Transportation: railroads; minimum freight train operating crew size; require. Amends 1993 PA 354 (MCL 462.101 - 462.451) by adding sec. 352.
Senate Bill 958 would amend Michigan’s Railroad Code of 1993 to require freight trains operating in the state to be staffed by at least two crew members. The bill applies broadly to trains transporting freight, but it creates exceptions for hostler service, which involves moving locomotives or trains short distances within a yard or mechanical facility, and for helper service, which involves assisting a train with mechanical problems or steep grades by coupling a locomotive to the front or rear.
The bill also includes a federal preemption clause: if a federal law or regulation is in effect that already requires a minimum two-person crew for freight trains in Michigan, the state requirement would not apply. The legislation defines key terms such as “train,” “hostler service,” and “helper service” to clarify when the crew-size mandate does and does not apply.
If enacted, the bill would add a new section to Michigan’s Railroad Code and impose a state-level minimum crew-size requirement on freight trains. It would affect railroad operators in Michigan by limiting one-person freight train operations, while preserving operational flexibility for yard movements and helper operations. The bill would also interact with federal railroad safety regulation, yielding to any existing federal crew-size requirement.
Based on the bill text and available context, the measure appears to be a safety-focused railroad labor and operations bill, with no recorded committee debate or votes provided. The overall framing suggests support for maintaining a minimum crew on freight trains, likely reflecting concern about railroad safety and staffing levels. Because no transcripts or vote history are available, there is no documented opposition or endorsement in the provided materials.
The main point of contention is likely whether Michigan should mandate two-person crews for freight trains at the state level, especially given the possibility of federal regulation in the same area. Supporters would likely emphasize safety, redundancy, and operational oversight, while opponents may argue the requirement is unnecessary, costly, or preempted by federal law. The exceptions for hostler and helper service also indicate a practical concern about not overextending the rule to yard operations or specialized assistance movements.