NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

UNION PACIFIC PUBLIC HEARING

Springfield Hilton
6550 Louisdale Road
Springfield, Virginia
Friday, March 20, 1998
8:00 a.m.


NTSB Board of Inquiry Members

Technical Panel Members

United Transportation Union Representatives

Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers Representatives

Union Pacific Railroad Representatives

Federal Railroad Commission Representatives

Texas Railroad Commission Representatives


A G E N D A

AGENDA ITEM:

Adjournment

P R O C E E D I N G S
------------------------

8:05 a.m.

CHAIRMAN GOGLIA: Good morning, everybody. Back on the record for day three of this wonderful adventure.

And the order of appearance today will be the BLEA first, the UTU second, then Mr. Dennis Holland and Dennis Richling and Dr. Mark Rosekind, and the final witness of the day -- witnesses of the day will be James Phelan and Don Itzkoff from the FRA.

So, Mr. Dunn, will you please call the next witness?

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The National Transportation Safety Board calls James Bradford and George Hucker.

(Pause)

Whereupon,

was called as a witness, and first having been duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

Whereupon,

was called as a witness, and first having been duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Thank you. Please be seated.

TESTIMONY OF
JAMES BRADFORD
SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE
BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS, AND
GEORGE HUCKER
VP AND CANADIAN NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE
BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Mr. Bradford, would you state for the record your full name and spell your last name?

MR. BRADFORD: Full name is James E. Bradford, B-R-A-D-F-O-R-D.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Mr. Hucker, would you state for the record your full name and spell your last name, please?

MR. HUCKER: My name is Thomas George Hucker, H-U-C-K-E-R.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Mr. Bradford, what is your present position with Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers?

MR. BRADFORD: I am a special representative.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Okay. And how long have you held that position?

MR. BRADFORD: This current time I've been on since 1992.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Are you also employed in the railroad industry?

MR. BRADFORD: Yes, sir. I'm an engineer on the Union Pacific.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: And how long have you held that position?

MR. BRADFORD: I was hired as a locomotive fireman in '73.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: And have you worked continuous -- was that with the Southern Pacific or Union Pacific?

MR. BRADFORD: Southern Pacific, and I was promoted to a locomotive engineer approximately in April of '76. I worked on the property until 1980. I went on the International as a special representative in 1980, worked as a special rep until '87, went back on the property in '87, and stayed there until I came back this time in '92.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Okay. And as an engineer where have you worked geographically?

MR. BRADFORD: Well, my prior -- is in Houston, Texas, so I've worked, you know, in many ways out of Houston.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: I understand.

MR. BRADFORD: East, west, north, and south.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Mr. Hucker, what is your present position with the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers?

MR. HUCKER: I'm an international vice president and Canadian legislative representative for the Brotherhood of Canada.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: And how long have you held that position?

MR. HUCKER: For five years now.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: And could you briefly tell us about positions you have held in the railroad industry or organized labor?

MR. HUCKER: I hired on in 1966 as a treeman yardman with Canadian Pacific Railway in Thunder Bay and subsequently qualified as a conductor. And in 1975 in the first training program that CP had in regards to locomotive engineers I qualified as a locomotive engineer. I held that position in both yard and -- and on assigned freight service until 1986 when I was elected as a general chairman for the Brotherhood for Western Canada, and subsequently to that in 1993 I was elected to an international vice president and the national legislative representative for Canada.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Thank you.

We will begin the questioning with the Technical Panel.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, Mr. Dunn.

Good morning, Mr. Bradford. Could you please describe your duties as a special representative?

MR. BRADFORD: Well, George, I -- I do a lot of things. I -- I do education and training out of our education and training department at the International. I present this training to our local divisions across the country. I assist secretary-treasurers with their duties, government-reporting, and things of that nature. And one of my primary responsibilities is I'm a team leader of the BLE safety task force.

MR. COCHRAN: Are you assigned to any specific geographical location?

MR. BRADFORD: Yes, sir. I have approximately 14 states. I have Texas, I have the two states west of Texas, New Mexico and Arizona, and up through central -- west of the Mississippi, I've got some divisions in Illinois, but I have Arkansas, Texas, Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska, and Kansas, Wisconsin.

MR. COCHRAN: Were you involved in any pre-merger planning with the Union Pacific-Southern Pacific merger?

MR. BRADFORD: No, sir. I was not.

MR. COCHRAN: Do you have any strategies or does the B of LE have any strategies relative to mergers anticipated?

MR. BRADFORD: Well, I'm sure that they've got a strategy, George, but I'm -- I'm not involved in that level.

MR. COCHRAN: Have you an opinion on safety-related matters that should have been addressed prior to -- to such merger as the Union Pacific-Southern Pacific's merger?

MR. BRADFORD: Yes, sir, I've got some opinions.

MR. COCHRAN: Would you care to express those?

MR. BRADFORD: Well, I -- I've heard a lot about, you know, what's going on here, and I'm excited that some of these problems are being addressed. I have some concerns that they'll never make it down to the lowest level where they need to go for a lot of different reasons.

MR. COCHRAN: Do you know -- was the B of LE involved in any of the safety action plans associated with the -- the accidents that we're discussing at this hearing?

MR. BRADFORD: Well, George, I wasn't -- I wasn't directly involved in 'em, but I believe we do have people on those programs.

MR. COCHRAN: And are you aware of the assessment that was furnished in February relative to SACP process on the Union Pacific?

MR. BRADFORD: I was given a copy of that when I arrived and I've -- I've read over it, yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Did the B of LE have opportunity to make comment on that assessment?

MR. BRADFORD: I wouldn't really know, George. I -- I -- I would hope that we did.

MR. COCHRAN: I have no further questions at this time, Mr. Bradford.

Mr. Weeks, do you have any questions?

DR. WEEKS: Mr. Bradford, were you present yesterday afternoon for Mr. Varvel's testimony with respect to drug and alcohol testing on the Union Pacific?

MR. BRADFORD: Yes, sir, I was.

DR. WEEKS: In the course of his testimony he mentioned Operation Red Block, the Operation Red Block program as -- as a possible strategy to reduce or deter drug and alcohol use. Are -- are you aware of the program? And if -- if so, I'd like to get your assessment of the vigor with which that program is implemented. Is -- is it a successful program?

MR. BRADFORD: Well, yes, sir, I -- I think it's a very successful program because I -- I had the privilege of setting in a room one time when -- when the chief brought up that he would like to have good employees have a second chance in the industry. And that was a long time ago, and I think Mr. Davis is committed to that program. It's got some -- it's got some hiccups in it, but I think it's a good program.

DR. WEEKS: Do you have any recommendation as -- as to how to remove some of those hiccups or anything to enhance that program?

MR. BRADFORD: Well, there's still a level of intimidation and fear that if you do have those type of problems on the railroad -- a lot of guys still cover 'em up, still hide 'em. I -- I don't know how you make that a -- a more friendly place. That's for guys like yourself and others in that area that know those kind of answers, but for a locomotive engineer to kind of turn himself in or say he has a problem, as a rule the people he talks to sometime make that decision a little difficult.

DR. WEEKS: Thank you. I -- I have no further questions for Mr. Bradford.

MR. JAMES S. DUNN: Good morning, Mr. Bradford.

Questions along the line of fatigue, which was discussed pretty well in here yesterday. What kind of feedback is the BLE getting from their membership on fatigue, not only on the UP but in the industry?

MR. BRADFORD: I guess that's the number one enemy of an engineer. I get almost -- I wouldn't say all of my complaints, but if they don't start out with fatigue it's somewhere in their conversation with me when I visit the divisions and ask them, you know, if they have a message that I need to deliver back to Vice President Walpert. And you know, when am I going to go to work and how often I work, and the attitude of CMS, the attitude of the first-line officers, the condition of the equipment, the facilities at the away-from-home, and an engineer just trying to lead a normal life. He gets -- he gets pretty tired.

MR. JAMES S. DUNN: I guess what I -- I know there's a lot of areas in fatigue, but is it -- is it that they're on the trains too long or they're working too much? Is the hours of service too much for 'em? I'm more interested in -- in that area.

MR. BRADFORD: Well, I think any time you ask someone like a locomotive engineer to work as much as either they like to work or the carrier makes them work and you factor in what time am I going to go to work, you never know. You factor in the time that when you do call the railroad and says, "What's your best guess?" and they don't know if you're going to go to work today or tomorrow, it -- it starts to grind on you. And it -- it has a -- you know, a direct relationship, I believe, to safety.

MR. JAMES S. DUNN: And we had heard, and I know this 'cause I used to do it too, is that supervisors work 12, 14 hours a day seven days a week, 369 days a year. How about a locomotive engineer? Are they putting in them kind of hours also?

MR. BRADFORD: Well, Mr. Dunn, you know, in most cases they put in more time than that. That's -- I -- I heard some comments that the poor managers work -- working long hours, and I always enjoy the generals telling me how -- how to get my rest in the muddy foxhole. I mean, you know, I -- they don't -- they don't live that same life. They got different pressures, they've got different responsibilities. But I -- I believe when the Supreme Court ruled on the hours of service I think whoever was responsible for that, they should hang their heads in shame.

MR. JAMES S. DUNN: Let's switch gears just a little bit to accidents on the Union Pacific Railroad in that year period.

MR. BRADFORD: Yes, sir.

MR. JAMES S. DUNN: And in Texas since that's -- were you getting any kind of feedback from your members as far as them seeing something out of the ordinary that could lead to the accidents that occurred?

MR. BRADFORD: Well, a lot of engineers that were very familiar with the territory and worked it 15, 20, 30, 40 years, you know, all had some very good ideas of what happened and what caused it.

I think that there's many pieces to that puzzle, and I've heard a number of 'em spoken about here today or this week. And I think the record will speak for itself in that area of the many things that could and should be dealt with. The fatigue issue is definitely one.

There's many things. The incident at Divine. I rode the test engines at the -- the sister engines that the deceased engineer was on. The Board was kind enough to ask a series of questions, you know. What do you -- where you think that's coming at you? You know, when do you know it's engine? When do you know it's a train?

And the BLE made a recommendation to the Board. One of their recommendations was that wreck could have been prevented by an oscillating headlight because of the train there and the characteristics of the territory.

So, you know, there's -- there's a lot of things, Mr. Dunn. You know, you -- as you well know.

MR. JAMES S. DUNN: Thank you very much. I have no further questions.

CHAIRMAN GOGLIA: Okay. To the parties. Texas Railroad Commission?

MR. MARTIN: Yes, I may just have one of Mr. Bradford.

You've heard testimony earlier in this proceeding about -- about things getting better as far as crew -- crew management, crew pickup, and that sort of stuff. Would -- in the -- in your area, would you agree with that? Would you agree with those statements that it's getting better here recently?

MR. BRADFORD: I don't -- I don't see it getting measurably better. It could be getting very better in some areas, and I'm sure that the railroad or their consultants can probably prove to you that it's better. But I don't -- I don't see it being much better.

MR. MARTIN: That's all the questions I have.

CHAIRMAN GOGLIA: Federal Railroad Administration?

MR. GAVALLA: First of all, I'd like to thank the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers for their commitment to safety and their leadership in promoting safety partnerships with FRA and railroad management of the Union Pacific Railroad and really throughout the railroad industry.

Mr. Bradford, you made a reference to comments that you have concern that some of the safety plans that were discussed during these hearings haven't made it out into the field, and -- and there's a concern as to whether they ever will. And you've certainly heard FRA -- echo those concerns as have other parties here.

Do you have any ideas, any -- any suggestions as to how we can ensure that these plans are implemented in the field at the rank-and-file level and in first-line supervision?

MR. BRADFORD: Yes, sir. I would -- I know they've got a busy schedule, but for some of these generals setting at this next table here to show up at the Englewood Yard Office in Houston, Texas and to tell people coming on and off duty that's the way it's going to be. That would be one way.

MR. GAVALLA: Okay. Thank you. I have a question for Mr. Hucker.

Sir, do you have any experience in dealing with fatigue issues in the railroad industry?

MR. HUCKER: Mr. Gavalla, I am my union's representative in regards to fatigue in the North American railroad industry and have been a part of the two original projects that -- that took place both with the FRA -- pardon me, with the AAR and with the Railways of Canada.

MR. GAVALLA: Based on your experience and expertise, do you have any recommendations to address fatigue issues, particularly among train and engine service crews?

