"Patterson Creek is MP BA 168.9. McKenzie is at BA 200.6."
This is the mileage via Cumberland, not on the cutoff.
Johnny
Patterson Creek to McKenzie via Cumberland used to be less than 17 miles -- if it's now 31.7 miles, when was the railroad lengthened?
timz Patterson Creek to McKenzie via Cumberland used to be less than 17 miles -- if it's now 31.7 miles, when was the railroad lengthened?
In 1954 and 1981, the distance Patterson Creek to McKenzie via Cumberland was less than 17 miles. (Via the cutoff was less than 7 miles.)
He says the distance Patterson Creek to McKenzie via Cumberland is now 31.7 miles. So when/why did they lengthen the railroad?
Deggesty timz Patterson Creek to McKenzie via Cumberland used to be less than 17 miles -- if it's now 31.7 miles, when was the railroad lengthened? It was not lengthened: the 31.7 miles is the distance via Cumberland, not via the cutoff.
It was not lengthened: the 31.7 miles is the distance via Cumberland, not via the cutoff.
The CSX Baltimore Division TT does not indicate McKenzie. I was interporolating from the 'landmarks' on that TT; I was mistaken.
I have found a 1963 B&O Cumberland Division TT. Patterson Creek is noted as MP 86.2 and Viaduct Jct as MP 94.5 on the East End Sub. Viaduct Jct is MP 0.6 on the West End Sub and McKenzie is MP 9.2 on the West End Sub.
Speed Restrictions Pass Fast Slow
Freight
Patterson Creek, betrveen Home Signals,
Straight Movement. .... 40 40 30
Curve, Patterson Creek, No. 1 Track. . . 45 45 30
Curve, Patterson Creek, No. 2 Track. . . 30 30 30
Curve, Mexico .. .... 30
Between First Curve west of Mexico and
Virginia Ave.. . . ... ... 50 50 45
Curves between Virginia Ave. and
William Street, Cumberland. . . .... 45 45 30
Street Crossings, Cumberland. . .... .. 25 25 25
Diverging movements through Interlockings
Patterson Creek, Mexico 25 25 20
Viaduct Junction ... 15 15 15
Between Cumberland and East Grafton,
except as noted below: ... 50 45 35
Patterson Creek Subdivision ... 35 35 35
I don't know how Cumberland Terminal was operated in the days when the Cincinnatian was operating. In my experience 60+ years later - the terminal frequently held trains out at Patterson Creek and Mexico as well as at Virginia Lane either waiting to be yarded or waiting for a crew change - all holding was done on the Main Tracks thus presenting the Dispatcher with a ever changing puzzle to keep through trains moving through the terminal. Trains were also held out on the West Side of Cumberland on both the Sand Patch and Grafton sides.
The whys and wherefores of why B&O management operated The Cincinnatian over the Patterson Creek Sub's 6.2 miles at 35 MPH is probably contained in files that have been lost or destroyed and the originators of that correspondence have all passed on.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
According to the listing in the July, 1943, Guide, it is 9.3 miles from Cumberland to McKenzie. I have found no listing of Patterson Creek, so I do not know what the milepost there is.
Looking at the SPV Cumberland map, I estimated the distance from Patterson Creek to McKenzie.
The 1963 timetable is online at multimodalways.org
http://www.multimodalways.org/docs/railroads/companies/B&O/B&O%20ETTs/B&O%20Cumberland%20Div%20ETT%20%2382%2010-27-1963.pdf
Thank you, timz.
This ETT shows that it was 6.2 miles from Patterson Creek to McKenzie via the Cutoff, and 16.9 miles via Cumberland.
Overmod blue streak 1 Have to wonder if the thinking is if speed control ever handed back to local agencies ? ? ? Why look any further than the response of just about any local politician to the general idea of HSR passing through their district, or for that matter any sort of Barrington-style service increase affecting crossings or back yards. You can bet your bottom dollar that many more towns would have officers with radar guns shooting every train coming through, and arranging to stop anything exceeding local limits with the intent of filing traffic charges against the 'license' of any engineer stupid enough to have it on his person. Why would any elected government allow non-voting (but mandatorily taxpaying) railroads or their trains any particular consideration when visible voter concerns haven't been addressed? On the other hand, there's the use of the radar guns to check on the railroad's speed limits at various points -- and presumably the subsequent ratting-out, weed-weasel-fashion, of any detected malefaction. Or the use of town cell phones to capture rules violations, particularly 'strict scrutiny' during stoppages. I almost hesitate to mention this, lest the idea catch on in many of these communities, but I fear it would get around most of the safeguards that Federal pre-emption now provides.
blue streak 1 Have to wonder if the thinking is if speed control ever handed back to local agencies ? ? ?
Why look any further than the response of just about any local politician to the general idea of HSR passing through their district, or for that matter any sort of Barrington-style service increase affecting crossings or back yards.
You can bet your bottom dollar that many more towns would have officers with radar guns shooting every train coming through, and arranging to stop anything exceeding local limits with the intent of filing traffic charges against the 'license' of any engineer stupid enough to have it on his person. Why would any elected government allow non-voting (but mandatorily taxpaying) railroads or their trains any particular consideration when visible voter concerns haven't been addressed?
On the other hand, there's the use of the radar guns to check on the railroad's speed limits at various points -- and presumably the subsequent ratting-out, weed-weasel-fashion, of any detected malefaction. Or the use of town cell phones to capture rules violations, particularly 'strict scrutiny' during stoppages. I almost hesitate to mention this, lest the idea catch on in many of these communities, but I fear it would get around most of the safeguards that Federal pre-emption now provides.
So how does that play out with speed? Well, FRA has long regulated maximum train speed (see, for example, the track regulations at 49 CFR 213). And FRA has long taken the position that these regulations are expressly intended to prevent more restrictive state regulation, the agency's stated rationale being that steady speed is safer than mutiple slowdowns for every town. So, non-Federal speed restrictions (or standards of liability that have the effect of imposing speed restrictions) are generally preempted.
The one exception to this is that a state can regulate speed at particular crossings which present an "essentially local safety hazard". Two points about this exception. First, the regulator has to be a state or state agency, not a city or similar locality. Second, any such regulation has to be crossing specific - the regulation has to fairly address specific issues at a specific crossing. A statewide rule (or statewide standard of liability) generally requiring speed reductions at grade crossings (or particular types of grade crossings statewide) doesn't pass the "esssentially local safety hazard" test.
With respect to police officers using radar on trains to see if the engineers are following their own speed limits, that is also something expressly covered by Federal law (for example, 49 CFR Part 240, which imposes penalites for engineers who exceed applicable speed limits by stated amounts). States can enforce the FRA requirements only if they are part of FRA's program for "state safety participation" under 49 CFR Part 212 (many states participate in this program). In these cases, state enforcement officers (typically, personnel from a state regulatory agency) have authority to write up a claimed violation in essentially the same manner as FRA inspectors. But it is FRA which decides whether to actually issue a citation, not the state agency.
Finally, there's also significant preemption of state and local railroad regulation under the Surface Transportation Board's governing statute and regulations (sometimes called "ICCTA preemption", because the current statutory provisions on preemption came from the 1996 "Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act"). ICCTA preemption has been successfully used against crossing blockage regulations, land condemnations, among other things. I believe its also been successfully used against speed regulations, but that's strictly off the top of my head.
Probably more than anyone wanted to know.,
Falcon48Probably more than anyone wanted to know.,
Nope. Really interesting. Thanks!
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Falcon48The one exception to this is that a state can regulate speed at particular crossings which present an "essentially local safety hazard". Two points about this exception. First, the regulator has to be a state or state agency, not a city or similar locality.
Anyone got a Caltrain timetable showing the 45 mph limit thru Redwood City? Did it last until 2003?
oltmannd Falcon48 Probably more than anyone wanted to know., Nope. Really interesting. Thanks!
Falcon48 Probably more than anyone wanted to know.,
I agree. This is very much what I wanted to know! Thanks for taking the time to research and post it.
Can some one give a SCOTUS cite ? Have several regional pols getting itchy fingers and bad legal advice .
.
blue streak 1 Can some one give a SCOTUS cite ? Have several regional pols getting itchy fingers and bad legal advice .
