While reading the feature in th August issue, a few thoughts occurred to me.
While in many instances this makes no sense whatsoever, there are some applications where it can work.
And lets not fool ourselves, where ever implementation is prescribed, the prime motivation is money. It's a money grab where already well compensated executives and "contribute nothing to the productive work flow" stockholders wish to continue their assault upon the middle class by creating yet another opportunity to skim profit off the top, and keep it for themselves.
Opposition, unsurprisingly, is strongest among the trade right where jobs will be lost. Some of the non-economic arguments they offer in opposition are valid as well, but the people whose pockets this savings will come out of obviously see this for what the final effect on them will be.
So, in effort to find a happy median, why not use "market incentives" as an inducement? An engineer who is having to do his shift alone will unquestionably have additional responsibilities and duties, and he should be deserving of a reward for his additional efforts.
Why not create a payrate dedicated to the position. Call it a "master engineer" or whatever you will, but assign say a 20% premium to his pay rate for services performed solo.
I believe doing so would offer two advantages currently lacking. #1, it would stimulate an ambition for many that are currently opposed to the idea, to seize opportunity. And #2, It would put in perspective for the above mentioned beneficiaries, that continung to squeeze the livelihood out of the middle class, comes at a cost for all, and might even cause them to reconsider (since this way not all of the fruit is going to end up in their basket.
Thoughts?
"XYZ Detector, MP 123, Track 2, Hot Journal Axle 477, Inspect, Detector Out"
"XYZ Detector, MP 123, Track 1, Dragging Equipment Axle 514, Inspect, Detector Out"
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Yet if this is all about the bottomline, paying one guy 120% pay, is still cheaper than paying 2 guys each 100% pay. Of course shareholders/execs would prefer to pay 20% pay to one guy.
I've worked enough in industry jobs where when everything went well, the 1, 2, 3 or whatever guys on duty had next to nothing to do, but when something went wrong, with no notice whatsoever, all those guys were despearately needed to keep things from going from bad to worse or put things back together again.
The comparison to how freights in Europe are run seems a bit lacking: if the entire train is 0.3 miles long, it may work with one guy up in the engine. But when the train is 1 mile long, it's a different ball game. And in their eagerness to save some pennies on another crew person, railroads don't seem to care what the cost of that mainline being blocked by a dead train, with no traffic at all going through, will amount to.
Two ways to look at it.
Yes, by all means let's sell someone else's job down the river. It's become the American Way after all.
Let's compensate the last man standing.
The BLET has an agreement in place on the BNSF (and others) to receive an additional 2 hours straight pay for working alone if the conductor's position is eliminated. (This agreement predates the recent attempt to go to one man crews on much of the BNSF.) Depending on how you look at it, the BLET has agreed to go to one person crews or is just getting compensation for it's craft should the trainmen's position be eliminated and the engineer has to work alone. All I've seen so far is that the BLET would like to keep 2 person crews.
(It should be noted that in almost all cases on the unionized major carrers, the trainmen's contract is held by SMART/UTU, the engineers contract by the BLET. BNSF engineers agreeing to working alone doesn't mean they can automatically remove the conductors.)
Jeff
As long as a train doesn't require 'manual labor' - a one man crew can get the job done.
What requires manual labor - Copying a mandatory directive, inspecting a train account Defect Detector activation, inspecting train account undesired emergency application of the brakes, inspecting all HAZMAT when a train has emergency brake application (desired or undesired), setting hand brakes on train when it is stopped on mountain grades to permit recharging of the brake system and 102 other operating realities that will happen from time to time and will always happen in the middle of nowhere at O dark 30 in the worst possible weather for the season. A stopped train is a 'line blockage' for however long the train is stopped.
Remember - for every train that is highlighted as a crew being paid a day or more wages for working 3 or 4 hours - there is most likely another that went on the Hours of Service 50 miles short of desination and another half dozen that just managed to make destination as their hours of service time expired, and the rest made destination having been on duty 8 to 11 hours.
As has been stated in another post - when things move 'as expected' - there is very little for individuals to do - when things don't move 'as expected' there is more to be done than those on scene are able to accomplish.
23 17 46 11
We often have to work with two person crews - the engineer and the conductor back on the train with the passengers - and it's royal pain. Just one more person makes life that much easier. Of course, most of our folks are volunteers, so the cost thing is minimal, but...
The fire service is facing similar challenges. As has been noted, if all is going well (ie, no fires), then the crews sitting around waiting for the bells to go off are a huge cost with no payback. When there is an incident, however, oftimes all the folks available aren't enough. The politicians don't get this - all they see is firefighters lounging around (they actually are usually training or going over equipment, but no matter). So they look to cut the fire department.
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...
What about the fatugue factor and how is and engineer supposed to watch for signals, run the train and copy a train order at the same time? He does not have two heads and six arms. It is better to have two men checking each other. In a yard a one man crew is fine, but not on the road. It is inherently dangerous even when PTC is fully implemented. Read this NTSB accident report and tell me if one man crews are a good idea.
http://ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/RAR1502.pdf
caldreamer What about the fatugue factor and how is and engineer supposed to watch for signals, run the train and copy a train order at the same time? He does not have two heads and six arms. It is better to have two men checking each other. In a yard a one man crew is fine, but not on the road. It is inherently dangerous even when PTC is fully implemented. Read this NTSB accident report and tell me if one man crews are a good idea. http://ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/RAR1502.pdf
That report might be taken as evidence that no-man crews - a la John Kneiling - are the safest ones. Even with two men on the offending train: neither noticed that a signal light was burned out, hence didn't take appropriate action; and, each one misinterpreted the dim headlight on the rear of the train ahead in 2 different ways ! If this had been made up, it wouldn't be believable. (And of course, the NTSB wants PTC again.) Fatigue was not mentioned as a factor, nor was functional overload of either of the crew members.
[emphasis added - PDN]
"National Transportation Safety Board. 2015. Collision Involving Three BNSF Railway Trains near Amarillo, Texas, September 25, 2013. Publication Type NTSB/RAR-15/02. Washington, DC.
Abstract: On September 25, 2013, BNSF Railway train BLACWSP223A struck the rear end of standing BNSF train SLHTLPC223A near Amarillo, Texas. Several cars derailed and fell across the adjacent track. Approaching BNSF westbound train ZWSPSBD724L struck the derailed cars. The engineer and the conductor of one of the trains recalled passing signals warning them of the train ahead. However, the signal at milepost 543.65 was not lit because the bulb had burned out. Had the bulb not been burned out, the signal would have displayed a red aspect, which would have required them to stop the train before proceeding at restricted speed. When they passed this signal, neither crewmember noticed the dark signal. The engineer stated that he thought the dim headlight from the rear end locomotive helper unit was an approaching train on the adjacent track. The conductor thought the headlight had a yellow cast to it and was a wayside signal. Neither crewmember thought the headlight was on the rear of a standing train. Five of the six involved train crewmembers received injuries and were hospitalized. Estimated damage was $4.4 million. Safety recommendations are made to the Federal Railroad Administration and BNSF Railway."
- Paul North.
BaltACD"XYZ Detector, MP 123, Track 2, Hot Journal Axle 477, Inspect, Detector Out" "XYZ Detector, MP 123, Track 1, Dragging Equipment Axle 514, Inspect, Detector Out"
Unless each train is going in the opposite direction of the other, and the respective engineers are able to stop their trains with the locomotives near the other train's reported defective car, so that each can inspect the other's train. Then see how they'll be able to fix it - or even just set-out the defective car ?
Only when there's a separate cost account set up and honestly reported and administered for "Delays due to lack of a 2nd crew member" will the claimed savings be trustworthy.
When the value and hourly costs of the one-man crew locomotives, cars, lading, lost revenue from the track being blocked and unusable while the situation is remedied ("opportunity cost", often in the range of $3,000 to $10,000 per hour), only then will the "penny wise, pound foolish" illusion of labor cost savings from this become apparent.
Seems like the same type logic could be used to justify one pilot in the cockpit of a jet airliner. "This is your captain speaking. If you pay close attention, you'll see me walking back to the restroom. For your safety, I have put our 747 on autopilot. I shouldn't have had the fish".
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Paul_D_North_Jr BaltACD "XYZ Detector, MP 123, Track 2, Hot Journal Axle 477, Inspect, Detector Out" "XYZ Detector, MP 123, Track 1, Dragging Equipment Axle 514, Inspect, Detector Out" Three hours later . . . after each engineer has struggled something like 120 to 129 cars back, on the ballast shoulder or between the two stopped trains - and hopefully no bridge without a walkway - and then returned, will the actual cause of the stop be known. Unless each train is going in the opposite direction of the other, and the respective engineers are able to stop their trains with the locomotives near the other train's reported defective car, so that each can inspect the other's train. Then see how they'll be able to fix it - or even just set-out the defective car ? Only when there's a separate cost account set up and honestly reported and administered for "Delays due to lack of a 2nd crew member" will the claimed savings be trustworthy. When the value and hourly costs of the one-man crew locomotives, cars, lading, lost revenue from the track being blocked and unusable while the situation is remedied ("opportunity cost", often in the range of $3,000 to $10,000 per hour), only then will the "penny wise, pound foolish" illusion of labor cost savings from this become apparent. - Paul North.
BaltACD "XYZ Detector, MP 123, Track 2, Hot Journal Axle 477, Inspect, Detector Out" "XYZ Detector, MP 123, Track 1, Dragging Equipment Axle 514, Inspect, Detector Out"
Three hours later . . . after each engineer has struggled something like 120 to 129 cars back, on the ballast shoulder or between the two stopped trains - and hopefully no bridge without a walkway - and then returned, will the actual cause of the stop be known.
Don't forget - Defect Detectors only report their findings after the last car of the train has cleared the detector circuits - it is a very rare occurance to 'double barrel' trains in the same direction (especially large one's) - the detector reports identified are for trains operating in opposite directions, so there is likely one to two miles between the rear ends of the trains; however, they are most likely occupying the same track segments between control points - thus the railroad is shut down.
1) Contingencies arise that call for extra labor that exceeds the ability of one person.
2) Two heads are better than one for assuring safe operation.
Euclid It sounds like the argument against one-man crews is based on two reasons: 1) Contingencies arise that call for extra labor that exceeds the ability of one person. 2) Two heads are better than one for assuring safe operation. Obviously item #1 alone is not sufficient to make one-man crews non-cost-effective. So item #2 is offered to tip the balance economically to make one-man crews non-cost-effective. That raises the question of the economic value of having a second person in terms of added safety. Has this item #2 been statistically evaluated and presented as objective fact by either labor or management?
Four recent NTSB reports would suggest the multi-person crews have failed to accomplish either objective in terms of safety.
http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/RAB1504.aspx
http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/RAR1502.aspx
http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/RAB1414.aspx
http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/RAR1402.aspx
http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/RAB1405.aspx
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
When one person is trying to correct problems that require two people, and the entire railroad is constipated as a result, I'm sure U.P.S. will be most patient and understanding. Perfectly acceptable for their multimillion dollar shipments to be delayed for lack of a few hours of hourly pay. And how much are they paying the person who made the decision?
Tom
I read the "One Man Crews" article in the August "Trains", and certainly the big 'roads trot out some convincing arguments for the idea, why it'll be OK and won't cause any problems and such, but something was bothering me, like I'd heard something similar before. Maybe it was that iron-throated "Ahem!" in the back of my mind.
Then I remembered. The "Titanic." The lack of lifeboats.
You see, back around the turn of the 20th Century shipping line magnates had convinced themselves that with the advances in ship design and construction lifeboats for all would never be needed. Oh, they had some convincing arguments:
"These new ships can easily ride out storms that would have overwhemed older ships."
"They have watertight compartments. Nothing's likely to damage more than two of them at any point of the hull."
"We have wireless now. A ship in trouble can call for help, all the boats will be needed for will be to transfer passengers from one ship to another. We don't need 'boats for all' to do that."
"Boats for all might even be dangerous. All that extra top-weight could make the ship unstable."
"All the above being said, they're just not worth the money."
Needless to say all those self-delusional arguments went right out the window on the morning of April 15, 1912. Shipping companys, and let me say NO ship carried enough boats for all in those days, couldn't get extra lifeboats on board fast enough. If they didn't, no one would sail with them, and then they'd REALLY have a money problem to worry about!
This is why "Titanic" junkies like myself love the old girl so much. Even a century after her sinking, she still has so much to teach us.
In my humble opinion, we're heading for a digital "Titanic" one of these days, but that's another story.
Jim Wrinn's "From The Editor" column this month says it all. I stand with Mr. Jim on this one.
CJtrainguyThe comparison to how freights in Europe are run seems a bit lacking: if the entire train is 0.3 miles long, it may work with one guy up in the engine. But when the train is 1 mile long, it's a different ball game.
European freight trains can be 835-1524 meters long (0.51-0.95 miles). Perhaps one cause of many of our problems is excessive length (pulled draw bars, longer distance to stop, slower aceleration, need to lengthen sidings, easier to maintain schedules, etc.). Single-man crews with greater density of train running might be the answer.
BaltACD Paul_D_North_Jr BaltACD "XYZ Detector, MP 123, Track 2, Hot Journal Axle 477, Inspect, Detector Out" "XYZ Detector, MP 123, Track 1, Dragging Equipment Axle 514, Inspect, Detector Out" Three hours later . . . after each engineer has struggled something like 120 to 129 cars back, on the ballast shoulder or between the two stopped trains - and hopefully no bridge without a walkway - and then returned, will the actual cause of the stop be known. Unless each train is going in the opposite direction of the other, and the respective engineers are able to stop their trains with the locomotives near the other train's reported defective car, so that each can inspect the other's train. Then see how they'll be able to fix it - or even just set-out the defective car ? [snipped - PDN] - Paul North.
Paul_D_North_Jr BaltACD "XYZ Detector, MP 123, Track 2, Hot Journal Axle 477, Inspect, Detector Out" "XYZ Detector, MP 123, Track 1, Dragging Equipment Axle 514, Inspect, Detector Out" Three hours later . . . after each engineer has struggled something like 120 to 129 cars back, on the ballast shoulder or between the two stopped trains - and hopefully no bridge without a walkway - and then returned, will the actual cause of the stop be known. Unless each train is going in the opposite direction of the other, and the respective engineers are able to stop their trains with the locomotives near the other train's reported defective car, so that each can inspect the other's train. Then see how they'll be able to fix it - or even just set-out the defective car ? [snipped - PDN] - Paul North.
[snipped - PDN]
Think volume and number of cars.
Assume you need to move 200 cars.
Take the European train model...say 100 cars.
American train, 200 cars...
So you want to pay two engineers, each at a higher hourly rate, to move your 200 cars in two separate 100 car trains, with the associated risk, track time and occupancy, fuel cost and locomotive hours, or one engineer and one conductor at a lower hourly rate to move the 200 cars at once.
Compare the volume of cars running on American rails versus the volume of cars on Europe's rails.
1. European freight trains often move at much higher speeds with scheduled (just in time) deliveries of higher value cargo.
2. Consequently, higher rates can be charged and engineer jobs preserved, as well as fewer accidents.
3. Higher speeds yield greater track capacity.
4. Ed, you sound like short-sighted management, only thinking about labor costs, first and foremost.
In the middle of that "One Man Crew" article in the August issue, two similar rear-end collisions on a major 1-man crew user - Quebec, North Shore, & Labrador - were described. In both, the dispatcher warned the crew of the following train of the other train ahead, the crew acknowledged the presence of the other train ahead by pushing the "proximity alerter"s button - and the collisions still happened.
So ? In one instance, it was a solo engineer; in the other, it was a trainee and an experienced trainer = 2 man crew.
My knee-jerk conclusion is that this - and the several NTSB reports linked above - demonstrates that there is no inherent added safety - or lack thereof - with either a 1-man or 2-man crew.
Instead, the key is undeviating attention to the task at hand.
Note that in over 50 years of nuclear operations, the US Navy has never had a major reactor accident. Why ? "You shall pay full attention to all gauges and controls, all the time." But, they usually have rotating 6-hour "watches", off for 12 hours, then repeat, with occasional 24-hour stints, so that can mess up their biological clocks/ circadian rhythyms similar to a railroad crew (non)schedule. (See: http://www.rickcampbellauthor.com/styled/index.html#topic7 , "The Daily Routine - The Watch Cycle".) Then again, they're in/ on a relatively stable and comfortable platform with colleagues and supervisors close at hand.
Thanks Paul. That was a very interesting read.
The things one can learn on a railroad forum; amazing.
Norm
Convicted One And lets not fool ourselves, where ever implementation is prescribed, the prime motivation is money. It's a money grab where already well compensated executives and "contribute nothing to the productive work flow" stockholders wish to continue their assault upon the middle class by creating yet another opportunity to skim profit off the top, and keep it for themselves. Thoughts?
Okay. I'm all for two person crews for the same reasons others have offered. Your comment about stockholders wishing to continue their assault on the middle class is, however, completely silly. The stockholders are generally people like you and I and your neighbour who either own shares directly or through an instrument like a mutual fund. For the most part they're middle class with a sprinkling of poor and rich thrown in. Moreover, as a stockholder in five of the big systems I'm never consulted about such decisions, so I'm not sure how this assault you speak of is perpetrated in my (and other stockholders') interest.
Executives who contribute nothing to the workflow? I'm sure there aren't too many of those anymore. Their contribution may be more esoteric and indirect than miles run or number of containers loaded, but if they're on the payroll for any length of time they're likely earning they're keep. I read the quarterly and annual reports, and unless there is massive and unprecedented fraud and deception these are all very well run businesses.
Don't worry about getting downsized for now. But if you're young you should indeed worry if you're not upgrading your skills. The Internet of Things and AI are just around the corner and will change life for all of us in drastic ways over the next decade. Your job and mine will change or be eliminated. Or worse, the jobs we now do will be reduced to mindless boredom as we count the days to our retirement.
UlrichMoreover, as a stockholder in five of the big systems I'm never consulted about such decisions, so I'm not sure how this assault you speak of is perpetrated in my (and other stockholders') interest.
No, you're not consulted directly, but you look to buy the stock that gives you the best return on your investment. The executives know that they are judged on the value of their stock so they will act to reduce expenses now, this year or this quarter no matter what the long term consequences are. You vote with your dollars.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Someplace recently I saw the following quote (or similar):
"Smart equipment, smart network, smart data, dumb management".
Paul of Covington Ulrich Moreover, as a stockholder in five of the big systems I'm never consulted about such decisions, so I'm not sure how this assault you speak of is perpetrated in my (and other stockholders') interest. No, you're not consulted directly, but you look to buy the stock that gives you the best return on your investment. The executives know that they are judged on the value of their stock so they will act to reduce expenses now, this year or this quarter no matter what the long term consequences are. You vote with your dollars.
Ulrich Moreover, as a stockholder in five of the big systems I'm never consulted about such decisions, so I'm not sure how this assault you speak of is perpetrated in my (and other stockholders') interest.
No.. I (and any smart stockholder) will look at the long term consequences first. This is because I don't care what the price of the stock is today, tomorrow, or next week or in ten years from now even. I care about what the price of the stock is in 20 + years from now when I retire. So the long term repercussions of any decisions that are made today are of more interest to me than the short term. Other than that I care about dividends, but not that much.. so long as the dividend is consistent with what other profitable companies pay out then I'm happy.
I've run one man trains and for me, I was ULTRA aware of what was going on. If there was a problem with the train it sure wasn't going ot be because of train handlng !!
For mandatory directives and such I would always stop the train in a suitable location before diverting my attention to another task.
I would often get out of the seat and walk to the other side of the cab to observe the train on a curve on the conductors side and also to keep from getting too " comfortable" .
Toilet time was with a safely stopped train.
ON the rare occasion I did have problems I simply sat and waited for help.
UlrichNo.. I (and any smart stockholder) will look at the long term consequences first. This is because I don't care what the price of the stock is today, tomorrow, or next week or in ten years from now even. I care about what the price of the stock is in 20 + years from now when I retire.
You rightly look at the long-range, even ultra-long-range picture. Unfortunately, because of the methods of investment analysts and management's manner of compensation, many of them only consider a range of one quarter out up to one to two years.
The rails have correctly focused their operations on the movement of bulk commodities. Unfortunately, the infrastructure they have now will require many changes to accomodate business lines for the future, such as fast, scheduled, hi-value cargo, to replace the shrinking of transport of coal, ethanol and oil in the not-too-distant future.
I agree, and from the reports I've read they're all making massive investments in upgrading their plant and in realigning assets to meet anticipated future demands. They're on the right track (yeah I know.. pun).
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.