WASHINGTON — The Federal Railroad Administration will not implement a rule requiring a certain number of people in the cab of freight trains, the agency announced this week.
On Thursday, the FRA withdrew a notice of proposed rulemaking that dated back to 2016, when the federal agency was considering requiring at least two people aboard all freight trains. In the notice of withdrawal, FRA Administrator Ronald Batory wrote that there was not enough data to support the need for more than one person in the cab of a train, a statement that immediately drew ire from labor officials.
“After closely examining the train crew staffing issue and conducting significant outreach to industry and public stakeholders, [the] FRA determined that issuing any regulation requiring a minimum number of train crew members would not be justified because such a regulation is unnecessary for a railroad operation to be conducted safely at this time,” Batory writes.
The FRA started looking at a minimum crew size law shortly after the fatal oil train derailment in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, in 2013. In that situation, a parked oil train rolled into a town and derailed after the locomotive engineer who was working alone failed to apply an adequate number of hand brakes to keep the train stationary. Transportation Safety Board of Canada investigators later ruled that while a number of factors led to the tragedy that took 47 lives, the use of a one-person crew did not directly contribute to the derailment. Batory cited that report in his notice to withdraw.
After holding a number of meetings about crew sizes in 2013 and 2014, the FRA filed a notice of proposed rulemaking in March 2016 to gather public input. The FRA received approximately 1,600 comments from industry groups, unions, railroads, and railroaders; 1,545 of the comments were in support of some sort of crew staffing rule and 39 comments were against it.
More than 1,400 comments were from the general public, the vast majority of which identified themselves as current or former railroaders. Many comments offered anecdotal information about why having at least two crew members was important. In one instance, a train brakeman wrote that he was able to work with a locomotive engineer to cut a train in two after a grade-crossing accident, which allowed an ambulance to quickly aid an injured teen. The man said the move likely saved the teenager’s life.
Despite the overwhelming public comment in support of a minimum crew size rule, Batory said data and information provided by industry groups, like the Association of American Railroads, outweighed those anecdotes. Batory cited a study by consulting firm Oliver Wyman, that was paid for by AAR, that found no concrete evidence that trains with two people were safer than those with just one.
AAR President and CEO Ian Jefferies lauded federal officials for their decision and says technology like positive train control is making the rail industry safer.
“AAR and its member railroads are gratified that the FRA rescinded this unjustified proposal and confirmed what it acknowledged from the start: there is no evidence to justify regulating minimum train crew size as a matter of safety,” Jefferies says. “Both Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao and Administrator Batory have made clear that safety is of paramount concern, new technologies can be powerful tools for achieving safety and overly prescriptive regulations can chill innovation. FRA’s careful, evidence-driven conclusion that there is no safety justification to lock railroads into their current crew size practices is consistent with these policies and recognizes the technology revolution occurring throughout the railroad industry.”
Unions were less pleased and vowed to do everything in their power, including going to court, to ensure that there are always two people in the cab of freight trains.
In a letter to members, SMART Transportation Division’s National Legislative Director John Risch writes, “President Donald Trump, DOT Secretary Elaine Chao and FRA Administrator Ron Batory have taken sides, and it’s with the railroads that want to eliminate operating crew members to the detriment of rail safety and to the detriment of the communities through which our members operate trains. We are considering legal action and other avenues to protect our members and the American public from the prospects of driverless trains.”
The FRA’s ruling also appeared to nullify recent crew size laws implemented in individual states, including Colorado and Nevada.
“This notice of withdrawal provides FRA’s determination that no regulation of train crew staffing is appropriate and that the FRA intends to negatively preempt any state laws concerning that matter,” Batory writes.
Risch says that is a violation of states’ rights and was further evidence that Congress should enact a law regarding crew sizes. Earlier this year, a bill that did just that was introduced by U.S. Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska.
“It is now more important than ever that we pass a federal law requiring that every train in America have a minimum of two crew members,” Risch writes. “Those two crew members must be a federally certified conductor and a federally certified locomotive engineer.”
1. Protect the TWO MAN CREW BILL (HR 1748 Safe Freight Act) It’s about public safety and jobs.
2. Go to SMART-UNION.org/td
Click on the Red button support two person crews on the right side of division home page.