MR. HUCKER: The original Canada Alert report that we did in Canada with Canadian National and Canadian Pacific had a number of -- I believe it was 12 outstanding or fatigue countermeasures that should be put in place. Based on -- on -- on those recommendations I would suggest that this industry should adopt all of them as part of any fatigue countermeasure program. We proved that they work. We proved that you cannot use a cookie cutter approach to fatigue in the industry. We must do it by subdivision specific and simply if we -- if we get the railways to implement these things we will have a -- a far safer workplace than we have today for locomotive engineers and conductors.

MR. GAVALLA: Thank you, Mr. Hucker. No further questions at this time.

CHAIRMAN GOGLIA: Union Pacific?

MR. JERRY R. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I don't have a question. I just -- Mr. Bradford, I know that you helped in the investigation of these accidents that we had in 1997. On behalf of the Union Pacific I would like to thank you for that. I know -- I know it's not pleasant duty. We all feel that way. But certainly, we appreciate your efforts and the BLE efforts in the investigation of these accidents, and I thank you.

MR. BRADFORD: Thank you, sir.

CHAIRMAN GOGLIA: UTU?

MR. SULLIVAN: No questions.

CHAIRMAN GOGLIA: Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers?

MR. WALPERT: Yes, I have a couple of questions.

Mr. Bradford, you stated that you are a team leader for a safety task force. Would you explain your responsibilities and -- and what the safety task force is?

MR. BRADFORD: Well, the -- the -- the responsibility is to assemble my task force members who are scattered out all across the country. They are usually locomotive engineers that are working on that geographical area. We meet with the Board and the Board gives us party status, and in that party status they -- they request local knowledge or local expertise or whatever we can be value added to the investigation process. And I would like to believe that we -- we're -- we're a lot of help in that area.

MR. WALPeRT: Of the accidents that are being addressed during this hearing, did you participate in the investigation of any of those accidents?

MR. BRADFORD: I believe that I had five of those accidents during this period of questioning.

MR. WALPERT: Do you recall which ones they were?

MR. BRADFORD: The Board doesn't call it Kennefec, but I -- it's -- is it Andillia? Yeah, okay. We had Andillia. The Forth Worth incident on the runaway locomotives, the two in the Houston area, West Junction and Navasoda, and -- and Divine.

MR. WALPERT: In those accidents that -- that you investigated, Mr. Bradford, in your capacity as a team leader for a safety task force, did -- were you able to draw any conclusions as to the cause of the accidents?

MR. BRADFORD: Each one of 'em were very different. I think there is a common cause that runs through all those.

CHAIRMAN GOGLIA: I'm going to have to stop that question. The cause of the accidents is the purview of the NTSB, and we haven't made that determination yet.

MR. WALPERT: Okay. Thank you.

In -- in regard to the investigations, Mr. Bradford, did -- at any time did train line-ups come out during your investigations?

MR. BRADFORD: Yes, they did.

MR. WALPERT: In what respect?

MR. BRADFORD: I can specifically identify two, one inside this 12-month period we're talking about and one outside the 12 months we're talking about. And the one outside this envelope had four fatalities in it.

MR. WALPERT: Okay. Thank you.

You also spoke of a Supreme Court ruling on hours of service.

MR. BRADFORD: Yes, sir.

MR. WALPERT: Were you referring to that part of the ruling that provided that crews did not have to be relieved upon expiration of 12 hours?

MR. BRADFORD: Absolutely.

MR. WALPERT: And what has that caused in -- in the industry and in your observation?

MR. BRADFORD: I would say it was a milestone in my railroading career as a total disappointment with the Federal Government and the courts.

MR. WALPERT: Have you observed that crews are -- are required to stay on -- on trains for an inordinate amount of time?

MR. BRADFORD: I talked to one crew that was on a locomotive in excess of 24 hours.

MR. WALPERT: Is this something that occurs infrequently or is it -- does it happen on a regular basis?

MR. BRADFORD: You better prepare for it on every trip.

MR. WALPERT: Okay. That's really all I have. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN GOGLIA: The head table? Ms. Beal?

MS. BEAL: Good morning.

MR. BRADFORD: Good morning.

MS. BEAL: I realize that volumes could be written on the question I'm about to ask you, but I'm going to ask you to try to summarize in a word or two.

MR. BRADFORD: Okay.

MS. BEAL: In your opinion, what has prevented a mutually agreeable solution to the fatigue problem in the railroad industry?

MR. BRADFORD: If I'm going to work at 3:00, tell me I am.

MS. BEAL: So, scheduling is what you're saying?

MR. BRADFORD: Call it anything you want to, but if I know I'm going to go to work at three, --

MS. BEAL: The --

MR. BRADFORD: -- my lifestyle would be totally different than if I don't know I'm going.

MS. BEAL: Okay. Mr. Hucker, could you answer that question also, please?

MR. HUCKER: The -- the changing of the -- of the way freight crews operate from -- from unassigned freight service to a scheduling environment would allow a locomotive engineer and conductor to have some regularity and predictability in their lifestyle and their -- and their work environment. It is a simple process. The problem that we have with it right now is that the railways have not been able to computerize it, and thereby, it's all done by hand in the location where we are running time windows, as we -- as we call scheduling. The -- they are difficult to demand right now because of the fact it's done without electronic aid.

MS. BEAL: And I would like to ask both of you the same -- the next question also, and that is what in your opinion can the Federal Government do to help with the resolution to the problem?

MR. HUCKER: I think that the Federal Government and its agencies should keep the railways' feet to the fire, to put it in a -- the broadest terms. This issue of fatigue should not become the flavor of the month as some of the other issues in the industry have become over the years.

I think that the fatigue issue is not a -- a -- an American issue or a Canadian issue, it's a North American issue, and thereby, what happens in this country and what happens in Canada will have a -- an effect on all of us who operate trains in North America. And so, not only should the -- the FRA and this Board ensure that the railways understand that it is a top priority to the government and keep their -- them involved and -- and continue on with the process that we've started.

MS. BEAL: Mr. Bradford?

MR. BRADFORD: Following George is a little tough to do. Let me see if I can put it my way.

Most -- most of the engineers, most of the guys that I've talked to don't have any faith in the system. They want the studying to stop. They want the FRA or whoever to fix it.

MS. BEAL: Thank you very much.

CHAIRMAN GOGLIA: Mr. Ellingstad?

DR. ELLINGSTAD: I'd -- I'd also like to ask a couple of questions to both of you gentlemen, both in your capacities as -- as representatives of -- of people who are working in the -- in the industry and as practicing engineers yourselves. I understand that the scheduling irregularity difficulties. I'd also like to -- to get at the issue of the amount of work that's done per unit of time, etc.

First, Mr. Hucker, when you were -- when you're operating trains, what -- what's a typical work week in terms of numbers of hours on duty?

MR. HUCKER: My experience as a -- as a -- as a locomotive engineer in Canada would be the exact opposite to what Jim Bradford's experience or any other -- locomotive engineer in the U.S. would be. When I worked in the -- freight service, we did not have hours of service. Our -- our regulations were covered by -- were in the collective bargaining agreement. My normal workday would be -- by collective bargaining they had to have the unit off duty within 12 hours into the terminal, off the train and in the terminal. It was only by two incidents in late 1993 that we ended up with hours of service in the industry in Canada.

So, my experience has been totally different from what the -- the average U.S. locomotive engineer has been when it comes to unassigned freight service. I would normally work 10 days in a month or 10 trips in a month. I'd be out and back in about 24 hours with a day off between my tours of duty just by the way the traffic patterns flowed.

And when I came down to the States as a -- as a union officer and really got involved in my -- in my union, I was -- I was appalled to see what was going on down here. Clearly, the -- the people that I represented in Canada would not accept what was going on in the U.S. rail industry as far as locomotive engineers were concerned.

DR. ELLINGSTAD: Okay. In a typical -- in a typical week, how many hours of duty would you -- I -- I realize that's difficult --

MR. HUCKER: It --

DR. ELLINGSTAD: -- given the -- the way that the scheduling was done.

MR. HUCKER: It would -- it would vary, but on a minimum, say, on a -- I worked in high speed freight trains. Over the subdivision I worked on, the -- the running time was two hours and 35 minutes. I was approximately on duty four hours on a -- on a intermodal train. On a tonnage pull train or -- train I would be four and a half to five hours on duty. Total time at the throttle would be approximately four hours, so I would on a round trip even though I was away from home for 20 to 24 hours, I would probably be at the throttle no more than nine hours at the most on -- on two tours of duty.

DR. ELLINGSTAD: Mr. Bradford, could you --

MR. BRADFORD: Yes, sir. I'm -- I'm -- I'm moving to Canada.

(Laughter)

MR. BRADFORD: You spent four hours in Englewood trying to get the train out of the yard. It takes you -- I was talking to one student. He said he'd made 30 student trips over a section of the railroad on the UP, and he'd made it to the final terminal five times.

So, you know, on a typical freight run from Houston to Lafayette, 220 miles, 12, 14, 15 hours down there, pick a number of hours off, anywhere between eight and 20, and you could almost give, maybe 10, 12, 14 hours off when you came home. So, you do that every day.

DR. ELLINGSTAD: Okay. What -- what would be your typical week, then? You're -- you're doing these things on a -- on an everyday basis?

MR. BRADFORD: Yes, sir. You're on call, and you would have -- if you came in and -- we -- we had a -- before SP went out of existence, we had a rest rule that management absolutely could not stand. And so therefore, most engineers loved it. And it gave an engineer the ability to what we call kick for a rest. "I'm -- I'm exhausted, I've had a tough trip, I need to be off longer than the FRA says I need to be off." And we had that absolute right.

The carrier will probably tell you that there was many cases of abuse. Well, I can probably show you many cases of where that engineer was able to stay awake and go that 220 miles without an incident. I can show you many more cases like that because he did have the ability to kick for rest.

But as a rule, the engineers were wore out, the conductors were wore out. There's a shortage of engineers, and laying off as a locomotive engineer, you can get -- you can do a lot of other things in life but you can't lay off. That's -- that's a -- that's a tough thing to do is to get time off.

DR. ELLINGSTAD: Much of American society defines full-time work as 40 hours a week. Could an engineer on the Union Pacific or -- or any other U.S. railroad hold a job if they worked only 40 hours a week?

MR. BRADFORD: Yes, sir. I'm -- I'm -- I'm sure that there's 40-hour-a-week jobs somewhere. I can't name you a lot of 'em. Not -- not on the western railroads. The switch engines in the -- in Englewood are -- are seven-day jobs. Road-switchers are 12-, 14-, 15-, 16-hour days. I don't -- I don't know of many 40-hour jobs.

DR. ELLINGSTAD: Mr. Hucker?

MR. HUCKER: All the yard assignments in -- in Canada are 40-hour jobs. Unassigned freight service is -- has never been considered as a typical job in anywhere. And it would not be held normal by most of the population in the U.S. In fact, probably none of them would consider what Jimmy and I do for a living as -- as normal. Being -- being called in the middle of the night is not normal for the average working person. Not knowing when they're going to go to work in -- in -- in weeks ahead is not normal for the -- the average individual. But we and -- Jimmy and I and any locomotive engineer or conductor consider that as a -- a normal part of our working lifestyle. It's abnormal to everybody else.

DR. ELLINGSTAD: Okay. Finally, one -- one question, again, for both of you. Do you believe that there's a legitimate role for the -- for the U.S. Government through the FRA or whatever to establish limits on hours of service or -- which would include both amount of hours, time off, scheduling?

MR. HUCKER: You're putting me at a disadvantage because I disagree with hours of service, and that's my opinion because I believe it's -- based on faulty logic. I don't -- I don't -- do not believe that -- that a number is where we should be at, but if a number is going to be there, then unless we can do some things with -- fatigue side people who are far more knowledgeable of what goes on in the U.S. Government and what is necessary in the -- in the industry down here should answer that question.

DR. ELLINGSTAD: Thank you.

Mr. Bradford?

MR. BRADFORD: 12 hours on a locomotive is a long time. Something needs to be done by the Government to make this long periods of duty -- on a locomotive go away, if it's fatigue gurus that says, you know, that it should change or if it's -- if the courts decide different or management decides that it's different or the Government decides that it's going to be different. That issue needs to be taken care of.

DR. ELLINGSTAD: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN GOGLIA: Mr. Lauby?

MR. LAUBY: Thank you very much. I just have a couple of questions. Dr. Ellingstad, you know, really got into the heart of -- of what I -- what I wanted to find out about.

