Metro North Rail line faces fines over bridge delays

Speaking as a former rr bridge operator, each and every moveable bridge has different rules. I believe it is CFR 80. The "20 minute rule" is really just a simplification of the rules for the bridges east of New Haven. Don't know much about west of New Haven.

RedSoxSuck wrote:Wouldn't it be sweet justice if a train gapped out and got stuck on the CosCob bridge when some ahole in a yacht is waiting for the bridge to be lifted? I know, it would mean a fine for MNR and the passengers being delayed, but I would still laugh at the jerks in the boat.

My parents being member of RYC, (riverside yah
I have seen the bridge be frozen shut in place... I haven't ever seen a train stuck over it yet... have you guys? anyone have pictures?
during the blackout of 03 the draw bridge I belived still opened and closed while 2 trains were stuck in Old greenwich.

Tadman wrote:Since I haven't seen the legislation, or know which body created it, that enables the coast guard to implement the 20 minute regulation, I can't be sure about my statements here. However, an equal or higher legislative or judicial body may repeal or re-legislate this issue, and implement a bridge opening schedule. If commercial traffic isn't strong on the river anymore, nobody will throw the money behind the opposition and MN/Cdot would prevail. Noel is very correct in pointing out public policy would demand the convenience of 800 people on a train going to/from work over ten people on a yacht participating in a leisure-time activity.

While we are at it lets leave all crossing gates down a grade crossings.
To h*ll with those people out for a joy ride in their SUV's. How dare they demand to use the roads we have a train to run.
The rule is if you build a bridge over navigable waters you can not obstruct vessels that would have otherwise been able to use the waterway. So you therefore need to factor in clearance to allow vessels to pass. If you cannot feasibly built it high enough to allow this then you must use some type of opening span to allow passage and you must man the bridge and accommodate sea travel.
And not just for some ahole in a yacht but for any craft longer than 21' in length.
My leisure time is valuable also, should I have to wait hours to pass. Ships are on a timetable also, some have to wait for tides to navigate these waters.

I remember many years ago in the NHRR days, there were people in
boats who on purpose used to try to get through when there were trains
in the works and they waited, on orders of the dispatcher. One thing you
must remember, no drawbridge gets opened up until the train dispatcher
states that it is OK. I remember one afternoon, some jerk in a sail boat
had that bridge opened up for him four different times. The fifth time, he
waited quite a while for the bridge, there were a lot of trains at that time.
Often if the bridge openings are being abused and tying up the railroad,
the local regulations for a bridge can and are changed.
No place has more drawbridge problems on a daily basis than right here
in Fort Lauderdale but even here, some bridges on critical roadways have
closed hours on them when they do not and will not open for anything
except in an extreme emergency.
I might have something more to say about this down the road.
Noel Weaver

Nasadowsk wrote:I'm pretty sure the one by 125th street is (effectively) bolted down.

Absolutely not. The 138th Street Movable Bridge is indeed in service as a movable bridge, and was opened just last week to let through a crane on a barge and again for the replacement span, both to be used in the reconstruction of the 145th Street bridge. It doesn't open often, but it IS maintained as a movable bridge, and nobody expects that to ever change.

Jim

Does the 138th St. bridge open "on demand? I know there is a lot of clearance so there isn't much need, but could it?

Is there anytime that it is just open? At night?

I completely understand that the many that ride the rails should have first dibs, such as it were, but the rules are the rules. I also highly doubt that these rules could be legislated out, as it were, since the Coast Guard is making the rules here.

Another point is that, while I am unfamiliar with the area, if that many affluent people use this waterway, I am certain that people would object if the bridge were going to be bolted down. I think you'd be surprised at who came out of the woodwork if it happened.

Also...is the dispatcher really the one in charge here? I would have thought the bridge operator was the one that gave the heads up, since the waterway has first dibs (man, I can't think of a better word here...argh) and the dispatcher would simply do as he or she could.

Dave Becker

Been awhile since I've been on... just caught this thread.

Both sides have a compelling argument. Since the railroad wasn't built high enough to freely accommodate boats, the bridges have to be moved within a reasonable time.

Now, I am not a "trekkie," but this is one situation where Spock's quote "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" comes into play without question.

A train carrying hundreds of people to and from work, on a timed schedule, is more important than a few people on a boat, whether it's for leisure or business. However, it is unfair to make those boaters wait for a very long time.

There must be a compromise.

I like the idea where the bridges would be declared "closed" at certain times of the day, and open at other times -- and Metro-North would have to schedule its trains around those open times. Obviously, they would have to be off-peak hours, trains running in those periods should probably include a note to the effect of "trains may be delayed up to XX minutes due to moveable bridge activity."

Another possible idea, have boaters make "appointments" with the bridge operators. Boaters request their crossings in advance. The railroad knows ahead of time when boaters will be there, and they can plan accordingly. (Of course, the railroad would have approval or denial power, allowing them to fit the appointments into its own schedule, keeping train delays minimal.)


Either way, Metro-North can easily get the laws changed in its favor. All they have to do is begin observing the current law to the letter. As soon as a boat approaches, the bridge goes up immediately -- even if it's peak hours and overcrowded trains get stuck waiting. Will people get mad? Of course they will!

