edbenton wrote:There was something wrong with that train a RR employee does not talk a WALK for the heck of it. Especally in a heavilly traffic area sorry as soon as the rest of the caase comes out the CRF will lose this one.
Well, looking at the area, this is the only crossing and access road for miles, so I can understand the frustration. I will reserve my speculation, though, until more information comes out, if ever.
Well, I would be interested to here the railroads side in this, this story seems to be all about the renaissance festival and nothing about the railroad. I know where this crossing is, and trains do not normally stop here, and I am pretty sure there was an announcement in the GTB's General track bulletins, about the festival and watching for people crossing the tracks and not blocking the crossing.
I also have a hard time believing the engineer was the one walking the train! Maybe the reporter needs to go back to school and learn how to write a story, rather than just making inflamatory statements.
Midnight Railroader wrote:The story quotes the legal filing. The railroad wouldn't comment. How's that "imflammatory"?
"Intentionally Blocked"
"Leisurely Stroll"
Maybe that's in the suit, but the article could have simply said "stopped for an unknown reason" and that a crew member was "walking the length of the train." The story perpetuates the suits' supposition that the stop was a malicious act on the part of the railroad or employees thereof.
My guess is an unexpected emergency application. The rules say you have to walk the train...
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...
It is kind of like the trucking industry is treated also. No one realizes that without both the RR and trucks this whole country would stop running within one week or less.
Ah yes,the ignorant public! Sometimes, I feel like this society is getting less knowledgeble everyday. If you dont know anything about the railroad industry, DONT ACT LIKE IT.
Alec
...I wonder if some of the problems with the public blaming the R R's is not some of the railroads fault themselves by purposely trying to run their business like they don't exist.
Public in general, has no idea what or how they operate and do business.
Quentin
What has to be done to educate the public?
Have a Discovery Channel and TLC channel reality show about railroads that is like the show "Dangerous Catch"?
Andrew
Watch my videos on-line at https://www.youtube.com/user/AndrewNeilFalconer
Very familiar with the subject. Somebody is grandstanding again, trying to force others to spend money to advance his narrow interests.Almost feel sorry for Walt D.at BNSF having this waste his time dealing with this kook.
Mooks, Carl, Chris, Ed and a few others have heard my "hope they have another firetruck" story that happened at the urging of this clown in 1988. (Told it to my boss this morning and almost left him on the floor)
Boss Hen happened to get caught in the traffic jam on that Saturday morning at Larkspur. Figured that it was an aparent UDE and just waited.
It was just a few months ago that Larkspur threatened to sue the Renaissance Festival over utilities issues. (too cheap to pay for sewer and water support for RF that did not benefit anyone else). Before that, RF threatened to move the event elsewhere.
The organizers of Renaissance Festivals have lately gotten into the act of moving their fairs if they can not negotiate to their terms.
....Emergency brake application, anyone?....
They pretty much fail at picking their fights!
Go here for my rail shots! http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=9296
Building the CPR Kootenay division in N scale, blog here: http://kootenaymodelrailway.wordpress.com/
I'll bet those jack-booted DM&E thugs are behind this lawsuit!
BTW - If we pitched a battle royale between the Mayo Clinicians and these faux Knights in Shining Armour, who'd win?
snagletooth wrote: What does a train in emergency have to do with DM&E. Did the engineer here there were DM&E workers heading to Wyoming in that traffic? Maybe they were transloading an ISO container into a boxcar? Or maybe, just maybe, the conducter got picked-on by the Black Night and seeking revenge for this insult!!
Okay, it's like this.....
See, let me explain the obvious to you........
Hmmmm, if you've been following the BNSF vs DM&E saga lately.........
Know what? There's no way I can bring Ed and Snagletooth into the meaty part of the Bell curve regarding this tongue-in-cheek bit of presumed irony without insulting them to some degree, so guys......have a nice day.
The festival could have saved the county a lot of money by calling 1-800-waaaaaa.
Maybe BNSF should just close the crossing to avoid inconveniencing them in the future.
rrnut282 wrote: The festival could have saved the county a lot of money by calling 1-800-waaaaaa. Maybe BNSF should just close the crossing to avoid inconveniencing them in the future.
rrnut282 wrote: The festival could have saved the county a lot of money by calling 1-800-waaaaaa.Maybe BNSF should just close the crossing to avoid inconveniencing them in the future.
I think some may find it inappropriate to make light of a situation that does have potential safety pitfalls. When you have a lot of people congregated in one area, it becomes more critical for emergency personel to be able to reach that area if need be. Relative expediency often is the difference between life and death in such situations, and a train blocking the only crossing into the area could have been a tragic situation.
As train lengths increase, the likelyhood of a crossing being blocked also increases. Since constructing grade crossing separations is an expensive proposition, it may be that the regulators decide to force railroads to limit train length to reduce that statistical likelyhood.
One reason I've felt that BNSF's actions toward the DM&E are absurd and hypocritical is that some of the arguments being used by the BNSF/Mayo coalition, e.g. the potential for blocked crossings in Rochester, are the same arguments being used by the RF people against BNSF. Half dozen of one, but only six of the other, right Mr. Rose?
If the railroads don't start working together to address these types of complaints, and instead use these same complaints in a cutthroat manner against other railroads, the industry as a whole is going to suffer.
This was definately not the only access to the RF site, and not even the best when looking for emergency vehicles to have access.
More significant regarding the safety issue w/b why would the RF people be given a permit to hold their event at that site if there were access problems for emergency vehicles. The site is lovely and there is lots of open space along Perry Park RD., but is it the best location from a public safety point of view??? I doubt that those granting permits will allow another event of any size to locate there.
futuremodal wrote: I think some may find it inappropriate to make light of a situation that does have potential safety pitfalls. When you have a lot of people congregated in one area, it becomes more critical for emergency personel to be able to reach that area if need be. Relative expediency often is the difference between life and death in such situations, and a train blocking the only crossing into the area could have been a tragic situation.As train lengths increase, the likelyhood of a crossing being blocked also increases. Since constructing grade crossing separations is an expensive proposition, it may be that the regulators decide to force railroads to limit train length to reduce that statistical likelyhood....If the railroads don't start working together to address these types of complaints, and instead use these same complaints in a cutthroat manner against other railroads, the industry as a whole is going to suffer.
...
Gimme me a break, FM. I resent your patronizing Ed and Snaggletooth with a preachy response in this thread.
I can't believe there aren't some sort of laws to cover this sort of thing that aren't being reported in the story, which is about a lawsuit against BNSF and little else.
Here in a civilized area, one must first obtain city or county permits to operate an entertainment venue such as a public festival. That means certain levels of proper security must be in place before the event opens. Is it possible the organizer of this event held it outside more-strict jurisdictions in order to save money?
To wit, if the RF drew enough auto traffic to produce a ten-mile backup in 45 minutes, as is alleged in the story, in a civilized location the event organizers would have had to contract with the city/county/state for traffic control officers and have a cogent plan in place in order to obtain operating permits.
Same with law enforcement personnel on site -- and this includes both police officers and safety teams. Around here, if you permit for -- say -- 5,000 attendance, you need to have one full-time advanced life support team and ALS vehicle spotted right on the premises during the entire run of the event, and X number of law enforcement people for crowd control. And you will be fined if you permit for only 5,000 in an attempt to save overhead and 25,000 people show up.
On top of all this, there are permits to be obtained from the health department which would send representatives to the site to inspect food storage and handling facilities, etc. -- even mandating how many port-a-potties need to be available -- before the doors can open. And there would be inspectors on-site during the event to monitor food service to ensure compliance.
FM, I can see no reason for you to enter this discussion save for your obvious bias against BNSF and your morbid obsession to align yourself with anyone and anything going against that railroad. Take off your "BNSF is always wrong" t-shirt, willya? That act is getting old. I'd tell you why, but ... well, you have yourself a nice day, too.
futuremodal wrote: As train lengths increase, the likelyhood of a crossing being blocked also increases. Since constructing grade crossing separations is an expensive proposition, it may be that the regulators decide to force railroads to limit train length to reduce that statistical likelyhood.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Poppa Zit THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I try not to get riled up with Dave but he gets under my skin.
10 Mile Backup?
I just noticed that bit of hyperbole in the story. The whole story was so lopsided it is hard to notice all the exaggerations. How could they have a 10 Mile Backup on an Interstate?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.