Even though this is a dinner train and not a museum train, I think you will find this interesting. After reading it I asked myself who should pay for the accessibility? The town? The small business? What if the train had asked form the $65K plus the cost of adding wheelchair accessibility?

http://www.columbiamissourian.com/stori ... t-protest/

It's a shame adding a ramp made from some 2X4's and a few nails would likely cost a tens of thousands of dollars... y'know, the studies, paperwork, union participation, railings, friction strips and "green" lighting, special paint, markers and eventual certification from the state.

Best of luck to the operation. Looking forward to seeing a few pictures since the reported neglected to get a representing angle.

/Mitch

I would have to wonder that if the train were ADA compliant if any of the 14 would have ridden? Always has to be a victim for everything.
It sounds like the operator is willing to try and fix the problem, but like Mitch said, there will have to be an environmental impact study, make sure no termites are killed in the erection of the ramps, clearance from Al Gore, 27 government agencies, the Pope and a disinterested third party. That's the dumass world we live in today.

Sigh.

So now the Anti-Railroad ADA Protest Society, which had its roots in central Maryland, has apparently formed a Midwestern Chapter.

[groans, shakes head, walks away muttering....]

I really would have loved to ask of any of them would have bought a ticket for that run if there'd been a ramp. If the answer is "no" (and you just know around 100% of any honest answer would have been no), then it's just another example of people missing the 60s and the "protest everything that doesn't go exactly my way" mentality that era created.
Heck, maybe I should protest Steamtown because it wasn't built close to where I live. That makes about as much sense.
On the flipside, I can see an understandable issue, in that the train was brought to that community by tax dollars (aprantly the train doesn't have to be ADA compliant based on some comments, but I don't know if that's correct). But even so, I truly doubt the train crew wouldn't help someone on board in a wheelchair.

You've got to remember, all of the equipment they are using pre dates ADA complacency. This comes with the territory when running heritage equipment and the public has to be understanding of this fact. We have run into this problem and for the most part people have understood. We explained that when the equipment was built, it was before the current requirements. I think the operator could have done a better job to make accommodations. We have always been able to help those that would like to ride. We cannot accommodate power chairs, but we can almost always have portable fold up chairs.

I can't speak for the protestors of course, but I will say that the Mt Rainier Scenic RR has a ramp and wheelchair lift, and they get used on a regular basis.

Hopefully they'll get something set up and work things out.

Did Bob Reuter move to Missouri?

Steve

We have developed lifts to accommodate major donors. In short, it's not "them," it's "us."

Unless it requires modifying a vintage railroad car in a way that compromises its historic character, and the organization running the train is devoted to preserving that character, ADA accessibility is the law--not an option. Most dinner train cars have already been heavily modified, so the "historic character" argument doesn't apply. With a simple on-platform ramp or lift, lightweight coaches with traps over the steps lend themselves to accessibility, and if there's a baggage door available, even more so. Accessibility is a required cost of doing business.
Aaron Isaacs, editor
Trainline/Railway Museum Quarterly

Nonsense. The world is actually quite smart. The problem is, some refuse to take the time to understand it, and instead call it dumb, when in fact IT's not dumb.

The train is already ADA compliant. That is what the activists are complaining about. My guess is the activists are wrong. Mind you, I'm not up to speed on whether government moeny would require accessibility in this case, and whether that's trumped by the railcar exemptions.

"compliant" is not the same thing as "accessible".

There are lots of cases where "compliant" adds up to "not accessible". I write this from one such facility.

ADA says if you serve the public, you must do what is "readily achievable", aka EASY.

This doctrine is universal and CANNOT BE TURNED OFF. There is no such thing as "exempt" from the readily achievable part. Part is letting handicappers make their own way in the world. Consider: An old building has a long flight of stairs on the entry. A security guard notices to his shock, a person in a wheelchair rolling by. The guard can't possibly imagine how the guy got up here. (answer: friends.) He doesn't want ruts cut in the old hardwood floor, so he chases the guy down and says "How'd you get up here! You can't be here, we are exempt from ADA. You'll have to leave."

Laugh if you like, but that's been done. By heritage railroads.

You're not "exempt from ADA". "Readily Achievable" does apply, and what is readily achievable is to not bother the guy, and let him get away with what he did.

So if those activists make their own way onto your dinner train -- you better serve 'em!
And if there's something small you can do to help them gain access -- you better do it!
The only thing the exemption says is you do not have to modify the railcar.
Other exemptions say you don't have to man-carry them, or improvise a lift with a forklift.
What happens if the handicapper's own friends try to man-carry him? Can you block them from doing that?

You can't armwave about how "they might be hard to evacuate in an accident" anymore than you can armwave about how "We don't take middle-eastern types because we don't have a bomb detector". This is where it stops being about access and starts being about discrimination. California law treats it as such, and takes ADA compliance as a presumption of non-discrimination. prima facie" proof of nondiscrimination.

wanna ride, pick the person up and put them on, but maybe the protestor's action will spark some action to get it done, at least they want to get on and ride and eat. Maybe some senator will find in his heart to supply a grant.

If you are recognized as historic, you do not have to modify the building/railroad car. But you better be ready to document that you are historic... have you applied for National Register listing?

If not historic (or if you are a good guy) you need to make accommodations... towards being accessible... if historic you don't need to widen doors, but having a side door (a baggage door) available makes you look like you are trying...

I run a historic house... we are on the national register... we are exempt... we have a ADA ramp... at the side of the house rather than at the front as would be required if we were not historic... we have a photo book of the 2nd story... we train volunteers in how to work with vision and mobility limited visitors... we are still trying to develop a plan for hearing limited visitors, but have a plan to hire an interpreter if they notify us in advance (the City pays for the interpreter).

If you are a business you are required to accommodate ADA guests... not try, but accommodate... unless the building or structure (aka railcar) is on the national register or equivalent historic register. Complaining will not cut it... you are required to be in compliance, and if you are not, expect lawsuits... use of government money will assure demonstrations and lawsuits...

The good news is that the things you do for a wheelchair make you stroller friendly...

We need to stop fighting the requirements and embrace them... In the end we will have to...

Randy

Actually, Randy, there is a specific and less stringent definition of historic for railcars that does not require register listing:

42 U.S.C. § 12184(c) - Prohibition of discrimination in specified public transportation services provided by private entities - Historical or antiquated cars

(1) Exception - To the extent that compliance with subsection (b)(2)(C) or (b)(7) of this section would significantly alter the historic or antiquated character of a historical or antiquated rail passenger car, or a rail station served exclusively by such cars, or would result in violation of any rule, regulation, standard, or order issued by the Secretary of Transportation under the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970, such compliance shall not be required.

(2) Definition - As used in this subsection, the term ''historical or antiquated rail passenger car'' means a rail passenger car -

(A) which is not less than 30 years old at the time of its use for transporting individuals;

(B) the manufacturer of which is no longer in the business of manufacturing rail passenger cars; and

(C) which -

(i) has a consequential association with events or persons significant to the past; or

(ii) embodies, or is being restored to embody, the distinctive characteristics of a type of rail passenger car used in the past, or to represent a time period which has passed.

Oh, no. Now we'll be overrun with families and little children!