U.S. Department of 

Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Yardmasters and Yard Safety in the U.S. 

Railroad Industry: An Exploratory Study 

Office of Research 

and Development 

Washington, DC 20590 

DOT/FRA/ORD-07/01 Final Report This document is available to the 

January 2007 U.S. public through the National 

Technical Information Service, 

Springfield, VA 22161. 
NOTICE 

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the

Department of Transportation in the interest of information

exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for 

its contents or use thereof. 

NOTICE 

The United States Government does not endorse products or

manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein

solely because they are considered essential to the objective of this 

report. 

 
i

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved 

OMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources,

gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this

collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503.

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED

January 2007 May–December 2005 

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS 

Yardmasters and Yard Safety in the U.S. Railroad Industry: An Exploratory Study DTFR53-01-D-00029

6. AUTHOR(S)

Stephen Reinach and Alex Viale 

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 

REPORT NUMBER

Foster-Miller, Inc. 

350 Second Avenue 

Waltham, MA 02451-1196

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING 

 AGENCY REPORT NUMBER U.S. Department of Transportation DOT/FRA/ORD-07/01 Federal Railroad Administration 

Office of Research and Development 

1120 Vermont Ave. NW MS-20 

Washington, DC 20590

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 

COTR: Dr. Thomas Raslear 

12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

This document is available to the public through the National Technical Information Service, 

Springfield, Virginia 22161, and www.fra.dot.gov. 

13. ABSTRACT

This report presents the results of an exploratory study of railroad yardmasters. The purpose was to identify issues and risks

associated with yardmaster tasks and responsibilities that have the potential to compromise safety in railroad classification 

(switching) yards. Analysis of 2004 Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) train accident and incident data helped to determine

the involvement of yardmasters in train accidents and injuries, and focus groups with yardmasters provided information about 

yardmaster tasks and responsibilities and the yardmaster’s role in yard switching safety. Analysis of FRA train accident/incident 

data indicates that yardmasters contributed to less than one-fifth of 1 percent of reportable train accidents (7 out of 3,775) and onefifth of 1 percent of all employee-on-duty injuries (13 out of 5,693). Fifty-six yardmasters participated in nine focus groups

conducted in three U.S. cities. Focus groups addressed five topic groupings: training and experience; communications and 

information flow; stress, distractions, difficulties, and workload; fatigue, staffing, and work schedules; and best practices and

lessons learned. Yardmasters identified and discussed a number of issues related to each topic, as well as provided lessons learned 

and best practices. Lastly, the report suggests several future studies to further enhance FRA’s understanding of the yardmaster’s 

role in railroad yard switching safety. 

14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES

Yardmaster, railroad switching yard, classification yard, railroad safety, switching operations, 77 

yard operations 16. PRICE CODE

17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT

 OF REPORT OF THIS PAGE OF ABSTRACT

 Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified

NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89) 

Prescribed by ANSI Std. 239-18 

298-102 
ii 

METRIC/ENGLISH CONVERSION FACTORS 

ENGLISH TO METRIC METRIC TO ENGLISH

LENGTH (APPROXIMATE) LENGTH (APPROXIMATE) 

1 inch (in) = 2.5 centimeters (cm) 1 millimeter (mm) = 0.04 inch (in) 

1 foot (ft) = 30 centimeters (cm) 1 centimeter (cm) = 0.4 inch (in)

1 yard (yd) = 0.9 meter (m) 1 meter (m) = 3.3 feet (ft) 

1 mile (mi) = 1.6 kilometers (km) 1 meter (m) = 1.1 yards (yd)

1 kilometer (km) = 0.6 mile (mi)

AREA (APPROXIMATE) AREA (APPROXIMATE)

1 square inch (sq in, in2) = 6.5 square centimeters (cm2) 1 square centimeter (cm2) = 0.16 square inch (sq in, in2) 

1 square foot (sq ft, ft2) = 0.09 square meter (m2) 1 square meter (m2) = 1.2 square yards (sq yd, yd2) 

1 square yard (sq yd, yd2) = 0.8 square meter (m2) 1 square kilometer (km2) = 0.4 square mile (sq mi, mi2) 

1 square mile (sq mi, mi2) = 2.6 square kilometers (km2) 10,000 square meters (m2) = 1 hectare (ha) = 2.5 acres 

1 acre = 0.4 hectare (he) = 4,000 square meters (m2) 

MASS - WEIGHT (APPROXIMATE) MASS - WEIGHT (APPROXIMATE)

1 ounce (oz) = 28 grams (gm) 1 gram (gm) = 0.036 ounce (oz)

1 pound (lb) = 0.45 kilogram (kg) 1 kilogram (kg) = 2.2 pounds (lb) 

1 short ton = 2,000 pounds = 0.9 tonne (t) 1 tonne (t) = 1,000 kilograms (kg) 

(lb) = 1.1 short tons

VOLUME (APPROXIMATE) VOLUME (APPROXIMATE) 

1 teaspoon (tsp) = 5 milliliters (ml) 1 milliliter (ml) = 0.03 fluid ounce (fl oz) 

1 tablespoon (tbsp) = 15 milliliters (ml) 1 liter (l) = 2.1 pints (pt) 

1 fluid ounce (fl oz) = 30 milliliters (ml) 1 liter (l) = 1.06 quarts (qt) 

1 cup (c) = 0.24 liter (l) 1 liter (l) = 0.26 gallon (gal)

1 pint (pt) = 0.47 liter (l) 

 1 quart (qt) = 0.96 liter (l) 

1 gallon (gal) = 3.8 liters (l) 

1 cubic foot (cu ft, ft

3

) = 0.03 cubic meter (m3) 1 cubic meter (m3) = 36 cubic feet (cu ft, ft3) 

1 cubic yard (cu yd, yd3) = 0.76 cubic meter (m3) 1 cubic meter (m3) = 1.3 cubic yards (cu yd, yd3)

TEMPERATURE (EXACT) TEMPERATURE (EXACT) 

[(x-32)(5/9)] °F = y °C [(9/5) y + 32] °C = x °F

QUICK INCH - CENTIMETER LENGTH CONVERSION

0 1 2 3 4 5

Inches

Centimeters 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

QUICK FAHRENHEIT - CELSIUS TEMPERATURE CONVERSION

 °F -40° -22° -4° 14° 32° 50° 68° 86° 104° 122° 140° 158° 176° 194° 212°

 °C -40° -30° -20° -10° 0° 10° 20° 30° 40° 50° 60° 70° 80° 90° 100°

 

For more exact and or other conversion factors, see NIST Miscellaneous Publication 286, Units of Weights and 

Measures. Price $2.50 SD Catalog No. C13 10286 Updated 6/17/98

13
iii 

Contents 

Illustrations .................................................................................................................................... iv 

Tables .................................................................................................................................... iv 

Preface ..................................................................................................................................... v 

Executive Summary........................................................................................................................ 1 

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 5

1.1 Background ................................................................................................................. 5 

1.2 Objectives.................................................................................................................... 6 

1.3 Overall Approach ........................................................................................................ 7 

1.4 Scope ........................................................................................................................... 7 

1.5 Organization of the Report.......................................................................................... 7 

2. FRA Accident/Incident Data Analysis........................................................................ 9 

2.1 Analysis of Train Accidents Involving Yardmasters.................................................. 9 

2.2 Analysis of Yardmaster Injuries................................................................................ 13 

3. Focus Group Methods............................................................................................... 17 

4. Focus Group Participant Profile ................................................................................ 19 

5. Focus Group Results.................................................................................................. 21 

5.1 Training and Experience ........................................................................................... 21 

5.2 Communications and Information Flow.................................................................... 27 

5.3 Stress, Distractions, and Workload ........................................................................... 32 

5.4 Fatigue, Staffing, and Work Schedules..................................................................... 40 

5.5 Best Practices and Lessons Learned.......................................................................... 43 

6. Key Themes and Recommendations......................................................................... 47 

6.1 Train Accident/Incident Analysis Key Findings....................................................... 47 

6.2 Focus Group Key Themes......................................................................................... 47 

6.3 Yardmaster Suggestions to Increase Yard Safety ..................................................... 49 

6.4 Recommendations for Future Research .................................................................... 50 

7. References ................................................................................................................. 53 

Appendix A. 2004 Accident Supplemental Data......................................................................... 55 

Appendix B. Discussion of a Systems Model of Human Error and Its Relationship 

 to the FRA Accident/Incident Databases............................................................... 61 

Appendix C. 2004 Yardmaster Injury Data ................................................................................. 63 

Appendix D. Focus Group Questions.......................................................................................... 67 

Abbreviations and Acronyms ....................................................................................................... 69 
iv 

Illustrations 

Figure 1. Diagram of a yardmaster’s office in tower overlooking hump tracks.......................... 14 

Tables 

Table 1. 2004 train accidents where yardmaster was included in the accident 

 narrative and the yardmaster contributed to the accident .............................................. 11 

Table 2. Focus group participant industry and yardmaster experience (yr) ................................ 19 

Table 3. Focus group participant current work schedules ........................................................... 19 

Table 4. Railroad crafts worked before becoming a yardmaster ................................................. 20 
v 

Preface 

A novel means of further reducing train accidents/incidents in railroad classification, or 

switching, yards is to examine the role that yardmasters play in yard switching safety. 

Yardmasters are the front-line supervisors of all activity that takes place in railroad yards. 

Yardmasters manage track use in yards, as well as communicate and coordinate with yard track 

users. They interact with a number of different yard employees and crafts and are responsible 

for, and must be aware of, inbound/outbound trains, switch crews operating in the yard, and the 

yard infrastructure, yet no public research has been conducted to identify potential safety issues 

and risks associated with yardmaster tasks and responsibilities. 

The overall purpose of this exploratory research was to identify issues and risks associated with 

the yardmaster’s job that may compromise safety in railroad switching yards. The study 

involved an analysis of train accident/incident data and the conduct of focus groups with 

yardmasters around the United States. This research was performed under the Federal Railroad 

Administration’s (FRA) Office of Research and Development Contract DTFR53-01-D-00029. 

The authors would like to thank a number of individuals who assisted in the conduct of focus 

groups with yardmasters. First, the authors would like to express thanks in particular to Dr. 

Thomas Raslear, FRA Office of Research and Development Human Factors Program, for 

supporting and encouraging this research. The authors would like to give a special thanks to Mr. 

James Cumby and Mr. James Stem, United Transportation Union (UTU), and Mr. Rusty Strain, 

United Supervisors Council of America (USCA, part of the Transportation Communication 

International Union), for facilitating this research by providing union contacts and helping to 

identify candidate focus group locations. The authors would also like to thank UTU and USCA 

general and local chairpersons for helping to identify and recruit yardmasters willing to share 

their views and experiences. 

The authors would like to acknowledge and thank Mr. Royal Gelder and the Belt Railway 

Company of Chicago (BRC) for allowing the authors to visit BRC’s switching operations and 

observe several BRC yardmasters on the job before finalizing the yardmaster focus group 

questions. Thanks are also extended to Ms. Judith Gertler and Ms. Susan McDonough, both of 

Foster-Miller, for reviewing a draft manuscript of the final report and providing critical 

feedback. Thanks to Ms. Susan McDonough for also providing program administration support. 

Lastly, but most importantly, the authors wish to thank all of the yardmasters who participated in 

the focus groups. Their willingness to openly share their experiences and opinions provided an 

important, but understudied, perspective on railroad yard switching safety. 

1 

Executive Summary 

Analysis of 2004 Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) accident data shows that the rate of 

yard accidents (22.46 yard accidents per million yard switching miles) is more than 5 times 

greater than the overall train accident rate (4.33 accidents per million train miles) and more than 

10 times the rate of accidents on other-than-yard track (2.11 accidents per million train miles). 

Furthermore, while the other-than-yard track accident rate has declined over the last several 

years (down 9.2 percent from 2001 to 2004), the yard accident rate has actually increased over 

22 percent from 2001 to 2004. Efforts to further improve railroad safety, therefore, must include 

reducing accidents and incidents in switching yards. 

While some research has examined yard switch crews and yard safety, no research to date has 

explicitly focused on the role of the yardmaster in the safety of switching yards. Yardmasters 

offer an additional and valuable perspective to yard safety because they manage the work flow in 

the yard, and they are often responsible for making up trains that operate on the main track. Both 

of these responsibilities carry important safety and productivity consequences in yards and on 

main track. 

Yardmasters have numerous tasks and responsibilities that have the potential to result in 

temporary task overload and distraction. Furthermore, the yard environment is fast-paced and 

highly dynamic, with constant changes to train makeups, track occupancies and assignments, 

track conditions, and traffic flow. In addition, yardmasters are not normally covered under the 

Hours of Service (HOS) Law. Yardmasters generally work 8-16 hours (h) per day, and on 

occasion they may work longer. Task overload and distraction, combined with a fast-paced and 

highly dynamic environment and possible mental fatigue, can lead to errors and increase the risk 

of hazardous yard moves, incorrect or hazardous train consist arrangements, and possible 

negative health and well-being effects on yardmasters. 

The purpose of this exploratory research was to identify potential yard safety issues related to the 

tasks and responsibilities of a yardmaster that may warrant further research and understanding by 

FRA and others, and to identify yardmaster-related lessons learned and best practices that can be 

shared across the railroad industry. Specific objectives of this exploratory research include the 

following: 

• Understand the role yardmasters play in contributing to yard accidents. 

• Characterize the nature of yardmaster injuries. 

• Identify yardmaster job-related issues and risks that have the potential to compromise 

yard switching safety. 

This study used combined quantitative and qualitative methods to examine the yardmaster’s role 

in yard switching safety. The quantitative approach involved analysis of 1 year (yr) of FRA train 

accident and incident data to determine the yardmaster’s role in yard switching accidents and to 

characterize the nature of yardmaster injuries. The qualitative approach involved nine focus 

groups with yardmasters around the country to provide greater insight into potential yard safety 

issues related to yardmaster tasks and responsibilities. No attempt was made to validate any 

statements made by yardmasters. 
2 

FRA train accident and incident data for 2004, the most recent year for which a complete set of 

accident/incident data were available, were analyzed first. The purpose of this analysis was to 

determine the number, type, and nature of reportable train accidents and injuries where 

yardmasters were involved. An additional goal of the analysis was to determine the utility of the 

FRA train accident database in identifying the role that yardmasters play in train accidents. 

Complete 2004 train accident and incident datasets were downloaded from FRA’s Web site for 

analysis. Analysis included train accidents on all track types (yard, main, etc.) and only those 

accidents that contained the word yardmaster in the narrative. This resulted in a total of 27 

unique cases in 2004 where yardmaster appeared in the narrative. Of these 27 cases, 25 occurred 

on yard track, 1 occurred on main track, and information on the type of track was missing for the 

last case. Review of each of the 27 narratives indicated whether or not a yardmaster contributed 

to the particular accident. 

Results of this review indicate that yardmasters are associated with few FRA-reportable train 

accidents. Yardmasters contributed to train accidents in less than one-fifth of 1 percent of the 

cases (7 out of 3,775). In all seven accidents, the yardmaster provided incorrect information or 

instructions/permissions (directives), or he/she failed to provide critical information, to the 

switch crew.

Analysis of the 2004 FRA casualty database revealed that yardmasters suffer very few injuries: 

one-fifth of one percent of all 2004 employee-on-duty injuries (13 out of 5,693) occurred to 

yardmasters or assistant yardmasters. A majority of the injuries, 8 of 13 (or 62 percent), were 

sprains or strains. The top two bodily locations of the injuries were to yardmasters’ arms or 

hands (5 of 13 injuries) and the torso (5 of 13 injuries). Four of the 13 injuries (31 percent) were 

a result of slips, trips, or falls. 

The United Transportation Union (UTU) and the United Supervisors Council of America 

(USCA, part of the Transportation Communication International Union) assisted in identifying 

cities in which to conduct focus groups and in recruiting participants. UTU and USCA represent 

a majority of yardmasters at U.S. Class I railroads. Focus groups took place in each of three 

different major cities across the United States. Each focus group lasted up to 2 h and was led by 

a moderator and a moderator’s assistant. The same pre-established set of questions guided each 

focus group. 

Fifty-six yardmasters from five U.S. Class I railroads participated in nine focus groups 

conducted between August and December 2005. The 56 yardmasters provided a convenience 

sample and were not statistically sampled to be representative of all yardmasters in the United 

States. Thus, while these 56 yardmasters provided significant insights into yardmaster 

operations issues, results may not be representative of all yardmaster operations or experiences. 

Of the 56 yardmasters, 3 were women. Participants ranged in age from 27 to 60 with an average 

age of 45. Fifty-one of the 56 yardmasters (91 percent) worked full time (100 percent) as a 

yardmaster. Ninety-three percent of all participants worked another railroad craft before 

becoming a yardmaster; a majority had prior experience as switchmen (66 percent) and/or clerks 

(27 percent). 

Focus group questions concentrated around five major topics: (1) training and experience; (2) 

communications and information flow; (3) stress, distraction, and workload; (4) fatigue, staffing, 

and work schedules; and (5) best practices and lessons learned. Each topic contained two to five 

questions. Key themes from the focus groups included the following: 
3 

• Training to become a yardmaster has remained essentially unchanged and is primarily 

on the job. Participant training primarily involved unstructured, informal on-the-job 

training (OJT). Some newer yardmasters also received classroom training on the 

mechanics of using the railroad’s train management computer system. In the past, this 

unstructured OJT was acceptable because experienced managers were available to field 

questions and provide direction to compensate for the unstructured OJT. More recently, 

participants observe that local managers have little railroad and yard operations 

experience. Thus, while training has generally remained the same over time, the support 

structure has changed.

