The guy who fell on the engine was doing something while on duty, I assume. No? If an on-duty employee is on the engine, I'd say the engine is in use, unless that employee is involved in the repair of a dead engine.
Still in training.
The current requirement is that a locomotive in use has to be inspected once each calendar day. In theory, it could be ~47 hours between inspections. It is perfectly legal to wait until the end of the day to do the inspection.
We regularly take locomotives "out of service" during extended periods of inactivity. It's noted on the blue card when it comes time time to put the loco back in service, and those days are not counted in the required periodic inspections.
The question here is plainly "in use." I didn't get a sense from the article that the locomotive in question was "stored servicable." Nor did I get a sense of the circumstances of the incident. Was the incident caused by something that should have been caught in an inspection?
My perspective may be a little different than a Class 1, however, as our engineers do the inspection, not the mechanical department.
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...
Now I have to go back and read all these actual comments.
Can anyone state the original controversy -- what was he doing on the engine when he suffered the injury, and did the railroad require him to be there?
I did not read that any of the justices considered the specific case of a locomotive being hauled dead-in-train either as part of a consist that has been shut down 'to save fuel' or that is being power-balanced. In both cases I would argue that the locomotive is "in use" BUT that accessing it by the engine crew as part of normal operation of the train would not 'count' as part of the job of 'operating the train'. I'll defer to Zug, Jeff or other railroaders on this.
I personally see little difference between an engine stored on a shop track and an engine actually moved into an enginehouse or similar facility to be worked on. BUT if the plaintiff were in the process of arranging to set up or move the engine around shop trackage, or into (or out of) the shop, I'd think that safety rules would apply.
That's another thing I was going to mention...if during the course of your duties, you have to be on/in it, it's in use.
The thing that bothers me - I cut away from other engines all the time that are, by some of these definitions, "not in use".
We're still perfomring duty, and I'm required by rulebook to make sure said engine is set up right when cutting away. Def'n lack of understanding comparing it to, say, towing a car.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
I'd say a locomotive is "in use" if it's sitting in a yard and capable of being put to work after starting it. If it's under repair or stored, then it's not in use. I like them saying twice about draining the brake flud.
Anyone else keeping an eye on this one?
https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/03/justices-search-for-the-line-on-use-of-a-locomotive/
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.