Drug testing

I recently had a debate with my friend who believes that random drug testing is wrong, and it should be everyone or no one, and that everyone would be too expensive.

I referred her to the Chase Maryland wreck where the Conrail engineer was stoned while driving the train and she made a point that it's hypocritical to test for drugs like pot but not for alcohol.

So, do railroads do any kind of checking to ensure that your not drug driving a train?

Random drug testing is just that. On Conrail they used to "invade" a
terminal such as Selkirk or Buffalo and they would start at a set time and
finish at a set time and every crew coming in on a train during the time
would have to fill out the paper work and "pee in the bottle". As far as I
know there were no exceptions. I believe the yard crews had to do it too
during their tour of duty but I don't know exactly how that was handled.
It applies to all employees who are working under the hours of service law
so it applies to train dispatchers, operators and signal people too.
It is no fun after having been out on the road for a 300 mile freight train
run and we were usually both tired and hungry but we were required to
take part, like it or not.
This is a federal requirement and Conrail was just carrying it out.
Noel Weaver

I was on a train that Derailed in the yard at under 5MPH due to bad tracks, they whisked the whole crew down to the freight house and drug and alcahol tested us, even though the inncident was their fault.

From my understanding, talking to Road Crews, they don't test when crossing accidents happen, too much liability for the company, which makes me wonder, whats the real reason for testing?

Safety? Only when it suits the company!

powerpro69 wrote:
From my understanding, talking to Road Crews, they don't test when crossing accidents happen,

I'm not certain that's the procedure........

Well I can't hold the road and have never been in a crossing accident (knock on wood), I'm only repeating what I have been told by a few people, It could just be Shanty talk, maybe someone can confirm!

A crossing accident is considered a tresspasser incident, Drug testing is not required for trespasser accidents, only if an employee is struck.
any and all others do not belong on right of way so a crew can not be held accountable under federal rules.
At crossings the acces to the crossing are governed by rules for road user and any entering of railroad right of way is the road users responibility.

Well, that still doesn't explain the double standard.

Drug testing is random and or for reasonable cause.
So if someone appears to act strange they can drug/alcohol test him/her.
Any derailment is reasonable cause, how does railroad know if you did not speed/rough train handling etc or if it was their track.
any accident with a threshold of more than $ 6500 damage is reasonable cause(amount may have changed)

http://www.dot.gov/ost/dapc/testingpubs ... andout.pdf

and
http://www.wallacejordan.com/drugfree/empknow.htm

how does railroad know if you did not speed/rough train handling etc or if it was their track.

They download The Blackbox

Not always conclusive and since FRA requires post accident testing you still need to pee and blow.

That's interesting that they don't test when their is a crossing accident. I'm happy to see they do alcohol testing as well.

I thought it was stupid to suggest that someone can drive a train better on drugs than sober, but if the subject comes up, I now have the ammo I need.

That's interesting that they don't test when their is a crossing accident.

Yeah, you can buy that whole "tresspass" thing if you want, I think it has more to do with the huge lawsuit and bad publicity if an engineer was found to be impaired.

easier to settle quickly and move on.

If that were the case the liability issue would rear its head in any railroad accident.
The drug and alcohol impairment of rail workers has been far below the numbers predicted and far below other professions in USA.
Local police and management can still drug/alcohol test the crew or one of its members under reasonable cause provisions.

It has been exclusion from beginning of testing for trespasser fatalities. and it was FRA that excluded them not the railroads so your conspiracy theory does not hold water.
Ok now your gone say the railroads own the FRA or some crap to that effect.

The railroads have deep pockets and a far reach, that much is certain.

Accusing federal officials/agency on being on the take , can have serious implications, and I don't think you want to go that way, specialy without concrete proof.