56 replies to this topic

[CNJRoss]

Bloomberg News, 6/30:
 

Why Will the Feds Let Robots Drive Trucks but Not Trains?

• U.S. may require two-person crews in freight-train locomotives
• ‘We should allow technology to take us where it will’

Peter Mills sees an inconsistency. One arm of the U.S. Department of Transportation is recommending two-person crews be required for freight trains as another plans to spend billions to help develop driverless technology for long-haul trucks.

 

“Anything that tilts the competitive playing field concerns me,” said Mills, chief executive officer of Indiana Rail Road. “We’re very truck-competitive.”

 

The Federal Railroad Administration has proposed the mandate for two operators in many freight-train locomotives,  .  .  .

 

SNIP

 

There were two crew members in each of the cabs of BNSF Railway Co. trains that collided in Texas on Tuesday.  .  .  .

 

More here.

[CNJRoss]

FRA news release:

 

AAR, FREIGHT RAIL OFFICALS AND LEADING REGULATORY EXPERT URGE FRA TO WITHDRAW PROPOSED TWO-PERSON CREW MANDATE

 

Agency Lacks Evidence and Data to Support Proposal, Which Could Undermine Future Rail Safety Innovation 

 

AAR: Proposed Rule Is 'Textbook Example of Unnecessary Regulation'

 

 

WASHINGTON, D.C., JULY 15, 2016 – The Association of American Railroads (AAR), freight rail industry leaders and one of the nation's top regulatory experts at a hearing today with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) urged the safety regulatory agency to withdraw its proposed rule mandating two-person crews for freight railroads.

 

"For the freight rail industry, there is no greater priority than safety, but there are no data supporting this proposed rule and it will provide no safety benefit to railroads, their employees, or the public," said Edward R. Hamberger, President and CEO of the AAR, in his testimony.  "With no data showing that one-person operations compromise safety, there is no basis — other than anecdotal storytelling — for enacting a general prohibition on crew size reductions.

 

"The proposed rule is a textbook example of unnecessary regulation. In fact, while perhaps well-intentioned, the proposed rule is actually misguided and will undermine the very goal of both the FRA and the freight rail industry – making a safe rail network even safer."

 

Hamberger added: "While the Department of Transportation is throwing its full support behind development of autonomous vehicles as a way to improve safety on our roadways, it is backing a rulemaking for the rail industry that goes in the opposite direction and would freeze rail productivity and chill innovation."
 
Hamberger was joined at the hearing by Cindy Sanborn, Chief Operating Officer at CSX Transportation; Robert Babcock, Senior Vice President of Operations and Development for the Indiana Rail Road Company (INRD); David Brown, Chief Operating Officer of Genesee & Wyoming, Inc.; and John D. Graham, Dean of the Indiana School of Public and Environmental Affairs and former Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

 

Hamberger pointed out that in its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the FRA itself admitted it had no safety data to support the proposal. "The FRA has not provided data suggesting that one-person crew operations are less safe than multiple-person crew operations," he noted.

 

"We have said time and time again that the FRA should conduct a fact-based - not emotionally driven - data-gathering process," Hamberger said. "If a safety risk is identified, then rulemaking might be appropriate. But we are confident that an independent, objective analysis will conclude that no regulation is needed." Hamberger pointed out that Oliver Wyman, a leading global management consulting firm with worldwide expertise in railroad operations, provided the FRA with an analysis of data on single-crew rail operations around the world that proves railroads can safely operate with one-person crews, and have been doing so for years.

 

Cindy Sanborn of CSX Transportation told FRA representatives that the railroad industry has negotiated numerous reductions in crew size with its employees in the past, and the evidence shows that such reductions have been accomplished with continuous safety improvement. She noted that during the period of time that the industry's injury and accident rates have declined to record lows, crew sizes have been reduced.

 

Moreover, Indiana Rail Road Company's Babcock noted in his testimony that U.S. railroads using one-person crews have consistently maintained exemplary safety records. "INRD has been safely deploying one-person crews for nearly two decades, and there is no evidence that one-person operations are unsafe," he said.

 

In his testimony, David Brown of Genesee & Wyoming Inc. similarly noted that railroads throughout Europe and Australia have for years been safely operating with one person in the locomotive cab. Brown said that for 34 years he has been involved in the transition of crew size from as many as six crew members down to the one-person crews that now comprise the vast majority of train crews in the U.K. and Europe and other operations in the United States and Australia. During that time, Brown noted, rail safety performance has continuously and dramatically improved.

