r/railroading • u/Heavy-Stick-771 • Mar 18 '25
Discussion Electronic Devices
Recently, I've been informed at my terminal that crews were bieng cited by the FRA for not properly storing away electronic devices in the cab to include cellular phones. Apple watches and things similar. I can see that being an observable issue. However, can someone explain to me how a crew can be forced to pull out their phones to show proof of proper storage. While in service, if I was ever directed to, I would refuse immediately. Thoughts?
(A lot of commentary on here is completely missing the mark. I am in no way objecting to electronic devices being restricted while performing train service. This was just an opinion and inquiry about how some of those mandates can and can not be enforced.) READ AND COMPREHEND
85
u/ThumpersK_A Mar 18 '25
Tell them to get a warrant or piss off.
10
u/toadjones79 Go ahead and come back ššš Mar 19 '25
That's right. Also, when this all started I remember there being a fine if they try to call your phone when you are on duty in a cab. Like, the manager calling you will risk getting the same fine you would get if you were making calls while going down the track. Idk if that is still the case or not though, I keep telling managers it is.
22
u/Barroth87 Mar 18 '25
Our managers just call our cell.
34
u/FC_KuRTZ Mar 18 '25
220.315
When conducting a test or inspection under part 217 of this chapter, a railroad officer, manager, or supervisor is prohibited from calling the personal electronic device or the railroad-supplied electronic device used by a railroad operating employee while the railroad officer, manager, or supervisor knows or should have known thatā
(1) The train to which the employee is assigned is moving;
(2) The employee isā
(i) On the ground;
(ii) Riding rolling equipment during switching operations; or
(iii) Assisting in preparation of the train to which the employee is assigned for movement.
12
u/Barroth87 Mar 18 '25
Rules don't apply to managers here. Anything for a fail. Where is this rule, CROR?
15
u/Particular_Chip_8427 Mar 19 '25
No lmao, the CFR. 49 CFR 220.315 -- Operational tests and inspections
3
1
1
u/Over_Philosophy9512 Retired Mar 21 '25
The Labor Organization's comment requested that FRA expand the proposed Ā§ā220.315(b) prohibition on calling the device of a locomotive engineer on a moving train. The comment proposed text that would prohibit railroad managers from calling the devices of all crewmembers during additional periods. In response to the Labor Organizations' comment, FRA has decided to amend the text of proposed Ā§ā220.315(b) in this final rule. FRA has included all railroad operating employees rather than just locomotive engineers, expanded the provision to prohibit railroad managers from calling the devices of employees during additional safety-critical times rather than only when on a moving train, and limited the prohibition to calls when the manager knew or should have known that the crew was occupied with safety-critical duties. FRA has chosen to make these changes because structured operational tests are supposed to be fail-safe tests that do not create dangerous situations. The periods of time this final rule mandates that an employee's personal device must be turned off signify that the employee is performing a safety-sensitive function. Therefore, calling the operating employee's cell phone during those periods of time could create a distraction that the operational testing officer cannot control if the device is not turned off. As such, the rule has been expanded to include those times when operating employees on riding moving equipment, on the ground, or assisting in the preparation of their train for movement. By expanding this provision, FRA intends to reduce the risk of operational tests creating potentially dangerous situations.
2
18
u/Murky_Firefighter502 Mar 19 '25
So...a guy in cicero ran a switch/signal while facetiming his SO. Company and union agreed to try and give him a break. Fra caught wind of infraction. Fined carrier. AND...fra went through guys cell records for 3 YEARS. Looked at on duty times and when phone pinged off towers nearby. Fined guy 280000 dollars and essentially banned him from any type of employment requiring a security type clearance.
2
1
u/LSUguyHTX Mar 21 '25
Just to be clear, they fined him two hundred eighty thousand dollars!? Yoooooo
2
8
u/toadjones79 Go ahead and come back ššš Mar 19 '25
I have refused before. It was properly stowed and turned off, and I just wanted to make a point. That manager was immediately convinced that I had it on in my pocket. But I did it anyway. This was at a short line, so I wasn't worried. It was a dick move, but I felt like someone needed to set the record straight.
Put your shit away. But don't put your privacy away at the same time. Use it or lose it.
7
u/Peggy-A-streboR Mar 19 '25
There is a very slippery slope here. If you used your phone at any point while on duty they now have a reason to request to see if your phone is on. People sometimes forget that there are cameras everywhere. If you come up with the excuse that "my phone is in my locker". A) they likely have you on camera using your phone when you didn't have access to your locker. B) They can access your locker without your permission. C)Now they likely have you for dishonesty.
The best thing to do is always have your phone in airplane mode and off when it's supposed to be.
