The spikes hold down metal plates that bind the rails to wooden ties underneath.
"If a sufficient number of spikes are removed in a contained location, there's the potential for the rail to shift, which would lead to disastrous results and train derailment," said Federal Railroad Administration spokesman Steve Kulm.
Metra discovered the missing spikes on Monday and notified police and federal authorities, including the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration, which investigates threats to planes and trains.
The FBI said it was conducting a criminal investigation into "sabotage." FBI spokesman Ross Rice said agents were checking for possible connections to a domestic violence case involving a Metra engineer.
The affected tracks carry three commuter lines, including the Metra Electric Line to University Park and Blue Island, with around 40,000 riders daily, and the South Shore Line to Michigan City and South Bend, Ind.
wjstix wrote:I think it comes down to just a common sense issue. It's like right now the hospital across the street from my office is putting in a new wing, with major constructon activity going on. If I'm on the sidewalk, or across the street, and want to take pictures of the construction work in progress, I'm not breaking any law. If I try to sneak into the site to get closer to take pics of the action, I'm trespassing and should be removed / arrested - if nothing else, for my own safety!! But if I'm standing on the sidewalk and they need to use the sidewalk for say moving a piece of equipment or something, common sense says I should get out of the way and let them do their job, even if I do have the right to be on the sidewalk too.
Good analogy!
There seems to be a supposition from some of the posters here that Constitutional rights come in two classes: protected, like freedom of the press; and pragmatic, like train photography.
The problem is, if the Patriot Act is too broadly (and wrongly) interpreted, then, as others have mentioned, almost all public photography could wind up being banned. And it doesn't matter whether photography is "protected speech" -- if that type of photography is banned then public reference to it would almost inevitably entail. Symbolic speech that is fully banned would spill over into the heretofore-sacrosanct First Amendment type of freedom of speech, assembly and the press that is directly mentioned in the Constitution and Bill of rights. IMHO whether artistic or journalistic expression is at play are all one of a piece.
Should civilians be allowed to crawl all over RR property, endangering themselves and hindering operations? Of course not. But some precautions must be preserved lest ill-advised and clumsy "enforcers" overinterpret the prohibitions against public photography in the Patriot Act, which are few and pragmatic. Call me a "slippery slope" type, but that's how I feel.
Re Chicago
Sabatoge? or just scrap collectors picking up loose steel spikes that might have worked there way up from the daily pounding and just fell out? From what I have read they were lucky there were still wooden ties under the rails that hadnt rotted away or turned to spongecake!
This system has some serious problems, sabatoge is pretty far down of the list of potential dangers. The YEARS of defered maintanence on the Metra and El are a major disaster just waiting to happen.
Have fun with your trains
route_rock wrote: Then why do we have in God we trust on our money that is printed by the government? Why does the Supreme Court have a prayer before sessions start?
Then why do we have in God we trust on our money that is printed by the government? Why does the Supreme Court have a prayer before sessions start?
I think "In God We Trust" on the money, like "one nation UNDER GOD indivisible" in the pledge of allegience, goes back to the Cold War when we were opposing the "Godless Atheist Commies" of the USSR and "Red" China. Money used to say "E Pluribus Unum" ("From many, one" in Latin). I know the "under God" part wasn't added to the pledge until I think 1954. Oddly enough, the pledge was written by a minister, but he hadn't seen it necessary to include God in a secular pledge.
Not sure about the Supreme Court, but I know the Congress basically makes up their own rules, and are exempt from many laws (for example, you can't sue a Senator for something he says about you on the floor of the Senate, slander laws don't apply) so it could be that's how they get by starting with a prayer...though I suspect it's largely just inertia, no one would want to stick their neck out by pointing out that Congress and the Supreme Court et al shouldn't be starting their sessions with a prayer. It would be political suicide.
All right, I know what establishment of religion means. Then why do we have in God we trust on our money that is printed by the government? Why does the Supreme Court have a prayer before sessions start? I digress I am making men out of straw.
But if I have freedom OF SPEECH I dont have to BE SILENT Comrade!
JK that trooper was just messing with you.If it were a BNSF call to the cops it would have been a GPD or BNSF cop.Trust me I know thats my yard.Stopping vandals? I dont think you want to hang out where the vandals are. Our Cinder Dicks dont even get out of their cars there.
Freedom of speech also means I have the right not to listen I guess.So heard enouogh had enough from the likes of Computer Rambo calling everyone who disagrees with him a commie.
Yes we are on time but this is yesterdays train
First, the Constitution IS considered to be a living document. It has been amended and is continually being interpreted. it is a testiment to its writers that it just marked its 220th birthday and that it is still relevant to today's society even that many of the things it is being applied to never existed when it was written. The argument that it is a non-living document is absurd because it would have long ago be revoked because it would have been successfully argued that the Constitution was outdated and could not be applied to things like telephones, television, or the internet.
Second, I refer people believe that railroads view railfans as an annoyance similar to vandals to the BNSF Citizen Rail Secuity program. The BNSF believes that railfans can actually be a good thing by reporting vandals, unsafe conditions (like missing spikes or rail fishplates) before a derailment occurs. They also clearly state that the program is not an invitation to trespass though.
Lastly, I'll relate an experience of my own while railfanning. I have family that live in Galesburg, IL. When I visit I spend a lot of time railfanning. A few years back they built a new bridge for a county road over the railyard. The bridge was built 4 lanes wide, but only 2 lanes are used for traffic. During the summer (Pre 9/11) it was common see cars parked on the bridge berm and railfans taking pictures of activity in the yard. I did it frequently without ever having someone question what I was doing. Post 9/11 there were rumors floating on discussion groups and such that the police were chasing railfans off the bridge. That they were suddenly enforcing an IL law against parking vehicles on bridges and writing tickets. People were saying that you should park your car on the berm of the road, off the bridge and walk onto the bridge to take pictures. In the summer of 2006 I was visiting G'burg for a few days. I did my nornal railfanning, but never lingered for long on the bridge. On my last day I parked on the bridge and within 5 minutes a IL State tropper pulled up behind me. He asked me for my ID and what I was doing. I explained that I was in town from out of state visiting relatives and was taking a few pic since I was a train buff. He verified my info and said OK. I specifically asked him if it was problem for me to be parked on the bridge. He said it wasn't, but that in "this day and age" when someone calls in, they have to go out and check things out.
Were my rights violated? - No I guess not. Was I on public property? - Yes, a county road bridge. Were there no parking signs - No? Was I doing anything suspicous? - Not in my mind, but others my think differently. So for safety's sake they come and check people out, as long as they don't force people to leave then I have no problem. If you have a camera, a scanner maybe and seem to know what you're talking about, the authoritiers should leave you be. Do I have a right to stand on public property and take pictures? - I'd say yes. To those that say I don't because the subject is private property - that's a ridiculous argument. The only thing I could take pictures of wuld be public property, nothing in a museum, no buildings, no scenery unless its a public park??. Yea, that will stop vandlas and terroists.
route_rock wrote: Still the first amendment covers speech.Not photographs. The constitution isnt a "living document" that can be manipulated by judges and lawyers to get their own way.It also says in the first amendment that I have freedom of religion.But how come I couldnt pray in a public school if I wanted to?Isnt that my freedom of speech being lambasted?
Still the first amendment covers speech.Not photographs. The constitution isnt a "living document" that can be manipulated by judges and lawyers to get their own way.It also says in the first amendment that I have freedom of religion.But how come I couldnt pray in a public school if I wanted to?Isnt that my freedom of speech being lambasted?
OK first I would very much classify the constitution as a 'living document' who has been amended and whose meaning has been reinterpreted many times. Also, the constitutional provisions regarding things like freedom of speech have been extended to many things and areas of life that didn't exist at the time it was first written. I believe the right to take pictures in a public place has been ruled to be covered under freedom of speech/freedom of expression.
The second part of your statement would be silly if so many people didn't believe it. There is nothing in any law or in the constitution preventing anyone from praying in school. What the constitution says is that you have freedom to practice your religion as you wish, but that the government cannot establish a state religion...that's what it means when it talks about "an establishment of religion", it doesn't mean 'establishment' like it sometimes used to mean a business etc. So the principal or individual teachers cannot lead the students in prayer, because they would then be endorsing one religion, and in effect forcing the students to believe as they do.
BTW the cause of a lot of these "can't pray in school" comments, the urban myth about the "poor handicapped girl" who was sent home from school because she said grace before eating lunch, was researched a few years ago by a reporter and found to be false. A boy had started a food fight and was sent home from school, when his parents asked what happened, he claimed that he was not involved in a food fight but had been sent home because of saying grace in the cafeteria, and that the school wouldn't let him pray in school. Apparently the parents believed him and raised a ruckus, generating much publicity, but I believe in the end the truth came out...but not before the urban myth was started.
The first ammendment covers freedom of expression which includes photographs.
You can pray anytime you want. You just have to do it silently. DUH!
Nice attempt at a strawman argument though.
route_rock wrote: Heres an idea. Why dont you guys go help the Frenchie we tossed off BNSF property. I think it was in Texas a signal maintainer threw him off and called the police cause he "didnt fit in".He was wearing expensive shoes and standing on Public property but near tank cars full of haz mat. He got an award for being on guard. Was he wrong? Would I be wrong for calling the law on you if you were taking pictures of my train and it had military equipment on board?I dont think so. Sorry if it offends you and no I am Irish not a commie from Russia so dont even try that BS on me.
Heres an idea. Why dont you guys go help the Frenchie we tossed off BNSF property. I think it was in Texas a signal maintainer threw him off and called the police cause he "didnt fit in".He was wearing expensive shoes and standing on Public property but near tank cars full of haz mat. He got an award for being on guard. Was he wrong? Would I be wrong for calling the law on you if you were taking pictures of my train and it had military equipment on board?I dont think so. Sorry if it offends you and no I am Irish not a commie from Russia so dont even try that BS on me.
Well you sound like a member in good standing of the Páirtí Cumannach na hÉireann, comrade commissar.
route_rock wrote:Last I knew my railroad was a PRIVATE entity not public. The property the train is traveling is PRIVATE not public.If it were public you wouldnt be nailed for tresspassing.
But you can access it photographically from public property. The problem is that the cops and the railroad security goons continually overstep their authority.
Last I knew my railroad was a PRIVATE entity not public. The property the train is traveling is PRIVATE not public.If it were public you wouldnt be nailed for tresspassing.
So everyone take a breath and relax. I have been videoed photographed and I dont mind.If I did I would be more than happy to make a stink about privacy rights. Which is also in the constitution.Just think if all the rails working today pulled that stunt.I think we all need to get along cause my rights are just as important as yours.
Well maybe he's a recent immigrant from the former Soviet Union and was having a reminiscence from the good old days when he was a KGB officer in the old country.
That would explain alot.
Joe the Photog wrote: ndbprr wrote:Generally the people who claim their rights are being violated when they are told to move on don't understand that there are people out there doing harm or trying to. Obviously those people try to blend in and appear to be joe average. several people have taken an attitude that it is a "Right" to take pictures. It is not in my opinion. It is a "priveledge". These disucssions are numerous on the boards.First of all, what is a "priviledge?"To say, however, that we don't understand that people are trying to do "harm" actually speaks more to your lack of understanding than it does to ours. We all watched those towers fall on 9/11. We all understand that there are evil people out there doing evil things. But this does mean we have to or should be expected to stop doing things that are entirely legal.It worries me that someone who lives in this great country actually thinks taking pictures of public things on public property is a "priviledge" and not a right protected by the First Amendment. JOe H.
ndbprr wrote:Generally the people who claim their rights are being violated when they are told to move on don't understand that there are people out there doing harm or trying to. Obviously those people try to blend in and appear to be joe average. several people have taken an attitude that it is a "Right" to take pictures. It is not in my opinion. It is a "priveledge". These disucssions are numerous on the boards.
First of all, what is a "priviledge?"
To say, however, that we don't understand that people are trying to do "harm" actually speaks more to your lack of understanding than it does to ours. We all watched those towers fall on 9/11. We all understand that there are evil people out there doing evil things. But this does mean we have to or should be expected to stop doing things that are entirely legal.
It worries me that someone who lives in this great country actually thinks taking pictures of public things on public property is a "priviledge" and not a right protected by the First Amendment.
JOe H.
ndbprr wrote:Taking photographs is a first ammendment right.Those were some very savvy writers to protect a right that wasn't even invented until at least 60 years later.
Taking photographs is a first ammendment right.
Those were some very savvy writers to protect a right that wasn't even invented until at least 60 years later.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Yep it is and they were.
Enjoy
Paul