StillGrande Seems to me that the railroad would want to run a train of this length first to see if it worked BEFORE they went and built infrastructure (yard space, longer passing sidings, etc.) to handle such a train. Finding out the thing didn't work after such an investment would seem a bit silly. Not to say it hasn't been done the other way, but still.
Although, much of that infrastructure might be usable and also worthwhile for the regular traffic as well. Plus, risks of lost investments due to reasons such as 'it might not work' are inherent in the concept of entrepreneurship - although trials like this are designed to identify and minimize those risks.
StillGrande As to extending the length incrementally, while it sounds interesting do you also then incrementally extend all the infrastructure for the trains as they extend?
Good point. However, as one example, not all sidings are the same length, usually; so either fix the shortest ones first, or use only the longer ones that the monster train will fit it, until the idea is proven. The incremental approach is intended to smoke these out and allow time to come up with the fixes at a few 'choke points' at a time, not all of them at once.
StillGrande Plus I would imagine that you run one to see if you can. Then you run another few to see if it works. Then you run a regular schedule to see if that works. Then start to adjust the infrastructure.
Now you've got the idea.
StillGrande [snip] Everyone would have to learn how to react and adapt.
Point being, to do that gradually - to evolve, instead of by or under an instantaneous 'shock' effect.
- Paul North.
Seems to me that the railroad would want to run a train of this length first to see if it worked BEFORE they went and built infrastructure (yard space, longer passing sidings, etc.) to handle such a train. Finding out the thing didn't work after such an investment would seem a bit silly. Not to say it hasn't been done the other way, but still.
As to extending the length incrementally, while it sounds interesting do you also then incrementally extend all the infrastructure for the trains as they extend?
Plus I would imagine that you run one to see if you can. Then you run another few to see if it works. Then you run a regular schedule to see if that works. Then start to adjust the infrastructure.
As what used to come up all the time here, it doesn't matter much if you can get the cars to the destination faster if the destination has noplace to to put it. I can think of a few ways to handle such a giant arriving without causing too much undue stress. Everyone would have to learn how to react and adapt.
Thank you. To find out that we're still waiting - and that is a long time for a Circuit Court decision, don't you think ? - better your nickel than mine.
Your method of finding that out kind of reminds me of Bill Cosby's ''20 Questions'' game routine from the 1960's, if you know that one - a rigorous, analytical, logical method vs. random guessing and chance. Guess which won ?
Let's see what the Court rules, and then see if it's worth getting the full opinion. Thanks again.
With respect to the South Coast Air Quality appeal, being the incredibly lazy person that I am, I decided to forgo computers, websites and other fancy technology. Instead, I just picked up my low tech, land line phone (the only concession it has to modernity is that it doesn't have a rotary dial) and call up someone I know who is involved in the case. He advised that the case has been briefed and argued, and that a decision from the Federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals could come any day.
Falcon48 . . . I found some further information on the railroad case I mentioned in my earlier post. Apparently what happened was that, in mid 2005, UP and BNSF entered into a voluntary agreement with the Califronia Air Resources Board to reduce diesel emissions at California rail yards. After the agreement was made, another California environmental agency called the South Coast Air Quality Management District attempted to impose its own requirements, which went beyond what the railroads had agreed to. The railroads sued. In 2007, a Federal juge ruled that the SCAQMD stadards were "preempted" by Federal law. The title of the case was "Association of American Railroads vs South Coast Air Quality Management District." Here's a link to a newspaper article reporting on the decision. I haven't been able to find an on-line copy of the decision itself, or info on whether it ws appealed http://articles.latimes.com/2007/may/03/local/me-rail3
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/may/03/local/me-rail3
Evidently the District Court's decision has been appealed, and - somewhat surprisingly - is still pending.
From a news release at: http://mofo.eu/news/pressreleases/14138.html
"He [atty. Michael J. Steel - PDN] represented Union Pacific in Association of American Railroads v. South Coast Air Quality Management District, a case challenging local regulation of locomotives. Union Pacific prevailed last year in its suit against the regional smog control agency, arguing that the District’s rules were preempted by federal law. The matter is currently on appeal before the Ninth Circuit." [emphasis added - PDN]
From the SCAQMD's Governing Board Agenda - Meeting January 8, 2010, near the bottom of the webpage under CLOSED SESSION, at: http://www.aqmd.gov/hb/2010/January/1001ag.htm
"Association of American Railroads, et al. v. SCAQMD, et al., U.S. District Court Case No. CV06-1416 JFW (PLAx) and United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Docket No. 07-55804" [emphasis added - PDN]
To obtain more information, I'll have to incur user fee charges on my PACER = Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) account. Not sure if I want to do that until I know that it's worth getting yet. Stay tuned . . .
