Railway Preservation News
https://www.rypn.org/forums/

49CFR Part 240 Engineer Qualification
https://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=21569		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  John E. Rimmasch [ Wed Oct 25, 2006 10:43 pm ]
Post subject:  49CFR Part 240 Engineer Qualification
CFR Part 240 Engineer Qualification

For some time now I have been participating as a guest at the meetings of the Engineering Standards Committee. It has long been a concern of mine as to why the committee has not focused more on training. The new steam rules (49 CFR Part 230) have greatly improved the mechanical nature of the machine and have, in my honest opinion made the industry safer. Why then have we (the industry) not placed more attention on training? Good job ESC!

G. Mark Ray, whom I greatly admire, placed a poll on RYPN last week questioning who in our industry has a training program and who does not. I had planned on posting the same question. The response is chilling. So far, 24% of the answering public reported that “No, we do not have a training program: not required by law.”

Hold on just a minute! Not required by law? Who says and where is that clearly spelled out in the Code of Federal Regulations?

May I read the words and music (DG): Please open to 49 CFR part 240, Qualification and Certification of Locomotive Engineer. Page 660.

First off, in the section titled Applicability (49CFR part 240.3). Typically, we find that if our industry (Historical) is EXEMPT from a rule, it is clearly stated in this section. The rule as written, DOES NOT EXEMPT ANY OF US IN THE TOURIST INDUSTRY from having a training program. PERIOD! If there is any exemption, it is for amusement parks only as they can be considered operations with-in an “installation”.

Second, by reading further in the code we find that it is the duty of the OWNER to provide the operators (engineer or anybody assigned duties related to the operation of locomotive i.e. FIREMAN) the safety information needed to perform their job safely. And I quote (49CFR Part 240.123 Criteria for initial and continuing education. (subpart b)). The railroad shall provide for continuing education of certified locomotive engineers to ensure that each engineer maintains the necessary KNOWLEDGE, SKILL AND ABILITY CONCERNING PERSONAL SAFETY, OPERATING RULES AND PRACTICES, MECHANICAL CONDITION OF EQUIPMENT, METHODS OF SAFE TRAIN HANDLING……..AND RELEVANT FEDERAL SAFETY RULES.

Further we read, section 240.125 Criteria for testing knowledge (subpart b). A Railroad shall have procedures for testing a person being evaluated for qualification as a locomotive engineer in either train or locomotive service to DETERMINE THAT THE PERSON HAS SUFFICIENT KNOWLEDGE OF THE RAILROADS RULES AND PRACTICES FOR THE SAFE OPERATION OF TRAINS.

My good friends, how much more clear a mandate do we need? This is a rule that applies to all of us. This is a rule that makes very clear our responsibility as owners (and operators) to have the skill and knowledge needed to perform our job in a safe manner. This is NOT a suggestion, it is not “a good idea”, it is a REQUIRMENT!

Now, arguing this case in fair manner. Who is at fault? I have two entities that I fault and I assure you, I will be asking this question at TRAIN and at ESC as a public participant. Why have the Feds not enforced this issue? It appears to me that there is little, if any pressure placed on the industry to ensure that we have “complied” with part 240. Second, was the training on the part of the owner in question adequate enough to ensure against the accident of two weeks ago?

Either way, two questions remain. Are the FEDS enforcing the rule as they should and second, are we, the industry members complying with the rule? 24% of us believe that we need not comply. (General impression…..if the feds don’t check on us, why comply) This is a poor message that is being sent and clearly one that needs immediate attention.

In conclusion I ask that the industry leaders and those who participate with TRAIN and ESC enter this discussion, if possible and share feelings and views. I hold this issue close to my heart as I hate seeing people injured and further hate the idea of having our industry damaged by accidents that….for no real reason, should not have happened. This is yet another wake-up call and one that we should all take very seriously. Please, may we enter into a true debate on this issue?

I will be watching this thread and I will take (if you want me to) your comments with me to TRAIN and ESC for review by both entities. Our leaders need to know how we feel. It is part of the American process in-which I believe in.

Respectfully,

John E. Rimmasch
Wasatch Railroad Contractors

www.wasatch-rr-contractors.com
Author:  softwerkslex [ Wed Oct 25, 2006 11:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 49CFR Part 240 Engineer Qualification
Where is the poll?

Our little local Bluegrass Railroad Museum has a bare minimum training, testing, and certification program. I went through it last year (but not for engineer).
Author:  M Austin [ Wed Oct 25, 2006 11:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 49CFR Part 240 Engineer Qualification
Quote:
Who says and where is that clearly spelled out in the Code of Federal Regulations?


The FRA in the regulations defining "jurisdiction" and "insular".
Author:  Howard P. [ Wed Oct 25, 2006 11:47 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 49CFR Part 240 Engineer Qualification
It has been my understanding that FRA requires Part 240 for "General System" railroads-- that is, a railroad they deem to be common-carrier, rather than strictly historical, excursion or museum operations. In our region (New England), that is the case.

Now, there are some operations in our region (not common-carrier) that are not subject to Part 240, but are covered by Part 230, by the hours of service rules, by the signal rules, by the track safety standards, etc. One in particular has some of the best steam locomotive firing and running training program in the business, but it's not a 240 program.

Let's now recall that all the FRA Parts set forth MINIMUM standards for safety, and that any given railroad can choose to have more stringent standards. It would behoove ANY operation to use the Part 240 standards as a basis for engineer training and certification, as it provides a recognized set procedure for such training, and give a railroad a documented procedure and record for each engineer.

Think about how you will answer the opposing lawyer when you're on the witness stand after an "incident" and he asks, "How are your engineers trained and qualifed, by whom, and to what standards and procedures?" Can you produce the "paper trail" that documents that?

The American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association has a good template for the Part 240 as it applies to most short lines, which is the best fit for 99% of us.

Another point addressed by using a known program format was mentioned by someone on the 745 thread--- not everyone is cut out to be an engineer. A good program, properly and fairly administered, will go a long way to doing this without too many hurt feelings. There are always opportunities for people to have a cab ride, to participate in a group's "U-run-it" operation (not as a paid session, but as a perk), and to contribute in many other ways.

Howard P.
NAUG
NORAC and Part 240 and all the rest, too.
Author:  giterdun [ Thu Oct 26, 2006 12:49 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 49CFR Part 240 Engineer Qualification
John,
I hope you broach the subject of standards of crew qualification at TRAIN, and don't limit it to just engineers. At the risk of beating a dead horse, I think its high time we had national standard for training firemen. I think that training regimen should have both written and hands-on components. Speaking from personal experience, you can't learn firing out of a book. I read some books, fired some live steam, and thought I was a pretty competent fireman. Then, I student fired on several different locomotives and found I've still got a LOT to learn. Numerous people have objected to national standards in the 745 thread, and their concerns are legitimate. The number one objection is the difficulty of getting hands on experience. Several people feel the time and expense involved will make it impossible for the average volunteer to have a shot at cab time. I think this can be addressed by holding regional "steam schools" at different railroads around the country, such as Nevada Northern, the Huckleberry (figured I'd go ahead and volunteer you Marty. You're welcome.), Steamtown, etc. That way, several organizations can cooperate to defray the cost of steaming up the engine. Only one member from each organization need attend, and that member could then be qualified to become an instructor for their organization. That instructor could then train the rest of the organization during the operation of their engine. Yes, it will cost more, and yes, it will take a little time. However, if you're willing to spend years restoring an engine, why wouldn't you want to insure that engine was operated properly? The amount of time necessary to train a fireman is miniscule when compared to the amount of time necessary to restore an engine. Think of it as insurance. Cheap insurance. I see three main benefits from having and enforcing national training standards. The first is that proper operation prevents irreversible damage to the locomotive. Isn't this what railroad preservation is all about?! Secondly, it will create an objective, documentable method of judging proficiency. It will take the politics out of crew decisions and avoid bruising egos. Instead of telling someone "I don't think you know what you're doing," you can say "According to your training schedule you're not yet ready for this responsibility." Lastly, it will help give the industry credibility. People get up in arms every time there's a quote in the press about railroad preservationists "playing with a big train set." However, if we don't have a way of certifying that our crewmen are competent, how can prove we're NOT just playing trains? We need to stop looking for ways it can't work, and start looking for ways it can.
Keep it in the glass,
Chris
Author:  Bobk [ Thu Oct 26, 2006 1:39 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 49CFR Part 240 Engineer Qualification
And where are we going with this?

I hope this thread isn't planned to make a case to give someone a job overseeing the industries training programs.
Author:  Robby Peartree [ Thu Oct 26, 2006 3:03 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 49CFR Part 240 Engineer Qualification
Dear Mr. Rimmasch,

In front of me I have a document dated February, 2002, from the FRA titled FRA’s Jurisdiction over Tourist Railroads carriers. A couple of out takes:

“An operation will not be considered insular if one or more of the following exists on its line:
• A public highway-rail crossing that is in use;
• an at grade rail crossing that is in use;
• a bridge over a public road or waters used for commercial navigation; or
• a common corridor with a railroad, i.e., its operations are within 30 feet of those of any railroad”
It latter states:
“Some tourist railroads are neither insular nor part of the general system (i.e., stand-alone lines with no freight traffic). For these railroads, only the following regulations and statutory provisions apply:
• 49 U.S.C. SS 20102, 20301-20303,20502-2505, 20701, 20902, 21302, 31304 (formerly 45 U.S.C. SS 1, 2, 4, 9, 11 of the Safety Appliance act and 45 U. S. C. 22 et seq of the Locomotive Inspection Act);
• Federal signal inspection laws 49 U.S.C. SS 20102, 20502-20505, 20902, 21302, 21304
• Hazardous materials regulations (49 C.F.R. Parts 171-179);
• FRA’s procedural regulations at 49 CFR Parts 209, 211, and 216;
• Noise emission regulations (49 C.F.R. Part 210): but note that the regulations do not apply to steam locomotives;
• Freight car safety standards (49 C.F.R. Part 215) applicable only to standard gage lines
• Accident/incident reporting regulations (49 C.F.R. Part 225);
• Hours of Service restrictions on duty hours;
• Steam locomotive inspection regulations (49 C.F.R. Part 234);
• User fee requirements (49 C.F.R. Part 245);
• All general power and enforcement provisions of the rail safety statues (e.g., subpoena authority, civil penalty authority, disqualification authority, and emergency order authority).

Thus there are many FRA regulations that do not presently apply to tourist railroads that are not operated over the general system . However, FRA’s emergency order authority permits it to address a true safety emergency arising from conditions (e.g., the proper functioning of air brakes) covered by those regulations or any other regulations (e.g., the track safety standards) that do not apply outside of the general system. Thus, even off-the-system tourist railroads should understand that FRA has jurisdiction to inspect their operations and to take emergency action if those operations pose an imminent hazard of death or injury.”

Many tourist railroads may not be currently under 49 C.F.R. Part 240 as the poll results show.