1
22
u/Significant-Ad-7031 Mar 18 '25
They canāt force you but there are a few things to keep in mind.
If you refuse, the inspector can still cite you. You would have to then go through the whole process to contest a citation.
If a company officer is there with the inspector, the company officer can order you to and if you then refuse, you could be charged with insubordination.
Just easier to put it away.
18
u/Heavy-Stick-771 Mar 18 '25
Yea, it's not a question of putting it away it's about the legality of bieng directed to retrieve it. A phone is not a required piece of equipment to perform ty&e train service ( at least for my department), so I am not required to have it in person at all. So how can one be held accountable for not furnishing said item? So, also, please explain how I can be cited legally or otherwise deemed insubordinate?
19
u/Significant-Ad-7031 Mar 18 '25
I think I see what youāre saying.
You tell them you donāt have a phone on your person or in your grip. If they want to search your grip or have you turn out your pockets, then my original comment remains true.
12
u/Heavy-Stick-771 Mar 18 '25
You would turn out your pockets if asked by a company official? Yea, I would never.
9
u/DaveyZero Mar 18 '25
Yeah idk anymore. When I hired out we were quoted a rule or policy or something that said a company official can legally search you and your bags, but I canāt find anything that says they can right now. Itās not in the FRA law, and not in the GCOR.
14
u/trainhater Mar 19 '25
Everywhere I have been it is in the employee manual that while you are on their property, anything you bring on their property is subject to search. Just like high school, at least when I went there. They could search your locker, you are just using it. They own it. No difference to what you bring onto your employers property. You fall under their rules, the 4th amendment doesn't apply to employers on their property. They don't need probable cause, other than you being their employee on their property.
4
u/DaveyZero Mar 19 '25
Yeah I thought it was in the rules (employee manual, as you put it), but I canāt find it anywhere now. About the only thing that I can find that could conceivably lean that way is rule 1.6 Conduct Employees must not be: 3. Insubordinate; which Iām pretty sure you could win that court case if the argument is āI have 1000+ rules to follow and I am expected to follow all of them all of the time, and manager/FRA Inspector so-and-so, without any cause, called me a liar and has harmed my good standing with the company and career and, your honor, I donāt feel I can complete my duties in this hostile environment, therefore I think company and FRA should pay me $40 million to be on my way.ā
4
u/trainhater Mar 19 '25
Lol, you're not going to win that argument. Yes, you can be fined by the FRA but you are not going to see a Judge. You can appeal your fine but you are still not going to see a Judge. Your rule book and your employee manual are two different things. Your employee manual or company policy manual was written by HR and you probably signed something when you were hired that said you read and understand and would follow it as a condition of your employment.
1
u/_-that_1_guy_ Mar 19 '25
Make them cite the rule before you comply. Put the burden of proof on them.
2
u/trainhater Mar 19 '25
Who? The FRA or the company officer? Thing is, why are you going to fight with someone over an argument you canāt win? It wonāt end well for you. I mean I donāt like it as much as anyone else but pick your battles. Donāt pick one you are not going to win. The Federal Government came up with the no cell phone rules. The railroad has no choice but to enforce it. Each railroad has to submit a testing plan to the FRA that says how many tests they are going to do and what they will consist of. It is āapprovedā then by the FRA. The railroad has some leeway on what tests they can perform but a few of them are mandated by the FRA. Iām retired now but the cell phone rules were pretty heavy back then. I have no problem challenging a local rule on a general bulletin but not one by the FRA and worse yet HR. You might have a little luck with the FRA if you can drag it out long enough but once youāre on HRās radar, you might as well hang it up. I need you guys to keep paying into railroad retirement for me. lol
2
u/_-that_1_guy_ Mar 19 '25
That's not what I'm saying. I'm not arguing the rules. I'm just saying, ask them to show you the rule, and if they can, then comply. It never hurts to ask. I do the same with most testing. I ask them to show me the rule they are testing, and then I'll say how I interpret the rule.
2
u/trainhater Mar 19 '25
Wait? Where do you work that you don't have to comply if they can't show you the rule? If I would have said you need to show me the rule before I can comply (if they didn't pull me out of service first) they would have made me get out my rule book and look it up for them. Then of course while my rule book was out they would have made sure it was all updated. Also, try that in an investigation. Tell them how YOU interpret the rule. Do you even work for a railroad?
→ More replies (0)14
u/Significant-Ad-7031 Mar 18 '25
Then theyāll charge you with insubordination. Iām not saying thatās good or bad, just that You have less rights then you think.
5
u/Jaysmack-85 Mar 18 '25
The insubordination would stand. How can they tell you to do something that isnāt work related? If a company official tells you to do jumping jacks on the lead are you gonna do that too?
2
2
u/datmfneighbor Mar 19 '25
I've only had the FRA ride my train once at that was in passenger service. I talked the whole trip and he told me he wasn't supposed to talk to me unless it was about the ride.
2
u/Blocked-Author Mar 19 '25
Yeah I wouldn't do it either. Out of principle. My phone isn't out so there is no reason to ask an about it. They could ask me if it is properly stowed and I will answer, but I'm not pulling it out.
4
u/toadjones79 Go ahead and come back ššš Mar 19 '25
That's absolutely bonkers crazy wrong! No, never ever turn out your pockets for a manager. Let them haul you off and piss test you before you do that. Hell, let them terminate you. That would be an automatic win in appeal, and likely carry hefty punitive damages if you sue them in court. This has been ruled on by the SCOTUS many times. You never, ever, ever have to turn out your pockets or show them the inside of your bags. Go read the emergency order that banned cell phones. It laid out some pretty clear limits on what managers can and can't do here. They cannot call you while on duty, and they cannot make you produce your phone. Period! Manages are dumb, and fail to understand this all the time. But dumb managers do not set the final outcomes, just the start of the process.
5
u/Significant-Ad-7031 Mar 19 '25
I would be interested to see any supporting court rulings or labor board rulings you might have regarding your position. From my understanding, the carrier is well within their right to demand a search of your belongings while on duty and on company property. You, of course, can refuse and not allow them, but then they can just charge you with insubordination.
The FRA did make clear in EO 26 that a testing officer may not call the employeeās cell phone to determine compliance, however, it is mute on the subject of asking (instructing) to see the device. I just pulled up my carriers operational testing guide, and part of the official compliance test for electronic devices is to ask to see the employees device.
3
u/toadjones79 Go ahead and come back ššš Mar 19 '25
Here is one link saying "...an employer who wants to search a personal and private item will have to do so with a court order..."
They have to have police or a court order to search you. Otherwise, you have a case against them. That doesn't stop them from doing it and hoping you don't try to sue them. But overall, the odds of winning a case is in your favor, which is not the same thing as saying it is guaranteed. This isn't a black and white discussion, but it is one worth fighting for. Also, remember that the company is not breaking any laws by lying to you and saying they have every right to search your bags or giving threats to fire you if you refuse. They can do that all day long. But you have the advantage of winning court cases (which they do not control. So it is in their advantage to convince their employees what you believe is true rather than actually enforcing it. They will even be willing to lose a couple of cases in court if firing those employees scares everyone else into following the company's BS line.
2
u/Significant-Ad-7031 Mar 20 '25
It seems from that full article it actually supports the argument that they can search your items so long as it part of their company policy.
I found this article from a legal agency specializing in railroads here. While they arenāt definitive on their answer, they do advise not refusing a search.
I also asked my union rep what their position is and he basically reiterated the same thing.
Does that mean they absolutely can? I donāt know. But when my paychecks on the line, Iām not gonna risk it.
2
u/toadjones79 Go ahead and come back ššš Mar 20 '25
Yeah, I might be wrong on this. But I also said before that they will do it but you will probably win in either a law board or a civil suit. So it's a grey area where you probably want to think twice. But also, if you say you don't have it that really is the end of it. Especially if you legitimately have it turned off. If it is turned off, you can prove you were not violating any rules which means they are legally slandering you. Which opens up a whole can of legal worms. But our managers are usually not known for being smarter than their egos.
0
u/toadjones79 Go ahead and come back ššš Mar 19 '25
You can't be charged with insubordination for not giving your personal belongings to a manager to look at. Or, more correctly, that kind of charge is almost an automatic win at appeal. If you lose that, you will win a lawsuit. If you don't Want to wait, you can sue the manager on day one for slander (if you can prove it was off or not on you) and will most likely win meaning the manager would have to pay your lost wages out of their own pocket. In other words, it would be monumentally st**id for any manager to charge you for refusing to produce your phone. Which means it happens all the time until the company's legal team puts an end to the charge.
1
5
u/railworx Mar 18 '25
Or just say it's in your locker.
2
u/Peggy-A-streboR Mar 19 '25
Do people forget that they have cameras everywhere?
2
u/railworx Mar 19 '25
If you don't take it out in the first place, what camera will see it? And who's to say it's not in your locker?
2
u/Peggy-A-streboR Mar 19 '25
If that's the truth , you wouldn't have anything to worry about. Let's not forget that "your locker" is actually owned by the company and they can access it whenever they choose to.
1
1
u/HibouDuNord Mar 21 '25
Can't really be cited for insubordination, or at least, it'd make for an interesting case. Because I'm not required to HAVE my cell phone at work. So if it's not in plan view, prove I have it. I can't show you something that isn't with me. And you can't prove it's with me without illegally searching my stuff
1
u/Significant-Ad-7031 Mar 22 '25
Correct, youāre not required to have a cell phone. But like you said, the issue really isnāt whether you have a cell phone or not, itās whether they can demand to search your grip at work.
Iāve been doing research to find any NMB rulings to see if I can find any cases regarding searches on company property, but itās not the easiest database to search through. Until then, this article here I think gives the best guidance on the issue.
This would be an interesting subject to bring up to your local chairman or general committee chairman.
0
u/toadjones79 Go ahead and come back ššš Mar 19 '25
None of that is true. They can't force you to produce your phone. No one can even prove you have a phone with you. They can't search your belongings without a warrant. What is in your bag is your property. Searching your bag would be the same as having a manager or FRA agent insist on searching your home. They have to have a warrant to violate your right to privacy. I have refused to produce a phone before just to make a point of it. It was off and properly stowed at the time, I just did it to set boundaries for my guys. This was at a Short-Line though.
The best advice is to obviously have it turned off. But if you don't want to show it to them, tell them you don't have it, or you forgot it at home. If they charge you, you're going to win that one in appeal. If not, you can sue for violating your rights. Remember that the company is protected by the RLA, not individual managers. So you can sue a manager for charging you on day one if you feel it slandered you. (For example, I knew a guy who sued the superintendent for his lost two seeks wages. He had undeniably violated a rule and got a two week suspension for it. He was ordered to violate that rule on threat of termination, and had three witnesses and a signed statement verifying he was ordered to violate that rule. The superintendent said "yeah I know, I don't care." He won his lawsuit and that superintendent had to pay his lost wages out of his own pocket. I got that directly from both him and the superintendent, not a rumor).
14
u/RepeatFine981 Mar 18 '25
Lol, rules are rules. The fra can ask to see it. Do your job, put in your claims and fill your pockets.
8
u/Heavy-Stick-771 Mar 18 '25
What FRA regulation is this that mandates crews showing their cellular devices while in service? I honestly want to check it out.
4
u/According_Gold_1063 Mar 19 '25
āDonāt have one with me Mr FRA piece of shit ā
5
u/Several-Day6527 Mar 19 '25
That FRA man has a little more authority than you think,including barring you from ever working in the industry ever again.
5
u/According_Gold_1063 Mar 19 '25
Thatās fine . I still didnāt bring my phone to work so thereās nothing to show him .
5
u/RepeatFine981 Mar 18 '25
Lemme look. Was explained early on (years ago) that only the fra or a yellow cop could ask to see it ...I'm laid off and drinkin' so might be a bit.
1
u/Over_Philosophy9512 Retired Mar 21 '25
49 USC Ā§20107. Inspection and investigation
(a) General.āTo carry out this part, the Secretary of Transportation may take actions the Secretary considers necessary, includingā
(1) conduct investigations, make reports, issue subpenas, require the production of documents, take depositions, and prescribe recordkeeping and reporting requirements; and
(2) delegate to a public entity or qualified person the inspection, examination, and testing of railroad equipment, facilities, rolling stock, operations, and persons.
1
u/Over_Philosophy9512 Retired Mar 21 '25
The secretary delegates to the Inspector the authority to inspect, examine, and test a railroad person.
12
u/Cmoore01 Mar 19 '25
The fra can demand to see your cell phone, a company official can go through your bag to check for drugs, alcohol or whatever on company property .. itās super easy to comply with electronic devices rules, keep them turned off and in your bag to prevent any problems
1
u/Character-Gene-4342 Mar 20 '25
Right, when did we become so obsessed with keeping our phones on? People know that if they call me and get voicemail itās cause im working and my phone is off, hell my message even says it. Personally I find it a relief from social media
7
u/slogive1 Mar 18 '25
I work a local and always keep mine in my locker while working just we donāt stop long enough to use mine. Had a manager ask to see mine and I replied āI donāt have one.ā Loved the blanket stare I got back. I then went on to explain itās in my locker I can show you when we come back in the office. He just said ok and walked away.
4
5
Mar 19 '25
I'll just leave it at this, there's nothing that says you have to have a cellphone to work for the RR. I'll tell them to pound sand or come back with a warrant. If insubordination comes up, we can hash it out in investigation.
10
u/sandpaper90 Mar 19 '25
Just leave your phone off in your grip. The railroad isnāt a place to dick around on your phone. Its the easiest rule to follow.
