Unions push for Iowa law to limit length of trains

[Victrola1]

"Unions that represent rail workers are lobbying for a state law that would limit the length of trains.

“Longer trains lead to more accidents, are more unsafe, they lead to more blocked crossings and, for our small communities in Iowa, that could be a life or death situation of if your house is on fire or your grandma or child is having a medical issue, then that ambulance could not get to you on time,” says Chris Smith, state director for SMART-TD, a union that represents transportation workers........."

https://www.radioiowa.com/2022/12/26/unions-push-for-iowa-law-to-limit-length-of-trains/

 

 

[caldreamer]

I understand the small towns' concearns about long trains and blocked crossings, BUT ONLY the FRA can set the maximum train lengths because the railroads are governed only by federal authority.

[ATLANTIC CENTRAL]

caldreamer

I understand the small towns' concearns about long trains and blocked crossings, BUT ONLY the FRA can set the maximum train lengths because the railroads are governed only by federal authority.

 

So what is the history on this? It is my understanding that 100 years ago lots of states had laws regarding railroad operations.

Was there some court ruling or federal action that usurped the powers given to the states in the 9th and 10th ammendments regarding railroads?

Sheldon 

[Euclid]

caldreamer

...the railroads are governed only by federal authority.

I doubt it is that simple.  

 

[caldreamer]

The FRA was created in 1967 with sole authority to regulate the railroads since they fall under the Interstae Commerce Act of of 1887 as interstate common carriers. For example when a town wants to have no whistles blown when a train runs through them they MUST get authorization from the FRA to pass local ordinance to do so.

[rdamon]

I wonder if the union would be ok with 50% shorter trains with one man crews ..  

[tree68]

rdamon

I wonder if the union would be ok with 50% shorter trains with one man crews ..  

The unions probably wouldn't be, but the activist investors definitely wouldn't be...

[timz]

caldreamer

FRA was created in 1967 with sole authority to regulate the railroads

Lots of states had full-crew laws, once upon a time, and a few (?) had train-length laws. Were those all gone by 1967, or did FRA delete the remaining ones?

[Overmod]

timz

Lots of states had full-crew laws, once upon a time, and a few (?) had train-length laws. Were those all gone by 1967, or did FRA delete the remaining ones?

There was a massive deletion of those things in the early 1970s, principally because on review they had little or nothing to do with 'safety', which was the thing Federal legislation was established to provide (and which under the interpretation of the Commerce Clause took precedence over state legislation for interstate commerce).

Note the somewhat whiny stretch on including 'safety' in the items cited?  That is no accident of rhetoric...

When I have time I'll look for a few key dates, but there are others here who can do it quicker and probably better, greyhounds for one.

[caldreamer]

Tree68, et al:

  I definityl do not think that the railroads would go for the ideal either. They do not want to hire more crews so their current employees can get days off. The railroads made trins longer so they could use less crews to haul more merchanidse.  The railroads are having a hard time hiring new employees based on their current policies.

[mudchicken]

The kicker is the ICC Termination Act of 1996 ... Since the creation of STB, the feds have gotten even stronger on the issue of who regulates. Iowa, wonky as they can be, still understands the limits of the Memorandum of Agreement they signed with the feds on crossings. Wonder what the lawyers are trying to stretch the definition/understanding of now?

[caldreamer]

Everyone with one brain cell knows that federal law superceeds ALL state and local laws. The feds will not even have to bother going to court, they will just tell those Iowa *** kickers "We are the federal government, YOU LOOSE!".

[Murphy Siding]

Victrola1

"Unions that represent rail workers are lobbying for a state law that would limit the length of trains.

“Longer trains lead to more accidents, are more unsafe...our small communities in Iowa"

What is the rationale for the first two statements?

I'd say those small communities in Iowa would feel the hurt if trains didn stop in their town. Iowa is an ag state. Trains help keep them competitive. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[caldreamer]

Hey MurphySiding:

All that I can say to your last post is "AMEN".  Let the Iowa grain growers ship a train load of grain with each car carrying 100 tons by truck and find out how much more it would cost them. They would go broke in no time.

[Euclid]

Murphy Siding

 

 

Victrola1

"Unions that represent rail workers are lobbying for a state law that would limit the length of trains.

“Longer trains lead to more accidents, are more unsafe...our small communities in Iowa"

 

 

 

What is the rationale for the first two statements?

