BigJimEd,You left out that the broken knuckle was on the other side of the bridge over a raging river and the bridge has no walkway.
Ed,You left out that the broken knuckle was on the other side of the bridge over a raging river and the bridge has no walkway.
All Amtrak runs that are less than 8 hours scheduled time - are normally operated with only a Engineer in the cab. There is a conductor, but he is stationed on the passenger portion of the train. Engineers and Conductors communicate about the approach of restrictions on the train messages and on my carrier the display of signals - absolute and intermediate.
If a mandatory directive is to be sent by the Train Dispatcher, that must be written and repeated by the person copying the directive - the directive cannot be copied by the person operating a moving locomotive. The person copying the directive must be on the locomotive. Either the Conductor must make his way to the locomotive or the train must be stopped for the Engineer to copy and repeat the directive. (Station stops can be used for this purpose).
Issuing or annulling Slow Orders, changing the operating condition of Defect Detector, issuing or annulling Weather Orders are a few of the reasons for issuing a Mandatory Directive.
It is possible that the implementation of PTC may change the mechanics of these operations.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD It is possible that the implementation of PTC may change the mechanics of these operations.
I think when the BN was testing it's ARES system years ago, track warrants/bulletins etc, were transmitted directly to the screen in the locomotive cab. I don't know if the existing system would be able to get updated messages, I would think it would have to. Whether it can or not, I expect there will be a lot of rules changes for one person operation. All of a sudden certain things considered unsafe with two will magically become OK for one.
Just like over the years how other things have changed. Once upon a time, a train couldn't pass a red block (automatic) signal without sending a flagman ahead, waiting a prescribe time and then following. Eventually a red block signal could be passed after stopping. Now some railroads don't require a stop at a red block signal at all, it's OK to pass them at restricted speed. (I don't have a problem with that, except there are a few that still don't understand that even when you can pass that next signal, you might not be able to. That there could be a train, or red flag/fusee, sitting a foot past the signal. You still need to be prepared to stop.)
Jeff
The major airlines announced the co-pilot is a redundant job position thanks to advanced cockpit automation. Starting in 2015, expect to see the introduction of one man flight crews on modern jet aircrafts for major traffic routes using a new centralized air-traffic control system being introduced this fall. The FAA is rolling out a centralized Super Air Traffic Controller position to oversee these one man flights via inward/outward facing cameras along with links between the Super Air Traffic Controller's ground based workstation and the aircraft. Additionally, the plane's Central Processing Units will link to the workstation proving consent instrument monitoring. Voice communication will continue via existing radio communication systems.
Super Air Traffic Controllers will start with managing 1 to 2 flights and the projection is one Super Air Traffic Controller managing all flights in a given route. With future advances in technology, the goal is to remove the human factor in flying by turning the Super Air Traffic Controller's supervision duties over to high-speed supercomputers. Thus achieving a single point of blame. Traditional Air Traffic Controllers are required to apply for the new Super Air Traffic Controller positions, those not selected will face permanent layoffs. Experience with X-Box One and PS-4 controllers is mandatory.
Plans call for implementing one man crew on the New York to LAX , LAX to Huston, and Huston to New York as proof-of-concept. This loop route approach provides for easier system tuning and real world experience interacting with normal heavy (two man flight crew) air traffic.
The cabin Stewards will receive 20 hours of flight simulation training as a contingency should they need to take over for a disabled pilot. The Super Air Traffic Controller will talk the plan down in the event of a pilot emergency. However, future plans call for replacing cabin Stewards with vending machines as a cost saving move. The FAA expects advances in pilotless drone control will allow a Super Air Traffic Controller, or high speed supercomputers when implemented, to safely land the plane remotely thus making the cabin Stewards fully obsolete.
Airlines expects migrating their heavily used trunk lines to one man flight crews by 2024. Short hop turbo-prop flights will continue with two man crews. There is no positive ROI to heavily invest in the required technology for these low volume routes and aircrafts.
So, if the air lines and the FAA can implement one-man crews for the safest form of transportation in the world, than old fashion railroads can step up to 21th Century style command and control management systems.
1. Mr. Buffett would have nothing to do with this agreement. This would be worked out between BNSF management and the unions.
2. If an engineer has a heart attack and the train approaches a PTC control point telling the train to slow down or stop, the PTC system will do it by remote control. With inward looking carmeras a master conductor can see what is happening and stop the train before the PTC takes over.
Think about it!!!
UlrichBigJim Ed,You left out that the broken knuckle was on the other side of the bridge over a raging river and the bridge has no walkway. Nope. no bridge, no river, no walkway.
BigJim Ed,You left out that the broken knuckle was on the other side of the bridge over a raging river and the bridge has no walkway.
.
BigJimUlrichBigJim Ed,You left out that the broken knuckle was on the other side of the bridge over a raging river and the bridge has no walkway. Nope. no bridge, no river, no walkway. I was not addressing you.
Lets take this a step forward. OK, we have PTC and one man in the cab. There is a busted air hose or a broken knuckle. Now, what's going to happen? Call dispatch and say "Huston, we have problem" then sit tieing up the main for hours while some tries to use a speedster or hi-railer to get to there? With all the talk of hitting capacity or near capacity, can the RR afford to tie up the main for hours?
Or, is the plan to invest $$$ to double or triple track all PTC territory so other trains can 'run around?'
In the original news item the ground level operational work (fixing something that broke) isn't covered. Looks like the assumption is air hoses don't fail and broken knuckle only happen on steam railroads.
I see this all the time in IT, just because it is on the PowerPoint makes is so. Until the poor guy in the cab is sitting there in the dark, in the rain, in the the middle of a long bridge without a walk way about 200 feet in the air.
UlrichThey've probably thought of that but concluded that the one person on the train can deal with it. You guys would know that better than I..
She who has no signature! cinscocom-tmw
I've run a lot of one man trains, I never had a problem , never broke a knuckle (yet) . I did have hoses come apart so I just cut in the remote and ran the train remote control. I only had to walk in one direction. I suppose if I got a broken knuckle I'd use the remote too. If there were a bridge or something I would probably sit there until help came.
I never really liked or disliked our one mad crews. I never thought that it was unsafe as much as inconvenient.
seppburgh2 The major airlines announced the co-pilot is a redundant job position thanks to advanced cockpit automation. Starting in 2015, expect to see the introduction of one man flight crews on modern jet aircrafts for major traffic routes using a new centralized air-traffic control system being introduced this fall. The FAA is rolling out a centralized Super Air Traffic Controller position to oversee these one man flights via inward/outward facing cameras along with links between the Super Air Traffic Controller's ground based workstation and the aircraft. Additionally, the plane's Central Processing Units will link to the workstation proving consent instrument monitoring. Voice communication will continue via existing radio communication systems. Super Air Traffic Controllers will start with managing 1 to 2 flights and the projection is one Super Air Traffic Controller managing all flights in a given route. With future advances in technology, the goal is to remove the human factor in flying by turning the Super Air Traffic Controller's supervision duties over to high-speed supercomputers. Thus achieving a single point of blame. Traditional Air Traffic Controllers are required to apply for the new Super Air Traffic Controller positions, those not selected will face permanent layoffs. Experience with X-Box One and PS-4 controllers is mandatory. Plans call for implementing one man crew on the New York to LAX , LAX to Huston, and Huston to New York as proof-of-concept. This loop route approach provides for easier system tuning and real world experience interacting with normal heavy (two man flight crew) air traffic. The cabin Stewards will receive 20 hours of flight simulation training as a contingency should they need to take over for a disabled pilot. The Super Air Traffic Controller will talk the plan down in the event of a pilot emergency. However, future plans call for replacing cabin Stewards with vending machines as a cost saving move. The FAA expects advances in pilotless drone control will allow a Super Air Traffic Controller, or high speed supercomputers when implemented, to safely land the plane remotely thus making the cabin Stewards fully obsolete. Airlines expects migrating their heavily used trunk lines to one man flight crews by 2024. Short hop turbo-prop flights will continue with two man crews. There is no positive ROI to heavily invest in the required technology for these low volume routes and aircrafts. So, if the air lines and the FAA can implement one-man crews for the safest form of transportation in the world, than old fashion railroads can step up to 21th Century style command and control management systems.
