I believe that the STB’s consultant, HDR Engineering, used the activation/ deactivation times and duration of the crossing signals as a ‘proxy’ to measure how long the crossing was blocked. Since no one was officially watching at each such incident, I don’t see how anyone could reconstruct how much time was stopped vs. how much was moving slowly, etc., unless accurate records of that were kept at the time for just this purpose. See the Technical Memos that I linked above for more details on that, esp. the one that discussed the ‘‘RTU’s’’ in the signal equipment bungalows.
To a motorist, a slow-moving train blocks the crossing just as much as a stopped one. And a train that’s moving at a speed so slow that it keeps the crossing blocked for 10 minutes or longer is also likely having operational issues of some kind - either something in its way, or a mechanical defect or problem of its own of some kind - which is not desirable for the railroad, either, and so ought to be investigated and addressed as well.
So I think arguing whether the train was moving or stopped during those 10 minutes and longer is either splitting hairs, or besides the real point here - which is, Is the railroad having a significantly worse effect or impact on the grade crossings after the CN-EJ&E merger, than before ? As I pointed out above, viewed ‘overall’ the aggregate crossing blockages may very well have improved by about 12
Hardly absurd at all. As I said, the ordinances are concerned with the total time the crossing is blocked for non-railroad traffic. You can check various city ordinances. If a train is moving at a fairly normal speed, it shouldn’t be a problem. The problem on the EJ&E line is very slow movement from the main CN lines to and from the J, very much like switching, but usually there is not a set out. This was never a problem prior to the CN takeover of the J.
I found this:
“Model Traffic Ordinance Section 300.360 states that is unlawful for a train to prevent the use of any street for purposes of travel for a period of time longer than five minutes; except this does not apply to a moving train or to one stopped because of an emergency or for repairs necessary before it can proceed safely.”
In some places (CA, Montana) the time limit is 10 minutes.
The GCOR says, “when practical standing trains or switching movements must avoid blocking public crossings longer than 10 minutes.”
But in Canada, the clock doesn’t start until the train comes to a complete halt. Maybe that is why the CN is having problems here?
“when practical”. These are just feel-good ordinances to make the local leaders look good to local constituents. If they are even enforcable, and the RR pays the fine, it’s just peanuts. Not worth challenging them in court, where many of them probably would be overturned.
The emphasized portion below appears to support zardoz’s point - does it not ?[emphasis added - PDN]
A few weeks ago I watched an NS local crew do most of a set-out and pick-up of 5 or 6 cars to/ from a connecting shortline, during the entire time of which they were either on the crossing or in the circuit, so that the gates remained down the entire time. I had to leave before they were done, but by that point it had been at least 15 minutes - and likely almost 20 until they finally cleared the crossing. But there were 8 ‘back-and-forth’ moves involved, plus the 9th to pull forward and go - I’ll go into those details some other time - and what with the necessary incidentals of walking, applying and releasing handbrakes on and making the cuts and recoupling the remaining standing train, the blocks of cars and the like, etc., the crew was hustling pretty good and about as fast as could reasonably be expected. It tied up a major street - 31st St. SW - pretty well, but fortunately there’s an underpass just 2 blocks west, and another mile west is a combination of another grade crossing, an overpass, and an underpass that pretty much tie together 2 roads that essentially parallel the tracks about 1/4 mile north and south of them, so it wasn’t too bad except for the tractor-trailers that
I don’t think so. As I understand the wording, a train engaged in stop and start switching type moves, as you described, (as is occurring on the former J) that occupies a crossing for more than the 5 (or 10) minutes would be fined. But since the fine is small, zardoz indicates the RR’s ignore the ordinances. And although the GCOR also comments on this (see previous post) I guess that is ignored as well.
If it wasn’t for the bad PR, and moreso the waste of money, the RR would fly in a few million-dollar lawyers and after they were done with the courts, the towns would be paying the RR every time a train passed its crossings.
I guess you are interpreting from some perspective which is beyond me. The point is that a moving train is one that is not stopping, backing, stopping, uncoupling, etc. Check with a lawyer if you doubt my understanding to be correct.
According to your post, GCOR says “when practical”. If I’m switching an industry, it is not practical for me to send the train 1/2 mile down the line to clear the crossing circuit every time I make a switching move. Most RRers do not try to block crossings any longer than necessary, but sometimes you have to. There’s usually another way to get by the tracks right down the road. Plus, patience is a virtue.
The fine may be small, and the ordinances may be ignored, but the dark side of blocking crossings is that it fuels the risk-taking cause for grade crossing crashes. Railroaders wonder why drivers are in such a hurry to get across. The prospect of a wildly unreasonable delay causes drivers to try to beat the train. So the true cost of blocking grade crossings is far higher than the industry realizes or acknowledges.
