"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton LC The job description seems to have skipped the part about sweeping up and where the broom handle goes when that duty is being performed. Jay
Originally posted by Limitedclear Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, March 21, 2005 7:51 AM This cult is way to funny! Reply Edit jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Monday, March 21, 2005 8:31 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal This cult is way to funny! I have been wondering how to find the way to funny. "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, March 21, 2005 8:31 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by Randy Stahl Hmmm, transportation specialist, I've heard drug smugglers called that. BN out to tell it like it is .. Randy Randy - As you may recall, back in the early days of RailTex (pre - Rail America) they called their operating guys "Transportation Specialists" too. I believe it was designed to keep them from being categorized as "Conductors" or "Engineers" but able to operate as either across what were stronger craft lines. I'm wondering if BNSF is heading towards a one roster experiement leading into one man crews and utility men. LC Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, March 21, 2005 8:35 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal This cult is way to funny! I have been wondering how to find the way to funny. Must be like the way to San Jose... LC Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, March 21, 2005 8:49 AM I paid so much attention to my locomotive ride-outs that I can tell you more about the black goo in the toilets than the procedures involved in switching and roll-bys. But I have to wonder about time constraints being pushed when picking up and setting out cars, let alone the increased safety issue of two sets of eyes to check out a train when it goes into emergency. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, March 21, 2005 8:58 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton LC Unfortunately, your prognosis may be right. I should ask, since you wear the shoes, do you think that 100% of the crew cost savings would get to the bottom line? My guess is that there would be some lonesome pay as part of the deal, but my view goes beyond that to the potential cost in other areas for having only one man on the train. You would have a better sense of what happens when something happens and what would happen when something happens and you are out there by yourself. And I know that you would stay awake, but what about the others? Electric shock if the eyelids are closed for more than three seconds? I don't mean to be too flip about this, and I can think a little outside the box, but the Class I's aren't the Indiana Railroad, and some things aren't that simple. Jay Jay - No, I don't think this will happen everywhere overnight. I also don't think there will be as much of a savings from this crew reduction as some have suggested. Recall that the estimate from one Wall Street Analyst was a savings over all Class 1s totalling over $1Billion annually. I think that cutting the Conductor is getting into the meat and bone of the operation and depending upon a number of factors there will probably be areas where no savings will be realized. I'm sure it will be implemented in areas where it seems to make sense and work towards getting other areas brought along, much as was done when cabooses were replaced. Years later there are still some cabooses (albeit reconfigured as "Shoving Platforms" to avoid certain arbitraries) on some local jobs. As I have said earlier on the subject I think that 2 and even 3 man crews will remain the rule in many areas although there will be a more towards 2 and even 1 man RCL crews where circumstances dictate. Although IRR is not a Class 1, on the smaller scale jobs, particularly industrial switching, the Class 1s will likely follow IRR's lead into 1 man RCL, especially if they already have yards manned by U-men (aka Transportation Specialists), locals in the area with 1 or 2 man crews could be supported from the yard. LC Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, March 21, 2005 1:50 PM Hello welcome to McRailroad can I take your order for you? Reply Edit Junctionfan Member sinceFebruary 2004 From: St.Catharines, Ontario 3,770 posts Posted by Junctionfan on Monday, March 21, 2005 2:33 PM Not to assume much as I haven't worked for the railroad; isn't it a hard job already without where other hats and performing the extra roles? Thease are big pieces of machinery and unless you are somekind of super hero, it will just take twice as long to do things if management consolidates too many jobs into one. People don't like it when managers do micromanaging but what about when workers do megamanaging of jobs? Is that just as bad? Technology has improved alot over the years but it isn't perfect; there is just that extra push for something to go wrong. Forexample, in the older days, cars used to be easy to tinker around with. Any person with the knowledge of a car could fix it-simple mechanics right? Not now. Cars are now with fancy computer components that require special diagnostic equipment to fix and the training to come with it. Does the railroad really want to go into this direction so soon? Are you (the real railroaders) ready for this? Andrew Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, March 21, 2005 7:43 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal This cult is way to funny! I have been wondering how to find the way to funny. You're miles from funny, not to mention miles from being able to read the King's English. I'll rephrase the statement so your joke at least makes sense: "This cult is on the way to funny!" There you go J. Have at it! Reply Edit Junctionfan Member sinceFebruary 2004 From: St.Catharines, Ontario 3,770 posts Posted by Junctionfan on Monday, March 21, 2005 8:02 PM What kind of time frame are the railroads considering implementing such a consolidation of tasks? Andrew Reply ajmiller Member sinceOctober 2003 From: State College PA 344 posts Posted by ajmiller on Monday, March 21, 2005 8:04 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal This cult is way to funny! I have been wondering how to find the way to funny. You're miles from funny, not to mention miles from being able to read the King's English. I'll rephrase the statement so your joke at least makes sense: "This cult is on the way to funny!" There you go J. Have at it! Perhaps you meant: This cult is way TOO funny. I think that's how the Queen would write it if she cared. Reply greyhounds Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Antioch, IL 4,371 posts Posted by greyhounds on Monday, March 21, 2005 9:01 PM You know.... I think it's obvious that some trains can be safely and efficiently operated with one person crews. It's being done. The entire Chicago rapid transit system runs with one crew person on a passenger train. I'll agree that's an extreme example, but it does show that one person crews can operate some trains without serious problems. I think it's equally obvious that some trains can not be safely and efficiently operated with one person crews. People of good faith, representing the carriers and the unions can work out the ground rules. They should do this. If anyone from either side goes into a negotiation with the idea that "THEY'RE GONNA' SHOW 'EM" it's a plan for disaster. Nobody should loose their job, and every employee should have good pay, benifits and safety with reasonable job security. (There is no possible absolute job security.) And no railroad should have to pay unnecessary employees. If only one person is needed for the job, that's all that should be on the job. People of good faith can work this out. Change is inevitable. Just work out the rules using good faith and common sense. Everybody should go home safe and sound with a good paycheck in their pocket and in their future. And the railroads should make good profits. Those two goals are not incompatible. "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. Reply zardoz Member sinceJanuary 2003 From: Kenosha, WI 6,567 posts Posted by zardoz on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 10:24 AM Of course, all of the above is applicable ONLY if things are going as planned. Throw in an occasional hotbox or sticking brake; or a switch not properly lined; or an interlocking switch that has to be lined manually and the front wheels of the locomotive brought on to the switch before power is restored; or a few inches of snow and ice; or an incident with the public; or the one or two thousand other things that can go wrong during a tour of duty, and the advantages of a reduced crew quickly evaporate. On a busy main line, just think how quickly things will deteriorate when a train has to stop and wait for a utility 'man' to drive 75 miles to inspect a train that has been stopped by a hot wheel or some other situation. By the time the U-man has gotten through traffic, finds a place to safely park his (her) vehicle, trudge along how many miles from the closest grade crossing to get access to the train when there is already 3 feet of snow on the ground, and then try to figure out what the problem is, the main line might more closely resemble a parking lot. However, management might be willing to accept the risk of the above occasional delays in order to try to save money (or at least try to make it LOOK like they are trying to save money) on daily operations. Let's hope not. Reply BaltACD Member sinceMay 2003 From: US 25,270 posts Posted by BaltACD on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 1:15 PM It has been my experience that the Railroad want what they want....until they get it and find out that it wasn't what the really wanted or needed at all. Never too old to have a happy childhood! Reply Overmod Member sinceSeptember 2003 21,669 posts Posted by Overmod on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 7:19 AM Was this job description floated and posted before the Rail Labor Bargaining Coalition started its little power game with the ground rules of engagement for negotiations? If Bergie will permit, this seems like it might be a railroad version of the old joke about the "battle of the sexes" -- as my father's best friend once put it, being quick enough to say "am I hurting you, dear?" before she says "is it in yet?" No doubt that "one-man crews" will be a logistical disaster in most forms of freight railroading -- even point-to-point intermodals. But carefully, carefully look at what GE is talking about with that 'digital system' in their annual report. Think for a moment about what happens when you have really good, continuously-updated GIS coupled with NDGPS... and, if I remember correctly, NDGPS is slated for effective completion to coverage of Class 1 rail mileage ahead of schedule, if not already... Who said the one guy left on the train would be primarily an engineer? ;-} Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 9:30 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by Overmod Was this job description floated and posted before the Rail Labor Bargaining Coalition started its little power game with the ground rules of engagement for negotiations? If Bergie will permit, this seems like it might be a railroad version of the old joke about the "battle of the sexes" -- as my father's best friend once put it, being quick enough to say "am I hurting you, dear?" before she says "is it in yet?" No doubt that "one-man crews" will be a logistical disaster in most forms of freight railroading -- even point-to-point intermodals. But carefully, carefully look at what GE is talking about with that 'digital system' in their annual report. Think for a moment about what happens when you have really good, continuously-updated GIS coupled with NDGPS... and, if I remember correctly, NDGPS is slated for effective completion to coverage of Class 1 rail mileage ahead of schedule, if not already... Who said the one guy left on the train would be primarily an engineer? ;-} LOL. Yup. Sounds like he might be from the mechanical side. Combination Locomotive Mechanic and Carman. He can sling a nice hammock where the Conductor/Fireman's seat used to be. Set the alarm for when a knuckle breaks... LC Reply Edit Overmod Member sinceSeptember 2003 21,669 posts Posted by Overmod on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 9:45 PM Tom -- in my opinion: The principal advantage of the new technologies is as follows: Proper PTC gives minimum safe headway control, but by default has full proportional control over throttle and brake; more importantly, there's the capability to modulate sections of the train (via inline valves similar to those in the FRED at the end of the train line). If there's distributed air supply (possibly through small "genset"-style compressors and not just from DPU locomotives) it becomes possible to control release, recover from UDEs with more flexibility, etc. GIS is used to obtain a detailed profile of grade and curve resistance -- with proper programming (and interface with PTC that has civil enablement) this includes slow order information, etc. NDGPS gives a very precise indication of the train's position (and repeated fixes give a good figure for speed, momentum values, etc. just as for conventional GPS). In between these two, the need for 'special knowledge' of the ins and outs of a route becomes much less important, and the automatic train control (which "knows" the load distribution, make-up and running characteristics of the train, as well as the state of the power) can easily anticipate the necessary power changes for smooth train handling with minimum fuel consumption, or minimum wear and tear, or precise point-to-point scheduling a la rally driving. Your choice, boys. The answer to your question, tom, is that train lengths will be precisely optimal based on the desires (and perhaps needs, if they're smart enough) of the people who pay the bills, or who pay the salaries of the folks who call the operational shots. Some of the conventional arguments against relatively short, light, faster and more frequent movements (a la WP under Perlman as described in Trains) might no longer apply as stringently if single crews were used; alternatively, I'd expect there to be a 'sweet spot' for train length determined by siding and yard-entry capacity, and perhaps by the ease with which DPU and auxiliary power could be spotted and cut in and out of trains. In a perfect world, these systems would be used to make TWO-man crews run smoothly and quicker, rather than being the stalking horse for the railroad equivalent of those self-service filling stations in depressed areas, with the pimply non-English-speaking 17-year-old pushing buttons on the computer from the safety of his armored cubicle. (No insult intended either to non-English speakers or to teenagers whatever their complexion!) What I think is sad is that the same 'brilliant' minds who put centralized dispatching from office buildings into practice will likely implement these technologies in a bottom-dollar way, if I may paraphrase the old Grand Wizard, "git thar cheapest with the leastest". How long do you think it will be before the "12 hours of service" don't apply when the crew is 'deadheading' while the automatics control the train on the main line... or take it to a place that's convenient (and cheap) for the railroad folks to meet it with a cab. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, March 24, 2005 8:26 AM Overmod: An interesting observation on the use of these new technologies as a way to possibly adjust the efficiency curve back in favor of shorter, faster trains. On the macro employment front, wouldn't the institution of shorter faster trains increase total railroad employment, even if it results in the eventuality of a one man crew? Reply Edit daveklepper Member sinceJune 2002 20,096 posts Posted by daveklepper on Thursday, March 24, 2005 2:20 PM I would bet that NS uses the new technology optimumly without making crew size reduction the end all and be-all. Then maybe the other three (or five) can learn from their example. Reply Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » 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 More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal This cult is way to funny!
QUOTE: Originally posted by Randy Stahl Hmmm, transportation specialist, I've heard drug smugglers called that. BN out to tell it like it is .. Randy
QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal This cult is way to funny! I have been wondering how to find the way to funny.
QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton LC Unfortunately, your prognosis may be right. I should ask, since you wear the shoes, do you think that 100% of the crew cost savings would get to the bottom line? My guess is that there would be some lonesome pay as part of the deal, but my view goes beyond that to the potential cost in other areas for having only one man on the train. You would have a better sense of what happens when something happens and what would happen when something happens and you are out there by yourself. And I know that you would stay awake, but what about the others? Electric shock if the eyelids are closed for more than three seconds? I don't mean to be too flip about this, and I can think a little outside the box, but the Class I's aren't the Indiana Railroad, and some things aren't that simple. Jay
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal This cult is way to funny! I have been wondering how to find the way to funny. You're miles from funny, not to mention miles from being able to read the King's English. I'll rephrase the statement so your joke at least makes sense: "This cult is on the way to funny!" There you go J. Have at it!
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
QUOTE: Originally posted by Overmod Was this job description floated and posted before the Rail Labor Bargaining Coalition started its little power game with the ground rules of engagement for negotiations? If Bergie will permit, this seems like it might be a railroad version of the old joke about the "battle of the sexes" -- as my father's best friend once put it, being quick enough to say "am I hurting you, dear?" before she says "is it in yet?" No doubt that "one-man crews" will be a logistical disaster in most forms of freight railroading -- even point-to-point intermodals. But carefully, carefully look at what GE is talking about with that 'digital system' in their annual report. Think for a moment about what happens when you have really good, continuously-updated GIS coupled with NDGPS... and, if I remember correctly, NDGPS is slated for effective completion to coverage of Class 1 rail mileage ahead of schedule, if not already... Who said the one guy left on the train would be primarily an engineer? ;-}
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.