Railroaders place to shoot the shit.

CLEVELAND, November 17 The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET) and the United Transportation Union (UTU) filed a joint Petition for Review of Emergency Order 26 on November 14, requesting that the Federal Railroad Administration make specific exceptions to the Order in the name of safety.

The Emergency Order was issued on October 7, 2008, and significantly limits employee use of personal electronic devices in locomotive cabs. The ban applies to any electronic device that was not provided to the railroad operating employee by the employing railroad for business purposes.

It is not our intention to unnecessarily complicate a fairly bright-line rule regarding the use of electronic and electrical devices, BLET President Ed Rodzwicz and UTU President Mike Futhey said in their Petition for Review. However, we do believe FRA should seriously consider those atypical situations in which EO 26 as currently written could inadvertently result in a diminution of safety, as compared to operating conditions and practices in effect prior to its promulgation.

The Emergency Order came about because of the tragic accident in Chatsworth, Calif., which claimed the lives of 25 people on September 12 when a Metrolink passenger train collided with a Union Pacific train. Initial NTSB reports indicated the Metrolink engineer may have been distracted by use of a personal cellular phone while on duty.

The safety of our members and the general public is the top priority of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, and these exceptions to Emergency Order 26 will make it much more effective, BLET President Rodzwicz said. The best way for our members to comply with the Emergency Order is to turn off their personal electronic devices, store them in their grips, and do not use them until you have been relieved from duty.

BLET and UTU are seeking an exception to the Order banning the use of personal electronic devices while deadheading. While the unions agree that the Emergency Order seeks to improve safety, they argue that, since deadheading crews have fulfilled their safety-related responsibilities and in many cases are not on duty they should not be restricted to business purpose use only.

To that end, the unions ask the FRA to rewrite a portion of the EO so that it reads: A railroad operating employee who is deadheading may use a cell phone while within the body of a passenger train or railroad business car, or while inside the cab of a locomotive that is not the lead locomotive of the train on which the employee is deadheading.

The use of cameras is also called into question. BLET and UTU argue that the EO appears to forbid photographic documentation by a train employee of safety hazards or violations of rail safety laws, regulations, orders or standards, which would actually diminish railroad safety.

On that issue, BLET and UTU ask for an exemption, which would read as follows:

An electronic still or video camera may be used to document a safety hazard or a violation of a rail safety law, regulation, order or standard; provided, that (1) the use of a camera in the cab of a moving train may only be by a crew member other than the locomotive engineer, and (2) the use of a camera by a train employee on the ground is permissible only when (a) the employee is not fouling a track, (b) no switching operation is underway, (c) no other safety duties are presently required, and (d) all members of the crew have been briefed that operations are suspended. The use of the photographic function of a cell phone is permitted under these same conditions.

Thirdly, the unions question a section of the EO that prohibits the use of electronic devices such (as calculators) to make computations. The BLET and UTU point out that a number of safety-critical computational functions are required in numerous circumstances if on-board systems fail or are not provided. These include managing correct horsepower per ton, calculating tons per operative brake, dynamic brake and tractive effort compliance, and correcting train length for speed restrictions and clearing track authorities.

A new section regarding exceptions to this portion of the EO should be added, and should be worded as follows:

When mathematical calculations are required for safe train movement (e.g., managing correct horsepower per ton, calculating tons per operative brake, dynamic brake and tractive effort compliance, and correcting train length), it is permissible to perform such calculations by using an electronic calculator, or by using the calculator function of a cell phone or electronic timepiece.

Finally, the unions petition the FRA to allow the use of Global Positioning Satellite tracking devices in order to gauge the accuracy of locomotive speed indicators, particularly when the designated measured mile lies within a temporary speed restriction of less than 30 miles per hour.

One effect of EO 26 is to preclude the use of a GPS device to calculate the speed of a train that is not equipped with a speed indicator because the train will not exceed 20 mph. Another is that the accuracy of a speed indicator determined within a slow order of 30 mph or less cannot be correlated with its accuracy at speed above 30 mph. Maintaining proper train speed is both safety-critical and demanded of a locomotive engineers.

The BLET and UTU petition the FRA to consider an exception to the EO for GPS devices, requesting that GPS tracking devices be allowed to verify the accuracy of the speed indicator in a controlling locomotive.

The joint Petition for Review was submitted to FRA today.

BLET and UTU members will be kept apprised of the situation, and will be advised once FRA responds to our concerns, Presidents Rodzwicz and Futhey said.

Monday, November 17, 2008
bentley@ble.org