It IS amazing how much you can learn in the chirping of crickets, no?

I just hit the "like" button

I once again renew my call to Mr. Rowland or anyone else associated with the Greenbriar Express ("GBX") project to answer my inquiries. If what is happening to the GBX is as Mr. Rowland has portrayed it, then there are serious consequences for those in Railway Preservation. It is fun to talk about "Big Brother" and Ayn Rand, but it is not going to get us to the heart of the issue at hand, and how it may affect us. Mr. Rowland has made some serious assertions, that if true, mean that the hang-man of over-regulation hangs over the private car and preservation communities. Once again, I renew my Interrogatories to anyone associated with the GBX project, so that we may be enlightened:

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 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?

7. There exists, to the knowlege of Mr. Mitchell, 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?

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. Also, if scenarious number 1 is true, all of this regulation discussion is a clever ruse to throw people off the trail that a major mistep has taken place. 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. If scenario 2 is involved, we need to know as much information now, as it affects the preservation community.

Perhaps, Mr. Rowland and his assocaites feel that this forum is not the best format for this discussion, which is understandable. Perhaps we could have a live meeting, get ppople from the private car community, the Passenger Car Allicance, AAPRRCO, the FRA, ARM and TRAIN to attend, so that we may learn first hand from Mr. Rowland's experiences. If this is the path Mr. Rowland feels appropriate, I suggest we try to have meeting at the auditorium at Steamtown. Mr. Crosby could perhaps help us in getting it reserved.

As another poster stated, it is time to end the speculation.

I think a better person to hear from in this scenario is not the executive director or the CEO, but the Chief Mechanical Officer/Engineer, Mark Baehm. You don't (or at the very least shouldn't) embark upon such a project without hiring on a person or persons eminently qualified to go through the cars one by one and determine the changes possible versus desired, applicable regulations with regards to Amtrak/AAR/FRA/CFR/King James Translation/Revised Standard Version/whatever, etc. As I remember, this is a fleet of various vintage "heritage" cars from AOE, not a string of cookie-cutter LIRR "boxes" that we're dealing with here.

If a dastardly "switcheroo" by Federal regulators has indeed occurred, there are any number of anti-"big-government" or "right-wing" websites, radio shows, and publications that would be more than eager to grab this story and parade it about to suit their agendas, attack the wrongdoing, and demand redress, as I'm sure Rowland is quite aware.



I second the motion............ do the by-laws say we need a third?

Mr. Rowland is under no obligation to respond to what any of us might ask here. Period. Frankly, giving you the frank answers you are asking for may expose Mr. Rowland to various legal liablilities that I wouldn't want to be party to.

Give him the space and time to fix the problem. He'll fill us in with what he knows when he's able.

I rather suspect that the fact that the operation is operating out of Washington D.C. has given the GBX operation more scrutiny and dotting i and crossing t compliance than the same operation would receive somewhere else. It is also possible that somebody else (outside of our realm I hope) has "sicced" the FRA on GBX for reasons we won't know.

I suspect this again highlights the import of having a positive relationship with your applicable regulatory agencies and be proactive in your dealings with them. Don't get surprised.

Michael Seitz
Missoula MT

You are right, Mr. Rowland answers only to his employer/backer on this issue, and the applicable government agencies. However, Mr. Rowland made public statements to the media and on this forum, that if true, tend to indicate that there is an increased goverment scrutiny (or "over regulation," if you will) that could have significant long-term and negative impacts on railway preservation, private car operation, and others who operate heritage passenger equipment on the general railroad system. If true, this information needs to be shared with other concerned parties.

If Mr. Rowland's claims are true, this is certainly something the newly combined ARM/TRAIN and their lobbyists need to get involved in. It is something that we all need to know about.

Plesae, Mr. Rowland, I implore you, do not monopolize information that could have significant and lasting impacts on the railway preservation and private car operation communities!



There is only one person that I know of who Mr. Rowland would be potentially legally liable to over this situation. If that is the case, than I can certainly understand his desire to remain silent. However, I am still perplexed as to why he was so willing to discuss the issue when the regulation boogeyman was the target of discussion, if the issue of potential legal libility is an issue. As I often counsel my clients, sometimes saying nothing is the best course of action.

If he is alleging in public that regulatory misconduct has occurred with regards to oversight of his operation, then he does need to get specific. The onus will not be upon him, but the regulatory agencies in question.

