Trains.com

One man crews: Spread the enthusiasm

21236 views
339 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 25,022 posts
Posted by tree68 on Tuesday, September 22, 2015 11:47 AM

greyhounds
One person crews can safely and efficiently operate some trains.  And one person crews cannot safely and efficiently operate some other trains.

My feelings as well.  It's not a black & white issue.

LarryWhistling
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...

  • Member since
    August 2003
  • From: Antioch, IL
  • 4,371 posts
Posted by greyhounds on Monday, September 21, 2015 9:46 PM

I'll stand by my previous posistion on this topic.

One person crews can safely and efficiently operate some trains.  And one person crews cannot safely and efficiently operate some other trains.

Can any one of you honestly say that one person could not bring a short intermodal train of 30 containers from Sioux City to Missouri Valley, IA safely and efficiently?  (At MV the containers to be picked up by mainline intermodal trains with regular crews.)

The unions and management need to work together to sort this out.  They understand where and when it's desireable and possible better than anyone, including (especially) the politicians and bureaucrats.

"By many measures, the U.S. freight rail system is the safest, most efficient and cost effective in the world." - Federal Railroad Administration, October, 2009. I'm just your average, everyday, uncivilized howling "anti-government" critic of mass government expenditures for "High Speed Rail" in the US. And I'm gosh darn proud of that.
  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Wednesday, September 16, 2015 9:57 AM

As I recall, the engineer in question had hired out on the CP or another predecessor company on the line as a engine service employee after prior railroad experience.  Reading the Canadian accident report, I got the impression that if he had worked on the ground in train service, it was a relatively long time ago.  Securement, at least on my carrier, has only become a 'hot button' issue in the last 10 to 15 years - of course, in the last 10-15 years almost all the T&E personnel have turned over because of retirements and their replacements.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: At the Crossroads of the West
  • 11,013 posts
Posted by Deggesty on Wednesday, September 16, 2015 9:37 AM

I wonder: did the MM&A hire off the street for engine service, or did the company employee new hires as conductors and then train them for engine service?

Johnny

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Tuesday, September 15, 2015 11:09 PM

Retired Trainman

I found the replys to be interesting, I did not read all of the them, but the main fact seems that those who replied do not seem to have worked as a freight brakeman or as freight conductor or engineman. I know when I worked as a brakemen or freight conductor and one year in the cab in engine service, the enginman seemed to complain the most and the BLET was always willing to take work from other craft.

The bottom line short and sweet, run with a single enginman, have a bad order car ten, twenty or more deep, that you have to set out alone, must be a real interesting project of locating the problem, getting slack to "pull the pin" run back to the engine and set the car out. I find it wild, how many ups and downs to complete, then for real giggles and grins throw in heavy reain and make it a night problem.

The nreal bottom line the FRA wants PTS for safety and then looks to review or ok single man crews then they have no regard for anyones safety, those studies about an accident or something going wrong, those problems are caused by fatique due to the hours and system of calling out crews only when there is work, no one gets the proper rest. Throw in six or seven mind numbing hours of being stuck on a siding and not moving and making milage, and then being relieved "on the road". Forty seven people died when a single crewman the engineman relied on the train brakes holding a loaded train on a hill, pure fatique and the fact that he was getting rest due to his hours so as to continue later in the day. Railroads created short lines they shed the low return work, they make their profits now the days of three / or four man crews are long gone, the system of centralized dispatchers saved them lots of money and every single job lost took a pair of eyes off the railroad. I noticed some wrote about European trains, they are short trains that run on passenger rail at speed, with lighter cars and mostly in unit trains, there is no comparison to American railroads.

I believe the record shows the Lac Magnetic one man crew had been on duty 9 hours at the time he parked and failed to properly secure his train that ran away.  We will never know if a qualified Conductor had been a part of the crew if he would have properly secured the train or just done as the single person crew did.  The Canadian report aluded to a difference in training between engineers and conductors and that engineers MAY not have been adequately trained on how to secure a train.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    January 2013
  • 17 posts
Posted by Retired Trainman on Tuesday, September 15, 2015 12:56 PM

I found the replys to be interesting, I did not read all of the them, but the main fact seems that those who replied do not seem to have worked as a freight brakeman or as freight conductor or engineman. I know when I worked as a brakemen or freight conductor and one year in the cab in engine service, the enginman seemed to complain the most and the BLET was always willing to take work from other craft.

The bottom line short and sweet, run with a single enginman, have a bad order car ten, twenty or more deep, that you have to set out alone, must be a real interesting project of locating the problem, getting slack to "pull the pin" run back to the engine and set the car out. I find it wild, how many ups and downs to complete, then for real giggles and grins throw in heavy reain and make it a night problem.

The nreal bottom line the FRA wants PTS for safety and then looks to review or ok single man crews then they have no regard for anyones safety, those studies about an accident or something going wrong, those problems are caused by fatique due to the hours and system of calling out crews only when there is work, no one gets the proper rest. Throw in six or seven mind numbing hours of being stuck on a siding and not moving and making milage, and then being relieved "on the road". Forty seven people died when a single crewman the engineman relied on the train brakes holding a loaded train on a hill, pure fatique and the fact that he was getting rest due to his hours so as to continue later in the day. Railroads created short lines they shed the low return work, they make their profits now the days of three / or four man crews are long gone, the system of centralized dispatchers saved them lots of money and every single job lost took a pair of eyes off the railroad. I noticed some wrote about European trains, they are short trains that run on passenger rail at speed, with lighter cars and mostly in unit trains, there is no comparison to American railroads.

 

  • Member since
    March 2003
  • From: Central Iowa
  • 6,901 posts
Posted by jeffhergert on Sunday, September 13, 2015 11:27 PM

What ties the switch into a signal system is called a "circuit controller."  It is a separate small box with it's own rod that connects to the points.  In the photo link it's the box with the silver cover with conduit going to a square junction box.  I've seen in pictures and in person the box being silver or black.  The circuit controller can also be used to tie derails, usually a split rail type, into a signal system.  Some of our derails have them, some don't.   

http://www.garymgreen.com/Images/Switch%20hardware,%20La%20Verne,%20CA.jpg

My understanding, in this first generation of PTC being an overlay on signalled (ABS or CTC) trackage the switches aren't tied into PTC since they are already tied into the signal system.  In dark territory, each switch would have to be tied into PTC.  Probably using the same type circuit controller.

Jeff     

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 25,022 posts
Posted by tree68 on Sunday, September 13, 2015 6:16 PM

Shiny new shelters have gone up along the dark CSX territory near me - near switchs (virtually all hand throws) and sometimes crossings.  Some also have associated towers.  

I haven't wandered near them to see how they might be connected to the switch, so can't speak to whether they are simply connected to the throw rod or have more sophisticated technology involved.

I would opine that given proper maintenance and regular inspections, simply putting a sensor on the rod (an existing technology) would be sufficient to meet the need.  I'm guessing that the system will require regular inspections, as do crossings today, and that inspection could easily include an inspection of the points in both possible positions. 

This method of sensing switch position has been in use for years.  In reality, it needs to transmit only two states - lined for the main, or not.  Not can include lined for neither, as any position of the switch except lined and locked for the main (ie, normal position) represents a problem for an oncoming train.

LarryWhistling
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...

  • Member since
    October 2014
  • 1,644 posts
Posted by Wizlish on Sunday, September 13, 2015 1:33 PM

I was thinking about wanswheel's question whether there was some way to 'work around' the PTC mandate requirements with simple systems or kludges, and remembered this post of Randy's

Randy Stahl
I was just thinking about the Chlorine disaster in Graniteville SC. I think that was a 2 (or more) man crew that left a switch open killing the crew on another train and killing nearby people asleep in thier beds, I do not know if PTC would have detected the open switch in dark territory, I think not.

I have been spectacularly wrong a couple of times on details of the PTC mandate, so I am going to be careful here.  I had thought that one of the principal reasons PTC was held up in implementation, and was turning out so costly, was because so many switches connecting to the general system needed to be 'instrumented' to work with the system.  (That of course says nothing about whether they are power-operated or not -- PTC is not the same thing at all as CTC -- but it does say that, in dark territory or otherwise, the switch must be equipped with sensors that accurately determine its positions, and communications, buffering, etc. that convey its status to the 'centralized' PTC fabric.)

The 'cheap' version of this, for turnouts at least, ony 'cares' it the switch is in one of two positions: 'lined for the main and locked' and 'open'.  (Bent points, shorts due to weather, etc. will all show up as 'open' hopefully with appropriate diagnostic codes as to what and why).  The form of switch found in sidings and approaches requires more states, at least three of them: 'locked for the main', 'locked for diverging', and 'unlocked/in-between'.  Again, this says nothing about power authority, just status of the points and any locking mechanism.

There  might be a tacit assumption that a position sensor in the linkage somewhere is 'enough'.  It is not.  I do not know what technical 'assurance' might be desirable -- perhaps machine vision actually looking at the points and engagement, in addition to sensors that determine linkage position and locked status.  I do not know how current switch design addresses this.

... I think about the runaway trains on Cajon Pass. I think of how at that time having PTC would have been useless because the brakes weren't working.

In the Duffy's Curve accidents I've read about, the causative factors were not exactly 'brakes not working', and at present I agree that PTC wouldn't have helped.  In particular, the gross overloading of one of the trains concerned -- was it potash? -- wouldn't have been caught by PTC directly; defective DB status on locomotives wouldn't be; a combination of brake factors such as produced the wreck at Lac Megantic might not have been.  However, it might be argued that once the PTC enablement has been installed, adding some of these capabilities is not technically demanding or particularly expensive by comparison with trying to provide them by other means.

 

I think of the poor engineer running a heavy train in deep snow and freezing temps failing to warm his brakes sufficiently to descend a heavy grade and passing red signal after red signal only to have his train accelerate while in full emergency.

I thought of Cranberry Grade when I read this.  In my opinion a properly-set-up PTC would be able to monitor brake state vs. speed vs. dynamic, and inform the engine crew LONG before irreversible fade set in that the wrong combination of actions was occurring.  Technically this is out of the realm of 'safety' in train movement and into the realm of 'safety' in train handling ... but why use the expensive mandated capabilities just for the mandated purposes, if you have already had to pay for them?

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 13,540 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Sunday, September 13, 2015 6:43 AM

[quote user="narig01" 

I would have to wonder how well the law would stand up in court. Someone challenging the law would have ample example in California of one person operation of rail. The many public transport rail operations, operated by one person in varying levels of control.

[/quote]
 
Full crew laws held up very well to legal challenges.  It took a major legislative effort at the state level to get them repealed or otherwise made irrelevant.
The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    November 2012
  • 105 posts
Posted by ouibejamn on Saturday, September 12, 2015 8:11 PM

Deggesty
You certainly betray great ignorance of my marital status and my religion. When my one and only wife was living, there were times that we rode in a carpool lane here, so it is not necessary for me to go to any other state to have that experience.

You certainly take yourself very seriously, as someone told me here awhile back, your sarcasm meter needs adjusting. No offense intended, sorry for any thing I said that you consider hurtful.

  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: At the Crossroads of the West
  • 11,013 posts
Posted by Deggesty on Saturday, September 12, 2015 8:01 PM

ouibejamn

 

 
Deggesty
I am not astounded that Governor Moonbeam signed the legislation.

 

When you come to visit us from the "Crossroads of the West", bring a "Sister Wife", so you can drive in the carpool lane.

 

You certainly betray great ignorance of my marital status and my religion. When my one and only wife was living, there were times that we rode in a carpool lane here, so it is not necessary for me to go to any other state to have that experience.

Johnny

  • Member since
    November 2005
  • From: Hope, AR
  • 2,061 posts
Posted by narig01 on Friday, September 11, 2015 7:41 PM

The point I should have made above is this,

 

The California law covers all freight trains irregardless of length.

  • Member since
    November 2005
  • From: Hope, AR
  • 2,061 posts
Posted by narig01 on Friday, September 11, 2015 7:36 PM

BaltACD

 

 

Indiana had a 3rd Brakeman law on trains greater than 69 cars for any number of years until it was ultimately repealed.  To my limited knowledge it passed all legal challenges.

 

The Indiana law required more crew for longer trains. The California laws only covers freight trains and engine moves. The attack on the law would be why are not passenger operations covered. Say BART or  Muni. And yes both BART and Muni are regulated by the PUC for safety. Or many of the commute operations.(Caltrain,ACE,Coaster to name a few) . Or what happens if California High Speed Rail goes into the express business?

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Friday, September 11, 2015 4:52 PM

narig01
jeffhergert

Yesterday, it was announced at our union meeting that California now requires two person crews on freight train and light engine moves.

http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/state-government/governor-signs-wolk-rail-safety-bill-into-law/

Jeff

I would have to wonder how well the law would stand up in court. Someone challenging the law would have ample example in California of one person operation of rail. The many public transport rail operations, operated by one person in varying levels of control.

Indiana had a 3rd Brakeman law on trains greater than 69 cars for any number of years until it was ultimately repealed.  To my limited knowledge it passed all legal challenges.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    November 2005
  • From: Hope, AR
  • 2,061 posts
Posted by narig01 on Friday, September 11, 2015 4:40 PM

jeffhergert

Yesterday, it was announced at our union meeting that California now requires two person crews on freight train and light engine moves.

http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/state-government/governor-signs-wolk-rail-safety-bill-into-law/

Jeff

 

I would have to wonder how well the law would stand up in court. Someone challenging the law would have ample example in California of one person operation of rail. The many public transport rail operations, operated by one person in varying levels of control.

  • Member since
    April 2007
  • From: Clearlake, California. USA
  • 869 posts
Posted by Lake on Thursday, September 10, 2015 6:36 PM

Deggesty

 

 
Randy Stahl

Why doesn't their logic apply to passenger trains, and why light engines  ??

 

This is twisted logic ...

Passenger trains don't carry dangerous cargo?

 

Do the legislators and governor know what a light engine is? Did they issue an unfunded mandate?

I am not astounded that Governor Moonbeam signed the legislation.

 

I'm sure that some one has figured this out.
And Brown got that name only because he wanted California to have its own satellite system for state emergency use.
Which Republicans, of course did not want to spend money on. Just like they do on PTC, and other safety measures. 

Ken G Price   My N-Scale Layout

Digitrax Super Empire Builder Radio System. South Valley Texas Railroad. SVTRR

N-Scale out west. 1996-1998 or so! UP, SP, Missouri Pacific, C&NW.

  • Member since
    June 2004
  • From: roundhouse
  • 2,747 posts
Posted by Randy Stahl on Thursday, September 10, 2015 6:13 PM

 

Single man in the cab, one or more crew members aboard the train..

 

 Exactly how the fatal California metrolink train was staffed....

  • Member since
    April 2007
  • From: Clearlake, California. USA
  • 869 posts
Posted by Lake on Thursday, September 10, 2015 6:13 PM

tree68

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.  

Many of the politicians do get it.                                                                                                   It is most of the voters that elect them and pay taxes, that do not get it.

Politicians in towns I lived in, Pacifica, San Francisco and now Clearlake, do know the fire fighters and police officers as well as many others who provide services such as these.

You may get elected in some places, by being ignorant of what goes on, but many not so.

Ken G Price   My N-Scale Layout

Digitrax Super Empire Builder Radio System. South Valley Texas Railroad. SVTRR

N-Scale out west. 1996-1998 or so! UP, SP, Missouri Pacific, C&NW.

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Thursday, September 10, 2015 5:54 PM

While passenger trains may only have one man in the operating cab of the locomotive - they do not operate with one man crews, as there is at least a Conductor on board the train and on some runs Assistant Conductor(s) - on my carrier the engineer communicates all signal aspects observed with the Conductor (and the rest of the railroad) over the radio on the road channel.  Engineers also communicate Defect Detector reading with the Conductor over the radio. 

If the engineer must copy a 'mandatory directive' (block authority, speed restriction, flood warning etc. etc. etc.) either the train must be stopped or a qualified individual sent to the operating cab to copy and repeat the directive.

