Train crossings can be accident prone. Cars/trucks stuck on tracks, people standing on them, etc.
The idea here is to have parallel train crossings. Imagine you have a road with a train crossing. Then, you have another crossing 1/2 mile down the road from the first. These two crossings are connected by a Y on either side of them, about two miles from the crossing, so a train going either direction can use either crossing.
Both crossings have the usual lights, bells, and gates, as well as a CCTV camera that can be viewed by the train conductor. (See link to Train TV idea.) The gates at both crossings come down at the same time.
This setup allows a conductor to view what is on the tracks at the two crossings. If there is a car stuck on the tracks of crossing 1, the conductor can use a switch in the train to direct it to the unblocked crossing, preventing an accident. After all, what is the chance that BOTH crossings are blocked at the same time?
Also, this would lower the suicide-by-train rate, as the conductor would simply use the other crossing.-- wolstech, Aug 17 2007 I bet a train cannot switch tracks at a speed at which it could not stop within half a mile. But a bun for the suicide prevention aspect, and fishbone for slowing me down too much on my way to work (I do take a train every day) with trains taking your Y switches everywhere. So it's neutral.-- globaltourniquet, Aug 17 2007 as if anyone is stupid enough to do themselves in on a spot that is avoidable by a train.... why wouldn't they just go tie themselves down to the tracks upstream of the fork?-- quantum_flux, Aug 17 2007 Or wait to see which track it's coming on and jump in front of it then? Uh-oh. Fishbone.-- globaltourniquet, Aug 17 2007 Dude, it would be MUCH cheaper to eliminate the crossing altogether by building a simple bridge or underpass.
Instead you suggest building several miles of new railway track for each crossing?? The land acquisition costs alone would run into the hundreds of millions.-- kinemojo, Aug 17 2007 random, halfbakery