Sep 2008
Rail safety bill nears passage
09/28/08 13:12
From the Office of State Legislative Director Connie
English, Jr.
Information this office provides is for the benefit of ALL members of your local. Please read it, print it, post on yard office bulletin boards, leave copies in the yard office and request that your local webmaster post it on your local's website. Your union wants to do a good job for you and with your help we can.
Rail safety bill nears passage
WASHINGTON -- The House has passed, and the Senate is poised to pass -- as early as Sept. 25 -- the most sweeping railroad safety bill since the mid-1970s. It is named the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008.
Chief among the bill’s provisions are conductor certification and minimum conductor training requirements, a mandate for railroads to install positive train control (PTC).
Also, a reduction in limbo time, a prohibition on carriers interfering with medical treatment of injured employees, and changes to the hours of service law by requiring minimum uninterrupted rest periods, including at least two days off following each six-day work week.
In addition, the bill emphasizes that the primary mission of the Federal Railroad Administration is to ensure that safety is its highest priority.
The bill also creates a new high-level position within the agency of chief safety officer, adds 200 additional rail safety inspectors, and instructs DOT to develop a long-term strategy for improving rail safety, which must include an annual plan for reducing the number and rates of rail accidents, injuries and fatalities.
"Some conservatives in the Senate still are attempting to block this legislation," said UTU International President Mike Futhey, "but a strong bi-partisan majority led by labor-friendly lawmakers are pushing very hard to overcome any remaining resistance.
"Our National Legislative Office, in cooperation with others in rail labor and the AFL-CIO, has put forth remarkable effort to move this legislation forward against strong counter-pressure from the carriers. Legislative homeruns for labor, such as this success, are ultimately traceable to the UTU PAC’s support of labor friendly candidates and a strong labor-friendly Democratic majority in Congress.
"Not since the mid-1970s has there been a more worker-friendly bill passed by Congress," Futhey said. "A 1994 reauthorization of the FRA had minimal worker-safety improvements, and every bill since then has been stopped dead in its tracks by the railroads and their conservative friends in Congress."
Following are the major provisions of the rail safety bill, expected to be passed into law by week’s end:
Training: Establishes minimum training standards for railroad workers; requires certification of conductors; and a study on certification of other classes and crafts of employees, including carmen and signal employees.
With regard to conductor certification, the FRA is instructed that within 18 months of enactment of this legislation, it is to establish a program requiring certification of conductors with a requirement for minimum training standards.
Positive Train Control: Requires all Class I railroads and intercity passenger and commuter railroads to implement a positive train control system by Dec. 31, 2015, on all main-line track where intercity passenger railroads and commuter railroads operate and where toxic-by-inhalation hazardous materials are transported. It also includes a grant program for the deployment of various positive train control technologies, electronically controlled pneumatic brakes, rail integrity inspection and warning systems, switch position indicators, remote control power switch technologies, track integrity circuit technology, and other technologies.
Hours of Service Reform: Provides signal and train crews with additional rest; prohibits them from working in excess of 12 hours; extends hours-of-service standards to railroad contractors; limits limbo time; and requires railroads to develop fatigue management plans through a mandatory risk reduction program.
Specifically, the hours of service law is amended to require at least 10 consecutive uninterrupted hours off duty following 12 hours on duty. (There is a three-year exception for passenger train employees, during which time their hours of service limitations will be studied by the FRA.)
Also, no freight railroad employee covered by the hours of service law may be called to work unless they have had at least 10 uninterrupted hours off during the prior 24 hour period. And following each six days of work, a covered employee must be given 48 hours of uninterrupted time off at their home terminal. If the carrier requires that employee to work a 7th day – even if it is to return them to their home terminal – then the uninterrupted time off at the home terminal must be at least 72 hours.
As to limbo time, no employee covered by the hours-of-service law may be placed in limbo time after they have been on duty, waited for deadhead transportation or been in any other mandatory service for more than a total of 276 hours in any month. And total limbo time per month is restricted to no more than 40 hours – reduced to 30 hours on the first anniversary of the bill’s becoming law. During the third year following enactment of the law, the FRA may reduce limbo time further.
Locomotive Cab Safety: Requires the FRA to complete a study on the safety impact of the use of personal electronic devices by safety-related railroad employees during the performance of their duties. The study will also look at other elements of the locomotive cab environment that could harm the employee’s health and safety. Based upon the results of the study, DOT may establish regulations on the use of personal electronic devices in the locomotive cab. (Sources told the UTU that an FRA study already is underway, and an emergency order banning electronic devices – except for company business, and only when two crewmembers are in the cab -- could be issued as soon as next week.)
Medical Attention: Prohibits railroads from denying, delaying, or interfering with the medical or first aid treatment of injured workers, and from disciplining those workers that request treatment. Also requires railroads to arrange for immediate transport of injured workers to the nearest appropriate hospital.
Emergency Escape Breathing Apparatus: Requires emergency breathing apparatus for all crewmembers on freight trains carrying hazardous materials that would pose an inhalation hazard in the event of unintentional release.
Track Inspection Time: Requires the FRA to study track inspection procedures, including time intervals between inspection, repair priorities and methods, the speed of track inspection vehicles, and the territories inspectors must cover.
Toll-Free Number to Report Grade Crossing Problems: Requires railroads to establish and maintain a toll-free telephone number for reporting malfunctions of grade crossing signals, gates, and other devices and disabled vehicles blocking railroad tracks.
Sight Distance: Requires the FRA to develop model legislation to encourage states to adopt and enforce laws regarding overgrown vegetation, standing railroad equipment, and other obstructions at grade crossings, which can obstruct the view of approaching pedestrians and vehicles.
Accident and Incident Reporting: Requires the FRA to conduct periodic audits of railroads to ensure they are reporting all accidents and incidents to the National Accident Database.
National Crossing Inventory: Requires railroads to report information, including information about warning devices and signage, on grade crossings to enable the FRA to maintain an accurate inventory of such crossings.
State Action Plan: Requires DOT to identify, on an annual basis, the top 10 states that have had the most grade crossing collisions, and to work with them to develop a state grade-crossing action plan that identifies specific solutions for improving safety at grade crossings.
Emergency Grade Crossing Improvements: Establishes a grant program to provide emergency grade-crossing safety improvements at locations where there has been a grade crossing collision involving a school bus or multiple injuries or fatalities.
Penalties for violations: Increases civil penalties for certain rail safety violations from $10,000 to $25,000. The minimum civil penalty remains $500. For grossly negligent violations or a pattern of repeated violations, the maximum civil penalty is increased from $20,000 under current law to not more than $100,000. The bill also increases the maximum penalty for failing to file an accident or incident report from $500 to $2,500.
Enforcement Transparency: Requires the FRA to provide an annual summary to the public of all railroad enforcement actions taken by DOT.
Railroad Radio Monitoring: Authorizes the FRA to monitor certain railroad radio communications for the purpose of correcting safety problems and mitigating the likelihood of accidents or incidents.
Inspector Staffing: Increases the number of federal rail safety inspectors and supporting staff by 200.
Bridge Safety: Requires the FRA to issue regulations requiring each track owner to develop and maintain an accurate inventory of its railroad bridges; determine, and update as appropriate, the safe capacity of each bridge; maintain the original design documents of each bridge, if available, and a documentation of all repairs, modifications, and inspections of each bridge; enforce a written procedure that will ensure that its bridges are not loaded beyond their capacities; conduct regular comprehensive inspections of each bridge; and designate qualified bridge inspectors or maintenance personnel to authorize the operation of trains on bridges following repairs, damage, or indication of potential structural problems.
Solid Waste Processing Rail Facilities: Requires state governments protect their citizens against environmental hazards, such as noxious fumes or leaks into groundwater, which could result from operation of a waste processing facility by a railroad.
Tunnel Information: Requires railroads to maintain certain information related to structural inspections and maintenance activities for tunnels, and requires railroads to provide periodic briefings to the government of the local jurisdictions in which the tunnels are located, including updates whenever a repair or rehabilitation projects alters the methods of ingress and egress into and out of the tunnels.
Click here to read the 315-page bill, which may take time to open due to its length; and probably will not open if you are using dial-up Internet service.
September 25, 2008
Information this office provides is for the benefit of ALL members of your local. Please read it, print it, post on yard office bulletin boards, leave copies in the yard office and request that your local webmaster post it on your local's website. Your union wants to do a good job for you and with your help we can.
Rail safety bill nears passage
WASHINGTON -- The House has passed, and the Senate is poised to pass -- as early as Sept. 25 -- the most sweeping railroad safety bill since the mid-1970s. It is named the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008.
Chief among the bill’s provisions are conductor certification and minimum conductor training requirements, a mandate for railroads to install positive train control (PTC).
Also, a reduction in limbo time, a prohibition on carriers interfering with medical treatment of injured employees, and changes to the hours of service law by requiring minimum uninterrupted rest periods, including at least two days off following each six-day work week.
In addition, the bill emphasizes that the primary mission of the Federal Railroad Administration is to ensure that safety is its highest priority.
The bill also creates a new high-level position within the agency of chief safety officer, adds 200 additional rail safety inspectors, and instructs DOT to develop a long-term strategy for improving rail safety, which must include an annual plan for reducing the number and rates of rail accidents, injuries and fatalities.
"Some conservatives in the Senate still are attempting to block this legislation," said UTU International President Mike Futhey, "but a strong bi-partisan majority led by labor-friendly lawmakers are pushing very hard to overcome any remaining resistance.
"Our National Legislative Office, in cooperation with others in rail labor and the AFL-CIO, has put forth remarkable effort to move this legislation forward against strong counter-pressure from the carriers. Legislative homeruns for labor, such as this success, are ultimately traceable to the UTU PAC’s support of labor friendly candidates and a strong labor-friendly Democratic majority in Congress.
"Not since the mid-1970s has there been a more worker-friendly bill passed by Congress," Futhey said. "A 1994 reauthorization of the FRA had minimal worker-safety improvements, and every bill since then has been stopped dead in its tracks by the railroads and their conservative friends in Congress."
Following are the major provisions of the rail safety bill, expected to be passed into law by week’s end:
Training: Establishes minimum training standards for railroad workers; requires certification of conductors; and a study on certification of other classes and crafts of employees, including carmen and signal employees.
With regard to conductor certification, the FRA is instructed that within 18 months of enactment of this legislation, it is to establish a program requiring certification of conductors with a requirement for minimum training standards.
Positive Train Control: Requires all Class I railroads and intercity passenger and commuter railroads to implement a positive train control system by Dec. 31, 2015, on all main-line track where intercity passenger railroads and commuter railroads operate and where toxic-by-inhalation hazardous materials are transported. It also includes a grant program for the deployment of various positive train control technologies, electronically controlled pneumatic brakes, rail integrity inspection and warning systems, switch position indicators, remote control power switch technologies, track integrity circuit technology, and other technologies.
Hours of Service Reform: Provides signal and train crews with additional rest; prohibits them from working in excess of 12 hours; extends hours-of-service standards to railroad contractors; limits limbo time; and requires railroads to develop fatigue management plans through a mandatory risk reduction program.
Specifically, the hours of service law is amended to require at least 10 consecutive uninterrupted hours off duty following 12 hours on duty. (There is a three-year exception for passenger train employees, during which time their hours of service limitations will be studied by the FRA.)
Also, no freight railroad employee covered by the hours of service law may be called to work unless they have had at least 10 uninterrupted hours off during the prior 24 hour period. And following each six days of work, a covered employee must be given 48 hours of uninterrupted time off at their home terminal. If the carrier requires that employee to work a 7th day – even if it is to return them to their home terminal – then the uninterrupted time off at the home terminal must be at least 72 hours.
As to limbo time, no employee covered by the hours-of-service law may be placed in limbo time after they have been on duty, waited for deadhead transportation or been in any other mandatory service for more than a total of 276 hours in any month. And total limbo time per month is restricted to no more than 40 hours – reduced to 30 hours on the first anniversary of the bill’s becoming law. During the third year following enactment of the law, the FRA may reduce limbo time further.
Locomotive Cab Safety: Requires the FRA to complete a study on the safety impact of the use of personal electronic devices by safety-related railroad employees during the performance of their duties. The study will also look at other elements of the locomotive cab environment that could harm the employee’s health and safety. Based upon the results of the study, DOT may establish regulations on the use of personal electronic devices in the locomotive cab. (Sources told the UTU that an FRA study already is underway, and an emergency order banning electronic devices – except for company business, and only when two crewmembers are in the cab -- could be issued as soon as next week.)
Medical Attention: Prohibits railroads from denying, delaying, or interfering with the medical or first aid treatment of injured workers, and from disciplining those workers that request treatment. Also requires railroads to arrange for immediate transport of injured workers to the nearest appropriate hospital.
Emergency Escape Breathing Apparatus: Requires emergency breathing apparatus for all crewmembers on freight trains carrying hazardous materials that would pose an inhalation hazard in the event of unintentional release.
Track Inspection Time: Requires the FRA to study track inspection procedures, including time intervals between inspection, repair priorities and methods, the speed of track inspection vehicles, and the territories inspectors must cover.
Toll-Free Number to Report Grade Crossing Problems: Requires railroads to establish and maintain a toll-free telephone number for reporting malfunctions of grade crossing signals, gates, and other devices and disabled vehicles blocking railroad tracks.
Sight Distance: Requires the FRA to develop model legislation to encourage states to adopt and enforce laws regarding overgrown vegetation, standing railroad equipment, and other obstructions at grade crossings, which can obstruct the view of approaching pedestrians and vehicles.
Accident and Incident Reporting: Requires the FRA to conduct periodic audits of railroads to ensure they are reporting all accidents and incidents to the National Accident Database.
National Crossing Inventory: Requires railroads to report information, including information about warning devices and signage, on grade crossings to enable the FRA to maintain an accurate inventory of such crossings.
State Action Plan: Requires DOT to identify, on an annual basis, the top 10 states that have had the most grade crossing collisions, and to work with them to develop a state grade-crossing action plan that identifies specific solutions for improving safety at grade crossings.
Emergency Grade Crossing Improvements: Establishes a grant program to provide emergency grade-crossing safety improvements at locations where there has been a grade crossing collision involving a school bus or multiple injuries or fatalities.
Penalties for violations: Increases civil penalties for certain rail safety violations from $10,000 to $25,000. The minimum civil penalty remains $500. For grossly negligent violations or a pattern of repeated violations, the maximum civil penalty is increased from $20,000 under current law to not more than $100,000. The bill also increases the maximum penalty for failing to file an accident or incident report from $500 to $2,500.
Enforcement Transparency: Requires the FRA to provide an annual summary to the public of all railroad enforcement actions taken by DOT.
Railroad Radio Monitoring: Authorizes the FRA to monitor certain railroad radio communications for the purpose of correcting safety problems and mitigating the likelihood of accidents or incidents.
Inspector Staffing: Increases the number of federal rail safety inspectors and supporting staff by 200.
Bridge Safety: Requires the FRA to issue regulations requiring each track owner to develop and maintain an accurate inventory of its railroad bridges; determine, and update as appropriate, the safe capacity of each bridge; maintain the original design documents of each bridge, if available, and a documentation of all repairs, modifications, and inspections of each bridge; enforce a written procedure that will ensure that its bridges are not loaded beyond their capacities; conduct regular comprehensive inspections of each bridge; and designate qualified bridge inspectors or maintenance personnel to authorize the operation of trains on bridges following repairs, damage, or indication of potential structural problems.
Solid Waste Processing Rail Facilities: Requires state governments protect their citizens against environmental hazards, such as noxious fumes or leaks into groundwater, which could result from operation of a waste processing facility by a railroad.
Tunnel Information: Requires railroads to maintain certain information related to structural inspections and maintenance activities for tunnels, and requires railroads to provide periodic briefings to the government of the local jurisdictions in which the tunnels are located, including updates whenever a repair or rehabilitation projects alters the methods of ingress and egress into and out of the tunnels.
Click here to read the 315-page bill, which may take time to open due to its length; and probably will not open if you are using dial-up Internet service.
September 25, 2008
Cell Phones
09/28/08 13:08
Guys,
This was sent to me by my cousin who is a retired BNSF Conductor who is still getting updates from his Union. Granted he was UTU, but it is of interest to us all.
FYI, the following comments are from Oregon State legislative Representative Scott Plamer and could not be better said. Please read and share this with everyone.
Brothers,
I have been on scene in Chatsworth, California all week as party to the NTSB investigation into the Metrolink-UP head on crash that killed 26 and injured over 130.
I have seen the records and there is no doubt that the Engineer was text messaging one minute before the crash.
The State of California Public Utility Commission will issue an Emergency Order on September 18, 2008 to stop the use of cell phones, DVD players, I pods, MP 3 players, radios, tape decks, TV's, computers, etc. As I understand it, the new rule will ban the use of ALL electronic devices while on duty. You may not use them while in the siding, the yard, or the yard office. If a manager or inspector comes up to you and dials your cell and it rings you are in violation.
