.

 If you all could click the link below and vote, we can really give PR a realistic picture of how the industry feels about the issue.

Are most people on this board in the railroading industry, or just hobbyists?
 

Seems to me this poll is for active railroad employees, not outsiders.

Rusty

The poll results so far:

Do you think the Federal Railroad Administration should withdraw its proposed rule that would mandate two-person crews on trains?

Yes 57.53% (168 votes)
No 42.47% (124 votes)
Total Votes: 292

I question how useful this poll is. I think the magazine is directed more at railroad management people, not so much at union people who operate the trains. The question needs to be understood in the context of this:

https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L04999

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) today announced its intention to issue a proposed rule requiring two-person train crews on crude oil trains and establishing minimum crew size standards for most main line freight and passenger rail operations.  The FRA also intends to advance a rulemaking on train securement and recommends a rulemaking on the movement of hazardous materials ...

While existing FRA regulations do not mandate minimum crew staffing requirements, current industry practice is to have two person crews for over-the-road operations.  The notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) will most likely require a minimum of two person crews for most mainline train operations including those trains carrying crude oil.  It is also expected to include appropriate exceptions ...

On August 29, 2013, the first-ever emergency session of the RSAC was held in response to the July 6, 2013 derailment of an unattended Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway freight train containing crude oil in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, Canada ...

Polls like this are meaningless anyway in regard to what effect they'll have.

Trains magazine has been reporting lately that some of the class 1 railroads have been experimenting with trains 10,000 to 12,000 feet long (and possibly longer) in order to reduce delivery times, traffic and costs. One person operating a train of this size just seems ridiculous to me and a major safety hazard to the employees and everyone else that comes near a train. Surely it must be folks that have never operated a train that are favoring the one man crew?

One man crews make sense for many commuter and transit runs and other short hauls or small trains. It all depends on the circumstances. The unions fought to keep 5-man crews for decades arguing safety etc. With 5-man crews many railroads were running huge long trains to try to economize on crews and it hurt their ability to compete effectively.

Additional crew members will not automatically improve safety. Crew members get fatigued from irregular scheduling, long hours and routine duties. But it's easier for the FRA and political apparatus to appear pro-active by mandating minimum two-man crews even though that's already the general practice for mainline operation.

https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L04999

... While existing FRA regulations do not mandate minimum crew staffing requirements, current industry practice is to have two person crews for over-the-road operations.  The notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) will most likely require a minimum of two person crews for most mainline train operations including those trains carrying crude oil.  It is also expected to include appropriate exceptions ...

This poll is just going to express a majority opinion of people who vote in it.  The demographic information won't be available, as no second question was asked to determine whether the voter is a railroad manager, railroad employee, shipper, railroad enthusiast, elected official, or a member of the public at large.  Therefore, it doesn't seem to me that it will be terribly useful.  However . . .

I voted Yes to rescinding the FRA Rule because . . . I believe that this can be handled much better by the railroads and the employee unions without Federal interference.  For every teaspoon of FRA help you usually get two cups of FRA interference.  The carriers and the unions each have an interest in safety and in train delays because of unplanned events.  They are perfectly capable of providing answers to these challenges.  The unions called on Congress to relieve them of work rest cycles which they alleged were not providing adequate rest at home between trips.  In return, they got a more complicated Federal Hours of Service Law that reduced the earnings of many of the employees.  An irresponsible Conrail Engineer entered a main track without authorization in front of an Amtrak Northeast Corridor train running at over 100 MPH, causing a horrible fatal wreck, and from that the FRA gave us random drug testing (good), post-accident toxicology testing (good), and Engineer Certification (a bit onerous, but basically good).  Whistle complaints resulted in an FRA whistle law that is complicated and easy to accidentally violate in its detail if not in its basic requirement.  We don't really need the FRA's nose in the crew size issue.  There are trains of lower risk because of size and type which could be operated with a single-person crew, but the union and the carrier should be the ones to decide which trains this should be and the design of the safety net for unplanned events.  FRA only regulates; FRA does not assist.