Amtrak Funding

[Guest_Ben_*]

http://asia.news.yahoo.com/080924/ap/d93dd4gg0.html

According to the press release, is Amtrak funding part of the same rail safety bill?

 

[HP_Lovecraft]

Yes- Section 101 (Div B ) of the House Bill contains the funding allocations for Amtrak.

Most of the safety bill covers "operational improvements", especially for grade-crossings, and bridges.

It actually came out a while ago, and was stalled. The unfortunate accident put a focus on rail safety, and allowed it to be pushed through a bit quicker.

 

[sky12065]

http://asia.news.yahoo.com/080924/ap/d93dd4gg0.html
According to the press release, is Amtrak funding part of the same rail safety bill?

The article sounds good but I do see on issue mentioned it it. This is the paragraph I'm referring to:

"The package would also add 200 new safety inspectors for the Federal Railroad Administration, guarantee 10-hour minimum rest periods for train crews and cap the monthly hours train crews can work at 276. An outdated law that currently governs train crew hours allows them to work more than 400 hours per month, compared to 100 hours per month for commercial airline pilots.

The issue and potential problem I see is with the reduction of the monthly cap on hours to 276. If they're just refering to the engineers and the Conductors, then it's probably not a problem since those positions are directly related to safety issues. But if it's the entire train crew, that could be counter productive to exactly the reason why Amtrak funding has been lacking - to reduce costs of operation and make Amtrak more self supporting. That proposed change could in reality increase employment costs and result in a signifant loss of some of the increase proposed that's being directed and intended for safety improvements that could reduce if not eliminate the potential for a repeat of the Metro crash!

 

[Mark]

http://asia.news.yahoo.com/080924/ap/d93dd4gg0.html
According to the press release, is Amtrak funding part of the same rail safety bill?

The article sounds good but I do see on issue mentioned it it. This is the paragraph I'm referring to:

"The package would also add 200 new safety inspectors for the Federal Railroad Administration, guarantee 10-hour minimum rest periods for train crews and cap the monthly hours train crews can work at 276. An outdated law that currently governs train crew hours allows them to work more than 400 hours per month, compared to 100 hours per month for commercial airline pilots.

The issue and potential problem I see is with the reduction of the monthly cap on hours to 276. If they're just refering to the engineers and the Conductors, then it's probably not a problem since those positions are directly related to safety issues. But if it's the entire train crew, that could be counter productive to exactly the reason why Amtrak funding has been lacking - to reduce costs of operation and make Amtrak more self supporting. That proposed change could in reality increase employment costs and result in a signifant loss of some of the increase proposed that's being directed and intended for safety improvements that could reduce if not eliminate the potential for a repeat of the Metro crash!

Naw- The 276 hour cap would most likely apply to the 'operating crew' only i.e. Engineers and Conductors. The rest of the crew is considered 'on board service'. I imagine it applies like the 12 hour service law. If you travel far enough on a give route, you'll see the Engineers and Conductors switch out but not the Attendants- they're on for the duration and I think the FRA is quite aware of that. All that being said the crews could still work a 12 hour day almost every day. 12 hours- times a five day work week- times 4 weeks, (give or take a day or two), in a month-equals 280. So it looks like they can't work 12 hours everyday according to this new regulation- interesting some RRs are currently having their employees work a 6-day work week, the former IC now under the CN comes to mind.

M