U.S. Department of 

Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Work Schedules and Sleep Patterns of Railroad 

Train and Engine Service Employees in 

Passenger Operations 

Office of Railroad 

Policy and Development 

Washington, DC 20590 

DOT/FRA/ORD-11/05 Final Report

March 2011 
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

 March 2011 

3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED

Final Report 

June 2009 – January 2011 

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Work Schedules and Sleep Patterns of Railroad Train and Engine Service Employees in 

Passenger Operations 

5. FUNDING NUMBERS 

6. AUTHOR(S)

Judith Gertler and Amanda DiFiore 

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

QinetiQ North America, Technology Solutions Group 

350 Second Avenue 

Waltham, MA 02451-1196 

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 

REPORT NUMBER

DFRA.080088 

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

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Railroad Administration 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Washington, DC 20590 

10. SPONSORING/MONITORING 

 AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

DOT/FRA/ORD-11/05 

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 

Program Manager: Dr. Thomas Raslear 

12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

This document is available to the public through the FRA Web site at http://www.fra.dot.gov. 

12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)

This report presents the results of a study designed to characterize the work/rest schedules and sleep patterns of U.S. railroad train 

and engine service (T&E) personnel in passenger service and to examine the relationship between these schedules and fatigue. 

The methodology was a survey of a random sample of U.S. railroad passenger service T&E personnel who completed a 

background survey and kept a daily log for 2 weeks. Two-thirds work a “straight thru” schedule, and the remainder is divided 

between split and extra board assignments. Those with straight thru assignments had the longest workdays, and those with split

assignments the shortest. Extrapolation of survey data to 30 days indicated that if new hours of service statutory provisions 

applicable to T&E personnel in freight service also applied to this group, nearly 20 percent would violate limitations on 

consecutive days of work. All three work schedule groups obtain similar amounts of daily sleep, but their sleep strategies differ. 

The split assignment group tends to nap during interim release. The Fatigue Avoidance Scheduling Tool model predicted a small 

proportion of work time at low effectiveness (high fatigue) levels. Self-ratings of alertness found declines from the start to end of 

work for straight thru and extra board workers but not those on split assignments. 

14. SUBJECT TERMS

Commuter rail, train and engine service, locomotive engineer, conductor, split assignment, 

fatigue, work schedule, sleep pattern, sleep disorder, hours of service, passenger rail 

15. NUMBER OF PAGES

88 

16. PRICE CODE

17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 

 OF REPORT

 Unclassified

18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

 OF THIS PAGE

 Unclassified

19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 

 OF ABSTRACT

 Unclassified

20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT

None 

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 

(lb) 

= 0.9 tonne (t) 1 tonne (t) =

=

1,000 kilograms (kg) 

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, ft3) = 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 34 5

Inches

Centimeters 01 3 2 6 11 4 5 7 13 8 9 10 12

QUICK FAHRENHEIT - CELSIUS TEMPERATURE CONVERSION

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

 

°F

 °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
iii 

Acknowledgments 

This report presents the results of a research study designed to characterize the work schedules 

and sleep patterns of U.S. train and engine service employees in passenger operations and to 

examine the relationship between these schedules and the level of alertness for individuals 

working these schedules. QinetiQ North America (QNA) Technology Solutions Group (TSG) 

conducted the study for the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) under contract DTFR53-07-

D-00003 with guidance from Dr. Thomas Raslear, Office of Research and Development, Human 

Factors Program. The authors worked closely with the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers 

and Trainmen (BLET) and the United Transportation Union (UTU) in designing and conducting 

the survey, which was the basis for the study. 

Special thanks are due to Mr. Stephen Bruno, BLET, and Mr. James Stem, UTU, who provided 

valuable insights on the nature of passenger service jobs and facilitated distribution of the survey 

materials to their members. Their participation was a key element in the successful conduct of 

the study. Mr. Kelly Haley, Brotherhood of Railway Signalmen, assisted BLET and UTU staff 

in drawing the random sample of their memberships for the survey. 

The authors are also especially appreciative of the efforts of Mr. Robert Brogan, FRA Office of 

Railroad Safety, who facilitated the Office of Management and Budget approval process, and 

Ms. Billie Stultz and Ms. Colleen Brennan, FRA Office of Chief Counsel, who explained the 

provisions of the hours of service laws and the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008. 

The authors also wish to thank several individuals at QNA for their significant contributions to 

the study. Mr. Zak Zafirov coded and processed the data from the background surveys and daily 

logs, and maintained the survey database. Mr. Eric Fischbach managed the database for tracking 

and compensating the survey participants. Ms. Eileen Ballard-Sarcone from QNA TSG’s 

publications department was responsible for the design and layout of the log books and arranged 

for their printing and mailing. Ms. Jeanne Seaquist designed the database for the survey data. 

Dr. Samiullah Durrani assisted with the textual analysis of the comments in the daily log. 

Finally, the authors express their thanks to the many T&E employees in passenger service who 

participated in the study and provided the data on which this report is based. 
iv 

Contents 

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

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 3

1.1 Nature of Train and Engine Service in Passenger Operations .................................... 4

1.2 Objectives .................................................................................................................... 5

1.3 Overall Approach ........................................................................................................ 6

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

1.5 Organization of the Report .......................................................................................... 8

2 Survey Design ............................................................................................................. 9

2.1 Potential Respondent Universe ................................................................................... 9

2.2 Survey Instruments ...................................................................................................... 9

2.3 Data Collection Period .............................................................................................. 10

2.4 Sampling Plan ............................................................................................................ 10

2.5 Procedure ................................................................................................................... 11

3 Analysis of Survey Data ............................................................................................ 13

3.1 Survey Response Rate ............................................................................................... 13

3.2 Nonresponse Bias Study ............................................................................................ 13

3.3 Worker Demographic Characteristics ....................................................................... 14

3.3.1 Sex and Age ............................................................................................................... 14

3.3.2 Type of Position ........................................................................................................ 15

3.3.3 Type of Work and Work Schedule ............................................................................ 15

3.3.4 Experience ................................................................................................................. 16

3.3.5 Marital and Family Status ......................................................................................... 17

3.3.6 Health ........................................................................................................................ 17

3.3.7 Incidence of Sleep Disorders ..................................................................................... 18

3.3.8 Fatigue Education ...................................................................................................... 19

3.3.9 Use of Caffeine .......................................................................................................... 19

3.3.10 Summary of Passenger T&E Worker Demographic Characteristics ........................ 20

3.4 Job Characteristics ..................................................................................................... 20

3.4.1 Call Time ................................................................................................................... 20

3.4.2 Rest Days ................................................................................................................... 21

3.4.3 Hours Worked ........................................................................................................... 21

3.4.4 Breaks ........................................................................................................................ 25

3.4.5 Interim Release .......................................................................................................... 26

3.4.6 Sources of Stress........................................................................................................ 27

3.4.7 Job Characteristics Summary .................................................................................... 28

3.5 Sleep Characteristics ................................................................................................. 28

3.5.1 Daily and Primary Sleep ............................................................................................ 29

3.5.2 Comparison with Other Adult Populations ............................................................... 33

3.5.3 Supplementary Sleep ................................................................................................. 33

3.5.4 Sleep Quality ............................................................................................................. 34
v 

3.5.5 Sleep Quality and Sleep Disorders ............................................................................ 35

3.5.6 Sleep Characteristics Summary ................................................................................. 35

3.6 Alertness .................................................................................................................... 36

3.7 Effectiveness ............................................................................................................. 36

3.8 Textual Data .............................................................................................................. 38

4 Findings and Recommendations................................................................................ 44

4.1 Key Study Findings ................................................................................................... 44

4.1.1 Passenger T&E Worker Health ................................................................................. 44

4.1.2 Work Schedules ......................................................................................................... 44

4.1.3 Effectiveness and Alertness ....................................................................................... 45

4.1.4 Sleep .......................................................................................................................... 45

4.2 Recommendations for Improvements in Study Procedures ...................................... 45

4.3 Recommendations for Additional Research .............................................................. 45

5 References ................................................................................................................. 46

Appendix. Survey Materials ........................................................................................................ 48

Glossary ........................................................................................................................................ 78

Abbreviations and Acronyms ....................................................................................................... 79
vi 

Illustrations 

Figure 1. Overall Approach ........................................................................................................... 7

Figure 2. Distribution of Respondents by Age Group ................................................................. 15

Figure 3. Type of T&E Work ...................................................................................................... 16

Figure 4. Sick Days Taken in the Past Year ................................................................................ 18

Figure 5. Exposure to Fatigue Education ..................................................................................... 20

Figure 6. Typical Workday by Daily Schedule (median) ............................................................ 22

Figure 7. Distribution of Break Lengths ...................................................................................... 26

Figure 8. Distribution of Length of Interim Release Periods ....................................................... 27

Figure 9. Sources and Levels of Stress ........................................................................................ 28

Figure 10. Total Daily Sleep by Type of Day and Work Schedule ............................................. 32

Figure 11. Primary Sleep by Type of Day and Work Schedule ................................................... 33

Figure 12. Daily Sleep on Workdays Compared with U.S. Working Adults .............................. 34

Figure 13. On-the-Job Effectiveness by Work Schedule ............................................................. 37
vii 

Tables 

Table 1. Discrepancies between Chronological and Perceived Age by Age Group (percent) .... 15

Table 2. Years of Commuter T&E Experience by Type of Schedule ......................................... 17

Table 3. Comparison of Passenger T&E Sick Days with U.S. Working Adults ......................... 19

Table 4. Guaranteed Rest Days by Type of Schedule ................................................................. 21

Table 5. Work in 2 Weeks by Type of Schedule ......................................................................... 23

Table 6. Length of Interim Release (h:min) ................................................................................. 23

Table 7. Work on Rest Days in Past Month ................................................................................. 24

Table 8. Conformity with RSIA Freight Rest Period Requirements (after occurrences of 

initiating an on-duty period on 6 or 7 consecutive d) .................................................... 25

Table 9. Total Daily Break Time by Schedule Type ................................................................... 25

Table 10. Sleep by Type of Day and Work Schedule .................................................................. 30

Table 11. Average Sleep Quality Ratings by Type of Schedule .................................................. 35

Table 12. Sleep Quality Ratings for Respondents with and without Sleep Disorders ................. 35

Table 13. Alertness at Work by Type of Schedule (percent) ....................................................... 36

Table 14. Keywords Used for Each Topic Area Search .............................................................. 39

Table 15. Frequency of Comments by Topic Area ...................................................................... 40
1

Executive Summary 

Federal laws governing railroad employees’ hours of service date back to passage of the Hours 

of Service Act in 1907. These laws, collectively referred to as the hours of service laws (HOS 

Law) in this document, are intended to promote safe railroad operations by limiting the hours of 

work of three categories of railroad employees: train and engine service (T&E), signalmen, and 

dispatchers. The HOS Law governs the duty hours of T&E employees who work in passenger 

operations. 

Passage of the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (RSIA) changed the statutory limits on 

work hours for T&E workers in freight service and kept T&E workers in passenger service 

temporarily subject to pre-RSIA statutory limits pending exercise of the Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA) authority to prescribe different regulations for passenger T&E workers. 

FRA undertook the study described in this report to develop scientific data on which FRA could 

base its recommendations regarding HOS limitations for passenger T&E workers. 

The work schedules of passenger T&E employees are highly predictable because the trains 

operate on a planned train schedule. Jobs in passenger service may involve either a straight thru

or a split assignment. A straight thru assignment has one continuous on-duty period. With a 

split assignment, the individual works the morning rush, has time off in the middle of the day, 

and returns to work the evening rush. The period of time between the two work periods is 

known as interim release and is at least 4 hours (h). As is the case in freight operations, 

passenger railroads maintain an extra board of individuals who are available to fill in for 

regularly scheduled employees. 

Survey Design 

The study used two survey instruments—a background survey and a daily log. Survey 

participants used the background survey to provide demographic information, descriptive data 

about their job and work schedule, and a self-assessment of overall health. The daily log 

provided the means for survey participants to record their daily activities in terms of sleep, 

personal time, commute to/from work, break time and work time, limbo time, and interim 

release. Study participants also provided self-assessments of the quality of their sleep and their 

level of alertness at the start and end of each work period. The study used a 14-day (d) data 

collection period to accommodate those who hold extra board assignments. 

Researchers drew a random sample of 1,275 passenger T&E workers. Mailing of the survey 

materials occurred on December 31, 2009. 

Survey Response Rate 

The overall response rate for the survey was 21 percent. The nonresponse bias study, based on 

age, found no difference between survey respondents and nonrespondents. 

Passenger T&E Worker Demographics 

Survey participants reported an average age of 47 years (yr) with 40 percent 50 yr or older. 

Two-thirds are conductors or assistant conductors, and the remaining participants are locomotive 

engineers. Nearly all (93 percent) are involved in train operation with the remainder working in 

yards or on work trains. Overall, the group has an average of 15.7 yr of experience. Those with 

the most experience work split assignments. Over 6 percent reported having a diagnosed sleep 
2

disorder, a level not statistically different from U.S. working adults. Over half have had no 

fatigue education. 

