FRA Regulations (Pilot, Grade Crossing, Brakes, etc.)

[Keith Taylor]

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

[Stewart "Start" Rhine]

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 

[Joe Fox]

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.

[Ed Lecuyer]

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.

[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.

[Cliff Olson]

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.

[Mike Fox]

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.

[Cliff Olson]

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.