Our local FRA inspector contacted us regarding our "revenue producing" freight cars used for photo freights (over 40 year old cars) and getting a waiver for them. Apparently this includes cabooses as well. He indicated that other groups are doing this right now as well. We don't run on the general railway system, but the others he mentioned do. Has this been discussed by any chance?

David Farlow
Whitewater Valley Railroad

David:

It has. The best way to do this is to get on http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#home

Type in strasburg railroad - or any other road or group that has received waivers - and see what we filed and how FRA responded. You'll want to get your petition in quickly so that you have plenty of time for inspections, repair and FRA response before you want to run your charter.

In FRA's mind, there is no difference between your favorite XM and some coal hopper rolling along a Class 1. So be prepared with Part 215 to have no obvious defects, and identifying and exempting everything that otherwise would sideline the car. You'll also have to file a stenciling waiver at the same time. Also be prepared to do single-car test according to the standard so that they are comfortable with you testing your own cars.

If you have any other specific questions, feel free to send me a PM.

David,
From what I understand, waivers, freight car rules, and safety glazing issues and definitions were a big part of the FRA's presentation at this past weekend's RPCA Convention in Spencer. The FRA representative noted that somewhere in the neighborhood of 85% of the waivers requested are normally granted. Maybe an attendee will provide more info

Gary -

No response from anyone at the RPCA convention as yet. I am especially interested in the fact that in David's orginal note to start this thread, he stated "this includes cabooses". Many of us use cabooses as part (often a BIG part) of our regular passenger hauling trains, and not just as part of vintage freight train photo charters.

Les

Keep in mind that if you caboose was build after 1945 it will likely get caught up in the FRA's current pursuit of requiring FRA Type II Safety Glazing in all passenger cars built after that date.

When it comes to just an ordinary boxcar or gondola used on a photo freight that is captive to the railroad and isn't in interchange service, what is the FRA inspector looking for besides the obvious (brakes in date, COTS, couples and wheels pass gauge tests, etc.)?

Chris.

Chris, that's basically it. Frame sound, safety appliances in place and tight, too. We were asked about our TM whether we were going to "go DOT placarding or not." We said no, it might be used for fire suppression in a dry summer, but that was it.

One wildcard that remains outstanding is reflectorization. You'll see we have a waiver petition awaiting a response on that ... It's all pretty silly, but that's where we live.

Um, not to belabor the obvious, but where the heck was/is T.R.A.I.N. in all of this? Why was this situation of operating vintage freight cars not addressed or discussed by the paid "governmental representative" (aka "lobbyist") during the proposed rule-making and comment period of all these regs?

All I ever see is a report/rehash of rules (that same info appears elsewhere) in this rep's report published in TrainLine every issue. There's no indication of the organization getting out ahead of the regs and making the member's needs/concerns known to the regulators, and possibly working out things, before everyone has to apply for dozens of individual waivers.

Howard P.
Journal Pad, CT

Howard, I don't know the answer to that.

But it should also be said that the FRA is rather cavalier about the burden of waivers. In a recent proposed rule - I forget which one; I'm reviewing a fresh one every ten days or so now - they said, "[the party] can alway file a waiver for their particular issue or exception." As if that was a small thing ...

Howard -

I think your question is a valid one. From the comments I have seen in past issues of
TRAINLINE, I have often wondered if the guy is doing what the organization pays him to do. Is this ever brought up at T.R.A.I.N.S. meetings?

HVRM is a member of both T.R.A.I.N.S. and A.R.M. We are not an electric transit museum in any size, shape or form, but I think RMQ always seems to have more information and is more readable than TRAINLINE. To bad that it is not ARM that has a "governmental representative".

My 2 cents. Sorry!

Les Beckman (HVRM/North Judson, IN)

The gentleman - and he truly is - who follows the legal side of things for TRAIN is simply a conduit for information and nothing like a lobbyist - how could he be an effective lobbyist given we are his constituency? We certainly can't afford to purchase influence given we can't even generate dependable clean restrooms for our visitors.

FRA actually does converse with our industry, and I'd like to see TRAIN take on a more active role in advocacy. ESC seems to be a fairly effective communicator of realistic ideas that has done us all a lot of good.

Let's keep it realistic, guys......

dave