Trains.com

Good bye, conductors?

21782 views
193 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Wednesday, July 23, 2014 7:43 AM

BaltACD

Lac Megantic did so well with a single person crew.

How many derailments, collisions, etc. on the Big 6 would have been prevented with a 2-man crew onboard? 

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Wednesday, July 23, 2014 7:23 AM

BaltACD

Lac Megantic did so well with a single person crew.

I don’t see how the Lac Megantic wreck proves that a one-person crew is unsafe, unless you are saying that a second person is needed in case the first person intentionally violates a rule.  I have never heard that claimed as a justification for larger crews. 

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Wednesday, July 23, 2014 6:24 AM

Lac Megantic did so well with a single person crew.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    July 2008
  • From: Southeast Missouri
  • 573 posts
Posted by The Butler on Wednesday, July 23, 2014 4:34 AM

A message from President John Previsich, SMART Transportation Division:

"... the only safe and secure operation of any train includes a minimum of two people on each and every crew."


Safe, secure rail operations require two-person crews



James


  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: My Old Kentucky Home
  • 599 posts
Posted by mackb4 on Tuesday, July 22, 2014 10:33 PM

  That's why their all "former" UTU union bosses,because they keep selling out the "other" union representing the Engineer's and loosing rank and file dues paying members.They are simply flashing money in front of people to reduce crew numbers .

 I can't understand how they as union representatives can justify even going along with this idea.It's unsafe !

  There's a whole lot of advanced technology evolved here that as mentioned,is unproven and simply to much to accept in a time frame the carriers are going about it,in my opinion Hmm 

 

Collin ,operator of the " Eastern Kentucky & Ohio R.R."

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Tuesday, July 22, 2014 10:01 PM

Look,I simply posted the article because it is an important event.  I thought it would be important for railroad employees to be informed of the agreement.   But apparently not.  Here's what another veteran union official said:

Former United Transportation Union International President Paul C. Thompson expresses his support for the tentative agreement on one-person train crews reached by BNSF Railway and SMART General Committee 001:

“I have had the pleasure of reading the proposed Crew Consist Agreement and Wage and Rule Settlement recently negotiated on a large portion of BNSF Railway. Both of you along with the various Assistant and Associate Chairpersons are to be congratulated on an agreement that goes beyond any protection agreement that I have observed.

“Over the past several years there has been an outpouring from numerous groups, including our Legislative Department, promoting Positive Train Control (PTC). The BNSF has taken the lead in installing this equipment on many of its territories. Instead of waiting and then having to be reactive in trying to salvage any damage that could come from this new technology, each of you has been very proactive and addressed the situation head-on in order to protect the membership you represent. That is true leadership that is hard to find in this day and age.

“I recognize that in addition to supporting PTC, our union is also trying to obtain legislation for a minimum of a two-person crew. This fact in and of itself recognizes that with PTC comes a serious threat to the possibility of losses to SMART-represented jobs. While everyone hopes to see such legislation, the fact remains that with the current Congress and the action of our government in Washington, D.C., nothing is getting addressed, let alone anything that would be of favor to working families.

“Each of you has been successful in negotiating the better of two worlds. Should legislation pass for the requirement of two-person crews, in Article VII, your Agreement provides for a Snap-Back back to your original Agreements. That is covering all bases.

“We all do not like changes, but such will always come about. It wasn't that long ago that each train crew had 5 and sometimes 6 crewmembers along with a caboose. First the railroads went after the firemen's craft, and through legislation the carriers were successful in eliminating all firemen with less than 10 years seniority. I was one of those firemen and realized then that you cannot count on legislation to protect your jobs. Then came the first generation of crew consist [agreements] followed by second, third, and sometime fourth generation of crew consists, all with the intent of the carriers eliminating more crews. This was followed by first eliminating the cabooses, thus placing the rear brakeman and conductor on the head end. Again, the carriers took advantage of this situation to eliminate more positions.

“Don’t think for a minute that the carriers are not looking down the road to take the same advantage of PTC technology. You each have seen the future and rightfully have jumped ahead of the game for the benefit of our membership.

“No doubt there will be those that criticize your efforts, but what are their options? You have eliminated all entry rates, provided protection for all your current ground service employees, obtained a Scope Rule for the future and restored jobs that had been previously lost, and provided a Snap-Back if two-person crews are legislated. You each have not only hit a home run, you have hit a grand slam.

