Amtrak Downeaster Discussion Thread

Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.

Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, gprimr1, Amtrak67 of America, Tadman

Re: Amtrak Downeaster Discussion Thread

Postby ThirdRail7 » Thu Mar 26, 2015 7:47 pm

BostonUrbEx wrote:New Downeaster schedule starts this coming Monday, March 30:

http://www.amtrakdowneaster.com/sites/d ... ed_web.pdf

Biggest change I see is 681 will no longer run to Brunswick. Instead, 683 will, significantly cutting the layover time until 688. I wonder if they'll idle in the station instead.



Keep an eye on the website for schedule adjustments as the track work kicks into high gear in a few weeks.
I want my road foreman!
ThirdRail7
 
Posts: 3968
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 7:07 pm

Re: Amtrak Downeaster Discussion Thread

Postby dnelson » Thu Mar 26, 2015 8:21 pm

FCM2829 wrote:Residents of BWNC are concerned about:
-already flood prone soil being displaced by the 500' building, overloading of storm water system
-failure of NNEPRA to conduct soil test
-Coal ash contamination of yard soil, which would be disturbed during the construction process, leading to groundwater/aquifer/surface stream&river contamination
-'diesel dust' (soot from engines)
-unknown & unnamed contaminants collecting on wheels from transit thru polluted areas
-sewage, lube oil & fuel leaks
-zero disclosure by NNEPRA of operations plan, spec what maintenance activities are to be conducted on site.
-no contingency plan in case of emergency

These Brunswick residents act like the layover facility would be such a major health hazard the likes of which the neighborhood has never experienced before. Clearly they don't realize covered gondolas full of radioactive waste from Maine Yankee sat on the siding between Stanwood St and Church Rd for weeks at a time for 5+ years in the early 2000s. Kind of puts things in perspective. Also, the trackside Downeast Energy Oil Plant on the west side of Stanwood St has the potential of causing a lot environmental damage than the layover building would... Do these people realize that even if they somehow could manage to prevent the construction of the building, Amtrak could still decide to park trains overnight in Brunswick outdoors, leading to much more exposure to "diesel dust," "unnamed contaminants," "sewage, lube oil & fuel leaks," and noise than if the trains were enclosed in the facility.
dnelson
 
Posts: 165
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 12:45 pm

Re: Amtrak Downeaster Discussion Thread

Postby MEC407 » Thu Mar 26, 2015 8:36 pm

From the Portland Press Herald:

Portland Press Herald wrote:Ridership declined by 3 percent in January and 19 percent in February compared to the same period last year, according to the Northern New England Passenger Authority, which manages the service. It was the service’s worst performance over a two-month stretch since it began operating in December 2001, according the authority’s executive director, Patrica Quinn.
. . .
In February, 4.7 percent of Downeaster trains were on time, according to Amtrak. Amtrak defines a train as on time if it reaches its final destination within 10 minutes of scheduled arrival. The service’s average for the last 12 months is 22.3 percent. That’s a huge decline from the on-time performance of 82 percent the Downeaster achieved in fiscal year 2013. Any number below 80 percent is considered substandard.
. . .
The rail authority, the MBTA and Pan Am Railways, which owns the rail line in Maine and New Hampshire, have been making rail repairs over the past year, resulting in numerous delays. Only 8 percent of trains arrived on time in May, and only 19 percent of trains arrived on time in June. The Downeaster’s problems worsened in July, when 51 trains were canceled due to track repair projects.


Read the rest of the article at: http://www.pressherald.com/2015/03/26/w ... rformance/
MEC407
Moderator:
Pan Am Railways — Boston & Maine/Maine Central — Delaware & Hudson
Central Maine & Quebec/Montreal, Maine & Atlantic/Bangor & Aroostook
Providence & Worcester — New England — GE Locomotives
User avatar
MEC407
 
Posts: 10669
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 8:15 pm

Re: Amtrak Downeaster Discussion Thread

Postby swist » Mon Mar 30, 2015 11:22 am

I take the 681/682 all the time. The trains used to pass each other between Lawrence and Haverhill. They can no longer do that because the Merrimack river bridge has only one track. So it is impossible for both of these trains to be on time, even if all the other problems were resolved. My question is why does it appear that that bridge work is not in any hurry. I can understand in the dead of Winter, but they knocked off early in the Fall, and have still not restarted.
swist
 
Posts: 198
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 4:01 pm
Location: Westport Island, ME

Re: Amtrak Downeaster Discussion Thread

Postby gokeefe » Mon Mar 30, 2015 11:24 am

The following is my report on the Storm Water Permit Hearing held in Brunswick on March 25, 2015. I was present for the entire hearing:

You can find the hearing documents at the following link on maine.gov.