There is also a nice blog on Trains about CN starting to run the RR for the customer’s convenience instead of their own. Seems they were pushing customers to ship and receive 7 days a week in a steady flow so that CN’s costs could be minimized. Caused all sorts of ill will, apparently. Tail wagging the dog IMHO.
Oh, OK - now I see your point. You appear to be engrafting / inserting into the enacted Ordinance the words ‘‘continuously’’ and/ or ‘‘in the same direction’’.
The standard responses to that approach - among others - are that if the Town wanted those words to be there, they would have put them there; but since they didn’t, they’re not to be considered that way; and since the Town drafted the Ordinance and created that ambiguity/ vagueness, it is construed against them.
With respect, I’m sure that is indeed a perspective that’s beyond you - it’s what they taught me in law school over 30 years ago, and subsequent private and municipal practice - Pennsylvania Atty. ID No. 33054 (currently inactive), as I’m presently practicing as a Professional Engineer full-time (PA P.E. No. 31678-E, Civil).
I am not excusing drivers, but just citing an obvious motive for grade crossing risk-taking. Regarding your analogy to the rape victim, it is true that wearing a short skirt does not excuse the rapist, but it does encourage them.
Although I am not a lawyer, I do have friends who are in active practice. I believe you have misconstrued the Missouri Model ordinance, but the Illinois statute seems clear.
Here is the pertinent citation from Illinois: (my bold italics)
625 ILCS 5/18c‑7402)(from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 18c‑7402)`` ````` ```Sec. 18c‑7402. ````Safety Requirements for Railroad Operations. ````` ```(1) Obstruction of Crossings.``` ```````(a) Obstruction of Emergency V
Despite what Schlimm writes, there is no enforceable state law in Illinois that limits the amount of time a railroad may block a grade crossing without penalty. Likewise, there are no enforceable local ordiances that limit the amount of time a railroad may block a grade crossing without penalty. (This whole EJ&E thing is taking place within Illinois.)
Mundelein, IL tried to get cute with its ordinance and fine the Wisconsin Central when a train had mechanical problems. The result was a unanimous decision by the Illinois Supreme Court that neither the state nor local governments have any authority to regulate railroad operations. The legislature can not “craft” a new law to meet the Court’s guidelines. The Illinois Supreme Court has rulled that the Illinois Legislature has no authority in the matter.
greyhounds: I bow to your fine, extended research. Apparently municipal and state ordinances regulating the question at hand are trumped by federal regulations, at least so far. It doesn’t look as though any of the cases ever has gone on to federal courts on appeal. I was honestly citing the written statutes and ordinances, so it is hardly a credibility issue. Sorry if that offends you.
My point is that if a train is 11000’ long, and is moving over a slow order of 10mph, that train will take 11-12 minutes to clear any particular location; if a 18000-ton coal train is struggling up a hill at 4-5mph, said train will take 15-20 minutes to clear. Should the railroad be fined for merely performing it’s legally mandated operation?
However, regarding the switching-over-a-crossing scenario, I feel as though the crew should, WHEN PRACTICABLE, occasionally clear the crossing to let traffic pass. Few rails really want to aggravate drivers, because we know from experience that, as Bucyrus mentioned above, delaying drivers only adds to the likelyhood of trying to avoid such delays in the future. For example: are there any stop-n-go lights you encounter on your daily travels that have an extraordinary long red? And do you not try, if possible, to avoid getting stuck at that light? Same mentality–different location.
BTW Schlimm, your posting of: 625 ILCS 5/18c‑7402) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 18c‑7402)`` ````` ```Sec. 18c‑7402. ````Safety Requirements for Railroad actually states quite clearly what I and
And I honesly believe the CN was reporting what they understood they were required to report. But you accused them of having a credibility problem. There was not a lot of research involved on my part. Just knowledge of my subject.
I produce information/data for a living. Discrepancies such as the one you cited as causing the railroad to have a “Credibility Probelm” are not all that uncommon in any line of trade or in the government. They’re basically caused by people counting/measuring different things. Or by people counting/measuring similar things in a different manner.
It’s usually worked out simply enough with a phone call or a couple of emails. Unless someone is trying to score some political points by making the other party look bad. Then that someone issues a press release. Which is what happened in this case.
Someone wanted to make the CN look bad and they used a misunderstanding to do it. The press and the politicians brayed like the jack asses they are.
An important thing missing from this “story” is context. How has the amount of time blockage occures changed? The politicans and media do not say. Taking things out of context is part of the effort to trash the “other guy”.
The issue of Federal preemption has been taken to the Fedeal Appellate Court level. For both railroads and airlines. The Illinois court wouldn’t overturn a Federal court decision.