“I am very proud of each of you, for your willingness to do what is right for SMART members, and while there will be changes to some jobs, they will belong to SMART employees with full protection.”

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: My Old Kentucky Home
  • 599 posts
Posted by mackb4 on Tuesday, July 22, 2014 7:08 PM

As far as the quote about evidence proving a two man crew is no safer than a one man crew.....prove your quote with facts.

 I've worked in the industry for almost 25 years and think that's one of the most unsupported comments I've ever seen about the topic   Confused

Collin ,operator of the " Eastern Kentucky & Ohio R.R."

  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: US
  • 71 posts
Posted by Valleyline on Tuesday, July 22, 2014 5:14 PM

schlimm

"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."

Perhaps the strongest evidence supporting  two person crews is the burned out center of Megantic, Quebec and 50 graves......how soon we forget.

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 11,919 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Tuesday, July 22, 2014 2:26 PM

BaltACD

  The systems necessary to support interoperatable PTC will contain millions of lines of code written by hundreds, if not thousands, of programmers that have thousands of decision points - what is the likelyhood that ALL the decisions are correct?

Remember - at this point in time - PTC IS NOT a 'fully debugged' production product.

 
As well even trains ( Kalmbach )  cannot get their web sites working properly ?
  • Member since
    July 2010
  • From: Louisiana
  • 2,310 posts
Posted by Paul of Covington on Tuesday, July 22, 2014 2:17 PM

   Thing is--superconductors require super-cold temperatures to work.

_____________ 

  "A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Tuesday, July 22, 2014 12:36 PM

One thing to remember about ANY computer system - the code is written by individuals that wouldn't know a transportation device if it hit them.  While the designers MAY have all the proper qualifications for the system an MAY be able to correctly answer all the decision points that are anticipated - the coding programmer and his code MAY develop additional decision points that the programmer will supply the answers which MAY not be what the designer intended.  The systems necessary to support interoperatable PTC will contain millions of lines of code written by hundreds, if not thousands, of programmers that have thousands of decision points - what is the likelyhood that ALL the decisions are correct?

Remember - at this point in time - PTC IS NOT a 'fully debugged' production product.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: My Old Kentucky Home
  • 599 posts
Posted by mackb4 on Tuesday, July 22, 2014 6:36 AM

  I've ran a train for over 20 years now and can't understand  why anyone would think running one man crews with a desk job conductor is the right way to run a railroad ? 

 Why do airlines,even with all the fancy auto pilots and such,still have a pilot and a co-pilot ? To watch over each other.

  I know some will say apples and oranges,but planes carry a few hundred people,I run trains thru towns with thousands of people,and with anything mechanical or electronic,it can break and malfunction .

  The FRA has never took a stand towards accepting one man crews as the absolute standard of the industry and in light of everything happening  lately the rest of the country won't either .

  Everyone please remember,were not talking model trains that on person can run a layout,were talking thousands of tons going thru towns with many lives at hand.

 I could almost say that the FRA will never get on board with this one My 2 Cents

Collin ,operator of the " Eastern Kentucky & Ohio R.R."

  • Member since
    May 2004
  • From: Valparaiso, In
  • 5,921 posts
Posted by MP173 on Tuesday, July 22, 2014 5:42 AM

Paul North:

That is a great article.  I recall when Railway Man linked us to that.

Where is RM these days?  Sure miss his insight and knowledge.

Ed 

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,096 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Tuesday, July 22, 2014 3:10 AM

Or where road accessibility doesn't exist, by Helicopter.   So yes, look up, it's a SUPECONDUCTOR!!!

  • Member since
    June 2001
  • From: US
  • 13,488 posts
Posted by Mookie on Monday, July 21, 2014 10:30 PM

Euclid

I think this discussion getting way beyond the scope of the original linked article.  It says nothing about using drones to replace knuckles.  If anything, it suggests that Super Conductor will replace the knuckles the old fashioned way. 

All I see in the article is the same old push for crew size reduction all dressed up in a new justification called PTC.  The remark about drones is just a throwaway comment to help paint a picture of automation being a panacea.  The actual “drone” will be Super Conductor driving a pickup truck. 

Until I hear something really convincing, I have to agree with at least the part about PTC.  I am not edjumacated enough to actually decide on drones and even super conductors that come w/o a plug.   

She who has no signature! cinscocom-tmw

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 11,919 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Monday, July 21, 2014 10:13 PM

Paul_D_North_Jr

Short version: Apparently each plane's navigation system followed the designated air route - though in opposite directions - so well that they guided the planes right into each other !

