|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 10,260
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 10,260 |
....I still don’t see how there wouldn’t be a criminal investigation to see who was at fault in an accident and I don’t just mean between the driver and train operator. I assume you're referring to other accidents involving only the train or trains. The answer there is pretty simple. It's an industrial accident, and again, an internal matter. Unless of course there's damage or injury outside of the railroad, in which case the DOT would be involved. If the damage meets a certain dollar amount, the DOT may be involved regardless. Local and state agencies have neither the authority nor the expertise to investigate railroad accidents. Funny story. There was an incident in Weiser where one train collided with a car from another train, due to some operator error. All movement stopped of course, and soon there was a patrol car with two officers there. One officer boarded the locomotive and after being assured that there were no injuries and no hazmat leaks, he requested the crews IDs. The engineer politely explained that company policy stated that they were not to give up their personal info, and that a manager would soon be there and give him whatever was required. Perplexed, the cop climbed off the train and didn't interact with the crew again. A few days later that engieer happened to be talking to the local railroad cop. The cinderdick told him that LEO had asked him, "who the hell does that guy think he is?" Cinderdick explained "the engineer was right - you were out of your lane."
Lunatic fringe....we all know you're out there.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 20,282 Likes: 23
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 20,282 Likes: 23 |
I guess I’ll take your word for it but an investigation doesn’t have to be in response to a crime.
Civil matters can have investigations too and I am having a difficult time imagining a car insurance claim involving a train wreck not requiring a police report, which I am guessing normally involves an investigation. Oh, the police can report and investigate all they want. They just can't walk away with the train data recording. But the police aren't going to "investigate" a crossing accident. They'll make a report. The car insurance company may choose to investigate, I suppose, but that's unlikely. An ambulance chaser may demand the evidence in court. That should be fun to watch. What usually happens when a crossing accident lawsuit is filed (last I heard) is the carrier shows the video and data to the plaintiff's side, and the lawsuit goes away. The reason this evidence is so powerful is partly because of the documented strict chain of custody regarding the hard drive. There are unusual exceptions where maybe there was a signal failure and someone actually has a case, but the vast majority of these incidents are cut and dried cases of trespassing. Yes. Every time you cross the tracks you are trespassing. Permission is implied, except when you get hit by a train. You (as a car or truck driver) are required to be vigilant and to obey the traffic controls at the crossing. The basic railroad crossbuck sign is a legal traffic control that has a definition and attached requirements. Same as stop signs and yeild signs. No one has a right to be on the tracks in front of an approaching train. Cut...and...dried. Train operation is so closely controlled and monitored that the odds of a crossing accident showing any fault of the carrier or crew are extremely low, but it has happened. The carrier can be liable if there is a claim and the carrier fails to prove the claim has no grounds. The video and data record is irrefutable proof, precisely because of how closely it is guarded. Funny thing about police reports. That's just another one of those things they're so used to that some of them can't wrap their mind around exceptions either. My last incident, the responding deputy handed me a report form to fill out. He said he was required by the Idaho State Police to have me fill it out. It told him it was required by my employer to say nothing and write nothing, and handed it back to him. Your problem - not mine. Every crossing accident gets a visit from the local RR manager before the train moves again, and the LEO gets whatever limited information is required from him/her. But not the digital record. The LEA can request access to that from the carrier's legal department at a later date if they deem it necessary. I'm not privy to whether that's ever been a thing. All the first responders need to know from a train crew is - are there any injuries that need immediate attention and is there any hazmat leaking or spilled? Everything else is internal matters, and UPRR crews are instructed as much in training. We’re on different pages I guess. I have zero doubt that the vast majority of accidents involving trains end up being declared the vehicle driver’s fault. Zero doubt. An investigation by local police still needs to be made, right despite how obvious the situation is? Simply as a formality? That, and if cars hit by trains are always a trespass issue, isn’t that a criminal case and thus, result in a criminal investigation?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 10,260
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 10,260 |
I guess I’ll take your word for it but an investigation doesn’t have to be in response to a crime.
