neroden wrote:Uh, weren't the Budds built *after* the current (i.e. antique) "crashworthiness" regulations went into effect, and weren't they built to run on FRA-regulated lines? I don't think there will be any problems whatsoever. They ran Budd RDCs on Syracuse's OnTrack, mixed with freight -- I don't think they needed to get a waiver for that.
Nope. 49CFR238.203 went into effect on
November 8, 1999. Some 37 years after the last RDC rolled off the factory floor.
The RDCs were legal on Sycrause OnTrack as that system began operations in 1994, five years before the crashworthiness regulation took effect. Likewise they are legal on TRE and Alaska RR. But when the equipment moves to another route, the law states that the grandfathering clause goes away...
neroden wrote:In fact TriMet probably bought the Budds *because* they are FRA-compliant DMUs. I expect they will need little if any work to update to modern (i.e. almost unchanged) regulations. On the other hand they may need quite a bit of work to keep them running, what with parts not being manufactured, and all.
Paragraph 4(d) of the law states:
(d) Grandfathering of non-compliant equipment for use on a specified rail line or lines —(1) Grandfathering approval is equipment and line specific. Grandfathering approval of non-compliant equipment under this paragraph is limited to usage of the equipment on a particular rail line or lines. Before grandfathered equipment can be used on another rail line, a railroad must file and secure approval of a grandfathering petition under paragraph (d)(3) of this section.
Having read various DMU project summaries, consistently the Budd RDC is indicated as a non-compliant DMU. Further, it's not a "simple modification" to meet this requirement. Probably a good reason why Industrial Rail's RDC rebuilds have not taken off as they are limited to the non-US market, and there's not exactly a huge market for RDCs in Canada and Mexico. Maybe Cuba might want them...