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

Turntable pits and controlling liability
https://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=25130		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  sbhunterca [ Wed Apr 09, 2008 11:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Turntable pits and controlling liability
I am interested in learning how other museums control the liability risks associated with turntable pits. Our museum is currently grappling with this issue. While the turntable would be an integral feature of a proposed small roundhouse, several members are spooked by the possible liability.

The first instinct is to exercise due diligence by surrounding the pit with a black steel pipe fence (probably 3 rails, about 3' tall) that will block access while being spindly enough to "disappear" from a distance. Each track would have access through a gate or removable fence rails.

Comments or suggestions, anyone?

Thanks,

Steve Hunter
Cardinal, Ontario
Author:  Brian Norden [ Thu Apr 10, 2008 1:41 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Turntable pits and controlling liability
California State RR Museum has a sectional fence around its turntable pit. It has been a while since I have taken a detail look at it. As I recall the frequently used tracks have swing gates and for others sections can be removed.

An inquiry to the Museum should bring information.
Author:  Randolph R. Ruiz [ Thu Apr 10, 2008 1:50 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Turntable pits and controlling liability
Codes and their interpretation may vary, but here are my thoughts for what they're worth. I would expect that the code would allow you to not have a guardrail around the turntable pit. Certain things such as loading docks and stage edges are not required to have them.

For safety and liability reasons, you may want to have one anyway. If the proposed rail is at the edge of the pit, I would think that you would have to meet all of the requirements of a conventional guardrail. Here in California, that means 42" high and no openings that would allow a 4" diameter sphere to pass through it. Additionally, the top rail must be able to resist a horizontal point load of 150? (drat, forgot) pounds.

Alternately, I believe that if you were to have the barrier set back a reasonable amount from the pit, you may not have to meet the guardrail requirements. I think that you could perhaps just have a simple chain rail if it was set back from the pit by 6' or so.

I would recommend that you consult with a local building official before settling on an approach
Author:  Randolph R. Ruiz [ Thu Apr 10, 2008 1:52 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Turntable pits and controlling liability
The CSRM fence is made of galvanized chain link, and although it meets the 4" sphere rule, it is not very attractive, or "railroad" in its appearance.
Author:  Al Stangenberger [ Thu Apr 10, 2008 4:08 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Turntable pits and controlling liability
Randolph R. Ruiz wrote:
I would recommend that you consult with a local building official before settling on an approach

Absolutely right, and since it will probably be the only turntable pit (or railroad museum) in the inspector's entire career, plenty of photos of how other museums successfully address the problems will be helpful.
Author:  Dave [ Thu Apr 10, 2008 6:27 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Turntable pits and controlling liability
I'd recommend talking with your insurer as well.

dave
Author:  Randy Hees [ Thu Apr 10, 2008 10:24 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Turntable pits and controlling liability
Is it appropriate to call in your insurance company for every potential risk? In this case I assume the fence or barrier would be vetted by the buildings and permits system of the local city and therefore be “legal” and therefore covered.

I see a problem when insurance companies get to micro-manage and or veto projects which are otherwise legal. This is not to say I haven’t hosted (in fact invited) our insurance agent on a facility tour.
Author:  JimBoylan [ Thu Apr 10, 2008 11:12 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Turntable pits and controlling liability
If it doesn't have to be locally historic, do like the B&O in their Mt. Claire, Md. Museum and cover the pit.
Author:  Dennis Storzek [ Thu Apr 10, 2008 12:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Turntable pits and controlling liability
I thought we were in the business of preserving the look, feel, texture of the past?

Perhaps to best way to handle this is to fence the whole area off. A perimeter fence that starts even with the front engine house wall and encircles the entire turntable and servicing facilities would have several benefits:

It would keep visitors from falling in the pit.
It would keep visitors from getting dirty.
It would keep visitors from getting hit in the head with random lumps of coal that will occasionally fall from that 150 ton coaling tower envisioned for the site someday, or trying to climb the coal, sand , and water towers.

It will also allow the visitors to see and photograph a locomotive being serviced in its native environment, without tons of people milling about and getting in the way.

Engines could be pulled out and displayed on the lead tracks, or on the turntable itself, and be clear for photography.

Shop tours could be protected by gates across open doorways; these would be much less obtrusive than a railing around the pit.

Workers, be they paid employees or volunteers, would be trained not to fall in the pit, just as warehouse workers are trained not to fall off the loading dock.

