UP says it is ready for 1 man crews

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ridinrails2099

QUOTE: Originally posted by BNSF railfan.

Ya well how about NO MAN CREW TRAINS? Trains on the Main line running them selves without no crews at all. Just think,Won't have no one to wave at. According to the UP that day is a coming!

I am a conductor for the BNSF, as unfortunate as all of this sounds, this is all a reality...the No Man Crew might still be a little ways off...however the 1 man crew is right on the doorstep, our unions and the company are currently in Austin TX doing their collective bargaining process working up new agreements and such. I have heard and read a message from John Fleps with the BNSF that basically says that they will not settle until the crew consist agreement is shortened.
Also on a sidenote, I spoke with my union rep a couple weeks ago while coming on duty, and he said he had recently spoke with a Road Foreman of Engines who said that the new locomotives are coming out with GPS technology, essentially the conductor will board the train, swipe his card, and the GPS will be activated, the train will then proceed. On the locomotive a remote control beltpack will be mounted, when a setout or pickup is to be made, the conductor will link up his RCO and make the setout or pickup, then when hes done, board the locomotive and swipe his/her card again, and off the train goes again.

I am fully against this "technology" simply because this is stealing jobs, especially younger guys such as myself, i have a little over 2 years seniority, and over 3000 under me systemwide...but my job is now in jeopardy thanks to this madness...

Sounds like you are getting good information. I would hope that you as a young man would look at this as an opportunity. Just think, you would be among the first in the industry to show how to use it right. There is no technology that is ever developed that does not create new jobs and ways of doing things. Back when I was surveying the use of GPS was new and the use of data collectors was just beginning to take hold in everyday use. We used to have up to 5 persons on a survey party, when I left that trade (modern term is "skill grouping") there were only two people to the party at most. What happened to the displaced folks, they went back to school.. two are now PE's (one civil and one electrical) three are now certified as civil engineering techs, and one has become a prodject inspector for the NC DOT. In short ridin don't let the negatives of something new become your master, they will distroy you and your hopes as well. Take that from a guy that knows.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

In their 2003 annual report to the Surf, the UP reported unit, through and way train mileage of about 162 million miles. T&E payroll was about $1.12 billion. That comes to about $6.91 per train mile for crew costs. Add about 15% for fringe benefits and you are at $7.95. If engineers get a little more than half that, let us say that the potential savings for the one man is somewhere around $3.95 per train mile. That is assuming that the lonesome pay is insignificant.

I think *** Davidson shot himself in the foot by saying that one man would only be use where technology is in place. The UTU may talk the talk about no one man crews allowed, but may find that they are not going come away with total victory. It seems to me the union's fall back position would be to have the contract spell the technology that has to be in place. "One man engine assignments if CTC and Positive Train Control are in place along with effective monitoring of the condition of the man". If they can't play the safety card for that position, you UTU guys need another negotiating crew.

So what happens next. Going back to 2003, the UP reported cost for train crews (separated from engine crews) at $493 million so maybe some portion of that cost can be reduce when the new contract goes in effect.

What about expansion of the trackage with the required technology in place. Consider this. I have seen the number of $1 million per mile to install CTC. If 8% is the cost of capital, that means interest of $80,000 per year on the investment. If, BIG IF, 55 trains a day are running that mile of track, the cost savings for one man will cover the interest. $3.95X55 trainsX365 days=$79,296. Don't look for massive upgrading with new technology everwhere.

Shorter trains? I doubt it. Assume a 2500 mile run from Chicago to the West Coast. One man saves about $10,000. Isn't that about the revenue from four or five cars? In other words, a one man train could only be four or five cars shorter and still provide the same dollars to common costs, overhead and profit.

Bottom line is, I am not going to bet that "one man" is diesalization or two man crews.

Jay

Jay, the first year is not what they are looking at, the second and third yes because that is straight to the bottom line.

[BNSFGP38]

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds

QUOTE: Originally posted by BNSFGP38

QUOTE: Originally posted by macguy

It's going to be interesting to see how this kind of thing progresses, not only to see what kinds of technology are brought in, but also to see what kinds of new jobs are created and how many of the old ones will be axed.

