Author Topic: FRA Regulations (Pilot, Grade Crossing, Brakes, etc.)  (Read 29875 times)

Cliff Olson

  • Museum Member
  • Baggageman
  • **
  • Posts: 109
    • View Profile
FRA Regulations (Pilot, Grade Crossing, Brakes, etc.)
« on: February 06, 2012, 10:27:42 AM »
Does MNG have any intention of removing the fake pilot from Monson #4 in the interest of historical accuracy, as it did with Monson #3?  Hopefully, the "Polar Express" tank lettering is also only temporary.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2012, 03:38:02 PM by Ed Lecuyer »

Vincent "Lightning" LeRow

  • Museum Member
  • Hostler
  • ***
  • Posts: 209
    • View Profile
Re: FRA Regulations (Pilot, Grade Crossing, Brakes, etc.)
« Reply #1 on: February 06, 2012, 11:05:51 AM »
the "Polar Express" Lettering is a magnet.
A spike saved is a spike earned.

Tom Casper

  • Museum Member
  • Brakeman
  • ***
  • Posts: 182
    • View Profile
    • Sandy Ridge & Clear Lake Ry.
Re: FRA Regulations (Pilot, Grade Crossing, Brakes, etc.)
« Reply #2 on: February 06, 2012, 11:28:44 AM »
That must be some big refrigerator they keep it on when not on the engine! ;D

Tom C.
Later:
tom_srclry_com

Bill Piche

  • Museum Member
  • Hostler
  • ***
  • Posts: 262
    • View Profile
Re: FRA Regulations (Pilot, Grade Crossing, Brakes, etc.)
« Reply #3 on: February 06, 2012, 06:14:55 PM »
Hi Cliff,

I don't think there's any plans to 'backdate' Monson #4 anytime in the near future, it's just not feasible from an FRA standpoint.

I think it's been said somewhere else on this forum, but the pilot HAS to have the cowcatcher on it because of FRA regulations against the 'original' type of pilot. That's a rule that goes back to ICC days, as I remember reading how the Flying Scotsman had to have an American style pilot (and headlight) installed to run over here.

Monson #3 can get away with the old style pilot because the SR&RL museum isn't under FRA jurisdiction.

The way #4 looks now can almost be said to be as historically relevant as the way #3 will look when she comes out of Boothbay. Keep in mind that she DID run at Edaville for longer than she did at Monson. The brass boiler bands, headlight/generator, and over sized whistle might not be true to her Maine heritage, but is still part of her history.
Engineer/Fireman, MNGRR
"Any day with steam is a good day." - me

Cliff Olson

  • Museum Member
  • Baggageman
  • **
  • Posts: 109
    • View Profile
Re: FRA Regulations (Pilot, Grade Crossing, Brakes, etc.)
« Reply #4 on: February 07, 2012, 09:36:42 AM »
Thanks for the information, Bill (and Lightning).  Do you have a cite for the FRA reg on "cowcatchers"?  I presume it would have been promulgated before 1943, so it must be another instance of Monson's operating in violation of federal regs because of its remoteness from the federal regulators. Or was there an exemption for switchers that somehow applied to the Monson?

How did MNG operate Monson #3 in Portland w/o the cowcatcher before it went on lease to Phillips, and how will #3 be less historically relevant when it comes out of Boothbay?

Keith Taylor

  • Museum Member
  • Engineer
  • ****
  • Posts: 639
  • Life Member
    • View Profile
Re: FRA Regulations (Pilot, Grade Crossing, Brakes, etc.)
« Reply #5 on: February 07, 2012, 10:12:42 AM »
Thanks for the information, Bill (and Lightning).  Do you have a cite for the FRA reg on "cowcatchers"?  I presume it would have been promulgated before 1943, so it must be another instance of Monson's operating in violation of federal regs because of its remoteness from the federal regulators. Or was there an exemption for switchers that somehow applied to the Monson?

How did MNG operate Monson #3 in Portland w/o the cowcatcher before it went on lease to Phillips, and how will #3 be less historically relevant when it comes out of Boothbay?
I'm curious about that pilot requirement too. I know that right up into the 1970's the diesel switchers on the Lehigh Valley RR had foot boards. I know this because I rode on many of them. And those engines worked out on the mainline. Mostly what I remember the ICC requiring for the Flying Scotsman were the headlight and bell. Today they would also require ditch lights.
Keith

Bill Piche

  • Museum Member
  • Hostler
  • ***
  • Posts: 262
    • View Profile
Re: FRA Regulations (Pilot, Grade Crossing, Brakes, etc.)
« Reply #6 on: February 07, 2012, 10:32:58 AM »
Well...

This appears to be another case of me spouting off without all the facts on hand.

I did a little digging, and all I have come up with so far is this:

Quote
http://frwebgate2.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEXTgate.cgi?WAISdocID=NLRTEC/2/1/0&WAISaction=retrieve
Sec. 230.110  Pilots.

    (a) General provisions. Pilots shall be securely attached, properly
braced, and maintained in a safe and suitable condition for service.
    (b) Minimum and maximum clearance. The minimum clearance of pilot
above the rail shall be 3 inches and the maximum clearance shall be 6
inches measured on tangent level track.

Anybody else care to jump in?

How did MNG operate Monson #3 in Portland w/o the cowcatcher before it went on lease to Phillips, and how will #3 be less historically relevant when it comes out of Boothbay?

I didn't say that #3 would be LESS relevant when she came out. My understanding is that the gentlemen in Phillips are going for as close to an 'as built' appearance that they can get. (Bye bye brass, etc).

When MNG was operation Monson #3 in Portland, it was before the FRA oversight of the steam program.
Engineer/Fireman, MNGRR
"Any day with steam is a good day." - me

Keith Taylor

  • Museum Member
  • Engineer
  • ****
  • Posts: 639
  • Life Member
    • View Profile
Re: FRA Regulations (Pilot, Grade Crossing, Brakes, etc.)
« Reply #7 on: February 07, 2012, 10:51:19 AM »
Well...

This appears to be another case of me spouting off without all the facts on hand.

I did a little digging, and all I have come up with so far is this:

Quote
http://frwebgate2.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEXTgate.cgi?WAISdocID=NLRTEC/2/1/0&WAISaction=retrieve
Sec. 230.110  Pilots.

    (a) General provisions. Pilots shall be securely attached, properly
braced, and maintained in a safe and suitable condition for service.
    (b) Minimum and maximum clearance. The minimum clearance of pilot
above the rail shall be 3 inches and the maximum clearance shall be 6
inches measured on tangent level track.

Anybody else care to jump in?


Bill, notice the quoted section does not say that the locomotive must be equipped with a pilot, only that it must be securely attached. Similarly, the FRA has regulations that a locomotive equipped with a safety control pedaL (deadman's pedal) must be operative and cut in....but it doesn't say that it has to actually HAVE one! Quite a number of steam locomotives are running around without them. What I believe the FRA did, was not to require pilots, but rather to outlaw footboards.
Keith
« Last Edit: February 07, 2012, 10:57:25 AM by Keith Taylor »

Bernie Perch

  • Museum Member
  • Hostler
  • ***
  • Posts: 242
    • View Profile
Re: FRA Regulations (Pilot, Grade Crossing, Brakes, etc.)
« Reply #8 on: February 07, 2012, 11:00:45 AM »
Speaking about Monson #3, how far along is she?

Bernie

Bill Piche

  • Museum Member
  • Hostler
  • ***
  • Posts: 262
    • View Profile
Re: FRA Regulations (Pilot, Grade Crossing, Brakes, etc.)
« Reply #9 on: February 07, 2012, 11:20:02 AM »
Well...

This appears to be another case of me spouting off without all the facts on hand.

I did a little digging, and all I have come up with so far is this:

Quote
http://frwebgate2.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEXTgate.cgi?WAISdocID=NLRTEC/2/1/0&WAISaction=retrieve
Sec. 230.110  Pilots.

    (a) General provisions. Pilots shall be securely attached, properly
braced, and maintained in a safe and suitable condition for service.
    (b) Minimum and maximum clearance. The minimum clearance of pilot
above the rail shall be 3 inches and the maximum clearance shall be 6
inches measured on tangent level track.

Anybody else care to jump in?


Bill, notice the quoted section does not say that the locomotive must be equipped with a pilot, only that it must be securely attached. Similarly, the FRA has regulations that a locomotive equipped with a safety control pedaL (deadman's pedal) must be operative and cut in....but it doesn't say that it has to actually HAVE one! Quite a number of steam locomotives are running around without them. What I believe the FRA did, was not to require pilots, but rather to outlaw footboards.
Keith

Thanks Keith. That certainly clears things up for me.

