One man crews: Spread the enthusiasm

[tree68]

narig01

One real problem is when things are a mess , think a Montana winter snow storm in 5 below temps, your airline gets torn and blows. How does the repair truck get trackside with 5 feet of snow on the access road? 

OK, so we don't haul freight, and don't run in the wintertime.  But they used to.

Road access to significant portions of our line (never mind the out-of-service, where the problem exists in spades) simply doesn't exist - it can be miles to the nearest road crossing, and there is no road paralleling the ROW that would allow anyone to drive alongside a train.

If such a road existed, we probably wouldn't be fighting with the "trail" people right now...

[gardendance]

Ladies and Germans, once again may I mention that 1 person crews will not be for every run on every railroad. Long trains, and snowstorms, and no nearby road access, could all be reasons to justify not having 1 person crews. Short trains, sunny summer Sundays, and nearby parallel and crossing highways, could all be reasons that allow 1 person crews.

[Wizlish]

gardendance

Ladies and Germans, once again may I mention that 1 person crews will not be for every run on every railroad. Long trains, and snowstorms, and no nearby road access, could all be reasons to justify not having 1 person crews. Short trains, sunny summer Sundays, and nearby parallel and crossing highways, could all be reasons that allow 1 person crews.

That's always how it starts.  This new 'income tax' only applies to the wealthiest Americans.  Pump your own gas and you'll save $$$.  "FOR SOCIAL SECURITY PURPOSES - NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION".

Bet you a quarter it'll come down to two dark thirty in the storm where the drones don't fly, snow on the ground, and one man in the cab, somewhere, sometime, perhaps a lot of the time*.

Not that I disagree with you about the way single crews ought to be used, or that your approach is common sense.

 

*Chances are, he will be tired, and have sleep apnea or some other condition, and be frazzled from punching the alerter every 40 seconds or whatever, too.

[Euclid]

narig01

One real problem is when things are a mess , think a Montana winter snow storm in 5 below temps, your airline gets torn and blows. How does the repair truck get trackside with 5 feet of snow on the access road? 

      The advantage of an outside service most can bring a lot of tools with them. And if really needed bring say an axle. Well maybe not with truck services they bring tyres, wheels, brake chambers, brake shoes. It all depends on what the customer asks them to fix.

        If railroads did do this the next issue is what level of training and certification would be acceptable. IE is training in the railroad environment needed and who would place the blue flags and be responsible for safety. Etc.

      Details, details. Or lawyers and lawyers. Life is never easy.

The IGN 

 

 

The only potential problem that I see with this just in time emergency repair service is the density of the emergencies versus the distribution of manpower to cover the area.  That may be a showstopper if it proves to be too costly to have a repair specialist on duty with all of the equipment staged every few miles or so.  But the more calls there are, the more economically viable it becomes.  Maybe you can afford a repair station every twenty miles. 

It also depends on the value of shortening train delays.  That may be high enough to justify a relatively dense distribution of repair stations.  Track access and train density also varies, and so there will be variability in the viability of this repair service.

Another point is that if this service enables a reduction of crew size, there is a lot of cost savings in that.  This in turn makes the emergency repair more valuable, and able to charge a higher rate in order to provide the highest speed. 

The emergency repair system does not need an access road because it need not take a truck down the line to the repair site.  If there is an access road, a truck might use it, but otherwise, the track vehicle will be able to go anywhere that there is enough space for a man to walk.  While the track vehicle can run through snow, five feet of snow will be slow going.  But a five foot snow storm will tie up the whole railroad anyway. 

In any case, companies choosing to use this service will probably improve, extend, and better maintain their access roads as part of the business model.  This would include regular snow plowing of the access road, and also clearing snow from alongside of the track if there is no access road. 

[Wizlish]

Euclid

If there is an access road, a truck might use it, but otherwise, the track vehicle will be able to go anywhere that there is enough space for a man to walk. While the track vehicle can run through snow, five feet of snow will be slow going. But a five foot snow storm will tie up the whole railroad anyway. In any case, companies choosing to use this service will probably improve, extend, and better maintain their access roads as part of the business model. This would include regular snow plowing of the access road, and also clearing snow from alongside of the track if there is no access road.

Let's do a little informed brainstorming here.

The new thing added in this post, which almost deserves a thread of its own, is how a railroad interested in this style of 'rapid response service' might modify their plowing techniques to optimize use of the responders' equipment.

In a heavy snow, it should be possible to incorporate some type of profiling the snow on the ballast prism, say with a modified Jordan spreader using the intelligent GPS and GIS approach that I read about in construction and surveying magazines.  The tracked vehicle should be reasonably capable of running on packed snow -- I'd be interested to see how it is designed to run on angled ballast with a man and equipment aboard, as this would cut the requirements for 'access roads' down to just the (marked and maintained) trails needed to get the tracked vehicle around lineside impediments.

The 'working assumption' is then (as I understand it) that you have a base unit, like a Brandt unit with high-speed suspension, that would be used to bring the heavy part of the rapid-response team to the site (perhaps even as the locomotive-carried drones are assessing the damage, as previously described, and relaying their information to the train crew and whatever railroad people are tracking it).  You then have various means of reaching the point(s) in the train where attention is to be paid, with whatever tools and materials you need to do the job 'the first time' without having to trek back and forth.

I would be very strongly tempted to design at least one vehicle capable of taking the 'response' crew and all the tools and parts needed under the train in areas where it's impossible or hazardous to use the ballast shoulder or ROW access road.  That is likely to be, weird as it seems, a better approach than trying to fly a heavy-lift drone in uncertain weather conditions close to a train, or be assured of safe landing conditions.  Seems to me the tracked vehicle could be designed for this, although I think I'd design one version like a 'burro' for the tools and materials, and another as the 'crew shuttle'.

I also think that a rapid-response company can have different levels of alert, with corresponding capitalization and staffing requirements, just as railroads currently do.  Hence it may make sense to have the usual sort of pickup-truck 'sectionmen' assigned to key territories, with the heavy response unit and specialized equipment rolling only when needed (compensating perhaps for the longer distance with higher speed in its transitions and railborne operation)  It might be interesting to see if even smaller multipurpose vehicles could be used for this service if specifically designed ... and whether an aggregate market for them might be developed to make them cost-effective.

[Euclid]

I am not sure how the access roads currently in use manage the snow.  If they are intended for trucks, I would think they would be regularly plowed, but maybe they only plow them if a truck needs to use them.  I agree that this could be handled by a snow spreader, particularly in areas where there is no access road.  The tracked vehicle would be relatively narrow.  It might have a footprint that is only 3-4 ft. wide.  So it could have its own snow blade if it were expected to encounter areas where seasonal snow has accumulated to 18-24 inches.  But it would also be able to run in fairly deep snow without plowing it.     

The tracked vehicle would be a custom machine tailored exactly to its purpose of carrying tools, knuckles, air hoses, etc. plus one or two people.  I don’t see it running on the ballast shoulder because there won’t be room there with a standing train.  It would also disrupt the ballast profile if there were room to run on the ballast.  So the vehicle would run on the roadbed alongside of the track, with or without an access road.  In areas without an access road, the travel route on the roadbed should be well mapped for its conditions, limitations, obstructions, etc.

The drone that I mentioned would arrive with the emergency truck that carries the tracked vehicle.  Upon arriving at the access point, the drone would be released to fly down the top of the train and quickly find the separation, derailment, or any other visible sign of trouble.  This would not take much time, and it could be done while the track vehicle is heading down the right of way toward the suspected source of trouble in some cases.  The emergency response truck would be like the mother ship for the tracked vehicle.   

The drone would not carry any parts or equipment, and it would take off and land at its home base only.  I would not have the drone based on the locomotive and operated by the train crew.  However, the day might come when conductors routinely use drones for a variety of purposes as part of their job.  So, in that case, they could provide this drone reconnaissance of the train for the emergency repair service. 

[zugmann]

Let's compare this to another type of contractor that usually arrives quick, and makes quick work fo the work that needs to be done.  I'm talking about companies like Hulcher's and Cranemasters.  

