LOMBARD, Ill. — Ian Jefferies, CEO of the Association of American Railroads, says he isn’t concerned by idea of a “dynamic” regulatory group at the U.S. Surface Transportation board.
“The [STB] chairman, Marty Oberman, has made it clear that he has a new hearing room, and he wants to use it, and he likes open debate,” Jefferies says, specifically referencing an upcoming hearing on reciprocal switching, labeled “forced access” by the AAR and its member railroads. “Open debate is healthy; that’s what we should be doing.”
What concerns Jefferies, as he looks at a landscape including STB consideration of several issues — as well as the prospect of a two-person crew rule from the Federal Railroad Administration — is what he sees as contradictions within the Biden administration when it comes to goals and actions.
Jefferies, speaking Thursday at the Midwest Association of Rail Shippers meeting, first referenced that sort of “disconnect from different parts of the administration about one top-line goal versus what’s actually going on within an agency” in considering the reciprocal switching hearing, set for March 15-16 [see “STB sets details for hearing …,” Trains News Wire, Dec. 28, 2021].
“My sincere hope and sincere belief is the board should use this hearing as the start of a process, not the end of a process,” he says. “… The last time the board acted on this was 2016. None of the current board members were on the board at that time. The data to support that proposal was from 2011. A lot has happened since 2016; a whole lot more has happened since 2011. We’re 11 years out from that data.
“Let’s have the debate, let’s update the data, let’s update the record, let’s update the arguments and see where we end up. But I can tell you right now, from where I sit, it makes absolutely no sense to put a rule into effect that knowingly adds complexity into the network at a time when we’re trying to maximize fluidity; we’re trying to keep the supply chain moving.”
He adds that he believes the debate will be “one for the ages. I can’t tell you where it’s going to go, but we’ll bring our best arguments and we’ll go from there.”
Jefferies sees similar inconsistencies at the FRA, where he says, “we’re running into challenges with our innovation agenda.” He points to autonomous track inspection, which uses technology for what was previously handled by individuals doing visual assessments.
“Autonomous track inspection is a massive leap forward with safety,” he says. “It allows an individual vehicle or head of a locomotive to continuously inspect track using technology as you’re going through your day-to-day business. One, you’re covering a lot more track with inspection, and two, you’re using tools that provide a much higher level of sensitivity” — in some cases, he says, finding 90% more potential flaws.
“So you’d think that’s a no-brainer. Unfortunately, our labor friends are pushing hard, and they’ve got influence, and they’re feeling their oats, and we’re not making the headway we should be. … That has impacts on fluidity, not having to close down tracks for visual inspections. …
“Again we should be taking complexity out of the network, versus knowingly doing things that keep it in.”
Jefferies also points to technology in the railroads’ opposition to the FRA’s potential two-person crew legislation, which he considers inevitable (“the President said as much on the campaign trail,” he says) while emphasizing that the 2016 FRA proposal said there was no data to support a safety case for the two-person crew.
“That was before PTC was finished. … We’ve got PTC on 56,000 miles of mainline track in this country. Between that and technology such as Trip Optimizer, basically allowing for cruise control once the train is up and running, the argument for mandating a second person be physically located in the cab at all times — it can’t even hold up under its own legs.
“We’ll push back very hard. Crew staffing has always been a matter for collective bargaining. That’s where it should stay. Safety has only improved over the years as the number of individuals on a moving train has decreased. … I’m hopeful that a rule would talk about the objective criteria you need to meet in order to run one in the cab.”
Returning to the reciprocal switching hearing during a Q&A period, Jefferies suggests the AAR might be open to trying to bring railroads and shippers together to mediate an agreement.
“Whenever we can solve our problems outside of the shadow of the regulator, I think we’re all better off, quite honestly,” he says, “because you are throwing some things to chance when you take it to the board. Maybe finding a 50-50 solution somewhere in the middle that both sides are OK with is the best outcome, Whether we can do that on access, I just don’t know. There are a lot of strongly held views. This issue’s been debated for a long time; there’s a lot of history there.”
Management always likes to improve “investor equity” by eliminating as many workers as possible. A one man crew sounds like a financial winner until a knuckle gets pulled or an air line breaks. Then you have to follow the rules because after the disaster in Lac Megnatic until the one person can walk the train they would have to apply the brakes on multiple cars then depending on the area they are in shut down the engines because the cab and controls are unprotected. Then they have to walk they length of a 10,000+ foot train to identify that trouble then report it or fix it. Always sounds easy to do for a person in an office building that is not out on the road.
“”…while emphasizing that the 2016 FRA proposal said there was no data to support a safety case for the two-person crew…””
He likes to spew that, but refuses to acknowledge there is no data showing a 1 man crew is safer either. Let him go get on a plane with 1 pilot or no pilot & see how he feels about it.
It’s all about the money. Man the RRs could really make some money if they didn’t have to pay those stupid train crews or run those stupid trains servicing their customers.
He doesn’t say it, but there is data supporting the safety on one man crews…just look at all the short/regional lines that do it and Europe.
Looking at info on the highly controlled European Union railroads the max length for a freight train there is 2,300 feet. Here the “average” can be 8,000 to 14,000 feet with some going to 16,000 feet. The longer the train the greater the chance for “fecal to occur”.