If the state has these "notwithstanding" clauses then one could safely(sic) assume that California will be the "Fly in the Soup" as it were.
I won't be surprised then to see California having to be seen as a special case. It may work in the rest of the country but we have to do things differently in California-----eeerrgh
BTW---Isn't California the same state that recently(?) allowed their trucks to have larger payloads? If so then how did they swing that through---? IIRC Ed mentioned this, but in what thread?
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
If I recall correctly, the California exemption was written into the Clean Air Act since, at the time, California had stiffer emissions requirements than the Feds. How far it extends beyond automobiles depends on how the exemption is written.
My loose understanding of the Federal Clean Air Act, as amended, is that it pre-empts all other state regulation of automobile emissions and CAFE = Corporate Average Fuel Economy matters - except for California, which somehow obtained a statutory immunity in the legislation from the CAA's pre-emption.
What I'm wondering is whether that reservation of 'state's rights' is broad enough to also arguably encompass railroad operations, as RWM alludes to - or whether the state's assertion of concurrent jurisdiction over these matters is rooted in some other statute or basis ?
Perhaps the AAR V. SCAQMD decision referenced by Falcon48 above will shed some light on this - or not.
blownout cylinder I did come across an article recently that sounds almost like there are certain "notwithstanding' clauses in California law that would make it so that the state can, in fact, force a situation. The thing I'm puzzled by is just how many environmental agencies exist in California and whether there might be a potential for a bureaucratic 'turf war'.
I did come across an article recently that sounds almost like there are certain "notwithstanding' clauses in California law that would make it so that the state can, in fact, force a situation.
The thing I'm puzzled by is just how many environmental agencies exist in California and whether there might be a potential for a bureaucratic 'turf war'.
I found some further information on the railroad case I mentioned in my earlier post. Apparently what happened was that, in mid 2005, UP and BNSF entered into a voluntary agreement with the Califronia Air Resources Board to reduce diesel emissions at California rail yards. After the agreement was made, another California environmental agency called the South Coast Air Quality Management District attempted to impose its own requirements, which went beyond what the railroads had agreed to. The railroads sued. In 2007, a Federal juge ruled that the SCAQMD stadards were "preempted" by Federal law. The title of the case was "Association of American Railroads vs South Coast Air Quality Management District." Here's a link to a newspaper article reporting on the decision. I haven't been able to find an on-line copy of the decision itself, or info on whether it ws appealed
Convicted One It just seems to me that the possible downside to running such a large train would far outweigh any possible benefits. The administration required to set up such a train and assure it priority of passage thru wherever it goes, the lack of accomodating passing sidings (every opposing movement you encounter will have to take the sidings), and the stranded resources everytime something breaks would seem to negate the crew cost savings
It just seems to me that the possible downside to running such a large train would far outweigh any possible benefits.
The administration required to set up such a train and assure it priority of passage thru wherever it goes, the lack of accomodating passing sidings (every opposing movement you encounter will have to take the sidings), and the stranded resources everytime something breaks would seem to negate the crew cost savings
I am not a lawyer, and I am speaking for no railway, state, or agency, but there is some opinion among the environmental law crowd that there is not a categorical exemption or federal pre-emption that is invulnerable to CEQA. Again, I am just reporting what others tell me. I have no expertise in this area, I just sit in meetings with people.
RWM
Railway Man California's CEQA law, while it might not be able to specifiy electrification as a solution, conceivably could specify an emissions reduction for which electrification was a best-fit solution. RWM
California's CEQA law, while it might not be able to specifiy electrification as a solution, conceivably could specify an emissions reduction for which electrification was a best-fit solution.
Convicted One zugmann . I seem to recall the State of New York FORCING the railroads to electrify in NYC, so obviously the state does have some sway on how things are to be done inside it's borders.
zugmann .
.
I seem to recall the State of New York FORCING the railroads to electrify in NYC, so obviously the state does have some sway on how things are to be done inside it's borders.
zugmann I love how we have the peanut gallery all in support of this. Long trains are fine as long as nothing goes wrong. And we all know nthing ever goes wrong on the railroad. Having a mile-long train go into the hole in a town is bad enough. But something like this? The state has every right to be concerned.
I love how we have the peanut gallery all in support of this.
Long trains are fine as long as nothing goes wrong. And we all know nthing ever goes wrong on the railroad. Having a mile-long train go into the hole in a town is bad enough. But something like this?
The state has every right to be concerned.
FWIW, I agree with you 100%. It's amusing to listen to the peanut gallery wail about Nimbys when It's the railroad that is the antagonist, but iddn't it funny how the 'nutters hop on the very same pittypot when it's the state threatening the sanctity of the poor poor railroad?
Those waiting to board the ride...
