greyhoundsI don't see universal one person crews on "Everything." Some trains will require more crewmembers for efficient operation. And some trains will require more crewmembers for safety. But when a one person crew is safe and efficient, as it will be in many cases, it should be allowed and used.
But that's just it. The railroads are "all or none" and you know that. You are dangling "one man operation" as a carrot for your small IM train plan - but the most of the RRs (under current thinking) have no interest in running those smaller trains.
Sure there are times a 2nd person may not be needed - but that one time you do need that 2nd person - it was a very good thing they were there. Railroads don't exist in a vacuum. Some people forget that.
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
The same thing in the OTR industry on the media others pushing for driverless trucks. There are times when the crap hits the fan that the person behind the wheel is all that is going to keep that freaking truck either upright or avoid that accident. I have heard horror stories about some of the winds that blew up suddenly in WY and MT on my husband that would make a groundhog burrow deeper. Like the one time he was westbound on 90 in MT near Billings hauling A&E for those that are not familar that is Ammo and Explosives he had on a load of 1.1 running team and a crosswind of about 60 MPH hit his truck and picked up the trailer off the ground and literally moved him over 1 lane before he got it back on the ground. He said he was pulling seat cushion out of his butt for 2 weeks afterwards let alone the trucks behind him. If he had gone over the 10K pounds of HE on his trailer would have made a nice mess of the interstate.
zugmann greyhounds I don't see universal one person crews on "Everything." Some trains will require more crewmembers for efficient operation. And some trains will require more crewmembers for safety. But when a one person crew is safe and efficient, as it will be in many cases, it should be allowed and used. But that's just it. The railroads are "all or none" and you know that. You are dangling "one man operation" as a carrot for your small IM train plan - but the most of the RRs (under current thinking) have no interest in running those smaller trains. Sure there are times a 2nd person may not be needed - but that one time you do need that 2nd person - it was a very good thing they were there. Railroads don't exist in a vacuum. Some people forget that.
greyhounds I don't see universal one person crews on "Everything." Some trains will require more crewmembers for efficient operation. And some trains will require more crewmembers for safety. But when a one person crew is safe and efficient, as it will be in many cases, it should be allowed and used.
EuclidWhat if you dangle that carrot of a small IM train with one-man operation, and the railroads accept it because they believe it can make money? What would be wrong with that?
I think the point is that the railroads would look at the extra money they can make on small one-man IM trains and think "we could do that for all trains! More Money for Us!"
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...
tree68 Euclid What if you dangle that carrot of a small IM train with one-man operation, and the railroads accept it because they believe it can make money? What would be wrong with that? I think the point is that the railroads would look at the extra money they can make on small one-man IM trains and think "we could do that for all trains! More Money for Us!"
Euclid What if you dangle that carrot of a small IM train with one-man operation, and the railroads accept it because they believe it can make money? What would be wrong with that?
Well it sounds like Greyhounds believes the idea of the smaller IM trains would work and make a profit. But Zugmann seems to believe that the railroads would not accept the idea because they don't want to run small trains. Why wouldn't they want to run the small trains if they made more money? It sounds like it is actually Labor that does not like the small train idea because it would reduce crew size.
Greyhounds needs to give y'all a quick recap of some of the arguments for frequent shorter trains, including the C&NW experiment that at least one Firum poster was involved with, and Perlman's thinking for WP.
I've never really understood why negotiations could not hammer out a 'test' agreement, with strict sunset provisions and 'hard' size and time conditions to keep the trains 'agile'. Perhaps there is evidence that this was tried at times in the past.
BTW the fact that this kind of operation has repeatedly not been implemented does not mean it is either bad or unworkable. A combination of PTC, PSR, and autonomous features will change the game again, perhaps in ways that produce safer working conditions for the employees involved. In particular greyhounds' previous work seems to have foundered on access to capital, not any flaw in either the basic idea or his proposed relatively-narrow implementation within a wider PSR framework.
