[redacted]

Christian,For those of us not familiar with the specific engines, would it be possible to list the engine specs, Arraingement, gauge, builder, last used, built, known problems, etc...?Thanks,Rich C.

[redacted]

I think it's universal - people would like to see #16 or #18 returned to service. 18 was always my favorite and I voted for it.One has to wonder if after the years of service the other 4 racked up if 16 and 18 are in better shape now. I seem to remember 16 was in need of major work when retired.

[redacted]

Considering the fact that the railroad appears to be deteriorating faster than the combined efforts of the EBT and the FEBT together can rectify the situation absent a Powerball lottery win or a major foundation grant, if any decision-maker on the railroad considers any factor other than the pure economic data of cost-effectiveness of restoration and return on investment, they should be ashamed.I find it highly improbable, albeit admittedly not impossible, that such an analysis would come out rating all locomotives equally.Strictly personally, I would love to have them investigate the building of a replica of a lighter EBT loco still--such as one of the earlier 2-6-0 designs, which could still easily handle any passenger train the EBT could put together, and be far easier on the track and bridges until such time as major restoration of the track and engineering may occur. The use of an "expendable" locomotive would help preserve the authentic EBT relics, which, sad to say, are being "consumed", ownership by the original owners notwithstanding. (There are/were nearly-identical hulks in Cuba, but they 're still beyond our consideration.)

I do not know when the 16 was last overhauled but it was definately well used in the last years of the railroad. At least during the last two years, if not longer than that, 16, 17, and 18 ran nearly all of the trains if not all of them. I believe the 16 ran last on the last day two trains operated on the railroad. Upon returning to Orbosonia the 16 had developed a hot box on the trailing truck that had to be dealt with before it continued to Mount Union. The two trains passed that day at the siding at Kimmel with 17 handling the other train. John Krause took some very famous photos of this last meet of narrow gage trains on the EBT. If I remember correctly the date was March 26, 1956. The 18 had broken down in February prompting the railroad to put 17 back into service. Until then 18 had been handling most of the trains and 16 the rest. I am not sure how long that had been the norm.John Bohon

[redacted]

Without casting accusations about whether or not this is actually true, can anyone tell me if there are different FRA standards for narrow-gauge track versus standard-gauge, and/or whether the weight of the equipment is factored into the equation?I've had some personal experiences along these lines, having watched my own hometown railroad deteriorate through the bad ol' days of the Penn Central era to near-weekly derailments at 10 mph (on a seven-mile branch) to complete shutdown by the FRA, temporary repairs, heavy rebuild, laying of welded rail, and finally 30-mph speed limits. I've also ridden an RDC at 79 mph on a rail line that was slapped with a 15-mph speed limit upon subsequent FRA inspection weeks later (now part of the Cape May Seashore Lines decades later). I've also had portions of rare-mileage trips scrubbed because either the FRA or the host railroad refused to raise segments of track above "excepted"--never mind that heavy coal or grain trains were still traversing the segments.I had some readers on this forum remark to me after the ARM trip on the EBT about the track condition, some saying "Holy %*#@!" and others saying "well, if you factor in the weight involved it's not that bad".

FRA can excercise jurisdiction over 36" gauge track. But there are no Federal standards for 36" track, and the existing standards (Class I, 10mph; Class II, 25mph; etc.) do NOT apply to track other than standard gauge.So, as a practical matter, FRA's options are limited to either (a) allowing operation on narrow gauge track, or (b) using its emergeny powers to close a section of narrow gauge track. In-between remedies such as slow orders, etc., are not available to FRA for 36" gauge track.JAC

Seems there should be standards!

[redacted]

Perhaps trainlawyer can interpret otherwise, but by definition the scope of CFR Title 49 part 213 shows that Part 213 does not govern narrow gauge operation.If the FRA is given the authority to regulate through the rule of law (as published in the CFR), the fact that EBT is NOT "part of the general railroad system of transportation" should make it fairly clear that EBT is exempted from part 213 (track safety standards). Otherwise, they better start regaging to federal standards in the neighborhood of 4' 8-1/2". ;)similarly, i know for a fact that locomotives my former employer leased to an industrial operation were not required to be part 229 compliant because they were in plant operation.I am most certain there has been case law regarding stuff like this... heavy-handed Federal regulation makes the shortline railroading business quite difficult, dare i say prohibitive, in some cases. I've had to spend HOURS upon HOURS pouring over Title 49 to assure complete compliance for every aspect of the business.r. c. whitehead

I agree that the EBT is exempt from 213, but I would not want to argue that the exemption in 213.1: Scope is the reason. Instead, I would look to the explicit text of 213.3: Application.TITLE 49--TRANSPORTATION CHAPTER II--FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PART 213--TRACK SAFETY STANDARDS--Table of Contents Subpart A--General Sec. 213.3 Application. (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, this part applies to all standard gage track in the general railroad system of transportation.

So why is it that the Cubres and Toltec recieves annual visits from the FRA for the purpose of inspecting track and tunnels? Is that a request from the railroad or is that the FRA flexing their muscles outside of written regulation?Kevin O