I have long thought the same as Greyhounds, dating back to the era when a four man crew was typical. Unfortunately the answer to his question "Is it too much to hope for that people will act like reasonable adults and negotiate this to a desirable win-win conclusion?" has been a resounding yes. And I put the blame on both sides of the bargaining table, perhaps weighted only slightly towards the Union. Far too radical for traditional operating folk, "protecting jobs" on one side and tied to cost-saving "metrics" rather than business expansion on the other.
In the dim recesses of my mind there is a faint memory of one exception from something like 30 years or more ago. It was probably either C&NW or MILW where a specific new dedicated, premium, freight service was introduced in one corridor with reduced crews, and size limits on the train. Obviously the innovation eventually died.
greyhounds There are a lot of markets out there where freight that could be on the rail is moving by non-union truckers. Developing these markets will be facilitated by the implementation of shorter intermodal trains that serve markets which can never produce 240 container length trains. These trains could be used on low density lines, such as CN's Iowa line or BNSF's Stampede Pass route. Such trains would be a win-win for the companies and organized labor. The companies would increase profitability while union labor would increase employment. But it all hinges on reducing the cost of operating the trains. One person crews, used in selective, agreed upon situations could provide the needed lower costs.
There are a lot of markets out there where freight that could be on the rail is moving by non-union truckers. Developing these markets will be facilitated by the implementation of shorter intermodal trains that serve markets which can never produce 240 container length trains. These trains could be used on low density lines, such as CN's Iowa line or BNSF's Stampede Pass route. Such trains would be a win-win for the companies and organized labor. The companies would increase profitability while union labor would increase employment. But it all hinges on reducing the cost of operating the trains. One person crews, used in selective, agreed upon situations could provide the needed lower costs.
One man crews are strictling a cost saving measure. I think you are dreaming if you think one man or even no man crews would get the major railroads to go after relatively short hauls or small markets. If it's not 100 cars and/or going 1000 miles, they don't seem to care.
If the mindset doesn't change, no amount of technology or crew reduction will get them into those smaller markets.
Jeff
greyhoundsIs it too much to hope for that people will act like reasonable adults and negotiate this to a desirable win-win conclusion?
You seem to be assuming that micro-economics is logical, when we know it is not. Ever hear of behavioral economics? (Several Nobel Prize winners in the last ~20 years.)
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
I think one point that is being missed is that everyone is thinking that rail operations with single person crews would be the same as today. I reason they will change. If the cost of operating a train is reduced, more trains will be operated. That is real economics, not the nonsense that investors don't contribute to the productive flow of work (you can't have a railroad without capital and the investors provide capital.) or that one person crews are an "assault on the middle class".
It's logical that some trains can safely and efficiently be operated by a single crew member. It's also logical that other trains require a larger crew. Tying up a busy main line is not good. Trains operating in such environments probably need one or more additional crew members to keep things from congealing when things go wrong.
I really wish that the unions and management could sit down and negotiate an agreement specifying when and where one person crews could be used. "Never" is illogical. "Always" is also illogical. Unions exist to represent the employees. They can do that in a reasonable, logical way. Including seeing that no one looses his/her job over this. Management can, and should, be equally reasonable and logical. They cannot put people in unsafe or unduly stessful situations. Reasonable people, acting in good faith, should be able to work this out without resorting to such nonsense as "War on the Middle Class."
Is it too much to hope for that people will act like reasonable adults and negotiate this to a desirable win-win conclusion?
23 17 46 11
caldreamer In a yard a one man crew is fine, but not on the road.
Completely agree with this statement, but I read the NTSB report at the link you provided (thanks for the link, BTW) and don't see how this is related to one-man crews. In this case, the failure to properly respond to a dark signal was the fault of both men in the cab. It could be that a one-man crew would have doubted himself enough to stop his train as prescribed by the rules.
Incidentally, I have to wonder what the NTSB was doing with this investigation and report for 21 months (9/25/13 to 6/25/15) !? I knew the root cause from reading the second paragraph of the Executive Summary; I'm sure the lead investigator knew the root cause as soon as he interviewed the crew of BNSF 7891 East.
Getting back to the one-man crew question: Railroad profitability, crew hours, and other factors not withstanding; when, where, and how does a one-man crew relieve himself?
ChuckAllen, TX
Ulrich Conductors generally aren't qualified to take over from the engineer anyway..