All parties were present with the key figures as listed in the memorandums.

There were a few exceptions but nothing significant and counsel was as described. For clarity I will list them here:

Representing the Attorney General's Office:
Ms. Peggy Bensinger, Assistant Attorney General
Ms. Lauren Parker, Assistant Attorney General

Representing NNEPRA:
Mr. Roger Huber, Esq.

Representing Train Riders Northeast:
Mr. F. Bruce Sleeper, Esq.

Representing Brunswick West Neighborhood Coalition:
Mr. John Shumadine, Esq.

The hearing was called to order on time at just about 9:00am and after a brief opening statement the Presiding Officer for the hearing Ms. Laura Welles of the Maine DEP moved forward with the business at hand. Ms. Welles was careful to note that while she was in charge of the hearing the Comissioner of DEP, Ms. Patricia Aho, who was present for the entire hearing had reserved sole authority to make this decision to herself.

There were some initial objections by the BWNC to entries made to the record that morning by NNEPRA regarding new modeling of storm water runoff using the BWNC soil models. At the end of the day these changes were ultimately allowed into the record (and that may end of being a significant decision for the project as a whole).

Engineer Stephen Bushey of Fay, Spofford & Thorndike, in Portland gave initial testimony describing the project design and speaking generally to the provisions made for storm water mitigation. It was a clean, crisp and well done job overall. It was early in the morning yet and it also was at this point that the question of "infiltration" came up as a point of contention between the parties. Specifically whether or not the design as contemplated for storm water had parts of it that would ultimately result in the re-entry of storm water into the soil (after settling etc.). This was a very fine point but BWNC felt that it was critical to their opposition of the project on technical merits. Mr. Bushey ultimately conceded that there was in fact a secondary drain system that would to an extent allow infiltration of storm water back into the soil. However the DEP staff ended up clarifying that this might end up being a de minimis amount and not necessarily subject the design to rejection or even require further conditions of approval. Mr. Bushey offered on the spot to change a particular material covering to use an impermeable cover instead of a permeable textile. An offer which was met with no particular interest by the BWNC other than to use this as fodder for further questioning later.

Mr. Bushey's testimony was followed by a break after which Mr. Michael Deyling and Mr. Stephen Marcotte of Summit Environmental Consultants and CES, an environmental engineering firm presented testimony regarding their geotechnical survey of the site. It was perhaps here were the greatest clash of the day occurred and it in retrospect it says a lot about BWNCs strategic and tactical mindset regarding the storm water permit. First and foremost they again challenged the soil type choices and tried very hard to pull both of the consultants into a dispute with the Project Engineer, Mr. Bushey. Failing that they then proceeded to discuss at length the presence of coal ash, the former presence of an oil tank (which per DEP records was removed about 20 years ago) and then brought up the spectre of a plume of fuel which could be in the groundwater.

It was here that I think BWNC failed and perhaps fatally so. First and foremost the geotechnical engineers made it very clear that their soil surveys had ruled out the possible presence of any hydrocarbons at least 15 feet down into the soil. When challenged by the BWNC representatives regarding what could be below this level they clearly pointed out (and this was critical) that if there were in fact contaminants in the soil further down then they would have seen precursor trace elements in the soil analysis and as far as I could tell they basically said that given the results of the soil tests it was unlikely in the extreme that there could be any plume of fuel or any other pollutant (of those covered in their tests, which were quite broad) which could be below the surface (beyond 15 feet).

BWNC very much wanted to try and convince DEP that a "high intensity soil survey" needed to be conducted in order for the permit to be approved. Unfortunately what was most telling about their presentation perhaps is what they didn't attempt to show. Specifically that the soil tests had shown any indication whatsoever of pollution in the groundwater or soils at any level either actual or precursors that would justify this survey. There was extensive discussion about the coal ash deposit and the consultants both made it very clear that the scientific view on coal ash was that it did not have the potential to pollute or contaminate further beyond its current presence on the site.

