How is that handled at your operating railway museum? I'm asking Clem.

This should be in place for any museum or group that has a 240 plan submitted to the FRA. (locomotive engineer certification)

Our group does not have a 240 plan. Therefore, a 219 plan is not needed.

Unsafe or not?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JX5FUyEw ... re=related


Unfair or not?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eT2o_X87 ... re=related
Look at that. No Form 4, no retubes, no shoveling coal for 3 hours. Just park it in a shed for 56 years, hook a stinger and drive it out under its own power.

Yikes!

What of the two Metra engineers that the rail fans operate their trains? Following the logic here, that is ok and those engineers shouldn't have been disciplined for their actions?

I believe we are talking about Tourist railroads here and cab rides. Not class ones, or commuter trains and not letting the rail fans operate trains carring passengers. There is a lot of difference. Those guys actually broke the law by letting someone with out an engineer's license operate the train. That was stupid on their part, and I think they got off light.

I enjoy getting cab rides, and I also enjoy giving others cab rides when I'm running. I've had plenty of visitors in the cab over the years, and never had a problem.

However, the bottom line is that there are several entities you need to convince that allowing cab visit or cab rides is an acceptable risk.

1) The management of your own organization. Are they willing to accept the risk and possible consequences. As mentioned, UPRR no longer allows cab visits, instead they erect a scaffold next to the locomotives. I think 4449 now uses a similiar approach.

2) Your insurance company. It was stated that at least some insurance carries specifically prohibit cab riders. Are you certain your railroad would be covered?

3) The FRA. I don't have the rule handy, but it was mentioned at the meeting they say that only authorized personnel should be in the cab. Of course you could simply declare a cab rider who is there with permission to be authorized, but you'd need to look at the intent of the FRA rule and verify that you are complying.

An operating steam locomotive cab is a dangerous place even when not in motion.

You think that's bad check out this video I took on the Western Maryland Scenic RR a few years back.
Look at the young boy standing on the locomotive as it smokes up a storm.

Len.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsQU7Vj0g_o

MILWAUKEE - Citing recent accidents on non-tourist railroads and increasing concerns about liability, the Tourist Railroad Association Inc. board of directors has issued a strong caution to its members about cab rides.

Let’s be honest here. “Recent accidents on non-tourist railroads” might present an opportunity to discuss the risks of cab riders, but if TRAIN really thinks the operations of their members merit a direct comparison with non-tourist roads, they really do not understand what they are doing. The purpose of a non-tourist road is utilitarian transport, end of story. Public contact for those roads adds nothing but risk.

For tourist roads, the purpose is quite different. Their very purpose is public contact, a mixture of education, entertainment and fantasy. If they don’t have public contact, they have no purpose.

That having been said, the nature and extent of that contact must be carefully considered.

cab rides offer tourist railroads a couple of great opportunities. First the can add extra money to the bottom line with little or no extra cost.

Not true. The cost is the risk associated with having people in the cab. Not every cost an organization faces is an explicit monetary cost. Not having cab riders also carries costs, i.e., the opportunity cost of foregone revenue and potentially missed opportunities to attract new participants. Its important to understand that stuff like cab rides offer very conspicuous & calculable rewards in the form of extra revenue and hidden costs. The question is balancing,

At the end of the day it's a matter of weighing the risk/reward ratio carefully and making a decision that fits your operation.

In an ideal world, that would be true, but this is a small “industry” where retention of risk is impossible by an individual organization. With few insurers and a more or less constantly reduced experience base, its natural that the trade group would try to reduce aggregate risk by identifying & stopping practices that have an exposure (potential loss) that might prove catastrophic to all players. In short, one bad bird will poop in everybody’s nest.

These types of measures occur every day. When your state runs special DUI enforcement, they are usually doing so because the federal government is providing funding for the police salaries involved in enforcement. The federal government provides the funds because insurance companies lobby legislators and fund advocacy groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) who has members that will also lobby, but more importantly, provide motivated voting muscle. In short, the whole thing is aggregate risk reduction by insurance companies, who wish to avoid the huge claims that inevitably occurs when some idiot gets behind the wheel completely wasted and then hits some pregnant woman and her kids in a minivan. If there were no big settlements weighing on casualty actuaries’ minds, the government wouldn’t care. (I’m sorry if you believe your government is in the business of caring about anything but money or votes but there’s no tooth fairy either) But since big bucks are at stake and drunk drivers do wildly change the calculation-removing them is important.

So it seems TRAIN is trying to fulfill some sort of governmental function. Of course, they have no enforcement power and a “strong caution” does nothing to stop cab rides. They would've done well to adhere to Machiavelli's injunction against passing unenforceable "laws". One wonders if their “strong caution” will worsen some minor claim, when Dewey, Suem & Howe gets hold of this resolution.

TRAIN would’ve better served its membership by identifying best practices to mitigate the risks associated with cab riders, like indicating proper safety equipment, proper briefing of riders, limiting the number of people, perhaps assigning an extra member of the crew to be a “watchdog” etc. It would also have done better to get legal advice regarding the effectiveness of waivers and “hold harmless” agreements. I’ve heard these things are rather easily disaffirmed by an injured party-but I think that’s something for one of the resident barristers to elaborate upon. I do wonder what would happen if a sight glass broke when somebody was in the cab. Who knows how they’d act?

If their sole purpose is risk reduction, then the obvious conclusion is don’t run anything anywhere. The minute your turn a wheel you have risk.

Is that where we're heading?

There in lies the mistake. It is the same, whether at Dollywood or the cab of one of the Metra locomotives. The cab of a locomotive is the cab of a locomotive. A fried P1 contactor can let of a lot of smoke in the cab of a diesel. If you are unfamiliar with what is going on, it could lead to being rather startled inf one goes dramatically. As superheater so eloquently put it, when one bad bird poops in the nest... That's all it's going to take before it comes raining down on all of us on the tourist end of the business....

I personally have no problem with cab riders. I have been a cab rider and given plenty of cab rides.

Here is the question we must answer. At what point do we just scrap the equipment for fear of litigation? If people can get hurt sitting still or on moving equipment, isn't it a danger being there anyhow? Cab rides are a great way to get people involved. I can name museums I have been to that have no operating equipment and they usually don't have much funding or a following because people like to see trains run and to ride them.

I think we have a larger problem at hand that trying to find a way to balance out cab riders and safety. People get hurt on the railroads. It just happens. Now we can either find a way to make it enjoyable or hang it up.

I prefer to give cab rides and share this experience with people who like trains. That's why I am on the railroad, because I enjoy it. Not because I can get killed at any point.


-Joe

> So it seems TRAIN is trying to fulfill some sort of governmental function.

No, they're trying to serve their membership and to identify the best practices.

> Of course, they have no enforcement power

That would be why it was called a "resolution" rather than a rule or law. Of course the resolution simply states that they suggest following the FRA regulations, and the last time I checked the FRA does have enforcement power.

> and a “strong caution” does nothing to stop cab rides.

Right... Obviously it hasn't brought any attention to the situation at all. It hasn't made anyone consider the dangers and the risks involved. That was the goal, not rule making or creating a new law. Judging by the response, I think it worked quite well.

> They would've done well to adhere to Machiavelli's
> injunction against passing unenforceable "laws".

You'd have done well to not read "resolution" as "law". You'd also do well to remember that the resolution states that the policy should be in line with FRA requirements, which are quite clear on this matter, and also quite enforcable.

> One wonders if their “strong caution” will worsen some minor
> claim, when Dewey, Suem & Howe gets hold of this resolution.

One wonders how many tourist railroads there are that are giving cab rides while their insurance company specifically prohibits the practice? What will the result be when an incident occurs and the insurer says that because they violated the requirements of their policy, there will be no insurance payment? This is not an idle threat. It was made quite clear that several of the insurance companies providing coverage to tourist railroads also have very clear requirements prohibiting cab rides.

> TRAIN would’ve better served its membership by identifying
> best practices to mitigate the risks associated with cab riders,
> like indicating proper safety equipment...

They did... They said the best policy was to follow the FRA rules. If you have an issue with those rules, I suggest you take it up with the FRA. Maybe you can convince them that while it's unsafe for professionals who do this every day to have cab riders, it's perfectly OK for somebody running vintage equipment with people who typically don't do this 40 hours a week, to do the same thing.

When you're done with that, have the same discussion with your insurance carrier.

Let me know how that works out for you...

> If their sole purpose is risk reduction, then the obvious conclusion is
> don’t run anything anywhere. The minute your turn a wheel you have risk.

If you see everything in black and white, you're correct. However, it is possible to evaluate the risks and determine which ones are reasonable and which ones are too dangerous.

This isn't anything new. Look at the current regs for boiler work for example, and tell me that hasn't gotten more strict in the last few decades. The list of things in this industry that were once perfectly acceptable but are no longer tolerated is nearly endless.