 

John D. Graham, who as former Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs reviewed thousands of proposed federal regulations, told the FRA that its crew size proposal was "one of the analytically weakest regulatory packages" he has ever reviewed.

 

"There is no demonstration that crew size is a relatively significant factor in determining the number of railroad accidents, injuries and fatalities – or even near misses," Graham said. "The reader is left wondering why the agency has focused on this factor, as opposed to the many other factors related to railroad safety."

Graham also said the agency currently does not even collect information on crew size. "FRA offers no direct empirical evidence that operating with two crew members will produce better safety outcomes than operating with one crew member," Graham stated. "In fact, FRA acknowledges that its own accident database does not even contain information on the size of the crew associated with particular accidents. If it is not worthwhile for FRA to collect information on size of crew, it is hard to fathom why the agency would consider this issue to be important enough to craft a narrow, prescriptive regulation." 

###

[CNJRoss]

The Hill, Washington, DC 7/15:
 

Feds weigh minimum train crew sizes

 

The Federal Railroad Administration is considering a rule that would require most trains to have a minimum number of crew members.

 

During a Friday public hearing on the proposal, union groups, policymakers and stakeholders weighed in on whether most rail operations should be staffed with at least two qualified workers.

 

The regulation, proposed in March, would establish crew-size standards for most main line freight and passenger rail operations. Currently, only a two-member crew is required for trains carrying crude oil.

 

The FRA reopened the public comment period in order to get feedback from Friday’s hearing.

 

Continue here.

[CNJRoss]

AAR news release:

 

AAR AGAIN URGES FRA TO WITHDRAW TWO-PERSON CREW RULE,

CALLS ON AGENCY TO DISCLOSE ANY SAFETY DATA BEHIND PROPOSAL

 

Federal Railroad Administration Should Gather Facts

Before Proposing Measure That Is Unsupported By Any Public Safety Data

 

 

 

WASHINGTON, D.C., AUGUST 15, 2016 — In comments submitted today in response to a July 15th public hearing, the Association of American Railroads (AAR) again urged the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to withdraw its proposed rule mandating two-person crews on railroads. The AAR also called on the FRA to disclose the data sources it has used to inform its proposal, which is not supported by any publicly available safety data. 

 

"The simple fact is that no data exist showing two-person crews will enhance safety," said Edward R. Hamberger, AAR president and CEO. "The FRA needs to be fully transparent in disclosing the sources it has relied on during this rulemaking process. Until the agency can provide any hard evidence to make its case, it should abandon this misguided proposal." 

 

The AAR sent the FRA a letter on May 20th identifying five specific categories of data and asking that this information be posted prior to the close of the public comment period. The FRA has yet to respond or make this information available. Additionally, the AAR has learned the FRA is currently funding a study at Duke University which is still examining whether there is a correlation between crew size and safety. 

 

"The fact that the government continues to investigate this question — at the same time it has proposed a rule based on the assumption that there is a correlation between crew size and safety — raises serious concerns, and further underscores the absence of evidence supporting the proposed rule," the AAR stated in today's comments. "At a minimum, the FRA should refrain from issuing a final rule until it has the results of the work it commissioned, and has made those results publicly available."

 

"It is somewhat puzzling why the FRA would go forward with this proposed measure without having completed its due diligence," said Hamberger, who again pointed to the FRA's own admission it lacked safety data. "The Agency should take a step back and complete a fact-based, data-gathering process first, instead of continuing to push through a rule that lacks supporting empirical data." 

 

The AAR's comments also respond to concerns raised during the July hearing that it is more difficult for a one-person crew to clear a stopped train blocking a highway-rail grade crossing. 

 

New technologies and approaches will continue to be developed the AAR noted in its submission, and that the presence of a second crew member alone does not solve the problem. As has been the case with every crew-size reduction to date, railroads will develop and implement whatever procedures and technologies are necessary to maintain safe operations, including remote control technology and roving conductor positions. 

###

[CNJRoss]

Progressive Railroading, 8/16:

 

AAR again urges FRA to drop two-person crew proposal

 

The Association of American Railroads (AAR) yesterday filed supplemental comments with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) regarding the agency's proposed rule that would require two-person train crews.

In its comments, the AAR again called on the FRA to drop its proposed rule, as well as to disclose data sources it has used to inform its proposal.

"The simple fact is that no data exist showing two-person crews will enhance safety," said AAR President and Chief Executive Officer Edward Hamberger in a press release. "The FRA needs to be fully transparent in disclosing the sources it has relied on during this rulemaking process. Until the agency can provide any hard evidence to make its case, it should abandon this misguided proposal."