EuclidWell it sounds like Greyhounds believes the idea of the smaller IM trains would work and make a profit. But Zugmann seems to believe that the railroads would not accept the idea because they don't want to run small trains
I'm thinking that a hybrid is far more likely.
The railroads will begin with assurances that one man crews will be used on "shorter" trains only. Then,..once the new idea has normalized, tack a few more cars on every week, until enough tme has lapsed that eventually you have 5,000+ ft trains with just one crew man.
Give'em 1450 feet and they'll take a mile, in other words.
zugmannSure there are times a 2nd person may not be needed - but that one time you do need that 2nd person - it was a very good thing they were there.
But is is worth carrying that 2nd person on every trip just in case they are needed that one time? Or would it be more cost effective to use 1 person routinely, and come up with a different sort of on-demand solution for that occassional time a 2nd person is needed? Maybe that on-demand solution would be to bring a 2nd person to the site where needed, as required. Even if that is more costly than carrying a 2nd person on that one trip, it would be far less costly than carrying that 2nd person all the time whether needed or not.
Euclid zugmann Sure there are times a 2nd person may not be needed - but that one time you do need that 2nd person - it was a very good thing they were there. But is is worth carrying that 2nd person on every trip just in case they are needed that one time? Or would it be more cost effective to use 1 person routinely, and come up with a different sort of on-demand solution for that occassional time a 2nd person is needed? Maybe that on-demand solution would be to bring a 2nd person to the site where needed, as required. Even if that is more costly than carrying a 2nd person on that one trip, it would be far less costly than carrying that 2nd person all the time whether needed or not.
zugmann Sure there are times a 2nd person may not be needed - but that one time you do need that 2nd person - it was a very good thing they were there.
Labour will tell you that it is, upper management will tell you that it is not. The truth is somewhere in between.
Hint: the people on the ground who actually do the work have a far better sense of what is really required to make the operation run.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
EuclidWell it sounds like Greyhounds believes the idea of the smaller IM trains would work and make a profit. But Zugmann seems to believe that the railroads would not accept the idea because they don't want to run small trains. Why wouldn't they want to run the small trains if they made more money? It sounds like it is actually Labor that does not like the small train idea because it would reduce crew size.
There's truth in all that.
Consider this. If I run one train of, say, 100 cars, with a crew of two, or two trains of 50 cars, with a crew of one, my manpower savings will be nil.
But I may have used two locomotives where I could have used one. Again, savings are nil.
Plus the already-stretched-thin dispatcher now has to fit two trains on his railroad when it could have been one.
Zug's point is that the railroad would rather run the 100 car train with one crewmember. Now you have savings...
In the neverending battle between labor and management, clearly labor is going to want to preserve jobs. No news there. And the railroad is going to want to reduce manpower costs. No news there either. And now we have an impasse.
The railroads are already running 13,000+ foot "land barges." Watching the Deshler cam, the chat often indicates that two symbol trains have been combined, resulting in one crew for two trains. Imagine if the RR can further cut manpower costs by reducing that to one crew member...
Overmod Greyhounds needs to give y'all a quick recap of some of the arguments for frequent shorter trains, including the C&NW experiment that at least one Firum poster was involved with, and Perlman's thinking for WP. I've never really understood why negotiations could not hammer out a 'test' agreement, with strict sunset provisions and 'hard' size and time conditions to keep the trains 'agile'. Perhaps there is evidence that this was tried at times in the past. BTW the fact that this kind of operation has repeatedly not been implemented does not mean it is either bad or unworkable. A combination of PTC, PSR, and autonomous features will change the game again, perhaps in ways that produce safer working conditions for the employees involved. In particular greyhounds' previous work seems to have foundered on access to capital, not any flaw in either the basic idea or his proposed relatively-narrow implementation within a wider PSR framework.
That question has been asked before:
http://cs.trains.com/trn/b/fred-frailey/archive/2016/07/30/what-happened-to-the-sprints.aspx
As far as I know, there has not been any such recent proposal from any of the large railroads. They are all now wedded (or is it welded) to the idea of long monster trains.
