| Railway Preservation News https://www.rypn.org/forums/ |
|
| NNRy Article https://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=27393 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Chris Brophy [ Sun Apr 26, 2009 1:36 am ] |
| Post subject: | NNRy Article |
There is a very well written article written by two former volunteers of the Nevada Northern Railway on the Ely Times website. Well wort checking out. http://www.elynews.com/articles/2009/04 ... news01.txt |
|
| Author: | Trolleyguy [ Sun Apr 26, 2009 10:58 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: NNRy Article |
This appears to be a back door approach to flaming someone who frequently participates in this forum. I believe that the moderators should look at this "article" very closely. |
|
| Author: | Chris Brophy [ Sun Apr 26, 2009 11:59 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: NNRy Article |
Not the case at all. It is simply an article published in the Ely Times Newspaper, a reputable news source in Ely, Nevada, about the situation at the Nevada Northern Railway Museum. |
|
| Author: | Randy Hees [ Sun Apr 26, 2009 2:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: NNRy Article - Moderator's thoughts. |
Your moderator’s thoughts on this (as bullet points) The NNRy unrest has appeared on the forum before, and members have been moderated for inappropriate postings. I don’t believe a link to a legitimate newspaper article should be subject to moderation. Having said that the article link is acceptable, does not make additional allegations, or rants acceptable. I and my fellow moderators will be watching closely. Our regular rules apply. I have talked to people on both sides of this disagreement. Anyone who has been in railroad preservation for any length of time has seen similar internal disagreements multiple times. Those agreements frequently are between management (paid and unpaid) and enthusiastic volunteers. Thanks, Randy |
|
| Author: | ebtrr [ Mon Apr 27, 2009 4:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: NNRy Article |
At the risk of getting sucked into this debate, I was curious about the drug testing and its applicability to tourist railroads. Clearly is is a good thing to have fore safety reasons, but is it required? From Title 49 part 219.3 "Application" which deals with drug and alcohol testing: Quote: (a) General. Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, this part applies to— (1) Railroads that operate rolling equipment on standard gage track which is part of the general railroad system of transportation; and (2) Railroads that provide commuter or other short-haul rail passenger service in a metropolitan or suburban area (as described by 49 U.S.C. 20102) in the United States. ... I do not think most tourist railroads would meet part (2), but that is not too clear. Is a round-trip "short haul passenger service"? Is is part (1) that got my attention, specifically "part of the general railroad system of transportation". A little more looking led to the definition of this statement in 49 CFR part 209, Appendix A (dealing with enforcement) which defines the general railroad system: Quote: For example, all of FRA's regulations exclude from their reach railroads whose entire operations are confined to an industrial installation (i.e., “plant railroads”), such as those in steel mills that do not go beyond the plant's boundaries. E.g., 49 CFR 225.3(a)(1) (accident reporting regulations). Some rules exclude passenger operations that are not part of the general railroad system (such as some tourist railroads) only if they meet the definition of “insular.” E.g., 49 CFR 225.3(a)(3) (accident reporting) and 234.3(c) (grade crossing signal safety). Other regulations exclude not only plant railroads but all other railroads that are not operated as a part of, or over the lines of, the general railroad system of transportation. E.g., 49 CFR 214.3 (railroad workplace safety). By “general railroad system of transportation,” FRA refers to the network of standard gage track over which goods may be transported throughout the nation and passengers may travel between cities and within metropolitan and suburban areas. Much of this network is interconnected, so that a rail vehicle can travel across the nation without leaving the system. However, mere physical connection to the system does not bring trackage within it. For example, trackage within an industrial installation that is connected to the network only by a switch for the receipt of shipments over the system is not a part of the system. Moreover, portions of the network may lack a physical connection but still be part of the system by virtue of the nature of operations that take place there. For example, the Alaska Railroad is not physically connected to the rest of the general system but is part of it. The Alaska Railroad exchanges freight cars with other railroads by car float and exchanges passengers with interstate carriers as part of the general flow of interstate commerce. Similarly, an intercity high speed rail system with its own right of way would be part of the general system although not physically connected to it. The presence on a rail line of any of these types of railroad operations is a sure indication that such trackage is part of the general system: the movement of freight cars in trains outside the confines of an industrial installation, the movement of intercity passenger trains, or the movement of commuter trains within a metropolitan or suburban area. Urban rapid transit operations are ordinarily not part of the general system, but may have sufficient connections to that system to warrant exercise of FRA's jurisdiction ( see discussion of passenger operations, below). Tourist railroad operations are not inherently part of the general system and, unless operated over the lines of that system, are subject to few of FRA's regulations .... Of particular note is the last sentence: "Tourist railroad operations are not inherently part of the general system and, unless operated over the lines of that system, are subject to few of FRA's regulations" The way I read the regs is that unless a tourist railroad does "provide commuter or other short-haul rail passenger service in a metropolitan or suburban area" then it is not obliged by part 219. I am curious how others would interpret this reg. |
