Steam & Excursion > Does the FRA certify engineers for running mainline steam?

Got to wondering if someone has be specially certified for running steam locomotives on a class 1 mainline with PTC, that is, beyond what a normal freight engineer would? Thanks for any replies...

JG

jgilmore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Got to wondering if someone has be specially
> certified for running steam locomotives on a class
> 1 mainline with PTC, that is, beyond what a normal
> freight engineer would? Thanks for any replies...
>
> JG

Any and EVERY Engineer must be FRA certified. Period.  The FRA doesn't care whether he/she is "steam qualified" or not, as THAT is up to the individual railroad as well as the operator/owner of the steam locomotive in question.

Engineer Certification  CFR Part 240

Mike Root
Madras, OR

To be a bit technical it is not the FRA who certifies an engineer, it is the railroad who employs the engineer ( or for some tourist / heritage railroads, the railroad who maintains the individual on their locomotive engineer roster).

FRA regulations for certification are the program guidelines for the certification process and each railroad has to have a compliant program under which they themelves  do the individual training and certifications.

I believe if a railroad wants to put in their program training and certification requirements for steam locomotive operation they would be able to do so, and maybe some do. FRA does not specifically mandate that by regulation.  See 240.107d - Each railroad is authorized to impose additional conditions or operational restrictions on the service an engineer may perform beyond those identified in this section provided those conditions or restrictions are not inconsistent with this part.

The thing is, if it is in the approved FRA program that the railroad then has to fully comply by it.  The FRA approves each individual railroads 240 program and then enforcement is based on that program to make sure you comply with your own rules.
 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/03/24 08:54 by train1275.

Our group, the St,Louis Steam Train Association (1522) had, in addition to myself, 2 other Certified engineers.  One, Jeff Schmid was a BN(ex Frisco) engineer.  He was our rules guy, got the other two of us into BN's engineer training school in Overland Park. He handled all the paperwork covering that with the FRA and I handled all the engine records, Form 4 and inspections filed.
He also, after filing tons of paperwork, got the SLSTA recognized by the FRA as a railroad.  This is what allowed the other two of us to be certified engineers.  We did rules tests, got check rides signed off annually and were listed in the official book of RR Executives and had our equipment listed in the book.
I know I'm going to get an argument on this, but you can research and look it up.
I don't know how other groups handle this as far as operating on mainline railroads, such as 3751,2926 if it ever gets out and other small groups.
That's how we did it.  We were a railroad.

Had the funding not run out for the Greenbrier Express project we were organized to run it exactly as Frisco explains in the above posting. The GBX Co.,Inc. was to becore a "railroad" within the FRA's definition and for the steam powered portions pf the journey , Gordonsville Va. to White Sulphur Springs W. Va. , our steam qualified men would man the 614 under the guidance of an Amtrak/CSX qualified pilot engineer.

   Our men were to take the same courses and take the same exams as regular CSX/Amtrak engineers.   

    Ross Rowland 

If they were qualified for the territory, why would they need a pilot engineer?

Earlk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If they were qualified for the territory, why
> would they need a pilot engineer?

I read it as "steam qualified" rather than qualified on the territory.  Depending on the railroad, it takes months running over the same line to be considered qualified on the territory.

Mary McPherson
Dongola, IL
Diverging Clear Productions

It is railroad rules that require a pilot crew when a "stranger" is running over a different division.  You certainly wouldn't want to run over a division you knew nothing about.

"Back in the days of steam" if the Frisco had their line shut down from St. Louis to Springfield, they would detour over the MP to Sedalia, MKT to Ft. Scott, KS and from there to Springfield over the Frisco.  Pilot crew on each leg.  I can remember Dad having to do that back in the 16 hr Hog Law days.

I sat waiting to leave Newburg EB one time while they debated whether to just turn me loose.  I had done that run at least a dozen times.  Would have been kind of neat,, but if anything went amiss the pilot crew would have been in deep doo doo.

Every time we took 1522 from the Museum to downtown the UP would call a pilot crew, same when we went back.  If we went downtown and tied up at Choteau Ave or Lindenwood, a BN crew was called.

I mostly had great pilots with a couple of exceptions.  You could tell the ones who didn't want to be on the steam engine.  One guy was no help at all.  Luckily it was a good division to see where you were going.

Earlk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If they were qualified for the territory, why
> would they need a pilot engineer?

Because of union rules. Can't tell you how many times I was Fireman on the UP Steam Crew, enroute to Cheyenne from North Platte, or west from Cheyenne. Steve Lee previously was a Road Foreman out there, but we STILL required a Pilot crew (Engineer and Conductor), and then generally rode in the crew car anyway.

Technically, the arrangement is the 'labor agreement', 
but, also at work are the rules regarding Management's 
choices, when assigned workers do not 'protect' the assignments.

If union workers don't show-up, for pilot assignments,  managenent can
take that as a 'blanket' interpretation of their ability to 'blank' all pilot-crew
wording in the agreement, system-wide.  Thus, management could avoid
terms later,  as to when pilots are assigned & paid.

I am totally in support of Unions and thier voice in reaching wording 
that forms the framework of both party's' agreed terms.

Railroad managers had been notorious for unfairly pressuring workers to work 
long hours, etc..

After years of fighting, and strikes against it, RR's did 'agree' to basic pay rules
and reasonable length working conditions & days.   So, after years of evolution,
and modified terms of the legally binding 'agreements' ... on both partys, 
we have a legal, binding foundation for both sides to safely move the freight.  
The 'agreement' is that both sides will abide by the terms.

If managers of the past had made reasonable concessions, by being more
honorable in dealing in fairness practices, things could be different ..
But, several big mucky-mucks insisted on formal, written agreements.  
So, I respected both parties as they navigate the "politics" of the wording of
their "controlling agreements" .

