greyhounds SD70Dude That's because that particular scenario is not unsafe. Ditto for short intermodal or reefer trains. Heck, the Quebec, North Shore & Labrador has a good safety record running extremely long unit bulk (iron ore) trains with only the Engineer. The problem, as we have discussed before, is that the Class I's will use this to open the door to one-man operation on everything. Management has spent many years creating a workplace environment of mistrust between themselves and their employees. With regard to potential one-man operations, they are now reaping what they have sown. Well, this one put me back on my heels. You're saying the trains can be operated safely with one person crews. So just what is the reason for requiring a 2nd crew member on any train? Railroads don't exist to employ people. Just requiring a 2nd crew member to provide employment is deliberate overmanning and it's not good for the economy or the people.
SD70Dude That's because that particular scenario is not unsafe. Ditto for short intermodal or reefer trains. Heck, the Quebec, North Shore & Labrador has a good safety record running extremely long unit bulk (iron ore) trains with only the Engineer. The problem, as we have discussed before, is that the Class I's will use this to open the door to one-man operation on everything. Management has spent many years creating a workplace environment of mistrust between themselves and their employees. With regard to potential one-man operations, they are now reaping what they have sown.
Well, this one put me back on my heels.
You're saying the trains can be operated safely with one person crews. So just what is the reason for requiring a 2nd crew member on any train? Railroads don't exist to employ people. Just requiring a 2nd crew member to provide employment is deliberate overmanning and it's not good for the economy or the people.
I'm only saying what I've said before in past conversations with others, including you. There should be no surprises here.
The railroads seem to be doing just fine with regard to profitability.
I don't recall personally advocating for mandatory 2-person crew legislation, though I do not find the currently proposed law (wouldn't it require a second crew member only on trains of over 7,000 feet?) particularly objectionable.
If you don't believe me you can look up the comments I wrote on a couple of Frailey's blog posts a few years ago. You were also involved in those conversations:
http://cs.trains.com/trn/b/fred-frailey/archive/2017/01/17/the-challenge-of-driverless-trucks.aspx
http://cs.trains.com/trn/b/fred-frailey/archive/2016/08/15/on-crew-size-i-smell-a-rat.aspx
Some trains need a second crew member for both safety and operational reasons. In the case of a derailment or train separation who will immediately secure the detached portion (now a requirement of our rules), or pull the front of the train away from the fire and wreck? To say nothing of the switching operations that most trains seem to perform now at least once along their trip.
Long slop freights are difficult and stressful to run, and the Engineer spends a surprising amount of time and effort just focusing on how to keep the train in one piece. Every second spent monitoring the gauges and computer screens is a second not spent looking ahead through the windshield.
Greyhounds I don't see universal one person crews on "Everything." Some trains will require more crewmembers for efficient operation. And some trains will require more crewmembers for safety. But when a one person crew is safe and efficient, as it will be in many cases, it should be allowed and used.
I don't see universal one person crews on "Everything." Some trains will require more crewmembers for efficient operation. And some trains will require more crewmembers for safety. But when a one person crew is safe and efficient, as it will be in many cases, it should be allowed and used.
The railroads do not see it that way. It's all or nothing for them. What they are pushing for will negatively affect both safety and operations.
Like I wrote several years ago, if the railroads really want to move toward one person train operation the should start an honest conversation with labour and government about the other changes they will make. And then honour those commitments. That's what the QNSL did.
Greyhounds This mistrust was created in both directions.
This mistrust was created in both directions.
Far more by management than by labour.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
SD70DudeThat's because that particular scenario is not unsafe. Ditto for short intermodal or reefer trains. Heck, the Quebec, North Shore & Labrador has a good safety record running extremely long unit bulk (iron ore) trains with only the Engineer. The problem, as we have discussed before, is that the Class I's will use this to open the door to one-man operation on everything. Management has spent many years creating a workplace environment of mistrust between themselves and their employees. With regard to potential one-man operations, they are now reaping what they have sown.
Greyhounds: The point seems simple enough. If your scheme were so simple and profitable, wouldn't some railroad have adopted it in all these years? Or are they all stupid, not interested in making money? Why? You had some authority at the old IC, right? Did they even give that perfunctory consideration? Seems not.
MP Gary sold off DD to his employees when he won his election to the State Senate over a decade ago and retired to enjoy his life. He retired from the senate about 6 years later and has been quiet in his retirement but very active in local politics.
Both my husband and I can call him a friend and we know him personally. This man when he was in the State senate lived in his RV that he parked at the State Capital and refused to take Per Diem from the State saying I am doing what I was elected to do serve my district.
tree68 SD70Dude Heck, the Quebec, North Shore & Labrador has a good safety record running extremely long unit bulk (iron ore) trains with only the Engineer. QNSL also has response personnel ready to respond at a moment's notice, including by helicopter if necessary. In today's PSR world, we'd be lucky to see someone who was allowed to take a company truck home so he/she could respond if there was a problem. Costs money, you know.
