Get ready for one man crews on the Main line.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: [i]Originally posted by dthurman

We need a 2 edged sword. What did Jesus say? Live by the sword and you will die by the sword.

Ain't that the truth.
Allan.

[Anonymous]

6 Sigma will be the downfall of most lower jobs, Caterpillar and our hospitals are big on this waste reduction program, funning thing is you never see the cost cuts effect UPPER management, just the little guys, I am sure the bean counters are behind this wonderful stock making idea, many have probaly never seen a train except when it blocks their path on the way to the bank.

We need a 2 edged sword. What did Jesus say? Live by the sword and you will die by the sword.

[Mookie]

I realize I am just the dummy by the rails, but I remember 5 man crews. Each job was eliminated because technology usually got to the point that you didn't need a brakeman, a switchman, etc.

They replaced the 2nd person in the cab with a Conductor and did away with the caboose. But I don't see eliminating the 2nd person and replacing him with a puter and an empty seat. Seems to me you are still going to have times when you will need two humans to take the train from point A to point B.

Maybe we should take the powers that be and see if we can run the company with just puters in their jobs. Seems to me that some of these great thinkers could be replaced with just an electronic/metal "brain".......

[Anonymous]

Oh boy here we go , to start with im a 11 yr employee of the uprr i work the COAL LINE in wyoming for those who do ot know ,there are 55 to 70 20,000 ton trains loaded , empty trains not included !!!!!! all in the area of 120 miles of track between shawnee JCT , and cabballo mine ( by gellete ,wyoming ).
All i have to say is this , will one man crews work ? yes , but not until countless lives are lost through trial and error , because try as they might ( and oh! will they )there will come a time that 4 eyes are better than 2 no matter how you slice it , no computer system in the world can take the place of that , how do i know this ? ive reviewed times in my career where i asked could a computer do what i did to stop an accident , and honestly , 50 % of them i could see that a computer could have helped , but in no way could the other 50 % EVER been helped by computer . I often wonder now at what cost is the RR going to endure , lives ,jobs...........to be competitve they say !!! HAHAHHAHHAHAHAHHA competitive with who ??????????????????????? The U.P.R.R is a big a business there is and we all know about big business dont we ?$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$profit at ANY COST !

[samfp1943]

I thought that the BNSF, had at one time ,said that power naps were OK for on duty crewmen...if they were in a waiting capacity...who is going to mind the radio, will the dispatcher get the alarm clock?????

[jockellis]

G'day, Y'all,
A friend's husband died with his hand on the throttle (of a heart attack). Wouldn't it have been fun to have had to go out there in a car and push his remains out of the seat in order to get the engine going again?
I think Mookie is correct in saying that such one-person arrangements would be only on short, relatively unprofitable runs.
But elimination of what Mark called the "misery premium" is probably a dream of not only UP's CFO but that of every other railroad. Hey, maybe railroads don't need presidents either!
Jock Ellis
Cumming, GA US of A

[Anonymous]

i disagree all union heads that i have ever talked to hate the railway labor act. the railway labor act means that unions cannot flex there muscles. from my experience all railway unions would love to get rid of the railway labor act so they can strike and show the carries that the carries have to follow all union agreements. the railway labor act gives to power to the railways.

[bobwilcox]

QUOTE: Originally posted by [e-mail]

anti trust statues do not apply to the railway labor act, it does apply to the to the taft heartly act.

That is my point. If the Railway Labor Act went away the carriers would need to negotiate individually. However, to be a little more practilcle there would be hudge objections from the railroad labor negotiors and the railroads and brotherhoods to geeting rid of the RLA. They are comfortable in that enviroment and would fight a radical change. People hate change.

[Anonymous]

the utu on the bnsf railway in the powder river tried to break away from the national carries conference but was over turned by federal court in montana.

[Anonymous]

anti trust statues do not apply to the railway labor act, it does apply to the to the taft heartly act.

[bobwilcox]

QUOTE: Originally posted by [e-mail]
[
The national carries confernce will not allow the utu to negtiated with one carry at a time. all class 1 one railroads have given the power of attornany so they can stream line the process...

This would be illegal without the Railway Labor Act. It would be considered an illegal combination under the Anti-Trust statues.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox

Should the Railway Labor Act be repealed with labor agreements then falling under Taft Hartley? I think the modern economy would be just fine if the UTU negotiated with one carrier at a time and made it clear they were willing to operate jobs providing vital service (commuters, power plants,etc.)

The national carries confernce will not allow the utu to negtiated with one carry at a time. all class 1 one railroads have given the power of attornany so they can stream line the process. if it were up to the utu and blet they would negotiated on properity with one local at a time.

[Anonymous]

This all does not sound good at all.
Allan.

[bobwilcox]

Should the Railway Labor Act be repealed with labor agreements then falling under Taft Hartley? I think the modern economy would be just fine if the UTU negotiated with one carrier at a time and made it clear they were willing to operate jobs providing vital service (commuters, power plants,etc.)

[wctransfer]

Whoa, dtthurman, ya i heard about that. All the conductors went on strike. If it were longer, and engineers did it too, wow, they would really get the message!

Alec

[Anonymous]

the railroad labor act prevents us from striking. you are right bnsf did go on strike for 3 hours a couple of months ago. as soon as the utu went on strike the railroad filed an injuction preventing the utu from striking. the utu has just filed a very similar injuction on the railroads section 6 notices preventing them from opening up the crew contist. all we do now is wait for the ruling from the judge and hope th crew constist is not desolved. if the crew contist is desolved you can expect a lot more wrecks and a much more dangerous railroad. it would be insane to desolve the crew contist

[wctransfer]

QUOTE: Originally posted by drfizzix

A certain shortline railroad in North Carolina uses one man crews regularly. There is a conductor on every crew, but he is usually in a company vehicle down the line getting switches lined for the approaching train and what not, rarely actually riding on the train.... [:(]

Its actually like that down here on "my job" i call it that because im up there everyday, Its a transfer, so its a daily thing. And he uses the car all the time, and i like it! Easier and faster. The pic in my sig is the transfer.

Alec

[dldance]

Amtrak has been running with a one man crew in the engine for a number of years...

dd

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox

QUOTE: Originally posted by [e-mail]

QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox

The Class I railroads have been working up to this for some time. Why didn't they ask for national barganing on this as a part of their Section 6 notices?

This was simpler whey the Eastern Railroads cut wages 10% and the trainmen responded by burning down Pittsburgh![:)]

it was asked in the section six notices!!!! go to the utu web site and you will see that the railroads propose the ablilty to call conductors when they want too on what train they want too. the crew constist is the only thing protecting the conductors. if the court decides to deslove the crew contist the railroads will not ever have to call another conductor on a road train ever again!!!!

The UTU better get ready for some very tough negotiations. If the carriers provide job protection to current trainmen Congress will not be on the UTUs side.

Are railroads allowed to strike? If so, would that be a loud enough voice to get attention? Though now that I think about BNSF had a short strike not long ago I seem to remember, was like 6 or 12 hours?????

[bobwilcox]

QUOTE: Originally posted by [e-mail]

QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox

The Class I railroads have been working up to this for some time. Why didn't they ask for national barganing on this as a part of their Section 6 notices?

This was simpler whey the Eastern Railroads cut wages 10% and the trainmen responded by burning down Pittsburgh![:)]

it was asked in the section six notices!!!! go to the utu web site and you will see that the railroads propose the ablilty to call conductors when they want too on what train they want too. the crew constist is the only thing protecting the conductors. if the court decides to deslove the crew contist the railroads will not ever have to call another conductor on a road train ever again!!!!

The UTU better get ready for some very tough negotiations. If the carriers provide job protection to current trainmen Congress will not be on the UTUs side.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Mookie

This is scarey and it isn't even Halloween yet!

Funny you should mention Halloween.... the original Crew Consist Agrmnt on the SP West lines was termed "The Halloween Agreement".....

Virlon

[Anonymous]

Has there been a study done about the number of remote related injuries vs a "full crew" or how about the number of minor derailments or accidents? Somehow the Corporation has done some type of feesability study to make this decission? Though greed has motivated stranger changes.

Bad idea I think, as stated above about medical, and what about if a train only has one person, how are they going to multi-task effectively? I would think stress will take it's toll.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox

The Class I railroads have been working up to this for some time. Why didn't they ask for national barganing on this as a part of their Section 6 notices?

This was simpler whey the Eastern Railroads cut wages 10% and the trainmen responded by burning down Pittsburgh![:)]

it was asked in the section six notices!!!! go to the utu web site and you will see that the railroads propose the ablilty to call conductors when they want too on what train they want too. the crew constist is the only thing protecting the conductors. if the court decides to deslove the crew contist the railroads will not ever have to call another conductor on a road train ever again!!!!

[bobwilcox]

The Class I railroads have been working up to this for some time. Why didn't they ask for national barganing on this as a part of their Section 6 notices?

This was simpler in the 19th Century. The Eastern Railroads were in a business slump, as usual the cut wages 10% but then the trainmen responded by burning down Pittsburgh![:)]

[Mookie]

This is scarey and it isn't even Halloween yet!

[edblysard]

Part of the conflict is this...
Each location or home terminal that is a union shop has a local agreement with the carrier as to crew consist...
In other words, my union has a contract with the PTRA that says the bare minimum crew on any PTRA train is an engineer and a conductor...
Yet on the UP at Englewood, the minimum crew consist is an engineer, conductor and a brakeman...due to the type of work they perform.
But at other UP terminals, it may be only an engineer and conductor.
It is negotiable only on a local level, not on a national level, and only at those terminals or divisions.


In National contract, this set up was ratified by the carriers, and part of that same contract stated that, as long as a pre 1985 employee was working at that home terminal, the crew consist was a non-negotiable issue.
This is along with the agreement that a change in crew consist could not result in any T&E employee losing their job, or having their job abolished.


The idea behind it was of course to protect jobs, if the carriers were given a clean slate, they would reduce every job to one man and remotes, which is a dangerous idea...
Imagine me switching alone, just one man trying to switch 150 to 200 cars a day...but the carriers endorse just such activities, they claim with a remote, it would be easy.

So, because we (unions) and the carriers are in the process of negotiating a new Nation wide wage and work contract, they threw this into the mix, as a bargaining chip/lever to get other concessions from the unions.

But the UTU has filed a lawsuit, in Federal court, to block this becoming a bargaining issue, after all, the National contract agreed upon by the carriers specifically prohibits the crew consist issue being debatable on a national level, as long as a per 1985 employee is in T&E service.

We are awaiting a Federal Judges decision as to weather the crew consist can be "bargained" for on a National level.
Right now, it is changeable only by the local committee of adjustment at each terminal and home station, and just for that district or division, not on a nation wide basis.

Ed

[CShaveRR]

The Union Pacific is mentioned in the article because it was an Omaha paper. What's being presented here is what the carriers--all of them--want to discuss in this round of contract negotiations--their Section 6 notices.

No, I wouldn't want to see--or be--a one-person crew on an over-the-road train, for any railroad, even with an army of support people following along in trucks to throw my switches and shoot my troubles. Savings in cost, yes. Savings in safety and efficiency, questionable at best.

[Mookie]

I read the article in the paper - Driver and I discussed it - article did say a two man crew caught a hotbox that the detector missed. They caught it looking back going around a curve about 10 miles past the detector.

And there was an interview with a female engineer (15 years) that wasn't too hep on the idea.

I got the feeling that they were thinking of running this in an area that would be equivalent to using a remote engine. It would be for a short distance between two towns where only the coyotes roam and no major switches or divergents. Still....

Is it really that expensive to have two people on an engine? And what if someone has a major medical problem and can't function well enough to get on the radio for help. Are they going to install cameras to watch them 24/7?

I'm confused!

Mook

[Anonymous]

A certain shortline railroad in North Carolina uses one man crews regularly. There is a conductor on every crew, but he is usually in a company vehicle down the line getting switches lined for the approaching train and what not, rarely actually riding on the train.... [:(]