One thing to remember for all trains at terminals - not all track switches are power operated and someone must line the proper route over hand throw switches.  The reality is that far fewer track switches are power operated than are hand throw.  Engineers comment all the time that they are operating millions of dollars of equipment being guided by the light of a 10 dollar lantern and the man that uses it.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: At the Crossroads of the West
  • 11,013 posts
Posted by Deggesty on Thursday, September 10, 2015 5:33 PM

Randy Stahl

Why doesn't their logic apply to passenger trains, and why light engines  ??

 

This is twisted logic ...

 

Passenger trains don't carry dangerous cargo?

Do the legislators and governor know what a light engine is? Did they issue an unfunded mandate?

I am not astounded that Governor Moonbeam signed the legislation.

Johnny

  • Member since
    June 2004
  • From: roundhouse
  • 2,747 posts
Posted by Randy Stahl on Thursday, September 10, 2015 5:08 PM

Why doesn't their logic apply to passenger trains, and why light engines  ??

 

This is twisted logic ...

  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: S.E. South Dakota
  • 13,569 posts
Posted by Murphy Siding on Thursday, September 10, 2015 4:59 PM

From the article:

     "Such redundancy is a fundamental safety principle that is evidenced in certain industries, such as using two pilots in an airplane cockpit, or requiring back-up cooling systems for nuclear reactors.” Laugh  Comparing a train to a ceashing airplane or a nuclear reactor meltdown seems about right don't you think? Stick out tongue

     Why aren't they requiring at least 2 qualified operators to be in each semi-truck heading down the highway?  They carry a lot of the same stuff, and they casue a lot more injuries and deaths per year.

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

  • Member since
    March 2003
  • From: Central Iowa
  • 6,901 posts
Posted by jeffhergert on Thursday, September 10, 2015 4:37 PM

Yesterday, it was announced at our union meeting that California now requires two person crews on freight train and light engine moves.

http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/state-government/governor-signs-wolk-rail-safety-bill-into-law/

Jeff

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Southeast Michigan
  • 2,983 posts
Posted by Norm48327 on Thursday, September 10, 2015 1:50 PM

gardendance
I was passenger on a couple of puddle jumper airplanes, Kansas City-Topeka and Barbados-Bequia, each one round trip, on each trip we had 1 crew member.

Under 49 CFR Part 135, on demand charter, that is perfectly legal. OTOH, under 49 CFR Part 121, scheduled airlines, it would not be.

Norm


  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 25,022 posts
Posted by tree68 on Thursday, September 10, 2015 1:08 PM

Electroliner 1935
Are alerters designed to moniter activity or some defined operation on a timed interval?

Yes - move a control (throttle, brake) and the timer resets.  Ours seem to be speed sensitive, too.  At low speeds it's about 20 seconds, at track speeds it runs about two minutes before the warnings begin.

The warnings begin with lights flashing on the alerter, followed by beeps, then a steady tone, then the brakes apply.

In a way, it's kind of nice to have the alerter start the notification process while running at speed on the main - it usually means you've found a spot where everything has settled in, so you aren't constantly making adjustments.

LarryWhistling
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...

  • Member since
    September 2010
  • 2,515 posts
Posted by Electroliner 1935 on Thursday, September 10, 2015 12:54 PM

Randy Stahl
They are required in Canada and they are required in the US for single man crews. Yes there are rules in place for single man crews in the US.

Was that added after the Metro North accident? So now all cab cars and locomotives used on commuter trains with one man crews are required to have alerters? Are alerters designed to moniter activity or some defined operation on a timed interval?

  • Member since
    June 2004
  • From: roundhouse
  • 2,747 posts
Posted by Randy Stahl on Thursday, September 10, 2015 12:40 PM

schlimm
 
Randy Stahl
BTW , crew alertors are not even required in the US.  

 

Do many roads use them in any case?  Seems like they should be mandatory.

 

 

Right, it appears that most railroads use them however I do know of a couple that do not. Some event recorders have the alertor built ringt in the the hardware.

 

They are required in Canada and they are required in the US for single man crews. Yes there are rules in place for single man crews in the US.

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Thursday, September 10, 2015 12:30 PM

Randy Stahl
BTW , crew alertors are not even required in the US.  

Do many roads use them in any case?  Seems like they should be mandatory.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy