I am really surprised we have not seen since the introduction of "Percision railroading" a rash of regulations and state/federal laws limiting freight train length to siding length. I remember when the "Percision" plans started in order for some trains to meet they would break a train in two at a yard so the other "super train" could roll by.
It just seems reasonable trains should be able to meet each other or pass each other with no restrictions.
Dixie FlyerI am really surprised we have not seen since the introduction of "Percision railroading" a rash of regulations and state/federal laws limiting freight train length to siding length. I remember when the "Percision" plans started in order for some trains to meet they would break a train in two at a yard so the other "super train" could roll by. It just seems reasonable trains should be able to meet each other or pass each other with no restrictions.
From your continued questions - you don't understand the private corporation status under which the railroads in the USA exist.
Railroads run their own operating plans - they are permitted to operate non-clearing trains if they so desire. Some managements lose their common sense and seek to operate non-clearing trains in both directions over single track line segments, they do so at their own level of inefficiency.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
You decide to pass a law that trains can't be longer than ... the shortest siding? The shortest siding between Los Angeles and Portland, or the shortest siding between Los Angeles and Sacramento, or the shortest siding between Los Angeles and Bakersfield?
Dixie FlyerIt just seems reasonable trains should be able to meet each other or pass each other with no restrictions.
I'm sure that the railroads feel the same way. And there have been efforts to accomplish just that for the longer trains that are now being run.
But if you're going to mandate something, you have to be prepared to pay the price.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Trains being too long for some, or all sidings on a specific line is nothing new. I remember 40+ years ago trains too long for a siding having to "double over" the head end to another track at a siding near my home growing up. The siding was, and still is, 5380 ft long. Formerly on a class one, it's now a regional where train meets a more rare at that location. The tracks that were used to "double over" to are now gone.
Both trains being too big to meet at a siding also happened at times. There's a move called a "double saw-by" can be used. It's not as feasible now because of the smaller crews and no cabooses on trains, but it can still be done. It means a lot more walking for the conductors now.
There really isn't any standard size for sidings. Generally, when first built they reflected the size of trains being operated. Eventually as train sizes grew, sidings would be extended to reflect the longer trains.
This is still happening today. Sidings are being lengthened, capital spending plans permitting.
The real bottlenecks are the yards at the originating and terminating points. While they too are having receiving and departing tracks lengthened, many are still short requiring trains to double, triple, quadruple in or out of. Many yards, once out in the "sticks" are now landlocked by developement. Making it hard to expand tracks.
Jeff
tree68 Dixie Flyer It just seems reasonable trains should be able to meet each other or pass each other with no restrictions. I'm sure that the railroads feel the same way. And there have been efforts to accomplish just that for the longer trains that are now being run. But if you're going to mandate something, you have to be prepared to pay the price.
Dixie Flyer It just seems reasonable trains should be able to meet each other or pass each other with no restrictions.
When I was working I had the opportunity to read through a interview of a former NS Operating VP done by a CSX interviewer - When the question of train size was asked of this senior operating official - the answer was 'We don't care about train sizes, we just let the Train Dispatchers figure out how to get them over the road.'
What a way to run a railroad.
At that time I was working the CSX Atlanta Division - at that time, if I remember correctly, Northbound trains destined Birmingham from Waycross were limited to 6200 feet in length, trains destined Atlanta were limited to 7800 feet. Southbound trains from both Atlanta and Birmingham were limited to the then CSX maximum length of 9000 feet.
The biggest problem was Yardmasters - while in operating their yard they know if track A holds 50 cars and you put 51 cars in it will foul the leads on one end or the other. Tell them a train limit is 6200 feet and they think one more car won't hurt.
The one phrase a Train Dispatcher does not want to utter is - "What do you mean you don't fit?".
Government trying to regulate efficiency in anything is scary.
On the other hand, I have witnessed operating departments demand in the budgets for siding extensions that were built and then never used.