It's not hard. You say "we were told A, B, and C with reference to regulations P, D. and Q of Code 436-A of 239 of Bibbety Bobbity and Boo applied, and were told that by consultants Dewey, Cheatham, and Howe and confirmed it with FRA officials Vander, Bilt, Gold, and Fiske. We started the work. Then FRA officials Flagler and Huntington said 'no, you have to do F, G, and H to abide by regulations X, Y, and Z of Code 629-H of Alakazam Alakazot, cease work immediately and resubmit Forms 77859-JEGH, pages 45 and 67B.'"

This kind of "double-cross" (if it indeed happened) needs to be fought, and fought publicly, just like the cases before the courts right now with rail photographers being arrested for taking photographs of trains when no such law prohibiting such photography exists. It need not only be addressed in the judicial system, but in the court of public opinion. If it is not addressed, the miscreants are ultimately granted license to perpetuate this misbehavior, and ultimately, pardon my language, "screw over" everyone on this board and in rail preservation, directly or indirectly.

On the other hand, if the missteps were strictly of their own doing--starting work prematurely or without regulatory approval--then ultimately Rowland & Co, are accountable only to those holding fiduciary interest in the company. HOWEVER, the excuse that "over-regulation" was responsible for the project's stall (or possible shutdown) is not only an excuse, but an "untruth" as well, and deserves to be exposed to all for what it is, for the benefit of "innocent" regulators caught in the middle. Government regulators occasionally get a "bum rap" in this day and age, and since I know of two of them that are doing absolutely heroic things to keep the interests of preservationists actively represented in the FRA and FAA, my default--for once, and don't tell my right-leaning friends!--is to side with the FRA on this until any other information is offered.

While we wait for Ross to reply (or not) I suggest you pay close attention to the first thing he stated:



That implies to me that the operation has fallen under completely different rules than those applied to tourist railroads and excursion trains. Now that he's considered an actual passenger conveyance, the rules are significantly different.

I'll let him answer the "why didn't you anticipate that?" quetions. My point here is simply that I don't think what he said implies that the FRA is going to be applying the same kind of rules to the local tourist railroad.

Has anything like this ever happened before? Go ask the captain and crew of the Delta Queen...

Bob, I would contend the Delta Qeen was a different case. It relied on the good graces of a Congressional Authorization to remain in service.

The main point of my questions are to get to the bottom of this, and determine whether the Emperor has any clothes on.

Also, I should point out, several of my questions deal with whether the regulations Mr. Rowland states would have applied had the interiors of the cars been left intact, instead of cleared out.

Either way, the answer, if we ever get one, should be informative.

But why did it need the authorization in the first place?

It needed it because of a regulation banning overnight passengers on a wooden vessel. The rule is related to hauling passengers and passenger safety. It wasn't simply a fire code issue, as the ship is currently in use as a hotel. It only came up when the coast guard regs applied.

Just as in the GBX case (or so we're told), the rules are related to the fact you're hauling passengers.

As our situation is under active discussion/negoitiation amongst the various agencies I can not comment further at this time.

After all is said and done I'll be pleased to share the salient lessons learned for the good of the order.

I hestitated to chime in as I must admit I was enjoying the rather energetic Toidfest.

Ross Rowland

Hey, welcome back.

I was rather enjoying going over Karl Zimmerman's article in the Feb. 1993 Trains, giving us all a "sneak preview" of the upcoming 21st Century Limited, which would later operate from January 1996 to December 1999, using C&O 614, a staff of 175 traveling full-time with the train............

Mr. Rowland, I am glad that you and your staff are working on these issues. I am also glad you have decided to refrain from commenting further about this until the issue is resolved. After all, railing against "big brother" and "over regulation," like you have in previous posts to this forum (on this very subject), and comments to the media do little to actually put the GBX on the rails, put the employees back to work, and/or resolve the issues the company faces.



I am delighted that an attempt to move the discussion of why your operation has been shut down from "government bad/evil!" to "What happened and why" is entertaining to you. Also, your decision to resort to name-calling ("toidfest") only further indicates that "Scenario 1" in my original inquisition may be closer to the real truth.

As always, we await your comments, and cannot wait to hear of your experiences in getting the GBX project back on track.

At least we've gotten to see #614 in a variety of interesting paint schemes as a result of Ross' big plans over the years. I'm glad he didn't go with plywood 'streamlining' this time around though...

Since this thread has degenerated into name calling, ridicule and bashing, I feel that is serving no useful purpose and I locking it for the time being.