I'm very sad to have to report that Hot Metal is spot on and unless the current trend is changed decisively and soon the ominous shadow of Big Brother will soon dominate all.

What a sad day that will be.

IMHO-Ross Rowland

Yes, absolutely that should be a major concern for anyone with an interest in operating historic steam locomotives. We love the smoke and personality. But when push comes to shove, it will be mighty hard to convince the green movement that open coal combustion is justified on the basis of recreation.

Hey, come ON!!! I would much, MUCH rather have someone with an enthusiastic and supportive understanding of just exactly what Cass, Strasburg, the Grand Canyon, Monticello, Whitewater Valley, EBT, C&TSR, Seashore Trolley Museum, WW&F, etc. do, why they do it, what their challenges are, etc. than (forgive the stereotypes, folks) some mindless pencil-pushing bureaucrat with a better understanding of (and more attention to) the GS pay system that runs his paycheck than the industry he's supposed to be overseeing!

Wouldn't you?

I am told that this weekend on the various trips NS has run with steam, they have had people back down the steps from the cars and they have spiked the switches everywhere the excursion train has gone. I am speechless.

T7

They're covering themselves. I think that shows they want to keep doing this.

Stephen

In the case of car steps, I would think that backing down the steps would be more dangerous than going down forward.

Yeah...you would think. Who has ever walked down a set of stairs backwards? It seems like such an un-natural activity.

I'm sure there are government studies that show it's safer...really expensive government studies ;-)

Stephen

As a Government IT professional who designs IT systems responsible for life and property information transportation and formation, but not a professional railroader, after reading up on rail operations, the variables involved and the data available, I'm doubtful a system can be built and maintained to be close to the standards my Agency likes to use. I chock this up to pipe dreams and (yes) a knee jerk reaction from the pols.. Most amazing, IMHO, is that there isn't a way to tell where the end of the train is.

While a good number of Federal bureaucrats are good, well meaning people, I've run across many who can't see colors other than black and white, either because they don't understand the technology or business, or know either management or Union won't allow the use of a full spectrum. It only takes one of these to look at GBX and declare a decision that makes the difference. My guess is Ross and company know who the good ones are and are working closely with them to get through the road block(s). I really wish them luck! If you believe the Unions don't make a difference, just look at the Delta Queen example.

Bob

Indeed, the PTC mandate is quite the boondoggle. There are those who argue increased capacity as a result of its implementation will help justify the cost, but I'm skeptical at best. Funny thing is, simple electro-mechanical systems like ATS don't meet the criteria, though collision avoidance is the key function of the system. No, there is not enforced compliance with all mandatory directives and speed restrictions, but the primary objective is met - keeping trains from cornfield meets. Wonder what the cost of a modernized solid state ATS system would be compared to a PTC installation?

As for the Delta Queen comment, you are spot on. Fortunately, that may end up having a happier ending in the long run. I really surprised somebody hasn't already gotten that stuck in a conference report by now. Should be simple enough now that Oberstar is gone (good riddens!).

Sandy's point on having better people on the inside is one I will concede. However, the problem with that is relying on one person or a small group whose demise, for whatever reason, brings potential for mischief. Not having to have those people to begin with because the regulatory authority doesn't exist is the best solution. It's not unlike provisions of the Patriot Act - as long as good folks are there to execute the law using proper judgment, it seems good enough, but a less than honorable regime can abuse the law's provisions for all kinds of nefarious purposes. Better that it not be there in the first place...

Mike
Realityville, Georgia

In what I would call a "pot-stirring" vein, from a paper that many (including myself) will argue has shifted considerably "left" in recent years to pander to the audience that cheers it on:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/ ... ml?hpid=z1



I should point out that this article focuses almost exclusively on the EPA and environmental regulation, a favorite "whipping boy" of Republicans, while not bringing up regulatory actions such as those confronted by Rowland and Co. The author and editors are dutifully challenged in the article's plentiful "comments," although (as typical with a hyperactive, politically-charged commentary circle such as this) a thorough reading for valid commentary is barely worth wading through the IQ-rotting, jingoistic sound-bite and talking-points shoutfest that is typical for Washington Post (and other mainstream) news reporting commentary.

