开云体育

Mailing-List: list dandh@...; contact dandh-owner@...
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 14:40:22 -0500
Subject: [dandh] Fw: SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD FINDS NO BASIS ON WHICH

From: "Danny Boehr" <dannyb2@...>


----- Original Message -----
From: <Administrator@...>
To: <Dannyb2@...>
Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2000 12:05 PM
Subject: SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD FINDS NO BASIS ON WHICH TO REVISIT
10-YEAR-OLD DECISION IN ORDER TO BLOCK TRANSFER OF TRAIN DISPATCHING
FUNCTION TO MONTREAL

* * * * * * * * * *
Originally posted by CN=News Clips/O=STB
* * * * * * * * * *


Surface Transportation Board (Board) Chairman Linda J. Morgan announced
that the Board has today issued a decision finding that it is unable,

based

on the record before it, to reopen a proceeding decided 10 years ago
authorizing the Canadian Pacific Railway Company (CP) to acquire the

assets

of the bankrupt Delaware and Hudson Railway Company (D&H).



In December 1998, the Board issued a decision granting the request of the
American Train Dispatchers Department of the International Brotherhood of
Locomotive Engineers (ATDD) that CP be blocked from transferring train
dispatching functions to Montreal, Canada. That decision, which arose in
the context of review of an arbitrator's ruling concerning employee
protection issues associated with the CP/D&H transaction, was based on
safety concerns that had been voiced by officials of the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA), an agency within the Department of Transportation
(DOT), in letters written to the private parties. In December 1999,
however, the Board's decision was vacated by the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The court found that the

FRA

letters, which pointed out that Canadian hours of service laws are
different from those in the United States, and that Canadian workers are
not subject to random drug testing, did not provide a basis for

overturning

the arbitrator's ruling allowing the proposed transfer of dispatching
functions to Canada.



After the D.C. Circuit's action, ATDD asked the Board to issue a new
decision that would again block the transfer of dispatching functions to
Montreal, and this time one that would reopen the underlying CP/C&H
proceeding. ATDD's request was based on the same FRA letters on which the
Board had relied in first enjoining the dispatching transfer in the
decision which the reviewing court vacated. DOT also filed a formal
pleading at the Board supporting ATDD's request. Its pleading, however,
simply reiterated the concerns expressed earlier by FRA, and indicated

that

FRA intended to begin a rulemaking proceeding in the near future to
consider the issue. The Board found that it could not issue an order
blocking the transfer. In its decision, the Board stated:



"[W]e give great weight to the views of the [FRA, the] Federal body with
expertise in rail safety. In its pleading, DOT hypothesizes as to several
potential safety issues but concedes that it does "not at this juncture
know whether the movement of dispatching operations for [domestic] rail
lines to locations outside the United States should be allowed, allowed
subject to conditions, or prohibited." DOT has not suggested when FRA
would conclude its rulemaking and be prepared to provide its views on
whether the potential safety concerns that it has identified necessitate
any remedial action. Given DOT's own uncertainty as to whether corrective
action is required, it would be premature for us to reopen the underlying
acquisition proceeding to impose a condition foreclosing CP's right to
transfer the dispatching function to Canada. Moreover, for us to

institute

an investigation at this time would be needlessly duplicative of FRA's
efforts. When FRA has better formulated its position regarding the
magnitude of any safety problem that might be identified and what
conditions, if any, might be appropriate regarding Canadian-based
dispatching, we will be better able to assess whether or not it would be
appropriate to reopen this proceeding to consider any request by FRA for a
specific condition. If there are any urgent safety problems in the
meantime, FRA, which . . . is the agency principally responsible for rail
safety, can exercise its own emergency powers."



The Board's decision was issued on March 2, 2000, in Canadian Pacific
Limited, Et Al. --Purchase and Trackage Rights--Delaware & Hudson Railway
Company, STB Finance Docket No. 31700.



###

------------------------------------------------------------------------
DON'T HATE YOUR RATE!
Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds! Get rates as low as
0.0% Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR and no hidden fees.
Apply NOW!