Respectfully,
Robby Peartree
Author:  co614 [ Thu Oct 26, 2006 1:21 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 49CFR Part 240 Engineer Qualification
Some thoughts;
1. I believe it would be wise to wait until we have an accurate factual report of what occurred on the 745 before we make any judgements. I've learned over the years that more often than not the rumors/innuendoes are far removed from the real facts.
2. Both Mr.Rimmasch and Mr.Pincus make good points above and it certainly is a subject well worthy of recieving serious time&attention at the upcoming ARM/TRAIN gathering.
3. It is incumbant upon our industry to address this issue and come up with an effective solution. To at all depend on the FRA to be the solution is unrealistic fantasy. If the FRA was at all effective how could the Gettysburg have been allowed to continually operate their engine without even a modicum of proper boiler maintenance for a long,long time. Yes, false paper work was a contributor, but where was the "eyes on" component of the inspection program??? I looked at that engine not long after the incident and please believe me when I tell you it was graphically evident that she had been abused for a VERY long time!
4. There are certainly sufficient talented,accomplished professionals in the industry to effect a solution that will work. Perhaps the upcoming TRAIN meeting is the place to begin that process??
Ross Rowland
Author:  Martyhuck [ Thu Oct 26, 2006 8:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 49CFR Part 240 Engineer Qualification
One of the first things I did when I took over at the Huckleberry was put in place training requirements for ALL our operating positions. We are fortunate in having a steam powered saw mill and cider mill to act as a training ground. Experience required is based not on time, but number of trips for the locomotive fireman and engineer. My program was published in LIVE Steam magazine, and I have provided copies to a fair number of people.
At one of the training sessions run by the FRA in conjunction with TRAIN and ASLRRA I discussed it at length with the senior Operating Practices Inspector present. The HRR is considered non-system, non-insular, what I have called 'FRA Light'. Because of this we do not need an engineer certification program. He thought our program was good, but told me that we could issue certificates to our engineers and firemen; BUT, we could not put anything on them that referred to the FRA or part 240. In fact, he strongly suggested that we should not use the term "license". I asked if we could have our program reviewed so that we could issue licenses; his response was that since we are not required to have a program they would not review ours.
Author:  Jack A. Siffert [ Thu Oct 26, 2006 10:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 49CFR Part 240 Engineer Qualification
O.P.I.'s change and so does what they feel is enforcable or not. We had one 10 years ago or so that thought we needed the same level of training as a CSX engineer. HAzmat and everything. (we have no frieght traffic).
We went over his head to Washington and eneded up using the shortline's guide to make ours. The next O.P.I. thought we doing just great and has been really good to deal with.
Marty's lucky in that he's narrow gauge. Even the most hard nosed O.P.I. would probally not want to do much especailly since they run a good safe operation. The F.R.A. is short handed so if you don't show up on the radar due to a problem your probally not going to get alot of hassle from them. when some thing goes wrong though......
As far as why have a program? (besides safety)
I work with a guy that has owned a few shortlines, who was the highest paid employee? His Lawyer.
How much does it cost to put a program into place? maybe 500.00 dollars and some time. That only pays fo 2 hours of our lawyer's time.
Is it really that painful and god awful nasty to put such a program in place? Why would you not want to make sure your operation is safe? NO the "we've never had a problem before" argument doesn't work here. These are not toys we work with here, they are very unforgiving pieces of machinery that will do damage.
We have even been sued by one of our memebers for an accident that was his fault.
If something does happen and your on the stand in court and the questions are asked" how, by who are your operators trained, and you answer the F.R.A. says we don't have to be, Well you probally won't have to worry about training anymore because your operation will no longer be around. It will be sold off to pay the winnner of the lawsuit.(hint, not you)
Think about it another way what would piss you off more. going through all the boring paperwork, training classes, rules tests and hurt feelings when someone fails etc,etc, Or losing 10, 20 or even more years of hard work to settle a lawsuit for something that might not have even been your fault but a lawyer got hold of it and made you pay?
Stop looking for reasons not to and work on finding a way to do it , is what I'm saying.
Sad but True!
Author:  Bobk [ Mon Nov 06, 2006 7:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 49CFR Part 240 Engineer Qualification
Where is the poll you ask? I think that the 24% is 24% of those who responded to this post. That'd be 24% of 7 posts, ummmmm my math fails me but it isn't very many.
Author:  RR_GraphixGuy [ Mon Nov 06, 2006 8:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 49CFR Part 240 Engineer Qualification
I just checked the poll (it's 3 or 4 pages back...) and it now reports that out of 23 individuals voting in the poll, 30% (7 people) answered "Not required" while the remaining 70% (16 people) answered "Yes."

Even still, knowing how many tourist/excursion operations are out there, 23 people responding (and how many of those that answered work for the same railroad?) is not very many.

I don't know that anyone has the desire to openly admit they are not in compliance with the rules.

Speaking of voting, remember to get out there and make your voice heard tomorrow!
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/