2. Enter contact info ( this is needed to direct the email to your member of congress.
3. Click Send. The pre-drafted my essage will be sent directly to your member of congress.
4. This effects railroad retirement, retired railroaders, current railroaders there’s even a spot for the general public to make there voice be heard. Please take action there is 175,000 conductors and 59,000 engineers that need this support not to mention public safety at risk.
5. safety of the crews and the public must come first!
You have all got this wrong when it come to 2 man crew verses one man
crew. The airlines have had autopilot for years but still have two and 3 people in the cockpit. If Boeing has taught us anything technology fails. It’s all the workers do is worry about losing jobs. Its common sense thousands of railroad workers will lose their jobs if all the railroads are allowed to go to 1 man crews. That’s an issue you need to take up with Politicians ! They claims they are creating jobs then let him do something
about people keeping the ones they have!
This is about safety. This is about saving lives. Not just crew lives
but the American people as well. Railroads preach safety every single day.
Its in their rule books and in their advertising. Its 24 hour a day
safety…safety….safety. Well let them put their money where their mouths are. Pay for safety. Keep 2 men in the cab.
Just like GM shutting down 5 plants putting 15,000 people out of work and pay there CEO 22 million. CSX on the other hand lost 41% of the business once Hunter Harrison took over cutting out almost half the work force from 27893 people down to 15,362 people system wide and they paid him 385 million only to pass away 8 months later!
With everything going automated from self check out lanes does anyone profit except share holders and CEOs!!!!
The public has no idea what we deal with. Tell your neighbors about how
many cars we hit and people are killed every year when they are hit by
trains. Explain to them how the engineer is in the cab calling the dispatcher and getting 911 called. He is taking care of anything that may be wrong with the locomotive. He stays with the train. Tell them how the conductor gets down and rushes to the vehicle to see if he can
possibly save a life. Maybe a baby is in the car and needs to be helped
or maybe the parents can be removed and need CPR. Maybe he can comfort
someone who is dying or in shock or screaming because they are severely
injured . Tell them about how we hit live stock and large deer. Tell them how people love to put junk on the tracks. Shopping carts, bicycles, steel barrows, wheelchairs and even abandoned cars. Tell them about how many trees we hit a year and do extensive damage to the
locomotive. The engineer stays with the locomotives and assess the damage and does what is necessary to radio dispatchers for help while
the conductors gets down and removes debris and check the rest of the
train for any damage or signs of derailment. Tell them about the
territory that is in the middle of TIM BUCK TWO! The places where no
one can get to you fast unless you have a helicopter. How will they go bathroom now without two people to keep the train going down the tracks unless they have to stop not blocking crossings or take lunch. Tell them how radios don’t always work in remote locations. Telemetry drops out and communication is lost. How many times does a conductor have to go back
and trouble shoot another unit after alarms are going off. The engineer
keeps the train rolling the best he can while the conductor checks the
computers and checks to see if it is loading. Tell them about the blind
curves that only one crew member can see around when your approaching
public crossings or trees that block signals so that only one crew
member can see them until you get the train right on top of them. Tell
them about wash outs from floods, and heat warped rail and fog so thick
you cant see a foot in front of you. SO WHAT IF YOU GOT PTC!! PTC does
not tell you if a car in stopped on the tracks or a tree is across it
or a person is walking in the tracks or there is 5 inches of water over
the rail! Tell them how crew members have been attacked and some have
even been killed by gang thugs and trespassers. A single man has no
chance in these situations. It is better to have someone else
with you to keep watch when working in bad areas and ghetto rail yards.
The list goes on and on. Tell them how the company took away the right
of the crew members to take a power nap. One crew member is supposed to
call stopped every 15 minutes while they are waiting on line of road. As
long as someone is awake and doing this and paying attention there is no
reason on god green earth while a tired crew member cant take a 20
minute power nap. Tell them how crews are run into the ground and some
are called out every 10 hours around the clock. They work all hours of
the day and night and most have no weekends off. The company wont even
let them have a power nap. What is going to happen when there is only 1
man on the train by himself and he is just plain worn out or is sick and
afraid to take a day off because of the companies new attendance policy
which is just absolutely insane. People come to work sick all the time.
