Trains.com

One man crews: Spread the enthusiasm

21239 views
339 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    August 2006
  • 38 posts
Posted by abdkl on Saturday, August 29, 2015 12:21 AM
Presuming the number crunchers include any penalty time for broken knuckles & other UDEs that occur at the rear half of the consist....wouldn't a rear end crew (???!!) with spare knuckles mean less walk time for some train walks?
  • Member since
    July 2010
  • From: Louisiana
  • 2,310 posts
Posted by Paul of Covington on Friday, August 28, 2015 11:51 PM

   Euclid, I know your "Nimble Knucle Service" was a bit of tongue-in-cheek, but from what I gather, the replacement of the knuckle is not where the time goes.   It's walking the train to get to it, then after replacing it, coupling back up, pumping up the air and doing a brake check.   No outsider is going to be closer to the action than the crew on the train.

_____________ 

  "A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Friday, August 28, 2015 10:36 PM
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.  
  • Member since
    July 2010
  • From: Louisiana
  • 2,310 posts
Posted by Paul of Covington on Friday, August 28, 2015 9:54 PM

   It's a balancing act.   They want to move more tonnage per dollar by putting more tons in each train.   When they see that the problems are costing more than they are trying to save, they will (or should) back off on the loads.

   The alternative would be to re-design and build stronger and heavier sills, draft gear and couplers to maintain the safety factor of keeping the re-designed stronger knuckle the weakest link.   Let them figure the cost of that.

_____________ 

  "A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Friday, August 28, 2015 9:00 PM

In Balt's example, I counted at least 11 hours of trains standing still.  Additionally, other trains were delayed or also standing still.   How much per hour (on average) does it cost the railroad to have trains just sitting around?  Multiply that times how number of hours times how many trains per day times times 365.  My hunch is that it is a lot of money.

Dave Husman may think the knuckles are fine but more than one rail engineer has suggested to me quite the contrary.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    October 2008
  • From: Calgary
  • 2,047 posts
Posted by cx500 on Friday, August 28, 2015 10:23 AM

As Dave H points out, the knuckle is intentionally the weak link.  If you think about it, that is actually a safety feature. 

A broken knuckle can create tremendous delay with resulting inconvenience to the railroad (and sometimes the public at a grade crossing) but that is generally the extent of the problem.  There are costs involved, for recrewing and the knuckle itself, but of minor magnitude.  On the other hand, if a drawbar breaks or the stub sill breaks off a tank car, a major derailment becomes a real possibility.  That causes far greater delays, damage, and potential risk to human life.

Using distributed power helps manage the train forces and reduce the stress on the couplers.

John

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Friday, August 28, 2015 10:02 AM

When one dispatcher on one railroad can note five broken knuckles in his territory in 24 hours, that suggests equipment failure.   The basic design was probably fine even 60 years ago.  But with today's car weights doubling, longer trains, and more HP, the forces experienced are increased and lead to failures, even if train handling is proper.  The railroads do not have the ability to detect flaws in advance consistently.  So perhaps the manner of connecting cars needs to be revisited?  Or weights and train lengths need to be reduced?

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • From: Omaha, NE
  • 10,621 posts
Posted by dehusman on Friday, August 28, 2015 8:55 AM

schlimm
Five broken knuckles? The weak link in the chain. The problem is not hi-tech devices failing. The problem may be the combination of using a technology over 100 years old and expecting it to function with freight cars now weighing far more along with greatly reduced manpower to inspect and maintain.

The knuckles work fine and are strong enough for modern cars.  What is important is figure out WHY the knuckle failed.    Knuckles fail because the in train forces exceed the strength of the knuckle.  That means either the knuckle is weakened (damaged) or something else caused the forces to be higher.  Detecting flaws in a knuckle is tough because its an odd shape and surrounded by other pieces of big metal.  Most efforts focus on proper train handling and elimination of UDE's (undesired emergency brake applications).  In BAltACD's examples the knuckles probably really weren't due to anything wrong with teh design of the knuckle, it was more of in adequate securement  and design flaws/inadequate maintenance of the air hose trolleys and train lines on the cars.

Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • From: Omaha, NE
  • 10,621 posts
Posted by dehusman on Friday, August 28, 2015 8:43 AM

schlimm
Five broken knuckles? The weak link in the chain.

