I don;t have actual stats handy but CN has run some coal/ grain trains to Prince Rupert that are 230+ cars and are 32,000- 34,000 tons. Sidings are approx 12,000 feet.
BaltACD schlimm 1. Railroad management is driven by profit. Most of the railroaders applaud that goal when discussing regulations, restrictions, transport of hazardous and inflammable substances, railroad crossings, hosting Amtrak, etc. Only when it pertains to job security do we hear a different tune, understandably. 2. Management obviously sees cutting labor costs as the easiest avenue to greater profits. 3. Most of the objections to elimination of conductors here are framed with the same arguments that failed when cutting firemen and other crews were proposed in prior decades. 3. One-man crews have been and continue to be routinely used in other countries, on both freight and passenger services, on lines with much greater traffic density and closer headway. Ditto with their equivalents to PTC. Their safety record is comparable or better. 4. As others, such as Ulrich, have said, the changes are coming. Embracing and adjusting to the inevitable is a much better adaptation than hunkering down with a siege mentality. Yes! I am going to embrace that blocked road crossing with the 9000+ foot train that is in emergency with the 'master conductor' position that was blanked beacuse there was no one on the board. Question - in other countries are they operating 9000+ foot trains & 20000 ton trains through populated areas with US style road crossing density?
schlimm 1. Railroad management is driven by profit. Most of the railroaders applaud that goal when discussing regulations, restrictions, transport of hazardous and inflammable substances, railroad crossings, hosting Amtrak, etc. Only when it pertains to job security do we hear a different tune, understandably. 2. Management obviously sees cutting labor costs as the easiest avenue to greater profits. 3. Most of the objections to elimination of conductors here are framed with the same arguments that failed when cutting firemen and other crews were proposed in prior decades. 3. One-man crews have been and continue to be routinely used in other countries, on both freight and passenger services, on lines with much greater traffic density and closer headway. Ditto with their equivalents to PTC. Their safety record is comparable or better. 4. As others, such as Ulrich, have said, the changes are coming. Embracing and adjusting to the inevitable is a much better adaptation than hunkering down with a siege mentality.
1. Railroad management is driven by profit. Most of the railroaders applaud that goal when discussing regulations, restrictions, transport of hazardous and inflammable substances, railroad crossings, hosting Amtrak, etc. Only when it pertains to job security do we hear a different tune, understandably.
2. Management obviously sees cutting labor costs as the easiest avenue to greater profits.
3. Most of the objections to elimination of conductors here are framed with the same arguments that failed when cutting firemen and other crews were proposed in prior decades.
3. One-man crews have been and continue to be routinely used in other countries, on both freight and passenger services, on lines with much greater traffic density and closer headway. Ditto with their equivalents to PTC. Their safety record is comparable or better.
4. As others, such as Ulrich, have said, the changes are coming. Embracing and adjusting to the inevitable is a much better adaptation than hunkering down with a siege mentality.
Yes! I am going to embrace that blocked road crossing with the 9000+ foot train that is in emergency with the 'master conductor' position that was blanked beacuse there was no one on the board.
Question - in other countries are they operating 9000+ foot trains & 20000 ton trains through populated areas with US style road crossing density?
Johnny
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
No argument there. But the original question had to do with whether this particular operational change is for the better or for the worse. I don't have to worry about it any more because I just retired & won't be spending much of my time on the railroad. But then again, there's that NS mainline that runs about 100 yards behind my house................
Progress is always change, but change is not always progress.
Ulrich:
I bear you no ill will, but your assurances don't put food on the table, nor do they put a mortgage check in the mail. It's true that many people land on their feet after this type of social dislocation, but it's also true that many don't. The reasons can be manifold: native ability; geographical location; who you know; inborn adaptability; education; etc. etc. etc.
Actually, this issue, while very important, is secondary to the issues of safety and practicality which have been pretty thoroughly discussed here. Change, in and of itself, isn't necessarily good or bad. It's neutral. The main issue is whether this specific change --- a one-man crew --- is a good idea. The practicing railroaders I know are pretty wary of this particular change, and for reasons far more serious than their own narrow interests regarding job security.
I've been on passenger trains that have been stopped for significant periods of time due to "computer problems", poor communications with the dispatcher, false indications from defect detectors, and many similar problems that result from a reliance on technology. Removing human involvement one more degree makes me very uncomfortable. One of these days, I suppose we'll have midair collisions between railroad conductor drones, police drones, and media drones. Maybe the sky really is the limit.
UlrichOne person crews ..hell yeah! Change will occur over which we have no control. So we may as well go into this with a positive attitude.
Hell yeah, I may be out of a job!!!!!
You do realize that while trains are a hobby or academic interest to some, it is a lifestyle and paycheck to others? So yeah, I may take some of this stuff personal, but that is because it is personal. I think some people on this site forget that at times.
I have a little under 10 years in this industry with at least 30 more to go. I like railroading, but sometimes I don't know anymore.
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
Aaaahhhh NO
Trucks are what....100ft or less depending on the type of rig,trains can be up to 12,000 feet long and several thousand more tons heavy.Trucks and trains are apples and oranges when it comes to this type of discussion.
Even with all the new technology being introduced, Leader System,ATC and eventually TTC there's just too much going on ahead and definitely behind you when running a train.
Collin ,operator of the " Eastern Kentucky & Ohio R.R."
jeffhergertWhich brings up another matter. FRA rules right now allow a utility person to be attached to only one train at a time. (Our UTU people in my terminal interpret that to mean a road conductor on one train can't change a knuckle for a train on another conductor. They can drop off a knuckle or air hose, or give the other conductor a ride, but that's about it.
A utility "brakeman" not conductor would be the correct title.And they can assist any crew yard or road with anything as long as he officially announces on the radio his time on and off with the crew.
Now a regular conductor cannot assist any crew,unless he/she attaches to that crew.Then he becomes a member of that crew until he outlaws or the crew in which he's attached goes off duty.
This was a big topic discussed by an FRA official a few years back when I was working the road.
It seems that the Powers That Be won't be happy till they've eliminated the job of everybody but themselves and a couple programmers. Right now there are Supermarkets where you're expected to scan your own purchases because Management is determined to eliminate entry-level jobs for young people. As a person whose first "real" job was in a Super Market, this resonates with me ---- negatively. And of course it's so easy to criticize the unemployed with the old refrain, "Get a job, you lazy bum!"
The U.T.U. President's statement reeks of a pandering, clearly political statement, and when I hear a political statement, I always suspect the speaker of having his fingers crossed behind his back. Maybe he'll be happy when he represents about four outrageously wealthy railroaders with jobs, and that's all.
To the many comments comparing train operation to airplane operation, I can only respond, COME ON NOW! GIMME A BREAK! Mechanically, an airplane would have to be towing a couple dozen gliders to behave like a train, so let's just drop that whole idea right now.
If the lonely engineer has that much-discussed heart attack, who calls for help and renders First Aid? Oh, I forgot. He's expendable. And it doesn't really matter since his is the next job to go anyway.
I worked a lot of years for a railroad. Not in an operating job because of imperfect color vision. I saw a lot of railroaders plying their trade, and I was always aware of the wide gulf between the viewpoints of the guys (and gals) on the ground and their office-bound "Superiors". I figured out a long time ago who was superior. And his name was not Hal.
Tom
It's not just railroads, as has been noted. I have friends in the data processing and broadcast industries whose employment is less certain than it was even five years ago due to advances in technology and communications.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Fortunately the NS does not currently have the inward facing cameras,but we had a memo recently about them on foreign motors.The memo stated that although the NS does not have the ability to download the camera,but we are to be on our best behavior .
mackb4 They can practically tell you if you spit out the window
They can practically tell you if you spit out the window
They will once they get everything equipped with inward facing cameras.
Thinking (a dangerous practice on my part) about it, they may still have a second person on trains that have a lot of scheduled intermediate work, like locals or those that are locals in all but name. However, since there is a "master conductor" in charge, that second person might just be a brakeman, working at a brakeman rate of pay.
The master conductor can sit back in his utility truck and direct the action via drone camera.
Which brings up another matter. FRA rules right now allow a utility person to be attached to only one train at a time. (Our UTU people in my terminal interpret that to mean a road conductor on one train can't change a knuckle for a train on another conductor. They can drop off a knuckle or air hose, or give the other conductor a ride, but that's about it. I think it was Paul who said something about the lone person on one train helping out another train in distress. With that interpretation, I don't know if it's correct but if it is, one train couldn't help out another beyond a few simple tasks.) How will a master conductor be able to supervise more than one train at a time? Any time he turns his attention to one particular train, he is really ignoring all the others on his territory.
Before it's all over, I'm sure there will be some rewriting of rules to allow one person operation. Both at the Federal and railroad levels.
Jeff
That's the bad thing when the carriers ask in our contracts for us to "Accept all new and future technology " their eventually going to get what they want introduced to the industry .
I can remember when we went from carts or "tapes" for the downloads to the data retrieval we use today.They can practically tell you if you spit out the window
Technology is scarey !
jeffhergertBy throwing this out there, this one group as put everyone else between a rock and a hard place. Whether it passes or fails, it's opened the door sooner rather than later.
I couldn't agree more. It is most definitely the thin edge of the wedge IMHO. Management's long term strategy will be interesting to watch as this particular situation unfolds. This could be quite difficult for operating crews and the unions going forward again IMHO. It's high stakes game in many ways.
Charlie
Chilliwack, BC
This proposed agreement does not cover the entire BNSF. My understanding is only portions of the former BN components: SLSF, CB&Q, NP and some GN yards. From reading on another forum site, the other General Committees on the rest of the BNSF have not signed off on it. If the comments are to be believed, all the other BNSF GCA chairmen and the international are not for this agreement. (Most commenting on that site are not for it.)
In addition to engineer only on PTC equipped trains, it also reduces all other trains to engineer and conductor only. Yard jobs also get reduced to two person crews, either engineer and foreman or RCO foreman and helper. Many places still require a brakeman on certain trains that do intermediate work or a switchman (helper) on conventional yard jobs. (Once the requirement is removed, it doesn't mean the railroad can't add a brakeman/switchman to any job they think needs two trainmen. It only means they don't have to fill those helper jobs because of agreements.)
While all these provisions reduce jobs, because of the protections and wage increase, it doesn't reduce the payroll that much in the short term. Which is why I expect after full implementation on all carriers, that protection will be targeted in future contract negotiations. Especially if attrition (called back to service, retirements, resignations, etc.) doesn't reduce the ranks of those protected very fast.
I don't know if it will be ratified or not. By throwing this out there, this one group as put everyone else between a rock and a hard place. Whether it passes or fails, it's opened the door sooner rather than later.
dehusman I'm not sure Lac Megantic is a good example to use for the one man and master conductor vs. two man crew debate. The Lac Megantic incident was not a "moving violation". It involved securement and that is a primary purpose of the master conductor, to assist with situations such as train securement. Lac Megantic is more case that points out that one man crews without a "master conductor" is a bad idea. The incident that really is more pertinent to the which is safer, one or two man crews argument, is the incident in Wisconsin where in CTC one train has violated a stop signal and collided with another. Both trains had two crew members in the cab.
I'm not sure Lac Megantic is a good example to use for the one man and master conductor vs. two man crew debate. The Lac Megantic incident was not a "moving violation". It involved securement and that is a primary purpose of the master conductor, to assist with situations such as train securement. Lac Megantic is more case that points out that one man crews without a "master conductor" is a bad idea.
The incident that really is more pertinent to the which is safer, one or two man crews argument, is the incident in Wisconsin where in CTC one train has violated a stop signal and collided with another. Both trains had two crew members in the cab.
The unspoken but REAL cause was that there was NO Crew - to move the train further at the time it was 'secured' at Lac Megantic. What is the likelihood that a 'master Conductor' will not be available when needed - considering that the carriers are doing this to 'reduce cost'; I suspect the 'master conductors' will be very scarce an far from timely when the are available.
Just getting the Trainmaster to a incident on his (or her) own territory is a time consuming happening, and heaven help you if there are two incidents on a supervisors territory.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.