Seems like the same type logic could be used to justify one pilot in the cockpit of a jet airliner. "This is your captain speaking. If you pay close attention, you'll see me walking back to the restroom. For your safety, I have put our 747 on autopilot. I shouldn't have had the fish".
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
BaltACD"XYZ Detector, MP 123, Track 2, Hot Journal Axle 477, Inspect, Detector Out" "XYZ Detector, MP 123, Track 1, Dragging Equipment Axle 514, Inspect, Detector Out"
"XYZ Detector, MP 123, Track 1, Dragging Equipment Axle 514, Inspect, Detector Out"
Unless each train is going in the opposite direction of the other, and the respective engineers are able to stop their trains with the locomotives near the other train's reported defective car, so that each can inspect the other's train. Then see how they'll be able to fix it - or even just set-out the defective car ?
Only when there's a separate cost account set up and honestly reported and administered for "Delays due to lack of a 2nd crew member" will the claimed savings be trustworthy.
When the value and hourly costs of the one-man crew locomotives, cars, lading, lost revenue from the track being blocked and unusable while the situation is remedied ("opportunity cost", often in the range of $3,000 to $10,000 per hour), only then will the "penny wise, pound foolish" illusion of labor cost savings from this become apparent.
- Paul North.
caldreamer What about the fatugue factor and how is and engineer supposed to watch for signals, run the train and copy a train order at the same time? He does not have two heads and six arms. It is better to have two men checking each other. In a yard a one man crew is fine, but not on the road. It is inherently dangerous even when PTC is fully implemented. Read this NTSB accident report and tell me if one man crews are a good idea. http://ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/RAR1502.pdf
http://ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/RAR1502.pdf
That report might be taken as evidence that no-man crews - a la John Kneiling - are the safest ones. Even with two men on the offending train: neither noticed that a signal light was burned out, hence didn't take appropriate action; and, each one misinterpreted the dim headlight on the rear of the train ahead in 2 different ways ! If this had been made up, it wouldn't be believable. (And of course, the NTSB wants PTC again.) Fatigue was not mentioned as a factor, nor was functional overload of either of the crew members.
[emphasis added - PDN]
"National Transportation Safety Board. 2015. Collision Involving Three BNSF Railway Trains near Amarillo, Texas, September 25, 2013. Publication Type NTSB/RAR-15/02. Washington, DC.
Abstract: On September 25, 2013, BNSF Railway train BLACWSP223A struck the rear end of standing BNSF train SLHTLPC223A near Amarillo, Texas. Several cars derailed and fell across the adjacent track. Approaching BNSF westbound train ZWSPSBD724L struck the derailed cars. The engineer and the conductor of one of the trains recalled passing signals warning them of the train ahead. However, the signal at milepost 543.65 was not lit because the bulb had burned out. Had the bulb not been burned out, the signal would have displayed a red aspect, which would have required them to stop the train before proceeding at restricted speed. When they passed this signal, neither crewmember noticed the dark signal. The engineer stated that he thought the dim headlight from the rear end locomotive helper unit was an approaching train on the adjacent track. The conductor thought the headlight had a yellow cast to it and was a wayside signal. Neither crewmember thought the headlight was on the rear of a standing train. Five of the six involved train crewmembers received injuries and were hospitalized. Estimated damage was $4.4 million. Safety recommendations are made to the Federal Railroad Administration and BNSF Railway."
What about the fatugue factor and how is and engineer supposed to watch for signals, run the train and copy a train order at the same time? He does not have two heads and six arms. It is better to have two men checking each other. In a yard a one man crew is fine, but not on the road. It is inherently dangerous even when PTC is fully implemented. Read this NTSB accident report and tell me if one man crews are a good idea.
We often have to work with two person crews - the engineer and the conductor back on the train with the passengers - and it's royal pain. Just one more person makes life that much easier. Of course, most of our folks are volunteers, so the cost thing is minimal, but...
The fire service is facing similar challenges. As has been noted, if all is going well (ie, no fires), then the crews sitting around waiting for the bells to go off are a huge cost with no payback. When there is an incident, however, oftimes all the folks available aren't enough. The politicians don't get this - all they see is firefighters lounging around (they actually are usually training or going over equipment, but no matter). So they look to cut the fire department.
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...
23 17 46 11
As long as a train doesn't require 'manual labor' - a one man crew can get the job done.
What requires manual labor - Copying a mandatory directive, inspecting a train account Defect Detector activation, inspecting train account undesired emergency application of the brakes, inspecting all HAZMAT when a train has emergency brake application (desired or undesired), setting hand brakes on train when it is stopped on mountain grades to permit recharging of the brake system and 102 other operating realities that will happen from time to time and will always happen in the middle of nowhere at O dark 30 in the worst possible weather for the season. A stopped train is a 'line blockage' for however long the train is stopped.
Remember - for every train that is highlighted as a crew being paid a day or more wages for working 3 or 4 hours - there is most likely another that went on the Hours of Service 50 miles short of desination and another half dozen that just managed to make destination as their hours of service time expired, and the rest made destination having been on duty 8 to 11 hours.
As has been stated in another post - when things move 'as expected' - there is very little for individuals to do - when things don't move 'as expected' there is more to be done than those on scene are able to accomplish.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Two ways to look at it.
Yes, by all means let's sell someone else's job down the river. It's become the American Way after all.
Let's compensate the last man standing.
The BLET has an agreement in place on the BNSF (and others) to receive an additional 2 hours straight pay for working alone if the conductor's position is eliminated. (This agreement predates the recent attempt to go to one man crews on much of the BNSF.) Depending on how you look at it, the BLET has agreed to go to one person crews or is just getting compensation for it's craft should the trainmen's position be eliminated and the engineer has to work alone. All I've seen so far is that the BLET would like to keep 2 person crews.
(It should be noted that in almost all cases on the unionized major carrers, the trainmen's contract is held by SMART/UTU, the engineers contract by the BLET. BNSF engineers agreeing to working alone doesn't mean they can automatically remove the conductors.)
Jeff
Yet if this is all about the bottomline, paying one guy 120% pay, is still cheaper than paying 2 guys each 100% pay. Of course shareholders/execs would prefer to pay 20% pay to one guy.
I've worked enough in industry jobs where when everything went well, the 1, 2, 3 or whatever guys on duty had next to nothing to do, but when something went wrong, with no notice whatsoever, all those guys were despearately needed to keep things from going from bad to worse or put things back together again.
The comparison to how freights in Europe are run seems a bit lacking: if the entire train is 0.3 miles long, it may work with one guy up in the engine. But when the train is 1 mile long, it's a different ball game. And in their eagerness to save some pennies on another crew person, railroads don't seem to care what the cost of that mainline being blocked by a dead train, with no traffic at all going through, will amount to.
"XYZ Detector, MP 123, Track 2, Hot Journal Axle 477, Inspect, Detector Out"
While reading the feature in th August issue, a few thoughts occurred to me.
While in many instances this makes no sense whatsoever, there are some applications where it can work.
And lets not fool ourselves, where ever implementation is prescribed, the prime motivation is money. It's a money grab where already well compensated executives and "contribute nothing to the productive work flow" stockholders wish to continue their assault upon the middle class by creating yet another opportunity to skim profit off the top, and keep it for themselves.
Opposition, unsurprisingly, is strongest among the trade right where jobs will be lost. Some of the non-economic arguments they offer in opposition are valid as well, but the people whose pockets this savings will come out of obviously see this for what the final effect on them will be.
So, in effort to find a happy median, why not use "market incentives" as an inducement? An engineer who is having to do his shift alone will unquestionably have additional responsibilities and duties, and he should be deserving of a reward for his additional efforts.
Why not create a payrate dedicated to the position. Call it a "master engineer" or whatever you will, but assign say a 20% premium to his pay rate for services performed solo.
I believe doing so would offer two advantages currently lacking. #1, it would stimulate an ambition for many that are currently opposed to the idea, to seize opportunity. And #2, It would put in perspective for the above mentioned beneficiaries, that continung to squeeze the livelihood out of the middle class, comes at a cost for all, and might even cause them to reconsider (since this way not all of the fruit is going to end up in their basket.
Thoughts?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.