EO 26 is bad policy and represents a knee jerk reaction to an isolated incident. Cell phone use especially on short lines was one of the greatest time saving measures that railroading could have implemented.

Just my opinion.

Emergency Order 26 does not ban authorized cell phone use in the cab, rather it places some common sense restrictions on cell phone use. I do not like car drivers talking on their cell phones while driving, so why would I want engineers using their cells while operating a train. I prefer people use common sense rather than government regulations to be safe, but we all know how that does not work! Why do so many people need to make personal calls while being paid by an employer to perform their jobs so the employer can make payroll. Stationary Steam, I do think the EO was heavy handed as far as only allowing RR owned cells to be used for authorized calls, many shortlines can not afford the luxury of buying a cell for each of its employees.
Think First, Last, and Always and be Safe First, Last, and Always!

My 2 cents,
Mike Tillger

Unfortunately, many things that are now standard operating procedure in railroading came as a result of "knee jerk reactions". Ricky Gates and Rob Sanchez have affected more change in the railroad industry. It was painfully obvious because "we" were not taking care of business in our own backyard.

Personally, I am of the mindset that I would not want an engineer distracted by the cab rider being intrusive with any kind of recording device for liability purposes. All one needs to do is look to Youtube for some of the railroading insanity that makes it on line. How obnoxious and potentially distracting is another person's phone conversation in a safety sensitive environment?

Since the primary commodity of a tourist railroad is passengers, why not take the extra step to protect your railroad and commodity?

As someone mentioned earlier in this thread, this is 2010 - not 1970. If any incident occurs on a train where a cab rider is present the "distraction card" can and will be played by any good lawyer representing an injured party. Any activity or presence in a cab beyond what is required to operate the locomotive is a distraction and it won't matter a bit if an incident has nothing to do with the presence of a cab rider.

Where we draw the line at Strasburg is between public trains and chartered trains. Public trains don't get cab riders. Charter trains may present an opportunity for cab riders. Even with private charters there is a liability risk at places such as grade crossings, but you do not have the continual risk exposure of all the passengers on the train being subjected to a cab distraction that they did not consent to.

It is my opinion that given the size of settlements today and the dubious grounds upon which many are based, the benefit is not worth the risk.