A train loaded with Powder River Basin coal sat sidelined near Rozet recently. Wyoming's Powder River Basin coal complex is served by two railroads, Union Pacific and BNSF Railway, which predominantly use 2-mile long "unit" trains to ship coal to power plants in more than 30 states. (Dustin Bleizeffer)

The Wyoming Legislature has long wrestled with the question of whether to mandate two-person crews on the freight trains that traverse Wyoming’s more than 1,800 miles of track. 

The federal government has taken an interest in policies over recent months that could resolve the issue — though news Wednesday about tentative Congressional agreement over a separate infrastructure package casts doubt on a near-term federal resolution.

The two-person crew mandate was adopted earlier this summer as part of the House of Representatives’ INVEST In America Act. The massive infrastructure spending package includes hundreds of millions of dollars in transportation spending, along with an overhaul of federal regulations and programs that apply to the use of those dollars.

Proponents of  minimum crew sizes — including railroad labor unions — argue that such rules create safer conditions for workers traveling the rails through a desolate and challenging landscape. Opponents attack the idea as expensive red tape and undue government intervention in private business. 

All crews currently operating in Wyoming count at least two members, but the future is uncertain as railroad companies grapple with ongoing cost-cutting and a worsening long-term economic outlook for bread-and-butter freight like coal — which accounts for more than 90% of all rail freight traffic in Wyoming, according to federal data.

Rep. Stan Blake (D-Green River)

While only a handful of states have passed two-person crew mandates, railroad advocates see an urgent need for such a requirement in Wyoming where companies like Union Pacific have long pushed for flexibility in their labor agreements for smaller crews.

The railroads have touted their improving safety record and have offered alternatives, like mobile relief teams — essentially a roving back-up conductor in a truck. But company-led alternatives matter little in the desolation of rural Wyoming, said Stan Blake, a former state lawmaker and state director for the railroad’s union, the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers (SMART).

“No matter what kind of technology [the railroads] have, the first person on the scene [of an accident] will be the engineer and the conductor,” Blake said. “That is, if they’re both still alive.”

“In some of these far-flung places, how soon will it be before a manager can get out there to assist?” Blake asked.

Opposition

While two-person crew proposals have twice passed the Wyoming House of Representatives in recent years, the policy has yet to survive the Wyoming Senate.

Critics have argued that crew minimums amount to improper government incursion into private business. The measures interfere with railroads’ contract negotiations at a time industry leaders say increased automation and new safety technologies have eliminated the need for the traditional crew configurations.

“Technology has reduced the need for a conductor in the cab,” Union Pacific spokesperson Mike Jaixen wrote in a statement to WyoFile. “Conductors will continue to play an important role on the railroad, but it is outside the cab on the ground, overseeing the cargo across a predefined territory.”

“Individual states mandating crew size limit our ability to compete for business in a world where technology is changing the transportation industry,” he added. “Additionally, railroads negotiate many aspects of rail operations, such as pay rates and work rules, through existing collective bargaining processes under the Railway Labor Act. Any changes to crew size would also occur through this process.”

Representatives for BNSF Railway, which also operates in Wyoming, did not respond to a request for comment.

There is an economic incentive for the railroads to reduce personnel. While coal freight saw a slight uptick in the first two quarters of 2021, according to an earnings call with Union Pacific executives last week, the company remains concerned about the mineral’s long-term prospects, citing the future planned retirements of coal-fired power plants and increased demand from competing energy sources. Companies like BNSF have reported similar trends in recent months.

“Based on the current and future natural gas prices, we view current coal demand as momentary,” said UP spokesperson Robynn Tysver. “We expect coal shipments to face continued decline due to future-planned retirements, as well as increased demand from competing energy sources.”

As coal has declined, so has the number of railroaders: in 2008, major railroad companies employed just under 3,300 people in Wyoming, according to figures from the federal Railroad Retirement Board. Ten years later, that number had fallen to under 2,500 employees.  

Support independent reporting — donate to WyoFile today

Whether the federal government actually moves forward with a federal two-man crew mandate remains to be seen. The Federal Railroad Administration recently ruled against setting a federal crew size mandate, saying it found little data to support the assertion that operations with two people in the cab are any safer than those with one. 

Blake disagrees, especially given Union Pacific’s admission in its Q2 earnings call that personnel injuries have increased over the last several months despite reductions in staffing and a declining number of equipment malfunctions.

“The technology has helped,” Blake said. “But technology and two people on a train is the ultimate safety measure. Why saw one leg off of that stool? It’s to save money for the railroad. We have a saying here at the railroad, and that’s ‘uphill slow, downhill fast; profits first, safety last.’”

While the INVEST Act passed the U.S. House of Representatives with just two Republican supporters, the dominant discussion on Capitol Hill has focused on a smaller infrastructure package that achieved bipartisan support in the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

UPDATE: The infrastructure package that Senate negotiators Wednesday reached tentative agreement on will not include a two-person crew mandate, according to a spokesman for the Association of American Railroads. While the bill currently remains the most likely option for federal appropriators, it is still unclear whether it will pass the Senate. 

At this point, the likelihood of a two-person crew mandate being negotiated into the package, AAR believes, is slim.

“If crew size policy is to be enacted on a federal level, it would be through regulation at this point,” said Ted Greener, assistant vice president for public affairs at AAR. “The Biden administration has indicated it will issue a new regulation in November.”

Join the Conversation

1 Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  1. Its no secret railroads want more profit. The country however, needs more workers to survive the future economy; less workers mean less income which equates to less spending and thereby less need for railroads to haul merchandise needed for a waning economy. The great circle of life depends on good jobs and Conductor is one of those. Relatively speaking, a single train can remove as many as 750 long haul trucks from the highway; that’s a lot of driver jobs lost comparatively to a single conductor position! The Conductor provides a critical second set of eyes and ears in the locomotive and is the single most responsible person in event of an emergency response and general every day duties. The engineer who cannot work both positions at the same time relies on a Conductor tremendously and vice versa. When I hired on the railroad over 22 years ago there were 3 sometimes 4 on every crew, while that may be viewed as excessive today it was necessary then to complete all work timely. Trains hauling coal were abundant then in Kentucky, Virginia, Tennessee and West Virginia. Safety, efficiency and as important, economy will suffer if Conductor jobs are allowed to be cut off arbitrarily. Railroad companies are not going broke and they are not suffering from having to maintain the Conductors job. They are simply continuously cutting the bottom line to expand profit, bonuses and stock awards for the top 1%, CEO’s, VP’s, large shareholders. One only need look at PSR for a fleeting moment to realize their scheme, it isn’t even a secret anymore.