> I was at the RRMPA on August 5, and there
> was a set of stairs up to the south east cab
> window of the GG1 with no normal internal
> cab acess.

That sounds like the same setup as when I was a docent. My position was inside, sitting in the engineer's seat. While I was a volunteer, there was no visitor access to the interior. Ok, well - one time two gentlemen who happened to operate GG-1's came by I bent the rules a little bit. They traded me a lot of stories of the "old days" - it's still one of my fondest PRM memories.

ADA compliance Does not go into altering historic buildings or such. Meaning that you do not have to alter a historic place to have ADA. ADA covers new contruction.

> ADA compliance Does not go into altering
> historic buildings or such. Meaning that you
> do not have to alter a historic place to
> have ADA. ADA covers new contruction.

The (speculative) implication I was making regarding cab access is that some person in a wheelchair is going to sue for access because there isn't a wheelchair lift/ramp right beside the stairs leading up to the cab of (pick a locomotive or car)--or, in the case of the RR Museum of Pa., the viewing pit under PRR 1187. Actually, come to think of it, I think a couple of the lower exhibits at the RR Museum of Pa. DID have ramps as well as stairs, but then again the cab of a GG1 is quite high.

Given what has happened with quite a few nonprofit organizations in Maryland I have worked with that have been sued to construct access or accommodations by people who have never even visited said places, I fear it's not a matter of IF this will happen to the RR Museum of Pa., but WHEN. The only rational options are either megabucks for lifts that may be used a couple times a year, or disallowing ALL cab/car/window access.


LNER4472-NOSPAM-@bcpl.net

Okay, okay, I'm going back to the individual in question and demanding dates, names, and permission to quote him by name.

THEN will we consider this a valid discussion?!?!?!?

LNER4472-NOSPAM-@bcpl.net