Four railroads have filed lawsuits in federal court to block the Federal Railroad Administration’s requirement for two-person crews for most freight trains, the Associated Press reports.
Union Pacific, BNSF Railway, the Indiana Rail Road, and Florida East Coast Railway filed individual suits this week in different appellate courts, all saying the rule is arbitrary, capricious, and an illegal abuse of discretion.
The FRA announced the rule earlier this month, saying it enhanced safety, particularly in light of longer trains operated by Class I railroads [see “FRA issues rule …,” Trains News Wire, April 2, 2024]. The Association of American Railroads immediately blasted the rule as “unfounded and unnecessary” and said there is no data supporting the safety claims. The AAR likely has a role in the lawsuits; when contacted by the Associated Press, BNSF deferred comment to the industry group.
UP said in a statement quoted by the AP that the rule “hinders our ability to compete in a world where technology is changing the transportation industry and prevents us from preparing our workforce for jobs of the future.”
The lawsuit is not unexpected; the industry has a history of challenging crew-size laws enacted by states. The AAR sued over an Ohio crew size law last year, for example; it and the Indiana Rail Road sued over an Illinois law in 2019.
I have written elsewhere that an engineer on the BNSF was saved by his conductor. He was choking on a sandwich and the conductor did the Heimlich maneuver to save him.
If he had been in the cab alone be would have suffocated to death.
I have run my train alone many times, and it’s with God’s grace I was able to solve the problems that arose, like going into emergency.
The railroads want the public to believe that this is purely political and that the crew size debate should be handled through collective bargaining and that there’s no data to suggest that two man crew are safer. Let’s look at that for a second. The class ones and the AAR have been asked by the fra for years to compile data on just that and lo and behold they all have resoundingly said no way we don’t need to we have our own internal data that we collect. So when the fra asks for that data the railroads say they can’t let internal proprietary stuff out to the public……. Kinda fishy to me. Crew consist agreements have always been handled through the collective bargaining process there’s no dispute there yet how that’s been done over the years is suspect at best. The railroads cry foul when the government steps in on an issue that’s been in the hot seat for at leas a decade and a half yet they have their subtle ways of cronyism that they use in that same government to get their ways. The issue of crew size is an issue of practicality and safety combined with a number of others. Our railroads were never designed for two man crews let alone only an engineer in the cab. Heck they were never designed for 150000 foot trains either but here we are and I hear it all the time on here and other railfan siteshow much of a mess it is. Don’t be fooled by the railroads and their spin doctors. There is a need for a conductor in the engine. The railroads will always be relevant in the future more so then now in a world more concerned with the environment. It’s the best way to move the tonnage hand down. They have the masses believing that if they don’t eliminate the conductor they will go the way of the dodo bird.Theyll be fine and profitable no matter how many people they have in the engine
Eric,
I disagree that any required 2nd person has to be a conductor. The second person should also be a qualified engineer so the 2 can take turns running the long trains on the long runs. That makes more sense than what now exists on the Class 1’s.
Well, in many cases now, with far too few people on the roster working the cab does indeed have two engineers…one cut back and working train service and the other an old head…and they can and do swap seats as needed.
Mr foster id agree with that as a qualified engineer in a major class one railroad I’d say it’s the way to go for the future but not only one guy in the cab.
What about a compromise in that only freights over 10,000 feet ( or some other specific length) need a crew of two? I believe there have been cases where both crew members have fallen asleep on their moving train. Higher risk with just one in the cab. Or would they install a cab system that beeps and requires a physical response every 5 minutes to keep the engineer alert?
They already have an alerter button in the cab that goes off if no change has been made in the controls every few minutes.
I speak from experience that it becomes automatic to push the alerter reset button while you’re half asleep.
Having two man crew in the lead engine only seems beneficial for rendering aid if the engineer becomes disabled or to address an issue that is within the first x number of cars (broken coupler, air line, brake, etc.) Not aware that this is a problem,but don’t have any information on this statistic.
A two man crew with second at end of train to help deal with these ridiculously long trains might be more beneficial, but that would mean resurrecting the old (gasp) caboose.
The 2 man crew currently makes sense for today’s very long trains on long runs. However, future technology is still to be determined. I can foresee that sometime in the future an engineer being much more limited in his/her duties as automation plays a bigger role in actually running the train.
I can understand the railroads being very reluctant to lock in any current labor practice, giving the many years it took to eliminate the mandated fireman and brakemen, as well as the old 100 mile day’s pay rule.
They could have a case given that this administration seems to continually forget Congress exists. If the Supreme Court does agree in the current case its now deciding to no longer have the courts automatically defer to the Executive branch’s departments, then that would indicate the proposed rule is not going to fly minus Congressional approval.
If the railroads would someday copy European freight services and go with much shorter freights and a one man crew, I could live with that. I tend to doubt it will happen but one never knows.
You have obviously never operated a train and, therefore, don’t value the inherent safety of at least two in the cab. It is definitely a safety issue. True, many times two people have fallen asleep, but I also know of cases where the conductor has pulled the emergency switch on their side of the cab.
Where in the Constitution provides for administrative rules?
BTW Anton Bruce’s second paragraph (below) says it all.
If laws are neither enforced nor obeyed, they become just words,
Nah the rule is beyond overdue.
” all saying the rule is arbitrary, capricious, and an illegal abuse of discretion.”
Well, if there is anything this current administration is known for, it’s being arbitrary, capricious and abusing the legal system.
I mean, two man crew is LITERALLY just common sense. No reason to complicate this with bs political nonsense.
Remember that “Rail Lavor Votes”… Corporations do not.