For your further consideration:

Let's say the hypothetical park train of 24" or 36" gauge track is constructed to applicable standards to operate at, say, 10 mph. Highway grade crossings signaled as appropriate, etc., etc., etc., and the standard gauge railroad even allowed the operation to cross (at grade, under or over).

It is my understanding that most, if not all, steam operations within parks (insular) are regulated, with regard to operation of the boiler, by some department of the state. Following FRA regulatory standards is completely optional.

But now, because of the railroad, highway and waterway crossings, the hypothetical operation falls under FRA regulatory oversight. This really is a matter of equipment availability. Is there a manufacturer of 24" or 36" gauge equipment for parks that can conform to FRA requirements? Could the park standard, the non-steam Chance Rides "C.P. Huntington" or any live steam loco be operated under these conditions? Could such equipment, if newly manufactured to meet amusement park standards, be waivered for operation under the situation described? What difference in boiler construction might there be that would make a difference between FRA compliante vs. amusement park standards/state regulatory standards (non-FRA compliant)? What about operating a restored NG steam locomotive? I realize this is complex, so I'm not asking for all the technical answers, just your thoughts on the matter. More food for thought, as it were. Thanks.

FRA understands, likes and accepts ASME boiler construction codes. I'd venture to suggest that any Crown locomotive was constructed with an ASME code boiler - a retired H K Porter engineer designed them. Harpurs are also well constructed. I don't know beans about Chance, etc.

A new locomotive would be built to all applicable standards and practices by the manufacturer - so make sure they know FRA as well as ASME for running gear, braking and the like. Rebuilding an old one would imply compliance with FRA regulations for Form 4, etc. This isn't anything not done before - but now you are talking about a passenger tourist railroad, not a park train ride. Adjust your POV to reflect this, and envision the SAM shortline diminished and shortened with a more interesting form of motive power.

Operating standards and practices, such as hours of service, inspections, etc will be more structured and intrusive than if an insular park operation once the hardware questions are answered. There's your real expense.

dave

.

Good perspective, Dave, as always. Thanks.

Going the state jurisdiction route also opens the opportunity for other codes of construction, such as the German TRD for the boiler, which may allow a less expensive and more practical boiler construction.

The National Board would have to receive a formal request through the state to consider TRD code, but under a fleet construction circumstance, there may be great savings using a code that addresses advanced locomotive boiler design (full advantage of welding) to reduce construction costs and increase reliability. Such boilers could be constructed abroad very economically and quickly as opposed to in the U.S.

It also may be in your best interest to look at German, Chinese, and Russian locomotive construction design/standards for the rest of the locomotive. They also take great advantage of welded construction, also greatly lowering the cost.

There is a precedent for these codes if you go the FRA route, too.