[/quote] I'm retired and no longer have access to legal research programs (like Westlaw) which can be used to find stuff like this But anyone who does can find relevant decisions by using the preemption section of FRA's governing statute as a search term (49 USC 20106). Be aware that this section was amended in 2007, so pre-2007 decisions need to be read with this in mind.
I wouldn't limit a search to SCOTUS decisions - Federal court of appeals decisions can be pretty authoritative. Also, look at what FRA itself has said (usually published in Federal Register, also searchable with legal research programs). Under SCOTUS' so-called Chevron doctrine, courts are supposed to give considerable deference to an agency's interpretation of its governing statute.
timz Falcon48 The one exception to this is that a state can regulate speed at particular crossings which present an "essentially local safety hazard". Two points about this exception. First, the regulator has to be a state or state agency, not a city or similar locality. In the old days, cities did set their own limits -- right? When was that made illegal? Anyone got a Caltrain timetable showing the 45 mph limit thru Redwood City? Did it last until 2003?
Falcon48 The one exception to this is that a state can regulate speed at particular crossings which present an "essentially local safety hazard". Two points about this exception. First, the regulator has to be a state or state agency, not a city or similar locality.
In the old days, cities did set their own limits -- right? When was that made illegal?
OvermodYou can bet your bottom dollar that many more towns would have officers with radar guns shooting every train coming through, and arranging to stop anything exceeding local limits with the intent of filing traffic charges against the 'license' of any engineer stupid enough to have it on his person.......On the other hand, there's the use of the radar guns to check on the railroad's speed limits at various points -- and presumably the subsequent ratting-out, weed-weasel-fashion, of any detected malefaction. Or the use of town cell phones to capture rules violations, particularly 'strict scrutiny' during stoppages.
For towns that pull such crap, perhaps the railroad might consider a "temporary" speed limit of 5-10mph through these towns. A 12000' train at 5mph will take a good 30+ minutes to pass. And of course don't forget to sound 15L starting 1/4 mile from any crossings; three minutes of horn will wake everyone up.
Two can play at that game.
zardozTwo can play at that game.
Except the 1/4 mile rule is only for trains in excess of 45mph (per FRA). Otherwise it's 15-20 second rule. Yeah, two can play, but you can also be the one to lose. Have to tread carefully.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
If perchance there's anyone out there who's interested in an "official" discussion of the train speed regulation issue and a starting point for possible further research, here is FRA's own discussion of the issue from the preamble to a 1998 fiinal rule on track standards, 63 Federal Register 33992 at 33998, June 22, 1998.
Keep in mind that this was written before the 2007 amendment to the underlying statute (49 USC 20106). However, I don't see anything in the 2007 amendment that affects this discussion. The 2007 amendment was designed to Congressionally reverse a court decision which had held that a railroad's liability for an FRA rule violation was limited to applicable FRA fines, and that the RR could not be held liable for other damages. Unsurprisingly, that didn't sit well with Congress, particulary since the case in question had involved a major freight railroad accident with lots of damages.
If you're having trouble sleeping at night, reading this should help. Indulge.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Train Speed/Preemption
Under the current Track Safety Standards, FRA has only an indirect role in determining speed limits. Railroads set train speed in their timetables or train orders. Once a railroad sets a train speed, it must then maintain the track according to FRA standards for the class of track that corresponds to that train speed. The signal and train control regulations also fix limits on train speed based upon the type of signal system that is in place. If the railroad fails to comply with track or signal system requirements for speed at which trains are operated, the railroad is subject to penalty.*33999
FRA's current regulations governing train speed do not afford any adjustment of train speeds in urban settings or at grade crossings. This omission is intentional. FRA believes that locally established speed limits may result in hundreds of individual speed restrictions along a train's route, increasing safety hazards and causing train delays. The safest train maintains a steady speed. Every time a train must slow down and then speed up, safety hazards, such as buff and draft forces, are introduced. These kinds of forces can enhance the chance of derailment with its attendant risk of injury to employees, the traveling public, and surrounding communities.
