Western Railroad Discussion > New minimum crew size legislation in WA State

Anyone seen these two bills introduced in Washington State?

House Bill 1809

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1809&year=2015

You can download a PDF of the bill at the link but here is the meat of it:

Sec. 3. A new section is added to chapter 81.40 RCW to read as follows:

Except as provided in section 4 of this act, the following minimum crew requirements apply:

(1) Any person, corporation, company, or officer of the court operating any railroad, railway, or any part of any railroad or railway, in the state of Washington, and engaged, as a common carrier, in the transportation of freight or passengers, shall operate all trains and switching assignments over its road with crews consisting of no less than two qualified crew members.

(2)(a) Railroad carriers shall operate all hazardous material trains over its road with crews consisting of no less than three qualified crew members. One qualified train crew member shall be assigned to a position located on the rear of the train and within rolling equipment, situated to safely observe and monitor the train's contents and movement.

10 (b) Railroad carriers shall operate any hazardous material trains consisting of fifty-one or more car loads of any combination of hazardous materials over its road with crews consisting of no less than four qualified crew members. Two qualified crew members shall be assigned to a position on the rear of the train and within rolling equipment, situated to safely observe and monitor the train's contents and movement.

Next is Senate Bill 5697

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5697&year=2015

Again, PDF is there to download but it basically stipulates the same minimum crew size requirements as HB 1809.

Interestingly, these bills were both introduced by Republicans but both seem to have significant bipartisan support. Still, it sounds too good to be true and I can't help but think this is a shakedown of the carriers by legislators and/or political parties or some other type of political posturing.

Anyone heard anything about these bills? It would be great to see the FRA adopt something similar to make this a Federal requirement, although I know that is unlikely.

And no, even if passed, I don't see a comeback for cabooses. Rear crews would undoubtedly ride DP motors. There is an exemption to the rear crew requirement for trains traveling less then 5 miles as well.

Typical politicians pontificating about things they know little to nothing about.

Wouldn't this be dead on arrival at the Federal Railway Administration / Federal DOT?

junctiontower Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Typical politicians pontificating about things
> they know little to nothing about.

Which is exactly how the ban on personal electronic devices, then the implementation of PTC happened.

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wouldn't this be dead on arrival at the Federal
> Railway Administration / Federal DOT?


Can't see why. The feds never weighed in on the caboose laws in WV or MT, or the full crew (5 in some states) laws of years ago.

Maybe the quest for one man crews backfired. I can't help but wonder if this legislation would have never been introduced, if the railroads had not started talking about one man crews.

No way all crews would ride in the DPU, not all trains run DPU, they can if it has one that's fine, but no DPU would require a caboose

Posted from Android

SlipperyWhenWet Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No way all crews would ride in the DPU, not all
> trains run DPU, they can if it has one that's
> fine, but no DPU would require a caboose

Perhaps, but the requirement for a rear crew is for specific hazmat trains. It's conceivable that, if passed, these trains would simply become DP trains, even if they are 1+1. I can't see the carriers bringing back cabooses no matter what but I suppose stranger things have happened.

The carriers would have this tied up in the courts until everyone forget about it. Look what happened to PTC after the Kelso wreck ? Nothing, except delay after delay with the carriers dragging their feet.

It would be great but the reality is the railroads are going to make money no matter how many people or law's get in the way. Remember when Oregon had a full crew law ? They had to run fireman on just about every job. Well most people don't remember that either.

Nudge

trainjunkie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> junctiontower Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Typical politicians pontificating about things
> > they know little to nothing about.
>
> Which is exactly how the ban on personal
> electronic devices, then the implementation of PTC
> happened.

I believe you guys are right. I think in their minds they want to act to protect the public given the few major loss of life and accidents that have happened. Can't fault them for that even though I think their "blanket" solutions do not accomplish what I think they are seeking. IMHO, the blame falls directly on the railroads and unions in their inability to hammer out an agreement as a better solution to the problems. After all, it really is the railroaders and carriers who live and deal with these issues on a daily basis, not some stuffed shirt in a building far removed from reality.

They can pass what ever law they want to. That doesn't mean the railroads are going to obey or follow that law. Unless it comes down from the F.R.A. or Congress, Their little or no chance they have to follow any state law. IN FACT; The limbo time was suppose to be down to 10 hours by now and you don't see the railroads obeying the laws that congress passed right now do you ?

KEVIN LANDERS
Bartlesville, OK

spnudge Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Remember when Oregon had a full crew law ?
> They had to run fireman on just about every job.
> Well most people don't remember that either.

Well, Nudge, I sure do.  My engine service career on the SP&S was nine weeks and one day old when suddenly, as the result of the crew law being abolished, I was no longer a hostler helper at the Portland Hoyt Street Roundhouse.  Fortunately I was able to get an interim job as a car cleaner at the adjacent Hoyt Street Yard clean-out track for 4⅓ months until I could get back into engine service.

FRA claims the right to set minimum crew sizes at least two members, so it will be interesting to see if they allow states to set higher minimum crew sizes.  My bet is the railroads tie up any state crew size increase in the courts forever.

FRA