You mean the O-Train's Certificate of Fitness?
https://otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/ruling/745-r-2000
Looking for the operating regs, but the details from this will really help the search. Gov't search engines are very unintuitive compared to Google, so having the exact name and spelling of the org is essential to finding regs...*if they're published*! I had to go through US websites to find the 'waiver' given to Quebec North Shore and Labrador Railway for one person operation at the time of the Lac Magentic disaster. US regulators (NTSB to be exact) had a long report with a chapter using the QNS&L as a case discussion on One Person Operation in view of Amtrak doing same. The result was they recommended continuing One Engineer Operation, but three other passenger train crew be present on the train. The point is that TC don't make info available for public viewing. It would spoil their private party.
If you do trip across that, please post, and it can be used as a template if need be for others to plan their application, let alone see who is 'chosen' and who isn't.
Edit to Add: A quick Google shows the US NTSB Report using the QNS&L for two pages as a model study:
Rear-End Collision of National Railroad
Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) Train P286
with CSXT Freight Train Q620 on the CSX
Railroad at Syracuse, New York
February 5, 2001
[...]Currently in Canada, only the QNS&L Railway has been approved for lone-engineer operation; however, Transport Canada has indicated it will consider lone-engineer operation on a waiver basis for other Canadian railroads as long as certain conditions are met. [...]
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/RAR0104.pdf Pg 19-21
Chilling reading in retrospect, but the point is that *even reverse Googling this* I can find no on-line publication either TC or the source of this quote, the CTSB, even with the document number. I'll try again, but it illustrates how difficult it is to find Operating Procedures, especially in light of TC granting *unique* "waivers" (as stated by the NTSB, it's a US term) to certain operations.
Late Edit: I have to correct the record, the CTSB has now published that report:
http://www.tsb.gc.ca/ENG/rapports-reports/rail/1996/r96q0050/r96q0050.asp
It wasn't published at the time of the Lac Megantic disaster, I supplied reference from the US Report to a number of Cdn newspapers, and it was quoted and discussed at that time. Sometimes "poking the eyes" does get attention.
From the CTSB report linked above, and this is important, because O-Train were also granted a "One Person Operation" (OPO) by Transport Canada for running the Trillium line. And here's a clincher: That "Person" is not required to be a recognized 'railway engineer', just a 'trained driver'. How this would stand a test like MOOSE sharing the track is a good question, thus my asking about 'O-Train's TC Operating Regs':
[...]
1.10.1 Business Plan
The railway indicated that the change to one-person train operation was for competitive reasons. QNS&L management indicated that some of their competitors were operating with one-person crews and that other non-competitor railways, such as Amtrak, had some one-person crew operations. QNS&L had contacted Amtrak and New Zealand Rail to review how those railways had modified their operations for one-person crews. In the case of Amtrak, the railway has limited the length of run to four hours when a train has one person in the operating cab. New Zealand Rail operates with one person in the operating cab; however, all its trains are scheduled. Employees know as much as a year in advance when they will be working.
Before the implementation of one-person train operation, railway representatives gave presentations to the Railway Association of Canada (RAC) and the regulator, Transport Canada, specifying their plans to negotiate for one-person operation and the particulars of how they intended to operate in a one-person crew environment. They also reported that they advised Transport Canada that it was their intention to begin one-person crew operations at the successful completion of contract negotiations with their operating union, the United Transportation Union (UTU). The railway reports to have solicited comment from both organizations and that Transport Canada responded with an indication that the railway's proposal was sound. Transport Canada maintains that it was not advised of the railway's intention to commence one-person crew operations at the successful completion of contract negotiations. Transport Canada indicates that it assessed the proposal as sound and that it advised the railway that it would need to see a much more thorough proposal before giving a conclusive opinion. Transport Canada reported that it did not see an issue with respect to rules compliance. Transport Canada maintained that it advised the railway that any proposed operation was expected to be as safe as the existing operation. In addition, Transport Canada recalls that it raised concerns with respect to pre-departure job briefings, rear view mirrors on locomotives, reset safety control operation and pull-by train inspections. Correspondence from the UTU to Transport Canada expressed the UTU's concerns about the safety of the operation of trains with one person in the operating cab. The official reply conveyed Transport Canada's position at the time, ". . . there are no federal regulations designating the number of persons to be employed on a train. Rather, crew size is a matter to be negotiated between the railway company and the unions representing the operating employees." Transport Canada also reports to have advised the union that ". . . regardless of the crew size, railway companies must comply with all operating rules or seek exemptions from such rules by explaining how they can do so in a safe manner."
[...]
Railway Investigation Report R96Q0050
The Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB) investigated this occurrence for the purpose of advancing transportation safety. It is not the function of the Board to assign fault or determine civil or criminal liability.
Rear-end Train Collision
Quebec North Shore and Labrador Railway
Freight Train No. FCS 45 and Train No. PH-475
Mile 131.68, Wacouna Subdivision
Near Mai, Quebec
14 July 1996
http://www.tsb.gc.ca/ENG/rapports-reports/rail/1996/r96q0050/r96q0050.asp
