Rules relating to offering cab rides

superheater · **Joined:** Sun Aug 22, 2004 11:54 pm **Posts:** 2605

Bruce_Mowbray wrote:

My reply comes with first-hand experience.
Back when the 2317 and 3254 were in service, Steamtown did have a cab ride program. The reason this was able was because both of those locomotives are equipped with a standard third seat in the enclosed cabs. The Third seat was located "out of the way" for cab operations, being located behind the fireman's seat. The "cab rider" would be told that while the locomotive is in motion, the "rider" MUST remain in this third seat at all times with the cab door shut to prevent the rider from falling out of the cab.
On the 26, there are ONLY two seats, and the cab is of the "open" design. The fireman's seat is located where the fireman has full access to the injector, can see forward down the track without anything in the way of their view, can ring the bell (should the auto bell ringer fail) and can easily get down to the cab floor to monitor the fire, including the shoveling of coal, then back up to the seat to perform regular duties without anybody getting in the way.
When a third person is in the cab, in order for them to be out of harm's way and not to obstruct the fireman, they are required to stand on the moving tender apron, which is typically not moving in unison with the locomotive, in the open doorway, holding on to the cab wall or windowsill (if the window is open).
With that in mind, even if there was a written rule, the safety of the inexperienced visitor/cab rider should be paramount.

Follow up to this post, from the perspective of somebody who did non-railroad regulatory analysis professionally for several years. As usual, Bruce offers useful and thoughtful comments.

1.) Unless you are an attorney or working under the technical direction of attorneys, sitting down with a codex and doing your own work is being your own lawyer (having a fool for a client).

Words in statutory, legal or regulatory contexts are often "terms of art". All language is subject to construction and might in a specific context be subject to odd or even contradictory meanings.

An unrelated but illustrative example. Qualified Employee Benefit Plan regulations use the term "highly compensated employee". The same term appears in Title 26 (The Internal Revenue Code) and Title 29 (Federal Labor Law), because such plans are regulated by the IRS and the Department of Labor.

You might think the same term appearing itwo different parts of the same federal code would have the same meaning-but they don't. The IRS has very specific quantitative considerations (compensation, ownership) where as the DOL uses the term in a "facts and circumstances" subjective manner. The reason they are different is because the two federal agencies have different regulatory mandates. (Of course in a logical world, they'd have different terms, but that's not a goose I'll chase)

2.) Regulations are written for "normal" aspects of the regulated entity/activity in response and in response to specific cultural, operational, social and technical developments. There's no mention of non-employee cab riders in the CFR, because it's not anticipated and therefore unnecessary. Keep in mind, a lot of railroad regulations are sought by railroads-for several reasons-but most importantly because they swap equipment through interchange and accidents can have adverse effects on the entire industry. No freight railroad would have cab riders, so no regulation. Likewise, there was no electronic device regulation until they became commonplace and caused a (spectacular) accident.

3.) Just because there's no specific legal or regulatory proscription, doesn't mean it's advisable. Bruce mentions the specific issues with the 26. Most of us who did our time in the 90's remember the fatalities of July 1995 (we're just over a month from the anniversary). In that case, two teenagers (who trespassed over multiple properties with ATVs) were killed and not only the NPS/railroad entities were sued, but also other entities whose properties were trespassed in addition to the RR. Unfortunately, just about all of the people involved have passed on, and as I recall, the jury found no liability, but the judge did. I doubt we are a less litigious society than three decades ago.

I'm just imaging shoveling coal into the 26 having the shovel hit some cab rider and then being sued for pain and suffering, even if they don't get surprised by the impact and fall off the deck.

4.) The catch-all is Norac General Rule S.

Bad Order · **Joined:** Sun Jun 23, 2013 1:16 pm **Posts:** 231

Thinking of all the rules I've broken and rules classes I've taken over the years, working as an engineer for the UP, a question or scenario having to do with non-employees in the cab never came up.
I'd say the only rule even remotely relevant to this question was one they instituted that prohibited an employee from standing up moving around while the loco was in motion. Something to do with "slack action may cause you to fall". Don't know that it was an actual rule, with a number... but they were hell on it for a while. That's where those inward facing cameras would get you.
Those things are recording ALL THE TIME, and they have a long "memory"... I can't recall the length of time they'll record before it's recorded over... maybe a week?

I have had non-employees in the cab, out on the main line...at track speed...with no place to sit.. some even running the engine, lol. Kind of a wink/wink, nod/nod thing. This one wasn't big enough to blow the whistle and see out the window at the same time, lol.

This was on the UP1429, my yard engine power for a long time.

Attachment:

11111.jpg [ 40.98 KiB | Viewed 57052 times ]

Randy Hees · **Posted:** Mon Jun 09, 2025 7:13 pm

Earlier in the thread it was said.... "Nope. By definition, speeders, motor cars and hirails are not trains. However, hirails do have safety standards about regular inspections and testing, something motorcars, pedal bikes, etc., don't have."

I will note that at the Nevada State Railroad Museum, Boulder City, we had a surprise visit by an FRA inspector to look at our Rail Bike Program... (operated by Rail Explorers)

That inspector wanted to look at their maintenance manuals and other information on maintenance/inspection/safety program. He had been sent over from Barstow (BNSF), his usual haunt... We called one of the owners in... He and I walked about in our shop, having an informal conversation on our practices.

Rail Explorer's staff arrived, and their written maintenance and inspection program and record keeping and documentation.

Based on that visit, I would suggest that the FRA is interested in all rail safety... in our case we (museum and Rail Explorers) had formal inspection programs... and that ended the question.

We also did cab rides, based on seats available in the cab... without issue.

I would note our track was class 2.

Randy