But they do run veteran subway trains from the museum, so again it is not technology, but people, process, and liability.

On our steam excursions, we operate with a company pilot usually, so we have a union employee onboard. However, we have a few members who are retired and certified DSB, and on those trains we do not need a pilot. I wonder if the same would be true on NJT, if the crew was volunteer active duty or retired NJT staff.

From what I know, the commuter operation in Grapevine will operate with Stadler equipment which will be FRA compliant, which means that the two types of equipment can easily co-exist. The GVRR also operates over two miles of Union Pacific mainline trackage...which means every weekend the 2248 operates, she operates over the Union Pacific.

Grapevine is indeed a stakeholder, and they have their own crews to operate the trains. They are non-union, and have been that way since Grapevine took over the operation from the Fort Worth and Western.

It really boils down to the law. The FRA classifies railroad route with freight or "real" passenger trains as in the General System of Transportation.

To the extent a tourist railway operates on the General System, it must comply with the second-highest tranche of FRA regulation: all regulations apply except for 227, 238 and 239 (passenger equipment). Such operations are either:

- The general-system freight short line who also operates passenger trains (Yreka & Western, Napa Valley, Knox & Kane, Cadillac & Lake City, Coe Rail, etc.) The freight operation (alone) must be fully compliant; the incremental cost of complying the passenger operation also is relatively small.

- A heritage operation which has no general-system track of its own, and does that on somebody else's railroad, and so only bears the costs of compliance which apply to them.

There are those that might argue such an operation would impeded the daily operations of a commuter line. What would/should/will we say to them when the time comes? As a local with an interest in improved mobility, I can see both sides of the argument. However, my focus in asking these questions is to get an overall opinion from the community. Which I believe has been accomplished. Although I would enjoy any further discussions others might have.

MS

Here in the Los Angeles area, we have had several trips between LA and San Bernardino on the Metrolink line with ATSF 3751. The only condition for most of these runs has been that a Metrolink diesel be added to the consist. But these runs are probably not "tourist trains" in the sense of running every weekend.

Here's 3751 as seen on 16 April 2011, in the middle of the San Bernardino Freeway, heading for San Berdoo on a Saturday morning. What makes this especially noteworthy is that the route it's following is a former Pacific Electric line that only carried steam locomotives during World War II.

Regularly scheduled trains don't interfere, they are simply part of the planned and managed programming of running trains on the line. Scheduling the Grapevine train is no different than scheduling their own. If they can do one they can do the other. The issue that may come in to play is the reliability of the Grapevine train to run on schedule - on time departures, etc. This means the discipline not to wait for latecomers just as a commuter train wouldn't, and a high standard of mechanical reliability. So, the commuter line needs to simply do their job for everybody, the tourist operator needs to carry tourists as if they were commuters to prevent the possibility of fouling the line. We ran trains using nothing but manually operated mechanical equipment and pencils and paper communicating by telegraph for decades, in and out of junctions and terminals that were far busier than this is likely to be - think Grand Central Station - there's no excuse for claiming it can't be done much more easily with today's technology.

We ran a total of 24 excursions on NJ Transit ( 1996-98) using C&O 614 pulling 24 car long trains consisting of a mix of modern commuter coaches and older PV's. These trips ran on a busy, signaled railroad with class 5 track and lots of other trains.

We were assigned a timetable slot ( just like everyone else) and with 1 exception ( when the piston rings blew out and forced us to use the "ghost" diesels that ran 10 minutes ahead of each trip) we were able to maintain our assigned schedule ( which required running at track speed of 79 mph) and cause no issues.

If you have the equipment and the staff that are up to the job there's no reason that a tourist train can't successfully co-exist on a commuter railroad.

IMHO-Ross Rowland

I think it might be relevant, too, to ask whether NJT today would allow a similar operation on the Graham Line, and what additional costs or coverage they would demand (and, specifically, why).

Ross, what was the situation with the main rod that needed all the 'short order' stiffening or repair welds? Wasn't that done in 'realtime' between NJT trips? (So yes, if your tech people are on the ball and you have the right equipment, even fairly traumatic equipment failure might be remediated without significant 'impeding' of the commuter operations...)

I do not recall any issue with a main rod. All the running gear on 614 is Timken roller bearing equipped and has never given us any problems.

The failed rings were the only over the road failure we experienced.

One thing I failed to include in my initial posting is that its also critical to not ask a machine to do something it wasn't designed to do. What we asked of the 614 is exactly what Lima built her to do for the C&O...namely pull a passenger train at speed. As long as you stay close to the designed purpose you'll be ok assuming you've done the restoration first rate AND you've got the staff to organize and execute.

As to NJ Transit allowing steam again it's possible with the right political connections. Like Amtrak, NJ Transit is 20% a railroad and 80% political.

Our program was approved thanks to the strong backing of the late NJ state representative Alex DeCroce who also happened to chair the committee that oversaw NJ Transit's budget. That's what you need to run on a political railroad.

Ross Rowland

Commuter, tourist and heavy freight operations are currently coexisting in Austin, TX on the Capital Metro lines. The Austin Western (freight), Austin Steam Train Association (tourist) and commuter operations share parts of the line between downtown Austin to Burnet in normal operation.

Michael Gresham
General Superintendent
Austin & Texas Central/
Austin Steam Train Association

The presence of intercity or commuter passenger operations on a rail line imposes regulatory requirements on other rail operations on the line, not the least of which is positive train control.

Fixed that for you.

Remember, NJ Transit didn't have PTC running during the recent Hoboken Terminal accident.

Mr. Mitchell is correct that the line involved in the Hoboken accident was not PTC equipped (yet). The current deadline for PTC is December 2018 (FRA can grant extensions to 2020, although FRA has warned that extensions will be hard to get). As such, there are currently many commuter rail corridors which are not now PTC equipped. But they will all be PTC equipped over the next few years.

The big issue with tourist rail operations on a PTC commuter line is what will happen once the PTC system is turned on for the line. Will the tourist road have to equip its trains to interface with the PTC system to continue operations? The FRA rule permits non-equipped trains under rules for "failed" PTC apparatus (49 CFR 236.1006(b)(3)). But the rule does not require a host railroad to permit non-equipped operations, so it's entirely conceivable that a commuter railroad (or, for that matter, a freight railroad) may refuse to accept non-equipped tourist trains. Further, under the current PTC rule, the authority to operate non-equipped trains on PTC equipped lines will be limited to 20 miles on length effective December, 2023 (49 CFR 236.1006(b)(4)(iii)). There's some question as whether FRA was thinking about tourst/excursion operations when it wrote the latter requirement, but the rule says what it says.

Bottom line is that a tourist railroad operating on a line that will be equipped with PTC (whether commuter or freight) needs to start thinking about what it needs to do to comply with PTC requirements, or get relief from them (possibly by waiver, or by measures in the host railroad's approved PTC implementation plan), and discussing this issue with its host railroad. Waiting until the day the PTC system is turned on is not a good idea.

The issue with PTC and the Hoboken accident is that NJT has asked for a waiver of PTC in the yard, so it wouldn't have helped to prevent that particular accident at all (I've given up on Bella understanding that, though)

Be assured that running elsewhere on NJT, or anywhere else the mandate applies (once the extensions are over, and that is a matter of no more than a couple of years) is going to require PTC equipment, unless the operation wants to provide dramatically larger insurance coverage at enormously higher premium rates.

The good news is that most of the approaches that would implement ATC on locomotives by the late Twenties can still be adapted to work with newer controls and receivers (which, like SBRs, are portable and relatively easy to power).

The T1 Trust, for example, has no strict requirement that its locomotive will run, but PTC has been a part of the development effort since comparatively early. If there is any major commuter or passenger traffic being carried at the times the tourist operation is running, I think it would be irresponsible for the tourist operation not to have at least the necessary major subset of PTC 'automatic protection' implemented.

Yes, I think the 20-mile exception is related to tourist operations on track that would otherwise be stringently subject to PTC for 'passenger' operations.

Capital Metro has been greatly supportive of the Austin Steam Train Assoc. for more than 20 years. Both organizations have benefited from the synergy, and this is why the effort still flourishes.