That's when the conductor comes on the PA and informs people of "Metro-North is fulfilling its federal obligation to stop for any and all boat traffic at every moveable bridge along the line. If you have any comments or concerns about this law, we encourage you to write to your elected local, state and federal government representatives."

They could even go one step further with adding "Complimentary pre-addressed envelopes for this purpose are available {at your station stop, from your conductor, at GCT, etc.}" That would take a bit of work to pull off, but who said anything worthwhile was easy?

pnaw10 wrote:Been awhile since I've been on... just caught this thread.
Now, I am not a "trekkie," but this is one situation where Spock's quote "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" comes into play without question.

I disagree entirely. The river and the bridge over it are a shared resource. The Coast Guard has promulgated rules that MN has the oppurtunity to challenge since the beginning of their (MN) existence and either have not been successful in challenging or chosen to not challenge at all. Simply ignoring the issue by making people wait undetermined periods of time simply isn't fair to those who do use the waterway, for whatever purpose.

Maybe MN/CDOT should work with the Coast Guard to either give them more time during peak hours, or maybe even look into dredging to lower the waterline underneath the bridge. But simply saying "my use is more important than yours, go scratch" . What kind of society are we creating when agencies create rules that other agencies can simply ignore? Last time I checked there was no exemption in the CG regulations for MN or CDOT.

Nester wrote:Maybe MN/CDOT should work with the Coast Guard to either give them more time during peak hours, or maybe even look into dredging to lower the waterline underneath the bridge.

Hmm dredging leaves the water level same so height from water to bridge stays same.
Dredging would only allow deeper draft vessels into harbor.

Nester wrote:What kind of society are we creating when agencies create rules that other agencies can simply ignore? Last time I checked there was no exemption in the CG regulations for MN or CDOT.

Quite. I'm no boater, but I have a good friend who is. He says CG are right up there with IRS and Post Office etc. when it comes to organisations you do *not* want to piss off/mess around with. They have a *lot* of power and aren't afraid to use it - if push ever really did come to shove, the bridge would be history, and MN/CDOT could argue about it later; if the railroad simply refused to play by the rules, CG would whistle up a crane barge or the Army Engineers, and it it would be problem solved, from the CG point of view of course!

Mike

DutchRailnut wrote:

Nester wrote:Maybe MN/CDOT should work with the Coast Guard to either give them more time during peak hours, or maybe even look into dredging to lower the waterline underneath the bridge.

Hmm dredging leaves the water level same so height from water to bridge stays same.
Dredging would only allow deeper draft vessels into harbor.

When I read that one out loud it didn't make sense to me either -- toss it in the half-baked pile.

MJ

could we put a locking system their like they do on canals?
would it be too much?

DutchRailnut wrote:

Nester wrote:Maybe MN/CDOT should work with the Coast Guard to either give them more time during peak hours, or maybe even look into dredging to lower the waterline underneath the bridge.

Hmm dredging leaves the water level same so height from water to bridge stays same.
Dredging would only allow deeper draft vessels into harbor.

theozno wrote:could we put a locking system their like they do on canals?
would it be too much?

DutchRailnut wrote:

Nester wrote:Maybe MN/CDOT should work with the Coast Guard to either give them more time during peak hours, or maybe even look into dredging to lower the waterline underneath the bridge.

Hmm dredging leaves the water level same so height from water to bridge stays same.
Dredging would only allow deeper draft vessels into harbor.

I got a better idea, build a high level stationary bridge or a four track
tunnel under the river, close up Cos Cob and Riverside station and tax the
people in Greenwich for these improvements
This would go over like a lead ballon but it would solve the problem.
Noel Weaver

pablo wrote:I completely understand that the many that ride the rails should have first dibs, such as it were, but the rules are the rules. I also highly doubt that these rules could be legislated out, as it were, since the Coast Guard is making the rules here.

Another point is that, while I am unfamiliar with the area, if that many affluent people use this waterway, I am certain that people would object if the bridge were going to be bolted down. I think you'd be surprised at who came out of the woodwork if it happened.

Also...is the dispatcher really the one in charge here? I would have thought the bridge operator was the one that gave the heads up, since the waterway has first dibs (man, I can't think of a better word here...argh) and the dispatcher would simply do as he or she could.

Dave Becker

Hey Pablo, the way it works is as follows. The bridgetender calls me that the boat is there for an opening. Once I verify that the signal maintainers, B&B (Buldings & Bridges) mechanics and electricians are in place, I go ahead and unlock the bridge via remote control. In order for me to give the bridge control to the tender, I first open the derails and then click on bridge indication on my screen. Once the derails and bridge locks go red on my screen, the bridgetender then has control. Usually, Cob bridge opens by appointment during the off season, on demand during the summer. I cannot open the bridge at Cob until the maintainers and B&B people are present. This why we ask for appointments to be made to get the proper people in place. Ultimately, it is my responsibilty to mke sure the bridge opens in a timely manne for the boats with little or no interefence to rail traffic.

BTW, I have heard stories about a coast guard captain coming in the Control Center a few years ago with armed personnel, threating the chief to make sure the bridges are open for the boats when they want or else they would arrest him and leave the bridge open permanently. Whether it's true or not, it does sound possible to me.