 

Continue here.

[CNJRoss]

Progressive Railroading, 1/19/17:

 

Bill would mandate two-person crews on freight trains

 

 

U.S. Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska) has re-introduced legislation that would require a minimum of two crew members on all freight trains.

The "Safe Freight Act of 2017 " (H.R. 233) would require that "no freight train or light engine used in connection with the movement of freight" may operate unless it has a crew of a certified locomotive engineer and a certified conductor on board. 

 

Introduced Jan. 3, the bill mirrors legislation Young introduced last year.  .  .  .

 

 

 

Continue here.

[CNJRoss]

BLET News Flash:
 

Large U.S. rail unions announce national two-person crew legislation

 

 

WASHINGTON, D.C., March 22, 2019 — Two large railroad unions in the United States have pledged their joint support for the Safe Freight Act legislation introduced by U.S. Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska).

The Safe Freight Act (H.R.1748) requires that two certified crew members operate freight trains on U.S. rails and has the backing of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET) and the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers — Transportation Division (SMART TD).

“This is necessary safety legislation to protect railroad workers and the American public,” BLET National President Dennis R. Pierce said. “While the railroad industry talks of one-person train crews and even autonomous trains, the 2013 tragedy of Lac-Megantic is justification enough that we need two sets of eyes and ears in the locomotive cab.”

“SMART Transportation Division has been working tirelessly to promote safety in the railroad industry, and there is no doubt that the only safe rail operation is one that includes at a minimum a certified conductor and a certified locomotive engineer,” SMART TD President John Previsich said. “A clear message must be sent to our lawmakers and to the general public that multi-person crews are essential to ensuring the safest rail operations possible in their communities. I would like to thank Congressman Young for his leadership on this critical issue as we continue to improve safety on our nation’s railroads for both our members and for the general public.”

Recent well-publicized rail accidents in other nations involving trains with one or no crew members show how smaller crews increase the risk of catastrophe in rail accidents.

In September 2018, an autonomous runaway TasRail train reached speeds of 31 mph before it derailed in the Tasmanian city of Devonport, injuring two people. The train had become unresponsive to remote control commands, including the train’s emergency stop feature.

On Nov. 5, 2018, a runaway BHP ore train of 268 cars with no one aboard reached speeds of 62 mph before it was forcibly derailed in Western Australia. The approximately 1.9-mile-long train loaded with iron ore was operated by a lone crew member who had left the locomotive to inspect an issue with the brakes when the train began moving.

And finally, an oil train with a single-person crew in Lac Megantic, Quebec, Canada, rolled into the center of the town July 6, 2013, after its brakes disengaged. The resulting derailment touched off an inferno that killed 47 people and destroyed the town center.

In the United States, labor unions and others concerned with safety on the United States’ 140,000 miles of rail are seeking to prevent such events from happening. Legislation setting crew size at two people aboard has passed in five states. Just this month a two-person crew bill backed by both the BLET and SMART TD unions (H.B.1034) was signed into law March 21 by Colorado Gov. Jared Polis.

"Safety is non-negotiable, and this legislation is about railroad safety," BLET Vice President and National Legislative Representative John Tolman said. "The members of the BLET and SMART TD are highly-trained professionals who have dedicated their lives to performing their jobs as safely as possible, and we thank Congressman Young for his ongoing support and for introducing H.R. 1748."

“Automation of cars, buses, aircraft and trucks are being addressed by legislation and in regulation by the federal government and many states. It’s time the federal government provided some oversight on railroads,” SMART TD National Legislative Director John Risch said. “Congressman Young’s bill is a first step, and we thank him for his leadership on this. The safety of the public and our members depend on this.”

This national legislation introduced by Young, a longtime advocate of railroad safety, is a common-sense step toward making our nation’s rails safer for workers and the public alike. It has the full endorsement of both unions.

H.R. 1748 has been referred to the House Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials.

 

# # #

 

Related:

 

BNSF, SMART seek historic crew consist revision

 

Indiana Rail Road backs single-person train crews

 

Why rail companies are pushing for one-person train crews

 

Are driverless freight trains safe?

[CNJRoss]

Progressive Railroading, 5/2419:

 

FRA withdraws proposed train-crew staffing rule

 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has withdrawn its 2016 proposed rulemaking that called for federal regulation of train crew staffing.

The FRA determined that such regulation is unnecessary for railroad operations to be conducted safely "at this time," agency officials said yesterday in a rulemaking withdrawal notice.

 

Continue here.

[CNJRoss]

BLET News Release:

 

FRA just reduced the prospects for a safer railroad industry

 

By Dennis R. Pierce
BLET National President

and

John Previsich
SMART TD President

 

 

On Thursday, May 24, 2019, we were informed that the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) had released a notice, withdrawing a 2016 notice of proposed rulemaking establishing a minimum train crew size for most rail freight operations in the United States. This news was not surprising.

 

What is shocking, however, is the degree to which FRA has chosen to subordinate the safety of BLET and SMART TD members, other railroad workers, and the American public to the interests of the nation's major railroads.

 

FRA's reference to current crew sizes, which have existed for decades, as mere "crew redundancy" displays an astonishing ignorance of the findings of the agency's own research studies, which establish-in detail and beyond dispute-the unique and specific duties of each crewmember.

 

FRA also disappointingly engages in self-serving fact selection in its attempts to negate the importance of the 2013 Lac-Megantic tragedy and the Casselton, North Dakota oil train derailment-and subsequent explosion and fire-to the crew size debate. And it simply ignores several subsequent accidents where a two-person crew saved the public from an even more horrific outcome.

 

In its rush to diminish the safety impact of common-sense crew size regulations, FRA also points to various regulations requiring risk analyses and the adoption of risk reduction plans by railroads. While our Organizations fully support such plans, we note that Congress mandated regulations governing these subjects more than a decade ago, but they have yet to be promulgated because of industry recalcitrance and obstructionism.

 

Also, the argument that two-person crews have not been proven safer-because of FRA's failure to collect crew size data-while the data support a conclusion that single-person crews are not demonstrably less safe is mystifying in its logic, to be charitable.

 

Moreover, the federal rail safety regulator hints that there is no "specific requirement that would prohibit autonomous technology from operating a locomotive or train" in the absence of any human crewmember whatsoever as a means of "reducing accidents caused by human error." If the ongoing grounding of the Boeing MAX aircraft has taught nothing else, FRA and the Department of Transportation should be mindful of the danger of transferring the risk of a human factors accident from operator to programmer when autonomous technology is implemented. For this reason, FRA's declared "support [for] the integration and implementation of new automation technologies" on the Nation's locomotives should give everyone pause.

 

Lastly, the Agency's invocation of the negative preemption doctrine is incredible. Both the industry and the Agency reject prescriptive safety regulations as a philosophical matter, because they supposedly require a "one size fits all" approach; indeed, this was part of the industry's argument against the proposed rule.

 

In stark contrast to this philosophy, FRA's invocation of negative preemption seeks to promulgate a prescriptive prohibition, regardless of the implications of its action on federalism. In so doing, the valid safety concerns expressed by supporters of the proposed rule such as National League of Cities-representing more than 19,000 cities, villages, and towns-and the Western Organization of Resource Councils are dismissed out of hand.

 

We frankly did not expect this Administration to complete this rulemaking, but we did afford the new Federal Railroad Administrator a fair opportunity to demonstrate that safety was his primary objective. Given the scope of this withdrawal, the Administrator has clearly failed the test, because he has placed corporate profits above public safety. Railroad safety has taken a giant step backward today, but our Organizations do not intend to let this development go unchallenged.

# # #

 

[CNJRoss]

Railway Age,5/23/19:
 

Rail labor may rue its crew-size strategy

 

 

News item: The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) announced May 23 that it is cancelling an April 2014 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to mandate a minimum of two crewmembers on every freight train. Additionally, the agency is preempting, as it may under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution giving the federal government dominion over interstate commerce, all state laws mandating crew size within state borders.

 

The April 2014 NPRM originated with former FRA Administrator Joseph Szabo, a career officer of the union representing conductors—the Transportation Division of the International Association Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers (SMART-TD), which succeeded the United Transportation Union. It is the conductor who faces elimination were crew size reduced to one; thus, the effort to mandate minimum crew size.

 

The Szabo NPRM, which provided for a two-person mandate “for most main line train operations,” immediately ran into difficulty with the Obama Administration’s Office of Management and Budget and senior DOT officers as the FRA had produced no supporting evidence that two-person crews are safer than single-person train operation. And there it languished until today’s FRA decision to cancel the NPRM.

 

In fact, the California Public Utilities Commission had found that “[a] second set of eyes provides only minimal safety improvement and should be employed only on a temporary basis, given the fact it could aggravate engineer distraction.” Also, then existing FRA and National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) studies had found that two crew members in the locomotive cab “can have an unintended contrary effect on safety due to potential for distraction.”

 

Continue here.