Mookie BaltACD I find it absolutely amazing that all the non-railroaders believe that the only thing required to safely operate a train from A to Z is someone operating the throttle and waving at passersby. not all non-railroaders....
BaltACD I find it absolutely amazing that all the non-railroaders believe that the only thing required to safely operate a train from A to Z is someone operating the throttle and waving at passersby.
I find it absolutely amazing that all the non-railroaders believe that the only thing required to safely operate a train from A to Z is someone operating the throttle and waving at passersby.
not all non-railroaders....
I find it amazing that you can come to that conclusion when no one here is arguing in favor of crew reductions.. I guess I'm a bit of an outlier by stating that there should be some flexibility in determining crew allotments based on the work at hand. That's not the same as saying "thou shalt cut crew size".. I've even stated that in many cases two or more crew members makes sense, but for some reason that got lost.
BaltACD...someone operating the throttle and waving at passersby.
But without two-person crews, anyone to the left of the engine will feel neglected, won't they?
jeffhergertThe angle thingy (used in place of what gets censored)
Maybe "angle rooster" would get by the auto-censor. Or anglecock, one word?
The second suggestion was a science fair experiment on the auto-sensor sensitivity. Interesting result.
She who has no signature! cinscocom-tmw
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Convicted One I wonder if they would allow a lone engineer to use remote control while replacing a knuckle out in the middle of nowhere? He throws the knuckle out onto the ballast, exits the cab with his radio pak. Pulls the Train forward via radio, sets the new knuckle on top of the last coupler, grabs a ladder rung, and idles the train back to the problem. Change the knuckle, and then conduct a roll-by via remote? Then, bring the engine back (via remote of course) for boarding? Just think of all the foot steps we just saved!!
I wonder if they would allow a lone engineer to use remote control while replacing a knuckle out in the middle of nowhere?
He throws the knuckle out onto the ballast, exits the cab with his radio pak. Pulls the Train forward via radio, sets the new knuckle on top of the last coupler, grabs a ladder rung, and idles the train back to the problem.
Change the knuckle, and then conduct a roll-by via remote? Then, bring the engine back (via remote of course) for boarding?
Just think of all the foot steps we just saved!!
You won't save as many steps as you think. First, you probably won't know why you went into emergency. Did you break a knuckle? Pull out a draw bar? Air hose burst? Or maybe a pin lifter just caused the knuckle to open. I've even had the EOT fall off the rear car once.
So just use the box to pull it up to you, right? Wrong. The angle thingy (used in place of what gets censored) will be open at the point of the problem. Very doubtful you are going to be able to move the train.
Even with a box, you are going to have to walk to the problem. That is, after you have secured the train with handbrakes. Since you don't know where the problem is, you'll have to secure enough hand brakes to hold the entire train. There might be some places where you can move the train without protecting the movement. That means a place where there are no crossings, public or private. Then maybe you can throw off that knuckle. Actually, you will need to throw off two knuckles. An E and a F knuckle, unless you are a train made up entirely of the same kind of draft gear. Then you are going to start walking. You should take with you an air hose wrench and air hose just in case that's the problem. But you will do some walking.
Jeff
Annecdotal guesstimate based on 25 years as a Chief Dispatcher on multiple operating divisions of my carrier.
40 to 60% of all through freight trains operating will have situations that will require 'boots on the ground'. Those situations include designated 'station work' picking up and/or setting of cars (utility brakeman may or may not be in a position to assist), inspecting train for defect detector activation (that may or may not require actions beyond inspection), inspecting train because of defects reported by passing trains or MofW personnel as well as outside parties, air issues that occurr (UDE or excessive leakage), handling power operated switches in hand throw mode account signal trouble, in Dark territory handling switches to take and leave sidings, flagging road crossings with malfunctioning crossing protection, etc, etc, etc.
Despite all the high tech computers and other equipment that are a part of today's and tomorrow's railroads - the basics end up involving a man or men on the ground doing the dirty work.
That's my point exactly. One would have to do a cost benefit analysis to determine whether or not a second (or third or more) crew member is warranted. If this is a once in a thousand times occurance then maybe not.. but if what you described happens almost every day on the same route then clearly yes, additional crew would be required.
Ulrich Trucks break down too, but not often enough to warrant having a mechanic along for every trip.
Trucks break down too, but not often enough to warrant having a mechanic along for every trip.
However, it's pretty rare that one semi-truck that's broken down will block the entire road and keep all other traffic from passing until the break-down is repaired.
One train having a problem can stop all movement on that line for hours. Case in point: I was on the Lake Shore Limited heading to Chicago when it was delayed for a good 3-3.5 hours because a freight train in front had to set out a bad car, reassemble and do a brake test. This was all in the wee hours of Sunday morning 7/25. This was on a double track line, but there was no way to just "go around" and it seems to me that there was no traffic coming through in the opposing direction during this whole stoppage. Once we were moving again, there were several freights coming the other direction. So it's possible there were 6-10 trains stopped for hours waiting for that one train to get moving again. How much is all that worth in $$$?
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?
It sure would be nice to see some numbers. How often do trains breakdown or get stranded because of something like a broken coupler? As a conductor, is this something you deal with every day..every month... every year? The frequency and likelihood of the occurence would determine if having another crew member on board is justifiable. Trucks break down too, but not often enough to warrant having a mechanic along for every trip.
Pointless sarcasm... everyone here pretty much agrees on two person crews for the most part and for the present. No one is seriously pushing for across the board crew reductions... it would be career suicide at this point for any manager to do so, at least until PTC is in place as required and has proven itself reliable. The railroads know that too... none would be so stupid as to cut their workforce in half while implementing brand new not yet proven technology by a government mandated deadline that they now are pretty sure can't be met anyway.
Just think of the leading end of the movement not being protected on the 'blind' shove!
And schlimm just said a couple of hours ago that sarcasm couldn't be expressed well in text posts...
This subject came to mind last night while I was out at Bayview Junction, watching trains pass under a full moon. As one long train after another passed I couldn't help but think that CN is certainly maximizing their labor prodcutivity. And during the last second quarter conference call COO Jim Vena mentioned trains were getting longer. Yeah, no kidding! Two people on trains that massive is probably a good idea.
Remember - While Amtrak, normally, only have one person in the cab of the locomotive - they have additional personnel (Conductors & Asst. Conductors) to assist in anything that may require feet on the ground.
A freight train has so many situations that can require feet on the ground - switching, inspecting DD activations, inspecting defects observed and communicated by MofW personnel and passing trains etc. etc. etc., the necessity to hand throw power switches at locations of signal failure (signal failure that in many instances is caused by failure of commercial telephone service), the list goes on and on.
I agree that the reason for a "second person" on a train is not always a second set of eyes. As some of the other posts point out, there are various scenarios that can make a second person on particular trains or in particular operations useful and appropriate. But the issue with the government mandating a second person is whether the second person is necessary for safety, and the normal explanation is that the second person provides "redundancy" (i.e., a "second set of eyes"). My point was that, if this were true, the safety rationale for mandating a second person in trucks is even more compelling, given the environment in which trucks operate. The fact that no one in authority is even suggesting such a measure tells me that a "two person" mandate applicable only to railroads is another labor-management issue masquerading as a safety issue.
Borrowing heavily from the bard, sarcasm is a dish best served live; the subtleties that give it life don't transcend the electronic page.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Murphy Siding 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".
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".
This is the exact situation you get with almost all Asian airlines, the pilots on Asian airlines rely upon the computer to fly the jet and do almost no manual flying of their own....it only comes in to play when trying to land or take off(which they also rely on the computers to do most of the work, but not all of it)...see the Asiatic Air crash at San Francisco International Airport to find out how well using the computers to land works...not very well. But in all honesty, a jet can be flown with only one pilot on board, and there is in essence only one, the Captain, the First Officer can take over if necessary, but is there for other purposes...and many regional flights only have a Captain and two Flight Attendants...just the scenario you are describing.
schlimm Why carnej thinks the example of B-H proves or disproves this is beyond my comprehension.
It looked to me as though he was trying to employ sarcasm grounded in an assumption of omni-competence of Warren Buffett. I mean if Big Warren is putting his chips on the line for an equity swap, that MUST mean acquiring pre-existing equity isn't dumb? right? ( insert apples and oranges quip here)
On my carrier, when Mandatory Directives must be sent to a train. The Directive must be copied by a employee on the controlling locomotive of the train. If there is only one person on the controlling locomotive of the train - the train must be stopped and then the directive can be copied. This applies to ALL trains that only have one person in the locomotive control position - Amtrak and the various commuter carriers that operate on our property.
