https://finance.yahoo.com/news/railroads-renew-push-one-man-192334789.html
The sixth paragraph from the article:
Earlier this year, the Federal Railroad Administration abandoned a proposed rule to require two-man crews because it said there wasn't enough evidence to show they are safer.
Further in the article: The railroad industry has emphasized that crash data doesn't show that two-man crews are safer than one-person crews.
I wonder what is being used as "data" to "prove" that the two-person crew isn't safer; It might make for an interesting read.
Why would a two-person crew be safer than a one-person crew?
What are some examples of two persons preventing an accident that would have happened with just one person in the cab?
EuclidWhat are some examples of two persons preventing an accident that would have happened with just one person in the cab?
This is a bit difficult to answer, although there are some historical documented examples in various contexts. A big problem is that some very large number of potential accidents that were stopped by having 'two sets of eyes' were never documented for the simple reason they never progressed to accidents.
It's of course much easier to identify single-manned accidents that would not have happened with two-man crewing. Arguably the Bostian wreck with Amtrak 188 wouldn't have, and perhaps 502 in Washington (the assumption is two watchful independent crew, not simply a cluster of bodies that is only half a word). I'd suspect some other high-profile supposed goofs would have been likewise averted: Metro North at Spuyten Duyvil and that guy slamming the buffers at Hoboken recently being two prime instances. Lac Megantic almost goes without saying.
There are likewise examples where it didn't matter: the disaster with freak asphyxiation on an early F unit; a few Penn Central-era wrecks where everyone apparently fell asleep at the same time; the Amtrak wreck at Cayce; the opposing crews of head-ons close to sidings and the like.
To me, much of this converges on the idea that having an engineer running the train who is rested, alert, relatively undistracted and not subject to injury; and someone else in the cab aware of what's going on as the engineer runs the train; are reasonable things to provide. And my approach to 'single-manning' on the consist addresses that.
EuclidWhy would a two-person crew be safer than a one-person crew?
Overmod named some incidents which may have been avoided had there been two peop0le in the cab. We can also remember the incident which brought about the knee-jerk reaction declaring that certain stretches of railroad must have a positive control of trains.
Johnny
Overmod Euclid What are some examples of two persons preventing an accident that would have happened with just one person in the cab? A big problem is that some very large number of potential accidents that were stopped by having 'two sets of eyes' were never documented for the simple reason they never progressed to accidents.
Euclid What are some examples of two persons preventing an accident that would have happened with just one person in the cab?
A big problem is that some very large number of potential accidents that were stopped by having 'two sets of eyes' were never documented for the simple reason they never progressed to accidents.
If potential accidents were prevented by two sets of eyes, but never documented, how do we know such events happened?
EuclidIf potential accidents were prevented by two sets of eyes, but never documented, how do we know such events happened?
really?
I mean, really?
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
zugmann Euclid If potential accidents were prevented by two sets of eyes, but never documented, how do we know such events happened? really? I mean, really?
Euclid If potential accidents were prevented by two sets of eyes, but never documented, how do we know such events happened?
Look at it this way.
If a child chases a ball out from two parked cars, and you stop in time without hitting the said child, do you report it?
If someone runs a stop sign and you manage to avoid them, do you report that? (Maybe.)
If you're on a long, tiring drive and you nod off, but catch yourself before you put the car in a ditch, do you report that?
Of course you don't.
Hence the supposition that railroad accidents that have been prevented by having two people in the don't get reported, because there's no need to.
Flintlock76 zugmann Euclid If potential accidents were prevented by two sets of eyes, but never documented, how do we know such events happened? really? I mean, really? Look at it this way. If a child chases a ball out from two parked cars, and you stop in time without hitting the said child, do you report it? If someone runs a stop sign and you manage to avoid them, do you report that? (Maybe.) If you're on a long, tiring drive and you nod off, but catch yourself before you put the car in a ditch, do you report that? Of course you don't. Hence the supposition that railroad accidents that have been prevented by having two people in the don't get reported, because there's no need to.
I understand why accidents that never happened don't get reported. I am just wondering how one defines an accident that never happened.
EuclidI understand why accidents that never happened don't get reported. I am just wondering how one defines an accident that never happened.
close call? near miss?
DeggestyWe can also remember the incident which brought about the knee-jerk reaction declaring that certain stretches of railroad must have a positive control of trains.
And perhaps we can note that one-person head-end crews are now standard in passenger service, and perhaps extrapolate the experience there to the much-busier freight service?
"Proving" the negative is always hard. A parallel example from retailing (never resolved, ttbomk), is how many sales are lost because of the lack of sufficient sales staff.
Ever stop at the top of the stairs and realize that, because perhaps you weren't paying full attention to where you were walking, one more step and you'd have been at the bottom of the stairs in a heap? And probably hurting.
