Administration to Mandate Two Person Freight Crews

[mvlandsw]

They did that on the Capitol. When they went to a one person engine crew the engineers did not run the entire distance without changing.

[BaltACD]

zugmann

Doesn't amtrak limit one-person engine cabs to runs shorter than 6 or 8 hours?

Which - by schedule is most all of their crew runs - of course day to day railroading will make many of those runs over 8 hours in reality.

Auto-Train is engineer only in the cab with crew change and fueling at Florence, SC both ways. 

[Flintlock76]

zugmann

Federal orders aren't "make a deal". 

Right, that was the point of my post.  It was a "Take it or leave it!" scenario.

"You want one-person train operation approval from us, this is what we want from you."  

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

This may not be the best example of the limitations of one-man operation but the Chicago Transit Authority has operated its rapid transit service with only a motorman, no conductor, for some years now.  There haven't been any major issues but the equipment is rather homogeneous in its dimensions and performance characteristics.

[alphas]

To me, if you are going to have a 2 man road crew then it should be something like the airlines have.    Namely an Engineer and Assistant Engineer or maybe Senior Engineer and Engineer.     That way one man doesn't have to be at the trottle all of the trip.   The Assistant would probably be younger so would be the one doing any required groundwork.    [Local freights would probably have one Engineer and 1 or 2 Conductors.]

[greyhounds]

The economics driving the need for one person train crews (and long trains for that matter) are compelling. They will be, or are, of great benefit the people of the US and Canada.  They will make our logistics system more efficient.  This will lower the cost of logistics to the general public. 

 

I reckon I’ve greatly irritated some people with what I wrote in the preceding paragraph.  They shouldn’t be so upset; I’m not suggesting running 200 car manifests with HAZMAT cars on busy main lines with one person aboard. 

 

And some people will be irritated that I’m focused on money instead of people.  Well, I don’t think that economic concerns (money) are everything.  I do think that such concerns are the foundation of everything.  A good economy enables things such as good health care, good schools, good nutrition, etc.  Anything that reduces a major and necessary cost to the people, such as logistics, improves the overall economy.  This is good.  We can then get more good things and services to make our lives better.

 

OK, let’s start.  All benefits have costs.  Reducing these costs makes more benefits more available to more people. This improves the standard of living.

 

Costs can be broken down into two almost distinct categories: 1) Fixed and 2) Variable.  Fixed costs don’t change with the volume produced while variable costs do change with the volume produced. 

 

An example would be someone leasing an auto repair facility for his/her business of repairing automobiles.  Those lease costs don’t change based on the number of autos repaired.  The lease costs are “Fixed.”

 

On the other hand, the labor (number of mechanic hours) required will change based on the number of cars repaired.  So, labor is normally thought of as a variable expense based on the volume of output.

 

Please remember that I said, “Almost Distinct” and “Normally”.  Also realize that any enterprise must, at a minimum, cover both its fixed and variable costs to stay in business. (The lease covers the facility’s cost of capital, which is very real.)

 

The “Almost Distinct” thing comes into play with train crew labor. Once a railroad decides to operate a schedule to serve a market the train crew labor becomes a “Virtual” fixed cost.  Labor that is normally thought of as a variable cost becomes a fixed cost over a broad range of volume.  It doesn’t matter if the train is moving 10 loads or 80 loads.  The train crew labor cost doesn’t change.

 

Fixed costs, when combined with variable costs, produce a volume hurdle that must be cleared if the railroad's operation of the schedule is to be viable.  Requiring a two-person crew for the operation of any and all trains will unnecessarily increase the height of the hurdle that must be cleared.

 

Since smaller origins and destinations cannot provide the required volume to clear the higher hurdle they are largely left to the truckers.  There are a lot of such smaller origins and destinations.  The railroads could well provide most of them with truck competitive rail service if the cost hurdle could be lowered by using one person crews where feasible.  I am certain this would increase the level of rail union employment if tried.

 

Now let the Luddites roar.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[tree68]

alphas

To me, if you are going to have a 2 man road crew then it should be something like the airlines have.    Namely an Engineer and Assistant Engineer or maybe Senior Engineer and Engineer.     That way one man doesn't have to be at the trottle all of the trip.   The Assistant would probably be younger so would be the one doing any required groundwork.    [Local freights would probably have one Engineer and 1 or 2 Conductors.]

That already happens more than you might think.

[Euclid]

zugmann

 

 

Euclid

I don’t think the industry would accept the offer.

 

 

Federal orders aren't "make a deal". 

 

I wouldn't be surprised if we eventually get a train-size limit as well.  

I too would not be surprised if the FRA limits train length.  In some of their recent publications, they seem very concerned about the possibility that the trend of major increases of train length is causing more derailments.  They attribute this to rising “in-train” forces and unfavorable train makeup, which are working together to increase the risk of derailment.  They also talk about how the longer trains affect grade crossings. 

[Overmod]

What I suspect you'll see with 'long trains' is a combination of assessing new, much larger penalties for cutting crossings, combined with very strict enforcement of high dollar penalties for any train above a certain length, say what was being proposed in the House and Senate bills (about 80 cars?)  

In other words, disincentives that remove the perceived 'cost advantages' of operating very long DP consists slowly.  Rather than an outright ban on train length, for which there is likely no contrived "safety" justification now any more than at other times the idea of train-length restrictions has been floated.

Not surprisingly, if there is a guaranteed $5000 to $25000 fee for every crossing left 'uncut' after 15 minutes from certain kinds of stop... much of the big perceived savings from one-man crews goes away.

[Euclid]

Here is an FRA report on the topic of the emerging “longer train” trend.  It is a discussion of the issue by the FRA, railroad management, and railroad labor.  They cover things like increasing in-train forces, blocked grade crossings, the need for increasing crew training for handling longer trains, and optimizing train makekup. 

 

Not only are these issues covered from the differing perspectives of the Stakeholders, but they are covered in detail to the extent I have never seen before. 

 

For instance, here is a detailed description of how a grade crossing may be blocked for days:

 

  • Initial congestion may contribute to further congestion due to HOS limitations. According to focus group transcripts, congestion and bottlenecks, such as those related to infrastructure limitations, may result in crews running up against their HOS limitations. It takes time to get new crews out to the train, and the train is tied down at the location where it is stopped. When this happens while a train is over a grade crossing, it can extend the length of time the train blocks the crossing for hours or even days.

 

 

Fortunately, they have coined a name for these longer trains, which have informally been referred to as “Monster Trains.”  I have referred to them sometimes as “Ultra-long trains.”  But the FRA now refers to them singularly as a VLT which stands for VERY LONG TRAIN.  Apparently they wanted a less inflammatory and sinister term than, “Monster train.”

 

However, despite the agreement on the term, VLT, there is still the unmet need to define what actually constitutes a VLT besides the idea that “You will know it when you see it.”

 

Here is the link to the report:

 

Stakeholder Perceptions of Longer Trains

 

https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/2022-12/Stakeholder%20Perceptions%20of%20Longer%20Trains_Final_-A.pdf

[PJS1]

tree68

 Amtrak has been running one person crews virtually since Day 1. 

An Amtrak conductor who works the Texas Eagle between San Antonio and Fort Worth, has told me if an Amtrak run is less than five hours, only an engineer is required in the cab.  If it is more than five hours, two people are required up front.

 

A Fort Worth based engineer works No. 21 from Fort Worth to Austin.  At Austin he/she is replaced by a San Antonio based engineer that takes the train from Austin to San Antonio.  A San Antonio based engineer operates No. 22 from San Antonio to Austin, where he/she is replaced by a Fort Worth based engineer for the run from Austin to Fort Worth.  The scheduled time between Austin and Fort Worth is less than five hours.

 

The conductor and assistant conductor on Nos 21 and 22 work from San Antonio to Fort Worth or vice versa.  The conductor and assistant conductor are based in San Antonio.     

 

As I understand Amtrak’s procedure, if only the engineer is in the cab, the conductor is in constant communication with the engineer.  He/she is required to know the location of the train and every signal along the route.  As the train approaches a signal, the engineer is required to call it to the conductor for confirmation.  If he/she does not call it, the conductor is required to call the engineer for confirmation.