Well, I guess that cuts to the bone of many of these conversations.

Many of us in this dialog have argued that these contact measures are for the common good and in many cases actually beneficial to the host railroad. A few disagree, and imply that they would not implement these measures.

That is why we have regulation, because sometimes individuals must be forced to take actions that are either or both in their interest and the interest of the general public.

The argument that an ulterior motive exists to find excuses to collect revenue for redistribution to other purposes is unfortunate, because it implies that no magnitude of demonstrable public safety benefit is sufficient to allow for an enforcement penalty. It also implies that public safety benefits have been falsified.

The remark at question is this glib one:

"I think that's why the FRA wants to see in-house solutions: at least they know which corporation to fine if there's an INTERNAL snafu."

The motivation is to prevent future SNAFUs by addressing the problem. The way the statement above is phrased suggests otherwise, as if the only way to address a problem such as this is through financial penalty, not investigation and changes. That mentality (or interpretation of such) is what makes many folks question government regulation. (Again, look at red light and speed cameras.)

We don't need a back-and-forth on this. Just go back to addressing the actual practicality of this issue to our avocation.

in my heart of hearts and politics aside... I honestly believe the first one. I believe FRA would conduct themselves quite differently if squeezing and twisting were their goal. Mind you my primary museums are FRA-lite and FRA-lite-plus.

As regards the municipalities, a different story.

As I read through it I don't see where the big problem would be. Most of the railroads I have been around already have those signs in place. I also think that having someone chained to a phone in a call center for 24 hour service has been obsolete for years. Even 24 hour towing companies have forwarded their night calls to a cell phone for years now. As far as the "Red light camera" mindset, I don't think even the most liberal of thinking can justify having a FRA Inspector on crossing sign duty. I just don't see a major revenue stream there. Now if any operator willfully or blatantly violate the FRA regulations they should be cited, penalized and fined accordingly. Like I stated at the beginning of my post I just don't see the problem here.

The FRA people/inspectors that I have come in contact with have been reasonable and not "revenue collectors".

In the case of the crossing phone notification, my thought about our own situation is that the "regular" railroad number would suffice for us, based on our distance, location, operating schedule, etc.

Howard P.

The same thing happened to my uncle; whose driveway ended right next to a grade crossing. One day, someone came beating on his door; his flatbed trailer got stuck on the grade crossing, and he wanted my uncle to call the railroad and let them know.

My uncle had not contacted the railroad in some time; but finally got ahold of Morgan City tower. A few minutes later; they heard the throbbing of diesel engines as the train slowed to a stop a short distance from the crossing. The engineer got down and thanked my uncle for calling the tower; otherwise, they would have struck it at track speed.

So, I think the whole phone number idea is a good one; the only question is whether it is applicable to your operation, and how to implement it.

In my local area we have BNSF, UP, Tacoma Rail, a streetcar, a light rail system (Yes, YOU know the difference, but does the drunk who just landed on them?) and a couple of other shortlines.

Care to guess how long it will take the 911 dispatcher to figure out who's tracks those are at 5th and Elm (in some areas BNSF and UP run parallel only couple blocks apart...) figure out who to call, "Welcome to the BNSF customer service hotline. If you'd like to contact the shipping department for lumber products, press 1. For steel products press 2. For coal press 3..." and get the right information to the right person before Amtrak attempts to create a "load on the fly Auto Train" at 79 mph?

SIGH... "off-topic is, as off-topic does." I posted my "Dearborn" response, and it was off-topic because nothing in it directly related to preservation. Now, suddenly, many of you have forgotten what forum you are on. You are turning this into a discussion of the FRA mandate GENERALLY as it applies to Class I's. I have been hoisted by my own petard. To put it nicely.

Sandy, in this case, the middleman is the museum. Since they already approach every crossing watching for trouble, they have no need to be warned of such trouble. However, they have a requirement to pass the information onto normal emergency responders, presumably in case there are medical, police or fire issues. That pass-along is the only useful part of the transaction, and the museum is just in the way.

(The "drunk hung up on the track" case is interesting. Because you are required to snitch him out to the police, it is not in his best interests to call. That defeats the purpose of the program.)


Yeah, I did an employee timetable for a museum. Knowing which railroads the operators tended to railfan, the phone number page included all their dispatchers. I am told it was used more than once. I highly recommend it.

Let's take a look at what the reg says. Toll free does not mandate 1-800. If you operate in a large area, then yes. Otherwise a local number (the museum's) would be a toll free number. Or a cell number. The cost will be in making the signs.