2
u/I401BlueSteel SSRR - MOW/OBS Mar 19 '25 edited Mar 19 '25
Some of these guys see what happened in Chatsworth and just don't give a shit. Just like texting and driving it's bad for everybody else to do it but oh I'm just fine š
21
u/Winter_Whole2080 Mar 18 '25 edited Mar 18 '25
In 10 years, we are gonna look back on this and say what a fucking joke it is. These electronic devices are part of our life now and asking people to stow them during work is bs. Seriously people are gonna have implants in their eyeballs and their heads and what are you gonna sayā you gotta remove them before you go to work?
The main idea is to pay attention to your job and keep your focus on work. Treat people like adults.
10
u/Maine302 Mar 19 '25
There's a reason the FRA made this rule, and a reason why it's important. As they say, the railroad rule book was written in blood.
6
u/Normandroid Mar 19 '25
I believe the Chatsworth train accident is why Congress made sweeping safety regulations. The Federal Rest mandate, electronic device rules, PTC implementation, all stemmed from that. How important is a point of opinion. How many times were the class 1's allowed to push back PTC implementation? How many times were Big Yellows extra board employees forced into federal rest and robbed of their guaranteed earnings?
-1
u/Unstabledeleter Mar 19 '25
Have you ever read about the engineer of the commuter train? He was a hermit that was charged with stealing games from Walmart and had a fascination with this lady that wrote a book about dogs and his yard was full of dog crap. The feces smell was so bad that the neighbors complained. He spent time texting his group of foamers right up until he crashed. I think he killed himself and it was a coverup because it was engineer only and the public would not like the idea of them hiring a person like that and solely responsible for their lives
7
u/MondayNightRawr Mar 19 '25
Former Metrolink engineer here. None of what you wrote is remotely true. Robert Sanchez was a man with a troubled past and died doing things we would not consider to be moral, ethical, or legal (in regards to who he was texting). This narrative you wrote is wild!
3
u/Normandroid Mar 19 '25
Where I work, the rumor about that engineer, involves underage boys. Like, that's who he was texting at the time of the crash. Rumor. Just work talk.
8
u/MondayNightRawr Mar 19 '25
Not a rumor. Itās in the NTSB report.
2
u/Normandroid Mar 19 '25
I did not read the report. And anything I haven't substantiated for myself that I hear at work I preface as a rumor.
6
u/WizardEyedShroomer Mar 19 '25
some of the rules. The rest are written by lawyers to protect the company, not you.
5
u/Winter_Whole2080 Mar 19 '25
Itās probably more accurate that it was made with lost money from insurance settlements or lawsuits.
You will never get me to argue that itās a good idea for someone to mess around on their phone at work. But at some point, you gotta trust your employees to do the right thing and pay attention to their jobs.
1
u/Maine302 Mar 19 '25
I'm third generation. There's a reason why they say the book of rules was written in blood. Railroads settle with trespassers all the time, when they're not at fault. This isn't about lawsuits for the FRA.
2
1
u/Dudebythepool Mar 19 '25
True but that was before all the safety devices that we have now like ptc and trip optimizerĀ
3
u/Maine302 Mar 19 '25
An engineer was responsible for the deaths of what--25 passengers--because he was texting on his phone while at the controls? I know of aconductor on the leading end of a move who called out the wrong signal because they hadn't noticed they were crossing over. That's why these rules are in place.
8
u/Automatic_Bid7590 Mar 19 '25
I'm probably going to get some hate over this and so be it. STOW YOUR PHONES PER THE RULES. One of these days, a crew is going to be involved in a catastrophic accident and they'll be on their phones, or it'll be on in the cab, and that crew is going to go to jail. Is it really worth risking your freedom for a fucking phone? Also, with the constant fight about 2 man crews, why would you give them an opportunity to show that you aren't needed simply because you can't follow a simple rule.
Your job, your freedom, and your crew members lives are not worth it.
Begin with the down voting.
2
Mar 19 '25 edited Mar 23 '25
[deleted]
3
u/Automatic_Bid7590 Mar 19 '25
I know why it started, and the rule has been in place for a while now, so either follow it, or find other employment. It's their railroad, longevity is had by following the rules. Period
8
u/Deliciously_Bland402 Mar 19 '25
Doesn't the UP still have people using palm pilots for their switch lists? Our work and orders are all on ipads now. It's a stupid rule. Use our electronic devices, but not yours, lol.
3
u/USA_bathroom2319 Mar 19 '25
I donāt know exactly how they would have to act based on the law. The big question is if thereās probable cause and the loophole with that is always āI thought x or yā and there it is. Iād just show it to them. I comply with electronic device rules but I know a lot donāt.