 

You would think they would be called to every derailment.  But they aren't.  For every one derailment they are called out, there's probably several that are handled the old fashioned way - with blocks of wood.  Why?  Cost.  Hulcer's/Cranemasters are good, but you PAY for that level of good. The railroads are not going to pay to have this emergency application contractor that has trucks/drones/UTVs every 5 miles to come out and charge top dollar for something as simple as a parted air hose.  Even with one-man crews, the rules will simply be re-written to allow that single man to take care of it.  A lot cheaper, for sure.

PS. If the railroad wanted to, it could impelement a similar solution (and around there, they actually do so during peak UPS season around the holidays).  They simply stage car inspectors / wreck trucks along the main to address any problems.  Apparently that is the only time it makes financial sense for them to do so.

[Euclid]

 

Yes, I agree that such a service will not be implemented unless it is cheaper than having the crew deal with the problem.  I don’t know the extent to which that might be the case.  But earlier, there was mention of trains being tied up for 3 hours to fix an air hose.  The extent of these delays and their cost would have to be researched to see if there is a viable business model.

 

Another factor is that every time we discuss reduced crew size or even automation, the knuckle problem is presented as the reason it can’t be done.  So, being that this emergency knuckle/brakepipe service will overcome that problem, its value will include the added savings in crew cost. 

 

[Wizlish]

Euclid

I would not have the drone based on the locomotive and operated by the train crew. However, the day might come when conductors routinely use drones for a variety of purposes as part of their job. So, in that case, they could provide this drone reconnaissance of the train for the emergency repair service.

If the BNSF octo experiments are any guide, I think we are likely to see drones based on motive power much sooner than a 'rapid repair service' either established as a company or run as a division of a service provider like Hulcher.

There are many advantages to this, some of which have already been discussed in the thread on drone testing.  I suspect that the drones and equipment would not be installed on every locomotive, but would be assigned to a crew coming on duty, and perhaps 'handed over' to a relieving crew, but handed in (and serviced, recharged, etc.) when the train reaches a destination or servicing point.

Since it is clearly in the best interest of the crew and the railroad alike to get a quick answer to any anomalous reason for a train stoppage, why not get all the information you can, as quickly as you can.  It is not rocket science to extend the 'telepresence' of the crew's control of the drone to any person in the rapid-response company -- they can interactively request that the 'pilot-in-command' in charge of the railroad's drone give them views or 'targets', control the drone's cameras or other sensors, and capture information for analysis as needed (including downloads from equipment on the train that might not be included in regular wayside communication or PTC).  Much of this, perhaps, even before the key is turned to start the Brandt unit's engine...

Now, this isn't an 'either-or' situation -- yes, I'd expect the response team to have at least one drone setup optimized for its specific purpose(s) and flown under its rather than the railroad's control.  If for no other reason than to ensure a working drone at the time the response is being conducted.  But I think there is no real question that, if the train can be scanned and the problems identified as far as possible with a drone, that should be done ASAP and not wait for the first rapid-response equipment to arrive before you start.

[Paul of Covington]

   Building roads alongside the tracks, designing and building special vehicles to access the site, flying drones for recconnaissance, basically to do the part of the job that according to Ed Blysard takes about five minutes.   The crew on the train still has to reassemble the train and do a brake test, which I gather is the most time-consuming part of the delay.   As far as finding the break with the drone, even though it takes time to walk the train, I can't imagine it taking longer than the time it takes for the outside contractor to get there and set up his drone.   I've never worked for a railroad so if my assumptions are wrong, I welcome corrections.

[Wizlish]

Euclid

Yes, I agree that such a service will not be implemented unless it is cheaper than having the crew deal with the problem.

No, I don't agree with that at all.  The argument is based on time, and in some ways it resembles critical response in maintaining computer equipment.  If I recall correctly a number of people have been pointing out the 'dollar value' of having the main line blocked for x hours, and I'd think that with modern information technology and all the supposedly sophisticated business logic railroads use, that effective dollar value could be 'drilled down for' and compiled in realtime, case by case.

Naturally a wide variety of problems would not be handled by the rapid-response service if the crew can accomplish them.  The whole argument of this thread, though, is precisely that a one-man crew can't reliably deal with many of these problems in any kind of reasonable time, whereas a two-man crew in the same situation might face only nominal or procedural difficulties.   So you are talking about a very familiar sort of outsourcing decision:  is it cheaper to have a third-party organization provide what you as a railroad would otherwise have to assure with your own resources?

We've discussed in other threads how in the old days, railroads had section gangs and trackwalkers regularly deployed every few miles, and relieved and supplied as needed for whatever approximation of 24/7 coverage of the track the railroad wanted.  That is plainly an expense of considerable magnitude, that railroads have spent considerable time, money, and research on reducing, and that has seen very substantial invention and capitalization (specifically including private efforts like the R crane) that might seem like overkill to a bean-counter looking at what's involved in trackwork.

What it comes down to here, even absent a discussion of the times of year when additional ground-pounding support of hot and heavy traffic is justifiable, is whether the savings from adoption of single-man crewing will pay for outsourcing the maintenance and repair tasks that single-man crewing cannot accommodate effectively.  

An associated question, of course, which is getting mingled into this discussion without being explicitly noted, is whether once you have the outsourced response capability to serve single-manned trains, you use that capability to assist with two-man-crewed trains in certain circumstances or on certain parts of the railroad, etc.  Note the fun you can have with statistics and accounting figuring out where all the costs for the capitalization get allocated!

[Euclid]

Wizlish,

I agree with all you said in the post above, except that I don’t understand why you disagree with my comment to zugman as follows:

“Yes, I agree that such a service will not be implemented unless it is cheaper than having the crew deal with the problem.”

When I use the term “cheaper,” I mean that to account for everything in the entire equation including delay time, wages, equipment, etc. 

[schlimm]

Wizlish

The argument is based on time, and in some ways it resembles critical response in maintaining computer equipment.  If I recall correctly a number of people have been pointing out the 'dollar value' of having the main line blocked for x hours, and I'd think that with modern information technology and all the supposedly sophisticated business logic railroads use, that effective dollar value could be 'drilled down for' and compiled in realtime, case by case.

Very true.  It might not be case by case, but division by division.  A division with many hi-value freights tied up for hours wastes far more than some less congested line and could well-afford the cost of some special service to get things rolling.

[zugmann]

schlimm

Very true. It might not be case by case, but division by division. A division with many hi-value freights tied up for hours wastes far more than some less congested line and could well-afford the cost of some special service to get things rolling.

Also varies by time.  There may be times where a broken down train can cause lots of trouble, and other times of the day it's no big deal.

I'm all for putting trainmasters in trucks with spare knuckels.  Give them something productive to do.

[schlimm]

Density of traffic probably varies by division or even subdivision and by time of day and day of the week.

[edblysard]

zugmann

 

schlimm

Very true. It might not be case by case, but division by division. A division with many hi-value freights tied up for hours wastes far more than some less congested line and could well-afford the cost of some special service to get things rolling.

 

 

Also varies by time.  There may be times where a broken down train can cause lots of trouble, and other times of the day it's no big deal.

I'm all for putting trainmasters in trucks with spare knuckels.  Give them something productive to do.

 

Your Trainmasters know how to replace a knuckle?

 

Wow, we’re lucky if they can find the train!

 

[dehusman]

Euclid

Another factor is that every time we discuss reduced crew size or even automation, the knuckle problem is presented as the reason it can’t be done. So, being that this emergency knuckle/brakepipe service will overcome that problem, its value will include the added savings in crew cost.

Some of the people on this list might say it can't be done.  But that doesn't mean they are right.  Personally I think the air hose/knuckle issue isn't that big a deal, that it can't be overcome.  Will there be one man crews?  Dunno.  Too many other issues in the way (NIMBY's, government regulations, contracts have to be negoiated, contingency and safety systems put in place, etc.) 

[tree68]

I agree with Gardendances assertion that one man crews aren't the answer for everything, but may be the answer for some things.

I think the knuckle/airhose meme is more of an indication that unexpected things can, and do, happen on a railroad.

Like that deer we hit that ended up causing ground fault problems that still may not have been resolved...

