One of my favorite train watching spots is from the Alpine, TX passenger station platform. Alpine is a stop for Amtrak's Sunset Limited. It also a crew change point for Amtrak and UP. Numerous freight trains roll through Alpine 24/7.
At Alpine an engineer and conductor board the train to replace the crews having brought the it from San Antonio or El Paso.
Having grown up in Altoona, PA, I had a pretty good idea of the role of a freight train conductor in olden times, i.e. 1950s and early 60s. Several of my neighbors were freight train conductors. Times have changed. Therefore, what does the conductor do on modern freight trains? Also, are most conductors also qualified to run the train if the engineer becomes incapacitated?
Sam1 One of my favorite train watching spots is from the Alpine, TX passenger station platform. Alpine is a stop for Amtrak's Sunset Limited. It also a crew change point for Amtrak and UP. Numerous freight trains roll through Alpine 24/7. At Alpine an engineer and conductor board the train to replace the crews having brought the it from San Antonio or El Paso. Having grown up in Altoona, PA, I had a pretty good idea of the role of a freight train conductor in olden times, i.e. 1950s and early 60s. Several of my neighbors were freight train conductors. Times have changed. Therefore, what does the conductor do on modern freight trains? Also, are most conductors also qualified to run the train if the engineer becomes incapacitated?
While some Conductors are promoted engineers that have been returned to the Conductors ranks because of a reduced level of business on their territory, by and large most and in many cases all conductors are not qualified engineers.
The freight conductors responsibilities are much as they were a generation ago - they are responsible for the documentation that goes with the train, they are responsible for the on the ground inspections when the train stops for unknown reasons, they are responsible for handling switches on the ground, they are responsible for any switching moves the train may have to make, Some of the reporting that Conductors have to do has been changed from paper reports a generation ago to computerized reports today - but the intent of the reports remains the same.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD,
Thanks for the information regarding freight conductors. I have another question and a comment.
Is there a significant difference between the compensation package for an engineer and a conductor? Which one has the higher compensation package? Whoops, that's two questions.
It takes the Sunset Limited 3 hours and 44 minutes to run the 219 miles from Alpine to El Paso. Presumably it takes many of the freight trains considerably longer to cover the same distance. If I were in management, I I would organize the train crew's duties so that they could switch off over the run, i.e the conductor drives the train for part of the distance to relieve the boredom that must set in over such a long distance. This is common in the airline business, where the pilot flies one leg and the co-pilot flies the other leg. What is your reaction?
Right off the top, I don't think that it would be possible. Engineers and conductors are two different job classifications, with a different set of responsibilities. Also, it implies that all conductors would need to be licensed as engineers (legal requirement). Management would have to negotiate with each union (railroads are organized on a craft basis) to allow such a combined job classifications.
The commercial pilot analogy is a poor one, since each pilot has to be fully qualified and licensed on the type of aircraft involved, regardless of which side of the cockpit he sits.
The conductor is a hold over from the times when the freight crew was 5 people and switching, loading and unloading was done at many stops along the way. It is an unnecessary position on the freight train, especially now that the "paperwork" is all on line. Unions defend every job (as they should) but eventually the conductor will be eliminated.
Soon thereafter, the engineer will be eliminated and the trains run in remote--much like the remotely piloted vehicles used in the Middle East.
Standing by for the war of words.
Had a 20 something daughter who's first real job interview as an NS job fair for conductors. She was told the conductor would work for a number of years than were expected to advanced to engineer training. The approach for NS is to promote up or out (from my observation.)
The conductor training was 6 weeks with a pay of about $ 500/week. You were expected to pay your own way to a southern training facility. If I can recall correctly, some of the facts about training was 50% to 75% of those who went for training washed out or walked off. There were over 100 folks who showed up for the fair in Harrisburg PA, about 20 made the cut for additional interviews. Of the 100, 4 were ladies, said daughter being the youngest. To end the story, said daughter didn't pass the written test which were situational and the answers were something like "do you agree with the resolution" or "disagree", something along these lines.