Attorney Schumadine pressed both of the consultants very hard in the cross examination and seemed to score a few tactical victories but overall my impression was that they were almost entirely Pyrrhic in nature and constituted crumbs when what they needed was the whole loaf.

With the consultant testimony, cross examination and redirect complete it was about 12:15pm and lunch was served, cash basis for persons not directly involved in the proceedings (for those who keep track of these sorts of things).

After lunch the hearing began again promptly at 1:00pm with testimony from Mr. Matthew Tonello of Consigli Construction Co. Yet again the BWNC attorney rallied hard against the plan as presented but seemed to fail to score any meaningful victories. What was apparent was that the Project Manager for Consigli was not an engineer, nor did he attempt to be one. That being the case questions regarding the de-watering plan for the site and other points regarding a stream in the area and what in retrospect were clearly minutia ended up being much shorter than planned.

Mr. Robert Graham, Senior Environmental Coordinator for Amtrak was next up and I have to say I was extremely impressed with his confidence, clear control of subject matter, clarity of presentation, and overall professionalism. There was not a single drop of anxiety in this man about the subjects at hand on which he was clearly an expert. I thought overall this spoke very well of Amtrak and the people that work there. The BWNC pursued an extensive line of questioning about fueling operations with Mr. Graham and it was in this exchange that Attorney Schumadine had his weakest moment of the day. Mr. Graham clearly knew that the fueling process would be done using a fuel track parked across the tracks at the mouth of each entrance to the facility in sequence. This point however escaped Attorney Schumadine who either failed to comprehend that there was an apron in front of the building openings that would allow a vehicle to park on the tracks or he simply didn't realize the operational scheme as presented. Regardless, Mr. Graham gave a tour de force in environmental practices at Amtrak and left arguments regarding fuel spills and their relative dangers (which weren't even supposed to be discussed in the first place) out of reach of those who wanted to bring them to bear into arguments related to the aquifer that is present beneath the ground in that area.

This moment, after BWNC had brought to bear every ounce of their energy against the project was unquestionably their "high tide". Mr. Bushey's clean and crisp presentation of that morning had faded somewhat from memory. The jousting between Attorney Schumadine and the geotechnical consultants was memorable and even the presentation of Mr. Graham had at the same time raised the spectre that perhaps....just maybe not enough attention had been paid to expected standard operating procedures for locomotive fueling operations.

There was a brief break, how long I can't remember but it was at this moment that I should have realized that things might not have been going so well for the BWNC. We were running at least an hour ahead of schedule at this point.

Now the sides switched and the Intervenor's Coalition Witnesses took the stand so to speak (it was a podium in one corner of the room). Up first was Mr. David Snyder (who I believe may be a user on these very boards). He gave a presentation based largely on his experience as an employee of the Maine Central Railroad and railroad photographer. Much of what he said was difficult to find credible but the great surprise of this moment was Attorney Sleeper's, of TrainRiders Northeast, masterful cross examination which I found to be utterly devastating. His first step was to pick apart illustrations used by Mr. Snyder of railroad locomotives which would produce diesel dust and other pollutants that would then become carried away by storm water and "into the Androscoggin River" (a phrase that was heard plenty of times that day). Attorney Sleeper with zest that can only come from a certain level of righteous anger went through every illustration that Mr. Snyder had presented and demonstrated that not a single picture shown was of either a) a passenger engine (PARs FP-7 excepted...) or b) anything less than 20 years old. In fact most of the pictures were taken in the 70s and most of the engines were built in the 50s and 60s. It was almost mortifying to watch someone who was basing their testimony on railroad experience give a presentation that so obviously skewed away from modern diesel technology that was actually in current use by Amtrak. At least in the case of his testimony BWNC likely discredited themselves for attempting to pass off 30 year old photographs as "representative" of what could happen at the new facility. This fact did not seem to be lost on the staff. Attorney Schumadine seemed very disappointed and his body language seemed to slump the longer this presentation went on. It was for all intents and purposes the closest thing to a legal massacre that we would see during the hearing.

Last up was Mr. Rick Pershken, a Professional Engineer with some very significant credentials including 5 years with the Soil Conservation Service, (now known as the Natural Resources Conservation Service) a branch of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. I got the sense that in this moment the true showdown was going to happen, and I was not disappointed. Mr. Pershken testifed extensively and using the best science the opposition could muster that the site was unsuitable for the project (from the perspective of storm water runoff mitigation) due to soil conditions and ground water conditions. His primary contention rested on his refutation of Mr. Bushey's professional judgment of soil conditions (which he claimed were "C Soils" and Mr. Bushey had claimed were "A & B Soils"). The difference may seem trivial but in reality it was quite significant and Mr. Pershken was right on a tactical basis to attack from this direction. The next angle of attack was in regards to ground water, the need for ground water monitoring and what earlier seemed to have been shown to be specious claims of the "potential" for an unknown pollutant to be present at depth greater than 15 feet below the surface. There was also another rehash of the de-watering plan but this didn't strike me as all that serious.

There was little cross examination of Mr. Pershken's testimony, and this seemed like a good tactical choice for NNEPRA and TRNE. They seemed to be merely interested in letting Mr. Pershken offer his perspective and then move on. Mr. Pershken had been sitting with Attorney Schumadine of the BWNC for most of the day and had been essential to the techinical line of questioning undertaken by Attorney Schumadine earlier in the day, especially in regards to the geotechnical report.

What happened next though was in my opinion a stroke of brilliance. For rebuttal Mr. Bushey was returned to the stand and in that moment gave perhaps the most persuasive testimony of the entire day. When asked by Attorney Rosenblatt to discuss his soil choices again he reviewed the categories, saying the word, "sand", "sandy" or "loam" repeatedly of course and then said quite simply, (paraphrased) "these two categories provided the best match in my opinion to soils at the site given that there was little else besides sand and loam in that area." To this the BWNC had little in response. They had tried to make the case for most of the day that some small silt layers and perhaps even clay were to be considered but the geotechnical data indicated these materials were present only in the thinnest of layers (a few inches silt here in two or three strata) and seemed hardly significant enough to merit a soil classification change. DEP staff had no questions in this area.

Ms. Welles called the hearing to a close for supper at 3:30PM over an hour and a half ahead of schedule. Overall, it was not my impression that the BWNC had enjoyed the last 30 minutes of the hearing.

I returned from supper to find the parking lot jammed and after some creative efforts got back inside to my spot. The room was full to capacity with at least 20 standees in the back if not more. My count of the crowd was at least 110 people present not including the parties to the matter and DEP staff.

Public testimony went as expected there was passionate opposition and support. The supporting testimony was much stronger than expected. Both sides had certain repetitive themes. I was struck by some testimony opposed to the project which seemed to at once claim that there was water in need of protection on the site (both above and below ground) and at the same time claim that coal ash was a pollutant so toxic that even the risk of disturbing it was a serious threat to the neighborhood. Given the position of the BWNC that there was a "sand and gravel aquifer" present on the site the two claims seemed to imply a contradiction. My point specifically in this area (made here, not at the hearing) is that given that the soils are permeable one would think that any pollutants from the coal ash on the site would have shown up in numerous water quality tests in the area to include some residents who still use well water. My conclusion was that some quantity of heavy metals likely leached off the coal ash deposits some time ago after all this ash doesn't just produce mercury (and other heavy metals) in unlimited quantities.

Of those who testified that evening in support or opposed to the project I was most struck by that of Councilor John M. Perreault of Brunswick, District 4 who testified in his personal capacity but noted that his district includes the site of the layover facility. He indicated that he was simply disappointed that when requested NNEPRA had refused a request to install filters on their exhaust fans at the site. He made no claims of science or any attempt to imply that these fumes were beyond acceptable limits. He just seemed to be saying it would have been the right and neighborly thing to do. That was one angle that no one in the BWNC attempted to pursue, not that they could have at the Stormwater Permit Hearing. Regardless, I think Councilor Perreault made a very good point about mitigation and the importance of providing certain accommodations "over and above" standards. Acknowledging this request as such (this was implied) was in my mind a key aspect of his testimony and although it probably won't serve to stop the project I think it could serve as a basis for understanding going forward.