The perimeter could be closed by an unobtrusive gate across the lead somewhere where it won't get in photos. Such a perimeter fence strategy would allow the entire engine servicing facility to be free of out-of-period public accommodations, and still allow visitors to see what goes on, while protecting them from themselves.
Author:  Dave [ Thu Apr 10, 2008 12:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Turntable pits and controlling liability
Well Randy, i was saved from a problem or two by an insurer once. The city code guy had no reference for a turntable pit enclosure in his book and was leaning towards a large ugly and obtrusive inconvenient permanent chain link fence that needed to be partially removed then reconstructed at every equipment move - probably looking at a construction pit ordinance. My insurer OK'ed a series of removable chain sections between removable pipe poles set in pockets, which take very little time to remove and reinstall when necessary. His OK convinced the city guy not to require anything nastier.

Take your choice of evils.........and hope for the lesser.

dave
Author:  Ted Miles [ Thu Apr 10, 2008 1:46 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Turntable pits and controlling liability
Guys,

I have to come out on the side of the historic look and feel of a rail yard which did not have fences.

Jamestown 1897 and the Danbury (CT) Railroad Museum do not have fences around their turntables.

Give people a chance to use their heads for a change, not every visitor is as clumsey as we think.

The Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania even gives rides to the visitors even school groups on their former Reading turntable.

I am glad to hear that another turntable is being restored they were such an icon of the steam age in American railroading.

Ted Miles
Author:  Les Beckman [ Thu Apr 10, 2008 2:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Turntable pits and controlling liability
Ted Miles wrote:
Guys,

I have to come out on the side of the historic look and feel of a rail yard which did not have fences.

Jamestown 1897 and the Danbury (CT) Railroad Museum do not have fences around their turntables.

Give people a chance to use their heads for a change, not every visitor is as clumsey as we think.

The Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania even gives rides to the visitors even school groups on their former Reading turntable.

I am glad to hear that another turntable is being restored they were such an icon of the steam age in American railroading.

Ted Miles


Ted -

When I was at the Eureka Springs & North Arkansas Railway a number of years ago, they also had no fence around their turntable and they also allowed visitors to ride on it while it was being turned around.

BTW, is the ES&NA still running these days? I know it was for sale at one time.

Les
Author:  Randolph R. Ruiz [ Thu Apr 10, 2008 2:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Turntable pits and controlling liability
I have to agree that people are generally adept at not falling into holes. Even children seem to have an active sense of self preservation. It frustrates me to no end how our built environment is expected to constantly coddle and insulate us from all of the dangers that are just a part of living. That said, I am not sure how much any of our non-profits can afford to be out of step with that standards of safety that are established elsewhere.

Okay, here are some more thoughts. I think the nature of the setting has an effect on whether you could reasonable get away without a barrier. At Steamtown (ducks) and CSRM, the turntables are in settings that are akin to an urban public plaza. Both are in paved areas with benches and landscaping. In such a setting, people are less on the lookout for hazards. At Jamestown, the turntable is more clearly in a raw, industrial setting. I think that people are already more alert to their surroundings in such a setting, and less likely to let their children play unaccompanied.

The total number of visitors that either may host at a given moment may also be a factor. Crowds are collectively more stupid in their behavior than a handful of people wandering around.

At the Umekoji Steam Locomotive Museum in Kyoto, a simple chain rail gets close to the pit on one side, but holds people further back around most of it: http://flickr.com/photos/rrr/57380861/
Image

At Steamtown, a similar approach is used with a welded pipe rail: http://flickr.com/photos/rrr/1491634446/
Image

I obviously preferred to take the pictures where the rail was not in the way.
Author:  Brian Norden [ Thu Apr 10, 2008 6:33 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Turntable pits and controlling liability
Quote:
The CSRM fence is made of galvanized chain link, and although it meets the 4" sphere rule, it is not very attractive, or "railroad" in its appearance.


I do not recall a chain link fence. What I recall seeing is a black frame with either round or square sections. The sections standing about waist high.

How maybe things have been changed over the years.
Author:  Randolph R. Ruiz [ Thu Apr 10, 2008 6:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Turntable pits and controlling liability
My apologies Brian. You are correct. There is a black "iron" fence around the pit. It is the turntable bridge that has the strange chain link guardrail.

I think that fences or guardrails at the pit's edge are overly obtrusive, but CSRM was not trying to create an authentic reconstruction of a historic railroad building. This is actually something I admire about CSRM. The building is an unmistakably "new" building constructed of railroad-inspired materials. It is not a poorly conceived railroad-themed monstrosity that belittles its prototypes or serves to confuse visitors as to its provenance.

That said, the chamfered corners on the doors are typical of TIMBER construction, as the chamfers concealed the diagonal braces in the timber framing. Brick construction should have arches or some manner of stone, concrete, or metal lintels.

http://flickr.com/photos/12594916@N07/1955654884/
Image

By the way, I mean to make these photos link to the appropriate flickr page, but I am not smart enough to make it work. Any tips?
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/