Minimum track spacing

[ccltrains]

In the absence of any governing law or rule street car lines, where possible, separate their tracks by a distance so stupid passengers cannot hit opposing cars or wayside structures with their arms.  Lawsuits.

Railroads have an operating rule that if an employee is caught between two tracks when a train approaches (standing cars on other track) they are to lay on the ground until the train passes.  If standing the venturi effect could pull the employee into the moving train which probably results in death.

[Convicted One]

Paul_D_North_Jr

 

Perhaps the cities mentioned above couldn't even get enough support at / within their own level, let alone at the state level - exactly as you suggest ?   

- Paul North.

 

Or some such.   My personal speculation is, that the State likely had greater priorities with the entities (railroads) in question, and consequently were unwilling to make these issues part of a more complex pie.

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

Standard Operating Procedure for politics and laws, regulations, and ordinances at the more local or 'lower'  levels.  "Be responsive" or "pander" - choose your own version of the 'spin' to put on that - to the locals at a lower level - but then get overruled at a higher level.  With over 2,500 municipalities and 67 counties here in Pennsylvania, we have it down to an art form !   Most often seen these days - here and elsewhere - in land use ordinances and decisions, such as zoning, subdivisions, land developments, etc., though recently local ordinances against cell phone use while driving seem to have also become a popular local enactment, which is then overturned or overruled at the county or state level. 

Perhaps the cities mentioned above couldn't even get enough support at / within their own level, let alone at the state level - exactly as you suggest ?   

- Paul North.

[Convicted One]

mudchicken

C-1: Boy did you manage to screw-up posting that as a question.

 

 

LOL, thank you. 

 

Actually, I think that cities such as Covington KY, and Rochester MN  have stomped on their own feet by failing to pursue their agendas at State level.  Perhaps the've tried and failed to garner sufficient  interest? Regardless, history seems to indicate that those who have successfully twisted the arms of uncooperative railroads, have done so at the state level.

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

I have a slightly different view of this - no doubt because of my different background than mudchicken's - but/ so I'll offer my opinion up anyway for the fun of it here, more to add to the body of collective knowledge here and to supplement what he posted, rather than contradict it.

The question you raise is yet another issue in the ages-old general tug-of-war or balancing act between "state's rights" and federal powers, this context being under the Interstate Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.  Despite the clearly potentive pre-emptive power of that supreme law of the land, it has long been recognized that there is still some room for even-handed 'local' regulation of trade, commerce, and business.  The leading case on the subject is one from 1852 captioned as Cooley v. Board of Wardens [of the Port of Philadelphia], Vol. 53 of the U.S. Supreme Court Reports, Pg. 299 et seq. - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooley_v._Board_of_Wardens and http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0053_0299_ZO.html - which was about a challenge to an 1803 Pennsylvania law that required ships transiting up the Delaware River and Bay - clearly in either interstate and/ or foreign commerce, which is a federal subject - to either hire a local pilot who knew the river channels and obstacles, etc., or pay half the cost of same as a penalty or fee.  Note that it applied to *all* ships - not just those from outside of Penna., so it was "even-handed" and non-discriminatory in that respect, and the pro-safety aspects are obvious.  While the full opinion relies on several different rationales, my understanding is that this case stands for the principle that even when the subject is or could be pre-empted by federal enactments, there may still be some room for a purely 'local' regulation.  Easy examples are interstate trucks that are still subject to traffic laws, parking tickets, or interstate merchandise that is sold by weights from scales that are inspected and certified by local scale inspectors, etc., as well as the several examples that you cite.  Don't forget the old state laws that mandated "full crews" and required cabooses, regardless of union contracts.  Those withstood many challenges on that basis over the years, so the doctrine of allowing some local regulation continued to be valid until recently.        

That said,  there has been a trend towards making regulation of railroads more uniform at the federal level, and effectively taking it away from the states.  That is most evident in the subjects of grade crossing safety devices - where compliance with the federal requirements for them precludes any claims for damages from accidents, among other effects - and slow-moving trains blocking crossings, which we've also discussed here a few times before.  Traditionally those matters were deferred and left up to local laws, but the statute cited by mudchicken above - which I believe was enacted in the mid-1990's or so - pre-empts and ousts local jurisdiction, which is a comparatively recent occurrence.  I think it fair to say that has happened at the behest of the railroad industry and the FRA to avoid a tangle of differing rules at the border of every state or municipality, let alone the possibility of outright conflicts or inconsistencies in the regulations or laws between states or jurisdictions, etc. 

LIkewise, I'm pretty sure that state regulation of minimum clearances pre-dated the circa 1948 Model Law that mudchicken mentioned above - I'm pretty sure the PRR referenced that way back.  Typically, those proposals get started when there's a bunch of different laws by each state, and the resulting confusion and burden is getting out of hand.  EDIT: Note that the initial adoption of the CalPUC regs. that I cited above became effective Feb. 1, 1948, so there's an example of pre-1948 regs. 