But first of all, I'd like to -- to say that Mr. Bradford and -- and the BLE and also the UTU, how valuable their participation in our accident investigations has been through -- through their respective task force, and -- and we really appreciate the help and the expertise that -- that's available for us to draw on in our accident investigations to make sure that we're not overlooking anything or to make sure that we totally understand the situation. And -- and the quality of some of the reports that we're able to put out are directly related to that participation, so I do want to thank you for that.

The other area I just want to talk about shortly, this is a question for -- for Mr. Hucker.

Mr. Hucker, you stated that in Canada because of a couple of incidents there now is hours of service. Can -- can you tell us a little bit about the incidents that drove that?

MR. HUCKER: There were two passenger train assignments. One was working north out of Winnipeg, which is roughly about where North Dakota is, just above there. The -- we -- we have two locomotive engineers in the -- in the cab of the locomotive, and in one assignment one had -- the crew had been on duty for 23 hours, and the last hour of the -- of the tour of duty with a Transport Canada rider in the cab of the locomotive. The engineer did not acknowledge one of the fixed signals that had been called up to him by the second engineer.

The second incident was about four days later where a locomotive engineer -- in fact, the crew worked 1000 miles and roughly went through change-off points. It was a combination of -- I hate to use this word but greed and -- and dumb management that put us in this position, and we had hours of service when the -- when the two incidents came up. Up until that time we had had all of our rest put in place by collective bargaining provisions.

MR. LAUBY: Were those crews working excessive hours? You said they went through -- through three crew change points?

MR. HUCKER: Yes, sir, they were.

MR. LAUBY: How many hours are we talking about in this case?

MR. HUCKER: The second -- the second crew change was probably around 22 hours.

MR. LAUBY: 22 hours continuous?

MR. HUCKER: Yes, sir.

MR. LAUBY: The hours of service that you have in place in Canada, what's -- what's included in that?

MR. HUCKER: All -- the covered service is all freight and passenger service, road -- road-switcher service. Yard service is not covered in the hours of service regulations.

The hours of service regulations are almost identical to here with the exception that we can work up to 16 hours in emergencies and a -- we must have at least six hours off between tours of duty before we can be called to work again. So in other words, we have eight hours, it'd be six with a two-hour call.

MR. LAUBY: How often do crews in Canada work 16 hours?

MR. HUCKER: It is the exception. It would only be in emergency situations where there were -- by an act of God or something that was unforeseen at the -- at the call or the beginning of the trip that a crew could be required. The railways have to justify it to Transport Canada that indeed there was a need to -- to use the crew in excess of 12 hours.

MR. LAUBY: So, in general are the labor agreements in Canada that -- that cover on-duty time, are they what rule how crews are assigned or -- or does it fall back to the hours of service?

MR. HUCKER: No, the collective bargaining agreements provide for tour of duty to be not in excess of 12 hours and crews must be in and off-duty within the 12th hour. The -- there is a responsibility on the crew to notify the railway that they will be requiring rest because we are allowed to book up to eight hours rest en route, also to book eight hours rest and -- at the away-from-home terminal, and 24 hours rest at the home terminal to ensure that we have time at home if -- if the -- the engineer or the conductor will need -- they need -- those two individuals or two classifications are the judge of their condition as to whether or not they need rest.

MR. LAUBY: So -- so, the Canadian hours of service regulations represent more of a ultimate worst case condition? That's -- that's really not a day-to-day practice?

MR. HUCKER: Oh, no, it -- it is a day-to-day practice. It is -- we live with those regulations. We also have another regulation that came out of the Hinton inquiry. I'm sure you're aware of -- of that accident where 23 people were killed when a -- a freight train ran into the head end of a -- of a passenger train.

We had mandatory off-duty time. When the Transportation Safety Board looked at the work scheduling of the locomotive engineer in freight service they found that he had been in an inordinate time on -- on duty and had -- really had not had any time off in the last 30 days because of the fact that we -- his mileage periods had overlapped. And they by regulation came up with a -- it's after 10 hours of duty locomotive engineers and conductors will be required by regulation to have eight hours off.

MR. LAUBY: Thank you very much. No more questions.

CHAIRMAN GOGLIA: Mr. Dunn?

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

A couple questions for Mr. Bradford following up on the -- some of the things the Technical Panel brought out.

You may be in a unique position, Mr. Bradford, in the sense that Houston is your home terminal, you're in a position with organized labor, you have good contact with the -- the rank-and-file, and as you stated and as I know having worked with you, you investigated I think it was five of the 15 accidents we're looking at.

In the last two days we've had some rather thorough, intensive discussions on could we see this coming, this erosion or safety or time of turbulence, and we've looked at it from statistics which didn't seem to provide the forecast and efficiency testing which didn't seem to provide the forecast. What do you think? Could -- could you see it coming? Could you in your position as a -- in organized labor or did you receive information from your membership? Could they see it coming?

(Pause)

MR. BRADFORD: You didn't tell me you were going to ask me that one.

Yeah, I -- I guess I can say yes, I did see it coming, Mr. Dunn. I'm sure that Mr. Davis and Mr. Walpert both are going to take me behind the woodshed and talk to me.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: No, they're not.

MR. BRADFORD: And I -- I'll say this, Mr. Dunn. If something's not fixed, if something's not made right, we could be back in here again.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Could you help us with that? When you say you saw it coming and -- and -- and I appreciate you being candid, what -- what did you see? What --

MR. BRADFORD: Well, Mr. Dunn, you know, I -- I'm not ashamed to tell you that I've been so tired behind the throttle that some of the decisions I had to make was a little bit blurry because of fatigue. And I'm sure that there's engineers out there right now today doing it.

And I -- I was very fortunate by growing up among some very senior qualified engineers like -- like George and -- and other senior engineers that took a lot of pride in teaching you how to run a locomotive. And "familiarization" was not a term when I grew up because you worked it and you knew it.

The engineers today under the FRA rules don't get an opportunity to make little bitty mistakes. They -- they have to pay a death penalty for a little mistake. You're asking engineers to go out there and handle big, big, dangerous trains through downtown Houston that have made maybe two, three trips over that territory. And due to the pressure everybody says they're qualified.

We'll be back in here again, Mr. Dunn, if -- if -- if everybody in this room doesn't get together and fix whatever's wrong.

Now, what is it that's wrong? I think there's a lot smarter people in this room to tell me -- tell you what's wrong. I think there's many thing wrong.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Do you think that -- that you, or maybe more importantly, your membership, and I'm talking about the rank-and-file now, the guys that -- that run the trains, the -- the men and women that run the trains. Do they have good opportunity to provide the proper -- the proper persons the feedback that you just gave me? What I'm driving at here is if you felt you -- and I'm sure you're correct when you say it -- if you felt that you could see this coming for a variety of reasons, was there the opportunity to provide feedback to those people such as the carrier, the FRA, the Texas Railroad Commission?

MR. BRADFORD: There could have been possibly someone somewhere I could have talked to. I'm -- I'm very fortunate by working with two -- two good and two caring individuals, Brother Walpert and Clarence Monit, and they support this process 100 percent. But could I go in and tell them that, you know, that there was going to be a wreck somewhere or it was going to happen somewhere? No, I -- I couldn't do that.

But, Mr. Dunn, if you take a tired, sleepy engineer with a train coming out of -- Galveston into Houston -- I've handled trains into Houston with little or no rest with 200 cars and every one of those cars had a placard on it. I don't think you want that train on the ground. I know you don't want it involved in an accident.

But something has to be done here, Mr. Dunn. And the rank-and-file have very little or no confidence in the FRA and management. And if it's you guys, the NTSB, that have got the keys to that lock I think it's time to try.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Okay. Thank you.

MR. BRADFORD: Yes, sir.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: That's all the questions I have at this time.

CHAIRMAN GOGLIA: We'll revisit the Technical Panel. Any questions?

DR. WEEKS: Two questions for Mr. Hucker.

Firstly, later this morning we'll be hearing from some witnesses who will be describing the Union Pacific's alertness management program to help give the Board a wider context. My question to you is are you aware of other alertness management programs in the rail industry? And if so, I'd be especially interested in hearing about your activities on behalf of your organization in planning and implementation of those programs.

MR. HUCKER: Mr. Weeks, I will deal with UP first of all and then I'll talk about the other -- other projects that are ongoing right now.

I guess about a year ago I had the -- the pleasure of meeting Mr. Davis in his office, and at that point in time we had approached him in regards to -- to doing something to come up with some fatigue countermeasures on the UP. He -- he was very interested and very concerned with what was going on with his property, with the -- the fatigue of the locomotive engineer.

As part of my duties -- and one of the committees I sit on is a work rest task force that is part of the AAR. And the UP was more interested in -- in -- while Mr. Davis was very concerned about it, at that point in time, the -- the UP was more concerned about putting on the -- the responsibility on the employee and training the employee to handle fatigue.

That was about eight months ago. Where the UP today is light years from where they were eight months ago. When I sat first with -- on one of the meetings on the SACP and fatigue, I was very happy to see that Dr. Mark Rosekind had been hired to handle the -- the project at UP. Subsequent to that, my -- my president has assigned me to -- to be the -- the BLE's representative on that fatigue process. What I saw at the first SACP fatigue meeting was very encouraging to where they -- they were -- they were trying to go.

I guess what I have to say is I haven't yet seen the budget, and when I see how much money the -- the railway is prepared to put into the process I will have a much -- much more fuzzy feeling about where fatigue and fatigue countermeasures will go in the UP, but I think that they're headed in the right direction with the people that they've hired to -- to do the job.

Mark Rosekind has got a tremendous reputation in the fatigue industry. Him along with Martin Morit from CTI are probably the two outstanding people who can look at fatigue countermeasures and -- and put them into the operating practices of the railway.

The other -- other class ones, Burlington-Northern Santa Fe is ahead of UP right now because they've been at it longer. Myself and Rick Marceau from the United Transportation Union have been the two individuals who have been at the design level of the fatigue countermeasures. My background is because of the -- I was involved with the CanAlert project on Canadian National-Canadian Pacific, our three-year project along with -- with Via Rail Canada, Limited that really put together the -- the -- the definitive study on fatigue.

I don't take any credit for that. I was just simply the lucky person to be sitting at the table at the right time when -- when it all came along. There were 40 locomotive engineers that put on -- put it all on the line for a couple years to be able to put together the report -- the study and the report and gave us data that we did not have before in regards to napping, in regards to what the work environment in the cab of the locomotive was like.

I, like Jimmy, by the grace of God could have been involved in any of those accidents that happened in Texas because we work in a -- in a constant state of jet lag. While I may not have a lot of time behind the throttle on a tour of duty, the unpredictability of when I do go to work and trying to measure all of that against a lifestyle of a wife and two -- and two children puts me in a position where if I don't know exactly when I'm going to work, then the chances are that -- that I'll be fatigued going to work and then trying to -- to operate long, heavy trains in today's railway environment puts not only myself but my fellow employees at risk.

The -- we have -- we have some real concerns with a couple of railways that are not doing any -- anything right now, and they may very quickly ruin all of the actions and -- and all of the efforts that we've tried to do both with -- Northern, Conrail, and now with UP, and that is my -- one of my concerns.

I also have very serious concerns if we don't fix this fatigue problem so that the next generation of conductors and locomotive engineers coming along to hire on, they won't be there to man the trains because anybody who gets into this lifestyle that -- that we have found ourselves in -- my career is 30 years. I suggest to you that if somebody told me that I was going to be working in an operation 24 hours, seven days a week, 365 days a year and they expected me to be there for all of that time, I probably would be doing something else right now. And I don't expect that my children will want to get themselves in the position that I today find myself in and my membership.

And so, that will be a huge impact on our -- the ability of this industry to -- to continue to grow the way it is.

I believe that the FRA and -- and -- and this Board has to ensure that the railways understand how really important this is. It's one thing to espouse it; it's quite another thing at the end of the day to have those programs in place that will -- will alleviate fatigue.

I hear at a number of meetings that people talk about train line-ups. For approximately 125 years this industry has spent hundreds of millions of dollars trying to figure out where the trains are, and yet they can't tell a locomotive engineer or conductor where they're going to work. I think they're useless. I think they're only meant there for -- for dispatchers to have something to do sometimes -- I know they're overworked -- and to be able to tell their customers that they have some idea where their trains are.

To a locomotive engineer they're useless because normally what is showing on a -- on a -- an afternoon line-up is not there on the evening line-up because something has changed.

