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
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
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.
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
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.
Charlie
Chilliwack, BC
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!
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''.
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.
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.
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?
Paul North:Great summary and explanation. Thanks for the 90 minutes.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
Well, I used to bend aluminum and rivet it on airplanes.
Norm
Johnny
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.
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.
Thanks - wasn't aware of the merger.
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.
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.
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 ------
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).
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.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Oh, so maybe the "Super Conductor" will be conducting several trains at once. Maybe one day we will also have "Super Engineers."
I think the number of "Super Conductors" will be far less than the current, with attrition.
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 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."
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 . . . ).
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.