Some please explain to my feeble short line mind how cutting half the operation positions......IE conductors creates jobs????????????[zzz]

If the cost of running a train is reduced more trains will be run. There will be more engineers needed.

The equation for maximizing profits is marginal costs = marginal revenue. Reducing the costs of running a train will reduce the revenue needed to justify a train. So more engineers will be needed.

Additionally, there will be workers needed to assist the engineer in certain situations - these will also be added workers.

I love this idea.

You must be a Kerry supporter cause that is some fuzzy math!

Example.
Railroad with 100 engineers, 100 conductors. I keep the 100 engineers and I cut 75 condcutor positions keeping the other 25 for yeard duty. I keep another 25 guys as "technicans" paying them to do what they already did. Thats still 50 people out of work with familys to support. And I cant run anymore trains cause my capcity sucks.

[arbfbe]

jeaton,

Nice numbers but remember they are paying double for all the trains being dogcaught and crews sitting on the train at the overtime rate until the relief arrives. If they just eleiminated the parking lot mentality crew costs per mile could be reduced significantly.

Your are also correct about train sizes. Reduced crew costs will not result in shorter trains. It has never worked that way on the railroads. The prime measures of effeciency in railroad accounting are ton miles and train ton miles. The manager who increases these figures gets the most notice on the way to the top.

[bobwilcox]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

What about expansion of the trackage with the required technology in place. Consider this. I have seen the number of $1 million per mile to install CTC. If 8% is the cost of capital, that means interest of $80,000 per year on the investment. If, BIG IF, 55 trains a day are running that mile of track, the cost savings for one man will cover the interest. $3.95X55 trainsX365 days=$79,296. Don't look for massive upgrading with new technology everwhere.

Jay - this gets to a big barrier of any change in the rail industry. The best run Class Is, at this time, are not making enough return on their investment to finance these kind of improvements. They hope to sometime in the future so they want the get the work rules in line but they can not tell you how they are going to raise the ca***o make thes investments. The BNSF and UP are strugling to just catch up with the import growth via the LA Basin.

[jeaton]

arbfbe

When I first ran the numbers to get T&E cost per train mile, they looked way too high and I thought I misunderstood the reported figures for train miles. However when I divided train miles by train hours I got 20 MPH and change, so unless I am totally misunderstanding what is being reported, I think I got the number correct. I don't have any information on current T&E wage rates, and I have to agree that the cost of trains going dead on hours of service has an impact. By the way, I looked at a couple of the other Class 1's and their numbers were in the same ball park. Clearly, if a conductor was getting even $3.00 per mile at just 100 miles a day 6 days per week that's almost 94k a year. That's a tad higher than the annual gross numbers I have seen bounced around here.

bobwilcox

No disagreement here on the low return problem faced by the railroads. Given that problem, I can't fault railroad management for seeking the change in train manning requirements. My point is that I don't think that there is as much in the the change as might appear. But then again, I am predicting the future and it remains a good thing that my livelyhood is not dependment on my being right.

BNSFGP38 If Greyhounds is or was a Kerry supporter, I'll eat my monitor. LOL

Jay

[Anonymous]

Lets not forget that the Wall Streeters are estimating (in writing) an annual savings of $1 Billion spread over the Class 1s. That kind of income stream can finance quite a few improvements. Also, remember that one man crews w/RCL are already in use on several short lines demonstrating that the technology can already be used on light density lines with absolutely no upgrades or signalling, only requiring basic track warrant protection. So there are likely a number of places this technology can be used immediately with savings going directly to the bottom line.

LC

[jeaton]

LC

I know that the Indiana Railroad has put stuff to work so they can run one man trains. I am not saying that the Class 1's couldn't drop the road conductor position on everything-tomorrow, if they wanted-save for the union contract work rules. My guess is that they are not going to get carte blanche in the next contract and the savings will fall far short of the Wall Street estimate (in writing).

But, don't make any stock moves on my say.

Jay

[greyhounds]

QUOTE: You must be a Kerry supporter cause that is some fuzzy math!

Example.
Railroad with 100 engineers, 100 conductors. I keep the 100 engineers and I cut 75 condcutor positions keeping the other 25 for yeard duty. I keep another 25 guys as "technicans" paying them to do what they already did. Thats still 50 people out of work with familys to support. And I cant run anymore trains cause my capcity sucks.

That's one of the worst things anybody has ever said about me. A Kerry supporter? How could you say that about me? What have I ever done to you? I've gotta' go take a shower. I'ver never had so much dirt thrown on me.

OK, here's the deal. You say "I cant run anymore trains cause my capcity sucks."

No.

True, there are portions of the US rail network that are at, or near, capacity. But there is a greater portion of that net that has excess capacity. Examples - UP Minneapolis - Chicago - St. Louis. BNSF La Junta -Dodge City - Kansas City.

Now it would be a profit maximizing strategy for the railroads to fill up this unused capacity IF the extra costs of running new trains on these underutilized segments was covered by the extra revenue from these new trains. Reducing crew costs with one man crews would help this happen. This would create new engineer jobs as I said.

I would support an agreement that protected anyone working now. You could retain seniority, work retained conductor jobs, move up to engineer, etc. Or, you could take a buy out. Employee's choice.

But some trains can be operated safely and efficiently with one person crews. And the railroads should be allowed to operate them that way. No one should be forced to hire more labor than they need. How much labor is needed under what circumstances is a proper subject for collective barganing.

[Anonymous]

No voodoo economics there and the parameters for the math are very much in order - PL

[Anonymous]

Is up ready for wrecks, death, and destruction?[:p] I think not..[:(]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

LC

I know that the Indiana Railroad has put stuff to work so they can run one man trains. I am not saying that the Class 1's couldn't drop the road conductor position on everything-tomorrow, if they wanted-save for the union contract work rules. My guess is that they are not going to get carte blanche in the next contract and the savings will fall far short of the Wall Street estimate (in writing).

But, don't make any stock moves on my say.

Jay

Jay -

Don't worry, my millions are already in oil and related stocks...lol...

My point is not that the Morgan Stanley estimate is accurate and even they have put many qualifications into it, but even if the real savings is half a Billion that is still a substantial free cash flow to borrow against or spend on upgrading the major corridors that require one man operation in higher density areas. In fact, some of the costs created by the need for conductors or utility employees to assist trains will likely be lower in high density areas as utilization will be better.

LC

[jeffhergert]

If the UP has more restrictive signalling that stops a train if the crew fails to act between North Platte and Council Bluffs, how did one coal train rearend another coal train at North Bend, NE last week?
Maybe your just blowing smoke for a general public (and reporter) whose only knowledge of railroad operations come from cheesy made for tv movies.
Maybe someday the technology will be perfected AND installed, but it's not there now.
Jeff

[Anonymous]

You answered your own question Jeff.

The engineer acknowledges the signal. There are dozens to times a train or engine has to be in the same block as another train or engine. So the signal system warns the engineer, it doesn't prevent it him from pulling up behind another train. Its his responsibility to keep them apart.

If the signal system could keep the trains separated by itself, they wouldn't need an engineer either.

Smith

[passengerfan]

So why would they even need engineers they could probably hire truck drivers who are already used to long hours lack of sleep and screaming dispatchers and the lonely life with no one to talk to guess they will have to put CB radios in the locos so the former drivers can talk to the buddies as they enjoy running trains instead of trucks.
How about when the engineer needs to use the facilities. I have an answer for that six feet of ruuber hose going through the floor worked for me in a truck at one time. To keep it clean used to pour coffe though every day as well.

[Anonymous]

wow that's pretty gross. i drive a truck and i make it a point to stop the thing and step out to relieve myself. no going in a bottle or a hose thru the floor for me...sorry, that's disgusting. also i'm not a big fan of the CB radio either....not too much intelligent talk goes on there. just kick on the cruise, turn the music up AND stop and go potty when i need to....

the way i look at the whole number of people in a crew is that no matter how many guys are in the cab, accidents will happen. back in the day there was a small army of guys on a train and they still crashed, nowadays there's 2 or 3 and they still crash. accidents will happen some things are just out of our hands... humans error all the time no matter if it's one or 100