If they call your cell and it doesn't immediately go to voice mail, they know you have switched it to silent mode and it is a violation.
You can not call the dispatcher, trainmaster, yardmaster, road foreman or lineup while on duty, period.
Violations will begin at a $500 personal fine and may go as high as $2,000.
I have seen the Devil let loose this past week and I have seen sights I struggle to forget. We are all guilty of similar occurrences but without the final bitter penalty. Cal PUC will not forgive or forget and God help the Train or Engineman who is caught using their cell phone. It's the first thing NTSB subpoenas when responding to a wreck.
It's time to put 'em away.
I expect similar regulation from FRA almost immediately on the heels of California.
The Cal PUC regulation carries the weight of law and will affect all crews operating into California. Prepare for a general order from your Carriers covering the same.
Please pass this message on to all members. This practice must stop immediately, for members who work into California and members who do not. There was four seconds of time between the moment the trains saw each other and the collision. The only bright spot was that the UP Engineer was so good, so skilled, as to run dead on at the maximum speed of 40 MPH the whole way. Had he been three seconds late, the meet would have been made in a tunnel.
There just wasn't any time.
Stay safe out there.
Yours,
Scott Palmer
Chairman, Oregon UTU State Legislative Board
This was sent to me by my cousin who is a retired BNSF Conductor who is still getting updates from his Union. Granted he was UTU, but it is of interest to us all.
FYI, the following comments are from Oregon State legislative Representative Scott Plamer and could not be better said. Please read and share this with everyone.
Brothers,
I have been on scene in Chatsworth, California all week as party to the NTSB investigation into the Metrolink-UP head on crash that killed 26 and injured over 130.
I have seen the records and there is no doubt that the Engineer was text messaging one minute before the crash.
The State of California Public Utility Commission will issue an Emergency Order on September 18, 2008 to stop the use of cell phones, DVD players, I pods, MP 3 players, radios, tape decks, TV's, computers, etc. As I understand it, the new rule will ban the use of ALL electronic devices while on duty. You may not use them while in the siding, the yard, or the yard office. If a manager or inspector comes up to you and dials your cell and it rings you are in violation.
If they call your cell and it doesn't immediately go to voice mail, they know you have switched it to silent mode and it is a violation.
You can not call the dispatcher, trainmaster, yardmaster, road foreman or lineup while on duty, period.
Violations will begin at a $500 personal fine and may go as high as $2,000.
I have seen the Devil let loose this past week and I have seen sights I struggle to forget. We are all guilty of similar occurrences but without the final bitter penalty. Cal PUC will not forgive or forget and God help the Train or Engineman who is caught using their cell phone. It's the first thing NTSB subpoenas when responding to a wreck.
It's time to put 'em away.
I expect similar regulation from FRA almost immediately on the heels of California.
The Cal PUC regulation carries the weight of law and will affect all crews operating into California. Prepare for a general order from your Carriers covering the same.
Please pass this message on to all members. This practice must stop immediately, for members who work into California and members who do not. There was four seconds of time between the moment the trains saw each other and the collision. The only bright spot was that the UP Engineer was so good, so skilled, as to run dead on at the maximum speed of 40 MPH the whole way. Had he been three seconds late, the meet would have been made in a tunnel.
There just wasn't any time.
Stay safe out there.
Yours,
Scott Palmer
Chairman, Oregon UTU State Legislative Board
Quiet Zone -- Bell
09/28/08 13:07
Jimmy,
Here is the answer to ringing the bell over the crossing in a Quiet Zone: Yes it must be rung.
5.8 Bell and Whistle Signals
5.8.1 Ringing Engine Bell
Ring the engine bell under any of the following conditions:
• Before moving, except when making momentary stop and start switching movements.
• As a warning signal anytime it is necessary.
• When approaching men or equipment on or near the track.
• When whistle signal (7) is required.
• Approaching public crossings at grade with the engine in front and sounding of the whistle is
prohibited, start signal at the crossing sign. If no sign, or if movement begins between sign
and crossing, start signal soon enough before crossing to provide warning. Continue ringing
bell until the crossing is occupied.
I contacted the rules group in Ft Worth and they said it must be sounded.
(Next question -- If you are going over a crossing that is a Quiet Zone and the bell fails, do you have to sound the whistle? -- NO -- report it as B/O)
Grace S. Grabofsky
Manager of Safety
Southwest Division
505-864-4954 Office
505-506-4584 Cell
505-864-4948 Fax
Here is the answer to ringing the bell over the crossing in a Quiet Zone: Yes it must be rung.
5.8 Bell and Whistle Signals
5.8.1 Ringing Engine Bell
Ring the engine bell under any of the following conditions:
• Before moving, except when making momentary stop and start switching movements.
• As a warning signal anytime it is necessary.
• When approaching men or equipment on or near the track.
• When whistle signal (7) is required.
• Approaching public crossings at grade with the engine in front and sounding of the whistle is
prohibited, start signal at the crossing sign. If no sign, or if movement begins between sign
and crossing, start signal soon enough before crossing to provide warning. Continue ringing
bell until the crossing is occupied.
I contacted the rules group in Ft Worth and they said it must be sounded.
(Next question -- If you are going over a crossing that is a Quiet Zone and the bell fails, do you have to sound the whistle? -- NO -- report it as B/O)
Grace S. Grabofsky
Manager of Safety
Southwest Division
505-864-4954 Office
505-506-4584 Cell
505-864-4948 Fax
House Passes $13 Billion Amtrak Authorization With High-Speed Rail Deal
09/28/08 13:06
CQ TODAY PRINT EDITION – TRANSPORTATION &
INFRASTRUCTURE
Sept. 24, 2008 – 7:47 p.m.