Keep your hands and feet beyond the Yellow Line!
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
We are approaching the end of our ride please keep hands and feet inside the ride til we are stopped. thank you.
erikem Bruce Kelly...and 47 miles instead of 27. There may be 47 miles from the start of the climb to the summit, but most of it is assuredly not 1.99% as that would imply a change of elevation of over 4,500 feet. The peak elevation along the line is somewhere around 2600 feet and 27 miles of 1.99% would drop that to below sea level (lowest point on the Sunset Route is minus 233 feet along the Salton Sea).
Bruce Kelly...and 47 miles instead of 27.
There may be 47 miles from the start of the climb to the summit, but most of it is assuredly not 1.99% as that would imply a change of elevation of over 4,500 feet. The peak elevation along the line is somewhere around 2600 feet and 27 miles of 1.99% would drop that to below sea level (lowest point on the Sunset Route is minus 233 feet along the Salton Sea).
From the profile on page 42 of the April 2004 issue of Trains, as referenced above, from East to West*:
Yuma is shown at Elev. 142;
About 45* miles west is the low point is Salton at Elev. -201
About 70* miles further west is Indio at Elev. -20, which is shown as the start of the grade;
The summit is about 30* miles west at Beaumont at Elev. 2559. That works to an average grade of about 86 feet per mile, or 1.63 per cent. The profile shows the ruling grade as being 2.0 per cent, which seems to me to be the practical figure even if 1.99 per cent is technically accurate; the 1.63 per cent is just a check figure.
*Distances are scaled - the profile's horizontal scale is about 1'' = 200 miles, so you can hopefully appreciate the degree of imprecision of these figures.
I don't recall a surcharge explicitly tied to "full crew" requirements. But the Staggers Act permittted railroads to apply surcharges to particular lines if the earnings didn't meet specified thresholds. If state law required unnecessarily large crews, that would get reflected in the surcharge formula and the resulting surcharge.
I haven't researched the history and ultimate demise of most state "full crew" laws. But my impression is that most of them were done in by a series of "anti-featherbedding" intitiatives promoted by the railroads. California, as one example, passed such an initiative. Most of this activity ocurred before the Staggers Act.
Speaking of state full-crew laws, I seem to recall that sometime in the latter days of the ICC (maybe the 1970s), rail carriers were allowed to add a per-car surcharge to freight loads which originated or terminated in full-crew states. It gave the locals a little incentive to rethink their policies. Anybody else remember this?
Correction
My memory banks malfunctioned slighty when I answered your question about state crew size laws (old age and fast living have caught up with me), but they're working now.
I said that the Supreme Court crew size decisions were based on "burden on interstate commerce". In fact, only one of the decision was based on this ground. The other one held that Congress, when it mandated implementation of a Presidential Emergency Board order settling a rail labor dispute (involving, among other things, crew sizes), did not mean to preempt state laws dealing with crew sizes. I don't recall for sure which decision came first, but I think it was the one dealing with the PEB award.
By the way, there was litigation in the last couple of years between Amtrak and the State of Arizona involving a more modern Arizona crew size law requiring a minimum of two person in a cab. Amtrak contended that this violated the Federal law I mentioned in my earlier post which preempted state crew size laws as to Amtrak. Amtrak won.
Paul_D_North_Jr So - Do you have any insight into how those state 'minimum crew size' laws were allowed to remain in effect in the pre-FRA Act days ? Likewise, back then I recall that several states had laws that required cabooses on freight trains, which delayed the removal of same for a few years when that started to occur. Was that ever litigated, or was it easier to make that just go away through the legislative process ? I recall that the leading U.S. Supreme Court case for that left some little room allowing for local regulation of interstate and international commerce was captioned something like the ''Pilots' Association for the Bay and River Delaware''. I can tell you from extensive personal observation, that 'franchise' is still going strong - and is very much needed in those narrow and shallow waters.- Paul North.
So - Do you have any insight into how those state 'minimum crew size' laws were allowed to remain in effect in the pre-FRA Act days ? Likewise, back then I recall that several states had laws that required cabooses on freight trains, which delayed the removal of same for a few years when that started to occur. Was that ever litigated, or was it easier to make that just go away through the legislative process ?
I recall that the leading U.S. Supreme Court case for that left some little room allowing for local regulation of interstate and international commerce was captioned something like the ''Pilots' Association for the Bay and River Delaware''. I can tell you from extensive personal observation, that 'franchise' is still going strong - and is very much needed in those narrow and shallow waters.
I tried to quote just the part of your note with your questions, but I'm not sure I succeeded, so it may come out as gibberish (computers aren't exactly my forte). That said, in response to your questions:
(1) The Supreme court cases on crew size regulation, as you note, arose before FRA was created (I believe they came out of the 1960's). The then existing Federal rail safety laws didn't cover crew sizes, so the court decided the cases under the "burden on interstate commerce" standard, a constitutional test. It's unclear how those cases would come out today. The reason is that FRA seems to have deliberately avoided taking any action over the years which would "cover" the subject of crew size and thus preempt state laws on the subject. However, there have been later Federal laws which specifically preempt state crew size laws as to (i) Amtrak, and (ii) railroads operating in Con Rail's former service territory. As stated in earlier posts, most of the state full crew laws went away on their own.
(2) The situation with respect to cabooses is a little different. Some years ago, when FRA had a rulemaking on end of train devices, a labor union asked FRA to require that railroads use cabooses on most freight trains. FRA refused, generally on the grounds that a regulation requiring cabooses wasn't needed for rail safety. The courts held that FRA, by making this determination, had "covered" the subject of cabooses, and thus preempted state laws requiring cabooses. I'm sure the labor union person that raised this issue with FRA hasn't slept well since.
(3) I'm not real familiar with local regulation of waterways. But, as a general matter, Congress has the authority to define the the scope of permissible state/local regulation of navigable waterways and interstate commerce, and they don't deal with the subject consistently. That's true even as to railroads. As noted in my earlier post, Federal rail safety legislation generally permits states to regulate rail safety in areas the Feds have not "covered" and, even where the Feds have "covered" something, where state/local regulation is necessary to addres an "essentialy local safety hazard." But, in the field of economic rail regulation (ie., the stuff the STB deals with), states have no authority to regulate railroads (even as to intrastate traffic), regardless of what STB may have done or not done in a particular area.
blownout cylinderselector Okay, just so's I have this straight...we're still in Kansas....right? I'm starting to wonder whether we ended up in Maine, myself-----
selector Okay, just so's I have this straight...we're still in Kansas....right?
Okay, just so's I have this straight...we're still in Kansas....right?
I'm starting to wonder whether we ended up in Maine, myself-----
"You have left the New Jersey Turnpike...Obey local speed laws"
Falcon48 gabe Is the State even allowed to regulate such things? The only Supreme Court case that I can think of where this issue came up struck down a state statute (from Arizona) constricting the size of trains. I know there is some types of regulation that is allowed, but wouldn't most of it be preempted by the feds? Gabe Yes. Regulation of train length and any other aspects of a "long" train I can think of should be entirely preempted by Federal law. The Arizona case you mention (SP v Arizona) is a pre-FRA case. You are correct that it held that a state could not limit the length of a freight train (because such regulation was contrary to the commerce clause of the US Constitution). There were also other pre-FRA Supreme Court cases holding that states could not regulate matters covered by the Federal Locomotive Inspection Act and the Hours of Service Act. There may have been decisions covering some of the other pre-FRA rail safety statutes administrered by the ICC (Signal Inspection, Safety Appliance), but I couldn't say for sure without some research, When the FRA was created, the underlying statute (the Federal Railroad Safety Act) had (and still has) a specific provision governing when state safety regulation is permitted and when it is not. Without going into a lot of detail, here are the general principles: [snipped]
gabe Is the State even allowed to regulate such things? The only Supreme Court case that I can think of where this issue came up struck down a state statute (from Arizona) constricting the size of trains. I know there is some types of regulation that is allowed, but wouldn't most of it be preempted by the feds? Gabe
I know there is some types of regulation that is allowed, but wouldn't most of it be preempted by the feds? Gabe
Yes. Regulation of train length and any other aspects of a "long" train I can think of should be entirely preempted by Federal law.
The Arizona case you mention (SP v Arizona) is a pre-FRA case. You are correct that it held that a state could not limit the length of a freight train (because such regulation was contrary to the commerce clause of the US Constitution). There were also other pre-FRA Supreme Court cases holding that states could not regulate matters covered by the Federal Locomotive Inspection Act and the Hours of Service Act. There may have been decisions covering some of the other pre-FRA rail safety statutes administrered by the ICC (Signal Inspection, Safety Appliance), but I couldn't say for sure without some research,
When the FRA was created, the underlying statute (the Federal Railroad Safety Act) had (and still has) a specific provision governing when state safety regulation is permitted and when it is not. Without going into a lot of detail, here are the general principles:
[snipped]
An excellent non-technical summary, Falcon48 - thank you. One follow-up question, if I may, based on a comment by another Paul here / CSSHEGEWISCH a few pages above, as follows -
CSSHEGEWISCH Regulation of intrastate commerce is beyond the purview of the Feds and is strictly a state matter. There are also state statutes regulating safety, such as those that require full stops at non-interlocked crossings and junctions. There also were a fair number of state full-crew laws, which passed judicial muster but have since been repealed.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.