Press release: https://railroads.dot.gov/newsroom/press-releases/federal-railroad-administration-launches-web-portal-public-report-blocked-0
www.railwayage.com/safety/fra-launches-webpage-to-report-blocked-crossings/
Webpage to report: https://www.fra.dot.gov/blockedcrossings/
https://www.progressiverailroading.com/federal_legislation_regulation/news/FRA-sets-up-web-page-for-reporting-blocked-crossings--59357
Original notice of the proposal:
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/06/14/2019-12572/proposed-agency-information-collection-activities-comment-request
Some comments/ observations:
This could be: 1) just a place for persons/ local governments to complain to ("vent"), without any real prospect for action; or 2) evidence-gathering mode to support a new regulation which limits the times. (If so, I'm going to be near the head of the "I told you so" line.)
I anticipate this webpage will be real popular in Barrington, Illinois (see controversy over expected increase in train traffic and blocked crossings as a result of the EJ&E being acquired by the CN about 20 years ago).
Wait until some town like that puts up either fixed or changeable message signs aat the crossing approaches that say something like "REPORT BLOCKED CROSSING . . . www.fra.dot.gov/blockedcrossings/ " Might not work for those farther back in the line, but they'll have their chance to sign the sign later . . .
- PDN.
(What is not immediately obvious is that almost all states have discovered their regulations/ laws are not valid after two district court cases regarding blocked crossings. All now have to defer to the FRA which does NOT have an effective law on the books about blocked crossings. The old 10-minute rule is effectively dead, even though it is still there in things like GCOR and NORAC.)
Barrington and CN deserve each other - neither is lilly white in that issue. Maybe the lawyers and the judges on either precedant case ought to have their e-mail addresses on those message boards too?
Paul_D_North_JrWait until some town like that puts up either fixed or changeable message signs aat the crossing approaches that say something like "REPORT BLOCKED CROSSING . . . www.fra.dot.gov/blockedcrossings/ "
Actually ... is there anything wrong with that? If I were a town even remotely concerned with blocked crossings, I'd do it, in a heartbeat, and also put up some kind of 'hotline' number to call in town (or perhaps to an 'operator standing by' in some kind of call center who will report to the FRA) with a report, or to text a message with cell-phone confirmation of the blockage with timestamping.
One very clear thing I'd add to these signs, though, would be clear instructions where to go to reach an alternate route across, or to resources or Web sites that could program a nav or GPS system appropriately and quickly -- or to some clearinghouse that could reach appropriate people or organizations to alert of the delay in critical situations. It's not just about tattletaling.
If it turns out there's 'too much opportunism' regarding technical clearance or blocking of crossings, either on the part of railroads seeking excuses or town looking for easy money -- what I'd expect is more directed guidance out of FRA back to Congress to implement changes in the relevant sections of the CFR dealing with crossings or 'obstruction thereof.'
What will be interesting popcorn is how the 'new House' deals with the issue of relatively small numbers of voters in small state areas being discommoded vs. the almost inevitable increases in rates or decrease in effective freight 'throughput' that would ensue from organized enforcement of crossing blockages. I think it is safe to assume that none of the recent "improvements" in PSR, or any push toward increasing crew reductions or autonomous control systems, have any positive effect on how any actual crossing blockage could be addressed more effectively (if, in fact, at all) so I suspect this will largely come down to municipalities trying to fine their way to compliance, and Federal legislators carefully watching the optics of how they address that situation when it emerges.
I fail to see what the problem is with having a modern method to report these incidents.
Although the 10-minute rule may have been successfully challenged in two district court decisions, are appeals in process that might maintain the status quo pending outcomes?
Paul_D_North_Jr2) evidence-gathering mode to support a new regulation which limits the times.
Personally, I think that something of this nature is an inevitable result of the recent decisions that effectively cut-loose the railroads to act with impunity.
Try looking at it from a different perspective. If the recent liberties given to the railroads do create significant problems, there needs to be some channel of feedback facilitating re-evaluation.
I'm sure there will be some filters and thresholds involved, but as critics of the states' efforts to impose some form of control have pointed out, this is a Federal jurisdiction. I appaud the Feds efforts to enable themselves to make informed evaluation.
Am I reading this right, that I could send a thousand complaints about the same crossing? It'd be like "voting" on American Idol.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy Siding Am I reading this right, that I could send a thousand complaints about the same crossing? It's be like "voting" on American Idol.
Am I reading this right, that I could send a thousand complaints about the same crossing? It's be like "voting" on American Idol.