 

I'd say those small communities in Iowa would feel the hurt if trains didn stop in their town. Iowa is an ag state. Trains help keep them competitive. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In my opinion, the rationale is that labor unions oppose the ultra-long trains because they reduce the overall labor needed to move trains.  It is the same effect as reducing crew size.  They offer several points about the safety issues with extra-long freight trains.  There is quite a bit of this advocacy opposing long trains available on line.

 

https://www.railroadworkersunited.org/new-page-89

 

RWU Campaigns

---

Opposition to Long & Heavy Trains

 

Railroad Workers United (RWU) has embarked upon a campaign to limit the length and tonnage of freight trains across North America. The goal is to reverse the long running trend whereby the rail carriers assemble ever longer and heavier trains which are dangerous to railroad workers, pedestrians and motorists, trackside communities, the environment, and society in general.

 

RWU expects that through this effort, the public will gain a far better understanding of the dangers of long and heavy trains and the need to reduce length and tonnage. We invite citizens’ advocacy organizations, environmental groups and others – including the rail unions of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico -- to join us in this movement to oppose this dangerous practice.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/505b96a8c4aa40a37a143c49/t/5655b49fe4b0b80773814ce0/1448457375438/Long+%26+Heavy+Trains++Resolution.pdf

 

 

RWU Resolution in Support of Limits to Long & Heavy Trains

Whereas, such overly long and heavy trains create a dangerous and unsafe situation

for a number of reasons:

1 -- the longer and heavier the train, the more difficult it is and the more time it

takes to slow or to stop such a train;

2 -- the longer and heavier the train, the more slack action is in the train, increasing

run-ins and run-outs, increasing the potential for break-in-twos, emergency brake

applications and derailments;

3 -- the longer and heavier the train, the more severe the train wreck if and when

such a train does derail;

4 -- the longer and heavier the train, the more difficult it is for the train crew to safely

run, inspect, work, test, and otherwise get such a train over the road.

5 -- such trains tend to make for longer tours-of-duty for train crews, resulting in

fatigue, more time at the away-from-home terminal, and a lower quality of work and

home life;

6 – such trains are more likely to have air brake problems, especially in cold weather;

7 -- the longer and heavier the train, the greater likelihood of blocked road and

pedestrian crossings, creating a best an inconvenience to the public and at worst an

inability to provide emergency services when needed;

8 -- these blocked crossing in effect “train” motorists and the public to “run the gates”

to avoid being blocked for long periods, resulting in grade crossing accidents and

fatalities.

[rdamon]

Euclid

In my opinion, the rationale is that labor unions oppose the ultra-long trains because they reduce the overall labor needed to move trains.  It is the same effect as reducing crew size.  They offer several points about the safety issues with extra-long freight trains.  There is quite a bit of this advocacy opposing long trains available on line.

 

 

Exactly .. but these are good coat tails to ride

[wjstix]

caldreamer

The FRA was created in 1967 with sole authority to regulate the railroads since they fall under the Interstae Commerce Act of of 1887 as interstate common carriers. For example when a town wants to have no whistles blown when a train runs through them they MUST get authorization from the FRA to pass local ordinance to do so.

 

Sort of. The community has to work with the railroad to provide some extra level of safety, like automated crossing gates, and then when that's in place, they must "certify to the FRA that the required level of risk reduction has been achieved". The city doesn't have to get permission from the FRA to pass an ordinance.

https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/2019-11/FRA%20Train%20Horn%20and%20Quiet%20Zone%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf

 

[jeffhergert]

They've been after this for a few years.  It will probably go nowhere, as usual.

I myself thing 10000 ft would be OK.  I never thought I'd say that because a manifest that long used to be asking for trouble.  It still is sometimes.  The problems come from the type of cars within a train.

Manifests have different types of cars with some having cushioned long travel drawbars.  It's when you have a lot of those types that the longer the train, the more "slinky" or "spongy" they get.  Even with DP, the very longest trains still make control of slace problematical.

Other trains, like intermodal, have less problems when they get real big.  Twelve, thirteen thousand feet and they usually aren't a problem to handle.  The equipment's the same and the trains are relatively lighter than other trains.

I think they may have chose 8500' for a few reasons.  Most unit coal trains, except when they're doubled up, are in that neighborhood. 

8500' used to be, still is out west, the limit between DP consists for most trains. 

