http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-cn-fines-20101221,0,1657828.story
It seems like CN was fined not for having the delays but misrepresenting the number of delays. [oops]
‘Activated’ the link.
Concur. How much of that occurred under E. Hunter Harrison’s watch ?
The STB’s press release on this is at: http://www.stb.dot.gov/__85256593004F576F.nsf/0/B614EF7F9ECBF8AB8525780000555D3C?OpenDocument
STB website for all things CN-EJ&E: http://www.stbfinancedocket35087.com/
STB website for documents related to the grade crossing blockages, which it calls the “CN Audit Report” site: http://www.stbfinancedocket35087.com/html/reviewandverification.html
There’s a ton of information there on both sides of this dispute - I encourage anyone with an interest in this to review it, and would not take too seriously pronouncements by anyone who hasn’t - there are nuances and details there that boggle the mind . . . . [:-^]
My sympathies are with the STB, which has been caught in the middle with having to referee this 'cat-fight . . . [swg]
- Paul North.
1457 times in two months? Would be interesting to know what the breakdown is…how many were blocked for 10 minutes and 15 minutes more than 20 minutes etc… Hopefully CN can vouch for their numbers to fight this. Around here trains sometimes take 10 minutes to clear a crossing…hey…they’re trains…some as long as 150 cars plus engines…moving at reduced speeds through built up areas.
Links to the actual STB Decision No. 27 in this matter - 41302, Decided: December 20, 2010; Service Date: (posted) Dec. 21, 2010, at:
PDF version (10 pages, approx. 39 KB in size) at:
- Paul North.
If I understand this, the underreported blockages details are part of CN’s own data, so they would not be able to refute the claims of these extra blockages. So, it sounds like the issue is that CN has all the information on blockages, but withheld part of it.
This story sure seems to have the potential to tip the balance in public perception about whether the CN opposers have a point about delays, or whether they are just a bunch of spoiled NIMBYS.
Back when Eola Road was a sleepy two lane thouroughfare that was heavily traveled by Aurora residents, especially at rush hour, the SIX track crossing had Metra, Amtrak, Burlington Northern (this was more than ten years ago) freights and numerous switching moves all day long but at rush hour it would not be very unusual to wait at that crossing for twenty to thirty minutes at a time…I wonder what the CN “nimby’s” would say about that sort of experience. Back then, although we residents who live near Eola road surely didn’t like the delays, we “lived with” the delays as we knew the Q was there a hell of a long time before any of our homes were there. Gosh, I hate NIMBY’s!
1457 times in 61 days…works out to 23.88 times per DAY or one such violation every single hour of every single day in November and December! Doesn’t sound right to me… The audit itself may be faulty…although numbers don’t lie they can be interpreted in a number of different ways. My guess is that’s what’s happening…and that would shed some light on why CN is showing only 14 violations verses the astronomical 1457.
Maybe the part about the 10 minutes isn’t clearly defined…is that 10 minutes from crossing lights flashing to lights not flashing…or is that 10 as measured beyond what would reasonably be expected for a train to clear a crossing? Lots of room for interpretation if this isn’t nailed down…
It is too bad about the endless tug of war between CN and the locals who oppose CN’s initiative in those communities. Ultimately CN exists to supply its customers with transportation, and that demand is driven by consumer demand, including those folks who so vociferously oppose CN…maybe they don’t consume anything or perhaps they would be willing to pay more for a less efficient rail network or perhaps they would be happy with more trucks on their quiet roads.
In reading some of those documents the argument that CN tried to float (if I read correctly) was that they thought only stopped train-blockages were to count and not moving train-blockages. I don’t know if I necessarily buy that argument in this case as the language of the agreement stated that all blockages were to be reported. I am taking this judgement as the board saying to CN “We know what’s been going on: go forth and sin no more” and hopefully the lesson sticks.
A routine 9000 foot train moving at less than 10.3 MPH will occupy a point for in excess of 10 minutes.
You may hate NIMBY’s, but a lot more people dislike the new boy on the block, CN, which seems to have a problem with the truth and delivering on the promises they made for the EJ&E takeover application. They are lucky the J provided so many grade separations years ago.
Good questions. Here’s “the rest of the story” - short version is: most crossing blockages are down by almost 11 %, but there are still 4 crossings where they are up by major double-digit percentages, which is still giving the STB heartburn. Full text of Decision No. 26 Decided: December 17, 2010, Service Date: Dec. 21, 2010, No. 40961 in Docket No. FD_35087_0 at:
PDF version (26 pages, approx. 119 KB in size) at:
See especially the breakdown of the data in the Appendices at pg. 16 ff.
- Paul North.
One more point: The Board stated it could have been a “multi-million dollar penalty” instead, but was mitigated by CN’s subsequent conduct, as more fully explained in the STB majority’s (2) decision opinion - the was also a single dissent for no penalty. The Board’s opinion noted that the penalty could be up to $5,000 per violation or per day that the violations continued, and that the violations went on for like 370+ days and included some 1,400+ separate violations.