Like it or not, today's society is less tolerant of risk. Your equipment may be from the past, but your guest are not, and you have no choice but to act accordingly.

Here's the bottom line Bob.

I'm somewhat ambivalent about cab riders in general, but see a good deal less problems with shorter, briefer and slower operations.

The term quoted above is "authorized personnel", not "qualified personnel". I'll assume that's accurate, as I don't have the time to crack open 49CFR right now.

Despite your defensive response, the question remains what the resolution accomplished?

If I assume for a minute that there is widespread and flagrant disregard of existing liability insurance contracts and that any non-crew rider is a violation of FRA rules-then we have a situation where such a violator is risking loss of liability coverage and FRA sanctions. Of course I'd have to assume that's not true because I'm pretty sure the FRA is aware of all of those "cab ride" videos and History Channel specials looking out of a cab window.

If somebody is willing to ignore those two parties, what force or effect does a TRAIN resolution have? You have no ability to influence or control your members, unless you expel them. Will you expel them (and forgoe their membership revenue)?

What exactly is it about parliamentary bodies that makes them so fond of grand pronouncements.

> Despite your defensive response, the question remains
> what the resolution accomplished?

It has brought the issue to the attention of the TRAIN membership and encouraged them to possibly review their procedures and check their insurance policies and limitations.

> If I assume for a minute that there is widespread and flagrant
> disregard of existing liability insurance contracts...

It is pretty clear there are operations giving cab rides even though their insurance does not permit it. In most cases I would suspect that this is due to a lack of knowledge of the insurance policies requirements rather than a deliberate choice to violate the rules. However, when it comes down to a claim the operations would still have a problem, even if the violation was due to ignorance.

> and that any non-crew rider is a violation of FRA rules...

I'm not a lawyer or an FRA inspector, so I cannot say exactly what the implications of that rule are. It does say "authorized", and you could concievably say "anyone who has a cab ride ticket is authorized..." Would that comply with the spirit of the FRA regulation? I don't know how they would respond. It may be worth asking your local FRA office what their take on the situation is.

Whether or not you can convince the FRA that allowing non-operating crew guests in the cab, even if you declare them to be authorized, is question that only the FRA can answer. I think you would need to consider both the wording and the spirit of the requirements. What is the intent of the rule? To prevent trespassers? To avoid injury to members of the public? To prevent crew distraction? To prevent tampering with the locomotive?

> If somebody is willing to ignore those two parties,
> what force or effect does a TRAIN resolution have?

It is likely that they would not ignore those two parties, if they realized that one or both do not support giving cab rides. The resolution is simply a way to have them consider the implications of what they are doing.

> You have no ability to influence or control your members,
> unless you expel them. Will you expel them (and forgoe
> their membership revenue)?

OK, first a disclaimer. Everything I've posted here is solely my opinion, and it is NOT to be taken as an official or even un-official statement of TRAIN policy, board opinion etc. I am not a board member and I am not speaking for TRAIN. I'm just giving you my personal take on it. I was at the board meeting and so I do have first hand knowledge of what was said. I also got what I think is a pretty good feel for what the intent was.

That said, it is my feeling that the resolution is exactly what it states, a reccomendation to the membership. There was no talk of sanctions, and I sincerely doubt there would be. TRAIN is not trying to become the FRA of the tourist railroad industry.

> What exactly is it about parliamentary bodies that
> makes them so fond of grand pronouncements.

Quoting the TRAIN mission statement, which in part says:



This issue is obviously of importance to TRAIN's membership. The board of directors, who have been elected by the membership, reviewed the situation, and gave their reccomendation after thoroughly researching and discussing the situation. The only goal was to present this matter for the participating members to consider and review.

Normally things that are covered at the TRAIN board meeting barely register a ripple in the general railfan world. Since this is a hotspot issue, it's taken on more significance than usual.

Can someone please tell us where the F.R.A. regulation about occupants of a locomotive cab is? I'm wading through Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations now, and wonder if I should be looking in the General Code of Operating Rules, instead. But, that's not an official F.R.A. regulation, although it may be based on some.
In 1978, George Hart of Stewartstown RR told me of a Federal Regulation limiting the maximum occupancy of a locomotive cab to 4. That was right after the Family Lines System (now part of CSX) had ordered new "Crew Cab" Diesels, so they could comply with local full crew laws and still get rid of cabooses. So, the rear brakeman rode up front! The railroad also thought that there was a safety advantage to having more people in the cab checking up on each other.