8500' is about the limit for radio communication between the engine and conductor on his/her portable radio.  Some have better portable radios and/or antennas, some don't.   It's hard to pick up/set out when you can't hear the portable radio.  Sometimes it's the engine's radio/antenna that's junk, usually it's the portable.

Jeff   

[jeffhergert]

caldreamer

Everyone with one brain cell knows that federal law superceeds ALL state and local laws. The feds will not even have to bother going to court, they will just tell those Iowa *** kickers "We are the federal government, YOU LOOSE!".

 

That's when there is a Federal law that governs.  If there's no Federal law, the states have been allowed to regulate.  Even then, not all laws are federally preempted.  Minimum wage laws for instance.  States can legislate a higher minimum wage then the Federal minimum wage, just not less.

The wording of the ICC termination act changed that for railroads.  It may have not been intentional, but lawyers can read things that normal people can't read in a document.

And I agree that any Iowa law is going to be challenged because of the Federal preemption.

Jeff  

PS.  There have been times when the Iowa Governor has temporarily modified HOS for truck drivers hauling particular commodities during "emergency" situations.  The feds have never stepped in to my knowledge when that's happened.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

ATLANTIC CENTRAL

 

caldreamer

I understand the small towns' concearns about long trains and blocked crossings, BUT ONLY the FRA can set the maximum train lengths because the railroads are governed only by federal authority.

 

 

 

 

So what is the history on this? It is my understanding that 100 years ago lots of states had laws regarding railroad operations.

Was there some court ruling or federal action that usurped the powers given to the states in the 9th and 10th ammendments regarding railroads?

Sheldon 

 

I took a constitutional law class in my junior year at NIU and one of the cases involved this very issue.  The State of Arizona enacted a law restricting train length to 70 cars in the 1920's.  SP challenged this law in Federal court and it went all the way up to the Supreme Court of the United States.  The Arizona law was overturned since it constituted improper state regulation of interstate commerce (Article I, Section 8).

[Euclid]

Why would the unions be pushing for this law only in Iowa?

[tree68]

Euclid

Why would the unions be pushing for this law only in Iowa?

You have to start somewhere.

If they are successful, it sets a precendent they can then take elsewhere.

Many lawsuits are brought in places that are/may be sympathetic to the cause.

[Euclid]

 

 

tree68

 

 

Euclid

Why would the unions be pushing for this law only in Iowa?

 

 

You have to start somewhere.

If they are successful, it sets a precendent they can then take elsewhere.

Many lawsuits are brought in places that are/may be sympathetic to the cause.

 

I mean if its is impossible to do at the state level, why waste time trying to make it happen at the state level?  Why not just start at the Federal level?

[BaltACD]

Euclid

 

tree68 

Euclid

Why would the unions be pushing for this law only in Iowa? 

You have to start somewhere.

If they are successful, it sets a precendent they can then take elsewhere.

Many lawsuits are brought in places that are/may be sympathetic to the cause. 

I mean if its is impossible to do at the state level, why waste time trying to make it happen at the state level?  Why not just start at the Federal level?

Are you watching the start of Congress this year?  

[jeffhergert]

Euclid

Why would the unions be pushing for this law only in Iowa?

 

There have been attempts in other states as well.  Illinois has a bill also limiting lengths to 8500 feet.  I don't know the status of that one.

Jeff

[Euclid]

BaltACD

 

 

Euclid

 

tree68 

Euclid

Why would the unions be pushing for this law only in Iowa? 

You have to start somewhere.

If they are successful, it sets a precendent they can then take elsewhere.

Many lawsuits are brought in places that are/may be sympathetic to the cause. 

I mean if its is impossible to do at the state level, why waste time trying to make it happen at the state level?  Why not just start at the Federal level?

 

 

Are you watching the start of Congress this year?  

 

I am not suggesting it would be easy to limit train length by a new Federal law.  I am only referencing this matter to those who say that it is impossible for states to pass laws that bind railroads to anything.  If it is impossible, why are states and unions attempting to do it?  Don't they know it's impossible?  Maybe those who insist it is impossible for states to pass laws that control railroads are wrong.

[tree68]

Passing such a law at the state level may be of zero effectiveness in the short term, but if enough states take such an action, it could signal to Congress that there is enough support for such a measure that they should consider federal legislation.

[charlie hebdo]

Quite possibly so.  Some people act like regulating rails is wrong and impossible to do, in no particular order of attempting.