The other 'leveling factor' is the railroads themselves - "System Standards" which apply across many states and are equal or better than the state laws will achieve the same safety goals and uniformity in application just as well as a Model Law or federal pre-emption.

So where does that leave us with regard to minimum clearances ?  If the feds wanted to act on it, they could, and would - but haven't to date, except with regard to the Roadway Worker Protection rule noted by mudchicken above.  Perhaps that's because "It ain't broke, so it don't need fixing". 

Actually, I do recall mudchicken complaining from time to time about "agri-bubba's" (his term) clutttering up the clearance envelope with illegal encroachments and attachments to their buildings and equipment, etc.  But that's more in the nature of an "individual failure" of lack of education, information, knowledge, and enforcement - not an "institutional failure" of the laws on the subject - there's plenty of legal and railroad authority to force correction and compliance if needed.

Enough for now.  Hope this was responsive to your question.

- Paul North. 

[mudchicken]

C-1: Boy did you manage to screw-up posting that as a question.

The states have a proven record as screw-ups, starting with taxes which Congress took control of from the states in 1913 (ICC Uniform System of Accounts/ ICC Act of 1913).

There has been a long-term MOU in place that clearances and public crossings would be administered by the states. The current clearance regs are a function of model law set out by the Feds and States circa 1958-61. FRA has stepped in on track to track (track centers) clearance in the name of On-Track Safety after a series of trackworker & trainmen fatalities in the 1990's....

FRA and FHWA just introduced a series of grade crossing safety laws (line of sight/range of vision easements at highway crossing approaches was the last one). FRA/DOT will get their way and get the states to pass these laws by threatening their funding.

Less than 10% of the states have legitimate railroad programs and even fewer have qualified railroaders on staff (Colorado being one) ....Having been in California right after the Cantara Loop Incident, I've seen how regulatory agencies can be manipulated by clueless politicians (FRA finally stepped in and told CaPUC & Caltrans to cease and decist, they did (Regime Change & strict new rules on who qualifies as inspectors)) My railroad did not have the derailment, but the load originated less than 1000 feet from my office and we got annoyed with more than a few unauthorized state inspectors wandering through our yard w/o notice. (one almost killed himself snooping around cars beng switched)

Railroads can stil invoke the Federal Exemption under 49USC10501, but they choose carefully when to invoke that rule for fear of losing it.

I continue to see plenty of local and state level improper behavior. (Some of us even get hired to help fix the problem after the locals step it it just "a little too deep")

[Convicted One]

Paul_D_North_Jr

There are at least 2 sets of minimum standards: the state's minimum clearance dimensions - typically set and enforced by a Public Utilities Commission or Public Service Commision or a similar entity - which as such have the force of law and hence are very hard to alter or waive; and the railroad's, which are only slightly less difficult to alter or waive.

- Paul North. 

 

I ask this not to annoy or confound you, but only out of a sincere curiosity, since you touch on a subject that others have offered a different opinion on.

Many times I've read here a disdain  for local authority, usually under some variation of the argument that the railroads are under federal jurisdiction, so the locals can just ~go pound sand~...etc Which never made complete sense to me. It seems like the States should have ultimate jurisdiction, on matters pertaining to goings on within their domain. New York's decision to prohibit coal burners withing NY city, for example, or mandated grade separations in other locations

. The old "CSX paint your Bridge" thread here comes to mind.

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

At the Radnor Station on Amtrak's Keystone Corridor (suburban Phila. ex-PRR "Main Line" territory, now shared with SEPTA commuter trains), I took some photos a couple years ago of the 4 tracks over the short open-deck-girder bridge there, with markings on the rail which indicated that the track centers were down in the 12'-3" range . . . practically NO room for error or or tolerances with the moderate curve and associated super-elevation plus low-level platforms there ! 

- Paul North.

[timz]

Yes, 13 ft centers on double track is probably still common all over the country; there must be many thousands of miles of double track 14 ft or less.

Take a look at the PRR main line across New Jersey. At Princeton Jct and Hamilton there are four tracks, 135 mph limit on the inside and 110 on the outside tracks next to the high platforms. The edges of the high platforms are less than 48 feet apart.

[mudchicken]

Nebraska Minimum Std. between main tracks is 14 ft. (state regulation, since 5/2/85), side track to a main track is 15 feet (state regulation)....In-House UP spec is 20 and 25 ft. respectively and FRA is pushing the 25 foot rule. (track gangs have to stop work and watch the train by at anything less than 25)

In the bad old days, there were tracks as close as 11 foot track centers around docks and 13 foot track centers on main tracks. Some of those are stil grandfathered-in.)

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

UP's Clearance Diagram in its Industrial Track Specifications, Plans, Drawings, and Diagrams basically says 9'-0" from centerline of tangent track to the nearest obstruction of the sort that we're discussing here - bridge piers and signal masts, etc. - but says nothing about track spacings that I could readily find. 

