Some random thoughts.
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.
The compensation and protection is generous. Once the major carriers have their properties covered by similar agreements with similar protections look for them to start whittling away at those provisions in future contracts. The way the Railway Labor Act works, any dispute could be literally settled by an act of Congress if both parties can't come to an agreement. Because of that, the carriers are in a good position to get most of anything they want. The union will probably want to avoid politicians deciding the contract, especially if the majority are pro-business. (An old head once told me it didn't really matter which party was in control. The carriers usually got the better end of the stick when it went through that entire process.) That puts pressure on accepting what the companies offer, or risk losing even more. The wage rates for those working might survive, but I doubt the labor protection will be long lasting.
I would not be surprised if discipline became more severe over what have been minor things in the past. They tend to be more forgiving and lenient when people are in short supply. Harsh when people are surplus. A group sitting on reserve status, and getting paid for it, could be incentive to help attrition happen sooner rather than later.
One thing this contract might do is have the trainmen in a better position when over the road operations are completely automated. Since in most places the trainmen have rights to RCO, they will make up the trains in the yard and do any switching at an intermediate point. Should a train need attention, such as repairing a knuckle or setting out a hot box, they could do it via RC. They would drive to the train, change it from automatic operation to remote control. Do what needed to be done, then place it back in automatic operation and send it on it's way. (Should the automatic operation fail, then you would need someone who could operate the train, assuming it couldn't be fixed where it was. Maybe they will have to retain some Utility Engineers then?)
Before any of this, they have to get PTC up and running. Then more developments and refinements before automated, over the road operations. I'm sure it's coming eventually. I only hope it's 15 or 20 years down the (rail)road.
Of course, I was expecting a few years of PTC operation with conductors on board before the push for their elimination. Let everyone (employees, public and politicians) time to get "comfortable" with it. Shows what I know, I guess.
Jeff
Deggesty And, I wonder: what do sheet metal workers have to do with transportation?
And, I wonder: what do sheet metal workers have to do with transportation?
It seems for a while UTU fought the merger, or the terms of the merger.
http://utu.org/merger-updates/
“The Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association (SMWIA), a member of the AFL-CIO and the Canadian Labour Congress, is 150,000 members strong, with 2,027 working in the railroad industry…
“The SMWIA’s earliest predecessor — the Tin, Sheet Iron and Cornice Workers’ International Association — was formed in January 1888. In 1924, the SMWIA name was adopted. Railroad shop workers have always been an integral part of the union.”
jeffhergertThe compensation and protection is generous. Once the major carriers have their properties covered by similar agreements with similar protections look for them to start whittling away at those provisions in future contracts. The way the Railway Labor Act works, any dispute could be literally settled by an act of Congress if both parties can't come to an agreement. Because of that, the carriers are in a good position to get most of anything they want. The union will probably want to avoid politicians deciding the contract, especially if the majority are pro-business. (An old head once told me it didn't really matter which party was in control. The carriers usually got the better end of the stick when it went through that entire process.) That puts pressure on accepting what the companies offer, or risk losing even more. The wage rates for those working might survive, but I doubt the labor protection will be long lasting.
IMHO you have nailed it.
Incremental changes to contracts (read whittling away) provisions seems to be a way of life for management in most industries.
The way I see it management is often enough looking at short term pain for long term gain. High initial costs of implementation of a new, more efficient operating model may well become a significant bargaining point over time as the new model is phased in and assessed for its productivity and economic efficiency by those whose job it is to do so, especially those in higher management.
It's a high stakes game IMHO and the railways, especially their senior management, know it. The economics, politics and resulting optics of this strategy remain to be seen. These senior guys are smart, like it or not. I believe they are thinking long term which is what they are paid to do (read shareholder/owner value).
I will be very interested to revisit this particular thread, and others like it over the medium to long term, to see how and where this management operating strategy/change plays out.
Charlie
Chilliwack, BC
it would appear that, just as with the preoccupation with "self-driving cars/trucks" I encounter on some other sites, the "George Jetson" fantasy/mentality is becoming a bit too prevalent.
Paul North:Great summary and explanation. Thanks for the 90 minutes.
Now, a couple of questions:
1. Do you know what the total PTC investment will be?
2. What kind of yearly depreciation will that incur?
My guess is that the railroad management is saying "ok, you want this investment in regulation, then we must have an offsetting reduction in costs because the shipping public will NOT pay for this (nor should they be expected to)".
I can be tagged as a "pro business" person, but this (one man crews) is something that makes me uncomfortable. I think there are bigger fish in the pond to catch.
Ed
MP173My guess is that the railroad management is saying "ok, you want this investment in regulation, then we must have an offsetting reduction in costs because the shipping public will NOT pay for this (nor should they be expected to)". Ed
Ed,
What are you suggesting would be the means of the offsetting reduction in costs? How can the government reduce the railroads' cost of PTC?
A couple of ifs. If this turns out to be a pattern for other type agreements on other railroads, and even the rest of the BNSF. If the labor protection isn't whittled away in future contracts after every carrier has such agreements. The short term savings will be only in a somewhat reduced payroll, the labor guarantees aren't at 100% for those in reserve, and what is saved from on the job injuries that don't happen.
The savings from one person operation really won't kick in until the protected people, or the protection provision itself, is gone. (Note, protected people being gone also means being recalled to "Master Conductor" or other ground service. Not necessarily gone completely from the railroad roster.)
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.
I have no answers for offsetting the costs. That is why I am wondering what the overall cost will be and how that will be amoritized over the life of the asset.
MP173I have no answers for offsetting the costs. That is why I am wondering what the overall cost will be and how that will be amoritized over the life of the asset. Ed
In my opinion, the cost cannot be known because PTC will never be complete. It will always be a work in progress leading from one technological improvement to the next. I think that because the initial mandate is so big in scope, and the railroads' pockets are so deep; it will jump start a process that will tend to take on a life of its own.