Bingo. Near miss.
It is a question we ask sometimes about our fire prevention efforts. It's not likely we'll ever find out about the kid who turned the pot handle in so little brother wouldn't grab it and end up burned.
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...
Even with PTC, there are times when two sets of eyes may be needed. It's when running with PTC under restricted speed conditions. We have a few locations, and I bet just about all railroaders also have them, where curves to the right have obstructed views for what ever reason. The person on the conductor's side can see better than the engineer. It's all about sight distance, and at restricted speed PTC doesn't know anything, except maybe a hand throw switch might not be lined properly. Nothing about equipment or a red flag or fusee ahead of it.
Jeff
Well sure, a near miss could be described as an accident that never happened. But the argument in the courts is about what the data shows in how many accidents would be prevented by two people in the cab instead of one person. Nobody is going to win that argument by just saying the two people in the cab is safer than one because it prevents accidents every day. I don’t see any reason why that could not prevent an accident. But to win the case, a large number of accidents prevented will have to be cited with solid evidence.
Otherwise, if it is just a matter of looking back on your life and counting accidents that never happened because they were prevented from happening by extra eyes or whatever; anyone can tally up as many accidents that never happened as they want to. There is no way they can be challenged on the validity of that sort of data.
So, with a motive to count a large number of accidents that never happened, a large count of accidents will be considered biased testimony and will not be admitted to the court deciding the benefit of two-man crews compared to one man crews. That’s all I am saying.
Concerning data, here's a story from World War One.
At the beginning of the war for a year afterward there were a tremendous amount of casualties from head wounds, no wonder consider the sheer amount of metal flying around the first of the modern battlefields.
So, helmets were adopted, the French first, then the British, then the Germans. The British army checked wound reports to see how effective the helmets were, and to their consternation they found the reports of head wounds went up.
"What the bloody hell did we bother to manufacture and issue helmets for if we're having more head wounds now?"
Then they looked a little closer. Deaths from head wounds earlier weren't reported as such, they were just reported as "Died from Wounds." After the helmets were issued the deaths from head wounds went down dramatically, the increase in head wounds reported were just that, head wounds, not deaths. The wounded men would have been dead without those helmets. That explained it!
So, the moral of the story is, don't jump to conclusions just looking at stats, look a little closer, and with a good dose of common sense.
Euclid Well sure, a near miss could be described as an accident that never happened. But the argument in the courts is about what the data shows in how many accidents would be prevented by two people in the cab instead of one person. Nobody is going to win that argument by just saying the two people in the cab is safer than one because it prevents accidents every day. I don’t see any reason why that could not prevent an accident. But to win the case, a large number of accidents prevented will have to be cited with solid evidence. Otherwise, if it is just a matter of looking back on your life and counting accidents that never happened because they were prevented from happening by extra eyes or whatever; anyone can tally up as many accidents that never happened as they want to. There is no way they can be challenged on the validity of that sort of data. So, with a motive to count a large number of accidents that never happened, a large count of accidents will be considered biased testimony and will not be admitted to the court deciding the benefit of two-man crews compared to one man crews. That’s all I am saying.
I think you make a valid point. Unfortunately; I also think that railroad disciplinary procedures would serve to prevent train crews from reporting “accidents that didn’t happen”.
I have a vague recollection of reading someplace that the FAA has an anonymous “near accident” reporting process for flight crews and air traffic controllers. The idea is these folks can report personal lapses that didn’t end badly so the FAA can study the near misses and try to find ways to prevent them. And; since the process is anonymous; the individual reporting the near miss needn’t fear disciplinary action.
Perhaps something like this might work in the railroad industry as well?
The "NASA Form"
https://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/
Pilots, air traffic controllers, flight attendants, mechanics, ground personnel, and others involved in aviation operations submit reports to the ASRS when they are involved in, or observe, an incident or situation in which aviation safety may have been compromised. All submissions are voluntary.
Reports sent to the ASRS are held in strict confidence. More than one million reports have been submitted to date and no reporter's identity has ever been breached by the ASRS. ASRS de-identifies reports before entering them into the incident database. All personal and organizational names are removed. Dates, times, and related information, which could be used to infer an identity, are either generalized or eliminated.
The FAA offers ASRS reporters further guarantees and incentives to report. It has committed itself not to use ASRS information against reporters in enforcement actions. It has also chosen to waive fines and penalties, subject to certain limitations, for unintentional violations of federal aviation statutes and regulations which are reported to ASRS. The FAA's initiation, and continued support of the ASRS program and its willingness to waive penalties in qualifying cases is a measure of the value it places on the safety information gathered, and the products made possible, through incident reporting to the ASRS.
There is a 'close call' report available to some of the railroad industry.
https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0733
About the only railroads participating are passenger railroads. A few freight carriers, but not the Class 1 carriers, have joined. I do recall we had such a program available once, but I don't know if it's still in use. Probably costs too much to collect the information and what's the use if you can't fire someone?
Here is some commentary on one-person crews versus two-person crews:
https://reason.org/commentary/one-person-rail-crews-can-safely-operate-trains/
Euclid Here is some commentary on one-person crews versus two-person crews: https://reason.org/commentary/one-person-rail-crews-can-safely-operate-trains/
Commentary by a right-wing lobbyist group disguising themselves as "libertarian".
How would you feel flying non-stop across the country with only one person in the cockpit? How about across the ocean?
How about when some yutz decides that since the plane only takes off and lands once, that there is no real reason to have anybody in the cabin, except perhaps a few seats (with the controls removed)--perhaps calling it UltraClass and selling them for megabucks. Maybe with a set of hostler controls in the Flight Attendent station, just in case the computer goes down.
Absurd? Of course.
So is a one-person crew on freight trains.
A one-person freight train, possibly completely automatic in operation, with the one person aboard for safety and in case of computer malfunction, makes a lot of sense on a completely grade separated right-of-way, with no switching en-route, and no unusual geographical hazards. No less safe than a typical modern rapid-transit line. And safer than a streetcar, bus, or your personal automotibile.
But add grade crossings, unfenced RoW in a populated area, switching en-route, steep hills on a hill-and-dale operation, any one or more of these, I'm all for insisting on two men. At least two men.
I’m admittedly not an economist or financial expert, but it seems intuitive to me that since each train can haul the equivalent of hundreds of truckloads of cargo, the labor component of train operation is insignificant relative to trucks. Therefore, adding or subtracting one crew member from each train should not have that much of an effect either way on rail’s ability to compete on price. If that is the case, then it seems the real agenda here is eliminating humans from the equation completely, as others have said. Or am I missing something?
I was all for paring down the 5-person crews because it seemed to me that at least two of the crew members had no real function whatsoever in the age of diesel locomotives and air brakes. However, I think there’s a good case to be made that each train should be manned by two people, for safety and operational reasons—and especially in this age of super long land-barge trains.
Interesting post on Train Orders concerning the CSX accident near Carey, OH last summer. The preliminary NTSB report revealed something that is relevant to this one man crew discussion.
https://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?2,4881974
zardoz Euclid Here is some commentary on one-person crews versus two-person crews: https://reason.org/commentary/one-person-rail-crews-can-safely-operate-trains/ You do realize that one-person crew is the platform from which no-person crews will launch?
You do realize that one-person crew is the platform from which no-person crews will launch?
Oh yes, of course I realize that. It is the same argument about reducing crew size, no matter whether from two persons to one person, or from one person to zero persons. It is the same motivation, that is, to reduce operating costs.
But safety is also part of operating costs, so if it can be proven that crew reductions result in a significant enough loss of safety, it may limit crew reductions. The proof has to accomplish two things:
1) Show that accidents claimed to have prevented by having two persons in the cab would have occurred if only one person was in the cab.
2) Show that accidents that did occur with one person in the cab would not have occurred with two persons in the cab.
Euclid1) Show that accidents claimed to have prevented by having two persons in the cab would have occurred if only one person was in the cab. 2) Show that accidents that did occur with one person in the cab would not have occurred with two persons in the cab.
The arguments for one-man (or no man) are strictly about finances. The proponents don't give a rat's behind about safety for anyone. They'll be perfectly happy if a unmanned train rams a school bus full of orphans and nuns as long as the stock price doesn't take a hit.
Given the size and length of trains today, a minimum of two people onboard seems reasonable. There might be some applications where only one person will do (like the Quebec, North Shore and Labrador which is a remote simple operation with no grade crossings) and others might require more than two crew where switching enroute is involved.
zugmann Euclid 1) Show that accidents claimed to have prevented by having two persons in the cab would have occurred if only one person was in the cab. 2) Show that accidents that did occur with one person in the cab would not have occurred with two persons in the cab. The arguments for one-man (or no man) are strictly about finances. The proponents don't give a rat's behind about safety for anyone. They'll be perfectly happy if a unmanned train rams a school bus full of orphans and nuns as long as the stock price doesn't take a hit.
Euclid 1) Show that accidents claimed to have prevented by having two persons in the cab would have occurred if only one person was in the cab. 2) Show that accidents that did occur with one person in the cab would not have occurred with two persons in the cab.
When I say that safety is also part of operating cost, I mean safety as imposed by the regulators. If crew size reduction also loses safety, the regulators would impose limits on crew size reduction that would be in effect a cost rather than a benefit. I did not mean that railroad management is directly worried about the safety and viewing it as a drawback to reduced crew size. It is the regulators that will consider safety, and they will want to have solid evidence.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.