Those of you who operate equipment will want to pay attention to the new 49 CFR Part 243 regulations relating to mandatory training requirements for "Safety-Related" personnel. The designated trades include those doing mechanical and electrical work on equipment, as well as any contractors doing equivalent work on your property.

You need to research the requirements of this program because they will have a substantial impact on the industry. I am just posting this to make you aware of the potential effect on your operations. Those who are concerned with this aspect of your business should request the guide titled "Training, Qualification, and Oversight for Safety Related Railroad Employees" from the FRA Office of Railroad Safety. It will be available by May 1, 2015.

If you maintain and operate railroad equipment you need to obtain and read the document.

PC

http://www.apta.com/gap/fedreg/Document ... 20Rule.pdf

There is one person in the railroad industry that has a chip on his shoulder when it comes to tourist and historic railroads. Hopefully he is nearing retirement as nobody needs people like that around.

F. Application and Responsibility of
Compliance for Tourist, Scenic,
Historic, and Excursion Railroads
One commenter characterizes tourist,
scenic, historic, and excursion railroads
as largely run by people who are
untrained and as railroad operations
with many safety concerns. This
commenter warns that the public will be
put further at risk because the NPRM
excludes these railroads from the
training requirements. Thus, the
commenter requests that FRA apply the
final rule to tourist, scenic, historic, and
excursion railroads.
FRA’s Response
As noted in the NPRM, the final rule
would apply to tourist, scenic, historic,
and excursion railroads that operate on
the general system, which are the
railroads that present the highest risk to
members of the public. As discussed in
the NPRM, FRA intends to apply its
published policy statement regarding
how the agency regulates tourist, scenic,
historic, and excursion railroads, in
determining necessary compliance with
the provisions of this final rule. As
stated in 49 CFR part 209, appendix A—
The Extent and Exercise of FRA’s Safety
Jurisdiction (the Policy Statement), FRA
asserts broad jurisdiction over tourist
operations, and explains that it works to
ensure that the rules it issues are
appropriate to the circumstances of the
tourist railroad industry. For example,
FRA does not exercise jurisdiction over
insular tourist railroads that are off the
general system, and it applies a limited
number of its regulations to non-insular
tourist railroads that are off the general
system. Additionally, FRA has excluded
all tourist railroads from certain of its
regulations,
i.e.,
49 CFR parts 238 and
239 (passenger equipment safety
standards and passenger train
emergency preparedness). FRA stated in
the Policy Statement that ‘‘[i]n drafting
safety rules, FRA has a specific
obligation to consider financial,
operational, or other factors that may be
unique to tourist operations . . . [and
therefore] we work to ensure that the
rules we issue are appropriate to their
somewhat special circumstances.’’
However, the enforcement policy retains
all of the general power and
enforcement provisions of the rail safety
statutes, including the authority to
obtain subpoenas and civil penalties
and to issue disqualification orders and
emergency orders.
FRA only has limited resources, so it
focuses on regulating those areas that
would generate the most safety benefit.
In the NPRM, FRA stated that the
decision to exclude certain types of
tourist operations that are not part of the
general system of transportation is
consistent with FRA’s jurisdictional
policy that already excludes these
operations from all but a limited
number of Federal safety laws,
regulations, and orders. FRA disagrees
with the contention that tourist, scenic,
historic, and excursion railroads that do
not operate on the general system of
transportation are categorically unsafe
and FRA continues to believe that it
should not impose these training
requirements on these small operations.

Probably the same guy:

G. Application to Private Motorcar
Operators
One commenter raises an objection to
private motorcars being operated on the
general railroad system when the people
operating these cars are untrained. A
different commenter disagrees with the
first commenter and states that, in his
experience, motorcars have been safe
and including them in this training rule
would be over-reaching the intent of the
RSIA.
FRA’s Response
The comment regarding the
application of this rule to the training of
motorcar operators is surprising to FRA
because since August 1, 1963, railroads
have been prohibited from permitting
motorcars to pull or haul trailers, push
trucks, hand cars, or similar cars or
equipment on their track. 49 CFR
231.22. A railroad motorcar is generally
considered an antiquated piece of self-
propelled on-track equipment that has
been relegated to use by hobbyists.
Considering that this rule only applies
to the training of any person employed
by a railroad or contractor of a railroad
as a safety-related railroad employee, it
clearly does not apply to private
motorcar owners and hobbyists who
obtain permission from a railroad to
operate on the railroad’s track for
purposes of enjoying the hobby. FRA
has no basis to support the commenter’s
assertion that the operation of a private
motorcar is so inherently unsafe that
FRA should begin regulating the
training of private operators who have
taken up this hobby.

The person who stated the above comments can be found easily on the comments board of the FRA. I believe that he happens to run a training program out west for conductors and engineers and seems to be trying to use these rule changes as a way to get new business.

Readers wondering about the importance of this may want to take a look at the schedule of penalties and fines which is listed on the last page of the reference that Rick Rowlands provided the link for, three posts above. One of the concerns is that these regulations can extend to small contractors who do work for preservation organizations in place of full time employees. The cost of this compliance and the risk of fines may result in some turning down business. Note that there is wording applying to "installers" of locomotives and cars and of equipment on locomotives and cars, which would appear to be directed at the field service personnel of equipment manufacturers. This could also apply to the Caterpillar dealers who occasionally service locomotive HEP equipment. There are a lot of issues to consider for organizations who hire outside service contractors.

PC

The Part 243 training rule doesn't apply to tourist railroads that aren't part of the general railroad system, see 49 CFR 243.3(a)(2). In other words, a tourist road that doesn't haul freight, or operate over a freight railroad is not subject to this rule.

While it may not be applicable to certain tourist operations it is going to have an effect on the cost and availability of services from small contractors who are doing most of their business with railroads where they do have to comply with these regulations.

PC

I can only speak about the two museum/tourist properties I have been involved with, but the concern for safety and training at both are probably at standards higher than the commercial railroad industry. These organizations recognize most volunteers on average are "weekend warriors" and thus need more extensive training, spelled out procedures, etc. The properties that do not adhere to these high standards are ones I wouldn't be affiliated with.