• Previous experience as a switchman or clerk is helpful to the job. Most participants 

worked as clerks or switchmen before becoming yardmasters, and they felt this 

experience prepared them for the job. Experience as a clerk provided an understanding 

of how trains are processed, and experience as a switchman helped participants learn the 

yard layout and how to switch cars. These experiences enabled participants to get to 

know some of the crews that they were now supervising.

• The yardmaster’s job requires a combination of technical and managerial knowledge, 

skills, abilities, and other attributes. Participants identified both technical skills, such as 

clerical and computer skills, and managerial qualities, such as the ability to supervise 

others and multitask, as important to the job.

• Factors that contribute to effective communication and information flow include railroad 

experience, good communication skills, few interruptions, and minimal disruptions while 

communicating with switch crews. Factors that contribute to poor communication and 

information flow include railroad inexperience, interruptions and distractions, and task 

overload.

• Principal sources of stress include interactions with management, dispatchers, and 

crews; workload; and equipment problems. Examples of stressful interactions with 

management include excessively high expectations and demands placed on yardmasters, 

management second-guessing yardmaster decisions, and intimidation. Participants cited 

inexperienced and uncooperative switch crews as additional sources of stress, as well as 

poor communication and cooperation with some dispatchers. Workload-related stressors 

include distractions, excessive or redundant communications, multitasking, productivity 

pressure, and a lack of opportunity to take a break. Equipment-related stressors include 

inadequate and poorly maintained locomotives and track, as well as computer failures.

• Difficult aspects of the job mirror sources of stress and include interactions with others, 

workload, and problems with equipment and resources.

• Primary sources of distraction include events beyond the control or influence of the 

yardmaster. Examples include incoming communications, changes to plans, 

malfunctioning equipment, delays, inclement weather, and distractions associated with 

the switch crews, such as crew inexperience and the consequent lack of big picture that 

requires the yardmaster to pay more attention to the crew rather than other tasks.

• The general consensus among participants was that too few yardmasters were available 

to work, resulting in forced overtime in the form of an extended work shift. 
4 

Participants also identified a number of ways to improve working conditions. Some key 

suggestions include: 

• Enhance yardmaster training through job skill and procedural improvements. 

Suggestions included improved computer and communication skills training, 

development of a more formal OJT qualification program, and use of tabletop 

simulations.

• Enhance communications and information flow. Suggestions included improving radio 

equipment and FRA radio rules, reducing yardmaster responsibilities, increasing 

yardmasters’ authority in yards, and streamlining communications to and from the 

yardmaster.

• Reduce stress, distraction, difficulties, and workload through improvements in 

personnel/staffing, interaction and communication with others, equipment and facilities, 

and practices and procedures. Personnel/staffing-related suggestions include adding 

clerks and more yardmasters to distribute workload. Interaction and communication 

improvements include reducing the number of managers with whom yardmasters interact, 

increasing positive interactions with managers, and improving the timeliness of 

information communicated to the yardmaster. Equipment and facility-related 

enhancements include improvements to track, on-track equipment, and office equipment 

and furniture. Suggested improvements to practices and procedures include changing 

work schedule practices and adding a break, such as a meal period.

• Reduce fatigue by changing work schedules and work schedule practices. Suggested 

improvements to work schedules include alternate work schedules, establishment of a 

maximum number of hours that can be worked in a shift (8-12 h maximum was 

recommended), allow an overtime shift to be split, provide more than 8 h of rest after 

working overtime, and provision of a 20-minute (min) meal/rest period. Another 

suggestion was to increase the number of yardmasters available to work. 

• Advice to new yardmasters about how to work safely and efficiently focused on general 

disposition and job-specific knowledge and skills. Disposition-related suggestions 

include treat people with respect, do not try to be everyone’s friend, be patient and keep 

your cool, and be flexible. Job-specific knowledge and abilities include maintain 

situation awareness and know the yard.

Finally, based on the accident/incident analysis and focus groups, the study identifies several 

opportunities for future research to further understand the role of yardmasters in railroad yard 

switching safety and to potentially increase railroad yard switching safety: 

• Conduct a survey to characterize yardmaster work schedules and sleep patterns. 

• Analyze FRA train accident data from 1991 to 2005. 

• Develop a framework for revised FRA accident/incident databases. 

• Conduct a task analysis and cognitive task analysis of the yardmaster’s job. 

• Develop yardmaster training objectives. 
5

1. Introduction 

1.1 Background 

Analysis of 2004 FRA accident data shows that the rate of yard accidents (22.46 yard accidents 

per million yard switching miles) is more than 5 times greater than the overall train accident rate 

(4.33 accidents per million train miles1) and more than 10 times the rate of accidents on otherthan-yard track (2.11 accidents per million train miles). Furthermore, while the other-than-yard 

track accident rate has declined over the last several years (down 9.2 percent from 2001 to 2004), 

the yard accident rate has actually increased over 22 percent from 2001 to 2004.2 Thus, any 

effort to further improve railroad safety must include reducing accidents and incidents in 

switching yards. 

While some research has examined yard switch crews and yard safety (e.g., Reinach & Gertler, 

2001), no research to date has explicitly focused on the role of the yardmaster in the safety of 

switching yards. A search of the Transportation Research Information Services online 

transportation research database (available at http://trisonline.bts.gov/search.cfm) for the terms 

yardmaster or yard master yielded a total of 8 reports or articles out of almost 450,000 records. 

All eight focused on modeling or analysis of railroad operations, including railroad yard 

operations, rather than on yard safety. In addition, all 8 reports were published more than 20 yr 

ago, between 1973 and 1983. Yardmasters offer an additional and valuable perspective to yard 

safety because they manage the work flow in the yard, and they are often responsible for making 

up trains that operate on the main track. Both of these responsibilities carry with them important 

safety and productivity consequences in yards and on the main track. 

Yardmasters are the frontline supervisors of all activity that takes place in railroad switching 

yards. Yardmasters manage track use in yards; they also communicate and coordinate with yard 

track users. They interact with a number of different yard employees and crafts, including yard 

crews, mechanical and maintenance of way employees, carmen, and trainmasters, as well as 

other railroad employees, such as train dispatchers and road crews. They are responsible for, and 

must be aware of, inbound/outbound trains, switch crews operating in the yard, and the yard 

infrastructure. Often in large yards several yardmasters may work together to supervise and run 

the entire yard. 

According to the General Code of Operating Rules (GCOR): 

The yardmaster is responsible for and shall directly supervise yard crews, clerks, 

and all other employees working in the yard. The yardmaster must see that they 

work in a safe, efficient, and economical manner, according to the rules, 

regulations, and instructions of the railroad. Yardmasters must ensure the prompt 

and regular movement of cars, especially the proper makeup of trains and their 

movement into and out of the yard. At locations where yardmasters are on duty, 

employees in train, engine, and yard service must comply with the yardmaster's 

 

1

 SOURCE: FRA Office of Safety data retrieved from http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov February 10, 2006. According to 

FRA, 2004 data are preliminary. 

2

 Ibid. 
6

instructions.... (GCOR Section 1.46 General Responsibilities/Duties of 

Yardmasters). 

Yardmaster job descriptions such as those found on carrier Web sites clearly present the job 

requirements and necessary knowledge, skills, and abilities that must be brought to the job. 

Yardmasters must master or maintain a wide and diverse variety of knowledge areas, skills, and 

abilities. While dispatchers are the lynchpin of railroad safety along main track, yardmasters are 

the lynchpin of railroad yard safety. Similar to train dispatchers, yardmaster responsibilities 

have also increased recently due to increased business and workforce reductions (e.g., 

elimination of some clerical positions). For instance, in some switching yards the yardmaster 

may control track switches and provide point protection in addition to his/her other yard 

supervisory and management responsibilities. 

Yardmasters have numerous tasks and responsibilities that have the potential to result in 

temporary task overload and distraction. Furthermore, the yard environment is fast-paced and 

highly dynamic, with constant changes to train makeups, track occupancies and assignments, 

track conditions, and traffic flow. In addition, yardmasters are not normally covered under the 

HOS Law.3

 Yardmasters generally work 8-16 h per day, and on occasion they may work longer. 

Task overload and distraction, combined with a fast-paced and highly dynamic environment and 

possible mental fatigue, can lead to errors and increase the risk of hazardous yard moves (e.g., 

conflicting instructions from the yardmaster to two different yard crews), incorrect or hazardous 

train consist arrangements (which can affect safety on the main track if a train leaves the yard 

with a consist that is not in the right order, such as placement of HAZMAT), and possible 

negative health and well-being effects on yardmasters (e.g., an increase in coronary heart 

disease). 

1.2 Objectives 

The purpose of this exploratory research was to identify potential yard safety issues related to the 

tasks and responsibilities of a yardmaster that may warrant further research and understanding by 

FRA and others, and to identify yardmaster-related lessons learned and best practices that can be 

shared across the railroad industry. This research is also intended to provide a public source of 

information about the job of a yardmaster and his/her contribution to railroad yard switching 

safety. 

Specific objectives of the exploratory research include the following: 

• Understand the role yardmasters play in contributing to yard accidents. 

• Characterize the nature of yardmaster injuries. 

• Identify yardmaster job-related issues and risks that have the potential to compromise 

yard switching safety. 

 

3

 Whether or not a yardmaster is covered under HOS depends on the specific job tasks and duties that a yardmaster 

is carrying out in a given shift. According to 49 CFR § 228 Appendix A, “The approach of the law [as applied to 

yardmasters, for instance] is functional” (p. 297). 
7

1.3 Overall Approach 

The overall approach used in this study combined quantitative and qualitative methods to 

examine the yardmaster’s role in yard switching safety. The quantitative approach involved 

analysis of 1 yr of FRA train accident and incident data to determine the yardmaster’s role in 

yard switching accidents and to characterize the nature of yardmaster injuries. The qualitative 

approach involved nine focus groups with yardmasters around the country to provide greater 

insight into potential yard safety issues related to yardmaster tasks and responsibilities. No 

attempt was made to validate any statements made by yardmasters. Furthermore, the views, 

concerns, lessons learned, best practices, and suggested improvements to yard safety and 

yardmasters’ work documented in this report are based on the opinions and perceptions of the 

yardmasters who participated in the focus groups and should not be attributed to FRA. 

1.4 Scope 

This exploratory study focuses on the tasks and responsibilities of yardmasters as they relate to 

yard switching safety. This study does not address the jobs of other railroad employees who 

work within the confines of switching yards or who manage these yards. These other employees 

include yard switch crews, carmen, maintenance of way employees, signalmen, mechanical 

employees, trainmasters, terminal managers, and superintendents. Each of these employee 

groups has some responsibility for yard safety. Results touch upon these other groups as they 

relate to the yardmaster’s work, but these other employees are not the central focus of this study. 

1.5 Organization of the Report 

The remainder of the report is divided into several sections. Section 2 contains the results of the 

FRA train accident/incident data analysis. Section 3 discusses the focus group methods. Section 

4 provides a demographic profile of those who participated in the focus groups. Section 5 

presents the results of the focus groups. Section 6 summarizes the key themes based on the FRA 

train accident/incident data analysis and focus group results; this section also presents some 

recommendations for possible future research. Section 7 contains a list of references. Following 

Section 7 is a set of supporting appendixes. Appendix A presents supplemental yardmaster 

accident data. Appendix B presents a brief discussion of a systems model of human error in the 

context of the FRA accident/incident databases. Appendix C contains supporting information 

and data on yardmaster injuries. Appendix D contains the focus group questions. Lastly, a list 

of abbreviations and acronyms is included for reference. 

9

2. FRA Accident/Incident Data Analysis 

Analysis of FRA train accident and incident data for 2004, the most recent year for which a 

complete set of accident/incident data were available, was the first step in beginning to examine 

the role yardmasters play in yard switching safety. The purpose of this analysis was to determine 

the number, type, and nature of reportable train accidents and injuries where yardmasters were 

involved. An additional goal of the analysis was to determine the utility of the FRA train 

accident database in identifying the role that yardmasters play in train accidents. Given (1) 

yardmasters’ work environment away from moving on-track equipment, (2) their upstream 

involvement, in time and space, in the movement of on-track equipment (that is, yardmasters 

issue directives about moving the equipment, they are not responsible for the actual movement 

and operation of the equipment), and (3) current FRA train accident reporting requirements that 

focus more on the operating crews and less on upstream factors, it was expected that the FRA 

train accident database would contain minimal information about the involvement of yardmasters 

in train accidents.4 Section 2.1 presents the findings from the analysis of train accident data, and 

Section 2.2 presents the findings from the analysis of yardmaster injuries. 

2.1 Analysis of Train Accidents Involving Yardmasters 

The initial approach was to search for train accident cause codes that indicated the involvement 

of yardmasters. A majority of these codes, however, focus on the operating crewmembers or 

others closest in time and space to the train accident or physical structures, such as mechanical 

and track issues. A few train accident cause codes suggest the possible involvement of 

yardmasters in train accidents. Some of these include: 

• H305 Instruction to train/yard crew improper 

• H405 Train orders, track warrants, direct traffic control, track bulletins, radio, error in 

preparation, transmission or delivery 

• H406 Train orders, track warrants, direct traffic control, track bulletins, written, error in 

preparation, transmission or delivery 

• H501 Improper train make-up at initial terminal 

• H99E Computer system configuration/management error (non vendor) 

• H996 Oversized loads or excess height/width cars, mis-routed or switched 

Each of these codes relates to a train authority (directive) or some other activity or responsibility 

that can be associated with yardmasters. Due to the ambiguity in code descriptions, however, 

review of the narratives in each case was necessary to verify the involvement of a yardmaster. 

Complete 2004 train accident and incident datasets were downloaded from FRA’s Web site for 

analysis. Accidents on all track types (yard, main, etc.) were included since, although 

yardmasters are responsible for operations within yard limits and track, it was possible for a 

yardmaster to have contributed to an accident just outside a yard on a main track. For example, 

it is possible that a yardmaster could give an improper authority to make a move on the main 

 

4

 An electronic keyword search for yardmaster in the entire FRA Guide to Accident/Incident Reporting (FRA, 2003) 

yielded only citations in Appendix D, Employee Job Codes. 
10

track when, in fact, the dispatcher did not authorize it. Therefore, the analysis included all track 

types. 

Since it was necessary to review the narratives in each accident case, analysis included only 

those train accidents that contained the word yardmaster in the narrative. This resulted in a total 

of 27 unique cases for 2004 where yardmaster appeared in the narrative. These 27 cases 

represent 0.7 percent of the 3,775 total unique cases (accidents) contained in the 2004 train 

accident database.5

 Of these 27 cases, 25 occurred on yard track, 1 occurred on main track, and 

information on the type of track was missing for the last case. 

The presence of yardmaster in the narrative did not necessarily mean that a yardmaster 

contributed to the particular accident. The following two example narratives illustrate train 

accidents where a yardmaster clearly (1) was involved and (2) was not involved: 

1. Coming into ALS yard, yardmaster told crew they were lined up, switch was lined 

against them, engineer applied too much independent brake, derailing 3 cars on trra trk.... 

2. Pulling from track when yardmaster notified crew to stop the train account cars were 

derailed. Found cars derailed account broken rail. 

In addition, a number of cases existed where it simply was not clear from the narrative whether 

or not the yardmaster contributed to the accident. 

Review of each of the 27 narratives helped to determine whether a yardmaster contributed to the 

particular accident, a yardmaster did not contribute to the accident, or it was not clear from the 

narrative that a yardmaster contributed to the accident. Results of this review indicate that 

yardmasters contributed to the accident in only 7 of the 27 cases where the narrative contained 

yardmaster (26 percent of the sample). In another 9 cases, it was unclear whether or not a 

yardmaster contributed to the accident (33 percent); in 11 cases, the yardmaster did not 

contribute to the accident (41 percent). Appendix A presents the 20 cases where it was either 

unclear whether or not the yardmaster contributed to the accident, or where it was clear that 

he/she did not contribute to the accident. Overall, it was evident that a yardmaster contributed to 

a train accident in only 7 of the 3,775 train accidents in 2004, or about one-fifth of 1 percent. 

Table 1 presents the accident narratives for the seven cases where it was evident that the 

yardmaster contributed to the accident, as well as the primary train accident cause (and code) 

associated with each case. In addition, Table 1 includes a brief description of the role the 

yardmaster played in contributing to each accident based on a distillation of the narrative. 

Based on the train accident cause codes, four of the seven accidents were associated with 

improper instructions given to the train/yard crew (H305). In each case, the narrative was 

consistent with the cause code. Analysis of train accident cause codes for the remaining three 

accidents revealed that one each resulted from: absence of a man on or at leading end of 

movement during a shoving movement (H306), improper use (except actuation) of the 

 

5

 The initial 2004 database contained 4,340 cases, of which 564 were duplicate cases (i.e., two railroads reporting on 

the same accident). This resulted in 3,776 unique cases; 28 of these included a reference to yardmaster in their 

narratives. Upon reviewing the narrative sections of these 28 accidents, however, one more duplication was found, 

where two different cases had unique incident reporting numbers but described the same accident. Consequently, 1 

of the 2 cases was removed, resulting in a starting total of 3,775 unique cases, and 27 included yardmaster in the 

narrative. 
11

independent brake (H525), and other train operation/human factors (H999). Thus, in two cases 

where the yardmaster contributed to the accident based on a review of the narratives, the train 

accident cause code focused on the operating crew, not the yardmaster. Furthermore, neither of 

these cases had a secondary train accident cause code, principally H305, that would indicate the 

role of the yardmaster in contributing to the accident and that would show consistency with the 

narrative.