Speaking about Monson #3, how far along is she?

Bernie

I'm not aware of the status of #3 beyond what is on the SRRL website. Did those gentlemen share any info at Springfield?
Engineer/Fireman, MNGRR
"Any day with steam is a good day." - me

Wayne Laepple

  • Museum Member
  • Supervisor
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,819
    • View Profile
Re: FRA Regulations (Pilot, Grade Crossing, Brakes, etc.)
« Reply #10 on: February 07, 2012, 11:29:22 AM »
I believe the FRA outlawed footboards as of Jan. 1, 1981. As I recall, footboards disappeared across the board prior to that date. However, most railroads would not have removed them without being nudged along by the authorities. In any case, I believe steam locomotives are exempted from that particular requirement.

As concerns pilots, there is no definition of what a pilot is. It can be a traditional "cowcatcher" or a simple flat steel plate. Steel mill railroads under federal jurisdiction often requested and received waivers on the pilot rule since they ran on incredibly crappy track and often derailed. If the type of pilot on No. 3 is a concern, a request for a waiver based on the historic appearance of the engine may be the solution. It certainly wouldn't hurt to ask.

"Deadman" equipment is required if a locomotive is to be operated at speeds in excess of 20 mph, but again, the language has wiggle room. Such a device must be operational if the locomotive is so equipped, but if the device is absent, it's okay as long as the speed restriction is observed. On several shortlines for which i worked, the deadman was removed on locomotives purchased second (or third) hand from Class 1 railroads.

Cliff Olson

  • Museum Member
  • Baggageman
  • **
  • Posts: 109
    • View Profile
Re: FRA Regulations (Pilot, Grade Crossing, Brakes, etc.)
« Reply #11 on: February 07, 2012, 05:55:05 PM »
Good for Phillips!  I favor the "as built" or "as used by the Monson RR" appearance for both #3 and #4.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2012, 09:43:53 AM by Cliff Olson »

Keith Taylor

  • Museum Member
  • Engineer
  • ****
  • Posts: 639
  • Life Member
    • View Profile
Re: FRA Regulations (Pilot, Grade Crossing, Brakes, etc.)
« Reply #12 on: February 07, 2012, 06:35:23 PM »
"Deadman" equipment is required if a locomotive is to be operated at speeds in excess of 20 mph, but again, the language has wiggle room. Such a device must be operational if the locomotive is so equipped, but if the device is absent, it's okay as long as the speed restriction is observed. On several shortlines for which i worked, the deadman was removed on locomotives purchased second (or third) hand from Class 1 railroads.
Wayne...I may be wrong but I am under the impression that is not the case of steam locomotives with a fireman.
Keith

Wayne Laepple

  • Museum Member
  • Supervisor
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,819
    • View Profile
Re: FRA Regulations (Pilot, Grade Crossing, Brakes, etc.)
« Reply #13 on: February 07, 2012, 07:04:01 PM »
I have only ever been on two steam locomotives equipped with deadman devices. Black River & Western 2-8-0 No. 60 was temporarily so equipped for several trips on the Long Island back in the 1960's, and C&O No. 614 (4-8-4) had equipment added when it operate don Metro North trackage in 1996.

Cliff Olson

  • Museum Member
  • Baggageman
  • **
  • Posts: 109
    • View Profile
Re: FRA Regulations (Pilot, Grade Crossing, Brakes, etc.)
« Reply #14 on: February 08, 2012, 10:06:11 AM »
Did we ever determine whether a pilot is required?  It's arguable that the requirement is implicit since 49 CFR sec. 230.110(b) sets minimum and maximum heights for pilots and the pilot appears to be whatever is on the front end of a locomotive nearest to rail height.

That question may be moot if #4's as delivered "non-cowcatcher" is considered to be a "pilot".  The original arrangement could then meet the FRA requirement by the simple addition of similar-appearing stock to the bottom of the "pilot" to bring the height a few inches down to the required height.  Of course, a waiver of the requirement would be even better.

Note:  The dictionary definitions of "pilot" and "cowcatcher" contemplate triangularity in order to clear the track of any obstruction, so anything attached below the original #4 crosspiece apparently would have to be at least slightly pointed.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2012, 10:24:18 AM by Cliff Olson »