Article posted this week on the "Railway Age" website:
http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/blogs/bruce-kelly/is-ptc-a-prelude-to-crewless-trains.html?channel=00
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Tony Schill 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...
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...
I hate to put words in your mouth, but I get the impression you're saying what I've complained others have said "because there are some cases where 1 man crews won't work, 1 man crews cannot happen in any situation." What bearing does the supposed need for multi person crews on hazardous materials have on the possibility for 1 person crews on trains carrying nonhazardous cargo?
THOMAS M BROWN What happens if the Solo Engineer has a heart attack or dozes off,you won't see the Airline's going to a single pilot.
What happens if the Solo Engineer has a heart attack or dozes off,you won't see the Airline's going to a single pilot.
Hopefully I got the quote attributed to the correct person. Excuse me, correct' person. For what it's worth, I was passenger on a couple of puddle jumper airplanes, Kansas City-Topeka and Barbados-Bequia, each one round trip, on each trip we had 1 crew member.
Patrick Boylan
Free yacht rides, 27' sailboat, zip code 19114 Delaware River, get great Delair bridge photos from the river. Send me a private message
23 17 46 11
I was just thinking about the Chlorine disaster in Graniteville SC. I think that was a 2 (or more) man crew that left a switch open killing the crew on another train and killing nearby people asleep in thier beds, I do not know if PTC would have detected the open switch in dark territory, I think not.
In the many cases of toxic chemical releases the public appears to be duped into thinking that a 2 man (or more) train crew could have prevented it. Face it, all (save one) of the high profile train wrecks in the last 150 years have been with multiple crewmen.
Then I think about the runaway trains on Cajon pass. I think of how at that time having PTS would have been useless because the brakes weren't working.
I think of the poor engineer running a heavy train in deep snow and freezing temps failing to warm his brakes sufficiently to decend a heavy grade and passing red signal after red signal only to have his train accelerate while in full emergency.
I think about the train that has derailed cars at a meeting point and as soon as the derailed cars get to the switch they collide with the standing train killing the crew and spilling toxic waste.
I think about the Weyawega Wisconsin derailment that evacuated the town for 17 days and how PTC and the second crewman couldn't mitigate the effect.
I think that the government is forcing the railroads to spend billions of dollars on technology that really only protects from sleepy or incompetant railroad employees. I don't care if its 2 man crews or 1 man crew. If the employees don't follow the rules and do their damn job someone is going to die.
How many times have we read about head on collisions that killed crews because EVERYONE was asleep (at least with a one man crew there aren't 2 dead in the cab) ? This is the real issue. PTC won't stop derailments but it appears that everyone who knows nothing has been hoodwinked into a false sense that machines and technology will protect us from ourselves.
BTW , crew alertors are not even required in the US.
Paul of CovingtonI think the real enemy there was complacency. "It's been good enough in the past." With two men it could have been "I thought you set the handbrakes." At the end of a long shift, tired people can make assumptions or take risky shortcuts.
I think a five person crew could have engendered the same result. By most accounts, their practice of securing the train was itself inadequate. If it was the accepted practice, the only difference would have been that five people would have agreed beforehand that the train was adequately secured.
It's been said that armies train by fighting the last war. That's what we're doing here - hoping that the next "war" will be the same as the last. We all know that mankind is ingenious, and nature is marvelously inconsistent. No matter the safeguards enacted based on previous experience, someone, somewhere, will find a way to circumvent those safeguards, or the safeguards themselves will be found to be flawed by a new and unexpected development.
I can hear it now - "so we shouldn't do anything." Nope - That's not what I'm saying.
But there is no cure-all. We can fix the problems we know about, and thus hopefully prevent recurrances. But we can't fix what we don't know about. And that's lurking around the next corner.
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...
I think the real enemy there was complacency. "It's been good enough in the past." With two men it could have been "I thought you set the handbrakes." At the end of a long shift, tired people can make assumptions or take risky shortcuts.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
dehusmanAnd the question is would having more than one person on that crew have made a difference at Lac Megantic?
Moot point. We'll never know the answer to that question. It's now history.
Norm
Tony SchillThe 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.
And the question is would having more than one person on that crew have made a difference at Lac Megantic? If one person decided that they had properly secured the train, its just as likely that two people might have decided that the train was secured properly, especially if that was the way "they always did it."
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
THOMAS M BROWNWhat happens if the Solo Engineer has a heart attack or dozes off,you won't see the Airline's going to a single pilot.
Apples and oranges. A train doesn't have to land. With technology that has been around for many years, if the engineer is incapacitated/non-responsive, the engine stops automatically. PTC will enhance that protection.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Convicted One 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? What happens if the Solo Engineer has a heart attack or dozes off,you won't see the Airline's going to a single pilot.
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?
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.
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=PPdDRL8e0aw
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
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.
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.
BaltACD And just because something was able to be done once, doesn't mean it should become standard operating procedure.
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.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
zugmannJust because something has been done a long time doesn't make it right or smart.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.....
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.....
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...
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.
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.)
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).
EuclidAnother 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.
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 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.
Density of traffic probably varies by division or even subdivision and by time of day and day of the week.
schlimmVery 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.
WizlishThe 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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.