House Passes $13 Billion Amtrak Authorization With High-Speed Rail Deal
By Colby Itkowitz, CQ Staff
A bill that would authorize $13 billion for Amtrak passed Wednesday in the House, setting the stage for possible clearance of the bill by the Senate before the session ends.
The House passed the measure (HR 2095) by voice vote, which implies that the chamber would vote to override a potential presidential veto. The Senate is likely to clear the bill easily; it passed an earlier version by a vote of 70-22 in October of 2007. President Bush had threatened to veto an earlier House version largely because of its cost.
The bill represents a dramatic departure from recent Amtrak politics. For fiscal 2009 alone, the bill would authorize close to $2 billion, compared with $800 million requested by the White House and the $1.7 billion sought by Amtrak itself.
Every year the Bush administration has presented Congress with budget proposals that would reduce Amtrak’s authorized funding while calling for privatization of the operation. And each year, Congress has appropriated just enough to keep Amtrak limping along.
But now, with compromise language signed off on by House and Senate lawmakers, an Amtrak authorization bill is as close to becoming law as it has been in 11 years.
Although there has been no formal conference on the bill, House and Senate negotiators reached an agreement on the measure Sept. 23.
House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman James L. Oberstar, D-Minn., said he was confident the bill would pass the Senate.
The committee’s ranking Republican, John L. Mica of Florida, said he was sending “emergency relief staff” to the Senate to try to keep dissenters at bay. Mica said he had already talked to Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., who said he may not support it but would do his best not to block it. Mica said he was also working to persuade the Bush administration to accept the bill.
“I’m doing everything humanly possible,” Mica said.
The five-year authorization includes funds for state intercity passenger rail grants and high-speed rail corridor grants. It also includes changes to Amtrak’s financial accounting system and a five-year financing plan to improve accountability.
“This is a real step forward for anyone who’s tired of sitting in traffic, paying high prices at the pump and waiting in long lines at airports,” said Frank R. Lautenberg, D‑N.J., author of the Senate bill.
The major sticking point in House and Senate negotiations the past few weeks has been over a proposal to allow the Transportation Department to accept bids from private companies for construction of high-speed rail in the Northeast Corridor.
The language was a result of a rare compromise — Oberstar allowed the privatization language, and Mica gave in to a larger price tag. But Senate Democrats, especially Lautenberg, were not as easily swayed.
In the end, the provision stayed, but it was agreed that no federal funds would be authorized for the actual construction of the high-speed line.
The first House-passed bill authorized the Transportation Department to accept bids for the line between Washington, D.C., and New York City, but the compromise version allows requests for proposals to build high-speed lines along corridors all over the country.
Each corridor that receives proposals would form a commission to evaluate the offers. The Transportation Department would report to Congress on the Northeast proposals first.
The federal government could then give $5 million for the best proposal in each corridor for preliminary design and engineering.
“This is a transformative moment in intercity rail,” Oberstar said Wednesday.
“And high-speed rail,” Mica interjected.
Rail Safety Measure Included
The bill includes language from a rail safety measure (HR 2095) that received renewed attention after a deadly crash in California on Sept. 12 when a commuter train and a freight train hit head-on.
It would provide $50 million a year to help rail companies equip their trains with a technology called Positive Train Control (PTC) that could have prevented the Los Angeles crash, which killed 25 people. PTC would have detected and stopped at the red signal that the commuter train’s engineer apparently did not see.
“The Positive Train Control provision will save lives and improve railroad efficiency,” said Ross Capon, the National Association of Railroad Passengers’ executive director. “We urge senators who have in the past held up this legislation to permit its swift consideration and passage.”
The bill also includes a five-year reauthorization of the Federal Railroad Administration and $3 million annually for rail-crossing safety enforcement.
For railroad employees, it caps the combined worker duty and so-called limbo time to 276 hours per month and shaves monthly limbo time from 40 to 30 hours.
Source: CQ Today Print Edition
Round-the-clock coverage of news from Capitol Hill.
© 2008 Congressional Quarterly Inc. All Rights Reserved.
John P. Tolman
Vice President and National Legislative Representative
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen
Teamsters Rail Conference
25 Louisiana Ave. NW
Washington, D.C. 20001
Office: (202) 624-8776
Cell: (216) 272-1246
Fax: (202) 624-3086
tolman@ble.org
www.bletdc.org
Sept. 24, 2008 – 7:47 p.m.
House Passes $13 Billion Amtrak Authorization With High-Speed Rail Deal
By Colby Itkowitz, CQ Staff
A bill that would authorize $13 billion for Amtrak passed Wednesday in the House, setting the stage for possible clearance of the bill by the Senate before the session ends.
The House passed the measure (HR 2095) by voice vote, which implies that the chamber would vote to override a potential presidential veto. The Senate is likely to clear the bill easily; it passed an earlier version by a vote of 70-22 in October of 2007. President Bush had threatened to veto an earlier House version largely because of its cost.
The bill represents a dramatic departure from recent Amtrak politics. For fiscal 2009 alone, the bill would authorize close to $2 billion, compared with $800 million requested by the White House and the $1.7 billion sought by Amtrak itself.
Every year the Bush administration has presented Congress with budget proposals that would reduce Amtrak’s authorized funding while calling for privatization of the operation. And each year, Congress has appropriated just enough to keep Amtrak limping along.
But now, with compromise language signed off on by House and Senate lawmakers, an Amtrak authorization bill is as close to becoming law as it has been in 11 years.
Although there has been no formal conference on the bill, House and Senate negotiators reached an agreement on the measure Sept. 23.
House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman James L. Oberstar, D-Minn., said he was confident the bill would pass the Senate.
The committee’s ranking Republican, John L. Mica of Florida, said he was sending “emergency relief staff” to the Senate to try to keep dissenters at bay. Mica said he had already talked to Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., who said he may not support it but would do his best not to block it. Mica said he was also working to persuade the Bush administration to accept the bill.
