Elkhart County PD attempting to ticket Norfolk Southern trains.

Not me. This information I gave comes from DOJ documents on these cases as well as from three railroad employees: One from BNSF, two from NS. All of them said the same thing.

You misread what I said. I said that several places had their statutes thrown out because of federal law on the matter and that Indiana probably isn't far off from getting theirs thrown out as well.

The State of Michigan still officially has a statute against this but it was deemed "unenforceable" by the courts after the State was sued by several railroads.

If you read one statute word for word, and apply that verdict to all other infractions ... You are mistakenly believing that one particular judgement, globally governs all other judgements ... and this reasoning does just not work, as if you read the exact words, word for word ... there are variations on all sorts of different judgements.

Just because you read the exact wording ... It may not be so cut and dried, black and white ... and the DOJ statute, and you ... may be dead wrong.

Don't believe every word you read ... as there are variations of judgements against RR's that do hold up in Court.
 
Last edited:
According to Indiana statute 8-6-7.5-1, “It shall be unlawful for a railroad corporation to permit any train, railroad car or engine to obstruct public travel at a railroad-highway grade crossing for a period in excess of (10) minutes, except where such train, railroad car or engine cannot be moved by reason of circumstances over which the railroad corporation has no control.”

According to Indiana statute 8-6-7.5-3, “A railroad corporation, conductor, or engineer who violates this chapter commits a Class C infraction. However, no conductor or engineer acting under the rules or orders of the railroad corporation or its supervisory personnel may be prosecuted for such a violation.

As the decision to stop the train was taken under the rules and orders of the railroad corporation, the citations will be delivered to Norfolk Southern Railroad’s local office in Elkhart. The penalty for violating this statute is a Class C infraction, which finable up to $500.00 for each violation.

Regardless of any other information, and based solely on the information provided in the story, these are some facts, and this is how this will play out:

1. First paragraph, in BOLD: The crew allegedly ran out of Federally mandated Hours Of Service. The "Railroad Corporation", nor the Crew had control over this circumstance. Based on the Town Ordinance, the tickets were given unlawfully. These tickets will be dismissed in Court.

2. Second paragraph, in BOLD: Even IF the tickets were given legally, the crew would not be responsible, because the crew only does what it is told to do my management. By Town Ordinance, the tickets would be given to the Corporation, conveyed via the crew, to their supervisors.

3. Third paragraph, in BOLD: The "Corporation" did not mandate the crew stop the train, the Federal Government did, by implementing HOS Rules that make it a larger violation of Law to continue to operate the Train in an unsafe manor, ie: Crew operating for too many hours, and being mentally un-alert. Again, third paragraph is more evidence for NS Corp., who will have the charges dismissed in Court.

Now, not unrelated, but as an aside; The Town/Township is well within their Rights to enact, and enforce, local ordinances that can affect Train operations. There are MANY cases to support the Town's Rights, "Quiet Zones" for example, and the many hundreds of cases of ticketing a Train for blocking a crossing that DID hold up in court. Railroad Corporations are aware they must abide by these Local Ordinances, and they DO make every effort to do so, not just for the cost of 18 $500.00 fines, but more-so for "Public Relations", and to avoid MORE "Local Ordinances" in the future. Even one $500.00 ticket actually cost the Railroad THOUSANDS of dollars in lost time, Legal fees, Lawyers wages, etc.

EDIT: Replace "Local Ordinance" with "Indiana statute"...regardless, same situation, same results.

All that said, in THIS PARTICULAR CASE: The Police should have used better judgment, because "legally", they had no right to ticket anyone, and the case will be dismissed, at Taxpayer expense. Under their own Indiana statute, neither the Train, the Train Crew, nor the Railroad Corporation violated the Indiana statute that was cited.
--It would be equal to ticketing the train for stopping more than ten minutes to put out a fire on a flammable tank car.


Bluewater, whatever the legislation is, it still does not make blocking this crossing acceptable. In fact the railroad companies action and their statements in mitigation of the siuation they created are indefensible. They certainly should be brought to account in the courts with the heaviest of penalties placed against them. If this cannot be carried out then there is something very wrong with the law in these circumstances.

Bill

Hello again, Bill,
--The problem in this case is that TWO LAWS are in conflict with one another. The Higher FEDERAL LAW, with it's stiffer penalty, is the one that took precedence.

Highlighted BOLD: I have to take issue with the vehemence with which you attack the "Railroad Corporation" in this case, since all they were doing was FOLLOWING the LAW. Damned if you do, damned if you don't situation, my friend, but not one the NS Corp should be "prosecuted to the fullest extent" over. They followed the Law with the highest Penalty, and any Law that requires breaking another Law is un-enforceable, period.

This is simply a case of a rural community LEO trying to appease the people of the community, and failing badly.
--Not an excuse, but a reality check: Even IF there were a serious emergency, and "First Responders" could not "respond" due to the trains blocking of the roadway, the ensuing Lawsuit against the Railroad (which would be thrown out also, due to them following Federal HOS Rules, and not being "negligent"), if in the odd chance it were tried and convicted, would still be less expensive than building an over/under pass for vehicle traffic to cross an occupied rail line.
 
Last edited:
In many cases, the state and the local governments are responsible for bridges and underpasses just like they are for traffic lights in dangerous intersections. Being a costly item to build, I doubt the locals will want to spring up some tax dollars to put in a bridge.

John
 
Hi everybody.
Kingconrail, nice to see you on the forum again and to debate with you on a subject. Likewise it is always a pleasure to see John Citroen join a thread which makes it feel like old times when there was far more life in this forum.

Anyway, back to topic. Obviously being British/European I would have no great knowledge of United States legislation regarding the obstruction of a highway. As I have stated in an earlier posting in the thread is seems that the blocking of a highway is taken far more seriously in Britain than it is in the US. In the UK it would be covered under the highways legislation where unnecessary obstruction of a highway is an arrestable offence for the driver of any vehicle acting in the above. Likewise, any person instructing another person to obstruct a highway with a vehicle is also liable for prosecution with serious penalties.

The above is also covered under the health and safety at work regulations 1974 under section 8 "company managerial duty of care". In that section it states that employers have to ensure that employees are not subject to risks likely to cause injury to their health or safety in the course of company operations. More importantly it also states with regard to this case that " a company must not cause a danger to the health or safety of those persons not employed by the company but are in the vicinity of any of the company's operations". Again, heavy penances apply to those companies found in violation of the above regulation. It would be very likely in United Kingdom that both sets of regulations stated above would be used against the rail operators in the case under discussion. However as stated, I do realise that Britain is a comparatively small country with a high density population and therefore the obstruction of a highway is probably viewed far more seriously than perhaps some low density population states in the US. The foregoing is why I have concentrated my discussion in the thread on the obligation the rail operator should feel they have to the residents of the town.

Kingconrail, we are both involved in road transport (trucking in the United States) and therefore realise that modern digital tachographs give the drivers of vehicles as well as well as the company traffic coordinators almost minute by minute updates regarding the amount of driving time the vehicle driver has left in terms of daily limits, weekly limits and monthly limits. Company traffic control software will also give minute minute updates on traffic conditions on any scheduled route a vehicle is travelling along and will even automatically inform the driver of a vehicle to divert from the set route schedule to avoid congestion etc by way of the vehicle dashboard computer. The railways in Britain and throughout Europe are equipped similarly with the above systems and therefore I would think that American railroads would also have similar facilities to hand. With the foregoing in mind surely there can be no reason why the drivers of these trains should run out of working/driving time right on this crossing or any crossing. As soon as a traffic coordinator entered the schedule for the train into the computer prior to the train departing he/she will be informed that the full journey could not be completed due to driver worktime limitation. I also feel that the scheduling software would also have informed the originating traffic coordinator of any capacity problems there could be at the rail head on arrival. Therefore as I have stated previously in this thread I can see no acceptable or defensible reasons why these trains are finishing up blocking the highway at the crossing.

Whether or not the rail operator is subject to prosecution or not is secondary to the obligation this rail operator has (or should feel it has) as a good neighbour to the people and other businesses of the town. Is it right that other businesses in the town should have to spend time and expense diverting vehicles around this obstruction when the train company could so easily have avoided it. Is it right that the people of the town going to work or running the children to school should be subject to the stress of arriving at the crossing to find it blocked and then having to find an alternative route possibly at the last minute with all the stress that can go with such situations. It should be remembered that a high percentage of road accidents occur when drivers are stressed through limited time arriving at their destination.

Also Kingconrail, we both know the power of the road transport lobby in both countries. In Britain the road haulage Association along with the freight transport Association would be having a field day with this situation. Undoubtedly they would be pointing the finger at the inefficiency of the rail operator and using that ammunition in opposing any planning permission, extension of operations requests or any county/government finance business development grants that the rail operator may be requesting. They would also be stating that the whole thing could be better done by road transport especially if much of the freight has to begin and end its journey on the road anyway. I have no doubts that the road transport lobby in the United States which I understand is far more powerful than here in Britain would be and will be using the same arguments with the powers that be into the future.

This train operator does no service to the rail industry that it earns it living in
 
Last edited:
Back
Top