W.W.&F. Discussion Forum
General Topics => General Discussion => Topic started by: Cliff Olson on February 06, 2012, 09:27:42 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.
-
the "Polar Express" Lettering is a magnet.
-
That must be some big refrigerator they keep it on when not on the engine! ;D
Tom C.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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
-
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:
http://frwebgate2.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEXTgate.cgi?WAISdocID=NLRTEC/2/1/0&WAISaction=retrieve (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.
-
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:
http://frwebgate2.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEXTgate.cgi?WAISdocID=NLRTEC/2/1/0&WAISaction=retrieve (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
-
Speaking about Monson #3, how far along is she?
Bernie
-
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:
http://frwebgate2.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEXTgate.cgi?WAISdocID=NLRTEC/2/1/0&WAISaction=retrieve (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?
-
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.
-
Good for Phillips! I favor the "as built" or "as used by the Monson RR" appearance for both #3 and #4.
-
"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
-
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.
-
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.
-
No waiver needed. If the locomotive has one, it must be as per regulations.
Delaware & Hudson operated for years with no deadman feature on locomotives at speeds up to 60mph. Again, regulations only said that if engine was equipped, it must be working.
Sometimes, field FRA personnel like to expand rules to what they believe they say. But interpretations of rules is done by legal department of FRA in Washington.
-
Allen, are you saying that a pilot is not required on Monson #3 or #4, regardless of where it operates??
-
Lots of locomotives have no pilots.
Attached is a photo of me taken many years ago (1991) at Three Bridges, NJ. Notice the loco has no pilot. Just a flat steel plate to keep junk from wedging under the locomotive.
Keith
-
Part 229 says locomotives must have an end plate, pilot or plow. Part 230 says only that a steam locomotive must have a pilot, period. Neither Part defines the term "pilot." I've looked at photos of Monson No. 3, and what it has sure looks like it will meet the criteria.
-
The Part 229 provision that Wayne mentions is 49 CFR sec. 229.123.
-
Part 229 says locomotives must have an end plate, pilot or plow. Part 230 says only that a steam locomotive must have a pilot, period. Neither Part defines the term "pilot." I've looked at photos of Monson No. 3, and what it has sure looks like it will meet the criteria.
Here is CFR 49 Part 230:
Title 49: Transportation
PART 230—STEAM LOCOMOTIVE INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE STANDARDS
Subpart C—Steam Locomotives and Tenders
Trucks, Frames and Equalizing System
§ 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.
The way I read this is that pilots must be securely attached etc. but nowhere do I see a requirement that the locomotive must be equipped with one.
Keith
P.S. Here is a link to a photo of the Baldwin Locomotive Works plant switcher at Steamtown. http://donsdepot.donrossgroup.net/dr0106/blw26.jpg
Steamtown certainly comes under FRA pervue and the 26 not only has no pilot...it has footboards!
-
§ 229.123 Pilots, snowplows, end plates.
After January 1, 1981, each lead locomotive
shall be equipped with an end
plate that extends across both rails, a
pilot, or a snowplow. The minimum
clearance above the rail of the pilot,
snowplow or end plate shall be 3 inches,
and the maximum clearance 6 inches
This says that it has to have one of the three. Remember, in dealing with the CFR 49, there is more than just the Part 230 that pertains to steam locomotives.
-
This says that it has to have one of the three. Remember, in dealing with the CFR 49, there is more than just the Part 230 that pertains to steam locomotives.
That is not accurate. Here is the "scope" of CFR 49 Part 229 from the regulation. You can see that clearly CFR 49 part 229 covers all locomotives except steam.
[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 49, Volume 4]
[Revised as of October 1, 2003]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 49CFR229.1]
[Page 303]
TITLE 49--TRANSPORTATION
CHAPTER II--FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
PART 229--RAILROAD LOCOMOTIVE SAFETY STANDARDS--Table of Contents
Subpart A--General
Sec. 229.1 Scope.
This part prescribes minimum Federal safety standards for all
locomotives except those propelled by steam power.
-
All right, I invite you to read part 231.15, 231.16, and 231.17. I have a call into a friend of mine who can put this question to rest once and for all.....He's an FRA Steam inspector, and did the inspection on another locomotive I work on.
-
All right, I invite you to read part 231.15, 231.16, and 231.17. I have a call into a friend of mine who can put this question to rest once and for all.....He's an FRA Steam inspector, and did the inspection on another locomotive I work on.
Here are those sections.
§ 231.15 Steam locomotives used in road service.
top
(a) Tender till-steps—(1) Number. Four on tender.
(2) Dimensions. (i) Bottom tread not less than 8 by 12 inches, metal. (May have wooden treads.)
(ii) If stirrup steps are used, clear length of tread shall be not less than 10, preferably 12, inches.
(3) Location. One near each corner of tender on sides.
(4) Manner of application. Tender sill-steps shall be securely fastened with bolts or rivets.
(b) Pilot sill-steps—(1) Number. Two.
(2) Dimensions. Tread not less than 8 inches in width by 10 inches in length, metal. (May have wooden treads.)
(3) Location. One on or near each end of buffer-beam outside of rail and not more than 16 inches above rail.
(4) Manner of application. Pilot sill-steps shall be securely fastened with bolts or rivets.
(c) Pilot-beam handholds—(1) Number. Two.
(2) Dimensions. Minimum diameter, five-eighths of an inch, wrought iron or steel. Minimum clear length, 14, preferably 16, inches. Minimum clearance, 21/2 inches.
(3) Location. One on each end of buffer-beam. If uncoupling lever extends across front end of locomotive to within 8 inches of end of buffer-beam, and is seven-eighths of an inch or more in diameter, securely fastened, with a clearance of 21/2 inches, it is a handhold.)
(4) Manner of application. Pilot-beam handholds shall be securely fastened with bolts or rivets.
(d) Side handholds—(1) Number. Six.
(2) Dimensions. Minimum diameter, if horizontal, five-eighths of an inch; if vertical, seven-eighths of an inch, wrought iron or steel. Horizontal, minimum clear length, 16 inches. Vertical, clear length equal to approximate height of tank. Minimum clearance, 2, preferably 21/2, inches.
(3) Location. (i) Horizontal or vertical. If vertical, one on each side of tender within 6 inches of rear or on corner; if horizontal, same as specified for “Box and other house cars” (see §231.1(h)(3)).
(ii) One on each side of tender near gangway; 1 on each side of locomotive at gangway; applied vertically.
(4) Manner of application. Side handholds shall be securely fastened with not less than 1/2-inch bolts or rivets.
(e) Rear-end handholds—(1) Number. Two.
(2) Dimensions. Minimum diameter, five-eighths of an inch, wrought iron or steel. Minimum clear length, 14 inches. Minimum clearance, 2, preferably 21/2, inches.
(3) Location. Horizontal, one near each side of rear end of tender on face of end sill. Clearance of outer end of handhold shall be not more than 16 inches from side of tender.
(4) Manner of application. Rear-end handholds shall be securely fastened with not less than 1/2-inch bolts or rivets.
(f) Uncoupling levers—(1) Number. Two double levers, operative from either side.
(2) Dimensions. Rear-end levers shall extend across end of tender with handles not more than 12, preferably 9, inches from side of tender with a guard bent on handle to give not less than 2 inches clearance around handle.
(3) Location. One on rear end of tender and one on front end of locomotive. Handles of front-end leavers shall be not more than 12, preferably 9, inches from ends of buffer-beam, and shall be so constructed as to give a minimum clearance of 2 inches around handle.
(4) Manner of application. Uncoupling levers shall be securely fastened with bolts or rivets.
(g) Couplers. Locomotives shall be equipped with automatic couplers at rear of tender and front of locomotive.
§ 231.16 Steam locomotives used in switching service.
top
(a) Footboards—(1) Number. Two or more.
(2) Dimensions. (i) Minimum width of tread, 10 inches.
(ii) Minimum height of back stop, 4 inches above tread.
(iii) Height from top of rail to top of tread, not more than 12 nor less than 9 inches.
(iv) If made of wood, minimum thickness of tread shall be 11/2, preferably 2 inches.
(v) Footboards may be made of material other than wood which provides the same as or a greater degree of safety than wood of 11/2 inches thickness. When made of material other than wood, the tread surface shall be of antiskid design and constructed with sufficient open space to permit the elimination of snow and ice from the tread surface.
(3) Location. Ends or sides. If on ends, they shall extend not less than 18 inches outside of guage of straight track, and shall be not more than 12 inches shorter than buffer-beam at each end.
