On August 27, the Georgia Central Railroad — a BLET-represented short line — withdrew a petition it had filed with the Federal Railroad Administration requesting special approval to utilize one-person crew operations. BLET is the only union that represents workers on the Georgia Central Railroad.
Georgia Central’s withdrawal of the petition comes after significant lobbying by the BLET and represents a victory for BLET members and railroad safety. It also follows FRA’s vigorous defense of the two-person crew rule before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
BLET has been the leading advocate for two-person train crews in the railroad industry as the best way to protect the safety of workers and the general public. Georgia Central is a 211-mile Genesee & Wyoming property operating between Savannah and Macon, Georgia. Workers there sought BLET representation to help secure protections that come from a union contract. They voted to join BLET in a representation election certified by the National Mediation Board in October 2024.
Georgia Central petitioned the FRA for a waiver in late 2025, and BLET moved quickly to file a protest.
“The BLET has consistently opposed one-person crew operations,” BLET National President Mark Wallace wrote in comments to FRA opposing the waiver. “There is no substitute for a second crewmember in the cab. We do not support exceptions. There should always be a certified locomotive engineer and a certified conductor in the cab of a locomotive. There are too many hazards both within and outside of the cab to be safely and effectively managed with a single person.”
There was a laundry list of loopholes in Georgia Central’s (GC) waiver request:
- The GC declined to set a maximum number of cars or length of train to be operated under the waiver;
- The GC declined to set a maximum tonnage or weight of train.
- The GC declined to set a maximum number of miles to be operated in a single tour of duty.
- The GC declined to set a duty time limit.
- The GC declined to establish specific fatigue management provisions.
- There were approximately 360 crossings along the proposed route, many of which are not actively controlled.
- The GC did not account for the risks of hazardous materials in the event of an accident.
“The GC has proposed that the alerter can replace the role of a second crewmember within the cab of the locomotive. This is absurd,” President Wallace wrote. “Expecting a single crewmember to operate safely over this type of territory while simultaneously maintaining heightened vigilance for track conditions, operational hazards, signal compliance, and surrounding environmental factors imposes an unreasonable and unsafe workload.
Even under normal operating conditions, maintaining situational awareness over extended periods of operation can be demanding for a two-person crew. Requiring one individual to independently identify and respond to hazards associated with degraded infrastructure substantially increases the risk of missed warnings, delayed reactions, fatigue-related errors, and reduced ability to respond effectively during emergencies or abnormal conditions.”
A PDF of President Wallace’s letter is available here on the National Division website.