Welcome! Log In Create A New Profile

Advanced

Re: A third rail to Alamosa.

February 13, 2008 07:27PM
This issue of insulaity and FRA discretion to regulate comes up every once in a while on this board, and notwithstanding the statement as to Wanamakers, the following excerpt from 49
CFR 209 Appendix A spells out the FRA's current thinking on tourist railway regulation:

Quote

FRA exercises jurisdiction over tourist, scenic, and excursion railroad operations whether or not they are conducted on the general railroad system. There are two exceptions: (1) operations of less than 24-inch gage (which, historically, have never been considered railroads under the Federal railroad safety laws); and (2) operations that are off the general system and ``insular'' (defined below).

Insularity is an issue only with regard to tourist operations over trackage outside of the general system used exclusively for such operations. FRA considers a tourist operation to be insular if its operations are limited to a separate enclave in such a way that there is no reasonable expectation that the safety of any member of the public ‘except a business guest, a licensee of the tourist operation or an affiliated entity, or a trespasser’ would be affected by the operation. A tourist operation will not be considered insular if one or more of the following exists on its line:

• A public highway-rail crossing that is in use;

• An at-grade rail crossing that is in use;

• A bridge over a public road or waters used for commercial navigation; or

• A common corridor with a railroad, i.e., its operations are within 30 feet of those of any railroad.

When tourist operations are conducted on the general system, FRA exercises jurisdiction over them, and all of FRA's pertinent regulations apply to those operations unless a waiver is granted or a rule specifically excepts such operations (e.g., the passenger equipment safety standards contain an exception for these operations, 49 CFR 238.3(c)(3), even if conducted on the general system). When a tourist operation is conducted only on track used exclusively for that purpose it is not part of the general system. The fact that a tourist operation has a switch that connects it to the general system does not make the tourist operation part of the general system if the tourist trains do not enter the general system and the general system railroad does not use the tourist operation's trackage for any purpose other than delivering or picking up shipments to or from the tourist operation itself.

If a tourist operation off the general system is insular, FRA does not exercise jurisdiction over it, and none of FRA's rules apply. If, however, such an operation is not insular, FRA exercises jurisdiction over the operation, and some of FRA's rules (i.e., those that specifically apply beyond the general system to such operations) will apply. For example, FRA's rules on accident reporting, steam locomotives, and grade crossing signals apply to these non-insular tourist operations (see 49 CFR 225.3, 230.2 amd 234.3), as do all of FRA's procedural rules (49 CFR parts 209, 211, and 216) and the Federal railroad safety statutes themselves.

Steve Zuiderveen
Subject Author Posted

A third rail to Alamosa.

Jim February 10, 2008 03:00PM

Re: A third rail to Alamosa.

CharlieMcCandless February 10, 2008 04:06PM

Re: A third rail to Alamosa.

Ed Stabler February 10, 2008 04:23PM

Re: A third rail to Alamosa.

Keith February 10, 2008 06:46PM

Re: A third rail to Alamosa.

george pearce February 10, 2008 07:38PM

Re: A third rail to Alamosa.

Chile John February 11, 2008 09:17AM

Re: A third rail to Alamosa.

HOD Bill February 11, 2008 03:16PM

Re: A third rail to Alamosa.

Chile John February 11, 2008 06:10PM

Federal Jurisdiction over interstate commerce.

Dan Markoff February 11, 2008 07:39PM

Re: Federal Jurisdiction over interstate commerce.

John West February 11, 2008 10:50PM

Toilet Paper and Federal Jurisdiction

Dan Markoff February 12, 2008 07:11AM

Re: Federal Jurisdiction over interstate commerce.

michael February 14, 2008 01:03PM

Re: A third rail to Alamosa.

Roger Mitchell February 12, 2008 12:57PM

Re: A third rail to Alamosa.

Eric Bolton February 12, 2008 06:35PM

Re: A third rail to Alamosa.

szuiderveen February 13, 2008 07:27PM

Re: FRA definition of insular

Ed Ellis February 14, 2008 07:02PM

Re: FRA definition of insular

HOD Bill February 14, 2008 07:55PM

Re: A third rail to Alamosa.

Greg Raven February 11, 2008 06:29PM

Re: A third rail to Alamosa.

dougvv February 11, 2008 07:41PM

Re: A third rail to Alamosa. Attachments

Ed Ellis February 11, 2008 08:14PM

Re: A third rail to Alamosa.

Earl February 13, 2008 08:56PM

Re: A third rail to Alamosa.

Keith February 11, 2008 09:33AM

Re: A third rail to Alamosa.

Dave Boyer February 11, 2008 10:46AM

Re: A third rail to Alamosa.

Keith February 11, 2008 07:38PM

Re: A third rail to Alamosa.

CharlieMcCandless February 11, 2008 07:51PM

Re: A third rail in Antonito

Russo Loco February 13, 2008 07:39PM

Re: A third rail to Alamosa.

stuart olson February 11, 2008 09:38PM

Re: A third rail to Alamosa.

dougvv February 11, 2008 10:46PM

Photoshop pic

timtrain488 February 12, 2008 07:14AM

Re: Photoshop pic

Ed Stabler February 12, 2008 08:16AM

Re: Photoshop pic

Keith February 12, 2008 09:12AM

Re: Photoshop pic

Ed Stabler February 12, 2008 12:21PM

Re: Photoshop pic - use #497 ... grinning smiley

Russo Loco February 13, 2008 07:48PM



Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login