I find it interesting, but not suprising, that two different agencies of the Federal Government define the same thing two different ways.

In the current thread regarding ADA issues I find this:

(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

In the FRA part 223 (Glazing) it says

b) This part does not apply to—

(3) Locomotives, passenger cars and cabooses that are historical or antiquated equipment and are used only for excursion, educational, recreational purposes or private transportation purposes. And the FRA further says:

§223.3(b)(3) FRA’s interpretation of the terms “historical, antiquated, and excursion” are as
follows:
“Historicalequipment”refers to locomotives, passenger coaches or cabooses whichhave historical
significance. For example, the Ferdinand Magellan, U.S.A.-1 passenger car used by President
Roosevelt.
“Antiquated equipment” - In general, the FRA Railroad Safety Board considers passenger cars
built prior to the end of World War II (1945 or earlier) to be antiquated.

It seems that the ADA definition makes more sense as it moves the point at which something becomes antiquated forward with the passage of time.

Tim Andrews

The vexing thing about the glazing issue is that the "1945 or earlier" wording crept into the rules and caught most of us by surprise. No one I know of recalls the 1945 rule ever being part of the usual CFR process, where rules are put out for comment, etc. Maybe it was, but I don't ever recall it being discussed.

Chris.

Firstoff, congrats to you for actually reading the "Applicability" section of the FRA regs.

Yes, FRA seems to vary the applicability a fair bit, reg by reg. For instance the requirements for reflectorized striping do not map at all to the exemptions for "non-general-system" railroads.

Actually, reviewing the FRA's glazing requirements and interpretations, you find that it is their interpretation of the actual rule that is the problem, not the rule itself. The interpretation is at the whim of an overpaid, underworked, and otherwise useless bureaucrat who knows how to better run our lives and businesses than we do. Frankly, if someone gets hurt due to your glazing material not being sufficient, then they have recourse through civil action or settlement process. Why the government is involved is beyond me.

Reading about the history of part 223, it was designed primarily to protect railroad crew members who are often the targets of rock throwers, pellet gun target shooters, and cinder block droppers (from overhead bridges). Again, FELA law protects employees through more than fair compensatory legal recourse. I do believe the FRA would have been within their authority to recommend that AAR develop a standard, or even establishing a rule for equipment to be operated in unrestricted interchange service.

The FRA Administrator (an ex-union hack from... wait... it's a real surprise: the corruption free town of Chicago - who could've guessed?) could change the interpretation with the simple stroke of a pen. No review process, no NPRM, no public comment period, no nothing required (but wouldn't that actually benefit those evil profit seeking businesses and their fat cat owners/managers?). BTW, in this context non-profits are profit seeking businesses as well, because truly non-profit means bankrupt.

On another note, just got to see Eureka College - neat place that I happened by on my way from Logansport to Peoria.

Mike
Unionville, IN

Mike,
I don't think you put a whole lot of thought into your comments "Frankly, if someone gets hurt due to your glazing material not being sufficient, then they have recourse through civil action or settlement process. Why the government is involved is beyond me." and "Reading about the history of part 223, it was designed primarily to protect railroad crew members who are often the targets of rock throwers, pellet gun target shooters, and cinder block droppers (from overhead bridges). Again, FELA law protects employees through more than fair compensatory legal recourse."

FELA and court settlements do not protect against anything, they are an after the incident compensation program. Are you saying it is ok that an engineer loses both eyes and the ability to earn a living because there was no law requiring his employer to put protective glazing in the cab windows before the vandal threw the cinder block tied to a rope off a bridge in front of his 79 MPH locomotive and he received money to compensate him for his injuries??? He never gets to see his children, or his loved ones again. He was confined to a wheelchair for the rest of his life. No amount of money can compensate this man for his pain and suffering that he had to endure. Only his passing brought him and his family relief. What did FELA protect him from? It took years to settle his case, he received not a dime from his employer, until after the seven year legal fight, was settled out of court, and he had to declare bankruptcy prior to that. Do you still think FELA is a "more than fair compensatory legal recourse"? Give me a break, all the CFR rules are only written after blood has been shed, while I agree some leave a lot to be desired, most are necessary.

Mike Tillger