Job Characteristics 

Two-thirds work a straight thru assignment with the remainder divided between split assignment 

and extra board assignment. On average, during the 2-week period of the survey, the straight 

thru group worked the most (90:05 (hours:minutes)), and the split assignment group worked the 

least (78:40). The straight thru group also had the most daily duty hours (8:44). Interim release 

periods average 5:26 with a quarter exceeding 6 h. A third reported working on a rest day in the 

past month. Nearly all had guaranteed rest days with 15 percent of the extra board group having 

none. 

By extrapolating the 2 weeks of survey data to 30 d it was possible to assess the extent to which 

these individuals would fail to conform to the new freight HOS limitations if they applied. Three 

individuals (1 percent) would exceed the 276-hour monthly limit and 46 (19 percent) had work 

patterns that would violate any applicable freight rest provisions of RSIA. 

Sleep Characteristics 

The three schedule groups obtain similar amounts of total daily sleep but have different strategies 

to obtain their sleep. Straight thru workers sleep longer on rest days than on workdays. Split 

assignment workers supplement their workday sleep with naps, and extra board workers have 

similar sleep on both work and rest days. Ten percent of breaks overlapped with sleep, whereas 

65 percent of interim release periods did. When compared with U.S. working adults, the 

passenger T&E group is less likely to be sleep deprived on workdays. Forty percent get less than 

7 h of sleep on workdays in contrast to 46 percent of U.S. working adults. 

Alertness 

Study participants rated their alertness at the start and end of each work period. Statistical 

analysis found that ratings of alertness declined from the start to the end of work for straight thru 

and extra board workers but not split assignment. 

Effectiveness 

Application of the Fatigue Avoidance Scheduling Tool (FAST) model to these data found that 

none of the schedule groups worked at or below an effectiveness level of 70 more than 2.5 

percent of their work time. An examination of effectiveness scores at the start and end of a work 

period found that effectiveness declines with succeeding days of work. 

Findings and Recommendations 

Key findings of this research are the following: 

 Although many resources exist for fatigue education, over half of the passenger T&E 

workforce has had no fatigue training. 

 Applying the current freight HOS limitations to passenger T&E employees would be 

problematic for the passenger service operators. 

 Results of the effectiveness analysis using the FAST model indicate that a very small 

number of work hours occur when the employee’s effectiveness is compromised. 

 Passenger T&E workers take advantage of breaks and interim release to obtain adequate 

rest. 
3

1. Introduction 

Federal laws governing railroad employees’ hours of service date back to 1907 with the 

enactment of the Hours of Service Act.1 These laws, which are currently codified as amended 

primarily at 49 U.S.C. §§ 21101-21109 and collectively referred to in this document as the hours 

of service laws (HOS Law), are intended to promote safe railroad operations by limiting the 

hours of service of three categories of railroad employees and by ensuring that these employees 

receive adequate opportunities for rest in the course of performing their duties.2

 The groups of 

railroad employees covered by the HOS Law are (1) “signal employees,” (2) “dispatching 

service employees,” and (3) “train employees” (i.e., “individual[s] engaged in or connected with 

the movement of a train, including a hostler”, (49 U.S.C. § 21101(5))). In this document “train 

employees” are generally referred to as “train and engine service workers” or “T&E workers.” 

The Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) is charged with the administration and enforcement 

of the HOS Law. This function has been delegated to the FRA Administrator (49 U.S.C. § 

103(g) (2010); 49 C.F.R. § 1.49(d), (oo) (2010)). 

A number of previous studies undertaken by FRA beginning in the early 1990s through early 

2009 have found that compliance with the limitations on hours of work prescribed by the HOS 

Law that was in effect during that period, did not prevent work schedule-related fatigue. The 

enactment on October 16, 2008, of the RSIA (Pub. L. No. 110-432, Div. A) not only changed the 

statutory limits on work hours for T&E workers in freight service (freight T&E workers), 

effective July 16, 2009, and kept T&E workers in intercity or commuter rail passenger service 

(passenger T&E workers) temporarily subject to the pre-RSIA statutory limits, but also gave 

FRA, by delegation, the authority to prescribe regulations for passenger T&E workers that differ 

from the amended statutory requirements applicable to T&E workers in freight service.3 

Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 21102(c), effective July 16, 2009, with respect to freight T&E workers, 

the RSIA (specifically, 49 U.S.C. § 21103 as amended by the RSIA, which the statute designates 

as “new Section 21103”) establishes limits per calendar month on service performed for a 

railroad and on time in or awaiting deadhead to final release; increases the quantity of the 

statutory minimum off-duty period after being on-duty for 12 h in broken service from 8 h of rest 

to 10 h of rest; prohibits railroads’ communication with such workers during certain minimum 

statutory rest periods; and establishes mandatory time off-duty for such workers of 48 h after 

initiating an on-duty period on 6 consecutive d, or 72 h after initiating an on-duty period on 7 

consecutive d (49 U.S.C. § 21103).4

 

 

1

 See Pub. L. No. 59-274, 34 Stat. 1415 (1907), repealed by 108 Stat. 1379-1380 in 1994). See also footnote 2 of 

this report. 

2

 See Pub. L. No. 103-272, 108 Stat. 745-1401 (1994) (which, inter alia, repealed the existing general and 

permanent Federal rail safety statutes and revised and re-enacted them without substantive change as positive law in 

title 49 of the U.S. Code). 

3

 See Section 108 of RSIA; 49 U.S.C. §§ 21102(c), 21103, and 21109(b)-(c); and FRA Interim Statement of Agency 

Policy and Interpretation at 74 Fed. Reg. 30665 (June 26, 2009). 

4 In particular, Section 108(d) of the RSIA, which became effective on October 16, 2008, provided that the 

requirements described above for train employees would not go into effect on July 16, 2009, for train employees of 

commuter and intercity passenger railroads (49 U.S.C. § 21102(c)). Section 108(d) further provided that these train 

employees, who provide commuter or intercity passenger rail service, would continue to be governed by the old 

HOS Law (as it existed immediately prior to the enactment of the RSIA, at 49 U.S.C. § 21103 prior to its 2008 
4

In recent years, the FRA has sponsored studies to characterize the work/rest patterns of different 

groups of railroad workers (Gertler & Viale, 2006a, 2006b, 2007; Gertler & DiFiore, 2009). All 

of these studies used a consistent statistical survey methodology. The most recently completed 

FRA study characterizes the work schedules and sleep patterns of all T&E employees. This 

study, conducted in 2008, used a random sample of all actively working T&E employees in the 

United States. There was an inadequate number of T&E workers in commuter or intercity 

passenger operations in that random sample to make meaningful conclusions about this subgroup 

of T&E workers. The present study was undertaken to provide scientific data on which the FRA 

could base its recommendations regarding HOS limitations for T&E workers in commuter and 

intercity passenger operations.5

 Of particular concern were those employees in commuter 

service who work split assignments.6

1.1 Nature of Train and Engine Service in Passenger Operations 

T&E employees are the largest group of employees that work for a railroad. They operate the 

trains both between terminals and in railroad yard environments. Approximately 10 percent of 

all T&E employees work in passenger operations. For the most part, T&E employees who work 

in commuter operations return to their starting location at the end of the workday. A limited 

number of T&E employees in passenger operations work in a railroad yard where trains are 

serviced and stored between periods of peak operation. 

There are five types of positions in passenger service. A locomotive engineer is in immediate 

and direct control of the motion of the train and is responsible for obeying all directions and 

signals as well as controlling train movement and speed between stops. A conductor is 

responsible for the train and its crew. An assistant conductor or ticket collector collects fares 

and attends to the passengers on the train. A yard foreman has responsibilities similar to those of 

a conductor on the train, except this individual oversees the activities of a yard crew. Although 

an assistant conductor or ticket collector is an assistant to the conductor on the train, a switchman

is an assistant to the yard foreman on a yard crew. 

Read in conjunction with 49 U.S.C. § 21102(c), the HOS Law at old Section 21103 (before its 

amendment by RSIA) currently prohibits a railroad from requiring or allowing a passenger T&E 

worker to remain on duty for more than 12 consecutive h in the 24-hour period that begins when 

the employee begins the duty tour. After 12 consecutive h on duty, the passenger T&E worker 

must have at least 10 consecutive h off duty before initiating a new duty period. If he or she is 

on duty for less than 12 consecutive h or has 12 nonconsecutive h on duty in that 24-hour period, 

then the old Section 21103 requires that the employee have a minimum of only 8 consecutive h 

 

amendment (which the statute designates as “old Section 21103”)), until the effective date of regulations 

promulgated by the Secretary (49 U.S.C. § 21102(c)). However, if no new regulations are in effect before October 

16, 2011, the provisions of new Section 21103 would be extended to the passenger T&E workers at that time. Id.

Section 108(e) of the RSIA specifically provides the Secretary with the authority to issue hours of service rules and 

orders applicable to train employees engaged in commuter rail passenger transportation and intercity rail passenger 

transportation (as defined in 49 U.S.C. § 24102), that may be different from the statute applied to other train 

employees (49 U.S.C. § 21109(b)).

5

 FRA’s proposed rule would also apply to T&E workers in tourist, scenic, historic, or excursion operations. The 

survey does not cover this subset of T&E workers who would be covered by the proposed rule. 

6

 A split assignment consists of two work periods on the same day separated by a period of 4 h or more. 
5

off before returning to duty. The passenger T&E worker may work a total of 16 h 

(nonconsecutive) in a 24-hour period if the individual has at least 8 h off-duty between two 8-

hour work periods. Old Section 21103 limits the length of the passenger T&E worker’s on-duty 

period and provides for guaranteed time off, but unlike new Section 21103, old Section 21103 

does not address either the number of consecutive days that the individual may work or 

guaranteed rest days and does not consider the time of day of rest periods. 

As previously discussed, the RSIA amended the HOS Law by providing that, effective July 16, 

2009, freight T&E workers must have 10 consecutive h of undisturbed rest in a 24-hour period, 

regardless of the number of hours worked, before initiating a new on-duty period, and may work 

no more than 276 h in a calendar month. In addition, RSIA (i.e., new Section 21103) requires 

that if a freight T&E employee has initiated an on-duty period on 6 consecutive d, then the 

employee must have 48 consecutive h off-duty at his or her home terminal. RSIA also requires 

72 h off-duty following seven consecutive work starts. Because of the differences between the 

schedules of freight T&E workers and passenger T&E workers, this new law provides that FRA 

has the authority to prescribe regulations different from the statutory requirements at new 

Section 21103 and that those new regulations would control if they have been issued and are in 

effect by October 16, 2011. In the interim, old Section 21103 applies to passenger T&E workers. 

If the new regulations are not in effect by October 16, 2011, then new Section 21103 would 

apply not only to freight T&E workers but also to passenger T&E workers. 

Commuter and intercity passenger services operate in accordance with a planned train schedule. 

As such, the work schedules for T&E employees are highly predictable. Trains run more 

frequently during the morning and afternoon peak commuting times. With the exception of the 

Long Island Rail Road (LIRR), no commuter service runs continuously for 24 h daily. Jobs in 

passenger service may involve either a straight thru or a split assignment. A straight thru 

assignment has one continuous on-duty period. With a split assignment, the individual works the 

morning rush, has time off in the middle of the day, and returns to work the evening rush. The 

period of time between the two work periods is known as interim release. During this period, 

the employee is off-duty but may be required to be available to work if called. The interim 

release must be at a location where suitable food and lodging are available. Typically, the 

railroad provides a quiet room or other facility where the employee may rest. If the interim 

release period is less than 4 h, it counts as on-duty time in terms of the HOS Law, so there is a 

disincentive for the railroad to limit the time between the two work periods. The end result for 

split assignments is that the time that the employee has before and after work for personal 

activities and sleep becomes limited. 

Yard jobs, like those in freight operations, are on a regular schedule. Depending on the size of 

the yard, there may be multiple shifts. 

As is the case in freight operations, passenger railroads maintain an extra board of individuals 

who are available to fill in for regularly scheduled employees during vacations, training, and 

other planned absences as well as unanticipated absences. Although extra board employees 

usually have advance notice of their work schedule, sometimes the work assignment has a short 

notice. In these instances, the employee may not have adequate opportunity for rest. 

1.2 Objectives 

This study had two primary objectives: 
6

 To design and conduct a survey to collect work schedule and sleep data from T&E 

employees in commuter and intercity passenger service. 

 To analyze the survey data to characterize the work/sleep patterns and to identify workschedule-related fatigue issues. 

The goal was to characterize T&E workers in commuter and intercity passenger service as a 

group and not to characterize T&E workers on a specific railroad. This characterization will 

inform FRA’s rulemaking efforts with respect to the limitations on hours of service. It will also 

serve as a baseline for comparison once any changes in HOS regulations take effect. 

Specific research issues that the study sought to answer included the following: 

 On average, how many hours does a passenger T&E employee work in 2 weeks? 

 What is the distribution of passenger T&E employees among the different types of work 

schedules, specifically straight thru assignments, split assignments, and extra board? 

 How many hours does a passenger T&E employee work daily? Does this differ for those 

on straight thru assignments versus split assignments? 

 What is the average daily sleep of passenger T&E employees? How does this compare 

with other adult working populations? 

 How does daily sleep vary based on type of schedule? 

 How much break time is available on a typical day? 

 Is there a difference in on-the-job alertness based on type of work schedule? 

 Does the number of sick days taken vary by type of work schedule? How does this 

compare with U.S. adult norms? 

 Are work schedule issues major sources of workplace stress? 

 To what extent have passenger railroads provided sleep/fatigue education? 

 How prevalent is sleep apnea among passenger T&E workers? 

1.3 Overall Approach 

Since no existing data sources could provide answers to the above issues, a survey of T&E 

workers in passenger service was the only means to obtain the necessary work schedule and 

sleep data. The research project consisted of three phases: preparation, field data collection, and 

data analysis (see Figure 1). The preparation phase involved designing the survey methodology 

and procedures, conducting a pilot survey to refine the survey instruments and data collection 

procedure, securing approval from the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and 

preparing the final survey instruments. (Because this survey involved more than nine 

participants, Federal regulations required that OMB approve the overall study design.) Activities 

during this phase included discussions with BLET and UTU representatives to assure them the 

survey instruments had suitable wording and would collect the data necessary to address the 

research issues. A pilot survey, conducted in parallel with the OMB review process, ensured that 

the survey would capture the data needed to meet the survey objectives. 
7

The second phase of the research consisted of distributing the survey materials and collecting the 

survey data. Coding and analysis of the survey data was the final phase. A nonresponse bias 

study validated that no difference existed between the survey participants and the 

nonrespondents. The data analysis methods for the survey data included descriptive statistics, 

analysis of variance (ANOVA), and textual analysis of the log book comments. 

Figure 1. Overall Approach 

1.4 Scope 

This research involved T&E employees working in passenger operations in the United States and 

covered by the HOS Law. Because the effect of split assignments on worker fatigue was of 

particular interest, the study design focused on capturing an adequate number of individuals 

working this type of schedule. The study characterized three separate groups of T&E workers, 

those working straight thru assignments, those working split assignments, and those working on 

extra board assignments. The study did not attempt to characterize employees working for 

specific railroads. Making recommendations regarding fatigue countermeasures was beyond the 

scope of the study. 
8

1.5 Organization of the Report 

Section 2 describes the overall survey design and procedures. Section 3 provides an analysis of 

the survey results, and Section 4 contains the findings and recommendations. A list of references 

appears in Section 5. The Appendix contains copies of the survey materials. A glossary 

containing definitions for statistical and railroad terminology used in this report and a list of 

abbreviations and acronyms used in this report follow the Appendix. 
9

2. Survey Design 

One of the objectives of this study was to characterize the work schedules and sleep patterns of 

U.S. T&E workers in commuter and intercity passenger service (passenger T&E workers). 

Achieving this objective required a nationwide survey. The only practical means of reaching 

these individuals was through their labor organizations, BLET and UTU. This section describes 

the potential respondent universe, the survey instruments, sampling plan, and procedures that the 

researchers developed to survey this population. This methodology is similar that was used in 

the recently completed survey of all T&E workers (Gertler & DiFiore, 2009) as well as the 

earlier studies of railroad signalmen, maintenance-of-way workers, and dispatchers. 

2.1 Potential Respondent Universe 

The potential respondent universe was the 7,000 T&E employees actively working in passenger 

service at railroads where split assignments exist and where national labor unions represent T&E 

employees. The majority of these, approximately 5,700, are members of UTU. The remainder 

belongs to BLET. 

2.2 Survey Instruments 

This study used two survey instruments, a background survey and a daily log. (Copies of both 

instruments appear in the Appendix.) The background survey gathered demographic 

information, descriptive data for the passenger T&E worker’s current position and work 

schedule, and a self-assessment of overall health. The purpose for collecting this data was 

twofold. 

First, it provided data for characterizing this subset of the T&E worker population. Second, the 

survey provided identifying data that the researchers used in conjunction with the daily log to 

characterize the work/sleep patterns by the three primary types of work schedule in passenger 

operations: straight thru assignments, split assignments, and extra board assignments. 

This survey instrument also asked participants to rate, using a Likert scale of 1 to 4, potential 

sources of stress at work. In addition, the background survey included a list of life stress events. 

In the event that a participant’s daily log indicated frequent nighttime awakenings or excessive 

fatigue, the researchers could use the individual’s response to this section of the background 

survey to ensure that nonwork circumstances were not confounding the survey data. Completion 

of the background survey required less than 15 min. 

The daily log provided the means for survey participants to record their daily activities in terms 

of sleep, personal time, daily commute to and from work, interim release (by definition, a period 

of at least 4 consecutive h at a designated terminal) or break time (by definition, a period of less 

than 4 consecutive h), and limbo time.7

 Survey participants recorded the start and end time of 

each activity in graphical format. They also provided self-assessments of the quality of their 

sleep and their level of alertness at the start and end of each work period. For those with split 

assignments, they rated their alertness at the start and end of each segment of their workday. The 

 

7

 Limbo time is neither on-duty time nor off-duty time and includes time in, or awaiting, deadhead transportation to 

the point of final release. For example, it is the time after an employee stops operating the train until he or she is 

released from duty. 
10

subjective assessments used a five-point Likert scale. The daily log included space to record 

“Comments on Today’s Activities.” The instructions for the daily log encouraged participants to 

use that space to explain anything unusual about the day’s activities. These comments proved 

useful in understanding an irregular work or sleep pattern and, in general, complemented the 

study’s quantitative findings. Completion of the daily log required less than a total of 10 min 

daily. 

2.3 Data Collection Period 

Examination of the relationship between work schedules and fatigue requires data from each 

person that encompasses at least a full work cycle. Fatigue is cumulative, and its effects on the 

individual are not readily identified from 1 or 2 d of data. In addition, adequate data must be 

available from both workdays and rest days so that the individual’s ability to compensate for lost 

sleep on workdays can be assessed. (A rest day is one on which there is no start of a duty 

period.) T&E workers with a regular work schedule have a work cycle of 1 week. This study 

used a 14-day data collection period to accommodate those T&E workers in commuter service 

who hold extra board jobs and as such do not have a regular work schedule. 

2.4 Sampling Plan 

Both BLET and UTU maintain databases with the names, mailing addresses, and dates of birth 

for all of their members. Representatives from each organization identified the union locals 

whose members worked in passenger service at railroads where split assignments exist. The 

membership databases do not include the individual’s current assignment, so it was not possible 

to identify those on split assignments a priori. Only actively working union members living in 

the United States could be in the sampling frame. Retirees, full-time union officials, and anyone 

currently holding a railroad management position were not eligible for the study. The effective 

sampling frame was 7,175. A total of 5,665 were UTU members (79 percent), and the others 

(1,510) were BLET members (21 percent). The researchers drew a random sample from each 

group. The size of the sample from each group was proportional to that organization’s 

representation in the sampling frame. 

One of the most important issues in conducting this study is determining how large a sample is 

necessary for the estimates obtained in the sample survey to be reliable enough to meet the 

objectives of the study. In general, the larger the sample, the greater the reliability of the 

resulting estimates, but this must be traded off against the expense of a larger sample. The first 

step in this process is to specify the level of reliability needed for the resulting estimates. 

The appropriate sample size, n, for estimating the mean daily sleep time can be computed from 

the following (Levy & Lemeshow, 1999): 

2 2 2

2 2

( 1)

( )

  



z V N

z NV

n

x

x

where z = reliability coefficient (1.96 for 95 percent confidence level) 

N = population size 

Vx = unknown population variance 

ε = error tolerance 
11

This estimation for sample size applies as well to other mean values, such as work and commute 

time, that the study seeks to estimate. 

Webb (1992) estimates the standard deviation for daily sleep for the general population is 1 h. 

On the basis of the data from several large commuter railroads, FRA estimates that 38 percent of 

T&E employees work a job with a split assignment. If this estimate of standard deviation for 

sleep (and hence Vx, variance) is applied to the T&E commuter population working split 

assignments (N = 2,727) and if an ε = 0.15 is used, there must be 160 (n) split assignment 

workers in the sample. If the 38 percent of the sampling frame has a work schedule with a split 

assignment, the total sample size must be 421 (160/0.38) to ensure an adequate number of split 

assignment people. Because it was not possible to know a priori the type of work schedule that 

each BLET and UTU member works, a stratified sample was not possible. 

Because not every BLET and UTU member who is selected to participate in the survey would 

choose to do so, oversampling was necessary. The extent of oversampling is a function of the 

anticipated response rate. The recently completed survey of all T&E workers had a response rate 

of 33 percent (Gertler & DiFiore, 2009). For the purposes of establishing the size of the random 

sample, the researchers assumed that the present study could achieve at least this response rate. 

If 33 percent of the selected individuals in the random sample choose to participate in the survey, 

then the random sample must be 1,275 (421/0.33). 

2.5 Procedure 

In accordance with government regulations, FRA sought approval for the proposed survey from 

OMB. OMB approved this collection of information under OMB control number 2130-0588 on 

December 2, 2009. 

Concurrent with submittal of the OMB application, the researchers conducted a 1-week pilot 

survey with seven participants. The purpose of the pilot survey was to refine the data collection 

procedures and survey instruments. Both BLET and UTU assisted the researchers in identifying 

suitable participants for this pilot survey. People working both straight thru and split 

assignments participated in the pilot survey. Pilot participants completed the T&E Passenger 

Service Employee Background Survey and T&E Passenger Service Daily Log as well as a brief 

Post-Survey Feedback Form to provide feedback on the survey instruments and procedures. 

Similar to the full survey, pilot participants received a $75 gift certificate to a national retail 

establishment. On the basis of the experience with the pilot survey, the researchers made one 

change in the background survey. On the list of life events, the item “Marital difficulties” was 

changed to “Marital/relationship difficulties.” 

The pilot survey identified a number of problems with the daily log. On the basis of the 

feedback and experience with the pilot survey, the following changes were made: 

 The size of the log book pages was changed from 5.5 × 6.75 in to 5 × 7 in, and the spiral 

binding was placed at the top of the page. 

 The space on the page for recording times was increased. 

 The alertness ratings associated with work periods were moved so that they were colocated with the work period start and end times. 
12

 The address for returning the survey materials was printed in the log book in the event an 

individual misplaced the provided return envelope. 

BLET and UTU each identified their members who worked in commuter operations. The 

researchers drew a random sample of 268 BLET members and 1,007 UTU members, without 

replacement, from the sampling frame derived from the two lists of eligible individuals. The 

package mailed to each participant on December 31, 2009, consisted of the following items: 

 The T&E Passenger Service Employee Background Survey in booklet form. Each page 

was 5.5 × 8.5 in, printed on white paper with no questions on the cover page. 

 The T&E Passenger Service Employee Daily Log in spiral notebook form. Each page 

was 5 × 7 in. The daily log included 14 sections, one for each day of the data collection 

period. Brief instructions and a sample entry appeared at the beginning of the log book. 

 A cover letter signed by the president of the passenger T&E employee’s labor 

organization. This letter explained the purpose of the study and encouraged participation. 

 Instructions explaining the survey procedures and how to complete the daily log. 

 A return envelope, postage paid. 

 A $5 bill.

Copies of the cover letters and instructions appear in the Appendix along with the survey 

instruments. 

All materials were printed on high-quality paper, and each letter was individually addressed to 

the recipient. The instruction sheet was printed on yellow paper to increase the likelihood that 

recipients would read it. The mailing envelope for the survey packet used the union return 

address rather than QNA, because it would be familiar to recipients. The purpose of the $5 was 

to encourage participation. Those who returned both the background survey and the daily log 

also received a $75 gift certificate to a national retail establishment. 

The instructions emphasized that 14 consecutive d of data should be provided and that data 

should not be reported during vacation periods. Both the instructions and the log included 

contact information for three QinetiQ staff members, two who were available to answer 

questions regarding the survey instruments and procedures and an individual who could provide 

additional copies of the survey materials. 

Ten days after distribution of the survey materials, every survey recipient received a postcard, 

signed by their union president, to encourage them to participate in the survey. Three weeks 

after distribution of the materials, every survey recipient who had not yet returned the survey 

materials or indicated that they were not interested in participating received a second postcard to 

thank those who had decided to participate and to encourage those who had not yet done so to 

participate in the study. The second postcard reminded participants that February 15 was the 

deadline for returning survey materials and provided a QinetiQ contact for duplicate survey 

materials. 
13

3. Analysis of Survey Data 

This chapter presents the survey findings based on data provided in respondent background 

surveys and daily logs. The results are organized into the following subtopic headings: 

 Survey response rate 

 Nonresponse bias study 

 Commuter T&E worker demographic characteristics 

 Job characteristics 

 Sleep characteristics 

 Alertness 

 Effectiveness on the job 

 Textual data 

3.1 Survey Response Rate 

The survey materials were mailed to 1,275 T&E workers in commuter and passenger service. To 

include as many individuals on split assignments as possible, the survey design excluded 

individuals from the LIRR because the LIRR does not use split assignments. However, because 

of an error in identifying eligible members, individuals from the LIRR were included in the 

random sample of UTU members. This situation was not obvious to the researchers until the 

survey materials were returned. Regardless, there were an adequate number of split assignments 

to characterize this type of commuter schedule. A total of 269 respondents returned both the 

background survey and the activity/sleep log. Data from 13 of these respondents could not be 

used because either there were problems with the log books or the respondents were not in crafts 

covered by the survey. (In some locations, UTU represents all employees, not just T&E. 

Excluding non-T&E people from the sampling frame was not possible because the UTU 

database does not identify members by craft.) The overall response rate was 21 percent. The 

final analysis used data from 256 respondents who returned both survey instruments and were 

T&E workers. Because the number of usable responses was less than the target level of 421, the 

effective error tolerance (ε) is 0.195 or ±0.0975. 

3.2 Nonresponse Bias Study 

OMB requires a statistical analysis assessing response bias if the response rate of a survey is less 

than 75 percent. The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether respondents differ from 

nonrespondents with respect to personal characteristics. 

Personal information for nonrespondents was limited to information from the union membership 

databases. In addition to each member’s address, these databases contain members’ birth dates. 

Birth date (or age) is an appropriate variable to use for assessing nonresponse bias because sleep 

patterns are known to change as an individual ages (Van Cauter, Leproult, & Plat, 2000). In 

addition, age is positively correlated with years of experience. Therefore, experienced personnel 

with more seniority may get to choose convenient work schedules and as a result be more rested 

than individuals with less seniority. 
14

The 262 individuals who returned both survey instruments were respondents. The remaining 

members of the sample were nonrespondents. Birth dates were not available for 27 people, so 

they were not included in the nonresponse bias study, reducing the number of nonrespondents to 

986. An analysis comparing the mean age of respondents and nonrespondents found no 

significant difference, t(1,246) = 1.795, p = 0.073. 

3.3 Worker Demographic Characteristics 

This section provides demographics, as well as basic job-, family-, and health-related 

information based on responses in the background survey. Where appropriate, the study includes 

comparisons of the study results with national norms. 

Characterization of the commuter T&E workforce considered many factors. These factors are 

sex and age, type of position and type of work, experience, overall health, sick days taken, 

incidence of sleep disorders, and caffeine consumption. 

3.3.1 Sex and Age 

The commuter T&E workforce is primarily male. Only 8.6 percent of the usable survey 

responses were from females, so reporting of results by sex was not meaningful. In contrast, 2 

percent of T&E workers in freight service are female. 

Survey respondents have an average age of 46.6 yr, and their median age is 47. As is true with 

other railroad craft groups, this is an aging workforce with over 40 percent being 50 or older. 

Figure 2 contains the age distribution of survey respondents. 

Research has found that a higher perceived age, relative to chronological age, can be an indicator 

of chronic stress and poor psychological well-being (Barnes-Farrell & Piotrowski, 1989, 1991).8 

Overall, commuter T&E workers reported a lower perceived age (40.8 yr) in comparison with 

their average chronological age (46.6 yr). As shown in Table 1, the T&E population tends to feel 

younger as they age. This is the same pattern that Barnes-Farrell and Piotrowski found with 

permanent day shift workers in a manufacturing plant. They point out that younger people tend 

to report feeling older to reflect perceived maturity. The T&E workers’ perceived age follows 

the pattern reported by these researchers and, as such, is not indicative of poor psychological 

well-being. Statistical analysis confirmed the differences in perceived versus chronological age, 

χ

2

(8, N = 247) = 22.626, p < 0.01. 

 

8

 Perceived age is the age that the individual reports feeling. 
15

Figure 2. Distribution of Respondents by Age Group 

Table 1. Discrepancies between Chronological and Perceived Age by Age Group (percent) 

Age 

Perception

Worker Age (yr) 

20–29 30–39 40–49 50–59 60+ 

Younger 45.5 55.6 63.7 81.5 90.0 

Same Age 9.1 25.9 19.8 11.1 10.0 

Older 45.5 18.5 16.5 7.4 0 

3.3.2 Type of Position 

Some T&E workers in passenger service are qualified to work in more than one position. For 

this reason, a small number of respondents reported working more than one type of position. 

Nearly half (43 percent) reported working as a conductor, and another 28 percent were assistant 

conductors or ticket collectors. One-third were locomotive engineers. Three people reported 

working other types of positions. 

3.3.3 Type of Work and Work Schedule 

Some T&E workers in passenger service maintain seniority to work other types of service. For 

this reason, some reported working in long haul and intercity service as well as other passenger 

3

21

35

36

5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60+

Percent

Age Group
16

service. (Intercity service jobs are similar to commuter service in that they do not require an 

overnight stay at an out-of-town location.) Figure 3 summarizes the responses from survey 

participants. 

Figure 3. Type of T&E Work 

Each participant’s work schedule was characterized as straight thru, split or extra board. (See 

Section 1.1 for an explanation of these types of work schedules.) Because some participants 

reported a mix of straight thru and split runs, the more frequent type of daily schedule 

determined the category for that person’s work schedule. For example, if a person had 3-day 

straight thru runs, then that person’s schedule was categorized as “straight thru” in terms of 

analyzing work data. Anyone who indicated on the background survey that they did not have a 

regular schedule was categorized as extra board. Overall, two-thirds of the survey participants 

had straight thru schedules, and the remainder were divided between split (17.2 percent) and 

extra board (16.0 percent). 

3.3.4 Experience 

Overall, T&E workers in the survey had an average of 15.7 yr of T&E experience and 13.2 yr 

with their current railroad. Since the average age of this group is 46.6 yr, some of these 

individuals worked in either another industry or another railroad craft prior to working in 

passenger service. Table 2 presents the experience levels by type of schedule. Those workers 

with more experience tend to work jobs with split assignments. Because jobs are chosen on a 

seniority basis, those with experience select the more desirable jobs, which in this case appear to 

be those with split assignments. Assuming that the split assignment leaves the individual at the 

80

13

8

4

2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Commuter Intercity Yard Long Haul Work Train

Percent
17

home terminal during the interim release, this type of schedule gives the T&E worker the 

flexibility to take care of personal business during the midday rather than before or after work. 

Both the total years of experience and years of experience with the current employer are 

statistically different based on schedule. 

Table 2. Years of Commuter T&E Experience by Type of Schedule 

 Schedule* Mean (Std. Dev.) Median 

Total experience 

Straight thru 15.1 (9.2) 13.2 

Split 23.4 (10.3) 22.4 

Extra board 10.6 (8.2) 9.6 

Experience with 

current employer 

Straight thru 12.8 (7.4) 11.0 

Split 18.3 (9.3) 20.9 

Extra board 9.8 (7.8) 8.1 

*Total experience comparison among schedule types, F(2, 237) = 19.388 (p <0.001). 

Current experience comparison among schedule types, F(2, 230) = 11.583 (p <0.001). 

3.3.5 Marital and Family Status 

Most recent data from the U.S. Census indicates that 70 percent of males between 45 and 54 are 

married (U.S. Census Bureau, 2009). For the U.S. male population 18 and older, 58.9 percent 

are married. At the time of the study, 75.8 percent of the respondents were married, 10.5 percent 

single, 10.2 percent divorced, 1.2 percent widowed, and 2.3 percent categorized themselves as 

other. (These were likely separated or living with a partner.) 

The survey asked participants whether their family included young children, a factor that can 

lead to disrupted sleep. Although a large percentage of the group is married, only 6.7 percent 

had children under 2 yr. This finding is not surprising given the average age of this group of 

railroad workers. 

3.3.6 Health 

A recent study of the health of the American workforce (Aumann & Galinsky, 2009) found that 

79 percent of the respondents rated their overall health as good (51 percent) or excellent (28 

percent). The T&E background survey asked an identical question. Participants rated their 

health as excellent, good, fair, or poor. A total of 90 percent of commuter T&E workers rated 

themselves in good (59.8 percent) or excellent (30.5 percent) health. The difference in 

perceptions of overall health between the passenger T&E workers and the U.S. workforce may 

be due to the availability of health insurance to all passenger T&E workers. This difference is 

statistically significant, z = 7.46, p < 0.001. 

Analysis of these responses by type of work schedule found no difference in perceived health 

among the three types of work schedules, χ

2

(256) = 2.330, p = 0.675. Similarly, no difference 

existed in the number of sick days based on schedule, F(2, 254) = 1.167, p = 0.313. 

Figure 4 presents the frequency of sick days for all passenger T&E workers. The mean number 

of sick days is 4.2, and the median is 3 d. As a group, passenger T&E employees take more sick 

days than U.S. adults (see Table 3). Those with a straight thru schedule, who comprise two-
18

thirds of the total, average 4.4 sick days per year, the same as age 45–64 adults. In contrast, 

working U.S. adults average 3.6 d, and adult males averaged 3.0. An explanation for this small 

difference is not readily apparent. 

22

11

10

11

9

10

6

4

8

2

9

0

5

10

15

20

25

0123456789 ≥10

Percent

Days

Figure 4. Sick Days Taken in the Past Year 

3.3.7 Incidence of Sleep Disorders 

The Wisconsin Sleep Cohort Study, a longitudinal study of cardiopulmonary sleep disorders 

among middle-aged working adults, estimated that 2 percent of women and 4 percent of men 

have sleep apnea (Young et al., 1993). (The definition of sleep apnea for this study was an 

apnea-hypopnea score of 5 or higher and daytime hypersomnolence.) The National Sleep 

Foundation (NSF) and the National Institutes of Health report the numbers from the Wisconsin 

study as an estimate of the prevalence of sleep apnea among U.S. adults. Some sleep researchers 

hypothesize that the prevalence of sleep apnea may in fact be higher because many remain to be 

diagnosed. According to the Wisconsin study, 9 percent of women and 24 percent of men have 

undiagnosed sleep-disordered breathing, a condition that in some people results in excessive 

daytime sleepiness. 
19

Table 3. Comparison of Passenger T&E Sick Days with U.S. Working Adults 

Group Mean Work-Loss Days 

All passenger 4.2 

Straight thru assignment 4.4 

Split assignment 4.0 

Extra board assignment 3.2 

U.S. Adults* 3.6 

U.S. Adult Males* 3.0 

U.S. Adults Age 18–44* 3.2 

U.S. Adults Age 45–64* 4.4 

Private Health Insurance (<65 yr)* 3.8 

*U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2009. 

Of the 256 participants in this study, 17 individuals, or 6.6 percent reported having a sleep 

disorder. All but 2 participants (5.9 percent) reported having sleep apnea, and 14 participants, or 

over 80 percent, reported receiving treatment. The remainder may have mild to moderate sleep 

apnea, which does not always require treatment or those individuals may have chosen not to seek 

treatment. The difference in incidence of sleep apnea between this population and U.S. adult 

males is not statistically significant, z = 1.55, p = 0.061. 

3.3.8 Fatigue Education 

The background survey asked about participants’ exposure to educational materials or training 

on fatigue, sleep hygiene, napping, or sleep disorders. Slightly more than half (52 percent) 

reported having no fatigue education. A brochure was the most common type of training (see 

Figure 5). A total of 17 percent reported receiving more than one type of fatigue training. 

3.3.9 Use of Caffeine 

NSF reports that 250 mg of caffeine a day, the equivalent of a soda and a couple of cups of 

coffee, generally poses no harm. Nearly 90 percent of respondents reported using caffeine on a 

daily basis, and averaged less than 3 cups or cans a day. This level of caffeine consumption is 

within normal healthy limits, and the group’s sleep is likely not disrupted by caffeine, unless the 

consumption occurs close to a sleep period (NSF, 2002). 
20

27

23

15

2

52

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Brochure Briefing Videotape Other None

Percent

Type of Education

Figure 5. Exposure to Fatigue Education 

3.3.10 Summary of Passenger T&E Worker Demographic Characteristics 

Participants in the study reported an average age of 47 yr with 40 percent in the 50 or over 

category. Two-thirds are conductors or assistance conductors, and the remaining participants are 

locomotive engineers. Nearly all (93 percent) are involved in train operation with the remainder 

performing yard operations and work train activities. Overall, the group has 15.7 yr of passenger 

service experience, and 13.2 yr with their current employer. Those with the most experience 

hold the split assignments. Over 90 percent rate their health as good or excellent, but the group’s 

use of sick days is slightly higher than that of U.S. middle-aged working males. Over 6 percent 

reported having a diagnosed sleep disorder; 15 of the 17 reported cases were sleep apnea. Over 

80 percent are receiving treatment for their sleep disorder. Over half have not had any type of 

fatigue education. 

3.4 Job Characteristics 

This section explores several aspects of the T&E passenger service worker’s job, including 

work/rest schedule, hours worked, call time, and sources of workplace stress. 

3.4.1 Call Time 

Passenger service employees who hold an extra board position, which does not have a regular 

schedule, have a call time associated with their job. This is the minimum length of time prior to 

the start of duty that the employer may call the employee for work. A total of 34 of the 41 extra 
21

board workers in the study responded to the questions concerning call time and call window. 

The median call time was 3 h. The majority (78 percent) reported that they were on call 24 h a 

day, but 22 percent reported that they were subject to a call window, or limited time period, 

when they must be available for work. 

Checking the lineup is a strategy that extra board employees use to gauge when they are likely to 

be called for work. This is a key strategy that they use in trying to plan their rest and personal 

activities. Those with extra board assignments reported checking the lineup an average of 2.6 

times a day. 

3.4.2 Rest Days 

Provision for rest days differs among the three types of work schedules. The majority of those 

on straight thru and split assignment jobs have two consecutive days per week off, but the pattern 

for extra board personnel is different. Approximately 15 percent have no guaranteed days off, 

and the remainder has either 2 consecutive d per week or 1 guaranteed day off. The provision 

for guaranteed rest days was statistically different by type of schedule, χ

2

(8, N = 254) = 73.52, 

p < 0.001. 

Table 4. Guaranteed Rest Days by Type of Schedule 

Guaranteed Days Straight thru Split Extra Board 

None 0.6% 0% 14.6% 

2 d per week 11.1% 16.7% 0 

2 consecutive d per week 80.1% 71.4% 41.5% 

1 d per week 6.4% 7.1% 41.5% 

Other 1.8% 4.8% 2.4% 

3.4.3 Hours Worked 

Through the background survey, the study collected data on a nominal workweek and a typical 

workweek. Unfortunately, survey participants did not understand the instructions for recording 

their regular schedule (nominal workweek). Because so many responses were incomplete, these 

data were not meaningful, and the results for nominal workweek were not computed. Using the 

daily log book, participants recorded their actual on-duty hours as well as break time, interim 

release, and commute time. The log book included a place for limbo time, but there were very 

few entries in this category. Since limbo time rarely occurs in passenger operations, this was not 

unexpected. 

Figure 6 compares the typical passenger T&E workday by type of schedule. The results in this 

figure were calculated by combining all of the work assignments reported by all of the 

participants. For a straight thru assignment, the duty hours are the sum of work time and break; 

for a split assignment, the duty hours are simply the work time. Breaks were rare for split 

assignments. Because the median break time for split assignments was extremely small, it is not 

included in the figure. The commute times were similar for the individuals working each type of 
22

schedule, but the duty hours differed, 7.9 h for a straight thru assignment and 7.6 h for a split 

assignment. 

1.1

1.3

7.6

7.9 1.6

5.1

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0

Split

Straight thru

Hours

Commute

Work

Break

Interim Release

Figure 6. Typical Workday by Daily Schedule (median) 

Table 5 summarizes the work time in 2 weeks for individuals in each of the three schedule 

groups. These results include data from only those individuals whose daily logs contained 14 

complete days of data. Through the background survey, participants reported their typical 

weekly duty hours. The median typical hours for those with straight thru and split schedules 

were nearly the same at 84 and 85 h, respectively. Those working extra board positions reported 

typically working 100 h in 2 weeks or 50 h per week. Over the 2-week period of the study, the 

straight thru group worked more than either the split or extra board groups (see “Total hours 

worked” in Table 5). Overall, the passenger T&E group averaged 86:41 for the 2-week period. 

The extra board group had the largest variability in the total hours worked, but the straight thru 

group worked the most overtime. A quarter of the straight thru group worked 104 h or more in 

the 2 weeks of the study. On a daily basis, the straight thru group had the longest duty period 

(8:44), and the split group had the shortest (7:59). The mean daily duty hours for the extra board 

group, who may work a combination of both straight thru and split assignments, was 8:22, 

midway between the reported straight thru and split values. The median number of primary work 

starts (or days worked) was 10 for all schedule groups, but a quarter of the straight thru group 

worked at least 1 rest day and a quarter of the extra board people worked 2 or more rest days. 

Overall, the split assignment group worked fewer hours than the other two groups. 
23

Table 5. Work in 2 Weeks by Type of Schedule 

Type of 

Day Work Schedule Mean Median 

Standard 

Deviation 1st Quartile 3rd Quartile 

Typical 

hours 

worked* 

(h:min) 

Straight thru 88:32 84:00 21:56 78:00 105:00 

Split 82:56 85:00 14:46 79:00 92:30 

Extra board 96:47 100:00 26:30 86:00 110:00 

All 89:12 89:00 22:14 80:00 106:00 

Total 

hours 

worked 

(h:min) 

Straight thru 90:05 89:20 18:52 75:46 104:26 

Split 78:40 77:10 15:33 65:06 92:29 

Extra board 81:16 81:05 24:33 68:18 99:40 

All 86:41 87:07 19:43 72:57 101:08 

Daily 

duty 

hours 

(h:min) 

Straight thru 8:44 8:46 1:35 7:31 10:02 

Split 7:59 8:08 1:23 6:45 9:15 

Extra board 8:26 8:35 1:15 7:36 9:05 

All 8:33 8:35 1:31 7:25 9:45 

Primary 

work 

starts 

Straight thru 10.33 10 1.18 10.0 11.0 

Split 9.85 10 1.02 9.75 10.0 

Extra board 9.68 10 2.69 9.0 12.0 

All 10.15 10 1.53 10.0 11.0 

*Reported in background survey. Remaining data in table from daily logs for those with 14 d of daily log data 

(N = 240). 

Participants reported interim release that ranged from 4 to nearly 9 h. On average, interim 

release provided a period of 5.5 h when the T&E employees were free to conduct personal 

business. Descriptive statistics for the reported instances of interim release appear in Table 6. 

Table 6. Length of Interim Release (h:min) 

Mean 5:26 

Median 5:06 

Std. Dev. 1:01 

1st quartile 4:35 

3rd quartile 6:00 

The background survey asked, “How many times in the past month did you work on your rest 

days?” Table 7 presents the responses to this question. Overall, a third reported working at least 

once on a rest day, with over half of the extra board people working on a rest day. The extra 
24

board group, on average, worked more than 2 rest days in the month prior to the study. These 

background survey results are consistent with the log book data that indicate that a quarter of the 

extra board group worked 12 or more days in 2 weeks. 

Table 7. Work on Rest Days in Past Month 

 Rest Days Worked 

Schedule Worked Rest Day Mean Median 

Straight thru 32.5% 0.99 0 

Split 9.5% 0.14 0 

Extra board 58.8% 2.26 1.5 

Total 32.2% 1.02 0 

RSIA (new Section 21103(a)(1)) limits total time on duty to 276 h in a calendar month for T&E 

employees in freight service. Another provision of RSIA (new Section 21103(a)(4)) provides 

that after an employee has initiated an on-duty period on 6 consecutive d, the individual must 

have at least 48 h off duty, and after 7 consecutive d, the individual must have at least 72 h off 

duty. The survey data provide an indication of the extent of the impact that these limits might 

have on passenger service employees. 

There were 240 survey participants whose diaries had complete work histories for 14 d. Once 

the 14 d of survey data is extrapolated to 30 d, it is possible to estimate the number of passenger 

service T&E workers who likely exceeded the 276-hour limit during the study period. Of these, 

there were three who would have exceeded the 276-hour limit. In addition, there were 46 

individuals who exceeded the new freight statutory limit with regard to rest day requirements 

following consecutive workdays. Most worked straight thru schedules (33), but there were 3 on 

split assignments and 10 with extra board schedules. 

In terms of work starts, there were 78 instances where the individual initiated an on-duty period 

on 6 consecutive d. Of these, 51 had less than 48 h off prior to the start of the next on-duty 

period, whereas 7 had 48 h or more off, and because the remainder occurred at the end of the 

study period, their conformance with RSIA is unknown. Of the 19 who initiated an on-duty 

period on 7 consecutive d, 14 had less than 72 h off before the next work start and 5 occurred at 

the end of the 14-day recording period. Overall, 46 (19 percent) of the study participants with 14 

consecutive d of data had work patterns that would have violated the freight rest provisions of 

RSIA if they had applied to such participants. (Some individuals had more than one occurrence.) 

Table 8 summarizes these results. 
25

Table 8. Conformity with RSIA Freight Rest Period Requirements (after occurrences of 

initiating an on-duty period on 6 or 7 consecutive d) 

 Length of Subsequent Rest Period 

Number of 

Consecutive 

Starts

Would Meet 

RSIA Freight 

Requirement 

Would Not 

Meet RSIA 

Freight 

Requirement 

Unknown 

whether Would 

Meet RSIA 

Freight 

Requirement* 

Total 

Number of 

Instances of 

Individuals 

Having 6 or 

7 

Consecutive 

Days 

6 7 51 20 78 

7 0 14 5 19 

*Consecutive starts occurred at end of 14-day study period so cannot determine if rest occurred on subsequent days. 

3.4.4 Breaks 

Passenger T&E workers frequently have an opportunity for a break between the end of one run 

and the start of the next one. The analysis of break times includes only those days on which 

breaks were reported. As Table 9 indicates, those working split assignments were least likely to 

have breaks, whereas those with straight thru assignments had breaks on 55 percent of their 

workdays. These differences were statistically significant, F(2, 255) = 19.232, p < 0.001. On 

days with breaks, the total daily break time for split assignment people was about 20 min less 

than that for the other two groups. Over three-quarters of the breaks occurred off the train. 

Figure 7 provides the distribution of break lengths for all passenger T&E employees. Over 40 

percent are 1 h or less with a third in the range of 30 min to 1 h. 

Table 9. Total Daily Break Time by Schedule Type 

Schedule Type Mean (h:min) Median (h:min) 

Days with Breaks 

(%) 

Straight thru 1:46 1:37 55 

Split 1:24 1:18 11 

Extra board 1:48 1:34 39 
26

Figure 7. Distribution of Break Lengths 

3.4.5 Interim Release 

Reported interim release periods ranged from 4 h, the defined minimum, to 5.4 h with a median 

of 5.1 h (see Figure 8). A quarter of the reported interim release periods were more than 6 h. 

When at an away-from-home terminal or point of interim release, nearly two-thirds of the 

participants reported that they use the company-provided quiet room, 23 percent go home, and 

the remaining participants use a hotel room. 

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

≤ .5 >.5 to 1.0 >1.0 to 1.5 >1.5 to 2.0 >2.0 to 2.5 >2.5 to 3.0 >3.0 to 3.5 >3.5 to 4.0 >4

Length of Break (h)
27

Figure 8. Distribution of Length of Interim Release Periods 

3.4.6 Sources of Stress 

In the background survey, passenger service workers rated job-related sources of stress. They 

rated stress using a Likert scale with values from 1 to 4 with 1—no stress, 2—a little stress, 3—

stressful, and 4—very stressful. As Figure 9 illustrates, no one category was stressful. Rather, 

the “Other” category, which had 32 responses, received the highest ratings. There was no single 

theme to this group of responses. 

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

≤ 4 >4 to 4.5 >4.5 to 5 >5 to 5.5 >5.5 to 6 >6 to 6.5 >6.5 to 7 >7 to 7.5 >7.5

Length of Interim Release Period (h)
28

3.56

2.44

2.30 2.21 2.20

2.09

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Other Management 

policies

Responsibility for 

others’ safety

Ambiguous rules 

and/or 

procedures

Crew 

management

Communication 

problems

Source

Figure 9. Sources and Levels of Stress 

3.4.7 Job Characteristics Summary 

Two-thirds of passenger T&E workers hold jobs that have a straight thru schedule. The 

remainder is evenly divided between split assignments and extra board. Extra board workers are 

subject to call and reported a median call time of 3 h. Over 80 percent of those with a straight 

thru schedule reported 2 consecutive d off per week, whereas 71 percent of those with a split 

assignment had the same rest day arrangement. Nearly all had some provision for guaranteed 

rest days. There was some variability in daily hours worked with those on straight thru 

assignments having the most work hours per day and split assignments having about 40 min less. 

Those on split assignments reported the shortest amount of daily break time. The median interim 

release was 5.1 h, but a small number in excess of 7 h were reported. Overall, this group does 

not have high levels of work-related stress. 

3.5 Sleep Characteristics 

This section reports the results from analyzing the sleep data of passenger T&E employees. The 

sleep analyses focus on primary and daily sleep, the number of sleep periods per day, 

supplementary sleep, and the quality of sleep. The study examines sleep characteristics with 

respect to the type of schedule (straight thru, split, or extra board), the location of sleep (home or 

away), and the prevalence of sleep disorders. 
29

For the purpose of the study, primary sleep for a given calendar day is the longest sleep period 

ending on that day. Likewise, daily sleep is the sum of all sleep periods that end on a calendar 

day. Each sleep period ending on a calendar day is counted to determine the number of sleep 

periods per day. Finally, the study examines workday and rest day sleep characteristics. 

Workdays have at least one work start time reported on the activity log for a calendar day. By 

contrast, rest days have no work starts occurring on a calendar day. If a sleep period ends on a 

workday, it is classified as workday sleep. Otherwise, if a sleep period ends on a rest day, it is 

considered rest day sleep. Understanding the method for categorizing sleep as workday or rest 

day sleep is important when reviewing the sleep results. 

3.5.1 Daily and Primary Sleep 

Table 10 presents descriptive statistics for daily sleep, primary sleep, and average number of 

sleep periods per day by type of schedule and type of day (work or rest). 

A 2 (type of day) × 3 (schedule) mixed-model ANOVA examined the average length of daily 

sleep for respondents who reported 14 consecutive d of data and at least 1 rest d (n = 235). 

Figure 10 shows a bar chart of the means by schedule and type of day. The results indicated no 

overall difference in daily sleep among the three schedule groups, F(2, 232) = 0.83, p = 0.44. 

The main effect for type of day was significant F(1, 232) = 8.30, p < 0.01, demonstrating that 

regardless of schedule, respondents slept more on rest days than workdays. There was a 

significant interaction between schedule and type of day, F(2, 232) = 4.00, p < 0.05, suggesting 

that the length of daily sleep on workdays and rest days varied based on the type of schedule. A 

simple effects analysis of the interaction showed that respondents working a straight thru 

assignment sleep significantly longer on rest days than workdays F(1, 158) = 35.74, p < 0.001. 

Respondents working a split or extra board assignment got a comparable amount of sleep on 

both workdays and rest days, F(1, 35) = 1.70, p = 0.20 and F(1, 39) = 0.03, p = 0.87, 

respectively. Figure 10 shows a bar chart of total daily sleep by schedule and type of day. 

Although daily sleep statistics are informative, they do not capture information about the sleep 

strategies that workers undertake to ensure they have adequate rest. Previous studies examining 

railroad employees show that workers sometimes nap, or engage in supplementary sleep, to 

offset any sleep deficits they accrue because of inadequate primary sleep periods, typically 

nighttime sleep (Gertler & Viale, 2007; Gertler & DiFiore, 2009). The results of an examination 

of primary sleep using a 2 (type of day) × 3 (schedule) mixed-model ANOVA were similar to the 

daily sleep results. There was no overall effect of schedule on primary sleep, F(2, 232) = 2.73, p

= 0.07. The main effect of type of day on primary sleep demonstrated that rest day sleep periods 

were longer than workday sleep periods, F(1, 232) = 38.25, p < 0.001. The length of primary 

sleep on workdays and rest days varied based on the type of schedule as evidenced by the 

significant interaction between the two factors, F(2, 232) = 7.27, p < 0.01. A different pattern 

emerged for primary sleep (compared with daily sleep) as revealed by a simple effects analysis 

of the interaction indicating that both straight thru and split assignment employees had longer 

primary sleep periods on rest days than workdays, F(1, 158) = 42.81, p < 0.001 and F(1, 35) = 

48.57, p < 0.001, respectively. The length of primary sleep on workdays and rest days was not 

significantly different for extra board employees, F(1, 39) = 0.09, p = 0.76. Figure 11 shows a 

bar chart of the primary sleep means by schedule and type of day. 
30

Table 10. Sleep by Type of Day and Work Schedule 

Type of 

Day 

Work 

Schedule Mean Median 

Standard 

Deviation 1st Quartile 3rd Quartile 

Daily Sleep 

Workday 

Straight 

thru 

7:07 7:09 0:59 6:22 7:49 

Split 7:26 7:19 1:01 6:57 7:49 

Extra board 7:17 7:22 0:49 6:43 8:01 

Rest Day 

Straight 

thru 

7:50 7:44 1:24 7:00 8:39 

Split 7:43 7:32 0:59 7:03 8:29 

Extra board 7:19 7:19 1:41 6:40 8:20 

Primary Sleep 

Workday 

Straight 

thru 

6:53 6:59 1:04 6:11 7:42 

Split 6:16 6:12 0:49 5:47 6:54 

Extra board 6:59 7:01 0:53 6:23 7:42 

Rest Day 

Straight 

thru 

7:41 7:36 1:51 6:55 8:30 

Split 7:37 7:23 1:05 6:57 8:29 

Extra board 7:03 7:11 1:37 6:21 8:18 

Number of Daily Sleep Periods 

Workday 

Straight 

thru 

1.2 1 .32 1.0 1.2 

Split 1.7 1.8 .39 1.4 2.0 

Extra board 1.2 1.0 .29 1.0 1.3 

Rest Day 

Straight 

thru 

1.1 1.0 .23 1.0 1.0 

Split 1.1 1.0 .19 1.0 1.0 

Extra board 1.1 1.0 .21 1.0 1.2 

Given that split assignment employees get comparable amounts of daily sleep on workdays and 

rest days, but significantly less primary sleep on workdays suggests that these employees engage 

in supplementary sleep on workdays. Examining the average daily number of sleep periods for 

workdays and rest days confirmed this hypothesis. A 2 (type of day) × 3 (schedule) mixed-
31

model ANOVA revealed significant main effects for type of day and schedule, F(1, 232) = 

91.36, p < 0.001 and F(2, 232) = 13.19, p < 0.001, respectively, as well as a significant 

interaction, F(2, 232) = 40.08, p < 0.001. These results indicate that respondents, in general, had 

more sleep periods on workdays (ݔҧ = 1.34) than rest days (ݔҧ = 1.10), and split assignment 

workers had more sleep periods (ݔҧ = 1.36), in general, than either straight thru (ݔҧ = 1.14) or extra 

board workers (ݔҧ = 1.15). A simple effects analysis of the interaction showed that the average 

number of workday sleep periods exceeded rest day sleep periods for both straight thru, F(1, 

158) = 10.304, p < 0.05, and split assignment employees, F(1, 35) = 78.27, p < 0.001; however, 

the mean difference was larger for split assignments (mean difference, 0.58) than for straight thru 

schedules (mean difference, 0.075). There was no significant difference between workday and 

rest day sleep periods for the extra board schedule, F(1, 39) = 2.225, p = 0.14. 

The sleep results, in general, indicate that there is no difference in daily sleep among the three 

types of schedules, although there are differences among the types of schedules with respect to 

primary sleep and the average number of daily sleep periods. Straight thru workers tend to sleep 

longer on rest days, suggesting they make up for any sleep deficits that occur during workdays. 

Split assignment employees have comparable daily sleep on workdays and rest days. Their 

primary sleep is less on workdays than rest days; however, they tend to have more sleep periods 

on workdays than the other two schedule types, suggesting they make up for any workday sleep 

deficits by napping on workdays. Extra board employees tend to have comparable workday and 

rest day sleep regardless of sleep metric (daily, primary, or sleep periods). This latter finding is 

consistent with a previous study that examined extra board sleep schedules (Gertler & DiFiore, 

2009). The authors speculated that because extra board employees are not able to predict their 

rest days because of the variability of scheduling, their sleep patterns are indistinguishable on 

rest days and workdays. 
32

7:07

7:50

7:26

7:43

7:17 7:19

6:00

7:00

8:00

Workday Rest Day

Mean Daily Sleep (h:m)

Type of Day

Straight thru Split Extra board

Main Effect Schedule F(2,232) = 0.83, p = 0.44

Main Effect Type of Day F(1,232) = 8.30, p < 0.01

Interaction Schedule x Type of Day F(2,232) = 4.00, p < 0.05

Figure 10. Total Daily Sleep by Type of Day and Work Schedule 
33

6:53

7:41

6:16

7:37

6:59 7:03

6:00

7:00

8:00

Workday Rest Day

Mean Daily Sleep (h:m)

Type of Day

Straight thru Split Extra board

Main Effect Schedule F(2,232) = 2.73, p = 0.07

Main Effect Type of Day F(1,232) = 38.25, p < 0.001

Interaction Schedule x Type of Day F(2,232) = 7.27, p < 0.01

Figure 11. Primary Sleep by Type of Day and Work Schedule 

3.5.2 Comparison with Other Adult Populations 

NSF’s 2008 Sleep in America Poll reports nighttime sleep for U.S. working adults as total daily 

sleep time. Because people with daytime jobs usually get their daily sleep at night, comparison 

of passenger T&E worker daily sleep with the NSF data is reasonable. Data from the NSF 

survey show that as a group, the sleep pattern for passenger T&E workers is better in some 

respects than that of U.S. working adults. Forty-six percent of U.S. working adults get less than 

7 h of sleep in comparison with 41 percent of passenger T&E workers. Also, 40 percent of 

passenger T&E workers get from 7 to less than 8 h, whereas 33 percent of U.S. working adults 

average this amount of sleep on workdays (see Figure 12). 

3.5.3 Supplementary Sleep 

Employees found the opportunity for supplementary sleep during work breaks and interim 

release. The background survey included a question regarding sleeping arrangements when at an 

away-from-home terminal or point-of-interim release. Of the 98 individuals who answered this 

question, over two-thirds indicated that their employer provides them with a quiet room and 22 

percent indicated that their employer provided sleep accommodations. A few reported that their 

employer does not provide either sleep/rest accommodations or per diem allowance, whereas the 

majority have access to either company-paid accommodations or a quiet room. 
34

11

30

40

16

4

17

29

33

19

2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Less than 6 6 to less than 7 7 to less than 8 8 to less than 9 9 or more

Percent

Average Daily Sleep (h) on Workdays

Passenger T&E

U.S. Adults

Figure 12. Daily Sleep on Workdays Compared with U.S. Working Adults 

Only 10 percent of the breaks overlapped with sleep. When sleep overlapped with break, it 

occupied over half (54 percent) of the break time. In contrast to the break periods, on average, 

nearly two-thirds (65 percent) of the interim release periods overlapped with sleep, and nearly 80 

percent of these sleep periods took place away from home. Over one-third (34 percent) of 

interim release was spent sleeping. 

3.5.4 Sleep Quality 

Participants rated the quality of their primary sleep period on a Likert scale from 1 to 5. Lower 

ratings indicate poorer sleep quality. Table 11 lists the average sleep quality ratings for 

participants by type of schedule. One-way between subjects ANOVAs showed that sleep quality 

varied significantly by schedule group (see Table 11). Posthoc Scheffé tests showed that the 

extra board group rated its sleep higher than the straight thru group for each quality category (p < 

0.05); they rated their sleep higher than the split assignment group for the “ease of arising,” 

“length of sleep,” “quality of sleep,” and “alertness upon arising” categories. The extra board 

group is younger than either of the other two groups, which may explain the higher sleep quality 

ratings. 

Posthoc Sheffé tests revealed no significant differences between the straight thru and split 

assignment groups. 
35

Table 11. Average Sleep Quality Ratings by Type of Schedule 

Sleep Rating Straight thru Split Extra Board Statistical Test 

Primary sleep duration (h:min) 7:13 6:40 7:00 F(2, 232) = 2.733, p = 0.067 

Ease of falling asleep 4.10 4.13 4.25 F(2, 3,533) = 5.21, p < 0.01 

Ease of arising 3.61 3.63 3.86 F(2, 3,527) = 12.40, p < 0.001 

Length of sleep 3.72 3.69 3.86 F(2, 3,529) = 5.10, p < 0.01 

Quality of sleep 3.83 3.86 3.96 F(2, 3,530) = 4.49, p < 0.05 

Alertness upon arising 3.79 3.81 4.04 F(2, 3,530) = 15.25, p < 0.001 

3.5.5 Sleep Quality and Sleep Disorders 

Table 12 presents the average sleep quality ratings for respondents with and without sleep 

disorders. One-way between subjects ANOVAs with three levels (untreated sleep disorder, 

treated sleep disorder, and no sleep disorder) calculated for each sleep quality rating resulted in 

significant differences for ease of falling asleep, ease of arising, and quality of sleep. Individuals 

without sleep disorders had higher sleep ratings than individuals with treated sleep disorders. 

The results for untreated sleep disorders are not meaningful given a small n. 

Table 12. Sleep Quality Ratings for Respondents with and without Sleep Disorders 

Sleep Rating 

Untreated 

Sleep 

Disorder 

(n = 3) 

Treated Sleep 

Disorder 

(n = 14) 

No Sleep 

Disorder 

(n = 239) Statistical Test 

Ease of falling asleep 5.0 3.65 4.15 F(2, 3,381) = 32.107, p <0.001 

Ease of arising 5.0 3.30 3.66 F(2, 3,375) = 23.486, p<0.001 

Length of sleep 4.0 3.67 3.73 F(2, 3,377) = 0.924, p = 0.397 

Quality of sleep 3.86 3.68 3.87 F(2, 3,378) = 23.486, p <0.05 

Alertness upon awakening 3.86 3.80 3.82 F(2, 3,578) = 0.063, p = 0.939 

3.5.6 Sleep Characteristics Summary 

The results show that straight thru, split assignment, and extra board employees get comparable 

amounts of daily sleep but have different sleep strategies to achieve the near equality. Straight 

thru workers sleep longer on rest days than on workdays. Split assignment workers supplement 

their sleep on workdays with naps. Extra board workers equally distribute their sleep between 

workdays and rest days, most likely because these workers are not able to predict when they will 

have a rest day. When compared with U.S. working adults, the passenger T&E workers in some 

instances obtain more sleep than the U.S. adult working population. Passenger T&E workers 

supplement their sleep during work breaks and periods of interim release. Ten percent of breaks 

overlapped with sleep, whereas 65 percent of interim release periods overlapped with sleep. 

Extra board workers rated their sleep quality higher, in general, than workers with straight thru 

or split assignments. 
36

3.6 Alertness 

Through a question on the background survey, passenger T&E workers rated their overall 

alertness at work. All schedule groups reported being alert either frequently or always a majority 

of their time at work. The differences are not statistically significant, χ

2

(6, N = 256) = 8.232, p = 

0.22. 

Table 13. Alertness at Work by Type of Schedule (percent) 

Alert at work? Straight thru Split Extra Board 

Never 0.6 2.4 2.4 

Occasionally 15.6 28.6 12.2 

Frequently 67.1 50.0 73.2 

Always 16.8 19.0 12.2 

Study participants rated their alertness at the start and end of each work period and recorded this 

rating in their daily log. A 2 (start and end rating) × 3 (schedule) mixed-model ANOVA 

revealed significant differences between ratings for the start and end of work, F(1, 2,372) = 

56.93, p < 0.001, as well as differences among the three schedule types, F(2, 2,372) = 10.73, p < 

0.001. The pattern of start and end of work ratings also varied based on the type of schedule as 

revealed by the significant interaction between these two levels, F(2, 2,372) = 34.56, p < 0.001. 

A simple effects analysis of the interaction showed that ratings of alertness declined from the 

start to the end of work for straight thru and extra board workers, F(1, 1618) = 216.89, p < 0.001 

and F(1, 344) = 35.44, p < 0.001. End of work alertness ratings were higher than the start of 

work alertness ratings for split assignment workers; however, this trend was nonsignificant, 

F(1, 410) = 3.05, p = 0.08. 

3.7 Effectiveness 

The Sleep, Activity, Fatigue, and Task Effectiveness (SAFTE) Model is a biomathematical 

model for predicting fatigue based on sleep schedule. The SAFTE algorithm is incorporated in 

the Fatigue Avoidance Scheduling Tool (FAST), a software tool for analyzing work schedules 

(Hursh, Balkin, Miller, & Eddy, 2004) and predicting the individual’s effectiveness or lack of 

fatigue during the work period. The FASTBatch software provides the capability to analyze 

multiple schedules in one batch analysis. 

This analysis used the FASTBatch software tool to compute effectiveness. FASTBatch predicts 

effectiveness at work based on the sleep pattern and the number of hours since awakening. The 

FAST effectiveness metric is a score based on predicted speed on a psychomotor vigilance test. 

FAST computes effectiveness as the percentage of the performance of the average well-rested 

daytime worker. The FASTBatch results, provided in a Microsoft Access database, include an 

effectiveness score for each half hour of work time. If these results for all work periods and all 

individuals in a specified group are combined, it is possible to create a cumulative distribution of 

the percentage of work time spent at or below specified efficiency levels (see Figure 13). Of 

particular interest is the time spent working at or below 70 percent efficiency. This efficiency 

level corresponds to a reaction time that is 1.4 times that of a well-rested person, cognitive 
37

throughput that is 81 percent of a well-rested individual, and five times the likelihood of a lapse 

in attention relative to a well-rested person. 

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100+

Cumulative Proportion

Effectiveness

Straight Thru Split Shift Extraboard RSIA HOS Violators

Figure 13. On-the-Job Effectiveness by Work Schedule 

A one-way between subjects ANOVA calculated for the three types of schedule showed that the 

groups were significantly different from one another, F(2, 238) = 3.17, p < 0.05. A posthoc 

Scheffé test indicated that the average effectiveness of the split assignment group was 

significantly greater than the effectiveness of the straight thru group. As Figure 13 indicates, 

none of the passenger T&E schedule groups worked at or below an effectiveness level of 70, 

more than 2.5 percent of their work time. Both the straight thru group and the 46 individuals 

who would violate the new freight HOS limits for rest periods following consecutive days of 

work, if those limits were applied to them, had 2.5 percent of their work time at or below that 

level. The other groups had less time at or below this effectiveness level. The majority, over 90 

percent, of the 240 people for whom there were complete 2-week work schedules had no work 

time at 70 or below. There were nine individuals who had more than 2 percent of their work 

time at 70 or below, including one individual with nearly 15 percent in that range. 

An examination of the effectiveness scores at the start and the end of a work period as a function 

of consecutive days on the job yielded two significant negative correlations. Effectiveness at 

both the beginning and end of a work assignment decreases as the number of consecutive days 

on the job increases, r(2650) = –0.154, p < 0.001 and r(2650) = –0.106, p < 0.001, respectively. 
38

3.8 Textual Data 

The daily log included space for participants to record any comments regarding their sleep and 

work periods each day. This section presents an overview of participants’ comments on their 

sleep and work experiences throughout the 2 weeks of the study. 

Although not a requirement for participation, commenting on sleep and work experiences 

presented participants with the opportunity to explain parts of their day. Not all participants 

chose to record daily comments. As such, these data are not statistically meaningful. However, 

the content of the participants’ comments does provide valuable qualitative information 

regarding common themes in the work and personal lives of T&E employees. The following 

topics emerged from a review of the log book comments: 

1. Alertness/Fatigue 

2. Breaks 

3. Management 

4. Naps 

5. Personal Issues (family, leisure activities) 

6. Sleep 

7. Stress 

8. Travel 

9. Work Schedule 

Table 14 lists the keywords that were the basis for each topic area search. 

These categories were not mutually exclusive because a single comment may have contained 

keywords of multiple topic areas. As a result, comments fell into more than one category. For 

example, a comment may have been counted in both the stress and work schedule categories 

because the comment contained the keywords “stress” and “schedule.” The most frequently 

mentioned topics were sleep, work schedule, personal issues, and alertness/fatigue. The high 

frequency of the keyword “nap” (associated with the sleep topic) warranted including a separate 

topic category for this item. Table 15 presents more detailed results of keyword searches. 

The comments complement the quantitative survey results by exemplifying the personal effects 

of work or sleep patterns present in the survey data. For example, people working split 

assignments frequently commented that their schedule allowed them to nap during interim 

release and that this restored their alertness. Similarly, those working at night commented on 

their problems getting restorative rest and difficulties sleeping during the day. In this way, the 

comments provide a more complete picture of passenger T&E employees’ concerns regarding 

the effects of job-related fatigue. 

The summaries below highlight the common themes raised by the respondents with regard to 

each topic. Selected illustrative quotes follow the summaries. 
39

Table 14. Keywords Used for Each Topic Area Search 

Topic Keywords 

Alertness (mental)/Fatigue (physical) Alert*, atten*, awake, aware*, energy, exhaust*, 

fatigue*, prepared, sleepy, tired, vigilant, watchful, 

weak*, weary 

Breaks Break 

Management Administration, boss, chief, company, control, 

inadequate, manage*, organization, policy, rule*, staff, 

supervis* 

Naps Nap 

Personal Issues (family, etc.) Baby, child*, daughter, domestic, family, father, 

girlfriend, grand*, husband, in-law, kid*, mother, 

personal, private, relative*, son, wife 

Sleep (including location) Accommodation*, away from home, bed, hotel, 

lodging, motel, nois*, quarters rest, room*, sleep* 

Stress Anx*, pressure, strain, stress*, tense, worr* 

Travel Car, commute, driv*, drove, travel, truck, van 

Work Schedule Call time, deadhead, extra*, hours, limbo, overtime, 

relief, respond, rest day, schedul*, time off, interim 

release 

Note: The symbol “*” indicates that all words starting with this combination of letters were identified. For 

example, searching for “stress*” would result in all words starting with s-t-r-e-s-s including any ending (such as 

stressful, stressor, etc.). 

Alertness/Fatigue 

The majority of comments described the participants’ alertness level. Participants that listed 

themselves as alert frequently reported that they were well rested. Trouble sleeping, lack of 

sufficient breaks between shifts, long commutes, and work schedules (either too long or frequent 

schedule changes) were cited as some of the common causes of lack of alertness. Several 

individuals indicated that they used coffee or naps to help boost their alertness level. The 

following quotes are examples of some of the respondents’ comments related to alertness. 

 “At 1100 I listed my alertness as a 2 but was very tired. Not falling asleep, just tired and 

achy. Change of hours on my fifth start throws your system off.” 

 “Once again I have no significant break. As week drags on, my alertness decreases.” 

 “Again even when it’s hard to get up a cup of coffee can give me an alert feeling. I rely 

heavily on coffee.” 
40

Table 15. Frequency of Comments by Topic Area 

Topic Frequency 

Sleep 586 

Work Schedule 435 

Personal Issues 208 

Alertness/Fatigue 167 

Naps 103 

Travel 91 

Breaks 83 

Stress 32 

Management 23 

Total 1,728 

Breaks 

Many of the comments merely stated the times and duration of the breaks. Several respondents, 

however, mentioned that they were not able to take a break during work. Some who did take 

breaks commented that they were not able to relax during their break time because of a lack of 

facilities where they could relax. Others commented on the restorative value of their breaks. 

Respondents who were able to return home during their break or interim release time reported 

that they were well rested when returning to work. 

 “My break time is spent at home which helps to make me more relaxed. It is the first 

time in 25 years that I went home layover. My break is usually spent at work where it is 

loud and noisy and there is no place to relax.” 

 “I'm currently working a yard switching job and our work and breaks vary. Our lunch 

breaks vary also. Sometimes we don’t get any at all. If there are breakdowns and 

emergencies, our job is posted to work Mon.–Fri., 06:00–16.” 

 “13+ hour assignment was not a problem when coupled with a 4+ hour break, so long as 

rest facilities are provided.” 

 “Once again I make it thru a week. These no break jobs...are a killer! Someone [is] 

going to get in an accident from lack of sleep/break. You are at the throttle all day long.” 

 “I work a regular job and have a pretty regular schedule. I am never really sleepy when I 

am running the train but if I don't get a 15–20 min nap on one of my breaks I will feel it 

in the evening.” 

 “Caught some sleep in crew room. This yard does not have a quiet area so passenger 

crews sign up in same room. There are always people coming in and out.” 
41

Management 

There were few comments focused on management. These comments tended to focus on 

policies regarding the work schedule and breaks, but one individual commented on the cab 

environment. 

 “No break again. Company knows and never does anything about it.” 

 “Operating cab of my train substandard. Seat is painful to sit in. Uniform is very 

uncomfortable. These issues have been brought up to company but promptly ignored.” 

Naps 

Many individuals took naps during their breaks or during downtimes. Almost all reported that 

the naps made them feel rested and more alert. Many respondents also mentioned the location of 

their naps. Examples include maintenance facilities, storage rooms, and deadhead train. Two 

respondents stated that they took naps against company rules. 

 “Was tired at work, napped during break.” 

 “Took a small nap in quiet room at maintenance facility before second half of day.” 

 “Felt a little groggy upon rising but shower and coffee got me going. Nap 11:00–12:00 

before afternoon run.” 

 “I couldn’t sleep. I felt tired just I just could fall asleep. I got up and drank 2 cups of 

coffee felt alert when I got to work. Took a very good nap on the break.” 

 “It’s Monday and Mondays are the hardest days of the week. I am so tired on Mondays! 

Although after my 2.5 hr nap I usually feel great. My afternoon is always the time when 

I feel energized and well rested.” 

 “Hard sleeping from changing shifts from p.m. to a.m. Nap at lunch really helps.” 

 “Rest facility is common rooms in basement of train station. No quiet or individual 

rooms. Mostly old broken recliners—quality of rest on interim release is poor.” 

Personal Issues 

Several respondents stated that personal commitments or concerns affect their sleep, leading to 

greater stress or fatigue at work. Many of the other comments were explanations of how the 

individual spent his or her personal day. Most of these comments stated that the individuals 

spent the day with their families. 

 “With 3 kids age 6, 4 and 23 months a good night’s sleep is currently somewhat 

inconsistent. My wife always tries to let me sleep but obviously is difficult at times. 

Combined with my early schedule, power naps are a must for me and they truly help. I 

don’t like coffee but tea and diet sodas are a help too. I’ve worked early morning runs 

for years so I'm accustomed to it now.” 

 “This is my toughest day because I am used to falling asleep at 1–2 a.m. from working 

the weekend, but I must get to bed earlier and wake up earlier so I can drive my kids to 

school. The fact that I work a relief job with different end times takes its toll at the end 

of the week.” 

 “Second assigned day off. Not restful. Unable to sleep past 6:00. Unable to relax due to 

work life concerns and unresolved personal matters delayed by workplace concerns. 

Physically uncomfortable with joint pain and germ symptoms.” 
42

 “I would say that overall I do get enough rest. The times that I don’t get enough typically 

are because of personal issues. Those personal issues are due to having young kids.” 

Sleep 

Most comments relayed what time the respondent went to sleep. Several individuals did 

comment on how they have trouble sleeping because of work-related or personal stress and 

commitments. Many individuals felt that they did not receive enough sleep and took power naps 

to help alleviate their sleep deficit. 

 “I notice that as the week progresses I am prone to be more tired as my shift goes on. 

Thus I fall asleep faster when I get home and sleep later if conditions allow.” 

 “I am a morning person by nature. When I work late and go to bed late, I still wake up 

early. Just can’t sleep even though I am still tired. Function well on early jobs even 

though tired. Tired on late jobs even though rested.” 

 “Today is my scheduled day off. I am always available for overtime. The day was solely 

spent on personal time. Day 5 I had a great night sleep and plenty of rest. Knowing you 

do not have to work in the morning makes a great difference.” 

 “The length of time on duty has less to do with fatigue than the constant change of sleep 

pattern. Going from a.m. to p.m. shifts causes more problems than all the other factors 

combined.” 

Stress 

Most respondents reported they felt little or no stress when they had a “quiet day.” Individuals 

who did report stressful days attributed the stress mostly to adverse weather conditions and their 

work commute, but some reported work-related stress. 

 “Impending assignment changes creating tension - stress - lack of focus.” 

 “Roads were a little icy. Driving to work in the winter raises the stress level when the 

weather is bad.” 

 “Anxiety about work related issues is constant.” 

Travel 

The majority of individuals who stated that they had a long commute to work reported higher 

levels of stress and lack of sleep. Weather patterns significantly impacted many of the 

respondents’ commutes to work. A few respondents stated that they had trouble sleeping 

because they stayed at hotels because of work travel. 

 “The commute to and from work was a nightmare. Had to work 2 hours late to make up 

our usual trains. Very little time for lunch - I’m exhausted.” 

 “It is an advantage residing close to work. With my short commute I am able to 

maximize my personal time. In the morning I felt ease getting up. I felt well rested and 

received enough rest. As indicated below I am very alert.” 

Work Schedule 

Over a hundred of the comments were “relief day” and many of the other comments simply 

recounted the number of hours they slept or worked in a day. Some individuals complained that 
43

their work schedule contributed to their lack of sleep yet others commented on how their work 

assignment was regular and not fatiguing. 

 “My hours are regular because I have 32 years service and hold a regular assignment with 

weekends off. Co-workers with less seniority face much more difficult sleep patterns. I 

know from many years on extra list.” 

 “Extremely difficult work week! Trouble focusing at time due to fatigue from schedule 

change. Slowly adjusting. Exercised 13:00–15:00, napped 16–17. Awoke confused, 

extremely tired. Struggled to finish the workday! Our morale level and work conditions 

overall are contributing to stress and fatigue at work!” 

 “Working [an] assignment which has very little break time in between trains. Just 

enough time to remit cash taken cutting tickets. Not enough time to take care of personal 

business, eating or bathroom if I have to eat on train or use bathroom on train.” 

 “The railroad has no business releasing employees at 1217am and returning to work at 

0930 the next morning! 8 hours ‘rest’ is wrong. The railroad doesn’t consider how long 

employees take to get home and get to bed. Many employees have much longer 

commutes home than me and I only got 4 hours sleep! The 8 hour ‘rest’ period should be 

abolished. A minimum of 10 hours between shifts should be the rule. A rested employee 

is an alert employee!” 

 “On our extra list you can call and be told you are out with 3 for the morning. Next thing 

you know they call you at 2 a.m. This makes getting enough sleep tough. You take the 

info given by the crew caller, go to bed according to that info and end up with 2 or 3 

hours of sleep making the workday tough to say the least.” 

 “I have been on the assignment for over 6.5 years now. At 59 years of age I have never 

felt it overbearing or tiring. The routine of the assignment is to my liking. I get all of the 

rest I require and am off most of the day to attend to my needs. I have never felt fatigued 

on any other issues that may have affected my alertness. After almost 39 years of 

railroading this assignment is a gift compared to working a freight pool.” 
44

4. Findings and Recommendations 

Analysis of the data from this study provides some insights into the demographics of the U.S. 

railroad T&E worker population in passenger service as well as their work schedules and sleep 

patterns. The data came from a random sample of passenger T&E workers who are members of 

either the BLET or the UTU. Nevertheless, the results are representative of the U.S. railroad 

industry’s passenger T&E populations at the time of the survey, because the vast majority of the 

Nation’s railroad employees in this segment of the industry are represented by these two labor 

organizations. It is reasonable to assume that the work schedules and sleep patterns of passenger 

T&E employees who are either nonunion or are represented by another labor organization are 

similar to the study populations because of the limitations of the HOS Law. 

4.1 Key Study Findings 

The following subsections highlight the key study findings with regard to worker health, work 

schedules, sleep, and alertness. 

4.1.1 Passenger T&E Worker Health 

Self-ratings of overall health from passenger T&E employees are higher than those of the U.S. 

workforce in general. This may be due to the availability of health insurance that railroad 

employees have. In spite of this, T&E employees average 4.2 lost workdays as a result of 

sickness in contrast with 3.6 d for all adults and 3.0 d for adult males. The reason for this 

difference is not apparent. The availability of paid sick time for passenger service employees is 

a possible explanation. 

The reported incidence of sleep apnea among this population does not differ from that among 

U.S. working adults. This is somewhat surprising because the job of a locomotive engineer is a 

sedentary one, predisposing the individual to weight gain, which increases the risk of developing 

sleep apnea. 

Many resources, such as TCRP Report 81, Toolbox for Transit Operator Fatigue and

Commercial Transportation Operator Fatigue Management Reference, exist. In spite of this, 

nearly half of the study participants reported never receiving any type of fatigue education. The 

opportunity exists for the industry to expand its education efforts on this important subject. A 

fatigue education program should be an integral part of a passenger rail operator’s overall fatigue 

risk management plan. 

4.1.2 Work Schedules 

During the study period of 14 d, this group of railroad employees worked an average of 86:41 

(h:min) with those on split assignments averaging 78:40 and the straight thru group 90:05. A 

quarter worked 101:08 or more than 2 d of overtime during the period. The median number of 

work starts overall was 10. Overall, 46 individuals (17 percent of those providing complete 

work histories) had work schedules that would violate the new HOS limitations regarding work 

following consecutive days worked for freight operations if they applied to passenger T&E 

workers. (This analysis did not include interim release when identifying consecutive starts.) 

Three, or 1 percent, would violate the 276-hour limit if it applied. Applying the freight HOS 
45

limitations to T&E employees in passenger operations would be problematic for the passenger 

service operators. 

4.1.3 Effectiveness and Alertness 

Analysis of the log book data with the FAST tool predicted that passenger T&E employees are 

working below an acceptable effectiveness level less than 3 percent of the time. Those on 

straight thru assignments and the 46 individuals who would have violated the RSIA HOS rest 

day limits for freight T&E workers, if applicable, had 2.5 percent of their work time at that level. 

Those on split assignments never went below a FAST effectiveness level of 70, and those on the 

extra board exceeded acceptable effectiveness during 1 percent of their work time. Subjective 

alertness ratings from the participants indicate that alertness declines over the workday for 

straight thru and extra board assignments but not for split assignments, probably because those 

on split assignments take advantage of the midday break to supplement their nighttime sleep. 

4.1.4 Sleep 

As a group, passenger T&E employees sleep more on workdays than U.S. working adults, but 

there are differences based on work schedule. Those working split assignments sleep more on 

workdays than their counterparts with different schedules, but this group has more daily sleep 

periods and a shorter primary sleep period, indicating that they take advantage of their midday 

break to supplement their nighttime sleep. Those working extra board schedules reported the 

highest sleep quality ratings, but this may be because this is the youngest group. 

4.2 Recommendations for Improvements in Study Procedures 

This was the fifth FRA-sponsored study of work schedules and sleep patterns of a group of 

railroad workers. Each successive study has led to improvements in the subsequent one in terms 

of study design as well as procedures for coding and analysis of the data. The experiences of the 

passenger T&E study suggest only one possible improvement for future studies of this 

population. 

The background survey contained a section where the participant was to indicate his or her 

nominal schedule. This is the days and times that the individual must be on duty. A similar 

section was a part of the earlier studies and participants filled it out as intended. For some 

reason, this population did not understand what information to provide, and many filled it out 

incorrectly. As a result, the researchers were unable to report the nominal work hours for this 

population. 

4.3 Recommendations for Additional Research 

The results of the present study, as well as the four earlier studies, provide a baseline for 

comparison after the new HOS regulations for passenger T&E workers or new Section 21103 

takes effect instead for passenger T&E workers. A study, using similar methodology, could be 

conducted several years after the changes are implemented. Comparison of the results of a 

subsequent study with those presented here will provide an indication of the success of the 

measures in reducing fatigue in the railroad industry. 
46

5. References 

Aumann, K., & Galinsky, E. (2009). The state of health in the american workforce: Does 

having an effective workplace matter? Retrieved March 2011 from 

http://www.familiesandwork.org/site/support/090928-healthpresentation.pdf 

Barnes-Farrell, J., & Piotrowski, M. (1989). Workers’ perceptions of discrepancies between 

chronological age and personal age: You’re only as old as you feel. Psychology and 

Aging, 4(3), 376–377. 

Barnes-Farrell, J., & Piotrowski, M. (1991). Discrepancies between chronological age and 

personal age as a reflection of unrelieved worker stress. Work and Stress, 5(3), 177–187. 

Gertler, J., & DiFiore, A. (2009). Work schedules and sleep patterns of railroad train and 

engine service workers (No. DOT/FRA/ORD-09/22). Washington, DC: Federal 

Railroad Administration. Available at 

http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/Research/ord0922.pdf.

Gertler, J., & Viale, A. (2006a). Work schedules and sleep patterns of railroad maintenance of 

way workers (No. DOT/FRA/ORD-06/25). Washington, DC: Federal Railroad 

Administration. Available at http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/Research/ord0625.pdf.

Gertler, J., & Viale, A. (2006b). Work schedules and sleep patterns of railroad signalmen (No. 

DOT/FRA/ORD-06/19). Washington, DC: Federal Railroad Administration. Available 

at http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/Research/ord0619.pdf. 

Gertler, J., & Viale, A. (2007). Work schedules and sleep patterns of railroad dispatchers (No. 

DOT/FRA/ORD-07/11). Washington, DC: Federal Railroad Administration. Available 

at http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/Research/ord0711.pdf. 

Hours of service laws, 49 U.S.C. §§ 21101-21109, 21303, and uncodified provisions of the Rail 

Safety Improvement Act of 2008, i.e., § 108(e) and (g). 

Hursh, S., Balkin, T., Miller, J., & Eddy, D. (2004). The fatigue avoidance scheduling tool: 

Modeling to minimize the effects of fatigue on cognitive performance. SAE 

Transactions, 113(1), 111–119. 

Levy, P. S., & Lemeshow, S. (1999). Sampling of Populations. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 

Inc. 

McCallum, H., Sanquist, T., Mitler, M., & Krueger, G. (2003). Commercial transporatation 

operator fatigue management reference. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Transportation. Retrieved March 1, 2011 from http://hfcc.dot.gov/ofm/docs/fmr07-

03.doc. 

National Sleep Foundation. (2002). Sleep problems? Watch the caffeine, says the National Sleep 

Foundation. Retrieved March 11, 2011, from 

http://www.sleepfoundation.org/article/sleep-topics/caffeine-and-sleep 

Public Law No. 103-272, 108 Stat. 745-1401 (1994). 

Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-432, Div. A; 122 Stat. 4848-4906 (2008) 

(codified in part in scattered sections of 49 U.S.C. ch. 201-213). 
47

Regulations of the Office of the Secretary of Transportation, Organization and Delegation of 

Powers and Duties, § 1.49(d); 49 C.F.R. § 1.49(d), (oo) (2010). 

U.S. Census Bureau. (2009). America’s Families and Living Arrangements: 2008. Retrieved 

September 15, 2010 from http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/hhfam/cps2008.html.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2009). Summary Health statistics for U.S. 

Adults: National Heath Interview Survey, 2009. Retrieved October 10, 2010 from 

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhis/nhis_series.htm.

Van Cauter, E., Leproult, R., & Plat, L. (2000). Age-related changes in slow wave sleep and 

REM sleep and relationship with growth hormone and cortisol levels in healthy men. 

JAMA, 284(7), 861–868. 

Webb, W. B. (1992). Sleep, the Gentle Tyrant. Bolton: Anker Publishing, p. 72. 

Young, T., Palta, M., Dempsey, J., Skatrud, J., Weber, S., & Badr, S. (1993). The occurrence of 

sleep-disordered breathing among middle-aged adults. New England Journal of 

Medicine, 328(17), 1230–1235. 

49 U.S.C. § 103(g) (2010) (which was originally in § 6 of the Department of Transportation Act, 

Pub. L. No. 89-670, 80 Stat. 931-950 (1966)). 
48

Appendix. 

Survey Materials 

This appendix contains copies of the following survey materials: 

 Cover letters from the BLET and UT Presidents 

 Instructions to participants 

 T&E Passenger Service Employee Daily Log (1 day) 

 T&E Passenger Service Employee Background Survey 
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78

Glossary 

convenience sample – a sample from a population that is selected because it is readily available 

and convenient. Generalizations about the population cannot be made using data from a 

convenience sample. 

extra board – a list of employees who fill in when regularly scheduled employees are not 

available to work 

interim release – a period of 4 consecutive h or more between two on-duty periods at a 

designated terminal. 

limbo time – time that is neither on duty nor off duty. It includes time awaiting deadhead 

transportation to the point of final release and time in deadhead transportation to the point of 

final release. 

split assignment – a work assignment consisting of two work periods separated by a period of 

interim release. 

straight thru assignment – a continuous work assignment that does not involve interim release.

statistical sample – a sample from a population that was selected in a way to assure that it is 

representative of the entire population and that conclusions about the entire population can be 

drawn from the sample data. 
79

Abbreviations and Acronyms 

ANOVA analysis of variance 

BLET Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen 

d day(s) 

FAST Fatigue Avoidance Scheduling Tool 

FRA Federal Railroad Administration 

h hour(s) 

HOS Hours of Service 

in inch(es) 

min minute(s) 

OMB U.S. Office of Management and Budget 

PVT psychomotor vigilance test 

RSIA Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 

SAFTE Sleep, Activity, Fatigue, and Task Effectiveness 

T&E train and engine service 

UTU United Transportation Union 

yr year