I don't know how directly related this is, but in my work on old homes, here in California we have a Historic Building Code which allows for code work-arounds if a house is listed or determined eligible as "historic". This can be a pretty expansive definition.

Would listing on the National Register allow a similar workaround for FRA regulations? (The example of the Ferdinand Magellan is given in the pdf, but many, many cars should be eligible:

http://www.railwaypreservation.com/NationalRegister.htm

Part 229.125 h identifies historic locomotives as those built prior to December 31, 1948. However, this is a reference to the ditch light requirements. This date was selected to exclude all preservrd interurban cars.

No. And that's my point.

It's my understanding that the 1945 date exists only in an internal FRA instruction issued a few years back to its inspectors on how to interpret the "historic" exemption to the glazing requirement. Until this memorandum is re-issued, amended, or whatever, FRA inspectors are not free to exempt post-1945 equipment from Part 223 glazing. Waivers will be needed for cars built after that date, which includes survivors from the entire postwar streamliner fleet.

Obviously the date was selected arbitrarily, as there is no significance to that year. Among other things, no passenger equipment was delivered in 1945 nor for several years previous (except for troop sleepers, hospital cars et c.). A 1954 coach in excursion service is no different from a 1939 coach in the same train. The FRA ought to have no trouble finding grounds to amend its instruction to, say, 1957 (exempting almost all "lightweight" cars), or to a rolling 50-year period.

Aarne H. Frobom

What is the current industry status regarding interpretations from FRA (was this addressed at TRAIN 2009?)? Is there an effort to get some sort of rolling exemption on this (such as the 50 year suggestion)? I am trying to gather information to determine the best way to go forward, as it is my intention to carry or assist in carrying the banner toward getting this resolved permanently.

As has previously been mentioned, other subparts of FRA regs have better worded exemptions regarding tourist and excursion operations. Although the FRA seems to interpret antiquated as pre-1945, it would seem that the burden of proof for "historic" would fall on FRA to disprove historical significance. Remember the reg says antiquated or historic, not antiquated and historic. Also, I note that 223 does not specifically exempt steam powered locomotives and a cursory review of part 230 does not address glazing. Therefore there seems to be ramifications for any post WWII steam.

Commentary, please.

Michael Brown
New River Railway

Mr. Brown:

It is my understanding that the FRA's enforcement of glazing and other requirements was addressed at the 2009 TRAIN convention. We'll have to wait and see what, if any industry actions or recommendations came out of the board meetings.

Here's my $0.02 on this issue: to date there hasn't been any industry response to this issue, and that is unfortunate. Part of the issue may be that this isn't a problem for several of the major player in the industry (and behind groups such as TRAIN), including Strasburg, D&S, etc. that don't own much (or any) equipment from after 1945 or can claim "historic" status by being narrow-gauge or for other reasons.

My predicition is this: in 2010 the FRA will begin to deal with their considerable docket of waiver requests from this rule, and may give another temporary waiver to let people off the hook for 2010 or 2011. But the rule will remain in place, and will come up again to bite us again somewhere down the road.

The answer is for people in this industry to begin to contact their congressmen and work to encourage the FRA to change the rule and remove the 1945 date from it.

If this 1945 rule is enforced down the road not just for glass but for other issues on our cars the implications are simply staggering.

Chris.

The process of using legislative influence is precisely where I am headed on this, thus the reason for my previous query. It seems that there is a potential flood of new regulations (read "PURE FEDERAL BS") coming down the pike thanks to Metrolink and Senator Boxer.

The new requirements are going to be staggering and we must start putting the brakes on this garbage, lest we all are out of business. Good intentions aside, allowing the further erosion of liberty for the sake of alleged public safety is going to ruin more than your healthcare, so it is time to start standing up.

Everything I have managed to read about regarding 223 is that FRA has issued its own opinion of anitquated or historical. Pressure brought by legislators can have the desired effect of changing FRA's opinion, but perhaps FRA and DOT needs some clearer direction in the form of an actual law rather than regulations promulgated by bureaucrats at their own whim or the behest of organized labor (the original source for part 223's rulemaking).


Michael Brown
New River Railway

Chris:

I can assure you that none of the "major players" are acting like they don't have a dog in this fight. We are all concerned about the direction the FRA is going on this and other issues.

Let's see what industry direction and actions come out of last week's convention and this week's ESC meetings.

"ESC"

Pardon my lapse of mental capacity, but what does this acronym stand for?

"Engineering Standards Committee"???

Howard P.

neither an engineer nor an advisor... :-)

Howard,

You get the prize monkey!

Mike

I realized this about five minutes after I posted it...

Pressure by legislators can cut both ways: I think one of the problems we have here is that FRA inspectors have been given the message that the inspection interval for tourist railroads should now be "periodic" instead of "as needed". I think this change may have come via legislative pressure on the FRA.

Another issue of import is that the change to "periodic", and the 1945 rule, were never publicized via the federal register or any other widely-available method, these changes were published in documents buried somewhere on a government web site. So, we in the industry can't technically say we didn't know about these rules - the FRA can say, and technically they are correct, that these rules have been in force for some time.

A tertiary issue is that new Federal rules - or the threat of them - gives the host railroads some of us depend on another excuse to not deal with us when it comes to excursions, insurance, deadheads, etc. - they can point to a new Federal rule coming down the pike as a reason to not deal with us, sometimes with good reason.

To date our industry has done a very poor job at both awareness of this situation and with responding to it - just see how little discussion there has been on this site as evidence of that.

Chris.

Something else that has come up in my research into this issue is:

For those who have received waivers, what, if any conditions or time limits has FRA placed on the waiver(s)?

Also, I note that FRA's guidance to inspectors mentions the Ferdinand Magellan as an example of "historic," which seems somewhat ridiculous as the Magellan is exempted under the arbitrary 1945 antiquity determination. Despite the fact that it is a dismal, an Alco RS3 is a historic locomotive. Do you agree or disagree with that opinion and why or why not?

Thoughts and input, PLEASE...

Mike

Mike, they use this as an example of "historic" for the Ferdinand as it hauled multiple Presidents. Yes, this is a very arbitrary designation - if one of my cars once hauled a famous person, is it "historic"? If a car is narrow-gauge, even if it was built in the tourist era, is it "historic"?

Contact me via PM with your e-mail address and I will send to you the waiver letter we got - note that this letter only let us off the hook for 2009.

Chris.