49 C.F.R. § 213.9
Classes of track: operating speed limits
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section and §§ 213.57(b), 213.59(a), 213.113(a), and 213.137(b) and (c), the following maximum allowable operating speeds apply—
| Over track that meets all of the requirements prescribed in this part for— | The maximum allowable operating speed for freight trains is— | The maximum allowable operating speed for passenger trains is— |
|---|---|---|
| Excepted track | 10 | N/A |
| Class 1 track | 10 | 15 |
| Class 2 track | 25 | 30 |
| Class 3 track | 40 | 60 |
| Class 4 track | 60 | 80 |
| Class 5 track | 80 | 90 |
(b) If a segment of track does not meet all of the requirements of its intended class, it is reclassified to the next lowest class of track for which it does meet all of the requirements of this part. However, if the segment of track does not at least meet the requirements of Class 1 track, operations may continue at Class 1 speeds for a period of not more than 30 days without bringing the track into compliance, under the authority of a person designated under § 213.7(a), after that person determines that operations may safely continue and subject to any limiting conditions specified by such person.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 147
cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1978–2023 · leading case: CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Easterwood
CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Easterwood (1993)
“See 49 CFR § 213.9 (1992). Also in 1971, and again in 1972, the Secretary duly reported to Congress on the *663 problem of grade crossings and on possible solutions.”
State v. CSX Transp., Inc. (2022)
“For example, once a train blocks a crossing, it has five minutes or less to clear the crossing, which means the train might have to exceed federal speed limits to avoid committing a first-degree misdemeanor under Ohio law.”
Robert Zimmerman v. Norfolk Southern Corporation (2013)
“Zimmerman’s excessive-speed claim is not preempted because 49 C.F.R. § 213.9 creates a federal standard of care.”
Schulenberg v. BNSF Ry. Co. (2018)
“49 C.F.R. § 213.9 . However, BNSF had set a general internal timetable speed limit of fifty-five miles per hour for that segment.”
Lane v. R.A. Sims, Jr., Inc. (2001)
“§§ 20101-20153 , and a regulation promulgated thereunder, 49 C.F.R. § 213.9 , which set maximum train speeds for different classes of tracks, preclude a railroad employee’s negligence action under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), 45 U.”
O'Bannon Ex Rel. O'Bannon v. Union Pacific Railroad (1997)
“Failure to Slacken Speed Next, Plaintiffs concede that 49 C.F.R. § 213.9 (a), which prescribes trains’ operating *1420 speed limits, would preempt any excessive speed claim against Defendant Ajmtrack.”
Duluth, Winnipeg, & Pacific Railway Co. v. City of Orr (2008)
“The railway is authorized by 49 C.F.R. § 213.9 (a) to set the train speed on this Class 4 track to a maximum of 60 mph.”
Kevin Cowden v. BNSF Railway Company (2012)
“Because the plaintiff was arguing merely that the “train was traveling too quickly given the ‘time and place,’ ” her claim was substantially subsumed by the Secretary’s adoption of 49 C.F.R. § 213.9 , which allowed railroads to determine maximum speeds based on the condition or…”
CSX Transportation, Inc. v. City of Plymouth (2000)
“However, the state statute actually regulates, albeit indirectly, the subject matter of speed, train length, and the performance of air brake tests.”
Boyd v. National Railroad Passenger Corp. (2006)
“” Pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 213.9 (a) (1997), the maximum allowable speed for a passenger train on a Class 4 track, the type *544 involved here, was eighty miles per hour, although the defendants had set a more stringent maximum allowable speed of seventy miles per hour along the…”
Gauthier v. Union Pacific Railroad (2009)
“Excessive Train Speed The Defendants argue that pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 213.9 , the Plaintiffs allegations of excessive train speed should be preempted because the subject passenger train in this case was traveling at a speed less than the maximum speed allowed under Section 213.”
Mehl v. Canadian Pacific Railway, Ltd. (2006)
“2d 387 (1993) (holding that 49 C.F.R. § 213.9 covered the subject matter of claims alleging excessive speed); CSX Transp.”
— 49 C.F.R. § 213.9(a) — 7 cases
State v. CSX Transp., Inc. (2022)
“For example, once a train blocks a crossing, it has five minutes or less to clear the crossing, which means the train might have to exceed federal speed limits to avoid committing a first-degree misdemeanor under Ohio law.”
Herriman v. Conrail Inc. (1995)
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.