FRA always has contended that Federal regulations preempt any local speed restrictions on trains. Section 20106 of Title 49, United States Code (formerly 45 U.S.C. § 434) declares that--
[l]aws, regulations, and orders related to railroad safety shall be nationally uniform to the extent practicable. A State may adopt or continue in force an additional or more stringent law, regulation, or order related to railroad safety when the law, regulation, or order--(1) is necessary to eliminate or reduce an essentially local safety hazard; (2) is not incompatible with a law, regulation, or order of the United States Government; and (3) does not unreasonable burden interstate commerce.
FRA's long-held belief that Part 213 preempts local speed laws was verified by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1993 in the case CSX v. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658 (1993). The Court held that legal duties imposed on railroads by a state's common law of negligence fall within the scope of preemption provision of 49 U.S.C. 20106, which preempts any state "law, rule, regulation, order or standard relating to railroad safety." The Court said that preemption of such state laws "will lie only if the federal regulations substantially subsume the subject matter of the relevant state law." Easterwood, 664. However, the Court further stated that because Part 213 ties certain track requirements to train speed, it should be viewed as "covering the subject matter" of speed limits.
Notwithstanding some of the language in Easterwood that a cursory reading may otherwise indicate, FRA has never assumed the task of setting train speed. Rather, the agency holds railroads responsible for minimizing the risk of derailment by properly maintaining track for the speed they set themselves. For example, if a railroad wants its freight trains to operate at 59 m.p.h. between two certain locations, it must maintain the tracks between those locations to Class 4 standards.
Moreover, there are significant safety reasons for facilitating the fastest transit of trains throughout the railroad system. For example, the risk of releases of hazardous materials is reduced by minimizing the time such shipments spend in transportation. It would be poor public policy to allow local governments to attempt to lower their risk by raising everyone's risk and by clogging the transportation system. Railroads have strong economic motives to minimize the time shipments spend in transportation, so public safety and employee safety are best served by setting and enforcing the standards railroads must meet to travel at particular speeds.
In recent years, FRA has encountered increasing pressure from communities along railroad rights-of-way to set slower train speeds on main tracks located in urban areas. They typically cite the inherent dangers of grade crossings, pedestrian safety, as well as the risk of derailments of rail cars containing hazardous materials.
As to grade crossings, FRA has consistently maintained that their danger is a separate issue from train speed. The physical properties of a moving train virtually always prevent it from stopping in time to avoid hitting an object on the tracks regardless of the speed at which the train is traveling. Prevention of grade crossing accidents is more effectively achieved through the use of adequate crossing warning systems and through observance by the traveling public of crossing restrictions and precautions. Therefore, FRA continues to sponsor and/or support initiatives to improve safety at grade crossings under the Department of Transportation's Grade Crossing Action Plan. These initiatives are geared towards enhancing enforcement of traffic laws at crossings, closing unneeded crossings, enhancing rail corridor crossing reviews and improvements, expanding public education and Operation Lifesaver activities, increasing safety at private crossings, improving data and research efforts, and preventing rail trespassing.
In January, 1995, FRA implemented regulations for maintenance, inspection and testing of warning devices at crossings, such as lights and gates. See 59 FR 50086. The agency also implemented regulations requiring certain locomotives to be equipped with auxiliary lights making trains more visible to motorists, railroad employees, and pedestrians. See 61 FR 8881. FRA believes that these measures are more effective approaches to enhancing safety at grade crossings than an attempt to design speed limits for each geographic situation.
FRA received no comments on this issue following a similar discussion of the issue in the NPRM.
I'm not sure of the legal issues, but for years there have been speed limits through the small towns north of Lafayette on the old Monon line. Battle Ground, Brookston, and Reynolds all had posted limits, as I remember it was 45 passenger and 40 freight. It was a lot more relevant when CSX allowed 79 mph, but I believe the signs are still up, though I haven't been through that area for a while. And yes the Cardinal and Hoosier State did slow down for those areas. Perhaps this was negotiated between the towns and L&N/Family Lines/CSX.
Unless it was negotiated or the local PUC/RRCommission/Whatever had a design issue with a gated crossing circuit, the locals could whine and howl all they wanted to. The federal pre-emption trumps all.
JustWonderin' oltmannd Falcon48 Probably more than anyone wanted to know., Nope. Really interesting. Thanks! I agree. This is very much what I wanted to know! Thanks for taking the time to research and post it.
(I'm retired now)I used to do this kind of stuff for a living.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.