cx500 There is a cost to having the main line blocked, although to a certain extent how it gets defined is arbitrary. If a coal train arrives a day later the railroad still gets paid the same amount, so actual revenue losses are small (at least in the short term). Detours, if used, can indeed be measurable costs. Delay is delay, whether for railroad convenience or line blockage. But costs of delaying a train waiting for more tonnage is typically ignored. When the accountants look greedily at the labor savings from single man operation do they add in costs for resulting possible lengthy train delays?
There is a cost to having the main line blocked, although to a certain extent how it gets defined is arbitrary. If a coal train arrives a day later the railroad still gets paid the same amount, so actual revenue losses are small (at least in the short term). Detours, if used, can indeed be measurable costs. Delay is delay, whether for railroad convenience or line blockage. But costs of delaying a train waiting for more tonnage is typically ignored.
When the accountants look greedily at the labor savings from single man operation do they add in costs for resulting possible lengthy train delays?
With the mergers and the reduction of duplicated lines between signifigant OD pairs - detours are almost a thing of the past - add on top of that the equipment restrictions that go with handling multi-level auto racks and double stacks and it can be very, very difficult to detour priority traffic.
With limited abilities to detour traffic from affected lines - the cost of congestion on the affected line grows in a geometrical manner the longer the affected line is out of service.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
What is a dispatcher going to do if the engineer says they need to take a break? In the piece I saw on the Quebec North Shore & Labrador they had pullouts where a train could be parked while the engineer could get a restbreak.
Would a dispatcher on today's class I railroads allow that or tell the engineer keep moving? And how about fatigue training to recognize when your body is telling you time to get some rest.
Rgds IGN
narig01 What is a dispatcher going to do if the engineer says they need to take a break? In the piece I saw on the Quebec North Shore & Labrador they had pullouts where a train could be parked while the engineer could get a restbreak. Would a dispatcher on today's class I railroads allow that or tell the engineer keep moving? And how about fatigue training to recognize when your body is telling you time to get some rest. Rgds IGN
In that regard I don't see any changes from the dispatcher's standpoint. What if that scenario were to play out today? Conductors generally aren't qualified to take over from the engineer anyway.. so whether you have a conductor on board or not makes little difference here.
Seems to me the engineers union (BLE) should be attempting to develop a proactive stance for preserving or even increasing its membership, such as the one I described earlier or some other strategy. This is especially true since a large sector of the rails revenue stream is shrinking rapidly. Fighting a losing rear-guard action such as the fireman issue of long ago is doomed to the inevitable.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Ulrich Conductors generally aren't qualified to take over from the engineer anyway..
Actually, I think a lot of them are - if they've been bumped down or the like. Whether that qualification is current or not is another question.
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...
caldreamer In a yard a one man crew is fine, but not on the road.
Completely agree with this statement, but I read the NTSB report at the link you provided (thanks for the link, BTW) and don't see how this is related to one-man crews. In this case, the failure to properly respond to a dark signal was the fault of both men in the cab. It could be that a one-man crew would have doubted himself enough to stop his train as prescribed by the rules.
Incidentally, I have to wonder what the NTSB was doing with this investigation and report for 21 months (9/25/13 to 6/25/15) !? I knew the root cause from reading the second paragraph of the Executive Summary; I'm sure the lead investigator knew the root cause as soon as he interviewed the crew of BNSF 7891 East.
Getting back to the one-man crew question: Railroad profitability, crew hours, and other factors not withstanding; when, where, and how does a one-man crew relieve himself?
ChuckAllen, TX
23 17 46 11
I think one point that is being missed is that everyone is thinking that rail operations with single person crews would be the same as today. I reason they will change. If the cost of operating a train is reduced, more trains will be operated. That is real economics, not the nonsense that investors don't contribute to the productive flow of work (you can't have a railroad without capital and the investors provide capital.) or that one person crews are an "assault on the middle class".
It's logical that some trains can safely and efficiently be operated by a single crew member. It's also logical that other trains require a larger crew. Tying up a busy main line is not good. Trains operating in such environments probably need one or more additional crew members to keep things from congealing when things go wrong.
I really wish that the unions and management could sit down and negotiate an agreement specifying when and where one person crews could be used. "Never" is illogical. "Always" is also illogical. Unions exist to represent the employees. They can do that in a reasonable, logical way. Including seeing that no one looses his/her job over this. Management can, and should, be equally reasonable and logical. They cannot put people in unsafe or unduly stessful situations. Reasonable people, acting in good faith, should be able to work this out without resorting to such nonsense as "War on the Middle Class."
There are a lot of markets out there where freight that could be on the rail is moving by non-union truckers. Developing these markets will be facilitated by the implementation of shorter intermodal trains that serve markets which can never produce 240 container length trains. These trains could be used on low density lines, such as CN's Iowa line or BNSF's Stampede Pass route. Such trains would be a win-win for the companies and organized labor. The companies would increase profitability while union labor would increase employment. But it all hinges on reducing the cost of operating the trains. One person crews, used in selective, agreed upon situations could provide the needed lower costs.
Is it too much to hope for that people will act like reasonable adults and negotiate this to a desirable win-win conclusion?
greyhoundsIs it too much to hope for that people will act like reasonable adults and negotiate this to a desirable win-win conclusion?
You seem to be assuming that micro-economics is logical, when we know it is not. Ever hear of behavioral economics? (Several Nobel Prize winners in the last ~20 years.)
greyhounds There are a lot of markets out there where freight that could be on the rail is moving by non-union truckers. Developing these markets will be facilitated by the implementation of shorter intermodal trains that serve markets which can never produce 240 container length trains. These trains could be used on low density lines, such as CN's Iowa line or BNSF's Stampede Pass route. Such trains would be a win-win for the companies and organized labor. The companies would increase profitability while union labor would increase employment. But it all hinges on reducing the cost of operating the trains. One person crews, used in selective, agreed upon situations could provide the needed lower costs.
One man crews are strictling a cost saving measure. I think you are dreaming if you think one man or even no man crews would get the major railroads to go after relatively short hauls or small markets. If it's not 100 cars and/or going 1000 miles, they don't seem to care.
If the mindset doesn't change, no amount of technology or crew reduction will get them into those smaller markets.
Jeff
I have long thought the same as Greyhounds, dating back to the era when a four man crew was typical. Unfortunately the answer to his question "Is it too much to hope for that people will act like reasonable adults and negotiate this to a desirable win-win conclusion?" has been a resounding yes. And I put the blame on both sides of the bargaining table, perhaps weighted only slightly towards the Union. Far too radical for traditional operating folk, "protecting jobs" on one side and tied to cost-saving "metrics" rather than business expansion on the other.
In the dim recesses of my mind there is a faint memory of one exception from something like 30 years or more ago. It was probably either C&NW or MILW where a specific new dedicated, premium, freight service was introduced in one corridor with reduced crews, and size limits on the train. Obviously the innovation eventually died.
cx500 In the dim recesses of my mind there is a faint memory of one exception from something like 30 years or more ago. It was probably either C&NW or MILW where a specific new dedicated, premium, freight service was introduced in one corridor with reduced crews, and size limits on the train. Obviously the innovation eventually died.
A few years later, the C&NW began a similar service to compete with the Sprint trains. The C&NW trains were identified as 477 for westbound and 488 for eastbound, and ran between Chicago and Minneapolis. All other trains were instructed to stay clear of these hotshots; if you did not there were a number of officials that would demand an explanation.
The C&NW trains were also operated by a two-person crew via special arrangement with the unions (IIRC, crews were given either a 20% or a $20 'bonus' for operating with a "short crew"). This was done during a time when some trains still had 5-person crews. The trains were also "inter-divisional", meaning that the crews did not change at Butler; instead they ran through the Milwaukee terminal going from Proviso directly to Adams.
I'm thinking the MILW's sprint trains were a 3 man crew, at a time when 4 or 5 men were still standard. It was a few years later when MILW negotiated 3 man crews.
Back in the 1960s, the railroads and trainmen negotiated using a conductor and one brakeman on any train running on (whole or in part) a branchline. There were some provisions protecting all trainmen on the property at the time. In effect it meant that in slow times a protected man could work the missing brakeman's job if there was no other work available. I write this to show that they have agreed to reduce people before. Also, as in the recently voted down BNSF contract, there most likely will be some protection for those working.
BNSF was very generous in it's protections. To me it was too generous, almost to the point I think they thought the number of employees receiving the protection would be small and/or relatively short term. Or if not small or short term, they could whittle away those protections in future contracts. Despite language in the contract that the protection would be life-time.
zardozIn the 70's the Milwaukee Road began running "Sprint" trains. They were run by a two-man crew, and were strictly IM trains of short length. IIRC, the government gave the Milwaukee Road an operating subsidy, as this service was back then considered experimental. A few years later, the C&NW began a similar service to compete with the Sprint trains. The C&NW trains were identified as 477 for westbound and 488 for eastbound, and ran between Chicago and Minneapolis. All other trains were instructed to stay clear of these hotshots; if you did not there were a number of officials that would demand an explanation.
3-man not 2-man, AFAIK.
Systemwide, the Milwaukee Road had already moved to 3-man crews while in bankruptcy: "The agreement eliminated firemen and second brakemen on all Milwaukee Road freight train and yard crews in an effort to reduce the Milwaukee Road's labor costs. The bankruptcy court approved the agreement, which stated specifically that "ll road freight train and yard crews shall consist of no more than one conductor (foreman) and one brakeman (yard helper) ... unless otherwise agreed"
http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1980/02/04/page/60/article/milwaukee-road-stakes-future-on-sprint-piggyback
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1499&dat=19800617&id=ZuYjAAAAIBAJ&sjid=tCsEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6755,3856804&hl=en
greyhoundsIf the cost of operating a train is reduced, more trains will be operated. That is real economics, not the nonsense ...
If there are (any) instances where significant layoffs (or off shoring of production) were followed by comensurate price reductions passing the resultant savings on to the customer...I am completely unaware of them. Perhaps you would care to document your hypothesis with real world examples?
Please try to avoid instances where foreign companies purchased name brand american entities and then began pasting the namebrand label onto their existing product lines, those would not be a fair comp.
cefinkjr caldreamer In a yard a one man crew is fine, but not on the road. Completely agree with this statement, but I read the NTSB report at the link you provided (thanks for the link, BTW) and don't see how this is related to one-man crews.
Completely agree with this statement, but I read the NTSB report at the link you provided (thanks for the link, BTW) and don't see how this is related to one-man crews.
When I read this statement, I'm thinking one man with a RC engine. If you are talking about a handful of cars, maybe. If you are talking about real switching in a flat yard, it's a bit more complicated. One person can't be more than one place at a time. Handling long cuts and protecting each end means travel time to get into position.
In a related note, a van driver told us yesterday a UP VP was driving around our away from home terminal the other day. This VP saw 4 yard vans in front of the depot. Something that rarely happens, when you need one they are usually all gone. This VP wanted them abolished, saying North Platte got rid of theirs. We use vans a lot when putting together or yarding trains. The conductor alone can't be everywhere at once, the vans move him/her around has needed. So let's cut off the vans and let the conductor walk back and forth instead. Lets see if the savings from not having vans is more than the crew costs of more overtime and dog catch crews.
At our AFHT, the yard vans don't help in yarding so much, although local crews do use them. They take us to/from our change out points (3 locations) which aren't at the depot. Plus they are used to run crews to outlaying points to pick up trains. The local manager said he wasn't going to abolish them.
greyhoundsThat is real economics, not the nonsense that investors don't contribute to the productive flow of work (you can't have a railroad without capital and the investors provide capital.)
Only new stock offerings to investors generate invested capital to increase productivity. The price and trading of existing stock in the markets does not increase capital available for expansion or infastructure improvements. Corporations often attempt to improve their EPS through use of profits to buyback existing shares, which actually reduces available capital. Another way to increase available captital is to reinvest profits, rather than distribute them to investors and top management.
Most current thinking on productivity (especially on the macroeconomic level) looks at Total Factor Productivity, which uses the Solow residual and thus is expressed by the equation:
where output (Y) as a function of total-factor productivity (A), capital input (K), labor input (L), and the two inputs' respective shares of output (α and β are the capital input share of contribution for K and L respectively). An increase in either A, K or L will lead to an increase in output. While capital and labor input are tangible, total-factor productivity appears to be more intangible as it can range from technology to knowledge of worker (human capital). Technology growth and efficiency are regarded as two of the biggest sub-sections of Total Factor Productivity, the former possessing "special" inherent features such as positive externalities and non-rivalness which enhance its position as a driver of economic growth.
Total Factor Productivity is often seen as the real driver of growth within an economy and studies reveal that whilst labor and investment are important contributors, Total Factor Productivity may account for up to 60% of growth within economies.
jeffhergert I'm thinking the MILW's sprint trains were a 3 man crew, at a time when 4 or 5 men were still standard. It was a few years later when MILW negotiated 3 man crews. Jeff
I looked up one of my MILW books ("The Milwaukee Road 1928 to 1985") to see when they went to reduced crews. It said in early April 1978 they made agreements to operate "certain" trains with an engineer, conductor and one brakeman. In 1982 that was extended to all trains and yard jobs.
In 1980 when the RI ceased operation, the DRI&NW (The DRI Line, owned then by MILW and BN) provided interim service in the Quad Cities and on the main line to Wilton, IA and later on to Iowa City. They still used a 4 man crew. After about a year, the DRI Line quit and the MILW took over operations. (The DRI Line was only a switching company. Any originating traffic was billed out as either MILW or BN. I was told the line's share of traffic was via MILW and the BN wanted the DRI Line out of there.) The MILW was able to use 3 man crews. I knew the crew on the east end of the main line operation. They were all ex RI, and had been at the top of the seniority list. One brakeman had to bump onto the west crew. He stayed there until a man retired and he was able to return to the east crew. IAIS took over in late 1984 and all the exRI MILW crews I knew retired.
Sprint service started June 5, 1978. One train could make a round trip (800 miles) daily. They raninitially three trains daily on a schedule of 10 hours with single-engine, 25 car trains, expanding to 5-6 daily.
schlimm Sprint service started June 5, 1978. One train could make a round trip (800 miles) daily. They raninitially three trains daily on a schedule of 10 hours with single-engine, 25 car trains, expanding to 5-6 daily.
My book has a picture of the first departure out of the Twin Cities on that day. The train started moving after an official fired a starter's pistol.
Wow!! The C&NW tried to compete with a once-a-day Viking service, but that did not work out.
All this high-speed stuff was fascinating -- Falcon, Sprint, Viking, the BSM and Super C and Apollos (and, much later, the accelerated Z-train testing with borrowed Genesis power).
And in the end, very little demand, in terms of paid-in dollars and cents, was sustainable for the pure high-speed point-to-point trains. I think it's instructive to look at why ... and what other forms of 'quicker' or 'better' service did pay.
My impression is still that for most shipments, a guaranteed arrival time or even window is far more valuable than a quick-as-we-can-go promise.
I have to wonder what the possibility of unmanned road vehicles will have on this debate in the approaching decades. I still think they are a ways off, but technology is improving and the possibility of driverless trucks may be important in the future.
NorthWest I have to wonder what the possibility of unmanned road vehicles will have on this debate in the approaching decades. I still think they are a ways off, but technology is improving and the possibility of driverless trucks may be important in the future.
Oops, now yer talkin' "no man" crews!
If an unmanned truck can drive itself down a public highway (is able to determine exact steering of the route and can handle random obstructions), why can't an unmanned train roll down a privately owned track (where at least the roadway is permanently defined and reasonably clear of random obstructions)?
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
WizlishAnd in the end, very little demand, in terms of paid-in dollars and cents, was sustainable for the pure high-speed point-to-point trains. I think it's instructive to look at why ... and what other forms of 'quicker' or 'better' service did pay. My impression is still that for most shipments, a guaranteed arrival time or even window is far more valuable than a quick-as-we-can-go promise.
For the Milwaukee Road (in receivership) Sprint service only, there were two main points:
1. Scheduled departure and arrival times which was essential to attract shippers.
2. The speed (40mph sustained - 60 mph top) was not for "quick-as-we-can-go" but for better equipment utilization: one round trip within a 24 hour period combined with changes in the standard crew (3 man) district arrangements allowed Sprint to continue profitable operations (started June 1978), even on a small margin, after the FRA subsidy period of two years ended. The Milwaukee Road actually turned a profit in 1984. I am not sure when the Sprint service ended (perhaps after purchase by Soo in 1985?), but it was successful when it ran.
schlimmOnly new stock offerings to investors generate invested capital to increase productivity.
I could not disagree more strongly with this false statement.
What's left over after all the bills are paid and all the paychecks covered belongs to the owners. (Investors AKA stockholders.) A railroad can distribute all that's left over to the owners. But they don't do that.
They take a good chunk of the owners' earnings and use it for capital expenditures. When the owners have part of their earnings reinvested in the railroad (which is what happens) they are effectively putting capital in to the railroad. Someone who is a current owner of railroad stock is having a chunk of his/her earnings used to increase the capital investment in the railroad.
This happens every year. So current investors are adding to the railroad's capital structure every year.
As to the Solow residual, it exists and is very real. But it has nothing to do with the fact that railroads need capital and investors continuously supply capital. Capital is in the cited equations. The need for capital is not going to go away. The railroads are always going to need it and investors are a good way to get it.
No, I'm not going to bite on this one.
Layoffs and off shoring have nothing to do with the issue at hand. And I will not deal with them here.
Semper Vaporo If an unmanned truck can drive itself down a public highway (is able to determine exact steering of the route and can handle random obstructions), why can't an unmanned train roll down a privately owned track (where at least the roadway is permanently defined and reasonably clear of random obstructions)?
Even with computer 'perfect' train handling, (and considering what computers do elsewhere, likely because of it) things such as knuckles and other fatigued parts will still break, necessitating a crewmember somewhere to fix things. Master conductor or onboard, the train is still a blockage.
As an aside, ore trains in South Africa that operate with one man crews are equipped with motor scooters to reach problems mid-train. Of course this came with the expense of installing acess roads alongside all of the mainlines.
NorthWest Semper Vaporo If an unmanned truck can drive itself down a public highway (is able to determine exact steering of the route and can handle random obstructions), why can't an unmanned train roll down a privately owned track (where at least the roadway is permanently defined and reasonably clear of random obstructions)? Even with computer 'perfect' train handling, (and considering what computers do elsewhere, likely because of it) things such as knuckles and other fatigued parts will still break, necessitating a crewmember somewhere to fix things. Master conductor or onboard, the train is still a blockage. As an aside, ore trains in South Africa that operate with one man crews are equipped with motor scooters to reach problems mid-train. Of course this came with the expense of installing acess roads alongside all of the mainlines.
That was my point actually. I wonder what will happen to the "unmanned" trucks on the highway when there is bridge out and a State Trooper pointing to take a detour? What will happen when a car smushes into the side of the 'unmanned' truck? Or when a tire blows, or the motor goes PKGS.
I could ALMOST think that a train could be unattended while in motion, but the unexpected will always require a PEOPLE to handle the problems that inevitably come up. I am quite against trucks or cars on the highway without a driver... bad enough with some of the drivers that ARE in attendance!!!! I don't even want the local Pizzaria delivering my deep-dish-cheese-crust-extra-provalone-sausage-and-braunschweiger-anchovy via drone!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.