Andrew Fields: "I'm not sure of the reasoning behind this but I believe there is a reason for it. The federal government requires that these signs, a requirement that probably predates frequent installations of crossing signals. And as you know, the government rarely repeals laws, especially the stupid and pointless ones. This is similar to that silly law that school buses are required to stop and open their doors at ALL crossings. I don't like that law at all, especially if the bus is empty."
Getmebill@sbcglobal.net: "Other than the fact that the law requires a warning sign in advance... I suppose if the law allowed for no advance warning sign in some situations it would open up a big can of worms."
gtw4070@gmail.com: "As much warning as possible in my opinion. I don't care how close they are, put them in anyway.
Besides, they look cool :)
Senko LKE: "The advance RR Xing warning sign should be installed no less than 50 meters from the actual crossing itself. Supposing it is a sign for warning motorists and pedestrians of a crossing meters ahead, it should be located quite far away from the crossing, to actually serve its purpose. Installing it right in the crossing is pretty pointless, since we have already the
crossbuck (either alone or in the signals) as a warning of a crossing. That sign should be used as an advance warning, and not as a marker of a crossing, so it can actually prevent motorists of a crossing ahead, and take all the pertinent precautions. Reflective versions would be very helpful at night too, because they would act as an excellent warning for the driver, before the lights of his car reaches the crossbuck or the gates.
As for my opinion, they should be in every crossing, and no less than 50 meters from the signals. Also, they should be installed in adjacent roads, where the sight of the signals might be obstructed.
Over here in Argentina we have sometimes those issues too. Except that we don't have those signs. There are others. There are actually four kinds of "advance RR xing warning sign". The most modern type is like a YIELD sign, only with the triangle pointing up, and a small steam engine depicted on it. Sometimes it also comes with an red-and-white striped rectangular sign under it. Two older kinds can be also found too. Diamond-shaped signs (like the ones showing left/right turns) depicting either a fence (on crossing with gates, be it manual or signals) or one with a barbed-wire-like line crossed with a big black X (for crossings without gates). The last kind is just a crossbuck located ahead the crossing.
As for my opinion, my answer is that either the people who install those signs don't understand exactly what their purpose
is, or they're just way too lazy to make the work as it must be done. "Stick the sign there...as long as it is before the crossing, who cares where?"
TrainmanWP: "I'm divided on that. I mean yes I agree that warning signs can be too close to the crossing. I've seen that once in Governuer, New York. And I've seen it on a few crossings in Indiana east of Hobart/ Merrilville and south of Valparaso. Well the tracks were paralell to the road called US30. And a lot of the crossings, well some of them have the warning sign too close to the crossing. Therey're also like this between Tucson and Eloy paralell to Interstate 10. Maybe it's not all that necessary to put a Warning sign too close to the crossing because people are going to see it. But something tells me that if Warning signs did not exist before every crossing, it might be confusing. I didn't know about warning signs until I was like five or six years old. Advance Warning signs should however be used where a crossing is hard to see.
As for my opinion, When I lived at the L.A. Harbor area in California, warning signs were not placed close too close together, and if a crossing was too close, warning signs would not be used. This was especially true for SP crossings.
When I moved to Wickenburg, AZ in 1987, the warning signs were within 10 feet from the signals, which still remain there to this day. I found that a little weird, for a 7 year old mind, but upon seeing that ATSF did that on a lot of signals along the US 60 East of Wickenburg, I guess I accepted that this is what ATSF did. Now, almost 20 years later, I really don't mind. They can be there, or they can't be there. However when I get my HO layout up, if that situation comes up, a warning sign will not be used, instead, I'll use signs similar to these.
Kind of ironic, the Vulture Mine Rd. crossing in Wickenburg didn't have warning signs on either side of the crossing, althought there were poles in the ground for them. Even the smaller signal went without a crossbuck for 3 years (1990-1993)! The warning signs were finally installed on both sides of the crossing when BNSF took over ATSF's railroad lines.