------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Rainer Auer" <auerr@...>

As per Bill's updates on the travels of the four C40-8 units, it seems
unclear as to the purpose of these independent assignments. When the tests
were announced, I thought (aside from reducing the age of the fleet) that
the CPR was looking at potential unit reductions on certain trains, given
the horsepower difference. Are they merely testing compatibility and
reliability with SD40s at this stage?

From: Phil Mason <pmason@...>
To: C-P-R@...
Subject: [C-P-R] GCRC Moves Mountains
Date: March 3, 2000 7:30 PM

From: "Phil Mason" <pmason@...>

Recently, I picked up the Rocky Mountaineer 2000 tour catalogue.

The cover features train 102 (eastbound Kamloops-Calgary tour
train) crossing Stoney Creek bridge, as photogaphed from the
northeast side.

This is a familiar Nicolas Morant angle which I have scrambled
up to and taken photos myself.

This publicity shot features a snow covered peak where no such
peak exists ! . Oh , the wonders of digital enhancement.

All of a sudden, the Beaver Valley has acquired a new headwall.

In the brochure, you are invited to visit on the web at ;

www.rockymountaineer.com and the web page includes "train talk"
where you can ask train questions of an expert. I plan to ask him
the name of the magnificent peak in the background of the cover
picture on the 2000 tour brochure.

Phil Mason
Revelstoke B.C.

GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
as low as 0.0% Intro APR and no hidden fees.
Apply NOW!

C-P-R "Canadian Pacific Railway"

I know this is not CN but railway preservation concerns us all. Maybe
somebody in the can help out, in preventing this engine being
stuffed and mounted 50 years after steam.

John Spring
TH&B Railway Historical Society
Chairman
john.spring@...

----------

From: J & L Spring <john.spring@...>
To: TH&B Mailing List <thblist@...>
Subject: engine 40
Date: Friday, March 03, 2000 10:12 PM

Tonight I received some very disturbing news that at this very moment the
ex TH&B #40 0-6-0 steam locomotive switcher sits on a trailer in Lindsay
Ontario in preparation to move it to an outside park site. For those of

you

who are not aware of the history of this locomotive. This locomotive was
originally built for the TH&B railway in 1912 as TH&B #42. In 1947 this
same locomotive was re numbered to #40 by the TH&B railway. #40 lasted on
the railway along with 102 until 1959 when 102 was scarped and #40 was

sold

to Stelco. Stelco kept this locomotive in operating condition until 1969,
when it was donated to the Museum of Science & Tec. in Ottawa in

operating

condition. The engine had be moved to an inside display at the Museum

for

a number of years, until downsizing at the museum made the engine

surplus.

The engine was then moved to Lindsay, Ontario and kept in inside storage
until this week. The locomotive up to this point has been well cared for
and possibly could be restored to operation condition.
I can not believe that in the year 2000 a one of a kind piece that has no
historic link to the Lindsay area is going to be put outside for the
elements & the vandals to destroy as has happened to so many park
locomotives all over Canada & the US. The locomotive has not had the
lagging removed from under it's jacketing and the many of the important
artifacts and hardware remain in place on the locomotive for the souvenir
hunter and scrap dealer to steal. I find this all that much more

disturbing

when museums such as the Steam & Tec Museum in Hamilton and the

Smithville

Railway Station have both express an interest in properly preserving this
locomotive. John Vincent is attempting to contact somebody & offer to
properly prepare the locomotive for out side display which can only slow
the eventual distruction of this historic locomotive. If any body can

shed

more light on this or has any possible contacts to prevent the further
distruction of the historic Hamilton based locomotive. Please let us

know.

John Spring
TH&B Railway Historical Society
Chairman
john.spring@...

Some knob writes to a newsgroup:
Are they the RED, White and Blue-green light at the top of the engine
faceplate?
If they are, I thought they were there for showing seniority levels.

Response:
Yes. The engineer with the most seniority gets to show green lights.
The next oldest gets to show white lights.
All others have to keep the lights extinguished except for the youngest
engineer who must display red lights and take the siding for everybody
else.