I as -- as the union representative have been involved in -- in planning at Burlington-Northern Santa Fe with a lot of very good people who are very concerned people, individuals such as Thad Dayham and -- and George Smallwood and -- and Bill Cappin have been very instrumental in -- in putting together programs such as the napping strategy for systemwide to allow all employees, not just the locomotive engineers and the conductors, to have a nap when it's necessary. We found out in the original -- project that it does work. We don't have to study it. We know that it's there and it does work.

That -- there are -- as I said earlier, there are a number of countermeasures that should be in place. We can only ensure by our involvement with the -- with the railways and the -- and the regulators that these countermeasures do get in place and that the next -- generation of railroaders have a lot better life than what Jimmy Bradford and I have been accustomed to.

DR. WEEKS: Thank you, Mr. Hucker. I -- I did say that I had two questions for you, and actually, the second question I think should be for -- for both of you since I'm going to use some of Mr. Bradford's words. He mentioned earlier that fatigue is a problem when some people work as much as they like to work or as much as the carrier makes them work, and I think that's a fair, balanced portrayal that there are two sides to the problem.

My specific question is if we can take one side out of the equation, the part that as much as the carrier makes them work and reduce the carrier demands, what are your views and what -- what does labor do about the other side of the problem? The people who perhaps like to work too much.

MR. HUCKER: Dr. Weeks, I'm here to tell you that I will tell my membership that they're going to get a day off. They may not like it. They may think that it's going to impact upon their economic standing, but they will have a day off. At the end of the day they have a choice. If they don't agree with me they can -- not reelect me and I'll go back to operating the locomotive. But from where I sit and where my president sits, the locomotive engineer will have a day off in his work schedule, bottom line.

DR. WEEKS: Mr. Bradford?

MR. BRADFORD: Dr. Weeks, you know, that -- that's a real tough question for me to ask because I'm not elected, I'm appointed. And you know, for anyone to take a pay cut is a pretty volatile with my members. I'm sure that -- I'm -- I'm sure that a locomotive engineer would really appreciate knowing what time he went to work. And if that required a pay cut we have a very democratic process to express that opinion, and I'd like for that democratic process to answer that question if it ever comes.

DR. WEEKS: Okay. I have no further questions.

MR. JAMES S. DUNN: I only have a couple, Mr. Bradford.

Just for the record, there are five-day assignments on -- on the railroad, is that right?

MR. BRADFORD: Yes, sir, they are.

MR. JAMES S. DUNN: Okay. How many weeks vacation does an engineer get in a year?

MR. BRADFORD: That depends on his time and service. It goes anywhere from one week to -- I could qualify for six, but it's five under the national schedule so you could say five weeks on most railroads.

MR. JAMES S. DUNN: How many year -- how many years do you need?

MR. BRADFORD: I believe it's 25.

MR. JAMES S. DUNN: To get the five?

MR. BRADFORD: Yes, sir.

MR. JAMES S. DUNN: How about personal days? Do you get paid a personal -- do they have personal days?

MR. BRADFORD: Mr. Dunn, personal days on my railroad are at the discretion of the railroad to give 'em to you, and for all practical purposes, you can't get 'em when you need 'em.

MR. JAMES S. DUNN: Is it a paid personal day?

MR. BRADFORD: Yeah, you can -- you can -- you can miss a trip in ID service for one day's pay, yes, sir.

MR. JAMES S. DUNN: How many personal days does a locomotive engineer get?

MR. BRADFORD: Once again, it depends on your seniority. Most railroads base it on seniority. If you don't have much seniority you don't get many personal days. If you've got a lot, you can get up to eight, nine, 10, 11. I'm not sure about the numbers.

MR. JAMES S. DUNN: I understand that there is a -- a problem marking off. How about in Canada? What's -- what's -- what's -- can -- how is it for you there? Your engineers to be able to get off?

MR. HUCKER: A locomotive engineer by collective bargaining agreement has the ability to book "not fit" at the end of -- of a tour of duty, and he is the -- he or she is the judge of their own condition until they want to mark back on -- back on the board again. Normally, it's -- it's -- it's a tour of duty that -- that they -- they would mark off for, but it's their discretion.

MR. JAMES S. DUNN: And I think Mr. Weeks asked this one, but I'm going to say it anyway. If I was the one that could write the law and said here's how it's going to be, you're going to work 40 hours a week, eight hours a day, how would the brotherhood react to that?

MR. HUCKER: Sir, I don't believe --

MR. JAMES S. DUNN: I have no further questions.

MR. HUCKER: -- I don't -- I don't believe in prescriptive legislation. But if it came down to that, I would suggest to you that we would have a different opinion than just a strict 40-hour work week. It -- my membership enjoys what they do on -- on ID service, and I think there's a better way of doing it through sort of the parties who are -- who control the operation to come up with a way of doing it.

But having said that, if we can't, we may be back asking you to do just that.

MR. JAMES S. DUNN: You don't have to answer that, Mr. Bradford, 'cause you answered it with Mr. Weeks.

Thanks. I have no further questions.

CHAIRMAN GOGLIA: To the parties. Texas Railroad Commission?

MR. MARTIN: Just one, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Bradford, you talked about when you -- the Southern Pacific engineer had the right to -- to kick -- I think that's the term you used. Are -- are you aware if there are other differences between the pre-merger UP and SP as far as crew line-ups and that -- that procedure? Are you aware were there differences?

MR. BRADFORD: No, there -- it -- as far as -- as far as I know, there's not a lot of difference between the two. Both of 'em -- both of 'em can tell you when to go to work. They're pretty consistent on that.

MR. MARTIN: They -- they -- they could tell you when --

MR. BRADFORD: They could not tell you.

MR. MARTIN: Oh, they could not. Okay. That's all I have. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN GOGLIA: Federal Railroad Administration?

MR. GAVALLA: Mr. Hucker, you mentioned that you believe that fatigue in the railroad industry is a North American transportation issue. To your knowledge, is there a group or forum that addresses fatigue in the railroad industry on a North American-wide basis?

MR. HUCKER: Yes, there is. The FRA approached the -- the -- pardon me, the AAR work rest task force, of which the UTU and the BLE sit on, and formed the NARAP, North American Rail Alertness Partnership. This has brought together both the regulatory bodies in both -- both countries plus all of the rail labor plus all the rail -- management, and we are trying now to deal with it in a North American context.

We are in the -- the building stage of -- of what we hope will be a -- a very good way of -- of dealing with fatigue. It will allow us to look at the best practices in regard to all modes of transportation and see how they can be applied to the rail industry.

I -- I think that from rail labor's point of view it is a very good forum and -- and really that Minister -- and -- and her staff should be commended for -- for coming out to talk about this and to try to put it together. It takes a great deal of coordination to put all the parties in a room for two days to discuss our -- our relative concerns with -- with fatigue, but it is working. And hopefully, at the end of day we will have a real forum to put out to the membership so that their cynicism will -- will evaporate from what we can do through the -- through this new -- this new partnership.

MR. GAVALLA: Thank you.

Mr. Bradford, did you have opportunity to read the FRA's SACP report of the Union Pacific that we put out in February?

MR. BRADFORD: Only when I got here, and it was briefly.

MR. GAVALLA: Okay. Are you aware that virtually all the fatigue issues that you discussed as -- as being problematic on the Union Pacific were also discussed as concerns by FRA in that report?

MR. BRADFORD: Yes, sir, I -- I -- I assume that most of 'em were in there, yes, sir.

MR. GAVALLA: And for the record, you made reference to the number of hours that train -- service crews are allowed to work as being FRA requirements. Are you aware that they're Federal statutes mandated by Congress? Specifically, the hours of service law's a Congressional statute. Are you aware of that?

MR. BRADFORD: Yes, sir.

MR. GAVALLA: Okay. Thank you. No further questions.

CHAIRMAN GOGLIA: Union Pacific?

MR. JERRY R. DAVIS: I have no questions, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN GOGLIA: UTU?

MR. SULLIVAN: No questions.

CHAIRMAN GOGLIA: Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers?

MR. WALPERT: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just had a couple of questions.

First of all, Mr. Bradford, Jim, I appreciate your -- your candor. I think you expressed the -- the viewpoint of the locomotive engineer in -- in the words of a locomotive engineer and I think you -- you were right on point.

A couple of questions. In regard to the UP policy on -- with -- after working seven consecutive days, you get one day off. Have you in your contact with BLE members and UP employees had the opportunity to discuss this layoff policy with them?

MR. BRADFORD: Yes, I have.

MR. WALPERT: And what have they told you about this policy?

MR. BRADFORD: Well, I'm -- I'm not sure I can clean it up enough to put it on public record, but --

(Laughter)

MR. BRADFORD: It -- it's pretty close to the barnyard stuff.

They don't think -- they don't think a lot of it. I think it lost the industry more credibility than it gained.

And you know, being -- being quizzed about the hours of service, I'm -- I'm familiar with hours of service. I've had to spend a lot of time out there on the railroad. I think I'm -- I think I'm qualified to speak on the 12 hours. I think I'm qualified.

MR. WALPERT: Okay. Jim, you also spoke about familiarization trips and -- and the fact that when you were coming up in the railroad it really wasn't a factor because you operated constantly over the same territory but now it is a factor. Can you be a little more specific? Is -- is there a problem with engineers on Union Pacific from what you hear in your discussions with the engineers, BLE members with qualification or familiarization over territory on Union Pacific?

MR. BRADFORD: No doubt about it, Bill. I mean, you know, I speak to guys all the time, but I don't know how they do it. You know, you -- you take five trips over the rabbit and that's from Houston to Shreveport. And it's a tricky railroad. And I don't -- I don't see how any engineer can say that he is qualified unless his pride just gets in the way. I have known road foremen to insist that you're qualified after five trips. So, yeah, I don't think I could qualify up the rabbit in five trips. Hell, I'm such a bad engineer I don't know if I qualify it after 50 trips.

But it's a tough piece of railroad. I don't -- I don't see how you learn as much as you need to know in these hub-and-spoke concepts. I just don't see how you do it.

MR. WALPERT: So, when you're speaking about hub-and-spoke concepts you're -- you're talking about the new arrangement due to the UP-SP merger?

MR. BRADFORD: Yes, sir.

MR. WALPERT: Okay. And that has to do with location of operating crews, is that right?

MR. BRADFORD: Yes.

MR. WALPERT: Okay. Also, in your dealings with the locomotive engineers and BLE members on -- on Union Pacific, have you gauged a sense of urgency about moving trains at all costs? In other words, is there pressure or intimidation or harassment if we want to use those terms applied to engineers to get -- get the train over the road?

MR. BRADFORD: Oh, absolutely, Brother Walpert. I mean, you know, it was -- one of the FRA officials said something about Jerry's boys yesterday or Jerry's kids or something like that. We got a little different term for the guys that tell us how to railroad. Yeah, they -- they do everything they know how.

MR. WALPERT: Okay. Thank you, Jim.

MR. BRADFORD: Sure.

MR. WALPERT: George, I have -- I have just one question for you. We've -- we've covered a lot of discussions in regard to the hours of service. In your capacity as the BLE spokesman in regard to fatigue countermeasures, do you believe that tinkering with hours of service is an answer to the fatigue problem in the industry?

MR. HUCKER: No, Bill, it's not. There are -- fatigue is the -- is the unwanted third person in the cab of a locomotive, and tinkering with the hours of service is not going to resolve what -- what the problems are in there. You -- there's just -- it's just -- I mean there are far more knowledgeable people in this -- in the fatigue industry to come up here and tell you that -- that just tinkering with the -- with this problem is not going to resolve the problem. It's not going to go away. There has to be a -- a total rethinking of -- of how we work in the cab of the locomotive. That's the bottom line. If we don't get there, we're in trouble, all of us.

MR. WALPERT: So, how do we get there?

MR. HUCKER: We get there through the efforts that -- that the railway industry and particular carriers are -- are -- are doing the -- the efforts of -- of Burlington-Northern Santa Fe, Conrail, UP now, CN and CP to -- to understand that -- that we have to change. It's a slow process.

I, like Jimmy, every day have members talk to me about -- about the seeming lack of progress, but it is slow-going. We're changing a culture. We're changing the -- the opinion of our -- our membership. We -- we have a lot of -- a lot of first-line supervisors who -- who don't believe that -- that we should change. They don't understand the problem. We have a lot of -- a lot of locomotive engineers in our -- in our members who -- who are kind of -- are not prepared to make those -- those kind of changes.

But I think through the efforts of -- of a lot of different people and a -- and a lot of very knowledgeable and concerned and smart people we will eventually change how we work in this industry. As I said, if we don't, we're in trouble. We're in serious trouble. We will -- we will think that the -- the 1980s was -- was the golden age of railway if we don't change how we operate in the cab of the locomotive because the young children coming into the industry today are not going to accept the bullshit, pardon the expression, that we went through get -- climbing up through this industry. It's not going to happen.

MR. WALPERT: Okay. Thank you, George. Thank you, Jim. That's all I have.

CHAIRMAN GOGLIA: Back to the head table. Ms. Beal?

(No response)

CHAIRMAN GOGLIA: Dr. Ellingstad?

DR. ELLINGSTAD: No questions.

CHAIRMAN GOGLIA: Mr. Lauby?

MR. LAUBY: A couple of questions.

First of all, you described the seven-and-one program. There's some resistance to that program. Can you be a little bit more specific of what -- what some of the concerns are with that program, Mr. Bradford?

MR. BRADFORD: Well, Bob, it just -- you know, it's -- it -- it just -- it just doesn't work. I mean, you know, it just -- you know, you have a problem with getting off. If you do work seven you can't get off. And what do you do? Just work until you drop and then you drop for 24? It's -- I -- you know, most guys that I talk to just say that it was a deal that was cooked. You know, it -- it -- it met some deadline or --

MR. LAUBY: But you can't --

MR. BRADFORD: -- some notion.

MR. LAUBY: You cannot get off after -- after seven days?

MR. BRADFORD: Well, Bob, yeah. If -- if everything's perfect you can get off at seven days, but, you know, there's -- there's many times -- I mean you work three or four bad trips, can you make it till the seventh day?

MR. LAUBY: Okay.

MR. BRADFORD: And if the seventh day falls on a weekend or a holiday, I can guarantee you what the answer is going to be.

MR. LAUBY: One other question, and we've heard a lot from Mr. Hucker concerning collective bargaining agreements to handle the fatigue issue on the Canadian railroads. Does the BLE have any collective bargaining initiatives going on with any of the railroads to handle fatigue as a collective bargaining issue? Either one.

MR. HUCKER: Yeah, out of the -- out of the last round of negotiations at Canadian Pacific we had a letter of -- of understanding placed in the agreement to ensure that -- that the CanAlert recommendations would be -- would be implemented, and that's the only one that I know of that's there, and it's -- and it's there solely because I'm the chief spokesman for my union in collective bargaining at that railway.

MR. LAUBY: What about on U.S. railroads?

MR. HUCKER: No, there's not.

MR. LAUBY: None whatsoever?

MR. HUCKER: None that I know -- that I'm aware of.

MR. LAUBY: Has the BLE tried to initiate any collective bargaining agreements or has this been put on the table?

MR. HUCKER: I think it was three -- pardon me, my schedule just kind of runs together. This is my third trip in four days. I think it was three weeks ago I met with the National Carriers Conference along with -- and made a presentation to them along with Conrail and Burlington-Northern Santa Fe on fatigue countermeasures in the industry, and I -- I believe that was the first time that -- that -- that I know of that it was brought to -- to the -- the chief spokesman for the carriers. But as it is now I don't -- I -- there is nothing that I know of in -- in collective bargaining agreements that handles fatigue in that manner.

MR. LAUBY: Thank you. No more questions.

CHAIRMAN GOGLIA: Mr. Dunn?

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Yes, I have a few, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Bradford, I believe it was a person that accompanied your group here, the BLE, that I understand has a computer program forecasting lineups or -- are you aware of what I'm getting at? I think it's the lady from the BLEA. Are you aware of that program?

MR. BRADFORD: Mr. Dunn, did you say a lady?

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Yeah.

MR. BRADFORD: That's with the BLE?

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Yeah, I think she's at your table.

(Laughter)

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: If you're not sure what I'm --

MR. BRADFORD: I -- I don't -- I don't know.

MR. HUCKER: Nice try.

MR. BRADFORD: Well, I --

(Laughter)

MR. BRADFORD: No, sir, I'm not aware of that. Now, maybe I should be aware of it but I'm not.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Okay. I'll talk to you about that --

MR. BRADFORD: All right.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: -- at the break.

More specifically, in -- in light of this conversation and discussion about sleepy engineers rest seven-and-one and so forth, what happens if you simply mark off? We've talked about engineers that are tired, that are fatigued, and can you simply just mark off?

MR. BRADFORD: I've heard a lot of stories that, you know, that that -- that vehicle is out there. And I always considered myself somebody that wouldn't run and hide, but that was one of the things you did not do when the crew -- called you.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Is it a discipline problem?

MR. BRADFORD: Yeah. They -- the -- they'll ratchet it up to one. They'll start their nonsense about, "Are you refusing to go to work?"

And you say, "No, I'm not refusing to go to work. You told me I was going to go to work tomorrow morning. It's 10:00 tonight. You know, I've been in bed 30 minutes."

"Are you refusing to go to work?"

"No, I'm not. What happened to the -- going to work until after daylight tomorrow?"

Usually, you get yourself out of bed and you go to work with a bad taste in your mouth, mad at the world. Your conductor usually crawls under the table when he sees you walk in. So, it's -- it's a long night.

I don't know if -- I don't know of that -- of that hand ever being offered in sincerity. I wish more engineers would do it.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Okay. We have had some discussions about the percentage of time that FRA inspectors are on the property, state inspections. From your perspective, how often do you interact with the FRA on the property?

MR. BRADFORD: As a locomotive engineer?

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Yes, that's what I'm talking about. As an engineer.

MR. BRADFORD: As a locomotive engineer, the chances of me seeing an FRA inspector on the ground was about the same chances of me seeing Mr. Davis on the ground.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Okay. A question about -- in -- in this testimony you talked about five trips on the rabbit. That was in the context of qualification and familiarization -- I'll call it familiarization. We used to call it qualification trips.

MR. BRADFORD: Right.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: At least from my perspective, there seems to be a disconnect here because we have had, oddly enough, some testimony from what you might call the players in this issue. We've had the FRA testify that -- that they are involved in that and that they have actually brought the individuals together.

MR. BRADFORD: Mm-hmm.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Mr. Green -- the testimony, of course, will bear it out, but I -- as I recall, Mr. Green talked about addressing the issue with Mr. Carter and an engineer and getting it resolved.

MR. BRADFORD: Mm-hmm.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Mr. Carter gave us testimony about he's actively in that, and as I recall, that the engineer tells him when he's qualified, that that -- that didn't seem to be a problem from his perspective. But yet, you say that this is a big problem. Could you help us with where there appears to be a disconnect from the FRA, the carrier, and the rank-and-file?

MR. BRADFORD: I've worked a lot with Mr. Green, and Mr. Green is a very caring individual. I got a lot of respect for Mr. Green.

I haven't worked really with Jimmy Carter but I've worked around a lot of 'em.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: I want to say one thing. This is not about personalities.

MR. BRADFORD: Yes.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: I'm just bringing it up because these people --

MR. BRADFORD: Yes, sir.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: -- happened to testify at our proceedings, so I --

MR. BRADFORD: I -- I think -- I think that five trips up that railroad at my skill level, I'd be a pretty shaky engineer. I could get up there and get back if something happened up there. Half the territory's dark. I mean the other half's either uphill or downhill.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: When you say "dark," it's not a signal --

MR. BRADFORD: Non-signal. I haven't been up there in a long time, but the last time I was up there, you know, they had the wrong train orders.

So, you know, Mr. Dunn, there's just -- there are just a lot of subtle hints that after what the road foreman considers the number of trips, you need to be qualify -- you know, you're qualified. And if you're a good fast learner or a slow learner, I mean it's about the same pressure. And I don't see how a young engineer -- they're not in training for three years.

I talked to an engineer yesterday in this hotel that was an engineer within less than two years total time on the railroad. That's from conductor to engineer. And then he's expected to go, you know, what, five different ways of Houston. And I'm -- I'm sure he can do it, Mr. Dunn. I mean he's -- he's very qualified and very capable.

But familiarization needs to be lengthened and needs to be done in a more friendly manner. And I think that the engineer needs to be the one telling the road foreman when he's qualified and not vice versa.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Okay. The last question that I have, your previous testimony -- questions that I asked you, you gave us a very chilling comment -- very candid I might add, and I thank you for that -- that this will happen again, referring to what happened in '97. Now, you talk about familiarization that you see as the problem. Where do you go with that? Where -- where -- how can you communicate that to the people that need to handle it? Do you feel you have a way to -- to bring that to somebody's attention that can fix it?

MR. BRADFORD: I communicate this to -- to a very competent and qualified person in Bill Walpert. Bill Walpert has daily contact -- contact with your office on an as-needed basis. And I truly believe that this problem is fixable. Who's going to be on duty when that happens? I don't know. Is it the FRA? Is it the carrier? Is it everybody in this room?

There's got to be an answer somewhere, Mr. Dunn. I'm not sure that I'm -- I can tell you where that answer is.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Thank you very much.

MR. BRADFORD: Yes, sir.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: I have no further questions.

CHAIRMAN GOGLIA: Mr. Bradford, I have a -- a clarification question for you. When you were asked about how often you would see an FRA inspector you had said is it often -- as often as you would see Mr. Davis. Well, that's not really quantitive. For some reason, when I go on the property I would see Mr. Davis or those people quite often. So, --

(Laughter)

CHAIRMAN GOGLIA: Could you quantify that a little bit?

MR. BRADFORD: Let's see. I went back on the engine in '87, and I worked interdivisional run most of that time for a period of five years. And I might have saw some representatives from the Railroad Commission at the yard office and I might have seen a railroad inspector at the yard office drinking coffee with the road foreman. And that happened maybe two times in five years.

CHAIRMAN GOGLIA: Okay. I have another question. I don't know if you can answer this, but recently as a result of NAFTA there's now trains running in and out of Mexico. If you have a -- a UP train going down, who drives it when it gets into Mexico? Who's the engineer? Do we change engineers at the border?

MR. BRADFORD: Yes, sir.

CHAIRMAN GOGLIA: And do you know what the hours of service for the engineers in Mexico happens to be? If you don't know --

MR. BRADFORD: I would just be guessing. They --

CHAIRMAN GOGLIA: No, I don't want a guess.

MR. BRADFORD: -- they probably don't have one down there.

CHAIRMAN GOGLIA: I don't -- I don't guess.

Don, before you come up, would you get an answer to that? I'm going to ask you that question. And while you're at it, if you're going to call in there, would you get a comparison between Europe, say France and the U.K.?

Okay. One last question. Serious illness. Do you have any idea what the rate of heart attacks or other serious illness is amongst engineers?

(Pause)

MR. BRADFORD: Yes, sir, I have some idea. I can't give you the numbers. I can say that -- I can name four of my friends who have died of a heart attack, and one of 'em died in the same hotel I was in at our away-from-home terminal. You know, did they take care of themselves? It's kind of tough to do on a -- on a IB run.

There's -- there's very little emphasis on eating good, sleeping good, taking care of yourself. It's -- there's no emphasis placed on that.

CHAIRMAN GOGLIA: Okay. Thank you. I have no further questions, and thank you both for your testimony. You're released.

(Whereupon, the witnesses were excused.)

CHAIRMAN GOGLIA: Mr. Dunn, would you call the next witness, please?

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: The National Transportation Safety Board calls Thomas Sullivan.

Whereupon,

was called as a witness, and first having been duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Thank you. Please be seated.

TESTIMONY OF
THOMAS SULLIVAN
LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE
UNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Mr. Sullivan, would you state for the record your full name and spell your last name?

MR. SULLIVAN: Thomas Sullivan, S-U-L-L-I-V-A-N.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: And what is your present position with the United Transportation Union?

MR. SULLIVAN: I'm a legislative representative and local chairman.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: And -- and where are you headquartered?

MR. SULLIVAN: In North Platte, Nebraska.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: And do you have a position with the Union Pacific Railroad?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I do.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: And what is that position?

MR. SULLIVAN: I'm a locomotive engineer.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Okay. How long have you held your present position that you have with the union?

MR. SULLIVAN: I've been a legislative rep and local chairman approximately 18 years.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Okay. Does that cover your positions with the union? Those 18 years?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. With --

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Have you had --

MR. SULLIVAN: -- with the union. That's what --

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Okay. And would you briefly describe your work history with the railroad carriers, etc., any predecessor carriers and positions you've held?

