Greetings fellow members:

When I was volunteering in T&E service on the Berkshire Scenic Railway our jobs were performed using the following books: NORAC operating rules, Housatonic Railroad timetable, and Berskshire Scenic General Rules and Special Instructions. We used these books because they were being used by our host railroad and felt that the NORAC operating rules were well written and concise, helping to ensure safety in operations. They also could exist parallel to recreating a historical operating environment.

What rulebooks do you use at your operation and how do you feel they aid or limit your ability to recreate an authentic historic operating environment.

Stephen Piwowarski

RMNE/Naug uses NORAC, the company (Naugatuck RR Co) rule book, timetable, safety, and railroad worker manuals. I'm sure Brent or Howard can respond with more detail.

I helped write the SMRS rulebook and sat on the WRM rules committee. I would only use the fat NORAC or GCOR rulebooks if you are forced to by virtue of interacting with other railroads.

Why not? Because it creates an enormous training burden. Railway museums are not operating railroads! Modern railroad rulebooks are not a good fit, because you have a completely different culture.

At a railroad museum you have conscientious, affable volunteers who are in it for the trains. They don't need to be goaded to work safely, and you can count on them to use their head and act in the organization's best interest.

On the freights there's an adversarial, confrontational employer employee relationship which breeds loathing, passive-aggression, CYA, and rulebooks written by lawyers for litigability. The discipline process is blameful and confrontational, and employees NEED union reps. The Class I's interests are not your museum's interests. A union employee's interest is not yours. They do not translate. As such they need completely different types of rulebooks. The Western Railway Museum's rulebook was a masterwork. It was 8 pages.

I realize that in a vacuum it seems like the only thing to do... but it is madness for a museum to embrace the Class I way of doing things. I know one that tried. Every time a member broke a rule, he got "Written Up", and there was a hearing of the "Committee" (but they were not a subsidiary of the Board, they actually held themselves out to be autonomous and above the Board). They tried to emulate the sociopathic Class I practice, but without any union stewards or lawyers to balance things, every hearing was a mugging. That combines very poorly with volunteers, and the result was a profoundly broken safety culture, easily as defective as Gettysburg.

Simplify the bloated, picayune lawyer-talk in GCOR/NORAC. And get rid of any rule you don't really actually need, and look for ways to thin the rulebook. When we did SMRS Rulebook #1 (which went obsolete in 1995), we included much of NORAC's rules on Timetable/Train Order ops. We did it out of enthusiasm and reverence for historic practices, basically because we were rules geeks. The rules actually said we had to send a flagman back a half mile if we stopped unexpectedly. With revenue trains! Obviously we broke the rule every time. In hindsight, the right play would have been to just make the whole railroad yard limits.

The thing is, if the rule is in there, then you have to train it. And you have to enforce it. And you can't have a rule that practicality requires that people break, because then you engender a culture of rule-breaking for convenience. The FRA is going to have a big problem with this, and, in an accident, opposing attorneys will use it against you. You can't have that. You have to have a tight, intelligent, appropriate rulebook.

Radio rules, same issue except it's even more tangled due to FCC rules. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJCfUm21BsI

Robert wrote;

‘but it is madness for a museum to embrace the Class I way of doing things.”

I agree, I used to volunteer (for a decade plus) at a nice little museum, until they started issuing “Crew Calls”; “everybody has to be here at 8 am”, a bit inconvenient when you live about an hour away.

So I went from arriving well rested on a Saturday about 9-10 am eager to get something done, to never showing up again.

And yes, the CYA attitude showed up as well.

Cheers, Kevin.

Mid Continent Railway Museum uses the Consolidated Code of Operating Rules, 1980 edition. We do not operate on another railroad. We have our own Air Brake and Train handling rule book.

Ed Ripp

My suggestion would be not not use an entire book like NORAC. Definitely borrow the wording from a source like that, but make your book as short and concise as your operation warrants. Remember that if you put it in print and say that it is your rule book, you are expected to adhere to ALL of the rules! What I mean by this is that you can not then pick and choose which ones you want to follow. Remember the lawyers and ambulance chasers. If something happens the question will be why didn't you follow all of the rules in your "book". Do not put it in your book if you are not going to use it!

I've seen an issue on an operating freight railroad where they adopted "Norac" as their rule book. When the FRA man visited he asked where the dispatcher was. Problem was, they didn't operate on dispatcher rules, but it is in the NORAC book, so it became expected of them. The other consideration is things that you may allow your people to do such as getting on or off moving equipment. The Class 1s don't allow it much any more, but if properly trained and practiced, this can really speed up switching operations. Another example is setting hand brakes from the ground. Though it may not be the best practice (unless you use brake sticks), it is not forbidden unless you write it in your rules that it is.

It is well worth the time to borrow from other's rule books, but make sure it is specific to your operation. On a yearly basis, review your operations to see if a rule or two needs to be added or changed (Especially if the FRA modifies operating practices or issues Emergency Orders). What works today may not be the best practice in the future. One of my favorite lines in the rule book is that "It wouldn't be written on these pages if it hadn't happened to some one".

Pat Connors
BSOR

The other thing is, don't pay attention to safety goings-on in the freight business, while ignoring same in the tourist railway business. What's important to us is Texas 2007, the zoo train, the Taiwan incidents, and of course Gettysburg.

I'm not sure that I agree. Using standardized rules and operating procedures should not be viewed as a hindrance, but as a betterment for both the operations and the crews. The idea that the NORAC and GCOR are somehow inflated and irrelevant I find a little scary. Regardless of how much you try to dumb down the rules to make them easier to train, the bottom line is that you still have to train them. I don’t think it makes much sense to be using outdated rule systems and or practices that have been outlawed because they have been proven to be dangerous if not executed in a specific manor, and have resulted in blood. As one of my rules instructors was very fond of saying “Every rule in this rule book has been written in blood. Railroaders blood. Don’t go trying to reinvent the wheel, or do stupid stuff that we all ready know won’t work and will put you at an increased risk of injury. The rules read the way they do for a reason, and it’s not your place to try and change them”.
Standardize your rule books, training, and operating practices….and then you won’t have to worry if your rules are sufficient enough and ( god forbid) if there is an incident you won’t have to be explaining why you were using a substandard and disproven set of rules. Modification of the rule book to take out redundant rules that you don’t feel that you need? Do that with a special instruction. Leave the rule book the way it is. It’s really not that hard to teach….
All of the properties that I work for or with use either NORAC or GCOR. None of them have stayed with their own book beacuse of the standardization or legal issues.

Brett,

As has been pointed out, there are huge differences between large common carrier railroads and tourist and demonstration railways. Not only differences with regard to the type of traffic, length of railroad, speeds, signal systems, methods of operation etc. but also in the motivations and expectations of the "employees".

I was once certified both under NORAC and CSX rulebooks. I understand why certain rules are written as they are, and also know that the realities of a 10,000 foot trailer train on a 60 mph full signaled double track mainline is vastly different from an SW1 and a coach on three miles of unsignaled class 1 track with no other operating equipment anywhere around. Trying to teach NORAC to volunteers at the latter operation involves teaching scenarios that they will never encounter and will just serve to confuse the hell out of them.

I contend that the complexity introduced by teaching a set of rules that do not fit the situation is actually unsafe. A simple set of rules tailored to the operating conditions of the particular railroad will be more readily understood by those governed by them, and simplicity helps avoid confusion.

NORAC was created as a way for the numerous eastern railroads to better interact with each other. If a small railroad does not interact with others then the benefits of NORAC quickly diminish.

I would like to preface this reply by saying that I am not trying to be combative with anyone. There are two schools of thought on this issue, and I just happen to be in the school that believes standardization of rules and operating practices is a good thing. My feelings on this are in no way shape or form meant to degrade any person or operation; they are just my feelings after quite a few years in the business. This is turning into a very interesting discussion for me, because there are some very good points being made. I hope that this thread continues, and that we can answer each others questions.









Granted, I don’t think anyone is disputing that there is some difference. However, that SW1 and a coach on 3 miles of dedicated main will kill you (or your passengers) just as dead as that 10,000 foot trailer train on a 60 mph full signaled double track mainline. The demonstration railway (or tourist line) should be that much more safety conscious because of the fact that there are large numbers of “clueless” goofers running around and through equipment. And as for the “expectations” of the “employees” I would hope that the safety of the crews and passengers should not have to hinge on someone’s “expectations”, especially if those expectations are not congruent with current practice. Bottom line is that the expectation is the “employee” will adhere to the rules that govern that “employees” conduct while on the property.