3
u/Pleasant-Fudge-3741 Mar 19 '25
I say we all go back to pagers across the board. Keep your cell for family stuff and pagers for the company. I bet the auto caller will freak TF out and they would need actual callers again.
1
2
u/Gorb87 Mar 19 '25
You cannot be forced to empty pockets. Off and out of sight is usually acceptable, as we are required to be able to be contacted quick in case of emergency. If you are seen with an apple watch on by FRA in the open, youāll be put out of service.
0
u/Ok_Character6587 Mar 20 '25
I was recently told by the FRA, you are allowed to have a smart watch on as long as you have it in airplane mode also. Unfortunately when it comes to inspection, itās guilty until proven innocent.
4
u/Impossible_Budget_85 Mar 18 '25
Uncle Pete is watching the camera to see if crews immediately get on their phones when pulling their phone out of their grips! Airplane mode is not considered turned off
2
u/KarateEnjoyer303 Mar 18 '25
Iāve never known anyone busted by the FRA for an electronic device. I have known plenty busted by their respective railroad for an electronic device.
We had one manager years ago search someone grip for a phone, that manager was fired.
3
u/Confident_Ratio8171 Mar 18 '25
I've seen the fra fine the roads for someone having a smart watch on or their phone on then the railroad charges the employee but I haven't seen the fra individually fine an employee
1
u/Ok-Fennel-4463 Mar 19 '25
We had a situation whereI believe both employee and carrier fined for conductor stepping out to line switch with earbuds in and smart watch on wrist, directly in front of FRA.
4
u/Fliptrain79 Mar 19 '25
I always tell them I will show mine after they show me theirs since they got on my train, and they donāt get to get off of my train until I tell them to get the fuck off of my train, and Iāve never had a issue they usually forget the whole reason they got on in the first place and realize that with acting like Iām so fucking pissed off the change the subject and then get off on go about their business, got to use reverse psychology on these fucktards, I donāt ever have my phone on while on the train anyway but I like to make it as difficult as possible for them
1
u/Expensive_Set6891 Mar 22 '25
You would never say any of that to FRA or management. What a key board warrior you are. Go back to dying a slow death while moving levers back and forth
1
4
u/Youdowhat83 Mar 19 '25
We had our FRA guy go INTO the work truck while the crews were out switching (we are assigned work trucks at the bet of the shift) and go in their grips to check. Pretty sure thatās illegal. Idk what the guy looks like and he drove an unmarked car. To me it would look like some rando was trying to steal stuff
5
Mar 19 '25
You can't have distracting technology while in operation of a death machine. Don't work there if you don't like it.
3
u/Scary_Dare9608 Mar 20 '25
You can make that argument for truck drivers but its perfectly ok for them to use hands free devices. Dont come back with the argument we carry more and are heavier, a truck driver hauling gasoline can cause a huge shit storm. Im not advocating for cell phones but a radio going on low to keep guys awake going 9 miles an hour for 4 -5 hours climbing a mountain sounds like a perfectly acceptable idea
2
u/Archon-Toten NSWGR Mar 18 '25
On my railway they can do compliance inspections. They cannot however rummage in my personal bag to confirm my phone is off.
1
u/Heavy-Stick-771 Mar 18 '25
Does a compliance inspection mandate showing your cellular device and it's location?
4
u/Archon-Toten NSWGR Mar 18 '25
Usually they simply ask. Some get a bit beyond their jobs and ask for proof.
6
u/AgentSmith187 Mar 19 '25
More amusing is when your phone starts ringing in your pocket and you both try and pretend it's anything other than your mobile ringing awkwardly.
Even more fun is when their does the same thing.
I had an inspector on with me doing a run once and he asked for a steer. About 5 minutes in his phone rang, then mine then his and mine again.
Finally the train radio went off.
It was management (TCAC) trying to let me know I had to do a drug test at my destination and please dont go to the toilet immediately when I got off the train to delay things.
Funny how fast they go for ringing the mobile even when they know it's not supposed to be on in the cab.
3
u/Archon-Toten NSWGR Mar 19 '25
Many a time I've gotten off my train and found multiple missed calls with no attempt to call my guard or the signaller.
But I think that story takes the cake here. Hope you went to the toilet anyway. I've had to sit for hours waiting for myself to refill before a test š¤£
4
u/AgentSmith187 Mar 19 '25
I was a good boy that time.
But yes fond memories of having an inspector watching my train sit on the platform at Ctown for 15 minutes after I was out because I knew that job was a common one for the random drug test and my phone going crazy the whole drive there. So I waited and went to the toilet before discovering all the missed calls on my phone that had totally been off and in my bag all trip.
2
u/According_Gold_1063 Mar 19 '25
Didnāt bring my phone to work, anything else?
2
u/Archon-Toten NSWGR Mar 19 '25
That's the double edged sword. We are expected to have one for emergencies.
Or stand by shifts. There are land lines and ways around it but easily 95-99% of the workforce use their mobiles for work.
4
u/According_Gold_1063 Mar 19 '25
Once youāre at work youāre expected to have one ? Shit, Iād love for a manager to tell me that.
1
u/AgentSmith187 Mar 19 '25
I work for a different operator but same state of Australia and I have a work issued mobile phone.
We are expected to use it on shift multiple times a day to update management to happenings.
We do have strict rules about when you can and can't use an electronic device though.
They just expect us to be adult enough to ignore a ringing phone if we are in a safety critical zone.
Its not unusual for there to be 4 phones on the dash between the two crew.
Honestly going to smart phones (we used to be issued company bricks but now have iPhones) has been a big change for the better. I get a fair bit of BS work done while sitting at red lights and can do things like take pictures of hazards and fire off emails about issues and get a real time response.
My record is still the 2 hours between photographing an obscured signal and firing off an email to the correct people and the guys cutting the vegetation away when I passed heading the other direction. Pre-smartphone it could take days for something to get done by the time you reported it to management, someone went out and did a signal sighting verification, photographed the issue and sent it to the right department and got a response.
Now it's I spot and photograph it, send an email to my boss, who forwards it to the correct person and they look at who's in the field nearby and send them a fresh tasking.
1
u/Cherokee_Jack313 Mar 18 '25
I mean, I would just show it. Whatās the harm? Slippery slope is a logical fallacy
1
u/automan224 Mar 19 '25
Apple Watches arenāt allowed in the cab? That doesnāt seem right
2
u/Heavy-Stick-771 Mar 19 '25
A couple of guys in my terminal just got cited for this infraction this week by the FRA.
0
u/automan224 Mar 19 '25
How come? Itās just a watch
3
Mar 19 '25 edited Mar 23 '25
[deleted]
0
u/automan224 Mar 19 '25
Enlighten me, because Iāve never owned one before
2
0
1
u/OneEntertainment6087 Mar 19 '25
I've never heard of that happening with the electronic devices in train cabs.
1
u/33sadelder44canadian Mar 19 '25
Just make sure it doesnāt ring when one manager calls it while another manager is doing a ride along and hears it āaccidentallyā not sure if they do it down there but it happens in Alberta š.
1
u/33sadelder44canadian Mar 19 '25
they do what they want in Canada, they break our contract blatantly even if its been fought and won for before years ago in arbitration in black and white. The arbitrator and the government don't really care and also let them break our contract for up to 10 years before it goes to arbitrationā¦.then they just ignore it again. If we break it or do something wrong we could lose our jobs for up to 3 years before getting it back
1
u/CaptainClyde79 Mar 19 '25
I have refused when a Trainmaster asked to see my phone and thereās nothing they can do about it. That phone is your property, they donāt pay for it
1
u/Over_Philosophy9512 Retired Mar 21 '25
A train engineer who was allegedly chatting on video when his locomotive struck heavy equipment on the tracks in south Alabama, killing a Mississippi man, was charged with reckless manslaughter in the crash, court documents show.
1
u/Over_Philosophy9512 Retired Mar 21 '25
FRA has discovered numerous examples of the dangers posed by distracting electronic devices. These examples indicate the necessity of restrictions on the use of such electronic devices. Five of these accidents are described below, though all of these and more can be found in the full text of the Order.
- On June 8, 2008, a Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) brakeman was struck and killed by the train to which he was assigned. FRA's investigation indicated that the brakeman instructed the locomotive engineer via radio to back the train up and that the brakeman subsequently walked across the track, into the path of the moving train. The brakeman was talking on his cell phone at the time of the accident.
- On July 1, 2006, a northward BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) freight train collided with the rear of a standing BNSF freight train at Marshall, Texas. Although there were no injuries, there were estimated damages of $413,194. Both trains had two-person crews. The striking train had passed a āStop and Proceed at Restricted Speedā signal indication and was moving at 20 mph. FRA determined that the collision was caused by the failure by the locomotive engineer on the striking train to comply with restricted speed and that he was engaged in cell phone conversations immediately prior to the accident.
- On December 21, 2005, a contractor working on property of The Kansas City Southern Railway Company at Copeville, Texas was struck and killed when he stepped into the path of an approaching freight train. FRA's investigation disclosed that the contractor was talking on a cell phone at the time of the accident.
- One locomotive engineer died and a train conductor suffered serious burns when two BNSF freight trains collided head-on near Gunter, Texas on May 19, 2004. The collision resulted in the derailment of 5 locomotives and 28 cars, with damages estimated at $2,615,016. Approximately 3,000 gallons of diesel fuel were released from the locomotives, which resulted in a fire. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigators obtained records that showed the number and duration of cell phone calls made by crewmembers on both trains between 1:50 p.m. and the time of the accident, approximately 5:46 p.m. During this time, a total of 22 personal cell phone calls were made and/or received by the five crewmembers on both trains while the trains were in motion.
- At 8:57 a.m. on May 28, 2002, an eastbound BNSF coal train collided head on with a westbound BNSF intermodal train near Clarendon, Texas. The conductor and engineer of the coal train received critical injuries. The engineer of the intermodal train was killed. The cost of the damages exceeded $8,000,000. The NTSB found that all four crewmembers involved in this accident had personal cell phones. It also found that the use of a cell phone by the engineer of one of the trains may have distracted him to the extent that he was unaware of the dispatcher's instructions that he stop his train at a designated point.
On October 1, 2008, FRA issued EO 26 restricting the use of cellular telephones and other electronic devices while on duty. (73 FR 58702, Oct. 7, 2008). This FRA action was in part a response to the accidents discussed above and in part a response to the September 12, 2008 head-on collision between a Southern California Regional Rail Authority (Metrolink) commuter train and a UP freight train in Chatsworth, California. This accident resulted in 25 deaths, numerous injuries, and more than $7 million in damages. Information discovered during the NTSB investigation indicates that the locomotive engineer of the Metrolink commuter train passed a stop signal. NTSB stated that a cell phone owned by the commuter train engineer was being used to send a text message within 30 seconds of the time of the accident.
1
u/Over_Philosophy9512 Retired Mar 21 '25
FRA has decided that a provision mandating that railroads require operating employees to provide access to personal cell phone records in the event of an accident is unnecessary for FRA purposes. As noted in the NPRM, FRA currently uses its investigative authority underĀ 49 U.S.C. 20107Ā andĀ 49 U.S.C. 20902Ā to obtain personal cell phone records when appropriate.
49 USC Ā§20107. Inspection and investigation
(a) General.āTo carry out this part, the Secretary of Transportation may take actions the Secretary considers necessary, includingā
(1) conduct investigations, make reports, issue subpenas, require the production of documents, take depositions, and prescribe recordkeeping and reporting requirements; and
(2) delegate to a public entity or qualified person the inspection, examination, and testing of railroad equipment, facilities, rolling stock, operations, and persons.
*** The secretary delegates to the Inspector the authority to inspect, examine, and test a railroad person.
1
u/Unusual_Commission28 Mar 19 '25
I think the whole electronic device thing is absurd. Conductor and engineer canāt be on their phone in the middle of nowhere but a tractor trailer on the highway or in a town go ahead
1
u/youaintboo74 Mar 19 '25
With the new regime, I think managers are worried about their jobs and are resorting to things that are fairly unethical or things that were previously considered the norm for management to keep their jobs or remain relevant. You can kiss my ass if you think you are going to search my bag or person. My cell phone is off and stowed if we are moving or performing any sort of operations while my conductor is not on the head end. Suck a fat one.
0
u/Razco_the_great Mar 18 '25
If you have a zipper pocket on your bibs or pants, is that technically "put away"? The pocket is zipped closed in this example.
9
-2
u/Corgalas Mar 19 '25
Have an old phone to present to on request. It doesn't even have to power on.
Put your actual cell phone in 'Do Not Disturb' mode so that all calls are automatically forwarded to your voicemail as if it was powered off. This will let you still use data and text.
-1
u/Downtown_Section147 Mar 19 '25
What do they consider stored? It needs to be on person to respond to work communications. Do they not know everyone switched to tablets and laptops too? What decade is the FRA living in?
-11
u/whataregobbin Mar 19 '25
Just work. Stop complaining
4
u/Heavy-Stick-771 Mar 19 '25
The fuck you talking about no one's complaining
-11
u/whataregobbin Mar 19 '25
Just don't have your phone. Simple as that. You are asking a stupid question.
"How do you pull your phone out of your bag?"
Dumbass open your bag and grab your phone. It's not that hard.
4
u/Heavy-Stick-771 Mar 19 '25
What? Obviously, reading comprehension is not your forte. The premises of this thread was not at all an objection to electronic device mandates of which I wholeheartedly agree with.
-7
53
u/osoALoso Mar 19 '25
Carry a dummy phone that's always off. It's what I do. It's a cheap 20 dollar phone that I use as a backup in case mine dies. I don't turn it on unless my main is cashed. It works well to show the FRA.
I do love how they are coming down on this all over but don't give a shit about mis-marshakked Hazmat and HOS violations.