Trains.com

Administration to Mandate Two Person Freight Crews

4519 views
40 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Wednesday, April 3, 2024 3:13 PM

Overmod
It's the railroad version of why aircrews have to read back any communication 'in their own words' -- it's supposed to confirm that they understood it well enough to repeat it.

CYA says it's even more proof if you have to write it out as well as be able to repeat it.  And you have written proof if anything 'fails'.

Seems to me that written confirmation of various kinds of flimsy was standard procedure on American railroads.  This is no different.

(Of course, SPAFs were mandatory to fill out and keep, too, and we all know how that came out...)

Dealing with the issues both as a Train Order Operator and as a Train Dispatcher.  It is amazing that some people can't listen and write what they hear at the same time and then can read what they have written in order to be able to repeat it to the party that originally transmitted it.

The biggest issue, that I have stumbled over during my career, was MofW Personnel wanting a Track Occupancy Authority - in many cases they would have the 'particulars' of the authority already written in their books when the made the request - because of operating conditions the Dispatcher was not able to give them the exact authority they had prewritten in their books - in many cases they would repeat what they had prewritten, not the authority they had actually been given.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 21,669 posts
Posted by Overmod on Wednesday, April 3, 2024 2:15 PM

It's the railroad version of why aircrews have to read back any communication 'in their own words' -- it's supposed to confirm that they understood it well enough to repeat it.

CYA says it's even more proof if you have to write it out as well as be able to repeat it.  And you have written proof if anything 'fails'.

Seems to me that written confirmation of various kinds of flimsy was standard procedure on American railroads.  This is no different.

(Of course, SPAFs were mandatory to fill out and keep, too, and we all know how that came out...)

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 25,020 posts
Posted by tree68 on Wednesday, April 3, 2024 2:04 PM

greyhounds
Why does the message need to be copied instead of transmitted wirelessly and displayed or printed?

It's that word-for-word verification that's the hang-up, I would opine.  Simply pressing an "acknowledge" key doesn't guarantee that the directive in question has been read or understood.

LarryWhistling
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...

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Wednesday, April 3, 2024 2:02 PM

greyhounds
 
BaltACD
As a practical matter - Dispatchers will endeavor to transmit train messages and/or mandatory directives to Amtrak or others with only a engineer in the cab while their trains are making scheduled station stops.  However, if a station stop is not in the offing either the Conductor must come to the operating cab or the train must be stopped.  These rules apply on CSX - other carriers 'may' have different rules. 

Why does the message need to be copied instead of transmitted wirelessly and displayed or printed?

Because 'at present' that is not the procedure.  To my knowledge locomotives have not been equipped with wireless printers that can be addressed through the CADS.  I believe all the Class 1 are using one form or another of CADS to run their properties.

However the communication is made, there must be positive confirmation between Dispatchers and trains that the communication is both received and understood. If display or wireless printer is used, I suspect, the person receiving the communication will be required to verbally repeat the communication over the radio to the Train Dispatcher.

 

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 21,669 posts
Posted by Overmod on Wednesday, April 3, 2024 2:01 PM

Cut directly to the chase:

49 CFR Part 218 [Docket No. FRA-2021-0032, Notice No. 5], RIN 2130-AC88, Train Crew Size Safety Requirements

  • Member since
    August 2003
  • From: Antioch, IL
  • 4,371 posts
Posted by greyhounds on Wednesday, April 3, 2024 1:53 PM

BaltACD
As a practical matter - Dispatchers will endeavor to transmit train messages and/or mandatory directives to Amtrak or others with only a engineer in the cab while their trains are making scheduled station stops.  However, if a station stop is not in the offing either the Conductor must come to the operating cab or the train must be stopped.  These rules apply on CSX - other carriers 'may' have different rules.

Why does the message need to be copied instead of transmitted wirelessly and displayed or printed?

