Passenger Trains > Devils Lake speed increase canceled - for now

BNSF's plan to take up the 30 mph permanent speed restriction at Devils Lake, ND has been canceled for now, after Sen. John Hoeven (R-ND) intervened directly with the Executive Chairman of BNSF. Clip from Progressive Railroading article:

"Hoeven expressed the community’s safety concerns about the plan to BNSF Executive Chairman Matt Rose and requested that the railroad work with the Devils Lake mayor and city leaders to resolve issues. Rose agreed to delay the planned speed increases through the community, review the railroad’s plan and conduct further discussions with city leaders before proceeding, Hoeven said in a press release.

The Class I had planned to increase the current maximum speed from 30 mph hour to 60 mph beginning Aug. 1. BNSF noted frequent track inspections and the classification of the track, which can accommodate train speeds up to 60 mph.

However, residents are concerned the track’s path through residential and commercial areas, and its proximity to a daycare center, parks, schools and other sensitive locations, could jeopardize safety if train speeds are increased, said Hoeven."

Previous thread on this Board:
http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?4,3475816,page=1



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/01/14 21:31 by illini73.

But if idiots would stay off the tracks (which would be trespassing) there wouldn't be a problem. The kids at the day care are probably smarter about this than many adults who seem to be getting run over on a regular basis by trains.

Why doesn't Hoeven get the speed limit on US2 reduced to 30 in case a toddler runs out.

joemvcnj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why doesn't Hoeven get the speed limit on US2
> reduced to 30 in case a toddler runs out.


EXCELLENT response. I will say that if the RR industry had a decent PR program and if people knew anything of the value of trains, maybe they would not be so opposed to trains. Anti-train sentiment is increasing, I am afraid.

Perhaps Sen. Hoeven could find some funding to fence the right of way if he's so concerned about safety. Then the city could enjoy the benefits of shorter blockages on the half dozen grade crossings in town.

Dave

joemvcnj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why doesn't Hoeven get the speed limit on US2
> reduced to 30 in case a toddler runs out.

Most highways that I know of, unless they are limited access, have reduced speed limits when they are routed on city streets.

ts1457 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> joemvcnj Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Why doesn't Hoeven get the speed limit on US2
> > reduced to 30 in case a toddler runs out.
>
> Most highways that I know of, unless they are
> limited access, have reduced speed limits when
> they are routed on city streets.

Route 2 skirts the edge of Devils Lake. It is a divided, four-lane road lined with commercial developments.

This is a very constructive response on all sides. North Dakota depends on oil and grain, they're at the root of the sub 3% unemployment rates right now. So the trains aren't going away.

I suspect BNSF and state/county engineering people will come back with a series of recommendations for safety improvements. Probably a fence here, maybe a sign there,maybe a crossing guard at certain hours of the day, and Mr Hoeven will find an earmark to fund some of the cost. The railroad will throw some money into the deal. The town and county will be in a put up or shut up position, if they really believe there's a safety issue.

The heck with Devils Lake and every other slow crawl middle-of-the-night dung heap between Fargo and Minot. If this train got an overall speed-up due a re-route on the Surrey Cutoff, then I could enjoy two more hours of daylight in the scenic Rockies.

Bob

Amtrak wants to be on that route rather than the Surrey Cutoff. They prefer to continue serving Grand Forks.

Amtrak benefits from the recent BNSF work, made necessary by Mother Nature and a rising water level, but is hardly
affected by the Devils Lake controversy. Amtrak stops at Devils Lake and would still be running at slower than the
proposed 60mph freight train speed through town anyway.

< The heck with Devils Lake and every other slow crawl middle-of-the-night dung heap between Fargo and Minot. If this train got an overall speed-up due a re-route on the Surrey Cutoff, then I could enjoy two more hours of daylight in the scenic Rockies. >

Grand Forks means a lot of business. Amtrak is run to serve them from both directions, not provide sightseeing excursions.

North Dakota has sufficient funds to build
whatever speed mitigation it desires at DLK
and elsewhere.

However, I applaud the BNSF response.

joemvcnj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Grand Forks means a lot of business. Amtrak is run
> to serve them from both directions, not provide
> sightseeing excursions.

Says who?

VIA once subscribed to the "essential services" BS. It won't be long and the only VIA western services left will be summer-only "cruise trains", timed for scenery.

Bob

Yes, but Amtrak is not VIA Rail, and the Empire Builder is not the Canadian, not even close. This "BS" as you put it is how the Empire Builder won out over the N.C.H. 35 years ago, and that argument still holds.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/02/14 15:33 by joemvcnj.

joemvcnj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, but Amtrak is not VIA Rail, and the Empire
> Builder is not the Canadian, not even close. This
> "BS" as you put it is how the Empire Builder won
> out over the N.C.H. 35 years ago, and that
> argument still holds.

Not true. We lost the NCH during the 1979 cuts because:

1. Congress/DOT wanted wholesale cuts in the Amtrak budget. Initially, all of the long-distance trains were on the hit list including the NCH and EB. Cuts were based on pure expediency. Intermediate and overall ridership for competing trains between endpoints didn't matter. If it did, the Inter American would have been axed instead the Lone Star.

2. BN had a certain amount of clout over Amtrak. They let it be known that they wanted to downgrade or abandon major segments of both routes but with significant mileage on the Montana routing of the NCH. The post-1979 route changes of the EB reflect this.

3. The original Superliner order was insufficient to equip all western Amtrak routes, plus the car order was two years late. Amtrak was withdrawing the best heritage cars for HEP rebuilding for the eastern trains. Amtrak's Alan Boyd caved on the six trains that were cut saying "we don't have the equipment to run them anyway."

In 1978, the EB was quad-weekly and the NCH was tri-weekly west of MSP. Please tell me how ridership data could have been meaningfully compared between the two routes during the 1979 cuts? In any event, the NCH served some impressive population centers: Bismarck, Billings, Butte, Bozeman, etc. What were the comparative biggies on the EB between Fargo and Sandpoint?

Bob



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/02/14 18:17 by bnsfbob.

On a per train basis, NCH and EB PMTM and avoidable cost per train mile were very similar, but slightly favored the EB
Existence of alternative transportation on the NCH route, including an Interstate, 4 daily GL buses, and Northwest Airlines also figured into it. It is also why the EB was chosen over the NCH in 1970.

Carter did not want all the LD trains gone, but 43% of the mileage. That was taken down to around 21% in 1979 by Congress.

NCH also lost against the Pioneer, a much inferior performer, due to "Regional Balance Criteria", the same thing that favored the Eagle over the superior Lone Star. It was a metric conjured up by Senator Packwood to save "his " train. It ALSO had to do with percentage of route miles lost if the train came off. EB and NCH were considered more duplicative, the routes chosen between Seattle and Spokane, and between Fargo and St Paul is what put the EB over the top. In 1979, the EB assumed NCH routings on both those segments.