RR Carriers Bring One-Person Crews to the Table

[Anonymous]

I've been to places along the railroad where there was no way any truck was going to drive to, or, 4 wheel drive. Helicopter drop instead??

[ajmiller]

If there's no road, they could hi-rail to the train.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by amtrak-tom

I've been to places along the railroad where there was no way any truck was going to drive to, or, 4 wheel drive. Helicopter drop instead??

Hirail. Next question.

LC

[jeaton]

Talk about foamers, Wall Street's stock analysts have already forecast the savings. Of course, they base their forecasts on the notion that road crew labor expense will be cut by 50% and there will never be any offsetting expense as a result of having only one man on the train.

I am neither a direct stock holder nor an employee of a railroad so I no vested interest in this issue, but I will tell you what will happen. Everytime a front line manager, trainmaster, assistant or whatever, would decide that work on the road really needs a second man, he will have to get authority from higher up. Some kind of regular assignments will probably go, but if it is an exception, it probably is not going to be worth the trouble, because at some point, the added crew cost is going to be messing with somebody's bonus. Case in point is the Union Pacific. Davidson and friends got their bonus by holding back on hiring new T&E's and years later the UP stockholders are still paying for that one.

Memo to railroad management: Be careful what you wish for.

Jay Eaton

[arbfbe]

Hi rail, yup, that's what management is thinking. Now what happens when the problem is 60 cars deep in a 110 car train? What happens when the hi rail untility employee is 35 miles away hand lining a power switch that hasn't worked for several hours and all signal maintainers are out of time? Deep drifting snow is not the hi railers friend. It sure all looks good on paper but remember none of the clowns selling this idea have had any field experience in over 20 years. Any underling that wants to point out the potential problems is painted as not being a team player and told to get with the program or find another job. If you are a manager on the railroad and you want to protect your bonus you make sure you cannot find any potential problems with the boss's grand plan.

[csxengineer98]

QUOTE: Originally posted by amtrak-tom

I've been to places along the railroad where there was no way any truck was going to drive to, or, 4 wheel drive. Helicopter drop instead??

thier are and will be execptions and one of them migth just be where it would be impossable to get a utility man in a truck like up some mountin pass in the rockies or someplace like that....but if thier is a place for a road next to the ROW..or a place where someone can get to the train... that crew district might just go to 1 man crews.... a highrailer might be another opption as some people said..but i see one of your fellow coworkers stoping his train if he is passing you..and haveing him fix your problem..and then your both on your way...
csx engineer

[Anonymous]

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

No csx engineer, I'm not just finding this out. I've been reading about it for some 3 or more years as it has worked its way up to the November 2004 NCCC (National Carriers' Conference Committe) section 6 annoucement. Its not news on my side. Yes, I get the BLE flash I find it interesting that a "Wall Street" analyst first proposed it and the railroads then worked towards it.

Which is different from the natural way, the railroads found it possible, then experimented with the model. Then peppered a "Wall Streeter" with the possibilities.

I'm sure, as a neighbor your a great person, as a friend you're the best I assume. But please, watch what you say because some people mistake your ability to run a locomotive with your voice as a Union Spokes-person, which you are not.

Jim

[csxengineer98]

QUOTE: Originally posted by SP9033

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

No csx engineer, I'm not just finding this out. I've been reading about it for some 3 or more years as it has worked its way up to the November 2004 NCCC (National Carriers' Conference Committe) section 6 annoucement. Its not news on my side. Yes, I get the BLE flash I find it interesting that a "Wall Street" analyst first proposed it and the railroads then worked towards it.

Which is different from the natural way, the railroads found it possible, then experimented with the model. Then peppered a "Wall Streeter" with the possibilities.

I'm sure, as a neighbor your a great person, as a friend you're the best I assume. But please, watch what you say because some people mistake your ability to run a locomotive with your voice as a Union Spokes-person, which you are not.

Jim

wow..what planet did you come from.... wall street has always been a driving factor in what railroads do....do you remember the cabboose? do you know how many jobs where lost becouse it was replaces by technology...do you know that becouse of wallstreet people saying that useing the technology would save the railroads millions a year in labor costs? and did you know that the union (UTU)also agreeed to get ride of them for a few more bucks a day in pay?
i dont know where you got your ideas from that the railroads would "try" things on thier own from.... they try things when someone from the outside says "hey...do this..it will save you millions" and they jump on it..just look at the RCLs...
as far as your following it for 4 years.....why do you even realy care...your not rails anyways..so it donst affect you in the least bit...
just leave the railroading to US (the real railroaders) and try..i know what im about to say is going to be hard for you....but keep your armchair railroading to yourself...you NEVER worked in the industry....
also..the only way they could get ride of them is to gut the crew consist agreement.... this is going to be the true test for the UTU..to see if they have any balls left for the men..or it will show that they realy are in the back pocket of the rail carriers....
csx engineer

[csxengineer98]

also..i never clamed to be a union spokes person...YOU put that lable on me.... i know what is comeing...i see the writing on the wall.... as well as many of my coworkers.... and we hope and pray that the unions will have enough balls to not let this happen... but you know..its funny....when a contract comes up... and eveyone says the voted no...it somehow still gets passed... kinda makes you wonder.......
csx engineer

[ValleyX]

Amen, CSX, amen. Gee, I never once thought you were a union spokesman.

I think that one man crews are coming, if they can hold off a few more years, I won't have to labor under those conditions. I also think there'll be consequences that they haven't hardly thought of yet, regardless of what goes on in the UK and Europe. I once had a RFE tell me they're planning ten years ahead, he really believed that but . . .[;)]

[daveklepper]

I hated to see Gunn's name mentioned among those receiving fat bonuses. My impression is that Gunn would be getting about four times his salary with fewer headaches if he were employed by a freight railroad instead of Amtrak, and his previous executive jobs were almost entirely in public transit, which is not as high paying for executives as freight railroading and seldom comes up with bonuses. I consider him in caliber of the Claytor brothers and Reistrup who were totally dedicated to the railroad industry and were happy to earn a decent living but were not into becoming millionaires from the industry.

Sure one-may trains can be safe. But only with maintenance of both rolling stock, locomotives and cars, of a standard that has only been reached by most passenger operations and some intermodel and dedicated trains like Tropicana, but not the usual run-of-the-mill freight cars and locomotives. Ditto the track. And then there must be some form of ATC, not necessarily what is under development, but certainly what has been used on high speed lines and rapid transit in the recent past and does its job in these environments today. I see great safety problems with only one man on a train.

If a locomotive unit in a consist shuts down or rings alarms for any reason

If there is a derailment

If there is a break-in-two

If a power switch or signal is defective and a manual and/or special dispatcher authorize overriding movement is necessary

If crossing gates don't work and a crossing must be flagged. Not a problem in most one-man transit and high speed situations!

With setouts or pickups

With possibilities of doubling a hill

I think the union should emphasize these points with both negotiations and any legislation and have the examples ready (some have appeared on this Forum) that prove the point.

[Anonymous]

The bottom line is the one person concept is not about safety, improving service or increasing traffic. This is just bull. The main focus is the industry CEO's getting more increases in bonus payments at the expense of the work force who helped made these people rich to begin with. Perhaps when my job is done away with, I can get a job for one of these dudes making sure he has his copy of WSJ on the desk in time every morning.

[BaltACD]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

Sure one-may trains can be safe. But only with maintenance of both rolling stock, locomotives and cars, of a standard that has only been reached by most passenger operations and some intermodel and dedicated trains like Tropicana, but not the usual run-of-the-mill freight cars and locomotives.

The mechanical reliability of any freight train, intermodal or dedicated like the Tropicana Juice train is not that much better than the run of the mill freight train. In fact, intermodal may be even less reliable than general comodity freight since the trailers are targets for numerous theft rings that opeate all over the country. Intermodal trains are frequently stoped to close trailer doors, not only that the trailers are subject to their own mechanical failings....broken center beams (trailers in intermodal service are frequently loaded far beyond the load limits that would apply to the trailer on the highway), flat tires that cause dangerous leaning of the trailers. The loaded side of the Tropicana Juice train is always loaded to maximum trailing tonnage for the locomotives and handles more akin to a coal train, frequently stalling on some of the ruling grades.

The size freight trains that US railroads operate today are not SAFE canditates for single person crews.

Better that Wall Street have mutliple mergers and aquisitions to get down to 2 or 3 firms that can handle the investment business and capture the savings from eliminating all the back office clerks and administrators as well as reduce the number of screwball analyists and their hair brained ideas of how to operate companies they have no REAL knowlede of. You don't learn what is required to opeate companies just on balance sheets and profit & loss statements.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by HighIron2003ar

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?

With all due respect, you don't need two people to keep alert. How many times have I run road freights with everybody but me fast asleep. MANY. I have had three other people in my cab including a senior Road Foreman all snoring away for the last few hours of a trip. In fact having others sleeping nearby makes me more tired than if I was alone sometimes. Have you ever actually run a train? I'm sure you are a great trucker, but trust me there are significant differences. Engineers can and do stay alert. Are we perfect, no, but we do pretty darn well, all things considered.

LC

[Anonymous]

I am not a railroader. I am just one of the many that purchase the products you carry. So I can say that I am concerned about one man crews. It is because of my lack of fully understanding railroads that I have the opinion I do, that the concpt of 1MC is BAD. Why, simple... the products I use depend on being shipped from some where usually by rail then by truck. All the things that can go wrong with one man crews means that it could be harder for me to obtain those products or at least be out of when I want them. So I may not be a railroader but I can be concerned.

[csxengineer98]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

QUOTE: Originally posted by HighIron2003ar

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?

With all due respect, you don't need two people to keep alert. How many times have I run road freights with everybody but me fast asleep. MANY. I have had three other people in my cab including a senior Road Foreman all snoring away for the last few hours of a trip. In fact having others sleeping nearby makes me more tired than if I was alone sometimes. Have you ever actually run a train? I'm sure you are a great trucker, but trust me there are significant differences. Engineers can and do stay alert. Are we perfect, no, but we do pretty darn well, all things considered.

LC

yea...i hear you limited...i too have been thier.... and that is one thing that pisses me off is right after we get on the engin..the conductor makes a bed... if i have to stay awake..so dose he...i will do eveything i can to make it hard for him to sleep...try and carry on a conversation... open a window so its cold...turn the radio way up...anything i can think of.... its one thing to nod off...its going to happen... its another thing to make a bed the moment i start to pull... but 2 men is better then 1.... if the other set isnt sleeping... and thats the big problem... they dont have anything to do... maybe they should have an alerter on thier side too... how many times have you been running dead on your a$$ and dont remember the last signal you passed...and had to ask the conductor...i know i have done it a few times... and in my mind it is safer if you can get the dead wood sleepers to stay awake...
csx engineer

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by csxengineer98

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

QUOTE: Originally posted by HighIron2003ar

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?

With all due respect, you don't need two people to keep alert. How many times have I run road freights with everybody but me fast asleep. MANY. I have had three other people in my cab including a senior Road Foreman all snoring away for the last few hours of a trip. In fact having others sleeping nearby makes me more tired than if I was alone sometimes. Have you ever actually run a train? I'm sure you are a great trucker, but trust me there are significant differences. Engineers can and do stay alert. Are we perfect, no, but we do pretty darn well, all things considered.

LC

yea...i hear you limited...i too have been thier.... and that is one thing that pisses me off is right after we get on the engin..the conductor makes a bed... if i have to stay awake..so dose he...i will do eveything i can to make it hard for him to sleep...try and carry on a conversation... open a window so its cold...turn the radio way up...anything i can think of.... its one thing to nod off...its going to happen... its another thing to make a bed the moment i start to pull... but 2 men is better then 1.... if the other set isnt sleeping... and thats the big problem... they dont have anything to do... maybe they should have an alerter on thier side too... how many times have you been running dead on your a$$ and dont remember the last signal you passed...and had to ask the conductor...i know i have done it a few times... and in my mind it is safer if you can get the dead wood sleepers to stay awake...
csx engineer

I think you have a point. Perhaps a low voltage electric shock in their seat that zaps them every time you have to "hit the whisker" would be good. Of course there are those Engineers who would simply use that to irritate and abuse the Conductor and I don't advocate that.

You are correct that there are times when having 2 men in the cab is a good thing and let me reiterate what I said earlier, I believe there are places for one man crews, but that the circumstances MUST be right for them to work safely. I also think that in many cases, if used correctly in connection with good marketing that they can increase rail traffic and thus jobs. For example, if you have a large shipper that takes a good volume of cars and only gets a switch three days per week he is building up a pretty large demurrage bill which is probably inhibiting his ability to use rail just because of that added cost. He is likely using trucking to supplement (depending upon what industry he is in) or perhaps shifting production to other facilities due to lack of rail service. The railroad involved has too little traffic on this branch line to justify more service, although the marketing department in consultation with the shipper thinks that volume could increase significantly with 5 or 6 day per week service. Such service would also reduce or eliminate most of the customers demurrage expense and the RRs car hire expense. (As an aside, I have seen this same situation repeated MANY times both on short lines and on Class 1s). In this situation a one man crew can be part of the answer. Another possibility is two one man crews, spread over the days of the week with RCL. This would cost the RR the same crew money as they same number of crew is involved and extra costs such as locomotive time and fuel should be offset by increased traffic from the facility. Now, say the plant does 700 cars/year and traffic increases to 1,000 cars the first year and with a small plant expansion in year 3 to 1,400 carloads. (I'm citing an actual example of a plant on a short line, but this was after a short line took over and the crews used were 2 man, the Class 1 had used 3 man crews prior). It doesn't take much higher math to figure out that if you can do this with only two or three customers on a branch line there will be additional jobs created, especially if the original two man crew was serving two or more such industries. This is where I see one man crews actually creating rail opportunity. Hope that clarifies my position.

LC

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by arbfbe

Hi rail, yup, that's what management is thinking. Now what happens when the problem is 60 cars deep in a 110 car train? What happens when the hi rail untility employee is 35 miles away hand lining a power switch that hasn't worked for several hours and all signal maintainers are out of time? Deep drifting snow is not the hi railers friend. It sure all looks good on paper but remember none of the clowns selling this idea have had any field experience in over 20 years. Any underling that wants to point out the potential problems is painted as not being a team player and told to get with the program or find another job. If you are a manager on the railroad and you want to protect your bonus you make sure you cannot find any potential problems with the boss's grand plan.

There is no one great solution for every problem. In heavy snows the relief employee/crew may have to come up the hill with a jordan spreader. Problems happen. Solutions are found, life goes on. RRs behave a lot like other big companies. Management tries to protect its bonus, employees try to protect their jobs, nothing new there....

LC

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by csxengineer98

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

QUOTE: Originally posted by HighIron2003ar

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?

With all due respect, you don't need two people to keep alert. How many times have I run road freights with everybody but me fast asleep. MANY. I have had three other people in my cab including a senior Road Foreman all snoring away for the last few hours of a trip. In fact having others sleeping nearby makes me more tired than if I was alone sometimes. Have you ever actually run a train? I'm sure you are a great trucker, but trust me there are significant differences. Engineers can and do stay alert. Are we perfect, no, but we do pretty darn well, all things considered.

LC

yea...i hear you limited...i too have been thier.... and that is one thing that pisses me off is right after we get on the engin..the conductor makes a bed... if i have to stay awake..so dose he...i will do eveything i can to make it hard for him to sleep...try and carry on a conversation... open a window so its cold...turn the radio way up...anything i can think of.... its one thing to nod off...its going to happen... its another thing to make a bed the moment i start to pull... but 2 men is better then 1.... if the other set isnt sleeping... and thats the big problem... they dont have anything to do... maybe they should have an alerter on thier side too... how many times have you been running dead on your a$$ and dont remember the last signal you passed...and had to ask the conductor...i know i have done it a few times... and in my mind it is safer if you can get the dead wood sleepers to stay awake...
csx engineer

That's the thing that pisses me off, these guys that get on the trains and feel that it is their right to go to sleep as soon as the train is tied on.

It's these kinds of conductors that give road conductors a bad name, and thus make a stronger case that the second guy isn't necessary up there in the cab.

They are only hurting themselves when they sit back and sleep, because when it comes to one man operation, there will be no love lost with the hoggers.


And we all know that once RRs get the go ahead for one man operation, they aren't going to be only running a few trains with one man, and other trains with two.

No matter how long the runs are, or what kind of territory the train is run on, if the RR can legally operate the train with one man, than they WILL, they won't put an extra guy on just because the run is longer or the territory is hilly.

We all know that, how many freight trains out there are running with brakeman on them because they RR feels that the third guy might come in handy?

I'm sure the answer is 0, the only time the RR will run trains with more guys than necessary is if they are forced to, either by local agreements or regulations.

Like I said, once they RRs get the go ahead for one man operation, all trains will run with one man, unless the RR is FORCED to put a conductor on the job because of planned lifts/set-outs, etc.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by macguy

QUOTE: Originally posted by csxengineer98

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

QUOTE: Originally posted by HighIron2003ar

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?

With all due respect, you don't need two people to keep alert. How many times have I run road freights with everybody but me fast asleep. MANY. I have had three other people in my cab including a senior Road Foreman all snoring away for the last few hours of a trip. In fact having others sleeping nearby makes me more tired than if I was alone sometimes. Have you ever actually run a train? I'm sure you are a great trucker, but trust me there are significant differences. Engineers can and do stay alert. Are we perfect, no, but we do pretty darn well, all things considered.

LC

yea...i hear you limited...i too have been thier.... and that is one thing that pisses me off is right after we get on the engin..the conductor makes a bed... if i have to stay awake..so dose he...i will do eveything i can to make it hard for him to sleep...try and carry on a conversation... open a window so its cold...turn the radio way up...anything i can think of.... its one thing to nod off...its going to happen... its another thing to make a bed the moment i start to pull... but 2 men is better then 1.... if the other set isnt sleeping... and thats the big problem... they dont have anything to do... maybe they should have an alerter on thier side too... how many times have you been running dead on your a$$ and dont remember the last signal you passed...and had to ask the conductor...i know i have done it a few times... and in my mind it is safer if you can get the dead wood sleepers to stay awake...
csx engineer

That's the thing that pisses me off, these guys that get on the trains and feel that it is their right to go to sleep as soon as the train is tied on.

It's these kinds of conductors that give road conductors a bad name, and thus make a stronger case that the second guy isn't necessary up there in the cab.

They are only hurting themselves when they sit back and sleep, because when it comes to one man operation, there will be no love lost with the hoggers.


And we all know that once RRs get the go ahead for one man operation, they aren't going to be only running a few trains with one man, and other trains with two.

No matter how long the runs are, or what kind of territory the train is run on, if the RR can legally operate the train with one man, than they WILL, they won't put an extra guy on just because the run is longer or the territory is hilly.

We all know that, how many freight trains out there are running with brakeman on them because they RR feels that the third guy might come in handy?

I'm sure the answer is 0, the only time the RR will run trains with more guys than necessary is if they are forced to, either by local agreements or regulations.

Like I said, once they RRs get the go ahead for one man operation, all trains will run with one man, unless the RR is FORCED to put a conductor on the job because of planned lifts/set-outs, etc.

Perhaps. It has been my experience that the railroads have continued to run three man crews in many areas where they are not required to do so because that is what gets the job done. Even in areas with two man RCL crews the RRs are running three man crews some of the time because the RCL crews are not as efficient as a 3 man crew. I'm sure a 1 man crew is limited even with RCL as everyone has pointed out here. One man crews won't work everywhere, in some places they just don't make sense. I'm sure there will be a learning curve as management and employees figure out the new reality. There will be places where everything is one man and in other places, such as yards there will be both one and two man crews and perhaps Utility Men working together to get the work done. There will probably be a single roster of engineers for road crews. Whether one or two are assigned to a train will depend upon many different factors, but the days of craft separation and the crew consist agreements may be numbered in T&E service. Remember, we have a Republican President and a strongly Republican Congress. Why do you suppose the railroads are already pushing for mediation on the new agreement negotiations. They want to push for a Presidential Emergency Board to impose their wishes on labor BEFORE the next election. It is coming. The best we can do is to sharpen our skills and be ready for it.

LC

[Anonymous]

The Republican party is just about to hand over another screwing to rail labor just like what took place in the 1985 contract. The BLE was twice dumb enough to endorse Regan in the 1980 & 1984 elections. You get what you vote for at the polls.

[csxengineer98]

QUOTE: Originally posted by sammythebull

The Republican party is just about to hand over another screwing to rail labor just like what took place in the 1985 contract. The BLE was twice dumb enough to endorse Regan in the 1980 & 1984 elections. You get what you vote for at the polls.

how do you figer? it hasnt gone to the PEB yet...
csx engineer

[daveklepper]

I have to admit I may be wrong about unit trains being better maintained that run-of-the-mill, but the point is that the unions should stress safety in their negotiations and save jobs by careful limitations on the applicability of the one-man concept to just those areas where it is safe. If there are only a few areas where it is really safe, then aren't a lot of jobs saved?

[arbfbe]

daveklepper

The union can stress safety with the companies all they want. The carriers want one man crews and they will settle for nothing less. Afterall, they represent the 'owners' of the railroad and therefore they will define safety. Period, end of conversation. The negotiation part is which union, BLET or UTU will be most amenable to the concept and will sign on the dotted line first. There may be some window dressing concerning pay, time off and work in terminals or online but safety will not be given much consideration. The suits in the main office and the board rooms have already determined one man crews are safe. Just who is to doubt their wisdom. I had an FRA inspector on my locomotive last month and he stated the FRA felt one man crew operations were a labor issue and therefore they would not be getting involved......well, not until people die anyway.

[SID6FIVE]

Okay...everything else aside...with a one-man crew,how do you protect a shove or make a joint ? It just seems to me that as long as trains have two ends we need two people to handle them...unless they are limited to about ten cars or so where you could actually see both ends from one place...just a thought...
...oops-shoulda said "one-person crew"...

[Anonymous]

"Safety" was a major argument in not getting rid of the caboose.

And we all know how that ended.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

I have to admit I may be wrong about unit trains being better maintained that run-of-the-mill, but the point is that the unions should stress safety in their negotiations and save jobs by careful limitations on the applicability of the one-man concept to just those areas where it is safe. If there are only a few areas where it is really safe, then aren't a lot of jobs saved?

Safety. Believe it or not, safety is one of the most misused words in the labor-management vernacular, by both sides.

First, please define what "safe" means. There are as many definitions as there are sandhouse lawyers to coin them and don't let the real lawyers into this fight... If you doubt this, take the time to read a few court opinions in FELA cases.

One of the real problems is that both labor and management use safety as a spear and a shield as it suits them. This really renders safety arguments meaningless. It has gotten so when management hears labor say it's a "safety issue" management immediately thinks "Aha! Those featherbedders are at it again", rather than, "hey, there might be a genuine concern here". The problem is, there are many employees that play right into this charade. Who in T&E service doesn't know of an Engineer who regularly shows up for work and promptly finds issues with every locomotive available and demands they be repaired before he will use them. By the time mechanical forces can respond and repair the power (often no more than changing a brake shoe, adjusting piston travel or wiping up oil on the engineroom floor) he is on OT. Years ago, we had one such Engineer (an old NYC man) known as "Mercury" (after the fast NYC train of the same name, with heavy sarcasm) who it seemed could never manage to work without outlawing and not reaching the away terminal as a result of just these sorts of antics and others that were equally bad.

Of course, one can see that the safety argument has not prevailed in the past. Witness the demise of the caboose in favor of the EOTD and wayside defect detector, more recently the RCL debate, and perhaps more pertinent, the elimination of the position of Locomotive Fireman. In that case one of the arguments was that having two men in the cab, capable of running the train was much safer than one. While there is some truth in that, the argument has not prevailed.

Employee costs are still the single largest number in RR operating budgets. As long as that is the case managements will keep trying to reduce the headcount in any way possible.

LC

[greyhounds]

QUOTE: Originally posted by SID6FIVE

Okay...everything else aside...with a one-man crew,how do you protect a shove or make a joint ? It just seems to me that as long as trains have two ends we need two people to handle them...unless they are limited to about ten cars or so where you could actually see both ends from one place...just a thought...
...oops-shoulda said "one-person crew"...

Well, yes. If you've gotta' do work along the way, one person won't work.

But this would put freight on the rialroads that now moves by truck. Let's take meat out of Grand Island, Nebraska. Start a short intermodal train at the origin. Drive it into Chicago and put the containers on existing intermodal service. It will work economically and it will work safely.

The negotiations need to focus on when, where and under what conditions one person crews may be used. To say all trains can be operated by one person crews is nonsense. To say no trains can be operated by one person crews is also nonsense.

The railroads should not be required to use more labor than is necessary. Determining what is "necessary" is the point of the negotiations. It can be worked out by people barganing in good faith. Do it.

[arbfbe]

SID6five

Two person crews already make back up moves for up to a train length with no one on the rear to provide protection. The changes in the rules that made that possible came about with the elimination of the caboose. It did not happen immediately but as soon as the companies found out how long it took for the crew member to walk back from the rear end of the train rules that had earlier resulted in dismissal were found to be unnecessary. There are still restrictions about shoving blind over public crossings, through signals into the next block or if track and time is ineffect behind the train.

Couplings in the middle of the train as well as shoving moves will be made by the engineer on the ground with a belt pack controller. All of the DPU units can run from a belt pack just as well as from the control stand of the lead locomotive. I would suspect there will be belt packs on most locomotives locked to a charger for use by the lone crew member when they have problems online and work to do online as well.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

QUOTE: Originally posted by HighIron2003ar

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?

With all due respect, you don't need two people to keep alert. How many times have I run road freights with everybody but me fast asleep. MANY. I have had three other people in my cab including a senior Road Foreman all snoring away for the last few hours of a trip. In fact having others sleeping nearby makes me more tired than if I was alone sometimes. Have you ever actually run a train? I'm sure you are a great trucker, but trust me there are significant differences. Engineers can and do stay alert. Are we perfect, no, but we do pretty darn well, all things considered.

LC

No I have never run a train and never claim to any experience on it.

I imagine my first several trips in one will be totally charged with excitement all the week. It is after it becomes routine I wonder if during slow moments sleep is something to fight.

I have many ways of staying awake on the road, sometimes all of them are used.

I was going to mention about others who may get sleep while you drive the train but I see that many posts after yours has addressed that issue effectively.