Welcome! Log In Create A New Profile

Advanced

Re: Conflicting info, Safety Appliance Act

PRSL
February 16, 2004 07:27PM
For historical review, it might be interesting to note that the Safety Appliance Act effective date was extended a number of times per the railroad's association request as designed in the act. A review was made of the progress, and the extension was approved postponing the effective date. One request for extension in 1903 was discovered to happen after the effective date of 9/2/1903 and the law was in effect. The SAA did not have a clause allowing extensions after the ACT was in effect.
But the narrow gauge roads of D&RG and the C&S persisted and somehow were given an extension to July 1, 1904.
At this point the railroad handled traffic strictly on the basic of the law applying to interstate movement and even handled link and pin and non-air cars in regular trains, usually on the rear within the state movement. The newspapers, such as Dolores, CO, picked up on this and threatened to file complaints to the ICC, claiming they would be fined. Much traffic on the RGS was re-routed via Ridgway and the D&RG's Marshall Pass line instead of the San Juan line through New Mexico.
This interpretation of the Law was not changed until October 30, 1911 when the Atlanta District Court Judge (Sou RR versus USA), admitting not having the authority, declared that all cars moving on interchange service on the connecting system would require compliance cars. This was because trainmen could not tell, without seeing a waybill, which car was interstate with safe ladders, or intrastate without any safety equipment. It still did not effect the private work equipment of any railroad that did not carry commerce. The ruling decision was illegal to the authority of the U.S. Constitution but it was generally accepted as the only possible course to keep the lines operating and all the trainmen safer. Union complaints about the usage of links to connect engines to train cars of Miller hooks or Miller hook engines connecting to MCB couplers by links was never progressed beyond the lower court rulings. The Companies and Unions both lost and won in this outcome. The non-air and link-and-pin cars became company service equipment, sold to private lines, or were burned at this point.
Subject Author Posted

Coupler size list *PIC*

Bruce Pryor February 13, 2004 10:52PM

Re: Coupler size list

Smokebox February 14, 2004 02:29AM

Re: Coupler size list

Glenn Christensen February 14, 2004 08:38AM

Added-thanks *NM*

Bruce Pryor February 14, 2004 08:56AM

We still need info on....

Smokebox February 14, 2004 02:58PM

Re: We still need info on....

jbbane February 14, 2004 05:50PM

info on....KMR

WP&Ymike February 14, 2004 07:23PM

Re: We still need info on....

Glenn Christensen February 15, 2004 10:36AM

Just re-read Bruces list ...

Glenn Christensen February 15, 2004 10:39AM

Re: SPng and PCRy size confirmation

Brian Norden February 15, 2004 12:32PM

Re: SPng and PCRy size confirmation

jthirtysix February 16, 2004 08:09PM

Re: SPng and PCRy size confirmation

Brian Norden February 16, 2004 08:34PM

Re: SPng and PCRy size confirmation

Glenn Christensen February 16, 2004 09:05PM

Re: SPng and PCRy size confirmation

jthirtysix February 18, 2004 06:49AM

sizing the Uintah?

Rodger Polley February 14, 2004 08:57PM

Re: Here's another one *LINK*

Brian Norden February 15, 2004 08:46PM

Coupler list updated again *NM* *PIC*

Bruce Pryor February 15, 2004 09:25PM

Re: Coupler list updated again

Glenn Christensen February 15, 2004 10:02PM

Added *NM*

Bruce Pryor February 15, 2004 10:15PM

Re: Coupler list updated again *PIC*

El-VB February 15, 2004 10:18PM

Re: Coupler list updated again

Glenn Christensen February 16, 2004 11:57AM

More Revisions?

Jeff A. February 16, 2004 09:20AM

Conflicting information

Bruce Pryor February 16, 2004 10:22AM

Re: Conflicting information

Jeff A. February 16, 2004 11:09AM

And the winner is ... Link and Pin!

Glenn Christensen February 16, 2004 12:04PM

Re: And the winner is ... Link and Pin!

Jeff A. February 16, 2004 02:37PM

Re: And the winner is ... Link and Pin!

jbbane February 16, 2004 08:37PM

Re: And the winner is ... Link and Pin!

Skip Luke February 16, 2004 09:00PM

Re: Miller Hook couplers

Ted Miles February 17, 2004 10:52AM

Re: Miller Hook couplers

Skip Luke February 17, 2004 11:28AM

Re: Miller Hook couplers

jbbane February 17, 2004 01:43PM

Re: Miller Hook couplers

Skip Luke February 17, 2004 02:59PM

Re: Miller Hook couplers

dan February 17, 2004 07:45PM

Re: Miller Hook couplers

jbbane February 17, 2004 08:29PM

couplers

dan February 17, 2004 08:46PM

Re: Miller Hook couplers

Ted Miles February 18, 2004 12:06PM

Re: Miller Hook couplers *LINK*

Randy Hees February 20, 2004 10:54PM

Re: Miller Hook couplers

Brian Norden February 17, 2004 09:40PM

Re: And the winner is ... Link and Pin!

Glenn Christensen February 16, 2004 09:21PM

Re: And the winner is ... Link and Pin!

Rodger Polley February 16, 2004 08:59PM

Uintah-full size or 3/4?

Bruce Pryor February 16, 2004 10:51PM

Re: Uintah-full size or 3/4?

John Bush February 17, 2004 12:14PM

Re: Uintah-full size or 3/4?

Rodger Polley February 17, 2004 10:35PM

sorry, sorry, sorry......

Rodger Polley February 17, 2004 10:30PM

Re: Conflicting info, Safety Appliance Act

PRSL February 16, 2004 07:27PM

Re: before knuckle couplers

Brian Norden February 16, 2004 08:13PM

Re: Conflicting information

John Bush February 17, 2004 11:57AM

Re: current 3' industrial coupler

Brian Norden February 16, 2004 09:42AM

It Legal to link to Locomotive

PRSL February 16, 2004 12:16AM

Re: It Legal to link to Locomotive

SVCartoad February 16, 2004 12:23PM

Re: It Legal to link to Locomotive

jbbane February 16, 2004 01:39PM

What type code are the D&RGW full size coupler?

PRSL February 17, 2004 09:50AM

Re: What type code are the D&RGW full size coupler

Earl February 17, 2004 09:05PM

automatic couplers and FRA on steam locomotives

Robby Peartree February 17, 2004 10:17PM

Re: automatic couplers and FRA on steam locomotive

PRSL February 18, 2004 10:27AM

Re: Coupler size list

Douglas van Veelen February 17, 2004 03:30PM

Re: Coupler size list

Skip Luke February 17, 2004 06:22PM

I won't start that list. Someone else can. *NM*

Bruce Pryor February 17, 2004 07:06PM



Sorry, you can't reply to this topic. It has been closed.