The Board didn’t state how such a penalty would have been computed - either/ or ? the larger ? smaller ? both together ? Just for the heck of it, I’ll point out that at the $5,000 rate, the 1,400+ violations could have amounted to around $7+ million, and/ or the 370+ days could have amounted to another $1.85 million - altogether, between $7 and $9 million. CN sure dodged a bullet with this one - but it appears that it is now also spending a similar ton of money to monitor, review, and report on all this. I still own some shares - I wonder how all this will be addressed and explained in the Annual Report for 2010 . . . [:-^]
- Paul North.
The report makes it pretty clear that the CN was reporting only stopped blockages of 10 minutes or more, when they were required to report all blockages - stopped or moving. The board found that the correct data was available from RTU’s at each crossing that date back to the J-era. So the knee-jerk reaction of some posters blaming NIMBY’s is again wrong; CN selectively reported data, even though the actual data was from its own measurements and showed improvements (on delays) since the merger.
Although this thread is not the best place to post this, the audience is about the same, so:
The now-infamous Friday, October 15, 2010 CN ‘broken knuckle’ event and the resulting 2-hour crossing blockage in the Barrington area is more fully explained in what is captioned on the STB site as the “December 1, 2010 TRAC Letter” (PDF format, 16 pages, approx. 1.6 MB in size), at:
http://www.stbfinancedocket35087.com/html/pdfs/comments/101201_TRAC_Ltr.pdf
http://www.stbfinancedocket35087.com/html/comments.html
The details are on pgs. 6 - 7 of the PDF, which is a “Report on Grade Crossing Blockages - Barrington, Il” by Dennis S. Morgan, Railroad Safety Specialist III-Operating Practices, of the Illinois Comerce Commission (in SOuth Barrington ! ). In short, that knuckle had a “30% old break and casting flaws”. i was also interested to see that the procedure the train crew used to fix it was pretty much as was predicted by BaltACD in the separate thread here on that topic from back then, if I recall correctly.
- Paul North.
I agree. I am generally quite pro-business, it being the economic engine of the modern world. However, in view of recent events of great proportions, during which some large corporations stood hat-in-hand before congress for well-understood reasons (on both sides), we have this? Obfuscation, misrepresentation, corrupt culture maybe? Certainly questionable leadership at various strata within the organization.
Indeed, this doesn’t go over well between my ears. I dislike seeing corporate behaviour of this nature. It looks callous and wonton.
I think they got off very lightly. Close to a wink.
Crandell
Just to make sure that no misunderstandings should ever crop up on the forum, I must clarify that I was not blaming NIMBYS (in case anyone thinks I was). I was actually doing the opposite of blaming NIMBYS because the story seems to validate the citizen complaints about blocked crossings while discrediting CN.
However, I am not convinced that what the FRA required CN to report was clearly understood by both parties or clearly communicated from the FRA to CN. I would therefore not be surprised if CN does win a legal challenge to the fine.
Without reading all the documentation, I guess for the intended level of reporting
A 9000 foot train proceeding across 4 road crossings 1/4 mile apart at 10 MPH and taking 10.5 minutes to clear each of them in continuous movement would be considered 4 violations of the 10 minute barrier?
from Note 14 in the report:
Several of the conditions imposed in the Approval Decision address crossing blockages of 10 minutes or more. Condition No. 2 requires CN to report “the frequency, cause and duration of train blockages of crossings of 10 minutes in duration or greater, listing each delay and including any notifications from persons affected by the blockage and the time of the beginning and end of each delay. [CN] shall summarize the cause of each type of blockage that [CN] self-report[s] and shall state how [CN] intend[s] to reduce the incidence of all blockages not attributed to emergencies or weather-related incidents.” Approval Decision, slip op. at 73. Condition No. 3 requires CN to distribute to communities adjacent to, or intersected by, the former EJ&E line the contact information for the railroad’s community liaison to ensure that the railroad is “aware of the highway/rail at-grade crossing blockages lasting 10 minutes or more.” Voluntary Mitigation No. 35 requires that CN “operate under U.S. Operating Rule No. 526 (Public Crossings), which provides that a public crossing must not be blocked longer than 10 minutes unless it cannot be avoided and that, if possible, rail cars, engines, and rail equipment may not stand closer than 200 feet from a highway/rail at-grade crossing when there is an adjacent track (Applicants 2008a). If the blockage is likely to exceed this time frame, then the train shall be promptly cut to clear the blocked crossing or crossings.” Id. at 63.
Given that the CN/EJ&E’s autom
Plus the “J” did not run 150-car monster trains.
I find it hard to believe that CN was purposely under reporting the crossing delays… surely they must have known that an independent auditor could easily uncover such a massive under report…i.e. 1457 verses 14 from CN. a more likely expanation is that there’s a difference of opinion on how the data is to be interpreted…CN can’t be THAT stupid knowing this is a political hot potato.