(4) Manner of application. (i) End footboards may be constructed in two sections, provided that practically all space on each side of coupler is filled; each section shall be not less than 3 feet in length.
(ii) Footboards shall be securely bolted to two 1- by 4-inch metal brackets, provided footboard is not cut or notched at any point.
(iii) If footboard is cut or notched or in two sections, not less than four 1- by 3-inch metal brackets shall be used, two located on each side of coupler. Each bracket shall be securely bolted to buffer-beam, end sill or tank frame by not less than two 7/8-inch bolts.
(iv) If side footboards are used, a substantial handhold or rail shall be applied not less than 30 inches nor more than 60 inches above tread or footboard.
(b) Sill steps—(1) Number. Two or more.
(2) Dimensions. (i) Lower tread of step shall be not less than 8 by 12 inches, metal. (May have wooden treads.)
(ii) If stirrup steps are used, clear length of tread shall be not less than 10, preferably 12, inches.
(3) Location. One or more on each side at gangway secured to locomotive or tender.
(4) Manner of application. Sill steps shall be securely fastened with bolts or rivets.
(c) End handholds—(1) Number. Two.
(2) Dimensions. Minimum diameter, 1 inch, wrought iron or steel. Minimum clearance, 4 inches, except at coupler casting or braces when minimum clearance shall be 2 inches.
(3) Location. One on pilot, buffer-beam; one on rear end of tender, extending across front end of locomotive and rear end of tender. Ends of handholds shall be not more than 6 inches from ends of buffer-beam or end sill, securely fastened at ends.
(4) Manner of application. End handholds shall be securely fastened with bolts or rivets.
(d) Side handholds—(1) Number. Four.
(2) Dimensions. Minimum diameter, seven-eighths of an inch, wrought iron or steel. Clear length equal to approximate height of tank. Minimum clearance, 2, preferably 21/2 inches.
(3) Location. Vertical. One on each side of tender near front corner; one on each side of locomotive at gangway.
(4) Manner of application. Side handholds shall be securely fastened with bolts or rivets.
(e) Uncoupling levers—(1) Number. Two double levers, operative from either side.
(2) Dimensions. (i) Handles of front-end levers shall be not more than 12, preferably 9, inches from ends of buffer-beam, and shall be so constructed as to give a minimum clearance of 2 inches around handle.
(ii) Rear-end levers shall extend across end of tender with handles not more than 12, preferably 9, inches from side of tender, with a guard bent on handle to give not less than 2 inches clearance around handle.
(3) Location. One on rear end of tender and one on front end of locomotive.
(f) Handrails and steps for headlights. Switching locomotives with sloping tenders with manhole or headlight located on sloping portion of tender shall be equipped with secure steps and handrail or with platform and handrail leading to such manhole or headlight.
(g) End-ladder clearance. No part of locomotive or tender except draft rigging, coupler and attachments, safety chains, buffer block, footboard, brake pipe, signal pipe, steam-heat pipe or arms of uncoupling lever shall extend to within 14 inches of a vertical plane passing through the inside face of knuckle when closed with horn of coupler against buffer block or end sill.
(h) Couplers. Locomotives shall be equipped with automatic couplers at rear of tender and front of locomotive.
§ 231.17 Specifications common to all steam locomotives.
top
(a) Hand brakes. (1) Hand brakes will not be required on locomotives nor on tenders when attached to locomotives.
(2) If tenders are detached from locomotives and used in special service, they shall be equipped with efficient hand brakes.
(b) Running boards—(1) Number. Two.
(2) Dimensions. Not less than 10 inches wide. If of wood, not less than 11/2 inches in thickness; if of metal, not less than three-sixteenths of an inch, properly supported.
(3) Location. One on each side of boiler extending from cab to front end near pilot-beam. (Running boards may be in sections. Flat-top steamchests may form section of running board.)
(4) Manner of application. (i) Running boards shall be securely fastened with bolts, rivets, or studs.
(ii) Locomotives having Wootten type boilers with cab located on top of boiler more than 12 inches forward from boiler head shall have suitable running boards running from cab to rear of locomotive, with handrailings not less than 20 nor more than 48 inches above outside edge of running boards, securely fastened with bolts, rivets, or studs.
(c) Handrails—(1) Number. Two or more.
(2) Dimensions. Not less than 1 inch in diameter, wrought iron or steel.
(3) Location. One on each side of boiler extending from near cab to near front end of boiler, and extending across front end of boiler, not less than 24 nor more than 66 inches above running board.
(4) Manner of application. Handrails shall be securely fastened to boiler.
(d) Tenders of Vanderbilt type. (1) Tenders known as the Vanderbilt type shall be equipped with running boards; one on each side of tender not less than 10 inches in width and one on top of tender not less than 48 inches in width, extending from coal space to rear of tender.
(2) There shall be a handrail on each side of top running board, extending from coal space to rear of tank, not less than 1 inch in diameter and not less than 20 inches in height above running board from coal space to manhole.
(3) There shall be a handrail extending from coal space to within 12 inches of rear of tank, attached to each side of tank above side running board not less than 30 nor more than 66 inches above running board.
(4) There shall be one vertical end handhold on each side of Vanderbilt type of tender, located within 8 inches of rear of tank extending from within 8 inches of top of end sill to within 8 inches of side handrail. Post supporting rear end of side running board, if not more than 2 inches in diameter and properly located, may form section of handhold.
(5) An additional horizontal end handhold shall be applied on rear end of all Vanderbilt type of tenders which are not equipped with vestibules. Handhold to be located not less than 30 nor more than 66 inches above top of end sill. Clear length of handhold to be not less than 48 inches.
(6) Ladders shall be applied at forward ends of side running boards.
(e) Handrails and steps for headlights. (1) Locomotives having headlights which can not be safely and conveniently reached from pilot-beam or steam chests shall be equipped with secure handrails and steps suitable for the use of men in getting to and from such headlights.
(2) A suitable metal end or side ladder shall be applied to all tanks more than 48 inches in height, measured from the top of end sill, and securely fastened with bolts or rivets.
(f) Couplers. Locomotives shall be equipped with automatic couplers at rear of tender and front of locomotive.
I may be missing something....but I don't see one word about requiring a pilot. I do see in 231.16 that switching locomotives have regulations for foot boards.
Keith
All of these sections can be read at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_98/49cfr231_98.html
-
Okay, guys, I think the horse is dead.
-
[Moderators Note]
1. I moved this topic to General Discussion, as it really has morphed into a conversation about FRA rules.
2. For whatever reason, this topic seems to be raising some angst among its participants. I think the reality is that unless someone from MNG wants to disclose their intent, or discussions with the local FRA representative, it's all a moot point.
3. I would imagine that any backdating to #4 is pretty low on the funding list for MNG. After all, there are many more substantial repairs that need to be made - and #7 is still under restoration. Oh, and I think they may be moving....
-Ed
-
I can't imagine that removing the fake cowcatcher would involve any significant expense - - if a pilot is not required for operation under FRA jurisdiction, which is what we have been trying to discern from the FRA regs.
-
Here's photo of Monson No. 3 with its as-built pilot, as well as a photo of a British locomotive with no pilot at all. Notice the difference.
-
IMHO there is one way to get this question answered once and for all. Contact Gary Fairbanks at FRA in Washington, DC. He's one of the leading authorities on steam at the FRA, has both worked on and licensed engineer on steam. Been doing it for over 30 years.
-
Wayne, what's the difference, except that Monson #3's "bumper" appears to be heavier and lower than the one on the British locomotive? I don't see why that makes Monson #3's device a "pilot" rather than "an end plate that extends across both rails", which the FRA apparently distinguishes from a pilot (at least in the case of non-steam locomotives). We're still left with the questions of whether a steam locomotive is required to have a "pilot" and whether Monson #3's front end device is considered a "pilot".
According to the locomotive diagrams in Roger Whitney's Monson book, neither Monson #3's nor #4's original "bumper" met the current FRA height requirement for pilots (although they were close, and #3's now visually appears low enough to qualify).
By the way, 49 CFR Part 231, cited earlier, applies only to standard gauge railroads, except regarding drawbar height. 49 CFR sec. 231.0(a),(g).
-
By the way, 49 CFR Part 231, cited earlier, applies only to standard gauge railroads, except regarding drawbar height. 49 CFR sec. 231.0(a),(g).
Cliff;
CFR 49 Part 231.0 (g) which you note above states:
(g) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, §231.31 also applies to an operation on a 24-inch, 36-inch, or other narrow gage railroad.
