I am on an email list that frequently sees some of the latest thinking from the FRA passed on to it. The most recent update included the following:



I was wondering if any of the organizations out there formerly contribute to the work of this committee. Either individual museums, TRAIN, and/or ARM? It seems there are a number of areas where the safety standards applied to the national railway network are at odds with our preservation goals. That is not to say that safety should not come first, but I would think that a few reasonable exceptions could be established to preserve the visual appearances of historic equipment and still allow it to be operated on a limited basis. I am not an expert on these regulations, so there may be some well established exceptions to these rules, but I was thinking specifically of the following requirements:

Ditch lights on diesels ...How about an exception for engines 40(?) years or older with less than XXX hours of service per year?

Retroreflective Markings on Freight equipment and locomotives ...Has anyone put these on yet? On a wood boxcar?

Tactile warning strips on passenger platform edges ...Have you noticed the proliferation of those yellow bumps at crosswalks and platform edges? I believe the requirement applies to us as well.

Others? Roofwalks? Link and pin couplers?

For that matter, is anyone aware of a good contact for asking questions about the applicability of these regulations to historic rail equipment and operations? I am working on a project on which I could use a little guidance on some issues.

Thanks

Here is some of that yellow tactile warning strip stuff at Union Square in NYC -It applies to low-level platforms as well, but I don't have a photo of that:
http://flickr.com/photos/rrr/161898781/
[/img]

No ditch lights needed if you have and use a Mars light. Our E-8 is so equiped and F.R.A. approved.

Being in former SP territory, I am aware of that exception, but it still leaves a lot of equipment out of luck. I think it may make sense to have ditch lights on the locomotives the Western Pacific RR Museum uses for their occasional pirate forays out on the mainline, but what about a unit that does not have a Mars light, doesn't operate at more than 25mph, and gets flagged across public crossings? Should there be an exception, and is anyone lobbying for one?

I forgot to mention safety glazing in my previous post. Exemptions are frequently granted for small tourist lines and museums that have non-compliant glazing in their locomotives. The reasons given in the request are low speed and infrequent operations. These are handled on a case by case basis currently. Should a reasonable exception be written into the rule instead?

The best source for answers to many of these questions is your regional FRA office. We have a contact with ours in Atlanta that is quite helpful.

I don't think FRA would make blanket exemptions for many things because they fear they could be abused. I get the feeling they would rather give case by case exemptions based on how well you make your case to them for it. However, there may be some things worth lobbying for.

As for retroreflective marking, our Regional FRA office would not exempt our cabooses that we use on the regeular excursion train. (we aren't insular and have 3 crossings) Also, we have 2 open passenger cars made from flatcars, essentially a flatcar with railing, a canopy and long bench seats. FRA said as far as they are concerned they are a flatcar and must be marked. Quite franklly, we wanted to mark them anyway for increased visibilty a crossings. They actually don't look that bad and the cars aren't historically accurate anymore anyway.

As for our other rolling stock they don't care unless it is used REGULARLY on the excursion train. Obviously we don't use frght cars on the excursions. That being said, I think if you ran frght cars as a photo special once or twice a year in the daylight hours they wouldn't bother you.

Here are the regs that FRA told is in writing that apply to us:
49 USC 20102, 20301,20302,20502-20505,20902,21304
(all of the above just outline FRA's authority)
40 CFR parts
171-179 Hazmat
209,211,216 procedural Regs
210 Noise emissions (does not apply to steam ops)
215 Freight car safety standards (applies to standard guage only)
222 Use of loco horns
224 Reflectorization of Rolling Stock
225 Accident/Incident Reporting
230 Steam Loco Inspection Regs
234 Grade Crossing Signals
245 User fee requirements

Hours of service for conductors, engineers, & brakemen. The reg numbers fail me at the moment. They don't care about car hosts, etc.

There may be others I'm not aware of, but the above was what they sent us in writing.

Also, they reserve the right to issue emergny orders for any safety issue.

Sorry this is so long..Hope it helps.

There are already a couple of other exceptions to the requirements for auxiliary lights.

§ 229.125 Headlights and auxiliary
lights.

<snip>

(d) Effective December 31, 1997, each
lead locomotive operated at a speed
greater than 20 miles per hour over one
or more public highway-rail crossings
shall be equipped with operative auxiliary
lights, in addition to the headlight
required by paragraph (a) or (b) of this
section.

and:

(h) Any locomotive subject to Part 229, that was built before
December 31, 1948, and that is not used regularly in commuter or
intercity passenger service, shall be considered historic equipment and
excepted from the requirements of paragraphs (d) through (h) of this
section.

So, as you can see, if speeds are 20 mph or less, no aux. lights required. (When I worked for the ICRR, on occasion we would get caught running long hood out with no ditch lights on a local... so, if our train was small enough, we'd go like mad between crossings, then pinch 'em down to 20 at each crossing. Was a real pain with a crossing every mile...)

Kent

49 CFR part 224.3
Exceptions to reflectorization
(a) Freight rolling stock that only operates on a track inside and installation that is not part of the general railroad system,
(b) Rapid transit ops not connected to the general system
(c) Locomotives or passenger cars used exclusively in passenger service,
(d) rooling stock subject to reflectorization promulgated by another federal agency.

I take (a) to mean it doesn't apply to operations that are "insular."

Anything that is not specifically exempted in the regulations, you will have to get a waiver for. Waivers are not difficult to obtain provided you have a reasonable basis for the waiver, and you are able to show what safe alternatives you are going to implement.

For the most part, FRA folks are knowledgable, reasonable people. Work with them, frankly discuss your equipment and operation and you should come up with reasonable, legal solutions.

Your mileage may vary ...

For the most part, I think that the field staff of the FRA are good folks, doing a job, most are practical railroaders.

However, at the top, its a typical federal bureacracy. In the rule MAKING arena, there's an abundance of suits with a certain credential I see as evidence of belonging to a loquacious racket. I'm guessing for example, that past FRA administrator Jolene Molitoris never threw a switch in her life. I also doubt that she wasn't unique among other occupants of that position. If I had my way, any nominee for the job would work in a selection of positions on the railroad before passing go and collecting the 200,000.

I'd love to see a cost benefit analysis on some of the more tenuous edicts, like the side reflective tape. Even in pitch black conditions, if you would drive into the side of a moving train, you are the problem.

Make no mistake though, the big roads acquiese quietly to these rules. They'll spend a couple million a year to avoid one 50 million dollar verdict. If there's any "regulatory capture", there's a strong disincentive to carve out exemptions for the preservation/tourist community. There's no money in writing "reasonable" exceptions.

Worse, even if you get a waiver-you can bet that would be grist for a tort lawyer in the event of an "incident".

Unfortunately, this one "hits pretty close to home" for me.

My "local" branch line in Pennsylvania--the former PRR branch along which I grew up--suffered a rather brutal accident about 15-17 years ago before the whole "reflector tape" thing became mandatory. Long story short, a person in unfamiliar territory in a car late on a FOGGY night came driving around a slight curve at what apparently was a safe speed for the conditions, and found a train rumbling across the tracks at the ungated, un-flashered crossing with a fusee dropped by the crew. The road was slightly damp, and the car skidded--right between two hoppers on the only covered hopper of 15 or so that DIDN'T have protective cross braces between the hoppers. That car was wedged under the train and dragged about 1500 feet before the train happened to stop at the nearby feed mill, and only *then* was the wreck discovered as the crew detrained to switch. The driver (and I forget whether or not there was another occupant) barely survived. The crew was pretty well shaken, too--I think one retired very shortly afterwards.

I went chasing trains later that season over the same crossing, sometimes in similar fog/mist conditions. The reflective tape on the sides of the cars that had them made all the difference in the world--like that between a black truck and a fire engine with emergency lights on. It sold me.

Does 4449 or 1361 need reflective tape? Doubt it. But what about that train set that occasionally does dinner train runs--at night?

Of course the example you provided would be a terrible tragedy. However, I doubt thats its a widespread occurrence of similar circumstances provided the impetus for the rule.

The history of federal intervention in the rail industry (exceptions: Staggers Act, ICC Termination Act and some safety rules) has largely been ineffective, counterproductive or inefficient or just stupid.

In the situation you described the "proximate cause" is the curvature of a peculiar piece of railroad and the (periodic, I assume) occurrence of fog.

In that case, the way to handle the problem is to have adequate warning at that location, (foggy area, RR crossing, reflective tape on gates)its not to cause every piece of rolling stock in interchange to be equipped with tape. Its not effective and surely not efficient. Remember, there's an indirect cost to mandates -opportunity cost.

I agree with some of the opinions above -others not so much. I believe that some regulation serves an important role. The corruption of the regulatory system in NYC is what has lead to the recent rash of construction incidents. There have been more than the just the two crane collapses.

I think that the "waiver" route is not a good one in that it is a little less exculpatory in a court of law than a blanket exception. An "exception" may still be problematic, but it is quite a different manner to meet less restrictive requirements than it is to have asked for an exception to be made on your behalf. You end up taking quite a bit more risk by doing that.

Whenever there are requirements, or sometimes even just expectations for specific items of safety equipment to be employed, it had better be there and work. If there is an accident, and there is something amiss with any of that equipment, it opens up an avenue to assign blame to those responsible.

This is why TRAIN and ARM should be involved in trying to negotiate some reasonable exceptions. Perhaps they are. I have seen that most people involved in these kinds of things do not want to discuss them in open forums, and that is too bad.