Analysis of the narratives suggests that in all seven accidents, the yardmaster provided incorrect 

information or permission/instructions (directives), or failed to provide critical information, to 

the switch crew. In three cases (#2, #3, and #7), the yardmaster gave the switch crew 

instructions or permission to shove into an already occupied track. In two other cases (#5 and 

#6), the yardmaster provided incorrect information to the switch crew. In one of these instances, 

the yardmaster told the crew they had 3,000 feet (ft) of clearance when, in fact, a derail was in 

place that the yardmaster did not see; in the second instance, the yardmaster told the crew they 

were lined up for their next move when, in fact, a switch was lined against their move. Lastly, in 

one case (#4), the yardmaster gave the hostler of a foreign railroad permission to move an excess 

height car (auto rack) under a tower where there was insufficient clearance.6

 In the last case 

(#1), the yardmaster failed to provide critical information about a recently installed turnout, of 

which the switch crew was unaware. 

Table 1. 2004 train accidents where yardmaster was included in the accident narrative and 

the yardmaster contributed to the accident 

Train 

Accident 

Cause Train Accident

No. 7 Train Accident Narrative Code Cause Yardmaster Role

1. Interchanging 79 cars on track #4 at

Highlawn. While shoving south

(conductor position at approximately mp

18.7 protecting) train diverged into side of 

standing cut (120 cars) on track #3 at mp

18.5. CN had installed diverging track

from #4 to #3 at said location, and CN (IC) 

yardmaster failed to notify conductor of

H305

Instruction to

train/yard crew

improper 

Failed to

communicate 

information about

temporary turnout

the temporary turnouts just installed. See 

attached drawing and cora guide, turnouts 

installed for CN bridge work. (originally

shown as CNIC changed to IC per FRA). 

 

6

 In this case, the yardmaster was expected to know clearance points since the tower was within the yard. 

7

 Extracted verbatim from the FRA Accident/Incident database. 
12

No. 7 Train Accident Narrative

Train 

Accident 

Cause 

Code 

Train Accident

Cause Yardmaster Role 

2. At approximately 1540 8/25 train 

M39931-24 shoving norhtward on

throughfare No4 M399091-24’s train

which was shoving northward from f-yard 

lead onto throughfare No4 track.

Yardmaster waived investig ation and 

accepted responsibility for giving M390 to

shove which resulted in the impact. 

Employee was issued a formal reprimand. 

H305

Instruction to

train/yard crew

improper 

Gave

instruction/permission 

to shove into

occupied track

3. YSC08-16 switching cars with yardmaster

in tower taking shove but he looked at

wrong track and gave crew okay to shove 

cars in, and struck cut that was in the 

track. 

H305

Instruction to

train/yard crew

improper 

Gave

instruction/permission 

to shove into

occupied track

4. BNSF hostler requested of BRC hump 

yardmaster authority to wye lite power 

BNSF 1070, up 4455 on wye beneath

hump tower. BRC humpmaster said ok to 

do so. BNSF crew observed empty 

autorack in west leg of wye, and asked 

humpmaster if they could shove car to east 

leg. Humpmaster also ok'ed this move. 

BNSF hostler move lined move ahead and 

began to shove car beneath hump. Excess

height car would not clear, and conductor 

was unable to stop move before some

damage occurred to roof panels of ETTX.

[Same accident as reported by different 

railroad: H305 Hostler brought two

engines to BRC railway to wye the power. 

BRC hump yardmaster gave BNSF crew 

permission to wye the power under the

hump tower. BNSF crew notified BRC 

hump yardmaster of ETTX 80164 6 was in

their way. BRC hump yardmaster then

gave permission to crew to tie on to ETTX 

801646 and move it to the east leg of the 

wye. In performing this move, ETTX 

801646 lodged under the BRC hump

tower. BRC has claimed all 

responsibility.] 

H305

Instruction to

train/yard crew

improper 

Gave

instruction/permission 

to move excess height

car onto track with

insufficient height

clearance 

5. Shoving back to add cars to outbound

train. Yardmaster told the crew they had

approximately 3000 ft. Crew made blind 

shove, shoved over derail placed by

MOFW causing cars to derail 2/25 - 

corrected Q8. 

H306

Shoving

movement, 

absence of man on

or at leading end 

of movement

Communicated 

incorrect clearance 
13

No. Train Accident Narrative

7

Train 

Accident 

Cause 

Code 

Train Accident

Cause Yardmaster Role 

6. Coming into ALS yard, yardmaster told

crew they were lined up, switch was lined

against them, engineer applied too much 

independent brake, derailing 3 cars on trra

trk. trra est tra damage = $12,000. 

H525

Independent

(engine) brake,

improper use

(except actuation) 

Communicated 

incorrect switch 

alignment 

7. YNl39r-11 hump job was instructed by

hump yardmaster to shove 8 cars into bowl

41. The track was already full, thus 

shoving cars out the end of rail into side of 

the YNl32r-11. 

H999

Other train

operation/human 

factors 

Gave

instruction/permission 

to shove into

occupied track 

The goals of this analysis were to gain a better understanding of the role that yardmasters play in 

train accidents based on actual train accident data and, more generally, determine the value of the 

FRA train accident database at identifying the contribution of yardmasters in train accidents. 

Based on review of the 2004 FRA train accident data, yardmasters are associated with few FRAreportable train accidents. Yardmasters contributed to train accidents in less than one-fifth of 1 

percent of the cases (7 out of 3,775). Another nine cases may have involved the yardmaster, but 

these cases were not definitive (see Appendix A). In all seven cases where the yardmaster 

contributed to the accident, the yardmaster provided incorrect information or 

permission/instructions (directives), or he/she failed to provide critical information, to the switch 

crew. 

It is possible that yardmasters are simply rarely involved in, or rarely contribute to, train 

accidents. An alternative explanation is that the accident database is not structured to adequately 

collect information on upstream factors, such as the involvement of yardmasters (as supervisors) 

and their contribution to train accidents. That is, yardmasters may play a greater role in train 

accidents than the FRA train accident database indicates. FRA Rail Equipment 

Accident/Incident Report form 6180.54, which is the source for the FRA train accident database, 

contains no explicit fields to identify the involvement of yardmasters or other supervisors. The 

form primarily collects information about operating conditions and one or more train crew’s 

involvement in the accident (e.g., fields 40-45 ask about injuries to, and length-of-duty of, the 

train crew. An other category exists for injuries to others, but due to the nature and location of 

their job, yardmasters are highly unlikely to be the ones injured in train accidents. In other 

words, FRA Form 6180.54 focuses on the sharp end of the accident, that is, the operating crews, 

conditions, and structural problems closest in time and space to the accident, and not upstream 

factors, such as supervisory and organizational factors that, in fact, may have contributed to the 

accident. Appendix B contains further discussion of a systems model of human error and its 

relationship to the FRA accident/incident databases. 

2.2 Analysis of Yardmaster Injuries 

Yardmasters work in an office environment (see Figure 1); thus they are not exposed to yard 

switching-related hazards, such as moving on-track equipment. They are like train dispatchers in 
14

this respect. Analysis of the 2004 FRA casualty (incident) database helped to determine the 

prevalence of injuries to yardmasters and describe the nature and circumstances of their injuries. 

Figure 1. Diagram of a yardmaster’s office in tower overlooking hump tracks 

There were 5,693 employee-on-duty injuries in 2004. Thirteen of these occurred to yardmasters 

(or assistant yardmasters; both share the same job type code, 523), or 0.2 percent of all 2004 

employee-on-duty injuries. Of the 13 injuries, only 4 included narratives that provided more 

detailed description of the injury. Of the four, two involved a vehicle, one involved reaching 

over a printer, and one involved a chair that broke. 

Appendix C contains detailed information on the nature and circumstances of the 13 injuries. 

Briefly, a majority of yardmaster injuries (8 of 13, or 62 percent) were sprains or strains. The 

top two bodily locations of the injuries were to yardmasters’ arms or hands (5 of 13, or 38 

percent) and torso (5 of 13, or 38 percent). Four of the 13 injuries (31 percent) were a result of 

slips, trips, or falls. No one particular physical act led to a significant number of injuries (3 of 

the 13 injuries, or 23 percent, occurred while the yardmaster was sitting). Thirty-eight percent of 

the injuries (5 of 13) were associated with a human factor probable cause, while another 38 

percent of the injuries were associated with an equipment problem. In terms of the time of day 

that the injury occurred, the number of injuries was fairly evenly distributed among the 12 a.m. 

to 8 a.m. (n=4), 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. (n=5), and 4 p.m. to 12 a.m. (n=4) periods. Analysis of injuries 

by month (mo) shows that no injuries occurred in 4 mo (January, February, August, and 

November), 3 injuries occurred in May, and all other months were each associated with 1-2 

injuries. Lastly, analysis by age indicates that 5 of the 13 injuries (38 percent) occurred to 
15

yardmasters between 45 and 54 yr old, 4 injuries (31 percent) occurred to those 34 yr old or 

younger, 3 injuries (23 percent) occurred to those 35 to 44 yr old, and 1 injury (8 percent) 

occurred to a yardmaster 55 yr old or older. Exposure data for time-of-day, month, and age were 

not available to normalize these latter findings. Appendix C contains detailed figures and tables 

for these 13 yardmaster injuries. 

17

3. Focus Group Methods 

Focus group interviews are a qualitative data collection research method in which typically 8-10 

open-ended questions are posed to a group of 6-9 individuals. Each focus group lasts 1-2 h, is 

conducted at a neutral, offsite location, such as a hotel conference room, and participants are 

compensated for their time. Participants’ answers are based on their own experiences. Focus 

groups favor individual expression of ideas over group consensus. De-identified results are 

reported in aggregate, based on the topic being addressed. No one correct answer exists when 

participating in a focus group. Furthermore, responses are not quantified. The advantages of 

focus groups are in the richness, or quality, of information gathered in the group setting and the 

broad range and depth of information and insights, sometimes unanticipated, that can be obtained 

from participants. Focus groups tap participants’ experiences, opinions, and attitudes toward a 

topic, and they are well suited to enable the exploration of how yardmasters’ job tasks and 

responsibilities influence U.S. switching yard safety. 

UTU and USCA assisted in identifying cities in which to conduct focus groups and in recruiting 

participants. UTU and USCA represent a majority of yardmasters at U.S. Class I railroads. 

Union officials helped identify three cities, including at least one east of the Mississippi River 

and one west of the Mississippi River, to ensure access to yardmasters from most of the U.S. 

Class I railroads.8 An additional criterion was that at least two Class I railroads had to have a 

switching yard in each city to provide an adequate potential pool of focus group participants 

from which to draw. 

Union general chairpersons assisted in identifying local chairpersons responsible for yardmasters 

in each city that had been identified. Next, researchers worked with local chairpersons to recruit 

yardmasters to participate in the focus groups. Selection criteria assisted local union officials in 

recruiting focus group participants. Participants had to currently work as a yardmaster at least 

once per week; they had to have at least 1 yr of yardmaster experience (working as a yardmaster 

at least 1 day (d) per week); they could not be a general union chairperson or state legislative 

representative; and they had to be interested in sharing their experience as a yardmaster. 

Participation in the focus groups was completely voluntary. 

Three focus groups were conducted in each of three different major cities across the United 

States. Focus group times varied in each city to give yardmasters working each shift an 

opportunity to participate. Generally, one focus group took place in the early afternoon to 

accommodate yardmasters before starting second shift, one took place in the late afternoon to 

accommodate yardmasters coming off first shift, and one took place at night to accommodate 

yardmasters before starting third shift. 

Krueger’s Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research (1994) helped structure the 

focus groups. Each focus group lasted up to 2 h and was led by a moderator and a moderator’s 

assistant. A pre-established set of questions (see Appendix D) guided each focus group. 

 

8

 Historically, the Mississippi River has provided a natural border that separates the four largest U.S. Class I 

railroads; specifically, Union Pacific Railroad and BNSF Railway operate primarily west of the Mississippi River 

while CSX and Norfolk Southern operate primarily east of the Mississippi River. 
18

Moderators used the same set of focus group questions for each focus group in each city. At the 

completion of each focus group, moderators compensated and thanked participants for their time. 
19

4. Focus Group Participant Profile 

Fifty-six yardmasters from five U.S. Class I railroads participated in nine focus groups 

conducted between August and December 2005. The 56 yardmasters provided a convenience 

sample and were not statistically sampled to be representative of all yardmasters in the United 

States. Thus, while these 56 yardmasters provided significant insights into yardmaster 

operations issues, results may not be representative of all yardmaster operations or experiences. 

Of the 56 yardmasters, 3 were women. Participating yardmasters ranged in age from 27 to 60 

with an average age of 45. Table 2 presents railroad industry experience data for participating 

yardmasters. 

Table 2. Focus group participant industry and yardmaster experience (yr) 

Mean Median Range 

Age 45.5 48.1 27.3–60.0

Railroad industry experience 21.0 26.3 3.0–41.0

Yardmaster experience 13.0 11.0 1.0–36.5

Fifty-one of the 56 yardmasters (91 percent) said they worked full time (100 percent) as a 

yardmaster, 3 yardmasters worked less than full time, and data were missing for 2 yardmasters. 

Of the three that reported less than full-time employment as yardmasters, one worked a special 

assignment, a second worked as a computer clerk, and data were missing for the third 

yardmaster. 

Table 3 presents the current work schedule for participating yardmasters. Participant work 

schedules were relatively evenly split across shifts. 

Lastly, 93 percent of all participants worked another railroad craft before becoming a 

yardmaster. Table 4 presents a breakdown of railroad crafts worked before becoming a 

yardmaster. A majority of participating yardmasters had prior experience as switchmen (66 

percent) and/or clerks (27 percent). 

Table 3. Focus group participant current work schedules

Shift Percent of Yardmasters 

First 25.0 

Second 26.8 

Third 19.6 

Rotating 17.9 

Extra Board 10.7 
20

Table 4. Railroad crafts worked before becoming a yardmaster 

Craft Number of Yardmasters

Switchman9 37

Clerk 15

Car retarder operator 5 

Locomotive engineer/fireman/hostler 3

Trainmaster/terminal manager/manager 3 

Carman/car maintenance, inspection, or repair 2 

Maintenance of way 1 

Block/tower operator 1 

Railroad police 1 

NOTE: Some participants worked more than one craft before becoming a yardmaster. 

 

9

 This category includes all trainmen, variously referred to as switchmen, conductors, brakemen, groundmen, and 

yard foremen depending on the railroad and specific job assignment. 
21

5. Focus Group Results 

Focus group questions concentrated around five major topics and each topic contained 2-5 

questions. Focus group topics included: 

1. Training and experience 

2. Communications and information flow 

3. Stress, distraction, and workload 

4. Fatigue, staffing, and work schedules 

5. Best practices and lessons learned 

Appendix D contains a complete set of focus group questions. Results have been de-identified to 

protect the anonymity of focus group participants and the carriers for whom participants worked. 

The nature of focus group research is to rely on participant opinions, attitudes, and experiences. 

Results are based on what yardmasters reported. No attempt was made to validate any 

statements. 

The first focus group question asked participants to describe the job of a yardmaster in their own 

words. As noted in Section 1.1, GCOR offers the following definition: 

The yardmaster is responsible for and shall directly supervise yard crews, clerks, 

and all other employees working in the yard. The yardmaster must see that they 

work in a safe, efficient, and economical manner, according to the rules, 

regulations, and instructions of the railroad. Yardmasters must ensure the prompt 

and regular movement of cars, especially the proper makeup of trains and their 

movement into and out of the yard. At locations where yardmasters are on duty, 

employees in train, engine, and yard service must comply with the yardmaster’s 

instructions.... (Section 1.46 General Responsibilities/Duties of Yardmasters). 

The GCOR definition encompasses a majority of the job descriptions that participating 

yardmasters provided at the beginning of the focus groups. A few, however, passed along 

succinct hyperboles that conveyed a more colorful description of the job of a yardmaster. 

Observed one participant, yardmasters “baby sit.” Another explained that their job is like being 

a “traffic cop.” And a third simply noted that they do “everything.” A fourth yardmaster 

compared the job to that of an air traffic controller, “...only on the ground. We bring ‘em in, 

brake ‘em apart, put ‘em together, and we dispatch ‘em out of the yard.” Finally, a fifth 

yardmaster summarized the safety component of their job in one sentence: We “keep the trains 

from running into each other.” 

5.1 Training and Experience 

This section is divided into three subsections: yardmaster training and experience; knowledge, 

skills, abilities, and previous experience; and suggestions to improve yardmaster training. 
22

5.1.1 Yardmaster Training and Preparation 

After describing the job of a yardmaster, participants described their training to become a 

yardmaster. Regardless of when participants began as yardies (another term for yardmasters), 

training to become a yardmaster consists of primarily informal, unstructured OJT, where a 

student sits with a variety of yardmasters over the course of several weeks or months to learn the 

job. Some participants noted that they also received classroom training to learn how to use the 

computer system that is used to manage inbound and outbound trains and to generate reports. A 

number of these participants were critical of the OJT and/or the classroom instruction. One 

participant notes that classroom instruction teaches you “...the tools you need to move inventory 

or identify different trains...but [it] doesn’t teach any of the basic, common sense things that 

says you can’t work two jobs on the same lead or someone’s gonna be sittin’ there watching.” In 

describing the OJT, another participant observes that there is “no formalized training....There’s 

no manual, there’s no anything that you’re going to get. You’re lucky if you can find a couple of 

old...maps lying around and you can make photo-copies....” 

According to participants, the quality and quantity of OJT depends on a number of factors, 

though most yardmasters spent from 1 week (wk) to several months qualifying (OJT) on each 

position (job). One participant explains that the amount of OJT you receive depends upon how 

busy the yard is or on the need for warm bodies in the seat. Another participant explains that in 

the last 2 yr, the carriers “provide just enough [training] in order to keep themselves out of hot 

water, but the training and support for the yardmasters [is] not there.” Another participant draws 

a comparison to becoming a yardmaster in the past versus becoming a yardmaster now: 

If they think you’re half-way qualified, they’re gonna put you in 

there, which, 5 [or] 10 yr ago, probably wouldn’t have been that 

big of a deal when you had a manager sitting behind you and he 

knew what was going on, but now [a manager] has been out on the 

railroad 7 mo, [and he has] never been on the road, never been a 

conductor, never pulled a pin, all he knows is that rule book. 

A number of yardmasters shared this sentiment. These yardmasters observed that years ago, 

when you trained to become a yardmaster, a support structure existed in the form of experienced 

and knowledgeable yard managers who compensated for the lack of structured OJT. That 

support is generally gone now, even though the informal, unstructured OJT remains. A number 

of participants explained that current yard managers (such as a trainmaster or terminal 

superintendent), who yardmasters used to turn to for help, can often no longer help the student or 

experienced yardmaster since these managers often have less yard operating experience than the 

yardmasters. 

When asked how prepared they felt at the conclusion of their training, participants generally felt 

prepared working the job, but a number of participants qualified their statements by noting that it 

was not until they had several weeks to several months of experience at a particular position that 

they began to feel comfortable. That is, they felt that they had “just enough training to get by,” 

but “experience is the name of the game.” As one participant observes, “I don’t think there’s 

anybody that doesn’t sweat it out the first time.” Another yardmaster remarked that at the end of 

his training, he felt like a “deer in...headlights.” One participant described the overwhelming 

responsibility that lies on the yardmaster’s shoulders and that weighs on their minds as they 

begin to work on their own. Explained this participant, “I, like others, I guess was pretty 
23

confident in my own abilities, but when you sit and ponder that your carrier has left you in 

charge of a multi-million dollar operation with sensitive shipments that affect the economy of the 

United States,...it’s pretty mind boggling.” 

Some of the more experienced participants suggested that they felt comfortable immediately 

after their training because more experienced people (yardmasters and managers) were always 

around whom they could talk to and ask questions. But the general sentiment from most 

participants was that, regardless of the training, comfort and proficiency in the job come with 

experience. As one participant explains, “It doesn’t take long to lock up a big yard with 

inexperience.” Another explains that it “takes a good year to get comfortable with it...even if 

you half-way know what you’re doing startin’ off.” A third participant notes that after “6 mo... 

you’re good enough not to need too much supervision, but [it takes] 5 yr to be really 

comfortable.” In fact, several participants observed that you are “not a good yardmaster for 

about 5 yr.” One participant even remarked, “I’m still learning today.” 

The amount of time necessary to become comfortable depends on how many locations one works 

and the shift(s) one works, according to several participants. That is, the more locations one 

works, the longer it takes to become comfortable, since unique aspects of the job exist at each 

location. The shift(s) one works affects how quickly he/she learns, since some shifts are 

associated with greater workloads than other shifts. 

5.1.2 Recommended Yardmaster Knowledge, Skills, Abilities, and Prerequisite 

Experience 

Next, focus group participants identified the skills and abilities, and important prerequisite 

experience, necessary to become a good yardmaster. Participants identified the following skills 

and abilities as critical to becoming a good yardmaster: 

• Common sense. 

• Ability to multitask. As one participant explained, “You need to multitask while you’re 

multitasking.” Another participant noted that you must be able to hear what is being said 

while focusing on something else. 

• Organizational and clerical skills and the ability to plan, strategize, coordinate, and 

prioritize. 

• Good written and oral communication and listening skills. One participant explains that 

yardmasters must have “the ability to communicate with...people. Be able to articulate 

what you want them to do.” Another participant explains that you “need to know what 

you’re asking people to do, and not ask people to do something you wouldn’t do.” A 

third participant explains that you need to “make sure you get your thought across 

clearly, to the guy you’re talking to.” A fourth participant explains, you “have to be 

specific; generalities won’t do, because if you’re not specific...they [switch crews] may 

know what you want, but they’ll do it their way, instead of how you anticipate them 

doing it.” Two participants point out the importance of good communications, especially 

with new and inexperienced switch crews. They explain that it is important to be able to 

break down what is in your mind and explain to the crews what you want them to do 

since they may not yet be familiar with the railroad lingo you use or the yard 

configuration. Separately, one participant pointed out the importance of being able to 
24

listen to the radio. Notes this participant, “The radio is the lifeline of everything out 

there.” 

• Supervisory/leadership/management skills. Also referred to as people skills, participants 

noted that it was important to be diplomatic when interacting with others, as well as to be 

able to negotiate and work with different personalities. Related to this is the ability to 

lead and motivate others. Explains one participant, “You have to sell the railroad to the 

crews.” Notes another participant, “You really gotta know who you’re working with that 

day. There are so many personalities.” A number of participants explained how 

important it was to know the personalities of the yard crews and others with whom you 

interact. One participant also suggested that yardmasters have an “outgoing personality.” 

• Patience/even-tempered/thick-skinned/ability to manage stress. Notes one participant, 

you “cannot be a hothead.” Another participant points out that a yardmaster must be able 

to accept criticism. Adds another participant, you must “have a high stress threshold.” 

• Flexibility/open-mindedness. One participant explained that you must be “...able to 

change your plans, and think on your feet.” Another participant explains, “If you come to 

work with a pen, throw it out the window and go get a no. 2 pencil.” In terms of 

flexibility in planning, another participant describes the need to “develop...Plan A all the 

way through Plan D, because it might take part of A, part of C, B didn’t ever work, and 

[now] you’re working your way down through D....” One participant asked the 

following rhetorical question that conveys the need for flexibility: “Who plays chess? 

Truly, if you play a decent game of chess, you have a chance at this job....You literally 

firefight it, it’s not because of bad planning, but you don’t know what’s going to hit you. 

It’s just like a move that you didn’t expect; you have to reorganize.” Though it is 

important to be flexible, participants also noted the value in being strong-willed at times. 

Explains one participant, you have to “be able to stand your ground... [and] have a 

backbone.” 

• Quick thinking. Explains one participant, you must “be a quick study.” 

• Computer skills and a basic understanding of computers. 

One participant summarizes some of the skills and abilities that a good yardmaster needs as 

follows: 

You have to be organized, you have to have a pretty high level of 

intensity, you gotta stay on top of your job, gotta be ready to come 

in and work 8 h, you gotta be focused, task oriented, you have to 

have endurance, be able to work without a break, or without a 

lunch for 8 h, and it’s nonstop from the time you sit down in that 

chair to the time you get up. It’s go time. You’re gonna take 100 

phone calls and make 100 phone calls, and you’re gonna talk to 

and make probably 100 decisions. 

Another participant compared a yardmaster’s job to that of an air traffic controller. 

Participants overwhelmingly identified two types of prerequisite experience that they felt were 

important to becoming a good yardmaster: switchman experience and/or clerical experience. 

Participants identified switchman experience as important because they felt that the more 
25

knowledge and understanding a yardmaster had of the yard and switching operations, the better 

job that yardmaster could do. Explains one participant: “[You] need to be able to walk in the 

shoes of the people you supervise.” Similarly, a second participant points out that yardmasters 

should “know the job that they’re trying to get somebody to do.” 

Yardmasters considered clerical experience important because this experience gave the 

yardmaster prerequisite knowledge of the computer system and how to complete requisite 

paperwork. Traditionally, the career path to becoming a yardmaster was for an individual to 

work as a clerk or switchman first. In the past, each yardmaster had his/her own clerk who 

assisted with handling the paperwork, and he/she became familiar with the yardmaster’s job 

since he/she was supporting the yardmaster. Recently, the number of clerks has declined due to 

the implementation of computer systems that have automated a number of the clerical tasks and 

responsibilities. As the clerical ranks shrunk, some of the clerical tasks passed to the yardmaster. 

Participants considered clerical experience to be a valuable asset as a yardmaster. 

Some other prerequisite experiences that one or more participants identified as helpful to 

becoming a good yardmaster were working around heavy equipment; any clerical experience, 

railroad or otherwise; locomotive engineer experience; carman experience; prior experience 

managing people; and, in general, any railroad experience. 

5.1.3 Suggested Improvements to Yardmaster Training 

Lastly, participants offered suggestions on how they would improve yardmaster training. The 

following organizes suggestions into two groupings: job skill suggestions and procedural 

suggestions. 

Job skill suggestions to improve yardmaster training 

• More thorough and formalized computer training. Several participants made it clear that 

it was very important to teach student yardmasters how to use the computer system (e.g., 

computer functions), including any shortcuts, abbreviations, and acronyms that are used 

to make the job easier or more efficient. Notes one participant, “You need to be able to 

navigate your way through some of these yard screens.” Related to this, one participant 

also suggested that railroads provide student yardmasters with a computer manual that 

can be used as a reference to explain how to perform different functions. 

• Ensure yardmasters are familiar with all of the crafts and jobs, including technical 

aspects, with whom they are expected to interact. Several yardmasters suggested that 

hands-on training is the best way to convey this knowledge, preferably through previous 

operating experience in the yard, or at the least, some hands-on exposure. One 

participant explains: 

Across the board, just get knowledgeable, not only as a 

yardmaster, but also trainman, different classes of cars and why 

trains are built and why it’s important to get them right, and 

classed right, not having the dangerous...[loads] next to the 

reefer.... As a yardmaster, I’d like to know how to be on the 

ground, [I have] never been on the ground; as a carman, [I] know 

the parts of the car, and what’s wrong with it, [and] some things 
26

about an engine, [but] I can’t give them any feedback if they say 

they have problems with it. 

Another participant states very simply, “Get on the ground, ride some jobs, [and] 

walk the yard.” A third participant suggests that student yardmasters obtain: 

A cross-sampling of all the jobs. Let them work with mechanical 

for a week, let them work with traffic department for 1 wk, then 

they’ll understand why they’re doing what they are [doing].... 

Then they [will also] have an investment in what they’re doing....I 

think a week in every craft that reports to the yardmaster...is very 

important. 

• Provide instruction on the language (lingo) used in the yard. 

• Provide communications and personal interaction (i.e., people) skills training. 

Procedural suggestions to improve yardmaster training 

• Train on the job with a yardmaster who is working his/her regular shift or with an 

experienced yardmaster. One participant explains that, for a regular yardmaster, “That’s 

his home...when someone walks into your home...you know how to show him around.” 

This sparked a conversation among several participants that focused on comparing OJT 

with a regular yardmaster versus an extra board yardmaster. They pointed out that a 

regular yardmaster will be coming back to that job and therefore will take care of it. 

They also noted that the (regular) switch crews get accustomed to the regular yardmaster, 

so work flows more easily with that regular yardmaster. Participants pointed out that the 

regular yardmaster will be better able (and motivated and have more time) to instruct a 

student yardmaster because of these advantages. An extra board or relief yardmaster 

works a job for one shift and then he/she is off to the next assignment, which may or may 

not be at the same location and shift. According to participants, the regular yardmaster 

has a routine that he/she can show the student yardmaster; the extra board yardmaster is 

more likely to be busy managing the yard and will have less time to give to instructing 

the student yardmaster because he/she is less familiar with the location. 

• Develop a formal program to qualify yardmasters on each territory or location. 

• Provide job previews to prospective yardmasters before they bid on the job. Similarly, 

for those student yardmasters who are sent away to receive classroom instruction, one 

participant suggests “...if you’re going to go away to school, sit up in [the] tower first, 

so things will make sense. That way you’ll know what you’re looking for when you go 

to school.” 

• Provide refresher training during a yardmaster’s first year on the job if he/she is rotating 

to different positions/locations/yards. The concern is that a yardmaster may have trained 

for 1-2 wk at a particular location, but he/she may not return to work at that location for 

several months. 

• Reinforce and solidify learning by going back and forth between classroom instruction 

and OJT. 
• Use tabletop simulation. Two participants suggested using simulated scenarios of yard 

events in the classroom and discussing or asking why the yardmaster did what he/she did. 

• Use experienced yardmasters for classroom instruction and mentoring. 

• Slow down the pace of training. In the words of one participant, “Less of a get thrown to 

the wolves thing...more of a gradual, slow thing.” 

5.2 Communications and Information Flow 

Next, participants answered a series of questions that focused on communications and 

information flow, since these are paramount to the yardmaster’s job as supervisor of all yard 

activities. Participants first described the flow of information to and from the yardmaster and 

identified all parties with whom they communicate. A second question addressed what 

information is provided to and from yardmasters. A third question asked participants to identify 

what affects good and bad communications, and lastly, a fourth question solicited suggestions on 

how to improve communications. This section contains the following three subsections that 

discuss the results of participant responses to these questions: current communications and 

information flow, factors contributing to effective (good) and poor (bad) communications and 

information flow, and suggestions to improve communications and information flow. 

5.2.1 Yardmaster Communications and Information Flow: Current Practices 

According to participants, yardmasters communicate with a large number of individuals. One 

participant summed up the consensus feeling as follows: 

Everybody contacts the yardmaster.... We deal with the 

locomotive people, the engineering department...the car 

department, the contractors, officers, it’s a catch-all. This 

yardmaster [telephone] number has become a number that 

everybody calls if they want to get anybody on the line that might 

remotely know what... is going on...they call the yardmaster. 

Another participant explains, “You hang up one call and there’s another one right there, all 

shift....” 

According to participants, during their day-to-day operations, yardmasters may speak to a whole 

variety of parties from both their own railroad and other railroads. The following list presents 

those parties that focus group participants identified. The list also presents information that is 

provided to and from yardmasters. The list is not exhaustive and is presented in no particular 

order of significance or frequency. 

• Switch crews. Switching instructions; location of train, power, and/or cars; information 

on accidents, emergencies, broken rail, and dead power. 

• Incoming road crews. What track to come in on, what to do with the power, and 

information about a shuttle van. 

• Other yardmasters. Overview of what is going on in the yard at turnover time; 

coordination with other yardmasters working other positions in same yard. 

27
28

• Trainmasters. Information on why trains are not moving; instructions to move one or 

more cars. 

• Car department personnel. Information on what tracks need to be serviced (cars on the 

track) and bad orders. 

• Signal department personnel. 

• Maintenance of way personnel. 

• Mechanical department personnel. Information on where locomotives are in the yard 

that need to be serviced. 

• Territory and chief dispatchers and tower operators. Information on inbound trains. 

• Railroad managers and officers, such as corridor managers, terminal superintendents, 

and assistant terminal superintendents. Information on operational situations; 

instructions regarding what managers/officers want done in the yard. 

• Shuttle van (a.k.a. limousine) and taxi drivers. 

• Contractors.

10

• Power desk personnel. 

• Pilot coordinators. 

• Fuel truck drivers. 

• Customers and customer service representatives. Information about the location and 

progress of one or more cars. 

Means of communications available to yardmasters include the radio (multiple channels), 

intercom, computer (e.g., instant messaging, email), cell phone (including push-to-talk instant 

communications), and face-to-face communications with those who come into the yardmaster’s 

office. 

Many participants expressed frustration that, as a central source of communication and 

information flow for yard activities, they end up speaking to a number of different parties, but 

they felt that some of these calls and requests for help or information should not be directed at 

them. Observes one participant, “These people shouldn’t be calling me... they direct the calls to 

us because we’re the yardmaster.... The janitor will call if he doesn’t have soap.” Another 

participant points out the potential safety implications and frustration of fielding so many calls 

and requests for information: “The more we’re focusing on calling a cab, doing this, doing that, 

doing this, our main job over here is getting less and less attention....that’s the problem we’re 

having on our carrier, [it] is that we’re getting so pulled away from our real job that we don’t 

have time to do our actual job.” 

 

10 Contractors refer to those who work in intermodal facilities that adjoin railroad property or tracks. In some 

instances, contractors were responsible for loading and unloading intermodal cars, and the yardmaster interacted 

with these individuals, similar as if they were another switch crew. 
29

A second source of frustration about communications stems from yardmasters’ relationship with 

railroad management. Participants identified the following management-yardmaster 

communications issues: 

• Managers give conflicting instructions to yardmasters. One participant described a 

situation where two different managers request conflicting moves to be made. In the 

example, one manager asked the yardmaster to pull a train together (assemble cuts of 

classified cars together to make an outbound train) late to ensure that a few more cars that 

were coming into the yard could be included, while a second manager, separately, 

instructed the yardmaster to pull the train early to be sure the train left the yard on time. 

Observed one participant, “We have too many managers.” 

• Multiple managers call the yardmaster with the same question. One participant 

described the situation where, if one manager calls and does not get the answer he/she 

wants, the next manager up will call with the same question, and so on. 

• Managers are inexperienced. Several participants noted that they have had managers, to 

whom they directly report, who were new to the yard, or otherwise knew very little of 

yard operations, yet instruct yardmasters how to run the yard and how to do their job. 

• Managers convey incomplete information to yardmasters. In one example, a participant 

described a situation where a manager may tell a yardmaster one piece of information but 

not provide additional details that would help the yardmaster understand the bigger 

picture and, therefore, could help him/her plan more appropriately. 

5.2.2 Factors that Affect Effective and Poor Communications 

Next, participants described what affects good and bad communications and information flow. 

The following first presents job-related factors that contribute to effective (good) 

communications and then job-related factors that contribute to poor (bad) communications. 

Factors that contribute to effective communication and information flow between 

yardmasters and others 

• Being left alone. 

• Railroad experience, including knowledge of railroad terminology/lingo that makes 

communicating to and from crews easier. 

• Good communication skills. Examples that were mentioned included being able to get 

your point across, knowledge of who you are talking to, and the ability to communicate 

the consequences of what you are asking someone to do. 

• Willingness and time to share information. Participants explained that when other 

yardmasters or dispatchers, for example, do not share critical information with a 

yardmaster, the yardmaster may have to wait, which will cause others to wait on the 

yardmaster, creating a cascading effect. Another example included delayed information 

to the yardmaster about a hot (priority) car. Given that these cars and entire trains made 

up of hot cars require priority movement and therefore immediate attention from the 

yardmaster, a delay in communication about a hot car can be troublesome. 
30

• Uninterrupted contact with the crews. When the phone, radio, and intercom are all going 

off, one participant explains that he has to wait for the clatter to stop before he can talk 

again. Notes this participant, “I always call on the phone ‘cause then I have their 

attention and I can talk directly with them.” 