|
| Author: | ebtrr [ Mon Apr 27, 2009 4:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: NNRy Article |
An interesting reply on the Ely Times site: Quote: " The NNRy seems to be in better shape now than it has been in years. Any local can tell you that. I say that with exception. It has brought more out-of-state train weirdos than I care to see in Ely. Every time I go down there some yuppie from out of state takes it upon himself to explain to me about where I live. They don't even get it right half of the time. ..." I don't believe I have heard the term "train weirdos" before. A fine reflection on the local tourist infrastructure. |
|
| Author: | Mark Jordan [ Mon Apr 27, 2009 5:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: NNRy Article |
I know some of what is happening in Ely, and I have been involved in similar disputes, so I won't comment on the fracas....one side or another. Regarding the FRA.....usually, USUALLY, if an operation has 15 or fewer employees it can be exempt from FRA mandated drug testing. The operation cannot enforce FRA mandated drug testing if it has fewer than 15 (train/rail service) employees, but may have a testing regimen voluntarily. |
|
| Author: | KevinO [ Mon Apr 27, 2009 6:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: NNRy Article |
Mark Jordan wrote: I know some of what is happening in Ely, and I have been involved in similar disputes, so I won't comment on the fracas....one side or another. Regarding the FRA.....usually, USUALLY, if an operation has 15 or fewer employees it can be exempt from FRA mandated drug testing. The operation cannot enforce FRA mandated drug testing if it has fewer than 15 (train/rail service) employees, but may have a testing regimen voluntarily. Here is a question about this under 15 employee exemption. Are volunteer operating personnel considered an employee by definition as far as FRA drug testing is concerned? If they are then there would be very few tourist/museum operations that would fall into the exemption status for "employee" drug testing due to lack of sufficient numbers. Just something to ponder when planning your operations rules. While testing may "offend" some volunteers they should be able to understand the need to follow all possible safety precautions when operating something that can kill people. Kevin O |
|
| Author: | Mark Jordan [ Mon Apr 27, 2009 8:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: NNRy Article |
It is my understanding that the FRA does not differentiate between paid and unpaid (volunteer) employees. Any person who is qualified on the rulebook and is performing as train (engineer, conductor, etc.) operating personnel or track inspection or maintenance duties is seen as an "employee". I would ASSUME that the total number of qualified "employees" as shown on the register consitutes the total. |
|
| Author: | Deepest_Valley [ Tue Apr 28, 2009 9:35 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: NNRy Article |
We just went through this issue regarding whether volunteers are employees or not. We found that the Federal and state agencies and the insurance companies take the position that if you work there you are an employee. The rate of pay isn't considered. You can challenge their positions, but all that does is cause you more grief as they will nit pick you to death. |
|
| Author: | HOD Bill [ Tue Apr 28, 2009 3:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: NNRy Article |
I have also found that true. A volunteer is the same as an employee as far as FRA is concerned. However, according to our regional FRA inspector, a tourist RR operating only as a tourist RR, Not hauling frieght or commuters, and not operating over the genreal system track, is not subject to Part 219. This includes tourist RR that are non-insular. |
|
| Author: | Chris Brophy [ Tue Apr 28, 2009 4:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: NNRy Article |
As a former employee of the Nevada Northern Railway, I can tell you first hand that the FRA does consider the NNRy to be part of the general system and therefore must comply with drug testing part 219 and part 240 engineer qualifications. Neither of these two are being met by the railroad. |
|
| Author: | thirdrail [ Tue Apr 28, 2009 5:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: NNRy Article |
Chris Brophy wrote: As a former employee of the Nevada Northern Railway, I can tell you first hand that the FRA does consider the NNRy to be part of the general system and therefore must comply with drug testing part 219 and part 240 engineer qualifications. Neither of these two are being met by the railroad. Well, then the FRA needs to update its files. As far as the North American rail system, and specifically trackage subject to DOT jursidiction, the line was formally abandoned by BHP Nevada, the last common carrier. The line no longer even has an operable connection with UP, AFAIK. I'm at the other end of the country, but how long has it been since a train ran the length of the line, 15 years? That's why it's always a good idea to be on first name terms with your Regional Director of the FRA, the local inspectors don't always keep up with changes. |
|
| Author: | Jim Lundquist [ Wed Apr 29, 2009 1:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: NNRy Article |
As best as I can recall, if a line has a public street or highway crossing, it's subject to FRA regulations. The NNRR would qualify under those rules. |
|
| Author: | Chris Brophy [ Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:23 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: NNRy Article |
To the best of my knowledge, the last train that operated over the entire section was sometime in the late 90s or even 2000. At any rate, it has been out of service, not abandoned, for about ten years now. Also, the inspector I spoke with was the chief inspector for region seven. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|