But, if a RR is having a job fair, do go. The job and life on the RR is gone over in detail. And, you can say you tried. Heck, my first job application out of high-school was for brakeman with the EL in Hoboken NJ. I walked into the HR office in the terminal, dressed in suit, resume in hand and the Secretary said before the door closed "can you see without your glasses", answer "no", can't use ya. Why? Have to work for 90 days without them, afterwards your union and doesn't matter. But, today, both my daughter and I can say we tried!
petitnj The conductor is a hold over from the times when the freight crew was 5 people and switching, loading and unloading was done at many stops along the way. It is an unnecessary position on the freight train, especially now that the "paperwork" is all on line. Unions defend every job (as they should) but eventually the conductor will be eliminated. Soon thereafter, the engineer will be eliminated and the trains run in remote--much like the remotely piloted vehicles used in the Middle East. Standing by for the war of words.
^Trolling?
Have a train stopped in the middle of nowhere in the middle of the night delaying 20 other trains - and then tell me how unnecessary the Conductor's job is. Mechanical malfunctions on rail cars don't fix themselves. Don't hand me the 'Flying Squad' crap - if they exist, they are hours away and cannot get to the location over the road.
The analogy to RPV's is bogus - RPV's aren't carrying 100 tons of someone's property per vehicle, that they expect to be delivered to them. If a RPV breaks down - well it's only money that was lost and not necessarily the fault of the RPV operator.
Getting 9000+ feet of freight train over the road is somewhat analogous to herding cats. It can be done with enough effort.
Wow,
Glad to know someone realizes my job is a holdover from the old days and I am not needed.
Guess that engineer will do all the planning, check the train for compliance, do the double overs and walk set air test on his own, along with doing all the set outs and pickups along the way, plus lining all the switches ahead of and behind the movement.
Pretty sure he will have an easy time replacing the knuckle 30 or 40 cars deep in the train, releasing all the hand brakes, and my favorite, watching his own rear point while he shoves a 120 car train in a yard track....of course, all he really has to do is set his super-duper GPS based car counter and he will know exactly where to stop with the rear end in the clear, all that "hold over useless" stuff like that.
Man, it's really good to read what a professional railroader like petitnj knows, without his input, I would have gone on thinking I served a real purpose in my role as a hold over conductor.
Oh, here is the "hold over from the old days" responsibilities of the crew members, from that old book of un necessary rules and such...
Any one wants a link to this old, no longer needed rule book, its..
http://www.utu1904.com/files/Download/GCOR_6th_ed.pdf
From the GCOR...
1.47 Duties of Crew Members
The conductor and the engineer are responsible for the safety and protection of their train and
observance of the rules. They must ensure that their subordinates are familiar with their duties, determine
the extent of their experience and knowledge of the rules. They must instruct them, when necessary, how
to perform their work properly and safely. If any conditions are not covered by the rules, they must take
precautions to provide protection.
A. Conductor Responsibilities
1. The conductor supervises the operation and administration of the train (if trains are combined
with more than one conductor on board, the conductor with the most seniority takes charge). All
persons employed on the train must obey the conductor's instructions, unless the instructions
endanger the train's safety or violate the rules. If any doubts arise concerning the authority
for proceeding or safety, the conductor must consult with the engineer who will be equally
responsible for the safety and proper handling of the train.
2. The conductor must advise the engineer and train dispatcher of any restriction placed on
equipment being handled.
3. The conductor must remind the engineer that the train is approaching an area restricted by:
or
The conductor must inform the engineer after the train passes the last station, but at least 2 miles
from the restriction.
4. When the conductor is not present, other crew members must obey the instructions of the
engineer concerning rules, safety, and protection of the train.
5. Freight conductors are responsible for the freight carried by their train. They are also responsible
for ensuring that the freight is delivered with any accompanying documents to its destination or
terminals. Freight conductors must maintain any required records.
1-16 GCOR-Sixth Edition-April 7, 2010
B. Engineer Responsibilities
1. The engineer is responsible for safely and efficiently operating the engine. Crew members
must obey the engineer's instructions that concern operating the engine. A student engineer or
other qualified employee may operate the engine under close supervision of the engineer. Any
employee that operates an engine must have a current certificate in their possession.
2. The engineer must check with the conductor to determine if any cars or units in the train require
special handling.
C. All Crew Members' Responsibilities
1. To ensure the train is operated safely and rules are observed, all crew members must act
responsibly to prevent accidents or rule violations. Crew members in the engine control
compartment must communicate to each other any restrictions or other known conditions that
affect the safe operation of their train sufficiently in advance of such condition to allow the
engineer to take proper action. If proper action is not being taken, crew members must remind
engineer of such condition and required action.
2. Crew members in the engine control compartment must be alert for signals. As soon as signals
become visible or audible, crew members must communicate clearly to each other the name of
signals affecting their train. They must continue to observe signals and announce any change of
aspect until the train passes the signal. If the signal is not complied with promptly, crew members
must remind the engineer and/or conductor of the rule requirement. If crew members do not
agree on the signal indication, regard the signal as the most restrictive indication observed.
3. When the engineer and/or conductor fail to comply with a signal indication or take proper action
to comply with a restriction or rule, crew members must immediately take action to ensure safety,
using the emergency brake valve to stop the train, if necessary.
23 17 46 11
Having all crewmembers dual qualified is something that will probably happen eventually. Some small railroads already do this. Our pre-1985 conductors can't be forced to engine service. I think they would have to all be gone before they tried to do this on our railroad. (Post 1985 conductors can be forced to engine service, but haven't been as long as younger available men have filled engine class vacancies. We haven't had an engineer's class in my area for a few years now. I think the last class or two we had, once they were qualified as engineers they were immediately furloughed. Didn't even have enough work for them as conductors, let alone engineers.)
You'll probably still see separate positions of engineer and conductor, but when calling a crew, the senior person (or maybe the person first out) will get first choice at which position they want to work on that crew. I suppose that you might see thru-freight pools with permanent assigned positions, e.g., a dual qualified person could bid either the engineer or conductor slot on a pool turn. The extra board could go to one dual board instead of an engineer's and conductor's extra board. It would have to be negotiated between the RRs and the two unions.
Even if nothing would change as far as craft separation/work rules, having everyone dual qualified would mean you would almost always have an engineer available. Engineer's board shot? Just call a qualified man off the conductor's board for emergency service. (They already do this to some extent, but sometimes they have to go deep on a board to find a set-back man. If you're not first out, you don't have to answer the phone. If you do they have you, but if you don't answer they can't penalize you.)
Jeff
Agree 100% that the duties you list are important and yes it is difficult to do most of those with just a single person crew. All of the "restriction" duties will soon be provided by PTC. Repair of the train would be impossible, but this would motivate the railroad to figure how to make knuckles stronger. (Such as x-ray inspection of castings. Every broken knuckle I have seen has a clear flaw that would be caught with x-rays. The rest of the structural steel would benefit from NDT. Jeeze, we x-ray your suitcase at the airport, why not a knuckle?. )
Unfortunately, economics will prevail and system changes will eventually allow railroads to run with a single crew. Once the railroads spend $20B on PTC they are going to ask why the conductor is there to read the screen to the engineer.
Technology will soon replace us all!
Then obviously you have not seen all that many.
Not all come aparts are due to the knuckle breaking.
You almost have a futuremodal tone about you, I think that BaltACD is correct in his assessment of you being a troll.
Dont feed the trolls...
And certainly don't bring facts into the discussion. Attack people!
Let's test the hypothesis: having a conductor is less expensive than lost time due to train failures.
We need:
1) Daily cost of a crew: $300/day-crew member X 6 crew-members (3 engineers, 3 conductors) or $2000/day
2) Daily cost of a train (maintenance, lease, ...) $3000
3) Total cost of a train with conductor $5000/day, without conductor $4000/day
4) Lost time due to a failure: let's assume 4 trains are delayed 3 hours for a full 12 hours of lost time (1/2 train day)
5) Cost of that lost time: $2500 - $2000 (let's use $2500 for conservative estimate)
6) Now a good guess for how many times a train delays due to something the conductor can repair. Let's just estimate 5% of all train days have this sort of failure. (Here others may have some better ideas; how many days a month does your train experience something the conductor can fix? )
So we take a hypothetical month of 30 days and compare with and without a conductor.
Without a conductor the train costs (30 X $4,000/day) =$120,000/month and %5 of the days (2 days) we experience a delay the conductor could have prevented with a cost of 2 days x $2500/day = $5000. Without the conductor the train costs $125,000/month even with delays.
Removing the conductor saves $25,000/month per train. (Psst, don't show this to management and please don't show on-line education to my dean!)
petitnj Let's test the hypothesis: having a conductor is less expensive than lost time due to train failures. We need: 1) Daily cost of a crew: $300/day-crew member X 6 crew-members (3 engineers, 3 conductors) or $2000/day 2) Daily cost of a train (maintenance, lease, ...) $3000 3) Total cost of a train with conductor $5000/day, without conductor $4000/day 4) Lost time due to a failure: let's assume 4 trains are delayed 3 hours for a full 12 hours of lost time (1/2 train day) 5) Cost of that lost time: $2500 - $2000 (let's use $2500 for conservative estimate) 6) Now a good guess for how many times a train delays due to something the conductor can repair. Let's just estimate 5% of all train days have this sort of failure. (Here others may have some better ideas; how many days a month does your train experience something the conductor can fix? ) So we take a hypothetical month of 30 days and compare with and without a conductor. With a conductor the train costs (30 days X $5,000/day) = $150,000/month and all failures are fixed Without a conductor the train costs (30 X $4,000/day) =$120,000/month and %5 of the days (2 days) we experience a delay the conductor could have prevented with a cost of 2 days x $2500/day = $5000. Without the conductor the train costs $125,000/month even with delays. Removing the conductor saves $25,000/month per train. (Psst, don't show this to management and please don't show on-line education to my dean!)
Your making your own numbers - AND YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG! When you want to come into touch with reality let a working railroader know.
CSSHEGEWISCH Right off the top, I don't think that it would be possible. Engineers and conductors are two different job classifications, with a different set of responsibilities. Also, it implies that all conductors would need to be licensed as engineers (legal requirement). Management would have to negotiate with each union (railroads are organized on a craft basis) to allow such a combined job classifications. The commercial pilot analogy is a poor one, since each pilot has to be fully qualified and licensed on the type of aircraft involved, regardless of which side of the cockpit he sits.
My perspective, admittedly that of an amateur, at least with respect to hands-on railroad experience, is that both persons in the cab would be fully qualified to operate the engine(s) and perform all other duties. The names of the positions might be changed to engineer and co-engineer, although I think driver and co-driver would be a better term. I suppose this bias stems from the years I spent in Australia, where the term driver is used. It is more descriptive than engineer, although changing the title would be difficult given its long history.
Those who study job satisfaction have found that diversity of tasks helps relieve boredom, which I understand is a problem for trains crews on long runs, such as the run from Alpine to El Paso. Moreover, organizations that are allowed to employ creative staffing do better in the long run. And so too, according to the researchers, do the employees. If done correctly flexibility producers winners all around.
Duties, pay practices, etc. would have to be re-designed. And inertia would have to be overcome. Doing it would be a challenge, i.e. most of us resist change whilst protesting that we are all for it. If my experience is any indicator, convincing the unions that there may be a better way is tough. I worked with unions most of my working life. Fortunately, our union leaders as well as management understood that we needed to work together for the betterment of the enterprise. And for the most part we did.
One of my questions was not answered clearly. Is there a significant difference between the compensation (pay) package for an engineer and a conductor?
Please correct my numbers. All of these estimations have to use some assumptions and I am more than willing to hear others who may have better numbers. I would be happy to provide more detail on my numbers.
petitnj,
One question for you. When the engineer only 10,000 ft freight train has a separation,goes into emergency, has every crossing blocked in town and the police or emergency vehicles can't respond due to the blockage and everyone is waiting on a utility person who is two or more hours away then what do you think a government will do?
They will do what many states have already done. Require two people in the controlling unit whenever a train travels over any public grade crossing.
You may think conductors and engineers are outdated and no longer useful and you have that right. But that doesn't mean your idea is great or makes logical sense from a business and/or public perspective. The last time I checked, US Railroad companies are in business to make a profit. Unless we are all going to be replaced by R2-D2 and CP30 it will take human beings to ensure commitments are made to our customers, shareholders and stakeholders (which includes the public). I have seen brakemen cut off locals only to have them added again as customer service faltered. You may not think a conductor's position is important however, I bet you would think otherwise if you understood the value they bring to the company by being one yourself.
TBG
Sam,
To answer your question, there is about a 5% difference, with engineers earning the higher rate...the reason is because the engineers position is considered to be more of a skilled position than conductor, although I don't agree, but then, an engineer wouldn't consider a conductors job more skilled than his either...the amount will vary between railroads and between local unions on arbitraries, but the basic rate is part of the national contract.
As for cross training conductors to be engineers, not really, they are 2 separate crafts on purpose, but a lot of Class 1 roads force promote conductors to engineers, if you take the training, you may go "back to the ground" for a year or two, but you will end up running the locomotive...a lot of roads don't allow you to refuse, either take the "promotion" or leave.
My railroad, due to its size and number of employees, has voluntary engineers training based on seniority, if the class doesn't fill, they can and did force the youngest person off the conductors extra board.
While it isn't often explained, the conductor is the trains "boss" he bears the responsibility of the rest of the crews actions, plans the work, and manages the way it's done, but the conductor and engineer share some responsibilities and duties, safety wise and such.
Several years ago I read a story as to why the Conductor is in charge of the train as a whole and the Engineer is in charge of the engine and controls it to make the train do what the Conductor calls for.
I did a web search but was not able to find any reference to the story...
I do not remember the Road or the particulars of the incident, but it was in the very early years of Railroading. An Engineer and Conductor had a disagreement as to what to do with a train and decided to get off the train and fight it out on the ground. The Conductor won the fist fight and the Engineer agreed to move the train per the Conductor's instructions but the Conductor agreed to not interfere with the way the Engineer did it.
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
I was told once that every hour the mainline I work on is shut down, it costs the railroad in the five figures per hour.
One old head once told me that there was a derailment and that a brand new caboose had one truck derailed, but the car was upright. The superintendent had bulldozers shove it over and of the roadbed so they could relay the track.
About 10 years ago there was a major derailment at Carroll, Iowa. A few days after the main had been reopened, the wayfreight derailed 4 covered hoppers about 15 miles east of there. Again, the cars were just off the track, standing upright. The officer in charge at the scene wanted to shove all 4 over and out of the way to get the track open. He was overruled by higher authorities.
The cost of a conductor cheaper than a blockage? Yep. maybe not on a one train a day branch line but certainly on a 50 or more per day mainline.
Average crew start on a Class 1 is between $1200.00 and $1500.00 depending on the local contract and the hire date of crew members.
This covers crew pay, locomotive/track/infrastructure depreciation, insurance, average dead head pay, arbitraries, away from home terminal pay.. the whole deal.
On the PTRA, our budget figures with a pre-85 contract employee, a crew start is averaged at $1250.00, if all 3 crew members are post 85 hire, it averages at $1150.00.
This figure is an average, it includes 3 man crews, (engineer, foreman and helper) and 2 man crews, (engineer and foreman) and assumes all crews working 12 hours.
As with Jeff's road, a derailment means delayed trains, the cost of a few cars as opposed to a delayed train is small, if they are repairable and we can set them over out of the way we will, if not, they are shoved out of the way, and scrapped in place after the track is re-opened.
so the crew cost for a train-day is between $2400 and $3000 -- not do different from my estimate. We can be conservative and go for the $2400 number. For an engineer alone, that would be $1200 per train day. Adding a conductor is $1200/day or $36,000 per month. The conductor has to fix failures that would otherwise cost the railroad $36,000 before it becomes cost effective to put a second crew in the cab.
Again it would be interesting to know just how many times a month or year the conductor has to be called into action to get the train going again. I just picked a number of 5% or 2 days/month for the sake of argument. I am sure that someone has better insight into this number.
Consider not the costs of, but instead the revenues earned by, a typical train. For example (fictional numbers for illustrative purposes only - substitute your own if you like them better - annual reports are a good source of such data):
5,000 net ton (payload) train at 20 MPH = 100,000 revenue ton-miles/ hour.
100,000 revenue ton-miles/ hour at 3 cents ($0.03) per ton-mile average freight rate = $3,000 per hour, or $24,000 per 8-hour shift.
If as on Jeff's railroad there are more than 4 such trains per hour on that track, it is indeed into the '5-figure' dollars per hour range.
Get to 15,000 tons payload (coal train) and all else being the same, that train is earning $9,000 per hour.
Or, make it an intermodal at 40 MPH and 5 cents per ton-mile ==> $10,000 per hour.
"Your mileage may vary" - and so will the weight and freight rate, etc. - but hopefully you get the point.
As a PRR wreckmaster once said: "I can save the oranges, or reopen the main line - which do you want ?" (Hint: Fruit salad was plentiful that day !)
- Paul North.
^^ There is no set number of times a conductor must fix something on line of road. I can tell you it happens often. Air hose separations, broken knuckles, dragging equipment , hot boxes, hot wheels, trains going into emergency now the conductor has to walk it.
We run through some very out of the way places, places you can not get to by vehicle. If something happens out there I do whatever I can to get us going again. There are things out of my control like derailments, snatching out a drawhead ect. But for the little things, that's what I'm here for.
To answer the question about the difference in pay, it can greatly depend on which RR you work for and what local agreement you work under. We do have jobs that pay conductors more than engineers, that's just how it's set up.
Over the last 30 years railroad employment numbers have decreased sharply while tonnage and productivety have increased sharply. Now two people on a train is the norm, down from 5 or even 6 30 years ago. Two people to move 30 thousand tons...sometimes more.. is about as productive as it gets. In some islolated cases, like the North Shore & Labrador, you can get away without a conductor because you're dealing with a simple closed system that involves little or no switching, and drawbars not couplers. But in normal everyday railroading as we see it, cutting the conductor out would be false economy. As has already been stated, the engineer would have to do everything the conductor now does, and any cost savings by eliminating the conductor, even if that was possible, would be negated in large part by having to pay the engineer more for the added responsibilities. And then there's the safety aspect...it probably isn't a good idea to have one person out there by himself running the engine and switching cars. If something happened he would be out there and have to fend for himself.
Let us not forget that not every train is a through train between two terminals.
The various potential mechanical breakdowns notwithstanding, I might agree that a train moving from point A to point B without stopping could probably survive without a conductor.
Trains that have to do work enroute won't do well with a one person crew if there's work to do enroute, unless someone meets them on the ground at each said location.
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...
Paul:
That is another way of looking at train revenue -- using the the income generated. Unfortunately, One has to then account for all the cost of the train (dispatchers, MOW, taxes...) and such to determine what the real lost revenue. Certainly, looking at your analysis, the $1200/day cost of the conductor is a small drain on the income that a train generates. I will debate the 5,000 ton net payload for trains. Remember, the cars have to return to the supplier (usually empty). This cuts the revenue per train to $1,500/hour or $36,000/day.
I was just focusing on the train itself to keep things simple. The crew and fuel are the marginal costs of running a train. One can look at MOW, dispatching, etc. as "fixed costs" and see how the marginal costs are affected by crew numbers.
Certainly, locals would need more than just an engineer for crew.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.