|
|
| Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip (925112) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 3 of 4 |
||
|
| (925308) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip |
|
|
Posted by kp5308 on Sun Apr 18 21:58:32 2010, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip, posted by Dutchrailnut on Sun Apr 18 21:19:43 2010. No one in ther right mind would move a car full of passengers with no brakes or breakaway protectuion.IIRC there was a crewmember in that R44 cab at all times. For all I know that train was being operated similar to a doubleheader in steam days. |
|
|
| (925309) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip |
|
|
Posted by kp5308 on Sun Apr 18 22:04:51 2010, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip, posted by Jeff Rosen on Sun Apr 18 21:18:52 2010. It is a diesel-electric :o) |
|
|
| (925310) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip |
|
|
Posted by Fulton Frank on Sun Apr 18 22:06:57 2010, in response to PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip, posted by kp5308 on Sun Apr 18 10:29:57 2010. Wonderful shots Kevin, but I cannot get excited about Staten Island. Sister-in-law- lives there. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (925314) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Apr 18 22:15:12 2010, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip, posted by Sand Box John on Sun Apr 18 21:57:31 2010. So, who is this MTU. Apparently heirs to Detroit Diesel, or at least to some of their product catalog?What is an engine family anyway. It looks like that number was indeed a Cummings number. Might MTU engines be installed by Cummings, or with their environmental equipment. This is as interesting a conundrum as 76th Street. ROAR |
|
|
| (925317) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip |
|
|
Posted by Train Man Paul : Metro-North's Best Conductor FOR ALL 3 LINES!!! on Sun Apr 18 22:26:00 2010, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip, posted by 5301 Fishbowl on Sun Apr 18 21:45:11 2010. Ahhhhhhh, you're a wire junkie, juice jack, fried brain just like me, eh??? :-DIf I land a Hudson gig, especially one that goes to Poughkeepsie, definitely feel free to come along!! Oooohhhh, sorry, I guess that might not be a good idea!! Single level diesel-hauled equipment might make you sad!! :-D |
|
|
| (925318) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip |
|
|
Posted by Train Man Paul : Metro-North's Best Conductor FOR ALL 3 LINES!!! on Sun Apr 18 22:27:05 2010, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip, posted by Fulton Frank on Sun Apr 18 22:06:57 2010. Ouch!!! :-D LOL ....that bad, huh??? :-D |
|
|
| (925320) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip |
|
|
Posted by kp5308 on Sun Apr 18 22:42:26 2010, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip, posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Apr 18 21:21:40 2010. One must ask if he is just making it short and sweet for a foamerNo. He was not responding to a specific question from a "foamer". He did go into detail on several points about SIRT not needing to be FRA compliant on his own. Now since I believe the SIRT to be a safely operated railroad by serious professionals I didn't pay too much attention to the particular points discussed since that is not my particular interest. I can tell you the ride was smooth (as in the cars brakes were not stopping the engine) & there were plenty of SIRT operating personell on the trip. I also believe no rules governing operation of the special were violated. The only experience I have with all this is the Reading Tech trips operated for several years between Temple & Hamburg PA. ALL our vehicles (locomotives & cars) were in compliance with the governing rules applicable to the operation of said trips & operated by crews fully qualified to run on the line we travelled. I know Andy Muller, owner of the track we ran on wouldn't have it any other way & I believe SIRT is no different. |
|
|
| (925321) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip |
|
|
Posted by kp5308 on Sun Apr 18 22:43:27 2010, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip, posted by Fulton Frank on Sun Apr 18 22:06:57 2010. 'nuff said 8) |
|
|
| (925323) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip |
|
|
Posted by Bill West on Sun Apr 18 22:48:19 2010, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip, posted by Dan Lawrence on Sun Apr 18 20:36:31 2010. Sorry Dan, old question. Although some text about “connection to the national network” appears in the rules it is only one of several factors in a legal formula for determining a system’s status. For a railfan the simplest rule is: if it historically derived from a mainline steam road’s commuter operation it’s FRA and if it descended from someone else’s transit operation then it’s FTA. Once set the status doesn’t seem to go away, probably too many questions including Union ones.Here’s my previous post on this pointing to an FRA document and giving my reading of it, the post doesn’t show up in search anymore. I think Dutch was the source of the link: ............... PA5s and FRA Regulations From time to time PATH’s status with the FRA comes up here, well thanks to the UTU we now have a clearer explanation of this. They have posted a statement from the FRA explaining it’s views on jurisdiction, PDF file here, and