Adrian and blisfield and railfans

[Brakey]

MQT3001 wrote:I have a question reguarding land rights at crossings. You have the road, which is a public ROW, and then the Railroad ROW. Where they intersect, is it considered nuteral or can railroad personell ask you to leave?

FROM WHAT I WAS TOLD BY A CITY ENGINEER - THE ROADWAY BETWEEN THE CROSSING SIGNALS/ CROSSBUCKS IS RR PROPERTY.

AS FOR BEING TOLD TO MOVE WHILE ON A ROADWAY OR SIDEWALK - LOITERING LAWS DETERMINE WHAT CAN AND CAN'T BE DONE.

Ribbon Rail begs to differ and will challenge that any place and at any time.

[MNE Mec]

Sometimes i have a hard time waiting til after work to see what they come up with next.

[bnsfben]

When a train is passing, I stand on the road or on the shoulder. I never go past the extended imaginary line from the gate, when it's down. Or if the crossing has just lights or crossbucks I never go past the post that supports them. I've figured, if cars can technically pull right up to the gate, I should be able to stand right next to the gate legally.

[AC60CW]

[

I have a question reguarding land rights at crossings. You have the road, which is a public ROW, and then the Railroad ROW. Where they intersect, is it considered nuteral or can railroad personell ask you to leave?

No they can't ask or order you to leave for whatever reason.

Yes, we can.

I would like to see a ruling or formal proof on this. I am not questioning your answer, just that on a couple of responses people have short yes or no answers, and people blindly accept this as true.

The gates going down also doesn't mean that they are exercising their property ownership or rights. Gate crossings are more of a safety device. If the 50', or what ever the distance is at a given spot, is the limits, then why is traffic on grade crossings not stopped at the limits of the RoW?

[Brakey]

I would like to see a ruling or formal proof on this. I am not questioning your answer, just that on a couple of responses people have short yes or no answers, and people blindly accept this as true.

The gates going down also doesn't mean that they are exercising their property ownership or rights. Gate crossings are more of a safety device. If the 50', or what ever the distance is at a given spot, is the limits, then why is traffic on grade crossings not stopped at the limits of the RoW?

What do you mean not stopped at the limts? As in they are closer, or farther away?

I guess if you are stopped for a train, but sitting ahead of the crossbucks and not on the tracks, it makes me wonder what you are thinking. It is kinda like, you are supposed to stop at a stop sign, not pull by it and stop.

Do you people walk out into an intersection, off the sidewalk to where you are almost out in the lane of the cross traffic, and just stand there and take pictures of cars as they go by, like say, when the crosswalk sign says stop or do not cross?

Also the crossing gates and cross bucks as safety devices. What exactly are they there for then, if to tell people, "Hey, there be a train a comin, maybe you should stay behind me, eh?" is apparently not what they mean?

[bnsfben]

I just use that idea of staying behind the gate as a real reasonable point if I were to be approached by a police officer. I would say I am standing on a public road, behind the gate.

Technically a car could pull right up to the gate and not get in trouble right? So my idea is that if a car can do that, a pedestrian should be able to do that as well. I am not sure whether that is technically on/off the RoW but I think it's a fairly safe claim if/when approached by a police officer.

[AC60CW]

What do you mean not stopped at the limts? As in they are closer, or farther away?

Well, if a vehicle is stopped at the gates, they are close enough to be on the RoW.

[DTIDave]

I'd just like to put my 2 cents in on the xing-proximity subject. I was somewhat involved in the process when MDOT rebuilt our crossing across M-3 a few years ago. I can only speak for the track WE operate on and in no way speak for any other railroad.

