QUOTE: Originally posted by warrior been running one man trains on british rail for 20 years never been a problem.
QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds I think it's pretty obvious that one person crews will work just fine on some trains and not that well on other trains. That's what the union/management negotiations should focus on. Under just what conditions can this type of operation be used. The railroad companies should not be required to use more labor than is needed. Agreeing on when and where the extra person is required should be the point of the negotiations. People barganing in good faith can work this one out just fine. Does the UP RoadRailer train out of E. Minneapolis really need a two person crew? I don't think so. Does a double stack train on a 220 mile crew district need two people? Yes, I believe it does. Work it out in good faith guys.
Randy Vos
"Ever have one of those days where you couldn't hit the ground with your hat??" - Waylon Jennings
"May the Lord take a liking to you and blow you up, real good" - SCTV
Quentin
QUOTE: Originally posted by csxengineer98 your just now finding this out jim...we have known about this since the section 6 came out... csx engineer
QUOTE: Originally posted by sammythebull One thing that needs to be brought to attention is the PTC technology concept of single person crews is still atleast a decade away.
Originally posted by SP9033 Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply CSXrules4eva Member sinceAugust 2004 From: Louisville, KY 1,345 posts Posted by CSXrules4eva on Sunday, May 1, 2005 4:27 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by rvos1979 I don't remember if this is still in effect or not, but I think the state of Wisconsin, after the Weyuwega barbeque passed a law requiring a mininum of two people in a locomotive cab. I'm not exactly sure that one-person crews are a good thing, especially with the long hours railroaders put in. If it somehow goes through, maybe the industry should take a hard look at limiting the hours train personnel put in per week, similar to truck drivers. My [2c] worth. Randy I agree with you Randy. I think having a one man train on short passanger and freight runs is fine but, if your talking going over a good long distance covering some of the roughest terrein, um. . . . . . .I would say you would need two people. There is no way one person could take care of all the paper work, switching, navigation, operation, signals, listening, car seting out or pick up (if have to). Another thing what would happen if that one person had to use the restroom?? Is he/ she supossed to leave the controls while the train is in motion?? Despite this I can see later on in the future railroads useing one person trains on certain routes. With the way Remote Control Technology is booming I'm sure we'll end up with one man trains. Who knows mabe in the future the situation would call for something like this along with modern technology, of course. That is my prediction. LORD HELP US ALL TO BE ORIGINAL AND NOT CRISPY!!! please? Sarah J.M. Warner conductor CSX Reply CSSHEGEWISCH Member sinceMarch 2016 From: Burbank IL (near Clearing) 13,540 posts Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Monday, May 2, 2005 2:21 PM This is an issue that will need to be negotiated very carefully. As mentioned in some of the above postings, one-person operation may be appropriate in limited applications. As I've mentioned in other threads, the unions have to tread cautiously on work rules issues to avoid a public relations disaster like the diesel fireman matter. The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul Reply BaltACD Member sinceMay 2003 From: US 25,292 posts Posted by BaltACD on Monday, May 2, 2005 2:52 PM A one person crew is fine.....as long as the train is moving....and as long as there are no hand throw switches to operate. Now what do you do when your 9000 foot train has a Un-Desired Emergency application of the brakes in the middle of nowhere at 3 AM. The nearest car department forces are 100/150 miles away at home sleeping. Lets bring the whole rairoad to a stop as the single person crew dismounts the locomotive and begins the inspection procedure...no sweat walking 9000 feet on main track ballast at night with a brakemans lantern and a locomotive operating belt-pak to find a broken knuckle or a brake rigging down 8000 feet from the engines.....now we walk 8000 feet back to the locomotive that contains the tool (and knuckle) that were too heavy and cumbersome to inspect the train with on the initial inspection trip....now we drop off the knuckle or other tools at the locomotive's position and pull the train ahead the 8000 feet and walk to the final car and place the knuckle or tools on that car and climb aboard the car and use the belt-pak controls to shove the car back to the balance of the train...stopping short of the coupling so that you can now begin working on the defect (over 2 hours have now elapsed - 2 hours that no other traffic has been able to use your track) figure another 15-45 minutes to complete the necessary repair or temporary fix. Use the belt-pak controls to make the coupling and walk another 8000 feet back to the locomotive. Gee, 3.5 to 4 hours to fix a routine problem....routine problems that occur daily on every high volume sub-division. Whenever the Carriers do negotiate 'work rule' changes that permit some action that previously was a penalty situation they have not will power but to abuse it to their own detriment....I've seen it happen for 40 years and it will happen again on whatever the next work rule change that occurs. The motto of the industry is 'If you can, you must....even if it doesn't work'. A number of years ago, work rules were changed to permit road crews to hostle engines.....the Carriers immediately eleiminated almost all hostler positions.....then they began to wonder why it was taking road crew 4 - 5 - 6 hours to depart their originating terminal after being required to hostle their engine consist together from multiple locations in the terminal....The Carriers saved 1 hostler position and substituted a 2 or 3 man recrew to cover the savings of the hostler. The one thing the carriers know best is how to shoot themselves in the foot on work rule changes. Never too old to have a happy childhood! Reply TH&B Member sinceJuly 2003 964 posts Posted by TH&B on Monday, May 2, 2005 3:18 PM Ya see, thaat's the thing, the way the railroad is now one man crews will just reduce reliability and costs. With technoligy, resonable work hours and big changes like conditions in Europe maybe you could go one man. The only real danger of one man crews is a result of greed, some trains could be one man if some money was invested to make it safe, but I'm afraid that might not be the case. Remove all public level crossings, have automatic train stop if a train runs an approach signsl, fence off all track from trasspassing people and animals. Reply tree68 Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Northern New York 25,024 posts Posted by tree68 on Monday, May 2, 2005 3:36 PM BaltACD has valid points (I won't bother quoting them - you already read them). I suspect that MTBF and traffic will be significant factors in the railroads' calculations for determining whether or not to go to a one man crew. F'rinstance, a relatively flat stretch of railroad (thus not having as high a likelyhood of busting a coupler) with light traffic would be a candidate for one man crews. If a failure did occur, tying the RR up for 3-4 hours would not be as much of a factor. On the other hand, a section of RR with rough handling characteristics and a lot of traffic would be a natural for a two-man crew. The variations are endless. 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... Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, May 2, 2005 3:46 PM Well, 1st the caboose went the by-way, now this! As was pointed out, what about train stops because a DED was tripped, or, a Hot Box Detector, and so on?? One person crew truding through the darkness, or, snow, pouring rain??? At least when there were cabooses, the job of walking a train could be split up in half. Not to mention having a 2nd person should the other slip, trip, etc. The train crews are not walking on a paved sidewalk to inspect their train! Short hauls and a one man crew, maybe, but, there are still too many factors that can cause problems that not even on a short run should one person be subjected to. With a one person crew and a defect occurs while their train is enroute, I guess the train just comes to a halt and ties up the main until "help" arrives. Hmmmmmmm, wonder if they'll issue a flare gun to those one person crews??? Maybe, morse code to transmit an SOS....naaaaaa, didn't work for the Titanic (yes, I know it wasn't "SOS" then - but it meant the same thing). The railroad industry is the most dangerous industry in this country. More railroaders are killed per year than police officers, yet, I've never seen so many efforts made to stack the deck even worse against a railroader all in the name of "cutting costs". Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, May 2, 2005 3:55 PM You need two people to keep each other awake and motivated. Cutting costs generates waste that wipes out the payroll savings in many ways. With that $200,000 train passing little rock every 15 minutes 24/7 it should be easy to maintain a decent work force. Not cut people. A bigger question I think should be asked... Where is the money going? Why is there a need to actually remove paid positions from the railroad? Reply Edit BaltACD Member sinceMay 2003 From: US 25,292 posts Posted by BaltACD on Monday, May 2, 2005 4:42 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by HighIron2003ar With that $200,000 train passing little rock every 15 minutes 24/7 it should be easy to maintain a decent work force. Not cut people. Where do you find a $200,000 train....Current AC locomotive are going for $2M a copy, coal hoppers are $50K a copy, even the EOT is $3K....so your average 100 car coal train is $9M worth of investment passing your very eyes. Add in rail, ties, ballast, signaling and all the other things it takes for a train to have some place to run and you are adding $2M per track mile. It takes money to make money, mass quantities! Never too old to have a happy childhood! Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, May 2, 2005 5:22 PM BaltACD, I stand corrected. I was thinking of the revenue from previous threads. I was asleep at the keyboard. Sorry for the noise. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, May 2, 2005 6:00 PM robots are coming Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, May 2, 2005 6:14 PM Greeting everyone, this is my first post here and I just want to say first of all, I have enjoyed reading this forum. Second, I am a railfan and not a railroader so I can only offer a public perception. As far as one man crews go, the current perception among some of us non-railroaders is that this is a bad idea from a safety stand point. If a single crew man is responsible for everything then accidents are going to increase, missed switch throws etc. This will bring more preasure on the roads and then more stress on the crew members or member in this case. Something they don't need. Some things can not be solved by technology alone and people make mistakes and putting trains in the hands of a single over worked, stressed person is going to make it easier for those mistakes to happen. This was just my humble opinion.[:D] Reply Edit Hugh Jampton Member sinceSeptember 2003 From: Southern Region now, UK 820 posts Posted by Hugh Jampton on Monday, May 2, 2005 7:23 PM there was the same hoo-hah when OMO trains were first proposed here,, but it went through in the end. Safety didn't suffer and life as we know it did't come to an end. Generally a lurker by natureBe AlertThe world needs more lerts.It's the 3rd rail that makes the difference. Reply csxengineer98 Member sinceOctober 2002 From: US 2,358 posts Posted by csxengineer98 on Monday, May 2, 2005 8:14 PM listen.... thier already is a provition in the railroad ranks to cover issues that may come up on a train if it goes to 1 man crews.... the utility man... all it would take is to aboli***he crew consist agreement and just put the engineer on the train..if a problem arises... at designated points they can have a untility man on duty with access to a truck...a train gets a detector..a knuckle air hose..what ever the case might be... the engineer just calls for a untility mans asstaince... he drives up along the train in the truck...fixes the problem and the train is on its way... if you think about it... it would be cheeper to pay 1 or 2 men a shift for 2 or 3 shifts to just sit and wait for issues then paying a conductor to ride the train.....or even just put a few untility men on call with the truck parked in thier driveway... they get a call to report asap to a location fix the train...... also...with PTC and other techonlogy that is comeing... trains will at some point run themselfs...either by remote controll where an "opporater" reports to a centerl location..sits a computer and runs the train remote from a cubical...or it is preprogramed and the man on the train is just a manual overide should the techonlogy fail.... airliners can take off..fly and land all by themselfs with the help of computers... the only reason they still have pilot is becouse the public will not turst themselfs to computers when it comes to aircraft... i hope none of this happens during my time working in the industry..but with the technology advances..it everywell could happen... techonlogy and cost cutting got ride of the caboose and all jobs that use to ride in it... (thanks to the EOT in a larg part).... the winds of change are starting to blow...the issue now is how hard are they and can we hold them off befor they change the landscape of the railroad industry forever..... csx engineer "I AM the higher source" Keep the wheels on steel Reply 1234 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » 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 More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub
QUOTE: Originally posted by rvos1979 I don't remember if this is still in effect or not, but I think the state of Wisconsin, after the Weyuwega barbeque passed a law requiring a mininum of two people in a locomotive cab. I'm not exactly sure that one-person crews are a good thing, especially with the long hours railroaders put in. If it somehow goes through, maybe the industry should take a hard look at limiting the hours train personnel put in per week, similar to truck drivers. My [2c] worth. Randy
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
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...
QUOTE: Originally posted by HighIron2003ar With that $200,000 train passing little rock every 15 minutes 24/7 it should be easy to maintain a decent work force. Not cut people.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.