Pointless sarcasm... everyone here pretty much agrees on two person crews for the most part and for the present. No one is seriously pushing for across the board crew reductions... it would be career suicide at this point for any manager to do so, at least until PTC is in place as required and has proven itself reliable. The railroads know that too... none would be so stupid as to cut their workforce in half while implementing brand new not yet proven technology by a government mandated deadline that they now are pretty sure can't be met anyway.
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?
It sure would be nice to see some numbers. How often do trains breakdown or get stranded because of something like a broken coupler? As a conductor, is this something you deal with every day..every month... every year? The frequency and likelihood of the occurence would determine if having another crew member on board is justifiable. Trucks break down too, but not often enough to warrant having a mechanic along for every trip.
Ulrich Trucks break down too, but not often enough to warrant having a mechanic along for every trip.
Trucks break down too, but not often enough to warrant having a mechanic along for every trip.
However, it's pretty rare that one semi-truck that's broken down will block the entire road and keep all other traffic from passing until the break-down is repaired.
One train having a problem can stop all movement on that line for hours. Case in point: I was on the Lake Shore Limited heading to Chicago when it was delayed for a good 3-3.5 hours because a freight train in front had to set out a bad car, reassemble and do a brake test. This was all in the wee hours of Sunday morning 7/25. This was on a double track line, but there was no way to just "go around" and it seems to me that there was no traffic coming through in the opposing direction during this whole stoppage. Once we were moving again, there were several freights coming the other direction. So it's possible there were 6-10 trains stopped for hours waiting for that one train to get moving again. How much is all that worth in $$$?
That's my point exactly. One would have to do a cost benefit analysis to determine whether or not a second (or third or more) crew member is warranted. If this is a once in a thousand times occurance then maybe not.. but if what you described happens almost every day on the same route then clearly yes, additional crew would be required.
Annecdotal guesstimate based on 25 years as a Chief Dispatcher on multiple operating divisions of my carrier.
40 to 60% of all through freight trains operating will have situations that will require 'boots on the ground'. Those situations include designated 'station work' picking up and/or setting of cars (utility brakeman may or may not be in a position to assist), inspecting train for defect detector activation (that may or may not require actions beyond inspection), inspecting train because of defects reported by passing trains or MofW personnel as well as outside parties, air issues that occurr (UDE or excessive leakage), handling power operated switches in hand throw mode account signal trouble, in Dark territory handling switches to take and leave sidings, flagging road crossings with malfunctioning crossing protection, etc, etc, etc.
Despite all the high tech computers and other equipment that are a part of today's and tomorrow's railroads - the basics end up involving a man or men on the ground doing the dirty work.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Convicted One I wonder if they would allow a lone engineer to use remote control while replacing a knuckle out in the middle of nowhere? He throws the knuckle out onto the ballast, exits the cab with his radio pak. Pulls the Train forward via radio, sets the new knuckle on top of the last coupler, grabs a ladder rung, and idles the train back to the problem. Change the knuckle, and then conduct a roll-by via remote? Then, bring the engine back (via remote of course) for boarding? Just think of all the foot steps we just saved!!
I wonder if they would allow a lone engineer to use remote control while replacing a knuckle out in the middle of nowhere?
He throws the knuckle out onto the ballast, exits the cab with his radio pak. Pulls the Train forward via radio, sets the new knuckle on top of the last coupler, grabs a ladder rung, and idles the train back to the problem.
Change the knuckle, and then conduct a roll-by via remote? Then, bring the engine back (via remote of course) for boarding?
Just think of all the foot steps we just saved!!
You won't save as many steps as you think. First, you probably won't know why you went into emergency. Did you break a knuckle? Pull out a draw bar? Air hose burst? Or maybe a pin lifter just caused the knuckle to open. I've even had the EOT fall off the rear car once.
So just use the box to pull it up to you, right? Wrong. The angle thingy (used in place of what gets censored) will be open at the point of the problem. Very doubtful you are going to be able to move the train.
Even with a box, you are going to have to walk to the problem. That is, after you have secured the train with handbrakes. Since you don't know where the problem is, you'll have to secure enough hand brakes to hold the entire train. There might be some places where you can move the train without protecting the movement. That means a place where there are no crossings, public or private. Then maybe you can throw off that knuckle. Actually, you will need to throw off two knuckles. An E and a F knuckle, unless you are a train made up entirely of the same kind of draft gear. Then you are going to start walking. You should take with you an air hose wrench and air hose just in case that's the problem. But you will do some walking.
Jeff
I find it absolutely amazing that all the non-railroaders believe that the only thing required to safely operate a train from A to Z is someone operating the throttle and waving at passersby.
BaltACD I find it absolutely amazing that all the non-railroaders believe that the only thing required to safely operate a train from A to Z is someone operating the throttle and waving at passersby.
She who has no signature! cinscocom-tmw
jeffhergertThe angle thingy (used in place of what gets censored)
Maybe "angle rooster" would get by the auto-censor. Or anglecock, one word?
The second suggestion was a science fair experiment on the auto-sensor sensitivity. Interesting result.
BaltACD...someone operating the throttle and waving at passersby.
But without two-person crews, anyone to the left of the engine will feel neglected, won't they?
Mookie BaltACD I find it absolutely amazing that all the non-railroaders believe that the only thing required to safely operate a train from A to Z is someone operating the throttle and waving at passersby. not all non-railroaders....
not all non-railroaders....
I find it amazing that you can come to that conclusion when no one here is arguing in favor of crew reductions.. I guess I'm a bit of an outlier by stating that there should be some flexibility in determining crew allotments based on the work at hand. That's not the same as saying "thou shalt cut crew size".. I've even stated that in many cases two or more crew members makes sense, but for some reason that got lost.
Ulrich Mookie BaltACD I find it absolutely amazing that all the non-railroaders believe that the only thing required to safely operate a train from A to Z is someone operating the throttle and waving at passersby. not all non-railroaders.... I find it amazing that you can come to that conclusion when no one here is arguing in favor of crew reductions.. I guess I'm a bit of an outlier by stating that there should be some flexibility in determining crew allotments based on the work at hand. That's not the same as saying "thou shalt cut crew size".. I've even stated that in many cases two or more crew members makes sense, but for some reason that got lost.
Those of us old enough can recall a similarly flawed safety argument to justify firemen in locomotives. That was shown to be untrue with the UP 3-man crew (including a foreman-type) freight that rear-ended another train a few years ago. Now the argument is that there is too much for one person to manage, largely because of mechanical failures.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm Ulrich Mookie BaltACD I find it absolutely amazing that all the non-railroaders believe that the only thing required to safely operate a train from A to Z is someone operating the throttle and waving at passersby. not all non-railroaders.... I find it amazing that you can come to that conclusion when no one here is arguing in favor of crew reductions.. I guess I'm a bit of an outlier by stating that there should be some flexibility in determining crew allotments based on the work at hand. That's not the same as saying "thou shalt cut crew size".. I've even stated that in many cases two or more crew members makes sense, but for some reason that got lost. Those of us old enough can recall a similarly flawed safety argument to justify firemen in locomotives. That was shown to be untrue with the UP 3-man crew (including a foreman-type) freight that rear-ended another train a few years ago. Now the argument is that there is too much for one person to manage, largely because of mechanical failures.
Boy - handle them 140 Autoracks
BaltACD schlimm Ulrich Mookie BaltACD I find it absolutely amazing that all the non-railroaders believe that the only thing required to safely operate a train from A to Z is someone operating the throttle and waving at passersby. not all non-railroaders.... I find it amazing that you can come to that conclusion when no one here is arguing in favor of crew reductions.. I guess I'm a bit of an outlier by stating that there should be some flexibility in determining crew allotments based on the work at hand. That's not the same as saying "thou shalt cut crew size".. I've even stated that in many cases two or more crew members makes sense, but for some reason that got lost. Those of us old enough can recall a similarly flawed safety argument to justify firemen in locomotives. That was shown to be untrue with the UP 3-man crew (including a foreman-type) freight that rear-ended another train a few years ago. Now the argument is that there is too much for one person to manage, largely because of mechanical failures. Boy - handle them 140 Autoracks
If there were more imagination employed there, they wouldn't be running monster trains that break down, destroy RoW, can't keep a schedule, can't run over 70 mph, etc. There would be plenty of jobs for engineers running faster services with much better equipment utilization by increasing the current average speed (~20mph), which is about the same as 100 years ago.
Crew size optimization is going to have to be spelled out in the various labor contracts and even then there isn't any guarantee that labor would approve it. Note that BNSF's attempt at a "master conductor", even under limited circumstances, was rejected soundly by labor.
BNSF's proposed contract would have eliminated a lot of jobs, even if they never went to one man crews. It would have eliminated the requirement for helper positions, brakeman and switchmen, on locals, yard engines and trains that had enough scheduled work events to require a brakeman.
(The CNW was able to eliminate the requirement of switchmen and brakemen. Those positions still exist on some jobs, but only at the discretion of the railroad. They can add or blank those positions as they see fit. This carried over to the UP. Other parts of the UP, including acquired lines still have brakemen on some trains. I'm sure the BNSF, had the contract passed, would also have been able to add a helper's job if they thought the work load warranted it. You can bet though that they would figure very few jobs need a helper.)
That BNSF contract had generous protection to trainmen on the property if displaced. It was said to be "life time" protection that couldn't be taken away. BS. I'm sure the BNSF figured the number that would need to receive the protection would be small and/or short lived. That those not needed for train service (including "master conductor" service) would transition into engine service or other positions. I firmly believe that if their predictions turned out wrong, that if that protection became long term, the BNSF would start whittling away at it in future contracts.
I can understand why it failed to be ratified.
QNS&L runs 30,000 ton ore trains with only an Engineer. They've managed to deal with all the "disaster" issues mentioned above, under conditions far more arduous than faced on most roads.
Jack Fuller
jgfuller QNS&L runs 30,000 ton ore trains with only an Engineer. They've managed to deal with all the "disaster" issues mentioned above, under conditions far more arduous than faced on most roads.
I understand they have at least one helicopter at the ready at all times (at least when trains are running, I suppose). That's gonna be a real hard pill to swallow for the stockholders, who'd prefer to see that money in their pockets...
On the other hand, such a service could cover multiple lines, possibly even being agnostic, if you will, like highway wrecker services...
There are a number of air medical helicopter services providing emergency transport to specialized hospitals for those who need it. You only pay when you use it. Not hard to imagine that happening for railroads in areas where road access is limited at best.
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...
How much of the ore is 'just in time' and competing with other traffic on the line. You can do things on a dedicated single use rail line that you can't on a common carrier property.
The point is well-made. One-man operation appears to work reasonably well in conveyor-belt one-commodity operations like QNS&L and the Pilbara ore lines. It also seems to work reasonably well in light-rail and rapid transit operations, which generally have only one type of equipment and service.
Convicted One 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 IF the nation's railroads want one man crews can one assume they will turn the engineer's seat into a port-a-potty too as one can't leave to relieve themselves!
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 IF the nation's railroads want one man crews can one
assume they will turn the engineer's seat into a port-a-potty too as one can't leave to relieve themselves!
CSSHEGEWISCH The point is well-made. One-man operation appears to work reasonably well in conveyor-belt one-commodity operations like QNS&L and the Pilbara ore lines. It also seems to work reasonably well in light-rail and rapid transit operations, which generally have only one type of equipment and service.
US railroads have a history of strict & bureaucratic management with no flexibility. Why do railroads have a book of work rules in addition to the operating rules. The problem with implementing one man crews is a management problem of not being able to value their employees.
PS In transit operations it works because of the shorter runs.
I don't think it's a good idea to only have one man crews. Maybe on a extremely short move or in the yards, but never on the main. People who drive a long distance alone often nod off without someone to keep talking to them. Two sets of eyes are always better than one set too. I also think on that accident when a DPU is used at the end of a train, it needs to have some kind of red light to draw attention to the fact that it is the end. That added to confusion in the BNSF crash. It's not all about saving money, but keeping people safe too and more derailments shut down the main and push costs up too.
Like it or not, AI is just around the corner. And if you believe that your ability to walk upright and lift 50 pounds somehow insulates you from that inevitability then you're probably going to be in a for a rude awakening sometime within the next five to ten years. . All of us are going to be affected in a big way... this isn't just about people who work on trains.
Just a day - like any other on the railraod (names have been changed to protect the guilty)
SUB B DX 0242/09 21708 UDE 95.2 - 93.8 Air not restoring and TM Roach in enroute
SUB C Verdex 0307/09 01508 having HTD issues - both engines less than 1000 cefx 617/5296 - will fuel at inroute yard
SUB Q Corpse 0331/09 13008 Lead Engine cefx 5000 cab control fail will have to spin - has 2 other cab control engines
SUB C Verdex 0515/09 22609 UDE 1 track 178.5 - 180.0 Air Hose 40th ETTX 710765 - TGGX 160643
SUB D Hog 0745/09 38807 reports UDE #2 track btwn 176.2 - 178.7. Air is coming up; conductor inspecting hazmats. 01608 on #1 track.
SUB D Yerdex 0815/09 01608 reports 2nd unit cefx 3135 is marked trail only acct bad air compressor. Mechanical states engine okay in lead position as long as not run single. Crew given okay to Cburg.
SUB R YB 1000/09 41609 reports 3rd unit cefx 8055 with alarms and not loading. Will stopvat YB making hill and attempt restart. Mechanical shopped the engine, so train does not have enough power to make destination. Will stop at Cry City. Picking up engine cefx 5108 at Benns. 5108 had compressor issues, had to get second unit from 71909 and take cefx 5108 back to Benns
SUB M 20.5 1025/09 30605 reports older white male driving a Jeep Cherokee is stealing wire near RR Ave/Ridge Road. police notified.
SUB K Hill 1028/09 38808 reports UDE #2 track btwn J 0.5 - 243.8. Hole in air hose of B-end 75th car RVPR 9862. Repaired and replaced.
SUB K Hope 1324/09 21708 reports cefx 7519 is overheating. 24509 heading out to shove.
SUB P WE Road 1411/09 43807 reports cefx 851 with crank case over pressure. 43908 will grab train and drag it to Akers siding.
SUB K 200.0 1445/09 21708 reports UDE #1 track 200.0 to 197.0. Air restoring slowly. Found bunched air hose account broken bracket on TTGX 997462. Crew repaired.
SUB K Plank 2015/09 26108 reports UDE #2 track 234.6 to 232.6. Found broken knuckle 73 cars deep TTGX 990622. 38909 will drop a knuckle off.
Yes - one man crews will expedite the railroad. [/sarcasem]
BaltACD, you left out blizzards, washouts, lightning damage, sun kinks, tunnel issues, fire dept. needing to run a hose across the track, and a few others of like kind . . .
"Upon this point a page of history is worth a volume of logic."
"Once again, a beautiful theory murdered by a gang of brutal facts."
- Paul North.
Paul_D_North_Jr BaltACD, you left out blizzards, washouts, lightning damage, sun kinks, tunnel issues, fire dept. needing to run a hose across the track, and a few others of like kind . . . "Upon this point a page of history is worth a volume of logic." "Once again, a beautiful theory murdered by a gang of brutal facts." - Paul North.
That was just a simple Summer Sunday - a day of generally reduced train activity. No commuter activities to spice up the action, minimal Amtrak activity.
Lately, one of our "Quality" manifests from North Platte to Proviso have been running 12000 to 13000 feet. The word is that 7 out of 12 trains is having problems getting over the road. The other day a conductor said a manager got on to ride to Clinton to find out why they are having so many problems. (I got the impression that it wasn't a local manager, but someone a bit higher on the food chain. Probably someone who has never ran a train.)
The point is they look more at the 5 trains that make it instead of the 7 trains that don't. They also always assume first that the problem is train handling. That the train is slopped together with loads behind empties (even though it meets the system requirements), long travel, cushioned drawbars throughout the train and draped over a couple of hog backs and sags is of no concern. Throw in the fact it's running over a signal system where above 40mph if the cab signal drops out, it requires the engineer to go to suppression on the automatic brake. Gee, I have no idea why they are having problems.
Don't bother looking for these trains on the Rochelle web cam. They split them into two trains at Clinton for the last leg into Proviso.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.