Every aspect and every 'benefit' in the agreements was the result of hard-fought 
negotiations.  An important clause in all agreements, during renewal periods,
is the wording that states if one union agrees to a new, significant benefit,
all earlier signed agreements with other Unions, will include the same benefit,
and incorporate the new wording & benefit in their individual contracts.
Again, both parties agreed to that specific protection.

Again, its the lawyers that came out ahead, in the end.

​W.


 



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 09/05/24 08:18 by wcamp1472.

And where does the Surface Transportation Board fit into this puzzle?

Mike Root
Madras, OR

shortlineboss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And where does the Surface Transportation Board
> fit into this puzzle?

I don't believe it does, since they are not a rules governing body.

HotWater Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> shortlineboss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > And where does the Surface Transportation Board
> > fit into this puzzle?
>
> I don't believe it does, since they are not a
> rules governing body.

Correct, it doesn't. STB regulates economic aspects, not safety and operations.

And to further add clarification; the "creation of a railroad" in this instance related to licensing of engineers is to meet the FRA definition related to the regulatory rules, not building a railroad or taking over an existing rail line as a common carrier where STB would get involved. One additional thing that may have occured in Frisco1522 and co614's experience maybe the determination of the RRB as related to payroll. I don't know in their case if they were adjudicated into the RRB system or pronounced exempt. Every scenic, tourist, heritage railroad I am familiar with RRB exempts those employees who are not directly involved with common carrier operations. 



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 09/05/24 10:00 by train1275.

HotWater Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Earlk Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > If they were qualified for the territory, why
> > would they need a pilot engineer?
>
> Because of union rules. Can't tell you how many
> times I was Fireman on the UP Steam Crew, enroute
> to Cheyenne from North Platte, or west from
> Cheyenne. Steve Lee previously was a Road Foreman
> out there, but we STILL required a Pilot crew
> (Engineer and Conductor), and then generally rode
> in the crew car anyway.

I hadn't thought about the union situation.  I wonder if Ed gets a pilot on territory he is qualified on.

Earlk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> HotWater Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Earlk Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > If they were qualified for the territory, why
> > > would they need a pilot engineer?
> >
> > Because of union rules. Can't tell you how many
> > times I was Fireman on the UP Steam Crew,
> enroute
> > to Cheyenne from North Platte, or west from
> > Cheyenne. Steve Lee previously was a Road
> Foreman
> > out there, but we STILL required a Pilot crew
> > (Engineer and Conductor), and then generally
> rode
> > in the crew car anyway.
>
> I hadn't thought about the union situation.  I
> wonder if Ed gets a pilot on territory he is
> qualified on.

Yes. The UP steam operation gets a Pilot crew EVERYPLACE they go, and sometimes two Pilot crews, one for 4014 and one for the diesel.

train1275 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> HotWater Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > shortlineboss Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > And where does the Surface Transportation
> Board
> > > fit into this puzzle?
> >
> > I don't believe it does, since they are not a
> > rules governing body.
>
> Correct, it doesn't. STB regulates economic
> aspects, not safety and operations.
>
> And to further add clarification; the "creation of
> a railroad" in this instance related to licensing
> of engineers is to meet the FRA definition related
> to the regulatory rules, not building a railroad
> or taking over an existing rail line as a common
> carrier where STB would get involved. One
> additional thing that may have occured in
> Frisco1522 and co614's experience maybe the
> determination of the RRB as related to payroll. I
> don't know in their case if they were adjudicated
> into the RRB system or pronounced exempt. Every
> scenic, tourist, heritage railroad I am familiar
> with RRB exempts those employees who are not
> directly involved with common carrier
> operations. 
No RRB for us as we were a volunteer group.  No salary.

Mary: you are so right in regards to "depending on the railroad."  In my case, there were specific guidelines for route familiarization with an emphasis on "minimum" number of trips on each subdivision.  Too many terminal managers and some RFE's erred on the side of "less is better." They want folks marked up and working "yesterday."   That attitude rears it's ugly head frequently with FRA violations, de-certifications, and of course derailments.  Time and time again......

MaryMcPherson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Earlk Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > If they were qualified for the territory, why
> > would they need a pilot engineer?
>
> I read it as "steam qualified" rather than
> qualified on the territory.  Depending on the
> railroad, it takes months running over the same
> line to be considered qualified on the territory.

"Steam Qualified" doesn't enter into the rule.  However, you wouldn't want to be taking an excursion or an equipment move with your steam locomotive and have to turn her over to a certified engineer who has never seen a steam locomotive would you?
Anytime we ran over NS, we had to step back and let their 3 guys run it.  However they were steam qualified but it was no less galling to us. Their 2 main guys were good though.
One series of excursions though we were made to leave our support equipment at the home terminal and haul our stuff in a Ryder truck.  Our cars were blue and white, not maroon!  Nuff said.

I've found it easier to train a newbie on tte right-way to run a steamer,
than to get a set-in-his-ways, old-timer who beat the engines to death.
You can't teach them the proper way to run.

They were lousy runners, they'll be lousy runners.

The main advantage of being fully experienced to THAT particular loco,
comes into play in emergency situations --- where reflexes 
kick-into automatic mode.  Like unexpected train separations...

You have to be able avoid a secondary run-in situation, in case
of uneven stopping distances.  The challenge, at the time of the 
break-in-two, is that you have no idea which half of the train is
going to stop, first!   So, you have to out-run, dragging cars with you.

With dismals, it's common that when they go into Emergency, all traction
power is shut-down and the engine goes to IDLE rpm's... You're powerless 
to outrun a secondary collision, death and injury..

There's no time to switch seats!

W..