Our track, where it crosses Gratiot (the only signalled grade crossing on our line- it's separated north and south-bound), is around an s-curve. On the west side of Gratiot, and "between the Gratiots", the right-of-way narrows considerably compared to the rest of the line. This is mainly due to the historical layout of the track in this spot. There used to be an industry there and Southbound Gratiot was added later. The signals have to be placed so many feet from the track, regardless of how wide the right-of-way is. This is for safety, to allow for things like wide loads and such from clipping anything. Also, it's a good practice to stay back from the crossing in case anything hanging from a car (such as banding on a lumber load) doesn't decapitate you! We have always had a problem with trespassers as our line serves as a convenient walk-through from one neighborhood to another. What we do with "trespassers" depends on how THEY respond. Usually, we try to let them know that they shouldn't be walking down the track, or standing so close, or whatever as it's railroad property and we don't want anyone getting hurt. If they seem genuinely apologetic and make an effort to relocate to a safer place, we normally let that be and everything's copacetic. However, if we give you a friendly reminder that although you're standing on a sidewalk crossing our tracks waiting for the train to come run you over while you're getting that last minute shot, it's NOT public property and we CAN call the police. We really don't want to have to, and we usually give people the chance to not give us lip about their right to stand in the middle of the tracks if they are on the sidewalk, but occasionally we get the idiots who try to test our patience and ignore all common sense in their quest for self-righteousness. The sidewalk is merely a safe place to walk/bike/whatever across the tracks, the same as a crosswalk is across a road. That is the place for you to do so, but it's not recommended you stand in the middle of the road just because you're in the crosswalk!

Another point to make is that every road has it's own right of way. The crossing signals may be in the ROAD'S right of way, further than the railroad's property extends- if certain situations justify that. Usually, that's not the case, but that does happen. Whenever we work on a crossing, we are required to have our safety vests and hard hats and steel toed boots on. THIS IS A REQUIREMENT (at least for MDOT... I'm certain the individual Road Commissions are probably the same way). If we impede traffic with our work, we need to get a permit from the Road Commission and maybe even have to put up signs and such. Even OUR crossing isn't OUR crossing when it's in the roadway!

It's never safe to assume that all rights of way are the same, I'd just recommend that if a crew asks you to leave, it shouldn't hurt to ask where a more proper place would be for you to go, but don't act like you own the spot you're standing on. We've all dealt with people like that, and I'm guessing the A&B has had their share, not to mention theives and vandals. They have the right to protect their property, and we all have the right to respect that. Just railfan with common sense, common courtesy, and you may be surprised how accommodating a crew could be when you don't act like a douchebag!

This post is meant to be lighthearted, so don't haul out your flamethrowers... I'm just trying to supply a different viewpoint.

Take care and stay safe!
DTIDave

[hoborich]

Personal property should never be compared to corporate property.

Ummm, why not. My property is just as important to me as some corporations property.

[J T]

Personal property should never be compared to corporate property.

Ummm, why not. My property is just as important to me as some corporations property.

Because there are emotions involved. Or are you an emotionless entity like a corporation?

[Ribbon Rail]

Do you people walk out into an intersection, off the sidewalk to where you are almost out in the lane of the cross traffic, and just stand there and take pictures of cars as they go by, like say, when the crosswalk sign says stop or do not cross?

Apples & oranges. You’re making a case for being an obstruction to safety, we’re making a case for occupying supposedly private property at a public easement (i.e. highway grade crossing).

A highway grade crossing is a public easement to use the railroad’s right of way. If they can’t ticket the general public for driving across a legitimate highway crossing, there is no way they can order you to vacate a sidewalk or highway grade crossing while photographing a passing train. The law you’re preaching is blatantly subjective & singles out a certain party based on your personal belief of how the law it written.

However, if we give you a friendly reminder that although you're standing on a sidewalk crossing our tracks waiting for the train to come run you over while you're getting that last minute shot, it's NOT public property and we CAN call the police. We really don't want to have to, and we usually give people the chance to not give us lip about their right to stand in the middle of the tracks if they are on the sidewalk, but occasionally we get the idiots who try to test our patience and ignore all common sense in their quest for self-righteousness. The sidewalk is merely a safe place to walk/bike/whatever across the tracks, the same as a crosswalk is across a road. That is the place for you to do so, but it's not recommended you stand in the middle of the road just because you're in the crosswalk!

Well put, Dave, although I will say the difference here has little to do with actually standing in the “middle of the tracks” and instead on the public easement (i.e. sidewalk) nearest a highway grade crossing. Competent photographers aren’t going to stand closer than 20’ to the tracks when shooting a photo, much less on the sidewalk in or near the gauge. I haven’t been hassled for it in the past, but rest assured if I were, I'd surely fight it.

Different scenario: A road parallels a railroad line. From the outer rail to the curb (including sidewalk) is only 45’. On the “track” side of this highway, there is a sidewalk that is approximately 5’ in from the curb, and about 6’ wide. Are you telling me that by using that sidewalk I am trespassing on railroad property & thereby subject to arrest or citation? Same situation as the highway grade crossing, just a different set up.

Rarely have I seen banding or any safety appliance he that far out of whack, and if it is (especially on a shortline, where the transfer distance of cars is far less) that car should have never left the yard or industry.

[hoborich]

Because there are emotions involved. Or are you an emotionless entity like a corporation?

Property is property, and the law is the law. Emotions have nothing to do with the law.

[SD80MAC]

Because there are emotions involved. Or are you an emotionless entity like a corporation?

Property is property, and the law is the law. Emotions have nothing to do with the law.

I hope you meant that scarcasticly.

[sd70accsxt700]

Because there are emotions involved. Or are you an emotionless entity like a corporation?

Property is property, and the law is the law. Emotions have nothing to do with the law.

I hope you meant that scarcasticly.

NEGATIVE

[J T]

Because there are emotions involved. Or are you an emotionless entity like a corporation?

Property is property, and the law is the law. Emotions have nothing to do with the law.

I see what you did there.

[DTIDave]

Well put, Dave, although I will say the difference here has little to do with actually standing in the “middle of the tracks” and instead on the public easement (i.e. sidewalk) nearest a highway grade crossing. Competent photographers aren’t going to stand closer than 20’ to the tracks when shooting a photo, much less on the sidewalk in or near the gauge. I haven’t been hassled for it in the past, but rest assured if I were, I'd surely fight it.

Key word... "COMPETENT" photographers... You'd be surprised and appalled at some of the stupidity I've seen all in the name of "getting that perfect shot"!

Different scenario: A road parallels a railroad line. From the outer rail to the curb (including sidewalk) is only 45’. On the “track” side of this highway, there is a sidewalk that is approximately 5’ in from the curb, and about 6’ wide. Are you telling me that by using that sidewalk I am trespassing on railroad property & thereby subject to arrest or citation? Same situation as the highway grade crossing, just a different set up.

Well, I guess we're splitting hairs here for conversation's sake... there never would be a sidewalk allowed to be installed if it were too close to the track to be safe. The sidewalk is there for the sole purpose to give you a place to walk safely out of the roadway. Whether or not it is on "RR property", you'd have to do some research at the County Clerk's office for each and every little section, because in some instances the RR can grant permission to the road authority to allow a sidewalk (with certain conditions met, of course) to cross/encroach their right of way to allow continuity of the sidewalk system. Sometimes, of course, this isn't feasible. As to sidewalks at the crossings, I've already explained that. However, it sounds like you're saying that if you stood on this hypothetical sidewalk that paralleled the track that you would be harassed. In this day and age of "Homeland Security", there are more liberties that railroads can take to make sure their property (trains and employees included) are safe and secure. There are a couple of places in Port Huron that the CNPD will escort you away, even if you're parked on the shoulder of the road waiting to get a picture of a train. With all the chemical traffic they have through there, they don't want to run the risk of anyone doing something terrorristic, I guess... Maybe it's like just hanging out on a street corner outside of a business... you might have the right to be there, but the business has the right to shoo you on so you're not loitering in front of their business. Mind you, I'm not a lawyer, nor do I claim to know all the laws, this is just my thoughts on the subject. Like someone else mentioned, each municipalities' loitering laws would come into effect in your hypothetical situation.

Rarely have I seen banding or any safety appliance he that far out of whack, and if it is (especially on a shortline, where the transfer distance of cars is far less) that car should have never left the yard or industry.