- Paul North.

 
Yes:: GPS  can lead you into mistakes unless you think. The pilots  of our airline  noted aircraft flying directly over us in non radar environment.  We even experienced wake turbulence when other  aircraft went over.  We then started operating about 2000 feet to the right of the airway.  This is also the way ships using GPS also operate.  Note:  The FAA has never approved such a procedure.  Traffic collision avoidance systems have for the most part eliminated the problem for transponder equipped aircraft..  However there was a collision between a Russian transport and a TCAS airplane somewhere in the far east because Russian transponders did not operate under the proper protocol.  Believe that has been corrected.  
 
  • Member since
    October 2006
  • From: Allentown, PA
  • 9,810 posts
Posted by Paul_D_North_Jr on Monday, July 21, 2014 8:20 PM

erikem
Can't resist comparing this to crewing arrangements on airliners, where two has been the minimum since the early 1920's (a few exceptions such as the Ford Tri-motor).  Small cargo planes can fly with one pilot, but weight limit for such operations is typically 12,500 lb gross takeoff weight.

Having two people in the cockpit doesn't always improve safety (cough) Air France crash over the Atlantic (cough).

-  Erik

Sometimes all it takes is one computer (or GPS navigation system).  See:

"The Devil at 37,000 Feet" by William Langewiesche, Vanity Fair, January 2009 edition, at:

http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/2009/01/air_crash200901 

Credit Railway Man for tipping us off to this story about 3 -4 years ago.

Short version: Apparently each plane's navigation system followed the designated air route - though in opposite directions - so well that they guided the planes right into each other !

- Paul North.

"This Fascinating Railroad Business" (title of 1943 book by Robert Selph Henry of the AAR)
  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Monday, July 21, 2014 2:18 PM

blue streak 1

Something we need to consider.  If no conductor trains are run how much would that reduce track capacity ?  20 - 35 % ?.  It certainly will reduce capacity.  That would mean CSX & NS would both need to add a track into Chicago ?I  Of course they probably already need to add a track ?  What is the ROI of adding a track  compared to loosing a conductor ? 

Might increase capacity having more personnel on the ground at key locations....

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Monday, July 21, 2014 2:16 PM

gardendance

We're onto the 8th page, I think I've shown incredible fortitude in the face of incredible temptation, but can no longer resist:

"Look, up in the sky"

"It's a bird"

"It's a plane"

"No, it's super conductor"

You shouldn't have (held out so long)!

I laughed.

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Monday, July 21, 2014 12:57 PM

I think this discussion getting way beyond the scope of the original linked article.  It says nothing about using drones to replace knuckles.  If anything, it suggests that Super Conductor will replace the knuckles the old fashioned way. 

All I see in the article is the same old push for crew size reduction all dressed up in a new justification called PTC.  The remark about drones is just a throwaway comment to help paint a picture of automation being a panacea.  The actual “drone” will be Super Conductor driving a pickup truck. 

  • Member since
    June 2001
  • From: US
  • 13,488 posts
Posted by Mookie on Monday, July 21, 2014 12:45 PM

Re: repair drones...would they be able to manuever on ballast? 

She who has no signature! cinscocom-tmw

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Monday, July 21, 2014 12:16 PM

blue streak 1
Something we need to consider.  If no conductor trains are run how much would that reduce track capacity ?  20 - 35 % ?.  It certainly will reduce capacity. 

Why would it reduce track capacity?

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 11,919 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Monday, July 21, 2014 12:02 PM

Something we need to consider.  If no conductor trains are run how much would that reduce track capacity ?  20 - 35 % ?.  It certainly will reduce capacity.  That would mean CSX & NS would both need to add a track into Chicago ?I  Of course they probably already need to add a track ?  What is the ROI of adding a track  compared to loosing a conductor ? 

  • Member since
    August 2005
  • 964 posts
Posted by gardendance on Monday, July 21, 2014 11:53 AM

We're onto the 8th page, I think I've shown incredible fortitude in the face of incredible temptation, but can no longer resist:

"Look, up in the sky"

"It's a bird"

"It's a plane"

"No, it's super conductor"

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

  • Member since
    November 2003
  • From: Rhode Island
  • 2,289 posts
Posted by carnej1 on Monday, July 21, 2014 11:27 AM

tomikawaTT

Deggesty

BaltACD

Drones fixing a broken knuckle or stuck brakes - interesting concept!

