Hours of Service

First, I have no intention of starting or having this thread embark on any sort of flame war, but I have a very legitimate question that I was hoping to get answers/opinions from some of the posters on these boards, which seem quite knowledgeable of operations.

I have often wondered about the 12 hours of service law. and its ramifications on labor costs. I'll admit I don't really know the first thing about RR labor law, but my guess is, in a nutshell, that T&E Employees used to work 18-24 hours in a row way back in the day, and it has been bargained down the standard 12 hours, with 8 hours of rest following.

My question is, if there were flexibility in hours of service, would that have a significant impact on labor costs? I always s read of the train that goes Dead on its hours 20 miles from the terminal, and then you have to get a cab, etc. bus people out and back from the Parked train etc.

If there were reasonable flexibility in the policy, would that get more Trains into terminals and therefore lower other costs? Or would management abuse such a system? I was thinking something like up to an extra two hours of service if you can get the train into a yard/terminal, then the T&E employee get additional rest beyond a mere 2 hours, maybe some additional pay, etc.

Thoughts, or would something like this be a total bust? When I read about the CSX service meltdown, one has to wonder if something like this would help.

Brooks

Federal law states twelve hours, period. No more except under extreme
circumstances and this will subject the railroad company to major
penalties.
A train might be only 20 miles out of a terminal but if the crew has already
been on duty for 12 hours, that's it. A crew can be mighty tired after
having worked that long.
The hours of service law needs modification, down not up. An employee
should have at least ten hours and even better twelve hours between
trips whether at home or away.
Many accidents have been caused by fatigue over the years.
Noel Weaver

First off, you should acquaint yourself with the statute:49 CFR Part 228

This is a law enacted in the interest of promoting safety. In the original form, the maximum time on duty was 16 hours under this law. Subsequent changes reduced it first to 14, then to the current 12 hours maximum for operating employees.

As one who began working in an operating capacity when the limit was 16 hours, I can attest that the carriers took advantage of every one of those hours with high frequency. I recall many trips that took 8 hours or less, with the remaining 8 hours being spent looking at the home signal accessing the final terminal. No one should be making operating decisions with that many hours in the seat.

Does the 12 hour limit affect operating costs? I would say yes, definitely. Should additional flexibility be allowed? I would say no, definitely not. Any allowances for extending hours operating trains will be taken advanatage of to the detriment of safety, in my view.

Read this next: Fatigue: A Continuing Problem

If anything, more restrictions should be placed on carriers to ensure proper rest for operating crews. Note that the current restriction was not brought into effect through collective bargaining. It's federal law.

This is not an outdated work rule. This is a safety statute that benefits the general public as well as operating employees.

LCJ,

Thanks for your view; it was the kind of commentary I was interested in.

I find the relationship between Labor and Management in Rail fascinating, as it seems to have transcended the ages in ways other jobs have not.

There seems to be such strife, although in smaller roads & shortlines, there seems to be much less conflict.

I think you have a good point about fatigue, I was just hypothesizing that is leniency might allow for improved operations, but it sounds like the general management philosophy would take advantage of that.

Cheers,
Brooks

bwparker1 wrote:There seems to be such strife, although in smaller roads & shortlines, there seems to be much less conflict.

It's generally true that there's less conflict with smaller companies. I find the reason for this could be what I call "the relationship factor." Managers of smaller railroads know their people much better, and tend to treat them more like people than do larger companies (and not just railroads). Larger organization tend to not value that aspect of operations, as I've seen it.

I have a related question relating to labor cost. If you are not called for service, say for 72 hours in this example, is there a minimum payment that carrier has to make on weekly, monthly or some other basis? Is that the reason that they try to keep the crew pool as small as possible, or at least "balanced" with the work load?

matthewsaggie wrote:I have a related question relating to labor cost. If you are not called for service, say for 72 hours in this example, is there a minimum payment that carrier has to make on weekly, monthly or some other basis? Is that the reason that they try to keep the crew pool as small as possible, or at least "balanced" with the work load?