drawing a line between passenger rail and transit rail, especially LRT. Even Maglev is mentioned. From 1970’s legislation their basic starting point is that intercity and commuter rail services are included in their jurisdiction. Later legislation lists some specific commuter agencies to reinforce the definition but city transit is distinguished, partly as being “trolley like”. I felt it was as if they wanted to include any new systems but didn’t want to change the status quo for the existing ones hence some of what we see as inconsistencies. Then for some situations they back off from their broad starting point by indicating where they would choose not to exercise their jurisdiction or would grant waivers and where they would only apply their jurisdiction to part of a system. A primary concern is the risk of a dangerously unequal collision between a regular rail vehicle and a loaded transit one. So sharing a common track counts although time sharing can garner some waivers. Rail crossings at grade definitely count. Sharing the lift of a moveable bridge or the ROW over a street crossing attracts concerns over signal control and accident reporting requirements. Just sharing an ROW might even raise some concern. A connection to the general rail system is not a criterion however, isolated systems can be included too. But shop connection tracks of course are not bothered with by them. Areas of concern that get individually resolved by a waiver include hours of service for any shared dispatchers and signal maintainers, any desirable sharing of radio channels and getting a uniform appearance to grade crossing signals, as well as track standards and any shared track maintenance responsibility. A table of their likely approach for each group of their safety rules is included along with an explanation of what operating methods likely would be needed to qualify for a waiver. So the link gives us a clearer but not so simple distinction as to which systems are FRA and which are FTA and what the extent of any partial jurisdiction would be. It would appear that PATH is fully included because of their commuter nature even if other systems might brush rather closely by some of that definition. The history of simply having had a shared operation with the PRR may be the root issue and maybe nobody has bothered trying to change it. Sharing of Dock bridge control also counts too and I wonder if control over the passenger and freight Hackensack bridges is still one person. ................. Bill |
|
|
| (925324) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip |
|
|
Posted by kp5308 on Sun Apr 18 22:51:28 2010, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip, posted by Train Man Paul : Metro-North's Best Conductor FOR ALL 3 LINES!!! on Sun Apr 18 19:43:21 2010. Thanks Paul :o)The weather wasn't lookin' too good the night before but we got lucky! |
|
|
| (925325) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip |
|
|
Posted by kp5308 on Sun Apr 18 22:56:21 2010, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip, posted by Bill West on Sun Apr 18 22:48:19 2010. Thanks Bill. It is another part of this fascinating railroad world I'm not too familiar with. |
|
|
| (925326) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip |
|
|
Posted by Koi-PublicTransitIsMyLifeline on Sun Apr 18 23:01:05 2010, in response to PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip, posted by kp5308 on Sun Apr 18 10:29:57 2010. Excellent shots, Kevin.Koi |
|
|
| (925334) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip |
|
|
Posted by Bill West on Mon Apr 19 00:03:21 2010, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip, posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Apr 18 22:15:12 2010. MTU bought Detroit Diesel in 2000 and merged it. MTU descended from Maybach and included a partnership with Mercedes Benz. In German the initials are roughly “Motor and Turbine Union”. Detroit Diesel developed the 2000 and 4000 series engines for MTU in 1994.7CEXL019.AAD is an EPA number for identifying exact engine sub families from Tier 1 onwards. It is coded with info like a car’s VIN is and is in addition to the maker’s broad, long running family names. Interestingly this one does come up as a Cummins engine. It may just be that Brookville stamped the serial and date on an available plate, tacky. Bill |
|
|
| (925348) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip |
|
|
Posted by Mr Mabstoa on Mon Apr 19 01:28:49 2010, in response to PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip, posted by kp5308 on Sun Apr 18 10:29:57 2010. You had a good day!Path and SIRT. |
|
|
| (925355) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip |
|
|
Posted by arnine on Mon Apr 19 05:35:53 2010, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip, posted by Dan Lawrence on Sun Apr 18 20:45:14 2010. Still wrong go look it up. You are saying he is wrong so prove it then. He has given you more than just Wikipedia so u still think he is wrong then u show proof he did his end. |
|
|
| (925358) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip |
|
|
Posted by arnine on Mon Apr 19 05:40:17 2010, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip, posted by Train Man Paul : Metro-North's Best Conductor FOR ALL 3 LINES!!! on Sun Apr 18 21:27:52 2010. Cool let me know by e-mail too please :) |
|
|
| (925359) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip |
|
|
Posted by arnine on Mon Apr 19 05:44:45 2010, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip, posted by Train Man Paul : Metro-North's Best Conductor FOR ALL 3 LINES!!! on Sun Apr 18 20:57:31 2010. Exactly. |
|
|
| (925364) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Mon Apr 19 06:16:23 2010, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip, posted by Sand Box John on Sun Apr 18 21:57:31 2010. Ask Brookville |
|
|
| (925366) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Mon Apr 19 06:18:18 2010, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip, posted by kp5308 on Sun Apr 18 21:58:32 2010. On doubleheaders the lead engine is in full control of airbrakes.second engine only delivers power, not brake control. |
|
|
| (925376) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip |
|
|
Posted by Newkirk Images on Mon Apr 19 07:48:43 2010, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip, posted by Dutchrailnut on Sun Apr 18 19:45:21 2010. Its a MNCR copycat, the 4 units were initially labeled Metro North by mistake, MTA decided to only change lettering.So SIR chose the MNRR paint scheme as a cost saving measure ? I understand the MNRR units were being built at the same time Bill Newkirtk |
|
|
| (925382) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip |
|
|
Posted by North-Easten T/O on Mon Apr 19 08:17:49 2010, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip, posted by Train Man Paul : Metro-North's Best Conductor FOR ALL 3 LINES!!! on Sun Apr 18 20:59:58 2010. Paul Make shore you and Railman are the crew on this train. I would love to hear how the two of you get out of it. Huma, Huma. |
|
|
| (925384) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip |
|
|
Posted by North-Easten T/O on Mon Apr 19 08:22:42 2010, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip, posted by Train Dude on Sun Apr 18 18:54:09 2010. Unless there is a strong reason, in NYCT we always push if a train is disabled.Ya I know, when my R160 leaving Chamber St had a Brake Pipe Ruperter in the South Couler, the train behind me was getting ready to unload me passager and push me out of the way. |
|
|
| (925385) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Mon Apr 19 08:23:34 2010, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip, posted by Jeff Rosen on Sun Apr 18 21:18:52 2010. I'm shocked that you would question the crazy motives of electric railroaders, Jeff. Shocked.your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (925389) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip |
|
|
Posted by BLE-NIMX on Mon Apr 19 08:36:22 2010, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip, posted by Dutchrailnut on Sun Apr 18 21:19:43 2010. If those are straight aired cars fully charged through the consist to the rear car, they would stop in a breakwaway, full emergency or normal station stop without electric brakes (I don't know what gauge readings are on the R44s, just what is on the diesel. The storm emergency trains they put together on the 5 or S trains in the Rockaways run a diesel on each end with 4 to 5 cars. I wouldn't do that under FRA either without electric brakes but they adapted to becoming another subway just fine as they don't give a shit about those things anymore apparently |
|
|
| (925403) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Mon Apr 19 10:28:22 2010, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip, posted by Train Man Paul : Metro-North's Best Conductor FOR ALL 3 LINES!!! on Sun Apr 18 20:59:58 2010. Let the air out of the tires?ROAR |
|
|
| (925414) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip |
|
|
Posted by Hank Eisenstein on Mon Apr 19 11:07:01 2010, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip, posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Apr 18 22:15:12 2010. Then the locomotive isn't properly labeled...and if this were your car, you would be in violation of environmental laws regulating emissions controls, wouldn't you? |
|
|
| (925415) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip |
|
|
Posted by Hank Eisenstein on Mon Apr 19 11:08:26 2010, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip, posted by Jersey Mike on Sun Apr 18 16:56:41 2010. I'd like a woman to park my... |
|
|
| (925418) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip |
|
|
Posted by Hank Eisenstein on Mon Apr 19 11:18:39 2010, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip, posted by Train Dude on Sun Apr 18 18:54:09 2010. That strong reason being no power. |
|
|
| (925420) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip |
|
|
Posted by Hank Eisenstein on Mon Apr 19 11:28:14 2010, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip, posted by Dutchrailnut on Sun Apr 18 19:33:46 2010. FRA requirements lapsed long ago. The line is embargoed, it is a pure rapid transit line. |
|
|
| (925424) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip |
|
|
Posted by Hank Eisenstein on Mon Apr 19 11:36:54 2010, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip, posted by Dutchrailnut on Sun Apr 18 20:56:34 2010. Absolute astronomy? |
|
|
| (925425) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip |
|
|
Posted by kp5308 on Mon Apr 19 11:41:56 2010, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip, posted by Dutchrailnut on Mon Apr 19 06:18:18 2010. second engine only delivers power, not brake control.Second engine can throw emergency brake & can control its engine brake. |
|
|
| (925430) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip |
|
|
Posted by Hank Eisenstein on Mon Apr 19 11:50:47 2010, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip, posted by Dutchrailnut on Sun Apr 18 20:56:34 2010. Absolute astronomy?And from http://transit-safety.fta.dot.gov/publications/safety/NYMTA_Safety_Investigation/HTML/dot-vntsc-fta-93-4.htm, section 5, table 5.5 Substance Abuse While under no requirement to perform drug and alcohol testing since leaving the regulatory control of the FRA in 1988, SIRTOA has continued to doso |
|
|
| (925433) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip |
|
|
Posted by kp5308 on Mon Apr 19 11:55:03 2010, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip, posted by Hank Eisenstein on Mon Apr 19 11:50:47 2010. THANK YOU HANK :O) |
|
|
| (925443) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip |
|
|
Posted by Hank Eisenstein on Mon Apr 19 12:20:22 2010, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip, posted by Dutchrailnut on Sun Apr 18 20:26:15 2010. I've just searched the FRA Accident database for 2008, for every common carrier RR accident in the state of New York. There are NO accidents reported to the FRA in 2008 in Richmond County.If the FRA were the regulatory agency, there would be an incident report on file for the December 26th derailment. There is no record with the NTSB of the accident. There were 79 incidents in NY State, ranging from minor derailments to grade crossing collisions to the collision on the LIRR at Jamacia. |
|
|
| (925464) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip |
|
|
Posted by Bill West on Mon Apr 19 13:24:42 2010, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip, posted by Newkirk Images on Mon Apr 19 07:48:43 2010. So SIR chose the MNRR paint scheme as a cost saving measure ?Depends on whether the mistake was in the specification/order or in the factory. Even if the latter MTA could decide to not push their supplier to an unessential expense just for vanity. Bill |
|
|
| (925469) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip |
|
|
Posted by Lou from Brooklyn on Mon Apr 19 13:32:32 2010, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip, posted by Train Dude on Sun Apr 18 18:28:57 2010. At BERA we have a few intersesting coupler adapters, H2C to Van Dorn to name one >G< |
|
|
| (925470) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip |
|
|
Posted by Bill West on Mon Apr 19 13:33:03 2010, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip, posted by BLE-NIMX on Mon Apr 19 08:36:22 2010. I think it was not only the electric jumper that wasn’t connected, but the air hose from the diesel wasn’t either.Bill |
|
|
| (925472) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip |
|
|
Posted by Hank Eisenstein on Mon Apr 19 13:36:01 2010, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip, posted by Dutchrailnut on Sun Apr 18 19:45:21 2010. It's probably a corporate scheme, not a mistake. |
|
|
| (925473) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip |
|
|
Posted by arnine on Mon Apr 19 13:38:31 2010, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip, posted by Hank Eisenstein on Mon Apr 19 13:36:01 2010. Did you read this part: "Its a MNCR copycat, the 4 units were initially labeled Metro North by mistake"?If it was a corporate scheme why did it get labeled Metro-North? Plus nothing else on SI has that scheme, sorry it was an error and they just stuck with it |
|
|
| (925474) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip |
|
|
Posted by Tony Clifton on Mon Apr 19 13:41:22 2010, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip, posted by arnine on Mon Apr 19 13:38:31 2010. >>Did you read this part:<<Hey, take it easy on him! Hank Eisenstein doesn't seem to be the sharpest tool in the shed. |
|
|
| (925481) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip |
|
|
Posted by Bill West on Mon Apr 19 13:49:20 2010, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip, posted by Hank Eisenstein on Mon Apr 19 11:28:14 2010. The embargo on the freight service relieved the old ICC requirement to be a common carrier to the freight customers. The usual stoppage of all service then suspends the maintenance standards. But that’s nothing to do with your FRA status nor the safety regulations if you have other operations despite the freight embargo.Bill |
|
|
| (925484) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Mon Apr 19 13:53:45 2010, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip, posted by Bill West on Mon Apr 19 13:49:20 2010. I agree that it's also remarkably strange if PATH is commuter RR but SIR is rapid transit. I find the statutory authority on this question to be quite blunt; MTA is specifically singled out. |
|
|
| (925486) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip |
|
|
Posted by arnine on Mon Apr 19 13:55:28 2010, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip, posted by Tony Clifton on Mon Apr 19 13:41:22 2010. I dunno about that but it was obviously a mistake in paint job |
|
|
| (925488) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip |
|
|
Posted by Hank Eisenstein on Mon Apr 19 13:57:56 2010, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip, posted by arnine on Mon Apr 19 13:38:31 2010. The lettering may be a mistake, but is there any 'SIR' scheme at all? The Alcos are different colors, the caboose is a different color, the rider car is yellow, the passenger cars are all stainless steel... |
|
|
| (925491) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip |
|
|
Posted by Bill West on Mon Apr 19 14:08:49 2010, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip, posted by kp5308 on Mon Apr 19 11:55:03 2010. That is only the second direct Federal info we have seen and yes it does update the previous one. This is the first time I have seen a change of status occur. The line had certainly become maximum “transit” and minimum conflict with FRA’s described concerns. The Unions wouldn’t have been a problem either so presumably MTA exerted enough effort to get the change approved.Thank you, Bill |
|
|
| (925492) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip |
|
|
Posted by Bill West on Mon Apr 19 14:25:21 2010, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip, posted by trainsarefun on Mon Apr 19 13:53:45 2010. No, read the FRA paper I linked too, the distinction is not as simple and clear cut as people have been describing it. History seems to add quite a bias too.Also, in addition to the shared bridges CASOA’s? spur to PATH’s shop crosses PATH’s very active mainline. And in the ‘60s several fatalities occurred on a PATH train near here due to a sideswipe with a PRR switcher. I could see a reluctance to let PATH have the specific mention of their name removed from the FRA’s statute. Bill |
|
|
| (925494) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Mon Apr 19 14:31:45 2010, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip, posted by Bill West on Mon Apr 19 14:25:21 2010. No, read the FRA paper I linked too, the distinction is not as simple and clear cut as people have been describing it.I fully realize that. But cf 45 USC section 1104(3)-(4): (3) Commuter authority means any State, local, or regional authority, corporation, or other entity established for purposes of providing commuter service, and includes the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the Connecticut Department of Transportation, the Maryland Department of Transportation, the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, the New Jersey Transit Corporation, the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, the Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corporation, any successor agencies, and any entity created by one or more such agencies for the purpose of operating, or contracting for the operation of, commuter service. (4) Commuter service means short-haul rail passenger service operated in metropolitan and suburban areas, whether within or across the geographical boundaries of a State, usually characterized by reduced fare, multiple-ride, and commutation tickets, and by morning and evening peak period operations. My hunch is that barring another statutory provision of which I'm unaware, not even FRA can divest itself of jurisdiction over SIR because of the statutory resolution of the issue. I could see a reluctance to let PATH have the specific mention of their name removed from the FRA’s statute. I agree. But my point is that only Congress, not FRA, can remove mention of PATH. |
|
|
| (925499) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip |
|
|
Posted by Jersey Mike on Mon Apr 19 14:56:18 2010, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip, posted by kp5308 on Sun Apr 18 18:16:11 2010. There should be a brake pipe connection, it's just sort of round about. You don't see it by looking at it as it's for auxiliary use only. |
|
|
| (925500) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip |
|
|
Posted by Bill West on Mon Apr 19 15:00:11 2010, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip, posted by trainsarefun on Mon Apr 19 14:31:45 2010. Sorry I misread you as wondering why PATH can’t get out too rather than why SIR was allowed to.That clause 4 needs be read in view of what would be the opposite. IE non suburban service, midday traffic and a lack of commutation fares. SIR can argue amongst these versus say NJT, can show a lack of freight hazards, show a strong tie to NYCTA and only needs an FRA interpretive ruling. PATH can argue but needs a congressional amendment. I was involve with a railroad museum years ago. Our locomotive boilers had been inspected by the state department of labour for 30 years. Then the hobby had a couple of high profile incidents and presto the FRA just showed up one day and told us they were in charge. There was no legal way to stop them from “interpretively” changing the existing legal practices. The laws overlap and administrations can read them as they choose. The Federal-Federal and Federal-State-Local overlap is a problem in US law. If you look to the north the Canadian “constitutional” rules draw strong lines between the law making jurisdictions, pretty well excluding duplicate legislation. Bill |
|
|
| (925504) | |
Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip |
|
|
Posted by kp5308 on Mon Apr 19 15:14:50 2010, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip, posted by Jersey Mike on Mon Apr 19 14:56:18 2010. You don't see it by looking at it as it's for auxiliary use only.I repeat: there is no connection of any kind. If there is then the crew lied to me, which I don't think they did. |
|
|
|
Page 3 of 4 |
||