California Public Utility Commission General Order No. 26-D*, REGULATIONS GOVERNING CLEARANCES ON RAILROADS AND STREET RAILROADS WITH REFERENCE TO SIDE AND OVERHEAD STRUCTURES, PARALLEL TRACKS, CROSSINGS OF PUBLIC ROADS, HIGHWAYS AND STREETS., effective February 1, 1948, as amended through Decision No.
93702, Effective December 3, 198l (and presumably still valid), at -  

http://162.15.7.24/PUBLISHED/GENERAL_ORDER/59571.htm and/ or

http://162.15.7.24/word_pdf/GENERAL_ORDER/59571.pdf (11 pages, approx. 66 KB in size) -

says in Section 3-Side Clearances, 3.2, 8'-6" minimim, but 10 ft. "where practicable" for posts, pipes, and similar obstructions.

In Section 5-Clearance Between Parallel Tracks, 5.1 requires 14 ft. between main tracks and sidings; then 5.2 essentially requires 15 ft. to the first of any other parallel non-main tracks or sidings.

The several sub-sections following these address some of the other dimensional/ clearance requirements, questions, and comments mentioned above. 

So altogether, this situation would require a minimum of 9'-0" (UP) + 14 ft. (CalPUC) + 14 ft. (CalPUC) + 9'-0" (UP) = 46'-0" total open distance between obstructions on opposite sides of the track, which is 2' less than the 48 ft. estimated above, so OK. 

  (*reminds me of the Star Trek TV episode about a couple planets with 'sanitized' perpetual war between them . . .  )

- Paul North. 

[Semper Vaporo]

U.P.'s Steve Lee spoke of the 3985 Challenger "remodeled a coal car" in a curve where the tracks had apparenly been moved closer together sometime after the end of Steam.  Extensive damage to the coal car and more than a little to the Challenger, but it was fixed up and continued on its way.

[jrbernier]

Paul,

  That seems about right.  A lot of main line double track had 13'-14' track centers(and still do).  I thought there was a Fed rule in the mid 60's that mandated any new construction to be 15' minimum centers, but state laws may be more restrictive.  A friend who was a MILW conductor almost got cornered in the old South Mpls 'Harts' yard.  The tracks were on 12' centers, and on a curve!  He was riding a long auto parts box car on one of the curved tracks and had to jump clear when the car swung too close to a car on the next track.

  UP has been trying to use at least 20' centers as they triple track sections of the Overland Route.  BNSF has 25'-30' separation on a lot of new multiple track.  This allows MOW employees to stay 'mounted' on their equipment as a train passes them at restricted speed.  Even DM&E has built very wide separation like for the new siding by the Janesville ethanol plant.

Jim

 

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

There are at least 2 sets of minimum standards: the state's minimum clearance dimensions - typically set and enforced by a Public Utilities Commission or Public Service Commision or a similar entity - which as such have the force of law and hence are very hard to alter or waive; and the railroad's, which are only slightly less difficult to alter or waive.  There are also less stringent but nevertheless desirable dimensional criteria which mainly make operations easier or cheaper - such as the MOW people not haaving to stop work every time a train passes if the track centers are at least 20 or 25 feet (memory is hazy without looking it up).  17' wide is typically the width of the total minimum clearance envelope (see below). 

Here - since no significant curves appear to be nearby, hence nothing additional needs to be added for that - I would expect the minimum clearances to the bridge abutments and/ or signal masts to be around 8'-6" from the enter of each outside track, which is 17 ft. total.  Subtracting that from your estimated 48 ft. leaves 31 ft. for 2 track spaces, or 15.5 ft. each.  That's not great, but it's more than the minimum, and so is acceptable.  So from one side to the other it would be:

Left Obstacle - 8'-6" - C/L Tk. 1 - 15'-6" - C/L Tk. 2 - 15'-6" - C/L Tk. 3 - 8'-6" - Right Obstacle 

- Paul North. 

[diningcar]

There is no "established" minimum. Any RR wiil have its own criteria at a given point in time which fits the rolling stock and the operations proceedures then existing. AS these two elements change they will change. The change may apply only to: certain locations, rolling stock modifications, high and wide loads expected and other factors.

Change is always present and should be anticipated.

[locoi1sa]

  I read somewhere that the Pennsy had a standard of 17 foot between centers on mainlines/ Heavy tonnage lines and 13 feet for yard and low ton branch lines. It could have been a turn of the century book and equipment was not as large.

         Pete

[MikeF90]

Some local construction on the UP got me searching for a previous discussion, to no avail.

Is there a minimum 'standard' for track spacing on high speed main track for primarily freight usage?

I seem to recall that 20 foot was a desirable goal, ROW permitting. However, some previous observations on the Sunset Route 2MT topic showed some tight clearances.  Since Google just updated the Pomona, CA area to include higher resolution '45 degree' aerials, it appears to me that three mains will have to fit into about 48 feet - see the Humane Way overcrossing at Lat/Long 34.056156,-117.790419 viewed from the east. The two existing mains will have to be shifted (very precisely and carefully ) to make room for a third; the fourth, southernmost, not yet in service track gets a newly created route. Seems pretty darn close for double height container trains rockin' along at 65 mph.