How do we define siding length? Is it actual length from signal to signal, or do we want to leave a little wiggle room at each end?
What about crossings, a siding might be 12,000' in the timetable but if there is a crossing halfway down it then the longest train you can stop there will be just under 6,000', unless of course you want to send the conductor out to cut the crossing (big delays).
How do we define a "siding"? What is there to stop the railroads from redesignating all their sidings as short stretches of double track?
The railroads might also well respond to such a regulation by simply ripping up all the sidings and combining all the traffic into one super long train on some routes. Seemed to work for Chicago Great Western......
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
SD70DudeWhat about crossings, a siding might be 12,000' in the timetable but if there is a crossing halfway down it then the longest train you can stop there will be just under 6,000', unless of course you want to send the conductor out to cut the crossing (big delays).
I know of a spot where trains are often parked for considerable periods of time - at night you can see the crossing signals flashing merrily away all night (it's on one of the cams). The siding is about 7,000 feet, but there are crossings...
SD70DudeHow do we define siding length? Is it actual length from signal to signal, or do we want to leave a little wiggle room at each end? What about crossings, a siding might be 12,000' in the timetable but if there is a crossing halfway down it then the longest train you can stop there will be just under 6,000', unless of course you want to send the conductor out to cut the crossing (big delays). How do we define a "siding"? What is there to stop the railroads from redesignating all their sidings as short stretches of double track? The railroads might also well respond to such a regulation by simply ripping up all the sidings and combining all the traffic into one super long train on some routes. Seemed to work for Chicago Great Western......
Train Dispatchers 'work' with siding length on a minute to minute basis and now that PSR is in effect the fact that there are crossings in a siding don't over rule the fact that it is a siding of a specified length. To some extents, if the wait will be especially long for the meet(s) the train taking siding may be instructed to cut one or more crossings - it also might no be so instructed.
In the past, many railroads considered places where there were parallel tracks for more than two miles were considered double main track - with PSR double main track segments of four miles and less have effectively become sidings with the size trains that are being operated under PSR.
With the financial crunch the B&O experienced in the late 1950's and early 1960's before the affiliation with the C&O they undertook two CTC installation projects. The first was on the Chicago Division betwen Sherwood, Ohio and Pine Jct near the Indiana/Illinois state line; the second was on the Baltimore Division between Baltimore and Philadelphia.
The Chicago Division installation configured the railroad as having nominally 8 mile double track segments connected by 8 miles of single track. The switches at the ends of double track permitted trains to enter and leave double track at 45 MPH. There were no intermediate power operated crossovers within the double track segments. With the ConRail acquisition in 1999 this CTC segment was built up to CTC double track with segments of triple track from Willard, OH to Pine Jct.
The Baltimore Division installation was single track with passing sidings, except for a 6 mile segement of double track bracketing Bay Viw Yard. The passing sidings were between 8000 and 10000 feet in length with the expectation of 1950's thinking that the freight trains of the day 4000 to 5000 feet in length could be 'double met' with such length sidings. Needless to say with the progression of train sizes toward the 21st Century the sidings became too small for the size trains being operated.
Track length = Pt of Sw to Pt Of Switch
Storage Capacity = Clearance point to Clearance point
Operating Capacity = Storage capacity - clearance for public crossings - clearance for some (not all)private crossings and incidental differences caused by insulated point & signal placement, etc.
...and then there are the operating wonks creating new terms created on the planet they are visiting from.
BaltACDFrom your continued questions - you don't understand the private corporation status under which the railroads in the USA exist. Railroads run their own operating plans - they are permitted to operate non-clearing trains if they so desire. Some managements lose their common sense and seek to operate non-clearing trains in both directions over single track line segments, they do so at their own level of inefficiency.
Again I agree...