Agreed, but I personally have experienced the dangers of this happening. Years ago, back after I came home from college, I used to go up the County Park in Goodells and take photos of trains crossing over the concrete bridge/giant culvert on the Flint Sub. Back then, the trees hadn't overgrown so much so you could actually GET some photos there. Now, I don't think you can. Anyway, I thought I had heard a horn in the distance, so I walked up this trail to the right of way (legal trail- I think now probably not, but back then it was pretty well worn and I didnt think twice about it). I saw the train coming from the east and realizing I was not in any position to take a photo, decided to just stay back so that I wouldn't spook the train crew or get in trouble for being too close. Content with just watching it go by, I had heard this "whoosh... whoosh... whoosh" sound coming down the track in the same direction the train was going. Luckily, I was far enough away to be safely clear of this, but there was a lumber car towards the end of the train, some of whose metal banding had come loose and was dancing along the right of way slicing leaves off of trees, throwing gravel in every direction, and I'm sure as it went down the line probably plinked some of the crossing signals along the way! Had I been standing where I shouldn't have been, I would have been seriously maimed or possibly decapitated by that metal banding! Should it have left the yard? Chances are the train crew isn't that stupid to let the car leave knowing the load could shift. It probably snapped when they left the yard or shortly thereafter. I just hope that nobody was hurt along the way. That was a looooong time before facebook, twitter, or even the internet! I didn't read anything in the papers or see anything on the nightly news, so I'm optimistic (and hoping) that they caught it once they got to Flint!

[Saturnalia]

A highway grade crossing is a public easement to use the railroad’s right of way. If they can’t ticket the general public for driving across a legitimate highway crossing, there is no way they can order you to vacate a sidewalk or highway grade crossing while photographing a passing train. The law you’re preaching is blatantly subjective & singles out a certain party based on your personal belief of how the law it written.

Thanks for the clairification. This is something I've been wondering for awhile.

[J T]

Well, I guess we're splitting hairs here for conversation's sake... there never would be a sidewalk allowed to be installed if it were too close to the track to be safe.

Is this safe? Surely the sidewalk is MUCH closer to the tracks than 50 feet...or even 20 feet for that matter.

[MagnumForce]

Psych!

[Ribbon Rail]

There are a couple of places in Port Huron that the CNPD will escort you away, even if you're parked on the shoulder of the road waiting to get a picture of a train. With all the chemical traffic they have through there, they don't want to run the risk of anyone doing something terrorristic, I guess... Maybe it's like just hanging out on a street corner outside of a business... you might have the right to be there, but the business has the right to shoo you on so you're not loitering in front of their business. Mind you, I'm not a lawyer, nor do I claim to know all the laws, this is just my thoughts on the subject. Like someone else mentioned, each municipalities' loitering laws would come into effect in your hypothetical situation.

Tongue in cheek, perhaps you mean Sarnia, which isn’t the United States. But I’m whole-heartedly assuming that you didn’t, so I shall rant because this is in the interest of railfan photography.

If you’re naive enough to believe that CNPD’s actions are legal, regardless what the threats or “rules" of Homeland Security you’ve had infused into your skull, you’re doing a great injustice to your countrymen & YOUR Constitution. It is 100% illegal for a (railroad) cop to threaten physical removal & remove you from any form of public property, including a sidewalk, as a means of preventing you from taking pictures. They do not make laws, they enforce them. If what you are doing is legal, an officer of the law does not have the right to evict you from doing so unless is an obvious threat to the safety of the people.

The act of taking a photo, as long as it’s done from public property (or private property where you have permission) at something/someone on private property which/who has no reasonable expectation of privacy is not against ANY law. The First Amendment is federal. Local loitering laws do not your freedom of speech to take a photo (which is indeed protected by the First Amendment).

If you’re taking photos, you have a purpose. You are not loitering. Loitering is defined by doing “nothing” while standing around. Waiting somewhere with the intent of photographing something that hasn’t yet arrived is not loitering, because you have intent or cause. There is currently a case pending in the city of Baltimore on this, look it up, it just happened last month. It has a lot to with photographer’s rights & the back-handed charge of loitering, when police ordered a civilian photographer to cease taking video of their encounter with an already detained perpetrator. The person charged was filming six police officers during the arrest (which of course, I’m sure you also believe is illegal, right?). Knowing they can’t arrest (or charge) him for anything regarding the video, they’re going after him for...you guessed it, “loitering". Fortunately, the ACLU is fighting this one.

So please know your laws before you speak of them, because your THOUGHTS are not law. One’s thoughts create more silly fear & terrorism in this country than Bin Laden EVER did. Misinformed thoughts like so which are made public are why we (photographers) have problems in this country, because they’re taken as gospel. But that’s exactly what the fine folks in the Middle East wanted. They want this country to be a police state, and with thought processes like that which you’ve presented above, we’re obviously playing right into their hand.