Euclid Is this thread just an academic discussion about the pros and cons of crew size without any connection to the actual practice?
This isn't the "Railway Age" forums and given that we are a group made up primarily of railfans debating the issue then Yes, it is..
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
I think so.. there's also a lot of talk about sending people to Mars. It's going to happen, but I don't think its on anyone's to do list right now. Train crew size may be a subject that's being discussed in the trade media, but I highly doubt its top of mind among senior managers in the industry.. not now with so many other issues like PTC that need to be put to bed first. Eventually, as I stated earlier, AI will come into play, and everything will change for all of us.. Crew size may indeed be a moot point by then as there may not be any human crew required. That small 3 pound mass between our ears can do alot.. there's no reason to believe those same functions can't be replicated or even improved upon via machine. But that's still way out in the future.. at least a couple of years.
The industry isn't pushing too hard for one person crews.. it's on the backburner somewhere for sure, but its not something of pressing importance right now. In light of the looming PTC deadline the very LAST thing they want to do right now is to pick a fight with their rank and file. They need all hands on deck to deal with PTC... PTC plus an across the board reduction in crew size would be a really really dumb move.
It's getting tired hearing the same old song about the railroads not wanting ECP. What they don't want is a mandate for something has some benefits, but so far, not enough to go for a wholesale outfitting of equipment. Especially when it isn't a solution to the problem being used to require the mandate.
Plain and simple, the railroads are going to save money out of one pocket. It may cost them as much or more out of others, but they will experience a savings in one pocket. A little spin and they can explain away any other expenses.
There are other things the railroad, and I assume other large corporations in any industry work the same way, has invested in expecting large savings that never develope. Even though they may not experience the large savings, they do experience some savings. Even if it's pennies on the dollar. Therefore, that particular investment will be deemed a rousing success beyond their wildest expectations.
It' all about the numbers, after they have been spinned for Wall Street.
Jeff
caldreamer It is said that two heads are better than one. In this case both crew members missed the signal indication, BUT I am sure that there have been numerous unreported cases where one or both crew members saw danger and stopped the train. Do you really think the idea oa one man crew is a good idea? I do not.
It is said that two heads are better than one. In this case both crew members missed the signal indication, BUT I am sure that there have been numerous unreported cases where one or both crew members saw danger and stopped the train. Do you really think the idea oa one man crew is a good idea? I do not.
BaltACD schlimm With a crazy philosophy of running 2-3 mile long trains, you inevitably will have even more equipment failures. Having extra crew doesn't help that very much. What is your 'optimum' train size? What other investments must be undertaken to support that size train? Will that train size be more 'profitable' than what is being done today?
schlimm With a crazy philosophy of running 2-3 mile long trains, you inevitably will have even more equipment failures. Having extra crew doesn't help that very much.
With a crazy philosophy of running 2-3 mile long trains, you inevitably will have even more equipment failures. Having extra crew doesn't help that very much.
What is your 'optimum' train size? What other investments must be undertaken to support that size train? Will that train size be more 'profitable' than what is being done today?
I do not know. I do know that trains that long (to reduce labor), with some cars with very heavy lading have many negative consequences. 1. Track damage. 2. Inadequate plant in terms of sidings, terminal facilities, resulting in delays. 3. Equipment failures: drawbars pulled, broken couplers, wheel failures all resulting in more delays. The final product is a railroad that can only competively handle slow, drag freights of one low-margin bulk commodity (coal, oil, ethanol, grain) or product such as autoracks point to point with no reliable schedule. You keep fading business at the expense of growing with faster, scheduled higher margin commodities delivered to more places. It's a case of a short-sighted vision.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
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.
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.
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.
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]
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.
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.
PS In transit operations it works because of the shorter runs.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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...
Jack Fuller
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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....
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.
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.