Backwards

[cabman701]

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=303795

Notice where the lights are mounted!

Also, the gate is not all the way down. The caption on the photo mentions that the engine has been switching... so my guess is that the engineer is impatient and didn't wait for the gates to fully lower before preceding.

[Smjh1979]

Maybe there was a flagger on the other side of the crossing? (I hope)...

That installation was pretty bad... That gate looks very faded too.

[cabman701]

I did a little Street View surfing and found the crossing. Both signals are set up like that.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&source= ... 16,,0,4.44

That's not all. The crossing one street to the east is controlled by traffic lights!

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&source= ... 72405&z=15

And one for Rich... GRS plastic lights with a SORS sign!

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&source= ... 88,,0,4.58

[owensri]

I did a little Street View surfing and found the crossing. Both signals are set up like that.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&source= ... 16,,0,4.44

That's not all. The crossing one street to the east is controlled by traffic lights!

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&source= ... 72405&z=15

And one for Rich... GRS plastic lights with a SORS sign!

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&source= ... 88,,0,4.58

Hey, that looks just like my signal...

[illinoistrains]

for the first crossing mentioned, my guess was the road was in a valley, but after seeing GSV, it is probably just an odd instilation.

For the second crossing, it really should be aganst the law to use traffic lights only as crossing signals, i cant stand that!

[Smjh1979]

It should be, I agree, but if you look at the MUTCD 2003 revision 2, there is a section listed there for traffic lights to be used on very light spurs. The MUTCD 2009 is expected to leave it listed, but I would do away with it, and put in gateless signals.