The above headline from the TRAINS Newswire of this date 05/24/2019 by Justin Franz:
The article notes in its first paragraph:"...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.."
and concludes with :"...
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.."
and then includes a statement from Alaska[R] Rep. Don Young:"...“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,” [John] Risch [SMART Natl. Legislative Dir] writes. “Those two crew members must be a federally certified conductor and a federally certified locomotive engineer...”
This is an ongoing debate around this Forum that has created,a times, a lot of discussion, bioth pro and con... Not only to include issues of States Rights, but actions for the Operating Unions about Crew Size and that relation to Operatonal, and Safety issues.
The Class 1's seem to be happy with all the 'functional derailments' that happen daily when one of their 10K - 12K - 15 K - 18K foot trains stops because of repairable mechanical issues that it takes the 2 man crew two or more hours to fix. I suspect they would be just as happy with a 1 man crew taking 4 - 6 or 8 hours to fix the same thing.
Round the clock mobile mechanical forces are just as, if not more expensive than 2 man crews and additionally there are locations on most every railroad subdivision that are only reachable by rail.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Maybe they need Precision Scheduled Repair.
BaltACDThe Class 1's seem to be happy with all the 'functional derailments' that happen daily when one of their 10K - 12K - 15 K - 18K foot trains stops because of repairable mechanical issues that it takes the 2 man crew two or more hours to fix.
BaltACDI suspect they would be just as happy with a 1 man crew taking 4 - 6 or 8 hours to fix the same thing.
BaltACDRound the clock mobile mechanical forces are just as, if not more expensive than 2 man crews and additionally there are locations on most every railroad subdivision that are only reachable by rail.
Well good!
Some trains, shorter, could be safely and efficiently operated with a one person crew. Reducing the required crew size could make such trains more economical to operate. Reduce the cost and it will increase the demand.
Other trains need a larger crew for safe and efficient operation.
Having a blanket Federal rule requiring two people on each and every train would be wasteful nonsense.
The unions and companies should sit down in good faith (Fat chance of that!) and come to an agreement about this. When and where one person crews are to be used.
There are opportunities for both the companies and labor in this. More profit and more good jobs.
zardoz BaltACD I suspect they would be just as happy with a 1 man crew taking 4 - 6 or 8 hours to fix the same thing. Two people x 2 hours=4 hours pay; 1 person x 6 or 8 hours=6 to 8 hours pay. Interesting logic.
BaltACD I suspect they would be just as happy with a 1 man crew taking 4 - 6 or 8 hours to fix the same thing.
Two people x 2 hours=4 hours pay; 1 person x 6 or 8 hours=6 to 8 hours pay. Interesting logic.
It is not the pay - it is that the Main Line is blocked just as effectively as if there was a derailment for the period of time the 'trouble train' is stopped and all the other trains on the subdivision accrew additional delays that may end up resulting in recrews for those trains.
The reality is, there WILL NOT be any 'flying squad'. Mechanical personnel will be called from their HQ - and end up taking 4 to 5 hours to get to the location where the trouble is.
BaltACDIt is not the pay - it is that the Main Line is blocked just as effectively as if there was a derailment for the period of time the 'trouble train' is stopped and all the other trains on the subdivision accrew additional delays that may end up resulting in recrews for those trains. The reality is, there WILL NOT be any 'flying squad'. Mechanical personnel will be called from their HQ - and end up taking 4 to 5 hours to get to the location where the trouble is.
Well maybe if they discover they are paying too much for trains delayed by mechanical problems, they will find it cheaper to go with the "Flying Repair Man." As trains get longer, something has to give.
Bean counters have never comprehended the costs of train delay. If they did there would not be such a travesty as PSR. As has been said, mechancial costs and train operation costs apply to different budgets.
greyhounds Well good! Some trains, shorter, could be safely and efficiently operated with a one person crew. Reducing the required crew size could make such trains more economical to operate. Reduce the cost and it will increase the demand. Other trains need a larger crew for safe and efficient operation. Having a blanket Federal rule requiring two people on each and every train would be wasteful nonsense. The unions and companies should sit down in good faith (Fat chance of that!) and come to an agreement about this. When and where one person crews are to be used. There are opportunities for both the companies and labor in this. More profit and more good jobs.
Fat chance! Much too logical! Both sides can only look at the short term.
charlie hebdoFat chance! Much too logical! Both sides can only look at the short term.
That would require shorter trains and more utilites. Things that don't agree with the PSR way.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
charlie hebdo greyhounds Well good! Some trains, shorter, could be safely and efficiently operated with a one person crew. Reducing the required crew size could make such trains more economical to operate. Reduce the cost and it will increase the demand. Other trains need a larger crew for safe and efficient operation. Having a blanket Federal rule requiring two people on each and every train would be wasteful nonsense. The unions and companies should sit down in good faith (Fat chance of that!) and come to an agreement about this. When and where one person crews are to be used. There are opportunities for both the companies and labor in this. More profit and more good jobs. Fat chance! Much too logical! Both sides can only look at the short term.
Both sides think the other is out to scr.., um, "take advantage" of the other.
Jeff
jeffhergert NOTE to Jeffhergert: And THAT Jeff, is the"rub' That verb 'Taken Advantage of: is pretty apt in this case. A construct of LAWYERS Enough to drive the sane.....CRAZY! Love 'em or hate 'em.... They ain't goin away soon....BUT is sure could lead to a more perfect world..... But that is a conversation for another time. charlie hebdo greyhounds Well good! Some trains, shorter, could be safely and efficiently operated with a one person crew. Reducing the required crew size could make such trains more economical to operate. Reduce the cost and it will increase the demand. Other trains need a larger crew for safe and efficient operation. Having a blanket Federal rule requiring two people on each and every train would be wasteful nonsense. The unions and companies should sit down in good faith (Fat chance of that!) and come to an agreement about this. When and where one person crews are to be used. There are opportunities for both the companies and labor in this. More profit and more good jobs. Fat chance! Much too logical! Both sides can only look at the short term. Both sides think the other is out to scr.., um, "take advantage" of the other. Jeff
NOTE to Jeffhergert:
And THAT Jeff, is the"rub' That verb 'Taken Advantage of: is pretty apt in this case.
A construct of LAWYERS Enough to drive the sane.....CRAZY! Love 'em or hate 'em.... They ain't goin away soon....BUT is sure could lead to a more perfect world..... But that is a conversation for another time.
One thing that can't be overlooked when trying to understand why companies cut the number of employees is the cost of the government mandated benefits and all other fringe benefits. In some companies such as the big auto makers this is very high--well over 50% of the actual wages paid. That includes the employer's payments for Social Security, Workers Comp, unemployment compensation, employer contributions to retirement, medical and any other health related insurance, vacation and sick pay, paid medical leave, and any there benefits that their employees have. If you add those savings to the actual wage savings, you realize why all employers only want as many employees as are needed to operate satisfactory.
alphasOne thing that can't be overlooked when trying to understand why companies cut the number of employees is the cost of the government mandated benefits and all other fringe benefits. In some companies such as the big auto makers this is very high--well over 50% of the actual wages paid. That includes the employer's payments for Social Security, Workers Comp, unemployment compensation, employer contributions to retirement, medical and any other health related insurance, vacation and sick pay, paid medical leave, and any there benefits that their employees have. If you add those savings to the actual wage savings, you realize why all employers only want as many employees as are needed to operate satisfactory.
Take away the payments you see as onerous and you end up with Chinese prison labor.
Eventually one person crews will become more common, although two and three person crews will continue to be used where work and safety requirements dictate.
alphas One thing that can't be overlooked when trying to understand why companies cut the number of employees is the cost of the government mandated benefits and all other fringe benefits. In some companies such as the big auto makers this is very high--well over 50% of the actual wages paid. That includes the employer's payments for Social Security, Workers Comp, unemployment compensation, employer contributions to retirement, medical and any other health related insurance, vacation and sick pay, paid medical leave, and any there benefits that their employees have. If you add those savings to the actual wage savings, you realize why all employers only want as many employees as are needed to operate satisfactory.
Many of those 'required' payments aren't required by the Government. Beyond the employer's payment for Social Security (or Railroad Retirement), worker's compensation*, and unemployment compensation, most of the rest is not required. Those companies with a union contract may have them, or some of them, as part of the contract. Non-union companies may have them, or some of them, because many of those benefits are almost universally expected.
Some of the items mentioned aren't available to me as an agreement employe, but are provided by my employer to non-agreement employees.
* Railroaders aren't covered by worker's compensation. They are covered by the Federal Employer's Liability Act.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.