I will answer this as best I can although I have been retired for over
seven years.
On the freight railroads for the most part, (at least seven years ago) the
engineer's extra lists at various terminals were adjusted usually every
two weeks although in come cases oftener. In earlier years, this occurred on a monthly basis.The railroad would prepare and furnish to the BLE Local Chairman a list of the miles produced by the extra list at each terminal under that particular jurisdiction. They went by average miles and years ago it was a minimum of 2600 miles per month and a maximum of 3800 miles per month. Later on, it was changed but I do not recall what the change was. Some places went by earnings instead of miles. Engineer's extra lists could not be increased nor cut without an
agreement between the local chairman and a representative of the
company.
On Amtrak as well as most of the commuter railroads, the BLE gave up the right to have a say in the regulation of the extra lists in exchange for
a guranteed extra list where by all engineers get a minimum of five days
work every week.
The rules on this have likely changed since my time and maybe somebody
can better update this one. Some of the freight railroads where engineers
are paid by the hour instead of miles, the extra lists may well be adjusted
by the company and are guranteed.
It was always a huge headache for the union to adjust these lists, as some
of the people were never satisfied. I don't think the local chairmen miss
this job.
Noel Weaver

Mr. LCJ/Mr. Weaver speak from experience. IMHO, changes should be made to the current hours of service to include a minimum of 8-hours, undisturbed, betweens tours of duty. No more of this tying-up at 11'59" on duty so the phone can be going off again after only 6-hours. We're our own worst enemy at times.

Where did the 12 Hour rule go into law?

Where? The United States of America.

If you mean when, it was in the early 1970s, I think.

It only went into effect in pennsylvania

LCJ wrote:Where? The United States of America.

If you mean when, it was in the early 1970s, I think.

Thanks

It's not so much how long you work, but the amount of sleep, when you sleep, and the quality of sleep you get between trips that determine fatigue in the long run

At one time, I was a terminal supervisor at a LTL trucking company freight hub, and worked 12 hours on, 12 hours off, seven days on, seven days off. Weeks would change out on Tuesdays, and shifts would change out at 9 AM and 9 PM. You would alternate between night and days every other week of work, meaning you work overnights once a month for seven days in a row.

On occasion, we would need to switch weeks with another supervisor to get a particular weekend off, and it wasn't unknown for us to wind up working three 84-hour weeks in a row as a result.

It wasn't as physically exhausting as you might think - because you came home and went to sleep at about the same time every day, and would be able get a full, uninterrupted eight hours of sleep every day.

Rail crews have to put up not only with shorter sleep times, but must contend with the fact that they have to catch their sleep at all hours of the night and day.

However - how much of the resistance to lengthing rest periods is coming from the rails themselves, since it means fewer trips - and less money - per year?

catfoodflambe wrote:It's not so much how long you work, but the amount of sleep, when you sleep, and the quality of sleep you get between trips that determine fatigue in the long run

At one time, I was a terminal supervisor at a LTL trucking company freight hub, and worked 12 hours on, 12 hours off, seven days on, seven days off. Weeks would change out on Tuesdays, and shifts would change out at 9 AM and 9 PM. You would alternate between night and days every other week of work, meaning you work overnights once a month for seven days in a row.

On occasion, we would need to switch weeks with another supervisor to get a particular weekend off, and it wasn't unknown for us to wind up working three 84-hour weeks in a row as a result.

It wasn't as physically exhausting as you might think - because you came home and went to sleep at about the same time every day, and would be able get a full, uninterrupted eight hours of sleep every day.

Rail crews have to put up not only with shorter sleep times, but must contend with the fact that they have to catch their sleep at all hours of the night and day.

However - how much of the resistance to lengthing rest periods is coming from the rails themselves, since it means fewer trips - and less money - per year?

Unfortunately, I have to agree with you on this one. More than once I
would not mark off 11 59 but went with the full 12 to get 10 hours rest.
Many times, the conductor wanted to go with 11 59 and I said nothing
doing. Sometimes we would go our separate ways on that one. I would
rather lay away from home the extra time to be rested for the trip home.
Some of the other engineers were just as bad too, they thought it was
great to get out "on your rest". I never liked getting out on my rest, I
knew it would be a rough trip back when I did.
Noel Weaver

I think 8 hrs "rest" is not enough, especially when travel and meals can cut that to 3-4 hrs sleep.

Riding in a loco cab can easilly put one to sleep. There is a large engine droning away behind you, humming a lullaby, and staring out the window ahead can be hypnotic, esp. when much of the scenery is boring. NOT a good environment for someone sleep-deprived!