I have been watching this thread for the past couple of days, and have hesitated to get involved. While all of the discussion of whether Atlas is Shrugging, Madison and the Federalist Papers, and whether the EPA is "killing jobs," has been interesting and informative, I think we are being distracted. Mr. Rowland after all, is often billed as a great "showman" but all of this "show" is making us miss the salient points that need to be addressed, and what may be of vital interest to those in the preservation community, those who operate on the general railroad system with older equipment in excursion service, and private car owners.

The main question that has not been answered here is "What did Mr. Rowland & Co. know and when did they know it?" with regard to the various FRA regulations they have to meet to make the Greenbrier Express ("GBX") a reality. To better clarify the issues here, and to keep from getting off on tangents involving Federalism, smaller government and regulation, I have developed a series of questions that I think, if and when answered, would better guide the discussion and the possible impact the GBX project and the preservation community in general.

1. Was a preliminary study done of the GBX and what regulations would have to be met prior to the start of the project, and the design of the new interiors? If so, who did the initial study? Were they experienced in current FRA regulations for passenger carrying railroads, and the various exemptions? If so, was the FRA consulted initially, especially with regard to what (if any) standards the new interiors for the GBX cars would have to meet?

2. Had the passenger cars not been "tunneled" would have been allowed to operate in the GBX consist without meeting the new regulations, perhaps as being "grandfathered" in?

3. Was an effort made to get an exemption or waiver from FRA regulations for the GBX prior to purchasing the equipment and tunneling the cars? If so, what was the initial reaction by the FRA?

4. Was the FRA even approached prior to spending millions of dollars in purchasing equipment and removing the interiors?

5. If the FRA was consulted prior to the investment, and seemed receptive, did they change their mind? Do we know why they changed their minds, and are now insisting that the GBX meet the new, more stringent, regulations?

6. How was the GBX operation described to the FRA? Was it described as a conveyance to get people to the resort, or was it described as a new amenity to the resort, or an excursion?

I am more than willing to give Mr. Rowland & Co. the benefit of a doubt here. However, all of this discussion of the regulation boogeyman is hiding what really happened here. The regulations that could impact the GBX project are newer, but didn't drop from the sky in the middle of the project. While it makes for good "show" to rail against these regulations as job killers, they don't really shed light on what really happened. I think the two possible and probable scenarios as to what really happened here are either:

1. Those involved in the GBX project didn't do their homework before sinking millions of dollars into the project, including purchasing equipment and gutting it; or

2. The FRA changed their minds about what regulations the GBX would be subject to, after giving a different initial opinion, and after millions of dollars were sunk into the project, including purchasing the equipment and gutting it.


If scenario number 1 is true, then only the backers/managers and those in charge of the GBX have only themselves to blame. The lesson from us in the preservation community would be to do your homework before embarking on such a project. If scenario number 2 is true, then preservationists, and those who charter private cars may have something to be concerned about.

And if so, a rather serious understatement indeed.

I would add one more question, off the top of my head, to the excellent inquisition by Brother Wilkens:

"7") There exist, to my knowledge off the top of my head, at least four trainsets in active service composed partially of cars that have supposedly been "tunneled" in the fashion described. I have firsthand knowledge of at least two of them. Have the same regulations been applied to these trainsets, three of which are in mainline revenue service, and/or are these situations directly comparable in enforcement and regulatory application?

Considering the fact that this project started with, "We're going to run steam and we're looking to buy one or two backup locomotives," and days later became, "CSX has a no steam policy and we must respect that," I think I know which question I would put my money on.

The answer is known, but for some reason hasn't been posted in this thread by the person who knows the answer.

Anything else is pure speculation.

Bob H