Factors that contribute to poor communication and information flow between yardmasters 

and others 

• Interruptions and distractions. Examples include switch crews that visit the yardmaster’s 

office and trainmasters who visit the yardmaster’s office and continuously ask questions 

of, or give instructions to, the yardmaster. 

• Radio rules and regulations. A number of participants felt that FRA radio rules and 

procedures were antiquated, given today’s technology. An example that was given was 

that for some means of communications, specific language must be followed, while other 

means of communication do not require specific language. One participant suggested 

that this leads to errors. 

• The need for simultaneously monitoring multiple channels and radio clutter/traffic. One 

participant pointed out that, in reference to the radio, he/she has to monitor a main 

channel, a yard channel, a hump channel, a classification channel, a carman channel, a 

signalman channel, and a car shop channel. A dialog among several participants 

exemplifies the issue. One participant begins by saying that he/she is “forever flipping 

through channels trying to get this crew on this channel, that crew on that channel....” A 

second participant builds on this comment: “All our departments work on different 

channels, [and] so whenever you want to get a hold of somebody, you gotta go to their 

channel.” A third participants adds: 

So that’s taking away from you being able to monitor your 

channel. What’s going on with your crews? So, if I’m flipping 

over to the car department channel or trying to reach a cab, or 

trying to talk to this one or that one at that channel, guess what I’m 

not doing? I’m not listening to my channel where my jobs are 

working.... 

• Task overload. Related to the need to monitor multiple radio channels at the same time, 

one participant explained that a yardmaster can lose focus of little details about what is 

happening in the yard when he/she is being overwhelmed with requests for information 

from numerous parties. 

• Cell phones. According to at least one participant, cell phones can create a safety-related 

hazard if someone tells a crew to make a move and nobody else hears it, which can be 

unsafe because other crews are unaware of the move. 

• Inexperienced trainmasters and switch crews. According to participants, inexperience 

can result in extra work for the yardmaster if, for example, a yardmaster must explain 

everything or if a yardmaster is asked to do something that is not easy to do. 

• Being cut out of the communication loop. Yardmasters provided one example where a 

railroad officer instructed a switch crew on what to do but did not inform the yardmaster 
31

of the instruction to the switch crew. Another example included dispatchers authorizing 

road trains to enter a yard without clearing with the yardmaster. 

• Allowing yourself to get mad or stressed, or having to interact with others who are angry.

Notes one participant, “Don’t call me with your voice already angry.” 

• Having to respond to requests for information that do not pertain the movement of cars in 

the yard. Examples include customers or customer service representatives who ask the 

yardmaster about the location of a particular train. 

• The tightly coupled and dependent nature of yard operations. Participants explained that 

changes by one yardmaster affect other yardmasters’ moves within the yard. One 

participant gives an example where a yardmaster may give one crew instructions to make 

a move that will depend on a second crew completing their move as planned and in a 

certain time frame. If that second crew does not finish in the allotted time window or has 

to make a change, it affects the first move. This can create delays and necessitate 

additional communications to switch crews, such as a new job briefing with that first 

crew. One participant added that when his/her instructions to crews change frequently, 

he/she may begin to lose his/her authority as some crews begin to wonder, “Doesn’t he 

know what he’s doing?” Another participant countered, however, that most crews 

understand why the changes are being made. 

5.2.3 Suggestions to Improve Communications and Information Flow 

Lastly, participants suggested means to improve communications and information flow to and 

from the yardmaster. The following list presents participants’ suggestions. 

• Update FRA radio rules. A number of participants complained that FRA radio rules 

required unnecessary communication, for example, the use of “over and out.” 

Participants felt that FRA radio rules increase unnecessary radio chatter and should be 

updated to improve this situation. 

• Reduce yardmaster responsibilities. Several participants suggested taking some current 

responsibilities and giving them to someone else, to allow yardmasters to concentrate on 

the yard. One participant suggested adding a yardmaster to spread out responsibilities. 

• Reduce the amount of, and streamline, communications with the yardmaster. One 

participant suggested that yardmasters need a filter to help eliminate communications that 

are not relevant to yard movements and operations. For example, one participant 

suggested removing communications that are between dispatchers and road crews, and 

that do not pertain to yard movements (e.g., track warrants), since yardmasters do not 

need to hear about that. Another participant suggested limiting access to the yardmaster’s 

phone number. As an example, one participant said that once he logged 119 incoming 

phone calls on a Sunday morning during a light, 8-h shift; this did not include outgoing 

phone calls. Another suggestion was to simplify the communication structure between 

yardmasters and managers by identifying only one manager to interface with the 

yardmaster. Currently, any number of managers may contact a yardmaster with 

potentially conflicting demands. Suggests one participant, “Eliminate some of the 

manager interference....” 
32

• Increase yardmasters’ authority in the yard. Several participants suggested that if one 

individual presents information, including competing demands from different managers, 

to a yardmaster in a timely manner, and the yardmaster has sole authority to instruct the 

switch crews to make the moves, everything could be accomplished. According to these 

participants, the combination of streamlining communications (see above) and increasing 

yardmaster authority can lead to highly effective yard management. Explains one 

participant, “If you had free will, and...eight managers wanted eight different things to 

happen, and they told whoever this [one] person [whom] you work with directly, and 

gave you free will [to run the yard], and you sat down and knew that those eight things 

had to be done, they’d be done.” 

• Include the yardmaster in all communications that involve yard moves. Yardmasters 

provided an example where a trainmaster directly instructs a switch crew to make a 

particular move; in this case, the yardmaster should be informed of the move. 

• Provide complete and timely information to the yardmaster. One participant asked that 

managers let the yardmaster know immediately when plans that affect the yard change, or 

as soon as they have a plan, a manager should communicate this to the yardmaster. 

Another participant suggested sitting down with the trainmaster to share information so 

that together, they can maximize the number of trains that enter and depart the yard. The 

general sentiment among these comments is that the earlier the yardmaster has the 

information, and the more complete the information, the better he/she is able to manage 

the flow of traffic in the yard. 

• Improve switch crew training so that new employees can better understand their jobs, as 

well as the railroad lingo. 

• Improve radio equipment and usage. A few participants noted problems with the radios, 

including difficulty in having to figure out which channel people are using in order to 

communicate with them. This participant volunteered that without a cell phone or pushto-talk communication, it can be difficult to contact people. 

5.3 Stress, Distractions, and Workload 

This section summarizes results of questions that explored yardmaster stressors, distractions, and 

difficulties. This section concludes with participant recommendations on how to reduce stress, 

distractions, difficulties, and workload. 

5.3.1 Sources of Stress 

Participants identified the following sources of stress: 

• Manager expectations, demands, interactions, and level of involvement. Several 

participants felt that managers’ expectations are too high with regard to getting trains out 

on time. Notes one participant, “They give you a piece of coal and want it [turned] into a 

diamond.” Another participant explains that managers “second-guessing your moves” 

can be disrupting; it can be stressful and can create additional work. A number of 

participants expressed frustration with managers who micromanage by telling 

yardmasters how to do their work and who second-guess yardmaster decisions. One 
33

participant explains, “What’s stressful for me is that I have a manager looking over my 

shoulder.” Another participant notes that, due to managerial second-guessing, when he 

first started working as a yardmaster he “...lived on Tums and aspirin.” Another 

participant explains that what is stressful is developing, over several hours, a plan for 

what needs to be done and how, and then a manager comes in and says, “We’re not going 

to do it that way, we’re gonna do this [different plan].” On the other side, one participant 

explains, “I have no problem with changes, changes are to be expected. It’s the 

micromanagement that bothers me.” Another participant explains what is stressful: 

“When you’re trying to do the job and you have a trainmaster coming in and getting mad 

at you when something hasn’t happened.” 

• Management rotation and inexperience. A number of participants expressed concern 

over, or stress caused by, management inexperience and the rotation of managers through 

their yards. One participant described the job of yard managers as “a steady revolving 

door” where managers do a tour of duty at a yard and then move on. One of the reasons 

this was stressful, according to one participant, was that a manager may not like you and 

could fire you, even though you know he/she will be gone in 6 mo. Another participant 

offers a seasoned view of the pattern and the frustration it can create: “We know what 

will work and what won’t work...I have been [at this yard] 30 yr...I have seen the wheel 

reinvented 30 times...[and] I have seen 20 superintendents come through, and they [each] 

have had their own agenda...and in a year, they are gone!” 

• Task and information overload. Participants observed a pattern of fewer yardmaster 

positions, fewer yardmasters, larger areas of responsibility, and increased business (i.e., 

more trains and, therefore, more yard traffic). This has resulted in more workload and 

consequently more stress. One participant explained that it is stressful being responsible 

for so much and covering larger and larger territories. A second participant estimated 

that workload has tripled in the last 7-10 yr. Several participants noted that the workload 

can be overwhelming. Says one participant, “There is so much put on the yardmaster 

these days that it’s almost overwhelming at times.” Another participant explains, “Train 

traffic is almost unbearable...[and] now with less people [switch crews] and less 

equipment.” 

• Forced overtime/staffing. Related to the increase in business and decrease in 

yardmasters, participants noted that sometimes they are required to work an extended 

shift, typically 4-8 additional hours on top of an 8-h shift. Explains one participant, 

“When there’s 2 h until the end of my shift and I know I ain’t got no relief...I really get 

stressed.” Observes another participant, “We’re under a constant manpower shortage. 

When I walk in the door, I don’t know if I’m going to be here for 8 h or 16.” Some 

participants noted that 4 h of additional overtime can be manageable, but an additional 8 

h is more difficult or stressful. A third participant explains that there is “so much stuff 

comin’ in on you for 16 h....After 12 h, you’re outta gas.” 

• Intimidation. One participant explained, “We were all threatened, they said that we’re 

looking at these jobs as being manager positions, and you’ll all be out of a job, if you 

don’t like your job you can go back on the ground, or go be a clerk, or whatever you was 

before...so there’s a level of intimidation...that is tremendous.” 
34

• Productivity pressure. Several participants explained that pressure to bring trains in and 

get trains out on time is stressful. 

• Inadequate and poorly maintained resources (locomotives, track). A number of 

participants identified the inadequacy of the locomotives and/or track as a source of 

stress. Several participants remarked that they have inadequate (in both supply and 

quality) yard locomotives to move the trains in the yards. One participant notes that 

he/she has “absolute junk” as far as industry and yard switch engines. Other participants 

complained about being short on locomotives in the yard or not having locomotives for 

the outbound trains to leave. Another participant explained that it is stressful when 

equipment, such as a remote control locomotive, malfunctions, but the yardmaster is still 

expected to get the work done. Another participant explained that pressure comes from 

trying to get the work done with inadequate engines and poor track maintenance. 

Another participant explains that the pace of the day depends on getting the switch crews 

off successfully at the start of the shift, which is dependent on equipment and track, 

among other factors. The yardmaster notes that if the day starts off rocky, then the whole 

day is rocky, explaining that if locomotives do not work, or lead tracks are out of service, 

for example, this can lead to stress. If, on the other hand, things get off to a good start, 

then the day goes well. 

• Exclusion from safety programs and safety management of the yard. One participant 

noted that, at his yard, yard safety programs and safety management did not include 

yardmaster participation. Other participants, however, said that yardmasters at their 

yards were a part of the safety process. 

• Uncooperative switch crews. Some participants noted that they found it difficult to get 

their crews to do the work sometimes. Others, though, said that they had no such 

problems with their switch crews. 

• Inexperienced switch crews. One participant explains: 

The fact that they fire a lot of people stresses me because I don’t 

want a man to lose his job for rule violations. It’s stressful on me. 

I don’t want a man to get fired because I told him to go over here 

[some part of the yard], and he wasn’t experienced enough to go 

over and do something, or get something, and now he’s on the 

street. 

A second participant adds: 

The response that I get [from a manager] when I say I don’t want 

to send that man down there [is]...‘he’s qualified.’ But the man 

has never been down there, and it’s dark, and he’s going down hill, 

with 15 derails, and he’s riding the cut that he knows nothing 

about, [but management maintains] ‘He’s qualified.’ You stress 

out for that because you don’t want nothing to happen....It’s not 

only his job, but his life. 

• Lack of cooperation and communication between yardmasters and dispatchers. Several 

participants described a lack of cooperation and communication between dispatchers and 

yardmasters. Participants explained that their interaction with dispatchers was stressful 
35

because sometimes they need head room on the main track to swing out briefly to make a 

yard move, but they may not be able to obtain a signal from the dispatcher for some time 

to make the move. Observes one participant, yardmasters are “hemmed in by signals.” 

The result is that a yardmaster may have to reformulate his/her plan or carry out other 

movements in less time than originally planned due to the delay. Other participants felt 

that the issue was a lack of teamwork due to the compartmentalization of each job, where 

the dispatcher and the corridor manager are concerned about only his/her territory, while 

the yardmaster and his management are concerned about their yard, rather than the 

railroad focusing on the overall network. As a result, yardmasters and dispatchers may 

not interact optimally. One participant described a scenario where a yardmaster needs a 

signal from a dispatcher to allow his/her switch crew to swing out to make a move. A 

dispatcher may promise the yardmaster that he/she will receive the signal, but then the 

yardmaster does not receive the signal for a long time. Participants understood that 

dispatchers have to change plans constantly, like they do, but the lack of information 

about the dispatcher’s plan with respect to the signal that was needed was stressful to at 

least one participant. Explains the participant, “Just tell me that I’m not going to get the 

signal, and I’ll stop worrying about it.” This participant felt that if he/she simply knew 

that he/she would not receive the signal, he/she could work around the fact that he/she 

was not going to get the signal. 

• Excessive communications. Several participants complained that too much chatter on the 

radio occurs or too many people call about the same thing. 

• Communications with through trains. One participant commented that, in his/her yard, 

run-through trains may operate on a different channel every day, and consequently it is 

difficult to get a hold of the crew if you need to. Explains this participant, “[If] You 

[want to] try to stop one of ‘em...it ain’t gonna happen.” 

• Computer failures. 

• Being placed into service as a yardmaster too early. One participant noted that because 

of understaffing, he was forced to start before he felt ready. 

• Perceived discrepancy between amount of authority and amount of responsibility. One 

participant explained, “We have a minimal amount of power [authority], but a much 

greater amount of responsibility. The ratio between those two is just too great.” Another 

participant gave an example where he/she was reprimanded for allowing a crew to work 

over the Hours of Service law when the crew was not in his/her yard and he/she had no 

communication with the crew. Adds a third participant, there’s “always a fire to put out 

and it’s not a fire that we made on our own.” 

• Distractions and multitasking. Notes one participant, “If you take away...[a] few of the 

things that we have to do, then it becomes more focused.” 

• Being left out of a communication between a yard crew and a dispatcher or manager. 

• Lack of an opportunity to take a break. Several participants noted that the lack of built-in 

breaks to step away from the job, such as a meal time, is stressful. Most yardmasters do 

not have built-in breaks or meal periods. Consequently, many yardmasters eat at their 

desks or simply do not eat. Further, if a yardmaster wants to go to the bathroom or 
36

otherwise step away from his/her desk, he/she has to be prepared to respond to any 

emergencies that arise during this break. At least one participant noted that he takes his 

radio with him when he uses the toilet. 

5.3.2 Difficult Aspects of the Job 

Next, participants identified the most difficult aspects of their job. The following list 

summarizes those difficult aspects of the job that participants identified. 

• Disparity between productivity expectations and available resources. Several 

participants observed that the job is made difficult by the disparity between what needs to 

be done, such as bringing in a certain number of trains into the yard, and the resources 

available, such as limited yard capacity, to make it happen. One participant explains it 

this way: what is difficult is “trying to get an infinite amount of cars into a finite yard.” 

Another participant notes that “trying to do too much with too little” is difficult. A third 

participant describes a difficult situation where he/she has carried out his/her plan and is 

at the end of his/her shift, he/she feels that he/she cannot switch any more cars at the 

moment, and a manager looks at the car count and asks the yardmaster to go ahead and 

switch out one more cut of cars, even though the yardmaster knows that this will plug up 

the yard later. Observes this participant, “They’re playing the numbers game....It might 

help the hump man, but pretty soon it’s all gonna back up anyway.” 

• Personal interactions with others. Several participants noted that interacting with some 

crews and managers can be difficult. Notes one participant, “dealing with disgruntled 

crews” is difficult. Another participant observes that yardmasters have to walk a fine line 

between keeping the switch crews happy and keeping management happy. A fourth 

participant points out that the amount of people and personalities that you have to interact 

with during a shift can be difficult. 

• Multitasking. One participant explains that the work itself is not difficult, it is the 

multitasking that makes the job difficult. Another participant explains that what is 

difficult is having too many things on your plate. 

• Motivating the switch crews. A few participants commented that motivating the crews to 

get the work done can be difficult. 

• Interaction with dispatchers. Several participants noted that interacting with dispatchers 

can be difficult. Specific aspects that were difficult included obtaining signals to make 

certain swing out yard moves, reaching dispatchers on the phone, and general interactions 

with dispatchers regarding directing trains into and out of yards. Observes one 

participant, “Dispatchers make or break us.” 

• Distractions. 

• Stress of the job. 

• Operational challenges associated with multiple yards. One participant explains that 

“it’s harder than a jigsaw puzzle” to build a train or switch cars around in an environment 

where the yardmaster is working with a number of yards under his/her control. 
37

• Office equipment failures. Participants expressed frustrations with office equipment that 

did not work. One example that was given was an office printer that never worked. 

• Face-to-face field job briefings. One participant observed that he/she is required to 

conduct face-to-face job briefings with the switch crews, which means he/she is not at 

his/her desk performing other duties during this time. These face-to-face job briefings can 

last an hour or more. This was problematic since the switch crews that received the 

earlier briefings were now working, but the yardmaster could not be at the desk to field 

calls or work since he/she was continuing to conduct the face-to-face job briefings with 

other switch crews. 