The hearing was closed at 8:30 PM with Ms. Welles noting that with the exception of some filings by the parties the record was now closed and that no further written comment from the public would be accepted.
gokeefe
User avatar
gokeefe
 
Posts: 9683
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 12:28 pm
Location: Winthrop, Maine

Re: Amtrak Downeaster Discussion Thread

Postby Arlington » Mon Mar 30, 2015 11:27 am

swist wrote:I take the 681/682 all the time. The trains used to pass each other between Lawrence and Haverhill. They can no longer do that because the Merrimack river bridge has only one track. So it is impossible for both of these trains to be on time, even if all the other problems were resolved. My question is why does it appear that that bridge work is not in any hurry. I can understand in the dead of Winter, but they knocked off early in the Fall, and have still not restarted.

Since this MassDOT's bridge, I have cross posted this to the MBTA forum's Merrimack River Bridge thread here.
"Trying to solve congestion by making roadways wider is like trying to solve obesity by buying bigger pants."--Charles Marohn
Arlington
 
Posts: 3198
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 7:51 am
Location: Medford MA (was Arlington MA and Arlington VA)

Re: Amtrak Downeaster Discussion Thread

Postby swist » Mon Mar 30, 2015 11:30 am

(Just to add some info to my last post) - It wouldn't be so bad if it was just the bridge span that wasn't double track, but there is no crossover from the left track to the right track (as you head toward Lawrence). So the MBTA exclusively uses the right track since their Bradford yard is on it. That forces the DE into single track mode over a considerable distance. So either 681 or 682 has to wait a long time.
swist
 
Posts: 198
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 4:01 pm
Location: Westport Island, ME

Re: Amtrak Downeaster Discussion Thread

Postby MEC407 » Mon Mar 30, 2015 12:55 pm

Thank you for your clear and comprehensive account of the hearing, gokeefe! Much appreciated.
MEC407
Moderator:
Pan Am Railways — Boston & Maine/Maine Central — Delaware & Hudson
Central Maine & Quebec/Montreal, Maine & Atlantic/Bangor & Aroostook
Providence & Worcester — New England — GE Locomotives
User avatar
MEC407
 
Posts: 10669
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 8:15 pm

Re: Amtrak Downeaster Discussion Thread

Postby Rockingham Racer » Mon Mar 30, 2015 1:38 pm

swist wrote:(Just to add some info to my last post) - It wouldn't be so bad if it was just the bridge span that wasn't double track, but there is no crossover from the left track to the right track (as you head toward Lawrence). So the MBTA exclusively uses the right track since their Bradford yard is on it. That forces the DE into single track mode over a considerable distance. So either 681 or 682 has to wait a long time.


There used to be a hand-thrown switch at Brad, just west of Bradford station. If it were still there, a switch tender could be used to throw the switch, I suppose.
User avatar
Rockingham Racer
 
Posts: 2863
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 9:25 pm

Re: Amtrak Downeaster Discussion Thread

Postby dnelson » Mon Mar 30, 2015 4:17 pm

Excellent reporting on the hearing, gokeefe. Thanks for taking the time to write out should an in depth post. What a bizarre event, you have to wonder how much the "Brunswick West Neighborhood Coalition" really cares about storm water at all, and how much they were just using it as their last line of defense in their attempt to prevent construction for very different reasons.
dnelson
 
Posts: 165
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 12:45 pm

Re: Amtrak Downeaster Discussion Thread

Postby gokeefe » Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:30 pm

dnelson wrote:Excellent reporting on the hearing, gokeefe. Thanks for taking the time to write out should an in depth post. What a bizarre event, you have to wonder how much the "Brunswick West Neighborhood Coalition" really cares about storm water at all, and how much they were just using it as their last line of defense in their attempt to prevent construction for very different reasons.


Well, that's certainly a very valid question to ask and I don't think anyone was under any illusions about what was going on. BWNC actually used two separate approaches, first making an attempt at really challenging the engineering science. Second, the "everything but the kitchen sink" approach which was more broad based and done primarily through the public testimony portion. NNEPRA for their part did their best to stay above the fray and keep the focus on approval on the merits. They presented a very strong case for approval and most of the issues with the facility seemed either trivial or perhaps subject to conditions of approval.

The ultimate problem for the BWNC is that even if the permit is not granted the worst case scenario is that NNEPRA goes back to the drawing board, resizes the system and perhaps conducts a high intensity soil survey. Even then there is absolutely no reason to believe that they will find anything new. In effect "the writing is on the wall". If there were any pollution of any environmental significance the initial geotechnical survey would have returned results that provided such indications, no such results were returned. If the coal ash deposit were so toxic it would have polluted wells in the area for the past few decades and this too would have been a known issue. Finally, if the de-watering plan were such a big deal DEP would have long ago told NNEPRA of obligations related to issues with the "unnamed stream" on the property.

In short, while there may be some minor technical issues I don't think the BWNC will prevail in the end. The site "is what it is": a railyard. Sure the part that NNEPRA is going to build on is a little overgrown with brush and there's some water on the site, there's even an old layer of coal ash from previous railroad ballast but there just isn't anything serious enough that is going to stop a storm water permit, especially one that has been so well engineered, from being granted.

I'm sure I could be wrong about all of this. Commissioner Aho did ask some questions about technicalities of documentation. She definitely focused on that once or twice during the hearing but I didn't get the sense, even from her, that these were game changing issues.

I remain impressed by the local Councilor's desire for environmental mitigation "over and above" standards based solely in effect on a goodwill request. That is where the political process could and should assist in making this facility a better fit for the neighborhood.
gokeefe
User avatar
gokeefe
 
Posts: 9683
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 12:28 pm
Location: Winthrop, Maine

Re: Amtrak Downeaster Discussion Thread

Postby BandA » Tue Mar 31, 2015 6:42 am

What could you do with the coal ash, dig it up & move it somewhere else and bury it?

Depending on where it was mined, coal ash contains toxic metals. Eating or breathing coal ash can cause cancer, so dust control during construction is critical. Covering it in disturbed areas might be a good idea. Modern ash is much more dangerous than olden time ash since steam engines didn't have the emission controls - much of the toxic stuff went out as smoke and coated surrounding towns rather than concentrated in the waste solids which happens today. The feds don't want to designate ash as hazardous as it would be a political & logistical problems for them.

If there are wet areas onsite, surprised they didn't try to have them declared wetlands. Surely there must be endangered critters mating in the puckerbrush? :-D
User avatar
BandA
 
Posts: 1822
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 11:47 am

Re: Amtrak Downeaster Discussion Thread

Postby FCM2829 » Wed Apr 01, 2015 6:32 am

Is the FRA still insisting that Indiana must become a railroad carrier to be able to use IP as subcontractor?


Does anybody know the status of this rule change and how it may affect the DE? There is no info on FRA's site, is this rule simply under consideration?
FCM2829
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 9:42 am
Location: Portland, ME

Re: Amtrak Downeaster Discussion Thread

Postby gokeefe » Wed Apr 01, 2015 4:20 pm

FCM2829 wrote:
Is the FRA still insisting that Indiana must become a railroad carrier to be able to use IP as subcontractor?


Does anybody know the status of this rule change and how it may affect the DE? There is no info on FRA's site, is this rule simply under consideration?



Although it is not clear to me exactly how, my understanding of this issue is that it has been resolved. INDOT does not have to become a railroad nor does NCDOT.
gokeefe
User avatar
gokeefe
 
Posts: 9683
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 12:28 pm
Location: Winthrop, Maine

Re: Amtrak Downeaster Discussion Thread

Postby gokeefe » Sat Apr 04, 2015 6:07 pm

Some interesting grade crossing safety discussions in Yarmouth in the wake of an accident involving a privately operated vehicle and the Downeaster.

YARMOUTH, Maine — The town’s eligibility to create quiet zones must be re-evaluated following the Feb. 23 incident in which a passenger train hit a car at the North Road crossing.

The Quiet Zone Committee on March 5 presented its recommendations to the Town Council on how to create zones in Yarmouth, but more work now needs to be done. Since a report was already planned, the committee still made its presentation, but will update it next month.

“[The accident] does require that we revisit some of our work because the federal regulations all are based on meeting certain safety numbers,” committee member Joleen Estabrook said in her presentation to the council.
gokeefe
User avatar
gokeefe
 
Posts: 9683
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 12:28 pm
Location: Winthrop, Maine

PreviousNext

Return to Amtrak

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: electricron, OrangeGrove and 14 guests