I am concerned about why there are so many rear end collisions that are happening these days. It seems to me that there are more numerous of them. Is it operator error, fatigue, or all of the above? Are switches left open, malfunction of warning signals? None of this should happen. I am sure the railway safety boards and whatever accident investigation commissions do to check on these thing. I just would like to find out what others have their thoughts on this matter. .
The problem is that fatigue is too hard to prove. Engine alerters can be defeated or falling asleep after acknowledging the alerter can get you in trouble quickly.
Train crews should be able to pull over and sleep when put in a siding for 4 hours. The 45 minute limit is so arbitrary and why does one of the crew have to remain awake? The train is sitting there just as if the crew left it and there is little the crew can do sitting there for hours on end.
Crews should be called on fixed schedules and know when then they have to awake next.
petitnj Crews should be called on fixed schedules and know when then they have to awake next.
+1.
Whenever there is a wreck, you always hear "well, the crew was off for 16 hours before they were called - plenty of time to rest!" But anyone who worked out here knows, whether it's 8 hours off or 28 hours, if you don't know WHEN you are going to be called, you always end up getting caught short on your rest. That is the problem they refuse to address. Instead the feds create this 10 hour rest rule. While I think it's an OK rule, it does not address the real problem.
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
zugmann petitnj: Crews should be called on fixed schedules and know when then they have to awake next. +1. Whenever there is a wreck, you always hear "well, the crew was off for 16 hours before they were called - plenty of time to rest!" But anyone who worked out here knows, whether it's 8 hours off or 28 hours, if you don't know WHEN you are going to be called, you always end up getting caught short on your rest. That is the problem they refuse to address. Instead the feds create this 10 hour rest rule. While I think it's an OK rule, it does not address the real problem.
petitnj: Crews should be called on fixed schedules and know when then they have to awake next.
But what happens more often than the railroads will likely admit, is a worker gets home at midnight after 12 hours on duty--so he is tired and after a meal and shower goes right to sleep. 8 hours later he gets up. He takes care of things that need doing (grocery store, mowing the lawn, banking, etc) that he has been putting off due to the amount of on-duty time he has had recently. After completing his chores (it's now 4pm--he has now been up for 8 hours), the phone rings and he is given his call to be on duty in 2 hours.
(After repeating that scenario a few times, serious fatigue sets in, and soon the person is practically operating on auto-pilot, going through the motions of his craft but only semi-aware of what he is doing, having long ago lost his professional edge.)
So when he arrives at the yard office at 6pm for his next 12-hour tour of duty, he has already been up for 10+ hours. By the time his tour of duty is half over, he has already been up for 16 hours. It's now 2am, and after sitting in a few sidings in the last few hours, he is getting REALLY tired, and he still has 6 hours to go. He gets on the main line and gets his train up to speed. He then throttles back to whatever power setting will keep his train moving at track speed. As he travels down the track, gently rocking back and forth, the locomotive doing nice low-frequency harmonics as it cruises in the 5th notch, the alerter becomes something that he can turn off while in his micro-sleep.
"+1"
Circadian rhythym studies on police depts. indicate that crews should be regularly scheduled for certain 'windows' of a few hours for many days in a row - like at least a month, and if not called within that window, then released until the same window the next day. When rotation of the windows occurs, it should be towards later in the day, not earlier. And so on . . .
Yes, such a system will cause aggravation, expense, confusion, inefficiency, lost time, late trains, be management intensive, etc. That kind of disruption can be caused just as easily by weather, grade crossing accidents, traffic peaks, etc. So hire a crew scheduler from an airline, or a truck line - and install adn mandate use of "Crew Rest" rooms as are at a lot of airports. The resource - usuable crew time - is too valuable to be frittered away as it is now.
How do they do this in Europe or Japan ? Is Canada just as random as we are on this ? (Is CN's "scheduled railroad' for real on this, or just a myth ?)
This is not solely a problem caused by rail management problem. If a different system is implemented, the unions need to agree to be flexible and allow a crew to work any job available during that window - not just in the "main line pool", for example, but in the yard, or on a local or work train, etc. And the employees need to actually rest during the rest period, not go fishing or socializing, etc.