And even if such an agreement were signed, I have absolutely zero faith that it would be honoured by the railroad(s).
Convicted OneThe railroads will begin with assurances that one man crews will be used on "shorter" trains only. Then,..once the new idea has normalized, tack a few more cars on every week, until enough tme has lapsed that eventually you have 5,000+ ft trains with just one crew man.
It would be normalized by next Thursday.
EuclidBut is is worth carrying that 2nd person on every trip just in case they are needed that one time? Or would it be more cost effective to use 1 person routinely, and come up with a different sort of on-demand solution for that occassional time a 2nd person is needed? Maybe that on-demand solution would be to bring a 2nd person to the site where needed, as required. Even if that is more costly than carrying a 2nd person on that one trip, it would be far less costly than carrying that 2nd person all the time whether needed or not.
Railroads are cutting their extra lists to the bone as it is. You really think they are going to want tons of extra people (and vehicles for said extra people) to be there in case it is needed?
That's not PSR. Neither is running small trains. Why run 3 small trains when you can combine them (with the same power) and run one big one? THAT is PSR. I've seen UPS IM combined with slop freight. That sound is the old managers rolling over in their graves.
and yes labor wants jobs. Damnit, that's WHY WE ARE HERE!!!!!!! We like getting paid. The novelty of playing choo choo wore off ages ago.
It's amazing how often I agree with you. I must be getting smarter.
Convicted OneThe railroads will begin with assurances that one man crews will be used on "shorter" trains only. Then,..once the new idea has normalized, tack a few more cars on every week, until enough tme has lapsed that eventually you have 5,000+ ft trains with just one crew man. Give'em 1450 feet and they'll take a mile, in other words.
Of course the problem is that the thing that rightly killed that proposal, and others, is that the official Government purview is 'safety'. We already have that 'rolled into' the existing language that would keep 2-man on trains above a certain length or 'key' status. AAR, at the very least, would fight tooth and nail 'on principle' to keep the camel nose out of the operations tent...
One potential 'ploy' might be to equip dedicated consists of IM wells and specialized bulk load freezers with ECP and some form of CBTC working with the PTC systems. This would allow 'safe' closer headways and better peak speed in dense traffic for short proportionally-braked consists, but avoid all temptation to whack a few interchange cars on... until interchange cars have ECP...
Greyhounds probably covered this in his thesis, but much of the "ICCMC" regulation in 1935 was precisely to implement common 'safety' standards... and set up fees and charges that would pay for it. It solved precisely the problem of slipshod profiteers in fly-by-night organizations that conveniently disappear when there is an accident and then find a used truck and do it again.
There was quite a bit of the 'willing complicity' argument in George Hilton in the '60s... the problem being that you do have it in things like the Commerce Court days, but not in the Hepburn Act or some parts of the Esch Act. I am tempted to say 'the moment you involve lawyers as regulators it goes in the toilet' - to me, this is almost the essence of a Joseph Eastman - but it needs to be evaluated in the larger perspective of Progressivist activism and opportunities for Bigger Government. (Especially, perhaps, in administrations depending on labor and union 'optics', but that's a slightly different concern).
There is also the issue that legislation tends to lag the thing that spurred its enaction, so that by the time regulation is in place the actual circumstances are different. The whole excuse for imposing USRA control was slow unloading at the East Coast ports of embarkation; Wilson's excuse being that the Government could engage in pooling and other actions forbidden individual railroads under ... expedient legislation that could not be waived or modified 'timely' if indeed at all.
BTW 'bear with me' involves the nautical sense of the word, as in steering by compass bearing or 'fire as she bears'. It means 'follow along with the train of my argument for a while, until I establish it'.
zugmannBut that's just it. The railroads are "all or none" and you know that. You are dangling "one man operation" as a carrot for your small IM train plan - but the most of the RRs (under current thinking) have no interest in running those smaller trains. Sure there are times a 2nd person may not be needed - but that one time you do need that 2nd person - it was a very good thing they were there. Railroads don't exist in a vacuum. Some people forget that.
First, let me explain that I was unable to access the Trains forums for a couple days. Two emails and two phone calls later I was told that I needed to use a different browser. My Microsoft browser worked fine for years, but now I have to use Chrome. Go figure.
It was not my experience that the railroads were "all or none." We (ICG) had a reduced crew agreement for short IM trains between Chicago and St. Louis. The trains were limited to 15 cars.
While I was there there was never any attempt by the railroad to exceed the car limit or use such crews on other trains. Other trains operating on the old C&A continued as before. After I left the railroad the union did agree to extend the operation of 15 car reduced crew trains to other business. It did add jobs.
As to the "You might need this guy sometime" arguement for always having a 2nd crew member, it don't work that way. You've got to analyze the frequency of such a need and the severity of the penalty for not having a 2nd crew member when such a person just might be useful. There will be benefits from having a 2nd crew member. But all benefits come with costs. If the benefits don't project to outweight the incurred costs the 2nd crew member cannot be justified.
I'll give a non railroad example. Some years ago when I was working for the railroad in a high rise building in Chicago the city's fire fighters went on strike. They stayed out for weeks but everyone muddled through.
A critical issue was the number of fire fighters on each truck or engine. The union wanted six fire fighters on each such vehicle. The city wanted to use four on some such vehicles.
Now there is no doubt that in some responses the full six fire fighters would be useful. It would also be very expensive and most of the time be unnecessary. It wasn't as if those were the only fire fighters responding.
What they had to do was look at the frequency of times when six could be used and the penalty paid when the six needed weren't available until other units arrived.
Finally, an arbitrator did what he/she could and split the difference at five.
Matching resource use, including human resource use, with the benefits and cost of such use is part of management's job. Seeing that employees are fairly treated, well paid with good benefits, and have decent, safe working environments is the union's job.
When a union insists on overmanning it has overstepped its bounds.
greyhoundsA critical issue was the number of fire fighters on each truck or engine. The union wanted six fire fighters on each such vehicle. The city wanted to use four on some such vehicles.
City management nowadays has to deal with a nationally recognized standard of 15 firefighters on the initial alarm. Even taking away the incident commander (thus you only need 14 firefighters - plus the IC): If you staff five firefighters per apparatus, you can roll with three rigs. If you staff at three, you now need to roll five rigs (keeping the math simple). This has a ripple effect since now two more firehouses will be empty, and so on.
A local municipality has been fighting the 15 person "minimum manning" for several years now.
In the standard, each of those firefighters has a very specific job.
I don't believe there is such a "standard" in the railroad world, so it is up to each side to justify what they think should be optimum manning. It's not like the FRA has a standard that says if you have X cars or Y length of train and you're travelling Z miles, etc, you need so many crew members on the train.
Last night at Deshler a 100+ car train had to set out a car that tripped the defect detector. As it was, it took considerable time to accomplish, during which one E-W main was blocked as well as the west siding (the train was draped around the SW transfer). Several crossings were also blocked while they did the setout and picked up the rest of their train off the main.
Imagine if the "helper" had to come from a distance...
C1’s want one man crews on certain traffic. The Teamsters want to combat the implementation. Concessions and compromises will need to happen on both sides. One man crew will be limited to the following services: IM trains limited to 6000’ no block swapping, pickups, or setouts enroute. Non IM unit trains are exempt from the length restriction rule: Coal, grain, oil, stone, etc. Crew(s) will need a set schedule while being limited to 240 hrs of service per month. Rest periods can’t be interupted. After 40 hrs of on service duty. Crew members operating more than 40 hrs get a 12 hr rest period with 90 minute grace period after coming off duty before rest period kicks in. Just some ideas.
It all sounds good, but compromise mostly only happens on one side. And an agreement is useless if it is just getting ignored (put in a claim- it might be paid in 20 years, or not).
I don't know when the last time greyhounds worked for a major RR, but they are not the same places they were even a few years ago.
Everything else that can be said, I believe I already said.
Give them an inch and they will take the whole damned multiverse.
OvermodGreyhounds probably covered this in his thesis, but much of the "ICCMC" regulation in 1935 was precisely to implement common 'safety' standards... and set up fees and charges that would pay for it. It solved precisely the problem of slipshod profiteers in fly-by-night organizations that conveniently disappear when there is an accident and then find a used truck and do it again.
No, I didn't deal with that. I was researching railroad economic regulation and the economic regulation of rail-truck integration so I probably wouldn't have chased such a thing if it didn't involve railroads.
I've not heard the safety argument for economic regulation of trucking before. I don't see it as valid due to the fact that large swaths of trucking were exempted from such regulation. i.e., Agricultural commodities were exempted. If the regulation was needed for safety why would such a large portion of trucking operations be exempted? (I think the farmers and ranchers knew full well what was going and had enough clout to keep their freight in a competitive market place.)
Unless I get new information to the contrary, I'll remain convinced that Federal economic regulation of trucking was "Predatory Regulation". It came about to protect truckers from competition. To the detriment of the American people. There was also the wrongheaded idea that the government always knew best and always acted "In the Public Interest." As in: "Mr. Roosevelt is gonna' save us all." Kind of like a religion.
The truckers sought and welcomed such regulation. Any time an industry wants to be economically regulated things are suspicious.
zugmannGive them an inch and they will take the whole damned multiverse.
So, nothing is negotiable? That isn't going to work well.
greyhounds zugmann Give them an inch and they will take the whole damned multiverse. So, nothing is negotiable? That isn't going to work well.
zugmann Give them an inch and they will take the whole damned multiverse.
No, it doesn't.
But welcome to the modern Class I world.
You'll surely recall the CN strike last winter. The main points of dispute were all about crew size (we have limits how much switching conductor-only crews can do), workplace environment, benefits, and above all else REST.
We went on strike to keep what we already have. CN was demanding big cuts from us while offering nothing in return, despite high profits, and when our Union leadership balked at that "offer", they tried to manipulate the federal government into forcing us into binding arbitration, in the hope of forcing at least some of their planned cuts through.
That's the type of negotiating that we are all too used to these days.
greyhoundsSo, nothing is negotiable? That isn't going to work well.
Oh, they'll negotiate. Then just not follow through on their end.
greyhoundsUnless I get new information to the contrary, I'll remain convinced that Federal economic regulation of trucking was "Predatory Regulation". It came about to protect truckers from competition. To the detriment of the American people. There was also the wrongheaded idea that the government always knew best and always acted "In the Public Interest." As in: "Mr. Roosevelt is gonna' save us all." Kind of like a religion.
But letting companies regulate themselves doesn't really work well, either. Unless you like to have toxic sludge dumped in the river upstream.
Regualtion is needed because these companies do not operate in a vacuum, and they've proven over and over that there is only one thing they care about. We can argue on how much regulation is needed - but it won't be "none".
zugmannBut letting companies regulate themselves doesn't really work well, either. Unless you like to have toxic sludge dumped in the river upstream. Regualtion is needed because these companies do not operate in a vacuum, and they've proven over and over that there is only one thing they care about
I think that Greyhounds argument conveniently overlooks the observation that I made earlier that "very little happens for no reason"
Let's not forget the era of secret discounts and drawbacks that propelled the ICC into regulation of the economic side of transport in the first place. Granted, most of those "sins of the father" happened before trucking became an industry. But at it's onset, I don't believe there were many indications that trucking was going to be exempt from the same perils that arose in rail transport.
Some times the "big fish" do naughty things.
We're starting to agree more and more.
I'm scared.
A "conspiracy of common sense" perhaps?
zugmann greyhounds So, nothing is negotiable? That isn't going to work well. Oh, they'll negotiate. Then just not follow through on their end.
greyhounds So, nothing is negotiable? That isn't going to work well.
They negotiate and then once an agreement is signed, start interpeting it to mean something different then what was agreed upon.
Jeff
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.