Here again, I don’t think that the simplicity of the rules is an issue. It’s not that hard to teach to your lowest common denominator and still get the class through. There are some things that you are going to hit harder in rules class than others. Even with a dumbed down rule book. It’s the nature of the beast. I still fail to see how difficulty in getting “employees” to understand can be used as an excuse for not using standard accepted practice. How hard is it to say (for example) Don’t come in hammered and don’t do or sell drugs? NORAC and GCOR both have rules on that, and I’m sure that EVERYONES rule book addresses substance use/abuse. Point being, that there are certain cardinal rules that everyone has to follow....and they are the same reguardless of what flavor of rule book you are using.





If the benifits of NORAC don't work for you (and they won't if your not in the north east) then go to GCOR. You still have to have a functioning set of rules, and employees that understand them. Accidents and fatalities do not make the distinction between the different types of railrods or rules. I would just like someone to explain why non-standardization is a better thing than using a tried and true rules system. When I teach a rules class, there are always things that I put more weight on than others, and I'm sure that if I went through any of the non-standard books I would find more similarities than not.

The West Chester Railroad is an all volunteer tourist operation, but we don't take the operation or safety lightly. We use NORAC 10th Edition and have our own extensive Train Handling and Air Brake Rule Books. In addition, we have a Rule Book for the Trainman and Conductors. All operating volunteers take an annual Rules Class and Examination as part of maintaining their qualification.

Fred Heilich

First off, let me say that I am not now involved in any sort of operations environment, although I have spent more than 40 years around operating rail museums and short line railroads, including 18 years in operations management. That said, I don't think it matters which rulebook is used to govern operations. Rather, my concern is that many volunteer operating personnel don't spend enough time "on the job" to become familiar with the rules and why those rules matter. For a guy who comes out a couple of days a month, what he heard at the annual rules review has probably faded from his memory.

I have witnessed volunteers who can't remember which hand signal means "ahead" and which means "back up" from one month to the next. If a person can't keep that straight, how can his fellow crew members be confident that he knows the rest of the rules? Such behavior should be brought to the attention of the Manager of Operating Rules or whoever qualified the individual, but if that manager isn't around, then what happens? In too many cases, no one wants to offend or correct the man in question because he might go away mad and leave the train crew short-handed, or he might be an officer or a large financial backer of the museum.

I happen to have NORAC and GCOR on my shelf for reference. Heck, an old NORAC book is in my car right now. and somewhere around her I have an old New Hope & Ivyland Rule Book--it's basically the old 1970s Reading RR rule book, word for word, with the extraneous stuff (like operating in electric territory, etc.) chopped out and a few specific special rules added.

I'm as big on safety as anyone. But the points above are valid.

If you use NORAC or GCOR as your default, you have to train to the whole darned thing. This is like demanding that your newsletter editor, church bulletin editor, or "staff photographer" be completely proficient in Quark, Publisher, and/or Adobe Photoshop and Lightroom. It's overkill, especially if you have no signals.

As I was sitting in an NTSB forum on Positive Train Control last month, I kept thinking "Please, guys, PLEASE don't ever come up with some excuse to have this imposed upon the tourist railroad industry, or we're all dead...."

Um, ok.....I still don't understand what you guys are saying. Are you saying that you only train part of your rule books and not the whole thing? So would there be any difference? Are you saying that it's better to dumb down the safety standards to make it easier? I'm just not following. I'm in agreement with What Mr. Lappele said, as I have seen it many times. Teaching watered down rules doesn't do any good if those can't even be followed.
And as for the Light v.s. dark territory, maybe you should go back to your coppies of the NORAC and GCOR because they both deal quite extensively with these things called movement forms. In the NORAC they are called Form Ds and in GCOR they are called Track Warrents. These movement forms are issued to the train crews by the dispactcher and govern train movements in dark "no signals" territory. Every movement on the main track has to have an authroisation like this. And before someone says "not with a single train"....yes with a single train. And before someone says "not on my fenced in no connection 3 miles of main line", if you don't use a movement form (or some varient there of) how do you know (and I mean beyond a shaddow of a doubt) that there is no one in the track ahead of you such as an MOW guy or something else. I worked on worked on a section of railroad 160 miles long every day with no signals, and it worked just fine.
I just don't see the big deal with teaching the industry accepted standards. They work for all of us and a LOT of tourist/preservation railroads that use them.

I have had the occasion to re-write rulebooks to fit certain operations which were more than adequate for the operation. I have also been a General Superintendent of two railroad which used GCOR because the railroad we ran on used GCOR. Bottom line: The FRA does not care which rulebook you use, as long as your operating personnel are tested and trained on the material in said rulebook and you have the documentation to prove it. Since you have to file said rulebook with the FRA, compliance and safe operation is the goal.