Think YOU have problems with your neighbors?

steamtown observer · **Joined:** Mon Oct 25, 2004 3:11 pm **Posts:** 371

J3a-614 wrote:

Whooee, shades of the National City Lines case! And a serious thing to consider if it's true. Is there any sort of documentation or even circumstantial evidence to back this up?

We are getting off topic, but if you are familiar with Guidestar, take a look at the tax returns for some of these Rails to Trails groups, especially the National Rails To Trails Conservancy. The larger donations are identified by amount and who gave it. Some times you then have to Google to find the real donors. The American Trucking Association comes up more than once.

dinwitty · **Joined:** Wed Oct 22, 2008 8:18 pm **Posts:** 2226

is the truck still on the tracks?

filmteknik · **Posted:** Sat May 04, 2013 12:44 pm

Was the city guarding the truck 24/7? It's on their owned or leased property, right? While I don't think shoving it aside with a train causing great damage is a good idea, tempting as it may be, what would stop them from having it towed off the track?

Steve

dinwitty · **Joined:** Wed Oct 22, 2008 8:18 pm **Posts:** 2226

The city removed the truck.

http://www.dailyfreeman.com/articles/20 ... =fullstory

I think the article puts it in the right perspective, but the state doesnt own the line...

of course they dont!

Catskill is leasing the line, means they control it, they have its responsibility.
Doesnt matter if the state owns the line or not, its State Law.

The issue at hand apparently passenger car restoration. Are the car(s) going to be inside a shop for repairs? Thats what it needs.

Then there is no issue, paint ships etc fall to a concrete floor and cleaned up for proper disposal.

765 was taken out and away to is museum location, it was wearing its original lagging, meaning asbestos, it was removed properly out there. The mayor may have a letigimate point, but he better not have an underlying cause (and laughing behind peoples back). The article sounds like he's doing a little dance around the issue.

You dont do a stunt like that...period.

I recall riding the Little River 110 with its passengers, there was a car parked on the tracks ahead we could see, we stopped the train and ran ahead to see what the problem was...

Car had a family full in it...

"Where can we get on the train?

-thud-

"you go down to the station get a ticket to board!"

already seen this happen guys. Sometimes you find refrigerators on the tracks for no reason in the night, KERPUMB!!!

dinwitty · **Joined:** Wed Oct 22, 2008 8:18 pm **Posts:** 2226

I was just thinking if another railroad had an emergency and needed to move a train over the Catskill line then find theres a truck in the way, you can sure betcha its going to get moved off...

the Kingston branch might not have any serious main connections but you never know when issues crop up and your in a need it now deal.

I'd rather see a rail/trail companionship cooperative.
Heck I would even bring a bike and have a camera ready and follow a train on a bike.
You could easily figure out some cool things to happen between the railroad and trail.

EBT when you ride bring your picnic baskets to the far end of the ride because they have picnic tables when you debark and they turn the train you can snack/munch away while you wait for the return trip. Too bad its not running right now.

The trail could have historical markers for this and that of the rail line and its history. You could create a camping area. Ride or hike to it.
Gotta put your brain to it, instead of brawn.

dinwitty · **Joined:** Wed Oct 22, 2008 8:18 pm **Posts:** 2226

After reading a few things on the Mayor, Catskill, you should go full throttle with the State and FRA for putting the railroad in danger.

And let the judge know about it. Its a teeny boy prank done by an over zealous Mayor.

JimBoylan · **Posted:** Mon May 06, 2013 9:02 am

Not exactly Rails to Trails to Rails, but Electric City Trolley Museum & Station in Scranton, Pa. runs under a Bridge to Fill to Bridge. The state highway department replaced the old Stafford Ave. bridge with a dirt and stone embankment where the interurban trolley hadn't run for 30 years and the Diesel freight for 10 years. They agreed that they would pay for a new bridge if the trolleys ever ran again. When forced to make good, they compromised with a single track bridge to replace the old double track one.

ebtrr · **Posted:** Tue May 07, 2013 10:33 am

From the code of Federal Regulations:

Quote:

234.3 Application and responsibility for compliance.

(a) With the exception of §234.11, this part applies to all railroads except the following:

(1) Operations of a plant railroad as defined in §234.5;

(2) Rapid transit operations in an urban area that are not connected to the general railroad system of transportation; or

