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.
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.
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.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
^^ Well Said.
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.
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.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
I wish, but my carrier cant even schedule a train ten hours ahead, much less a week.
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.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
zugmann 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.
Bruce
So shovel the coal, let this rattler roll.
"A Train is a Place Going Somewhere" CP Rail Public Timetable
"O. S. Irricana"
. . . __ . ______
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.*
- Paul North.
*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.
I am concerned about why there are so many rear end collisions that are happening these days. It seems to me that there are more numerous of them. Is it operator error, fatigue, or all of the above? Are switches left open, malfunction of warning signals? None of this should happen. I am sure the railway safety boards and whatever accident investigation commissions do to check on these thing. I just would like to find out what others have their thoughts on this matter. .
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.