One man crews: Spread the enthusiasm

[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!

[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

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]

 

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. 

 

[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]

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. 

[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]

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]

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.

[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.

[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...

[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 

[zugmann]

Euclid

I have to believe that I am not the only one thinking about this idea.

 

Talk is cheap.  Go out and start this company (instead of giving ideas away).  Let us know how it works out for you.

[Euclid]

Regarding a specialized emergency repair service that I suggested earlier:

Why would anyone assume that it would take a long time to show up, and assume that the fastest way to get the job done is to use the train crew? 

What I was suggesting is a service where speed is the main point.  It would be like a fire department.  It would have the equipment to find the problem and get the knuckle or air hose to it say in less than 15 minutes.  They would do all of the ground work involved with finding the problem and fixing it. 

This service would respond every time there is an “Emergency” application initiated by the train.  While the service would have nothing to repair if the incident was a derailment, they could still respond and determine whether or not it is a derailment.  It might not be a derailment, and if not, then there is value in learning that as quickly as possible, and then getting to the actual problem.  They would scan the entire train from the air.  There would be no walking the train or moving the train.  The train and the crew would stay put while the work is done. 

If train delays are as costly as we are told, then saving time ought to yield enough money to pay the contractor well.  Of course the customer is not going to make the call, and then wait around for some unmotivated worker to come shuffling into the scene, complaining about how much work he has backed up, and how hard it is.  Why does anyone assume that will be the case?  Speed is the point!

The contract service would use a fee structure that would incentivize speed because that is what the railroad is paying for.  They would have tools and parts in a specialized compact, rubber track vehicle that would be carried to the nearest road access point by a truck.  Upon arriving at a crossing, the workers would already be in the track vehicle, the truck ramp would drop, and the track vehicle would depart down the right of way.  They would have detailed information about the line and the nature of travel space alongside of a train.  They would have travel programs in their system from previous reconnaissance.      

I have to believe that I am not the only one thinking about this idea.  If BNSF is talking about conductors following the train with vehicles and using drones, they are half way there already.

[narig01]

Euclid

Paul, I agree with your point that if you make the couplers stronger, they still must remain as the “weak link.”  So that would require strengthening the whole coupler, draft gear, center sill, etc.  That would be very costly due to all the rolling stock, so I don’t see the industry making such a strength upgrade of the rolling stock.

 

However, I think that the real issue is not the fact that knuckles break, but rather, the time it takes to replace the knuckle.  The basic replacement task that could be completed in ten minutes, but a vast amount of time is chewed up in all the logistics of train movement and manual labor to get the replacement knuckle to the site.

 

We are always told that train delays pose a severe cost to the company.  Needing to spend a couple hours replacing a knuckle seems like a problem that needs fixing.   Knuckle replacement needs to be more nimble. Maybe they could give the job to an outside contractor.  It would be the Nimble Knuckle Service.  

 

 No I do not see this as something that is going to happen but I will throw it out anyway.

 

What you need is an already existing service for mobile repair. What about the existing truck stop chains, like Travel Centers of America ( T/A ) , or Petro.  There are many truck stops as well as independent mechanics. In addition a lot of the tyre shops have the ability to do minor repairs. They are on call 24/7 for the trucking industry.Why could they not be encouraged to branch out for railroads. The biggest problem when things get bad everybody and their brother needs a mechanic. 

Rgds IGN

[Norm48327]

If you think in terms of an undesired emergency application of the brakes it makes sense.

[Euclid]

One point of clarification:

Perhaps the oddness of the phase Undesired Emergency is arising from the mistaken perception that “Emergency” refers to an emergency such as a house on fire or a heart attack.  In that case, the phrase does seem odd because an undesired emergency implies that there are desired emergencies, whereas most emergencies mean trouble, and nobody desires trouble.

But, in the case of a UDE, the term “Emergency” refers only to the train brakes going into the distinctly abnormal operating process of the air brake system that is named “Emergency.”  It is so named because it is intended to produce extra fast stopping which is often required when an actual emergency exists such as a trestle on fire or an impending collision.  But the term “Emergency” in UDE does not refer to any actual emergency that might require quicker stopping.  

In fact most UDEs are not associated with any actual emergency, but they all include the brakes going into the “Emergency” phase of the brake system. 

[dehusman]

gardendance

Who decided these abbreviations? Maybe it's "unexpected" or "unneeded" and not "undesired".

 

The railroads did and its "undesired".

[gardendance]

Who decided these abbreviations? Maybe it's "unexpected" or "unneeded" and not "undesired".

[jeffhergert]

A UDE is any time the brake pipe goes to emergency from any source other than the engineer or conductor placing the train in emergency.  If a car's control valve goes to emergency during a service application, while also a UDE it's also what a dynamiter or kicker is.

All emergency applications caused by something in the train is a UDE, but not all UDEs are dynamiters.  At least where I work. 

Actually our rules have some provisions that relieve the crew from making a walking inspection after a UDE, provided brake pipe pressure is being restored at the end of the train.  When any of the following conditions are met an inspection isn't required.  Solid loaded bulk commodity trains.  Train is made up entirely of well cars or five platform articulated spine cars.  Train Speed is above 20 MPH. or Train is less than 5000 tons.

An inspection is required if it's a Key Train or severe slack action was experienced.  Also if when starting excessive power is required to start or keep moving, the train must be stopped and inspected.

Jeff 

 

[tree68]

Murphy Siding

Well now that's an odd term.  Would there be a desired emergency?

Within the realm of emergency brake applications, a "desired" application would be one initiated by the engineer, or by the brakeline parting for some reason, like a derailment or pull-apart.  That's how the system is designed to work.  

Granted, having to initiate an emergency application is not desirable, and having a derailment or pull-apart isn't either.  But that's not the context.

As used in this context, a UDE is generally one that results from a problem with a brake valve on a car.  This has been discussed in another current thread...

Such an application is undesired because, well, it's not needed.  Besides, it stops the train, causing all sorts of problems, and requires that the train be inspected (also discussed elsewhere).

[Murphy Siding]

jeffhergert

 It's just a UDE or Undesired Emergency.  

Jeff

 

 Well now that's an odd term.  Would there be a desired emergency?

[BaltACD]

gardendance

Another theme I see is that it's very difficult to tell if your train stopped because of a broken knuckle. I can't figure why it's so hard to guess that if one of your cars is 20 or more feet away from the car to which it's supposed to be coupled that it might have had something to do with the coupler.

 

That is the easy part - it's the mile and a half walk to get there - to find out if it is a broken knuckle, drawbar pulled out, uncoupling with a knuckle open, uncoupling with both knuckles closed, air hose parting between cars, a broken trainline or a derailment.  And if you have HAZMAT in the train, you have the requirement to inspect at least as far as the last HAZMAT in your train.

[gardendance]

I too am bleary eyed from having tried to read all posts in this thread before commenting. The impression I get is that some folks feel it's possible to have 1 man crews on short trains, and other folks who feel we can't have 1 man crews because North American railroads have long trains.

My thought then is "duh, start running shorter trains if you think one man crews are efficient, but keep multi person crews if you're running long trains."

Another theme I see is that it's very difficult to tell if your train stopped because of a broken knuckle. I can't figure why it's so hard to guess that if one of your cars is 20 or more feet away from the car to which it's supposed to be coupled that it might have had something to do with the coupler.

[rfpjohn]

You can also get a rough idea of the kicker's location by how quickly the UDE occurs as you make a service application. If the exhaust has barely started blowing when it dumps, your bad car is near the head end. If it takes a while after initiating the application, it's further back in the train.

[tree68]

Wizlish

Interestingly enough, this has a mathematical name: Newton's Method.

I learned that as the "half split method," but Newton works, too.

[Wizlish]

edblysard

Your ears..... walk about half way back, and have the engineer do a full service reduction, almost always sets the dynamiter off, and you listen to which way the brakes started setting….if it is coming from farther back than where you are, you walk more, while the engineer charges the train, and do it over…takes a bit, but your ears can narrow it down pretty quickly to a few cars, then one.

Interestingly enough, this has a mathematical name: Newton's Method.

[Euclid]

Ed,

Thanks for that explanation.  I can see how you could find the culprit by listening to the sound wave and working your way toward the origin. 

[edblysard]

Euclid

My impression in reading the story was that it was a case of bad train handling and the engineer was using an alleged dynamiter as an excuse. I think he told the official something to the effect of "It was an act of God and God was not the engineer."  The gist of the story was that the engineer really put the official in his place.  I wrote to the magazine and asked how the engineer knew which car was the dynamiter.  

I also asked an engineer that I knew, and he said the only way you could find a dynamiter is if there was fresh snow on the ground so you could see the first car to dynamite by the plume of snow.  

How could you find a dynamiter by the conductor walking the train?

 

Your ears..... walk about half way back, and have the engineer do a full service reduction, almost always sets the dynamiter off, and you listen to which way the brakes started setting….if it is  coming from farther back than where you are, you walk more, while the engineer charges the train, and do it over…takes a bit, but your ears can narrow it down pretty quickly to a few cars, then one.

 

[jeffhergert]

tree68

 

Euclid

How could you find a dynamiter by the conductor walking the train?

 

 

See Jeff's post.

 

 

Actually, you would have to do a search for a post, I believe by Ed B., on the procedure. 

Start at the engine and go back 10 cars.  Turn the anglecock.  Have the engineer set air.  If it blows, start car by car to see which one does it.  If not, reopen the anglecock and go back another 10 cars and repeat the process.  (I'm just using 10 cars just for illustrative purposes.  You could even start in the middle, working fore or aft as needed.)  Continue until you find the culprit and then cut out the car.  Or be lucky enough to be standing by the offending car when it goes.  I don't know that I've ever heard anyone taking the time to do this, but it could be done.

Reminds me of an incident I read on a report that happened down south on the railroad.  A train was having multiple UDEs.  I don't know if it was dynamiters or other problems, but they kept going into emergency.  They put the train into a siding and had the car men go over it from engine to EOT.  After a couple of hours inspecting and repairing any appearant leaks they pronounced it good to go.  They let it back out on the main and within a few miles it was in emergency again.

Jeff