In another recent thread, Makrolon was mentioned as a window material. I had been looking at Lexan as well. Has anyone else had experience with either of these materials, and would they be considered FRA "compliant"?

Depending on what its being put it, its worth talking to your FRA inspector. We got a waiver to use Lucite, and the cost savings was pretty significant.

The bad news:
FRA part 223 glazing is a specific animal based on certified performance characteristics that can't be substituted by other materials.

Now the good news:
The FRA changed it's requirements in 2016 as it pertains to us in the preservation/tourist rail industry. Antiquated equipment for educational, excursion, recreational, or private transportation purposes are now defined as 50 years old or older and are not required to have FRA part 223 glazing. If you've had to apply for glazing waivers in the past, you no longer need to do so and can use other materials. The caveat is that if FRA glazing is already installed, it can only be replaced in kind.

So if someone has a modern caboose that had FRA glazing that now needs replaced, where would one go to get new glass?

Lexan is a product name for a whole series of polycarbonate resin products. If you were looking at Lexan from someplace like Home Depot, you're looking at probably the cheapest, lowest quality stuff in the line-up. Lexan Margard FRA is a hard-coated version that is much more scratch and impact resistant, has high fade resistance and double the heat tolerance, comes in colored versions that are solar/heat-blocking and available in two thicknesses for Part 223/238 use. Makrolon TG is the competitor version (available in three thicknesses). They can be cleaned with kerosene and various solvents (including graffiti remover).

Eric is dead on about FRA requirements. If you're not on the general system and subject to 238, you can now use anything you want within reasonable safety considerations. If you're in an area where kids like to throw stones, cement blocks and rail anchors, you can't beat the FRA standard 460 thickness if you're using polycarb.

Yes, the Margard and Makrolon are more expensive, but they are a much more durable and safer product. You can put a hole in the side of a car easier than you can through 460 in regular service, although it's still very easy to work with good sharp tools. We converted our Adlake double pane frame windows to single 460 panes and it was roughly 20% cheaper than using the thinner poly in double pane. Cost for a 60 passenger P-S coach was around $10k (glazing only - factory cut to final shape). One other consideration if you're singling up panes is the K value (heat pass resistance) for the 250 double panes is still higher than the thick singles, so if you're HVAC is barely there, it may not be adequate for single panes.

We got our Poly from these guys. http://www.totalplastics.com/products/582
Our local branch was great to work with. Can't help if you're looking for glass.

We haven't had to buy FRA glazing for quite a while. I'll ask around to find out who supplies it in NEO. You might want to read 223 along with the 2016 change. There are differences between forward facing and side facing glazing. I can email the requirements to you if you need them.

I was directed to Dynamic Metals in a post I made in classifieds inquiring about windows. They purchased the JT Nelson line, which was the OEM for our car's windows. A quote I got for a 15.5" square caboose door window, FRA Type I, was $196. Replacing 8 fixed windows is $4700. That is why I am seeking alternatives.

The new FRA glazing rule requirements (49 CFR Part 223), became effective in 2016. A few things to note:

1. Both the prior version of the rule and the new version only apply to "general system" railroads. If you are a tourist, museum (etc.) railroad that's not part of the general system, and your equipment stays on your railroad, the rule does not apply to you at all (and never has)

2. For equipment subject to the rule, but covered by the "historic equipment " exclusion:

(i) If the equipment is equipped with FRA compliant glazing, replacement glazing must also be compliant - compliant glazing cannot be replaced with non-compliant glazing

(ii) Emergency windows may be required, depending on the service the cars are in. Note that windows which open enough to permit egress comply with this requirement.

Attached for further information is the text of the Regulatory Action Summary that appears on the HeritageRail (formerly ATRRM) website.



REGULATORY ACTION SUMMARY


1. Subject:

Glazing Rules

2. Action:

FRA Final Rule (amendments to existing 49 CFR Part 223 Glazing rules)

3. Tourist Railroad Applicability:

Part 223 glazing rules apply only to locomotives, cabooses and passenger cars used on general system railroads. As such, the existing rules and the new amendments apply only to general system tourist roads and are not applicable to non-general system tourist roads.

4. Overview:

FRA originally proposed amendments to its glazing rules in 2014. In its final rule, FRA has modified the proposed amendments in several respects in response to comments filed by ATRRM and AAR. The amendments adopted by FRA appear generally favorable to tourist roads and should eliminate the need for most of the numerous “glazing waivers” that have been filed to permit non-compliant glazing in older equipment (approximately 175 to date). The main features of the amendments as they would impact tourist roads are as follows:

(a) The existing exclusion from the glazing rule for “antiquated” equipment used “only for excursion, educational, recreational purposes or private transportation purposes” is modified in two ways:

(i) FRA eliminated the 1945 cut-off date that it previously used to determine “antiquated” equipment. The exclusion will now apply to equipment which is “over 50 years old”. This is a rolling calculation (for example, as of 2016, equipment built prior to 1967 would qualify).

(ii) FRA modified the requirement that excluded equipment be used “only” for excursion (etc.) service to permit 50+ year locomotives used “primarily” in excursion (etc) service to be used in “incidental freight service” (for example, breaking in a rebuilt steam loco on a freight train)

Equipment covered by the revised exclusion no longer requires glazing waivers, and existing glazing waivers on this equipment do not have to be extended when they expire.

(b) FRA imposed some additional requirements for post 1945 equipment covered by ‘a’. These are generally consistent with the conditions FRA has been imposing when granting waiver requests under the existing rule. The main ones are as follows:

(i) Post 1945 passenger cars (including private cars) must be equipped with four emergency windows meeting specified requirements when occupied and used in an intercity or commuter train subject to 49 CFR Part 238 (passenger equipment safety standards). “Open window” equipment with windows that open far enough to permit egress comply with this requirement

(ii) Post 1945 equipment which complies with the rule’s substantive glazing requirements must remain in compliance with those requirements (in other words, if a post 1945 car is already equipped with compliant glazing, any replacement glazing must also be compliant).

(c) FRA removed the existing requirement to stencil glazing compliance on the inside walls of compliant equipment (sec 223.17).

(d) While not a “tourist railroad” issue, FRA has “clarified” the existing exclusion for “private cars” to apply only to private cars which are “historic or more than 50 years old”.

5. Effective / Compliance Dates:

April 11, 2016.

6. References:

The Final Rule (including FRA’s explanatory preamble) is available at:

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-0 ... -02524.pdf

Last update: February 9, 2016 (RTO)