56 replies to this topic

[CNJRoss]

Railway Age, 8/7/22

FRA NPRM: The Truth Behind the Need for Two-Person Crews

 

Written by Jeremy Ferguson, President, SMART-TD

 

 

Editor’s Note: Capitol Hill Contributing Editor Frank N. Wilner, who in his roughly half-century in the railway industry worked for the New York Central, Association of American Railroads, Surface Transportation Board and SMART-TD predecessor United Transportation Union, struck a nerve with his former employer with “Biden Promise Fueled FRA NPRM.” SMART-TD on Aug. 5 posted this response from President Jeremy Ferguson on its website. It’s a bit heavier on vitriol than on substance. “Whoever wrote it is very good,” Wilner says. “I enjoyed the writing. When they take the time to write and post as they have, it means they have a problem with members. It means Railway Age is being read. ” Indeed!

 

So, readers, here is Jeremy Ferguson’s response—which curiously never actually names Frank Wilner—in full, unedited (except for minor grammar, punctuation, syntax and style changes), with hot links preserved. No, not sausages, even though he’s essentially accusing Wilner of “making sausage.” We also understand he’s only doing his job, which in and of itself is an honorable thing. And we recognize and thank him for his service as a United States Army veteran. Railway Age—published since 1856—would have included many of Mr. Ferguson’s concerns and opinions earlier, had he given Mr. Wilner the courtesy of a requested interview. Wilner reached out to him several times following the start of contract negotiations in January 2020 to hear and write his side of the issues, but Mr. Ferguson chose not even to return a phone call. Nevertheless, we are pleased to re-publish this commentary. You be the judge. — William C. Vantuono

 

 It’s a shame, really, that the safety of my members, the public and the infrastructure are nothing more than political pawns in the railroads’ game of never-ending greed. And it’s a shame, frankly, that the railroads manipulate woefully inept individuals—having never meaningfully walked the ballast or performed the myriad tasks of a conductor or engineer from inside the cab of a locomotive—and contributing editors, to carry their water in the hopes of somehow creating a narrative that corporate profit (as compared to safety) is the greater good.

 

On Tuesday, Aug. 2, Railway Age published an article titled “Biden Promise Fueled FRA NPRM,” wherein its author bows to his superiors’ bidding and attempts to make the case that data is in their favor. But to do so, he had to sharpshoot for supporting documentation and data, blindly whisking by the plethora of reports and studies that stand as mountains between them and reality, and he had to bend quotes and statements made as if he were some sort of deceitful, abstract performer.

 

Only in corporate America can a promise of maintaining the safest course be misconstrued to the public as being unethical. In fact, it seems quite ironic that the article’s author accuses this Union of being a special interest when the former FRA Administrator broke from the agency’s position and capitulated to the railroad executives’ pressure by withdrawing the ongoing crew size regulation, only to be defeated in federal court.

 

The rationale is sound, and the need for regulation is necessary. I find it ridiculous that the author of a book theoretically explaining the purpose and processes of the Railway Labor Act is incapable of comprehending the role of politics in the prioritization of safety and the overall welfare of America’s railroad workers.

Continue here. 

[CNJRoss]

This is an interesting read.

-Ross

 

Railway Age, 9/7/22

 

Single-Person Crews: Happy, Unhappy or Somewhere In-Between

 

Written by David Schanoes, Contributing Editor

 

FRA’s NPRM allows single-person train crew staffing for Class II and III railroads with fewer than 400,000 employee working-hours, with speeds not exceeding 25 mph, contingent on grade restrictions, and train length not exceeding 6,000 feet. Genesee & Wyoming photo

 

While we’re all waiting for the carriers and the unions to agree or not on the recommendations of the Presidential Emergency Board, I thought I’d probe a bit more into the issue of the single-person crew for main line freight train movements in these United States.

 

The unions representing train and engine crews claim that single-person crew freight train operations are intrinsically unsafe, and that the vulnerabilities cannot be remediated, mitigated, or corrected. The carriers argue that there is no evidence that multi-person crews are more safe than single-person crew consists; that single-person operation of locomotives has long been the standard in passenger service, and that form of operation refutes the claim of inherently compromised safety; that other countries have utilized single-person freight crews without compromising safety; and that crew consist size is a matter for collective bargaining and free markets, not government regulation.

 

The Federal Railroad Administration for its part presents an argument of intangibles, asserting that multi-person crews demonstrate a “teamwork” approach to task division, problem solving and safe operation that, even if it hasn’t been measured, provides a real advantage to preserving safe train operations, and that studies of single-person freight train operations in other countries, particularly those of Europe, are irrelevant because the operating environment in the good ol’ US of A is so different, so unique, so exceptional.

 

So, the unions are generally happy with FRA’s NPRM. The carriers are generally unhappy. FRA itself is … well, who knows? 

 

 

David Schanoes is Principal of Ten90 Solutions LLC, a consulting firm he established upon retiring from MTA Metro-North Railroad in 2008. David began his railroad career in 1972 with the Chicago & North Western, as a brakeman in Chicago. He came to New York in 1977, working for Conrail’s New Jersey Division. David joined Metro-North in 1985. He has spent his entire career in operations, working his way up from brakeman to conductor, block operator, dispatcher, supervisor of train operations, trainmaster, superintendent, and deputy chief of field operations. “Better railroading is 10% planning plus 90% execution,” he says. “It’s simple math. Yet, we also know, or should know, that technology is no substitute for supervision, and supervision that doesn’t utilize technology isn’t going to do the job. That’s not so simple.”

 

Continue here. 

[CNJRoss]

CNN Business News, 12/14/22

 

Who’s manning the train? Railroads want a one-person crew

 

New York CNN Business — When a freight train travels across the country, two people are in the cab of the locomotive working to keep the train, its often hazardous and flammable contents, and the communities they are passing through, all safe.

 

Now the railroads are saying that, given today’s modern technology, just one person is enough.

 

The Federal Railroad Administration, the government regulator overseeing the industry, and the rail unions don’t see it that way. The FRA held a hearing Wednesday on a proposed rule that would mandate a two-person minimum staffing each train.

 

Right now, union contracts, and not any kind of federal regulation, require two-person crews. The two unions representing those crew members have so far refused to agree to the change, at least on the major long-distance railroads, citing safety grounds.

 

With long-distance freight trains now stretching for miles, hazardous and flammable freight can be found on just about every train.

 

The railroads would prefer only an engineer – and no conductor – in each locomotive. They claim there is no evidence that two-person crews are safer, and insist that a second crew member is unnecessary because of modern safety equipment that’s designed to stop trains automatically if there is a problem in the locomotive.

 

“There is ample data to demonstrate safe single person operations in the US and abroad, and there is no evidence that two-person crews are safer than one-person crews,” said a statement from the Association of American Railroads, the industry’s main lobbying and trade group.

 

 

Continue here. 

Related:  UPRR plans to test feasibility of ground-based conductors

[CNJRoss]

The Federalist, 1/19/23

 

When Bureaucrats Butt In On Strike Negotiations, Railroads Get Costly Mandates And Zero Fixes

 

The main problem with the Federal Railroad Administration’s proposed crew size rule is that there is insufficient data to justify it.

 

 

When Congress swooped in to avert a railroad strike, it imposed a deal upon four labor unions that had voted against it. Now, a crew size rule is being considered that would be a second blow to the collective bargaining process — imposing by federal mandate what was once a negotiation between labor and carrier and creating rippling economic inefficiencies.

 

The collective bargaining process is the longstanding bedrock of the rail sector that affords both labor and companies compromise and flexibility. Like all negotiations, it allows for economically efficient outcomes through voluntary bargaining. The number and responsibilities of railroad personnel are one piece of this puzzle, but one which the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is putting under its thumb.

 

Besides usurping a contract term from negotiating parties, the main problem with the FRA’s crew size rule is that there is insufficient data to justify it. Accident reporting forms lack categories to identify the number and location of personnel on trains, meaning the FRA has no dataset available to justify its regulation that two crew members in the controlling locomotive are needed to prevent or mitigate incidents.

 

 

 

Continue here. 

[CNJRoss]

United Press International, 4/2/24

 

Transportation Dept. sets new rule on freight train crew size

 

April 2 (UPI) -- The Transportation Department announced a new rule on Tuesday dictating the crew size on freight trains in light of the February 2023 derailment in East Palestine, Ohio.

 

The Federal Railroad Administration issued the final rule that established the minimum safety requirements for the crew size. The crew size was one of the issues during the investigation of the toxic derailment.

 

 

Continue here.

[CNJRoss]

Associated Press, 4/11/24

 

Freight railroads ask courts to throw out new rule requiring two-person crews on trains

 

Four railroads have asked federal appeals courts to throw out a new rule that would require two-person train crews in most circumstances, saying the mandate is arbitrary, capricious and an illegal abuse of discretion.

 

The identical challenges of the Federal Railroad Administration’s rule were all filed this week in different appellate courts on behalf of Union Pacific, BNSF and two short line railroads — the Indiana Railroad and Florida East Coast Railway.

 

 

Continue here. 

[CNJRoss]

Trains  News Wire

 

Class I railroads should thank FRA for two-person crew rule: Analysis

 

By Bill Stephens | April 12, 2024

 

Service would suffer if railroads pulled conductors from the locomotive cab

 

The industry would never admit it, but the Federal Railroad Administration has given the Class I railroads a gift in the form of its proposed two-person train crew rule.

 

Debate over the controversial rule has been framed almost entirely in safety terms. Having two people in the locomotive cab, the rule’s advocates say, is vital for the safety of the public, communities, and crew members, particularly in an era of ever-longer freight trains.

 

Yet it seems to me that if the SMART-TD union were ever to agree to taking conductors out of the cab — something the Class I railroads sought during the last round of national contract negotiations — it would quickly cause chaos out on main lines.

 

SNIP

 

There may or may not be a safety case to make for two-person crews. But there sure is a railroad business case for keeping two people in the cab: It’s called service, which is the only thing that railroads sell to their customers. Until rail equipment becomes far more reliable, and failures on the line of road become extremely rare, engineer-only operation is a fool’s errand.

 

 

 Analysis here.