As the causes for the MetroLink tragedy are unfolding, it appears that a major contributing factor to the crash may have been that the locomotive engineer was distracted as he was allegedly sending text messages on his cell phone.

While it has been a rare occurence, I have seen more than a handful of times, operators at several museum operations operating trains while talking on cell phones.
Admittedly talking can be argued to be less than a distraction than the act of texting, most operations utilize radios for example.

Just wondering if any operations have specific operator rules restricting or limiting the use of cell phones, for voice or text use, in their rulebooks ? In not, is this something that may shine a light on a need to update or at least consider updating your rulebook ?

Just to be contrarian:

I have witnessed at least one short line railroad that, for all practical reality purposes, is operating--dispatching, changing switch lists, etc.--by cell phone and/or "Blackberry". The next baby step would be dispatching by onboard laptops.

Now, they're not operating passenger trains, or (usually) operating any more trains than the out-and-back local........... but...............

Now, on the other hand, we have at least one online report that the Metrolink engineer who perished in the recent California accident was a known rail enthusiast. Think about that before you cockily think "I can handle this; I know railroading better than most of the pros....."

According to NORAC, we're not even supposed to dictate or copy Form Ds while "operating the controls of a moving train." What, I wonder, would make one think that text messaging and/or emailing would be acceptable practices while operating a locomotive?

The operation with which I am involved does have specific rules governing the use of telephones, etc.

--Jim

This mornings paper said there has been a rule regarding use of cell phones but has never been enforced. It will be from this point forward and the FRA may even get involved.

Later!
Mr. Ed

Another interesting newstory printed here in the Chicago area over the last day or two, suggested that a new report indicates that text messaging while driving is more dangerous than operating the vehicle under the influence of drugs or alcohol !

I saw the same report that there was a rule against cell phone useage, what I read reported (not surprisingly) that it's a very hard to enforce rule.

NORAC also has a rule about the use of unauthorized electronic devices.

Really the important rules are the exclusive duty rule. If your "texting", you aren't operating in the exclusive duty of the company, you are also therefore violating General Rule S.

I assume GCOR or whatever they use there has similar rules

Somewhat related, the Governor of New Jersey was in a serious automobile accident a year and a half ago, traveling at 91 miles per hour, while his driver was text-messaging! I immediately thought about that similarity when the news reported that the engineer in California was text-messaging some of his railfan friends.

While we're on the subject of operator safety, does anyone have any feelings on navigation systems in automobiles? I know NJ, and I'm sure other states, have laws against having a TV in a car where the driver can see it. Isn't a nav. system practically a TV?

I know I've strayed off topic a bit, but it's a device that can be another electronic distraction to the safe operation of a vehicle, highway or rail.

We descend into truly gray areas if we carry this further.

So NORAC says no cell phones/texting, which I agree is perfectly understandable..... but EVERY damn railroad out there uses two-way radio communications, which is equally "distracting" from the "exclusive duty" of running a locomotive. Ditto police and radios.

In the case of the short line I mentioned, they don't use cell/texting while actually rolling. As I recall, the dispatcher reserves the right to send a text/Blackberry/whatever updating the switch list while the crew is tied down for switching, on lunch break, etc. It's the moral equivalent of pulling over a car to the shoulder to take a cell call.

Though, if I think about it, would NORAC/whoever object to a conductor/switchman taking dictation/a call while the engineer ran the train?

Part of my duties as a conductor IS to take down any necessary information/slow orders/crossing protections/track authorities as the engineer is running. Be hard to run a RR if we had to stop every time we needed to take down an order.

On the radio, you discuss items that are pertinent to the safe operation of the train. You are not discussing plans for the weekend. Distraction? I would argue not most of the time. But pay special attention to a signal if you are rolling through it as you are talking to the dispatcher.

