Eastern Railroad Discussion > House passes rail safety bill

"WASHINGTON (AP) -- The House has passed sweeping rail safety legislation requiring more rest for workers and technology that can stop a train in its tracks if it's headed for collision.

"The bill passed by voice vote on Wednesday. It now goes to the Senate, where prospects for passage are uncertain before Congress adjourns for the election at the end of this week."

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/washington/AP-Rail-Safety.html

I hope they realize that basic physics hasn't changed. The law of inertia still stands, and will supercede any other law they try to impose...

John R -- CP Spring
Carlisle, PA

Watch out that bum Tom Coburn R-OK wants to block it in the senate because the moron wants Amtrak to end ALL food service.

Typical politics. A widely publicized tragic event and we get "wham bam" measures pushed into legislation fast enough for people to remember come next election, at the expense of a well thought out bill. Don't get me wrong, it is nice to see interest in government support of rail infrastructure in our country, passenger or freight, but how much is this new safety measure going to cost? And who is going to pay for it? Tax payers - or the railroads?

Where is Amtrak 6 years bill in Congress?

What exactly does going from 400 hours possible a month to 276 a month do to affect the average crew man's on duty hours? Probably nothing.

WLE-Foam Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What exactly does going from 400 hours possible a
> month to 276 a month do to affect the average crew
> man's on duty hours? Probably nothing.

Exactly now if they went to 200 hours then you would see some big changes on the RR's. But you will never see that unless more accidents happen and more lives are lost. Plus they should limit the hours by week not month so say you cant work more then 50 - 60 hours a week.

x1sspic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Typical politics. A widely publicized tragic
> event and we get "wham bam" measures pushed into
> legislation fast enough for people to remember
> come next election, at the expense of a well
> thought out bill. Don't get me wrong, it is nice
> to see interest in government support of rail
> infrastructure in our country, passenger or
> freight, but how much is this new safety measure
> going to cost? And who is going to pay for it?
> Tax payers - or the railroads?

This has actually been in the works for over a year and was scheduled to be voted on this week long before the Metrolink incident.

mgwsy1978 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WLE-Foam Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > What exactly does going from 400 hours possible
> a
> > month to 276 a month do to affect the average
> crew
> > man's on duty hours? Probably nothing.
>
> Exactly now if they went to 200 hours then you
> would see some big changes on the RR's. But you
> will never see that unless more accidents happen
> and more lives are lost. Plus they should limit
> the hours by week not month so say you cant work
> more then 50 - 60 hours a week.

276 / 12 = 23. You will only be able to work 23 twelve hour days in one month. It should also be noted that HOS laws are going to limit the number of consecutive starts to 6, after which you must take 24-48 hours of rest. Additionally you get 10 hours of UNINTERRUPTED rest after every tour of duty.

tucker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> 276 / 12 = 23. You will only be able to work 23
> twelve hour days in one month. It should also be
> noted that HOS laws are going to limit the number
> of consecutive starts to 6, after which you must
> take 24-48 hours of rest. Additionally you get 10
> hours of UNINTERRUPTED rest after every tour of
> duty.

That's a huge change, if it's guaranteed. So, you can't get a crew call until 10 hours into your rest.

It may force the carriers to tighten up the accuracy of their train calls, getting trains out on time, etc.

It will also kill income potential for railroaders, making it a far less desirable job.

Jaap Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It will also kill income potential for
> railroaders, making it a far less desirable job.


Only those making over 100k from working all 12 hour plus days and not from mileage.

If you want to WORK for your money, congress doesn't want you to. They would rather see us all on welfare. They would rather see Mexico annex us and pay us all $2 an hour. I am all bent out of shape. I am tired of being beaten down when I try to better myself and my families life.

Congress be damned!

Eng. Shadetree

shadetree Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you want to WORK for your money, congress
> doesn't want you to. They would rather see us all
> on welfare. They would rather see Mexico annex us
> and pay us all $2 an hour. I am all bent out of
> shape. I am tired of being beaten down when I try
> to better myself and my families life.
>
> Congress be damned!
>
> Eng. Shadetree

If you work 276 hours every month, at $25 an hour you would still make $82k a year. I didn't figure that with overtime either. Are you really that hard up?

tucker Wrote:
> If you work 276 hours every month, at $25 an hour
> you would still make $82k a year. I didn't figure
> that with overtime either. Are you really that
> hard up?

I get paid by the trip, not by the hour. If I go over 12 hrs on duty, that limits the # of trips I can make in a month. Right now guys are routinely 13 to 14 hrs on duty after the cab ride home following hogging enroute.

If all I get are basic day starts (its been a month since I've gotten anything other than a basic day on an extraboard that protects long pools) I make 56K ($205 a day x 23 in a month). And that's IF I work 23 starts in a month. Who wants to work that hard, for that little money?

What they need is the railroads to loosen up the availability policies and vacation caps. Congress can't legistlate when I want/need a day off. When I want a day off, I should be able to get one. Doesn't have to be every weekend either. When I get worn out, I should be able to get a day off.

I also don't want someone putting a 'cap' on my earning potential. I'm working my butt off this year to make a better life for myself and my family. Now Congress is going to tell me I can't do that? What happened to the American Dream of working hard and making opportunities for yourself?

You want to increase safety on the railroads, get rid of the 'troublemakers' and the guys constantly getting in trouble becuase of rule violations. The fact that guys can get back for repeated serious rule violations where the public and other workers safety is put in jeopardy is outrageous.

Between this and the "Bailout" we are heading more and more towards a Government State.

Practice Safe CSX

CSX_CO Wrote:

>
> You want to increase safety on the railroads, get
> rid of the 'troublemakers' and the guys constantly
> getting in trouble becuase of rule violations.
> The fact that guys can get back for repeated
> serious rule violations where the public and other
> workers safety is put in jeopardy is outrageous.
>

LOL to do that you would have to get rid of the Unions as they are the ones responsible for keeping people like that in the workplace. Also if the RR's want to make money then they can get rid of 3/4 of the management as they do little to help the CO. and create more problems then they solve.

CSX_CO Wrote
If all I get are basic day starts (its been a month since I've gotten anything other than a basic day on an extraboard that protects long pools) I make 56K ($205 a day x 23 in a month). And that's IF I work 23 starts in a month. Who wants to work that hard, for that little money?

Sounds like we need to cut the board, eh