The FRA has apparently issued an emergency waiver due to the flooding. Some safety regulations have been temporarily suspended or modified.
https://railroads.dot.gov/newsroom/fra-administrator’s-declaration-emergency-event-extreme-flooding
Evidently, from a document sent out by our Local Chairman, temporarily our hours of service have been extended. We may work over 12 hours up to 16 hours without penalty.
Crew territorial qualification requirements are suspended. I don't know if this only applies to territories one has previously been qualified, but that qualification has expired. Or if it means one can work over areas not previously qualified. Such as being able to go 10 or 20 miles outside of your qualified zone to get or stage trains.
Engines do not need to be equipped with cab signals to lead in cab signal territory. This is allowing non-UP engines to lead in UP cab signal territories. I saw a BNSF detour today with a BNSF engine leading. There was a train on my line up that was only showing NS power midway across Illinois.
Cars with defects that are otherwise safe to move may be moved to points where they can be repaired.
Jeff
This should tell you something about the size of the area. 16 states have suspended HOS regulations for OTR drivers hauling in relief supplies.
Shadow the Cats ownerThis should tell you something about the size of the area. 16 states have suspended HOS regulations for OTR drivers hauling in relief supplies.
There is nothing that shouts 'arbitrary' like suspending rules because of a 'emergency'.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACDThere is nothing that shouts 'arbitrary' like suspending rules because of a 'emergency'.
Why is emergency in quotes? I live in a state where a city of over 25,000 was cut off for over a week, with the railroad being the only ground transportation in or out.
The people there are thankful that Union Pacific and its crews worked around issues to get people and supplies in and out. Especially thankful are the families of patients who had to get to the hospitals in the larger cities.
York1 John
Why suspend safety regulations in response to flooding?
Euclid Why suspend safety regulations in response to flooding?
Mainly because everything will take that much longer (HOS restrictions relaxed), and that because many lines are out of service due to the flooding and associated damage (territory qualification requirements relaxed).
From what I read, no rules were suspended - the railroads were simply given more leeway in their operations to cope with the situation.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
For the OTR trucking industry it's more of a priority to get in and out of the areas that need to be helped with supplies. Most of carrier's running supplies into those areas are using teams but the roads are damaged there's debris and other stuff all over the place. My husband ran hurricane relief supplies in the late 90s for one carrier he drove for. He said 18 hours a day were commonplace running water and food into the hardest hit areas. Right now the St Louis brewery of Budweiser all they're cranking out is water for the flooded out areas. Their hauling it as fast as possible into the area. We have 4 trucks doing nothing right now doing nothing but hauling water from St Louis to staging areas in Nebraska as fast as they can. As of yesterday we had pulled 12 loads in 5 days. We're using teams on these runs and told them keep the wheels turning.
Shadow the Cats owner We have 4 trucks doing nothing right now doing nothing but hauling water from St Louis to staging areas in Nebraska as fast as they can. As of yesterday we had pulled 12 loads in 5 days. We're using teams on these runs and told them keep the wheels turning.
We have 4 trucks doing nothing right now doing nothing but hauling water from St Louis to staging areas in Nebraska as fast as they can. As of yesterday we had pulled 12 loads in 5 days. We're using teams on these runs and told them keep the wheels turning.
And tell everyone you know that we greatly appreciate it. Especially hard-hit are elderly people who are afraid or unable to go for help.
York1 BaltACD There is nothing that shouts 'arbitrary' like suspending rules because of a 'emergency'. Why is emergency in quotes? I live in a state where a city of over 25,000 was cut off for over a week, with the railroad being the only ground transportation in or out.
BaltACD There is nothing that shouts 'arbitrary' like suspending rules because of a 'emergency'.
Emergency is in the eye of the beholder.
The Eastern seaboard states and Gulf Coast states are subject to the conditions the Midwest are currently seeing 2 or 3 times a year - Hurricane Season.
This is not the first time that there has been serious flooding on the Mississippi/Ohio/Missouri River system - and it will not be the last.
