Railway Preservation News :: View topic

If a regulation were put into effect requiring all "historic operating equipment" to be painted safety yellow, orange or whatever then i would be the first out with a paint brush.

"Any locomotive subject to [FRA] Part 229 [229.125, Headlights and Auxiliary Lights], that was built before December 31, 1948 and that is not used regularly in commuter or intercity passenger service, shall be considered historic equipment and excepted from the requirements...."

I almost fell out of my chair when I originally read that it would be required for "X" percent of a given railroads or car owners fleet to be equipped with the DOT reflective tape. What happened to the minds of the people in this country that resulted in such an alarming number of PEOPLE CRASHING INTO THE SIDE OF A MOVING TRAIN to have required such new regulations?

Regardless of steam or diesels, we should be happy to do whatever is required by law.

All of that BS needs to be eliminated and just put a stop sign at every crossing. Treat it like a 4 way intersection. At heavily traveled crossing put in standard DOT traffic signals.

In Ohio, Angels on Track are pushing a campaign to get people to report what they call unsafe crossings. Their slogan is, "Unsafe Crossings Kill Good Drivers". I have to take exception to that, as a good driver would take sufficient safety precautions to avoid being hit.

I agree with your issue and wish to expand on it. Rail vehicles do not generally leave their rails and most certainly cannot be steered. It is readily known that trains do not stop on a dime and honestly, if one does not have the capacity to figure out that all that mass in motion cannot stop in as an effective manner as a motor vehicle than I really would prefer they not be on the road with me and those I care about.

I wonder how the higher ups at the FRA would like it if they woke up one morneing and found DOT reflective tape on there cars.

Author:	RCD [ Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:17 pm ]
Post subject:	Ditch the ditch lights
Is it just me or does anyone else here want to tell the FRA where to stick those ditch lights. For new locomotives or upgraded ones running on a normal railroad I can see requiring ditch lights, but for an antique E or F unit at a historic museum is B.S.

Author:	jcmark611 [ Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:26 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Ditch the ditch lights
Anything built after 1950 doesn't fall under the "Historical Equipment" exemption, except steam locomotives.

Author:	Howard P. [ Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:34 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Ditch the ditch lights
"Any locomotive subject to [FRA] Part 229 [229.125, Headlights and Auxiliary Lights], that was built before December 31, 1948 and that is not used regularly in commuter or intercity passenger service, shall be considered historic equipment and excepted from the requirements...." If the locomotive (that would be subject to 229.125) operates over a public grade crossing at a speed less than 20 mph, it would not need "ditch lights". Howard P.

Author:	Alexander D. Mitchell IV [ Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:38 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Ditch the ditch lights
Ditch lights, or the equivalent, have their place. Properly designed, they are easily removed to backdate the loco, and--as the British have demonstrated with their steamers and vintage diesels, which are now required to carry at least one bright light on front--they can be easily "hidden" or incorporated into other details of the locomotive. Some of the UK "headlamp" designs even use a focusing lens on front to diminish the effect of the beam on 3/4 views and amplify it when seen head-on down the track. If the ditch lights mean that these locos can run on a railroad instead of on a captive loop track or insular railroad, be quiet and enjoy the privilege. Otherwise, you might be volunteering to rebuild a historic loco after a horrifying grade crossing accident, or even answering to an expensive lawsuit--especially if the lawyers find you weren't operating said loco according to accepted standards for safety..........

Author:	john creasing [ Wed Jul 29, 2009 10:34 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Ditch the ditch lights
Before anyone gets to be to down on ditch lights, consider the following. The number of train-vehicle accidents per year has been rising at a incredible rate. One might say that this is due to an ever growing number of people. I disagree, far fewer crossings exist today than in the 50's and there are fewer trains running(railroads once ran many shorter trains rather than fewer loooooong ones) through those crossings. The point is that ditch lights are a necessary safety device for the simple fact that to many people today are unobservant, oblivious to their surroundings, to obsessed with there electronic devices or maybe it's a matter of the mean intelligence level dropping over the last few decades. I would vote for the latter! I almost fell out of my chair when I originally read that it would be required for "X" percent of a given railroads or car owners fleet to be equipped with the DOT reflective tape. What happened to the minds of the people in this country that resulted in such an alarming number of PEOPLE CRASHING INTO THE SIDE OF A MOVING TRAIN to have required such new regulations? Point being, it has come to the point that it is simply a matter of safety. In terms of operating historic equipment, with the growing number of incidents on steam locomotives (you don't hear about them but they exist) and the decreasing level of crew/restoration staff training/experience (not across the board but it is a growing issue) we are lucky to still be running at all. We live in a society where laws and judgments are passed based on perception not reality in our business that is a scary thing!!! Regardless of steam or diesels, we should be happy to do whatever is required by law. If a regulation were put into effect requiring all "historic operating equipment" to be painted safety yellow, orange or whatever then i would be the first out with a paint brush.

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

Ditch the ditch lights https://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=27856	Page 1 of 3

Author:	Jdelhaye [ Wed Jul 29, 2009 10:41 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Ditch the ditch lights
john creasing wrote: If a regulation were put into effect requiring all "historic operating equipment" to be painted safety yellow, orange or whatever then i would be the first out with a paint brush. I would sincerely hope that brush would be accompanied by a large bucket of tar and a grain sack full of feathers, and would be used to show the politicians responsible for this blasphemy the error of their ways. Safety is a good thing, but like any good thing, it can be taken too far. Sometimes it's best to let nature take it's course, and let the idiots blither their way into oblivion. Jeff

Author:	robertmacdowell [ Wed Jul 29, 2009 11:45 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Ditch the ditch lights
Howard P. wrote: "Any locomotive subject to [FRA] Part 229 [229.125, Headlights and Auxiliary Lights], that was built before December 31, 1948 and that is not used regularly in commuter or intercity passenger service, shall be considered historic equipment and excepted from the requirements...." Interesting date, eh? I've heard a legend about that. Apparently a railroad official was in one of those FRA meetings where such things are set down. Some sort of new locomotive appliance was being discussed, and it was clear this would also apply to historic interurban cars. This made no sense to the official, who also happened to be a preservationist. He said so. The FRA men asked - "What year was the last interurban made?" The official dispensed the answer, as best he knew, and the FRA set the applicable date to the year following. So. Maybe what needs to happen is an inventory of the equipment FRA cares about regulating, and the equipment they do not. And then make a case for revising the date. john creasing wrote: I almost fell out of my chair when I originally read that it would be required for "X" percent of a given railroads or car owners fleet to be equipped with the DOT reflective tape. What happened to the minds of the people in this country that resulted in such an alarming number of PEOPLE CRASHING INTO THE SIDE OF A MOVING TRAIN to have required such new regulations? That number is 100%. All freight cars must have reflectorized tape, in the specific shapes and patterns proscribed by FRA, after a certain date. THIS INCLUDES HISTORIC CARS. Probably because nobody stood up and said "Reflectorized tape retrofits on museum boxcars is stupid." [edit: The above is wrong. Does not apply to historic cars not in revenue or work-train service. See: http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/counse ... elines.pdf Still a good idea to be visible.] Quote: Regardless of steam or diesels, we should be happy to do whatever is required by law. No. I will not lie there and think of England. We should press the argument for the reasonable. The FRA has a long history of being willing to listen to the reasonable. The problem is the short supply of people willing to say it in a timely way.

Author:	Stationary Steam [ Thu Jul 30, 2009 8:38 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Ditch the ditch lights
In Ohio, Angels on Track are pushing a campaign to get people to report what they call unsafe crossings. Their slogan is, "Unsafe Crossings Kill Good Drivers". I have to take exception to that, as a good driver would take sufficient safety precautions to avoid being hit. I just don't understand how drivers can safely navigate through four way intersections and avoid being rammed by trucks being driven at 55 mph, and those trucks don't have lights on, no reflective tape, no horns and no flashing lights and gates to protect them save for a stop sign. Yet for a train we have to keep piling on lights, noisemakers, mechanical barriers, pavement markings and signs ad infinitum and its still not enough! All of that BS needs to be eliminated and just put a stop sign at every crossing. Treat it like a 4 way intersection. At heavily traveled crossing put in standard DOT traffic signals.

Author:	john creasing [ Thu Jul 30, 2009 2:18 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Ditch the ditch lights
Stationary Steam wrote: All of that BS needs to be eliminated and just put a stop sign at every crossing. Treat it like a 4 way intersection. At heavily traveled crossing put in standard DOT traffic signals. Remember that Operation Lifesaver's slogan was once "Stop, Look, Listen, Live", it was changed to "Look, Listen, Live". Why was the stop taken out? My understanding is because it was once at the very least advised to ALWAYS stop at crossings. But we are in to much of a hurry for that and our country is to over populated. Stationary Steam wrote: In Ohio, Angels on Track are pushing a campaign to get people to report what they call unsafe crossings. Their slogan is, "Unsafe Crossings Kill Good Drivers". I have to take exception to that, as a good driver would take sufficient safety precautions to avoid being hit. I agree with your issue and wish to expand on it. Rail vehicles do not generally leave their rails and most certainly cannot be steered. It is readily known that trains do not stop on a dime and honestly, if one does not have the capacity to figure out that all that mass in motion cannot stop in as an effective manner as a motor vehicle than I really would prefer they not be on the road with me and those I care about. Point is, the ONLY POSSIBLE excuse any kind of driver could have for getting hit by a train would be if gates were not functioning(or no gates at all) and engineer failed to properly utilize the horn and bell. That's it! But we do live in a country where people generally are not held accountable for their own actions(legally, morally, etc). How else is it possible for one to sue a railroad and win because their now deceased relative drove between crossing gates and got hit?

Author:	RCD [ Thu Jul 30, 2009 3:39 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Ditch the ditch lights
I wonder how the higher ups at the FRA would like it if they woke up one morneing and found DOT reflective tape on there cars. I already have seen ditch light's on Ross's steam locomotive that I bet weren't originality there (Not to insult Ross because I'm sure he probably didn't like the idea). From Langdon & Emison law firm website "Were the flashers confusing? In one case, the flashers were on, but there was no train visible. As a car crossed the tracks, a train came around a curve, failed to use the horn, and hit the car. (The train’s black box recorder showed that the engineer failed to use the horn at 12 of the previous 15 crossings.)" last time I checked the flashers ment STOP. Wasen't there a video posted here of a car running into the side of a torest train or something like that?

Author:	tomgears [ Thu Jul 30, 2009 3:55 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Ditch the ditch lights
The first thing to remember is that our government thrives on nonsense. Expect it at every level. The second thing to remember is that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The third things to remember is to set your expectations low so you wont be to disappointed. Take a good idea and run it through the system and it creates a lot of nonsense, costs a lot of money, and probably does not accomplish what you set out to do in the first place. Any question?

Author:	Alexander D. Mitchell IV [ Thu Jul 30, 2009 4:12 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Ditch the ditch lights
john creasing wrote: I agree with your issue and wish to expand on it. Rail vehicles do not generally leave their rails and most certainly cannot be steered. It is readily known that trains do not stop on a dime and honestly, if one does not have the capacity to figure out that all that mass in motion cannot stop in as an effective manner as a motor vehicle than I really would prefer they not be on the road with me and those I care about. Unfortunately, in at least two cases that I have heard about--and no doubt several more I haven't--the "ones" that lacked the requested capacity were law enforcement officials. I have heard of at least two instances through Operation Lifesaver where state troopers or the equivalent attempted to get a train to "stop" by parking a cruiser on the track with lights flashing, then standing up the track from the crossing and holding up an outstretched palm like a traffic stop. Unfortunately, for all the bashing we may do of such things as signals, reflective tape, etc., an incident on my hometown branchline in Pennsylvania in Conrail days turned into a textbook case for all these safety measures. A car managed to broadside a 10 mph branchline local at night, get the car wedged under the train, and get dragged 2/3rd of a mile down the track, being discovered ONLY because there was a mill to switch there. What happened? Crossing marked only by crossbucks and not flashers; not all the reflectors were intact on the posts; late at night (unusual for this branch), pea-soup fog; slick road conditions; and the car had the incredible misfortune of hitting not only the only covered hopper on the train without reflector tape markings, but the ONLY one on the train that didn't have bracing between the hoppers to prevent something like an auto from wedging itself between the hoppers.

Author:	NH0401 [ Thu Jul 30, 2009 5:19 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Ditch the ditch lights
Quote: I wonder how the higher ups at the FRA would like it if they woke up one morneing and found DOT reflective tape on there cars. Alright...somebody needs to put the black hat on and assume the role of the bad guy... RCD, your statement is most certainly the most infantile and vacuous thing I have ever read on this board. The constant mispellings don't help, either. Whether YOU like or not, the FRA is the Sheriff who metaphorically rules over the world of railroading, INCLUDING the tiny part of the world that many of us have a stake in. It does NONE OF US any good when someone goes poking sticks in that particular hornets nest. No good at all... Rumor has it the FRA is hiring another 200 (TWO HUNDRED) inspectors, some of which will no doubt be poking around in our little outposts of railroad heaven. Rumor also has it that in turn, they are are going to be taking a closer look at our collective passenger car fleet. The moral of the story: shut your piehole, son !!! Dave

Author:	zugmann [ Thu Jul 30, 2009 5:36 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Ditch the ditch lights
I'll play the role of the active railroader that isn't involved with preservation (directly). I like the stripes. You can't really appreciate them until you are out in the middle of a pitch black yard or industry with only a lantern to guide your way. Black tanks can even be hard to see with a locomotive's headlight until you are on top of them (or are able to see the shiny wheel treads). I just wish they mandated the striping on the ends of the cars, too. And yes, a dark car parked across a passive crossing can be dangerous. I'll take any little bit of extra warning that those 3M stripes can give drivers. Pick your battles. But reflective stripes and ditchlights have long since been settled. Amtrak is currently allowed to utilize red stripes (freight cars/locomotives are limited to yellow and white). So maybe instead of whining, try working with the FRA? There is a real nifty black reflective stripe that lights up WHITE when lit up. Maybe try to make that acceptable for steam lokes and the like?

Page 1 of 3	All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	PaulWWoodring [ Thu Jul 30, 2009 5:45 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Ditch the ditch lights
So, let me get this straight. If NW 611 were to be brought back into mainline excursion service it would have to have ditch lights because it was built in 1950? However, C&O 614, which was built in mid-1948, has ditch lights, but according to FRA rules does not have to? Interesting. I'm guessing that NJT required them for operating over their line? That also answers the question as to how 4449 and 765 were able to run more than 20 mph over grade crossings for their excursions at Trainfest.