Knuckles are designed to be the weak link in the chain.  They are designed to fail before the drawbar or the structure of the car itself.  They are also designed to be be "easy" to replace (as opposed to a drawbar or a car ripped in half). 

They can build (and have built) composite kunckles that weigh 1/2 to 1/3 of a  regular knuckle, but they were actually stronger than the steel couplers and the car/draft gear failed before the knuckle did.

If a chunk of steel about 3-4" thick and 8-10" wide has that many failures, that is why I question those coupling systems that use a single 2" steel rod.

Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Friday, August 28, 2015 8:12 AM
Those are mighty big delays for routine broken knuckles or brake hoses.  Clearly a better way is needed to deal with them.
  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Friday, August 28, 2015 8:00 AM

Five broken knuckles?   The weak link in the chain.  The problem is not hi-tech devices failing.  The problem may be the combination of using a technology over 100 years old and expecting it to function with freight cars now weighing far more along with greatly reduced manpower to inspect and maintain.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    December 2009
  • 1,751 posts
Posted by dakotafred on Friday, August 28, 2015 7:22 AM

Great account, Balt, reminding us of problems inherent in a technology we are used to bragging up for its efficiency (when everything works!).

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Thursday, August 27, 2015 8:51 PM

Just a quiet night -

The evening kicks off with a Southbound, running for the law after spending 2 1/2 hours replacing a broken knuckle.  They didn't make destination and were instructed to secure the train and wait for their recrew.  When making the 'securement test' with the brakes released, the rear of the train ran back and guess what?  Broke another kncukle 78 cars from the engines.  Fun times for the recrew to replace the broken knuckle and get the train back together.

Then a rack train, hauling 122 empty autoracks over the mountain with a helper, reports that after the helper cut off from the train that they can't maintain proper air pressure on the rear of the train.  Inspection by both the train and helper crews finds a broken flexible trainline and the car must be set off, with securing and releasing brakes from the various segments of the train the task is accomplished in 4 1/2 hours.

A 9000 foot merchandise train goes into emergency on the highest and longest bridge on the division on signle track.  Broken knuckle 72 cars from the engines, with priority trains from both directions waiting for the trains passge.  A little over 3 hours later the single track is free.

The rack train that had set out the bad order traveled another 18 miles and went into emergency, on single track.  Inspection revealed a broken knuckle 20 cars from the engines, after that was replaced in a hour and 30 minutes it revealed that there was more trouble in the train, another broken knuckle 42 cars deep.  Train went on law on single main with 3 Westbounds and 2 Eastbounds waiting to use single track.

Relief arrived - I transferred and went home!

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 25,022 posts
Posted by tree68 on Thursday, August 13, 2015 3:48 PM

schlimm
Try listening to some of the speeches by individuals in the House or Senate on C-Span for two days and check back.   What we need is more transparency and accountability by members, not less, particularly the sources of all "donations."   This became much more of a problem since the Citizens United decision.  

I agree.  My point is that the individual members these days need to be active in the "you scratch my back" give and take in order to survive.  If they don't support the party line, regardless of how they (or their constituents) actually feel on a given matter, they will receive no support for any items they may propose.

In many ways, what is really needed is for party politics, as they currently exist, to be gone.  Such politics have largely done away with political give and take, where a politician would dicker with other politicians on an individual basis, garnering support.  And where a politician would come any where near voting the sentiments of his/her constituents.

Today, politicians vote the party line.  Period.  Quite a deal is made of any vote where politicians "cross over" and vote against the party line.  What you see on C-SPAN is simply politicians trying to convince their fellow party members that they are part of the group...

LarryWhistling
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...

  • Member since
    October 2014
  • 1,644 posts
Posted by Wizlish on Thursday, August 13, 2015 2:01 PM

schlimm
Yes. It should include a divulging of campaign donations, speaking fees, donations to candidate sponsored foundations and trusts, etc. as a requirement for all elected politicians (and their immediate families) at all levels: federal, state and local. Not voluntary.

To say nothing of real-estate shenanigans intended to maximize the 'take' from the Government, especially after they leave 'public life'...

I am tempted to modify what you said slightly.  Make it voluntary at first, then non-voluntary with oversight.  Then see how the scope and nature of the 'voluntary' disclosures differs from what turns out to be the truth.  And act accordingly...

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Thursday, August 13, 2015 1:48 PM

Norm48327

 

 
schlimm
What we need is more transparency and accountability by members, not less, particularly the sources of all "donations.

 

Perhaps transparency should start in the White House with both current and past presidents and their wives. Possibly, others would follow suit.

 

 
Yes.   It should include a divulging of campaign donations, speaking fees, donations to candidate sponsored foundations and trusts, etc. as a requirement for all elected politicians (and their immediate families) at all levels: federal, state and local.  Not voluntary.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Southeast Michigan
  • 2,983 posts
Posted by Norm48327 on Thursday, August 13, 2015 1:01 PM

schlimm
What we need is more transparency and accountability by members, not less, particularly the sources of all "donations.

Perhaps transparency should start in the White House with both current and past presidents and their wives. Possibly, others would follow suit.

Norm


  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Thursday, August 13, 2015 9:18 AM

tree68
I would opine that as individuals, most politicians would be seen as sane, rational people.  It's when you encounter the "mob" mentality (ie, acting as a bloc) that you run into the insanity that is party politics. While there's a lot to be said for having who voted how known to their constituents, I would suggest that if votes on the House and Senate floor were secret, a good many would come out very differently from how they do now.

Try listening to some of the speeches by individuals in the House or Senate on C-Span for two days and check back.   What we need is more transparency and accountability by members, not less, particularly the sources of all "donations."   This became much more of a problem since the Citizens United decision.  

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 25,022 posts
Posted by tree68 on Thursday, August 13, 2015 7:00 AM

daveklepper
...assure you that there are some fairly sensible Republicans that are as concerned with safety as any political Democrat,

I would opine that as individuals, most politicians would be seen as sane, rational people.  It's when you encounter the "mob" mentality (ie, acting as a bloc) that you run into the insanity that is party politics.

While there's a lot to be said for having who voted how known to their constituents, I would suggest that if votes on the House and Senate floor were secret, a good many would come out very differently from how they do now.

LarryWhistling
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...

  • Member since
    December 2009
  • 1,751 posts
Posted by dakotafred on Thursday, August 13, 2015 6:53 AM

schlimm

Well Fred, you are talking apples and oranges.  Politicians of both parties are bought and sold every day and have been since the founding of the republic.  Your comparison is just fact-deprived rhetoric with no evidence of validity and pretty insulting to soccer moms.

 
I am properly rebuked for my overreaction to a red flag.
 
It would have been sufficient for me to point out that, if labor takes a beating in 2016, it won't be because it was outspent by the Kochs. The brothers' contribution to a given election cycle is dwarfed by that of the unions.
 
And you got George Soros.
 
(By the way, I do believe in labor unions, just not in some of their excesses, which got their proper comeuppance in Wisconsin, mentioned above.)
  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,096 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Thursday, August 13, 2015 3:59 AM

Jeff, I assure you that there are some fairly sensible Republicans that are as concerned with safety as any political Democrat, and while I think it is a possibility that we will have a Republican President, House, and Senate, there will be enough safety-minded Republicans who will join with Democrats to prefent a uniform industry-wide one-man result.

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Wednesday, August 12, 2015 9:26 PM

The American political system is the best that money can buy.

It is bought and sold daily at all levels.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Wednesday, August 12, 2015 9:23 PM

Well Fred, you are talking apples and oranges.  Politicians of both parties are bought and sold every day and have been since the founding of the republic.  Your comparison is just fact-deprived rhetoric with no evidence of validity and pretty insulting to soccer moms.  

[From the Pew Research Center some actual facts]: "Ds lead by 22 points (57%-35%) in leaned party identification among adults with post-graduate degrees. The The Ds’ edge is narrower among those with college degrees or some post-graduate experience (49%-42%), and those with less education (47%-39%).  Across all educational categories, women are more likely than men to affiliate with the D Party or lean D. "

The anti-union agenda of the other party is also pretty clear to anyone who notices WI politics.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    March 2003
  • From: Central Iowa
  • 6,901 posts
Posted by jeffhergert on Wednesday, August 12, 2015 8:59 PM

For the record, I'm an Independent.  That's as far as I can go on that subject.

Jeff

 

 

  • Member since
    December 2009
  • 1,751 posts
Posted by dakotafred on Wednesday, August 12, 2015 8:39 PM

Aw, Schlimm!

First, I don't buy the cuteness of you Democrats in thinking you're avoiding being "political" by not naming party names.

Second, the Koch Bros. and their "minions" haven't been notoriously successful in the last two presidential cycles. Whereas you have bought-and-paid-for minorities, soccer moms and other low-information voters going for you.

Railroad crews are the least of the stakes we have in the 2016 elections.

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Wednesday, August 12, 2015 6:23 PM

jeffhergert

 

 
Ulrich

The industry isn't pushing too hard for one person crews.. it's on the backburner somewhere for sure, but its not something of pressing importance right now. In light of the looming PTC deadline the very LAST thing they want to do right now is to pick a fight with their rank and file. They need all hands on deck to deal with PTC... PTC plus an across the board reduction in crew size would be  a really really dumb move.   

 

 

 

My prediction.  (I'm trying hard not to inject politics, but it really is germane to the discussion.)  If the White House is held by, and both houses of Congress have a majority of those belonging to the party that is considered more pro-business than the other, you will see the issue forced.  It will also not just be on lines equipped with PTC, but on all lines.

Once that political climate is reached, the major carriers will feel that they have the upper hand when the next contracts come up.  They will figure that they either will get the affected union to accept a contract willingly or force it's acceptance through the use of a Presidential Emergency Board.  They will be assuming that a pro-business President will pick members of the PEB that will be more partial towards the companies' way of thinking.

They have broached the idea a few times in the past but conditions weren't condusive to pursue it. 

Jeff

 

Jeff:  In the unlikely event that both Houses and POTUS were captured by that group, union members in all jobs should be on guard.  The agenda pushed by the Koch Bros. through their purchased minions such as Scott Walker or pushed independently by a Bruce Rauner is to destroy collective bargaining rights.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    March 2003
  • From: Central Iowa
  • 6,901 posts
Posted by jeffhergert on Wednesday, August 12, 2015 4:58 PM

Ulrich

The industry isn't pushing too hard for one person crews.. it's on the backburner somewhere for sure, but its not something of pressing importance right now. In light of the looming PTC deadline the very LAST thing they want to do right now is to pick a fight with their rank and file. They need all hands on deck to deal with PTC... PTC plus an across the board reduction in crew size would be  a really really dumb move.   

 

My prediction.  (I'm trying hard not to inject politics, but it really is germane to the discussion.)  If the White House is held by, and both houses of Congress have a majority of those belonging to the party that is considered more pro-business than the other, you will see the issue forced.  It will also not just be on lines equipped with PTC, but on all lines.

Once that political climate is reached, the major carriers will feel that they have the upper hand when the next contracts come up.  They will figure that they either will get the affected union to accept a contract willingly or force it's acceptance through the use of a Presidential Emergency Board.  They will be assuming that a pro-business President will pick members of the PEB that will be more partial towards the companies' way of thinking.

They have broached the idea a few times in the past but conditions weren't condusive to pursue it. 

Jeff

  • Member since
    April 2007
  • 4,557 posts
Posted by Convicted One on Tuesday, August 11, 2015 5:19 PM

Euclid
The discussion was a debate among fans and employees about the two opposing positions held by the management versus crewmembers.

 

Don't forget about the highly paid executives and "contribute nothing to the productive work flow" stockholders who hope to pocket the conductor's salary, once implemented. Mischief

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Tuesday, August 11, 2015 11:30 AM

carnej1

 

 
Euclid
 Is this thread just an academic discussion about the pros and cons of crew size without any connection to the actual practice?
 

 

 

This isn't the "Railway Age" forums and given that we are a group made up primarily of railfans debating the issue then Yes, it is..

 

 

 

well, the thread started out as a discussion of the practical pros and cons of crew size as being advocated by the industry management versus the crewmembers. It was not just about railfans discussing the pros and cons with each other.  The discussion was a debate among fans and employees about the two opposing positions held by the management versus crewmembers.

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy