BaltACD There is not a tranportation medium in the world that does not have fatigue problems. Even The DisneyWorld mono-rail has had a fatal rear end collision.
There is not a tranportation medium in the world that does not have fatigue problems. Even The DisneyWorld mono-rail has had a fatal rear end collision.
Absolutely. After an unplanned FORCED night time bus ride in the close past this article causes me to never to want to ride a bus again. At least on a rail vehicle there can not be any veering off the rail. Several recent bus accidents show the consequences.
http://beta.news.yahoo.com/fatal-va-bus-crash-shines-light-driver-fatigue-134200702.html
Of course, very true. All the more reason those media as well as other work environments try to find solutions for improvement. If they don't work, they try something else.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
REmember two things: 1) sleep is not the only factor in fatigue but also stress, routine, monotony, and other things over a long period of time and 2) fatigue is not just a transportation issue but is a factor in decision making as well as manufacturing, all jobs really. We in America seem to have the hardest time dealing with it. In Europe and Asia there seems to be a willingness to allow for shorter work weeks, more vaction times, more family time, better health benefits (taking care of the labor force, keeping it healthy and available, not pandering to the wretched poor lower class), etc. without penelizing income. Here manageament fears losing productive man hours demanding labor to keep performing while labor has to keep working in fear of losing one's job and/or missing a day's pay.
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.
Bucyrus I am having a hard time following the thrust of this thread. I thought that railroaders were nearly unanimous in their belief that crew fatigue was a big problem. But now I am told that if you say the problem might have a solution because a foreign railroad has no fatigue problem, professional U.S. railroaders will think you are calling them stupid for not solving their fatigue problem. So the conclusion seems to be that U.S. fatigue is a big problem, but solution is beyond anyone’s control. Otherwise they would have solved the problem.
I am having a hard time following the thrust of this thread. I thought that railroaders were nearly unanimous in their belief that crew fatigue was a big problem. But now I am told that if you say the problem might have a solution because a foreign railroad has no fatigue problem, professional U.S. railroaders will think you are calling them stupid for not solving their fatigue problem. So the conclusion seems to be that U.S. fatigue is a big problem, but solution is beyond anyone’s control. Otherwise they would have solved the problem.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Paul_D_North_Jr Thank you - once again - BaltACD, for those thorough and informative responses, which has made this an enlightening thread, at least for me. I won't pretend it's simplistically easy to solve these problems - and your candor makes clear where a lot of them may originate and what needs to be done to solve them, or do something different to head in that direction. I can tell you care - at your level, attitude is the most important job qualification - I only wish there were more like you out there and in charge; I'd certainly be willing to work with you. Again, thanks. - Paul North.
Thank you - once again - BaltACD, for those thorough and informative responses, which has made this an enlightening thread, at least for me. I won't pretend it's simplistically easy to solve these problems - and your candor makes clear where a lot of them may originate and what needs to be done to solve them, or do something different to head in that direction. I can tell you care - at your level, attitude is the most important job qualification - I only wish there were more like you out there and in charge; I'd certainly be willing to work with you. Again, thanks.
- Paul North.
Agree! with everything....
Understanding, and even measuring, the problem is really the easy part. Figuring out a practical, cost effective solution is the trouble.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
jeffhergert [emphasis added - PDN] I think many of you are hung up on that the railroad needs to run it's trains on a scheduled system. That's, as stated, not always possible. What would probably work better is scheduling the people. It's been proposed and maybe tried using "call windows." An employee protects a certain time period; six, eight, or whatever hours. If they don't get called to work during that period they get a basic day's pay and drop to the bottom of the board until their "window" opens again the next day. I've heard it was proposed or tried on a part of the UP using pool crews. In their case, when their window closed, any crew not used was deadheaded to the away frm home terminal. I'm not sure how it worked ar the AFHT, but they may have had a window there too and deadhead home if not used. I'm not sure the pools really need it though. When I tie up, at either home or away, I can check the line up and usually have a good idea of when I'm going back to work. I can't always tell the train, but the times usually hold up fairly well. (It should be noted, the farther out like say 30 hours the time might move somewhat but by about 10 hours out the times firm up. Within about 8 or 10 hours I can start to tell which condr I'll probably get.) What you can't always see is last minute crises that stop everything. Something like a broken rail,trains being held for a hot train or routine MOW work. That's more of an inconvenience, but if a train is figured with a 5pm start time I'd rather go to work then instead of 9pm. At least know about when they intend to call, rather than sit and watch the phone and wonder. The extra boards however are a different story. The most I've ever been 1st out is about 16 hours. (We have terminals where someone, like Georgia Railroader has done, have been 1st out for a few days) On the extra board you're at the mercy of whether an assigned person (not necessarily a person working a regular, ie yard or local job) laying off. Whether an extra or short turn job goes to the pool or the extra board. Some places you have to watch nearby terminal's extra boards. If they're used up they might call you to deadhead over for an assignment. I could see where something is needed for them. I've read the proposals submitted here and elsewhere. I think some have promise and some don't. (I for one, don't want a 10 hour call. The idea that you can't lay off after being called is BS. I've been called ASAP because someone layed off either on or after call. Some were understandable, auto accident on the way to work, and some were not.) I do know that without everyone and I mean everyone, not just so called "experts" from both sides input we'll just get more of the same: things that don't really work but look like something's being done. Jeff
I've heard it was proposed or tried on a part of the UP using pool crews. In their case, when their window closed, any crew not used was deadheaded to the away frm home terminal. I'm not sure how it worked ar the AFHT, but they may have had a window there too and deadhead home if not used.
I'm not sure the pools really need it though. When I tie up, at either home or away, I can check the line up and usually have a good idea of when I'm going back to work. I can't always tell the train, but the times usually hold up fairly well. (It should be noted, the farther out like say 30 hours the time might move somewhat but by about 10 hours out the times firm up. Within about 8 or 10 hours I can start to tell which condr I'll probably get.) What you can't always see is last minute crises that stop everything. Something like a broken rail,trains being held for a hot train or routine MOW work. That's more of an inconvenience, but if a train is figured with a 5pm start time I'd rather go to work then instead of 9pm. At least know about when they intend to call, rather than sit and watch the phone and wonder.
The extra boards however are a different story. The most I've ever been 1st out is about 16 hours. (We have terminals where someone, like Georgia Railroader has done, have been 1st out for a few days) On the extra board you're at the mercy of whether an assigned person (not necessarily a person working a regular, ie yard or local job) laying off. Whether an extra or short turn job goes to the pool or the extra board. Some places you have to watch nearby terminal's extra boards. If they're used up they might call you to deadhead over for an assignment. I could see where something is needed for them.
I've read the proposals submitted here and elsewhere. I think some have promise and some don't. (I for one, don't want a 10 hour call. The idea that you can't lay off after being called is BS. I've been called ASAP because someone layed off either on or after call. Some were understandable, auto accident on the way to work, and some were not.) I do know that without everyone and I mean everyone, not just so called "experts" from both sides input we'll just get more of the same: things that don't really work but look like something's being done.
Jeff
For now - because as a result, I'm suddenly severely time-limited for this - I'll just respond to Jeff's last point by linking to this little essay from the Canadian Business Network (?) - "Connecting the Dots", by Greig Clark, date-lined: December 01, 2008, at: http://www.profitguide.com/article/3031--connecting-the-dots - and these excerpts from it:
"Enough chatter, let’s get down to something we can actually do!” That’s how one CEO, in a recent strategic-planning session for his business, expressed a problem I see all too often: translating all the planning we do into a plan that gets executed.
Words are good. Actions are better. Even politicians are sometimes afflicted with a bias for action. As British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli once expressed to his Queen Victoria: “Action does not necessarily lead to happiness, but without action there can be no happiness.”
In the businesses that I’ve both worked in and advised, I’ve learned a few things about connecting the dots between planning and action that I want to share with you."
Paul_D_North_Jr Hey, the fun just doesn't stop !! (By the way, just for clarification - it seems to me that there's 2 different threads going on here - this one with you, me, ed, jeff, petinj, zug, and maybe a few others - and the other one involving Europe - and now skydiving . . .? Anyway, back to this one - and yes, as a matter of fact, I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last Saturday night [Westfield, Mass.] ) I was thinking we had gotten off this thread's topic of Rear-End Collisions caused by crew fatigue, etc., but now I see how more crews got used up than anyone could rationally plan for and schedule, or get past a manager-type ==> shortage of crews, then any hope of sane scheduling or work and rest periods and crew rotations goes to heck in a handbasket, etc. After thinking some more about the incidents in your previous post at "0-dark:30" in the morning of 08 June, it appears that crew district apparently had no rested crews available for an entire 12-hour period - from 0200 to 1400. If so, that may have resulted from the happy (?) circumstance of too much traffic and committing too many crew resources to handle it, without any reserve or 'bench' depth while the heavy action - most freights at night ? - was going on. A sports coach or military commander would understand . . . BaltACD: My understanding was that our division furloughed approximately 200 T&E personnel during the recent economic downturn. When the economy picked up and the recall notices went out only 20% of those furloughed came back (historically in the past 80-85% of furloughs returned when recalled). This set up the need for a hiring situation that had not been planned for. Roughly 50% of the crews we are operating have trainee's with them...but they are not ready to pull their own weight. Soooooo - we are short of crews at all terminals on the division and are delaying the Origination of 5 to 10 trains daily on the availability of a rested crew. Additionally, I don't think Crew Managements algorithms for staffing have been accurately adjusted to account for the revised Hours of Service Law that became effective in 2010. 8 Sun Kinks, eh ? Over how many Track-Miles or Route-Miles ? Again somewhat superficially (= admittedly without knowing all the facts), that seems like a lot, to me - perhaps too many - even for maybe the 1st really hot day of the season. I would expect the VP Engrg. and/ or Chief Engr. M-O-W to be asking some really hard questions, such as: "Is our standard for the "Neutral Temperature" for CWR (and even any jointed rail) too low ?" "If not, then why so many Sun Kinks yesterday ?" "Are the MOW people following good practices in adjusting the rail for Neutral Temperature, and maintaining or restoring that when doing other MOW work such as replacing ties, raising/ surfacing and tamping, etc. ?" "Are the ballast section and tie conditions acceptable where those Sun Kinks occurred ?" And so on. BaltACD: The division encompasses approximately 1000 route miles and about 1800 track miles and experiences weather extremes of below zero to above 100. We have had Tie & Surfacing gangs active since the middle of February and approximately 600 track miles have had their ballast 'disturbed' since the gangs started their production season. They are scheduled to continue working through the middle of December. We currently have two T&S gangs working and just finished with one rail gang and two Curve Patch rail gangs that worked about 3 months changing out worn curve rail on numerous curves on multiple sub-divisions. I believe one of the Curve Patch gangs is due to return in the late Summer after the annual Maintenance Jamboree takes place on one of the main coal lines during the Miners Vacation period. The division is currently operating 3 ballast trains, one of which is a Herzog GPS dumping train that we try to have loaded and dumped twice each week in areas ahead of the Tie and Surfacing gangs . And see the at least superficial common thread here - air brakes and couplings ? Wonder how many train delays, HOS 'outlaws', recrews, etc. could be traced back to just those 2 items ? Relative to the other set of incidents as well: Is there any kind of database kept on UDE and hose uncoupling events, as well as broken drawbars ? I understand that it's often a mystery and unknown which specific car initiated the UDE, or exactly why the hoses parted (see Appendix B of the TSB Canada report at: http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/rail/2000/r00h0004/r00h0004.asp#a6 ). But that's exactly my point - after spending 1 hr. 30 mins. for each of a couple of leisurely strolls along the ballast shoulder, the conductor - or the DS or TAM - should be more than willing to make a brief entry in a log of just the train ID, location, speed, etc. when the UDE occurred. By itself, that data isn't enough to find the problem, I know. But after a month or so, running it through a computer to compare and sort would reveal if more than one hose parting happened at a specific location, which might indicate a track surface problem (such as at a rough grade crossing) or vandalism (in a rough neighborhood). More challenging would be an intermittent or transient bad brake valve problem. But if in comparing the reporting marks of all the cars in all the trains that had UDEs which couldn't be identified as to cause, if the same car or cars turned up more than once, that would be a pretty good indicator of the likely culprit. See generally the TSB Canada report linked above. BaltACD: There is a system computer application that all Car 'malfunction' incidents are supposed to be entered by the Chief Dispatchers for each territory. The data from this creates a database for the Mechanical folk...what use and analysis of the data they make I do not know. The downside of this procedure is that the data chain from the occurrence to the database has many links and each link required 'manual' effort to move the data onto the next link. The Conductor must make note of the equipment number that gave the problem and provide that to the 'Trick' Dispatcher who is supposed to enter notes about the occurrence in the trains 'Train Sheet'. The Trick Dispatcher must also communicate the information to the Chief Dispatcher. The Chief must enter the information in narrative form in the Division Unusual Occurrences Log for perusal by Division Officials and then enter the specific car data into the appropriate Car Defect computer application...In the crush of action, for both the Trick Dispatcher and the Chief not everything gets reported as it should. Additionally, every time a car activates a Defect Detector that information is also supposed to be logged and reported through the same systems. I know others that I share the position with don't get everything reported that they are supposed to in Car Defect application....I see their lack of reporting when I go to report what I have to report. As information approximately 45 Defect Detectors are activated one or more times every month and at least 120 trains are stopped by these activations, consider that every time a freight train is stopped you can figure AT LEAST 1 hour delay and if the trains are in the 9000 foot range you can figure 2 to 3 hours of delay for the train being inspected. On one territory there has been installed a highly sophisticated Defect Detector - it detects Wheel Impacts (flat wheels), Overloads and uneven loads - this one detector has been stopping at least one train a day on average and when the wheel impact defects are critical and the car(s) must be set out, the minimum delay is 3 hours and it is more normally in the range of 5 to 6 hours, needless to say when a critical wheel impact occurs, the train gets recrewed. Other possible solutions to that problem is testing the air brake systems on the cars more often, such as with a Single Car Test Device - see, for example: WABCO's "Automated SIngle Car Test Device Quick-Start Guide" (2 pages, approx. 185 KB in size) at: http://techinfo.wabtec.com/DataFiles/Leaflets/ASCTD%20Quick%20Start%20Guide%20A.pdf http://www.grahamwhite.com/main/category.php?C1=19 http://nyab.thomasnet.com/item/test-devices/freight-single-car-testing-device-complete/770604? and/ or http://nyab.thomasnet.com/viewitems/test-devices/freight-single-car-testing-device-complete?&bc=100|1010 See also the "Undesired Emergency Application Detection System" at: http://www.rrtools.com/CarMaintenance/EmergencyDetectionSystem.asp Perhaps a broader or more general solution is requiring and implementing more frequent or more 'intelligent' COT&S = "Clean, Oil, Test, & Stencil" of the air brake systems ? I understand that interval can be as long as 8 years for new cars, and then 4 to 5 years thereafter ? See the TSB report linked above at 1.16.1 SIngle Car Testing and the following: http://www.thegbsgroup.us/CaseStudiesDocs/gbs_rcmhandout%20Fall%202008.pdf http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1215/is_n1_v193/ai_11832873/ Of course, once ECP brakes are more fully implemented, they may reduce the frequency of the problem, as well as make the diagnosis and identification of the too-sensitive car a lot easier. Finally - Couldn't the passenger/commuter train have pushed or pulled the 9 cars that were left on the main into the clear someplace, so the main could be reopened and get moving again - with appropriate protection, sueprvision, and at Restricted Speed (or less), of course ? BaltACD: In this instance the 'dead' cars were on #3 track. The Commuter trains operate on #2 track and are operated by a separate commuter entity, not a part of our company. The ONLY time you would EVER have a passenger crew touch a part of a freight train is when doing so is the ONLY way that the passenger train can continue it's trip. Many years ago I had a freight train have engine failure on single track ahead of Auto Train and it could not move...those were the only two trains on the sub-division...had Auto Train cut off it's power and shove the freight train to the first point of clearance. Auto Train power then returned to it's train, coupled up and proceeded...there were NO OTHER alternatives. As I recall the freight train then outlawed at that point of clearance while arrangements were made to get working power to the train. - Paul North.
