Administration to Mandate Two Person Freight Crews

[PJS1]

tree68

 Amtrak has been running one person crews virtually since Day 1. 

An Amtrak conductor who works the Texas Eagle between San Antonio and Fort Worth, has told me if an Amtrak run is less than five hours, only an engineer is required in the cab.  If it is more than five hours, two people are required up front.

 

A Fort Worth based engineer works No. 21 from Fort Worth to Austin.  At Austin he/she is replaced by a San Antonio based engineer that takes the train from Austin to San Antonio.  A San Antonio based engineer operates No. 22 from San Antonio to Austin, where he/she is replaced by a Fort Worth based engineer for the run from Austin to Fort Worth.  The scheduled time between Austin and Fort Worth is less than five hours.

 

The conductor and assistant conductor on Nos 21 and 22 work from San Antonio to Fort Worth or vice versa.  The conductor and assistant conductor are based in San Antonio.     

 

As I understand Amtrak’s procedure, if only the engineer is in the cab, the conductor is in constant communication with the engineer.  He/she is required to know the location of the train and every signal along the route.  As the train approaches a signal, the engineer is required to call it to the conductor for confirmation.  If he/she does not call it, the conductor is required to call the engineer for confirmation. 

[Euclid]

Here is an FRA report on the topic of the emerging “longer train” trend.  It is a discussion of the issue by the FRA, railroad management, and railroad labor.  They cover things like increasing in-train forces, blocked grade crossings, the need for increasing crew training for handling longer trains, and optimizing train makekup. 

 

Not only are these issues covered from the differing perspectives of the Stakeholders, but they are covered in detail to the extent I have never seen before. 

 

For instance, here is a detailed description of how a grade crossing may be blocked for days:

 

  • Initial congestion may contribute to further congestion due to HOS limitations. According to focus group transcripts, congestion and bottlenecks, such as those related to infrastructure limitations, may result in crews running up against their HOS limitations. It takes time to get new crews out to the train, and the train is tied down at the location where it is stopped. When this happens while a train is over a grade crossing, it can extend the length of time the train blocks the crossing for hours or even days.

 

 

Fortunately, they have coined a name for these longer trains, which have informally been referred to as “Monster Trains.”  I have referred to them sometimes as “Ultra-long trains.”  But the FRA now refers to them singularly as a VLT which stands for VERY LONG TRAIN.  Apparently they wanted a less inflammatory and sinister term than, “Monster train.”

 

However, despite the agreement on the term, VLT, there is still the unmet need to define what actually constitutes a VLT besides the idea that “You will know it when you see it.”

 

Here is the link to the report:

 

Stakeholder Perceptions of Longer Trains

 

https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/2022-12/Stakeholder%20Perceptions%20of%20Longer%20Trains_Final_-A.pdf

[Overmod]

What I suspect you'll see with 'long trains' is a combination of assessing new, much larger penalties for cutting crossings, combined with very strict enforcement of high dollar penalties for any train above a certain length, say what was being proposed in the House and Senate bills (about 80 cars?)  

In other words, disincentives that remove the perceived 'cost advantages' of operating very long DP consists slowly.  Rather than an outright ban on train length, for which there is likely no contrived "safety" justification now any more than at other times the idea of train-length restrictions has been floated.

Not surprisingly, if there is a guaranteed $5000 to $25000 fee for every crossing left 'uncut' after 15 minutes from certain kinds of stop... much of the big perceived savings from one-man crews goes away.

[Euclid]

zugmann

 

 

Euclid

I don’t think the industry would accept the offer.

 

 

Federal orders aren't "make a deal". 

 

I wouldn't be surprised if we eventually get a train-size limit as well.  

I too would not be surprised if the FRA limits train length.  In some of their recent publications, they seem very concerned about the possibility that the trend of major increases of train length is causing more derailments.  They attribute this to rising “in-train” forces and unfavorable train makeup, which are working together to increase the risk of derailment.  They also talk about how the longer trains affect grade crossings. 