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, the only position I've held is I've been a locomotive engineer for approximately 29 years. I hired out in 1969 as an engine service employee and was promoted to engineer, I believe, in 1973 after I had a two-year hiatus for -- Uncle Sam wanted my services for a couple years, so I gave them to him. And when I came back, then I -- I took my promotion to engineer, and I've been involved in engine service ever since.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Okay. And these almost 30 years, is that with the --

MR. SULLIVAN: 29 years.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: -- Union Pacific -- 29 --

MR. SULLIVAN: All -- all 29 with the Union Pacific in North Platte, Nebraska.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Very good. Thank you.

We will begin the questioning with the Technical Panel.

MR. COCHRAN: Good morning, Mr. Sullivan.

MR. SULLIVAN: Good morning, Mr. Cochran.

MR. COCHRAN: Could you briefly describe your duties as a legislative representative, please?

MR. SULLIVAN: A legislative representative, I handle safety issues on -- on a local level with either the carrier officers in -- in the terminal or if we believe it to be a -- an alleged Federal violation, then I would write up the alleged violation to -- to the FRA.

MR. COCHRAN: Do you also interface with state regulatory agencies in Nebraska?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, we do, with the Public Service Commission.

MR. COCHRAN: And were you involved in any pre-merger planning with the UP-SP merger?

MR. SULLIVAN: Not that I'm aware of, no.

MR. COCHRAN: Do you know if the UTU has any strategies for pre-merger planning?

MR. SULLIVAN: None that I'm aware of.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you have the opportunity to read the FRA's assessment, their SACP assessment that was issued in February?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I -- I -- I had a -- an opportunity to -- to read them. We did not have a -- an opportunity to comment on them, though, I believe.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you not have that opportunity because you didn't have time or were you offered an opportunity?

MR. SULLIVAN: I -- I do not believe we were offered an opportunity to comment.

MR. COCHRAN: Do you feel that you're fully involved in the SACP process?

MR. SULLIVAN: I -- I believe like in -- in that area we just talked about -- about commenting on -- on the issues that were presented to the UP by FRA that -- that -- maybe that should have been an area or arena that we should have been involved in but were not, but the SACP process itself while scratching the surface and getting started is -- is -- is in my opinion a very good process.

MR. COCHRAN: What's your assessment of the 12-month period that's under investigation at this hearing relative to the accidents that have occurred?

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, I don't have any firsthand knowledge. You know, I'm -- I'm based out of -- out of Nebraska, not out of Texas. So, I -- I -- I have an opinion on it but whether that opinion matters I don't know.

MR. COCHRAN: It certainly does. Could you please give us your opinion?

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, I -- I think that what happened in -- in -- in Texas could have happened anywhere else and it could have happened on any other railroad.

MR. COCHRAN: The conditions in -- in the North Platte area, do you -- how do you find the fatigue issues in that area?

MR. SULLIVAN: The fatigue is -- is -- is a very big, volatile issue, has been for a while. But under the SACP process we are -- we're -- we are seeing light at the end of the tunnel, and it's not a headlight. But we've got a long ways to go. Manpower is -- they are hiring.

MR. COCHRAN: There was some testimony yesterday that middle management should be more involved. What -- what's your opinion about that?

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, after talking to the middle managers and the first-line officers and -- and -- and that's -- that's -- that's very true. They haven't seen in any of the -- the effects of SACP yet. Most of the middle managers that -- that I've talked to and the -- the first-line officers or whatever you want to call 'em are looking for as much relief as we are. They are -- there's a fatigue issue with -- with middle managers, also.

MR. COCHRAN: Did -- do you or your organization, do you have -- have any suggestions to -- to make that happen?

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, probably none other than what has been commented on here in the last two days, which is you have to address your manpower situation. If you address your manpower situation you've addressed a lot of issues. You address manpower, you've addressed fatigue to a certain extent.

MR. COCHRAN: I have no further questions at this time. Dr. Weeks, do you have any questions?

DR. WEEKS: Yes, I have one question.

Mr. Sullivan, did you or any of the other members of the UTU participate in preparing the UP alertness management program plan?

MR. SULLIVAN: Could you repeat that?

DR. WEEKS: I'm sorry. I didn't have the mike.

My question was did you or any of the other members of the UTU participate in preparing the UP's alertness management program plan?

MR. SULLIVAN: Not -- not that I'm aware of. There may have been other UTU members involved, but not -- not that I'm aware of.

DR. WEEKS: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN GOGLIA: To the parties? Texas -- Texas Railroad Commission? Oh, I thought you were done, Dunn.

MR. JAMES S. DUNN: I am done.

(Laughter)

MR. JAMES S. DUNN: Almost.

Mr. Sullivan, do you have the same agreements that BLE does as far as vacation time --

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, sir.

MR. JAMES S. DUNN: -- vacation time, personal days?

MR. SULLIVAN: We -- as -- as locomotive engineers we just recently got the personal leave days. The conductors and trainmen had 'em prior to us, but vacation rights are -- are -- are -- are equal.

MR. JAMES S. DUNN: In the United Transportation Union, since you're engineer but -- you also have the conductors and the trainmen, right?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, sir.

MR. JAMES S. DUNN: Fall under the United Transportation Union?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, sir.

MR. JAMES S. DUNN: Okay. What's the problem like for you fellas to get off -- mark off duty? The same as the engineers?

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, I -- I am an engineer, but, excuse me, as a -- as a legislative rep I represent approximately 3- to 400 locomotive engineers that work in and -- and -- enginemen, hostlers, firemen, and training in and out of the North Platte area. And yeah, there -- there is -- there's a big fatigue issue, and it -- and it not only involves locomotive engineers, it involves road conductors, it involves yard switchmen. It involves everybody that's a covered service employee.

MR. JAMES S. DUNN: If I was able to give Mr. Davis millions and millions of dollars to hire as many people as he could and allow you to be worked five days -- five days a week, would -- how would your membership react to that if we had enough people to allow you to be off and only work five days a week?

MR. SULLIVAN: That's kind of a -- I guess I'd have to ask. Are you talking about a -- a regular standard workweek with -- with starting times and -- and things like that?

MR. JAMES S. DUNN: Yeah, whatever I could do so that you would only work eight hours a day, five days a week. If I could give him enough people to -- to cover so that you could be off. Let's say, 12 hours a day but five days a week. We could fill your boards so that that would happen, that you wouldn't have to be called out.

MR. SULLIVAN: That's a pretty technical issue. I'd -- I'd -- I'd -- I guess I don't really know how to answer that.

MR. JAMES S. DUNN: Okay. I have no further questions.

CHAIRMAN GOGLIA: Okay. To the parties. Texas Railroad Commission?

MR. MARTIN: Mr. Chairman, we have no questions of Mr. Sullivan.

CHAIRMAN GOGLIA: Federal Railroad Administration?

MR. GAVALLA: Yes, Mr. Sullivan, at this time I'd like to take the opportunity to thank the United Transportation Union also for their leadership in the safety partnership process, particularly in supporting and helping establish the SACP on the Union Pacific Railroad and many of the partnership activities that we have throughout the nation.

You indicated you don't have a tremendous familiarity with the SACP process on -- on the UP, is that correct?

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, no. I -- I have a -- a -- a good working relationship with the SACP process on -- on the Union Pacific, and -- and what -- what I meant by my remarks is that the SACP process in my opinion is -- is just getting started. It has a long ways to go and there's a sense of urgency that needs to be reaffirmed by the Union Pacific.

MR. GAVALLA: Did you have the opportunity to read the FRA SACP report that was put out in February?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I did.

MR. GAVALLA: Is it safe to say that many of the issues being addressed through the working groups that you're familiar with are also covered in that report?

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, yes, yes. Many of the issues.

MR. GAVALLA: Would it be safe to say that there was the -- the parties who've been participating in that group, the UTU, the other organizations had input into that -- into that process that -- that fed into that report?

MR. SULLIVAN: I don't believe it. I don't know who prepared the report.

MR. GAVALLA: It was FRA.

MR. SULLIVAN: FRA prepared the report, but I -- whether they had involvement by other UTU officers in preparing the report, I -- I don't know if they did or not.

MR. GAVALLA: Okay. No further questions.

CHAIRMAN GOGLIA: Union Pacific?

MR. JERRY R. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, maybe more of a comment than a question.

Mr. Sullivan, I would also like to thank you and the UTU for your help at Union Pacific in the investigation of the accidents that we had.

Also, I'd like to stress my appreciation to you, Mr. Linewebber and many other UTU representatives who are on our SAC team -- SACP teams. It's you that's going to make this work. Thank you very much.

CHAIRMAN GOGLIA: BLE?

MR. WALPERT: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Sullivan, how many engineers work in a terminal in North Platte?

MR. SULLIVAN: That's kind of on again, off again question. I'd say approximately in both directions around the neighborhood of 800.

MR. WALPERT: 800, okay. Of those engineers, how many have been promoted in, let's say, the last 10 years? Approximately.

MR. SULLIVAN: Half of 'em.

MR. WALPERT: And how about in the last five years?

MR. SULLIVAN: Probably 200.

MR. WALPERT: So, 200 engineers have less than five years experience as locomotive engineers, is that correct?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, sir. That's -- that's an approximate guess.

MR. WALPERT: Right. I understand.

In your opinion, is there a problem due to the influx of new engineers with familiarization qualification?

MR. SULLIVAN: We do not have the problems there and -- and -- and out of my terminal that were expressed here like they were in Texas. The problems we have about familiarization are addressed at a local level.

I have my opinions about the trainmen's issue on that. There's no issue -- there's no regulation or no requirement or no policy in effect that says a conductor who's -- a trainman who's just got hired, he's went to school for three weeks, they put him on an extra board, and they send him out in road service. Now he's a promoted qualified conductor but he's worked for the railroad for 60 days but he can go over the same territory with me and had never been there before. There's no -- there's no policy to that effect, and it's something that's -- we try to handle on a -- on a local issue and -- and it's issues we're -- we're trying to work through.

MR. WALPERT: Okay. Thank you.

In a -- in a 24-hour period, how many trains approximately would move through North Platte?

MR. SULLIVAN: At least in North Platte where I run, I run from North Platte to now Missouri Valley, Iowa, and that corridor between North Platte, Nebraska and Gibbon, Nebraska is -- is -- to my understanding is the highest tonnage corridor anywhere in the world, and -- and by the scanner at Gothamberg I think they probably average 130 trains per day.

MR. WALPERT: All right. 130 trains per day, so that's -- let me ask this question. Is that -- is there any pressure on -- on the operating crews to -- to move the trains out of the terminal to get over the road regardless of safety issues that -- that may exist?

(Pause)

MR. SULLIVAN: In a word, no. I mean our people are not pressured to violate any safety rules. Certainly, there's a lot of pressure on our end of the railroad due to manpower shortages. There's -- there's morale issues. There's -- there's a lot of people running around short-fused 'cause they're working an -- an awful lot. But are my people pressured to -- to violate safety regulations? No, I don't believe they are.

MR. WALPERT: Good. You spoke of morale issues. What do you attribute the cause of the morale issues?

MR. SULLIVAN: Define morale, I guess. Fatigue. It's not knowing when you're coming, when you're going. It's trying to plan something, have those plans fall apart. It's arguing with the crew management system, trying to get off. I -- I -- I know -- for instance -- let's -- I'll give you a for instance.

I've got something I want to do. I really want to do it. It's family-oriented. So, I call and I want to lay off personal. I'm not sick. Nobody in my family's sick. I just want to lay off -- lay off personal. I -- I've really been pounding hard and I need some time off.

But they're not going to allow me to lay off personal. "We have a manpower shortage. I cannot allow you to do that. I can allow you to lay off sick."

"Yeah, but I'm not sick."

"Yeah, but that's the only way I can let you off."

"Well, I guess I'm sick."

And there's just a lot of issues like that. And all -- it all goes back to manpower, you know. The manpower -- they got behind on the manpower curve and they got behind it everywhere. And there was some -- in my opinion, there were some management decisions made in -- in other areas of the come -- country that compounded the problems that we ended up with at North Platte, and they obviously ended up that way in Houston.

MR. WALPERT: How is the -- the policy of working seven consecutive days and getting one day off working in your opinion at North Platte?

MR. SULLIVAN: You want to know if it's working or you want to know my opinion of the policy?

MR. WALPERT: Both.

(Pause)

MR. SULLIVAN: In -- in -- in a way, it's -- well, it -- it's -- it's just not working.

MR. WALPERT: Okay.

MR. SULLIVAN: It's not working. And my opinion of the policy, it's -- it's -- could have been planned better.

MR. WALPERT: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Sullivan. That's all I have.

CHAIRMAN GOGLIA: UTU?

MR. LARRY DAVIS: Yes, sir. Thank you very much.

Mr. Sullivan, I'd like to ask you a few questions concerning your involvement in a number of programs as a representative of the United Transportation Union as it relates to matters of safety and safety initiatives.

First of all, you were selected by -- I understand that you were selected by President Little to serve on the RSAC committee. Is that true?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I was selected by President Little. I served on RSAC committee, which is Rail Safety Advisory Committee. We just finished the Part 240 regulation on certification of locomotive engineers. I'm involved in the RSAC process on, again, locomotive crash worthiness, locomotive cab working conditions, vent recorders, positive train control, and there other -- a couple other RSAC processes going on now.

Some of those processes, say, locomotive cab working conditions, we're looking at arenas of the -- the locomotive cab where we can improve the cab, which hopefully will, you know, under -- sanitation standards, the -- the heating and cooling of the locomotive, all these things to -- to -- to bring Federal regulation to it and to improve the working conditions for the -- for the locomotive engineers and -- and train crews.

MR. LARRY DAVIS: You've described briefly your involvement with the -- the SACP process. Did you have occasion to attend any of the UTU region meetings last year where UTU in conjunction with the Burlington-Northern Santa Fe made a SACP presentation? Did you have occasion to see any of those?

MR. SULLIVAN: There's been various ones that -- where -- where the Burlington was -- had -- had -- had a little involvement with some of it, yes.

MR. LARRY DAVIS: Okay. And would you describe briefly the issues that you're involved in with the SACP on the Union Pacific, please?

MR. SULLIVAN: Two or three that I'm -- I'm -- I'm real familiar with are the equal TL process, which is the -- is the train lineup process; the equal TE process, which is the -- the -- the tie-up process; and then there's a process called crew utilization, and that became a part of SACP but originally the crew utilization issue was called a hours of service re-crew issue. It started in January of 1997. That's when the state director of UTU Ray Linewebber contacted Jerry Davis and he -- and -- and he told Mr. Davis that we had a -- a real concern over our locomotive engineers, conductors, and brakemen being on duty and not being picked up off of their trains after their expiration of hours of service or if their train terminated short of a -- of a -- of a final terminal.

And so, Mr. Davis gave -- gave Ray the authority to -- to get a hold of Mr. David Barnes and some other people at the Harriman Dispatch Center and -- and we set up a -- a -- a team to address these issues. And after, oh, six or eight months then SACP came into play and we rolled the crew utilization as it's called now in -- into the SACP process.

MR. LARRY DAVIS: All right. So, the issues that you're addressing in SACP are -- and also in the RSAC process are issues that are before this -- this investigation today, aren't they?

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, an awful lot of 'em. An awful lot of 'em, yes, sir.

MR. LARRY DAVIS: Are you familiar with the United Transportation involvement with the National Carriers Conference Committee and our -- the regular monthly meetings that we have with respect to all of the issues before the Board?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, sir.

MR. LARRY DAVIS: Are you aware of the fact that -- that there is a panel addressing and involving experts in many of the fields of -- of endeavor with respect to the issues before NTSB today?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, a lot of 'em are -- are parallel.

MR. LARRY DAVIS: You were -- a question was raised by Mr. Dunn that was of interest to me, and it had to do with if you could create a world of 40-hour week, how would the employees respond. Isn't it really true that this is a piecework industry, that people are drawn to this industry because it's more than a 40-hour week job? That you have the ability to make more than an average job? And it's those economics that do draw people to this industry, and they come with it with the expectation of making more than average money?

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, absolutely. There's -- there's -- there's no question about that.

MR. LARRY DAVIS: Okay. You raised a question of hiring and -- and do you have any comments with respect to the history of separations, buy-outs, and the effect they may have had? Is it true to say that railroad mergers oftentimes lead to buy-out arrangements to -- to buy down not only operating employees but managers as well or to buy them out? And do you see this as a -- as perhaps an element in the process of the manpower shortage?

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, I -- I do, and I -- I -- I -- yes, I do. And I -- I also see it as a -- I believe that when a lot of the mergers took place, a lot of the buy-outs happened at the management level, at the agreement and non-agreement level. I believe that there was some serious mistakes made buying out agreement people and non-agreement. I believe that the carrier made some -- that they bought off a lot of their experience, and when they went to replace -- you can't replace experience. And -- and that was the beginning of -- of a lot of things that -- getting behind the curves on a lot of issues.

MR. LARRY DAVIS: A question was posed to you concerning matters of safety in your working -- as a working engineer, and you indicated that you -- you know, you -- you don't work in an environment where you're encouraged to violate safety but there is this -- a certain urgency. Does that have -- you know, to get the work done. Do those -- does that become a gray area of getting the work done as opposed to the -- the overt suggestion of -- of violation of rule? Is there -- are there -- do you believe that our engineers, our conductors fall under some kind of a pressure that's just perhaps unstated with respect to expediting the operation?

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, there's -- there's no doubt about that. And -- and everybody has -- has a common goal when they depart a terminal, and that is to get to the final terminal. And everybody tries to work together as much as they can, and -- and -- and at times there's perceived pressure and -- and other times there is real pressure. But those are everyday issues within the industry.

MR. LARRY DAVIS: Let -- let's go back to participation in some of these safety programs because I think it's important. The industry has a history of inviting labor to the table and safety programs and the like and many of those really didn't go anyplace. Do you have a sense that's going on today is -- is generally -- genuine and meaningful? Certainly, from our perspective we want to believe that as an organization. Do you feel that your involvement is -- is meaningful, that you're getting the kind of participation from the FRA, the railroads, Union Pacific with respect to these as they're -- are you comfortable that there's a legitimacy to it?

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, yes, I am. Some of the issues that are before us today in -- in my career are unprecedented. We've been invited to the table where we've -- where we've never been asked before. And I believe that our participation in all these processes, whether it's RSAC or SACP or -- or what -- or whatever program it is or whatever you want to call it, if -- if -- if you don't have all the players there, I mean it -- it's -- it's like playing solitaire with a deck of 51. You're never going to win.

MR. LARRY DAVIS: Are you familiar with International President Little's agenda that -- that, you know, if we don't do this collectively, meaning both management and labor, that it's going to be done for us and being done for us may be in the form of regulation, regulatory authority?

MR. SULLIVAN: That's -- that's a personal fear that I have.

MR. LARRY DAVIS: Do you believe that the people who participate are committed to avoiding involvement of the regulatory authorities with respect to the -- the lives and working conditions of railroad workers?

MR. SULLIVAN: Again?

MR. LARRY DAVIS: Do you -- do you believe in the sincerity of those people that -- that you're dealing with? They share that view?

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, yes, I do. Yes.

MR. LARRY DAVIS: I have no more questions.

CHAIRMAN GOGLIA: To the head table. Ms. Beal?

MS. BEAL: I have no questions.

CHAIRMAN GOGLIA: Dr. Ellingstad?

DR. ELLINGSTAD: Mr. Sullivan, I'd like to just ask you the same couple of questions that I had asked Mr. Hucker and Mr. Bradford based on your experience as an engineer and your experience with the 800 engineers operating out of North Platte. What's a -- if could characterize a typical working day, working week, number of hours, number of trips?

MR. SULLIVAN: A typical characterization based on the manpower shortages that we have -- at present, we -- you do not know when you're coming and when you're going. On an average I suppose of the road locomotive engineers are -- are putting in maybe averaging 80 hours a week.

DR. ELLINGSTAD: Is it possible for a road locomotive engineer -- I'd ask these other gentlemen if there was anybody that could work a 40-hour week. Let's -- let's forget about that and -- and boost that. Is there -- are there any road locomotive engineers that work a 48-hour week?

MR. SULLIVAN: Not without laying off. Not without taking the time off. Not without buying their time off. When you -- when you -- when you lay off, you're buying your time off. You're saying, "Hey, I'm -- I'm will -- willing to forego. Lay me off sick, lay me off personal. I'm going to miss this trip. This trip cost me 600 dollars. I'm buying my time off."

DR. ELLINGSTAD: Okay. So, did that -- that workweek that would be considered above average for most working Americans basically can't sustain an over-the-road railroader?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, but it's -- it's typical of the industry.

DR. ELLINGSTAD: Okay. Thank you. No further questions.

CHAIRMAN GOGLIA: Mr. Lauby?

MR. LAUBY: Just a couple of questions, Mr. Sullivan. Again, I was very interested in -- in hearing some of the testimony of Mr. Hucker from the BLE talking about collective bargaining as -- as a way to handle some of the fatigue issues.

Does the -- the UTU have collective bargaining activities addressing the fatigue issue with any of the ray -- any of the railroads in the United States right now to your knowledge?

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, sure they do.

MR. LAUBY: Can you -- can you give us some details of those?

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, I mean the -- let's just say, for instance, one -- if you talk about a collective bargaining issue where they have an agreement that a conductor can go in and when he reaches the terminal he says, "I'm going to tie up for 24 hours rest," and a carrier grants him that right by agreement, yes, there are -- there are CBAs in effect on different --

MR. LAUBY: So --

MR. SULLIVAN: -- at least the carrier I'm --

MR. LAUBY: So, these are elements of some of the fatigue problems that we've talked about, I -- I would assume. Is -- is there any comprehensive agreements to -- to change the basic way in which locomotive engineers are working in your union? Is there any collective bargaining planned or taking place on that issue? And by comprehensive, I mean putting the whole fatigue problem on the table.

MR. SULLIVAN: At an international level I guess you'd have to address that to -- question to Mr. Little.

MR. LAUBY: Okay. Thank you very much.

CHAIRMAN GOGLIA: Mr. Lauby? I mean Mr. Dunn?

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just a couple questions, Mr. Sullivan. What's your interface with the FRA on the property?

MR. SULLIVAN: As far as what?

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: How often do you see them? And when you do, what -- what's that like?

MR. SULLIVAN: We see 'em -- we have an inspector assigned to North Platte now with -- just recently within the last two years. We have a inspector assigned to North Platte.

We don't very often see FRA inspectors, but I don't spend -- I don't spend a -- a large amount of time in the terminal. My time is spent on the road, and so --

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: It doesn't -- it doesn't matter. On the property, on the road --

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: -- on the terminal, wherever.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay. Not very often, but occasionally you'll see 'em or you'll hear -- or you'll hear from somebody that FRA is on the property.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Okay. Is there an interface there? Do you talk to them? What's it like when you see 'em?

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, it depends on what -- on what reason they're there for. You know, I mean if they're -- if they're checking my certification and --and, you know, seeing when was the -- my last check ride and -- and whether I've got my operating rule cards with me and my code of general operating rules is updated and I have my timetable, and -- and they'll check all that. And -- and they'll -- the interface is, you know, how's -- how are things going, you know. It's just -- it's a code of the industry, I guess, or a -- a language of the industry when one -- person familiar with the railroad industry's talking to another one. You're railroading.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Okay. We had some discussion this morning about familiarization. Is it an issue for you and what are the problems for you and the people you represent? When I say is it an issue, is it a problem?

MR. SULLIVAN: It has been in the past. It is not presently. It was an issue that was recently addressed in RSAC 240. I'm sure it'll probably become an issue again. And again, it all goes back to manpower. If you've got the man -- if you've got the -- the manpower, you've got time to train your people properly.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Okay. Thank you. That's all the questions I have.

CHAIRMAN GOGLIA: Okay. Ms. Beal?

MS. BEAL: Yes, Mr. Sullivan, is the UTU involved in any way with the development of the program being put together by Alertness Solutions for UP?

MR. SULLIVAN: If they are, I'm -- I'm -- unaware of it. That issue -- that question could be asked to the International and -- and if they are, they could answer that for you.

MS. BEAL: We'll ask Dr. Rosekind. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN GOGLIA: Okay. We'll go through a second round of questions. To the Tech Panel?

MR. COCHRAN: I have one further question.

Mr. Sullivan, you expressed some concerns about qualifications and -- familiarization of territory by conductors in the North Platte area earlier.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Do you feel certification of conductors would alleviate that?

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, absolutely.

MR. COCHRAN: The same as the engineer certification program?

MR. SULLIVAN: Exactly.

MR. COCHRAN: In that area?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, sir. I -- I would -- I would strongly suggest and promote -- promote that, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: I have no further questions.

CHAIRMAN GOGLIA: Texas Railroad Commission?

MR. MARTIN: We have no questions.

CHAIRMAN GOGLIA: FRA?

MR. GAVALLA: No questions.

CHAIRMAN GOGLIA: UP?

MR. JERRY R. DAVIS: No questions.

CHAIRMAN GOGLIA: BLE?

MR. WALPERT: No questions.

CHAIRMAN GOGLIA: Okay.

MR. LARRY DAVIS: Two quick questions, please. Indulge me. Because I think there's some confusion over the 80 hours a week and I -- and I -- I would like to take advantage of this witness to explain when we're talking about 80 hours a week that doesn't represent 80 hours on duty per week but that may very well mean that there's -- and I would like for the witness to explain.

So, if you will indulge me, please explain a workweek in a way that the panel can understand it when you say, "I work 80 hours a week" or -- so, describe that. An on-duty day, lay-over time over, say, the course of a week so everybody understands where you're at and -- and when you're there. You go to -- go to work on Monday morning and -- ?

MR. SULLIVAN: You just take a seven-day period. I mean it's not Sunday through Monday or -- I mean it's -- it may -- you know, you can take seven days, Christmas through New Year's, you know, and it's not a week. Seven days -- if you just want to pick out a seven-day period.

But the 80-hour workweek that I -- that I was referring to, a lot of that has -- what I mean is actually -- one -- one -- once you become first out or second out or third out or fourth out, you know, you become captive to -- to -- to -- to going to work and your total time spent on duty after that, you know, you've got an hour and a half call prior to your report time, and you've got both ends of the terminal. You factor in all your on-duty time -- on the particular run that I'm on, I can work that run, again based on manpower shortages. Those manpower shortages are -- are being addressed.

But I can work that job seven days a week, and there's very few times that I'm less than 12 hours on duty each way. So, that's 12 hours a day. At times.

But the collective bargaining agreements don't -- if -- if -- if you fall into the -- if -- if we had the manpower, we could fall back on our collective bargaining agreements and -- and slot that in and you certainly wouldn't have the fatigue issue that you have out there today. You wouldn't be working eight hours -- 80 hours a week, you wouldn't be working 60 hours a week. You would have something of a -- of a -- of a normal cycle time regardless of when the cycle started, but you -- you can -- you can figure it out.

MR. LARRY DAVIS: Are you --

MR. SULLIVAN: You know, it's just --

MR. LARRY DAVIS: Are you familiar with an agreement that's in effect that has to do with an -- an eight-hour call time and I think it's an agreement in effect between the -- both the BLE and UTU enjoy that agreement at a particular location. Are you familiar with that kind of an arrangement and -- and could you describe to the best of your knowledge the significance of that on the rail operation?

MR. SULLIVAN: I'm -- I'm aware of -- been aware of a eight-hour call that -- that is in effect I -- I believe on the -- on the Burlington-Northern Railroad or -- or the Union Pacific, somewhere. And -- and I believe Wyoming State Director T. R. Shelby -- he -- he knows more about the eight-hour call than I do. I guess -- Mr. Shelby is with us today.

I -- I support the issue of an eight-hour call. I think an eight-hour call would certainly go a long, long ways in relieving the fatigue issue.

MR. LARRY DAVIS: Thank you very much. No more questions.

CHAIRMAN GOGLIA: No more questions. Any other questions from the head table?

(No response)

CHAIRMAN GOGLIA: Okay. Hearing none, you are released, Mr. Sullivan.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, sir.

(Whereupon, the witness was excused.)

CHAIRMAN GOGLIA: Our next witnesses will be Mr. Dennis Holland, Mr. Dennis Richling, and Dr. Mark Rosekind.

But before they come up, why don't we take a short facilities break as I see everybody wiggling.

(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)

CHAIRMAN GOGLIA: Okay. Mr. Dunn, we are back on the record. Would you please call the next witness?

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: The National Transportation Safety Board calls Dennis Holland, Dennis Richling, and Mark Rosekind.

Whereupon,

DENNIS RICHLING

was called as a witness, and first having been duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

Whereupon,

was called as a witness, and first having been duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

Whereupon,

was called as a witness, and first having been duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

TESTIMONY OF
DENNIS RICHLING
AVP-HEALTH SERVICES
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD,
DENNIS HOLLAND
DIRECTOR OF ALERTNESS MANAGEMENT
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD, AND
MARK ROSEKIND
PRESIDENT AND CHIEF SCIENTIST
ALERTNESS SOLUTIONS
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Mr. Richling, would you state your full name and spell your last name for the record?

DR. RICHLING: Dr. Dennis E. Richling, R-I-C-H-L-I-N-G.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Mr. Holland, would you state your full name and spell your last name for the record, please?

MR. HOLLAND: Dennis W. Holland, H-O-L-L-A-N-D.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Mr. Rosekind, would you state your full name and spell your last name for the record, please?

DR. ROSEKIND: Dr. Mark R. Rosekind, R-O-S-E-K-I-N-D.

MR. JAMES P. DUNN: Thank you.

We will start the questioning with the Technical Panel. Dr. Weeks?

DR. WEEKS: Thank you, Mr. Dunn.

The Technical Panel's interest and area of inquiry will go generally to the areas of fatigue and the Union Pacific's alertness management program. That's kind of an administrative matter. However, what we'd like to do first is ask for Dr. Richling and Mr. Holland to each of you state your duties and responsibilities with the Union Pacific Railroad, and in the case of Dr. Rosekind as a contractor, if you'd provide us with your -- an overview of your background and experience in the science, research, and implementation in fatigue and alertness management. And then we'll circle back and get into the areas of interest.

If you'd start, please, Dr. Richling?

DR. RICHLING: I am the assistant vice president of Health Services. Those duties are to provide the leadership and management of the health and behavioral programs for the company. That includes the medical director's activities, the health promotion activities, disability management, also some computer resources with regard to risk management, and additionally, the alertness management program.

I started with the Union Pacific Railroad in -- in 1986 as the assistant medical director. I was then medical director and -- in early 1990s became assistant vice president of Health Services and medical director, and more recently someone else took over the responsibilities as medical director.

DR. WEEKS: Thank you. Mr. Holland?

MR. HOLLAND: Yes, I'm director of Alertness Management, and my primary responsibility is the day-to-day management and implementation of our Alertness Management program.

My background in the railroad industry is 31 years ago I was employed as a maintenance away B & B and gandydancer. I eventually went into train service, was a brakeman conductor for 19 years. 12 of those years I was a local and general officer for the United Transportation Union. Six years ago I went into management in the human resources department, and last September I was appointed to this position as the director of Alertness Management.

DR. ROSEKIND: My academic and professional background include degree with honors from Stanford, my Ph.D. from Yale, post-doctoral training at Brown. I was then the director of the human -- research component at the Stanford Sleep Center at the Stanford Medical School, led the NASA fatigue countermeasures program for seven years, and currently am the president and chief scientist of Alertness Solutions.

DR. WEEKS: Thank you for that background information, gentlemen.

Dr. Richling, I understand that you and your colleagues are prepared to provide us with a -- an overview and perhaps some detail of Union Pacific's fatigue efforts and more specifically your proposed alertness management program. If you'd care to provide that to us at this time?

DR. RICHLING: Yes, Dr. Weeks. I -- I think the best way to -- to talk about that is -- is let me talk a little bit about what we've done in the past and where we're at right now, and then we're going to have Mr. Holland talk about what's -- what we have been doing over the last six, eight months, and then Dr. Rosekind will talk about our program and -- and what it will look like comprehensively and how that matches with some of the science.

At Union Pacific our understanding of the science of fatigue has been steadily progressing, evolving since the late 1980s or early 1990s. Our interest at that time was because we felt the railroad environment was changing, but it went beyond that. We also thought that the overall cultural environment that our employees worked in was changing.

You know, I -- I -- it seems to me that -- that when I bought on to raising children I was thinking about doing the four Rs, and now I've found out that I have to actually do the three Cs as well, which is computers and communication issues and drugs and alcohol and chemicals. Those things now are real parts of our lives, and we knew that that was going to impact our workforce as well.

We've done a variety of projects over the last several years, including several education efforts. We've changed some of our lodging facilities, and we've had several crew scheduling projects as well. In the 1990s, we were the first railroad to distribute a video and a book developed by an expert group known as Synchrotech to 14,000 of our train service -- train and engine service employees and 3000 mechanical department employees.

After we distributed that videotape, we asked really where the next -- where do we go next? And we realized at that time that using a videotape or even a day-long class or a couple hour class to raise the awareness level of fatigue is a good start but it's not what was going to create the changes in attitude and behavior and culture that were needed to manage fatigue long-term.

We had a considerable amount of experience in doing health education or health behavior education with our workforce. Since the late 1980s we've been doing a number of programs with working with the health behaviors of our employees, and those have been very successful. We've been able to demonstrate we've been able to change behaviors, and we've been -- actually able to demonstrate we were able to change attitudes of our employees towards certain health behavior.

The approach is different. It'd be like thinking that we could actually get people to do things that are traditionally viewed as unhealthy like smoking or eating properly or exercising regularly by just doing a class. We know most of that will not change. And we have found ways to educate our employees that would change that.

So, utilizing that -- that thought, we said would this apply to fatigue? And in the early 19 -- after our first program and through the -- 1994, we actually asked whether we could apply the same technology to -- to fatigue and get changes in behaviors in individuals. We used that approach, and we actually found that -- that irrespective of environmental issues we could get people to be less fatigued, more alert, and reduce inappropriate sleeping -- sleepiness in our population by exercising those education activities.

But we were also thinking about our work environment at the same time. As -- as early as 1995 we began to look for opportunities to put in agreements that would set up crew scheduling projects within our pilot crew scheduling project, and in 1996 we were able to institute actually two crew scheduling pilots. The Union Pacific and the BLE entered into agreement in Milford, Utah first for the extra boards then with the pools of -- the pool freight for 11 days on and four days off. That's 11-4 work-rest cycle. A similar arrangement was made in North Little Rock. At this time only the North Little Rock project continues.

Now, you may ask what happened with the Milford project? And I can give you a very simple answer and say the people who were involved with it, the -- the crews, the BLE did not wish to continue that. We -- they found that there was an improvement in predictability in their work schedules and that they also found that the crews liked it, and I could simply say that the -- that they were not willing to make a long-term agreement.

But that doesn't characterize the situation adequately. There were a variety of different other things that happened. There were changes in the amount of traffic that was going through the territory. There were some problems -- administrative problems that arose. And basically, people became dissatisfied with it.

It was at that point in mid-1996 when we got the results of that pilot that we really learned that we were going to have to do something different in order to create the organizational change needed to reduce fatigue throughout the organization. And that means employees at all levels, that managers and the -- the crews that -- that run our trains. We needed a partnership we felt with -- with the scientific expertise and the operational expertise combined.

This required a commitment for -- from us to collaborate with a consultant with the expertise of Alertness Solutions and Dr. Rosekind. Our entering into a four-year partnership with Alertness Solutions will allow us to rapidly change a culture, and I believe that is true because they've got the expertise to help us do that, both in fatigue and also in the -- area of behavioral change. They also have a work -- they have real work experience of applying fatigue measures and their approach fit very well with ours because it was comprehensive in -- in how they planned on doing that.

We also -- we realized we needed a partnership with our employees and their labor organizations and the FRA. And the SACP allows us that opportunity to do just that.

Fatigue is a complex issue to resolve because it involves this merger of science and a constantly changing operational -- constantly changing operational issues. Because of these complexities, it is not a problem that will be fixed with a singular, quick fix. It require a comprehensive and systematic approach. It -- it's a much -- it is this broader approach that we've chosen to adopt with a development of a variety of projects that will be implemented over the next four years.

The cultural change that is needed to obtain the objective of reducing fatigue and improving the quality of life of our employees can only be achieved through a long-term commitment.

I would now ask Dr. -- Mr. Holland to expand on our activities that we have planned and -- and have been performing over the last several months.

MR. HOLLAND: Thank you, Dr. Richling.

Before I begin, I -- I'd like to mention that -- that this is not theoretical to me. As I said, I was a conductor brakeman for 19 years. I and my family lived this.

One of the reasons I accepted this position is because I felt that there was a significant commitment from the people who were charged with developing, supporting, and sponsoring this program. Certainly, Dr. Richling w