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.
23 17 46 11
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.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
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.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
Georgia Railroader 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.
Jeff
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?
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
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.
- Paul North.
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.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
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.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy Siding henry6: ...as for freight customer useage of railraods...many use a railroad and a train as part of their assemblyline timed to remove from one point and deliver to another in sequence and with precise enough timing. I'm not sure I agree with you on that. Maybe, if you paid a premium price, you could get shipment with anything resembling precise enough timing. UPS and auto parts come to mind.
henry6: ...as for freight customer useage of railraods...many use a railroad and a train as part of their assemblyline timed to remove from one point and deliver to another in sequence and with precise enough timing.
...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.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
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.
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
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.