With the frequency of scheduled stations stops, these stops can normally be used to comply with the rule; however, if events conspire trains can be stopped anywhere in order to comply.
Where situations such as signal suspensions, which require trains to operate on TWC or DTC rules, the passenger carriers will normally arrange to have a second person in the operating locomotive to be able to copy the necessary authorities which are Mandatory Directives.
I don't think its just a second set of eyes. A second person is able to provide support on the ground for switching cars, communicating with dispatch, and in dealing with some situations like broken couplers as they arise. Moreover, the trucking industry evolved differently. Right from the start it was one driver per truck, sometimes two for expedited services. But we never had fireman and brakemen on trucks, so there was never a need for the trucking industry to rightsize in that context in order to remain current with technology. That may be changing now as autonomous trucks will make it possible for one driver to drive two or more trucks at a time through what's being called platooning.
About train crew size, I don't think there's a right answer. Instead the railroads and the various unions should be striving for crew size flexibility. In some cases one person working alone is probably okay while in other situations two or more people may be required. Why not let the workload and the situation at hand determine how many people are required? That's how its done in every other industry.. the workload as well as the particulars of the job at hand dictate how many workers are assigned to the job.
edblysard The same argument could be made for private automobiles too....and you, the auto driver, don't have to have a federal license, or undergo safety testing and a rules examine every 3 years, along with a physical. Of course, the truck can swerve and negotiate in traffic, and its weight is tiny compared to a train, so it can stop relatively quickly compared to a train. I would love to get all the "one man crew" fans in the cab of a over the road train, heck, even a switching yard job cab, and see if they could even get the train out of the yard by themselves. From most of the posts, it seems you guys don't have a clue what a conductor does, his or her responsibilities and duties. You all sound like you think all the conductor does is ride around waving at people at the crossings, maybe call a signal or two, and sleep.
My point, however, is that the notion that there should be a second person on a crew simply to provide additional eyes is a bad idea. For one thing, if the person has little to do except be a second set of eyes, he (or she) will be quickly bored, and will likely distract the engineer with meaningless conversation. Again, if a second pair of eyes is so essential to safety of a surface transporation vehicle, then it should be at least as essential to an over the road truck (which operates in a much more hostile environment than a train) as a train. The fact that there is no great movement to mandate a second person in over the road trucks (or busses) tells me that this is yet another railroad labor-management issue masquerading as a "safety" issue.
Back in 1993 I broke down on Christmas Eve near Brockville, ON. It was COLD and the snow was coming down hard. They closed the highway, and let me assure you, although I was only about an hour out from Montreal, it sure felt like the middle of nowhere for about 16 hours.
tree68 BaltACD You've clearly never been on NYS Route 30 between Long Lake and Blue Mountain Lake at Oh-Dark-Thirty...
BaltACD
You've clearly never been on NYS Route 30 between Long Lake and Blue Mountain Lake at Oh-Dark-Thirty...
Being a road - there is the potential for other traffic - from either direction.
Single track railroad - nothing is getting through until a train's issues are fixed, and in way to many locations - nobody that isn't on the rail is getting to the train to provide any assistance.
BaltACDTrucks don't know about the middle of nowhere! Unless maybe you are a Ice Road Trucker on the ice alone in the middle of a lake and it is melting.
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...
Ulrich BaltACD Ulrich Eventually, probably within the next five to ten years, you will see more widespread use of one person crews for simple point A to point B moves. But for more complex work such as switching and setting out cars etc, two or more people will still be the norm. Why can't crew size be flexible to meet the demands of the work? How many crew on a train is not the right question to ask.. rather both sides should be aiming for flexible work rules that will allow the right number of crew for the work at hand.. sometimes that's one person.. and sometimes it could be three or more. And mechanical breakdowns in the middle of nowhere are so scheduleable to bring in the 'roving' conductor (whose job was blanked because the board had been cut and there was no one to fill it). Trucks breakdown too.. so trucks should be crewed by a driver and a mechanic, just in case? My house is flammable.. should I be required to have a fireman on the premises and at the ready at all times? The trucking industry (for example) doesn't require any minimum/maximum crew . For a load of milk they send out one driver. If its Atlas Moving then they send out a driver and three big goons who can each lift a refrigerator.. see? Common sense in action. Likewise for the railroad.. on an operation like the QNS&L one person is sufficient while more labour intensive moves might call for more than one crew member. Why can't common sense determine the number of workers like in just about every other industry? How many workers should a builder hire to build a house? Answer.. it depends on the house. If it's a dog house one worker will do.. if it's a McMansion then maybe 20 or more would be needed.. Ya can't have a rule for everything... at some point that gray matter between one's ears got to count for more than stuffing.
BaltACD Ulrich Eventually, probably within the next five to ten years, you will see more widespread use of one person crews for simple point A to point B moves. But for more complex work such as switching and setting out cars etc, two or more people will still be the norm. Why can't crew size be flexible to meet the demands of the work? How many crew on a train is not the right question to ask.. rather both sides should be aiming for flexible work rules that will allow the right number of crew for the work at hand.. sometimes that's one person.. and sometimes it could be three or more. And mechanical breakdowns in the middle of nowhere are so scheduleable to bring in the 'roving' conductor (whose job was blanked because the board had been cut and there was no one to fill it).
Ulrich Eventually, probably within the next five to ten years, you will see more widespread use of one person crews for simple point A to point B moves. But for more complex work such as switching and setting out cars etc, two or more people will still be the norm. Why can't crew size be flexible to meet the demands of the work? How many crew on a train is not the right question to ask.. rather both sides should be aiming for flexible work rules that will allow the right number of crew for the work at hand.. sometimes that's one person.. and sometimes it could be three or more.
Eventually, probably within the next five to ten years, you will see more widespread use of one person crews for simple point A to point B moves. But for more complex work such as switching and setting out cars etc, two or more people will still be the norm. Why can't crew size be flexible to meet the demands of the work? How many crew on a train is not the right question to ask.. rather both sides should be aiming for flexible work rules that will allow the right number of crew for the work at hand.. sometimes that's one person.. and sometimes it could be three or more.
And mechanical breakdowns in the middle of nowhere are so scheduleable to bring in the 'roving' conductor (whose job was blanked because the board had been cut and there was no one to fill it).
Trucks breakdown too.. so trucks should be crewed by a driver and a mechanic, just in case? My house is flammable.. should I be required to have a fireman on the premises and at the ready at all times?
The trucking industry (for example) doesn't require any minimum/maximum crew . For a load of milk they send out one driver. If its Atlas Moving then they send out a driver and three big goons who can each lift a refrigerator.. see? Common sense in action. Likewise for the railroad.. on an operation like the QNS&L one person is sufficient while more labour intensive moves might call for more than one crew member. Why can't common sense determine the number of workers like in just about every other industry? How many workers should a builder hire to build a house? Answer.. it depends on the house. If it's a dog house one worker will do.. if it's a McMansion then maybe 20 or more would be needed.. Ya can't have a rule for everything... at some point that gray matter between one's ears got to count for more than stuffing.
Trucks don't know about the middle of nowhere! Unless maybe you are a Ice Road Trucker on the ice alone in the middle of a lake and it is melting.
Convicted OneConvicted One wrote the following post yesterday: carnej1 If I'm correctly understanding what you are stating as a fundamental fact than Berkshire Hathaway should be the biggest failure in Corporate history and BNSF is doomed....or is B-H the exception that proves your rule? I think what he is saying is, that acquiring and holding (existing) stock in a company is not one-in-the-same with providing them growth resources. When a company has an IPO, the money goes to the company, when existing stock is traded... the money goes to the previous holder.
carnej1 If I'm correctly understanding what you are stating as a fundamental fact than Berkshire Hathaway should be the biggest failure in Corporate history and BNSF is doomed....or is B-H the exception that proves your rule?
I think what he is saying is, that acquiring and holding (existing) stock in a company is not one-in-the-same with providing them growth resources. When a company has an IPO, the money goes to the company, when existing stock is traded... the money goes to the previous holder.
I clearly said that only IPOs and new stock offerings by a company already traded add new capital to the company coffers. I do not believe that is disputable. Why carnej thinks the example of B-H proves or disproves this is beyond my comprehension.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.