I'm a-jes' gonna leave this lyin' here...............

http://pottsmerc.com/articles/2011/11/1 ... 323847.txt

Due to the fact that the proposed service is to be regularly scheduled and serve the same OD pairs we've been designated by the FRA to be a " passenger railroad" and are thus required to meet a host of requirements governing the rebuild process not required of PV's in occassional service.

Amongst the long list of requirements are that all materials used in the interior must meet flame&toxicity standards, all furniture must be both constructed and floor mounted to meet an 8G sled test, etc., etc.

Also, as a " passenger railroad" there are extensive requirements re: OBS crew training, emergency plans covering the entire planned route etc.

Basically the same rules&regs that a new commuter agency will have to meet.

I can tell you that IMHO if the same regs were applied to automobiles the highways would be completely empty.

We're doing our best to be able to comply and if we succeed we'll call the layed off men back and get back to work. In the interim we're doing the required engineering needed to proceed.

Time will tell.

Thanks for your interest.

Ross Rowland, President& CEO
Greenbrier Express Company, Inc.

Well, if Jim decides not to go forward with the Greenbrier, it may be possible to refurbish the Greenbrier cars for use as private varnish to be leased out in an attempt to at least get some sort of profit available. Just thinking out loud...

It's sad to learn that this project isn't going to happen.

Most business people who decide to start a project of this size and complexity conduct a feasiblity study first and these studies usually include a section that describes the regulations that need to be complied with and what it would take to do so.

Was this done and what did it show?

Bob H

What regs did AOE operate under? And the Ski Train? Those seem like the closest parallels.

Steve

Ross,

That sucks! Here we see yet again why FRA is out of control - excessive regulations that cost economic growth and pose barriers to entry. Even the most obtuse ignoramus could see that your operation is an excursion and tourist operation that should not be subject to the totality of part 238, which in itself borders on insanity. The continual introduction of more and more regulation does nothing but further crony capitalism, protecting entrenched interests, and causing headaches for almost everyone else, including small and mid-size businesses.

Your backer is certainly well connected - cannot the Senators and affected Representatives from West Virginia, Virginia, and Pennsylvania pressure the FRA to classifying your operation properly?

I'm gonna get off my soapbox before descending I break into a tirade on the insanity that entreprenuers face everyday.

Just remember, the scariest words ever heard by most citizens are "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."

Mike
Tea'd Off!

I like these Federal regulations. I am sorry they may hinder the viability of this service.

If I buy a ticket for my grandma to ride your train, and there is some electrical fault and a fire, and she dies because the materials inside the car burn toxicly, I don't really care about the novelty of this train ride.

Likewise if she is crushed because the car flips over and the chairs and tables fall on her...

Likewise if she has a heart attack and the train crew does not know where to meet the nearest ambulance...

"Safety is rule no. 1" is not just about employee discipline, it is also about putting in place structures and procedures to make it real.

Luxury train? Go ride the old interurbans, the parlor cars, those old majestic wooden interior cars you'll see what they were doing way back then, Amtrak aint sure like that now.

1929, you needed some escapism of your problems, today entertainment is up as people need a break from their drudgeries.

Something like this I see these game shows advertising this as a winning getaway on this Luxery train!

Go for it Ross.

Does UP's cars meet these requirements?

Here is a link to CFR Title 49 Transportation Code;

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/wais ... v4_02.html

As was pointed out to me a short while back that if you want to run trains this is the LAW. So like it or now it is what must anyone in the industry must live with. Each section has sections about applications, definitions, wavers, compliance and so forth.

It is what it is and by taking time to read through it may give a better understanding on what is going on. As someone who worked for me a few years ago told me, "All the rules were written in blood."

If you believe that, you need a serious education in FELA and a government that wants to take all the risk out of living with just the small price of loss of your liberty.

This is the same tripe that blames every accident on the dead man and thinks Casey Jones was completely at fault, despite being pushed by management to make up time and having orders over all trains. It is also the same mindset that believes signal systems never fail and actually produce things like false clear indications (seen it happen). The rules are written to place as much responsibility as possible on operating personnel and as little as possible on management and other departments.

I am not an anti-safety zealot, just one who cannot see the rationale for thousands of pages of regulations in fine print. There is no basis for this in the commerce clause - a part of our government framework intended to prevent trade disputes and promote commerce among the sovereign states, not regulate every aspect of our lives, let alone our transportation systems. Government regulation nearly caused the death of the entire railroad industry and has so upset the marketplace in passenger transportation that any opportunity for profit making in the transport of passengers is nearly impossible. Unfortunately, commerce clause decisions since the A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States have been largely wrong. Hopefully, Florida et al v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, will begin to render the decades of poor decisions null.

Mike
A Forgotten Man (see William Graham Sumner's definition)

AH! At least someone who has read Amity Schaes' book "The Forgotten Man"

Considering the current track this topic is taking, I predict it will get locked in a few days.

I for one thing that there is something we can learn from this, regardless of the out come.


Scott

So you prefer existing in bubble wrap? It's this kind of thinking that make free standing dining car chairs a luxury of the past and brings us the plastic banana interiors of today's Amtrak. How in the world did we survive without the government - oh yeah, with Palace Cars (which make today's first class accomodations look like steerage), heavyweights that carried on the tradition of refinement, and modern art deco design streamliners with Ranch cars, the Turquoise Room, and a host of other innovative and inviting interiors.

Looking from a completely statistical cost benefit analysis, many safety regulations are unnecessary. The mandate of Positive Train Control is the biggest joke among them - the cost and compliance burden for the miniscule number of incidents that may be prevented if it all works properly is astronomical. I am certain that the threat of liability and criminality will make the investors and management of GBX or any other such expensive venture take reasonable care to provide safe and suitable equipment for their operation. Mechanical standards imposed by Amtrak are the most critical to ensure safety.

And if your grandmother is in such precarious health, perhaps a train ride would not be in her best interest. But then again, that ride in the automobile to the train station will expose you both to more risks than a ride on Ross's train.

Mike

The valid question to be raised, and potentially a $64 million one to boot:

Was this project begun before determination of the appropriate FRA/DOT/CFR/etc. statutes and mandates that would be imposed?

Or were the project planners told one thing by one party (consultants, a Federal agency, etc.) and then told a different thing (say, a different Federal agency) after work had progressed? If so, who and why?

There is a huge difference between not being able to get a straight interpretation of presumably applicable statutes and starting into your project without adequate research. In the craft beer industry, which I write about, we see any number of cases of brewpub and microbrewery start-ups having to seek to change local and state law to do what they want to do, because the laws may date back to the end of Prohibition and/or be written with giant industrial brewery businesses in mind. On the other hand, we had a company around here locally install a brewing system in their original restaurant, have a great deal of success with their brewpub, then set forth to build a whole new brewpub on the other side of the city. The building and brewery were all but finished when they applied for the new brewpub license--and then found, to their chagrin, that they were prohibited by state law from owning more than one brewery. They shut down the original brewpub and set up brewing for both locations at the new place--which failed after about two years, leaving them no brewing operation at all.......

If GBX was told one thing, proceeded with that plan, and then was handed a whole new set of regulations after doing all the advance legwork, they have a right to go ballistic against the regulators "double-crossing" them. On the other hand, if they simply started gutting cars before finding out what regs the Feds would hold them to, they have pretty much no one to blame but themselves, gripes of "over-regulation" notwithstanding.