[zugmann]

dehusman

 

 

 

Some of the people on this list might say it can't be done.  But that doesn't mean they are right.  Personally I think the air hose/knuckle issue isn't that big a deal, that it can't be overcome.  Will there be one man crews?  Dunno.  Too many other issues in the way (NIMBY's, government regulations, contracts have to be negoiated, contingency and safety systems put in place, etc.) 

 

Of course it can be done if the carriers want it.  Sure, if something happens, then service will go to hell for a while.  But hey, some argue it's already heading that way, so what's the big deal?

 

Railroad labor will make it work.  They always do.  My personal opinion:  I have no doubts we'll see one man crews in the future.  Possibly no-man crews if they eve get this PTC thing to work out, and find a way to appease the ignorant public that's afraid of automated things (but love their smart phones - go figure). 

[BaltACD]

tree68

I agree with Gardendances assertion that one man crews aren't the answer for everything, but may be the answer for some things.

I think the knuckle/airhose meme is more of an indication that unexpected things can, and do, happen on a railroad.

Like that deer we hit that ended up causing ground fault problems that still may not have been resolved...

The railroad bean counters mind set is that if something can be done once under optimal circumstance with all the company's resources actively backing up the happening - then obviously it can be done all the time without any back up resources.

[rfpjohn]

Of course! And this is why we're seeing 200+ car trains on busy single track subdivisions with siding capacity well under the length of these monster trains.

But, winter is coming.....

[schlimm]

rfpjohn

Of course! And this is why we're seeing 200+ car trains on busy single track subdivisions with siding capacity well under the length of these monster trains.

But, winter is coming.....

 

I'm wondering if the rails' accountants have realized how much money those monster trains are costing the rails in delays, damage and lost customers compared to the labor savings?  As a breed, they tend to be retrospective, cost conscious and not very concerned with the future and revenue enhancement.

[dehusman]

I'm wondering if the rails' accountants have realized how much money those monster trains are costing the rails in delays, damage and lost customers compared to the labor savings?  As a breed, they tend to be retrospective, cost conscious and not very concerned with the future and revenue enhancement.

I'm wondering if the people who keep predicting doom and gloom for long trains, etc.,  realize that the railroads have been doing this (increasing train size) for decades and that during that time their profits have been going UP not DOWN.  The reason the accountants favor it is because by every financial and operating measure there is, the bigger trains are more cost effective to operate.  In a signal system a 50 car train is the same size as a 150 car train.  If a railroad has to move 1500 cars, the railroad is much less congested moving ten 150 car trains than moving thirty 50 car trains.  A long train may accelerate slower than a shorter train.  If you run fewer trains then you have fewer train meets and fewer times you have to stop a train.  That makes the impact of slower acceleration much less.

[Euclid]

Wizlish

 

Euclid

I would not have the drone based on the locomotive and operated by the train crew. However, the day might come when conductors routinely use drones for a variety of purposes as part of their job. So, in that case, they could provide this drone reconnaissance of the train for the emergency repair service.

 

 

If the BNSF octo experiments are any guide, I think we are likely to see drones based on motive power much sooner than a 'rapid repair service' either established as a company or run as a division of a service provider like Hulcher.

There are many advantages to this, some of which have already been discussed in the thread on drone testing.  I suspect that the drones and equipment would not be installed on every locomotive, but would be assigned to a crew coming on duty, and perhaps 'handed over' to a relieving crew, but handed in (and serviced, recharged, etc.) when the train reaches a destination or servicing point.

Since it is clearly in the best interest of the crew and the railroad alike to get a quick answer to any anomalous reason for a train stoppage, why not get all the information you can, as quickly as you can.  It is not rocket science to extend the 'telepresence' of the crew's control of the drone to any person in the rapid-response company -- they can interactively request that the 'pilot-in-command' in charge of the railroad's drone give them views or 'targets', control the drone's cameras or other sensors, and capture information for analysis as needed (including downloads from equipment on the train that might not be included in regular wayside communication or PTC).  Much of this, perhaps, even before the key is turned to start the Brandt unit's engine...

Now, this isn't an 'either-or' situation -- yes, I'd expect the response team to have at least one drone setup optimized for its specific purpose(s) and flown under its rather than the railroad's control.  If for no other reason than to ensure a working drone at the time the response is being conducted.  But I think there is no real question that, if the train can be scanned and the problems identified as far as possible with a drone, that should be done ASAP and not wait for the first rapid-response equipment to arrive before you start.

 

My point in mentioning the BNSF proposal for conductors with drones was just to show that the company is thinking of new ways of doing things without the activity being train-based.  As I recall, they also proposed having the conductor shadowing the train in a road vehicle.  My point is the analogy between that and an off-train-based quick repair service. 

If having the crew do drone reconnaissance prior to the arrival of the speedy repair service saves money, it makes sense to do it.  But I suspect that on average, it would add cost.  My general sense is that the formality and technicality of railroad operations would result in the most advanced and costly drones ever made.  Then you add the handling, storage, maintenance, responsibility, training, skillsets, labor issues, extra pay; and suddenly the cost is out of sight.

Even for the speedy repair service, the importance of drone use is only incidental, and might be more expense than it is worth.  The two main incidents that the drone will discover are separations and derailments, and running past the train with the track vehicle will also discover these problems.  One enhancement to the inspection routine would be a microphone on the outside of the track vehicle that could hear air blowing as an indication of brake pipe breaches.    

[zugmann]

dehusman

If you run fewer trains then you have fewer train meets and fewer times you have to stop a train. That makes the impact of slower acceleration much less.

Except when those fewer trains are too large to fit in sidings and have to meet other large trains.  Then you have to hold out trains 20, 30, or even 50+ miles away at a place where a meet can take place.  Or when a terminal starts getting clogged up (yards can only handle so many cars at a time, and when the trains are arriving with 150 cars, it takes time to process that) and trains start getting held at layback points.  And since the trains are so large, they have to hold back at spots that won't block interlockings or grade crossings (or on a severe grade).  So now that train has to stop way out in the sticks.  They may save a crew by running larger trains, yet they still need to call a re-crew to come out and get it after it blows up.  Are they really saving?

 

Just because something has been done a long time doesn't make it right or smart.

 

[BaltACD]

zugmann

Just because something has been done a long time doesn't make it right or smart.

And just because something was able to be done once, doesn't mean it should become standard operating procedure.

[zugmann]

BaltACD

 

 

 

 

And just because something was able to be done once, doesn't mean it should become standard operating procedure.

 

But that would entail using judgment.  Nothing in the book about that. 

[Euclid]

dehusman

 

 

I'm wondering if the rails' accountants have realized how much money those monster trains are costing the rails in delays, damage and lost customers compared to the labor savings?  As a breed, they tend to be retrospective, cost conscious and not very concerned with the future and revenue enhancement.

 

 

I'm wondering if the people who keep predicting doom and gloom for long trains, etc.,  realize that the railroads have been doing this (increasing train size) for decades and that during that time their profits have been going UP not DOWN.  

When profits rise during periods when train lengths are increasing, is that correlation enough to conclude that longer trains increase profits?

[BaltACD]

Kevin C Smith has posted the equivalent of Divisional conference calls as well as a number of other typical situations in a 'Hitler motif'.

 

www.youtube.com/watch?v=79r5tK5CcEk

 

www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIhckh2Ceyk

 

www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sVwiJhvQSQ

 

www.youtube.com/watch?v=mV61QfcvWd0

www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPdDRL8e0aw

[Tony Schill]

In reading many of these posts, it seems to me that the majority of the commenters have the opinion that one-person trains won't work because when things go wrong, having two people on a crew is more likely to avoid a service meltdown.  I certainly agree with that, but either way it's the railroad's problem.  If they are willing to accept loss of business that threatens their entire operation, oh well.

 

The real reason that one-person crews won't happen anytime soon is because way too many trains are blowing up these days.  I never heard of a derailment of an iron ore train in the Canadian wilderness burning down a town, so I guess I'm not very impressed by references to the wonderful experience of the QNS&L with one-person crews.

Perhaps once the railroads figure out how to prevent catastrophic derailments caused by human or mechanical failures (which will always be possible, even with PTC), they will have more success in advancing acceptance of one-person crews. But for so long as oil trains are exploding and communities are being evacuated because of toxic chemical releases, one person crews ain't gonna happen...