Vomiting, diarrhea, fevers and the flu doesn’t stop them because they
are in fear of losing their jobs. How is a sick man who is all by
himself going to be able to make a full run safely and without risking
his life or the publics when he doesn’t have his other crew member to
help keep him alert. The engineer has many roles and duties as well as
the conductor. There are times when something happens that it is a must
for an engineer to be on board and ready to take instructions while the
conductor handles the rest of the responsibilities. There are so many
things that go into railroading and running trains that the public
doesn’t know a thing about.
THIS ONE MAN CREW IDEA IS THE MOST UNSAFE AND IRRESPONSIBLE IDEA that
has ever been brought forward in the history of the railroad industry.
And for what? To save a dollar. To line someone’s pockets. To make
someone rich. Who care who gets killed. If you think crossings are blocked now imagine if there was only one man and had to wait on someone to cut a crossing!Who care about the destruction
to family lives. I don’t know about you but I sure do and so should every person in America!
Also if you haven’t seen it check out this YouTube video
https://youtu.be/atfY4tiyMz8
?Railroadworkersunited.org?
You have all got this wrong when it come to 2 man crew verses one man
crew when all you do is worry about losing jobs. Its common sense
thousands of railroad workers will lose their jobs if all the railroads
are allowed to go to 1 man crews. That’s an issue you need to take up
with TRUMP! He claims he is creating jobs then let him do something
about people keeping the ones they have!
This is about safety. This is about saving lives. Not just crew lives
but the American people as well. CSX preaches safety every single day.
Its in their rule books and in their advertising. Its 24 hour a day
safety…safety….safety. Well let them put their money where their
mouths are. Pay for safety. Keep 2 men in the cab.
The public has no idea what we deal with. Tell your neighbors about how
many cars we hit and people are killed every year when they are hit by
trains. Explain to them how the engineer is in the cab calling the
dispatcher and getting 911 called. He is taking care of anything that
may be wrong with the locomotive. He stays with the train. Tell them
how the conductor gets down and rushes to the vehicle to see if he can
possibly save a life. Maybe a baby is in the car and needs to be helped
or maybe the parents can be removed and need CPR. Maybe he can comfort
someone who is dying or in shock or screaming because they are severely
injured . Tell them about how we hit live stock and large deer. Tell
them how people love to put junk on the tracks. Shopping carts,
bicycles, steel barrows, wheelchairs and even abandoned cars. Tell them
about how many trees we hit a year and do extensive damage to the
locomotive. The engineer stays with the locomotives and assess the
damage and does what is necessary to radio dispatchers for help while
the conductors gets down and removes debris and check the rest of the
train for any damage or signs of derailment. Tell them about the
territory that is in the middle of TIM BUCK TWO! The places where no
one can get to you fast unless you have a helicopter. How will they go bathroom now without two people to keep the train going down the tracks unless they have to stop not blocking crossings or take lunch. Tell them how radios don’t always work in remote locations. Telemetry drops out and communication is lost. How many times does a conductor have to go back
and trouble shoot another unit after alarms are going off. The engineer
keeps the train rolling the best he can while the conductor checks the
computers and checks to see if it is loading. Tell them about the blind
curves that only one crew member can see around when your approaching
public crossings or trees that block signals so that only one crew
member can see them until you get the train right on top of them. Tellthem about wash outs from floods, and heat warped rail and fog so thick
you cant see a foot in front of you. SO WHAT IF YOU GOT PTC!! PTC does
not tell you if a car in stopped on the tracks or a tree is across it
or a person is walking in the tracks or there is 5 inches of water over
the rail! Tell them how crew members have been attacked and some have
even been killed by gang thugs and trespassers. A single man has no
chance in hell in these situations. It is better to have someone else
with you to keep watch when working in bad areas and ghetto rail yards.
The list goes on and on. Tell them how the company took away the right
of the crew members to take a power nap. One crew member is supposed to
call stopped every 15 minutes while they are waiting on line of road. As
long as someone is awake and doing this and paying attention there is no
reason on god green earth while a tired crew member cant take a 20
minute power nap. Tell them how crews are run into the ground and some
are called out every 10 hours around the clock. They work all hours of
the day and night and most have no weekends off. The company wont even
let them have a power nap. What is going to happen when there is only 1
man on the train by himself and he is just plain worn out or is sick and
afraid to take a day off because of the companies new attendance policy
which is just absolutely insane. People come to work sick all the time.
Vomiting, diarrhea, fevers and the flu doesn’t stop them because they
are in fear of losing their jobs. How is a sick man who is all by
himself going to be able to make a full run safely and without risking
his life or the publics when he doesn’t have his other crew member to
help keep him alert. The engineer has many roles and duties as well as
the conductor. There are times when something happens that it is a must
for an engineer to be on board and ready to take instructions while the
conductor handles the rest of the responsibilities. There are so many
things that go into railroading and running trains that the public
doesn’t know a thing about.
THIS ONE MAN CREW IDEA IS THE MOST UNSAFE AND IRRESPONSIBLE IDEA that
has ever been brought forward in the history of the railroad industry.
And for what? To save a damn dollar. To line someone’s pockets. To make
someone rich. Who care who gets killed. Who care about the destruction
to family lives. I don’t know about you but I sure the hell do and so
should every person in America!
Since when is a few dollars more important than lives. With a one person train, anything can happen ! The engineer can get sick, heart attack, etc and the train becomes unmanned! Please reconsidered! Lives matter more than money!
Comments here suggest that only the engineer and conductor can handle emergencies on the train. But BNSF’s proposal for one person crews provided for external “utility” workers who could show up in a truck to help when a train is in distress. In some circumstances that might be better than having to walk a mile or two back from he cab. Utility crews like this are used in England when a one person crew needs help with switching duties.
If individual trains have fewer or no crew members, it costs less to run shorter trains which could be more efficient.
Bruce,
You didn’t address my main point–that if you are going to have 2 persons in the cab then they should both be trained engineers who also are capable of handling all of the conductor duties.
You are right that the unions finally faced reality some years ago on the 5 man crew. But it took years to reluctantly get them to that point.
The issue of RR crew size has always been the source of labor unrest. The first great series of violent RR strikes in the 19th century were due to the eastern RR’s deciding to have more than one locomotive to increase freight train size without doubling the non-engine crews. In other words, the unions back then wanted to limit a freight train to only what one engine would pull which in those days was 10 or so loaded freight cars over the Allegheny mountains using a 6 member crew (3 brakemen).
I think one man crews are fine. If someone can show actual figures that two man crews are safer, then I might change my mind. But you’ll have to provide actual facts and not “common sense” or “anecdotal” evidence.
To me, the more efficient railroads are at carrying freight the more business the freight railroads will have. That is what will drive both employment and an efficient economy. As far as I can tell, keeping a second body on the train wastes money and will end up reducing overall efficiency and employment.
The one good point was what happens when the train parts and stuff like that – not a safety issue, but certainly one that is important. One idea I’ve seen is where railroads have roving trainmen who are within a couple hours drive. Another is where the engineer can operate the train remotely at slow speeds. Anyway, I think that is up to the railroads to figure out.
Re: the Australian example, These trains are highly specialized unit trains. They run on a specialized railroad with no other traffic of any kind. Meets are simple to arrange when all the trains are the same length and operate on a fixed schedule. Go anywhere else in the world and this specialization disappears, as does the likelihood of achieving success with crewless trains.
As a retired engineer, it is foolish to blame anybody but the AAR for such a safety last decision.
I have run a me only in the cab many times, and it was never a safe position. It is only by God’s grace that serious accidents did befall me or the railroad.
Two person crews are a must!
I don’t believe the unions still hold for a five person crew. Such statements are poor thought out and unrealistic.
The government almost always does what it wants and shoves public opinion aside.
There are always exceptions to any rule. Arguments can be made for having a rear end crew as well. If unions had their way, they’d return to the five man crew. Yes, it might be good to have two people if a train breaks in two or has to be doubled on a hill. That should be up to the railroad to decide. Unions, on the other hand, have demanded higher pay and larger work forces that have driven jobs overseas. They are their own worst enemy. Businesses that can, leave. Those that can’t end up in bankruptcy or close their doors altogether.