(3) Tourist, scenic, historic, or excursion operations conducted only on track used exclusively for that purpose ( i.e., there is no freight, intercity passenger, or commuter passenger railroad operation on the track) and only on track inside an installation that is insular; i.e., the operations are limited to a separate enclave in such a way that there is no reasonable expectation that the safety of the public—except a business guest, a licensee of the railroad or an affiliated entity, or a trespasser—would be affected by the operation. An operation will not be considered insular if one or more of the following exists on its line:

(i) A public highway-rail crossing that is in use;

(ii) An at-grade rail crossing that is in use;

(iii) A bridge over a public road or waters used for commercial navigation; or

(iv) A common corridor with a railroad, i.e., its operations are within 30 feet of those of any railroad.

(b) Although the duties imposed by this part are generally stated in terms of the duty of a railroad, each person, including a contractor or subcontractor for a railroad, who performs any task covered by this part, shall perform that task in accordance with this part.
...
234.305 Remedial actions in response to reports of unsafe conditions at highway-rail and pathway grade crossings.

(d) General rule on response to report of a disabled vehicle or other obstruction blocking a railroad track at a highway-rail or pathway grade crossing. (1) If a railroad receives a report of a disabled vehicle or other obstruction blocking a railroad track at a highway-rail or pathway grade crossing, pursuant to §234.303(c)(2) or (d)(2), and the railroad has maintenance responsibility for the crossing to which the report pertains, the railroad shall promptly contact all trains that are authorized to operate through the crossing in an effort to notify the train crews of the reported obstruction prior to each train's arrival at the crossing. After contacting the appropriate trains, the railroad shall then promptly contact the law enforcement agency having jurisdiction over the crossing to provide it with the information necessary to assist in the removal of the reported track obstruction or to carry out other activities to maintain safety at the crossing. The railroad shall then promptly investigate the report, determine the nature of the obstruction, and without undue delay take the necessary action to have the obstruction removed.

http://cfr.regstoday.com/49cfr234.aspx

My interpretation is that CSMRR is covered by this regulation because they cross a public highway-rail crossing that is in use and An at-grade rail crossing that is in use and so are non-insular. It seems that "law enforcement agency having jurisdiction over the crossing" would be the city police. If they are uncooperative, move to the the state police.

ebtrr · **Posted:** Tue May 07, 2013 10:38 am

Another recent case of a disgruntled person blocking railroad tracks just a couple months ago, this time at the Great Smokey Mountain Railway.

http://www.thesylvaherald.com/news/arti ... ge&photo=0

ebtrr · **Posted:** Tue May 07, 2013 12:41 pm

In general I heartily support the construction of rail trails. I have used and continue to use them. They do preserve the contiguous corridors both for the possible reinstatement of rail service and for telecommunication lines, even if it rarely happens. I would always rather see a rail trail than a rail grade obliterated by development, malice and ignorance, as often happens. As a rail fan, riding a rail-trail is closer to the rail experience than looking at an empty grade or nothing at all. It give some sense of what it was to ride a train on that line, and considering that in most cases there will never be a financial incentive to rebuild the line, that is as close as we will ever get.

However, I draw the line when trail proponents try to destroy a viable rail line for their project. Rails are an important part of our nations transportation infrastructure and even marginally viable lines should not be sacrificed for recreational trails. There are thousands of miles of abandoned grades that could be converted to trails rather than destroy more extant rail lines.

I would happily bike to work if there was close trail access to both ends. About 50% of my commute could be done on bike trails. Unfortunately my neighborhood is hemmed in between an Interstate and two busy city streets. Anyone who says bikes should be on streets has never ridden a bike on a city street. I have. It is tantamount to Russian Roulette. You wonder if the car you hear coming from behind is the one that is going to kill you. I had a friend hit by a car hard enough to knock him over the hood and damage his bike. The driver said "sorry " and drove off. Dedicated bike paths are SO MUCH safer.

I think the trail advocates that pursue the removal of rails for trails to be the extremists of a more moderate group, just like those in the rail community that think all rail-trails are useless and should not be built. Both sides use scare tactics: "trails attract crime", "railroads pollute", "trails are a waste of money", "Railroads are an eyesore". All of these have a grain of truth but little more than that.

Alexander D. Mitchell IV · **Posted:** Tue May 07, 2013 2:19 pm

ebtrr wrote:

However, I draw the line when trail proponents try to destroy a viable rail line for their project. Rails are an important part of our nations transportation infrastructure and even marginally viable lines should not be sacrificed for recreational trails. There are thousands of miles of abandoned grades that could be converted to trails rather than destroy more extant rail lines.

I believe the rule in question goes something like "The deemed viability of an unused/little used rail line is inversely proportional to how convenient the potential rail trail would be for the pro-trail activists or their children."

I really don't see anyone agitating very hard to revive as a trail that spectacularly scenic abandoned ten-mile grade that goes nowhere populated and happens to have a 4% grade. But they're all for ripping up that mostly level five-mile line still in service that happens to cut across the main entrance roads to new housing developments in suburban sprawl. (Yes, both real-life examples in an area out West I saw.)

dinwitty · **Joined:** Wed Oct 22, 2008 8:18 pm **Posts:** 2226

The mayor not only put the Railroad at danger, but his own piece of equipment. City owned. CMRR could have been doing a manuever only to suddenly encounter a truck on their tracks. Its a good thing it was discovered before something happenned.

But I can hear the arguments in court already if such an accident occurred "I was blocking the line to stop the Railroad from moving their rail cars" pffft, didnt stop another train from ramming right into it.

Its flat out stupid.

There are some long gone abandoned rail lines around here, you can poke google maps and trace them, but no effort for trails has been done, but not all former lines right of ways find any other use back except it turns into a long row of trees. Or the ROW has been long reclaimed by land owners, farmers and you cant find a trace.

The former interurban lines around here are still used by the power utilities to stretch the pole lines along.

But like this issue you might find a rail/trail backed by some Auto industry out to derail the train I have to decry an offensive manuver.
I can refer you back to the North Shore being owned by a Holding Company and was trying to get it abandoned, clues have it it was controlled by General Motors.
They had a bus company near the North Shore, and there were several attempts to save the North Shore, all refused.

This happened just this past sunday

http://www.wndu.com/home/headlines/Semi ... 02761.html

http://media.graytvinc.com/images/I-94+ ... d+semi.jpg

and Chicago has daily accidents on the highways, is this what we have become?

Thank you NOT GM

-rant over-

robertmacdowell · **Posted:** Wed May 08, 2013 12:24 am

ebtrr wrote:

From the code of Federal Regulations:

234.3 Application and responsibility for compliance.
...
My interpretation is that CSMRR is covered by this regulation because they cross a public highway-rail crossing that is in use and An at-grade rail crossing that is in use and so are non-insular.

Well done, sir!

However, they would need to have a report of an unsafe condition. I'm not sure a news report qualifies LOL. Also, this isn't exactly the situation the FRA meant when they wrote the reg.

I'm not sure how this reg intersects with yard limit rules, where every train is supposed to be prepared to stop in half sight distance, looking out for obstructions, other trains, switches improperly lined etc. Hard to miss a car on a crossing. Hence it can hardly be argued that a car blocking a crossing is an "unsafe" condition.

dinwitty · **Joined:** Wed Oct 22, 2008 8:18 pm **Posts:** 2226

parking a truck and leaving it a few days on tracks is unsafe. It would not have lasted 10 minutes on an active track.

Unsafe, period.

dinwitty · **Joined:** Wed Oct 22, 2008 8:18 pm **Posts:** 2226

Jeff Lisowski wrote:

dinwitty wrote:

This happened just this past sunday

http://www.wndu.com/home/headlines/Semi ... 02761.html

http://media.graytvinc.com/images/I-94+ ... d+semi.jpg

I'm somewhat confused by the correlation between Catskill and this accident?

It has to do with our highway culture. vs the railway. It illustrates the safety issues on the highway. It isn't just that, its the automobile industry for profit and greedyness and this accident is one illustration of how we are consumed by the automobile despite accidents like this, we just carry on. Its what I want the auto industry to look at and see the fallacies. And then we come to this mayor.
I have to think of what the motivations are to do such a behavoir.
Is there a connection between the truck on the tracks, and a Rail/Trail and the Auto Industry doing another balyhoo on the railroads with a sneaky underhanded side lighted you can't catch me about it trick?
It might be one thing and this mayor, and then again it could be something bigger going on under the carpet.
Thats been part of the Catskill RR concern and the Rail Trail and this incident pops up.
This raises a lot of red flags in my eyes about whats really happening.

I'd have to take you back to a long history about the North Shore and its abandonment, I'm still learning details about it.

Details that maybe GM didnt want you to know about.