5.3.3 Distractions 

Participants next identified the most distracting aspects of their job. Participants identified the 

following sources of distraction: 

• Incoming communications. Participants identified several distractions related to 

incoming communications. They include: 

o Incoming calls while trying to plan. 

o Constant calls about items unrelated, or at best peripherally related, to the job. 

Notes one participant, “You get all these phone calls about mediocre stuff that 

don’t pertain to you.” Another participant rhetorically asks, “Why am I trying to 

figure out what power we’re going to throw together for an outbound train?” 

o Redundant questions. Several participants remarked that occasions exist where 

multiple managers will call and ask the same question. 

• Delays and workload associated with moving trains into and out of yards. Several 

participants described situations where they had to wait on a dispatcher to swing out to 

build a train, to move a train from one yard to another, or to move a train out of the yard. 

Participants noted that it can be distracting to leave a move because it is waiting on a 

signal and have to return to it later. Related to this issue is the distraction of poor 

communication with the dispatcher. Participants noted that a dispatcher may give you 

half the story or a yardmaster may prepare an outbound train because the dispatcher said 

it was OK to bring it out, and then the dispatcher did not take the train for several hours. 

Another participant explained that obtaining the authorities (e.g., faxed paperwork and 

telephone calls to dispatchers or corridor managers) to move a train from one yard to 

another can create more work and can be distracting. 

• Management and FRA rule violation testing. Several participants explained that having 

managers and/or FRA inspectors on hand for efficiency or rule violation tests can be 

distracting and dangerous. According to participants, their presence in the office 

monitoring switch crews can distract the yardmaster. Participants also explained that 

once a crewmember has been charged with a rule violation (written up), the crewmember 

will no longer be productive for that yardmaster who depends on the crew to get the work 

done. Yardmasters identified as another distraction FRA inspectors who conduct surprise 

inspections on the switch crews on the ground (e.g., an inspector who comes out from 

behind a building and flags a crew down), but who do not notify the yardmaster that this 
38

testing is taking place. Consequently, a crew may stop all of a sudden, and the 

yardmaster does not know why, or a crew will stop unbeknownst to the yardmaster, and 

the yardmaster may already be planning another move to that part of the yard, such as 

sending another crew into, or removing a derail on, the still-occupied track. 

• Changes to plans. Participants noted that it can be distracting to have someone change 

your plans. One participant notes that what is distracting is “to come in and throw my 

plan right into the toilet.” 

• Malfunctioning equipment. Examples include remote control equipment and power 

going dead. 

• Inclement weather, such as rain and fog. 

• Switch crew-related distractions. Participants identified several distractions associated 

with their switch crews. These include: 

o Crew inexperience and lack of big picture, and the consequent need to watch 

these crews more. 

o Unrelated conversations. Participants noted that some yardmaster offices are colocated with switch crew ready rooms, as opposed to separately located in a 

tower, and conversations between crewmembers unrelated to the yardmaster can 

be overheard and can be distracting. 

o Early quits and overtime. Participants explained that some crews want to work 

either 6 (early quit) or 12 (overtime) h, and this gets on yardmasters’ nerves.11

o Carrying out a move in a way other than that planned by the yardmaster. One 

participant explained that it can be distracting when a switch crew does not carry 

out a move or carries out a move in a different order than that which the 

yardmaster instructed. This is a problem because the yardmaster has a mental 

picture of what is going on in the yard, and, if the crew does not make the 

instructed move or does it another way, the crew is no longer where the 

yardmaster thinks they are. 

5.3.4 Suggestions to Reduce Stress, Distractions, Difficulties, and Workload 

Lastly, participants suggested ways to reduce stress, distractions, difficulties, and, more 

generally, workload. Participants made the following recommendations: 

• Inform yardmasters if FRA or management is going to be conducting surprise inspections 

in the yard and potentially stopping crews. 

• Solicit job improvement and safety-related suggestions from yardmasters. Notes a 

participant, “Ask the people who are doing the work day in and day out how to do your 

job better....We know what will work and what won’t work.” 

 

11 It is not clear how this is distracting, but one possibility is that the distraction is the demand to try to accommodate 

crews rather than being allowed to focus on getting the work done. 
39

• Add yardmaster positions to reduce workload. Suggestions included dividing the job into 

two positions where either (1) one yardmaster handled the phones and the other 

yardmaster handled other responsibilities or (2) one yardmaster handled 

inbound/outbound traffic and a second yardmaster handled the yard. Explains one 

participant, “If we could just have one guy to just handle the phones, or something, sitting 

next to me that would really take the load off.” Other participants suggested reducing the 

number of crews and trains with which a yardmaster works or otherwise reducing the 

number of responsibilities. One participant suggested adding a yardmaster job to enable 

yardmasters to work (rotate) a different job, such as a clerk, their fifth day. 

• Provide a meal/break period. Several participants suggested a 20-30 min break to allow 

the yardmaster to eat, smoke, or otherwise step away from the desk. One participant 

suggested providing a 20-min meal period during which time all yard movements would 

stop. 

• Provide stress management seminars or techniques. 

• Provide paid access to a fitness center. 

• Provide clerks. One participant observes, “A clerk to handle paperwork would be a 

tremendous relief.” 

• Increase positive interaction between managers and yardmasters. Suggestions included 

increasing trust in, and respect for, yardmasters; having company officials visit and talk 

with yardmasters on a regular basis to get to know them; and showing compassion for 

employees. Participants described a currently adversarial relationship with some 

managers and suggested that by increasing respect for yardmasters and trusting their 

decisions, the relationship will improve. Separately, yardmasters note that often a 

yardmaster does not interact with a company official except when something has gone 

wrong or a problem exists. 

• Improve timeliness in communications between managers, such as trainmasters, and 

yardmasters. 

• Change the centralized nature of operations. At least one participant observed that 

currently everything goes through a dispatcher; since the dispatcher is busy, work in the 

yard may not get done or is delayed. 

• Improve tracks, on-track equipment, and facilities. Track suggestions included 

introducing regular track maintenance, partial (e.g., add a few turnouts and crossovers) 

upgrades, and even completely new yard designs. Facilities suggestions focused on 

updating the office equipment (e.g., printer, fax machine), furniture (e.g., chairs), and 

office environment (e.g., windows, air conditioning/heating). 

• Reduce the number of managers with whom yardmasters interact. Participants noted 

having to answer the same or similar questions from multiple managers. 

• Increase yardmaster authority over yard movements and support their decisions. 

Participants suggested that managers should focus on managing and planning, leaving 

management of the yard to the yardmaster. As part of this management process, 

participants also suggested that managers should support yardmaster decisions. 
40

• Enable yardmasters to build seniority locally to increase job stability. 

• Change work scheduling strategies. Suggestions included (1) introducing a shift pay 

differential and staggering days off as a means to balance seniority across shifts and days; 

(2) moving to a 6-h work day; (3) providing additional days off, such as 4 d on and 3 d 

off, or three 12-h days followed by 3 d off; and (4) requiring a maximum of 4 h 

additional overtime (i.e., 12-h maximum workday). Regarding a 6-h workday, one 

participant observes, “You’ll have them in line for that job.” 

• Reduce the amount of radio rules. Notes one participant, “There are more rules in place 

[right now] that garble up the radio.” 

• Reduce the number of people interacting in the yardmaster’s office to reduce the noise 

level. 

• Improve switchman/conductor training. 

• Do not include yardmasters in daily morning telephone briefings. 

• Enable switch crews to start working sooner. 

5.4 Fatigue, Staffing, and Work Schedules 

This section summarizes responses that address the extent to which yardmasters perceive fatigue 

as a problem and presents participant suggestions on how to reduce fatigue among yardmasters. 

5.4.1 Fatigue: The Nature and Extent of the Problem 

Focus group participants offered a range of responses to the question of whether or not fatigue is 

currently a problem. A general consensus existed that too few yardmasters were available to 

work and that what was needed were more yardmasters available to fill in. A number of 

participating yardmasters currently work overtime. Yardmasters primarily discussed overtime in 

terms of additional hours worked during the same shift. For instance, a yardmaster may work an 

additional 4-8 h on top of his/her 8-h shift. Some discussion of overtime also occurred in terms 

of working days off. 

Responses and opinions about whether or not fatigue was a problem varied depending on 

personal preferences, seniority, and carrier practices. Some participants like their schedule. 

Some do not work, nor are they forced to work, overtime. Others used to work overtime but 

rarely do so now. Others are forced to work overtime, but they accept it since, for example, they 

receive overtime pay. A majority of participants, however, took some exception or issue with 

their current or past work schedules. 

The biggest issue for participants was forced overtime where a yardmaster must continue to work 

4-8 h beyond his/her original 8-h shift until he/she is relieved. Some participants noted that 

forced overtime, typically doubling up (working 16 h straight), is worse in the summer months 

when more vacation time is taken. Others explained that overtime varies by yard or carrier. At 

some locations, yardmasters must seek their own replacement if the yardmaster scheduled to 

replace that yardmaster does not work for any reason; at other locations, however, a centralized 

crew calling system looks for relief. Notes one participant, “Once or twice a week I’m forced to 

work a 16-h day.” Another participant explains that he/she doubles up (i.e., works two 8-h shifts 
41

back-to-back) 3-4 times per month. Several participants explain that working multiple 16-h days 

in a row, such as when other yardmasters take vacation, is especially difficult. 

Others, though, explain that they do not have to work overtime if they prefer. Says one 

participant, “People that want to double have been doubling....[while] people that don’t want to 

double have not been forced. I can’t even remember the last time I’ve doubled, and I’m young. 

It [being forced to double] hardly ever happens.” Another participant adds, “If you only want to 

work 40, you can only work 40. They tell you that you have to stay, but if I’m fatigued, I’m 

leaving.” Another participant countered this comment, however, by noting that at his railroad, an 

investigation would occur if a yardmaster left during his/her shift. Another participant added 

that, at his/her railroad, a yardmaster cannot leave if he/she does not have relief. 

Participants identified the following challenges or problems associated with working more than 

8-h shifts: 

• It can be mentally exhausting. Notes one participant, “After 10 h, I’m brain dead.” 

Another participant explains that the hours spent dealing with phone calls can be 

mentally fatiguing. Observes this participant, “I am the complaint desk.” Another 

participants explains, “Some people have the ability to maintain thinking and control for 

16 h on this railroad. I don’t. After my 8 h are done, I’m exhausted. I’ve given it 

110%.” 

• After working 8 or 16 h, yardmasters may have to return to work 8 h later. Participants 

explained that this was particularly difficult. Explains one participant, “By the time I get 

home [and take care of things] I may get 5 h of sleep.” 

• Doubling up after 8 h rest. One participant explains, “What messes you up is when you 

come back from short rest and you get popped with a double.” 

• Doubling up third to first shift. One participant explains that doubling up first to second 

shift, or second to third shift, is not bad, but doubling “third to first is a killer.” 

• Post-work fatigue. A number of participants noted that at one time or another they had 

slept in their vehicles in the parking lot after work because they were so tired. Says one 

participant, once “I slept in my car for 3 1⁄2 h before driving home.” Others noted that 

they had fallen asleep on their way home. One participant said that after working 16-h 

days, 2 d in a row, he fell asleep in his vehicle while stopped at a stoplight. 

• It is easier to double up at the same position than if you have to work at one yard for 8 h 

and then travel to another yard for another 8 h, since you can just continue with your 

plan if you double up at the same position. 

• No built-in break from work. One participant pointed out that, whereas managers may 

work 12-16 h a day, they can get up and walk around, they can take a break, and they can 

have lunch. This participant observed that, in contrast, a yardmaster cannot leave his/her 

post. 

Relief work (i.e., the extra board) is difficult for some participants as well. One participant 

explains, “I work 4 nights and 1 day [shift].... 4 d after 8 h [a day, and] you’re toasted.” A 

second participant describes his/her situation: “Right now I’m on the extra board, and it’s a very 

big problem. I’ve got called out to come in at 6 in the morning...[and after I] did my 8 h, [I] 
42

spent some time with the family, ate dinner, [and] before you know it, I get another call [at] 8 at 

night to report at 10 at night.” 

Separately, some participants noted that it was difficult to take personal days. 

5.4.2 Suggestions to Reduce Fatigue 

Participants provided suggestions for how they would reduce fatigue among yardmasters. 

Suggestions include the following: 

• Offer alternate work schedules. Suggestions included the “Texas two-step” whereby a 

yardmaster works a 12-h shift 2 d in a row and then has 2 d off, then works 3 d at 12 h 

per shift followed by 3 d off, then returns to working 2 d at 12 h per shift, and so on. 

Explains one participant, “If I know I’ll have 3 d off, I’ll work an extra 4-hr every day.” 

Other work schedule suggestions included 3 d on followed by 3 d off, 4 d work weeks 

where yardmasters put in four 10-h days, and 3 d work weeks (4 d off) where 

yardmasters work three 12-h shifts. 

• Set a maximum number of hours that yardmasters can work in a shift. This topic was the 

source of much discussion among focus group participants, though no clear consensus 

existed on the exact number of maximum hours that a yardmaster could work. A number 

of participants suggested capping the number of hours that a yardmaster can work to 12 

h. Some suggested a maximum of 9 h. Others suggested a maximum of 8 h. Explains 

one participant, “12 h is tolerable, 16 is another story....I think it affects your decision 

making, your productivity, and your health.” To enforce a maximum number of hours 

that can be worked, a number of participants suggested adding yardmasters under the 

Federal HOS law. Others suggested that yardmasters should be under HOS because they 

provide instructions to crews, collar live tracks, and otherwise may serve from time to 

time as an additional member of a switch crew, who are under HOS. Explains one 

participant, “I don’t think a yardmaster should be required to work more than 12 h. I 

think they should be under the HOS law, just like any other member of an operating 

craft.” Others disagreed, however, and did not want a limit on the number of hours they 

could work and did not want to be placed under HOS laws. 

• Allow split (overtime) shifts. A number of participants observed that due to contractual 

agreements between labor and management that stipulated that overtime would be paid 

for a full 8-h period, if yardmasters worked overtime, their railroads required them to 

work the entire 8-h period. The preferable option was to split the overtime shift so that 2 

yardmasters would work, and be paid for, 12 h each, instead of 1 yardmaster doubling up 

for 16 h and a second yardmaster working 8 h. 

• Allow more than 8 h off after working a 16-h shift. 

• Do not allow yardmasters to work mornings and nights the same day. 

• Increase the number of yardmasters available to work. Notes one participant, “More 

yardies.” A number of participants suggested this solution. 

• Add undisturbed breaks, such as a 20-min meal period. 
43

• Increase the number of personal days available. One participant noted that he/she had 

one personal day available, and another participant said that he/she had two such days. 

• Provide a pay differential (increase pay) for third shift work. Yardmasters suggested 

offering a pay differential as a way to attract more senior yardmasters to work these 

shifts, thus enabling younger, less senior yardmasters to work other shifts. 

• Synchronize yardmaster shift start times with other yard employees. Yardmasters gave 

an example where car department employees were on a different schedule; as a result, 

when a yardmaster needed something to be done, he/she had to wait for a carman to come 

on duty. 

5.5 Best Practices and Lessons Learned 

The last set of focus group questions focused on yardmaster best practices and lessons learned. 

The goal of these questions was to elicit information related to the yardmaster’s job that could 

potentially increase safety in switching yards around the country. Focus groups afford an 

excellent opportunity to identify safety-related best practices and lessons learned since 

participants have firsthand knowledge of yard switching operations. 

First, participants discussed what they have learned on the job that would help a new yardmaster 

work safely and efficiently. The following list summarizes participants’ suggestions. 

• Treat people with respect. Notes one participant, “You get more flies with sugar than 

you do with vinegar.” Later, this same participant explains, “If you treat ‘em with 

respect, you’re gonna get a lot more out of them.” Another yardmaster explains, “Treat 

people with respect. Sooner or later it’s gonna come back and haunt you if you come up 

there [to the yardmaster’s office] being a hard nose.” 

• The safety of the crews is the yardmaster’s priority. One participant explains that what is 

important is, “Did all your employees go home safely?” Others noted that it was 

important to take care of the crews and employees in the yard. 

• Be patient, thick-skinned, and keep your cool. A number of participants expressed these 

related sentiments. One participant reminds future yardmasters that they will “lock 

horns” with management sometimes but then go on about your business. Another 

participant reminds future yardmasters to know how to not get rattled. 

• Do not try to be everyone’s friend. One participant observes, “No matter how hard you 

try, you’re not going to please everybody.” Explains another participant, “Be able to 

stand up to the guy in front of you and tell him ‘No.’” A third participant explains that 

yardmasters must be in control because ultimately they will have to answer if something 

goes wrong. 

• Managers should not come in thinking they know it all. 

• Maintain situation awareness. A number of participants suggested that yardmasters 

listen to the radio, “Maintain focus at all times,” “Always be aware of your 

surroundings,” “Know what you’re doing” (in terms of the implications and 

consequences of your decisions), and “...know where your crews are and... how long it 

takes to make a move.” 
• Know the yard. 

• Be flexible. One participant explains, “Be able to change every time something comes 

along.” Another participant suggests, “Always expect the unexpected,” and “Don’t take 

anything for granted.” Others suggest coming up with a number of alternative plans. 

Suggests one participant, “Come up with some alternative solutions because it’ll never 

come out the way you planned.” 

• Do your best at work, but leave the job at work. Explains one participant, “There is so 

much to do, you’re not going to remember everything. Do the best job you can. If you 

can tell yourself, ‘I’ve done the best job that I can,’ that’s the best thing I can tell you.” 

Another suggests, “Take a deep breath, don’t take the job home, [and] forget about it as 

soon as you walk out.” 

• Communicate effectively with your crews. One participant suggested that it was 

important to make sure that the crews that you instruct know what you are asking them to 

do. Some suggested that it is best to tell a crew what needs to be done, but not precisely 

how to do it, except in those cases where it is necessary to specify how to do it, since 

crews can better manage their actions than the yardmaster can. Explains one participant, 

“Tell them what you need, but don’t tell them ‘this is how you do it.’” Another 

participant suggested explaining to crews why you are asking them to do something. 

• Trust the crews. Related to the ability to communicate with crews, one participant 

suggested putting faith in the crews that work for you. Notes one participant, “If you put 

faith in them, they’re gonna bring it back to you.” 

• Pay attention to the yardmaster you are sitting with, and everything that is going on in 

the yard, during OJT. 

• Arrive early to find out what is going on in the yard before you start your shift. 

• Respect the sovereignty of territories. Participants noted that it is important to respect the 

territory that you control and those that other yardmasters in the same yard control, 

otherwise someone could get hurt. 

• Pay yardmasters the same rate once they are qualified. According to one participant, 

some yardmasters currently receive 85-90 percent of full pay during their first year of 

service after qualifying to become a yardmaster. 

Lastly, participants identified other improvements to the yardmaster’s job they would make to 

increase yard switching safety and offered any additional thoughts they wanted to share before 

each focus group ended. A majority of responses duplicated responses to earlier focus group 

questions. Participants, however, did have a few new safety-related suggestions, which include 

the following: 

• Install yard cameras to increase yardmasters’ situation awareness.

12

44

 

12 A number of switching yards have installed close captioned cameras; in these instances, yardmasters can access a 

number of views of different parts of a yard, and in many cases, they can pan and zoom. 
45

• Provide yardmasters with a detailed map of the yard and surrounding area. Several 

participants commented on the utility of such a job aid. Few appeared to currently have 

an updated yard map. 

• Yardmasters should know how to safely build trains. 

• Improve rules training. According to at least one participant, computer-based rules 

training is inadequate. 

• Inform the yardmaster whenever a person enters yards limits. One participant explains, 

“We’ve had managers go out there to the engine where the crew is at and change 

something [or stop the crew]...that we don’t know about! That is totally unsafe.” 

Another participant asked that a manager notify the yardmaster if he/she attaches 

himself/herself to the crew so that the yardmaster is aware of that extra person working in 

the yard. 

• Train limo (i.e., taxi, van) drivers to drive around the yard safely. 

• Managers should be located closer to the yards for which they are responsible. 

Participants explained that in some cases, managers work in locations 25 miles from the 

yard. 

• Provide an extra carry-all driver to carry crews, paperwork, etc. 

47

6. Key Themes and Recommendations 

This section presents key themes from the results of the train accident/incident analysis and focus 

groups with 56 yardmasters. It also contains recommendations for further study of yardmaster 

operations. Section 6.1 presents key findings from the train accident/incident analyses. Section 

6.2 and Section 6.3 present, respectively, focus group key themes and suggestions to increase 

yard safety. Lastly, based on the results of the accident/incident analyses and focus groups, 

Section 6.4 suggests possible future research activities. 

6.1 Train Accident/Incident Analysis Key Findings 

The following key findings summarize the analysis of yardmaster-related train accidents and 

injuries in 2004. 

• Yardmasters are associated with few FRA-reportable train accidents. Based on review 

of the 2004 FRA train accident data, yardmasters are associated with few FRA-reportable 

train accidents. In less than one-fifth of one percent of the cases (7 out of 3,775) were 

yardmasters identified as contributing to train accidents, according to review of the 

narratives. In all seven accidents where the yardmaster contributed to the accident, the 

yardmaster provided incorrect information or instructions/permissions (directives), or 

failed to provide critical information, to the switch crew. Another nine accidents may 

have been due, at least in part, to the yardmaster.

• The utility of the FRA accident database in identifying the contributory role of 

yardmasters in train accidents is limited. Review of the FRA accident report form shows 

that the form is focused on collecting information on operators at the sharp end of the 

accident (those closest in time and space to the accident), not on collecting information 

on yardmaster and other supervisory and organizational factors that may have contributed 

to the accident. 

• Yardmasters incur few injuries. Analysis of the 2004 FRA casualty database revealed 

that one-fifth of one percent of all 2004 employee-on-duty injuries (13 out of 5,693) 

occurred to yardmasters or assistant yardmasters. A majority of the injuries, 8 of 13 (or 

62 percent), were sprains or strains. The top two bodily locations of the injuries were to 

yardmasters’ arms or hands (5 of 13, or 38 percent) and the torso (5 of 13, or 38 percent).

6.2 Focus Group Key Themes 

This section presents key themes that emerged from the focus group discussions. These themes 

tie together one or more of the specific issues or problems raised by yardmasters during the focus 

groups. The themes are significant because they are safety-related and likely to be applicable to 

many, if not most, U.S. railroads. 

• Training to become a yardmaster has remained essentially unchanged and is primarily 

on the job. Participants explained that their training primarily involved unstructured, 

informal OJT. Some newer yardmasters also received classroom training on the 

mechanics of using the railroad’s train management computer system. Participants noted 

that, in the past, yardmasters accepted this unstructured OJT because a number of 
48

experienced managers were always around who could field questions and provide 

direction to compensate for the unstructured OJT. More recently, however, participants 

note that local managers have little railroad operations experience, including yard 

operations experience. Thus, while training has generally remained the same over time, 

the support structure has changed. Upon qualifying, participants generally felt prepared 

to work the job, but it was not until they had several weeks to several months of 

experience at a particular position that most began to feel comfortable.

• Previous experience as a switchman or clerk is helpful to the job. Most participants 

worked as clerks or switchmen before becoming yardmasters, and they felt this 

experience was essential in preparing them to do the job. Experience as a clerk helped 

provide an understanding of how trains are processed, and experience as a switchman 

helped participants learn the yard layout and how to switch cars, and it enabled 

participants to get to know some of the crews that they were now supervising.

• The yardmaster’s job requires a combination of technical and managerial knowledge, 

skills, abilities, and other attributes. Participants identified technical skills, such as 

clerical and computer skills, and managerial qualities, such as the ability to supervise 

others and multitask, as important to the job. Some of the suggestions made by 

participants could be incorporated into future yardmaster training programs or used as 

prerequisites to better prepare yardmasters for the job.

• Factors that contribute to effective communication and information flow include railroad 

experience, good communication skills, few interruptions, and minimal disruptions while 

communicating with switch crews. Factors that contribute to poor communication and 

information flow include railroad inexperience, interruptions and distractions, and task 

overload.

• Principal sources of stress include interactions with management, dispatchers, and 

crews; workload; and equipment problems. Examples of stressful interactions with 

management that were identified include excessively high expectations and demands 

placed on yardmasters, management second-guessing yardmaster decisions, and 

intimidation. Participants cited inexperienced and uncooperative switch crews as 

additional sources of stress, as well as poor communication and cooperation with some 

dispatchers. Workload-related stressors include distractions, excessive communications 

(including redundant communications), multitasking, productivity pressure, and a lack of 

opportunity to take a break. Equipment-related stressors include inadequate and poorly 

maintained locomotives and track, and computer failures.

• Difficult aspects of the job mirror sources of stress and include interactions with others, 

workload, and problems with equipment and resources. Participants discussed a number 

of difficult aspects of the job; a large number of which also served as sources of stress. 

These included interactions with others, such as managers, dispatchers, and switch crews; 

workload and productivity-related challenges; and inadequate resources and equipment 

failures.

• Primary sources of distraction include those events that are beyond the yardmaster’s 

control or influence. Participants identified a range of distractions. Specific examples 

include incoming communications, changes to plans, malfunctioning equipment, delays, 
49

inclement weather, and distractions associated with the switch crews, such as crew 

inexperience and the consequent lack of big picture that requires the yardmaster to pay 

more attention to the crew rather than other tasks.

• The general consensus among participants was that too few yardmasters are available to 

work, resulting in forced overtime typically in the form of an extended work shift. 

Although yardmasters offered a range of responses to the issue of forced overtime, a 

majority of participants took some exception to this practice, where a yardmaster must 

continue to work 4-8 h beyond his/her original 8-h shift until he/she is relieved. In some 

locations, the yardmaster is responsible for finding his/her own relief, while in other 

locations, a centralized facility finds relief. Further complicating this issue are local labor 

agreements that discourage split shifts, where 2 yardmasters could split up an 8-h shift so 

that each works 12 h rather than one yardmaster working 16 h and a second yardmaster 

working 8 h.

6.3 Yardmaster Suggestions to Increase Yard Safety 

Participants identified a number of ways to improve working conditions. The following presents 

some key suggestions. 

• Enhance yardmaster training, including job skill and procedural improvements. Job skill 

suggestions include improved computer training and communication skills, as well as 

ensuring that yardmasters are familiar with all of the crafts and jobs with which he/she 

will interact. Procedural suggestions include development of a more formal OJT 

qualification program, provision of job previews to prospective yardmasters, and use of 

tabletop simulations to improve yardmaster decisionmaking.

• Enhance communications and information flow through improvements to the job, 

equipment, and others. Communication and information flow are critical to the 

yardmaster’s job. Participants suggested a number of ways to improve communication 

and information flow. These include improvements to radio equipment and FRA radio 

rules, reducing yardmaster responsibilities, increasing yardmasters’ authority in yards, 

streamlining communications to and from the yardmaster, and provision of all yardrelated information to the yardmaster in a timely manner.

• Reduce stress, distraction, difficulties, and workload through improvements in 

personnel/staffing, interaction, and communication with others, equipment and facilities, 

and practices and procedures. Participants identified a number of means to reduce 

stress, distractions, difficulties, and workload. Some personnel/staffing-related 

suggestions include adding clerks and more yardmasters to spread out the workload. 

Suggested improvements to interaction and communication with others include reducing 

the number of managers with whom yardmasters interact, increasing positive interactions 

with managers, and improving the timeliness of information communicated to the 

yardmaster. Equipment and facility-related enhancements include improvements to 

track, on-track equipment, and office equipment and furniture. Lastly, some of the 

suggested improvements to practices and procedures include changing work schedule 

practices and adding a break, such as a meal period.
50

• Reduce fatigue by focusing on changes to work schedules and work schedule practices. 

Some suggested improvements to work schedules include alternate work schedules, 

establishment of a maximum number of hours that can be worked in a shift (8-12 h 

maximum was recommended), allow an overtime shift to be split, provide more than 8 h 

rest after working overtime, and provision of a 20-min meal/rest period. Another 

suggestion was to increase the number of yardmasters available to work. 

Lastly, focus group participants generated advice to new yardmasters about how to work safely 

and efficiently. Advice focused on two areas, general disposition and job-specific knowledge 

and skills. Participants suggested the following general attributes: treat people with respect; do 

not try to be everyone’s friend; be patient, thick-skinned, and keep your cool; be flexible; do 

your best at work, but leave the job at work; and trust the crews and be able to communicate 

effectively with them. The following job-specific advice was also offered: keep safety as your 

top priority, maintain situation awareness, know the yard, arrive early to find out what is going 

on in the yard before you start your shift, and respect the sovereignty of each yardmaster’s 

territory.

6.4 Recommendations for Future Research 

The purpose of this exploratory research was to identify potential yard safety issues related to the 

tasks and responsibilities of a yardmaster that may warrant further research and understanding by 

FRA. Based on the results of the accident/incident analysis and focus groups, several human 

factors research studies exist that FRA may consider to further understand the role of the 

yardmaster in railroad yard switching safety and to potentially increase railroad yard switching 

safety. Each potential study is briefly described below. 

6.4.1 Conduct Survey to Characterize Yardmaster Work Schedules and Sleep 

Patterns 

Participants identified a host of issues and problems associated with yardmaster fatigue and work 

schedules, especially with regard to extended shifts. Yardmasters are not typically covered 

under Federal HOS laws. Focus group results provide some insight into the issues and causes, 

but they do not provide quantitative information on the prevalence of yardmaster fatigue. A 

reliable assessment of yardmaster work schedules and sleep patterns could quantify the extent 

and magnitude of yardmaster fatigue. Such a study could validate or invalidate the information 

collected in the focus groups, and it could pave the way for improved work schedules. 

Recently, FRA and the railroad industry have focused on the issue of fatigue among train and 

engine crew personnel, dispatchers, maintenance of way workers, and signalmen. Since 

railroading is a 24 h per day, 7 d per week operation, a number of crafts, including yardmasters, 

can be subject to fatigue. The purpose of this project would be to conduct a field survey of 

yardmasters to characterize their work schedules and sleep patterns and to assess their level of 

work-related fatigue. The survey methodology would involve a random sample of actively 

working yardmasters. 
51

6.4.2 Analyze FRA Train Accident Data from 1991 to 2005 

One yr of yardmaster train accident data yielded few results due to so few accidents for which it 

was evident that yardmasters contributed. Expanding the analysis of train accidents over a 15-yr 

period may provide ample data to provide a more robust set of findings with regard to the nature 

of those accidents to which yardmasters have contributed. If it is assumed, conservatively, that 7 

accidents occur each year (where a yardmaster has clearly contributed to the accident), as they 

did in 2004, 15 yr would provide data on approximately 105 yardmaster-contributed accidents to 

review. Analysis would be similar to that which was conducted in this study, where all accidents 

would be culled to select only those with yardmaster in the narrative. This study would be 

somewhat limited in scope and effort; therefore, it could be a part of one or more other 

yardmaster-related follow-on studies. 

6.4.3 Develop Framework for Revised FRA Accident/Incident Databases 

The role of the FRA accident/incident databases is to inform FRA, the railroads, and the public 

about the incidence and nature of train accidents and incidents. A widely accepted approach to 

understanding human error within complex systems is known as the Swiss cheese model of error 

(Reason, 1990). This model depicts errors as arising from holes in an organization’s defenses 

against accidents at various levels of an organization, beginning with the operator and working 

back to organizational decisions and conditions. Active failures by the operator at the sharp end 

combine with latent conditions or factors upstream in the organization to result in an 

accident/incident. Accidents/incidents occur when all of the active and latent holes line up. 

Accidents/incidents are prevented when the holes do not line up because of defenses in one or 

more of the layers. 

Currently, FRA’s accident/incident reporting processes generally require data to be provided on 

the operator and operator’s condition and behavior preceding the accident, but they do not ask 

for information on upstream factors, such as the role of the yardmaster and other supervisors, and 

organizational factors. In fact, the FRA train accident/incident databases have no formal place to 

insert information on these upstream factors even if this information has been collected. Section 

2.1 briefly discusses this issue. 

Effective accident/incident databases should be capable of identifying a broad range of factors 

that may have contributed to an accident/incident, from an operator’s action moments before an 

accident/incident to supervisory actions and failures to a senior-level executive decision made 

years earlier. The purpose of this project would be to review accident/incident databases in other 

modes of transportation and other industries, then developing a framework for a systems 

approach to accident/incident reporting and supporting database structures. This project would 

also address exposure data, which are needed to normalize the information to allow apples-toapples comparisons (e.g., accident rates) to be made. 

6.4.4 Conduct Task Analysis and Cognitive Task Analysis of Yardmaster’s Job 

A task analysis and cognitive task analysis could provide FRA, the railroad industry, and 

researchers with an objective, baseline understanding of the tasks, work flow, and demands of 

yardmaster work. The results of this effort would serve as the starting point, or foundation, for 

many other recommended yardmaster projects. A task analysis and/or cognitive task analysis 

could also support yardmaster training program development. 
52

6.4.5 Develop Yardmaster Training Objectives 

FRA Office of Research and Development’s Human Factors Program previously sponsored the 

development of training objectives, syllabi, and test designs to aid in creating more uniform 

railroad dispatcher training programs across the United States (Reinach, Gertler, & Kuehn, 

1998). This approach enabled FRA to assist the railroad industry in enhancing safety in a 

nonregulatory manner. FRA may consider this approach, or a similar one, to assist the railroad 

industry in enhancing yardmaster training. 

Based on the results of the focus groups, yardmasters receive training in one of two ways: either 

all OJT (for those who trained a number of years ago) or a combination of classroom instruction 

and OJT (for those who became a yardmaster more recently). FRA could sponsor the 

development of a common set of training objectives that railroads could use to base or modify 

their own yardmaster training programs to ensure that a minimum set of core learning 

performance objectives are satisfied. The goal of the research would be to help the railroads 

produce adequately prepared yardmasters. The research would be another nonregulatory 

approach to increasing safety by helping the railroads to help themselves. 

The product of the research could be a document that contains training objectives and other 

instructional design tools and assistance that railroads could adapt for their own purposes. Much 

like the earlier FRA-sponsored training research, this approach would be based on input from the 

industry, modeled after current training practices, and nonprescriptive. Railroads would be 

encouraged to select and adapt those components of the training objectives that are appropriate 

and specific to their own operational circumstances and training needs. Development of such 

training aids requires knowledge of instructional design methods, yard operations, and 

yardmaster subject matter expertise. 
53

7. References 

Code of Federal Regulations. (2003). 49 CFR § 228 Appendix A to Part 228—Requirements of 

the Hours of Service Act: Statement of Agency Policy and Interpretation. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Government Printing Office. 

Dekker, S. (2002). The field guide to human error investigations. Aldershot: Ashgate 

Publishing Ltd. 

Federal Railroad Administration. (2003). FRA guide for preparing accident/incident reports. 

Report No. DOT/FRA/RRS-22. Washington, DC: FRA Office of Safety. 

General Code of Operating Rules. (n.d.). Section 1.46 General Responsibilities/Duties of 

Yardmasters. Third ed., effective April 10, 1994. Retrieved May 05, 2006, from 

http://www.trainweb.com/gcor/general.html 

Krueger, R. (1994). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Second edition. 

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. 

