Railroading is one of the most dangerous occupations in North America

-- Rail-related injuries typically result in amputations, other career-ending injuries and death.

-- Over the past three years, train collisions increased by more than 42 percent, according to tthe Federal Railroad Administration data

-- Also, over the past three years, employee fatalities are up by 17 percent.

-- For the period January-September 2005 (9 months), the FRA says there were more than 2,200 train accidents, some 1,200 yard accidents, 1,655 train derailments and 21 rail-employee fatalities.

-- Additionally, more than 350 private citizens die annually in accidents at highway-rail grade crossings.

-- This deterioration in safety statistics is NOT the result of more business on the rails, because the FRA "normalizes" these data based on millions of train miles.

-- Every major railroad -- BNSF, CSX, KCS, NS and UP -- has posted an increased in train accidents over past three years.

Railroads haul some of the most deadly of hazardous materials

-- Railroads haul deadly chemicals such as chlorine, nuclear weapons and nuclear waste -- all targets of terrorists and all deadly to large areas of every community through which these chemicals travel on trains.

-- Terrorists have targeted railroads in foreign countries (bombings in Madrid, Spain) and have threatened to do so in the United States. Having at least two people on the train enhances the number of eyes and ears on the front lines for the benefit of homeland security.

Positive Train Control may or may not be effective in improving rail safety

-- We don't know because PTC is in the experimental stage

-- PTC is operating under special waivers from the FRA over just a few hundred miles of track. There are more than 170,000 miles of rail track in the U.S.

-- Not only is PTC experimental, but there are thousands of miles of track in the United States today that are considered "dark territory," which is no more technologically advanced than railroad tracks were in the 1800s.

-- Where PTC is being tested, such as BNSF's Beardstown subdivision in Illinois, the technology's failure rate is significant. One third of tests of PTC there have resulted in an unintentional application of brakes indicating a system failure of some sort.

-- Carrier operating officers have told the National Transportation Safety Board that implementation of PTC on any wide-scale is seven to 10 years away. The costs are enormous -- some $7 billion -- and no railroad has indicated to its stockholders that it is embarking on such a capital expense in the near future. PTC remains an experimental technology.

Railroads want to reduce train crews without adding new technology

-- Railroads have told Wall Street analysts that they want to take advantage of a sudden and sharp increase in retirements by not hiring replacements for these train & engine service employees.

-- Railroads predict tens of millions of dollars in savings by not hiring and reducing crew size to one person, who would not have benefit of PTC and who would also be required to leave the train to operate remote control in switching operations and tend to unexpected mechanical problems.

The danger of reduced crews is primarily from fatigue

-- Noted sleep scientist William Dement of Stanford University compares going to work fatigued with going to work drunk, as fatigue impairs motor skills and judgment.

-- Fatigue already is a severe problem in the railroad industry. Insufficient train crews require railroads to demand employees work up to 30 days without rest periods. It is not uncommon for train & engine service employees not to receive even six hours of uninterrupted sleep daily.

-- Fatigue is most often cited by the National Transportation Safety Board as a contributing factor in railroad accidents.

One-person crews sought by the carriers are a prescription for disaster

-- Trains operating through populated areas and carrying deadly hazmat and considered a target of terrorists should not be permitted to operate with only a single person aboard.

-- Medical emergencies, the need for restroom breaks and meal periods all put trains, their contents and communities at risk when there is but a single person aboard to operate and monitor the train and remain in radio contact with dispatchers and nearby emergency responders.

-- Railroads transport deadly hazmat on tracks that are within blocks of Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. Train tracks are located in the heart of major population centers and trains carrying hazmat travel next to hospitals and schools.

A Federal Railroad Administration study of reduced crews is needed

-- Before Congress allows carriers to turn current labor negotiations into a congressional plebiscite on reduced-crew size, a Federal Railroad Administration study into the safety concerns of reduced crews is essential.

See also:

UTU, BLET join to fight crew reduction

Railway Age Magazine January 31, 2006
 
In a rare display of solidarity, the United Transportation Union and the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen-two unions that have spent considerable time and resources conducting a war of words and turf-have decided to put aside their differences and join forces to combat what they say is a concerted effort by the railroads to reduce crew size in the current round of collective bargaining, according to this report published by railwayage.com.

At issue is the railroads' interest in operating freight trains with one-person crews, which they say will be possible with Positive Train Control, a technology now under evaluation independently at several carriers and also the subject of an industry-wide pilot project (the North American Joint PTC Program). The railroads want to place one-person train operations onto the collective bargaining table. The unions want the subject off the table, claiming railroad worker safety and public safety is at risk.

