My understanding is that the FRA observes the word "employee" very carefully when it comes to drug testing. Volunteers are NOT employees and are not covered by drug testing requirements even though they may be doing the same jobs as railroad employees.

That is 100% INCORRECT ^^^

Volunteers who engage in covered service i.e. train crews are subject to ALL FRA regulations including drug and alcohol related regulations. Your rate of pay can be zero but if you are an engineer or a conductor on a moving train then you are not exempt from ANY of this just because you are a volunteer. The FRA Regulations applied to a museum or a tourist railroad are about the same as a short line provided it is connected to the general rail system. If you are operating such a tourist railroad or museum and the FRA is not enforcing this stuff on you yet mark my words, they will be to see you eventually. About the only FRA inspector you might escape will be the one who covers hazardous materials. You will be getting different inspectors for track, operating practices, motive power and equipment as well as the drug and alcohol guy. In some state, you may also have state inspectors that will carry the same power as the FRA man.

I am pretty certain your understanding is not correct. (I'm not a lawyer, so consult yours and / or your local FRA rep before making critical decisions...)

Here's why I say this, based on a document direct from the FRA:


http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/safety ... ations.pdf

Page 36 indicates there is NO distinction. Covered service is covered service.



If you're aware of a more recent interpretation reversing this, please share it with us.

This interpretation makes perfect sense to me, as the employee's pay scale (or lack thereof) has no bearing whatsoever on the risk created by an impaired employee performing covered service.

Swing, and a miss.
Actual FRA treatment of actual railroad museums nationwide is quite different. No drug testing, minimal if any drug program. That's how it actually is in the field. Yes, the FRA does come to visit.

I know your documentation says they oughta. I'll show some more documentation that says why they don't.


Strike two. Continuous rails to live track have nothing to do with it. FRA states this quite unambiguously in 49 CFR 209 Appendix A. viewtopic.php?f=1&t=32680

"Mere physical connection to the system does not bring trackage within it. For example, trackage within an industrial installation that is connected to the network only by a switch for the receipt of shipments over the system is not a part of the system."

"Tourist railroad operations are not inherently part of the general system and, unless operated over the lines of that system, are subject to few of FRA's regulations.

"The boundaries of the general system are not static. For example, a portion of the system may be purchased for the exclusive use of a single private entity and all connections, save perhaps a switch for receiving shipments, severed. Depending on the nature of the operations, this could remove that portion from the general system."

The above essentially describes the tourist railroad situation unless it operates freight for paying customers. Accepting its own cars is absolutely fine:

"[General system roads] may have occasion to enter the [non-general-system] railroad's property (e.g., a major railroad goes into a chemical or auto plant to pick up or set out cars). In such cases, the railroad that is part of the general system remains part of that system while inside the installation; thus, all of its activities are covered by FRA's regulations during that period. The plant railroad itself, however, does not get swept into the general system by virtue of the other railroad's activity."



And did you read page 6 of that same document? :) It makes quite clear that non-general-system roads, insular or not, are not subject to 219 at all.


What you are overlooking is the common-sense factor that tourist trains are not Amtraks, 10 mph is not 60 mph, tourist hours are not railroad hours, and working stiffs take different kinds of drugs than volunteers.

"In drafting safety rules, FRA has a specific obligation to consider financial, operational, or other factors that may be unique to tourist operations. 49 U.S.C. 20103(f). Accordingly, FRA is careful to consider those factors in determining whether any particular rule will apply to tourist operations. Therefore, although FRA asserts jurisdiction quite broadly over these operations, we work to ensure that the rules we issue are appropriate to their somewhat special circumstances."

Back to your

And that's the hitch. Since the Member Conduct Policy applies to ALL volunteers universally, you should not use a "lowest common denominator" standard in which ALL volunteers must meet the same standard as the 3 who crew the annual Amtrak excursion out on the general system. That is why the language says "Additional restrictions may be placed on certain types of service" to allow for more restrictive rules for operating personnel.


Actually it can't even tell that. Drug testing is very spotty. It can detect marijuana after months of disuse, but the much more harmful drugs are undetectable after only a day or two. They don't even test for LSD and many others. Thus, the "pass-fail" effects of drug testing are wildly askew from the effects of drugs.

Let me see if I can approach this a different way.........here in the real world, if you have a connection to another railroad and are inviting the general public onto your property through ticket sales or whatever means, and you are traveling over public crossings or waterways then you are part of the general rail system and subject to FRA mechanical, track, operating practices, and drug and alcohol inspections applicable to any small railroad. This is not a speculation or an interpretation, it is a fact because I am one of the people who has to meet with the FRA and/or the TDOT inspectors when they show up. While number of employees, speed of trains, and other factors may exempt you from certain regulations, those things do not exempt you from all of them. Bottom line is that if you are part of the general rail system then the drug and alcohol requirements do apply to your tourist railroad or museum operation. What they are doing in California is anybody's guess.

Yes, I did, but it did not have anything to do with his statement. He claimed that volunteers in covered service were exempt from drug testing, which is incorrect. If your operation is exempt from the regulations, then nobody gets tested. If you're covered, everyone gets tested. It's that simple.



Right... Nobody has ever been killed or injured by a train going 10 mph. Boiler explosions are only a problem when you're going 60. If the person causing the accident is a volunteer, then it's not a problem... Got it...

Hopefully the operating crew doesn't have that attitude. Well sure, I'm taking some OTC meds that impair my judgement, but what the heck, it's not Amtrak...



Where in the heck are you getting that info? In any case, why does it matter what kind of drugs they use? I'm going to guess that the legal drug alcohol has caused far more car wrecks that Meth. So even if your volunteers (who are often also working stiffs) aren't using crack and are just drinking tall boys, don't you still have a problem?

Meanwhile, you haven't addressed the core issue of how you enforce this policy in a fair manner that proves the drug use. Or do you simply reject volunteers because you think they're using drugs?

If you don't have a means of enforcing it, then write anything you want, it doesn't make a bit of difference, does it? It's just window dressing. Or is it just CYA so you can say "Well, we had a policy..."

Here's the problem with this seemingly simple idea.

Obviously it's a good idea for a museum or tourist railway to have something in the employee handbook saying "No drugs or alcohol on the property". That makes sense, or so it would seem. So you write up some pretty policy and you feel better, but what have you really accomplished?

Where it gets ugly is when you try to actually incorporate the rule into your operations. As we've already discussed, first you have to define "drugs". You also have to address prescription drugs. You have to consider what to do about prescription drugs that could impair the member. Even if they're taking them under doctors orders, should they be at your facility if it says 'Do not operate heavy machinery". What if they're not operating heavy machinery in their duties? Pretty soon your "simple" policy is 15 pages long with "if" "but" "then" "with doctor's permission" and other clauses...

The most difficult issue is enforcing it. Do you do random tests? Do you test employees based on probable cause? If so, are you trained to tell the difference between a medical condition, fatigue, impairment, mental or physical disabilities and many other factors? What happens when a volunteer sues you for false accusations? What happens when volunteer A doesn't like volunteer B and accuses them of being on drugs/intoxicated for no valid reason?

If you don't enforce it, then why have the policy in the first place? If there is an incident, and you can't prove you did any due dilligence to prevent the problem, then what? Well sure, you have it in writing, but if you don't follow the rules, it doesn't mean anything. It seems odd to me that you want the policy, but are adamant that there won't be any drug testing, not even for operating crews, nor will there be any other method of enforcement that you've disclosed.

Yes, some people will see it in the rule book and not bring a beer with their lunch. Those people follow the rules. Then again, the people that follow the rules and work safely aren't the problem, since they're not the ones getting drunk at lunch or doing dope on their breaks.

For what it's worth, before I resigned in October as Operating Superintendent at a railway museum, I had an official interpretation that volunteers were not employees and that drug testing rules did not apply. Museum track was connected to the general system; monthly FRA accident reports were required. I no longer have access to those files so I cannot cite name and date of this letter.

I understand that ARM has information on this subject.

So what about the drugs that the doctor has perscribed like ritlen, Zoloft, Prozac and Let's complacate things futher by saying the person on some of these drugs has Downs syndrome. This peson has a valid drivers linces and has passed his GCOR test and wants to get into train servace. What do you do?

RCD, the answer will vary depending on whether or not you're covered by FRA. If you're not, then you have to find a way to make those decisions. If you are under FRA, you will have a company Medical Review Officer. The employee/volunteer in question would consult with his doctor, and then contact the person handling the drug program. In a complex situation like that one, the person handling the drug program would turn it over to the company Medical Review Officer, a doctor who is qualified to make that kind of decision. They would evaluate the facts, possibly interview the "employee" and / or contact his physician. All this is kept strictly confidential BTW. They would then determine if the person can be cleared for service.

It was my experience that when the Medical Review Officer is involved they don't give you a lot of detail. Obviously this is to protect the employee's privacy. Typically we got them involved when a test showed positive for drugs. They would then contact the employee and give them an opportunity to review the situation. We would simply be told "The matter had been resolved" or "The employee tested positive for xxxxxx and should be removed from service"

That's another issue. As an employer, we were required by some law, I don't recall if it was federal or state, to give first time offenders a chance to go through a rehab program along with increased testing. If they took that option, we couldn't fire them on a first offense. We could, however refuse to hire them if they failed a pre-employment screening. I do not know what the regs currently are for railroads.

I added numbers for clarity.
(1) having a connection does not place you in the general system, see 209 App. A in earlier reply.
(2) Inviting the public has no bearing, see Henry Ford, Stone Mountain and many others.
(3) here you actually describe the difference between "insular" and "non-insular", correctly.

Admittedly the distinction between "general system" and "not" is buried deep in the regs, but I have called it out here in detail. In rough it means revenue freight is on these rails. You see where FRA says plain as day that tourist railways are presumptively NOT in the general system unless they operate on track which is in the general system. TVRM and Oak Ridge do, hence they are in the general system, but they are atypical.

Most railroad museums are not in the general system. I've been an operator on three, on the board of two, and talked to dozens of others. I especially ask about FRA because of the sheer confusion that exists in this area of law. Most organizations try pretty hard to get non-general-system status. Some even pull up rails to get it.


That depends on your operation. What are the boundaries of the track you own? To what extent does revenue freight move over that track? Does your tourist operation venture beyond your own, non-freight railroad onto rails polished by freight trains?

As for the inspections. Are they very formal, with the clipboard and checking 16 points on everything, do they pore through your maintenance records, do they issue lists of things you must correct, are there individual fines for each infraction? Or are they cursory affairs where they're just basically trying to size up your practices?

When you are exempt, FRA can still issue an Emergency Order (E.O.) if your practices are seriously dangerous. They must be able to ascertain that, and so, they have a right of inspection for that purpose. They cannot hold you to the full regulation; that would defeat the purpose of being exempt.


Actual practice in California reasonably conforms to statute and regulation as written. Portola, WRM, Niles Canyon, OERM -- all are correctly treated as "not part of the general system" and most parts of 49 CFR are waived. Nobody has "turned over a rail", all are connected to the general system and can interchange at any time. The PUC leaves the museums to the FRA, and the FRA leaves museums to their own governance, modulo the EO inspections. Equipment that was under PUC its entire life (Muni PCCs and LRVs) is transitioned to FRA authority without incident.

Whereas in the midwest, I see nothing but confusion about FRA. IRM maintains blue cards in their engines. (going somewhere?) Many museums "flop over rails" to create the mythical "air gap" that will supposedly put you out of the general system. Nobody knows what the regs are and what they are not. It's absolutely amazing. Definitely seems FRA enforcement is highly regional.

[edit: clarify]

Seems to me like the easiest solution if there's any questions would be to call your local FRA guy..

More investigation is needed but I fear that much of the inconsistency in this area may come from the FRA men themselves. Case in point how "turning a rail over to gap yourself from the general system" is common in the midwest but unheard of in California.

In any case, I'm fairly sure the easiest solution is NOT doing unnecessary and pointless compliance work. If Congress and FRA Washington wanted you to be exempt, why let some misinformed local guy make extra work for you.