3 ms·

I used to work for BNSF, I'm well aware of how those programs materialize on the private end. Sometimes states will chip in, but it's mostly on the line owner.

by kodah 4y ago

I used to work for BNSF, I'm well aware of how those programs materialize on the private end. Sometimes states will chip in, but it's mostly on the line owner. You can't just install a crossing anymore. They're wired into national and global networks that are part of track-side overhauls. Additionally, when AMTRAK goes over BNSF lines (at least when I worked there) you don't have automated train control (which is really braking). A signal is a good first step, but if your goal is to really put a dent in these kinds of incidents then it's a lot of on-going cost - mostly born by the tail operator because they're the ones that lease access to the lines.

cagey 4y ago
The situation is quite confusing. Restricting the discussion to the vast numbers of existing RR/road crossings (not new crossings), then to what degree does the state control the installation of automated crossing protection (upgrades)? The various articles I read about this crash strongly suggest that MODOT is largely throttling which RR/road crossing automated protection upgrades are executed, and implies this throttling is largely because of state spending limits. But if as you say most of the cost of these upgrades is to be borne by BNSF, why would MODOT be reluctant to compel BNSF to spend money upgrading crossing protection throughout their state? If BNSF had refused such "suggestions" by the state, I would expect to made aware, post crash, of how evil BNSF was in not performing needed safety upgrades requested/commanded by the state, how the state is suing BNSF to compel them to do so, and how BNSF is 100% liable for the damages related to this crash. But that isn't what I read in any of the articles related to this crash. This strongly suggests to me that the state bears significant, perhaps gating, responsibility here. Any clarification of what's going on in this regard would be appreciated.
- kodah 4y ago
  That could be specific to the state. As I said, federal and state rail commissions can exercise authority in that space, and have varying agreements state by state. The point of what I was saying is that getting a signal in place is one thing, actually having it connected up to BNSF's CTC network and integrating that into passenger trains is the more effective thing to do, and $400k sounds very short for that. You're looking to assign blame, I'm looking to say, "How does this problem get resolved". Very different questions.

by kodah 4y ago

cagey 4y ago

The situation is quite confusing. Restricting the discussion to the vast numbers of existing RR/road crossings (not new crossings), then to what degree does the state control the installation of automated crossing protection (upgrades)? The various articles I read about this crash strongly suggest that MODOT is largely throttling which RR/road crossing automated protection upgrades are executed, and implies this throttling is largely because of state spending limits. But if as you say most of the cost of these upgrades is to be borne by BNSF, why would MODOT be reluctant to compel BNSF to spend money upgrading crossing protection throughout their state? If BNSF had refused such "suggestions" by the state, I would expect to made aware, post crash, of how evil BNSF was in not performing needed safety upgrades requested/commanded by the state, how the state is suing BNSF to compel them to do so, and how BNSF is 100% liable for the damages related to this crash. But that isn't what I read in any of the articles related to this crash. This strongly suggests to me that the state bears significant, perhaps gating, responsibility here. Any clarification of what's going on in this regard would be appreciated.

kodah 4y ago
That could be specific to the state. As I said, federal and state rail commissions can exercise authority in that space, and have varying agreements state by state. The point of what I was saying is that getting a signal in place is one thing, actually having it connected up to BNSF's CTC network and integrating that into passenger trains is the more effective thing to do, and $400k sounds very short for that. You're looking to assign blame, I'm looking to say, "How does this problem get resolved". Very different questions.