Passenger Trains > BNSF plans 60mph at Devils Lake; city balks

BNSF proposes 60 mph trains through Devils Lake
Forum News Service
by Kevin Bonham

> DEVILS LAKE, N.D. - Some trains traveling through the city of Devils
> Lake could double their speed — from 30 to as high as 60 mph —
> beginning next month.
>
> The proposed speed limit increase, announced earlier this month by
> Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway, has drawn sharp criticism from
> Devils Lake officials, who have responded with concerns over safety.
>
> “It’s just not acceptable,” Mayor Dick Johnson said.
>
> Devils Lake and BNSF officials will meet Monday to discuss the
> proposal.
>
> BNSF informed Devils Lake Police Chief Keith Schroeder of the planned
> speed change in an email dated July 7. Schroeder responded with a
> formal request to withdraw the plan.
>
> “The areas are very heavily populated as they go by a trailer court,
> residential area and two schools in addition to downtown Devils
> Lake,” the mayor said in separate email response to BNSF.
>
> The change, which affects 1.4 miles of track in the city, is being
> made as a result of recent track improvements, according to Steve
> Forsberg, BNSF’s general director of external relations.
>
> “It really isn’t any different than if you upgrade a highway,” he
> said. “It doesn’t mean all trains will travel at that speed.”
>
> BNSF has made about $700 million in rail improvements in North Dakota
> over the past three years, he said, adding that the track through
> Devils Lake already is being maintained to handle Class 4 standards,
> which allow maximum speeds of 60 mph for freight trains...

Full story:

BNSF proposes 60 mph trains through Devils Lake

INFO: Speed limit in the area for passenger trains is also currently 30mph
and is to be increased to 60mph, but it won't make any real difference since
the Empire Builder stops at Devils Lake.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/25/14 08:49 by GenePoon.

If someone want to play chicken with a train, they will be just as dead if hit by one at 10 MPH as 60MPH.

So if Amtrak is stopping there, what is the big deal of all of this??? A BNSF business train rolling through at 60 a few times a year.

Tominde Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So if Amtrak is stopping there, what is the big
> deal of all of this???

Freight trains.

They should try doing it incrementally, to let it
sink in in small bites.

For example, if it's 30 now, put out big public announcements
and PSAs that due to major improvements you are going to increase
speed through town to 40 or 45, and accompany that with a lot of
OL stuff, telling people to be aware, etc. Be the good guys.
Or at least try to look like the good guys.

A year or two later, do it again and raise the speed to 50 or
55.

Then quietly raise it to 60 later on.

Takes longer this way, but causes a lot less pushback, and lets
the local yodels absorb it a little at a time.

Aren't the oil trains going to be limited to 40 anyway?

march_hare Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Aren't the oil trains going to be limited to 40
> anyway?

Maybe, but there are more trains through there than
just oil trains.

Maybe just lower the speed to 20 for awhile, until they complain the trains block things up too long. Then maybe they would be happy to have up to 60 mph operation.

Gary

Posted from iPhone

SN711 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe just lower the speed to 20 for awhile, until
> they complain the trains block things up too long.
> Then maybe they would be happy to have up to 60
> mph operation.
>
> Gary
>
> Posted from iPhone

I agree,Gary, we had ten mph through town for several years
due to track conditions, the speed recently increased to
25 and people are REALLY happy. We have mile-long grain
and ethanol trains pass through town. Three and a half
minutes is a lot better than six minutes for a train to pass.
Many here want 50 mph, like it was many years ago.

They might want to check with Puyallup, Washington where BNSF rolls through at 60 or 70 on a very regular basis.

a737flyer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They might want to check with Puyallup, Washington
> where BNSF rolls through at 60 or 70 on a very
> regular basis.

60 on Freight and 79 on passenger.

There are not that many crossings. Two underpasses through town.

Folkston seems happy with 60, up from 50 several years ago (although trains taking a turnout don't run that fast).