Petersen, D. (2003). Human error: A closer look at safety’s next frontier. Professional Safety, 

48 (12), 25-32. 

Reason, J. (1990). Human error. New York: Cambridge University Press. 

Reason, J. (1997). Managing the risks of organizational accidents. Aldershot: Ashgate 

Publishing Ltd. 

Reinach, S. & Gertler, J. (2001). An examination of railroad yard worker safety. Washington, 

DC: Federal Railroad Administration. Technical Report No. DOT/FRA/ORD-01/20. 

Reinach, S., Gertler, J., & Kuehn, G. (1998). Training requirements for railroad dispatchers: 

Objectives, syllabi, and test designs. Federal Railroad Administration Technical Report No. 

DOT/FRA/ORD-98-08. Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service. 

55

Appendix A. 

2004 Accident Supplemental Data 

In 2004, 27 accidents took place in which yardmaster appeared in the narratives. Analysis of the 

narratives of each of these accidents suggests that yardmasters contributed to the accident in 7 of 

the 27 cases. Section 2.1 discusses these accidents. In 9 other cases, it was unclear from the 

narrative whether or not a yardmaster contributed to the accident (33 percent). In each of these 

nine cases, the train accident cause code did not further clarify the situation, even when the cause 

implied the involvement of the yardmaster, most notably, “Instruction to train/yard crew 

improper” (H305). Finally, in 11 cases, it was clear that the yardmaster did not contribute to the 

accident (41 percent). Analysis of these 11 accidents reveals that in 5 cases (45 percent), the 

yardmaster was informing the crew that an accident or derailment had occurred; in 3 cases, the 

yardmaster was referenced in the narrative as part of the description of precursor events that 

eventually led to the accident but did not contribute to the accident; in 2 cases, the yardmaster 

was mentioned in the narrative because a crewmember had made a movement to a location 

without yardmaster permission; and in 1 case, a mechanical problem occurred with a hump 

retarder that the yardmaster was operating. The following 2 tables present the 20 accident cases 

where it was unclear (questionable) whether the yardmaster contributed to the accident (Table A1) or it was clear that the yardmaster did not contribute to the accident (Table A-2). 

Table A-1. 2004 accidents with yardmaster in the narrative where it was questionable 

whether or not the yardmaster contributed to the accident 

No. 13 Train Accident Narrative

Train 

Accident 

Cause Code 

Train Accident

Cause 

1 

Yardmaster instructed Y39316 to shove cars on W12 in clear. 

Track showed to have 1000ft remaining on track - upon

shoving in clear, car went into the side of trimmer pulling 

train up north lead. 

H305

Instruction to

train/yard crew

improper 

2

Yardmaster misunderstood engineer and crew shoved cars

into track that would not hold cars. Yardmaster did not look

up setoff in the computer. 

H305

Instruction to

train/yard crew

improper 

3

Yardmaster instructed crew on the B72102 to take trk 11 from

B.P. yard to Grand Jct for storage. Train contained a highcar

which struck bridge. 

H305

Instruction to

train/yard crew

improper 

4

St Paul transfer 4758 was backing into the east end of earl

track and collided with standing equipment six cars from west 

end. Four empty grain hoppers jack-knifed towards the river

damaging track, roadbed and roadway. Crew and gym were 

tested for cause and taken out of service. Yardmaster signed 

waiver accepting five days suspension; conductor signed 

waiver accepting five days suspension. 

H305

Instruction to

train/yard crew

improper 

 

13 Extracted verbatim from the FRA Accident/Incident database. 
56

No. 13 Train Accident Narrative

Train 

Accident 

Cause Code 

Train Accident

Cause 

5

Yard crew shoved track thinking yardmaster was watching for 

them. They failed to protect the shove and impacted the other 

switch job. No hazardous materials leaking. H306 H306

Shoving movement, 

absence of man on or

at leading end of 

movement

6

A crew on either 2nd or 3rd shift shoved track 912 without 

[being] sure it was coupled. When the move was stopped, 5 

cars on the east end of 912 continued east and impacted track 

913 that had been left to foul the lead per yardmaster’s 

instructions earlier that day. Division is unable to concretely 

name the responsible employee. 

H309 Failure to stretch cars 

before shoving 

7

Road switcher 119 ( rs-119) was assigned to deliver 74 cars to

the NS at NS Oakwood yard in Melvindale, Michigan. At 

1805 hours RS-119 received permission from the NS 

yardmaster to proceed into the yard via the allen cross over. 

They entered the yard, passed over the switching lead then

crossed over the eastbound to the westbound track. Just as the 

two engines of the consist started onto the westbound track, 

their movement was side-collided by an NS remote control 

locomotive pulling 29 cars operating on the switching lead. 

Collision occured at the 7th & 8th cars behind the units, both

load. 

H607

Failure to comply with

restricted speed or its 

equivalent not in

connection with a 

block or interlocking

signal

8

MM90 with engines #4422, 4303 proceeding west on track 

#11b sideswiped coach #6049 west out on coach lead. 

Yardmaster signed rule 982. Engr signed for rules 80 & 956. 

Cond signed for 941 & 942. [Same accident as reported by 

different railroad: Coach #6049 on coach lead fouling track 

#11b was sideswiped by mm90 with engines #4422, 4303

proceed ing west. h&i for assistant conductor. h&i for

conductor canceled 9/24/04. waiver for yardmaster. Note 

engineer and conductor were not on the equipment at the time 

of the accident.] 

H607

Failure to comply with

restricted speed or its 

equivalent not in

connection with a 

block or interlocking

signal

9

Job R91691-11 shoved 88 cars north into CC02 and shoved 

into side of l55391-11 on the north end of C yard track CC04. 

There was no one protecting the leading end of the shove as

rule book allows blind shove if crew knows track is clear. 

According to yardmaster’s list, there were only 81 cars being

in CC02, when there were actually 88. Additional 7 cars 

causing crew to exceed length of track and shove out of track 

into the side of l55391-11 on track CCo4. Yardmaster waived

investigation and accepted responsibilty. He was assessed 

letter of reprimand. 

H999

Other train

operation/human 

factors 
57

Table A-2. 2004 accidents with yardmaster in the narrative where the yardmaster did not 

contribute to the accident 

No. Train Accident Narrative

14

Train 

Accident 

Cause Code Train Accident Cause 

1 

Inbound ICIBP was recrewed at the Bedford Park IM

gate by a VRL crew. When the crew began pulling 

the train into the ramp, the yardmaster informed the 

crew the train had derailed. Investigation revealed 

flange and part of tread had broken away from wheel

l3 of DTTX 62210. When the crew finally stopped 

the train, a total of five cars, eighteen tubs, had 

derailed. Derailed cars traveled approximately 1800

feet causing track and signal damage. Per UP $15, 

496 equipment damage. 

E60C Broken flange

2

RCL switch job Y-2052-13 moving south with 3 bad

order cars off track 302 with switchman protecting 

point collided with switch job Y-2041-13 moving

north out of track 2044 with 26 cars and 3 employees 

inside cab heading for city yard with permission for 

204 to have city yard lead. Yard job 2052 fouled the 

clearance points without yardmaster permission. 

H307

Shoving movement, man 

on or at leading end of

movement, failure to

control

3

Yardmaster reported AIII's #1416-1417 on track 

#11a could not couple. Inspection found coupler pin

pushed in. 

H399 Other general switching

rules 

4

M33571-28 entered yard limits - instructed by

yardmaster to come to Oaks on #1 track. Crew went 

by the signal at Oaks, displaying lunar indication. 

Train then impacted M39671-28 standing in track

directly ahead. Crew of M33571-28 accepted 

responsibility and were each assessed a 60 day 

suspension. 

H403

Movement of engine(s) or

car(s) without authority 

(railroad employee) 

 

14 Extracted verbatim from the FRA Accident/Incident database. 
58

No. Train Accident Narrative

14

Train 

Accident 

Cause Code Train Accident Cause 

5

MGALMAD began shove toward the southend long

side for track #2 with conductor on the point. The 

crew stopped for conductor to align switches for 

track #2. Conductor issued a 10-15 car movement

toward entry of track #2 and went north to protect the

shove in vehicle. After receiving cleared for 40 cars,

engineer stated he was in throttle 1 or 2 and going 6-

7 mph. Engineer made a reduction upon hearing 15

cars and gradually thereafter. Upon hearing 3 cars he 

set more brake. When he heard “that will do”, 

engineer stopped the train and got an emergency

application, not knowing why. At the time conductor 

said “that will do”, it was anticipated that some slack

action roll occurred, but the s train suddenly stopped 

the train. Instead of shoving another 2 or 3 car 

lengths, conductor said it was ok where it stopped.

Conductor traveled back south to make the cut and 

was told by the TRAA yardmaster that the train was 

reported on the ground by the TRAA police officer. 

H506

Lateral drawbar force on

curve excessive, train 

make-up 

6

Q15731 received permission to enter UPRR yard 

from 16th street yardmaster. After stopping, crew

began pulling into yard and derailed cars. Download

showed excessive amperage and released too late. 

H514

Failure to allow air brakes 

to fully release before 

proceeding

7

At 11:20 pm on 12-01-04 engine CWRO 215 and

207, two light locomotives engine 215 and 207,

collided on the westbound. As a result one conductor 

was injured both locomotives derailed with extensive 

damage to both. The derailment is a result of a 

violation of part 240.117 (e) (2) failure to stop wit 

hin one half the engineers range of vision). One

engine crew on the 207 failed to get permission to

occupy a segment of track controlled by the 

yardmaster. 

H607

Failure to comply with

restricted speed or its 

equivalent not in

connection with a block or

interlocking signal

8

W38r-06 dragging cut of cars out of rip 513 going

west. Crew stopped, made reverse movement to

shove south 12. Crew moved 12 car lengths east

when informed by yardmaster the job was on the 

ground. 

H702 Switch improperly lined
59

No. Train Accident Narrative

14

Train 

Accident 

Cause Code Train Accident Cause 

9

Crew on R96691-31 was told to tie onto track A13

on south end and stay in the clear by the yardmaster. 

R96791-31 was coming out of track A3 at the south 

end and used 12 pocket to 7 lead to go F yard. The 

conductor on R96791-13 lined the lead switch to

normal position and continued his movement. This 

resulted in the lead switch being lined against 

R96691-31’s movement. R96691-31 started coming 

out of track A13 and did not see the lead switch lined

against their movement and pulling car south, ran 

through the lead switch. The conductor, working in

the yard, told the engineer to back up to get more 

cars causing three cars to derail. Engineer accepted 

responsibility and was assessed a formal reprimand.

H702 Switch improperly lined

10

During normal humping, yardmaster had 10 cars left

on retarder. All 10 cars overspeed. GATX20673 

coming out of B17 at 20 mph and couple up to 8229 

causing damages. 

M407

Automatic hump retarder

failed to sufficiently slow

car due to foreign material 

on wheels of cars being 

humped 

11

Pulling from track when yardmaster notified crew to 

stop the train account cars were derailed. Found cars 

derailed account broken rail. 

T202 Broken rail - Base 

61

Appendix B. 

Discussion of a Systems Model of Human Error and Its Relationship 

to the FRA Accident/Incident Databases 

One benefit of the FRA train accident database is in providing a better understanding of the 

incidence and nature of train accidents. Given the significant role that railroad employees play in 

moving trains, any database of train accidents should focus on, among other factors, human error 

and its etiology. Reason (1990) has developed a widely accepted approach to understanding 

human error within complex systems. Commonly known as the Swiss cheese model of error, 

Reason’s generic error modeling system depicts errors as arising from holes in an organization’s 

defenses against accidents at various levels of an organization, beginning with the operator and 

working back to organizational decisions and conditions. Active failures by the operator at the 

sharp end combine with latent conditions or factors upstream in the organization to result in an 

accident. Accidents occur when all of the active and latent holes line up. Accidents are 

prevented when the holes do not line up because of defenses in one or more of the layers. 

In the railroad industry, as in other industries, accident investigators often blame the operator, 

such as a switchman or locomotive engineer, for the accident because the operator is associated, 

in time and place, with the last event that goes wrong. Railroad and FRA accident reporting 

requirements perpetuate this approach by requiring data to be collected about the operator and 

the operator’s condition and behavior preceding the accident but not data on upstream factors, 

such as the adequacy of operating rules and procedures. In fact, often accident databases, such 

as the FRA train accident database, have no formal place to insert information on upstream 

factors, even if the information has been collected. 

Dekker (2002) refers to this approach of focusing on the operator at the sharp end of the accident 

as a route to understanding why an accident occurred as the bad apple theory (Dekker, 2002), 

since the approach seeks to fix a problem by blaming the operator (the bad apple). This common 

but simplistic approach typically does little to correct the underlying factor(s) that have allowed 

or set up the operator to err. In fact, human error in industrial environments and transportation 

systems is much more complicated to decode than simply blaming the operator. As Reason 

(1997) notes: 

...human error is a consequence not a cause. Errors...are shaped 

and provoked by upstream workplace and organizational factors. 

Identifying an error is merely the beginning of the search for 

causes, not the end.... Only by understanding the context that 

provoked the error can we hope to limit its recurrence (p. 126). 

Petersen (2003) refers to these upstream conditions as traps that are left for an operator in a 

workplace that set up the operator to fail, which lead to an accident. Effective accident 

investigations and databases should be capable of identifying a broad range of factors that may 

have contributed to an accident/incident, from an operator’s action moments before an 

accident/incident to supervisory actions and failures to senior-level executive decision made 

years earlier. 

63

Appendix C. 

2004 Yardmaster Injury Data 

Appendix C presents a number of tables and figures detailing the nature and circumstances of the 

13 employee-on-duty injuries in 2004 to yardmasters or assistant yardmasters. Table C-1 shows 

a breakdown of yardmaster injuries by nature. Table C-2 breaks down injuries by bodily 

location. Table C-3 presents the triggering event for yardmaster injuries. Table C-4 presents the 

physical action before the injury. Table C-5 presents the probable cause of yardmaster injury. 

Figure C-1 presents the time of yardmaster injury. Figure C-2 shows the monthly distribution of 

yardmaster injuries. Lastly, Figure C-3 presents an age distribution of yardmasters injured in 

2004. 

Table C-1. Nature of yardmaster injury, 2004 

Nature of Injury Frequency 

Sprain or strain 8 

Bruise or contusion 3 

Cut/laceration 1

Puncture wound–other than needle stick 1

Total 13

Table C-2. Bodily location of yardmaster injury, 2004 

Location of Injury on Body Frequency 

Arm or hand 5 

Torso 5

Head or face 2 

Leg or foot 1 

Total 13 
64

Table C-3. Triggering event for yardmaster injury, 2004 

Event which Caused Injury Frequency 

Defective/malfunctioning equipment 3

Slipped, fell, stumbled, other 2 

Bodily function/sudden movement, e.g., sneezing, twisting 1 

Slipped, fell, stumbled, etc. on oil, grease, other slippery surface 1 

Slipped, fell, stumbled, etc. due to object, e.g., ballast, spike, material, etc. 1 

Struck by falling object 1 

Struck against object 1 

On track equipment, other incidents 1 

Sudden, unexpected movement, other 1 

Other 1

Total 13

Table C-4. Physical action before yardmaster injury, 2004 

Physical Action Just Before Injury Frequency 

Sitting 3

Other 2

Carrying 1

Opening 1

Pulling 1

Repairing 1

Standing 1

Walking 1

Ascending 1

Getting out 1

Total 13 

Table C-5. Probable cause of yardmaster injury, 2004 

Probable Cause Frequency 

Equipment 5 

Human factor 5 

Undetermined 2

Environmental 1 

Total 13 
65

4

5

4

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

00:01 – 07:59 08:00 – 15:59 16:00 – 23:59

Time of Day

Frequency

Figure C-1. Time of yardmaster injury, 2004 

0 0

2

1

3

2

1

0

1

2

0

1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December

Month

Frequency

Figure C-2. Month of yardmaster injury occurrence, 2004 
66

4

3

5

1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

<= 34 35 – 44 45 – 54 >= 55

Age

Frequency

Figure C-3. Age of injured yardmaster, 2004 (yr) 
67

Appendix D. 

Focus Group Questions 

The following questions guided focus group sessions with yardmasters. 

Opening Question 

1. First, tell us a bit about what you do as a yardmaster.... 

Training and experience 

2. Briefly describe your training to become a yardmaster. 

3. At the end of your training, how prepared did you feel? How much hands-on experience 

do you feel you needed before you felt adequately prepared? 

4. What are the necessary skills to be a good yardmaster? 

5. What prerequisite experience do you feel is important to become a good yardmaster? 

6. How would you improve training? 

Communications and information flow 

7. Describe how information flows to you and from you. For example, who provides 

information to you and to whom do you provide information? 

8. What information is provided to you and from you? 

9. What affects good and bad communication and information flow? 

10. How would you improve communications and information flow? 

Workload, distractions, and stress 

11. What are the most stressful aspects of your job? 

12. What are the most difficult parts of your job? 

13. What are the most distracting parts of your job? 

14. How would you reduce workload and stress? 

Fatigue, staffing, and work schedules 

15. To what extent is fatigue a problem for you? 

16. How would you improve your work hours and schedule to reduce fatigue? 

Best practices and lessons learned 

17. What have you learned on the job that would help a new yardmaster work safely and 

efficiently? 

18. In addition to the suggestions you have made so far, what other improvements to your job 

would you make to increase yard safety? 

Closing 

19. Are there any other thoughts before we wrap this meeting up? 

69

Abbreviations and Acronyms 

BRC Belt Railway Company of Chicago 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

d day(s) 

FRA Federal Railroad Administration 

ft feet 

GCOR General Code of Operating Rules 

h hour(s) 

HOS Hours of Service 

min minute(s) 

mo month(s) 

OJT on-the-job training 

USCA United Supervisors Council of America 

UTU United Transportation Union 

wk week(s) 

yr year(s)