Which means it DOES apply to narrow gauge railroads.
-
Keith, as I said, sec. 231.31 (which addresses drawbar height) is the only provision of Part 231 that applies to narrow gauge railroads.
-
I read that the Flying Scotsman's locomotive, the King George, IIRC, still wears the bell. But nothing I've ever read about it tells whether they actually use the bell.
-
Crossing the road would get the Feds involved....correct? Aside from the obvious requirements for inspections on the steam locomotives, what other implications would FRA regulation have for the museum? I'm thinking both in terms of train equipment as well as methods and procedures. Would the trains need air brakes? Would FRA object to the use of hand/whistle/lantern signals in lieu of radios? One of the coolest things about the WW&F right now is that the operation is basic, old-time railroading. I'm not aware of anyplace else where this type of operation can still be seen.
/Kevin
-
The FRA wouldn't require air brakes, however, having the working hand brakes that we have now, is a huge plus. I believe they require you hvae some kind of working brake system on passenger cars. At MNG they only inspect the engines, however, they may do more at the WW&F, they may not. They will probably look through all of our records, rule book, etc. to see what we may need to change, and just to see what we have been doing. The FRA is easy to work with, if you don't lie to them, and treat them well, they will make sure to take care of you. The railroad is still currently making changes in a slow, but steady pace, so that when the time does come to cross a "Public" road, the remaining changes, if any, will be very easy.
-
Thanks guys! I think that the experience various museums have with the FRA varies from place to place. When I was out at Nevada Northern in February, the FRA had nearly all of the museum's historic box and hopper cars restricted to the yard because they were over 50 years old. Even though the museum had inspected them and worked on them, the inspector basically failed everything. Fortunately, the yard limits at NN are pretty liberal.
I guess it matters who the inspector is. The FAA is not a lot different with respect to airplanes. You can easily get two different rulings from two different district offices.
As Joe says, it pays to start cultivating a good relationship early on.
/Kevin
-
I don't believe that FRA involvement would be a bad thing. What does need to be considered is the increased amount of insurance required when you cross a public highway. A single automobile grade crossing accident could financially ruin the museum.
Not to mention the affect on the crews involved.
As somebody who has been personally involved in a fatal grade crossing accident, I know that it is something you would have to live with for the rest of your life. The people in the car will sue not only the railroad....but the individuals operating the train. Even if you win the case....the costs emotionally and those of lost wages when you have to attend court depositions etc. can be catastrophic.
I personally think the potential costs are not outweighed by better photographic opportunities.
Just my personal opinion....
Keith
-
OK, before this FRA thing gets out of hand.
The FRA does NOT control grade crossings, the State of Maine does. FRA only requires the reporting portion.
We are NOT part of the National rail system. This means most sections of the FRA rules, including air brakes do NOT apply to the WW&F.
This FRA thing is much to do about nothing, IMHO.
Allen Fisher can further comment on this but I have done much research on this subject.
Ira Schreiber
-
Ira,
You will notice that I did not say a word about the FRA being involved with the grade crossing and in fact I stated that FRA involvment would not be a bad thing. However that still leaves major expenses and potential liabilities when you cross a highway.
No matter who is in control of grade crossings....the potential for a fatal accident remains.
Keith
-
I agree with Keith on this. Although never involved in a fatal accident at a grade crossing, I have struck and been struck by highway vehicles while running trains. Even though trains cannot take evasive action, nor supersede the laws of physics, I had to appear in court, too.
-
The good thing about our crossing is that it's right at the station and there would be people around. Protecting the crossing by flag man, etc. should be fairly easy. Trains will be moving slowly and traffic has a long sight distance to the crossing. Cross Road is a town road so the permission to cross comes from the town. The crossing design with early warning signage comes from the state. We would install heavier rail such as 80lb (in longer than 30' lengths) across the road so (A) there wouldn't be any joints in the crossing and (B) the rail would hold up better to snow plow traffic. Guard rails could be installed as well. The inner protects the flangeway and the outside protects the running rail from getting bent by the plow. I don't know if we would have to install the rubber blocks or have a concrete pad for the crossing.
The crossing is something we will eventually build. When depends on how far we build Northward and the situation with the grade going towards Wiscasset.
Stewart
-
I totally agree with the comments about liability and the potential dangers of a railroad crossing. That is the risk we take.
I was merely pointing out the regulations involved.
Stewart's example is right on target. With the multi-rail crossing, rubber should not be needed, just a good stone base and asphalt topping.
-
Now that this topic has been relocated, I want to state something from earlier about Monson #4. The FRA does not require a pilot on any steam engine like the #4 has right now, because if they did, 7470's pilot would not be legal. For example, 7470 still has her original pilot, which was, and still is the switching pilot on each end.
Now, back to the topic at hand. The FRA becomes strongly interested/involved once you cross a public highway. Even though they don't regulate the crossings them selves, they do inspect the safety of said crossing, track approaches, crossing signals if any, voltage going to the signal case if any, how visible all signs/signals are, all locomotives operating on the railroad, etc. The DOT is not responsible for anything else except the road ROW, the rest is expected to be handled by the railroad.
Even though we will be an insular railroad, the FRA still has to get involved, just like most of the other tourist railroads that they deal with.
-
Even though we will be an insular railroad, the FRA still has to get involved, just like most of the other tourist railroads that they deal with.
I question the phrase "we will be an insular railroad." As I understand it, we are currently insular and will continue to be insular until 1) we cross a public highway, or 2) we cross a navigable waterway, or 3) or we come within 30 yards (?) of another railway. If we do 1, 2, or 3, we will no longer be insular and will come under FRA jurisdiction.
-
John, the FRA can take jurisdiction over even insular railroads if they see a need.
Here is the relevant phrase from the FRA's question and answer page.
Q. 4 - Do any of FRA’s regulations apply to insular tourist railroads?
Answer: No. Many of FRA’s regulations do not currently apply to tourist railroads. However, FRA’s emergency order authority permits it to address a true safety emergency arising from conditions covered by those regulations or any other regulations that do not apply outside of the general railroad system. Thus, even off-the-general-system tourist railroads should understand that FRA has the jurisdiction to inspect their operations and to take emergency action if those operations pose an imminent hazard of death or injury.
Keith
You can read these Q&A's here: http://www.fra.dot.gov/rrs/pages/fp_1632.shtml
-
Over the last few years the museum has moved towards FRA standards with upgrades in rules, training, safety and rolling stock maint/records. More should be done but when the time comes for the officers to invite the FRA man to visit we should be in a good place with them. The idea has been put forward to invite an inspection ahead of time which gives us time to fix whatever is found. This could happen prior to installing the crossing, it depends on the BoD's direction.
The crossing could go in with minimal road closure by building a prefab track panel next to the road and having it placed with a loader or two after the asphalt is cut and the grade prepared. A truck load of stone would be standing by. The down time for the road would be shorter than when the culverts (just east of the crossing) were replaced two years ago.
Stewart
-
Jurisdiction, in my mind is the wrong word. They won't take charge over the entire railroad. Our track gauge is literally 1/8 of an inch from being non governed by the FRA. The only thing they will be concerned about would be the locomotives, making sure that they are safe, and up to a reasonable standard, not of that of a standard gauge, and maybe inspect the bridges.
-
The discussion regarding building south towards Wiscasset is separate from rules and regulations. Those looking for that topic will find it here:
http://forum.wwfry.org/index.php?topic=1747.0
However, you must be an active WW&F Member to access this topic. If you are a member, and have not been identified as such on this forum, please email the forum Moderator (Ed Lecuyer) or James Patten.
-
The only thing that matters regarding what the FRA will or will not do once we come under their jurisdiction is what the FRA will actually do when that happens. We don't know what that is. They don't know what that is. Whether they only decide to concern themselves with steam engines, or the entire operating structure, will probably only be determined when they walk onto the property.
-
Mike, this discussion did, in fact, touch upon footboards (see Keith Taylor post on p.2) and, despite going off in several directions, appears to establish that the Monson #3 and #4 end plates would meet FRA requirements if additional material were added to the bottom of those plates to reduce clearance to 6" above the top of the rails.
-
OK. Just looking at a picture of #3, it would be easy to slightly modify the foorboard hangar so the footboard is lower. It doesn't look like they are much higher than 8 inches in the photo. It does look like the Pilot beam is lower, and probably close to the 6 inch mark.
-
I think you're right that the end plates (or "pilot beams") on #3 and #4 are about 6" above the rail. I don't see a requirement that the foot board be that low.