Eastern Railroad Discussion > FRA Seeks More Conductor Safety Training

  The Federal Railroad Administration has released a safety bulletin recommending that railroads provide additional safety training for conductors.The bulletin was issued following a June 9 close-clearance switching accident that killed a Union Pacific conductor in Nacogdoches, Texas.The FRA urged railroads to identify location-specific safety issues to cover during safety briefings and employee training. The bulletin makes three recommendations

• Railroads must ensure that newly certified conductors or conductors in training have received structured and documented instruction in railroad operating fundamentals, and management should verify that conductors have demonstrated proficiency in both classroom and on-the-job training. A special emphasis should be placed on rules and procedures for identifying fouling equipment before making shove movements
• Railroads should review their operating rules testing programs to ensure that conductors are tested for equipment left in the foul and proper shove procedures.
• Railroads should review with employees Switching Operations Fatality Analysis Working Group recommendation that experienced employees should serve as mentors to less experienced employees on safe operation

"Should" is not "Must"

FRA has it within its purview to require railroads to document fixed hazards, doesn't it?

I don't think it was a fixed hazard.   From the news reports it looks like a car on the siding and a car on the main track were spotted far enough apart to clear one another, but not enough to clear someone riding the car.      

pt199 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> management should verify that conductors have demonstrated
> proficiency in both classroom and on-the-job training.

But who is going to verify that management can actually demonstrate any proficiency themselves? Seems like most of those I deal with couldn't switch their way out of a shoe box if their lives depended on it.

>>> Railroads must ensure that newly certified conductors or conductors in training have received structured and documented instruction in railroad operating fundamentals.

Railroad operating fundamentals.
1.  Management will run as few trains as possible whenever they want.
2.  Trains will be as long as possible with minimal use of locomotives.
3.  Conductors are required to be able to carry coupler knuckles a minimum of 2 miles in 20 min.
4.  Trains blocking crossings will not be separated without written permission of the assistant division superintendent.  All request must be in writing at least 7 days in advance.

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Should" is not "Must"
>
> FRA has it within its purview to require railroads
> to document fixed hazards, doesn't it?


Exactly. When mentoring new employees in regulatory writing I would tell them as they were pondering which word to use to just replace "should" with "won't" and see how it works.

Granted, you can't make absolutely everything mandatory but it was an easy litmus test on what was really important in a regulation. And if you're using should (won't) is the item really necessary?

Although I really do like how my employer defines "should" in our operation-- If you don't take a "should" action you must have a compelling reason not to. There's some wiggle room but just straight inaction is not acceptable.

Posted from Android

The main problem today is a completely different playing field on the RR and everywhere else, for that matter. “Back in the day”, many new hires came from farm or industrial/construction backgrounds where a mistake meant a potential loss of a hand/arm/leg or worst case, head. Safety was stressed in their upbringing and carried over — in most cases— to their newfound RR employment.
Fast forward to today. Despite training, heads are in cellphones and iPads living in a digital world, where a mistake means you just don’t advance to a higher level in your game. The reality is that RR’ing can be a deadly game, and it’s “game over” ( despite all the training you receive) if you don’t keep your head in it. Bottom line: “The price for freedom is eternal vigilance.” And, that, can’t always be taught — you have to live it…



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/26/25 14:16 by IC_2024.

The basic, basics are not taught to the new folks.  I see a lot that stand in the foul of another track, not paying attention.  A basic thing I was taught many moons ago was how to check if something was in the clear.  Now they have clearance points marked, but not everywhere, effectively taking the thought out of leaving stuff in the clear.  No thought, no safety.  New rules don't fix things, they just take the thought out of the WHY we do things.

Eng.Shadetree
 

shadetree Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>  Now they have
> clearance points marked, but not everywhere,
> effectively taking the thought out of leaving
> stuff in the clear. 

Which means your move will clear the adjacent track, but it won't clear you (something I'm sure they don't talk about in Instant Expert school . . . or at least not much).

TAW

For comparison, how did a freight conductor become a freight conductor in, say, 1960?  Promoted from brakeman with a few years rail experience already?  And then undergo more training?  I guessing the training / learning process took longer than six weeks

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For comparison, how did a freight conductor become
> a freight conductor in, say, 1960?  Promoted from
> brakeman with a few years rail experience
> already?  And then undergo more training?  I
> guessing the training / learning process took
> longer than six weeks


Yes,,hire out as brakeman/switchman and took student trips and was mentored by another brakeman and conductor then after a few years take conductor school.
Same as fireman too, took quite a few years as a fireman or hostler to be considerd for promotion to engineer.
JC

Posted from Android

Yep, you had to WORK for promotions and got extensive training in the process. Management and Dispatchers knew their territory.

Fast forward to now....you get an instant bonus/promotion for thinking of something that has already been tried or there is some variation of it already in place. Everyone that is left gets stretched as thin as possible.

And then there is TODAY'S "customer service"......

Posted from Android

Thanks for the info.  Definitely not a "hire off the street" path for conductors back then.

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks for the info.  Definitely not a "hire off
> the street" path for conductors back then.

It was, but the path took years, not weeks.

Posted from Android

It irks me every time I see one of these handwringing, strongly worded advisories /letters from the FRA.  FFS, they have the most minimual requirements for "certified conductors" -otherwise, they usually just rubber stamp the RR's training program and that's the end of it.  It if was really important to FRA, they'd come up with a list of skills that must be demonstrated for minimum proficiency.  Any time they write up one of these letters or advisories, the RRs just toss it in the trash can because no one is going to require the RRs to actually do anything about it.

nsrlink Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It irks me every time I see one of these
> handwringing, strongly worded advisories /letters
> from the FRA.  FFS, they have the most minimual
> requirements for "certified conductors"
> -otherwise, they usually just rubber stamp the
> RR's training program and that's the end of it. 
> It if was really important to FRA, they'd come up
> with a list of skills that must be demonstrated
> for minimum proficiency.  Any time they write up
> one of these letters or advisories, the RRs just
> toss it in the trash can because no one is going
> to require the RRs to actually do anything about
> it.

Same for dispatcher"certification."

TAW

TAW Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> nsrlink Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > It irks me every time I see one of these
> > handwringing, strongly worded advisories
> /letters
> > from the FRA.  FFS, they have the most
> minimual
> > requirements for "certified conductors"
> > -otherwise, they usually just rubber stamp the
> > RR's training program and that's the end of
> it. 
> > It if was really important to FRA, they'd come
> up
> > with a list of skills that must be demonstrated
> > for minimum proficiency.  Any time they write
> up
> > one of these letters or advisories, the RRs
> just
> > toss it in the trash can because no one is
> going
> > to require the RRs to actually do anything
> about
> > it.
>
> Same for dispatcher"certification."
>
> TAW

The dispatcher is just an entry level to management. At least that was the sentiment of one director on the UP a few years ago.

Besides, they spend millions on computerized systems that do all the work.

No, I really don't believe that. But many in senior management, even those who should know better, feel that way.

Posted from Android