By the time I started with TVRM, we had tightened up the cab rider requirements-minors 12 to 17 years if accompanied by a paying adult and no minors under 12. Clothing requirements were also tightened up then.

This isn't an FRA question, this is a question of civil law for "FRA Lite"/insular roads: If statute (49 USC 20103) specifically authorizes a lower standard than a general system freight railroad, could a civil litigant use that against you? And what to do about that?


Has it? Really? What statute or case law has changed materially? Or is this merely a "moral panic"?


Um, THIS. We shouldn't be asking basic questions like this.

Seriously, we need a wallet sized card on how to comply with ADA.

When I was a conductor at TVRM, our internal regulations covered those issues. Powered personal mobility devices were not permitted inside the passenger cars for safety reasons (aisles must be kept clear in case of emergency). At the conductor's discretion, they would be stored in a vestibule and secured by the owner or their attendant. Passengers were not generally permitted to ride in the vestibule with the mobility devices. Railway staff were not permitted to provide any assistance to mobility impaired/disabled passengers that they would not normally provide to other passengers. Persons unable to care for themselves were required to be accompanied by an attendant.

Above all else, we impressed upon the conductors the fact that they had a duty to refuse for transportation any passenger whom, based upon the company's rules, they determined were unfit for transportation. In those rare cases, the conductor would inform the ticket seller of the fact and the ticket seller would refund their fares. I cannot recall any unpleasantries in the few cases where I had to refuse transportation, as we politely informed the parties involved that due to the specifics of their situation, we could not accomodate them. Most of the parties were very understanding.

I should also note that with prior notice, we could and did accomodate group travel for persons with disabilities. On one occasion, the local BLE chapter chartered the train for a group of disabled children. As all of them required personal mobility devices, we ran the train with the commissary car coupled to the dining room end of the dining car. The tables and chairs were removed and placed into storage and enjoyable trip was had by all.

Accomodating visitors with certain considerations is all a matter of doing what is reasonable within the definitions of the law and practicality.

Not quite. It doesn't matter what the "easy" is. If the passenger says "I need my walker to move around the car, and I need the first seat by the door", then yes, you MUST bump the able-bodied in those seats, and stow his foldable walker in the closet or station for him. These things are "readily achievable" and you have to do them. Period.

You cannot say "Well a normal person wouldn't need this", because a normal person is not the reference standard under ADA. "Readily achievable" is.

Now ADA exempts some "readily achievable" but problematic things, such as man-lifting a customer, or improvising a wheelchair lift using a forklift. It's not illegal to do those things, but
- if your venue is required to be accessible, these won't cut it.
- if a customer demands it, you can (and should) refuse.


Linguistic note, NEVER use that officious "could not" language when the truth is "would not". That self-replicating virus gets inside your brain and makes you think you are legal when you are not. The difference between "impracticable" and "don't wanna" illuminates the entire reason for the ADA law.

Remember, just because you got away with it so far, tells you nothing about whether it is legal. You should NOT rely on "so far, so good" as proof of good practice. Fact is, like boiler explosions, ADA lawsuits are few and far between, so they are extremely poor feedback. When ADA activist and frequent (but not frivolous) litigant Arwen Bird got kicked off the holiday train, it was only love of trains that stayed her from shooting that fish in a barrel. Unfortunately the absence of immediate lawsuit is seen by the group as "proof they are right", which is exactly the effect I am warning about.

Which is why we need a seminar!

To protect a collection I always thought setting up two orginazations was a good idea orginazation A owns everything orginaxation B rents from A and runs everything and holds libealty. If something happens the lawsuit would effect B while A would still retaine everything and have to look for another B.

A very good point regarding "readily achievable". One of the complicating factors with our collection is the historic designation that applies to the passenger equipment that was on property when the museum site was listed on the National Register of Historic Places. In our case, none of the heavyweight passenger cars are ADA accessible as they retain the lounges at both ends. Only one modern passenger car (at the time I was there) was readily accessible (straight aisle).

In most cases that I recall, we informed the passenger that the only way that we could accomodate them (limited mobility) was if they could walk a short distance or be carried by an attendant. For safety and comfort reasons, we did not allow them to ride in the vestibules if the steam locomotive was working due to toxic gas in the tunnel.

One issue that many of us face in undertaking restorations is the question as to whether we restore the car to it's original condition or alter a car so that it is ADA compliant. It also would behoove the industry to develop aids so that member organizations can more readily determine if they are required to be ADA compliant and if so, the easiest means of doing so.

LOL. Asset protection could be a seminar unto itself. But yes, definitely worth covering.


Well first, you're talking about two very different things.
#1 construction standards, how you (re)build the car.
#2 accommodation standards, how you work with a disabled customer.

The Register says "Don't alter historic equipment."
ADA says "Don't alter historic equipment."
So yes, it's very confusing! LOL!

OK, well. It's more like, if you don't alter the equipment, it is exempt. If you do alter the equipment, then ADA and related laws apply to the alterations, which could conflict with other laws still, and there's essentially no practice of law in this area, so nobody knows how to do this, and you're on your own to wing-ding it and hope it's good enough. And you're on the hook if it's not. Also, your cars are exempt but your service is only grandfathered. Grandfathering is on the principle that access is impracticable. When you provide access anyway, you prove it IS practicable, which breaks the grandfathering and now your SERVICE must be accessible even though you'll never be required to alter a historic coach. This is a "tar baby" that can seriously entangle you. Don't touch it lightly.

Now duties as host. Sorry, "exemption from alteration of historic coaches" does not exempt you from doing all else that is readily achievable. Pull their car right up to the train, bump other passengers from the seats near the doors, stow their walker, etc.

Now, this is very dynamic because people vary in their abilities. For instance you have coaches with lounges at the ends and thus a long walk down a narrow corridor to the coach seats, that's fine, think of that as a "barrier". But don't go overthinking it into "This car has barriers therefore we will prohibit any handicapped person from boarding, and oh look Joe just boarded a person in a wheelchair, we'll reeducate him on policy." Except Joe talked to the person and discovered they CAN overcome these particular barriers, so he correctly let them on. You can't have a policy because abilities vary too much. Best you can do is communicate what each of the barriers are, and let people decide for themselves.