One of the best reads out there to see what we are facing today and how it got this bad. Burton Folsom's New Deal or Raw Deal, and Jim Powell's FDR's Folly are also excellent takes on the subject.

My love for railroading, especially passenger railroading, has often lead me to think how the best land transportation and transit system in the world came to such a pathetic state. The market usually is determined long term by efficiency, price, and schedule. Considering the inherent adavantages the railroads and transit companies had in physical plant and equipment, there is no reason, other than outside interference, that the passenger train has come to be mostly on life support. Airlines and automobiles would have made several services unprofitable, but the market should have determined that, not government meddling.

Reading many treatises on government and economics, I have come to the conclusion that the railroad industry in many respects reflects the political landscape of the day. Thus, one of the reasons that we have only limited players in the market today instead of the myriad competitive lines of the past. Yes, consolidation is a natural progression, but the ability of start-up innovators to enter the market place is non-existent. At every turn there are government regulators to bar market entry and protect entrenched interests. If Ross's venture were to be successful, it could be a model for others to follow or for aspects of reform to Amtrak.

Best,
Mike

Sandy makes valid points, but it seems to me that any reasonable person would have considered the operation tourist, excursion, or historic in nature. Recall that AOE operated regularly scheduled departures attached to the rear of the Cardinal in the early '90's (remember the Trains Magazine cover?). How was that operation regarded?

Thinking about it for a minute, GBX is in no way designed for conventional passenger travel as we think of Amtrak, Greyhound, or Fill-in-the-blank Airlines. Regularly scheduled excursion service to the Greenbriar is not what I would call common carrier passenger service, it is contract passenger service. Ross should comment if he can, but I would think this was their line of thinking in designing the concept for GBX.

After all, the specific exemption in the applicability of part 238 states:

(c) This part does not apply to:

(3) Tourist, scenic, historic, or excursion operations, whether on or off the general railroad system of transportation;

The caveat seems to be the definition of such operations...

Tourist, scenic, historic, or excursion operations means railroad operations that carry passengers, often using antiquated equipment, with the conveyance of the passengers to a particular destination not being the principal purpose. Train movements of new passenger equipment for demonstration purposes are not tourist, scenic, historic, or excursion operations.

I suppose FRA is asserting that delivering passengers to the Greenbriar is conveyance to a particular destination, though the GBX could be viewed as an excursion that is just another optional amenity of the resort.

FRA has the power to make this go away with the stroke of the pen through the waiver process, though if GBX is not a unionized operation, they can forget it (the current head of FRA is a Chicago union hack).

Mike

Without getting into politics, regulations etc, let me try and add something.

This summer the Saratoga & North Creek RR began operations in NY State along what was formerly the Upper Hudson River RR. The S&NC is operated by Ed Ellis's Iowa Pacific with several different types of cars (incl Alaska domes and LIRR bi levels).

Interestingly enough, this operation is under the "passenger" rather than "tourist" regulations.

Dave

A few answers and points....

As it was explained to me, the regs that are giving them issue are new as of about 2-3 years ago.

1) The AOE was not subject to these issues as they were using the cars in an un modified condition. The structure involving the windows is being altered.

2) The interiors of the AOE were redecorated prior to these new regs. These cars have been "tubed".

3) AOE and other type varnishes ran/run all over the country on a limited number of trips per year, more excursions than passenger service.

4) The greenbrier is to be a regularly scheduled passenger train operating for the purpose of transporting people, over main line rails at main line speeds, between point "A" and "B". It is to be a mode of transport, not an excursion. Right from the start I wondered how they were going to get around all of this, much is legal in this world (and with the FRA) until modified or "remodeled"....things get grandfathered. It all comes down to involving people in the planning stages that are familiar with the regs.

To Mike, I find it far easier to be familiar with and follow all applicable FRA regulations. I find it honestly disturbing how far some operations in the industry (not referring to GBX) will go to effectively break the law with the excuse of "the FRA makes it impossible". When, infact, if a person capable of doing the job had been in the appropriate position instead of someones buddy or just the next guy in line because he's been there the longest....well, often it costs less to do things correctly rather than having to play catch up and undo hack work.

The GBX seems to be taking the appropriate steps in doing things correctly, the first time.... Good for them!

Give it time, the FRA moves slowly sometimes....

Jason

I find it odd that S&NC has also been classified under the 238 rules - again, overreach by FRA. That is, unless... there is state or federal funding for a regularly scheduled service along the lines of what the D&H provided NY State in times gone by. However, it still seems a stretch. Does FRA think they don't have enough to do? Do they really think they are providing some great protective service to the public? Or are they justifying more workers on the government dole and more government spending? Did NY State DOT decide to hold them accountable under part 238? It is not unheard of for state DOT's to have inspectors that are totally inept at applying regulations who are trying to justify their own state level jobs by applying regulations that are not applicable. Been there, seen that.

Mike

Have you considered that possibility that the people involved at FRA might actually be honest and competent people doing the job they are legally bound to do, within the framework of laws that regulate us all equally? I seem to have missed that interpretation in the short list of options you have offered above.

