More Friday rail news:
— BNSF Railway is not shielded from liability in lawsuits stemming from asbestos contamination in Libby, Mont., the Montana Supreme Court has ruled. The Flathead Beacon reports that the court upheld a ruling by Montana Asbestos Claim Court Judge Amy Eddy, who concluded the claims against the railroad are not preempted by federal law, as the railroad had claimed.
— Amtrak trains making overnight layovers in Burlington, Vt., will use a Vermont Rail System yard south of Burlington Union Station, the Vermont Agency of Transportation has announced, ending a lengthy and sometimes heated debate over where to store trainsets when Ethan Allen Express service is extended north from Rutland, Vt. Vermont Business Magazine reports the cost of work to accommodate the trains would likely be in the neighborhood of $3 million.
— Work has begun on a second BNSF Railway bridge across Lake Pend Orielle in Sandpoint, Idaho, with initial grading nearly complete, the Bonner County Daily Bee reports. Preliminary construction work on the bridge could begin later this month. The bridge project has been hotly contested by local residents, with some contending it will decrease delays at grade crossings while others oppose it on environmental grounds.
— DC Metro’s 7000-series railcars will receive a software upgrade this spring to address a problem that has seen loading doors close without the automated “step back, doors closing” warning that is supposed to precede closure, the Washington Post reports. The work is supposed to be done by May.
— Norfolk Southern has “re-positioned” 30 jobs from its yard in Williamson, W.Va., to yards in Bluefield, W.Va., and Roanoke, Va., the Williamson Daily News reports. In a statement, the railroad said seniority-based provisions in its union agreements would determine who held those jobs. The railroad previously furloughed 20 workers in Williamson in August 2019.
Regarding the article about BNSF in Libby, MT. It is amazing to me how we have lawsuits over actions that were taken when the hazard related to the products were unknown. 20-20 hindsight is always perfect, our understanding of the future at any point in time, unfortunately not so much.
Mister Sikorski:
The problem is not the difference of opinion. The problem is the railroad, didn’t you know? For those who want it all in their special snowflakeness, putting in a bridge to decrease wait times at grade crossings, or for that matter even eliminating grade crossings, is not enough.
They don’t want changes in their environment. None. They want all those nasty, smelly, and dangerous (didn’t you know) trains to go away. Period.
My comment is that such people will be in great shape only as long as the supply of glycerine suppositories holds out.
The above comments are generic in nature and do not form the basis for an attorney/client relationship. They do not constitute legal advice. I am not your attorney. And that thin, thin, thin 16 millimetre shell – oh, boy. That’s Garvey’s Whole Beef Hams, we deliver (offer void in Sectors R and T).
Ed – the way I read it, ‘contested’ suggests a difference of opinion among local residents. Those in favor are pointing to the reduction in time at grade crossings as a benefit.
This is reference to the Sandpoint,, Idaho second bridge crossing of Lake Pend Orieelle. Once hundred years ago towns welcomed railroads with open arms. Now, the NIMBY’s are dead set against anything that will upset their “space”. Don’t get me started on the environmentalists. One item in the news release caused me to chuckle. Why would people object to something that would “decrease” delays at crossings?