That is wrong. That language confuses a lot of people. You have just described something else entirely, a thing FRA calls "insular". When an FRA reg means to say "insular", it uses the following rather explicit language:

If they don't say all that, they don't mean insular.

"inside an installation" does not mean "insular". It's a rather unfortunate turn of phrase which is almost always followed by "which is not part of the general system of transportation". This means all non-general-system railroads, whether they have grade crossings or not. FRA refers to this in 49 CFR 209 Appendix A:



Don't trust me, check it out. Check which parts are exempted per the Tourist Railroad guidelines http://www.fra.dot.gov/pages/2348.shtml - then look at the "xxx.3 Applicability" sections of those parts, and you will see that same language over and over - "inside an installation which is not part of the general system of transportation". Every time. That's what that phrase means: simply that you are not part of the general system.


True. There are 2 lines separating 3 categories:

Insular (all inside your fence; see above.)
------------------------
Not insular but "inside an installation which is" not part of the general system
------------------------
General system (revenue freight hauled for pay for your customers, not yourself)

The actual phrase we use for the middle category in our briefs is "Non-insular, non-general system." The colloquial term that has been used (but not by the FRA) is "FRA-lite."

Steve Zuiderveen

Wow, that is actually one of the smartest things I've heard said in this subject area in a long time. FRA-lite... I like it.

If you are in "FRA Lite", the changes discussed in this thread are irrelevant to you.

I want to revisit this thread in hopes of some addition discussion about this subject. What changes have you made (if any) with respect to the new regs? Is anyone using the new blue card form (6180-49A) yet?

http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/DownloadDocument?documentID=371370&version=0

I have used the new blue card for 4 locomotives so far, and it has taken me a little time to figure it out. The template in Adobe cannot be saved with changes, so if I screw up and need to revise I have to start over! Also, will need to start new each year instead of just taking the one from the previous year and changing the dates.

The fields for inspection date and place will allow you to enter a date (in a certain format) and a place, but due to space in the box only the date appears, not the location, so I have to write that in by hand.

The section on the event recorder was not well thought out by FRA - as the card is set up for those who only need to test event recorders once a year. For those of us with older devices that are still required to test every 92 days, they allow to make a revision to the form for that.

The benefits - I have locomotives with dryers that I can now go 4 years on brake valves, which saves me some cost.

As for the alerters, I have yet to find out how Grand Canyon Railway will be exempt. Bad news - I just finished removing all the old Amtrak alerter equipment from the F-40's! Probably would be better anyway to install some more modern equipment anyway, at least I have 4 years to figure it out. Anyone know of a kit readily available for installation of an alerter system?

Eric

Seeking a bit of clarification on this complex matter, using a couple of examples:

Let's say you have a 10-mile or so railroad that was formed over 100 years ago to haul passengers and freight from interchange with another railroad. Later, it was sold and became a tourist attraction, with the primary business of hauling tourists through some pretty countryside using steam locomotives and restored passenger cars. It is not a railroad museum and never was considered as such. It just happens to use "historic" railroad equipment, and that is its major attraction. There are both bridges and public grade crossings, and, through all these years, the railroad has continued to haul freight, although that is a minimal part of the overall operations.

Under these circumstances, I have to assume that this railroad has always operated in compliance with FRA regulations as applicable to a non-insular railroad connected to the general system. In other words, even though they are a "tourist railroad", because they haul revenue freight, it doesn't matter that the primary business is tourism. They still have to comply with FRA regulations as if they were a Class 1? If they dropped freight service, could this operation come out from under FRA compliance?


In another example, an organization was formed as a railroad museum hauling tourists on a several mile long section of track, point A to point B and return operation. The line has a bridge over a public highway and over a non-navigable river, but only one or two private grade crossings and no public grade crossings. If there was no freight service on the line initially, if I understand it correctly, they would not fall under FRA. But as soon as they moved one boxcar of revenue freight, they would then have to comply with applicable FRA regulations?


Two more examples:
You have a rail line that is owned by one entity, whose primary business is hauling freight from interchange to customers along the line. There is a tourist operation using historic equipment running on the same line, but the two operations are separate corporate entities. The only connection is an agreement allowing operation of the tourist train over the freight hauler's track. There are public grade crossings and bridges. Would the tourist operator have to comply with FRA regulations regardless of motive power used?

Reverse the scenario. The line is owned by the tourist railroad, but an agreement exists for a separate corporate entity to start hauling freight over the same line. Assuming that the tourist operation would otherwise not have to comply with FRA, does the contract with the freight entity result in the tourist operation having to comply?

My gut instinct in these scenarios is that the tourist operator would have to comply with FRA regulations. Absent the freight operations, they would still have to comply because there are in-use grade crossings or bridges, or the tourist operator is in the same corridor as the freight operator. Are there any exceptions where you can have the conditions of 49 CFR 225.3(a)(3) and yet be exempt?

By my understanding of FRA rules, that is correct, By "come out from under" I mean you would be moved from "Full FRA" to "FRA Lite" as described above. Lite is not quite exempt.

The FRA does not count freight hauled for yourselves (e.g. ballast) - see 49 CFR 209 App A for a discussion of this.


Under FRA rules, as discussed in 290 App A and the various regs, they are not insular because they go >OVER< a highway (or commercial waterway, railroad or airport.) If they went under it, it wouldn't matter. An example of this is TVRM's line inside Chattanooga proper which goes over a public street.


According to FRA definitions of general system, yes they would. However, again you have to read the Tourist Railway Letter (or micro-examine each part's XXX.3 section) ... you will find that a tourist railway on the general system is exempt from 238, 239 and 227. An example of this would be Strasburg.


Whoa, whoa, hold on. Again see 209 App A - FRA regs do not place track in the general system merely because the operator wants to run freight. An example is the Toledo Lake Erie & Western, where the line is leased to a guy to run freight, but in fact he's only stored cars. They could still run the west side of the line as before.

Under FRA rules, track is only in the general system if revenue freight trains actually roll over it. Once I gave a hy-rail truck ride on Coe Rail to Larry Coe and the FRA inspector. Larry stopped the inspection at Haggerty Lumber (the last freight customer). Beyond that, the track was not used for freight, not in the general system and thus exempt from 213.

The FRA says if the tourist railway entirely confines its operations to a section of track on which revenue freight trains do not run, then the tourist railway is entirely off the general system. Example: Indiana Railway Museum (though not by intent; they just don't happen to overlap at the moment.)


FRA says it really depends on the nature of the overlap. Yes, if they're sharing track with freight trains, they need to comply with all but 238, 239, 227. FRA talks a lot about that in the relevant parts of 49 CFR 209 Appendix A.


That is an unusual rule but I believe you have read the rule correctly. 225.3(a)(3) is the stock language FRA uses to describe railroads that are insular.

I call your attention to the Ford River Rouge complex, at "Miller/Dix, River Rouge, MI". (google map that). Note the street crossing Miller Road at Dix. Under FRA regs, this plant railway is not insular. It is also not on the general system. It's the freight version of the tourist railway. Normally, FRA exempts both with the same turn of phrase, used in most parts, "inside an installation that is not part of the general system of transportation".

Now I call your attention to 225.3(a)(1). That language takes pains to exempt plant railroads but not tourist railways. That is unusual. Clearly, 225 aims to include tourist railways.

Edited to add language to make clear that it is the FRA regs saying this, and not merely my opinion.

Here's the REAL problem. Along comes a guy like you. You read the FRA regulations,but it just so happens that you've got a political bent where you generally find the government to be wonderful. And you'll never get angry at government so naturally, you like to believe it's all good. So paradoxically, you end up defending a regulation that you should actually oppose - because you'd rather live in a world where you can love the government.

Dealing with this stuff day in and day out, I enjoy hearing the observations and perspectives of guys like Robert, Stephen & others.

Also enjoyed: Random diatribes about government regulation as applied to railroads from those who want to make a political statement but have little to no experience in an operating environment.

I guess I am a litttle at a loss to understand the frenetic attempts in some quarters to dance around or circumvent the FRA regulations. Insular or not, the FRA regulations would be considered in a court of law as "best practices." If you are not following "best practices," then you do so at your own peril. Some people like taking those kinds of risks. I do not.

Mike

*speechless*

The FRA regs are not best practices, but are more like the legal minimum one needs to do to not be considered negligent, IMHO.

Mike Tillger

Superheater is trolling and pulling a scam on us.

My earlier statement was neither political nor an opinion, but merely FRA's own policies in regard to these situations, based on my diligent and professional research on the subject.

Superheater didn't like those facts, so he tried to assassinate their validity by spewing political opinion, to imply that my post was also political and opinion. Several of you have taken the bait, taking license to spew your own opinions which are clearly not informed by actual facts or experience in this field.

All of it is turdposting and all should be pruned from the thread. Superheater should be sanctioned for trolling and abusing anonymity.

Perhaps if superheater is found guilty of turdposting his penalty should be that his true identity shall be released for all the world to see???

Just asking?

Ross Rowland

While I am legally restrained from commenting on this thread (!!!) I find it most interesting that the constructive discussion is conducted by known names, and the non-constructive discussion is conducted by a handle stolen from Mr. D.L. of Washington, DC (the center of government)

Steve Zuiderveen