BNSF vs. Oklahoma ought to be interesting in 2020. (OK tried to change the rules in the middle of the game, bypassing FRA, UP and BNSF in the process)
Still telling was KY, IL and IN state supreme courts all telling their own legislators and regulating agencies that they were way out of bounds on trying to regulate blocked crossings and/or ALL crossings.
mudchickenFRA has a way of sorting out the habitual whiners (learned from FAA's experience with habitual whiner Pollyannas around airports).... Good practice was dealing with the complaints around No-Horn-Zones that the politicians forced on them.
mudchickenStill telling was KY, IL and IN state supreme courts all telling their own legislators and regulating agencies that they were way out of bounds on trying to regulate blocked crossings and/or ALL crossings.
Question: I was just going through some Norfolk & Western/Southern track charts from 1977 and 1987, and one of the charted items was "speed restrictions" along with a series of codes explaining the reasons for the restrictions.
One of those reasons being "City Ordinance"
Is compliance with those local ordinances out the window as well, along with blocked crossing regulations?
Murphy Siding It's be like "voting" on American Idol
And then what's next? Perhaps charter the 4014 for a little excursion into Manhattan via the East River tunnel for a little "victory lap"?
Convicted One mudchicken Still telling was KY, IL and IN state supreme courts all telling their own legislators and regulating agencies that they were way out of bounds on trying to regulate blocked crossings and/or ALL crossings. Question: I was just going through some Norfolk & Western/Southern track charts from 1977 and 1987, and one of the charted items was "speed restrictions" along with a series of codes explaining the reasons for the restrictions. One of those reasons being "City Ordinance" Is compliance with those local ordinances out the window as well, along with blocked crossing regulations?
mudchicken Still telling was KY, IL and IN state supreme courts all telling their own legislators and regulating agencies that they were way out of bounds on trying to regulate blocked crossings and/or ALL crossings.
This is all based on the Federal Railroad Safety Act and the federal supremacy due to the commerce clause in the Constitution. Eventually a uniform federal code on crossings will be developed and enforced.
charlie hebdoThis is all based on the Federal Railroad Safety Act and the federal supremacy due to the commerce clause in the Constitution. Eventually a uniform federal code on crossings will be developed and enforced.
Thanks for all that, but are the railroads really now disregarding local ordinances of any nature due to these recent decisions pertaining to blocked crossings?
Have the flood gates been opened wide? in other words.
I don't see any rush to remove it from the rule books like GCOR and NORAC.
GCOR 6.32.6: Blocking Public CrossingsWhen practical, a standing train or switching movement must avoid blocking a public crossing longer than 10 minutes
NORAC (isn't as clear - different mindset.)
Convicted One Murphy Siding It'd be like "voting" on American Idol And then what's next? Perhaps charter the 4014 for a little excursion into Manhattan via the East River tunnel for a little "victory lap"?
Murphy Siding It'd be like "voting" on American Idol
Murphy Siding there could be some abuse that skews the statistics.
Just to assure that my intent was not misconstrued, I used the "live steam in Manhattan" example because it was state legislation that long ago bannished live-fired locos from the land of Oz. So with these latest developments I figure it's only a matter of time before the "SCHOOL'S OUT...SCHOOLS OUT..." mentality starts pushing back wherever they might see fit?
Convicted One charlie hebdo This is all based on the Federal Railroad Safety Act and the federal supremacy due to the commerce clause in the Constitution. Eventually a uniform federal code on crossings will be developed and enforced. Thanks for all that, but are the railroads really now disregarding local ordinances of any nature due to these recent decisions pertaining to blocked crossings? Have the flood gates been opened wide? in other words.
charlie hebdo This is all based on the Federal Railroad Safety Act and the federal supremacy due to the commerce clause in the Constitution. Eventually a uniform federal code on crossings will be developed and enforced.
Yes, speed restrictions required by local ordinances are unenforcable. If the railroad wants to, they can abide by them.
It's funny because we have places, defined in local bulletins and by signage, on places where we are not to stop if held by signal/traffic conditions. Yet, they don't care if we block most crossings. (There are a few they worry somewhat about, but most they don't.) They don't want the delay for the conductor to set/release handbrakes or walk back to the engine due to cutting crossings. Not to mention should one be detained for any length of time the requirement to redo the air test on the portion cut away from.
Jeff
mudchicken I don't see any rush to remove it from the rule books like GCOR and NORAC. GCOR 6.32.6: Blocking Public CrossingsWhen practical, a standing train or switching movement must avoid blocking a public crossing longer than 10 minutes NORAC (isn't as clear - different mindset.)
I'm sure it's still there to try to blame the crew if something bad happens. (And I've heard of a few cases where something bad did happen.) The railroad will just say we've got a rule to cover it.
jeffhergertIt's funny because we have places, defined in local bulletins and by signage, on places where we are not to stop if held by signal/traffic conditions.
Jeff, could you explain this a bit more? What sort of places?
And, if you get a red signal, you DO have to stop if its an absolute signal, right, regardless of where? (Of course, probably they don't have the stopping-bans at such signals.) You wouldn't pass a red absolute signal by just enough to not have the train in the forbidden spot, would you?
jeffhergert Yes, speed restrictions required by local ordinances are unenforcable. If the railroad wants to, they can abide by them. .
.
I was just curious because 2-3 years ago there was a brief story in the paper that NS was (*ahem*) updating operations by changing the speed limit at a couple crossings out on the fringe of town from 30 mph to 50 mph.....and at the time my thought was "good for them". Most of their path through town has been grade separated since the early 20th century. So "faster trains" really has no negative impact upon me. I never gave it any further thought.
With the current flap over the blocked grade crossing making the presence of railroads newsworthy once again, coupled with the railroads indifference to the impact their trains are having on the communities they pass through......it's challenging to remain neutral.
By chance happening to be thumbing through the above referenced track charts earlier today, I noticed the cited to "city ordinance" speed restrictions .....and recognized one of the locations to be the same as the area where the 'updating' occurred a couple years ago.
So, in light of the blocked crossing brouhaha, I just got to wondering if the same sense of liberation the railroads are now enjoying might have played a part in their shrugging the old speed limits too?
It does seem more and more that the railroads don't give a damn about the communities they pass through, civic engagement being no more than a relic from the past.
I expect that locals will continue to seek means more effective than the current circumstances offer. Sometimes the less than obvious obvious answer is right in front of you.
Convicted One jeffhergert Yes, speed restrictions required by local ordinances are unenforcable. If the railroad wants to, they can abide by them. . I was just curious because 2-3 years ago there was a brief story in the paper that NS was (*ahem*) updating operations by changing the speed limit at a couple crossings out on the fringe of town from 30 mph to 50 mph.....and at the time my thought was "good for them". Most of their path through town has been grade separated since the early 20th century. So "faster trains" really has no negative impact upon me. I never gave it any further thought. With the current flap over the blocked grade crossing making the presence of railroads newsworthy once again, coupled with the railroads indifference to the impact their trains are having on the communities they pass through......it's challenging to remain neutral. By chance happening to be thumbing through the above referenced track charts earlier today, I noticed the cited to "city ordinance" speed restrictions .....and recognized one of the locations to be the same as the area where the 'updating' occurred a couple years ago. So, in light of the blocked crossing brouhaha, I just got to wondering if the same sense of liberation the railroads are now enjoying might have played a part in their shrugging the old speed limits too? It does seem more and more that the railroads don't give a damn about the communities they pass through, civic engagement being no more than a relic from the past. I expect that locals will continue to seek means more effective than the current circumstances offer. Sometimes the less than obvious obvious answer is right in front of you.
The civic engagement thing works both ways. I've been enough places to know that the civic side is getting less engaged and less bright about the world around them.
mudchickenThe civic engagement thing works both ways. I've been enough places to know that the civic side is getting less engaged and less bright about the world around them.
I believe that the one dynamic that has changed most......70 years ago the locals were afraid that if they made the railroads too angry, they might pick up and move. In the current era of disengagement, I think that possibility is perceived as less of a disaster.
And before anybody misunderstands my intent there.....70 years ago the railroads brought lots of jobs, they brought passenger travel, they brought locally accessible freight services, they brought the mail.
The common good that railroads provide today is far more covert, and so people feel less intrinsically involved with the railroads....and consequently less tolerant.
And 70 years ago, trains were not heavy, 240-car monsters.
As a born-and-raised New Yorker I would make a special trip just to see 4014 in Penn Station on one of the LIRR tracks. I'm not even sure that 4014 could clear that tunnel. But just imagine 4014 crossing the Hell Gate Bridge. And then through the tunnels to NJ and down the old PRR mainline.
I saw 4014 close-up-and-personal at Evanston, WY just before the Golden Spike celebrations, and it is HUGE.
Lithonia Operator jeffhergert It's funny because we have places, defined in local bulletins and by signage, on places where we are not to stop if held by signal/traffic conditions. Jeff, could you explain this a bit more? What sort of places? And, if you get a red signal, you DO have to stop if its an absolute signal, right, regardless of where? (Of course, probably they don't have the stopping-bans at such signals.) You wouldn't pass a red absolute signal by just enough to not have the train in the forbidden spot, would you?
jeffhergert It's funny because we have places, defined in local bulletins and by signage, on places where we are not to stop if held by signal/traffic conditions.
What they don't want us doing is pulling down to the signal and stopping. They want us stopping back, short of, the signal. Enough that the signal ahead of you is around a curve with lots of trees so you can't see it in some spots.
I know of a few spots like that, but the one I go by regularly is near an upscale housing developement. Supposedly, someone living in that area has connections with the State of Nebraska's Governor's Office.
The moral of the story is it pays to have connections.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.