[tree68]

alphas

To me, if you are going to have a 2 man road crew then it should be something like the airlines have.    Namely an Engineer and Assistant Engineer or maybe Senior Engineer and Engineer.     That way one man doesn't have to be at the trottle all of the trip.   The Assistant would probably be younger so would be the one doing any required groundwork.    [Local freights would probably have one Engineer and 1 or 2 Conductors.]

That already happens more than you might think.

[greyhounds]

The economics driving the need for one person train crews (and long trains for that matter) are compelling. They will be, or are, of great benefit the people of the US and Canada.  They will make our logistics system more efficient.  This will lower the cost of logistics to the general public. 

 

I reckon I’ve greatly irritated some people with what I wrote in the preceding paragraph.  They shouldn’t be so upset; I’m not suggesting running 200 car manifests with HAZMAT cars on busy main lines with one person aboard. 

 

And some people will be irritated that I’m focused on money instead of people.  Well, I don’t think that economic concerns (money) are everything.  I do think that such concerns are the foundation of everything.  A good economy enables things such as good health care, good schools, good nutrition, etc.  Anything that reduces a major and necessary cost to the people, such as logistics, improves the overall economy.  This is good.  We can then get more good things and services to make our lives better.

 

OK, let’s start.  All benefits have costs.  Reducing these costs makes more benefits more available to more people. This improves the standard of living.

 

Costs can be broken down into two almost distinct categories: 1) Fixed and 2) Variable.  Fixed costs don’t change with the volume produced while variable costs do change with the volume produced. 

 

An example would be someone leasing an auto repair facility for his/her business of repairing automobiles.  Those lease costs don’t change based on the number of autos repaired.  The lease costs are “Fixed.”

 

On the other hand, the labor (number of mechanic hours) required will change based on the number of cars repaired.  So, labor is normally thought of as a variable expense based on the volume of output.

 

Please remember that I said, “Almost Distinct” and “Normally”.  Also realize that any enterprise must, at a minimum, cover both its fixed and variable costs to stay in business. (The lease covers the facility’s cost of capital, which is very real.)

 

The “Almost Distinct” thing comes into play with train crew labor. Once a railroad decides to operate a schedule to serve a market the train crew labor becomes a “Virtual” fixed cost.  Labor that is normally thought of as a variable cost becomes a fixed cost over a broad range of volume.  It doesn’t matter if the train is moving 10 loads or 80 loads.  The train crew labor cost doesn’t change.

 

Fixed costs, when combined with variable costs, produce a volume hurdle that must be cleared if the railroad's operation of the schedule is to be viable.  Requiring a two-person crew for the operation of any and all trains will unnecessarily increase the height of the hurdle that must be cleared.

 

Since smaller origins and destinations cannot provide the required volume to clear the higher hurdle they are largely left to the truckers.  There are a lot of such smaller origins and destinations.  The railroads could well provide most of them with truck competitive rail service if the cost hurdle could be lowered by using one person crews where feasible.  I am certain this would increase the level of rail union employment if tried.

 

Now let the Luddites roar.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[alphas]

To me, if you are going to have a 2 man road crew then it should be something like the airlines have.    Namely an Engineer and Assistant Engineer or maybe Senior Engineer and Engineer.     That way one man doesn't have to be at the trottle all of the trip.   The Assistant would probably be younger so would be the one doing any required groundwork.    [Local freights would probably have one Engineer and 1 or 2 Conductors.]

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

This may not be the best example of the limitations of one-man operation but the Chicago Transit Authority has operated its rapid transit service with only a motorman, no conductor, for some years now.  There haven't been any major issues but the equipment is rather homogeneous in its dimensions and performance characteristics.

[Flintlock76]

zugmann

Federal orders aren't "make a deal". 

Right, that was the point of my post.  It was a "Take it or leave it!" scenario.

"You want one-person train operation approval from us, this is what we want from you."  

[BaltACD]

zugmann

Doesn't amtrak limit one-person engine cabs to runs shorter than 6 or 8 hours?