If there's a case to be made for a misinterpretation of regulations based on the mission and intent of this offered transportation or leisure service, that case can be made through legitimate channels.

Remember, even paranoiacs have real enemies, and wear that tinfoil helmet when you step outside....

dave

I would have thought that given the scope of the GBX operation that a legal staff would have researched the ins and outs of what they can do and how to do it with a fine tooth comb.
If you are going to operate something like this that can be interpreted as a passenger operation, then find out what is required.
Whether you agree with it, the law is the law and a good sit down meeting with the FRA could have saved a lot of money and labor.
I don't want to live in bubble wrap any more than the rest of you do, but with today's society and the ease of being sued by some crackpot it is what it is.
I could go political here, but what's the point?

The FRA are not the "bad guys" here. Matter of fact there are a number of knowledgeable pssgr. train advocates there who want the industry to prosper. They're doing the job they're paid to do.

The endemic issue is a reflection of the nanny state drift we've been experiencing as a nation for years and an issue of diminishing returns on steroids.

The PTC issue is a classic example. In a knee jerk reaction to a very rare horrific accident caused by human failure, Congress mandates that the industry spend $ 15 BILLION, yes BILLION dollars to install an electronic " fix" which itself will not be "human" proof.

Just pause a moment and think what would happen if every time there was a multi-car smash up on the Interstate, Congress passed a silly mandate such as making cars be built that could only do 35mph and must maintain at least 500 ft. seperation?? It certainly would drasticly reduce highway deaths...at what cost.

The FRA regs are designed to maximize passenger survivability in a 60 mph brick wall crash. You can just imagine what it takes to comply with that. My educated guess is that it triples or quadruples the cost. When's the last time a passenger train hit a brick wall at 60mph??? What are the odds of that ever happening, 1in 10,000, 1 in 2 million, 1 in 100 million???

That leads directly to diminishing returns. The way we're headed it won't be long before we've regulated that the equipment be so " safe" ( seat belts at all seats, no furniture unless it has approved crushable edges all around, no leaving you seat when the train is in motion ( that would require your removing your seatbelt) etc., etc. that it will be so costly that only the taxpayer funded transit agencies will be able to afford it.

If the objective is to totally eliminate all risk in being alive then I guess the end game will be that we must stay in bed ( designed and built to Federal safety standards) leaving only to go to the potty???

Anyhow, we're coping with it and I'm modestly hopeful that we'll find mutually agreeable solutions so that we can resume work soon.

Thanks for your interest.

Ross Rowland

The PTC issue is a classic example. In a knee jerk reaction to a very rare horrific accident caused by human failure, Congress mandates that the industry spend $ 15 BILLION, yes BILLION dollars to install an electronic " fix" which itself will not be "human" proof.


There are no "knee jerk" reactions in government. There is of course, "rent seeking behavior". You can be sure that behind a Congress and an agency insisting that we can have absolute safety, so long as we throw enough technology at something, is a purveyor looking to profit from mandated demand.

This is not unusual, but its worse elsewhere. The same SEC that missed all of the scandals of the past decade, is busy trying to make corporate America release its financial information in an electronic format, XBRL and is thinking about replacing our "Generally Accepted Accounting Principles" (GAAP), with so-called International Financial Reporting Standards. Behind that effort is the AICPA, dominated by the "Big 4" whose interests are discussed here:

http://accountingonion.typepad.com/theaccountingonion/2009/09/ifrs-adoption-critics-vocal-minority-or-silent-majority.html

The vicious problem is that if you're doing something that falls anywhere outside of rigidly set standards and gives any leeway for interpretation, you're at risk of varying standards interpretation and retroactive enforcement.

The rule of thumb in the alcohol industry is that if you ask ten alcohol-regulation/taxation bureaucrats or officials about the application of some "gray area" (as one real-life example: trying to make a "gluten-free" or "Passover" "beer" with honey instead of malt as the base), you'll get fourteen answers, and all of them will still be overruled after the fact by some superior. (That honey beer idea? Various results: Slapped with wine taxes, declared illegal, ordered to put nutritional info labels on it, ordered to take them off, told to put a "handful" of non-gluten grain in it, told it must have at least 51% grain, can't be called "beer" or "ale".........) So get your answers by anyone in writing, every time!

Given what I've seen with alcohol regulation, it absolutely wouldn't surprise me--in fact, I expect it--that some lever of bureaucracy said "okay" to rehabbing vintage stuff as excursion stuff, and then another said "no, it's passenger operation; meet the new standards or else".

The mentality that Rowland and others see as aggravating is that of having to seek permission from authorities (often, in a sense, "self-appointed") to carry out some form of business or other activity. While certainly there's cause and need for some fundamental degree of standards and regulation, the big question is how much, and how open to confusion and micromanagement......

Many years ago, I was a passenger on a train that was stopped at a station. During our station stop, we were rear-ended by another train. I was uninjured but many other folks on my train were not so lucky.

You will have a hard time convincing me that the regulations of the FRA are "silly." I am of the opinion, having worked in this industry at one time, that the NORAC book saves lives everyday. The rules are what bind all railroad employees and guide their actions. Call me naive but I also believe that the FELA provides the worker with a necessary protection and recourse. Unfortunately, sometimes you really do need a lawyer. Sorry, but I'm very much in agreement with the rule book written in blood theory. Obey the rules, they save lives!

No, I don't wear a tinfoil hat, and I think the mo-Rons are mostly nuts. The problem, Dave, is that every time we turn around in the last few years, FRA is mandating this or that, changing interpretations, deciding to enforce decades old interpretations that heretofore haven't even been on the radar (223 glazing standards on post-war passenger cars in excursion service comes to mind), or some other mind numbing insanity. Having dealt or become acquainted with some of the real jewels at FRA and other agencies, I do not generally afford the government innocent until-proven-otherwise benefit-of-doubt status.

There are competent people at FRA, but there are also a lot of disgruntled anti-railroad union hacks not qualified to hold real railroad jobs as well. Competent FRA staff are generally VERY helpful, work to minimize regulatory impact, and are responsive to inquiries and questions. They stop buy to say, "Hi", perform audits, and are genuinely good folks. We have at least one VERY helpful and knowledgeable FRA employee on this board. Too bad he went to the "Dark Side."

The establishment of blanket regulatory authority by Congress was one of the worst decisions ever made (see EPA and CO2 emissions), and the court decisions that affirmed this bad precedent (yes, bad the Supremes are riddled with bad precedent - see Plessy, Dred Scott, Korematsu, Roe, Filburn). Congress has given blanket authority for the Secretary of Transportation to regulate every aspect of transportation and railroad safety, with no legislative action necessary. This is NOT a pillar of a democratic republic, but of a totalitarian state.

Sandy's points about the honey beer are exactly the kind of thing I am talking about. We always get one-size-fits-all from the Beltway, which is exactly why a regulatory regime like we suffer under is untenable at best, and an infringement on liberty at worst.

As for the photos of train crashes in response to Ross's statement about collisions at speed, the are mostly non sequitur. Only one was a head on collision at any substantial speed on the general rail system, that of the Metrolink Chatsworth wreck. The DC Metro subway was only the second fatal accident in the system's history, was not under purview of FRA or conventional AAR design parameters (now under APTA), and the structural integrity of the 1000-series Rohr subway car doesn't even match that of even antique lightweight passenger cars.

As bad as the pictures look, only 37 deaths occurred in all wrecks shown combined, with about 330 injuries, the vast majority being minor in nature. The DC Metro essentially has a PTC style collision avoidance system that FAILED, accounting for 9 deaths. The South African wreck of the Rovos Rail excursion train was a result of cars not being properly secured, a purely human failure, and just plain rare. Further, it was not a collision, but an excessive speed derailment. The Israeli incident resulted in 59 injuries. This leaves the Chatsworth wreck and the Pere Marquette rear-ender preventable by PTC. The cost is simply not worth it. Who's to say a PTC installation wouldn't have failed just like the DC Metro? Further, none of these crashes resulted in fire. Educate yourself about accidents before splashing pictures of train wrecks to scare everyone, please. Typical nanny statist tactic.

Mike

BTW, I never said FELA was bad or wrong. In fact it is in many regards the kind of law that is needed to spell out liability for your actions without the government actually regulating every aspect of a business's activities. This is not to say that it doesn't need some reform, but overall it is generally a good thing, and better than most workers' comp laws.

Some may see Mike's above post to be radical right wing fear mongering, but his sentiments mirror those of a truly radical group of people going by the names of Adams, Madison, Paine and Franklin.

The encroachment of the nanny state is particularly worrisome for anyone who operates in the fringes of mainstream society, as the Federal steamroller can flatten us and there aren't enough of us to put up an opposition, and our activities are far enough out of the mainstream that we would not garner much outside support for our cause. It still surprises me that the EPA has not outlawed steam locomotives, but someday one of these nanny staters will be in close proximity to an excursion train, see the smoke, start a website filled with half truths, innuendo and outright lies, and before you know it the mercury laden, CO2 spewing iron horse will be gone forever.

Don't think it would happen? Well then maybe you need to pay attention to what is going on around you.

Unfortunately this type of issue always comes down to the politics of the people involved in making decisions. It is unfortunate when people resort to using emotions and throw grandmothers under the bus or show horrific non connected pictures out there rather than using good technical analysis and common sense.

I don't believe that the FRA is at fault. I do believe that politics and personal agendas on both sides have lead to where we are at this point. People should leave their emotions at the door and allow a topic to stand on its technical merit rather than trying to use scare tactics.

In good faith if we go along with the premise of the government making all decisions we should recommend that all activities of this nature should be heavily regulated and monitored. This would have to be as ridiculous as regulating, licensing and monitoring all the backyard mechanics with their little toy live steamers. We wouldn't want grandma to get hurt.

There are a lot of people who have worked many years in the railway industry. It is unfortunate when their educated observation is over ridden by the emotions of the moment. A friend of mine used to say that we have to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water. Unfortunately we see the results of throwing out to many babies at this point.