FRA & Unions say Engineers not trained to operate long trains
- Thread starter joelkfla
- Start date
Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
Since no CC on that video I googled for info. Found this
https://www.freightwaves.com/news/l...-calls-for-limiting-freight-train-lengths/amp
https://www.freightwaves.com/news/l...-calls-for-limiting-freight-train-lengths/amp
Lots of good arguments, pro and con, in that. Left unsaid, may be the Union looking for more jobs for its members, and more members.
Union propaganda hit job. Training standards are something that is being addressed. Was not too long ago that Engineers were in-house trained and qualified. Now there a federal certification requirement.
Saying an employee is not trained or experienced to run these long trains, sure strikes me as an incompetent union not working with the company to develop those standards or expertise required to do the job.
The bit about the infrastructure was funny. I agree with the need for capital expenditure. It was point out to me once, how every change with lengths and weight was done first. Then the railroad made adjustments to the track structure.
Saying an employee is not trained or experienced to run these long trains, sure strikes me as an incompetent union not working with the company to develop those standards or expertise required to do the job.
The bit about the infrastructure was funny. I agree with the need for capital expenditure. It was point out to me once, how every change with lengths and weight was done first. Then the railroad made adjustments to the track structure.
joelkfla
Engineer
It was the FRA, not the union, who said that the engineer in this particular incident had not had appropriate training for the length and tonnage of the train involved.
Why would it be the union's responsibility to ensure that engineers are properly trained? Seems to me that's the railroad's responsibility. Unions can complain, but it's the railroads who decide what to implement.
FRA requires what type of endorsement on their certifications to operate a train of this size?
A union purpose is what?
Sure, it falls on a business to self regulate.
What is the purpose of this company? To provide a safe environment for its employees? Good fast dependable service to its customers? Or dividends to its owners?
Yes we can do better, we need to do better, but will we do better?
A union purpose is what?
Sure, it falls on a business to self regulate.
What is the purpose of this company? To provide a safe environment for its employees? Good fast dependable service to its customers? Or dividends to its owners?
Yes we can do better, we need to do better, but will we do better?
Seems to me that one of the principal reasons we have unions is to insure workers have safe working conditions and asking engineers to operate trains that they are not adequately trained for would be a safety issue.
Companies everywhere will claim this to be management prerogative and outside of construction unions, where they exist, management can easily tell the unions to pound sand. Construction unions where they have market share do have joint training centers. Unions could strike, oh wait, the federal government will not let that happen either. The Feds will send in troops as they did with the ARU strike led by Debs or issue back to work orders as Biden did.
Unions, sadly, have a lot less power then they are given credit for, especially when the right to strike is not existent.
Devil's Advocate
⠀⠀⠀
That's a pretty aggressive way to open your post despite not really adding anything or challenging anything.
Last edited:
Can't find the full report, just the summary.
https://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/Offi...x?RepType=SQL&txtf54key=BNSFSW062310220230608
