|
|
| Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip (925323) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip |
|
|
Posted by Bill West on Sun Apr 18 22:48:19 2010, in response to Re: PHOTOS: Staten Island ERA Trip, posted by Dan Lawrence on Sun Apr 18 20:36:31 2010. Sorry Dan, old question. Although some text about “connection to the national network” appears in the rules it is only one of several factors in a legal formula for determining a system’s status. For a railfan the simplest rule is: if it historically derived from a mainline steam road’s commuter operation it’s FRA and if it descended from someone else’s transit operation then it’s FTA. Once set the status doesn’t seem to go away, probably too many questions including Union ones.Here’s my previous post on this pointing to an FRA document and giving my reading of it, the post doesn’t show up in search anymore. I think Dutch was the source of the link: ............... PA5s and FRA Regulations From time to time PATH’s status with the FRA comes up here, well thanks to the UTU we now have a clearer explanation of this. They have posted a statement from the FRA explaining it’s views on jurisdiction, PDF file here, and drawing a line between passenger rail and transit rail, especially LRT. Even Maglev is mentioned. From 1970’s legislation their basic starting point is that intercity and commuter rail services are included in their jurisdiction. Later legislation lists some specific commuter agencies to reinforce the definition but city transit is distinguished, partly as being “trolley like”. I felt it was as if they wanted to include any new systems but didn’t want to change the status quo for the existing ones hence some of what we see as inconsistencies. Then for some situations they back off from their broad starting point by indicating where they would choose not to exercise their jurisdiction or would grant waivers and where they would only apply their jurisdiction to part of a system. A primary concern is the risk of a dangerously unequal collision between a regular rail vehicle and a loaded transit one. So sharing a common track counts although time sharing can garner some waivers. Rail crossings at grade definitely count. Sharing the lift of a moveable bridge or the ROW over a street crossing attracts concerns over signal control and accident reporting requirements. Just sharing an ROW might even raise some concern. A connection to the general rail system is not a criterion however, isolated systems can be included too. But shop connection tracks of course are not bothered with by them. Areas of concern that get individually resolved by a waiver include hours of service for any shared dispatchers and signal maintainers, any desirable sharing of radio channels and getting a uniform appearance to grade crossing signals, as well as track standards and any shared track maintenance responsibility. A table of their likely approach for each group of their safety rules is included along with an explanation of what operating methods likely would be needed to qualify for a waiver. So the link gives us a clearer but not so simple distinction as to which systems are FRA and which are FTA and what the extent of any partial jurisdiction would be. It would appear that PATH is fully included because of their commuter nature even if other systems might brush rather closely by some of that definition. The history of simply having had a shared operation with the PRR may be the root issue and maybe nobody has bothered trying to change it. Sharing of Dock bridge control also counts too and I wonder if control over the passenger and freight Hackensack bridges is still one person. ................. Bill |
|
|
|