“I’m doing everything humanly possible,” Mica said.
The five-year authorization includes funds for state intercity passenger rail grants and high-speed rail corridor grants. It also includes changes to Amtrak’s financial accounting system and a five-year financing plan to improve accountability.
“This is a real step forward for anyone who’s tired of sitting in traffic, paying high prices at the pump and waiting in long lines at airports,” said Frank R. Lautenberg, D‑N.J., author of the Senate bill.
The major sticking point in House and Senate negotiations the past few weeks has been over a proposal to allow the Transportation Department to accept bids from private companies for construction of high-speed rail in the Northeast Corridor.
The language was a result of a rare compromise — Oberstar allowed the privatization language, and Mica gave in to a larger price tag. But Senate Democrats, especially Lautenberg, were not as easily swayed.
In the end, the provision stayed, but it was agreed that no federal funds would be authorized for the actual construction of the high-speed line.
The first House-passed bill authorized the Transportation Department to accept bids for the line between Washington, D.C., and New York City, but the compromise version allows requests for proposals to build high-speed lines along corridors all over the country.
Each corridor that receives proposals would form a commission to evaluate the offers. The Transportation Department would report to Congress on the Northeast proposals first.
The federal government could then give $5 million for the best proposal in each corridor for preliminary design and engineering.
“This is a transformative moment in intercity rail,” Oberstar said Wednesday.
“And high-speed rail,” Mica interjected.
Rail Safety Measure Included
The bill includes language from a rail safety measure (HR 2095) that received renewed attention after a deadly crash in California on Sept. 12 when a commuter train and a freight train hit head-on.
It would provide $50 million a year to help rail companies equip their trains with a technology called Positive Train Control (PTC) that could have prevented the Los Angeles crash, which killed 25 people. PTC would have detected and stopped at the red signal that the commuter train’s engineer apparently did not see.
“The Positive Train Control provision will save lives and improve railroad efficiency,” said Ross Capon, the National Association of Railroad Passengers’ executive director. “We urge senators who have in the past held up this legislation to permit its swift consideration and passage.”
The bill also includes a five-year reauthorization of the Federal Railroad Administration and $3 million annually for rail-crossing safety enforcement.
For railroad employees, it caps the combined worker duty and so-called limbo time to 276 hours per month and shaves monthly limbo time from 40 to 30 hours.
Source: CQ Today Print Edition
Round-the-clock coverage of news from Capitol Hill.
© 2008 Congressional Quarterly Inc. All Rights Reserved.
John P. Tolman
Vice President and National Legislative Representative
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen
Teamsters Rail Conference
25 Louisiana Ave. NW
Washington, D.C. 20001
Office: (202) 624-8776
Cell: (216) 272-1246
Fax: (202) 624-3086
tolman@ble.org
www.bletdc.org
Harassment in the Work Place
09/16/08 08:54
Brothers:
This letter was written in an effort to stop a problem before it gets out of hand. Please share with all concerned.
Pat
20080905111818362
This letter was written in an effort to stop a problem before it gets out of hand. Please share with all concerned.
Pat
20080905111818362
Class III brake tests
09/16/08 08:52
Brothers –
In light of the recent spike in the number of decertifications stemming from remote downloads, I was asked to pose the question regarding Class 3 air brake tests and decertification.
After a lengthy discussion, Mr. Conklin sent me the following which relates the FRA’s position. Please read this and distribute for our members.
Mark Banton
Vice General Chairman
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers & Trainmen
BNSF Railroad - Santa Fe Committee
101 N. Beverly St.
Crowley, Texas 76036
(817) 426-9003 - Office
(817) 980-5883 - Cell
You're not as good as The University of Texas and you probably never will be"
Nike advertising executive to Texas A&M Athletic Director Bill Byrne after Byrne requested the same type of sponsorship deal as UT has.
FRA’s position regarding Class 3 air brake tests
-----Original Message-----
From: john.conklin@dot.gov [mailto:john.conklin@dot.gov]
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 9:50 AM
To: mark@santafeblet.com
Subject: Class III brake tests
Regarding brake tests, there has been some confusion about the Class III brake tests. Specifically, is failure to perform a proper Class III test considered a decertifiable event? The answer is "Yes."
The reason: Under the old air brake rule an Intermediate test always included a "set & release" on the rear car of a train following any of the listed moves. This was an integral part of the test. However, under the new rule, the intermediate brake test is now called a Class II test and the set & release has been given its own name - Class III test. The argument has been made that the Class III test is not part of the Class II (intermediate) test and should not warrant a decertification if an engineer fails to perform one properly because its not listed in Part 240. We disagree with this argument for the reason stated previously.
When we were rewriting Part 240 in the late 90's, the new air brake rule was being written and was not complete yet. Part 238 had already been completed, thus we added the passenger train tests to Part 240. To cover any Part 232 changes that might result after we published the final Part 240 rule, we included the following language in the 1999 preamble:
FRA noted in the proposed rule that paragraph (e)(3) would likely need amending prior to becoming a final rule since two other regulatory proceedings might result in new rules which could supersede this reference. Although only one of these two regulatory proceedings has resulted in the issuance of a final rule, i.e., Passenger Equipment Safety Standards published at 64 FR 25540 (May 12, 1999), FRA has modified this rule to account for the Passenger Equipment final rule and whatever changes, if any, are ever made to part 232. See 63 FR 48294 (Sept. 9, 1998) (proposing changes to part 232). These modifications will continue to hold certified locomotive engineers responsible for complying with procedures for the safe use of train or engine brakes, regardless of whether the train is a freight train or a passenger train, when these same engineers are responsible for inspecting or testing the brake system, or ensuring that the required tests and inspections have been performed.
Be safe,
John L. Conklin 3rd
Federal Railroad Administration
Program Manager, Locomotive Engineer Certification
Mail Stop 25
Third Floor West
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
telephone: 202-493-6318
email: john.conklin@dot.gov
In light of the recent spike in the number of decertifications stemming from remote downloads, I was asked to pose the question regarding Class 3 air brake tests and decertification.
After a lengthy discussion, Mr. Conklin sent me the following which relates the FRA’s position. Please read this and distribute for our members.
Mark Banton
Vice General Chairman
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers & Trainmen
BNSF Railroad - Santa Fe Committee
101 N. Beverly St.
Crowley, Texas 76036
(817) 426-9003 - Office
(817) 980-5883 - Cell
You're not as good as The University of Texas and you probably never will be"
Nike advertising executive to Texas A&M Athletic Director Bill Byrne after Byrne requested the same type of sponsorship deal as UT has.
FRA’s position regarding Class 3 air brake tests
-----Original Message-----
From: john.conklin@dot.gov [mailto:john.conklin@dot.gov]
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 9:50 AM
To: mark@santafeblet.com
Subject: Class III brake tests
Regarding brake tests, there has been some confusion about the Class III brake tests. Specifically, is failure to perform a proper Class III test considered a decertifiable event? The answer is "Yes."
The reason: Under the old air brake rule an Intermediate test always included a "set & release" on the rear car of a train following any of the listed moves. This was an integral part of the test. However, under the new rule, the intermediate brake test is now called a Class II test and the set & release has been given its own name - Class III test. The argument has been made that the Class III test is not part of the Class II (intermediate) test and should not warrant a decertification if an engineer fails to perform one properly because its not listed in Part 240. We disagree with this argument for the reason stated previously.
When we were rewriting Part 240 in the late 90's, the new air brake rule was being written and was not complete yet. Part 238 had already been completed, thus we added the passenger train tests to Part 240. To cover any Part 232 changes that might result after we published the final Part 240 rule, we included the following language in the 1999 preamble:
FRA noted in the proposed rule that paragraph (e)(3) would likely need amending prior to becoming a final rule since two other regulatory proceedings might result in new rules which could supersede this reference. Although only one of these two regulatory proceedings has resulted in the issuance of a final rule, i.e., Passenger Equipment Safety Standards published at 64 FR 25540 (May 12, 1999), FRA has modified this rule to account for the Passenger Equipment final rule and whatever changes, if any, are ever made to part 232. See 63 FR 48294 (Sept. 9, 1998) (proposing changes to part 232). These modifications will continue to hold certified locomotive engineers responsible for complying with procedures for the safe use of train or engine brakes, regardless of whether the train is a freight train or a passenger train, when these same engineers are responsible for inspecting or testing the brake system, or ensuring that the required tests and inspections have been performed.
Be safe,
John L. Conklin 3rd
Federal Railroad Administration
Program Manager, Locomotive Engineer Certification
Mail Stop 25
Third Floor West
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
telephone: 202-493-6318
email: john.conklin@dot.gov
By-Laws proposal
09/16/08 08:48
Guys,
Attached is an by-laws proposal that was sent in by my division for consideration at the committee meeting. It involves whether our committee creates educational workshops. I have attached three documents which may help explain what I have in mind. They are as follows:
1. By-Laws Amendment- It states that the General Chairman will host a quarterly workshop for each region once a year. Each region would be assigned a quarter. Something like;
· 1st Quarter- Western Region
· 2nd Quarter- Eastern Region
· 3rd Quarter- Coast Region
· 4th Quarter- Northern/Southern Region
The General Committee would be responsible for each regions local chairman’s travel expenses and wages. We could include vice-local chairman or local secretary-treasurer to the workshop if so, but each division would be responsible for them financially.
2. Agenda-Workshop- It would be an eight-hour workshop which could be structured like the attached document. Issues such arbitration, claims, data management, pay structure, or any other item could be included. Each year we could “tweak” the itinerary.
3. GCA workshop cost- Attached is an spreadsheet that give a “rough” cost estimate. By using a central location to that region and allowing three days of wages at $300.00 a day along with travel allowance and a pier diem, the workshops would cost committee no more than $60,000 a year. With 2700 dues paying members, it would cost each individual member $1.86 per month.
Is this a concept that you think we need? Please discuss this proposal at your union meeting to decide if they want to invest in these workshops. It is my believe that these workshops would benefit everyone involved.
Chris
By-Laws Amendment
Agenda-Workshop
GCA Workshop cost
Attached is an by-laws proposal that was sent in by my division for consideration at the committee meeting. It involves whether our committee creates educational workshops. I have attached three documents which may help explain what I have in mind. They are as follows:
1. By-Laws Amendment- It states that the General Chairman will host a quarterly workshop for each region once a year. Each region would be assigned a quarter. Something like;
· 1st Quarter- Western Region
· 2nd Quarter- Eastern Region
· 3rd Quarter- Coast Region
· 4th Quarter- Northern/Southern Region
The General Committee would be responsible for each regions local chairman’s travel expenses and wages. We could include vice-local chairman or local secretary-treasurer to the workshop if so, but each division would be responsible for them financially.
2. Agenda-Workshop- It would be an eight-hour workshop which could be structured like the attached document. Issues such arbitration, claims, data management, pay structure, or any other item could be included. Each year we could “tweak” the itinerary.
3. GCA workshop cost- Attached is an spreadsheet that give a “rough” cost estimate. By using a central location to that region and allowing three days of wages at $300.00 a day along with travel allowance and a pier diem, the workshops would cost committee no more than $60,000 a year. With 2700 dues paying members, it would cost each individual member $1.86 per month.
Is this a concept that you think we need? Please discuss this proposal at your union meeting to decide if they want to invest in these workshops. It is my believe that these workshops would benefit everyone involved.
