Four railroads have asked federal appeals courts to adopt a new rule that would require two-person train crews in most circumstances, saying the mandate is arbitrary, capricious and an illegal abuse of discretion .
Identical challenges to the Federal Railroad Administration’s rule were all filed this week in different appeals courts on behalf of Union Pacific, BNSF and two short lines: the Indiana Railroad and the Florida East Coast Railway.
The new federal requirement, announced last week, marked a milestone in unions’ long fight to preserve the practice and came amid growing scrutiny of rail safety, particularly in the wake of the fiery February 2023 derailment in eastern Ohio.
Most of those railroads did not immediately explain why they disliked the rule, but the industry has long opposed such regulation and the Association of American Railroads trade group said the week latter that the rule was unfounded and not supported by security. data. The Indiana Railroad — like many branch lines across the country — already operates with one-person crews, but the major freight railroads all have two-person crews, as required by their union contracts .
Union Pacific said in a statement: “This rule, which contains no data demonstrating that two people in a taxi are safer than one, hinders our ability to compete in a world where technology is changing the transportation industry and prevents us from preparing our workforce for jobs of the future.”
BNSF deferred comment to the AAR, and the two smaller railroads did not immediately respond to messages Thursday.
The regulators who announced the rule last Tuesday and the unions who have lobbied for the policy for years all say there are clear safety benefits to having two people in the locomotive cabs to help drive the train, because they can keep each other alert and guard the driver. can react immediately to any problem encountered, particularly as a first responder in the event of a derailment.
Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said the need to improve rail safety became clear last year when a Norfolk Southern train derailed on the outskirts of a town on the Ohio border and Pennsylvania and released an assortment of dangerous chemicals that caught fire. This derailment in eastern Palestine inspired calls for reform that remained blocked in Congress.
But Buttigieg and the Federal Railroad Administration declined to comment Thursday on legal challenges to the new rule that is expected to take effect in early June.
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen union leader Eddie Hall said the legal challenge is just another sign that the railroads are “putting profits over safety.” He said keeping two people on the locomotive would not stop the railways from investing in new technology and that the industry should focus on improving safety.
“This decision by the railways was predictable. The railroads and their trade associations are calling for any safety reform,” Hall said.
Railroads have long argued that train crew sizes should be determined through contract negotiations, not regulators or lawmakers, because they argue there is not enough data to demonstrate that crews of two people are safer. Current safety statistics cannot show how safe one-person crews are, because all major railroads now have two-person crews.
The new rule includes an exception that would allow short lines to continue operating with one-person crews if they have done so for more than two years and have a plan to ensure Security. But the rule would make it difficult for railroads to reduce their crews to just one person.
Railroads have often challenged states when they try to require two-person crews. So it’s no surprise that they’ve gone to court over this new federal rule.
Major freight railroads have argued that automatic braking systems designed to prevent collisions have made a second person in the locomotive cab unnecessary and they believe a truck-based driver could adequately respond to any train problems. Additionally, they say removing this driver from the train would improve their quality of life because he would no longer have to work unpredictable hours on the road.
yahoo
