Maine legislator seeks to reduce/eliminate locomotive idling

Article in today's Portland Press Herald:

http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/news/ ... idle.shtml

The article says Mass. limits idling to 30 minutes. How do rail operations in MA deal with this limitation?

Guilford

Guilford is exempt from this ( Massacussetts) law. States cannot pass laws that interfere with Interstate Commerce.

mick wrote:Guilford is exemt from this ( Massacussetts) law. States cannot pass laws that interfere with Interstate Commerce.

Hmm, so does this mean the law is completely ineffective? I assume it still applied to railroads that operate entirely within the state of MA.

Yes, it only applies to rail companies that operate entirely in Massachussetts. Namely, the MBTA

mick wrote:Yes, it only applies to rail companies that operate entirely in Massachussetts. Namely, the MBTA

The MBTA does operate in RI as well, but perhaps their location of incorporation means this does not apply.

They don't carry freight across state lines, no "interstate commerce".

I do not believe the courts have spoken on the applicability of state or local statutes on idling locomotives regarding interstate commerce (at least I could not find case law on it). The courts have ruled on statutes concerning other matters utilizing the following criteria;


49 U.S.C. § 20106. National uniformity of regulation


Laws, regulations, and orders related to railroad safety and laws, regulations, and orders related to railroad security shall be nationally uniform to the extent practicable. A State may adopt or continue in force a law, regulation, or order related to railroad safety or security until the Secretary of Transportation (with respect to railroad safety matters), or the Secretary of Homeland Security (with respect to railroad security matters), prescribes a regulation or issues an order covering the subject matter of the State requirement. A State may adopt or continue in force an additional or more stringent law, regulation, or order related to railroad safety or security when the law, regulation, or order—

(1) is necessary to eliminate or reduce an essentially local safety or security hazard;

(2) is not incompatible with a law, regulation, or order of the United States Government; and

(3) does not unreasonably burden interstate commerce.


It would appear an anti-idling law would probably be upheld if it were enacted as a matter of security rather than to stop a nuisance, in other words the state or municipality were concerned about unattended power sitting in yards with hazardous material cars, etc. The commerce clause does not offer any entity a blanket protection against all rules and regulations on a sub-federal level. As a matter of course the Massachusetts statute on idling locomotives is part of the environmental code intended to reduce emissions.

Ah, good information. My reading of that and the article above indicates that the maine law discussed in the article would have little or no effect.

I am surprised that the definition of "interstate commerce" does not extend to moving revenue passengers across state lines. It fits my definition A question the courts have answers, no doubt?

mick wrote:They don't carry freight across state lines, no "interstate commerce".

The MBCR is most certainly covered by the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887, being a corporation operating a railroad involved in the transport of passengers between two or more states;

http://www.rrb.gov/blaw/bcd/bcd03-23.htm

The link concerns a decision regarding railroad retirement but said matter hinges upon the question of whether the company is subject to the ICC. The MBCR may choose to subject itself to local regulations concerning such things as train horn bans, but it does so in the interests of being a good neighbor and or restrictions placed upon it by its contractual obligations to the authority (MBTA).

mick wrote:Guilford does have a locomotive shutdown policy, but it is only in effect from May to October. Locomotives are to be shut down at the end of a shift if they are not going to be used for 30 minutes. On the other hand, I have a problem with people who move next to or near a railroad, then start complaining about the noise. They should have realized that before they moved there. You may think Guilford are a bunch of A-holes, and they can be, to a point, but they do try to keep idling trains away from residential areas. Sometimes, even in the summer, the engines cannot be shut down on a train because they will lose the brake test on it, the compressor will not keep air going through the train, so the next crew will have to do a brake test all over again. On a typical 70 to 100 car train, this would take hours. As far as putting Autostart in Guilford engines, I doubt the State of Maine will have the millions to pony up for that, and of course Guilford will not do it, and why should they if they are not required to? Other railroads do that to save fuel, not to pacify residents who live near tracks.

Seems if they save fuel it's a worthy investment as it would eventually save Mellon Inc money.

Seems to me that Massachusetts took Conrail to court some years ago
and the result was the idling case which affects CSX today. There are
restrictions on just where and how long an engine can idle. I do not know
whether this is a law or was a settlement with the state out of court.
I do know that all of the engineers in Selkirk and maybe everywhere on
the railroad got certified letters at one time from the railroad regarding
this particular situation. It did not affect me as I never worked in the state
of Massachusetts as an engineer although I did in my earlier days as a
fireman especially in passenger service. The text of the "Massachusetts
Idling Case" is still printed in the CSX timetable.
Having said that, I think that this is an unreasonable interference in the
operations of a railroad.
Noel Weaver