Chris
By-Laws Amendment
Agenda-Workshop
GCA Workshop cost
ORSL Weekly Summary (w/o ID)
09/16/08 08:47
FRA Poposed rule change
09/16/08 08:44
Attached is a FRA Proposed Rule regarding Miscellaneous Amendments to the Federal Railroad Administration’s accident/incident Reporting Requirements, published in yesterday’s Federal Register.
E8-20706
Rail Safety info
09/16/08 08:43
Brothers and Sisters;
Attached are the comparisons of the Safety Bills, HR 2095 and S 1889. We really don’t know if this Congress will get to finish this bill, but we will be trying to get the best of both for the safety of the membership.
Frats
John
John P. Tolman
Vice President and National Legislative Representative
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen
Teamsters Rail Conference
25 Louisiana Ave. NW
Washington, D.C. 20001
Office: (202) 624-8776
Cell: (216) 272-1246
Fax: (202) 624-3086
tolman@ble.org
www.bletdc.org
2095 and 1889 final comparison
PositionofRailLaborreSafetyLegis
PositionofRailLaborreSafetyLegis
Attached are the comparisons of the Safety Bills, HR 2095 and S 1889. We really don’t know if this Congress will get to finish this bill, but we will be trying to get the best of both for the safety of the membership.
Frats
John
John P. Tolman
Vice President and National Legislative Representative
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen
Teamsters Rail Conference
25 Louisiana Ave. NW
Washington, D.C. 20001
Office: (202) 624-8776
Cell: (216) 272-1246
Fax: (202) 624-3086
tolman@ble.org
www.bletdc.org
2095 and 1889 final comparison
PositionofRailLaborreSafetyLegis
PositionofRailLaborreSafetyLegis
Form C issued for Safety Alert on Parking Brake
09/16/08 08:39
Based on the following message from Tom Lambrecht, a
Form C has been issued.
A service advisory regarding an Electric Parking Brake issue on 2008 delivery EMD SD70ACe locomotives (BNSF 9130-9304) in which the handbrake may release unexpectedly when operated by hand.
Until further notice, the Graham-White Wheel Style Locomotive Parking Brake should only be applied and released in the Electric/Automatic Mode. In the event that manual operation is absolutely necessary, the operator should take extreme care to keep their hands clear of the spokes on the parking brake wheel while applying and or releasing.
NOC Mechanical Desk is opening Level 9 “Safety Alert” defect for this issue to advise operating crews on trains with affected locomotives of the presence of this condition.
Graham-White and EMD representatives are investigating the issue and further additional information, containment and corrective action will follow.
Bill Barrington / Bob Repola – please communicate through Operating Team.
Tom Lambrecht
General Director Locomotives
A service advisory regarding an Electric Parking Brake issue on 2008 delivery EMD SD70ACe locomotives (BNSF 9130-9304) in which the handbrake may release unexpectedly when operated by hand.
Until further notice, the Graham-White Wheel Style Locomotive Parking Brake should only be applied and released in the Electric/Automatic Mode. In the event that manual operation is absolutely necessary, the operator should take extreme care to keep their hands clear of the spokes on the parking brake wheel while applying and or releasing.
NOC Mechanical Desk is opening Level 9 “Safety Alert” defect for this issue to advise operating crews on trains with affected locomotives of the presence of this condition.
Graham-White and EMD representatives are investigating the issue and further additional information, containment and corrective action will follow.
Bill Barrington / Bob Repola – please communicate through Operating Team.
Tom Lambrecht
General Director Locomotives
Distributed Power - Performing Train Check
09/16/08 08:38
Local Chairman and Safety Coordinators:
Recent review of Event Recorder data has discovered that there are engineers NOT performing TRAIN CHECK on trains operating with Distributed Power. The consequences of not performing a TRAIN CHECK can be very serious. The purpose of TRAIN CHECK is to ensure there is no blockage in the Brake Pipe and that there is a continuous Brake Pipe between the locomotives and the rear of the train. There have been instances where a train was stopped for a period of time and vandal(s) closed an angle cock and pulled the pin on the train. When train departed location, the train began moving in two parts. The train continued for a extended period of time until communication was lost with the rear portion of the train. The rear portion stopped and then rolled back the other direction !!!!
We are auditing the performance of TRAIN CHECK on trains operating with Distributed Power. Effective October 1, 2008, failure to perform TRAIN CHECK will be considered a SERIOUS VIOLATION and will be handled in line with PEPA and the Safety Summit Agreement. Please distribute to your membership as you see fit.
Please reference Air Brake and Train Handling Rule 105.5 Train Check
Kevin C. McReynolds
Superintendent Operating Practices
BNSF Railway
Belen, NM
Recent review of Event Recorder data has discovered that there are engineers NOT performing TRAIN CHECK on trains operating with Distributed Power. The consequences of not performing a TRAIN CHECK can be very serious. The purpose of TRAIN CHECK is to ensure there is no blockage in the Brake Pipe and that there is a continuous Brake Pipe between the locomotives and the rear of the train. There have been instances where a train was stopped for a period of time and vandal(s) closed an angle cock and pulled the pin on the train. When train departed location, the train began moving in two parts. The train continued for a extended period of time until communication was lost with the rear portion of the train. The rear portion stopped and then rolled back the other direction !!!!
We are auditing the performance of TRAIN CHECK on trains operating with Distributed Power. Effective October 1, 2008, failure to perform TRAIN CHECK will be considered a SERIOUS VIOLATION and will be handled in line with PEPA and the Safety Summit Agreement. Please distribute to your membership as you see fit.
Please reference Air Brake and Train Handling Rule 105.5 Train Check
Kevin C. McReynolds
Superintendent Operating Practices
BNSF Railway
Belen, NM