Which - by schedule is most all of their crew runs - of course day to day railroading will make many of those runs over 8 hours in reality.

Auto-Train is engineer only in the cab with crew change and fueling at Florence, SC both ways. 

[mvlandsw]

They did that on the Capitol. When they went to a one person engine crew the engineers did not run the entire distance without changing.

[zugmann]

Doesn't amtrak limit one-person engine cabs to runs shorter than 6 or 8 hours?

[mvlandsw]

[quote user="tree68"]

When you get right down to it, Amtrak has been running one person crews virtually since Day 1.  Yes there is a conductor on the train, but the engineer is more often than not alone in the cab."

Amtrak did not start with one person engine crews. I worked as a fireman on the Capitol Limited at least into the mid 1980's.

Mark Vinski

 

[tree68]

zugmann

I wouldn't be surprised if we eventually get a train-size limit as well.  

Probably do better selling it as a way to shorten the public's wait at crossings than any safety aspect...

[rdamon]

zugmann

I wouldn't be surprised if we eventually get a train-size limit as well.  

 

It is an election year ...  everyone hold on!!

[zugmann]

Euclid

I don’t think the industry would accept the offer.

Federal orders aren't "make a deal". 

 

I wouldn't be surprised if we eventually get a train-size limit as well.  

Granted these can all be rescinded with the net administration, but buckle in, contract negotiations are going to be fun.   Or probably lack of fun, since there will be no negotiation and it will go straight to the PEB. 

[greyhounds]

SD70Dude

For the record, even Hunter Harrison said that he thought 1-man crews are a bad idea in the majority of situations.

 

I’ll agree.  For the majority of situations as they exist today.

 

blue streak 1

Let us talk about a derailment.  Worse case. Train "X" derails about 5600 feet behind last loco.  Flamable oil Haz Mat is leaking and starting to burn.  Some 10 - 20 cars in front of the burning oil is a bunch of TIH is in the train.  Now the alone engineer tries to move train but cannot due to emergency brakes applied.  Also he cannot back to take up slack.  So, he walks to closest safest car, turns off air valve, trys to pull car's pin then walks back to engine still cannot go forward, backs against slack walks back to cut off car, pulls pin and hopes it stays pulled walks back to engine and pulls away with the very hazardous cars.

 

Now if (the) engineer has a conductor the conductor can walk back bleeding some emergency air from some cars and goes to where it is safe to cut train as engineer start trying to pull away. Once engineer gets train moving conductor boards whatever car he is at and rides away from burning car(s).

 

A solution could be to require all trains handling cars placarded for HAZMAT/TIH to have a 2^nd crew member.  Preferably someone trained for such an emergency and provided with a protective mask and protective clothing.  Put the cost in the freight rate,

 

Now let’s assume a unit train of frac sand……

 

Or better yet, let’s try to understand the rational for one-person crews (or fully autonomous trains) and why they make sense in certain situations.   

 

I’ll go into the economics of the situation in another post.  Before that, just remember this prescient quote:

 

“James J. Hill said in an interview with Frank L. McVey at the turn of the twentieth century ‘that railroad income is based on ton miles and the expense of operation on train miles. The object is to get the highest rate [operating revenue] on the ton-mile and the smallest rate [operating expense] on the train mile.’  In this statement is concentrated the theory of railroad management of the present day.”---Gallamore, Robert E.; Meyer, John R.. American Railroads: Decline and Renaissance in the Twentieth Century . Harvard University Press. Kindle Edition.

 

And also realize that railroad management has several diverse constituencies to deal with.

 

 

[tree68]

Anyone who watches the cams at Deshler, OH can identify with the congestion issue. If NWO (the Northwest Ohio intermodal yard) is clogged (which happens all too often) it just cascades out. 

Trains often sit on the west yard track at South Desher for hours at a time, either for space at NWO, or waiting for a crew.

 

[BaltACD]

Flintlock76

Just throwing this out for everyone's consideration.

Suppose the FRA said:

"You want one-person trains?  OK, we'll go along with that but on one condition, the maximum size of a freight train will be 50 cars and no more.  THEN you can have your one-person crews."

I wonder what the reaction might have been?  

Viewing just car counts - one doesn't understand what is actually happening in the operations.

At present signal separation distances nominally define how big a train is in operational reality.  Today the carriers are in the process of spacing signals about THREE MILES apart.  If we consider the most basic of signal progressions - Clear, Approach, Stop.  Capacity wise it makes little difference it a train is 1500 feet long or 15000 feet long.  it takes 2+ blocks behind any train for a following train to get a Clear signal - no matter if the train ahead is 1500 feet or 15000 feet.

If a train is operating on an Approach indication - it must operate in a manner that will allow the train to STOP at the next signal - thus it is not operating at Maximum allowed speed - it makes no difference if the train ahead is 1500 feet or 15000 feet in length.

Crunch time comes, nominally, at two places - destination terminals and crew change locations.  Trains longer than the 'receiving' tracks at the destination terminal will block out that yard in the time that is required to yard its entire train.  At Crew Change location - you must have an Outbound Crew available and on duty to keep the train moving and the line segment fluid.  Most Crew Change locations, in the PSR world, are not much bigger than a Main Track and a Siding Track.  With the location only consisting of two tracks - you can only block one track with a train waiting for a crew - if you have two trains waiting for crews at the location - THE LOCATION IS SHUT DOWN!.  At times of crew shortage, trains without crews available start getting parked further and further from the Crew Change Location - just to keep one track through the location Open for the trains that are able, for whatever the reasons, through the Crew Change Location.

 

[Euclid]

Flintlock76

Just throwing this out for everyone's consideration.

Suppose the FRA said:

"You want one-person trains?  OK, we'll go along with that but on one condition, the maximum size of a freight train will be 50 cars and no more.  THEN you can have your one-person crews."

I wonder what the reaction might have been?  

 

I don’t think the industry would accept the offer.  Crew cost is not just based on crew size, but also on train size.  The railroads have already reduced their crew cost by reverting to monster trains. If they are forced to have two-person crews, they will just try to make their trains even longer.    

[Overmod]

Flintlock76

I wonder what the reaction might have been?

Been done already, on C&NW in the 1960s, with TOFC 'scoots' to be operated much the same way Perlman suggested for Western Pacific.  Run 'em fast, frequent, and loaded a la People Express -- when the consist is full, or if the schedule time arrives, you go, and any overflow goes on the next one...

Of course that was in an age when delivery speed was expected to compete with contemporary OTR truck timing.  That's not in the PSR business model any more (and service based on high speed very, very seldom pays its costs in modern freight operation vs. precision JIT...)

[Flintlock76]

SD70Dude

Even in the 21st century hard paper copies are still better for some things.

The medical professions certainly think so.  Even in this day and age they still swear by faxes, they like that hard copy and for various reasons, all good.

[Flintlock76]

Just throwing this out for everyone's consideration.

Suppose the FRA said:

"You want one-person trains?  OK, we'll go along with that but on one condition, the maximum size of a freight train will be 50 cars and no more.  THEN you can have your one-person crews."

I wonder what the reaction might have been?  

[BaltACD]

SD70Dude

For the record, even Hunter Harrison said that he thought 1-man crews are a bad idea in the majority of situations.

Our railway-supplied electronic devices have a tendency to try to update whenever they get a bit of cell signal, and they won't let you use certain apps until the updates are complete.  In practice this means that in areas of poor cell service you can lose access to your rulebook in the middle of a trip.  I would hate for that to happen to my TGBOs, clearances or track warrants.

Even in the 21st century hard paper copies are still better for some things.

Most anybody that has used a cell phone from a vehicle that is in motion will come across 'dead zones'.  The dead zones may actually be someplace where there actually is no cell service - but there are also numerous locations where service exists, however, for what ever the reason signal goes dead - even though cell tower placements indicate there SHOULD be a signal.

From my railroad experience with the railroad radio systems - there are STILL some dead zones.  While the company was not using DPU locomotives when I retired, I do know that the company has added a number of 'radio repeaters' to facilitate the operation of DPU locomotives within my old territories.

[Ulrich]

At least two on board seems like a good idea, even when the amount of work doesn't necessarily call for two people. It's the issue of people working alone for long periods of time.. if something happens there's no fall back, and even a relatively minor setback can quickly turn into something quite bad. 

[SD70Dude]

For the record, even Hunter Harrison said that he thought 1-man crews are a bad idea in the majority of situations.

Our railway-supplied electronic devices have a tendency to try to update whenever they get a bit of cell signal, and they won't let you use certain apps until the updates are complete.  In practice this means that in areas of poor cell service you can lose access to your rulebook in the middle of a trip.  I would hate for that to happen to my TGBOs, clearances or track warrants.

Even in the 21st century hard paper copies are still better for some things.

[BaltACD]

jeffhergert

...

Jeff

PS.  Regarding the railroad issued electronic devices.  We were all issued them last year.  Told to use them or else.  The beginning of this year most of us had to turn them back in.  Only those working yard and local jobs were to keep them.  It seems that being an enhanced cell phone, they had a cellular service plan.  The cost for service for all the devices was said to be a lot more than what they had planned for.  

[jeffhergert]

BaltACD

 

 

greyhounds

 

BaltACD

As a practical matter - Dispatchers will endeavor to transmit train messages and/or mandatory directives to Amtrak or others with only a engineer in the cab while their trains are making scheduled station stops.  However, if a station stop is not in the offing either the Conductor must come to the operating cab or the train must be stopped.  These rules apply on CSX - other carriers 'may' have different rules. 

Why does the message need to be copied instead of transmitted wirelessly and displayed or printed?

 

 

Because 'at present' that is not the procedure.  To my knowledge locomotives have not been equipped with wireless printers that can be addressed through the CADS.  I believe all the Class 1 are using one form or another of CADS to run their properties.

However the communication is made, there must be positive confirmation between Dispatchers and trains that the communication is both received and understood. If display or wireless printer is used, I suspect, the person receiving the communication will be required to verbally repeat the communication over the radio to the Train Dispatcher.

 

 

Track warrants and track bulletins can be transmitted electronically to trains.  It can be done through PTC or railroad supplied electronic devices.  However, they still need to be copied by a crewmember and then read back to the dispatcher.  (You are supposed to read back the instructions received from the hand copied document, not what's on the display screen.  This is to ensure that the person copying the instructions didn't make a mistake when writing them out.  That has happened.)  The requirement remains that this cannont be done by a crewmember at the operating controls of a moving train.  

The need for making a hard copy should be obvious.  Electronic devices, PTC or hand held, have been known to fail.  Should that happen, then human memory would be the only record for the train crew if there is no hard copy.

Jeff

PS.  Regarding the railroad issued electronic devices.  We were all issued them last year.  Told to use them or else.  The beginning of this year most of us had to turn them back in.  Only those working yard and local jobs were to keep them.  It seems that being an enhanced cell phone, they had a cellular service plan.  The cost for service for all the devices was said to be a lot more than what they had planned for.  

[blue streak 1]

Let us talk about a derailment.  Worse case. Train "X" derails about 5600 feet behind last loco.  Flamable oil Haz Mat is leaking and starting to burn.  Some 10 - 20 cars in front of the burning oil is a bunch of TIH is in the train.  Now the alone engineer tries to move train but cannot due to emergency brakes applied.  Also he cannot back to take up slack.  So, he walks to closest safest car, turns off air valve, trys to pull car's pin then walks back to engine still cannot go forward, backs against slack walks back to cut off car, pulls pin and hopes it stays pulled walks back to engine and pulls away with the very hazardous cars.

Now if engineer has a conductor the conductor can walk back bleeding some emergency air from some cars and goes to where it is safe to cut train as engineer start trying to pull away. Once engineer gets train moving conductor boards whatever car he is at and rides away from burning car(s).