Not to hijack this thread too much but....
Municipalities have no legal authority over railroad operations, regardless of any ordinance. Only the federal government can regulate railroad operations. If trains are passing through Albion slowly, it's for safety reasons, such track or road crossing conditions. Albion was a flag stop in the past, which might have affected passenger train speeds somewhat.
Your statement does not hold up in practice. We've been through this before in the
Who sets speed restrictions through towns? thread. Funny, this thread started with the same town. At any rate, I posted a few examples of how a state imposed their speed through a town and how another town took it upon themselves to ticket trains that blocked grade crossings as they sat at a stop signals.
We can even look at recent history as an example and witness New Jersey passing a law (over federal regulations regarding certification of engineers) that basically
states an engineer with a DUI or DWI may no longer operate a train.
So, there are plenty of local and state laws that often impose stringer actions on railroads than federal regulations.
There may be examples of local efforts to impose speed restrictions through state statute or local ordinance, but they are unenforceable once they are appealed to federal courts. A ticket is moot if it can't be enforced. Railroads have federal preemption regarding their operations, with the sole exceptions of blocking or safety problems at public crossings. The feds allow states authority to regulate safety and movement at public crossings. Outside of the imposition of an unenforceable law, there are plenty of examples where railroads have agreed to voluntarily reduce speed in a community in exchange for the closure of crossings or other tradeoffs concerning noise, safety or convenience.
Aside from track and crossing conditions affecting track speed, there is a curve just east of Albion which limits train speed in the area. Also, the track between Kalamazoo and Dearborn is owned by the state of Michigan. Although unlikely, it's entirely possible that an influential legislator has requested Michigan DOT to limit train speeds through Albion.
You stated ONLY the federal government can regulate railroad operations. This
law passed by the Governor of Illinois forcing a reduction of speed from 70mph to 50 mph certainly wasn't voluntary but leaving that out, you then go on to state that the feds allow states authority to regulate safety and movement at public crossings.
Which means that as I stated....it is not true that ONLY the federal government can regulate railroad operations....since as you stated, states and municipalities can and do regulate safety and movement at public crossings.
Municipalities have no legal authority over railroad operations, regardless of any ordinance. Only the federal government can regulate railroad operations. If trains are passing through Albion slowly, it's for safety reasons, such track or road crossing conditions. Albion was a flag stop in the past, which might have affected passenger train speeds somewhat.
We can even look at recent history as an example and witness New Jersey passing a law (over federal regulations regarding certification of engineers) that basically
states an engineer with a DUI or DWI may no longer operate a train.
Your example is moot. The NJ state law only applies to NJ Transit as that's the only place where it can be enforced, because it's an employer vs employee regulation, not a state vs railroad regulation.
The certification of engineers is addressed in CFR 240. I'm not sure how its moot since the feds empowered the railroads to certify engineers....not the states. Since NJ passed a law to restrict who may get certified as an engineer in their state (which is being upheld pending a lawsuit that stated NJ can not do this), that clearly shows the statement that ONLY the federal government can regulate railroad operations is not true....at least for now.
BTW, those senators from NJ are now lobbying for a change to CFR 240 that would exclude drivers with a DUI or DWI from operating a train. If that law passes or the current NJ law is overturned, my example would indeed by moot.
