The New Mexico state legislature is considering an amendment to Section 63-2-2 of NMSA 1978, which would require two-man crews to operate freight trains. The amendment “HB 244” would require two crew members to be in the cab during operations of freight trains with the exception of hostling and remote-control locomotives in railyards.
During a committee hearing Feb. 20, 2019, testimony was heard from members of the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers (SMART), local BNSF Railway crew members, and Union Pacific and BNSF representatives. Promoting the amendment, SMART’s union rules require two-man crews for freight and passenger trains under specific conditions. UP and BNSF representatives stated that they have no plans to go to one-man crews. Committee chairman Representative Antonio Maestas voiced concern about legislating labor practices that may not be appropriate for all situations.
“We don’t want to keep New Mexico on the bottom of the country for railroad safety,” says Donald Gallegos Sr., SMART legislative director. “We want to be on the top.”
“We welcome [positive train control],” Gallegos says. “We like it. It’s not a hundred percent yet, but we also want to ensure that we have that conductor job and that extra safety.”
Rep. Dayan Hochman-Vigil (D) and Sen. Michael Padilla (D), both of Bernalillo County, are sponsoring the bill, where it is currently in the House Commerce & Economic Development Committee. After discussion, the committee decided to amend the bill to accommodate situations where technology and circumstances might preclude the necessity for two-person crews. “What we’re looking for is the minimum safety element, which we feel is best represented by a two-man crew at this time, based on the limitations of the technology that we have,” Rep. Hockman-Vigil says. “If there are particular situations where a different crew arrangement might meet those standards, we have to make sure that we put into the bill an amendment that would provide a process that would be sufficient to define that.”
not a good idea, I have friends who are engineers and conductors and you need one to stay in cab and the other to walk the line for a problem. That’s been debated for years and has not changed.
Maynard — We could talk all night about the duties of a train crew, with or without an unplanned incident, where a second man or woman could make a huge difference. We don’t need that conversation because this is a rail forum and we each know the duties of T&E crew and what they may face in an adversity. Or for that matter, just a day in, day out, ordinary shift in the yard or out on the road.
The railroad’s safety department (and its actuaries) should be the ones mandating two-person crews. It’s in their own interest.
I had a post deleted by the Forum Monitor when I mentioned an incident where a second man might well have made a world of difference but there was only one man. That incident cost the railroad, oh, I can’t say because that would identify which incident at which location and I’d get deleted again. Let’s just say it cost the railroad a whole lot more than what the second man or woman would have cost. Many more dollars (or shekels, or euros, or pesos, or yen, or loonies, or rubles, or pounds sterling, I can’t say because that might identify the incident).
Until trains are completely computerized and until some device is built that can change broken coupler knuckles, men and women crewmembers will still need to have one person in the cab to make sure the train doesn’t go anywhere and one crewmember to walk the train, find the broken knuckle and fix it.
How much is an inter-city freight train worth? Perhaps a 100 car train with 3 $2;4 million locomotives, net of lading: $32 to $35 million plus freight value? New Mexico is not flat land railroading in its trunk routes. Crews have to be alert and know what they’re about. Reasonable regulation which accommodates technical advances can determine crew size or insurers can. You know–the boys who pay the bill after the unexpected happens. The full crew laws of yesteryear are extinct and have no likelihood of returning.
I think concerns about autonomous trucks are overblown. A few wrecks will demonstrate the limits of unattended vehicles. It could work, after a fashion, on a dedicated, non-public road but the cost of right of way and pavement are likely prohibitive. Another 30000 Sikhs will fill any voids in demand and be a lot more responsive to the unexpected than driverless trucks.
By the by, how many folks want to share the road with a driverless 18 wheeler? i get enough high blood pressure with the manned ones. One of the hairier experiences I’ve had is being passed by truck after truck in eastern Wyoming when the fast lane was supposed to be closed because it was unplowed. (I-80) A number of cars were run off the road.
This is very unfair, especially to BNSF, UP could route some, but not all, traffic through Wyoming. Even if the state also requires drivers in trucks, it gives UP an advantage over BNSF.
More unneeded government intrusion into operations. This needs to be thrown out.
When our self-driving flying trucks start hauling freight next year, all this will need to be changed!
This is all BS, If someone really cared, they’d be 2 person crew, Someone cared for aircraft to have 2 person crew right? so its law. All this rhetoric and PTC and all this BS I read about is just that BS. Not enough people have died yet to make this LAW, And it has to be FEDERAL LAW to count, We’re wastin our time and breath and TRAINS Newswire space. This isn’t gonna change , ITS NOT!!!!! Get over it,
Arizona had a 70 car maximum train length law, and California had some mandated minimum number of crewmen laws, all of which were thrown out by the courts.