Rail safety critic charged with trespassing on tracks

News article in today's Lewiston Sun Journal:

By Terry Karkos, Staff Writer

RUMFORD - A Rumford man, who was quoted in a Sun Journal story last week as saying that some railroad tracks here are unsafe, was summoned Tuesday night for being on the tracks.

Guilford Rail System of North Billerica, Mass., the company that owns the railroad, which leads into MeadWestvaco's paper mill, says the tracks are safe. But walking on them is unsafe and illegal.

After being summoned to appear on July 5 in Rumford District Court, Raymond Baker, 30, said Thursday afternoon that, in his opinion, Guilford is trying to intimidate him.

"If they're not trying to be retaliatory, why summon me?" he asked.

Guilford Executive Vice President David Fink said Wednesday afternoon that the railroad wasn't trying to bully Baker.

Instead, Fink said that Baker was summoned for trespassing, because it's against the law to walk on railroad tracks or to be on railroad property.

Rumford police Sgt. Tracey Higley said Thursday that in the 11 years he has been employed by the department, he could remember "only once or twice that people have been summoned for track walking."

"But we've been called numerous times by the railroad company and Mead about people being on the tracks, and we've warned people that it's against the law," Higley added.

The Sun Journal story showed a photograph of Baker squatting in the middle of the track, pointing out a deteriorated section of rail. Guilford Safety Department Director David Bougie said the photograph gave children and people the wrong idea about being on the tracks.

"It's a very serious issue for the railroad - people wandering on the tracks. Five hundred and fifty people were killed last year while walking on railroad tracks," Fink said.

Baker said that after the story ran, he was contacted by a Boston and Maine Railroad Police officer.

"He gave me a warning, said the tracks are safe, and said, 'We're not trying to be a bully.' Then, he politely read me the riot act," Baker said.

He was summoned a few days later. "I'm not intimidated by big business. Whatever is going to happen in court, is going to happen, but I feel that someone from the railroad company should contact me about what I think are unsafe tracks," he said.

Baker said that rails on the tracks in question are cracked, crumbling, frayed, ripped and pancaked. Fink said that the tracks had been inspected, and are safe for the freight trains that slowly roll over them.

"Our tracks are inspected once a week by qualified track inspectors. It's federal law. If my guys say they are safe, they're safe," he said.

Fink bristled when asked about the safety of the Rumford track.

"We were rated America's safest railroad in the U.S. in 2004. We're very serious about safety," he said.

Fink said Guilford Rail is to receive a Gold Harriman award for railroad safety on Thursday, May 19, in Washington.

Fink said people like Baker shouldn't assume that tracks are unsafe if they are not qualified track inspectors.

Baker acknowledged that he is no expert.

"But I just know that I've never seen a railroad track look like that. If they say the tracks are safe at the speeds they're running, maybe they are," he said.

Fink said: "We were rated America's safest railroad in the U.S. in 2004."

I think that's a bit of a misnomer.

The Harriman award recognizes railroads with the lowest number of employee injuries.

Perhaps Guilford had the lowest number of employee injuries in the regional railroad category. That's very good, but that certainly doesn't make them "the safest railroad in the U.S."

For what it's worth, Guilford trains don't travel much faster than 10 MPH on the Rumford Branch, which is probably why they're able to get away with continuing to use rails that most other railroads wouldn't even use for industrial sidings, let alone a branch or a main line.

Here are some photos of the track in question. Definitely not very pretty:

http://www.sunjournal.com/photos/2005/0 ... 6158-1.jpg

http://www.sunjournal.com/photos/2005/0 ... 6158-2.jpg

And here is the link to the original article, which unfortunately requires you to create an account in order to view it:

http://www.sunjournal.com/news/riverval ... 506158.php

Thats just sad for a railroad such as Guilford.

Not a RR expert, nor a steel expert... that said, as a firefighter, I wouldnt want to see that on tracks where I live.

From only the superficial look at the rail I see no problem with that rail for a 10 MPH track. What one sees is the flow of metal off the head towards the field side. And while the flow can and will flake off (that is what the man is holding), it is not necessarily a defect of any kind. That is: it's ugly, but there ain't anything wrong with it.

And before any one asks the FRA does not require 10 MPH freight track to be ultrasonically tested.

DAW

130MM wrote:From only the superficial look at the rail I see no problem with that rail for a 10 MPH track. What one sees is the flow of metal off the head towards the field side. And while the flow can and will flake off (that is what the man is holding), it is not necessarily a defect of any kind. That is: it's ugly, but there ain't anything wrong with it.

And before any one asks the FRA does not require 10 MPH freight track to be ultrasonically tested.

DAW

That's what I was thinking too, but, lacking any greater knowledge than what my father told me from his railroad days, I didn't want to chime in.

What's also noticable from those photos is the condition of the rest of the track structure. Ties (from what I can see in th small photos) look good, rails are straight and level, ballast looks good. Compared to some places GRS runs or recently ran (*cough* Watertown branch *cough*) it looks pretty good.

Whether the physical structure is adequate or not the issue remains that a critic of GRS was summoned to court for a criminal complaint on the basis of a newspaper article critical of the company. This highlights the myriad of problems that exist with a private company possessing its own police force. Discretion is often times the better part of valor among many other things. Guilford already has a strained relationship with quite a few communities through which they run, it is only a matter of time before one or more state legislatures take action by wiping out the statutes under which the B&M police draw their authority. I hope it does not come to that.

I have seen some real nasty looking track on Guilford's west end. Maybe they have less accidents because they have so many speed restrictions... harder to derail that way!

Some guy out in Greenfield MA.

It's not too good of an idea to do that, to actually go onto the tracks or even trespass onto RR property. If you wanna promote safety and rail, I'd go do it trackside or from public property.

NellsChoo wrote:I have seen some real nasty looking track on Guilford's west end. Maybe they have less accidents because they have so many speed restrictions... harder to derail that way!

Eggsactly!
Guilford's MO is keep the track in just good enough condition to operate at speeds that are just good enough to mainatin service that's just good enough to keep their customers from being satisfied just enough to keep them from compaining too much or going to the STB too often.
You know they just won another Harriman Gold Medal for safety? That's one way they do it, keeping it slow.

After spending my first 3 years, on the track gang, I see nothing wrong, with that rail. The rail was originally in a curve, and slow speed operation has "pushed" a microscopic layer towards the outside of the curve. The flow, towards the field side in no way effects the gauge side, of the rail unless the rail is worn into the web, or the vertical thickness of the rail head won't support a wheelset, or gauge. Many railroads use rails, in this fashion. Moving the rail from the outside of a curve, then putting it into the inside, and adding a new piece to the outside, is how you get maximum life, from the rail. It has two useable faces, and the wear pattern in the pictures is not an operating defect, at all, for the field side of the rail. The guy squatting in the gauge, however, is clearly trespassing, and knows nothing about safety on or about railroad property. Good for Guilford, for taking this meddling bum to court. Leave the track inspections to the paid foremen, and to the FRA, not to some idiot foamer!!!

I agree with the last post. If you are going to openly trespass on private
property and make waves, you may well feel a pinch.
The guy got what was coming to him.
Noel Weaver

NellsChoo wrote:I have seen some real nasty looking track on Guilford's west end. Maybe they have less accidents because they have so many speed restrictions... harder to derail that way!

I just think GRS is lucky...I have derailed at 5mph and under, operating on FRA approved track...It only bites the Railroads when a Locomotives leaking fuel tank or Hazmat type car is involved or human fatality. Most derailments are not even reported unless it exceeds a certain dollar amount this = FRA reportable

I just think GRS is lucky...I have derailed at 5mph and under, operating on FRA approved track...It only bites the Railroads when a Locomotives leaking fuel tank or Hazmat type car is involved or human fatality. Most derailments are not even reported unless it exceeds a certain dollar amount this = FRA reportable

Track at 5 mph causing a derailment must mean that it's a real bad track. The FRA may want to look into that track, hopefully it wasn't the track, it could have been a switch. Well at least this derailment wasn't as bad after all