The industry is about to have to spend $15 Billion (or so) on PTC, in large part to address this problem. (Yes, I know, Graniteville was caused by a crew not exercising sufficient care at a switch, and Chatsworth was caused by distracted engineer - both of which prompted PTC, but neither of which were related to fatigue.) Anyone who's been around the industry for a while knows this is a significant problem, and no amount of 'banner testing' is going to solve it - a crew could pass a banner test at MP 16, and fall asleep by MP 25. Compared to the cost of PTC, a few lost or extra crew starts to implement a better system is peanuts. END
- Paul North.
While agree with the idea that every crew should know when the mark off from one assignment when they will be called for their next tour of duty....just what are the mechanics of such a system when matched with the traffic and resource availability that exist in the rail freight traffic world. Are the carriers to restrict acceptance of traffic to narrow windows and amounts from their customers and interline connections so as to have a sustained and predictable traffic flow? Are the Terminals to be expanded to be able to hold more traffic waiting for the next 'scheduled' crew availability. Does a train with a scheduled crew that runs into line of road trouble and is seriously delayed lose its 'scheduled crew slot' at the next crew change point and have to wait for a 'scheduled relief crew'. Ideas the work on one OD pair with the traffic mix on that particular line segment, would totally gridlock other line segments that have different traffic mixes.
I cannot speak for all carriers in all locations, I can say that my carrier has tried virtually EVERY idea of matching crew assignment to traffic that has ever been proposed somewhere on it's property over the years (I have worked multiple territories over the years and have had to work with virtually all the crew assignment ideas that have been implemented). There is NO PERFECT answer.
The Class I's traffic ebbs and flows are truly dynamic in where and when traffic is obtained and ready for movement. Movement resources (Crew, Power & Track Space) are also dynamic....the operation of today's carriers is a continual juggling act trying to match up the limited 'movement resources' to be able to accommodate all the traffic that is presented to the carrier with minimum delay from the time the traffic is made available.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD - I was unaware that any carrier has been that persistent in trying new methods. Thanks for enlightening us. I have great - and now even greater - respect for your insight and position on this, and defer to that. Since I've never had "line responsibility" for scheduling anything that complex, I went back to my post above and added the appropriate 'Soapbox' icons.
So what do we do ? Continue on and just accept the occasionally recurring tragedies and disruptions ? Try something new and/ or different from time to time to see if it can or does make a difference ? Use one method at one time, and others in different conditions - without driving everyone nuts ? No easy or simple solution here, I can see.*
*Some may say I need a "2-faced" icon to insert here. I disagree, but recognize the point. - PDN.
To have any real schedule would require at least two major steps:
1. You would have to actually hire enough people to fill the jobs. This bare minimum staffing is not going to cut it. Of course this is an issue today, even with the lack of scheduling - so it will be a major hassle if there was any kind of scheduling.
2. We would have to give up the turf wars/union agreements contracts on the trains being run. The whole separation of yard jobs/road jobs, the trains that are "assigned" to certain terminals and crews, etc. The busy terminal that I used to work out of has enough trains going in and out that a crew could basically show up any time of day and have a train ready to depart, or yard work to be performed. But that would require actual training and qualification on more than a select piece of railroad.
Paul_D_North_Jr Is Canada just as random as we are on this ? (Is CN's "scheduled railroad' for real on this, or just a myth ?)
Is Canada just as random as we are on this ? (Is CN's "scheduled railroad' for real on this, or just a myth ?)
Paul, as I posted over in the Lounge, Canadian train crews still work 12 on 8 off, with a few qualifiers. CN may have a schedule, but that does not mean the crews get the same trips. There are so many variables regarding the length of their previous trip that there is no way the same crew would always be ready to start the same new shift. Sharpshooting may work to some extent toward that, but there is just no way to guarantee a crew is going to be supplied at 10:30 on #604 East every second day.
Bruce
So shovel the coal, let this rattler roll.
"A Train is a Place Going Somewhere" CP Rail Public Timetable
"O. S. Irricana"
. . . __ . ______
You can have all the finely tuned schedules in the world.....then one thing happens.....
REALITY!
Air hose come uncoupled, Poor train handling break knuckles, Defect Detectors find defects, Automobiles get stuck on track, Trespassers get struck and killed, Storms down trees blocking the tracks, Signal systems get struck by lightning frying the electronics, Switches get hung up, crews can't locate Air Test Certificates to continue operation of the train, Crews develop illnesses enroute and need relief and any of another million and one occurrences....each occurrence disrupts the schedule. If I had the answers on how all of these occurrences could be foreseen so that I could tell a crew when they are tying up from one trip when I would ACTUALLY need them for their next trip I would have every carrier from all modes of transportation beating a path to my door with pots and pots full of gold for my expertise....I don't possess that expertise and neither does anyone else.
Well, it will not work 100%. But that doesn't mean we should do nothing. I don't think there will ever be a foolproof scheduling system. But the crapshoot we have now, is for lack of a better term, crappy.
It took Graniteville for the PTC. It took Chatsworth for the electronics. It just scares the hell out of me to think what it will take to finally address the rest issue.
You and I both know what the industry's 'final answer' to the Rest issues will be...fully automated un-manned trains....machines that don't need rest and will operate under the direction of computers. PTC is laying the groundwork.
zugmann It just scares the hell out of me to think what it will take to finally address the rest issue.
It just scares the hell out of me to think what it will take to finally address the rest issue.
BaltACD You and I both know what the industry's 'final answer' to the Rest issues will be...fully automated un-manned trains....machines that don't need rest and will operate under the direction of computers. PTC is laying the groundwork.
Yep. But I doubt that computers will be serving local industries and doing yard work anytime soon. So it will be part of the answer, but not the complete one. Besides, WMATA didn't have much success with their computer-run trains at Fort Totten about a year back.
Speaking as an outsider, I would think regular schedules, where engineers know a week (or more) in advance when/where they will work should be possible if management had the incentive to move away from what remains essentially an on-call system. Should someone could probably show it is actually more cost-effective for the railroad to do so, implementation would move like an HSR.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Speaking of regular schedules.......... Has there been any accidents due to fatigue on Amtrak or Commuter rails??
schlimm Speaking as an outsider, I would think regular schedules, where engineers know a week (or more) in advance when/where they will work should be possible if management had the incentive to move away from what remains essentially an on-call system. Should someone could probably show it is actually more cost-effective for the railroad to do so, implementation would move like an HSR.
I wish, but my carrier cant even schedule a train ten hours ahead, much less a week.
Do your customers make regular consistent shipments time after time, day after day, week after week, month after month. The operation of trains is CUSTOMER driven, the carriers have no direct control of the customers production and shipment cycles...all the carriers can do is respond to their customers when they need or desire service. Customer view the carriers as a on call service, so the carriers have no other alternative but to respond to the customers call. Customers will not commit their exact needs days or weeks in advance so neither can the carriers.
The movement of freight and the movement of passengers are two totally different undertakings for the carriers. One is relatively easy to schedule, the other isn't.
^^ Well Said.
BaltACD Customers will not commit their exact needs days or weeks in advance so neither can the carriers. The movement of freight and the movement of passengers are two totally different undertakings for the carriers. One is relatively easy to schedule, the other isn't.
Customers will not commit their exact needs days or weeks in advance so neither can the carriers.
Of course, you are probably right, but I still wonder if a lot of freight business couldn't be/is scheduled/predictable? Container trains, ethanol trains, coal trains account for much of freight rail business and appear to operate on schedules. They aren't carved in stone, but probably are good at least a month in advance.
Not at all.
Mechanical Department "No no that's fine shove that 20 pound set all around the yard... those shoes aren't hell and a half to change..."
The Missabe Road: Safety First
BaltACD Do your customers make regular consistent shipments time after time, day after day, week after week, month after month. The operation of trains is CUSTOMER driven, the carriers have no direct control of the customers production and shipment cycles...all the carriers can do is respond to their customers when they need or desire service. Customer view the carriers as a on call service, so the carriers have no other alternative but to respond to the customers call. Customers will not commit their exact needs days or weeks in advance so neither can the carriers. The movement of freight and the movement of passengers are two totally different undertakings for the carriers. One is relatively easy to schedule, the other isn't.
Actually, many of the customers served in my terminal do have regular service days and time windows. Sure, you get the occiasional hot or shut down car, but most of the time, you can schedule. Makes it easier for the customer as well, since they can schedule their rail car loading/unloading so as not to be interrupted by the train.
No, you can't schedule 100% of the freight or crew needs. There will always be the need for extra employees - but I think a better system exists for the majority of trains. It will take people and it will take flexibility all around (train assignments, etc), but I think it could be done. There's just too much of the old "but we've always done it this way" thought process out here. So while I believe it is possible, I doubt it will ever happen.
zugmann It will take people and it will take flexibility all around (train assignments, etc), but I think it could be done. There's just too much of the old "but we've always done it this way" thought process out here. So while I believe it is possible, I doubt it will ever happen.
It will take people and it will take flexibility all around (train assignments, etc), but I think it could be done. There's just too much of the old "but we've always done it this way" thought process out here. So while I believe it is possible, I doubt it will ever happen.
My sentiments exactly!
Every carrier has some scheduled service that the strive valiantly to originate and operate On Time. My territory originates approximately 50 scheduled trains a day....each train has it's On Time crew on duty time....when things are 'in sync', those trains will be called on duty at the same time - day after day after day. But those scheduled trains are not the only traffic that is operated on the territory. We get 'overhead' Grain trains, some going off the territory to the North, some going off territory to the South, about once every two weeks we get grain trains to a couple of Short Line connection, since they originate off territory and in some cases off line how do you schedule them. A ship arrives in port to load 60,000 tons of coal and now coal train after coal train is operated to the pier to keep the pier dumping coal on a continuous basis; of course once you dump the loaded car, it becomes empty and along with a train load of it's empty brothers, they have to be sent back to the loading area - the terminal facilities to support loading of the ship as well as handling the empties are finite and have to be kept turning over. Next day another ship arrives to discharge 60,000 tons of Iron ore....empty cars are needed to support the unloading of the ore ship. The power that brings 150 loads of coal to the port can only haul 75 loads of ore out of the port, so when coal and ore are both running the terminal is always in a deficit for power; if only coal and empties are running then the terminal has a surplus of power....then the Mississippi River basin floods and disrupts traffic with the Western Carriers....you receive virtually no traffic for a week or two then you receive the Western Carriers flood tide of traffic; three weeks worth of traffic in 8 days and you have to keep turning the terminal to keep it fluid.
The act of operating a railroad system is that of being a 'Freight Juggler'. The Class I's do not possess the terminal capacity to have cars (trains) set for longer than is absolutely necessary for the terminals function....the cars(trains) then have to be thrown in the air (operated on line of road) to the next scheduled terminal....the operation continues this juggling operation day after day after day; but should something, anything change in the traffic mix or operating environment the carrier has to roll with the flow and create a plan to handle whatever the occurrence is while still trying to maintain the core service levels on time and under budget.
zugmann Actually, many of the customers served in my terminal do have regular service days and time windows. Sure, you get the occiasional hot or shut down car, but most of the time, you can schedule. Makes it easier for the customer as well, since they can schedule their rail car loading/unloading so as not to be interrupted by the train. No, you can't schedule 100% of the freight or crew needs. There will always be the need for extra employees - but I think a better system exists for the majority of trains. It will take people and it will take flexibility all around (train assignments, etc), but I think it could be done. There's just too much of the old "but we've always done it this way" thought process out here. So while I believe it is possible, I doubt it will ever happen.
As John Kneiling once wrote - and zugmann alludes to - complex situations don't have "one size fits all' solutions, and the answers come in pieces and segments to address most (if not all) of the problem, such as the following:
As some columnist once pointed out in Trains about 20 years ago, the beet harvest (and by extension, other grains, etc.) shouldn't be surprising anyone. BNSF has done a lot to make those movements more predictable by scheduling them as slots or scheduled trains, and then either taking reservations and/ or auctioning them off to the highest bidding shipper for the rights to load and run them then. When they're all spoken for, there aren't any (or many) more.
Likewise, I doubt if the coal freighter shows up entirely unannounced ? Somebody has to know it's coming, at least at the shipper end - how else would they know to order the empties to be loaded and sent to the pier ?
MidWest flood disruptions are a better case - but even there, the flooding has been forecast for at least a week or so in advance (OK, the actual rain itself - not so much), so some contingency planning and advance scheduling could have been anticipated and performed.
Grade crossing accidents, mechanical malfunctions, and broken rails, etc. are indeed last-minute contingencies that can't be specifically anticipated. But maybe those could be 'protected' by one or more of the following:
A worthy industry-wide project would be for someone - such as the FRA's R&D folks - to study what BaltACD's carrier (and others) have done with the myriad attempts that he references above, and publish and disseminate that on-line, together with conclusions, observations, recommendations, etc., let everyone see it and qualified persons comment on it, and let the carriers choose what they might try to implement from it, etc. There appears to be some info on this on the FRA website already - for example, see "Notice of Safety Advisory 2004-04; Effect of Sleep Disorders on Safety of Railroad Operations" at:
http://www.fra.dot.gov/Downloads/safety/sa200404.pdf
(4 pages, approx. 98.2 KB in size, which cites a railroad-related study in FN 3 at the bottom of page 2)
See also the FRA's "Fatigue Management"* webpage and the studies/ reports referenced there at:
http://www.fra.dot.gov/rrs/pages/fp_1737.shtml
* Is it just me, or does this seem to be an oxymoron of some sort - like "Intoxication Management" or "Incapability Management" . . . ?!? - PDN.
This has gotten far from the "rear end collision" headline but...
...as for freight customer useage of railraods...many use a railroad and a train as part of their assemblyline timed to remove from one point and deliver to another in sequence and with precise enough timing. Others customers have found, and use at times, railroad cars and trains as convenient and untaxed warehouse space...even per diem payments are less than building construction, maintenance, and tax costs!
As for the original points of the thread, and also directed toward the "service" bent of the thread, the most important factor facing all forms of transportation is fatigue...quick turnarounds, short calls, non rhythmic and inconsistant cycles, fear of lost wages, lack of qualified employees per shift, etc., All are some of the factors which have to be dealt with to relieve stress and fatigue on the employee while not taking away too much from the bottom line and efficiency of any given transportation form.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
Georgia Railroader schlimm: Speaking as an outsider, I would think regular schedules, where engineers know a week (or more) in advance when/where they will work should be possible if management had the incentive to move away from what remains essentially an on-call system. Should someone could probably show it is actually more cost-effective for the railroad to do so, implementation would move like an HSR. I wish, but my carrier cant even schedule a train ten hours ahead, much less a week.
schlimm: Speaking as an outsider, I would think regular schedules, where engineers know a week (or more) in advance when/where they will work should be possible if management had the incentive to move away from what remains essentially an on-call system. Should someone could probably show it is actually more cost-effective for the railroad to do so, implementation would move like an HSR.
I think your carrier would very much like to keep things exactly on schedule, but doing it without going broke is proving to be a very hard thing!
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
henry6 ...as for freight customer useage of railraods...many use a railroad and a train as part of their assemblyline timed to remove from one point and deliver to another in sequence and with precise enough timing.
...as for freight customer useage of railraods...many use a railroad and a train as part of their assemblyline timed to remove from one point and deliver to another in sequence and with precise enough timing.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy Siding henry6: ...as for freight customer useage of railraods...many use a railroad and a train as part of their assemblyline timed to remove from one point and deliver to another in sequence and with precise enough timing. I'm not sure I agree with you on that. Maybe, if you paid a premium price, you could get shipment with anything resembling precise enough timing. UPS and auto parts come to mind.
henry6: ...as for freight customer useage of railraods...many use a railroad and a train as part of their assemblyline timed to remove from one point and deliver to another in sequence and with precise enough timing.
Yes,auto parts is one main item....started with Henry Ford and the DT&I! Coal for generation is another which will sometimes be scheduled for need. Other manufacturers do the same "just in time" scheduling while others will use the movement instead of a warehouse. I read all about it in Trains Magazine.
Auto parts-yes, coal- probably not.. I've never seen a power plant that didn't have a big stockpile of coal. In the recent past, there were issues with BNSF and UP not delivering PRB coal as fast as their contracts specified. At the time, I recall that some of the power plants were concerned when they got down to under a 30 or 60 day reserve pile. I think that most of the freight hauled on railroads is not time sensitive as much as it's price sensitive. The time sensitive freight that pays a premium price rate is probably a very small percentage of tonnage shipped.
Murphy Siding [snipped] I'd guess that most freight shipment has a big over & under margin as far as when it will arrive. We have a carload of Canadian 2X6's coming that we were told would *probably* show up last week. It sort of did- it's sitting at a grain elevator siding a mile south of our yard.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.