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.
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 . . . ]
- Paul North.
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.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
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?
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.
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).
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.
23 17 46 11
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.
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
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.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
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!
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?
Bruce
So shovel the coal, let this rattler roll.
"A Train is a Place Going Somewhere" CP Rail Public Timetable
"O. S. Irricana"
. . . __ . ______
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.
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!
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
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.
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?
.
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.
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.
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!
When it rains it pours. This is the reality, this is railroading. Though to schedule the unpredictable.
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!
Well, thanks for that object lesson in reality - perhaps you witnessed some "beautiful theories being murderd by a gang of brutal facts" ?
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 . . .
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.
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).
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?
I feel like half of these guys posting either smoked something or are CN Trainmasters on the DM&IR....
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
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....
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.
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!
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.
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!
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.
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.
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....
coborn35: I feel like half of these guys posting either smoked something or are CN Trainmasters on the DM&IR....
The usual, predictable insults when all else fails.
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.
[/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?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.