The National Transportation Safety Board on Tuesday recommended that railroad companies install video and audio recording devices in their locomotive cabs to monitor the activities of crew members and ensure safe operations.
According to the Association of American Railroads, a policy and research organization that works with the industry, U.S. railroads are already independently installing inward- and outward-facing cameras.
The federal safety board also raised concerns Tuesday about drug use among railroad employees as a toxicology test determined the engineer of the moving train tested positive for marijuana and the conductor tested positive for oxycodone.
While it was unclear whether the conductor had a prescription for the medication, investigators say the engineer had likely smoked marijuana between 30 minutes and five hours before the crash. Rolling papers and pipes were found in the locomotive cab. (end of quotes from article).
And this is part of the problem with “grass.” If anyone knows what it takes to render one intoxicated/impaired, I haven’t heard it. Nor have I heard how long it takes to clear marijuana out of one’s system to the point where one is not considered intoxicated.
That’s stuff we know about alcohol (not that I condone coming to work drunk, either).
Until that is common knowledge, I would suggest that anyone tread carefully if they plan on using, whether it’s legal or not. And, as Zardoz says, it’s never a good idea to get buzzed just before work (or during work - really?).
But if you actually read the story, you find out (1) the crew did not respond in any sort of inappropriate manner, and (2) there really wasn’t anything they could have done to avoid or, really, mitigate the accident. The ‘dope’ was the man on the parked train who didn’t line the switch properly, and the story says nothing about any intoxicant other than stupidity.
In other words, the whole issue of drugs here is at best a red herring.
Drugs are only part of the problem; anyone who works outside the Mon-Fri “day watch” pattern knows that there are times when sleep patterns and the demands of the rest of the world don’t match up, and you find yourself facing a long day (or overnight) with very little sleep beforehand. The problem has been around since technical progress first permitted continuous 24/7 operation, and I don’t see a solution, or even a more cautious approach, developing any time soon.
If you read the report, it would seem most likely that fatigue was the problem on the part of the crew that had gone off duty, Any possible drug effects on the running train were irrelevant in this case.
The (now) off-duty crew had been technically rested, but perhaps due to the uncertainties of their call time were up most of the previous day and probably needed sleep when the call came. After another 10 hours on duty, they would no longer be thinking as clearly as needed.
Train crew fatigue is the elephant in the room, that both the railroads and the unions have failed to deal with in any meaningful way. The solution would likely mean additional costs for the railroads, and slightly reduced income for the crews. But avoiding these collisions, and improved life style for the crews, would seem to be a very worthwhile benefit. Unfortunately, as long as the worship of immediate money is paramount, nothing will change.
The most recent HOS regulations that were implemented approximately five years ago reduced crew earnings potential by about 21% (as I calculated at the time). While those regulations did not change the maximum time on duty, they did change the required rest provisions and how all the non-working time gets calculated as well as setting monthly maximums for work time and the so called ‘limbo’ time.
And something that I have been watching for ever since then … and still haven’t really seen … is any assessment of the reduction in meaningful fatigue that has resulted from introduction of those changes.
Of course there is a certain amount of prove-a-negative difficulty in assessing the number of accidents that were “prevented” by the HOS changes, but it would be interesting to hear from those with direct experience if it was ‘worth it’ in terms of real (and not just politically-perceived) safety.
I understand that drugs were not suspected of being a factor in THIS incident. But if someone is so eager to use drugs such that he brings a pipe to work, then it is likely only a matter of time until drugs ARE a contributing factor.
Don’t get me wrong; I’m no prude, and I’ve got no problem with the many forms of relaxation. But dammit, not at work! And not while driving!
Who smokes marijuana with a pipe, anyway? That’s usually something far more … troubling.
My chief irritation is that this story was promoted as a deadly rail crash spurring adoption of safety regulations, but the actual discussion does not address either the deadliness or the appropriate regulations concerning it. Instead, they gin up yet another argument against them ol’ demon drugs (and presumably the second shoe dropping will be more intensive anti-drug measures, probably of exactly the efficacy you or I would predict when applied to railroaders inclined to ‘use’)
Now, were there to be a story addressing actual, provable accidents attributable to drug use … or to smoking (I know of at least two serious road accidents that were directly caused by drivers taking their eyes off the road and losing haptic control while fiddling with cigarette lighters to fire up a coffin nail) then I’d have no objection to the rhetoric and all. And I happen to believe strongly in a zero-tolerance policy for intoxication of any practical kind when ‘on duty’. But to say that drugs were associated with the ‘deadliness’ of the New Mexico accident is, at best, specious… except as a bully pulpit.