It is a fundamental legal concept concerning private property and real estate that I have to say I am surprised that more Trains forum readers do not comprehend. Why the heck do you think a Home Owners Association Contract is so lengthly and requires your signature. Because it is a direct amendment to your existing private property rights that your agreeing to abide by in return for living in a specific area. Without that amendment, nobody has the right to tell you what color you paint your house, what trees are replaced with what bushes and/or on and on because it is your private property.
Real Estate law states you cannot take someones property or dictate it's use without just compensation. Weather you like the definition or not, it is viewed as a confiscation of property and infringement on property rights by the government. The only loop hole around that is the use of Emminent Domain. The government cannot just step in and tell a Corporation how to operate on private property just for kicks. The government has to prove either a safety consideration impacting others OR common good overrules the property rights (Emminent Domain). It can pass regulations on how a business in general operates. It can pass regulations on Interstate Commerce. It can step in when Interstate Commerce is impeded. Wartime and National Emergencies move special powers into the governments hands that do not exist in peacetime in regards to all rights including censorship and what is kept secret.
So the taking over of dispatching just because someone in the government thinks it can be done better by the government (which also refutes a good chunk of capitalism) is viewed as taking over of private property because dispatching impacts the use of the private property so directly. Private property rights are a key concept of a Capitalist system as well, btw. The government either has to make a case on safety grounds or a case that it impedes interstate commerce and that the entire rail transportation system is impacted to the detriment of the public good.
Passing laws on the length of sidings again is operational and impacts the use of private property directly.
In regards to this item. I would be real curious if all the laws passed on how long you can block a crossing are actually legal because I suspect they are not legal but nobody has really challenged them and the Class I railroads would rather not rock the boat here and do this as a community service to maintain goodwill with the communities they pass through. Similar to maintaining speed limits lower than track speed to pacify a community........I don't think a community has any legal right to dictate to a railroad what speed trains pass through town at. Another law I think is a community service type deal with no real legal basis under it.
A lot of these communities can just as easily build a bridge for all the costs they are imposing on railroad operations here. Granted some are not that wealthy and could not but a good chunk of them can.
What about "You cannot blow your horn at grade crossing in my town" even though it is the everyones safety and Federal Law requires it.
caldreamer What about "You cannot blow your horn at grade crossing in my town" even though it is the everyones safety and Federal Law requires it.
[quote user="caldreamer"]
The horn blowing requirement is a safety requirement which I exempted from what I said above. It is also not an absolute ban from what I understand and still at the Engineer's descretion for safety purposes.
CMStPnP SD70Dude What about crossings, a siding might be 12,000' in the timetable but if there is a crossing halfway down it then the longest train you can stop there will be just under 6,000', unless of course you want to send the conductor out to cut the crossing (big delays). In regards to this item. I would be real curious if all the laws passed on how long you can block a crossing are actually legal because I suspect they are not legal but nobody has really challenged them and the Class I railroads would rather not rock the boat here and do this as a community service to maintain goodwill with the communities they pass through. Similar to maintaining speed limits lower than track speed to pacify a community........I don't think a community has any legal right to dictate to a railroad what speed trains pass through town at. Another law I think is a community service type deal with no real legal basis under it. A lot of these communities can just as easily build a bridge for all the costs they are imposing on railroad operations here. Granted some are not that wealthy and could not but a good chunk of them can.
SD70Dude What about crossings, a siding might be 12,000' in the timetable but if there is a crossing halfway down it then the longest train you can stop there will be just under 6,000', unless of course you want to send the conductor out to cut the crossing (big delays).
So, you think that railroads should be allowed to block public crossings for as long as they want? What about dead end roads with no other access besides the crossing? What about emergency vehicle access?
If the effort to not block crossings is so costly then the railroad should easily be able to justify paying for those new overpasses themselves.
Up here the crossing rules come from Transport Canada, the federal regulator. They definitely have the authority to tell the railroads what to do.
Unless of course you think that railroads and perhaps large corporations in general should be above the law.