I don’t know about you, but the thought of going down a freeway crowded with driverless trucks scares the bejesus out of me. Technology is a wonderful thing, but c’mon. However, since trains are guided by rails, it makes much more sense that with the proper technology, they could become “driverless.” I do suspect that the current infatuation with PTC is only an interim step toward a much more sophisticated GPS system that will make crewless trains far more safe than crewed trains at some time in the not too distant future.
Here’s the bottom line. Businesses are not in business to provide jobs. They hire people to get the job done, but their purpose is to make money for their owners and shareholders. They do so by producing a product or service that somebody needs and is willing to pay for. If a technology comes along that enables them to do that better with fewer people, that’s just the way it is. The good news is that the new technology generally provides more jobs than the ones lost. Where would the tire industry be if we still used wagon wheels?
The Wall Street types and today’s railroad management (in their enslavement to the Wall Streeters) seem to forget that there is more to railroading than the operating ratio. A railroad must be operated safely, and provide service to its customers. Sometimes a slightly higher O/R must be accepted in order to provide safety and service. Without these, especially the last one, you won’t HAVE and operating ratio, because you won’t have a business!
What relation is there between the length of a train and the number of people in the cab of the locomotive?
I think Mr. Risch reveals his true motive by specifying one must be a conductor and one must be an engineer. If safety really is the determining issue that requires 2 people on the train, then you want 2 qualified engineers in the cab who can also perform the conductor’s duties when needed. His statement sounds like all he is interested in is protecting the 2 different unions’ turf rather than what is best for both the public and the workforce when it comes to running modern trains.
Europe has proven that running one man freight trains works well under certain conditions. Given the longer freight runs and much longer freight trains in the USA, those conditions will probably not be present for the Class 1 railroads most of the time, at least not now. But short lines and every Class 1 operation should not be governed by a government standard established by government bureaucrats under political pressure from the unions. Let’s face it–the unions fought hard to preserve the 5 man crews and cabooses for many years. It wasn’t a safety issue as the number of RR personnel accidents dropped substantially after the cabooses came off.
If the time ever comes that its proven one man crews are all that’s needed for Class1’s, the best and fairest way is to reduce the size via buy-outs and not filling vacant positions that occur due to retirement or other reason.
When I first started on the railroad 40 years ago, a poetic old timer told me this: “You can listen to all their lies and gab, but if you vote Republican, you’re a scab”. True then, even more so today.
Problem is that when a situation gets out of hand (derailments, collisions, service disruptions), the government eventually does get involved, that may incur a plethora of inconvenient costs. Management is not going to voluntarily add crew members for “what if” scenarios and is more driven toward forcing economies – sometimes regardless of their ramifications. Just because something is technologically possible does not make it wise, or even practicable.
Oh wow, what’s the next fight for the people who want 2 man crews? Court? I hope its a good fight.and I really hope it does NOT take a huge derailment to change the fra’s mind.
This issue really involves two separate questions.
1. Is there an optimal or minimum necessary size for train crews?
2. Should train crew size be set be government fiat?
Regarding question 1, it seems to me it depends on the situation involving factors such as train length, terrain, remoteness, and probably other considerations. One must balance the direct costs of crew members against potential costs if/when something goes wrong. What reasonable crew size might limit the ripple effects of even a minor breakdown from spreading over a large part of a system? What financial risk is management willing to take? These all are things for management (and only management) to decide.
The only time the answer to question 2 should be in the affirmative is if there is empirical evidence that crew size is related to safety. Apparently there is insufficient data to show any definite connection between crew size and safety, and that is why the FRA has decided (correctly in my opinion) not to get involved.
So would it be prudent to have two crew members in the cab? In my opinion (admittedly non-professional, since I have never been involved in train operation), the answer probably often is “yes.” For really long trains it might even make sense to have a crew member farther back (maybe riding in distributed power, or even a caboose?!). But again, this should be a management decision, and management must be ready to live with the economic consequences of their decisions. Unless and until there are data that clearly show a connection between crew size and safety, it is better for government not to get involved. (“That government governs best which governs least.”)
Re: It is the responsibility of congress to represent and make rulings that are in the interest of the general public and not of special interests
Now THAT was funny!
We’ll have ONE man crews when two conditions happen: 1) PTC is fully implemented and has had a suitable period of use 2) When the Operating Ratio needs to be lowered again (after PSR is finished squeezing it for all it can now).
We’ll have ZERO man crews when three conditions happen: 1) PTC is fully implemented and has had a suitable period of use 2) When the Operating Ratio needs to be lowered again (after PSR is finished squeezing it for all it can now). 3) Self-driving trucks become a reality (which will probably be never, but that’s a different topic).
I had a good laugh at “in the interest of the general public and not of special interests” tho, too funny.
Wayne makes a good point. But the question of whether it makes sense or not, or is in the interest of the general public or not, is beyond the scope of the limits of the FRA. They can only make rules (unconstitutionally as it were) based on evidence and statistics. It is the responsibility of congress to represent and make rulings that are in the interest of the general public and not of special interests and determine if we as a society as a whole find it to make sense to have two crewmen on a train and under what circumstances.
I think it depends. The longer and heavier the train subject to en route failures, trains not operating on PTC compliant lines, and possibly others probably benefit from 2 person crews.
Short lines and short mainline trains running in PTC territory probably can run completely safely with one person onboard.
The evidence cited indicates that two are no safer than one. Amtrak runs most trains with one in the cab. What function does the conductor in the train do for operating the train. PTC will control speed and make the engineer redundant. I know the attacks will begin, but a computer can run the train just as well as an experience engineer. This is not a matter of common sense. (If common sense ruled, you would never get in a car — the most dangerous thing you do by orders of magnitude). Congress brought this about with the requirement of PTC. Will be interesting to see what trains run without an engineer in the near future.
There needs to be a minimum of 2 people on board every train. This is a stupid decision.
If I recall correctly, European freights are much shorter than what we run here. And with PSR, freights in the USA are getting much longer. I’m thinking shorter trains would translate into easier handling.
I’m not totally against 1-man crews if used in the right circumstances. But running 10,000 – 15,000 footers may need extra help. Just my thought.
Aside from one runaway in Australia it’s proven that crewless trains are safe…does not matter that it’s a closed system that doesn’t travel through population centers…it’s still a railroad that transports heavy iron ore trains at normal speeds. Since the general public is usually ignorant and makes snap judgements it’s a given the general public would freak out if even only 1 person was in a cab(which by the way is normal practice in Europe and has been for a number of years).
I can see both sides, but lean towards 2-man crews.
The day may come we have driverless trucks, but I see tons of issues with that. Trucks fail like anything else. If a convoy of trucks are operating together and have a mechanical failure with 1 operator or none, good luck in a heavy congested area.
Likewise with trains. Computers may someday operate them. But can the computer fix a busted drawbar. How about dragging equipment or a hot axle & a car needs to be set out. Especially in a remote area. And the many other issues that can occur.
There is one nagging question I have. Stack trains haul hundreds of containers with a crew of 2. Whereas it would take dozens of truck drivers and dozens of tractors (figuring double or triple hauled containers) with higher fuel costs to haul those same containers. I do get that RR’s own & maintain their own ROW & trucks use public hwys. The question is, how does one train with only 2 crew members lose out finacially to dozens of trucks with dozens of drivers?
Someday this may all change. But I don’t see it anytime soon. They are finding that even driverless cars have limitations. Right now these cars have trouble negotiating dirt roads or snow covered streets. These cars also have trouble anticipating or evaluating situations they can’t see, for example things people see a quarter mile ahead such as brake lights coming on.
The scenarios are endless. As much as the tech community is rushing towards a world without human input. I still see the need for human interaction. And sometimes 2 heads are better than 1.
So BNSF or whoever is willing to have a one person crew out in the middle of Montana or Utah or Nevada or wherever, operating a 10,000+ foot train and the train goes into emergency. Now there’s one guy to walk back a mile and a half, find the problem, walk the mile and a half back to the head end drop the part, move the front of the train ahead, walk back to the end of the train, load the part on the end of the train, walk back to the head end, back the train to the dead end, walk back to the break again, fix the break and somehow couple up, test the air and get moving again. That’s a 6 mile hike on poor ground for such a hike. A four hour exercise, at a minimum. Meanwhile, the transcon is blocked and nothing is moving. And this is good railroading? I think management is listening to the wrong folks.