I am not trying to minimize what is happening throughout the Midwest - just stating that this is the first time in my career that I have ever seen these regulations 'relaxed' in response to a 'emergency'.
tree68 Euclid Why suspend safety regulations in response to flooding? Mainly because everything will take that much longer (HOS restrictions relaxed), and that because many lines are out of service due to the flooding and associated damage (territory qualification requirements relaxed). From what I read, no rules were suspended - the railroads were simply given more leeway in their operations to cope with the situation.
I am just going by what Jeff said in his original post here. Certainly an emergency tends to create chaos. But that would seem to call for more caution to deal with the chaos, not less caution. So relaxing caution in order to deal with chaos seems counterintuitive. I have never head of such a concept being applied to an emergency.
It sounds like the point is to reduce caution in order to offset the lost production caused by the emergency.
BaltACD I am not trying to minimize what is happening throughout the Midwest - just stating that this is the first time in my career that I have ever seen these regulations 'relaxed' in response to a 'emergency'.
EuclidBut that would seem to call for more caution to deal with the chaos, not less caution. So relaxing caution in order to deal with chaos seems counterintuitive. I have never head of such a concept being applied to an emergency. It sounds like the point is to reduce caution in order to offset the lost production caused by the emergency.
I don't think they said to "reduce caution" or "relax caution." One can work with an enhanced sense of caution keeping in mind that some rules may not be strictly enforced. In other words, the attitude of much of today's management that workers can only do what they are told to do and are unable to think for themselves has been suspended temporarily.
(That last sentence was mostly a personal sore point for me that still irks me long after retiring.)
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
I am referring to Jeff’s comments in the first post in this thread where he said this:
“Emergency waivers of some regulations issued due to the massive flooding. [thread title]
Cars with defects that are otherwise safe to move may be moved to points where they can be repaired.”
This seems to me to be the essence of this topic here; that is, the FRA issuing waivers of some regulations due to the flood emergency. The flood emergency itself is secondary. Hours of service rules are predicated on providing adequate safety. If you relax them, then safety goes down.
I fail to see what it is about a flood emergency that justifies the reduction of regulations that normally provide the necessary safety. Operating during the flood requires more safety, not less.
It is a flood, so operations will get gummed up. Why would anybody take higher risks just to get the work done under such an emergency?
BaltACD York1 BaltACD There is nothing that shouts 'arbitrary' like suspending rules because of a 'emergency'. Why is emergency in quotes? I live in a state where a city of over 25,000 was cut off for over a week, with the railroad being the only ground transportation in or out. Emergency is in the eye of the beholder. The Eastern seaboard states and Gulf Coast states are subject to the conditions the Midwest are currently seeing 2 or 3 times a year - Hurricane Season. This is not the first time that there has been serious flooding on the Mississippi/Ohio/Missouri River system - and it will not be the last. I am not trying to minimize what is happening throughout the Midwest - just stating that this is the first time in my career that I have ever seen these regulations 'relaxed' in response to a 'emergency'.
Balt anytime there is a hurricane or a weather emergency anywere in the USA guess what is the first thing OTR drivers delivering into those areas are told to throw into the garbage if hauling relief supplies is their LOG BOOK. When my husband in the late 90's was hauling hurricane relief supplies there were weeks were he logged 120 hours behind the wheel in 7 days. 50 more than what was allowed back then.
BaltACD just stating that this is the first time in my career that I have ever seen these regulations 'relaxed' in response to a 'emergency'.
EuclidWhy would anybody take higher risks just to get the work done under such an emergency?
Paul of CovingtonIn other words, the attitude of much of today's management that workers can only do what they are told to do and are unable to think for themselves has been suspended temporarily.
I wonder who will take the heat when a crew falls asleep after 15+ hours on duty and crashes into something?
zardoz What else can we expect, now that the currrent administration has completely denigrated the word "emergency" such that it now refers to a politicaly fabricated situation, rather that to a real crisis.
What else can we expect, now that the currrent administration has completely denigrated the word "emergency" such that it now refers to a politicaly fabricated situation, rather that to a real crisis.