By rule we are not supposed to be using cell phones while running, unless as necessary for duty. There is one spot I used to travel that was in very poor radio range to a base station. So copying a Form-D was all but impossible over the air. So a cell phone made it a lot simpler and easier (and safer - no miscommunication). We are allowed personal incidental use of a cell phone while stopped. After all - that phone is our link to our lives back home.

That is the best response I have heard yet about using cell phones.

-Joe

Yes, I believe the key phrase to be "while operating the controls of a moving train." Train stopped = no problem. Conductor or other crewman taking the dictation via radio, phone, laptop, Blackberry, etc. while train is in motion = no problem.

NORAC General Rule E - Prohibited Behavior does prohibit "having or using electronic devices not related to their duties, unless authorized by the railroad [emphasis added]" "when required to perform service." So it really is up to the specific roads to decide what is authorized or not. I just don't see talking on the phone, text messaging, etc. as a prudent activities while operating a train.

Keep in mind, though, that these rules may not be exactly relevant as these are NORAC Rules and not, as Mr. Heater pointed out, "GCOR or whatever they use there."

Thanks for listening...

--Jim

One of the newer Chicagoland railroads about 20 years ago was featured in print ads as being the 1st railroad to change from radios to cell phones for all locomotive messages. The pictured cell phones in the locomotives were the size of brief cases!
A Railfan Magazine columnist who was an Amtrak engineer mentioned that back when firemen were vanishing, on one of his first solo trips on the Springfield line, he had to stop the train to write down a radioed train order, as he no longer had a fireman to be his secretary.

If the allegation concerning the text messaging is correct and the collision was the result of the engineer‘s inattention, then the tragic occurrence in Los Angeles is a case of human failure rather than a technological issue, i.e. the engineer did not follow rules which he was quite capable of following.

What I am afraid of here is that there will be at least a few well meant but poorly thought out rules which will have the effect of limiting a crew’s ability to communicate by barring any use of cell phones or similar devices. and slow the next step in the evolution of train crew communication or impose an unreasonable (and probably unattainable) requirement for signal systems to wit the proposed (I believe by Senator Feinstein) requirement for Positive Train Control everywhere by 2012.

Transmitting a train orders by text message or Blackberry removes some of the many variables of copying a train order by reducing the ear-to-brain-to-hand-to-eye-to-brain-to-mouth set of links to eye-to-brain-to-mouth for the read back. It also leaves a more easily auditable trail if there is a need for an investigation.

Most rule making proceedings have a provision for public comment. I would suggest that if your operation uses cell phones or some type of text messaging device in the normal course of business that this is the time for you to write a clear, coherent policy concerning their use and to prepare your comments for the Federal Railroad Administration, Public Utilities Commission, Board of Public Utilities, and the assorted legislators at the various levels who will certainly want the general public to know how truly concerned they are with safety and will miss no opportunity to say so publicly.

A cell phone is in many ways simply the next generation of walkie talkie, full duplex with a tone pad, frequency hopping capability, and internal code circuitry for text messages. Those my age can remember when most radio communication (and railroad wire) was still done in Morse. I had to be able to send and receive twelve words per minute to get through ROTC summer camp. The army had equipment with the capabilities outlined above except that it occupied either whole buildings or several trucks.

The technological breakthrough which allowed railroad (and police, fire, et cetera) two way radio to come into common use was the reduction in size of the equipment needed to fit just in the trunk of a full size sedan and did not require an antenna the size and shape of my mother's clothesline on the roof.

I think that a key and an annunciator along with the need to use them would be far more distracting in a locomotive cab than a properly used cell phone.

GME

As an addendum to my above post and in partial response to some of the comments in the WSJ thread:

Below is an abstract from an article which I posted on what is affectionately referred around the office as foamer.net
http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=127&t=53440&start=15



GME

The local commuter outfit (which does NOT operate under NORAC rules) made a big splash some months back about the distribution of company owned cellphones to train service employees. I believe the engine service folks refused them.

Dave K