Actually, I think a lot of them are - if they've been bumped down or the like. Whether that qualification is current or not is another question.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Seems to me the engineers union (BLE) should be attempting to develop a proactive stance for preserving or even increasing its membership, such as the one I described earlier or some other strategy. This is especially true since a large sector of the rails revenue stream is shrinking rapidly. Fighting a losing rear-guard action such as the fireman issue of long ago is doomed to the inevitable.
narig01 What is a dispatcher going to do if the engineer says they need to take a break? In the piece I saw on the Quebec North Shore & Labrador they had pullouts where a train could be parked while the engineer could get a restbreak. Would a dispatcher on today's class I railroads allow that or tell the engineer keep moving? And how about fatigue training to recognize when your body is telling you time to get some rest. Rgds IGN
What is a dispatcher going to do if the engineer says they need to take a break? In the piece I saw on the Quebec North Shore & Labrador they had pullouts where a train could be parked while the engineer could get a restbreak.
Would a dispatcher on today's class I railroads allow that or tell the engineer keep moving? And how about fatigue training to recognize when your body is telling you time to get some rest.
Rgds IGN
In that regard I don't see any changes from the dispatcher's standpoint. What if that scenario were to play out today? Conductors generally aren't qualified to take over from the engineer anyway.. so whether you have a conductor on board or not makes little difference here.
cx500 There is a cost to having the main line blocked, although to a certain extent how it gets defined is arbitrary. If a coal train arrives a day later the railroad still gets paid the same amount, so actual revenue losses are small (at least in the short term). Detours, if used, can indeed be measurable costs. Delay is delay, whether for railroad convenience or line blockage. But costs of delaying a train waiting for more tonnage is typically ignored. When the accountants look greedily at the labor savings from single man operation do they add in costs for resulting possible lengthy train delays?
There is a cost to having the main line blocked, although to a certain extent how it gets defined is arbitrary. If a coal train arrives a day later the railroad still gets paid the same amount, so actual revenue losses are small (at least in the short term). Detours, if used, can indeed be measurable costs. Delay is delay, whether for railroad convenience or line blockage. But costs of delaying a train waiting for more tonnage is typically ignored.
When the accountants look greedily at the labor savings from single man operation do they add in costs for resulting possible lengthy train delays?
With the mergers and the reduction of duplicated lines between signifigant OD pairs - detours are almost a thing of the past - add on top of that the equipment restrictions that go with handling multi-level auto racks and double stacks and it can be very, very difficult to detour priority traffic.
With limited abilities to detour traffic from affected lines - the cost of congestion on the affected line grows in a geometrical manner the longer the affected line is out of service.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
jeffhergertI was told by an old head that about a derailment on the CNW. A brand new caboose was involved, but still upright. It was bulldozed over to get it out of the way to allow them to lay track panels and get the line back open. The cost of the caboose was insignificant compared to the money they were losing every hour the line was closed. Jeff
- PRR Wreckmaster Frederick Alan Blumer to a PRR official, as quoted in one of the anniversary/ "commemorative" issues of Trains sometime back in the late 1960's - early 1970's.
Perhaps the parable about "killing the goose that lays the golden eggs" ought to be considered for this issue as well.
- Paul North.
EuclidSo if that is true, and yet you lay him off and pocket his paycheck, you are suddenly hit with the cost of losing what the conductor contributes, which exceeds the value of his paycheck that you just pocketed. If the conductor does not contribute more that the cost of his paycheck, it would be a net plus to lay him off. So why would that not be a sound business decision if it actually saves money to lay off the conductor? How can you argue that the conductor should be retained when he is not worth his pay?
I'm just speculating, but someone else here pretty much hit the nail on the head earlier in this thread. When everything goes "right", the second man pretty much sits on his duff and is paid for warming a seat. That is the kind of stuff that drive Management and ownership to ponder ways to avoid that "waste", (so they can pocket the "savings" that results from eliminating said 'waste'.
When things go wrong, however, that second position turns productive, expediting correction of whatever problem has interrupted the productive work flow.
SO, I'm guessing that the Owners/Managers have some form of data that indicates that "good times" outweigh the "bad times" to such an extent that the aggregate savings accrued while everything is going right, outweighs any "penalty" they will have to absorb everytime the unexpected (bad times) comes about.
Like I said earlier, I'm only speculating about this, but I'd be surprised if they are making a decision of this magnitude without hard data to steer them.
They THINK they can get away with it.
jeffhergerthe was looking forward to no man crews. Completely automated through trains.
Personally, I feel that "no-man" crews are inevitable. My guess is that eventually they all will be automated, and perfectly synchronized such that (example) all trains might move at a maximum speed of 30-40 mph but meets will always happen perfectly so that they all keep moving. that's a ways away yet, but I suspect it's only a matter of time.
Euclid BaltACD A train stopped for other than train meets is a line blockage - how much blockage can you afford! It depends on how much it costs to eliminate blockage.
BaltACD A train stopped for other than train meets is a line blockage - how much blockage can you afford!
A train stopped for other than train meets is a line blockage - how much blockage can you afford!
It depends on how much it costs to eliminate blockage.
I was told by an old head that about a derailment on the CNW. A brand new caboose was involved, but still upright. It was bulldozed over to get it out of the way to allow them to lay track panels and get the line back open. The cost of the caboose was insignificant compared to the money they were losing every hour the line was closed.
Ulrich The crew size discussion may simply be posturing on the part of some in management who use it as a boogeyman to keep wages and benefits in check. With record breaking low operating ratios and overall good financial results how do you keep the lid on wages? Answer: by trotting out the one crewman boogeyman at every opportunity.
The crew size discussion may simply be posturing on the part of some in management who use it as a boogeyman to keep wages and benefits in check. With record breaking low operating ratios and overall good financial results how do you keep the lid on wages? Answer: by trotting out the one crewman boogeyman at every opportunity.
This was related to us at a union meeting before the last US Presidential election.
By chance at a social function, one of the union's negotiators happened to meet one of the carrier association's negotiators. The union's guy asked the carrier's guy what the railroads were thinking about for the next contract. The answer was it depended on the election. If the Republicans took the Presidency they were going to go for one man crews. If the Democrats retained the White House they were going for more give-backs on health care. The latter is what happened.
I really think if they had ever been able to get a one man crew contract before the fairly recent PTC requirements, they would've fought tooth and nail against that mandate. While I'm sure they don't like the PTC mandate (although PTC would've eventually come anyway) they are looking that it will be the vehicle to ultimately bring about one man crews. First on lines with PTC, then maybe on those that aren't equipped. Like so many other things it depends on the political climate when they go whole hog for it.
Convicted One Euclid But am just trying to understand the contrary point made by Convicted One and others. I am asking them to explain their point so I can understand what their point is Okay, once quick through: You do agree that there are such things as "large, institutional investors"? And if there are, by their very nature they are more likely to have a larger stake in a target company than would some "hobbyist" individual investor? Now, have you ever heard of the practice where large share or majority share holders holding a substantial portion of a company's stock use the power resulting from that influence to install representatives onto the target company's board of directors? And do you agee that among the tasks of a company's board of directors is to set the company's priorities and objectives, and give direction to executive staff. Often to the point where the board tells the exec what they expect, and it's the exec's job to deliver it? In instances where members of the board of directors as well as majority ownership are one in the same, is it THAT difficult to see that the priorities and objectives given to the staff executives might very well be inclined more towards the short term benefit of the majority owners, than any other party (example: "CUT COSTS NOW, OR ELSE WE'LL REPLACE YOU WITH SOME ONE WHO CAN") Cutting payroll has historically been a preferred method for American business to cut costs, so is it really that hard to see how a push for one man crews could be grounded in the ambition of "Well compensated executives and contribute nothing to the productive workflow stockholders". I don't think the interest in one man crews comes from the rail shippers, I don't think it comes from the unions, the end customers, regulatory angencies, or even the Line side NIMBYS who watch the trains coming down the track.\ The interest comes from people hoping to put that laid-off conductor's paycheck in their own pockets.
Euclid But am just trying to understand the contrary point made by Convicted One and others. I am asking them to explain their point so I can understand what their point is
Okay, once quick through:
You do agree that there are such things as "large, institutional investors"?
And if there are, by their very nature they are more likely to have a larger stake in a target company than would some "hobbyist" individual investor?
Now, have you ever heard of the practice where large share or majority share holders holding a substantial portion of a company's stock use the power resulting from that influence to install representatives onto the target company's board of directors?
And do you agee that among the tasks of a company's board of directors is to set the company's priorities and objectives, and give direction to executive staff. Often to the point where the board tells the exec what they expect, and it's the exec's job to deliver it?
In instances where members of the board of directors as well as majority ownership are one in the same, is it THAT difficult to see that the priorities and objectives given to the staff executives might very well be inclined more towards the short term benefit of the majority owners, than any other party (example: "CUT COSTS NOW, OR ELSE WE'LL REPLACE YOU WITH SOME ONE WHO CAN")
Cutting payroll has historically been a preferred method for American business to cut costs, so is it really that hard to see how a push for one man crews could be grounded in the ambition of "Well compensated executives and contribute nothing to the productive workflow stockholders".
I don't think the interest in one man crews comes from the rail shippers, I don't think it comes from the unions, the end customers, regulatory angencies, or even the Line side NIMBYS who watch the trains coming down the track.\
The interest comes from people hoping to put that laid-off conductor's paycheck in their own pockets.
I haven't seen any communication from any investor, large or small, advocating one person or two person crews.. nothing, but maybe I missed it somewhere.
Most investors aren't consulted about the inner workings of the companies they invest in and for the most part they like it that way provided the numbers look good at the end of the quarter and year.
Convicted One I don't think the interest in one man crews comes from the rail shippers, I don't think it comes from the unions, the end customers, regulatory angencies, or even the Line side NIMBYS who watch the trains coming down the track.\ The interest comes from people hoping to put that laid-off conductor's paycheck in their own pockets.
Somewhere I have a late 1990s issue of a defunct railfan magazine. In it is a column written by a person employed in a company that ships by rail. As a rail customer he wasn't looking forward to one man crews. No, he was looking forward to no man crews. Completely automated through trains. His reasoning, which I think was a bit naive, was that the railroads having a substantial savings in wages and benefits would pass that along to customers in greatly reduced freight rates.
So maybe customers aren't pushing for it, but...
jeffhergert Ulrich Ok.. there's no correlation. Somebody got started about stockholders assaulting the middle class. Stockholders have no more say in crew size than hotdog saleman have in how pigs are slaughtered. Don't be too sure about that hotdog salesman. There's actually a lot of restaurant chains becoming very vocal about how meat is produced throughout the entire process. Jeff
Ulrich Ok.. there's no correlation. Somebody got started about stockholders assaulting the middle class. Stockholders have no more say in crew size than hotdog saleman have in how pigs are slaughtered.
Ok.. there's no correlation. Somebody got started about stockholders assaulting the middle class. Stockholders have no more say in crew size than hotdog saleman have in how pigs are slaughtered.
Don't be too sure about that hotdog salesman. There's actually a lot of restaurant chains becoming very vocal about how meat is produced throughout the entire process.
Very true Jeff..
EuclidBut am just trying to understand the contrary point made by Convicted One and others. I am asking them to explain their point so I can understand what their point is
Yes, and if they were losing money and if there was investor abuse I guess their point would have some merit.
Yes, I understand that. I agree with it. But am just trying to understand the contrary point made by Convicted One and others. I am asking them to explain their point so I can understand what their point is. But it probably does not make any difference what it is. The premise seems to be that because the companies are losing money by investor abuse, the company is poorer and thus cannot afford two-man crews.
Ulrich Euclid If two-man crews are more cost effective than one-man crews, wouldn’t the railroads want to use two-man crews so the investors would have more money to plunder? Money to plunder? Yikes, I take it you're not an investor.
Euclid If two-man crews are more cost effective than one-man crews, wouldn’t the railroads want to use two-man crews so the investors would have more money to plunder?
Money to plunder? Yikes, I take it you're not an investor.
I just use the term "plunder" in regard to the characterization of what people are saying when they blame investors for taking money out of the company without earning it. My question is directed at them. Maybe Norm could chime in with the explanation. I just want to know how this alleged unearned skimming by investors is related to crew size.
BaltACD The investors ideal is the one button company. Push the button and it returns money in mass quantities - without the necessity of having employees, raw materials, structures, equipment or anything that requires expenditure.
The investors ideal is the one button company. Push the button and it returns money in mass quantities - without the necessity of having employees, raw materials, structures, equipment or anything that requires expenditure.
I don't know about ideal companies. None of us live in candyland, and we all make due with whatever resources are made available to us. Investing intelligently and for the longterm beats digging ditches in retirement, and I have to park my money somewhere.. under the mattress is no good and socking it away in a bank account isn't as good as reinvesting it in something like a railroad. So that's what I do. I certainly don't have all the answers though, if there's a better way I'm all ears to hear it.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.