Euclid I think this discussion getting way beyond the scope of the original linked article. It says nothing about using drones to replace knuckles. If anything, it suggests that Super Conductor will replace the knuckles the old fashioned way. All I see in the article is the same old push for crew size reduction all dressed up in a new justification called PTC. The remark about drones is just a throwaway comment to help paint a picture of automation being a panacea. The actual “drone” will be Super Conductor driving a pickup truck.
I think this discussion getting way beyond the scope of the original linked article. It says nothing about using drones to replace knuckles. If anything, it suggests that Super Conductor will replace the knuckles the old fashioned way.
All I see in the article is the same old push for crew size reduction all dressed up in a new justification called PTC. The remark about drones is just a throwaway comment to help paint a picture of automation being a panacea. The actual “drone” will be Super Conductor driving a pickup truck.
She who has no signature! cinscocom-tmw
Or where road accessibility doesn't exist, by Helicopter. So yes, look up, it's a SUPECONDUCTOR!!!
Paul North:That is a great article. I recall when Railway Man linked us to that.
Where is RM these days? Sure miss his insight and knowledge.
Ed
I've ran a train for over 20 years now and can't understand why anyone would think running one man crews with a desk job conductor is the right way to run a railroad ?
Why do airlines,even with all the fancy auto pilots and such,still have a pilot and a co-pilot ? To watch over each other.
I know some will say apples and oranges,but planes carry a few hundred people,I run trains thru towns with thousands of people,and with anything mechanical or electronic,it can break and malfunction .
The FRA has never took a stand towards accepting one man crews as the absolute standard of the industry and in light of everything happening lately the rest of the country won't either .
Everyone please remember,were not talking model trains that on person can run a layout,were talking thousands of tons going thru towns with many lives at hand.
I could almost say that the FRA will never get on board with this one
Collin ,operator of the " Eastern Kentucky & Ohio R.R."
One thing to remember about ANY computer system - the code is written by individuals that wouldn't know a transportation device if it hit them. While the designers MAY have all the proper qualifications for the system an MAY be able to correctly answer all the decision points that are anticipated - the coding programmer and his code MAY develop additional decision points that the programmer will supply the answers which MAY not be what the designer intended. The systems necessary to support interoperatable PTC will contain millions of lines of code written by hundreds, if not thousands, of programmers that have thousands of decision points - what is the likelyhood that ALL the decisions are correct?
Remember - at this point in time - PTC IS NOT a 'fully debugged' production product.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Thing is--superconductors require super-cold temperatures to work.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
BaltACD The systems necessary to support interoperatable PTC will contain millions of lines of code written by hundreds, if not thousands, of programmers that have thousands of decision points - what is the likelyhood that ALL the decisions are correct? Remember - at this point in time - PTC IS NOT a 'fully debugged' production product.
The systems necessary to support interoperatable PTC will contain millions of lines of code written by hundreds, if not thousands, of programmers that have thousands of decision points - what is the likelyhood that ALL the decisions are correct?
schlimm "No evidence has surfaced that a second person in the locomotive cab contributes to a more-safe operation, while evidence exists that the second person in the cab can cause a safety hazard."
"No evidence has surfaced that a second person in the locomotive cab contributes to a more-safe operation, while evidence exists that the second person in the cab can cause a safety hazard."
Perhaps the strongest evidence supporting two person crews is the burned out center of Megantic, Quebec and 50 graves......how soon we forget.
As far as the quote about evidence proving a two man crew is no safer than a one man crew.....prove your quote with facts.
I've worked in the industry for almost 25 years and think that's one of the most unsupported comments I've ever seen about the topic
Look,I simply posted the article because it is an important event. I thought it would be important for railroad employees to be informed of the agreement. But apparently not. Here's what another veteran union official said:
“I have had the pleasure of reading the proposed Crew Consist Agreement and Wage and Rule Settlement recently negotiated on a large portion of BNSF Railway. Both of you along with the various Assistant and Associate Chairpersons are to be congratulated on an agreement that goes beyond any protection agreement that I have observed.
“Over the past several years there has been an outpouring from numerous groups, including our Legislative Department, promoting Positive Train Control (PTC). The BNSF has taken the lead in installing this equipment on many of its territories. Instead of waiting and then having to be reactive in trying to salvage any damage that could come from this new technology, each of you has been very proactive and addressed the situation head-on in order to protect the membership you represent. That is true leadership that is hard to find in this day and age.
“I recognize that in addition to supporting PTC, our union is also trying to obtain legislation for a minimum of a two-person crew. This fact in and of itself recognizes that with PTC comes a serious threat to the possibility of losses to SMART-represented jobs. While everyone hopes to see such legislation, the fact remains that with the current Congress and the action of our government in Washington, D.C., nothing is getting addressed, let alone anything that would be of favor to working families.
“Each of you has been successful in negotiating the better of two worlds. Should legislation pass for the requirement of two-person crews, in Article VII, your Agreement provides for a Snap-Back back to your original Agreements. That is covering all bases.
“We all do not like changes, but such will always come about. It wasn't that long ago that each train crew had 5 and sometimes 6 crewmembers along with a caboose. First the railroads went after the firemen's craft, and through legislation the carriers were successful in eliminating all firemen with less than 10 years seniority. I was one of those firemen and realized then that you cannot count on legislation to protect your jobs. Then came the first generation of crew consist [agreements] followed by second, third, and sometime fourth generation of crew consists, all with the intent of the carriers eliminating more crews. This was followed by first eliminating the cabooses, thus placing the rear brakeman and conductor on the head end. Again, the carriers took advantage of this situation to eliminate more positions.
“Don’t think for a minute that the carriers are not looking down the road to take the same advantage of PTC technology. You each have seen the future and rightfully have jumped ahead of the game for the benefit of our membership.
“No doubt there will be those that criticize your efforts, but what are their options? You have eliminated all entry rates, provided protection for all your current ground service employees, obtained a Scope Rule for the future and restored jobs that had been previously lost, and provided a Snap-Back if two-person crews are legislated. You each have not only hit a home run, you have hit a grand slam.
“I am very proud of each of you, for your willingness to do what is right for SMART members, and while there will be changes to some jobs, they will belong to SMART employees with full protection.”
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
That's why their all "former" UTU union bosses,because they keep selling out the "other" union representing the Engineer's and loosing rank and file dues paying members.They are simply flashing money in front of people to reduce crew numbers .
I can't understand how they as union representatives can justify even going along with this idea.It's unsafe !
There's a whole lot of advanced technology evolved here that as mentioned,is unproven and simply to much to accept in a time frame the carriers are going about it,in my opinion
A message from President John Previsich, SMART Transportation Division:
"... the only safe and secure operation of any train includes a minimum of two people on each and every crew."
James
Lac Megantic did so well with a single person crew.
BaltACD Lac Megantic did so well with a single person crew.
I don’t see how the Lac Megantic wreck proves that a one-person crew is unsafe, unless you are saying that a second person is needed in case the first person intentionally violates a rule. I have never heard that claimed as a justification for larger crews.
How many derailments, collisions, etc. on the Big 6 would have been prevented with a 2-man crew onboard?
I'm not sure Lac Megantic is a good example to use for the one man and master conductor vs. two man crew debate. The Lac Megantic incident was not a "moving violation". It involved securement and that is a primary purpose of the master conductor, to assist with situations such as train securement. Lac Megantic is more case that points out that one man crews without a "master conductor" is a bad idea.
The incident that really is more pertinent to the which is safer, one or two man crews argument, is the incident in Wisconsin where in CTC one train has violated a stop signal and collided with another. Both trains had two crew members in the cab.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
dehusman I'm not sure Lac Megantic is a good example to use for the one man and master conductor vs. two man crew debate. The Lac Megantic incident was not a "moving violation". It involved securement and that is a primary purpose of the master conductor, to assist with situations such as train securement. Lac Megantic is more case that points out that one man crews without a "master conductor" is a bad idea. The incident that really is more pertinent to the which is safer, one or two man crews argument, is the incident in Wisconsin where in CTC one train has violated a stop signal and collided with another. Both trains had two crew members in the cab.
The unspoken but REAL cause was that there was NO Crew - to move the train further at the time it was 'secured' at Lac Megantic. What is the likelihood that a 'master Conductor' will not be available when needed - considering that the carriers are doing this to 'reduce cost'; I suspect the 'master conductors' will be very scarce an far from timely when the are available.
Just getting the Trainmaster to a incident on his (or her) own territory is a time consuming happening, and heaven help you if there are two incidents on a supervisors territory.
This proposed agreement does not cover the entire BNSF. My understanding is only portions of the former BN components: SLSF, CB&Q, NP and some GN yards. From reading on another forum site, the other General Committees on the rest of the BNSF have not signed off on it. If the comments are to be believed, all the other BNSF GCA chairmen and the international are not for this agreement. (Most commenting on that site are not for it.)
In addition to engineer only on PTC equipped trains, it also reduces all other trains to engineer and conductor only. Yard jobs also get reduced to two person crews, either engineer and foreman or RCO foreman and helper. Many places still require a brakeman on certain trains that do intermediate work or a switchman (helper) on conventional yard jobs. (Once the requirement is removed, it doesn't mean the railroad can't add a brakeman/switchman to any job they think needs two trainmen. It only means they don't have to fill those helper jobs because of agreements.)
While all these provisions reduce jobs, because of the protections and wage increase, it doesn't reduce the payroll that much in the short term. Which is why I expect after full implementation on all carriers, that protection will be targeted in future contract negotiations. Especially if attrition (called back to service, retirements, resignations, etc.) doesn't reduce the ranks of those protected very fast.
I don't know if it will be ratified or not. By throwing this out there, this one group as put everyone else between a rock and a hard place. Whether it passes or fails, it's opened the door sooner rather than later.
Jeff
jeffhergertBy throwing this out there, this one group as put everyone else between a rock and a hard place. Whether it passes or fails, it's opened the door sooner rather than later.
I couldn't agree more. It is most definitely the thin edge of the wedge IMHO. Management's long term strategy will be interesting to watch as this particular situation unfolds. This could be quite difficult for operating crews and the unions going forward again IMHO. It's high stakes game in many ways.
Charlie
Chilliwack, BC
That's the bad thing when the carriers ask in our contracts for us to "Accept all new and future technology " their eventually going to get what they want introduced to the industry .
I can remember when we went from carts or "tapes" for the downloads to the data retrieval we use today.They can practically tell you if you spit out the window
Technology is scarey !
mackb4 They can practically tell you if you spit out the window
They can practically tell you if you spit out the window
They will once they get everything equipped with inward facing cameras.
Thinking (a dangerous practice on my part) about it, they may still have a second person on trains that have a lot of scheduled intermediate work, like locals or those that are locals in all but name. However, since there is a "master conductor" in charge, that second person might just be a brakeman, working at a brakeman rate of pay.
The master conductor can sit back in his utility truck and direct the action via drone camera.
Which brings up another matter. FRA rules right now allow a utility person to be attached to only one train at a time. (Our UTU people in my terminal interpret that to mean a road conductor on one train can't change a knuckle for a train on another conductor. They can drop off a knuckle or air hose, or give the other conductor a ride, but that's about it. I think it was Paul who said something about the lone person on one train helping out another train in distress. With that interpretation, I don't know if it's correct but if it is, one train couldn't help out another beyond a few simple tasks.) How will a master conductor be able to supervise more than one train at a time? Any time he turns his attention to one particular train, he is really ignoring all the others on his territory.
Before it's all over, I'm sure there will be some rewriting of rules to allow one person operation. Both at the Federal and railroad levels.
Fortunately the NS does not currently have the inward facing cameras,but we had a memo recently about them on foreign motors.The memo stated that although the NS does not have the ability to download the camera,but we are to be on our best behavior .
It's not just railroads, as has been noted. I have friends in the data processing and broadcast industries whose employment is less certain than it was even five years ago due to advances in technology and communications.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
It seems that the Powers That Be won't be happy till they've eliminated the job of everybody but themselves and a couple programmers. Right now there are Supermarkets where you're expected to scan your own purchases because Management is determined to eliminate entry-level jobs for young people. As a person whose first "real" job was in a Super Market, this resonates with me ---- negatively. And of course it's so easy to criticize the unemployed with the old refrain, "Get a job, you lazy bum!"
The U.T.U. President's statement reeks of a pandering, clearly political statement, and when I hear a political statement, I always suspect the speaker of having his fingers crossed behind his back. Maybe he'll be happy when he represents about four outrageously wealthy railroaders with jobs, and that's all.
To the many comments comparing train operation to airplane operation, I can only respond, COME ON NOW! GIMME A BREAK! Mechanically, an airplane would have to be towing a couple dozen gliders to behave like a train, so let's just drop that whole idea right now.
If the lonely engineer has that much-discussed heart attack, who calls for help and renders First Aid? Oh, I forgot. He's expendable. And it doesn't really matter since his is the next job to go anyway.
I worked a lot of years for a railroad. Not in an operating job because of imperfect color vision. I saw a lot of railroaders plying their trade, and I was always aware of the wide gulf between the viewpoints of the guys (and gals) on the ground and their office-bound "Superiors". I figured out a long time ago who was superior. And his name was not Hal.
Tom
jeffhergertWhich brings up another matter. FRA rules right now allow a utility person to be attached to only one train at a time. (Our UTU people in my terminal interpret that to mean a road conductor on one train can't change a knuckle for a train on another conductor. They can drop off a knuckle or air hose, or give the other conductor a ride, but that's about it.
A utility "brakeman" not conductor would be the correct title.And they can assist any crew yard or road with anything as long as he officially announces on the radio his time on and off with the crew.
Now a regular conductor cannot assist any crew,unless he/she attaches to that crew.Then he becomes a member of that crew until he outlaws or the crew in which he's attached goes off duty.
This was a big topic discussed by an FRA official a few years back when I was working the road.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.