Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
The beancounters who think they are saving money by reducing crew sizes on through freight trains, particularly those with a good deal of work to do enroute must be on one doozy of a cocaine high, much like the Wall Street types who do not know a damn thing about railroading.  I have seen locals that almost need a third man on the crew in order to get switching done and the train put back together. When you have a freight train that does a lot of switching at each station enroute to its final destination and/or crew change point, a two man crew is not really enough to efficiently get the job done, especially with the rules requiring the protection of grade crossings, and the like that need to be delt with as well. In addition,  at least a three man crew is minimum needed to get the job done safely. The railroads have been cutting too many corners on safety and with such matters as crew fatigue, frequency of accidents, equipment wrecked or heavily damage, not to mention track destroyed, the proverbial chickens are finally coming home to roost. What's it going to take for the railroads to wise up, a hazmat catastrophe right in the middle of a heavily populated area? I very much fear so. The same goes for the use of remote controlled switchers to move hazmat loads around the yard, not to mention the terrorist potential if one set of eyes is removed from the train. I think that most manifest freights need at least a three man crew at bare minimum. The additional cost in labor can be made up by the improvement in service to shippers and the increased business that will result.<br>
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag