Labor News and Trains Magazine

[greyhounds]

QUOTE: Originally posted by sammythebull

In an issue of the magazine from either 2004 or early 2005, the writer made a comment on a article on remote control that the new method was perhaps the most productive upgrade since steam engs were phased out. That has to be the most stupid ,pro rr, anti rail labor statement ever printed in Trains. Get real here--all RCO has done is slowed down yard operations, increased expenses for repairing worn out brk shoes and its much, much slower than the old way. It doesn't work!!!

Take a look at Clearing Yard on the BRC which is efficiently and productively operated by RCO and then tell us "It doesn't work!!!".

It works just fine. It improves the economics of operations, something that is needed.

Take a look at the Inidana Rail Road, which operates both RCO and One Man Crews. They BOTH work just fine and allow the Indiana to be a successful enterprise that can afford to put down CWR and improve it physical plant intead of paying excess crew people to ride trains.

I think the IRR is the 21st Century equivalent of the Florida East Coast with regards to showing how successful a railroad can be if the union work rules can be kept up to date.

[croteaudd]

From topic page 1:

QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe

You have me a little lost here. What is the "greater universal national concern?"

Gabe:

No nation today is from millenniums ago. So, national mortality is significant. And national mortality is caused by, in my opinion, human mortality.

If the lack of human longevity did not universally infect man, economics (read “money”) would function very differently (read “more ethically”), and there simply would not be any labor problems.

[Anonymous]

[Junctionfan]

True but EOTs are relatively basic technology that is probably economic and it also eliminated the cost of maintainance of the caboose too. It also allows them to run at least 1 more car which doesn't seem like much but a whole bunch of trains with an extra car over a fiscal year translates into lots of money.

What they are proposing requires an extensive system including automatic couplers/decouplers and automatic airhose coupling and decoupling. Now pay for those components. (2 of each X over 1 million cars = TOO MUCH MONEY) it's doubtful that the other railroads particularly the regionals and shortlines plus leasing companies and industries would go for that anyways. What is an single digit millions in conductor salaries compared to an additional 10 billion dollars for a new dispatch system (PTC)?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

True but EOTs are relatively basic technology that is probably economic and it also eliminated the cost of maintainance of the caboose too. It also allows them to run at least 1 more car which doesn't seem like much but a whole bunch of trains with an extra car over a fiscal year translates into lots of money.

What they are proposing requires an extensive system including automatic couplers/decouplers and automatic airhose coupling and decoupling. Now pay for those components. (2 of each X over 1 million cars = TOO MUCH MONEY) it's doubtful that the other railroads particularly the regionals and shortlines plus leasing companies and industries would go for that anyways. What is an single digit millions in conductor salaries compared to an additional 10 billion dollars for a new dispatch system (PTC)?

Andrew-

Actually, your analysis is seriously flawed. Most of what you are proposing is completely unecessary. There is no need for automatic uncoupling and the coupling process is already automatic. Thus the term "Automatic Coupler" which has been used to describe knuckle type couplers for decades.

For example, the way the Brits handle it is that trains are made up and classified at yards where switchmen are stationed and sometimes entire 2 or 3 man yard crews. Road trains crewed by a single "Driver" run between the yards. Here in the US on many shortlines trains are operated by an engineer with a conductor following in a truck or SUV to assist in switching. Sometimes as on the IRR the train is equipped with RC and also there are specialized RC functions beyond traditional RCL that can be handled remotely by the Dispatcher. None of this is a substantial expense when compared with the potential savings of eliminating one of the train crew members.It is likely that yard assignments in the U.S. will continue to be handled by two man crews using RCL or perhaps 3 man non-RCL crews.

Finally, you apparently missed the fact that what you incorrectly refer to as "single digit millions" is in fact projected to be a savings by Class 1 railroads of at least $1Billion.

LC

[Junctionfan]

What about decoupling? I see a slight problem with just an engineer as a crew particularly if handling a 100+ car train. If he had to drop up or pick up cars for a siding and there was no crew about, the engineer would have get out and walk a mile to the switch, walk a mile back to back the train up, walk back to uncouple and do release or apply car brakes, throw the switch, walk back and then repeat as required depending on how many tracks the cars are on. Now perhaps this is where the remote control could help so there is that as a solution. The only problem now is what happens at a crossing and the gates are faulty or the crossing already requires normally a flagman to protect the crossing? Remote control again is a possibility though.

What I was proposing for the automatic couple/ uncouple system was that computer wise, you could uncouple a certain group or single cars by pressing a button. Also instead of manually hooking up the airhoses, airhoses would be like a coupler and could computer controlled for hook up or disconnection.

Actually I am surprised it is that much. I had no idea it was that much. That is a little bit better then; ROI will start to kick in in 9 years then. I don't know if the board will necessarily approve of such investment as it might not be compatible with their fiscal budget.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

What about decoupling? I see a slight problem with just an engineer as a crew particularly if handling a 100+ car train. If he had to drop up or pick up cars for a siding and there was no crew about, the engineer would have get out and walk a mile to the switch, walk a mile back to back the train up, walk back to uncouple and do release or apply car brakes, throw the switch, walk back and then repeat as required depending on how many tracks the cars are on. Now perhaps this is where the remote control could help so there is that as a solution. The only problem now is what happens at a crossing and the gates are faulty or the crossing already requires normally a flagman to protect the crossing? Remote control again is a possibility though.

What I was proposing for the automatic couple/ uncouple system was that computer wise, you could uncouple a certain group or single cars by pressing a button. Also instead of manually hooking up the airhoses, airhoses would be like a coupler and could computer controlled for hook up or disconnection.

Actually I am surprised it is that much. I had no idea it was that much. That is a little bit better then; ROI will start to kick in in 9 years then. I don't know if the board will necessarily approve of such investment as it might not be compatible with their fiscal budget.

Switching moves would either be handled by trainmen in vehicles or through the Engineer making a set out using RC as I understand it. The grade crossing issue has already been addressed by IRR with DS control of horn/bell and lights and loco mounted cams. Many switches are already RC and in areas where there was a large amount of switching or at major class yards 2 man RCL crews could be used to handle additional volume.

I'm thinking that a good amount of the benefits of one man crews could already be achieved on lighter density lines without PTC. ROI would probably be less than 10 years...

LC

[greyhounds]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan



Actually I am surprised it is that much. I had no idea it was that much. That is a little bit better then; ROI will start to kick in in 9 years then. I don't know if the board will necessarily approve of such investment as it might not be compatible with their fiscal budget.

Will you please go take a finance class.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan



Actually I am surprised it is that much. I had no idea it was that much. That is a little bit better then; ROI will start to kick in in 9 years then. I don't know if the board will necessarily approve of such investment as it might not be compatible with their fiscal budget.

Will you please go take a finance class.

FOFLMAO...

LC

[jeffhergert]

Concerning the Indiana Rail Road. I heard or read, don't remember which, that they have a utility employee follow there one man trains in a pickup on the highway to help out with pickups/setouts or for break downs. Is this true? If it is, in reality then, isn't it still really a two man crew?
When ever one man crews are talked about that is what is said. There will be utility people who have a zone in which they will help the trains with work, etc. The question is will there be enough utility people when more than one train has problems? Delays on a major mainline cost big bucks. At least with a conductor there is someone who can immediately go back and replace a knuckle or air hose. If you have to wait for the u-man, it may be an hour or two before he can get to you, if he can get to you.
Jeff

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeffhergert

Concerning the Indiana Rail Road. I heard or read, don't remember which, that they have a utility employee follow there one man trains in a pickup on the highway to help out with pickups/setouts or for break downs. Is this true? If it is, in reality then, isn't it still really a two man crew?
When ever one man crews are talked about that is what is said. There will be utility people who have a zone in which they will help the trains with work, etc. The question is will there be enough utility people when more than one train has problems? Delays on a major mainline cost big bucks. At least with a conductor there is someone who can immediately go back and replace a knuckle or air hose. If you have to wait for the u-man, it may be an hour or two before he can get to you, if he can get to you.
Jeff

As I recall from TRAINS May 2002 issue the IRR used one man crews that were largely self sufficient. The engineer in that article had an enroute failure and changed an airhose by himself. Of course, a knuckle would be more difficult, but now when a two man crew gets a knuckle the usual response is to send the car department out with a block truck to make the necessary repairs in any event. I doubt the reduction to a one man crew would change this. IRR does use U-men as well, and as I recall also has one man RCL jobs for switching in certain places where a two man crew would not be economically feasible.

LC

[arbfbe]

Perhaps it would help if railroad labor had a viewpoint the magazine could report on. The unions are so fractionalized the barely agree upon anything it seems. The carriers are doing an excellent job of playing the BLE and UTU off one another leaving those unions in a race to the bottom hoping to be the last one to survive.

Alan

[Anonymous]

I'm kind-of-pleased with most of what I've read so far. Hopefully, over the next couple of weeks we can exchange more on these issue. This has been "dark" territory in the past. It certainly needs the light of day.

One of the most crucial aspect of "out-sourcing" manufacturing to a different state, region or country, is cheap transportation. And as we look into the great abyss of safety along the rails; is a one person crew really safe or is it only necessary for the next round of "out-sourcing?

Next, there is always someone somewhere that will do it cheaper, at what point as a society do we say STOP!

Although most of us think morals and values are associated with issues like drug use, sexual promiscuity, honesty and maybe marriage and such... Are there not morals and values associated with the powerfully sharing the wealth through jobs?

Next, if Trains has done such a good job providing fans with a good picture of the balance between Labor and Management, what is an "arbitrary" payment?

There was one or two that perceived me as having the power to chase-away someone. I have no power of that and I certainly didn't perceive them with that power either!

After all, in an open society, even the lesser of us gets to question the "experts."

Jim - Lawton, NV MP 236

[Junctionfan]

I don't know Jim to answer your question about morals sharing the wealth through jobs. I always figured if someone in business truly loved their country, businesses in the "homeland" should come first. American businesses prefer workers in America, Canadian businesses prefer workers in Canada, etc.

What do I know though about greed other than it's not logical? The whole economic chaos that we are forced to embrace or be destroyed is nothing more than a bar room joke of the business elite at the expense of average Joe working stiff. Those who can adapt get sucked in and become brainwashed like a gambler who has been hooked on the slots and for so far not lost. Everybody else suffers and becomes bitter and resentful with others fortunate to succeed and even the deserving are often targeted in vengeance discriminately or indiscriminately with blue-collar crime by those who can't continue on. Those who can't commit crime commit suicide and the majority of the low income people become either miserable, disappointed wondering what they could have been or done if they had the money, or all of the above.

Isn't the 21st Century just grand?

[jeffhergert]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeffhergert

Concerning the Indiana Rail Road. I heard or read, don't remember which, that they have a utility employee follow there one man trains in a pickup on the highway to help out with pickups/setouts or for break downs. Is this true? If it is, in reality then, isn't it still really a two man crew?
When ever one man crews are talked about that is what is said. There will be utility people who have a zone in which they will help the trains with work, etc. The question is will there be enough utility people when more than one train has problems? Delays on a major mainline cost big bucks. At least with a conductor there is someone who can immediately go back and replace a knuckle or air hose. If you have to wait for the u-man, it may be an hour or two before he can get to you, if he can get to you.
Jeff

As I recall from TRAINS May 2002 issue the IRR used one man crews that were largely self sufficient. The engineer in that article had an enroute failure and changed an airhose by himself. Of course, a knuckle would be more difficult, but now when a two man crew gets a knuckle the usual response is to send the car department out with a block truck to make the necessary repairs in any event. I doubt the reduction to a one man crew would change this. IRR does use U-men as well, and as I recall also has one man RCL jobs for switching in certain places where a two man crew would not be economically feasible.

LC

On our section of the railroad all most always the conductors changes knuckles by themselves. On the double track, a train on the other track may stop to help. Sometimes the dispatcher won't let one and there are some crews that won't stop. The prevailing attitude towards the ones that won't stop when they could is to not help them when they have problems.
Once in a while you get lucky (?) and have a problem like this near enough where car men are available. Even then, I've changed out a knuckle because the car men were busy doing other things. (We got a knuckle on the 12th street line in Council Bluffs once and had a lot of crossings tied up. The assist van was able to drive me right to the break and we were moving again within 20 minutes.)
We also have a couple of single RCO jobs, but I don't think it's for the same reason.
Jeff