Thank you Mr Ramsey for providing the answer for Mr. Ellsworth. For the specific operation discussed there is still an engineer qualification system in place, with some aspects very similar if not the same as Part 240. The drug and alcohol testing connot be done under part 240 authority/compliance since the Part does not apply to the non insular non regulated operation. To do so would be a misuse of the Part 240 regulation. If the organization wanted to continue to do D&A testing, they would need to do that under an organizational policy that is in line with other applicable laws or regulations. My understanding is that since the organization's engineer qualification program is not Part 240 compliant, those engineers would not be able run run equipment on a Part 240 governed railroad even with a pilot. They are not Part 240 certified engineers.

Ryan

No problem Ryan!

Yes, you are correct, engineer/conductor certification from a non FRA certification program is not transferable to a general system railroad with an approved FRA Certification Program. I have recently transitioned a tourist operation from mistakenly applying general system regulations even though the circumstances that would required it changed years previously.

I revised both their FRA engineer/conductor certification programs to an internal railroad "qualification" programs. Any reference to FRA and FRA requirements was removed, even though the intent of the program remains the same. The term "certification" was changed to "qualification" to avoid any confusion with the FRA programs. I included in the general information section at the beginning of the document the following language for clarity:

"The XXX Railroad is a tourist, scenic, historic, or excursion operations that is not part of the general railroad system of transportation as defined in § 240.7 and consequently is not required to have an FRA approved Engineer Qualification Program. This “qualification” program is a non-FRA internal program to qualify engineers on XXX RR. Qualifications outlined within this program are not transferable to railroads subject to 49 CFR Part 240."

Hope this is helpful.

MDR

This has occurred in the transit world.

SEPTA has trolley and subway/elevated operators who want to transfer to the Railroad Division. If the transfer is accepted, SEPTA offers FRA certification training for the operator to get his/her FRA card.

Trolley and subway/elevated are regulated under FTA.

Phil Mulligan

Along these same lines...

Ohio has passed a law that ANY railroad with 10 or more miles of track must have a defect detector and they must be spaced not more than 10 miles apart, topography permitting. In speaking with someone at the PUCO/Rail Division, they were not consulted by lawmakers at all about any ramifications for tourist RRs or other small RRs in the State. The hope is that the FRA comes up with a regulation that preempts the State law and will allow for exemptions for small freight or tourist/historic railroads.

I think that was kind of a knee-jerk reaction and not thought all the way through. I'd bet CVSR and maybe HVSR are having some discussions with their state representatives.

I’m not sure what the issue is? Are hot box detectors particularly expensive? Kinda like the new regulations on doors in the UK - just install them and move on.

About $200k according to the internet.

Which isn’t particularly expensive when it comes to running a railroad. That’s an addition $20k a year for the next decade.

No, but many (probably most) tourist railroads (particularly those operated by 501s) will find that to be a very substantial amount when the gross annual income is maybe a few hundred thousand. It might be 20k/yr over a decade, but that doesn't help if the money is needed *now* to comply under the threat of fines or forced shutdown. On that note, how many tourist lines in Ohio have enough trackage to be subject to this?

Combined with the fact that a tourist line by most norms run at low speeds and do not handle hazmats, I'd say such a requirement would be an unreasonable and unnecessary regulation, especially considering the caliber of event that led to this law in the first place, and is an impossible occurrence on say, Hocking Valley.

When was the last time a hot box led to a notable accidentally at a tourist railroad? Never?

Unless your total annual revenue isn't much more than that...

If your total annual revenue isn't much more than $20k I question how you can maintain over 10 miles of track and equipment and facilities.

Are there any examples of such? I doubt it.

It would be delusional to think that a small freight railroad or non-profit can readily absorb "only" an extra $20K a year (multiplied by 10-mile increments) to purchase a system and then the additional expense to maintain and test it.

Isn't that about the same cost as a crossing signal with gate?

And honestly, if $20k is gonna kill you, your business as a railroad is not really a business to begin with. Not trying to be mean, just realistic.

Nobody WANTS to pay for extra expenses, but that's the reality of doing business.

In many cases, new/upgraded crossing protection systems are covered by the governing entity and the railroad is only on the hook for maintenance.

Digging a little further into the Ohio law I think your out is if you are not a common carrier per Section 4907.02, Railroad Defined, of the Ohio Revised Code. Most tourist lines anywhere are not common carriers. The new Ohio laws pertaining to wayside detectors are 4955.50 and 4955.51.