From the IRM list...

I noted the following wording in the new rail safety bill signed into
> law on the 17th. Is this a plus or a negative for museums, not sure
> from the wording.
>
> 17 SEC. 415. MUSEUM LOCOMOTIVE STUDY.
> 18 (a) STUDY.�The Secretary shall conduct a study of
> 19 the requirements relating to safety inspections of diesel
> 20 electric locomotives and equipment that are operated in
> 21 limited service by railroad-related museums, historical so
> 22 cieties, and tourist or scenic railroads. The study shall in
> 23 clude an analysis of the safety consequences of requiring
> 24 less frequent inspections of such locomotives and equip-
> 1 ment, including periodic inspections or inspections based
> 2 on service days and air brake inspections.
> 3 (b) REPORT.�Not later than 2 years after the date
> 4 of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit a
> 5 report on the results of the study conducted under sub
> 6 section (a) to the Committee on Transportation and Infra
> 7 structure of the House of Representatives and the Com
> 8 mittee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the
> 9 Senate.
>


Does anyone have any information on this, how it came about and any "back story"

At face value it seems to be a good thing for museums like IRM or Portola with large collections of operable locomotives which fall under FRA regulation...

.

I first heard about the FRA committee tasked with museum and tourist railroad regulations last spring and posted about it here:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=25337

I was hoping to hear that representatives from TRAIN and ARM were a part of these discussions, and might be looking to create some reasonable exceptions for the operation of otherwise non-compliant historic equipment.

The Railway Age October 2008 page 09

Show Senate/House www.utu.org/worksite/PDFs/RR_bill_092508.pdf

The new law say a Conductor must be certification.
If you are carrier passenger at Museum like Pacific Southwest Railway Museum
(DBA) San Diego Railroad Museum at Campo,CA to Tecate,Mexico.

Stan

My impression is that many museums try to be as "not under FRA" as they possibly can be. They're not against inspections and paperwork _per se_, just that the frequency and/or detail is overwrought for historic equipment.

The FRA is requested to study the need for inspections, currently required every 92 days unless a locomotive hasn't operated for 30 days for out of service credit, regardless of the days and mileage operated.

So - small operations which operate once or twice a week for maybe 25 miles might accumulate 750 miles every 92 days. When compared to mainline locos, that might be a good 2 -3 days or less.

I think it would be terrific if the rules were to take into account either a lesser requirement for inspections or a lengthening of time given these types of small operations.

The act also includes "and equipment" which would lend itself to also studying the appropriateness of 1 yr, 15 mo, 2 yr COTS cycles on cars.

Hopefully, a comprehensive review will take place and answer those questions of what is truly needed in the way of inspections for equipment which simply doesn't roll very much or very often vs equipment that rolls thousands of miles a month and every day.

The current broad brush approach might not be the best fit in terms of requirements vs needs.

On the face of it, it seems obvious that the same standards that make perfect sense on 844 or 3985 may not make sense for the operator that runs 12 steam days per year at 10 MPH for 20 miles each.

On the other hand, minimal standards ought to be provided for to assure that at least an adequate standard of safety is enforced.

I like the idea of a fairly rigorous and intensive inspection / qualification program to assure that whatever we put into service is in good enough condition to operate for its anticipated purposes for 15 calendar years without compromise - the current regulations seem to do a decent job of that, although there has been some confusion regarding dome lids and braces since their inception.

Once proven for service, however, real-use related inspection criteria rather than calendar based could benefit the industry at large.

I'm more concerned about the qualification of the inspectors than the quality of the hardware.......

dave

It's my understanding that the steam locomotive regulations were overhauled in the past few years and are not a part of this study or under consideration for change.