Hey, the fun just doesn't stop !!
(By the way, just for clarification - it seems to me that there's 2 different threads going on here - this one with you, me, ed, jeff, petinj, zug, and maybe a few others - and the other one involving Europe - and now skydiving . . .? Anyway, back to this one - and yes, as a matter of fact, I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last Saturday night [Westfield, Mass.] )
I was thinking we had gotten off this thread's topic of Rear-End Collisions caused by crew fatigue, etc., but now I see how more crews got used up than anyone could rationally plan for and schedule, or get past a manager-type ==> shortage of crews, then any hope of sane scheduling or work and rest periods and crew rotations goes to heck in a handbasket, etc.
After thinking some more about the incidents in your previous post at "0-dark:30" in the morning of 08 June, it appears that crew district apparently had no rested crews available for an entire 12-hour period - from 0200 to 1400. If so, that may have resulted from the happy (?) circumstance of too much traffic and committing too many crew resources to handle it, without any reserve or 'bench' depth while the heavy action - most freights at night ? - was going on. A sports coach or military commander would understand . . .
BaltACD: My understanding was that our division furloughed approximately 200 T&E personnel during the recent economic downturn. When the economy picked up and the recall notices went out only 20% of those furloughed came back (historically in the past 80-85% of furloughs returned when recalled). This set up the need for a hiring situation that had not been planned for. Roughly 50% of the crews we are operating have trainee's with them...but they are not ready to pull their own weight. Soooooo - we are short of crews at all terminals on the division and are delaying the Origination of 5 to 10 trains daily on the availability of a rested crew. Additionally, I don't think Crew Managements algorithms for staffing have been accurately adjusted to account for the revised Hours of Service Law that became effective in 2010.
BaltACD:
My understanding was that our division furloughed approximately 200 T&E personnel during the recent economic downturn. When the economy picked up and the recall notices went out only 20% of those furloughed came back (historically in the past 80-85% of furloughs returned when recalled). This set up the need for a hiring situation that had not been planned for. Roughly 50% of the crews we are operating have trainee's with them...but they are not ready to pull their own weight. Soooooo - we are short of crews at all terminals on the division and are delaying the Origination of 5 to 10 trains daily on the availability of a rested crew. Additionally, I don't think Crew Managements algorithms for staffing have been accurately adjusted to account for the revised Hours of Service Law that became effective in 2010.
8 Sun Kinks, eh ? Over how many Track-Miles or Route-Miles ? Again somewhat superficially (= admittedly without knowing all the facts), that seems like a lot, to me - perhaps too many - even for maybe the 1st really hot day of the season. I would expect the VP Engrg. and/ or Chief Engr. M-O-W to be asking some really hard questions, such as: "Is our standard for the "Neutral Temperature" for CWR (and even any jointed rail) too low ?" "If not, then why so many Sun Kinks yesterday ?" "Are the MOW people following good practices in adjusting the rail for Neutral Temperature, and maintaining or restoring that when doing other MOW work such as replacing ties, raising/ surfacing and tamping, etc. ?" "Are the ballast section and tie conditions acceptable where those Sun Kinks occurred ?" And so on.
The division encompasses approximately 1000 route miles and about 1800 track miles and experiences weather extremes of below zero to above 100. We have had Tie & Surfacing gangs active since the middle of February and approximately 600 track miles have had their ballast 'disturbed' since the gangs started their production season. They are scheduled to continue working through the middle of December. We currently have two T&S gangs working and just finished with one rail gang and two Curve Patch rail gangs that worked about 3 months changing out worn curve rail on numerous curves on multiple sub-divisions. I believe one of the Curve Patch gangs is due to return in the late Summer after the annual Maintenance Jamboree takes place on one of the main coal lines during the Miners Vacation period. The division is currently operating 3 ballast trains, one of which is a Herzog GPS dumping train that we try to have loaded and dumped twice each week in areas ahead of the Tie and Surfacing gangs
And see the at least superficial common thread here - air brakes and couplings ? Wonder how many train delays, HOS 'outlaws', recrews, etc. could be traced back to just those 2 items ?
Relative to the other set of incidents as well: Is there any kind of database kept on UDE and hose uncoupling events, as well as broken drawbars ? I understand that it's often a mystery and unknown which specific car initiated the UDE, or exactly why the hoses parted (see Appendix B of the TSB Canada report at: http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/rail/2000/r00h0004/r00h0004.asp#a6 ). But that's exactly my point - after spending 1 hr. 30 mins. for each of a couple of leisurely strolls along the ballast shoulder, the conductor - or the DS or TAM - should be more than willing to make a brief entry in a log of just the train ID, location, speed, etc. when the UDE occurred. By itself, that data isn't enough to find the problem, I know. But after a month or so, running it through a computer to compare and sort would reveal if more than one hose parting happened at a specific location, which might indicate a track surface problem (such as at a rough grade crossing) or vandalism (in a rough neighborhood). More challenging would be an intermittent or transient bad brake valve problem. But if in comparing the reporting marks of all the cars in all the trains that had UDEs which couldn't be identified as to cause, if the same car or cars turned up more than once, that would be a pretty good indicator of the likely culprit. See generally the TSB Canada report linked above.
There is a system computer application that all Car 'malfunction' incidents are supposed to be entered by the Chief Dispatchers for each territory. The data from this creates a database for the Mechanical folk...what use and analysis of the data they make I do not know. The downside of this procedure is that the data chain from the occurrence to the database has many links and each link required 'manual' effort to move the data onto the next link. The Conductor must make note of the equipment number that gave the problem and provide that to the 'Trick' Dispatcher who is supposed to enter notes about the occurrence in the trains 'Train Sheet'. The Trick Dispatcher must also communicate the information to the Chief Dispatcher. The Chief must enter the information in narrative form in the Division Unusual Occurrences Log for perusal by Division Officials and then enter the specific car data into the appropriate Car Defect computer application...In the crush of action, for both the Trick Dispatcher and the Chief not everything gets reported as it should. Additionally, every time a car activates a Defect Detector that information is also supposed to be logged and reported through the same systems. I know others that I share the position with don't get everything reported that they are supposed to in Car Defect application....I see their lack of reporting when I go to report what I have to report. As information approximately 45 Defect Detectors are activated one or more times every month and at least 120 trains are stopped by these activations, consider that every time a freight train is stopped you can figure AT LEAST 1 hour delay and if the trains are in the 9000 foot range you can figure 2 to 3 hours of delay for the train being inspected. On one territory there has been installed a highly sophisticated Defect Detector - it detects Wheel Impacts (flat wheels), Overloads and uneven loads - this one detector has been stopping at least one train a day on average and when the wheel impact defects are critical and the car(s) must be set out, the minimum delay is 3 hours and it is more normally in the range of 5 to 6 hours, needless to say when a critical wheel impact occurs, the train gets recrewed.
Other possible solutions to that problem is testing the air brake systems on the cars more often, such as with a Single Car Test Device - see, for example:
WABCO's "Automated SIngle Car Test Device Quick-Start Guide" (2 pages, approx. 185 KB in size) at: http://techinfo.wabtec.com/DataFiles/Leaflets/ASCTD%20Quick%20Start%20Guide%20A.pdf
http://www.grahamwhite.com/main/category.php?C1=19
http://nyab.thomasnet.com/item/test-devices/freight-single-car-testing-device-complete/770604? and/ or
http://nyab.thomasnet.com/viewitems/test-devices/freight-single-car-testing-device-complete?&bc=100|1010
See also the "Undesired Emergency Application Detection System" at: http://www.rrtools.com/CarMaintenance/EmergencyDetectionSystem.asp
Perhaps a broader or more general solution is requiring and implementing more frequent or more 'intelligent' COT&S = "Clean, Oil, Test, & Stencil" of the air brake systems ? I understand that interval can be as long as 8 years for new cars, and then 4 to 5 years thereafter ? See the TSB report linked above at 1.16.1 SIngle Car Testing and the following:
http://www.thegbsgroup.us/CaseStudiesDocs/gbs_rcmhandout%20Fall%202008.pdf
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1215/is_n1_v193/ai_11832873/
Of course, once ECP brakes are more fully implemented, they may reduce the frequency of the problem, as well as make the diagnosis and identification of the too-sensitive car a lot easier.
Finally - Couldn't the passenger/commuter train have pushed or pulled the 9 cars that were left on the main into the clear someplace, so the main could be reopened and get moving again - with appropriate protection, sueprvision, and at Restricted Speed (or less), of course ?
BaltACD: In this instance the 'dead' cars were on #3 track. The Commuter trains operate on #2 track and are operated by a separate commuter entity, not a part of our company. The ONLY time you would EVER have a passenger crew touch a part of a freight train is when doing so is the ONLY way that the passenger train can continue it's trip. Many years ago I had a freight train have engine failure on single track ahead of Auto Train and it could not move...those were the only two trains on the sub-division...had Auto Train cut off it's power and shove the freight train to the first point of clearance. Auto Train power then returned to it's train, coupled up and proceeded...there were NO OTHER alternatives. As I recall the freight train then outlawed at that point of clearance while arrangements were made to get working power to the train.
In this instance the 'dead' cars were on #3 track. The Commuter trains operate on #2 track and are operated by a separate commuter entity, not a part of our company. The ONLY time you would EVER have a passenger crew touch a part of a freight train is when doing so is the ONLY way that the passenger train can continue it's trip. Many years ago I had a freight train have engine failure on single track ahead of Auto Train and it could not move...those were the only two trains on the sub-division...had Auto Train cut off it's power and shove the freight train to the first point of clearance. Auto Train power then returned to it's train, coupled up and proceeded...there were NO OTHER alternatives. As I recall the freight train then outlawed at that point of clearance while arrangements were made to get working power to the train.
zugmann CSSHEGEWISCH: Even something as predictable as a steady 11PM-7AM night shift can cause fatigue issues because it is opposite normal body rhythms. Even a longtime night owl like Larry King observed that you're always somewhat out of sync when working nights. Swing shifts are probably worse, you may know what your hours are going to be but it's still hard to be properly rested. I was always fine with night shifts. First shift is an absolute killer for me. I read a study about how lots of people have a "shifted circadian rhythm". I'm wondering if I may be one.
CSSHEGEWISCH: Even something as predictable as a steady 11PM-7AM night shift can cause fatigue issues because it is opposite normal body rhythms. Even a longtime night owl like Larry King observed that you're always somewhat out of sync when working nights. Swing shifts are probably worse, you may know what your hours are going to be but it's still hard to be properly rested.
Even something as predictable as a steady 11PM-7AM night shift can cause fatigue issues because it is opposite normal body rhythms. Even a longtime night owl like Larry King observed that you're always somewhat out of sync when working nights. Swing shifts are probably worse, you may know what your hours are going to be but it's still hard to be properly rested.
I was always fine with night shifts. First shift is an absolute killer for me. I read a study about how lots of people have a "shifted circadian rhythm". I'm wondering if I may be one.
Charles A. Czeisler MD, PhD (1999). "Human Biological Clock Set Back an Hour". http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/1999/07.15/bioclock24.html. "The variation between our subjects, with a 95 percent level of confidence, was no more than plus or minus 16 minutes, a remarkably small range."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circadian_rhythm_disorder
Particularly relevant is the section on chronotypes: larks (daytime folks) or, in your case, owls.
Murphy Siding The premise put forth, is that the other guys are doing better than us, beacause- what? We're stupid? ... Should a person disagree with that premise, he is painted as somehow being backward, stubborn, negative- or stupid...By an extention of that thought process, you're insulting a whole country of Americans, by calling all of us backward, lazy and stupid.... I find it hard to accept that we got that way by being backward, lazy and stupid. I feel that I am living in the greatest country on earth at the moment. Perhaps Merle Haggard said it best: "When you're runnin' down our country boy, you're walkin' on the fihgtin' side of me". I would. however, have the common sense to know that if I insinuated that they were all backward, lazy and stupid, that I wouldn't be accusing them of insulting me when they returned fire. -Norris
The premise put forth, is that the other guys are doing better than us, beacause- what? We're stupid? ... Should a person disagree with that premise, he is painted as somehow being backward, stubborn, negative- or stupid...By an extention of that thought process, you're insulting a whole country of Americans, by calling all of us backward, lazy and stupid.... I find it hard to accept that we got that way by being backward, lazy and stupid. I feel that I am living in the greatest country on earth at the moment. Perhaps Merle Haggard said it best: "When you're runnin' down our country boy, you're walkin' on the fihgtin' side of me". I would. however, have the common sense to know that if I insinuated that they were all backward, lazy and stupid, that I wouldn't be accusing them of insulting me when they returned fire. -Norris
Norris: Apparently, in your world, any criticism of a system, in this case, the railroad management, is taken as saying all the employees are "stupid" a term you used five times in your little rant. No one besides you said that. I don't think employees are stupid. If anything, i wish employees had a management that strove to give them a better and safer work environment, including better work scheduling, even if not perfect. zugman, a rail employee, said much the same. I don't know why you take things that way and distort what others say. Perhaps you are just having a bad day.
BaltACD That was a different problem on a different Sub-division, that I also supervise....and was happening concurrently to the other incident I reported ...Train had multiple air hose coupling issues as it was entering a yard and blocked the commuter trains from leaving their servicing area. The train ended up spending 18+ hours in the terminal and outlawed a crew without ever leaving the terminal with the air issues. The crew that finally got the train out of the terminal only had 4 hours left on their HOS time when they departed and had to be recrewed again enroute to the final destination. With the near 100 degree heat....there were about 8 Sun Kinks that occurred in various places on my territory that had to be repaired. The Heat Order remain in effect with the forecast of 100 again today.
With the near 100 degree heat....there were about 8 Sun Kinks that occurred in various places on my territory that had to be repaired. The Heat Order remain in effect with the forecast of 100 again today.
CSSHEGEWISCH Even something as predictable as a steady 11PM-7AM night shift can cause fatigue issues because it is opposite normal body rhythms. Even a longtime night owl like Larry King observed that you're always somewhat out of sync when working nights. Swing shifts are probably worse, you may know what your hours are going to be but it's still hard to be properly rested.
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
schlimm Mottos and selected reading for contributors to this thread; "This is the best of all possible worlds!!" "Everyday, in every way, things are getting better and better." The Emperor's New Clothes The Adventures of Pollyanna
Mottos and selected reading for contributors to this thread;
"This is the best of all possible worlds!!"
"Everyday, in every way, things are getting better and better."
The Emperor's New Clothes
The Adventures of Pollyanna
schlimm The usual, predictable insults when all else fails.
The usual, predictable insults when all else fails.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
schlimm Murphy: I'll review the thread. Since the topic was collisions and how fatigue may contribute, we looked at how scheduled trains might help crews to have a more predictable weekly schedule, so they could get more rest. No consensus because many thought that was impossible. So I brought up the example of railroads in Germany, where there are far more trains of all sort running on less trackage, yet they can keep schedules pretty regularly. Scheduling of anything has a lot more to do with how many objects there are to schedule in a given time and space, not on how much that objects weighs. So I reiterate, ton-miles are irrelevant to what we are discussing, and that is not making a dishonest comparison, merely because you don't understand or agree . But if the extremely long trains composed of very heavy cars causes the system schedule to break down with mechanical problems, as in the example from BaltACD, then that is another issue that should be examined.
Murphy: I'll review the thread. Since the topic was collisions and how fatigue may contribute, we looked at how scheduled trains might help crews to have a more predictable weekly schedule, so they could get more rest. No consensus because many thought that was impossible. So I brought up the example of railroads in Germany, where there are far more trains of all sort running on less trackage, yet they can keep schedules pretty regularly. Scheduling of anything has a lot more to do with how many objects there are to schedule in a given time and space, not on how much that objects weighs. So I reiterate, ton-miles are irrelevant to what we are discussing, and that is not making a dishonest comparison, merely because you don't understand or agree . But if the extremely long trains composed of very heavy cars causes the system schedule to break down with mechanical problems, as in the example from BaltACD, then that is another issue that should be examined.
Murphy Siding I also disagree that it was done more efficiently than it was 90 years ago. Of course, it all depends on your definition of efficiency. If it was more efficient 90 years ago, why did it change?
I also disagree that it was done more efficiently than it was 90 years ago. Of course, it all depends on your definition of efficiency. If it was more efficient 90 years ago, why did it change?
Murphy...read these posts again; read any histories again. Times change, things change. The reasons and changes and effects have all been stated. You must comprehend what has been posted. Several of us have cited history and facts many times. Change happens and the reasons have been made clear.
henry6 I never said they moved more freight. I suggested they made more moves more efficiently, had more trains both frieght and passenger, and moved them from end to end of a railroad with precision unfathomed by today's railroaders and railfans. Ton miles is up, yes; on fewer trains, yes; on fewer miles, yes. But what if the railroads ran as many trains as many train miles today with today's technology? (Then I'd be impressed, to say the least!) Maybe what it boils down to, Murphy, is that my concept of real railorading is so different than your concept that neither one of us can comprehend what the other is saying or means, I mean it, before Conrail or PC, it was a completely different world of machines, men, milage, and concept of what operating a railroad meant.
I never said they moved more freight. I suggested they made more moves more efficiently, had more trains both frieght and passenger, and moved them from end to end of a railroad with precision unfathomed by today's railroaders and railfans. Ton miles is up, yes; on fewer trains, yes; on fewer miles, yes. But what if the railroads ran as many trains as many train miles today with today's technology? (Then I'd be impressed, to say the least!) Maybe what it boils down to, Murphy, is that my concept of real railorading is so different than your concept that neither one of us can comprehend what the other is saying or means, I mean it, before Conrail or PC, it was a completely different world of machines, men, milage, and concept of what operating a railroad meant.
Why compare American railroading to European railroading? Compare any USA railroad of 2011 to any and all USA railroads of the WWII era! Number of movements of both freight and passenger, total efficiency of operation overall. We moved more people, more freight, more trains more efficiently than we do today! We are afraid (and maybe rightfully so) to put a passenger train out on a track an hour before or after a freight train (exaggerated, yes) and vice versa (again exaggerated, but you get my drift), limit the number of trains that can be run based on single track, signaled track, and directional spacing.. Even with all the technological and safety improvements we don't run the number of trains nor the speeds and efficiencies we've done in the past. Safety experts say PTC is the answer while rail management says it isn't. Who is right? Could we go back to running lots of trains at suffecient speeds if we had PTC? Would that be costly to management or would it mean they could actually move more quicker, safer, and make money? Or at least isn't that the idea?
[/quote] I also disagree that it was done more efficiently than it was 90 years ago. Of course, it all depends on your definition of efficiency. If it was more efficient 90 years ago, why did it change?
edblysard It's OK, you can borrow my spare set of hip waders.... coborn35: I feel like half of these guys posting either smoked something or are CN Trainmasters on the DM&IR....
It's OK, you can borrow my spare set of hip waders....
coborn35: I feel like half of these guys posting either smoked something or are CN Trainmasters on the DM&IR....
I feel like half of these guys posting either smoked something or are CN Trainmasters on the DM&IR....
RADIO! REMOTE CONTROL OF INTERLOCKINGS! These two technologies did more to reduce the workforce than anything else. With radio you could contact virtually any train anytime anywhere (remember I said virtually). And with interlockings controlled by dispatchers sometimes thousand of miles away you had two reasons not to hire between 5 and ten people per interlocking (three regular operators, one swing shift, one one day operator, signal maintainer and maybe some kind of trackman). Lineside detectors for hot boxes and dragging equipment plus the inevention of EOTD's allowed for the elimination of the caboose....a long time unsafe practice because of long trains and slack action..and eliminate two positions per train. At one time everyone on the railroad stopped and watched a train go by in an informal (and sometimes mandated) inspection. Trains passing each other, passing interlocking towers/stations, and passing those working the tracks and signals, got a rolling inspections often every few miles. Lineside telephone boxes and hand signals allowed for communication (seemed like everyone knew the hand signals for sticking brakes and stinking hot boxes).. And even if there were no official lines of communication, local employees knew people up and down the line who could be counted on to relay some kind of communication to a train crew in an emergency and in the most informal and unconforming ways. Trains were closely watched and highly regarded.
The big change in both rules and methods of operation that came about in the late 80's was based upon the facts the most of the employee base that was hired after WWII was retiring and needed to be replaced. In replacing that work force another factor was at work...the reduction to 2 man crews. Now a Conductor is the entry level position that introduces one to the railroad. No longer is one a brakeman for several years, learning the ropes (and rules and their application) as a apprentice before assuming the full responsibility of the job of Conductor. Nowadays, the new hire comes through the RR College classes, goes to my carriers educational unit for about 6 weeks, gets 8 weeks or so of OJT working various road and yard jobs as a trainee and then they are 'qualified' as a Conductor on their territory. After a year (and sometimes less) as a Conductor the individual is then sent for Engineer Training in seniority order and after successful completion of about 3 months of training on the mechanics and operation of the various systems of the locomotives the Trainee Engineer is then placed in the field to become qualified on his territory. Well inside of 2 years a individual can go from a complete outsider to operating a 20K Ton train down a 2% mountain grade. Employees get thrown into the deep end fast on today's railroads.
To permit the rapid familiarization of raw manpower to become sufficiently knowledgeable with the rules necessary to operate safely the total rules package had to be simplified....It took years to understand the intricacies of Timetable & Train Order operations....years that the carriers did not have in training their new workforce. Thus things were simplified to CTC and following the signal rules and (depending upon the carrier) DTC (Direct Traffic Control) or TWC (Track Warrant Control) which both govern unsignalled or non-CTC territory.
By the same token, Dispatchers had to be trained with Dispatcher effectively becoming a entry level position.
The carriers recognized that all the 'apprenice' jobs they once had and used to train their workforce for higher levels of responsibility no longer existed and the new hires would have to hit the ground running....thus the big changes in the methods of operation in the late 80's.
AgentKid And say what you will about their salary requests at negotiating time, but the operating rules they helped put into place worked. And sometime during the 1965-1985 time period management seemed to forget or refuse to accept the ideas they had about doing things. Bruce
And say what you will about their salary requests at negotiating time, but the operating rules they helped put into place worked. And sometime during the 1965-1985 time period management seemed to forget or refuse to accept the ideas they had about doing things.
Bruce
That was a different problem on a different Sub-division, that I also supervise....and was happening concurrently to the other incident I reported ...Train had multiple air hose coupling issues as it was entering a yard and blocked the commuter trains from leaving their servicing area. The train ended up spending 18+ hours in the terminal and outlawed a crew without ever leaving the terminal with the air issues. The crew that finally got the train out of the terminal only had 4 hours left on their HOS time when they departed and had to be recrewed again enroute to the final destination.
Paul_D_North_Jr BaltACD: [snipped] I'd like to tell you how it all worked out....but I got off at 0700 and turned the mess over to my relief. As can be seen, the decisions to be made are not between good and bad....but between bad and worse. Happy railroading! Edited to protect the identities of those involved - PDN: A Statement from [Railroad] Regarding the [Route] Line Service Disruption to Trains X47, X49, and X51--June 8, 2011 [Railroad] regrets the significant delays to [Passenger Agency] commuters caused by multiple issues incurred by a freight train en route to [Terminal] this morning. These issues included a mechanical breakdown and the fact that the train crew had to go off duty because it had reached the limit of hours it could work based upon federal law. [Railroad] and [Passenger Agency] representatives were in constant communication throughout the morning, beginning at 6:30 a.m., to attempt to resolve the problem and ensure the flow of timely information to [Passenger Agency] passengers. [Railroad] and [Passenger Agency] will review the events that occurred this morning, and investigate areas for potential improvement. [Railroad] has positioned crews and equipment to resume normal service this afternoon. Again, [Railroad] regrets the inconvenience experienced by [Passenger Agency] riders this morning. Official's NameDirector, Passenger and Commuter Operations[Railroad] Well, thanks for that object lesson in reality - perhaps you witnessed some "beautiful theories being murderd by a gang of brutal facts" ? Although, I'll note only that this may be one of those instances when having a 'protect' crew on standby closer in the metropolitan area might have reduced the total amount of grief incurred. And we've only heard about the effects on the passenger operations - were there no other freight trains also running in the affected area during the disruption that also suffered delays because of it ? [/] And then I see that "Heat Advisories" account of the hot weather's effects on the track's CWR is also introducing 20-minute delays to some of the Passenger Agency's trains tonight . . . - Paul North.
BaltACD: [snipped] I'd like to tell you how it all worked out....but I got off at 0700 and turned the mess over to my relief. As can be seen, the decisions to be made are not between good and bad....but between bad and worse. Happy railroading!
Happy railroading!
Well, thanks for that object lesson in reality - perhaps you witnessed some "beautiful theories being murderd by a gang of brutal facts" ?
Railroading was different 25 years ago or 40 years ago or whatever. The biggest difference is not in the "better" technology today but the fact that per track mile, railroads had probably 5 to 10 times the number of people working for them. Or per ton-mile. Or for any measure you may wish to make. This affects quality of inspections of rolling stock, track maintenance, customer service, communications, the whole bit. And there really is not much that can be done about this while keeping railroads competitive!
henry6 Number of movements of both freight and passenger We moved more people, more freight, more trains more efficiently than we do today Even with all the technological and safety improvements we don't run the number of trains nor the speeds
Number of movements of both freight and passenger
We moved more people, more freight, more trains more efficiently than we do today
Even with all the technological and safety improvements we don't run the number of trains nor the speeds
After I made my last post I went out for supper, but I couldn't stop thinking of the point Henry was making. The big change that happened after steam changed to diesel was that diesels enabled RR's to have to start fewer trains. That coupled with the fact RR's have far fewer T&E employees now and no longer have to call from four lists, and it seems to me scheduling trains and their crews should have improved from the 1950's or 60's.
Management, and some employees like my Dad, used to say that you can't let the unions run the railways. And say what you will about their salary requests at negotiating time, but the operating rules they helped put into place worked. And sometime during the 1965-1985 time period management seemed to forget or refuse to accept the ideas they had about doing things.
Quality control experts may have their place, but an intensive unbiased study of historical railway operations would be a good start to developing safer crew management policies. Newer, fancier technologies is not the simple answer to the problem.
So shovel the coal, let this rattler roll.
"A Train is a Place Going Somewhere" CP Rail Public Timetable
"O. S. Irricana"
. . . __ . ______
coborn35 I feel like half of these guys posting either smoked something or are CN Trainmasters on the DM&IR....
23 17 46 11
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
Regarding drawbar or knuckle breaks: is it possible it isn't a case of just better or more frequent inspections? Maybe the technology, which was fine for freight cars of much lighter loaded weight, is more prone to breakage with today's much heavier cars?
petitnj This is clearly a case in need of Quality Control. The rest of the world has realized the importance of every part of a complex system working to have the system function. Once a train is made of many couplers, pipes, valves and hoses they all must function or you end up like the previous sequence. 99.99% is not good enough. Once the railroads take up the "Quality" banner they will recognize the importance of each detail working. I would argue that the railroad could eliminate most of these sequences of failure with more attention spent on inspections and quality control.
I would argue that the railroad could eliminate most of these sequences of failure with more attention spent on inspections and quality control.
Let's review for the statistics and 'root' causes here:
1 UDE on the 8000 ft. Intermodal train = about 130 platforms or about 0.77 % failure rate = 99.23 % performance; alternatively, 100% of the EOT failed = 0 % mission completion.
Another UDE on the 7500 ft. Merchandise train = about 123 cars or about 0.81 % failure rate = 99.19 % performance.
The last UDE in the 34-car Merchandise train was really caused by a pulled drawbar - 1 of 34 = 2.94 %failure rate = 97.06 % performance.
At the moment I can't think of how to evaluate having 4 trains with crews that should complete their runs within HOS if nothing goes seriously wrong - then not having a back-up plan when it does.
But for the mechanical failures - wonder what the total cost of all the train delays, recrews, missed service commitments, etc. adds up to ? Would that be enough to pay for more intensive inspection, frequent testing and replacement of the brake valves and EOTDs to lessen the risk of this happening again ? As we've discussed before, the drawbar break may be a defect that is just not susceptible to being found by present-day inspection techniques (Barrington, Illinois last fall).
BaltACD [snipped] I'd like to tell you how it all worked out....but I got off at 0700 and turned the mess over to my relief. As can be seen, the decisions to be made are not between good and bad....but between bad and worse. Happy railroading!
And then I see that "Heat Advisories" account of the hot weather's effects on the track's CWR is also introducing 20-minute delays to some of the Passenger Agency's trains tonight . . .
BaltACD Reality - 0200 With all the discussion concerning 'Scheduled' operations I'll throw out a little dose of reality that began occurring at 0200 June 8. At Mile 10 on a E-W Sub a 8000 foot feature Intermodal train that goes HOS at 0630 has a UDE (undesired emergency) on the Eastbound track in double track territory. At mile 24 of the same subdivision a 7500 foot Merchandise train that goes HOS at 1035 also has at UDE. Meanwhile on a connecting N-S subdivision a small 34 car Merchandise train that goes HOS at 0545 also has a UDE at Mile 70 of that Subdivision on the Southbound track in double track territory. Both subdivisions where these problems occur have Commuter Passenger traffic that begins operating at 0500. The Intermodal train consumes 1 hour 30 minutes inspecting his train and does not find a specific cause and gets on the move, only to go 4 miles further and have another UDE, which the crew reports was initiated, unrequested, by the EOT - the Conductor must walk the 8000 feet to the rear of the train, disconnect the EOT, return to the head of the train that takes another hour and 30 minutes, and then proceed at the reduced speed of 30 MPH - they make it within the confines of their destination terminal, but not to their real destination and the train has to be recrewed. The E-W Merchandise train finds air hoses parted between two cars about 60 cars deep in the train. They are stopped for 2 hours recoupling the air hose and completing inspection of the HAZMAT that their train contains. The train the proceeds until it turns onto the N-S subdivision where, 40 miles ahead the Southbound train is in trouble and the Northbound track will be populated by Commuter & Amtrak trains on approximate 30 minute headway...insufficient time for this train to loop around the train that is in trouble without seriously delaying the NB passenger fleet. Additionally another SB freight has entered the Subdivision that goes HOS at 1215. Crew Management has reported that there will not be ANY POSSIBILITY of a relief crew until after 1400. The N-S Merchandise train, after 30 minutes of inspection reports they have a drawhead pulled out of the 'wrong' end of a car 25 cars from their engines. Mechanical forces and Transportation supervision are immediately notified of the problem. The crew discovers that there is a chain on their engine consist and that they can chain up the car without the drawhead....problem is the closest place to set the car off is down at MP 58 - 12 miles away. After getting the car chained up the crew proceeds at a very restricted speed to the set off location, where they arrive and get the car set off as their hours of service time expires....so we now have the head 24 cars of the train at MP 58 and the rear 9 cars of the train at MP 70...While a recrew was order as soon as the train had the UDE, the crew could only be obtained from the least desirable location and is on duty at 0550 and has to taxi over 100 miles through metropolitan area morning rush hour traffic to get from their on duty location to the HOS location of the train. I'd like to tell you how it all worked out....but I got off at 0700 and turned the mess over to my relief. As can be seen, the decisions to be made are not between good and bad....but between bad and worse. Happy railroading!
Reality - 0200
With all the discussion concerning 'Scheduled' operations I'll throw out a little dose of reality that began occurring at 0200 June 8.
At Mile 10 on a E-W Sub a 8000 foot feature Intermodal train that goes HOS at 0630 has a UDE (undesired emergency) on the Eastbound track in double track territory. At mile 24 of the same subdivision a 7500 foot Merchandise train that goes HOS at 1035 also has at UDE. Meanwhile on a connecting N-S subdivision a small 34 car Merchandise train that goes HOS at 0545 also has a UDE at Mile 70 of that Subdivision on the Southbound track in double track territory. Both subdivisions where these problems occur have Commuter Passenger traffic that begins operating at 0500.
The Intermodal train consumes 1 hour 30 minutes inspecting his train and does not find a specific cause and gets on the move, only to go 4 miles further and have another UDE, which the crew reports was initiated, unrequested, by the EOT - the Conductor must walk the 8000 feet to the rear of the train, disconnect the EOT, return to the head of the train that takes another hour and 30 minutes, and then proceed at the reduced speed of 30 MPH - they make it within the confines of their destination terminal, but not to their real destination and the train has to be recrewed.
The E-W Merchandise train finds air hoses parted between two cars about 60 cars deep in the train. They are stopped for 2 hours recoupling the air hose and completing inspection of the HAZMAT that their train contains. The train the proceeds until it turns onto the N-S subdivision where, 40 miles ahead the Southbound train is in trouble and the Northbound track will be populated by Commuter & Amtrak trains on approximate 30 minute headway...insufficient time for this train to loop around the train that is in trouble without seriously delaying the NB passenger fleet. Additionally another SB freight has entered the Subdivision that goes HOS at 1215. Crew Management has reported that there will not be ANY POSSIBILITY of a relief crew until after 1400.
The N-S Merchandise train, after 30 minutes of inspection reports they have a drawhead pulled out of the 'wrong' end of a car 25 cars from their engines. Mechanical forces and Transportation supervision are immediately notified of the problem. The crew discovers that there is a chain on their engine consist and that they can chain up the car without the drawhead....problem is the closest place to set the car off is down at MP 58 - 12 miles away. After getting the car chained up the crew proceeds at a very restricted speed to the set off location, where they arrive and get the car set off as their hours of service time expires....so we now have the head 24 cars of the train at MP 58 and the rear 9 cars of the train at MP 70...While a recrew was order as soon as the train had the UDE, the crew could only be obtained from the least desirable location and is on duty at 0550 and has to taxi over 100 miles through metropolitan area morning rush hour traffic to get from their on duty location to the HOS location of the train.
I'd like to tell you how it all worked out....but I got off at 0700 and turned the mess over to my relief. As can be seen, the decisions to be made are not between good and bad....but between bad and worse.
When it rains it pours. This is the reality, this is railroading. Though to schedule the unpredictable.
Murphy Siding . Um, OK. I agree with you. Railroading, and darn near everything else for that matter, is different than it was 25 years ago. But knowing that wouldn't make me want to assert that railroads moved more freight 95 years ago. Yes, they probabaly made more moves, moved more (and Shorter) trains, and more passengers (a given). How does that relate to moving more ton/miles?
.
This is clearly a case in need of Quality Control. The rest of the world has realized the importance of every part of a complex system working to have the system function. Once a train is made of many couplers, pipes, valves and hoses they all must function or you end up like the previous sequence. 99.99% is not good enough. Once the railroads take up the "Quality" banner they will recognize the importance of each detail working.
henry6 Here is comparing apples to oranges. Don't confuse ton miles with number of moves, number of trains, and number of passengers, and the amount of miles moved. Yes, they move more ton miles because they have longer trains moving longer distnances, for two things. I have mentioned this to Jim Wrinn, others, and on these postings: today's railroaders and railfans have absolutely no clue what railroading was like before Conrail ( to make a mark in the sand). How men and machines matched wits with the elements, the timetables, and one another, is completely different than how a railroad operates today. I not chooseing sides as to which is better, just pointing out how different the whole comp;osition an d operations of railroads, railroading, and railroaders are today than even 25 or 30 years ago.
Here is comparing apples to oranges. Don't confuse ton miles with number of moves, number of trains, and number of passengers, and the amount of miles moved. Yes, they move more ton miles because they have longer trains moving longer distnances, for two things. I have mentioned this to Jim Wrinn, others, and on these postings: today's railroaders and railfans have absolutely no clue what railroading was like before Conrail ( to make a mark in the sand). How men and machines matched wits with the elements, the timetables, and one another, is completely different than how a railroad operates today. I not chooseing sides as to which is better, just pointing out how different the whole comp;osition an d operations of railroads, railroading, and railroaders are today than even 25 or 30 years ago.
jeffhergert When I tie up, at either home or away, I can check the line up and usually have a good idea of when I'm going back to work. I can't always tell the train, but the times usually hold up fairly well. (It should be noted, the farther out like say 30 hours the time might move somewhat but by about 10 hours out the times firm up. Within about 8 or 10 hours I can start to tell which condr I'll probably get.)
When I tie up, at either home or away, I can check the line up and usually have a good idea of when I'm going back to work. I can't always tell the train, but the times usually hold up fairly well. (It should be noted, the farther out like say 30 hours the time might move somewhat but by about 10 hours out the times firm up. Within about 8 or 10 hours I can start to tell which condr I'll probably get.)
I really liked this post. This is how I have always understood how it works. The part in brackets is particularly noteworthy. It was this way back back when my father was still working and I have several books written by an Engineer who said the same thing.
One thing I have been looking for in my own library is how freight crews could bid on numbered freight train jobs like passenger train crews did. In TT&TO days there were certain conditions where a crew would hold down a particular job, provided it started within the twelve hour Time Table schedule window. Everybody started on the Extra Board, then eventually you had enough seniority to bid on freight jobs, and finally you got to hold down a passenger job. There was a Engineers list, a Conductors list, a Trainmans list, and a Firemens list. Trainmen had to qualify to move up to the Conductors list and Firemen had to qualify to move up to the Engineers list.
But even though you had four lists, guys that liked to work together and held the same relative seniority on their respective lists, could eventually set themselves up to bid on the same jobs. Mixed Train crews would be the same year round except for Annual Vacations.
I guess my point is, if railways still have designated trains like the Q999 or the XYZAB, couldn't they set up a system where crews could bid on at least those jobs?
henry6 Why compare American railroading to European railroading? Compare any USA railroad of 2011 to any and all USA railroads of the WWII era! Number of movements of both freight and passenger, total efficiency of operation overall. We moved more people, more freight, more trains more efficiently than we do today!
Why compare American railroading to European railroading? Compare any USA railroad of 2011 to any and all USA railroads of the WWII era! Number of movements of both freight and passenger, total efficiency of operation overall. We moved more people, more freight, more trains more efficiently than we do today!
schlimm Let's just leave it with Germany, since I am familiar with that first hand. Very heavy traffic density, i.e., # of trains operating on trackage in a given time period, freight and passenger. Tonnage is irrelevant, and so is government ownership, which is only partial. DB makes a profit overall.
Let's just leave it with Germany, since I am familiar with that first hand. Very heavy traffic density, i.e., # of trains operating on trackage in a given time period, freight and passenger. Tonnage is irrelevant, and so is government ownership, which is only partial. DB makes a profit overall.
I think many of you are hung up on that the railroad needs to run it's trains on a scheduled system. That's, as stated, not always possible. What would probably work better is scheduling the people. It's been proposed and maybe tried using "call windows." An employee protects a certain time period; six, eight, or whatever hours. If they don't get called to work during that period they get a basic day's pay and drop to the bottom of the board until their "window" opens again the next day.
ed: Did you notice there were some DB freight numbers in the post? You are really missing the point. It is the density of traffic that makes running on a schedule much harder. When you throw in passenger and freight trains running in a fairly wide range of speeds, that makes it harder, too. Add to the mix the fact that a majority of freights must run during the night and you make it even harder, because of fewer hours to use. And quite a few lines are double track, and even single track with scheduled meets. Yet DB runs on a tight schedule successfully.
Paul ,
We did negotiate with Philips...well, rather they came to us.
And as you pointed out, the 95 cars out don't all go to the same customer, they go to Casey yard, a SIT yard here in Houston, where that 5 cars are cut out and on the next BNSF towards NJ interchange.
Used to be, we worked the entire Phillips plant, went in, gathered up all the cars, sorted them around or blocked them inside the plant, pulled the whole thing out, did the air test and all, then pulled it across our system to North Yard, where it was re-blocked and switched.
Just getting the cars out of the plant and air tested took an assigned crew, and the day they didn't make overtime was rare.
Phillips came up with the idea of building their own yard adjacent to their plant, holds around 500 cars, they bought a set of switch engines, we built a siding that holds about 100 cars, gave them permission to occupy our main, and they build the train in the siding.
This gives them the ability to pre block the train, and the ability to clear their plant at their convenience.
It also allows for the storage of some of the specialty plastics they make...if an order comes in for say medical grade stuff, they have it switched into their train asap.
Before, a dedicated crew pulled them on a assigned shift, now, when they call our DTS, (director of train services) he checks with the yard masters and finds out if any current on duty crew is finished or close to finished with their work, and if they have time to pull Phillips.
If not, he calls the crew caller to call out an extra crew.
He also checks to see if there is any BNSF power on property not already assigned by the BNSF power desk, if so, we grab that power and head to Phillips.
If not, then he calls BNSF, gets power and crews headed our way, sometimes the crew is bringing the power from South Yard with them, sometimes the power is on a BNSF train already close to PTRA, or in our tie up track.
The crew is cabbing in to Pasadena to meet the train there.
No matter how it is arraigned, the whole idea is that when the train arrives at Pasadena, its ready to go with minimal delays.
And, if time permits, and the Phillips empties are ready at Pasadena, we double them up and take them out there, cut off clear of the siding and get against the outbound.
While the air is pumping up, Phillips will get against the empties and shove them into their yard.
There is assigned tracks at Pasadena that are only for Phillips cars, same at North Yard, they are that important a customer.
And I didn't think anyone would pony up the numbers, seems now we are comparing passenger trains to freight trains....
Ah well.
Very true, henry. One of the ways over the past 50 years the freight rails (and truck lines) have increased their profit margins, though not necessarily service efficiency, has been huge increases in weight and overall size of each railcar, and length of each train. The result? Lower labor costs, less flexibility in service and enormous damage to track and roadbeds (and in the case of trucks, heavy damage to roads and safety considerations: compare Interstate 80 with one of the auto-only parkways on LI).
ed: There are so many inaccurate assertions in your post that it is nearly pointless to respond. One or two stats to illuminate:
Over 4.5 million people a day use Deutsche Bahn's 29,000 trains (~4740 freights daily) serving over 5,500 stations along 35,000 km (21748 miles) of track. The line on the east bank of the Rhine alone sees about 50-60 freights per day plus around 35 regional passenger trains. The statistic that is most relevant to scheduling, etc. is traffic density, not length of train or tonnage. If the latter two prevent reasonable scheduling, then maybe that is part of the problem.
edblysard [snipped; emphasis added - PDN] Or Phillips Plastic Division....we pull 95 car plastic pellets hoppers out of there at least once a day, and they want them gone as soon as they drop a dime on us, because they have a plant that runs 24 hours a day, every day, and there are 300 loaded cars in their yard waiting on customer orders. They call us, we call BNSF as soon as we hang up from them and order up power and a crew to be at Pasadena by XX hours to haul this thing out of our yard. We send a crew out on the next shift to Phillips and they get pulled. BNSF is waiting, often we use their power so all our guys have to do is pull into Pasadena and swap crews with BNSF and that thing is gone from our property. You can't "schedule" crews for something like that. Well, you could, but I don't want to be the guy to tell Phillips they only get service at a specific time, or be the guy to tell their customer in New Jersey that makes those plastic bags you get at the grocery store his 5 hoppers of plastic are not going to arrive until the schedule says so.
They call us, we call BNSF as soon as we hang up from them and order up power and a crew to be at Pasadena by XX hours to haul this thing out of our yard.
We send a crew out on the next shift to Phillips and they get pulled.
BNSF is waiting, often we use their power so all our guys have to do is pull into Pasadena and swap crews with BNSF and that thing is gone from our property.
You can't "schedule" crews for something like that.
Well, you could, but I don't want to be the guy to tell Phillips they only get service at a specific time, or be the guy to tell their customer in New Jersey that makes those plastic bags you get at the grocery store his 5 hoppers of plastic are not going to arrive until the schedule says so.
But I wouldn't just unilaterally tell Phillips that they only get service at a specific time. Instead, I'd go see their traffic manager, explain how this makes operations for the railroads vary a lot, and negotiate to see if regularly scheduled time(s) for that switch would work better for them, too - that way, it's on 'autopilot', they don't need to even call anymore, the railroad will just show up and pull the cars that need to be gone. Although that might result in smaller cuts and higher costs for the railroad, it may also make the plant's unrelenting continuous production run more smoothly - less 'surges', and worth a little more to them too.