So we make flooding in the midwest, affecting a large number of states and millions of people, political?
Did the Obama administration denigrate the word, "emergency"?
Here are President Obama's declared national "emergencies":
Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in Somalia (Apr. 12, 2010)
Blocking Property and Prohibiting Certain Transactions Related to Libya (Feb. 25, 2011)
Blocking Property of Transnational Criminal Organizations (Jul. 25, 2011)
Blocking Property of Persons Threatening the Peace, Security, or Stability of Yemen (May 16, 2012)
Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine (Mar. 6, 2014)
Blocking Property of Certain Persons With Respect to South Sudan (Apr. 3, 2014)
Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Central African Republic (May 12, 2014)
Blocking Property and Suspending Entry of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Venezuela (Mar. 9, 2015)
Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities (Apr. 1, 2015)
Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Burundi (Nov. 23, 2015)
At work this morning, I found out those waivers I listed have not been granted and the railroads were told to resubmit them. It seems the railroad jumped the gun issuing those instructions. They have all ready been running non cab signal engines in cab signal territories. The trainmen's Legislative Representative said they already have the ability to work crews in work train service up to 16 hours when getting the main track reopened. The LR did not think the RR's would get the waiver to extend it to all crews approved.
Other than running the non-equipped engines, I haven't heard of any of the other items being done. Although one conductor, a new guy, said the robot caller said his train's destination for tie up was Kansas City. We shall see how it turns out.
York1So we make flooding in the midwest, affecting a large number of states and millions of people, political?
Actually, I was commenting on the remark by Balt, when he said he did not remember the term 'emergency' being used regarding railroad operations in the midwest; I was merely offering a suggestion as to why the wording was used.
Seems as though you are one one that turned it political.
with all the reroutes on the STL - Kansas city route Amtrak announced cancelled the river runners. NS is also going to need to use that route as well as extra UP trains. Wonder if UP might try to hire the qualified Amtrak engineers to run some freights on that route? Thought=== don;t give them an extra long train?
zardoz Seems as though you are one one that turned it political.
So when you write, "What else can we expect, now that the currrent administration has completely denigrated the word "emergency" such that it now refers to a politicaly fabricated situation, rather that to a real crisis."
we are not to interpret that as "political"?
So I take it that it is the railroad industry asking the FRA to relax safety regulations in order to lessen the impact of the flood, rather than the FRA offering the relaxed safety regulations to the railroad industry.
EuclidI am just going by what Jeff said in his original post here. Certainly an emergency tends to create chaos. But that would seem to call for more caution to deal with the chaos, not less caution. So relaxing caution in order to deal with chaos seems counterintuitive. I have never head of such a concept being applied to an emergency. It sounds like the point is to reduce caution in order to offset the lost production caused by the emergency.
Nobody said anything about relaxing caution.
Regardless of who initiated the actions, the idea is to allow a little more flexibility in operations. Trips that normally take X hours may now take X+Y hours. This means that what would normally take just one crew would take two, but there are logistics issues with that, so instead of parking a train (and blocking things up), a crew can take it a little further to where it won't be a problem.
In the driving world, this would equate to bad driving conditions (winter) or lengthy detours. Your usual one hour trip might take an hour an a half. If you were limited to an hour of driving at a time, you'd have to stop after that hour until you got your rest, or someone else who was properly rested took over the driving. This type of exemption would allow you to finish your trip.
Without knowing the nitty-gritty of the territory exemption, I can only guess that it means that a crew can run over tracks they aren't currently qualified on. Whether that means they can run over a given territory having never been there before, or they have to have been qualified on it at one time I don't know.
Given the relative standardization of signals (and the existance of PTC), it's not a reach that a crew unfamiliar with a given line could successfully navigate it.
tree68 Euclid I am just going by what Jeff said in his original post here. Certainly an emergency tends to create chaos. But that would seem to call for more caution to deal with the chaos, not less caution. So relaxing caution in order to deal with chaos seems counterintuitive. I have never head of such a concept being applied to an emergency. It sounds like the point is to reduce caution in order to offset the lost production caused by the emergency. Nobody said anything about relaxing caution. Regardless of who initiated the actions, the idea is to allow a little more flexibility in operations. Trips that normally take X hours may now take X+Y hours. This means that what would normally take just one crew would take two, but there are logistics issues with that, so instead of parking a train (and blocking things up), a crew can take it a little further to where it won't be a problem. In the driving world, this would equate to bad driving conditions (winter) or lengthy detours. Your usual one hour trip might take an hour an a half. If you were limited to an hour of driving at a time, you'd have to stop after that hour until you got your rest, or someone else who was properly rested took over the driving. This type of exemption would allow you to finish your trip. Without knowing the nitty-gritty of the territory exemption, I can only guess that it means that a crew can run over tracks they aren't currently qualified on. Whether that means they can run over a given territory having never been there before, or they have to have been qualified on it at one time I don't know. Given the relative standardization of signals (and the existance of PTC), it's not a reach that a crew unfamiliar with a given line could successfully navigate it.
Euclid I am just going by what Jeff said in his original post here. Certainly an emergency tends to create chaos. But that would seem to call for more caution to deal with the chaos, not less caution. So relaxing caution in order to deal with chaos seems counterintuitive. I have never head of such a concept being applied to an emergency. It sounds like the point is to reduce caution in order to offset the lost production caused by the emergency.
In the second sentence of this thread, Jeff said: “Some safety regulations have been temporarily suspended or modified.” That is what I call “relaxing caution.” But by that term, I am not suggesting that a person working under the rules will become less cautious if the safety rules are suspended. Maybe I should refer to it as “reducing safety” because “caution” implies the behavior of a person attempting to achieve safety.
Although if a person is permitted to run longer hours than the law normally allows, with all other things being equal, that person would be acting less cautious than normal just by running longer that what the rules deem to be the safe limit. Of course, the person may add his own extra caution to his work to compensate for the caution removed by suspending the safety regulation.
But then some other people may conduct their work with less caution than usual just because the rules have been relaxed by the employer. They might throw caution to the wind.
I would advise leaving all the safety rules in place and if work takes longer due to flooding, so be it. It sounds to me like that is what the FRA will decide in this case.
I just wonder if the crews will be allowed to take extra rest if they feel they need it after an extended hours trip. There is nothing particularly magical about the 12-hour number anyway. The key number is how many hours a person has been awake, and in general the railroads and the regulations ignore that.
Unpredictable call times for the running trades mean the crews are sometimes forced to start a trip when they were starting to think about bed. Declining a call, on at least some railroads, can result in discipline.
York1So when you write, "What else can we expect, now that the currrent administration has completely denigrated the word "emergency" such that it now refers to a politicaly fabricated situation, rather that to a real crisis." we are not to interpret that as "political"?
zardoz York1 So when you write, "What else can we expect, now that the currrent administration has completely denigrated the word "emergency" such that it now refers to a politicaly fabricated situation, rather that to a real crisis." we are not to interpret that as "political"? You're right. My apologies.
York1 So when you write, "What else can we expect, now that the currrent administration has completely denigrated the word "emergency" such that it now refers to a politicaly fabricated situation, rather that to a real crisis." we are not to interpret that as "political"?
You're right. My apologies.
I apologize also. I have not had a good week, although that's not an excuse for bad manners.
I appreciate your knowledge of railroad rules and operation, and I'm glad you're willing to share them with an amateur.
Apparently there is a process to appeal to federal regulators to increase working times under Hours of Service regulations. And it is predicated on the premise that the degradation of service during an emergency justifies a compromise in safety regulations covering that service. On the face of it, it seems logical, but if safety regulations are necessary, it is hard to see any justification for waiving them, no matter how urgent the need for service is.
https://www.ttnews.com/articles/fmcsa-receives-three-hos-exemption-requests
The waiver for hours of service was rejected. The reason given was that since it was a statute, the FRA did not have the authority to grant waivers in that manner.
However, the FRA does have some latitude in assessing fines. They can reduce the amount of any penalty fines for violations in true emergency situations.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.