It is not clear just how many trains would be reduced to one-person operation, or how many of the Class I roster of 66,698 operating (Train & Engine Service) employees (according to the most recent STB figures) might be affected. At a joint UTU/BLET news conference this afternoon, responding to a question from Railway Age, UTU President Paul C. Thompson and BLET President Don M. Hahs said that they had received various and conflicting estimates from the railroads. One estimate, they said, indicated that up to 20% of operating employees would be affected, mainly through attrition. Another indicated that up to two-thirds of trains could eventually be operated by one person.

In a joint letter to their collective membership released prior to the news conference, Thompson and Hahs accused the Class I's of pursuing a negotiating strategy of "using past differences between [our unions] as a wedge to reduce crew size, thereby putting the lives of all rail workers and the public in danger and also seriously threatening the financial security of the Railroad Retirement system."

"This is no longer about our unions, it's about our members," Thompson said at the news conference. The railroads are currently operating trains with two-person crews. "If that's not an efficient crew, I don't know what is," he said. "Crew-size reduction has gone far enough," he added, recalling the days when trains ran with four- and five-person crews.

Thompson, who says he has participated in national negotiating sessions for more than 20 years, called the current round of collecting bargaining "the most deplorable I have ever seen." He said, and Hahs concurred, that the railroads have been privately and separately promising the UTU and the BLET that each would become the surviving union if, among other things, each would testify against the other during Presidential Emergency Board hearings. Thompson added that Bob Allen, lead negotiator for the National Carriers Conference Committee, "has been playing us like a banjo."

Thompson said that, although all five of the U.S.-based Class I's (UP, BNSF, NS, CSX, KCS) have been part of the negotiations, BNSF has been most aggressive in trying to play one union against the other. Railroads "have stonewalled us," and "have not resolved a single issue," he said. "They want an impasse, and a PEB" that might give them concessions they could not win in bargaining. Hahs added that, although he "doesn't blame the carriers for being hard-nosed during negotiations-that's just the way it is," the railroads, by their actions, have undermined any sense of trust that may have existed.

"The carriers' attempt to reduce crew size has nothing to do with new technology," Thompson and Hahs told their members. "Indeed, the carriers have told the National Transportation Safety Board that implementation of PTC is many years away. Moreover, the Federal Railroad Administration has not conducted a study into the safety and reliability of reduced crew size, nor its impact on an already highly fatigued workforce operating trains through congested areas carrying highly toxic hazmat during this era of heightened terrorist threats to the security of our nation's railroads."

During the press conference, Thompson and Hahs provided several examples of why a one-person crew would be unsafe and impractical:

-- If a train breaks down and blocks a crossing, one person cannot quickly cut the train in two to unblock the crossing if an emergency response vehicle (an ambulance or fire truck) needs to get through. This is a serious threat to public safety.

-- If an air hose breaks far back in the train, one person cannot not be expected to handle the situation in a timely fashion, and without compromising their own safety.

-- How does one person deal with a grade crossing collision?

-- The railroads have said that relief personnel would be available in the event of a breakdown or other incident, but there are many places where it would be extremely difficult to get extra people out to a stranded train.

-- Basic human needs: How does one person take a restroom break and run the train at the same time?

The railroads will have to "totally revamp" their operating practices for one-person crews, said Hahs. That means smaller crew districts and shorter in-service hours. Railroads cannot expect one person to be working twelve-hour shifts "day in and day out in an unscheduled environment," with only five and six hours of rest in between shifts. (The FRA mandates a minimum of eight hours of rest in between shifts, but the unions maintain that employees rarely get a full eight hours of rest, taking transit time, family time, and other factors into account.) As for PTC, Thompson noted that the technology is "experimental," and "proprietary" from supplier to supplier, and said that suppliers have made statements to the effect that PTC is intended as a safety overlay system, not a means to reduce crew size. He said that labor "needs to be a part of the development of PTC," and that operating employees "would embrace PTC if it does what the railroads say it does" with regard to improving safety of train operations. Both union leaders agreed that neither UTU nor BLET will sign any documents pledging to support PTC.

In what Thompson and Hahs are characterizing as "a demonstration of good faith," the UTU has withdrawn its application for a single-craft representation election at the Union Pacific, while the BLET has agreed to refrain from trying to organize UTU-represented properties. At this time, neither union is in a position to negotiate jointly, but are pursuing a joint strategy to deal with the one-person-crew issue.

"Our two organizations have had their differences, but when it comes to protecting our members' job security and safety, we must stand together against the hostile attacks of the carriers' expressed intent on eliminating jobs," said Thompson and Hahs. The two unions say their joint effort has the support of the Teamsters, AFL-CIO, and other railroad unions. One part of their strategy will be lobbying a Congress that, in an election year, may be reluctant to deal with a railroad work stoppage and a Presidential Emergency Board. Both unions, they said, have received "letters of great concern" from Congressmen who feel a PEB at this point in time would be "premature."