Part of the dynamic for a work never ending is the rapid advances in technology that quickly obsoletes what preceded the advance. Another part will be the pull of all the vendors and contractors involved in the implementation. Even looking just at the mandate on the table today, there is a fair amount of R&D that must be done to even complete the design work. I don’t know if anybody has put a price on that yet. In any case, I think the PTC mandate on the table will turn into a technological highway to automation.
schlimm The issue is not about knuckle changing, as you would know if you skimmed over the agreements linked. It is the first step in major changes in labor agreements as a result of PTC. As Euclid/Bucyrus said way back, PTC and other technologies will lead to far more automation in operations. As the Dylan song paraphrased goes, "You don't need a railroader to know which way the corporate wind blows." Stormy seas ahead.
The issue is not about knuckle changing, as you would know if you skimmed over the agreements linked. It is the first step in major changes in labor agreements as a result of PTC. As Euclid/Bucyrus said way back, PTC and other technologies will lead to far more automation in operations. As the Dylan song paraphrased goes, "You don't need a railroader to know which way the corporate wind blows." Stormy seas ahead.
Seems that each time this argument comes up referencing the "Reduction of Train Crew Size" [ and it has been thrashed around here in many Threads cvver time !]
Each time it seems to ride in on the heels of "New" Technologies. In 1985 it was the elimination of The Caboose on many railroad assignments, in favor of the E.O.T. ( Or if you prefer TED or FRED; or what ever the local railroad describes it?). The Unions fought it valiantly, but without success- even some States( Arkansas, for one) got into the fray; demanding each train have a Full Crew ( 2 Rear End Hands and Two in the Cab.) Eventually, it was accepted as a Train Crew would have an Engineer and a Conductor, who was ultimately, the man in Charge on the Train.
So here we are on the cusp of the full (?) implementation of the latest technology, P.T.C or Positive Train Control. Tthe push starts for a further reduction in the on-board train crew; A single person ( Will they be called THE Conductor or THE Engineer ?)
Some short line railroads operate with a single on board crewman. And a person chasing in a pick up truck to run ahead flag crossings if needed, adjust switches, make drops and pick ups, and stop at the 7/11 for drinks or coffee(?) Cameras in the Locomotives to count coup on any vehicles that might get entangled at a crossing or trespasser strolling down the tracks while listening to their 'walkman' .
It will be intersting to see how this will ultimately shake iut, and you can bet it will be another step in the Railroad Management Game of " INCREMENTALISM" as the Unions and the Railroads battle for their piece of the 'Turf''.
With cabooses on Class 1 trains the 'nominal' delay for UDE - whatever the cause short of a derailment or something that required setting off car(s) - was in the neighborhood of 30 minutes.
Today's UDE's have a nominal delay of 1 to 2 hours, depending on the size of the train. It is not unheard of for it to take 3 and a half hours to get back on the move with a 9000 foot train.
Anything can be done - just how long do you want It to take? How much delay can you afford? Remember, the investment in a typical 100 car train is approaching $12M or more, in equipment alone exclusive of lading.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
jeffhergert A couple of ifs. If this turns out to be a pattern for other type agreements on other railroads, and even the rest of the BNSF. If the labor protection isn't whittled away in future contracts after every carrier has such agreements. The short term savings will be only in a somewhat reduced payroll, the labor guarantees aren't at 100% for those in reserve, and what is saved from on the job injuries that don't happen. The savings from one person operation really won't kick in until the protected people, or the protection provision itself, is gone. (Note, protected people being gone also means being recalled to "Master Conductor" or other ground service. Not necessarily gone completely from the railroad roster.) 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
This is part of the long term incremental process of which I spoke earlier.
It may be this process in its entirety will not happen in your active service with UP.
It's all about the long term......as has happened elsewhere in auto manufacturing.
MP173 Paul North:Great summary and explanation. Thanks for the 90 minutes. Now, a couple of questions: 1. Do you know what the total PTC investment will be? 2. What kind of yearly depreciation will that incur? My guess is that the railroad management is saying "ok, you want this investment in regulation, then we must have an offsetting reduction in costs because the shipping public will NOT pay for this (nor should they be expected to)". I can be tagged as a "pro business" person, but this (one man crews) is something that makes me uncomfortable. I think there are bigger fish in the pond to catch. Ed
I don't have those PTC figures handy ( maybe the railroads don't either ? Euclid is pretty much on the mark with this being the start of an open-ended process, IMHO).
My 'take' on railroad management motivations is not so much the offsetting of PTC costs per se, as to see what other benefits can be obtained from the massive investment and restructuring of train control that will result from PTC.
We see the same "bigger fish", I think.
Jeff Hergert's initial analysis and subsequent thoughts are very credible to me, esp. since he's in the thick of the action. I would not bet against him on any of that. Thanks for sharing.
Finally, I'm kind of surprised no one has mentioned that movie from 1968 - 2001: A Space Odyssey, and these quotes from it ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0062622/quotes ):
HAL: I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission. And I want to help you.
HAL: This mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it.
- Paul North.
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
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
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.
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
Yes, there are people that get their rocks off on behaving subhuman.
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/)
jeffhergertThe 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.
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
Deggesty BaltACD Drones fixing a broken knuckle or stuck brakes - interesting concept! Drones certainly are versatile, aren't they?
BaltACD Drones fixing a broken knuckle or stuck brakes - interesting concept!
Drones fixing a broken knuckle or stuck brakes - interesting concept!
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
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
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 ?
blue streak 1Something 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?
Re: repair drones...would they be able to manuever on ballast?
She who has no signature! cinscocom-tmw
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.
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.
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....
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
"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_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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.