Maybe some more Storage In Transit yard tracks are needed to hold and 'buffer' the cuts of cars from each day's 'pulls' until the 95+ cars for a full train are accumulated and a BNSF crew is called.
I doubt that the 95 cars from each day's pull are all destined to the same consignee - the 5 hoppers to the guy in NJ is more typical. So possibly smaller but more frequent cuts shouldn't adversely affect that aspect of the traffic.
And the guy in NJ may be happier to know that his cars will arrive on a more certain schedule, instead of 'when they get there' as they do now.
[And anyway, those cars may be going to one of my cousin's Sonoco Plastics (Crellin) plants, or one of the nearby Sigma Plastics' plants such as Film-Tech here in Allentown . . . ]
You bring up some very good points Ed, but the "experts" on here will still disagree. It's easy for you all to stand on the outside and look in and say you should do this or that. Come to work out here and see just how messed up things get out here. No I'm not trying to be negative here, I dont mind change, I'm just being realistic.
Here is part of the reason, or some of the differences between the European freight trains and their American counterparts.
The European model you guys love so much, and hold up as some type of benchmark is shorter, lighter, and has quite a lot less distance to run.
As for their passenger rail, most, (not all) run on state sponsored, built and maintained separate right of way.
And they run at a loss.
Europeans treat and expect their railroads to be run as a public service/utility, heavily subsidized for the most part, they are not profit oriented.
European railroads for the most part run between set distribution points, where the majority of their loads are trans loaded from the truck to the train and then from the train back to truck for delivery to the customer, most often in a container type system, very rarely do they run a local that works industries, and when they do, it is almost always as a unit train, that local only pulls and spots that one industry.
You are comparing two totally different systems, driven by two totally different types of markets and totally different economies.
About the only thing they have in common are steel wheels on steel rails.
You want something to really compare American freight railroading to, go to South America, and look at place like Chile and Brazil.
Personally, I would love to see a European train drag 120 car grain train of the same weight we handle every day.
Schlimm and Henry...
Get real figures, like tons moved, miles moved, and number of trains yearly, and place them side by side with the figures from American railroads.
I would hazard a guess that there is more miles of track inside my county, (Harris, Texas) than a lot of the European countries have inside their entire border.
By my map, a LA to Chicago intermodal train could start at Limoges, France, cross all of west Europe, and end up at Minsk, in the USSR with a few miles left over.
Here is something to consider.
The Teague Ami, a daily BNSF mixed freight that arrives at PTRA, travels almost the same distance as a train traveling from the west border to the east border of France.
The Teague Ami originates and ends totally inside Texas.
It brings on average 100 cars daily.
I think you will find that the entire West European system miles is not equivalent to the miles owned and operated by UP or BNSF individually.
I may be mistaken, but I bet it will still be close.
I love it when people compare American freight railroading to European, because whenever I ask for a real line by comparison, apples to apples oranges to oranges, they never come up with the figures...they claim that it's not fair.
Yet the same folks have no fairness issue when they toss out "the Europeans do this, and schedule that and ..." and "it's better because".
Yup, the Europeans do schedule, and the French railroaders, under contract, only work 4 days a week, their insurance is "paid for" by their government, (we pay for over half of ours, the carrier pays the difference).
You are comparing a somewhat small, closed and managed economy with a huge, open free market place economy.
That doesn't quite offer any real comparison.
True, they schedule trains, they have no choice, if they ran trains as "extras" like most American Class 1 roads, they would have trains stacked up nose to tail simply because of the size constraints.
So, if you want me,( and I suspect a few others) to buy into the "Europeans are better" or "the European system works better" ideology, post some real numbers.
Average train length.
Average train miles traveled.
Average tons moved, annually or monthly, either one works.
Yup, the European trains are faster, but they are also shorter, lighter and have less distance to travel.
When I was a kid, with the exception of railroads and the refineries and oil fields, everything down here
was closed on Sundays.
If you were lucky, a gas station might be open, and a grocery store might be open on reduced hours, but
everyone had weekends off.
I live about 2 miles from a Kroger Flagship Grocery store, which is open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
You drive by that place at 3am, and the parking lot is just as full as it is at 5pm.
Our entire culture, and the way we do business has changed so radically it's scary.
Yup, a lot of companies do still run 5 days a week, but a whole lot run all the time, and that number grows bigger every year.
Did you ever wonder why railroads embraced CTC so eagerly and tossed the train order system out as quickly as they did?
Because CTC allows you to run more, even bigger trains closer together.
More trains equals more stuff moved equals more money made, all driven by consumer demand.
That demand is totally different in Europe.
Their entire supply and demand system is way different than ours.
Their cultural and social requirements are different than ours.
How many grain elevators in Europe take two 120 car grain trains and turn them around in 24 hours?
We spot and pull at least 2 daily in the Cargill elevator here, and that's just one elevator out of five on the Houston ship channel, and we are just one of several ports on the Gulf of Mexico that exports grain.
I doubt that most people outside of the rail industry really know or realize how huge the volume of goods shipped by rail in America really is.
I work for a Class 3 Switching and Terminal railroad, we currently roster around 300 T&E employees and our annual car handling is between 300 and 500 thousand cars with 177 miles of track and 450 industrial customers ranging from steel to automobiles, grain, pet coke and just about every petrochemical you can think of, shoot, we even have a customer that gets a reefer of butter every once in a while.
That's a lot of stuff.
And we are a small railroad.
Just like Class 1 railroads, we have a mix of scheduled customers, and a mix of customers whose demands and needs has to be flexible.
And no Schlimm, the "status quo" is not the accepted way.
We change what and how we do things all the time.
Practices that were common when I hired out are gone, safety has improved tremendously and average tons per mile is so much more than what was run even 10 years ago.
How trains are blocked and classified changes all the time, it totally depends on the customers.
Could we go back to train orders, scheduled freights and such?
Sure could, but when we do, I would like you guys to explain the Shell Deer Park Refinery why, instead of the 75 car pull and spot we serve them twice every 24 hours, they can only get 40 cars once a day because of the schedule.
You go tell them to tool down, cut production back and lay off workers.
Or Phillips Plastic Division....we pull 95 car plastic pellets hoppers out of there at least once a day, and they want them gone as soon as they drop a dime on us, because they have a plant that runs 24 hours a day, every day, and there are 300 loaded cars in their yard waiting on customer orders.
You tell him that, and the guy is going to blow a gasket, because he has standing orders from two grocery chains for 300thousand bags a week, and you just shut him down.
The system has to be flexible, and the people who work in it also have to be flexible.
There is a reason for all the SIT yards near major industrial cities, because you have to be able to tag and drag of this stuff on a moment's notice.
And Class 1 roads, just like us, have both "schedules" and flexibility; it's the only way they can operate.
That's not status quo, that's simply the economics of the business.
You couldn't put all of the volume of freight from American railroads on European rails, it simply wouldn't fit.
Not real sure why you think density is the benchmark in American railroading.
I could put 2 carseach behind 50 locomotives and run 'emall out on the transcon 5 minutes apart, and claim to be running a traffic dense railroad, but in reality all I am doing is running a 100 car train in a whole lot of sections, and wasting a lot of crew money and diesel fuel.
By the way, if you want density, go watch the Powder River joint line.
60 plus trains a day, each 120 car length, they haul that stuff out of there as fast as they can load the things up.
Most tracks only have a finite capacity, you exceed that, increase your density, and any major problem backs the whole thing up, not to mention rear end collisions happen, and people get killed.
And yes, distance is relative, you want to run a 3000 mile railroad like a 700 mile railroad?
How?
Your car count and volume would fall through the floor.
You claim the Germans and by inference European railroads do it better, but they don't, they simply do it differently, because their needs and market drive them to.
So, pony up some real numbers, and let's see who hauls more stuff farther.
I think is will be like comparing a Kenworth to a Toyota, but hey, who knows....
schlimm So how is it that schedules used to work here (had to) with timetable and train order railroading. They do currently in Europe, with a much heavier traffic density, where schedules are adhered to, with generally few exceptions. You say "reality throws the best schedule out of whack" and "something, anything happens and throws one element of the schedule seriously off schedule and then all the disruptions cascade down the system." So that seems to make the schedule impossible to keep. In other places, things happen too, or are you suggesting more incidents, engine failures, et al. occur here? If so, that is another set of problems that should be addressed.
So how is it that schedules used to work here (had to) with timetable and train order railroading. They do currently in Europe, with a much heavier traffic density, where schedules are adhered to, with generally few exceptions. You say "reality throws the best schedule out of whack" and "something, anything happens and throws one element of the schedule seriously off schedule and then all the disruptions cascade down the system." So that seems to make the schedule impossible to keep. In other places, things happen too, or are you suggesting more incidents, engine failures, et al. occur here? If so, that is another set of problems that should be addressed.
Actually, timetable and train order railroading didn't mean the trains "had" to run on time. One of the important reasons for train orders was to modify the "timetable" to match the actual times of the trains as they appeared and keep the line reasonably fluid. In particular, schedules for freight trains were often just a theoretical starting point and they might be given an order to run six hours late if that was when they showed up.
Passenger and freight operation, Europe and North America, present different challenges. A 120-car freight has 20 times the chance of a mechanical problem compared with a 6-car passenger train. A 2,000 mile journey presents 10 times the chance of a problem compared with a 200 mile journey. Combine the two and the odds are already 200 times worse. Many North American routes have substantial segments of single track, very little consists of more than two main tracks. When something happens with one train the flexibility does not exist to keep everything else fluid.
The fatigue issue is real, and I am sure the situation could be improved. Unfortunately it will require cooperation, compromise and flexibility on the part of both rail management and the union members. None of those three words come to mind as describing the all too common adversarial relationship existing today; both sides are at fault.
My opinion.
John
The Krauss-Maffei ML 4000's had twin Maybach Diesel prime movers.
Murphy Siding schlimm: So how is it that schedules used to work here (had to) with timetable and train order railroading. They do currently in Europe, with a much heavier traffic density, where schedules are adhered to, with generally few exceptions. You say "reality throws the best schedule out of whack" and "something, anything happens and throws one element of the schedule seriously off schedule and then all the disruptions cascade down the system." So that seems to make the schedule impossible to keep. In other places, things happen too, or are you suggesting more incidents, engine failures, et al. occur here? If so, that is another set of problems that should be addressed. I have to suggest that you're doing the ol' aples and oranges shuffle here. Europe may have heavier traffic density, I don't know. Overall, they are hauling a lot less tons, in smaller trains over shorter distances on rail systems that are heavily subsidised by their governments. Other than that, they are exactly the same, and there is no reason they can't be run the same. A good analogy might be the selzier(?) locomotives that SP bought. They worked in Europe, they should work here-right?
schlimm: So how is it that schedules used to work here (had to) with timetable and train order railroading. They do currently in Europe, with a much heavier traffic density, where schedules are adhered to, with generally few exceptions. You say "reality throws the best schedule out of whack" and "something, anything happens and throws one element of the schedule seriously off schedule and then all the disruptions cascade down the system." So that seems to make the schedule impossible to keep. In other places, things happen too, or are you suggesting more incidents, engine failures, et al. occur here? If so, that is another set of problems that should be addressed.
I have to suggest that you're doing the ol' aples and oranges shuffle here.
Europe may have heavier traffic density, I don't know. Overall, they are hauling a lot less tons, in smaller trains over shorter distances on rail systems that are heavily subsidised by their governments. Other than that, they are exactly the same, and there is no reason they can't be run the same. A good analogy might be the selzier(?) locomotives that SP bought. They worked in Europe, they should work here-right?
Let's just leave it with Germany, since I am familiar with that first hand. Very heavy traffic density, i.e., # of trains operating on trackage in a given time period, freight and passenger. Tonnage is irrelevant, and so is government ownership, which is only partial. DB makes a profit overall. Distance somewhat relevant. The main variable factor is traffic density, in terms of maintaining schedules or not. They can do it. Why not the US railroads? As henry6 says, It would be nice to hear something besides feeble excuses.
Sulzer is a brand name of diesel engine. Those SP and D&RGW diesel-hydraulic drive locomotives were built by Krauss-Maffei (sp ?) - but I can't recall if they had Sulzers in them or not, though.
P.S. - Unless, of course, they were a very early "alternate-fuel" version of locomotives powered by - oh, say, seltzer water and carbide powder (like the kids' Bangsite [TM] cannons - makes a noisy explosive mixture of acetylene gas, if I recall correctly . . . ). - PDN.
coborn35 Big difference between cute little hi speed passenger trains and 12,000+ freights going up 2.5% grades...
Big difference between cute little hi speed passenger trains and 12,000+ freights going up 2.5% grades...
Big difference between a line with hundreds of trains of various sorts (passenger and freight) versus a few slow-moving freights on an all freight line. As many of you rail folks like to tell us non-rail folks, since you have no actual experience with what we've mentioned, you don't know anything about it.
As I suspected, it is assumed it can't be done, it is often stated so and all kinds of arguements are made as to why we can't do it, and so we've never been able to achieve it, and so it can't be done. So, I guess, why discuss it.?..the status quo is the way it is and always will be and, evidently, the way it has to be.
Henry - you have NO IDEA how hard todays carriers try to operate a scheduled network....not having it operate on time is not from a lack of scheduling or from a lack of trying to maintain the schedules.
Why is it that it behooves Americans that thing can be done, and done well, on a timetable. Passenger systems do it with a certain amount of reasonablness: look at commuter operations today, like NJT, MNRR, and the real test of time (pun?) the LIRR. Most all railroads in the US used to work on timetable and train orders and did well at it with very precise execution. Europe schedules departures on the half minute! So, put away the excuses, the what if this or that, the what happens when, and we can't beacuses and actually work at running trains to provide a service that customers will pay for. No it doesn't have to be on the half second or blowing out the markers of the guy that takes the siding, but do set up a reasonable timetable and work at making it happen. And don't scrap the timetable because it gets missed one day and you end up operating a half a day off until next time when you fall back to not catch up to a semblence of schedule. It can't be done because everybody says it can't be done then all set out to prove the negative! For the most part, infact, it has proven to work and customers do pay for the good service. It is just unremarked. As I said, it doesn't have to be precise to the second but, for freight, within a reasonble window.
I can't speak for other Class I carriers, however, my carrier has tried virtually every performance enhancing process that rises to the top of the Buzzword lexicon ... we probably have as many Six Sigma graduates as we have locomotives.The Six Sigma analysis has been applied to all forms of processes that the company uses from servicing locomotives, repairing cars, calling crews, scheduling trains and any and every other kind of process that the company uses. In the monkey see, monkey do, world of rail management I am certain all the other carriers have done similar things.
While T&E personnel view 'Quality of Life' as a laughable buzz word....the carriers are actually trying to improve it....it is not a simple task. especially since not everyone view quality of life through the same sightlines....what is one persons desired quality, is not necessarily someone else's. While the carriers strive for perfection....the definition of perfection changes based up who is asked and when they are asked.
BaltACD The problem with scheduling transportation is that reality always throws the best schedule out of whack. Something, anything, happens and throws one element of the schedule seriously off schedule and then all the disruptions cascade down the system. . . . My carrier has ID runs . . . Ever since man began moving from one point to another, the journey has been fraught with unexpected peril which makes accurately forecasting the arrival at destination a crapshoot. I have not devised that system and it is not for the lack of 40+ years of trying.
. . . My carrier has ID runs . . .
Ever since man began moving from one point to another, the journey has been fraught with unexpected peril which makes accurately forecasting the arrival at destination a crapshoot. I have not devised that system and it is not for the lack of 40+ years of trying.
"ID" = "Inter-Divisional" (long) crew districts - correct ?
I hear you, BaltACD - keep trying, will ya ?
I suspect that if a railroad were to hire a bunch of efficiency and process control experts of the "Just-In-Time", W. Edward Deming, "Six SIgma" kind to try and bring more order and predictability to the chaos - such things as surprise trains from other railroads, unreliable and malfunctioning locomotives, track inspectors finding defective rails, etc., the demands of those experts for more precision and less 'slack' would quickly drive the railroad operating people nuts.
Conversely, a fine-tuned scheduled operating plan could be turned into recycling paper and confetti by just a single grade crossing accident on a multi-track main line, or a tree down across a pole line, or a washout - none of which involve any 'fault' or anything reasonably preventable on the railroad's part - and that kind of random-chance event would drive those guys nuts as well.
That said - merely because perfection cannot be achieved does not mean that the industry should not be striving for a better level of operational predictability.
How does that aspect of operations today compare to how it was done in 1999-2000, right after the ConRail split-up ? 1990, just as the industry was starting to rebound ? 1980, when the industry was kind of surprised to find that it was still alive ? 1970, in the midst of the Penn Central and other NorthEast RR bankruptcies, and at least the B&O was just barely hanging on (at least as it seemed to me then) ? I'll be surprised if the trend hasn't been towards more scheduled and predictable operations - slowly, perhaps, but headed in that direction.
Someone once wrote that man consistently over-estimates what he can accomplish in the short-term, but under-estimates what he can accomplish over the long term. That principle seems applicable to this conundrum, and may be helpful in maintaining efforts at improvement over the long haul, even though it seems to some people that there's nothing more that can be done about it now, so it's not worth trying (that was John Kneiling's definition of a pessimist - in his world, an optimist found problems that could be fixed to improve matters).
Paul_D_North_Jr Georgia Railroader: [ snipped and rearranged - PDN] Most of us can handle this lifestyle. Some can never get used to it and continue to come to work tired and worn out. So what do you do? How do you seperate the two groups? Fatigue leads to mistakes . . . Tough issue, especially since all people can have "good days" and "bad days" as both you and BaltACD have pointed out. Even with a much more predictable schedule, some people will still have some problems with alertness on some days. But as I point out below, the total magnitude of the problem can be reduced considerably, and that perhaps makes it less necessary to separate the two groups. Georgia Railroader: I've been called with no rest when there was no train scheduled. I've also sat first out on the board for five straight days, not knowing when to sleep. But that kind of practice only aggravates the problem. Minimizing this counter-productive scheduling then leaves us with mostly the 'people' problem mentioned above - instead of the present mix of a problem that results from both scheduling and people problems. Getting rid of the 'poor scheduling' part of the problem - might it be as much as half of the total problem ? - would be a good start. - Paul North.
Georgia Railroader: [ snipped and rearranged - PDN] Most of us can handle this lifestyle. Some can never get used to it and continue to come to work tired and worn out. So what do you do? How do you seperate the two groups? Fatigue leads to mistakes . . .
Georgia Railroader: I've been called with no rest when there was no train scheduled. I've also sat first out on the board for five straight days, not knowing when to sleep.
Sure I think getting everything on some sort of schedule would certainly help. It would be nice to know when I'm going to work so I can plan my day and rest accordingly. Sure we all have bad days. There's times when no matter how much rest you're running on it feels like a battle just to stay awake. The job can get very boring at times, and unlike some class 1 RR's we are not allowed to nap while stopped. A power nap can work wonders, but we'll get fired if a TM thinks we're sleeping.
The problem with scheduling transportation is that reality always throws the best schedule out of whack. Something, anything, happens and throws one element of the schedule seriously off schedule and then all the disruptions cascade down the system.
In the railroad environment the standard 2 hour call figure is only accurate about 90% of the time...if you are figuring operations on a 50 MPH railroad that 2 hour call represents 100 miles...a lot can happen in 100 miles to throw the call seriously off the figure. My carrier has ID runs that require a 3 hour call...that is 150 miles of potential pot holes and delays....some have mentioned 10 or 12 hour call figures....that is 500 to 600 miles and don't forget....the problem that ties up the line need not be with the train that is the one being called.
Were anyone to devise a scheduling system that
1. Had the crew ALWAYS on duty just as it's train arrived
2. Had the crew ALWAYS leaving their away from home terminal on their legal rest.
3. Always permitted crews to spend their maximum time at home knowing when their next duty cycle would begin 12 or more hours in advance.
Not only would the railroads beat a path to your door carrying bags of gold - so would all other forms of transportation where their manpower moves between points and have rest provisions concerning when they can be on duty. Ever since man began moving from one point to another, the journey has been fraught with unexpected peril which makes accurately forecasting the arrival at destination a crapshoot. I have not devised that system and it is not for the lack of 40+ years of trying.
But as has been pointed out, simple sleep patterns are not the whole story...compounded stress factors over long periods of time add to fatigue problems.
Paul: Good strategy to try to sort out the various contributing variables in order to come up with a "solution."
Georgia Railroader[ snipped and rearranged - PDN] Most of us can handle this lifestyle. Some can never get used to it and continue to come to work tired and worn out. So what do you do? How do you seperate the two groups? Fatigue leads to mistakes . . .
Georgia Railroader I've been called with no rest when there was no train scheduled. I've also sat first out on the board for five straight days, not knowing when to sleep.
zugmann Georgia Railroader: I am fully aware of my limitations. Yeah, they all say that.
Georgia Railroader: I am fully aware of my limitations.
I am fully aware of my limitations.
Yeah, they all say that.
Yea that aint all they say.
Georgia Railroader I am fully aware of my limitations.
zugmann Georgia Railroader: Most of us can handle this lifestyle. Some can never get used to it and continue to come to work tired and worn out. So what do you do? How do you seperate the two groups? Fatigue leads to mistakes, but so does just being incompetent, and the carriers hire a steady crop of those. They want warm bodies out here doesn't matter if you have the IQ of a fence post. But it's not just new hires that make mistakes, we all do at some point, we're human. That's the whole thing. This whole "I'm macho and can handle it attitude" is not helping manners any. Yes, we're humans and humans need rest. Basic science 101. There are also incompetent people out here - but that is another issue entirely.
Georgia Railroader: Most of us can handle this lifestyle. Some can never get used to it and continue to come to work tired and worn out. So what do you do? How do you seperate the two groups? Fatigue leads to mistakes, but so does just being incompetent, and the carriers hire a steady crop of those. They want warm bodies out here doesn't matter if you have the IQ of a fence post. But it's not just new hires that make mistakes, we all do at some point, we're human.
Most of us can handle this lifestyle. Some can never get used to it and continue to come to work tired and worn out. So what do you do? How do you seperate the two groups? Fatigue leads to mistakes, but so does just being incompetent, and the carriers hire a steady crop of those. They want warm bodies out here doesn't matter if you have the IQ of a fence post. But it's not just new hires that make mistakes, we all do at some point, we're human.
That's the whole thing. This whole "I'm macho and can handle it attitude" is not helping manners any. Yes, we're humans and humans need rest. Basic science 101.
There are also incompetent people out here - but that is another issue entirely.
It's not a matter of being "macho" as you like to say, it's a matter of being able to do your job. Thanks for the science lesson though. Read my post again, I never said I was a machine that can keep going day after day with no rest. I am fully aware of my limitations.
Georgia Railroader Most of us can handle this lifestyle. Some can never get used to it and continue to come to work tired and worn out. So what do you do? How do you seperate the two groups? Fatigue leads to mistakes, but so does just being incompetent, and the carriers hire a steady crop of those. They want warm bodies out here doesn't matter if you have the IQ of a fence post. But it's not just new hires that make mistakes, we all do at some point, we're human.
BaltACD As gets proved here daily, when it comes to governance, those with no first hand experience with the issues always believe they have the answers. The carriers can have every possible rule and procedure in place and if the FRA or Congress want to implement their hair brained 'solution' they will. Zug - how are the revised Hours of Service and rest rules working for you in keeping you alert and paid. The consensus from the crewmen on my territory is that the revised rules are doing nothing to enhance their 'real rest' and are stealing money from their bottom line. Fatigue occurs, when it occurs. I have woken up and been totally fatigued after having had 9 hours sleep. I have been awake for 36 straight hours and set a personal best time at the race track. Time off is no guarantee of being alert. Our alertness ebbs and flows through our day...the less stimulus we have to respond to, the less alert we become....the more stimulation, the more alert. Under the right circumstance, the operation of a train (or any other form of transportation) can be one of the most monotonous and least stimulating activities going. Thousands of motor vehicle accidents occur yearly because of the operator falling asleep, and the operation of a motor vehicle has many more stimuli to the operator than does the operation of commercial transportation mediums other than buses & trucks. We can do many things in this world....legislating alertness is not one of them. zugmann: My point was that Graniteville and Chatsworth were the landmark incidents that brought to light two major issues (dark territory and electronics). Will a similar incident that highlights fatigue follow? I don't have a crystal ball - but if it does happen, then I would bet a week's paycheck that the railroad will NOT like the rules the government will enact. My opinion is that it would behoove the industry to start working on its own rules - instead of standing by with their thumbs up their SD70Aces.
As gets proved here daily, when it comes to governance, those with no first hand experience with the issues always believe they have the answers. The carriers can have every possible rule and procedure in place and if the FRA or Congress want to implement their hair brained 'solution' they will.
Zug - how are the revised Hours of Service and rest rules working for you in keeping you alert and paid. The consensus from the crewmen on my territory is that the revised rules are doing nothing to enhance their 'real rest' and are stealing money from their bottom line.
Fatigue occurs, when it occurs. I have woken up and been totally fatigued after having had 9 hours sleep. I have been awake for 36 straight hours and set a personal best time at the race track. Time off is no guarantee of being alert. Our alertness ebbs and flows through our day...the less stimulus we have to respond to, the less alert we become....the more stimulation, the more alert. Under the right circumstance, the operation of a train (or any other form of transportation) can be one of the most monotonous and least stimulating activities going.
Thousands of motor vehicle accidents occur yearly because of the operator falling asleep, and the operation of a motor vehicle has many more stimuli to the operator than does the operation of commercial transportation mediums other than buses & trucks.
We can do many things in this world....legislating alertness is not one of them.
zugmann: My point was that Graniteville and Chatsworth were the landmark incidents that brought to light two major issues (dark territory and electronics). Will a similar incident that highlights fatigue follow? I don't have a crystal ball - but if it does happen, then I would bet a week's paycheck that the railroad will NOT like the rules the government will enact. My opinion is that it would behoove the industry to start working on its own rules - instead of standing by with their thumbs up their SD70Aces.
My point was that Graniteville and Chatsworth were the landmark incidents that brought to light two major issues (dark territory and electronics). Will a similar incident that highlights fatigue follow? I don't have a crystal ball - but if it does happen, then I would bet a week's paycheck that the railroad will NOT like the rules the government will enact. My opinion is that it would behoove the industry to start working on its own rules - instead of standing by with their thumbs up their SD70Aces.
BaltACD you absolutley nailed it. We get trainmasters fresh out of college who come out here and try to reinvent the wheel, when they have never laced up a pair of boots and spent two minutes out here in the real world. The carriers dont want to promote from within anymore, they would rather hire a college grad and brainwash them. Now I dont mean to knock them and be so harsh, they're just trying to make a living like we are. What I have a problem with is them pulling a 30 plus year vet out of service for what they thought was a rule violation when they couldn't buy a clue about rail operations, or operating rules if they had the CEO's money.
Here's the bottom line. We work in a dangerous industry, 15,000 tons of steel are unforgiving. We do our jobs to the best of our ability, but we also have lives outside the railroad. We have family, friends, events, games, and all the other great things in life that keep us sane when we're not working. We want to spend as much time doing those things as possible, and as a result our rest sometimes suffers. I can and have ran on as little as a couple hours sleep, hell I've worked 12 hours with no rest in the past 30 plus hours. I've been called with no rest when there was no train scheduled. I've also sat first out on the board for five straight days, not knowing when to sleep.
zugmann Georgia Railroader: Just accept that and move on, we're gonna be ok. Pay me now or pay me later. If the railroads refuse to address the issue themselves, then the feds will eventually ram it down their throats with a reactionary act after the next Chatsworth. The railroads like to claim the current system gives them "flexibility". More like it allows them to continue to be incompetent.
Georgia Railroader: Just accept that and move on, we're gonna be ok.
Just accept that and move on, we're gonna be ok.
Pay me now or pay me later. If the railroads refuse to address the issue themselves, then the feds will eventually ram it down their throats with a reactionary act after the next Chatsworth.
The railroads like to claim the current system gives them "flexibility". More like it allows them to continue to be incompetent.
I agree. It takes an act of congress to get the carriers to do anything.
Once again we have another RE collision at night with a crew apparrently passing signals, it's an unfortunate truth that the carriers have found so many loop holes in the new hours of service law that we are now working more hours than before! We're not quite at the middle of the year and I have grossed as much as I made all of last year. - Not really my goal. I have however missed uncles funeral,family gatherings, etc. etc. I work 6 days a week, and usually have Monday off when the pools pile up at home. I spend 12-15 hours at home and 25-35 at the hotel waiting for my next train home. No one knows when that will be, therefore I never know when to sleep and when to wake up.
I loathe meeting other trains at control points as I know they may be asleep and totally unaware. We've begun trying to run the railroad on a schedule and for originating trains it works pretty well when a remote R2D2 hasn't plowed into a train and stacked up cars in the middle of the yard. Through trains are a little tougher but we seem to be able to hold the "hot" stack trains to a predictable schedule. Those trains that have assigned crews are terrific for your sanity if you can hold them and if they don't just die both directions. Clearly assigned crews has to be the next step towards safety, along with the 10-12 hour call.
Some years ago, I helped a number of air traffic controllers try to manage the stress of their jobs better. Of course it is different than rail work, but probably even more stressful. Stress can come from both over-stimulation and from boredom. Chronic stress can interfere with memory, judgment, reaction times and attention, along with sleep (which can cause problems with all the preceding items) and emotional state. Hence the need for more predictability in schedules, so as to reduce at least one factor in "human error accidents." The world is interconnected and as zug pointed out, what affects engineers concerns the rest of us.
I haven't been "on call" for a while now. I made more money last year than all other years, though. When I first came here we had 6 for 8 and it sucked. I will never miss that crap. Come home at 6am to be called at noon. No thanks.
There are lots of people that can't handle their rest. But the new rest rules (As I pointed out before) are not helping. I like the 10 hour rule, but it is not addressing the fatigue issue. Hence the 5 pages of discussion.
zugmann My point was that Graniteville and Chatsworth were the landmark incidents that brought to light two major issues (dark territory and electronics). Will a similar incident that highlights fatigue follow? I don't have a crystal ball - but if it does happen, then I would bet a week's paycheck that the railroad will NOT like the rules the government will enact. My opinion is that it would behoove the industry to start working on its own rules - instead of standing by with their thumbs up their SD70Aces.
As I noted above, faulty judgement is a sign of fatigue. Thus, without having the complete reports on those two incidents and not knowing if the fatigue factor was really pursued (Chatsworth we know was all about texting and cell phoning but we don't know the mental state off hand). The ability to think, act, and react, goes down as time goes forward unless there is a rest or refreshing time period. Thus, the end of a shift is probably more likely to be when an "accident" might occur. This does not rule out the first hour when you are still removing the cobwebs from your mind, but by the time one is on the job one is more likely awake and alert.
And don't say management doesn't care. It does...accidents interrupt the flow of traffic and an interupption in the flow of traffic is an interruption in the flow of money. Some are shortsighted, yes, but, management and many others are coming around to understanding the wider signs and implications of fatigue beyond just being sleepy.
I knew a family that owned car dealerships. Breakfast meetings every morning at 6. Close of day meetings everyday at 9:30 in the evening. Then home for dinner, go over the day's happenings and get ready for the next day's 6AM meeting. Little sleep. Lots of confusion. Jail time. Fatigue is a major issue in so many different areas of our lives.
BaltACD The incidents that caused the Feds to move (Graniteville, SC & Chatsworth, CA) had nothing to do with fatigue and everything to do with simple failure to comply with existing rules and inattention to the requirements of duty.
The incidents that caused the Feds to move (Graniteville, SC & Chatsworth, CA) had nothing to do with fatigue and everything to do with simple failure to comply with existing rules and inattention to the requirements of duty.
Today's environment does not accept that one fails to comply with rules. Where a simple failure to comply with rules causes a incident, the response has become to write 10 more rules that in effect water down the seriousness of the one rule that was violated in the first place.
Anymore, rules are being written by lawyers and insurance actuaries and in the language of their craft...not in the language of those that must use the rules in the real world in a daily, practical basis. In the not too distant past, the Book of Operating Rules was printed in a 4 x 6 inch book of 150-200 pages, that fit in ones back pocket, written in simple, declarative language that left few ambiguities in what the rule stated and what was required to comply with the rule. In today's world crewmen risk getting a hernia lifting their grips containing all the required rule books onto the train and the books contain rules written in legalese that most likely would require ultimate adjudication at the level of the Supreme Court.
schlimm zug: That's telling it like it is! And since you're a railroad employee, you have the right to be critical, even if the rest of us do not. Some of the others' previous comments remind me of the slogans of Dr. Pangloss in Voltaire's Candide.
zug: That's telling it like it is! And since you're a railroad employee, you have the right to be critical, even if the rest of us do not. Some of the others' previous comments remind me of the slogans of Dr. Pangloss in Voltaire's Candide.
You have every right to be critical. The railroads do not operate in a bubble. Incidents/wrecks/collisions caused by fatigue do not just risk the lives of those on the train only.
zugmann If the railroads refuse to address the issue themselves, then the feds will eventually ram it down their throats with a reactionary act after the next Chatsworth. The railroads like to claim the current system gives them "flexibility". More like it allows them to continue to be incompetent.
If the railroads refuse to address the issue themselves, then the feds will eventually ram it down their throats with a reactionary act after the next Chatsworth.
Georgia Railroader Just accept that and move on, we're gonna be ok.
schlimm Georgia Railroader: That's not what I'm saying at all. One fatality is one too many. It's not nor will it ever be a perfect system, but it is what it is and for those of us who actually do this for a living we are fully aware of the dangers that go with this job. I knew what I was getting myself into when I hired out. The company gave a discripton of the job and told me what was to be expected of me and if I couldn't hack it I wouldn't be out here. "it is what it is" and all the rest of what you say sounds like a complacent acceptance of the status quo. Sure you knew what you were getting into, but the same could be said for everybody who has ever worked in a hazardous environment. Your rail union brothers worked hard to get many improvements, as did those who worked in coal mines, etc. Clearly American railroads are safer than ever before, as I stated, based on hard data. But that statistic makes it difficult to make useful comparisons to see if they are as safe as other systems. If they are, excellent. If not, maybe changes need to be sought.
Georgia Railroader: That's not what I'm saying at all. One fatality is one too many. It's not nor will it ever be a perfect system, but it is what it is and for those of us who actually do this for a living we are fully aware of the dangers that go with this job. I knew what I was getting myself into when I hired out. The company gave a discripton of the job and told me what was to be expected of me and if I couldn't hack it I wouldn't be out here.
That's not what I'm saying at all. One fatality is one too many. It's not nor will it ever be a perfect system, but it is what it is and for those of us who actually do this for a living we are fully aware of the dangers that go with this job. I knew what I was getting myself into when I hired out. The company gave a discripton of the job and told me what was to be expected of me and if I couldn't hack it I wouldn't be out here.
"it is what it is" and all the rest of what you say sounds like a complacent acceptance of the status quo. Sure you knew what you were getting into, but the same could be said for everybody who has ever worked in a hazardous environment. Your rail union brothers worked hard to get many improvements, as did those who worked in coal mines, etc. Clearly American railroads are safer than ever before, as I stated, based on hard data. But that statistic makes it difficult to make useful comparisons to see if they are as safe as other systems. If they are, excellent. If not, maybe changes need to be sought.
Well if you have ever spent any time out here on the rr you would know how things are done. Maybe walk a mile in my shoes and then try to tell me about how things are and who done what for me. I'm very thankful for everything that has been done over the years. This industry would be a lot worse off if those folks had not fought for what we now have. I understand that, I live it everyday.
Complacent? That's a word I dont identify with. Why? Because it gets you killed, end of story. I'm not saying there is not room for improvement. One death is too many out here, but there is no one size fits all solution to fatigue and crew scheduling. Just accept that and move on, we're gonna be ok.
I am sorry if it seems I was replying directly to you Schlimm...but it seemed to me that there was a trend to isolate "fatigue related" accidents from other types, implying that the crews came to work with the intent of falling asleep once out of the yard.
It seems as if these recent accidents were somehow perceived as being different than other accidents.
They are not, of course, but in reality you could chase every single accident down to the finite point and cause and find it is the result of some type of man failure.
A track maintainer fails to adjust a switch correctly, and the train picks the switch...or a engine service employee fails to find that one sharp flange, a signal maintainer fails to bond a wire correctly, and a signal blinks at the wrong time, or the dumbest one of all, a crew shoves blind.
Fatigue is a real issue, and most of us have to make a choice at some point in our careers.
Almost every railroader I know, both male and female, have been divorced at least once during their career.
Wives and husbands think they can handle the separation and the stress of being a one parent family, and those without kids think they can handle the loneliness, but the truth is you get tired of meeting each other on the way out the door.
Somewhere along the way, the railroader decides he or she can't keep up both ends of the deal...either he stays awake to participate in family stuff, or he gets enough sleep to keep his head in the operation at work, but one or the other has to suffer, and most of us have that one incident, usually two or three years in, that by sheer luck we manage to not get killed or hurt, and that wakes us up to the danger of burning the candle at both ends.
The only way you can have any semblance of a normal life is if you have enough seniority to hold an assigned daylight job with assigned days off, (which never correspond with your spouse's days off)
I got lucky and hit the industry at the right time on the right railroad to only have to ride the board a few years, but they were very tough years.
I still have days off that don't match my wife and kids weekends off, but I do have one day a week where we have quality time together at my daughter's softball games.
But most guys, especially those on the class 1 roads live on pool service or extra board time, all the assigned jobs are held by guys old enough to have had morning coffee with Jesus.
So we choose the railroad life, let the home front try and handle itself, and we do get enough rest to be safe.
The recent numbers bear this out, we move more stuff farther, with less men and material than before, and we do it safer than ever.
The idea that we are happy with the "status quo" is not close to the facts.
If technology came up with a better way, or crew rules and sleep rules could be adjusted to allow better rest, without a loss in income, we railroaders, union and other wise, would jump on it with both feet.
I get the impression, right or wrongly, that a lot of people outside the industry think we are paid handsomely, and we are willing to work 12 hours a day for the overtime.
Truth is, we make a little less than your average automobile assembly plant worker, and they get to work inside out of the rain.
Don Phillips wrote a OpEd for Trains a few years back, and in it he pointed out the real truth of why we get paid...we get paid to show up in the rain, snow, blazing heat day after day and to do our jobs safely each time.
We take each fatality personally, even if we never met the person, because we all recognize the fact that one little slip, one moment of distraction or inattention and it could be me in that body bag.
All of us, even those who swear otherwise, are rail fans at heart.
Why else would anyone come out in the middle of the night to get soaking wet and freezing feet simply to ride a train or switch out cars in a yard?
We take pride when we do it right, and take it personally when it goes south.
And all of us knew what we were getting into right from the start....railroads spend a great deal of time in the training process to remind us that the call of duty will keep you away from every birthday, every holiday and every special event...that's why they have 90 day probationary work, so the guys who can't separate the home front from the work can be weeded out.
Is there ever going to be 100% rules compliance?
I doubt it.
Is there ever going to be a time when the accident rate is 0?
I doubt that also, but we are getting better and better every year.
Well said, Ed. I particularly like your statement, "I doubt any of these crews mounted up, and then decided to rear end another train on purpose, ...." As Larry (tree68) says, "Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you"
Johnny
1. tree68: The stat you mention (accidents per million train miles) is the one the FRA uses and I cited (on the other thread).
2. ed: Who said or implied these weren't accidents? Who suggesting any were caused deliberately? Examining the causes and trying better systems to prevent the occurrences or reduce the severity of injuries doesn't mean these were not accidents.
Highway incident stats are almost always given as "per million(s of) miles driven." This tends to make the stats a little more comparable over the years.
F'rinstance, on graphing the highway stats around the great oil embargo of '74, I found that the death rate on our highways actually went up with the establishment of the 55MPH speed limit, reversing a 10 year downward trend. Total deaths went down as a result of a substantial drop in miles driven.
If there is a similar set of stats for RRs, we'll have something to work with.
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...
But fatigue manifests itself in so many ways...sleeping is, of course, the most noticable. But slow response times, longer overall timings, unprecise work leading to lack of quality, poor attitudes, disrespect for authority, rules, and fellow workers. It is an overall effect on workmanship, quality of work, and attitude that can bring a whole group of people or an entity down. It's defnitely not just lack of sleep.
Per the FRA from January 2010 to March 2011 there have been 18 rear end collisions.
http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/OfficeofSafety/publicsite/Query/inccaus.aspx
If you take away the man failure, failure to apply hand brakes, shoving blind, motor car and equipment on track without authority and such...you are left with 8 collisions easily attributed to fatigue.
Not to say the others were not caused by fatigue, but these 8 seem to be prevalent through the years.
H220. Fixed signal other than Automatic block signal, ( getting by a red in CTC or running by a red flag and such) accounted for 3.
H403. Movement without authority, r.r. employee. 1
H605. Failure to comply with restricted speed. 2
H607. Failure to comply with restricted speed other than main track. 2
So out of the 18 reported last year and up to March this year, 8 could be attributed to fatigue, or at least they could easily be considered fatigue related.
That's 8 out of how many thousands of train run.
Compare that to any other form of freight transportation.
OTR truckers, we have had 18 here in Houston in 6 months.
Barge and river traffic...barge men get crushed and drowned frequently; I am trying to find the numbers for that.
Air transport, I would guess they are close to the same as railroads; I am looking for those numbers also.
As Georgia Railroader said, the goal for us is 0, but realistically we understand that that is a very hard goal to achieve considering the sheer number of train run yearly.
With that in mind, the total of 18, regardless if fatigue related, is quite small.
Yes, there seems to be a spat of rear end collisions recently, although the one involving the BNSF coal drag and the MOW train have other causes for the fatalities such as the involvement of the bridge and the type of train involved.
Yes, the root cause is the collision, but other factors may have caused the deaths.
As the Georgia Railroader pointed out, every one of us who does this for a living accepts the fact that it is and can be a dangerous profession.
You seem to be playing word games when you allude to these not being accidents.
You could use the politically correct term that the FRA uses, incidents instead of accidents, but it amounts to the same thing.
I doubt any of these crews mounted up, and then decided to rear end another train on purpose, so whatever term you choose to use, accident still fits.
Look at airline incidents.
Thousands of plans take off every day, and most of the time those thousands make it to their destinations and land safely.
Their crews take every precaution you can imagine, but every once in a while, something goes wrong, and one of those planes falls and crashes.
For the crews, and the passengers, that is an acceptable risk, the numbers say overwhelmingly that you will arrive safely.
For us, it's also an acceptable risk.
We trust our dispatchers, and our fellow train crews to do it right every time.
Folks seem to be looking for a universal one size fits all remedy for the fatigue issue, but there isn't one.
The type of traffic and commodity will determine when and how crews are called.
With PTC, you could schedule some stuff, like coal and grain, and set assigned/fixed calling times, but that would require the cooperation of the railroad, the shipper and the buyer.
In a sense, these already are "scheduled", but that is another ball of wax best left to another thread.
Other types of traffic, like manifest runs, well, it boils down to "when the train is ready to go, you send it asap" and that will always require some type of pool service or extra board.
And that's because trains sitting still in a yard or siding waiting on a crew doesn't make anyone money, which, in the long run, is what we are in business to do.
Georgia Railroader That's not what I'm saying at all. One fatality is one too many. It's not nor will it ever be a perfect system, but it is what it is and for those of us who actually do this for a living we are fully aware of the dangers that go with this job. I knew what I was getting myself into when I hired out. The company gave a discripton of the job and told me what was to be expected of me and if I couldn't hack it I wouldn't be out here.
SFbrkmn A 10 hr call is not a total fix a but it does have both pro and con issues tied with it. The carriers could in effect decrease layoffs a heavy percentage with a 6, 8, 10 hr call as once called you are activated for a job and in effect could not mark off after accepting the call. What happens then say two hrs later, you call in to mark off after taking the call? My guess the crew office would handle this as LOC.
A 10 hr call is not a total fix a but it does have both pro and con issues tied with it. The carriers could in effect decrease layoffs a heavy percentage with a 6, 8, 10 hr call as once called you are activated for a job and in effect could not mark off after accepting the call. What happens then say two hrs later, you call in to mark off after taking the call? My guess the crew office would handle this as LOC.
Yes but this is not a one size fits all solution, different locations, different trains, different needs, different people calling the shots ect. ect.
schlimm Georgia Railroader: edblysard: Question... Has anyone run the stats of "number of daily succesful train runs" against the "number of daily rear end collisions", or total collisions vs total runs yearly for that matter. I have a feeling that the number will be quite surprisingly low. Look at it this way, how many train starts happend today vs. how many collisions happened today. BINGO!! It's not like we have head ons and rearend collisions everyday of the week. Accidents have been a part of this industry since day one. The numbers have went down. Are you saying there would be cause for concern only if collisions occurred almost everyday? Yes the numbers have gone down and 2010 was the safest year ever. [from the AAR] : "The safety data, which is released by the Federal Railroad Administration, shows that the total number of train accidents involving U.S. Class I freight railroads declined by 3% in 2010, with the rate per-million-train-miles falling 9.6% from the previous record established in 2009. The number of employee casualties on U.S. Class I freight railroads fell by 14.2%, while the employee casualty rate measured per-hundred full-time equivalent employees declined 16% from the previous record set in 2009." The statistic used by the AAR is accidents per million-train miles. What might be more revealing would be accidents per train run, and compare that number with previous years, by railroad, and with the rate in other industrialized nations. Using per million-train miles makes comparisons with other countries (or railroads) with many short-distance train runs invalid.
Georgia Railroader: edblysard: Question... Has anyone run the stats of "number of daily succesful train runs" against the "number of daily rear end collisions", or total collisions vs total runs yearly for that matter. I have a feeling that the number will be quite surprisingly low. Look at it this way, how many train starts happend today vs. how many collisions happened today. BINGO!! It's not like we have head ons and rearend collisions everyday of the week. Accidents have been a part of this industry since day one. The numbers have went down.
edblysard: Question... Has anyone run the stats of "number of daily succesful train runs" against the "number of daily rear end collisions", or total collisions vs total runs yearly for that matter. I have a feeling that the number will be quite surprisingly low. Look at it this way, how many train starts happend today vs. how many collisions happened today.
Question...
Has anyone run the stats of "number of daily succesful train runs" against the "number of daily rear end collisions", or total collisions vs total runs yearly for that matter.
I have a feeling that the number will be quite surprisingly low.
Look at it this way, how many train starts happend today vs. how many collisions happened today.
BINGO!! It's not like we have head ons and rearend collisions everyday of the week. Accidents have been a part of this industry since day one. The numbers have went down.
Are you saying there would be cause for concern only if collisions occurred almost everyday? Yes the numbers have gone down and 2010 was the safest year ever. [from the AAR] :
"The safety data, which is released by the Federal Railroad Administration, shows that the total number of train accidents involving U.S. Class I freight railroads declined by 3% in 2010, with the rate per-million-train-miles falling 9.6% from the previous record established in 2009. The number of employee casualties on U.S. Class I freight railroads fell by 14.2%, while the employee casualty rate measured per-hundred full-time equivalent employees declined 16% from the previous record set in 2009."
The statistic used by the AAR is accidents per million-train miles. What might be more revealing would be accidents per train run, and compare that number with previous years, by railroad, and with the rate in other industrialized nations. Using per million-train miles makes comparisons with other countries (or railroads) with many short-distance train runs invalid.
All right, let's work on the 10 hours off. Mark off, go home...9 hours left. Eat, recreate. 7 hours left. Sleep and 0 hours left. Then
A: (ideal?) you get a 2 hour notice, get ready, go, mark on at 12 hours.
B. at 15 hours off, you get your 2 hour notice and mark on at 17 hours...still pretty good.
C. don't get a call until 20 hours off,..10 hours after waking up...at 22 hours you are marking on but with only 7 hours sleep and up to 12 hours of work ahead of you....you see where this is going.
How do you manage your off time? How you manage your off time will make all the difference in how "well rested" you are to work. But, say, you spend those hours after the first 10 shopping, going to a game or actually playing a game of...or fishing or hunting or going to a school function for the kids. In other words, you have live your life by the clock and the job and not by the quality of life your paycheck is supossedly giving you. Doesn't matter which of the above, employees have to chose their lifestyle as dictated by their desires. Management has to have alert and well rested employees to do safe and effecient work. Whose responsibility, in this framework, is it? Each side points the finger at the other as being the culprit but neither can come up with a system, or at least neither has or dares to, come up with a system that will work for both, one in which both sides give, both sides take, and both sides survive economically and otherwise. I think this is the delima of fatigue and work rules.
Georgia Railroader edblysard: Question... Has anyone run the stats of "number of daily succesful train runs" against the "number of daily rear end collisions", or total collisions vs total runs yearly for that matter. I have a feeling that the number will be quite surprisingly low. Look at it this way, how many train starts happend today vs. how many collisions happened today. BINGO!! It's not like we have head ons and rearend collisions everyday of the week. Accidents have been a part of this industry since day one. The numbers have went down.
I understand edblysard's statement about ratio of successful trips vs rear end collisions. But the point is there has been a spate of them of late and they all seem to lead to the fatigue factor as the root cause. If not sleeping, then boredom or other inattention. The frustration of it all is that it is preventable and not "just an accident".
edblysard Question... Has anyone run the stats of "number of daily succesful train runs" against the "number of daily rear end collisions", or total collisions vs total runs yearly for that matter. I have a feeling that the number will be quite surprisingly low. Look at it this way, how many train starts happend today vs. how many collisions happened today.
The reasons most don't like it is; 1. The boards and pools that have guarantees (all but the road engr pools) lose that guarantee after either laying off more than twice or for being unavailable over 48 hours per half. Because this was imposed and not negotiated, the company looks at the Federal rest requirement almost the same as if you called in and layed off. Traffic has been really fluctuating lately. One week can be go,go,go and the next is virtually dead. If you get the Federal rest at the wrong time you can take a hefty cut in pay for a half. I've been lucky when I was working a guaranteed board. The few times I had to take the rest it worked out for me. The first time I got it, it was the last 3 days of the half and we had been busy that I was over guarantee. The next half 1/3 of my pay was guarantee because it was like someone shut the door and traffic dropped off.
The 2nd reason is kind of the unpredictability in getting it. A change in start time by 10 minutes around midnight or a deadhead as the only start of the day can reset the clock. Also it's based on when you start work, not when you actually may perform most of the work. I've been home 35 hours but didn't reset I've also been at the away from home terminal for 17 hours and did reset. All because the way the start times worked out. When you might want it or need it, you don't get it. When you don't need it, you get it. That's kind of why some say the company has learned how to manipulate it.
Hey Zug, about that stashing away in motels. We sometimes have the same thing Right before holidays or other big weekends they seem to deadhead all the pool crews out of town. Someone has said that it was to prevent crews from laying off. The Friday before last Memorial Day weekend they deadheaded most of the West pool so that there were more at the motel than at home for a while. I was lucky to get most of the holiday weekend off. I was bumped Saturday morning and took most of my 48 hours before placing myself. Partly because there were two senior guys on the bump board and I was waiting to see what they did.
As to trying to figure out some of their "logic." Too often it just makes my head hurt. I really worry when it does start to make sense to me.
jeffhergert One thing that impedes some of the proposed "solutions" to the fatigue problem is money. Almost any of the solutions will cost one side or the other (employees/railroads) or maybe both. Neither side wants to lose money. Even if something could be worked out that didn't cost either side the lack of trust on both sides would probably doom it. There will always be those on both sides who think they are losing something to the other's advantage. For example, the current hours of service rules that require 48 or 72 hours off. No one likes it where I work. Both sides think the other has learned how to manipulate it to their advantage. Plus, it really doesn't solve anything. You still have all the problems already mentioned about getting the proper rest. It does show however, that if both sides can't work things out a third party (politicians) can impose something even more draconian that everyone will hate even more. And it will probably be no better than what we already have and solve nothing. Jeff
One thing that impedes some of the proposed "solutions" to the fatigue problem is money. Almost any of the solutions will cost one side or the other (employees/railroads) or maybe both. Neither side wants to lose money. Even if something could be worked out that didn't cost either side the lack of trust on both sides would probably doom it. There will always be those on both sides who think they are losing something to the other's advantage.
For example, the current hours of service rules that require 48 or 72 hours off. No one likes it where I work. Both sides think the other has learned how to manipulate it to their advantage. Plus, it really doesn't solve anything. You still have all the problems already mentioned about getting the proper rest.
It does show however, that if both sides can't work things out a third party (politicians) can impose something even more draconian that everyone will hate even more. And it will probably be no better than what we already have and solve nothing.
That's funny, around here I can count on one hand the number of people that don't like the 48/72 rule. Having 48 hours off means you can go and get blue-blind paralytic drunk and not have to worry about the railroad. I do agree with you, they do nothing to combat fatigue.
I think we can have a more (not complete) scheduled railroad for the busier terminals. But to do so will involve rethinking how trains and jobs are assigned. You have to stop with the "this is MY train" and "that is YOUR train" mentality that exists out here. The assignment of trains based on pool and terminals leads to unpredictable schedules. Now if you could schedule time slots instead for those pools, then they wouldn't always have the same train or assignment, but they'd know when they were coming and going. I took a look at my big main road terminal here. Every hour (e.g. 6-7am), there are usually 3-6 road trains being called. Some hours may have as little as one, others may have up to 8 or 9. That's not even counting yard jobs. You probably couldn't work out a perfect system for assigning crews based on times, but you could assign a few to begin to cover the base load.
It always amazed me - I'd get called for a road train at 7am. But "my" train wouldn't show up until 11am. Yet, there would be an out-of-town crew called for "their" train (going the same direction) after me, and they would get their train before me. Wonderful use of a resource.
The railroad doesn't want anyone sitting at home collecting a guarantee (even though our conductor lists aren't guaranteed), yet they have zero problem stashing a crew in a hotel room for 20,30 or more hours. Real fun when the hotel is less than 2 hours from the home terminal by van. All the while there are no crews available at home (because they are all staring at walls in some piece of crap motel counting bedbugs).
**Bonus feature below**
Why do the railroads stash crews in hotel rooms? I've heard two theories. The first is that the railroad has a certain number of rooms booked every night, whether they use them or not. So they think it is a "waste of resources" to NOT use the rooms. I still can't figure the logic in that, try as I might.
The second I heard from another conductor that asked the person in charge of the crews one night WHY they get stranded. His reply? As long as the crew is in the hotel, they know they can get them to work. If they let the crew go home - then they can mark off, take a temp, or miscall. But the crews in the motel are always chomping at the bit to go to work - and ultimately - home.
But hey, I'm just the monkey that pulls the pins. What do I know?
jeffhergert One thing that impedes some of the proposed "solutions" to the fatigue problem is money. Almost any of the solutions will cost one side or the other (employees/railroads) or maybe both. Neither side wants to lose money. Even if something could be worked out that didn't cost either side the lack of trust on both sides would probably doom it. There will always be those on both sides who think they are losing something to the other's advantage.
Back in the depths of this most recent recession would have been a good time to try out some new systems. With lots of people off work, there might have been more willingness on both sides to try it, and work out the bugs under less pressure and intensity than we now have again.
jeffhergert For example, the current hours of service rules that require 48 or 72 hours off. No one likes it where I work. Both sides think the other has learned how to manipulate it to their advantage. Plus, it really doesn't solve anything. You still have all the problems already mentioned about getting the proper rest.
And to be (un)fair to both sides, here's a hypothetical question for management - Considering all the random factors as referenced above that can disrupt or interfere with train operations and schedules, then which would you rather have or do: an extra "protect" "crew start" getting paid but with no actual work to do because everything is going smoothly and on schedule; or the main plugged because of 1 (or more) trains parked on the main, in the yard entrance/ lead, or in a key siding, without a rested crew available ? Kind of obvious to me where that analysis leads to in terms of staffing practices . . .
Somebody ought to realize that a crew being paid for sitting on a train in a siding or waiting to get into a yard is just as expensive and unproductive as one that gets paid for showing up but no train needing their services - the latter is just more obvious. (Kind of like people complaining because the professional/ paid firemen are being paid but have nothing important to do when there aren't any fires happening - missing that it's a good thing for everyone when that happens . . .).
jeffhergert It does show however, that if both sides can't work things out a third party (politicians) can impose something even more draconian that everyone will hate even more. And it will probably be no better than what we already have and solve nothing.
In the end everything comes down to what some call human error but I rather call it human factors be it the need for money or the need for sleep or whatever else enters into the picture.
And that is also the factor of scheduling. Reasonable schedules can be and are met. The attitude that they can't be executed is why they aren't more than real circumstances. The reliability lies not in the schedule but in the execution of the schedule and the people who operate the train (management to train crew). This country has gone along with the practices that "good enough is good enough" and "who's watching anyway" and "who cares? I get paid whether or not". Oh sure, there will always be extenuating circumstances from time to time but a determination to do the job and do it right can bring about kept schedules..
Well, whatever all the objections are to changing the current system through better scheduling, PTC etc., certainly something needs to be done to correct the problems leading to rear end collisions.
The longer the route and the more crews involved in moving trains from origin to destination, the harder it is to 'schedule' the downstream crews....Would anyone care to schedule, with any degree of accuracy, the on duty day and time for a Powder River Coal train whose final crew is moving the train from Cumberland to Baltimore. Admittedly the above is a extreme example, however, this movement occurs 3 to 4 times per month and if you can consistently and accurately predict the on duty day and time for that final line of road crew - you are better than ANYONE involved in the transportation industry today. In the above example I have no idea how many UP or BNSF crews would be required to move the train from the PRB to Chicago...on CSX a minimum of 4 crews would be required to move the train from the Chicago gateway to Baltimore.
As Zug and the other individuals that work line of road T&E Service can attest...moving a train - any train - from the on duty point to the off duty point is WORK - the times a crew mounts up on the train and rolls without conflict and delay to the off duty point can probably be counted on one hand over the course of a year...there are a million and one things that will cause the train to be delayed in it's run - the delays can be minimal or sufficient to cause the train to be recrewed one and sometimes more times just to complete a single crew's run, and every other kind of delay in between.
Actually you would be surprised how many power plants do work on scheduled deliveries as part of the stocking process....
One of the programs suggested to fight fatigue is guaranteed sleep windows after so many hours off. The sleep window would gurantee a pay check or at least guarantee first out. This is not just railroaders, but airline pilots and truck drivers, too.
One of the things unionism fostered was time and motion studies along with other "work" related topics but most of what has been learned has been ignored in recent times. Plus macho men were told they were made of iron and sleep or anything else made you less of a man and more of a wimp; industries just want to get the most out of a machine (man) in the shortest time for the least money and if one complained or fell down, so did his paycheck and another took his place. Fatigue caused highway, air, and rail crashes have been the recent results and are being recognized as having to be addressed for safety and long term health, and even long term wealth.
oltmannd 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. 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!
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.
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.
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!
They try, but you always have to count on something getting in the way. What's bad is I look in the computer to see if anything is due out. Nothing. Then as soon as my head hits the pillow the phone rings. What's bad is even our TM's cant tell us when to expect to catch something.
I have sat 1st out on the extraboard for 5 straight days with nothing showing, then as soon as I dose off the phone rings. You dont know when to go to bed, when to go grocery shopping, when to do yard work, when to go visit family. But it is what it is. It's the railroad, and until they can come up with a better solution, this is the way it's gonna be.
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.
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 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.
...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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
Not at all.
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.
^^ Well Said.
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.
Speaking of regular schedules.......... Has there been any accidents due to fatigue on Amtrak or Commuter rails??
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"+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
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.
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.
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.
petitnj Crews should be called on fixed schedules and know when then they have to awake next.
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.