Drones certainly are versatile, aren't they?

Just equip the drone with an on-board repair robot.  Hey, if they can rig a small tracked vehicle with an arm to de-fuse IEDs, it should be able to swap out knuckles.

Alternatively, the repair robot could be carried on the train, along with a full spectrum of minor repair parts...

Chuck

While there might be a robotic system testing in a lab somewhere that is that dexterous the IED disposal robots in the field currently can't defuse devices.

 They are used to uncover/excavate suspected bombs and then can destroy the devices either by placing a small explosive charge next to them or shooting them with a shotgun-like device called a disruptor. The old "cut-the -red -wire" stuff still has to be done by humans.

However ,given that robots are being used on a regular basis for micro surgery I'm sure it won't be that long until a knuckle coupler changing robot is practical.

I don't think however, that a autonomous or remotely operated system that can address all the mechanical issues a train can experience in the greatly varying climatic and terrain conditions in modern railroading  as quickly and efficiently as a well trained H. Sapien can is going to happen any time soon...

"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock

  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Monday, July 21, 2014 11:10 AM

jeffhergert
The position of conductor will become, in reality, a utility person.  Also maybe a van driver?  I think the idea of one U-man every 20 miles is overly optimistic.  If we're lucky, maybe every 50 miles.  I would bet 75 or more would be realistic.  No matter, there will be times when one U-man is too many and five aren't enough.  Between the busy and slack days, the bean counters will only look at the days nothing much happens and want to cut jobs and lengthen the distance each must cover.

This sounds about right to me. 

You point out a problem that gets too little consideration.  Nobody really has examined the impact of all the random failures have on network performance.  All those things that occur everyday, somewhere, that are take for granted as "normal railroading".  Setting out bad orders, broken rails, signal failures...etc.  They all take a toll on line capacity, network velocity, and on time performance, but nobody knows the relationship in numeric terms.

If we knew this, the we could figure out how much manpower needs to be where in order to get the best value from the rail network.  It probably would vary a great deal from line to line based on the volume and value of the traffic.  

But we don't.  So we painfully stumble our way forward - and sometime backward.

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Monday, July 21, 2014 11:01 AM

Paul_D_North_Jr
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 !"       

Yes.  Equipment costs, including ownership, best labor costs such that faster = cheaper.  (Faster being car velocity moreso than train speed...)

There are lots of people who have the guts to say "Lets make (fill in the blank) work better".  There aren't many people who a) really mean it b) have the power to do it c) have an idea of how to do it.

If you want to hear some frustrated folk rant, talk to the guys who have to do the interline service design!

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    January 2003
  • From: Kenosha, WI
  • 6,567 posts
Posted by zardoz on Monday, July 21, 2014 11:01 AM

jeffhergert

Also, it isn't (at least yet) the end of conductors on trains without PTC.  I imagine most main lines will have it, most secondary lines may not.  At least not for some time.

Jeff

And just think of the fun when (not if) hackers learn how to penetrate the PTC system. If you don't think that will happen, consider the epidemic of airline pilots being blinded by laser light .http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/12/us/pilots-laser-attacks/

Yes, there are people that get their rocks off on behaving subhuman.

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 11,919 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Monday, July 21, 2014 9:49 AM

Norm48327

Erik,

Air France 447 and Asiana 214 were both cases of over-dependence on automation and lack of proper training. There always comes the day when human intervention becomes necessary and training is paramount. That begs the question of an engineer who does not fully understand the systems and lets the computer get him into trouble.

 
  Even depending on not having computers can have a result not good.  Remember years ago a precursor of the Asiana accident at SFO happened with a Japan Airlines DC-8.  No one hurt then as aircraft landed more short into SFO bay and passengers walked onto wings and waded thru shallow water.  It is a matter of cockpit  ( loco cab ) culture IMO.  When instructing we had difficulty with pilots from certain regions allowing another pilot to get you in trouble.  Also not understanding how systems worked.
 
 
  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Southeast Michigan
  • 2,983 posts
Posted by Norm48327 on Monday, July 21, 2014 6:25 AM

Erik,

Air France 447 and Asiana 214 were both cases of over-dependence on automation and lack of proper training. There always comes the day when human intervention becomes necessary and training is paramount. That begs the question of an engineer who does not fully understand the systems and lets the computer get him into trouble.

Norm


Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy