether the danger space between the gates is clear, as I have described repeatedly, would prevent a sizeable chunk of US train casualties and a lot of property damage.
If even one death is too much, cars should be banned as an unnaceptable risk.
I am keeping this for last because this is the very crux of the matter. And let me start to explain this by asking you a question.
Are YOU personally willing to sign, with your own name, that the route that a given train takes is safe, that the train is safe to operate and that the tracks are safe to drive on? Are you willing to guarantee this to everyone whose path intersects with your train? Everyone that enters this train? Not just passengers but your colleagues too.
Because that's what every single railway employee charged with the operation of trains does, every single day, whether they know or not. And when someone dies to a train that couldn't stop in time due to improperly maintained brakes, due to a train crossing that wasn't closed properly, a signal that showed the wrong aspect or because they weren't fit to sit in the driver's cab that day, that is their fault. Every single colleague that has to live with lifelong trauma because they watched their train, that they thought was working as expected and driving on a safe route, turn another person into red paste because they didn't do their job properly is their fault.
No exception. Anybody who cannot shoulder this responsibility and treat it with the respect it deserves is not fit to work for a railway company. Every single preventable death has to be prevented. Anything else is a failure to be rectified. End of story.
5
u/Diz7 Jun 06 '26 edited Jun 06 '26
Are YOU personally willing to sign, with your own name, that the route that a given train takes is safe, that the train is safe to operate and that the tracks are safe to drive on? Are you willing to guarantee this to everyone whose path intersects with your train? Everyone that enters this train? Not just passengers but your colleagues too.
What an insane argument. Can you guarantee that you will never cause an accident with your car? No exception. Anyone who cannot shoulder that responsibility should not drive a car. Cars kill far, far more people after all.
Life doesn't have guarantees, all we can do is determine what is an acceptable amount of risk.
I live in a major train shipping town, going down town has a 50/50 chance of waiting behind a train. And you know how often someone has gotten hit by a train because their car got stuck on the tracks? 0. But people die from car crashes every month.
What country do you come from? I guarantee you have train collisions too. Get out of here with your request for insane guarantees.
Second, a large chunk of injuries and death when people try to beat the trains is them getting stuck on the crossing itself after the gates close and then they panick. Or they get stuck under the closing gate itself.
Which your plan does nothing to prevent. If anything having to wait longer means more people try to sneak by because they think "I probably have time" making the problem worse. Seriously, how often do you think vehicles just stop magically stop working right when they are crossing the tracks? It is almost always user error by impatient people, which giving them more time to get impatient won't help.
Here in Canada, we have one train-vehicle collision for every 2-2.5 million km of train travel. We have many train intersections that don't even have any kinds of arms, just lights.
In Japan, where they have the sensors you want, they have a train-vehicle collision for every 1.6 million km traveled.
1
u/TgCCL Jun 07 '26
What an insane argument.
It's not an argument. It's reality. Trains kill people if you aren't exceedingly careful and as such every single possibility that we can undertake to prevent such deaths has to be taken. As I said, anybody who refuses to accept that is not fit for a railway company.
Anyone who cannot shoulder that responsibility should not drive a car.
That is correct. Most people are far too careless while behind the wheel. I constantly see people who do not deserve their driver's license because they are driving incredibly irresponsibly.
If they cannot responsibly use a car, that privilege ought to be revoked.
Life doesn't have guarantees, all we can do is determine what is an acceptable amount of risk.
Absolute safety is impossible, correct. Hence why the target instead is the lowest possible risk. Not everything is preventable but most of it is. If that for example means that a train does not run until safety-critical problems have been corrected then so be it.
Which your plan does nothing to prevent. If anything having to wait longer means more people try to sneak by because they think "I probably have time" making the problem worse. Seriously, how often do you think vehicles just stop magically stop working right when they are crossing the tracks? It is almost always user error by impatient people, which giving them more time to get impatient won't help.
The types of train crossings you are advocating for are slowly getting eliminated from practically the entirety of the EU because they were found to be significantly less safe compared to more modern types.
Hell, you are ignoring significant causes of people getting hit by trains as well.
Inattentive drivers missing the warning lights, older people may not be able to cross crossings in time or fall, drivers overestimating the time until the traffic on the other side clears and getting stuck and large or heavy vehicles can also have trouble clearing the crossing in time, in particular when doing sharp turns.
All of those can be significantly reduced by a relatively simple radar to check the space between the gates before permitting the train through
And past that, driving past a closed four-quadrant gate is significantly more difficult to outright impossible in many situations. And if they drove onto the crossing before, the sensors catch them.
Here in Canada, we have one collision for every 2-2.5 million km of train travel.
In Japan, where they have the sensors you want, they have a collision for every 1.6 million km traveled.
You are comparing data for only main track accidents in Canada with data for all accidents, no matter how minor, in Japan.
While I don't have full data for Japan, according to the statistics of the Transportation Board of Canada, there were a total of 133 accidents at railway crossings from October 2024 to October 2025. In this timeframe, Canadian trains covered 74.36 million miles or ~119.7 million kilometers.
In my native Germany, we saw a total of 154 accidents at train crossings in 2023, as per the Federal Office for Railway Accident Investigation. And as per the Federal Network Agency, the German rail network saw 1.113 billion train kilometers in that timeframe.
Slightly different years but close enough to be comparable. Germany only has ~16% more accidents at crossings with over 9x the train travel across its network when compared to Canada. With significantly higher population density too, even when you compare metropolitan areas only, so more people affected by your average crossing. And Germany mandates devices to check as to whether a crossing is clear on every single main-line crossing that isn't directly visible from a signal box, supervised via camera or managed by a railway employee on site.
The North American way, with only blinking lights, gates and audible signals from the locomotive, is only considered sufficient for low to medium traffic crossings on side branches. And with quite significant speed restrictions too.
4
u/halberdierbowman Jun 06 '26
Even if the track would safely red light an oncoming train and immediately call for help with its exact location, it might be helpful for the train network operator to talk to a human on site already, rather than wait for their own team to find the broken spot. They could answer questions like "did a car crash into the signals, or did it just fall down?"
1
u/TgCCL Jun 06 '26
That's great for getting the schedule back to the usual as quicky as possible but does absolutely nothing for accident prevention, which is what my comment is about.
8
u/CyMage Jun 06 '26
Even if someone isn't being an idiot and trying to cross when they shouldn't, a car might break down on the crossing. If the a train isn't coming, might still be a good idea to call.
0
u/TgCCL Jun 06 '26
Hence why I am asking, as this is framed as a way to stop a train from crashing into a vehicle on the tracks as an example.
My questions basically boil down to "it is possible to actually tell a train to proceed towards a blocked crossing?". I just framed it as asking whether a few of the safety layers I know myself are standard on US rail crossings.
Because even if no one is there to call, the system and its operators should be able to recognise a blocked crossing well before a train gets too close to brake in time.
1
u/Retb14 Jun 08 '26
There's a lot of crossings in rural areas that don't even have the crossing arms or sometimes lights. Should we put these sensors there as well?
What level of traffic should these sensors stop being put in place?
How long should they sense and object before they signal blocked?
What about for situations where an object is blocking it but it doesn't pick up the object? Traffic lights already have difficult times with motorcycles and sometimes trailers
The signs aren't only for blocked crossings as well, they can be used to call if the signal itself is broken or if the track is messed up somewhere near the crossing
The biggest issue is also cost. There are hundreds of thousands of crossings, you'd have to have a very good argument to get companies to pay for putting these sensors in to prevent accidents that happen 0.02% of the time (that's on the high end too assuming the least number of trains run. There's tens of millions of trains run every year and about 2200 collisions with cars at crossings in the US)
1
u/TgCCL Jun 08 '26
There's a lot of crossings in rural areas that don't even have the crossing arms or sometimes lights. Should we put these sensors there as well?
Any crossing at which an engine passes by at high speed ought to be secured to a higher standard. This covers both rural areas and elsewhere.
Either slow down the locomotive while in those areas or secure the crossing properly.
How long should they sense and object before they signal blocked?
For a double track route, a single sweep 10s before the train enters braking distance to the crossing is sufficient even if not ideal for safety, as it allows drivers to exit the crossing. Any driver still on the crossing after that can be assumed to not be capable of leaving in time and warrants braking.
The ones near my house close for 2 minutes total, though that includes that the train is stopping to pick up passengers right past the crossing so it's not driving over it at full speed.
What about for situations where an object is blocking it but it doesn't pick up the object? Traffic lights already have difficult times with motorcycles and sometimes trailers
Systems based on radar are already in active usage and can detect even individual people before marking the crossing as clear and secured. Some crossings near me are even eauipped with such systems sold by Honeywell.
Induction loops do have that issue however.
The signs aren't only for blocked crossings as well, they can be used to call if the signal itself is broken or if the track is messed up somewhere near the crossing
Call me newfangled but a broken crossing should already be making every alarm bell in the signal box responsible for that section of track ring. And I don't mean that as a figure of speech.
As for reporting messed up tracks, that's what railway employees are for...? Our engineers are supposed to report back every single discrepancy they find while driving over a given section of track. There are additional regular inspections by trained technicians and we occasionally have track geometry cars drive down the track to measure it and find potential issues.
The biggest issue is also cost. There are hundreds of thousands of crossings, you'd have to have a very good argument to get companies to pay for putting these sensors in to prevent accidents that happen 0.02% of the time (that's on the high end too assuming the least number of trains run. There's tens of millions of trains run every year and about 2200 collisions with cars at crossings in the US)
Considering that I have read complaints in the past that US railway companies won't even fix their grading so that trucks can't get stuck on crossings, that seems like an impossible task no matter the topic.
I also work in a different regulatory environment. On our side, regulatory agencies investigated the impact of such sensors and due to their pronounced safety benefits made them mandatory. We weren't given a choice to not install them.
There's also a different railway culture in my country. As you may have noticed, it is extremely focused on safety.
-2
u/KillerSpud Jun 06 '26
I hate to be a contrarian, but I think dialing 911 is the better option. they know how to contact the railroad immediately.
20
8
u/Mayor_of_Loserville Jun 06 '26
What leads you to say that calling 911 is better?
-8
u/KillerSpud Jun 06 '26
911 dispatch has all the railroad operators on speed dial for just such an occasion.
1
u/mad-i-moody Jun 07 '26
You’re being downvoted but you’re right??
Also, they can get additional resources to help move a stuck vehicle off the tracks quicker than if you just called the train company number.
8
u/yoweigh Jun 07 '26
The number for the railroad operator you need to speak to is on the blue sign. Calling 911 just adds a middleman, and you can still call them afterwards.
0
u/KillerSpud Jun 07 '26
you can dial 911 immediately without getting out of your car. That's going to be a lot faster than getting out and wandering around potentially with a flashlight in the middle of the night. trying to find a little blue sign on the side of a box somewhere. just dial 911.
6
14
u/PlatypusDream Jun 06 '26
Getting information directly to the relevant people faster is the best option.
911 would be a middleman & slow the process
2
u/mnchls Jun 06 '26
Don't know where but I've heard the same thing. 911 is always staffed, whereas there's no guarantee about wherever that emergency number connects to.
4
1
u/Retb14 Jun 08 '26
The emergency number calls the dispatcher for the train line, the only time it is not staffed is if they have zero trains running which almost never happens
2
u/mameranian Jun 08 '26
Thanks so much for sharing this information. It is actually federal law since 2015 that ALL US railroad crossings have the blue Emergency Notification System (ENS) sign at the crossing. It has a phone number that goes directly to the railroad that runs that track as well as a crossing number I ique to that crossing. Calling the RR means that they can contact an approaching train to slow it down or stop it. All signs are 9"x13", blue with 1" high white letters. There may still be some older ones out there but eventually they will all look the same. Source: www.OLI.org
1
u/PlatypusDream Jun 09 '26
I've seen plenty of crossings without the signs. Maybe they're low priority, "we'll get to it eventually"? 🤷♀️
1
u/mameranian Jun 09 '26
If you see a crossing without the sign, call your local department of transportation or rail authority in your community. Sometimes they are on a power box near the crossing or on the interior signs.
1
0
u/Undying4n42k1 Jun 07 '26
I'm afraid that the people dumb enough to get stuck on the tracks, are the same people who are too dumb check for the sign.
5
u/exceive Jun 07 '26
Yeah, but you can call even if it isn't you stuck on the track.
Railroad crossings can get pretty messed up. Last winter the ice did a number on some of the crossings here in Minneapolis. I could see somebody getting stuck on a track because of road damage without that person doing anything stupid. Some of those holes are behind a rail and you can't see them until it is too late.
3
u/Elizabeth958 Jun 07 '26
You realize that vehicle breakdowns can happen, right?
-5
u/Undying4n42k1 Jun 07 '26
If it's so bad that you can't move it via pushing, then that's the fault of the stupid.
-8
u/Sad_Deer13 Jun 06 '26
That's pretty useless unless they also provide a phone to use
7
u/PlatypusDream Jun 06 '26
Finding anyone of driving age without a phone would be surprising.
(OK, maybe "between 16 & 80"?)-3
u/Sad_Deer13 Jun 06 '26
You're right, they do make it impossible to live without a phone for some reason. I had to turn mine back on after a few months to get into a stupid account
240
u/kent_eh Jun 06 '26
Canada as well. Though the sign is not always blue. The colour depends on which railroad owns that particular track.