Having been seriously involved in aviation for over thirty years, all I can say is "Thanks for the laugh".
Norm
seppburgh2 The major airlines announced the co-pilot is a redundant job position thanks to advanced cockpit automation...
The major airlines announced the co-pilot is a redundant job position thanks to advanced cockpit automation...
You left out the part where support will come from drone railroad trains.
seppburgh2 I see this all the time in IT, just because it is on the PowerPoint makes is so. Until the poor guy in the cab is sitting there in the dark, in the rain, in the the middle of a long bridge without a walk way about 200 feet in the air.
How is 1 poor guy different from 2 or more poor guys in the middle of a long bridge without a walk way about 200 feet in the air?
Patrick Boylan
Free yacht rides, 27' sailboat, zip code 19114 Delaware River, get great Delair bridge photos from the river. Send me a private message
BNSF, labor union reach tentative deal to allow train operations with 1 employee The McClatchy Tribune (Online) By Curtis Tate July 18, 2014 One of the largest U.S. railroads and one of the largest labor organizations representing railroad workers have reached a tentative agreement to allow one person to operate a train on routes protected by a new collision-avoidance system required by Congress in 2008. A BNSF Railway spokeswoman confirmed the agreeement with the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers. If ratified by union members, it would cover 60 percent of the BNSF system. Under the agreement, a sole engineer would operate most trains with the support of a remotely based "master conductor" on routes equipped with Positive Train Control. The agreement was first reported Thursday by Railway Age, a trade publication. The union represents roughly 3,000 BNSF employees in far-flung locations from the Upper Midwest to the Gulf Coast to the Pacific Northwest. Some of the cities include Fort Worth, Texas; Kansas City and St. Louis, Mo.; and Tacoma, Seattle, Spokane and Pasco, Wash. Roxanne Butler, a spokeswoman for BNSF, based in Fort Worth, Texas, said the agreement would not apply to trains carrying large volumes of hazardous materials, including crude oil and ethanol. BNSF, which blankets the western two-thirds of the U.S., is the largest hauler of crude oil by rail in North America. A Federal Railroad Administration emergency order last August required a minimum of two employees for such trains. Last July, an unattended crude oil train broke loose and rolled down a hill, derailing in the center of Lac-Megantic, Quebec, and igniting massive fires and explosions that killed 47 people. A sole engineer was in charge of the train. The Transporation Safety Board of Canada has yet to release its findings on the causes of the disaster. Congress required the installation of Positive Train Control following a head-on collision between a Metrolink commuter train and a Union Pacific freight train near Chatsworth, Calif., in August 2008. The accident killed 25 people, including the train's engineer, who had been texting at the time of the crash and may have missed a stop signal, according to the accident report from the National Transportation Safety Board. PTC could have stopped the commuter train before it crossed into the path of the freight train. It also could have avoided a December derailment of a Metro-North commuter train near Spuyten Duyvil, N.Y. Four people were killed and dozens more were injured when the train entered a 30 mph curve at 82 mph and jumped the track. However, PTC likely would not have stopped last year's deadly crash in Quebec. Most freight trains in the U.S. currently operate with at least two crew members. The reduction in crew size has allowed railroads to dramatically reduce their labor costs. As recently as the 1970s, many states required five or six employees to operate every train. Amtrak and most commuter railroads typically have only one person at the controls. After the Quebec crash, some members of Congress introduced legislation to require at least two employees to operate every train. In April, Federal Railroad Administration proposed a rule to establish a minimum crew size for most passenger and freight trains. "Ensuring that trains are adequately staffed for the type of service operated is critically important to ensure safety redundancy," said FRA Administrator Joseph Szabo in April.
One of the largest U.S. railroads and one of the largest labor organizations representing railroad workers have reached a tentative agreement to allow one person to operate a train on routes protected by a new collision-avoidance system required by Congress in 2008.
A BNSF Railway spokeswoman confirmed the agreeement with the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers. If ratified by union members, it would cover 60 percent of the BNSF system.
Under the agreement, a sole engineer would operate most trains with the support of a remotely based "master conductor" on routes equipped with Positive Train Control.
The agreement was first reported Thursday by Railway Age, a trade publication.
The union represents roughly 3,000 BNSF employees in far-flung locations from the Upper Midwest to the Gulf Coast to the Pacific Northwest. Some of the cities include Fort Worth, Texas; Kansas City and St. Louis, Mo.; and Tacoma, Seattle, Spokane and Pasco, Wash.
Roxanne Butler, a spokeswoman for BNSF, based in Fort Worth, Texas, said the agreement would not apply to trains carrying large volumes of hazardous materials, including crude oil and ethanol.
BNSF, which blankets the western two-thirds of the U.S., is the largest hauler of crude oil by rail in North America.
A Federal Railroad Administration emergency order last August required a minimum of two employees for such trains. Last July, an unattended crude oil train broke loose and rolled down a hill, derailing in the center of Lac-Megantic, Quebec, and igniting massive fires and explosions that killed 47 people. A sole engineer was in charge of the train.
The Transporation Safety Board of Canada has yet to release its findings on the causes of the disaster.
Congress required the installation of Positive Train Control following a head-on collision between a Metrolink commuter train and a Union Pacific freight train near Chatsworth, Calif., in August 2008.
The accident killed 25 people, including the train's engineer, who had been texting at the time of the crash and may have missed a stop signal, according to the accident report from the National Transportation Safety Board.
PTC could have stopped the commuter train before it crossed into the path of the freight train. It also could have avoided a December derailment of a Metro-North commuter train near Spuyten Duyvil, N.Y. Four people were killed and dozens more were injured when the train entered a 30 mph curve at 82 mph and jumped the track.
However, PTC likely would not have stopped last year's deadly crash in Quebec.
Most freight trains in the U.S. currently operate with at least two crew members. The reduction in crew size has allowed railroads to dramatically reduce their labor costs. As recently as the 1970s, many states required five or six employees to operate every train.
Amtrak and most commuter railroads typically have only one person at the controls.
After the Quebec crash, some members of Congress introduced legislation to require at least two employees to operate every train. In April, Federal Railroad Administration proposed a rule to establish a minimum crew size for most passenger and freight trains.
"Ensuring that trains are adequately staffed for the type of service operated is critically important to ensure safety redundancy," said FRA Administrator Joseph Szabo in April.
Exactly what operating crew members does this Union cover? I don't recognize it as a part of either the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers (BLE) or the United Transportation Union (UTU) which are the main unions for Engineers and Conductors.
I have questions about this part quoted from the article:
“It provides that where a conductor no longer is in the cab of a PTC-equipped through freight train, supervision by the conductor of the engineer and train operation is to be accomplished by remote means—which, someday, could include aerial drones with cameras, according to a side-letter accompanying the tentative agreement.”
Where would the conductor be located while supervising the engineer? I can imagine lots of cameras on-board the train to see ahead, behind, alongside, and the engineer in the cab. The mention of drones sounds like the conductor would be shadowing the train with an independent flying camera drone. So the drone might buzz up a mile ahead and check the way, then go back and look into the cab windshield to have a face to face talk with the engineer.
As I had mentioned before, PTC will never be finished, but always a work in progress leading to automation in details undreamed of a few years ago. Also never finished will be the staggering cost of this endless quest for technology. Somehow, I can see BNSF leading the way as seems to be indicated by this latest development.
My random thoughts on this (which may be somewhat inconsistent):
zugmann schlimm [From the article linked in the Original Post - PDN]: "No evidence has surfaced that a second person in the locomotive cab contributes to a more-safe operation, while evidence exists that the second person in the cab can cause a safety hazard." Who said that? They are full of crap.
schlimm [From the article linked in the Original Post - PDN]: "No evidence has surfaced that a second person in the locomotive cab contributes to a more-safe operation, while evidence exists that the second person in the cab can cause a safety hazard."
Interesting how this came from BNSF - essentially a privately-owned railroad, with a much closer management team and lot more freedom from short-term shareholder stock price myopia - than from any of the publicly-owned railroads.
However, this reeks of amateurish "BS-BS" = "Business School BoguS" (or a similar expression . . . ). Why do I say that ? It picks on a too-obvious target for such 'grandstand' plays, without addressing the much bigger underlying problems that have been the subject of some other recent threads here (i.e., Jeff's "Just Another Day on the Railroad", blue steak 1's "RR 2014 Capacity Expansion Limitations ?", etc.). Whatever the potential savings from this - and it's capped at the cost of the traditional conductor, minus all of the other costs that will have to be incurred to implement it - those benefits pale compared to what could be achieved by other but harder and less visible or 'glamorous' changes, such as improving train velocity (both locally and system-wide), for example. What happened when UP increased (or decreased) its system-wide average train velocity by just 10% (2 MPH, from 20 to 22 or vice-versa) a few years back ? Hundreds of locomotives and crews were needed and called back to cover that shortfall. Much the same is happening now, with the traffic boom. Again - are the revenue vs. cost accounting systems robust and acccurate enough to capture and enable accurate analysis of the data to make a fully informed decision about all this ?
Perhaps that's why BNSF can afford to be so generous with the compensation and guarantees - they have no doubt that they'll have positions for the displaced conductors. But what about the on-the-job training function, and qualifying on / getting to know the territory ? How will that be accomplished - this has been an indirect way of accomplishing that.
I believe the all-in costs for a conductor are in the $70 per hour range - but I've posted before that each train can earn gross revenue / is worth from a rough range of $3,000 per hour (coal) to $10,000 per hour (UPS intermodal). Delay a coal train much more than a minute an hour during it's trip, and those conductor savings are gone (6% interest alone on a $25 million coal train is $170 an hour) . . . Even anti-labor John Kneiling - who advocated 1-man trains, too - recognized that the labor costs are 'chump change', and that the real money is in the capital equipment costs and additional revenue traffic to be gained, not in the "head-hunting" / cost-saving mode. I still haven't seen or heard of the person with the guts and fortitude to say "I'm going to straighten out interchange and other operations in Chicago and make it run better !"
Broken knuckles are just an easy example. Parted hoses are easier, broken drawbars far worse (and rarer, thankfully). But what about grade crossing accidents, dead or dying locomotives, hot bearings, stuck brakes, flat or overloaded wheels, dragging equipment, shifted loads, and other defects found by the detectors, rocks and trees on the track, washouts, etc. etc. ? And having to hand-throw switches when the power is out or to get into a siding or reverse-direction crossover to get around another crippled train ahead ?
An honest analysis will recognize that a change to this type of operation will have the effect of placing a added value premium on the inspection and preventative maintenance of equipment (both cars and locos - see Jeff's thread !) and wayside detection systems, to further minimize train delays from those causes. Likewise, broken knuckles don't happen on cars that are drawbar-connected (intermodal), except at the ends. A rational analysis to minimize the risk of such broken knuckles will result in more drawbar-connected fleets such hopper cars in unit train service - though perhaps with rotary ends for dumping, or else bottom-dump equipment, etc. - and other equipment upgrades such as more DPU operations, ECP brakes, more hot bearing monitors, etc. Again, will the accounting be 'smart' enough to recognize the added costs of theses ancillary improvements and deduct them from the alleged conductor-reduction savings ?
Where this might stand the best chance of being worthwhile is not a single-track branch through the countryside, but a densely trafficked multiple-track main line, or one with an access road along most of it. (Keep in mind that FRA track safety standards strongly encourage building new main lines at 25 ft. center-to-center distances, for MOW work to continue while trains are passing, which leaves the right amount of room for a service road in between.) For example, the 1-man crew ( )of a passing train on another track could help move the knuckle and make the repairs, without having to move the crippled train at all except to re-make the joint.
In such conditions, where trains are running on 'streetcar headways' - think of that 4-track Powder River Basin main line, or UP's main line across Nebraska - the result might be a "utility man" with truck on duty every 20 miles or so 24 x 7. That might indeed be cheaper and provide faster responses than the 5 to 15 +/- conductors that would otherwise be on the trains on the 3 - 4 multiple tracks within the 20-mile territory (say, 5 mile train spacing typical). Also, it might be worthwhile to equip those persons with mechanical exo-skeletons (see the closing scenes of the original Alien movie) to make it easier for them to lift and cope with heavy car parts.
How can the conductor be in charge of the train when he/ she isn't even on it any more ? Aren't the "Super Conductors" then going to be in effect "junior" dispatchers, monitoring several trains, calling crews, etc. ?
What is the hierarchy/ job progression going to be then ? Presently a new hire becomes a conductor, then gets "promoted" to engineer, but is no longer in charge of the train. From which ranks - and with what qualifications - are the "Super Conductors" going to be taken - the engineers, or conductors ? If the former, I can see it now: "Railroads go to Remote Control Operation due to Shortage of Engineers".
That's all for now (1-1/2 hours later . . . ).
- Paul North.
I recall much the same vein of thoughts prior to Aug. 30, 1985:
"Our position is that the fireman craft should be continued because engineers come from the ranks of firemen, and there is a need for trained firemen at all times in relief and emergency situations."
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
I don't understand how you save money by taking the conductor off of the train and putting him to work somewhere else. What difference does it make whether his chair is moving or standing still?
I think the number of "Super Conductors" will be far less than the current, with attrition.
Oh, so maybe the "Super Conductor" will be conducting several trains at once. Maybe one day we will also have "Super Engineers."
Paul_D_North_JrEven anti-labor John Kneiling - who advocated 1-man trains, too - recognized that the labor costs are 'chump change'
Hardly. [Assuming safe, efficient operations are possible without conductors in the on board crews]
In the Norfolk Southern 2013 Annual Report, you can see that of total operating expenses, $7988 million, compensation and benefits was $3,002 million, or 37.6%. With an average wage cost per employee of $72,000 plus benefit costs of another $40,000 ($112K), it doesn't take an MBA, an accountant or more than the ability to do 4th grade arithmetic to see that labor costs remain the single largest category. NS employed 30,103 for that period. If you could eliminate only 1000 conductors (probably more) over time through attrition, promotion to engineer, etc., that would represent a savings of ~$100 million in today's dollars.
schlimm [snipped - PDN] . . . If you could eliminate only 1000 conductors (probably more) over time through attrition, promotion to engineer, etc., that would represent a savings of ~$100 million in today's dollars.
Also, the $100 million is only the 'gross savings' side, and does not reflect / deduct any of the added costs (or lost opportunities, etc.) that will be necessary to accomplish that or that will result from it, and still maintain the same levels of safety, service, etc.
I see more opportunities to do better financially elsewhere - i.e., more efficient operations, greater volume of revenue traffic, etc. I stand by my (and John's) "chump change" assertion (OK - that's my phrase, not his as best as I recall; but he did note that locomotive engineers could be paid much more handsomely without aversely affecting the economics of his proposed Integral Train Systems).
PDN has spoken well.
The more traffic on any route especially single track the more a conductor will be needed. If a route has one train every 6 hours delays on the route would only be due to that one train's break down. Take a route with 48 trains a day any delay of a train quickly cascades to following trains and if in a single track section grid lock until problem fixed. An example is short lines with one engineer. But if carrying HAZ MAT ------
BaltACD BNSF, labor union reach tentative deal to allow train operations with 1 employee The McClatchy Tribune (Online) By Curtis Tate July 18, 2014 One of the largest U.S. railroads and one of the largest labor organizations representing railroad workers have reached a tentative agreement to allow one person to operate a train on routes protected by a new collision-avoidance system required by Congress in 2008. A BNSF Railway spokeswoman confirmed the agreeement with the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers. If ratified by union members, it would cover 60 percent of the BNSF system. Under the agreement, a sole engineer would operate most trains with the support of a remotely based "master conductor" on routes equipped with Positive Train Control. The agreement was first reported Thursday by Railway Age, a trade publication. The union represents roughly 3,000 BNSF employees in far-flung locations from the Upper Midwest to the Gulf Coast to the Pacific Northwest. Some of the cities include Fort Worth, Texas; Kansas City and St. Louis, Mo.; and Tacoma, Seattle, Spokane and Pasco, Wash. Roxanne Butler, a spokeswoman for BNSF, based in Fort Worth, Texas, said the agreement would not apply to trains carrying large volumes of hazardous materials, including crude oil and ethanol. BNSF, which blankets the western two-thirds of the U.S., is the largest hauler of crude oil by rail in North America. A Federal Railroad Administration emergency order last August required a minimum of two employees for such trains. Last July, an unattended crude oil train broke loose and rolled down a hill, derailing in the center of Lac-Megantic, Quebec, and igniting massive fires and explosions that killed 47 people. A sole engineer was in charge of the train. The Transporation Safety Board of Canada has yet to release its findings on the causes of the disaster. Congress required the installation of Positive Train Control following a head-on collision between a Metrolink commuter train and a Union Pacific freight train near Chatsworth, Calif., in August 2008. The accident killed 25 people, including the train's engineer, who had been texting at the time of the crash and may have missed a stop signal, according to the accident report from the National Transportation Safety Board. PTC could have stopped the commuter train before it crossed into the path of the freight train. It also could have avoided a December derailment of a Metro-North commuter train near Spuyten Duyvil, N.Y. Four people were killed and dozens more were injured when the train entered a 30 mph curve at 82 mph and jumped the track. However, PTC likely would not have stopped last year's deadly crash in Quebec. Most freight trains in the U.S. currently operate with at least two crew members. The reduction in crew size has allowed railroads to dramatically reduce their labor costs. As recently as the 1970s, many states required five or six employees to operate every train. Amtrak and most commuter railroads typically have only one person at the controls. After the Quebec crash, some members of Congress introduced legislation to require at least two employees to operate every train. In April, Federal Railroad Administration proposed a rule to establish a minimum crew size for most passenger and freight trains. "Ensuring that trains are adequately staffed for the type of service operated is critically important to ensure safety redundancy," said FRA Administrator Joseph Szabo in April. Exactly what operating crew members does this Union cover? I don't recognize it as a part of either the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers (BLE) or the United Transportation Union (UTU) which are the main unions for Engineers and Conductors.
The UTU is now part of SMART.
jeffhergert BaltACD Exactly what operating crew members does this Union cover? I don't recognize it as a part of either the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers (BLE) or the United Transportation Union (UTU) which are the main unions for Engineers and Conductors. The UTU is now part of SMART. Jeff
BaltACD Exactly what operating crew members does this Union cover? I don't recognize it as a part of either the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers (BLE) or the United Transportation Union (UTU) which are the main unions for Engineers and Conductors.
Thanks - wasn't aware of the merger.
And, I wonder: what do sheet metal workers have to do with transportation?
Johnny
Deggesty And, I wonder: what do sheet metal workers have to do with transportation?
Well, I used to bend aluminum and rivet it on airplanes.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.