I would sue the unions. They supply the labor, so therefore they are liable for the condition of labor. The railroads provide the high paying jobs and all the union does is blame the railroads for the working conditions. Trade Labor unions train their workers and expects them to perform compentently, else they do not called out of the union hall for work. House unions, ( of which I was in one until I got the hell out and into mangement blames th “Company” for all their problems. It is time for the unions to man up and support the entity that provides their lucrative employment.
"I would sue the unions. They supply the labor, so therefore they are liable for the condition of labor. The railroads provide the high paying jobs and all the union does is blame the railroads for the working conditions. Trade Labor unions train their workers and expects them to perform compentently, else they do not called out of the union hall for work. House unions, ( of which I was in one until I got the hell out and into mangement blames th “Company” for all their problems. It is time for the unions to man up and support the entity that provides their lucrative employment. " I don’t blame the company for anything. Egotistical supervisors such as you are to blame for most of the railroads problems.
Hiring for some companies within some industries may be done through the union halls. But not railroading. The only clearing house that lists railroad openings nationwide is the Railroad Retirement Board and those listed openings are for all railroads, union or not, that report those openings. You don’t have to be a union member to get hired. For the companies that have union shop agreements, you will have to join, but don’t have to be a full member. You can be a “dues objector” where the only membership fee paid is to cover the costs of maintaining the contract that provides for that “lucrative” employment.
Also, training is provided by the railroad. Any shortcomings, and the they want to turn people loose with as minimal training as possible, is the railroad’s own fault.
I love that one. Trainmaster in another yard wanted to write up a crew for maliciously complying with restricted speed. How can you even take a clown like that seriously?
There was talk a few years ago about someone (I think on the road with black engines and a horse’s head) that was disciplined for going too slow at restricted speed. An arbitrator upheld the discipline.
My run covers a portion of two different divisions. At the time the following happened, when it came to tying hand brakes on a main track, one division required a sufficient number, the other 10% of the train. Minimum of 5 on each side. Our home terminal and most of the run was on the 10% side. A train tied down at the away from home terminal, the conductor put on 10%. He got written up (a minor slap on the wrist, but it can start the process to heavier discipline for multiple violations of the same type.) for tying too many hand brakes. The reasoning being that he might have strained himself, using a brakestick by the way, because he tied maybe twice the number that would be sufficient at that location. The minimum of 5 would’ve been more than sufficient there, but he was going by instructions of the superintendent he did most of his work on. (Since then, the home superintendent has changed instructions to a sufficient number.) I guess the moral of the story is that they want 100% compliance, but not 110%.
jeffhergert
Management’s latest tool. If following the rules makes things take longer, threaten people with “malicious rules compliance.”
I love that one. Trainmaster in another yard wanted to write up a crew for maliciously complying with restricted speed. How can you even take a clown like that seriously?
There was talk a few years ago about someone (I think on the road with black engines and a horse’s head) that was disciplined for going too slow at restricted speed. An arbitrator upheld the discipline.
My run covers a portion of two different divisions. At the time the following happened, when it came to tying hand brakes on a main track, one division required a sufficient number, the other 10% of the train. Minimum of 5 on each side. Our home terminal and most of the run was on the 10% side. A train tied down at the away from home terminal, the conductor put on 10%. He got written up (a minor slap on the wrist, but it can start the process to heavier discipline for multiple violations of the same type.) for tying too many hand brakes. The reasoning being that he might have strained himself, using a brakestick by the way, because he tied maybe twice the number that would be sufficient at that location. The minimum of 5 would’ve been more than sufficient there, but he was going by instructions of the superintendent he did most of his work on. (Since then, the hom
Two different divisions, two different division staff with opinions on how things should be done.
Most divisions count every conventional freight car as one hand brake. One, that’s now governs my home terminal, counts cars equipped with Wabco brake gear as 1/2 of a hand brake for securement purposes. The hand brake on those cars equipped, tank cars and covered hoppers mostly that I can think of, only tighten the brake on one truck. (There is no brake rigging between trucks, each truck has it’s own air brake piston.) Although cars equipped with this gear have a plate mounted on the car, the easiest way to check the brake gear is to see where the chain goes from the brake wheel. If it pulls on the rod coming out of the brake piston, its pulling on rigging that sets both trucks. If the chain goes directly to the truck, it’s only setting one truck. So 10% may mean 10 brakes on a 100 car train, but you may need to set 20 hand brakes total to achieve that 10%.
This one division has been that way since I was a conductor, over 14 years ago. You’ld be surprised how many, including managers, don’t know this little provision is there.