SD70Dude Heck, the Quebec, North Shore & Labrador has a good safety record running extremely long unit bulk (iron ore) trains with only the Engineer.
QNSL also has response personnel ready to respond at a moment's notice, including by helicopter if necessary. In today's PSR world, we'd be lucky to see someone who was allowed to take a company truck home so he/she could respond if there was a problem. Costs money, you know.
Our managers have to leave the trucks at work while they are on days off. Even though they are still on call for urgent situations during that time.
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...
greyhounds I have seen no one explain why shorter trains of 89' boxcars moving LTL containers between Detroit and Chicago couldn't safely and efficiently be operated by one person crews.
I have seen no one explain why shorter trains of 89' boxcars moving LTL containers between Detroit and Chicago couldn't safely and efficiently be operated by one person crews.
That's because that particular scenario is not unsafe. Ditto for short intermodal or reefer trains. Heck, the Quebec, North Shore & Labrador has a good safety record running extremely long unit bulk (iron ore) trains with only the Engineer.
The problem, as we have discussed before, is that the Class I's will use this to open the door to one-man operation on everything.
Management has spent many years creating a workplace environment of mistrust between themselves and their employees. With regard to potential one-man operations, they are now reaping what they have sown.
I don't think current "PSR"-style management really wants that sort of traffic anyway.
zugmannI'm goign to guess "small, one-man intermodal trains"
You can bet your Bippy on that!
I was an intern working on a LTL freight dock in Chicago when a truckload of Westclocks (remember them) backed up to the dock. The driver got out and unloaded the truck. He picked the small cardboard boxes up one by one and sorted them by destination onto carts. When he got a cartload full one of our Teamsters would pull it across the dock to the back of a trailer headed to the proper destination. Then the small boxes were loaded one by one into a TOFC trailer. They were combined with other shipments going to the same destination.
I saw this and thought: "There's got to be a better way to do this."
I went back to grad school at Northwestern in the fall. The clocks had planted an idea in my mind. I had to write a thesis to get the MS in transportation I was going for. I proposed to write on the transportation of LCL/LTL by railroad. I had a great thesis advisor who told me I had to first determine why this freight had largely shifted from rail to truck. "Maybe truck is just the best way to move this freight."
Out of that came a lot of research about the shift. The government flat out caused a lot of it with economic regulations that were beyond stupid. They killed intermodal containerization in 1931 for no valid reason. That lasted 50 years. They just didn't get the reality that the advent of motor freight was going to change things. They also hobbled railroad efforts to compete in several other ways. That formed my great distaste for economic regulation. (Some people on the forum will fabricate excuses for the government action. They just can't imagine their sainted government doing anything so senseless. Their fabrications are just that, fabrications. The government took very senseless actions and that's a fact.)
To get to your point, in the thesis I proposed (in 1976) using short intermodal trains consisting of high cube boxcars filled with smaller LTL containers. The handling of these containers could be automated since they would be of standard shapes and sizes. Normally, LTL was/is hand loaded and unloaded. It came in all kinds of shapes and sizes which made automation difficult, if not impossible.
Now, these containers will cause wasted cubic capacity. Some (most?) LTL shipments would not fill out the smaller containers. But they would also save money by eliminating the manual handling on freight docks.
The railroad advantage is that they are less sensative to cube than a trucker. A trucker must conform to highway height, weight, and length limits that do not apply to a railroad. I suggested using high cube 89' boxcars to move the small containers. That's whole lot more cube than a truck can offer.
In LTL the real cost is in the terminals. Rail can fix this by using the smaller containers that will allow automation.
Your wagered Bippy is safe.
Murphy SidingI'd be interested in hearing what greyhound thinks of the situation and where it should go from here.
I'm just a retired old fat guy. (With brand new hearing aids. They're great. I can now actually use a phone. The phone and hearing aids are blue tooth connected.)
Anyway, I'm generally strongly opposed to corporate bail outs. If a company is failing let it go and be replaced by something more efficient. Bailing out failing firms harms the economy and the general population.
Of course, those folks who depend on the failed firm for pay checks will get hurt. But, as my old economics professor used to say: "You can't take pain out of the economy." The government can take steps to mitigate the pain. Such as unemployment insurance, continued medical insurance (temporary), job search assistance, job training, retirement savings/pension continuation, etc. But the displaced employees have to move on and find new jobs. Doing so is not a pleasant experience, but it is necessary. I've done it. Didn't like doing it. Got it done.
YRC has a lot of the DOD LTL shipments. I've read 68% of such shipments. Unless things have really changed those shipments went to the low bidder. This high percentage tells me that YRC targeted DOD shipments as a marketing strategy. Nothing wrong with that. But there were other truckers who bid the business and lost to YRC. If YRC evaporates there are certainly other carriers who can, and will, step in to move the freight.
However and furthermore, these are in no way normal economic times. There has been a command shut down of much of the economy. The government has created fiat money and extended loans to many businesses. As long as the money to YRC is a loan and not a gift, I'm OK with it under these circumstances.
Cats:
Is Gary Dahl of DD still involved at all? I knew he set up an ESOP, but not sure if he is still involved. He used to be a customer and we hit it off pretty well. He grew his business quite well.
I worked in LTL from 1980 thru 1990 - brutal business. I came in with deregulation and when I left the graveyard of failed carriers was filling up. One of the best decisions I made was leave the industry. Been in sales for 30 years and still enjoy it.
One of our customers is YRC. We heard rumblings about 3 weeks ago of COVID related funds available to trucking companies. It makes sense that YRC was targeted (based on rumors, not on logic). I discussed the COVID funds with a couple of my trucking customers (both are owners) and neither had heard of the funds available. I am sure both are very upset with this.
If YRC is a major supplier of DOD logistics, it makes sense (in a way) for the baleout. I dont like it, but it makes sense. Regarding the "overcharges"...those happen very easily. One of my responsibilities years ago was the tariffs and rates. Applying correct rates to shipments was as much of an art as science at times. Not sure how the rate structure between YRC and DOD was set up if it was FAK or class rates but mistakes occur.
YRC is in a mess and has been for years. For years Roadway was the standard long distance LTL carrier - no debt. CF - long gone, replaced by their non union arm which I believe is now XPO.
I have lost track of the industry, thankfully left it at the right time.
Ed
I'm goign to guess "small, one-man intermodal trains"
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
I'd be interested in hearing what greyhound thinks of the situation and where it should go from here.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
CatFoodFlambe For a period of about 30 years, the US was the only major manufacturing power on Earth. If you wanted anything more technologically sophisticated than an egg beater, you had to buy it here, and the cost was just passed on. We came to consider this to be "normal", but good old "American Know-How" was generally developed because we weren't busy filling in bomb craters, both physical and economic.
For a period of about 30 years, the US was the only major manufacturing power on Earth. If you wanted anything more technologically sophisticated than an egg beater, you had to buy it here, and the cost was just passed on. We came to consider this to be "normal", but good old "American Know-How" was generally developed because we weren't busy filling in bomb craters, both physical and economic.
If you take it another step beyond that, the US, Canada, the UK, France, and (West) Germany economies all reached their peak share of the global economy between 1960 and 1971. The Soviet Union peaked then too. Those same economies reached their lowest shares around 2010-2012.
At the beginning of WW2, the US probably had half of the world's war production capability, i.e. the amount of manufacturing capacity that could be converted to amking armanents (think auto industry and radio industry).The machine tool makers were sponsoring training programs between late 1939 and 1941 to gear up with expected wartime production needs.
A little known fact is that fatalities from wartime industrial accidents were not a lot smaller than combat fatalities, IIRC there were over 100,000 industrial fatalities between Dec 7, 1941 and spring of 1944.
What people forget about WW2 is that the USA was the WORLDS arms and supplier for the Allies. We fed the Soviet Union provided them with thousands of trucks planes and millions of tons of food. Packard literally provided 80% of the Merlin engines used in WW2. We where the only nation in History to fight and win a multiple front war. In 1944 we at one time had major meaning more than 2 Corp in size attacks going on in 5 seperate Theaters at the same time. Plus where supporting 3 seperate Strategic Bombing Campaigns at the same time. Plus we came out of the war as the only nation that did not need to rebuild its entire nation for the most part. Germany was freaking leveled into rubble. Japan was burned into ashes Most of Europe was destoryed by city fighting. England was damaged and until those nations rebuilt we where the again the supply warehouse for everything.
Convicted One I find it casually fascinating that at one time the economic outlook of this country (including, but not exclusive to transportation) was so good, that the unions would feel confident making ever-rising demands, let alone that the industries involved must have likewise felt sufficiently confident in order to meet those demands.
I find it casually fascinating that at one time the economic outlook of this country (including, but not exclusive to transportation) was so good, that the unions would feel confident making ever-rising demands, let alone that the industries involved must have likewise felt sufficiently confident in order to meet those demands.