Civil matters can have investigations too and I am having a difficult time imagining a car insurance claim involving a train wreck not requiring a police report, which I am guessing normally involves an investigation. Oh, the police can report and investigate all they want. They just can't walk away with the train data recording. But the police aren't going to "investigate" a crossing accident. They'll make a report. The car insurance company may choose to investigate, I suppose, but that's unlikely. An ambulance chaser may demand the evidence in court. That should be fun to watch. What usually happens when a crossing accident lawsuit is filed (last I heard) is the carrier shows the video and data to the plaintiff's side, and the lawsuit goes away. The reason this evidence is so powerful is partly because of the documented strict chain of custody regarding the hard drive. There are unusual exceptions where maybe there was a signal failure and someone actually has a case, but the vast majority of these incidents are cut and dried cases of trespassing. Yes. Every time you cross the tracks you are trespassing. Permission is implied, except when you get hit by a train. You (as a car or truck driver) are required to be vigilant and to obey the traffic controls at the crossing. The basic railroad crossbuck sign is a legal traffic control that has a definition and attached requirements. Same as stop signs and yeild signs. No one has a right to be on the tracks in front of an approaching train. Cut...and...dried. Train operation is so closely controlled and monitored that the odds of a crossing accident showing any fault of the carrier or crew are extremely low, but it has happened. The carrier can be liable if there is a claim and the carrier fails to prove the claim has no grounds. The video and data record is irrefutable proof, precisely because of how closely it is guarded. Funny thing about police reports. That's just another one of those things they're so used to that some of them can't wrap their mind around exceptions either. My last incident, the responding deputy handed me a report form to fill out. He said he was required by the Idaho State Police to have me fill it out. It told him it was required by my employer to say nothing and write nothing, and handed it back to him. Your problem - not mine. Every crossing accident gets a visit from the local RR manager before the train moves again, and the LEO gets whatever limited information is required from him/her. But not the digital record. The LEA can request access to that from the carrier's legal department at a later date if they deem it necessary. I'm not privy to whether that's ever been a thing. All the first responders need to know from a train crew is - are there any injuries that need immediate attention and is there any hazmat leaking or spilled? Everything else is internal matters, and UPRR crews are instructed as much in training. We’re on different pages I guess. I have zero doubt that the vast majority of accidents involving trains end up being declared the vehicle driver’s fault. Zero doubt. An investigation by local police still needs to be made, right despite how obvious the situation is? Simply as a formality? That, and if cars hit by trains are always a trespass issue, isn’t that a criminal case and thus, result in a criminal investigation? Don't know what to say to explain it to you further. The data recording is all that is needed to "investigate", but the locals don't even have a reason to need it even if they had the authority. What are they going to do if there's evidence of any fault on the railroad? Write a ticket? For what? They have no legal authority over train operations. So who else else might want to investigate? A lawyer suing for the car driver or family. So the lawyer files a suit, and being a smart lawyer, he knows to demand access to the data record. That's your investigation. The data record is going to show if the train crew was doing anything wrong. Anything. It's going to show the exact location. It's going to show if the headlights, bell, and whistle were functioning. It's going to show visually if crossing signals and/or gates were in place and functioning. It's going to show the visual condition of the crossing surface. It's going to show the client's vehicle where it doesn't belong. It's going to show the train brakes being applied and the impact following. What else is there to know? Edit: As for the trespass issue....that is typically handled by the railroad police department, to if it's handled at all. Again, it's the railroad that holds the evidence. Whether or not a trespass charge is persued is up to the railroad legal department.
Last edited by FreeMe; 09/29/22.
Lunatic fringe....we all know you're out there.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 46,747
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 46,747 |
Thought this thread might be about vaginas.
LOL 
Camp is where you make it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 20,282 Likes: 23
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 20,282 Likes: 23 |
I guess I’ll take your word for it but an investigation doesn’t have to be in response to a crime.
Civil matters can have investigations too and I am having a difficult time imagining a car insurance claim involving a train wreck not requiring a police report, which I am guessing normally involves an investigation. Oh, the police can report and investigate all they want. They just can't walk away with the train data recording. But the police aren't going to "investigate" a crossing accident. They'll make a report. The car insurance company may choose to investigate, I suppose, but that's unlikely. An ambulance chaser may demand the evidence in court. That should be fun to watch. What usually happens when a crossing accident lawsuit is filed (last I heard) is the carrier shows the video and data to the plaintiff's side, and the lawsuit goes away. The reason this evidence is so powerful is partly because of the documented strict chain of custody regarding the hard drive. There are unusual exceptions where maybe there was a signal failure and someone actually has a case, but the vast majority of these incidents are cut and dried cases of trespassing. Yes. Every time you cross the tracks you are trespassing. Permission is implied, except when you get hit by a train. You (as a car or truck driver) are required to be vigilant and to obey the traffic controls at the crossing. The basic railroad crossbuck sign is a legal traffic control that has a definition and attached requirements. Same as stop signs and yeild signs. No one has a right to be on the tracks in front of an approaching train. Cut...and...dried. Train operation is so closely controlled and monitored that the odds of a crossing accident showing any fault of the carrier or crew are extremely low, but it has happened. The carrier can be liable if there is a claim and the carrier fails to prove the claim has no grounds. The video and data record is irrefutable proof, precisely because of how closely it is guarded. Funny thing about police reports. That's just another one of those things they're so used to that some of them can't wrap their mind around exceptions either. My last incident, the responding deputy handed me a report form to fill out. He said he was required by the Idaho State Police to have me fill it out. It told him it was required by my employer to say nothing and write nothing, and handed it back to him. Your problem - not mine. Every crossing accident gets a visit from the local RR manager before the train moves again, and the LEO gets whatever limited information is required from him/her. But not the digital record. The LEA can request access to that from the carrier's legal department at a later date if they deem it necessary. I'm not privy to whether that's ever been a thing. All the first responders need to know from a train crew is - are there any injuries that need immediate attention and is there any hazmat leaking or spilled? Everything else is internal matters, and UPRR crews are instructed as much in training. We’re on different pages I guess. I have zero doubt that the vast majority of accidents involving trains end up being declared the vehicle driver’s fault. Zero doubt. An investigation by local police still needs to be made, right despite how obvious the situation is? Simply as a formality? That, and if cars hit by trains are always a trespass issue, isn’t that a criminal case and thus, result in a criminal investigation? Don't know what to say to explain it to you further. The data recording is all that is needed to "investigate", but the locals don't even have a reason to need it even if they had the authority. What are they going to do if there's evidence of any fault on the railroad? Write a ticket? For what? They have no legal authority over train operations. So who else else might want to investigate? A lawyer suing for the car driver or family. So the lawyer files a suit, and being a smart lawyer, he knows to demand access to the data record. That's your investigation. The data record is going to show if the train crew was doing anything wrong. Anything. It's going to show the exact location. It's going to show if the headlights, bell, and whistle were functioning. It's going to show visually if crossing signals and/or gates were in place and functioning. It's going to show the visual condition of the crossing surface. It's going to show the client's vehicle where it doesn't belong. It's going to show the train brakes being applied and the impact following. What else is there to know? Edit: As for the trespass issue....that is typically handled by the railroad police department, to if it's handled at all. Again, it's the railroad that holds the evidence. Whether or not a trespass charge is persued is up to the railroad legal department. I am not doubting you, I just am trying to understand how someone can simply tell a cop “no” when it comes to something they could use as evidence in an investigation (whether it is needed to prove a car driver was at fault or not). Nor can I understand how an investigation of the incident wouldn’t be conducted, if nothing else as a formality and for the insurance company.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 10,260
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 10,260 |
I guess I’ll take your word for it but an investigation doesn’t have to be in response to a crime.
