Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers   
Division 758

Richard E. Etienne
Vancouver, WA
rick@etnsplace.com

Daryl Ness wrote:
April 10, 2003

Rick,

I am fine with the engine or some sort of handbrake as sufficient at 8th street and Wishram. If the engine is cut off I would like a handbrake on the equipment. I will communicate this to the trainmaster's and road foreman concerning our testing procedures. I appreciate the heads up on good old common sense. 

I understand that Roosevelt slopes slightly to the east and from what I have been told we put one handbrake on each track on
the east end and also tie the engine down.

Thanks,
Daryl Ness

Rick Etienne wrote:
April 10, 2003

Daryl, 

Thanks for the note. As for the rule about tying down trains; past practice on the Fallbridge subdivision has always been to tie down the engines at either Vancouver or Wishram due to the flat track/bowl track status. This has been practice during Mr.'s Thompson, Rein, Raebel at Wishram; and the multitude of trainmasters at Vancouver. Mr.'s Stuhldreher, Fay, Anderson, and Luck never had a problem with it. So, please understand, you have a multitude of TY&E employees at Vancouver, Interbay and Wishram that believe that it is perfectly OK to tie one or two engine hand brakes to hold a train at Vancouver or Wishram when the power is attached. 

Also, along that note, how would we address the issue of safety in tying hand brakes on the train at 8th Street? There is a bridge there that would have to be crossed to do so, and this would require protection by the dispatcher on the other main. The rule states a sufficient number of hand brakes need to be tied. Past practice (and also understood and tacitly agreed to by carrier officers) has been that tying down the engine(s) have been considered a sufficient number of hand brakes on flat track or Wishram bowl tracks. Please advise us of what you would have us do, and how we get the word out to the rest of the TY&E employees. Also, please remember that if one followed the rule book exactly as written, no trains would move during a tour of duty. 

Thanks,
Rick Etienne

"Ness, Daryl S" wrote: 

April 9, 2003

Rick, 

Brad will take care of the error and we apologize for the misunderstanding. We will personally call Mr. Bryson. The issue concerning tie down at Wishram, what rule states that only the engine need be tied down. The rules require adequate brakes concerning grade and tonnage and we all have to live up to that standard. If we want to look at putting a blanket number of brakes on each train by notice we can look at that also.

Daryl 

Mr. Brad J. Anderson
Division Trainmaster
BNSF Rwy. Co.
Fallbridge Subdivision

April 9, 2003

Mr. Anderson,

This committee has always been committed to safety, and compliance of the rules. We preach safety and compliance to our members regularly. We also preach the importance of respect, courtesy and dignity to others. Likewise, the BNSF preaches the same.

Ops testing, while sometimes distasteful, is a necessary tool for compliance monitoring, but likewise, this tool can cause an innocent employee's record to be tainted, and feelings of betrayal when bogus letters are received. One, therefore, would think a carrier officer would make sure of the facts prior to issuing an Ops failure, and sending a letter to the employee's place of residence. This said, I am disappointed that your office did not do the proper homework prior to issuing an Ops failure and subsequent letter to Engr. GA Bryson on 04-01-03. Mr. Bryson was failed on an Ops test by your office of 03-31-03 account he did not tie a sufficient number of hand brakes on train BPTLFRS1 31. You then went on to praise the conductor RC Ross (naming him as the engineer) and lauded his efficiency in following the proper procedures for tying down his locomotives.

Mr. Anderson, had you checked out the call slip, you would have noticed that Mr. Bryson was the engineer, not the conductor. Mr. Bryson had fully complied with all GCOR rules and regulations, but alas, you issued him an Ops failure anyway. Further, Mr. Anderson, since Wishram tracks are of a bowl nature, it has always been the procedure and practice of all employees leaving trains at Wishram to tie the brakes on the locomotives. If said locomotives were to be detached, then the train would be tied down. Never, in my 23 years on BNSF has it been required to tie hand brakes on the train in Wishram, unless the power was to be detached.

Therefore, Mr. Anderson, this committee requests an immediate expungement of Mr. Bryson's Ops failure off his record, and a subsequent letter to him advising him of such, along with a CC letter to Mr.'s Ness and Matzdorff advising them of the same.

As always, this committee remains committed to safety and rules compliance. Further, this committee remains committed to ascertaining all facts prior to any actions that would cause harm to any employee's record.

Thank you

Richard Etienne
BLE Div. 758
Vancouver WA

Cc: Daryl Ness
Steve Matzdorff

April 1st, 2003

Mr. Greg A. Bryson
Conductor
Vancouver, WA. 98684

Mr. Bryson, after arriving Wishram on 4/01 at approx. 0023 on the B PTLFRS1 31, you failed to tie any hand brakes on your train. Your Engineer R.C. Ross made the proper air-reduction and tied a hand brake on the lead unit per the rules. This letter is to notify you that I have failed you on Rule7.6 (Securing Cars or Engines). It states - Do not depend on air brakes to hold a train, engine, or cars in place when left unattended- Apply a sufficient number of hand brakes to prevent movement. If hand brakes are not adequate, block the wheels.

I am writing this letter account I have found in the short time I have been out here in Wishram, that a majority of the TY&E are not notified of OPT failures and there is no way to correct something if you are not aware there was an error. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me next time you are in Wishram,

Thank you,

Brad J. Anderson
Division Trainmaster
Fallbridge Subdivision

CC: DarvI Ness
Steve Matzdorff