For a period of about 30 years, the US was the only major manufacturing power on Earth. If you wanted anything more technologically sophisticated than an egg beater, you had to buy it here, and the cost was just passed on. We came to consider this to be "normal", but good old "American Know-How" was generally developed because we weren't busy filling in bomb craters, both physical and economic.Transportation effeciency and energy resource distribution leveled the playing field, and we've managed to go 75 years without leveling a fourth of the global economic capacity in a major war somewhere (Disclaimer - any war in which YOU are the one being shot at is a "Major War" - thanks to all of you who have served anywhere )
We
My boss is in the process of getting DOD clearence to haul for the DOD. We already haul US mint loads for Denver in the form of the material for coins. However that clearence was easy to get compared to the hoops that the carrier is jumping thru to get DOD clearence. To say they are crawling over us with a microscope is an understatement. A FMCSA audit is less of a pain in the rear end than all the paperwork I have been filing with the DOD recently to get permission to haul their stuff and I am just talking foodstuffs for the commisaries. Let alone hazmat if we ever decide to go that route.
in the 90's, i worked as a casual driver in the ltl industry, yellow has been a dead man walking for 30 years, their merger/purchase of roadway was a joke, they bought a rolling junkyard that the DOT should have fined out of existence, the routes overlaped, piss poor managment, i saw it the teamsters gave concessions to save the company and jobs, the pension funds took a major hit. i expect shortly after the bailout hits their bank accounts, senior managment will be bailing out with "golden parachutes" before it collapses for the final time. taxpayers will get left holding the empty bag, no one is too big to fail, close them down, sell off the assets, other carriers will gladly pick up the slack and hire the displaced drivers
Given the general quality of off-shore products at the time, I don't think either management or labor felt threatened. Refering to an auto as a "Japanese car" was essentially a perjorative, and the vehicles that were of suitable quality were generally in niche markets.
Many "full size" autos today are smaller than my "mid-size" 1970 Chevelle. American buyers wanted the "boats" of the day.
What is just as "amazing" is how many corporations moved to offshore production because labor was so much cheaper and they couldn't "compete", yet the cost of their products didn't go down, or even stay the same. It was just more money in their pockets. Yet, in many industries, Western companies/countries have no problem, not just competing, but ruling. Look at C8 trucks, airliners, firearms and military hardware, etc.
If it were not for Unions - working men and women would be looking up to the Poverty Line hoping to make it above it.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
I think it also has to do with the loss of "critical mass" of unionized companies. Look at the auto companies. Even though some are non-union, there are still the Big 3 that have unions. Everyone has to pay decent wages and benefits under the threat of "if we're not close, they'll bring in a union and we're screwed". The Teamsters, due to both internal and external pressures, have lost all their power.
BackshopI'd say yes. Deregulation allowed any startup nonunion company to come in and cherrypick the loads from other companies. It started a race to the bottom. Mileage pay hasn't gone up much in the last 20 years and it definitely hasn't kept up with inflation. At least railroaders get to sleep in their own bed every other night.
What I was thinking is, back in the days of regulation where carriers had the comfort of knowing they were going to make out okay (let's call them the "halcyon" days, just for reference) entering into generous labor contracts with the union likely seemed more doable, less problematic than after everything is whittled to the bone.
Whereas after the onset of deregulation, labor is bound to take a beating before the stockholders will.
greyhoundsI don't buy this "Essential to the Pentagon" thing. The DOD may use YRC a lot, but if they shut down tomorrow other carriers would be standing in line to move the freight.
There's the rub though, just like the USPS, not any old company can come in and transport the DoD's freight. They and they drivers assigned to that service have to be vetted, not sure how much vetting they get, but I'm going to presume it depends on the type of freight they're going to carry. I wouldn't be surprised of some of the drivers have Classified clearance in order to be able to handle some of the DoD's business.
USPS postal contract carriers are sort of handled the same way. Not just any OTR carrier can haul Postal Service mail.
Backshop At least railroaders get to sleep in their own bed every other night.
At least railroaders get to sleep in their own bed every other night.
You've obviously never heard of outposts, shortages, or turns out of the AFHT......
Convicted One Backshop CFF, the trucking/warehousing industry has changed from a middle class career to a working class grind. Has that been a result of deregulation, either directly or indirectly?
Backshop CFF, the trucking/warehousing industry has changed from a middle class career to a working class grind.
Has that been a result of deregulation, either directly or indirectly?
Most OTR drivers are away from home 2-3 weeks at a time and then only home 2-3 days. They are hardly ever paid detention time, even though they are on the clock for service hours. What that means is if you have a 7am delivery appointment and they don't unload you until noon, you just lost 5 hours driving time (you're paid by the mile) but you don't get paid. Many companies won't even give you any pay if their truck breaks down unless it is at least 24 hours.
.
York1 John
BackshopCFF, the trucking/warehousing industry has changed from a middle class career to a working class grind.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.