CSSHEGEWISCHThe FRA has set up guidelines regarding the establishment of quiet zones. The municipality has to jump through a lot of hoops and be willing to accept some responsibility in this matter.
From the FRA: https://railroads.dot.gov/highway-rail-crossing-and-trespasser-programs/train-horn-rulequiet-zones/train-horn-rule-and-quiet
CMStPnP The horn blowing requirement is a safety requirement which I exempted from what I said above. It is also not an absolute ban from what I understand and still at the Engineer's descretion for safety purposes.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
CMStPnP BaltACD From your continued questions - you don't understand the private corporation status under which the railroads in the USA exist. Railroads run their own operating plans - they are permitted to operate non-clearing trains if they so desire. Some managements lose their common sense and seek to operate non-clearing trains in both directions over single track line segments, they do so at their own level of inefficiency. Again I agree... It is a fundamental legal concept concerning private property and real estate that I have to say I am surprised that more Trains forum readers do not comprehend. Why the heck do you think a Home Owners Association Contract is so lengthly and requires your signature. Because it is a direct amendment to your existing private property rights that your agreeing to abide by in return for living in a specific area. Without that amendment, nobody has the right to tell you what color you paint your house, what trees are replaced with what bushes and/or on and on because it is your private property. Real Estate law states you cannot take someones property or dictate it's use without just compensation. Weather you like the definition or not, it is viewed as a confiscation of property and infringement on property rights by the government. The only loop hole around that is the use of Emminent Domain. The government cannot just step in and tell a Corporation how to operate on private property just for kicks. The government has to prove either a safety consideration impacting others OR common good overrules the property rights (Emminent Domain). It can pass regulations on how a business in general operates. It can pass regulations on Interstate Commerce. It can step in when Interstate Commerce is impeded. Wartime and National Emergencies move special powers into the governments hands that do not exist in peacetime in regards to all rights including censorship and what is kept secret. So the taking over of dispatching just because someone in the government thinks it can be done better by the government (which also refutes a good chunk of capitalism) is viewed as taking over of private property because dispatching impacts the use of the private property so directly. Private property rights are a key concept of a Capitalist system as well, btw. The government either has to make a case on safety grounds or a case that it impedes interstate commerce and that the entire rail transportation system is impacted to the detriment of the public good. Passing laws on the length of sidings again is operational and impacts the use of private property directly.
BaltACD From your continued questions - you don't understand the private corporation status under which the railroads in the USA exist. Railroads run their own operating plans - they are permitted to operate non-clearing trains if they so desire. Some managements lose their common sense and seek to operate non-clearing trains in both directions over single track line segments, they do so at their own level of inefficiency.
Apparently you didn't cover zoning statutes in your class. And apparently you think regulation is the same as confiscation.
CMStPnP In regards to this item. I would be real curious if all the laws passed on how long you can block a crossing are actually legal because I suspect they are not legal but nobody has really challenged them and the Class I railroads would rather not rock the boat here and do this as a community service to maintain goodwill with the communities they pass through. Similar to maintaining speed limits lower than track speed to pacify a community........I don't think a community has any legal right to dictate to a railroad what speed trains pass through town at. Another law I think is a community service type deal with no real legal basis under it.
Your suspicion that municipal speed restrictions and state or local laws against blocking crossings are not enforceable in the U.S.
You are not correct that "nobody has really challenged them". Railroads have brought a string of lawsuits against blocked crossing laws in the last two decades - pretty much any time someone has tried to enforce them - and have successfully blocked enforcement in every single case. Regarding speed restrictions, I know of a single case where the railroad lost, but that is the exception that proves the rule.
If you are suggesting that regulation of railroads' blockages of crossings or speed limits is somehow prohibited because it interferes with their property rights, there is no basis in case law for that suggestion. Instead, the decisions all turn on two federal laws: the Federal Rail Safety Act, which gives the FRA jurisdiction over all safety aspects of railroading, and the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act, which gives the STB exclusive jurisdiction over all non-safety aspects of railroad operations. Both federal laws have clauses that explicitly disallow state or local regulation of railroad operations under many circumstances. Blocked crossing laws and municipal speed restrictions have consistently been found to fall within the category of state and local laws that are prohibited by the two federal laws. When state and federal law conflict, federal law wins, so the state and local laws are unenforceable. (There are certain circumstances under which a state or local safety regulation is enforceable if it, among other things, is necessary to address a specific local situation. A state-imposed 10-mph speed restriction on UP's street-running track in Shakopee, MN was upheld by the Minnesota Supreme Court for that reason; this is the "exception that proves the rule".)
Unfortunately these unenforceable laws remain on the books and cause a great deal of confusion among people (even government officials) who know how to look up laws and regulations, but don't then think to check case law. In fact, states keep passing new laws and getting them struck down. Oklahoma was the last one, in 2019. Now Alabama may be gearing up for their turn to waste everyone's time and money.
In Canada, there are federal regulations on blocking crossings. In the USA there are not. Since there are no federal regulations in the USA, and since state regulation is prohibited, railroads can legally block crossings for as long as they want.
You are correct that railroads put a ton of effort into minimizing the impact of blocked crossings. They don't want the bad publicity, and they sure as hell don't want Congress to jump in with a totally unworkable, poorly-conceived new law.
These are my personal opinions and I'm not speaking for my employer.
Dan
(1) Federal rule trumps state and local rule every time.
(2) If there is no memorandum of agreement letter between FRA/STB and the locals, any concocted local rule has no weight or validity.
(3) In the case of old whistle bans that still exist with the new No Train Horn rules, there is a mechanism to include those.
Locals are whining that the new No Train Horn rules are too expen$ive and the rules ought to be relaxed. After the derailment at Dennison Iowa and some others, there ought to be some serious investigation into the site investigation panel diagnostic field teams that evaluated the reasons for allowing no horn rule zones in the first place. (Dennison IA was a miserable fail that should have been caught for engineering reasons)...Hearing through the grapevine that several no-horn zones may be revoked for accident reasons and/or for failure to maintain the granted conditions.
Blocked crossing time limits genrerally extend only to public crossings and then if there is an emergency, switching or other condition in play, the rule on timing starts over every time the train moves, even a little bit. IF the railroad knowingly blocks a crossing (public) and fails to break the train at a public crossing - shame on them (esp the operating bubbas who should know better)...sounds like an operating problem and an urgent capital budget request item to me. If you change operating parameters and don't look at the consequences - you ought to be responsible for the consequences (PSR be damned)
mudchicken... Blocked crossing time limits genrerally extend only to public crossings and then if there is an emergency, switching or other condition in play, the rule on timing starts over every time the train moves, even a little bit. IF the railroad knowingly blocks a crossing (public) and fails to break the train at a public crossing - shame on them (esp the operating bubbas who should know better)...sounds like an operating problem and an urgent capital budget request item to me. If you change operating parameters and don't look at the consequences - you ought to be responsible for the consequences (PSR be damned)
Even when crossing(s) are being cut - the crossing(s) itself can be blocked for extended periods of time depending upon how far the conductor had to walk in making the moves. Moves being the cutting or the recoupling of the crossings to facilitate the departure of the train.
SD70DudeSo, you think that railroads should be allowed to block public crossings for as long as they want? What about dead end roads with no other access besides the crossing? What about emergency vehicle access? If the effort to not block crossings is so costly then the railroad should easily be able to justify paying for those new overpasses themselves. Up here the crossing rules come from Transport Canada, the federal regulator. They definitely have the authority to tell the railroads what to do. Unless of course you think that railroads and perhaps large corporations in general should be above the law.
How realistic are the Transport Canada rules of no more than a 5 min blockage of a railroad crossing for a freight train as long as it is not moving? Is that short time span really that enforceable? Did I misread that on the internet or is it really just 5 min? How is that complied with?
charlie hebdoApparently you didn't cover zoning statutes in your class. And apparently you think regulation is the same as confiscation.
Consult with your personal lawyer on this. The specifics which could involve a lot of back and forth posts. Well beyond the discussion topic here.
Murphy Siding CMStPnP The horn blowing requirement is a safety requirement which I exempted from what I said above. It is also not an absolute ban from what I understand and still at the Engineer's descretion for safety purposes. I don't believe that to be true.
I don't believe that to be true.
Engineers can and can be required to blow the horn under certain circumstances for safety's sake. To warn railroad employees, nonrailroad people or animals. On two or more tracks, when approaching a crossing that a train on the adjacent track might clear the crossing before your train occupies the crossing. Overtaking a train that is stopped close or moving slowly on an adjacent track toward the crossing. (I've seen a near miss in this situation that wasn't a quiet zone. Driver sees the slow train, but not the fast one on the other track hidden by the slow one.) If the crossing has been identified as having some sort of activation failure. (The failure could be a simple one such as a light burned out on the crossing signal.)
jeffhergert(I've seen a near miss in this situation that wasn't a quiet zone. Driver sees the slow train, but not the fast one on the other track hidden by the slow one.)
Five firefighters in Cardinal, Ontario were killed some years ago when they pulled onto a crossing once the train cleared. But there was that second train...
CMStPnP charlie hebdo Apparently you didn't cover zoning statutes in your class. And apparently you think regulation is the same as confiscation. Consult with your personal lawyer on this. The specifics which could involve a lot of back and forth posts. Well beyond the discussion topic here.
charlie hebdo Apparently you didn't cover zoning statutes in your class. And apparently you think regulation is the same as confiscation.
And once again you make a dubious claim and can't show any factual evidence to back it up. Q.E.D.!!
CMStPnP SD70Dude So, you think that railroads should be allowed to block public crossings for as long as they want? What about dead end roads with no other access besides the crossing? What about emergency vehicle access? If the effort to not block crossings is so costly then the railroad should easily be able to justify paying for those new overpasses themselves. Up here the crossing rules come from Transport Canada, the federal regulator. They definitely have the authority to tell the railroads what to do. Unless of course you think that railroads and perhaps large corporations in general should be above the law. How realistic are the Transport Canada rules of no more than a 5 min blockage of a railroad crossing for a freight train as long as it is not moving? Is that short time span really that enforceable? Did I misread that on the internet or is it really just 5 min? How is that complied with?
SD70Dude So, you think that railroads should be allowed to block public crossings for as long as they want? What about dead end roads with no other access besides the crossing? What about emergency vehicle access? If the effort to not block crossings is so costly then the railroad should easily be able to justify paying for those new overpasses themselves. Up here the crossing rules come from Transport Canada, the federal regulator. They definitely have the authority to tell the railroads what to do. Unless of course you think that railroads and perhaps large corporations in general should be above the law.
You read it correctly. But it is also important to read and think about the fine print. A long slow moving train could legally block a crossing for over an hour as it is walked over a broken rail, to pick one example.
The best way to comply with the rule is to not block the crossing in the first place. That's why trains stop short of crossings in so many places, even though they might not be in the clear in a siding or might have several miles of double track still ahead of them.
If you are switching over a crossing you basically have to clear it between each and every move, and even then it is very difficult to do anything in 5 minutes so this part of the rule gets bent a lot. But Transport Canada seems to look the other way most of the time unless things get really excessive, and then they may pressure or order the railway to focus on keeping the crossings clear. I know they've gone after both CN (149 St) and CP (50 St) over issues in Edmonton, CP's decision during their Hunter era to build big trains out of a 2,000' long yard became the bane of southeast Edmonton commuters, and the "50th Street Train" is still a daily feature of the local traffic reports.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.