Something that I read on the LASTA's website has prompted a question. How does our industry view the FRA. are they a consultant or a regulator? Let me define these terms. Consultant would represent providing advice on scope and repair methods of your rolling stock. Regulator would represent ensuring that your rolling stock (including scope and repair methods) meets the regulations contained in the CFR. Anyone care to offer their thoughts?

A lot depends on how your local inspector views himself and his role. I learned a lot from Harold Rhue, who was a boilemaker in the Scranton Shops before he became an Inspector. A lot of the other inspectors I have dealt with were easy to work with as long as you didn't try to mislead them or cover something up. But I have had a number of bad experiences with an inspector who wasn't familiar with the rules and didn't bother to read them. And I think I'll stop right there.

.

I suppose I've been lucky - positive experiences so far.

Given the possibilities for individual interpretation of language in regulations that don't deal with measurable quantities like a Go / NoGo gage, having somebody to help guide your thinking into official lines is benenficial to the public as well as the industry. I don't know too many of us that actually try to do things wrong to see if we can get away with it, no sense treating us as if we were. Often, a few words of explaination can clear up potential misinterpretations.

Of course, this doesn't include argument for its own sake, of how to deal with rules that set up mutually impossible conditions. Haven't run across those with FRA yet, just OSHA in a previous career.

dave

I can not speak for the preservation industry but on the shortlines it really does come down to who the local inspector is. At A&R we have a few local inspectors who have been in the industry before their government careers and understand what you are up against. We call them from time to time and get reasonable answers. Sometimes we also a get very honest "I don't know" answer. They have even been known to call us when they need to separate fact from fiction about some situation they are hearing different tales about from the big boss. It works both ways. These are folks who do not go around thumping their chests and trying to prove they are the second comming.

Of course the opposite can be true. I once had a track inspector in TN who spent all day going 20 miles. We would get out of the hyrail at each thing he did not like and he would literally be jumping up and down screaming in my face about why the situation was there when I had only recently inherited the situation and had not had time to correct all the defects. I told him I was fixing the worst areas first but that was not good enough. The antics continued until the hot head came out of me and I had a screaming fit asking him how long it had been since he had inspected the track. His reply was 4 years. I began screaming that if he had been doing his job for the last 4 years things would not look like they did. After my fit was over he wanted to get off and go get something to eat while we talked things over. I never saw the guy again and I surely would never have called him for an opinion on anything.

It may be worth adding here that some of the better field inspectors in our area seem to be getting frustrated with the whole situation they are facing. Their superiors, especially at the Washington level, have less and less of a clue what is going on in the field, especially on the shortlines. The field guys are trying to tell them how things are and that changes to the regulations need to be made to reflect reality. Upper level folks do not seem to be listening and the rules are getting more difficult for the field inspectors to work with. In some cases the inspectors have actually told us the rule in question was stupid. Regardless of how this all plays out it could have an affect on our relationships with the field inspectors. Some may become more sympathetic with our situations and some may become hostile toward the whole industry. This remains to be seen and we will have to deal with the reactions of each inspector.

Dealing with inspectors must be done on a case by case basis. Some, especially new hires who have no railroad experience, really know nothing about what they are doing. In some cases the new hires try to learn and in others they just want to play god. Others with more experience and knowlege can be very helpful as in my current situation. I currently get the benefit of adding another pair of eyes to possibly see things I do not. Inspecting track is at best a mind numbing job and when you go over the same track week after week, year after year it can not hurt for someone with experience and knowlege to look at that track now and then. I consider this to be the cheapest insurance the railroad can buy.

John Bohon

In my mind the difference between a regulator and a consultant is this:

A regulator may work with you, but you don't pay him for his services.

A consultant works for you and you pay him for that effort.

That doesn't mean a regulator can't help you, nor does it mean that a consultant will !

Bob H

As I understand it, the FRA is a regulator. Their field inspectors are in place to verify that you are in compliance with the rules. To the best of my knowledge, they cannot recommend anything to an operator. The closest I have seen to a recommendation was when an inspector (not MP&E) said that he would not take exception to something done in such-and -such a manner.

If an inspector tells you how to fix something, he is treading on thin ice. Most old heads will not do this, rather they will refer you to documents, standards, and people (consultants) who can help. It is the operator's responsibility to properly repair and maintain equipment, it is the inspector's job to verify that it was done and is safe and suitable for service.

I have been dealing with the FRA (ICC) for 40 years, and I think they are improving. In the old days, most field inspectors had steam experience. Some were pretty knowledgable and helpful but others were not happy to see steam return. They could be a bit unreasonable. Through the '70's and '80's, there were some real lulus who thought they knew steam, but just wanted to go to lunch. What I have seen of late is a genuine committment by field inspectors to try to learn as much as they can about steam, and then cooperate with the operator to ensure safety.

Unfortunately, since we are dealing with the human race, there are always going to be some pea-witted, self-important, pinheads in the basket. When you run into these folks, use the chain of command, call the regional administrator, and talk to other operators. Often the FRA is not any happier with these folks than the operators, but they can't do anything about it if they don't know what is going on.

My experience from long ago involved record keeping, but it may help someone. Of course, your experience may vary.
At one time, the instructions for monthly and annual accident report summaries said that if something wasn't applicable, to enter zero or n/a. I guess I was lazy, because I was cited for 78 errors of omitting the diagonal slash and entering only "na"! During the ensuing year, I tracked down the bureaucrat in Washington in charge of revising that part of the Code of Federal Regulations. He quickly agreed that it would be reasonable to list a third choice. The same inspector returned for another annual inspection of my records and started breathing fire, but, being an ethical inspector, he opened his copy of the Regulations to confirm the authority for a citation, promptly closed it and said quite politely, "You're in compliance". He never came back. Since then, I have occasionally heard of politicians making headlines by claiming that the Federal rules are written by the industries they regulate!

Given your definitions, I'm going to say regulator, but a friendly one. The only complaint I really have with them is all the extra paperwork you have to mess with once they officially notice you. They ARE a government agency, which means you have to comply with the Federal Kill A Tree Program. To anyone who hasn't appeared on their radar yet, prolong that situation as long as you possibly can! No sense in inviting more paperwork into your operations. And when you DO get noticed, ask your local inspector if you can get a waiver on any of the forms he tells you to file. Some you can't, but it don't hurt to ask!

Our local OPI (Operating Practices Inspector) is a by-the-book man, which means that all the forms have to be filled out in triplicate and so forth. But he's helped our guys fill them out so they're right, helped us apply for waivers for the sillier forms, and answers any questions any of us ask. Frankly, I think he just goes through the motions with us and doesn't worry about our little train ride too much. Especially given that he has a for-profit railroad in his district that has, in the past few years, string-lined a lengthy cut of cars, coupled up a man and killed him, and just last week put a hopper through a convenience store. No, I won't name the railroad, but the convenience store failing to yield to the train was pretty widely covered by the media so you should be able to figure it out with no trouble.