Folkston is one of the few towns on a main line railroad that's learned to live with it. They haven't had a crossing accident in something like 20 years or a fatality in something like 30.
Folks there did not even notice the speed increase from 50 to 60 two years ago. Plus, like you mentioned, most trains only go 50 anyway.

Danny Harmon
Tampa

blackhillshogger Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There are not that many crossings. Two underpasses
> through town.

Well, then how about Burlington, Marysville, Kent, Auburn, and Chehalis.

Or the argument I used in discussion of eliminating those municipal speed limits, how about Berwyn, Brookfield, La Grange, Western Springs, etc?

It is all irrelevant as the city has nothing to say about train speed. Trains are interstate commerce and interstate commerce is the domain of the federal government.

TAW

Sounds like the police chief is laying the ground work for possible post-accident litigation. "In my professional opinion" often precedes a reason why something creates an unsafe condition, or should have been done differently, etc.

But, it's a federal matter and the railroad has likely considered the risks of raising the limit and decided the risks aren't sufficient to cause a change in plans.

> Trains are interstate commerce and interstate commerce
> is the domain of the federal government.

Yes, but it's not absolutely black-or-white. Interstate commerce is not necessarily the exclusive domain of the federal government. The Commerce Clause in the Constitution doesn't say that a state or city cannot pass laws or regulations that apply to interstate commerce. After all, states and cities still set speed limits on Interstate highways. What the Commerce Clause says, in effect, is that the federal government can trump any state or city on issues related to interstate commerce -- to the extent that the feds choose to.

There is a summary at http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/Forms_Center/Departments/County_Attorney/Forms/LUchapter33-railroads.pdf of what federal preemption does and does not cover. Horns and speed limits are under the umbrella, but not everything. Even the current federal rules have a loophole for state or municipal regulation where "necessary to eliminate or reduce an essentially local safety hazard", but courts have interpreted this language as very difficult to meet.

As a practical matter, a railroad's law department incurs cost whenever it challenges a law or regulation from a state or municipality, and railroad management is sometimes reluctant to use the nuclear option.

ctillnc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Trains are interstate commerce and interstate
> commerce
> > is the domain of the federal government.
>
> Yes, but it's not absolutely black-or-white.
> Interstate commerce is not necessarily the
> exclusive domain of the federal government. The
> Commerce Clause in the Constitution doesn't say
> that a state or city cannot pass laws or
> regulations that apply to interstate commerce.
> After all, states and cities still set speed
> limits on Interstate highways. What the Commerce
> Clause says, in effect, is that the federal
> government can trump any state or city on issues
> related to interstate commerce -- to the extent
> that the feds choose to.
>
> There is a summary at
> http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/Forms_Cente
> r/Departments/County_Attorney/Forms/LUchapter33-ra
> ilroads.pdf of what federal preemption does and
> does not cover. Horns and speed limits are under
> the umbrella, but not everything. Even the current
> federal rules have a loophole for state or
> municipal regulation where "necessary to eliminate
> or reduce an essentially local safety hazard", but
> courts have interpreted this language as very
> difficult to meet.
>
> As a practical matter, a railroad's law department
> incurs cost whenever it challenges a law or
> regulation from a state or municipality, and
> railroad management is sometimes reluctant to use
> the nuclear option.

If BNSF doesn't (but they probably will), AMTK will. I have worked on 20 municipal speed eliminations. They were pro forma. AMTK has a sufficient body of legal precedent that will use up a lot of a town's cash in legal costs if they decide to fight. If the speed limit is acceptable by FRA Track Safety Standards and signal rules, it is almost impossible (the exception is a unique local condition not covered by FRA regulations...and that takes going to court to prove) to prevail in a challenge.

TAW

The people at Devils Lake need to quit being crybabies. In fact only 2 grade crossings? Come one, what's the concern here!

ProAmtrak Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The people at Devils Lake need to quit being
> crybabies. In fact only 2 grade crossings? Come
> one, what's the concern here!


Blckhillshogger wrote that there are two underpasses - not grade crossings - in town. Google Maps shows about a half dozen grade crossings.

Dave