FRA issues updated Locomotive Safety Standards

jrevans · **Posted:** Tue Apr 10, 2012 11:22 am

The FRA has introduced new Locomotive Safety Standards which might affect some of you:

http://www.fra.dot.gov/roa/press_releas ... 1212.shtml

49 CFR Parts 229 and 238 - Final Rule

http://www.fra.dot.gov/rcc/downloads/Lo ... 040912.pdf

They specifically mention Steam Locomotive operators and small railroads.

Quote:

It is also important to note that this final rule only applies to non-steam locomotives. There are some small railroads that own one or more steam locomotives which these changes will not impact. There are a few small railroads that own all or almost all steam locomotives. Most of these entities are either museum railroads or tourist railroads. For these entities, this final rule’s regulations will have no impact. FRA estimates that there are about five small railroads that only own steam locomotives.

and

Quote:

It is important to note that many of the changes or additions in this rulemaking will not impact all or many small railroads. The nature of some of the changes will dictate that the impacts primarily fall on large railroads that purchase new and/or electronically advanced locomotives. Small railroads generally do not purchase new locomotives, they tend to buy used locomotives from larger railroads. Also, some of the final rule’s requirements, i.e., requirements for alerters, cab door securement and air conditioning units, will be a burden to very few, if any, small railroads. The most burdensome requirement for small railroads will be the revisions to cab cold weather temperature requirements since older locomotives are less likely to meet the revised standards and small railroads tend to own older locomotives. However, even this burden not significant.

PaulWWoodring · **Posted:** Tue Apr 10, 2012 1:30 pm

Just in scanning through this, it looks like tourist railroads operating Diesel locomotives over 25 mph will have to equip them with working alerters in the not too distant future, or am I missing something?

jrevans · **Posted:** Tue Apr 10, 2012 2:47 pm

PaulWWoodring wrote:

Just in scanning through this, it looks like tourist railroads operating Diesel locomotives over 25 mph will have to equip them with working alerters in the not too distant future, or am I missing something?

It sure seems to read that way, unless the operator can obtain a waiver.

Quote:

19. Section 229.140 is added to read as follows:
Â§ 229.140 Alerters.
(a) Except for locomotives covered by part 238 of this chapter, each of the following locomotives shall be equipped with a functioning alerter as described in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section:
(1) A locomotive that is placed in service for the first time on or after June 10, 2013, when used as a controlling locomotive and operated at speeds in excess of 25 mph.
(2) All controlling locomotives operated at speeds in excess of 25 mph on or after January 1, 2017.

(b) The alerter on locomotives subject to paragraph (a) of this section shall be equipped with a manual reset and the alerter warning timing cycle shall automatically reset as the result of any of the following operations, and at least three of the following automatic resets shall be functional at any given time:
(1) Movement of the throttle handle;
(2) Movement of the dynamic brake control handle;
(3) Movement of the operator's horn activation handle;
(4) Movement of the operator's bell activation switch;
(5) Movement of the automatic brake valve handle; or
(6) Bailing the independent brake by depressing the independent brake valve handle.

(c) All alerters shall provide an audio alarm upon expiration of the timing cycle interval. An alerter on a locomotive that is placed in service for the first time on or after June 10, 2013, shall display a visual indication to the operator at least five seconds prior to an audio alarm. The visual indication on an alerter so equipped shall be visible to the operator from their normal position in the cab.

(d) Alerter warning timing cycle interval shall be within 10 seconds of the calculated setting utilizing the formula (timing cycle specified in seconds = 2400 Ã· track speed specified in miles per hour).

(e) Any locomotive that is equipped with an alerter shall have the alerter functioning and operating as intended when the locomotive is used as a controlling locomotive.

(f) A controlling locomotive equipped with an alerter shall be tested prior to departure from each initial terminal, or prior to being coupled as the lead locomotive in a locomotive consist by allowing the warning timing cycle to expire that results in an application of the locomotive brakes at a penalty rate.

googanelli · **Posted:** Tue Apr 10, 2012 4:39 pm

How hard is it to retrofit for older style control stands and what kind of cost? I don't imagine too many museums are going to fall under these guidelines but there will be a few. Potentially IRM as one. Will the government offer some kind of funding because of a rule change that adversely affects non profit groups?

Joe

Newriver400 · **Posted:** Tue Apr 10, 2012 10:20 pm

googanelli wrote:

How hard is it to retrofit for older style control stands and what kind of cost? I don't imagine too many museums are going to fall under these guidelines but there will be a few. Potentially IRM as one. Will the government offer some kind of funding because of a rule change that adversely affects non profit groups?

Joe

Uh - NO... Just more unfunded mandates.

RCD · **Posted:** Tue Apr 10, 2012 11:18 pm

So why don't classic car people have to put up with all this B.S.? Putting ditch lights on RS3's or in Ross Rolands case a steam locomotive. Someone really outta point out the absurdity of these regulations to the people who make them? Hell I have suggested putting angled wooden blocks on running boards to keep people from standing on them but allow them to, but nope running boards have to go, really what is wrong with these people?

J3a-614 · **Posted:** Wed Apr 11, 2012 12:26 am

"It is also important to note that this final rule only applies to non-steam locomotives."--Federal Railroad Administration

How reminiscent of the old ICC regulations that were divided into those for steam locomotives and those for "locomotives other than steam". . .

Personally, I think the older regulations were better written, in the sense that they used the language better. Case in point: This sentence, "There are a few small railroads that own all or almost all steam locomotives," to my eyes, reads that small railroads own almost all the steam locomotives in the country. A better written sentence, in my view, would read "There are a few small railroads that operate entirely or almost entirely with steam locomotives."

Doesn't anybody write decently anymore?

As to Ross Rowland and ditch lights on the 614, I'm not certain he was required to put them on, at least not at the federal level. I suspect that may have been something he did just to be on the safe side, or, more likely may have been required by the New Jersey Transit. (Of course, Ross or others really in the know are free to correct me if I'm wrong.)

Otherwise, how do you explain that 614 is just about the only steam locomotive with them? Why are they not on 844, 3985, 261, 765, 1225, 630, 4501, 4449, . . .

co614 · **Posted:** Wed Apr 11, 2012 10:05 am

We added ditch lights on the 614 when we began the 3 year long NJTransit operation as we knew we'd be operating at track speeds and wanted to eliminate a possible issue for the ambulance chaser attorneys in the event of an accident.

Thank goodness there were zero incidents during the 26 trips but better safe than sorry. We did go to the trouble to have black leather hoods made for them so as to cover them for photo run-bys.

Ross Rowland

robertmacdowell · **Posted:** Wed Apr 11, 2012 2:54 pm

Some of you are starting to get it, so help the stragglers with the melody, here we go.

If I'm not running on the main lines,
I'll check the Tourist Railway Guidelines,
Before I say it applies to me,
I'll check the Applicability!
(often found at xxx.3.)
Yo.
Tourist Railway Guidelines. http://www.fra.dot.gov/pages/2348.shtml
49 CFR 229.3 Applicability. http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/te ... .2&idno=49

Quote:

(b) This part does not apply to:

(1) A railroad that operates only on track inside an installation which is not part of the general railroad system of transportation;

That's most of us. Installations can be 20 miles long and have highway crossings. 229.3 is not being revised, so for us non-general-system roads, nothing changes.

As for the other reg mentioned - 238 -- ALL tourist operations are exempt from that whether they are on or off the general system. Again back to the same resources, the TRG and 238.3.

robertmacdowell · **Posted:** Wed Apr 11, 2012 3:53 pm

RCD wrote:

So why don't classic car people have to put up with all this B.S.? Putting ditch lights on RS3's or in Ross Rolands case a steam locomotive. Someone really outta point out the absurdity of these regulations to the people who make them? Hell I have suggested putting angled wooden blocks on running boards to keep people from standing on them but allow them to, but nope running boards have to go, really what is wrong with these people?

"We have met the enemy and it is us" - Pogo

Here's the REAL problem. Along comes a guy like you. You read the FRA regulations, well some of them anyway, but it just so happens that you've got a political bent where you generally find the government to be ridiculous. And you like to get angry at that, so naturally, you like to believe it. So paradoxically, you end up defending a regulation that you actually oppose - because you'd rather live in a world where you can hate the government.

Anyway, usually the museum is actually exempt from the stupid regulation. But arguing that is a complete waste of time. I can't tell you how many times I've had REALITY explained to me by someone who hasn't read and won't read the regs. Sometimes this is compounded by the local FRA inspector finding it productive to mislead or confuse the museum, possibly because the FRA man doesn't know himself.

Anyway, that's how running boards get torched off and rails get turned. Seen it 100 times.

Larry Lovejoy · **Posted:** Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:20 pm

googanelli wrote:

How hard is it to retrofit for older style control stands and what kind of cost? I don't imagine too many museums are going to fall under these guidelines but there will be a few. Potentially IRM as one. Will the government offer some kind of funding because of a rule change that adversely affects non profit groups?

Joe

Nope. Just like there was no funding available to reprogram all of my museum's radios when the FCC forced us to change to another frequency. I'm reminded of the attached cartoon, which I clipped out of the paper about 30+ years ago....

J3a-614 · **Posted:** Thu Apr 12, 2012 8:37 pm

Of course, also take note in the original post that these regulations only apply to "non-steam" locomotives, ergo. . .

You can get around these pesky regulations by using steam locomotives--the One True Power!! :-)

jasonsobczynski · **Posted:** Fri Apr 13, 2012 7:56 am

In regards to applicability, the term "installation" I believe refers to a rail system with an industry such as a munitions base (such as in alabama), refinery, etc...... That is, a rail system which exists on private property resulting in a lack of access to such things as grade crossings. Also, it was recently explained to me by an fra inspector that a line is crossed by tourist railroads when they haul actual freight in addition to people...... Something not many do.

Cheers, Jason

NH0401 · **Posted:** Fri Apr 13, 2012 3:53 pm

An alerter is not that difficult to retrofit into a (diesel) locomotive. The issue is acquisition cost and availability. Railroad electronic devices are not inexpensive.

On another level, how many tourist outfits have a MAS over 25 mph ?

DPK

PaulWWoodring · **Posted:** Fri Apr 13, 2012 5:40 pm

NH0401 wrote:

On another level, how many tourist outfits have a MAS over 25 mph ?DPK

MAS of the Cuyahoga Valley Scenic is 29 mph, 25 over public highway grade crossings. I'm thinking that it might also apply to the Grand Canyon and a couple of others as well? You are right, it's probably not many in the U. S.