Civil matters can have investigations too and I am having a difficult time imagining a car insurance claim involving a train wreck not requiring a police report, which I am guessing normally involves an investigation. Oh, the police can report and investigate all they want. They just can't walk away with the train data recording. But the police aren't going to "investigate" a crossing accident. They'll make a report. The car insurance company may choose to investigate, I suppose, but that's unlikely. An ambulance chaser may demand the evidence in court. That should be fun to watch. What usually happens when a crossing accident lawsuit is filed (last I heard) is the carrier shows the video and data to the plaintiff's side, and the lawsuit goes away. The reason this evidence is so powerful is partly because of the documented strict chain of custody regarding the hard drive. There are unusual exceptions where maybe there was a signal failure and someone actually has a case, but the vast majority of these incidents are cut and dried cases of trespassing. Yes. Every time you cross the tracks you are trespassing. Permission is implied, except when you get hit by a train. You (as a car or truck driver) are required to be vigilant and to obey the traffic controls at the crossing. The basic railroad crossbuck sign is a legal traffic control that has a definition and attached requirements. Same as stop signs and yeild signs. No one has a right to be on the tracks in front of an approaching train. Cut...and...dried. Train operation is so closely controlled and monitored that the odds of a crossing accident showing any fault of the carrier or crew are extremely low, but it has happened. The carrier can be liable if there is a claim and the carrier fails to prove the claim has no grounds. The video and data record is irrefutable proof, precisely because of how closely it is guarded. Funny thing about police reports. That's just another one of those things they're so used to that some of them can't wrap their mind around exceptions either. My last incident, the responding deputy handed me a report form to fill out. He said he was required by the Idaho State Police to have me fill it out. It told him it was required by my employer to say nothing and write nothing, and handed it back to him. Your problem - not mine. Every crossing accident gets a visit from the local RR manager before the train moves again, and the LEO gets whatever limited information is required from him/her. But not the digital record. The LEA can request access to that from the carrier's legal department at a later date if they deem it necessary. I'm not privy to whether that's ever been a thing. All the first responders need to know from a train crew is - are there any injuries that need immediate attention and is there any hazmat leaking or spilled? Everything else is internal matters, and UPRR crews are instructed as much in training. We’re on different pages I guess. I have zero doubt that the vast majority of accidents involving trains end up being declared the vehicle driver’s fault. Zero doubt. An investigation by local police still needs to be made, right despite how obvious the situation is? Simply as a formality? That, and if cars hit by trains are always a trespass issue, isn’t that a criminal case and thus, result in a criminal investigation? Don't know what to say to explain it to you further. The data recording is all that is needed to "investigate", but the locals don't even have a reason to need it even if they had the authority. What are they going to do if there's evidence of any fault on the railroad? Write a ticket? For what? They have no legal authority over train operations. So who else else might want to investigate? A lawyer suing for the car driver or family. So the lawyer files a suit, and being a smart lawyer, he knows to demand access to the data record. That's your investigation. The data record is going to show if the train crew was doing anything wrong. Anything. It's going to show the exact location. It's going to show if the headlights, bell, and whistle were functioning. It's going to show visually if crossing signals and/or gates were in place and functioning. It's going to show the visual condition of the crossing surface. It's going to show the client's vehicle where it doesn't belong. It's going to show the train brakes being applied and the impact following. What else is there to know? Edit: As for the trespass issue....that is typically handled by the railroad police department, to if it's handled at all. Again, it's the railroad that holds the evidence. Whether or not a trespass charge is persued is up to the railroad legal department. I am not doubting you, I just am trying to understand how someone can simply tell a cop “no” when it comes to something they could use as evidence in an investigation (whether it is needed to prove a car driver was at fault or not). Nor can I understand how an investigation of the incident wouldn’t be conducted, if nothing else as a formality and for the insurance company. Is it upsetting your world to think that a cop is not always the controlling authority? Railroading is a special case. That place where you drive across the tracks? It's not public property, nor is it totally subject to local ordinances. How does a local cop investigate anything railroad anyway? Does he have training in train handling or the General Code of Operating Rules? Does he have knowledge of the FRA regulations? Easy answer to these is "no". You'd be hard pressed top find a single cop who would even know what he's looking at or for, other than the smashed street vehicle. Even the foamers know much less than they think they do.
Lunatic fringe....we all know you're out there.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 14,048 Likes: 1
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 14,048 Likes: 1 |
I thought you gonna say “negro”
But anyway
Pics or it didn’t happen, at’s th rules eh! I lived in one place in NW PA where I had to do a double take and step back to look down the aisle in the grocery store. There was a black lady doing some shopping. I'd been there a few months already. Having grown up around a bunch of Mexicans, blacks, Asians of every sort, I thought that was about the whitest town I'd ever seen. you have to be kidding! Blacks in PA? i am stunned, stunned i tell you!
the consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded. Robert E Lee
~Molɔ̀ːn Labé Skýla~
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 14,048 Likes: 1
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 14,048 Likes: 1 |
I guess I’ll take your word for it but an investigation doesn’t have to be in response to a crime.
Civil matters can have investigations too and I am having a difficult time imagining a car insurance claim involving a train wreck not requiring a police report, which I am guessing normally involves an investigation. Oh, the police can report and investigate all they want. They just can't walk away with the train data recording. But the police aren't going to "investigate" a crossing accident. They'll make a report. The car insurance company may choose to investigate, I suppose, but that's unlikely. An ambulance chaser may demand the evidence in court. That should be fun to watch. What usually happens when a crossing accident lawsuit is filed (last I heard) is the carrier shows the video and data to the plaintiff's side, and the lawsuit goes away. The reason this evidence is so powerful is partly because of the documented strict chain of custody regarding the hard drive. There are unusual exceptions where maybe there was a signal failure and someone actually has a case, but the vast majority of these incidents are cut and dried cases of trespassing. Yes. Every time you cross the tracks you are trespassing. Permission is implied, except when you get hit by a train. You (as a car or truck driver) are required to be vigilant and to obey the traffic controls at the crossing. The basic railroad crossbuck sign is a legal traffic control that has a definition and attached requirements. Same as stop signs and yeild signs. No one has a right to be on the tracks in front of an approaching train. Cut...and...dried. Train operation is so closely controlled and monitored that the odds of a crossing accident showing any fault of the carrier or crew are extremely low, but it has happened. The carrier can be liable if there is a claim and the carrier fails to prove the claim has no grounds. The video and data record is irrefutable proof, precisely because of how closely it is guarded. Funny thing about police reports. That's just another one of those things they're so used to that some of them can't wrap their mind around exceptions either. My last incident, the responding deputy handed me a report form to fill out. He said he was required by the Idaho State Police to have me fill it out. It told him it was required by my employer to say nothing and write nothing, and handed it back to him. Your problem - not mine. Every crossing accident gets a visit from the local RR manager before the train moves again, and the LEO gets whatever limited information is required from him/her. But not the digital record. The LEA can request access to that from the carrier's legal department at a later date if they deem it necessary. I'm not privy to whether that's ever been a thing. All the first responders need to know from a train crew is - are there any injuries that need immediate attention and is there any hazmat leaking or spilled? Everything else is internal matters, and UPRR crews are instructed as much in training. We’re on different pages I guess. I have zero doubt that the vast majority of accidents involving trains end up being declared the vehicle driver’s fault. Zero doubt. An investigation by local police still needs to be made, right despite how obvious the situation is? Simply as a formality? That, and if cars hit by trains are always a trespass issue, isn’t that a criminal case and thus, result in a criminal investigation? Don't know what to say to explain it to you further. The data recording is all that is needed to "investigate", but the locals don't even have a reason to need it even if they had the authority. What are they going to do if there's evidence of any fault on the railroad? Write a ticket? For what? They have no legal authority over train operations. So who else else might want to investigate? A lawyer suing for the car driver or family. So the lawyer files a suit, and being a smart lawyer, he knows to demand access to the data record. That's your investigation. The data record is going to show if the train crew was doing anything wrong. Anything. It's going to show the exact location. It's going to show if the headlights, bell, and whistle were functioning. It's going to show visually if crossing signals and/or gates were in place and functioning. It's going to show the visual condition of the crossing surface. It's going to show the client's vehicle where it doesn't belong. It's going to show the train brakes being applied and the impact following. What else is there to know? Edit: As for the trespass issue....that is typically handled by the railroad police department, to if it's handled at all. Again, it's the railroad that holds the evidence. Whether or not a trespass charge is persued is up to the railroad legal department. I am not doubting you, I just am trying to understand how someone can simply tell a cop “no” when it comes to something they could use as evidence in an investigation (whether it is needed to prove a car driver was at fault or not). Nor can I understand how an investigation of the incident wouldn’t be conducted, if nothing else as a formality and for the insurance company. Is it upsetting your world to think that a cop is not always the controlling authority? Railroading is a special case. That place where you drive across the tracks? It's not public property, nor is it totally subject to local ordinances. How does a local cop investigate anything railroad anyway? Does he have training in train handling or the General Code of Operating Rules? Does he have knowledge of the FRA regulations? Easy answer to these is "no". You'd be hard pressed top find a single cop who would even know what he's looking at or for, other than the smashed street vehicle. Even the foamers know much less than they think they do. what Free me says. i responded to a rail car fire. rice on fire of all things. siding in one of the busiest terminals in America. Our responsibility began and ended with traffic control.
the consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded. Robert E Lee
~Molɔ̀ːn Labé Skýla~
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 20,282 Likes: 23
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 20,282 Likes: 23 |
Is it upsetting your world to think that a cop is not always the controlling authority? Not at all. I am intrigued by it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 12,159 Likes: 2
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 12,159 Likes: 2 |
FreeMe;
Good evening to you sir, I hope the day behaved and you're well.
Thanks for the insight into nuances of life that many of us aren't familiar with.
We used to have Canadian National which is owned by the government but still has it's own rules and maybe LEO and then Canadian Pacific which was the first one and was and still is I believe privately owned. I distantly knew a couple fellows who were LEO for one or the other, but can't recall which just now.
When the railway was built in Canada in the 1880's, the Federal government gave some pretty broad concessions of land to CP and as well there were rules like Federal law superseded provincial law something like a mile either way of center line of the tracks. It meant if one wanted to sell booze to the train construction crews, one needed a Federal liquor license if your establishment was within the federal land and a provincial liquor license if it wasn't.
If you ever make it up into this part of the world, there's a really excellent train museum in Revelstoke with one of the bigger steam engines inside. It's a huge old machine.
Thanks again for the adding to the conversation, like my cyber friend T Inman, I find all the rules and nuances really intriguing.
All the best and good luck on your hunts.
Dwayne
The most important stuff in life isn't "stuff"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 96,063 Likes: 19
Campfire Oracle
|
|
Campfire Oracle
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 96,063 Likes: 19 |
Thought this thread might be about vaginas.
LOL Hahaha. Tff. Winner winner....
Ecc 10:2
The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but that of a fool to the left.
A Nation which leaves God behind is soon left behind.
"The Lord never asked anyone to be a tax collector, lowyer, or Redskins fan".
I Dindo Nuffin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 20,282 Likes: 23
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 20,282 Likes: 23 |
When the railway was built in Canada in the 1880's, the Federal government gave some pretty broad concessions of land to CP and as well there were rules like Federal law superseded provincial law something like a mile either way of center line of the tracks. It meant if one wanted to sell booze to the train construction crews, one needed a Federal liquor license if your establishment was within the federal land and a provincial liquor license if it wasn't. Dwayne, is that CP land checkerboard like some railroad conveyed lands are in Wyoming and some other places in the western US? Holy cow what a bad idea that was...from a public access point of view.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 45,394 Likes: 28
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 45,394 Likes: 28 |
I thought you gonna say “negro”
But anyway
Pics or it didn’t happen, at’s th rules eh! I lived in one place in NW PA where I had to do a double take and step back to look down the aisle in the grocery store. There was a black lady doing some shopping. I'd been there a few months already. Having grown up around a bunch of Mexicans, blacks, Asians of every sort, I thought that was about the whitest town I'd ever seen. you have to be kidding! Blacks in PA? i am stunned, stunned i tell you! Rather a rare occurrence where we lived. Matter of fact, there was a town about 30 miles away, the KKK wanted to present them an award for never having had a black resident. The town had been in existence since around the Founding of our Nation. The town told them to fugg off and die basically.
The desert is a true treasure for him who seeks refuge from men and the evil of men.
In it is contentment
In it is death and all you seek
(Quoted from "The Bleeding of the Stone" Ibrahim Al-Koni)
member of the cabal of dysfunctional squirrels?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 69,490 Likes: 20
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
OP
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 69,490 Likes: 20 |
When the railway was built in Canada in the 1880's, the Federal government gave some pretty broad concessions of land to CP and as well there were rules like Federal law superseded provincial law something like a mile either way of center line of the tracks. It meant if one wanted to sell booze to the train construction crews, one needed a Federal liquor license if your establishment was within the federal land and a provincial liquor license if it wasn't. Dwayne, is that CP land checkerboard like some railroad conveyed lands are in Wyoming and some other places in the western US? Holy cow what a bad idea that was...from a public access point of view. The checkerboard RR lands were actually a good idea but poorly executed. It funded the RR building while it kept the greedy RR's from locking up all the access to everything. Where it went wrong was that congress didn't envision the corner access problem. They should have provided for a road width of access at every corner.
“In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
― George Orwell
It's not over when you lose. It's over when you quit.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 12,159 Likes: 2
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 12,159 Likes: 2 |
When the railway was built in Canada in the 1880's, the Federal government gave some pretty broad concessions of land to CP and as well there were rules like Federal law superseded provincial law something like a mile either way of center line of the tracks. It meant if one wanted to sell booze to the train construction crews, one needed a Federal liquor license if your establishment was within the federal land and a provincial liquor license if it wasn't. Dwayne, is that CP land checkerboard like some railroad conveyed lands are in Wyoming and some other places in the western US? Holy cow what a bad idea that was...from a public access point of view. T Inman; Top of the morning my friend, I hope you're finer than frog's hair thus far and all is going according to plan up north for you. Going off of a bit of a foggy memory and incomplete grasp on the subject, yes I believe it was - but.. When my grandfather came here from Romania in the early 1900's he bought land from CP to homestead on and it was nowhere near the actual tracks. He was north of nowhere close to Fox Valley, SK which is 60km north of Maple Creek, SK which I want to say is where the CP line was. All that to say, the feds at that time gave the CP huge chunks of land with the intent that they - the CP - would sell it to prospective settlers, which to a large degree happened. For those reading who don't know this, there were a huge number of US folks who came up during this time - pre WWI - because land was so cheap across the medicine line. That's when my father in law's family came up from Minnesota as well and for the same reason. That and to get away from the Minnesota winters, which they actually did because the section of Manitoba they farmed was a bit of a better micro climate - a bit only though T. Funny story about the liquor license thing. While they were building the railway, you couldn't have a saloon in BC because - well it was very Victorian BC - but you could serve alcohol if you were a rooming house. So everyone had a big wall tent, with a cot in a sectioned off place behind the bar! Good to go. Just outside of what was then called Farwell, now Revelstoke - again check out the train museum if you like that sort of thing - an Irish born entrepreneur came into town with two pack horses laden with a variety of spirits and what he thought was the correct BC provincial liquor license which would allow him to do business. However the BC NWMP Superintendent Johnson was on a campaign to rid the railway workers of their demon rum, so one of his constables seized the booze. This didn't sit well with the local BC Provincial Police who included the colorful "Big John" Kirkup who attempted to "re-seize" the alcohol from the NWMP barracks/shack but ended up being arrested themselves. That then led to NWMP Sargent being arrested by the BC Provincial Police and it went sorta sideways from there. It ended up with the BC Provincial Police and most of the town more or less laying siege to the NWMP barracks/shack and having "Hanging Judge" Matthew Baillie Begbie summoned in to settle the matter. For anyone interested, here's a bit of a bio on Big John Kirkup. https://www.cascity.com/forumhall/index.php?topic=65794.0Bio on Matthew Baillie Begbie. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Baillie_BegbieThe last thing on Big John is that there used to be a local museum which was run by a one time teacher/miner turned politician/history buff Bill Barlee. Bill had collected all sorts of interesting BC historical artifacts in the '60's when it was considered old junk. On display in Bill's museum was Big John's SAA Colt with a 5½" barrel - cannot recall if it was a .45 or .44-40 sorry - and his shot loaded cane which is what he used when in the crowded mining camps. He'd leave the SAA in the hotel and use the cane. In short order it got so he'd show up in a mining camp and leave a list of people h wanted to appear in court and for the most part they'd show up as asked, since the alternative was being "arrested" by Big John which usually meant being knocked out as well. Folks might be shocked by some of our history up here as it wasn't all as prim and proper as too many believe. Thanks for reading this far, all the best and good luck on your hunts. Dwayne PS; Here's a Frederic Remington drawing of Kirkup from 1890 titled "Big Jack, The Mountain Sheriff" ![[Linked Image from images.squarespace-cdn.com]](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5b11caa631d4df0138d9dfdb/1655495688848-1C0PEWD6UI7JPXISCS9J/On%2BCanada%2BFrontier_1892_Kirkup%2BSketch.jpg)
Last edited by BC30cal; 09/30/22.
The most important stuff in life isn't "stuff"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 10,260
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 10,260 |
Is it upsetting your world to think that a cop is not always the controlling authority? Not at all. I am intrigued by it. Good! Just so I know I'm not wasting effort. Hope I cleared that up some.
Lunatic fringe....we all know you're out there.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 10,260
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 10,260 |
Thanks for the interesting info, Dwayne. I'm actually not much of a foamer myself, having been steeped in it for decades. But the Canadian railroad and its history does interest me.
Lunatic fringe....we all know you're out there.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 10,260
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 10,260 |
When the railway was built in Canada in the 1880's, the Federal government gave some pretty broad concessions of land to CP and as well there were rules like Federal law superseded provincial law something like a mile either way of center line of the tracks. It meant if one wanted to sell booze to the train construction crews, one needed a Federal liquor license if your establishment was within the federal land and a provincial liquor license if it wasn't. Dwayne, is that CP land checkerboard like some railroad conveyed lands are in Wyoming and some other places in the western US? Holy cow what a bad idea that was...from a public access point of view. Don't get me started on that subject! Can'o'worms.
Lunatic fringe....we all know you're out there.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,669 Likes: 2
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,669 Likes: 2 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 12,159 Likes: 2
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 12,159 Likes: 2 |
Thanks for the interesting info, Dwayne. I'm actually not much of a foamer myself, having been steeped in it for decades. But the Canadian railroad and its history does interest me. FreeMe; Morning sir, thanks for the reply. I'll freely admit I had to look up what a "foamer" was and low and behold, found out that we lived beside one for 30 years!  Our rural property has had the same couple living next to us for the entire time, though they did subdivide and move into a new build. This summer Arthur passed at the age of 86, but he was a "foamer" of the first order and would discuss all manner of trains or failing that diesel engines with you as long as you wanted to listen. When they had his memorial last weekend, both of his boys recalled how most family vacations were structured around visiting railway museums across Canada, the US and then the UK and France too. While I love history, I prefer western North American history of the past 200 years mostly and the railway stuff up here across the medicine line is so linked to how we became a nation that it's tough or impossible to separate. For instance here in BC, they agreed to join the new Confederation of provinces back east under the condition that a railway be built within a decade was the original agreement I believe. The CP didn't make the timeframe, but there was apparently enough progress to keep BC satisfied to stay in and not strike out on our own. Funny how history turns on little things, you know? We - that is to say Canada - was supposed to get all of Washington and Oregon west of the Columbia - until one British Lord who was negotiating with the US delegation decided to offer to run straight down the 49th parallel - at least up to Vancouver Island. Then of course there were scuffles and negotiations for years as to who owned the Gulf and San Juan Islands... Thanks again for the nuances of railway law and jurisdiction on your side though, I love learning this sort of detail. All the best and good luck on your hunts this fall. Dwayne
The most important stuff in life isn't "stuff"
|
|
|
|
|
153 members (1OntarioJim, achadwick, 257_X_50, 21, 35, 7887mm08, 14 invisible),
1,018
guests, and
922
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,193,978
Posts18,519,922
Members74,020
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