 

"By many measures, the U.S. freight rail system is the safest, most efficient and cost effective in the world." - Federal Railroad Administration, October, 2009. I'm just your average, everyday, uncivilized howling "anti-government" critic of mass government expenditures for "High Speed Rail" in the US. And I'm gosh darn proud of that.
  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Wednesday, April 3, 2024 1:37 PM

lenzfamily
 
BaltACD

The so called 'flying squad utility conductor' is a load of bovine excrement.  Many of the locations where trains have 'issues' are in locations that are near or actually impossible to reach by other means of transport.  The thought of a Engineer leaving the operating cab of his locomotive to inspect and deal with conditions back in his train is unsafe on its face and too many other ways to count.

The Feds have stepped in and saved PSR management from its own lunacy.

RE Amtrak and single man in the lead engine - whenever a Train Message or other Mandatory Directive is issued to that train - if there is not a Conductor in the locomotive cab to copy them - the train must be stopped so the Engineer can copy them.  Engineers are not permitted to copy such things while the train is in motion. 

Interesting about Amtrak I can't see how this would work safely and legally. On Via, two engineers are in the locomotive cab. At station stops the non-operating engineer exits the cab, in situations I have seen, and basically 'supervises or oversees' the platform activity. Once that activity is near its end, the engineer returns to the locomotive.

Charlie, Chilliwack BC

As a practical matter - Dispatchers will endeavor to transmit train messages and/or mandatory directives to Amtrak or others with only a engineer in the cab while their trains are making scheduled station stops.  However, if a station stop is not in the offing either the Conductor must come to the operating cab or the train must be stopped.  These rules apply on CSX - other carriers 'may' have different rules.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 329 posts
Posted by lenzfamily on Wednesday, April 3, 2024 1:31 PM

BaltACD

The so called 'flying squad utility conductor' is a load of bovine excrement.  Many of the locations where trains have 'issues' are in locations that are near or actually impossible to reach by other means of transport.  The thought of a Engineer leaving the operating cab of his locomotive to inspect and deal with conditions back in his train is unsafe on its face and too many other ways to count.

The Feds have stepped in and saved PSR management from its own lunacy.

RE Amtrak and single man in the lead engine - whenever a Train Message or other Mandatory Directive is issued to that train - if there is not a Conductor in the locomotive cab to copy them - the train must be stopped so the Engineer can copy them.  Engineers are not permitted to copy such things while the train is in motion.

 

Interesting about Amtrak I can't see how this would work safely and legally. On Via, two engineers are in the locomotive cab. At station stops the non-operating engineer exits the cab, in situations I have seen, and basically 'supervises or oversees' the platform activity. Once that activity is near its end, the engineer returns to the locomotive.

Charlie, Chilliwack BC

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Wednesday, April 3, 2024 12:53 PM

The so called 'flying squad utility conductor' is a load of bovine excrement.  Many of the locations where trains have 'issues' are in locations that are near or actually impossible to reach by other means of transport.  The thought of a Engineer leaving the operating cab of his locomotive to inspect and deal with conditions back in his train is unsafe on its face and too many other ways to count.

The Feds have stepped in and saved PSR management from its own lunacy.

RE Amtrak and single man in the lead engine - whenever a Train Message or other Mandatory Directive is issued to that train - if there is not a Conductor in the locomotive cab to copy them - the train must be stopped so the Engineer can copy them.  Engineers are not permitted to copy such things while the train is in motion.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 25,020 posts
Posted by tree68 on Wednesday, April 3, 2024 12:32 PM

When you get right down to it, Amtrak has been running one person crews virtually since Day 1.  Yes there is a conductor on the train, but the engineer is more often than not alone in the cab.

A meaningful metric would be how often (besides calling signals and the like) the services of the conductor are required.  Then how many of those instances could be handled by any of the other resources available (most of which have already been discussed).

That said, I'm not opposed to the two "man" rule.

LarryWhistling
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...

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Wednesday, April 3, 2024 7:44 AM
It sounds like it was the current popularity of ultra-long freight trains that was used to justify the mandate for 2-person crews.  Was that connection anticipated by the industry?
  • Member since
    June 2003
  • From: South Central,Ks
  • 7,170 posts
Administration to Mandate Two Person Freight Crews
Posted by samfp1943 on Monday, April 1, 2024 10:39 PM

 

 


 

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy