Blue Water speed restrictions are back

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

Joined
Jun 18, 2003
Messages
1,805
The Blue Water speed restrictions are back.

At 3:00PM-ET, June 21, 2004 the CN/GTW re-instated a temporary restriction on all Amtrak trains operating over CN/GTW territory as a result of train 364(20) allegedly did not activate crossing protection between Durand and Flint on June 20, 2004. The restriction had originally been issued after a grade crossing accident on April 27, 2004 and had lifted the restriction on June 9, 2004. The restriction is for all Amtrak trains to approach all grade crossings prepared to stop. The following trains were delayed as a result of the restriction.

Delay: 364(21) 43" BTL-PTH
 

amtrakmichigan

Lead Service Attendant
Joined
Oct 5, 2003
Messages
444
Is CN placing these restrictions on their freight trains? If not, then WHY? This crossing accident would have happened with any type of train, not just an Amtrak train.
 
Joined
Jun 18, 2003
Messages
1,805
amtrakmichigan said:
Is CN placing these restrictions on their freight trains? If not, then WHY? This crossing accident would have happened with any type of train, not just an Amtrak train.
No this only applys to Amtrak trains not freight trains.
 

AmtrakWPK

Conductor
AU Supporter
Honored Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2004
Messages
1,849
I wonder how they even try to justify restricting Amtrak to less than freight speeds. Seems like there ought to be something actionable there.
 

Miami Joe

Lead Service Attendant
Joined
Aug 22, 2002
Messages
420
I asked the guys at CNOC about the restriction. :rolleyes:

The reason for the speed restriction is the passenger liability factor. The train has a chance to slow down to minimize injuries and lawsuits.

Freight cars are insured for the car and load. Plus, you don't have lawsuits.

Miami Joe B)
 

AlanB

Conductor
Honored Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2002
Messages
28,406
Miami Joe said:
Freight cars are insured for the car and load. Plus, you don't have lawsuits.
Hmm, tell that story to CSX Joe. Sorry, but they just lost out big time as noted below.

A Hancock County jury on Friday awarded more than $5 million to the families of two boys killed in August 1999 when a CSX train rammed into a car in which they were riding.
The jury deliberated for about three hours before returning a verdict in favor of the families of Sean Finegan and Joseph Winningham, both 12. Jurors awarded $2.8 million to Winningham's family and $2.3 million to Finegan's relatives.
The full story can be found at the Sun Herald.
 

tp49

Conductor
Joined
Aug 23, 2002
Messages
2,747
You can always appeal a jury verdict, problem is every situation can be different depending upon the facts of the case, no cookie cutters here.

But maybe what Joe meant was there are no lawsuits from potential injuries on a freight train due to potential causes of injuries to passengers on a train in a collision since save the crew it isn't carrying people...

Maybe I should just have a couple of drinks...I think I confused myself <_<
 
Joined
Jun 18, 2003
Messages
1,805
tp49 said:
You can always appeal a jury verdict, problem is every situation can be different depending upon the facts of the case, no cookie cutters here.
But maybe what Joe meant was there are no lawsuits from potential injuries on a freight train due to potential causes of injuries to passengers on a train in a collision since save the crew it isn't carrying people...

Maybe I should just have a couple of drinks...I think I confused myself <_<
Amtrak is upset at CN over this GBO i can't go into deatil about it but Amtrak wants this GBO gone.
 

AmtrakWPK

Conductor
AU Supporter
Honored Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2004
Messages
1,849
I seem to recall another railroad limiting Amtrak speeds and having NTSB or FRA or somebody overturn that. Something about the kind of rail, or something. Isn't there some governmental authority that sets standards for max speeds? To what extent can a railroad arbitrarily limit speeds of (someody elses's) trains using it's tracks? And does this mean that the railroad in question does NOT have the same contractual clause with amtrak that amtrak (I believe) does with csx that requires amtrak to indemnify csx if amtrak has an accident caused by csx' negligence (like the autotrain wreck in florida some time back), so that when csx was socked with jury verdicts, amtrak had to pay it even though they were not at fault? [Which of course means that the verdicts would be paid by stealing the money from what sould have been infrastructure improvements, and we the taxpayers ultimately paid for the damages cause by csx' negligence.] How's that for a confusing compound question going in two different directions simultaneously? Have another drink........ What color is Wednesday, true or false? And does anybody know whether anyone has tried to have congress look at enacting law declaring such indemnification clauses illegal as against public policy? They certainly should be. Nobody should be able to contractually avoid responsibility for damages/injury/deaths cause by their own negligence. If they can do that, what's the incentive for them to fix whatever the problem is? Cheaper not to. OK. Now that's three or four different directions. Time to shut up . ;)
 
Top