RR Carriers Bring One-Person Crews to the Table

[csxengineer98]

QUOTE: Originally posted by BigJim

When I have a heart attack and there is no one beside me to safely stop the train or get it to a place where I can get help or I just die out in the middle of nowhere, I hope the wife knows a good lawyer to toast the RR's butt.

I hope this one man stuff never happens!

dont need anyone to safly stop the train..they do it already....the alerter will bring you to a controlled stop if you dont reset it within the time limit...as far as you dieing in line of road due to a heart attack..thats the risk the carriers are willing to take i guess....1 less worker they are going to have to pay...and im sure they probly have a "janitor" life insurance policy on you (as well as all thier employees) that no one knows about..with the carrier named as the benifishary!! so even if you do die...they still win....
csx engineer

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by BigJim

When I have a heart attack and there is no one beside me to safely stop the train or get it to a place where I can get help or I just die out in the middle of nowhere, I hope the wife knows a good lawyer to toast the RR's butt.

I hope this one man stuff never happens!

I'm sure a lot of railroaders are thinking the same thing.

[Anonymous]

As many have already said it looks like one man crews will be implemented in the future. To what extent and how successful remains to be seen. With just a little over 35 years left to work, I see one man crews as a threat to my livelihood. I don't care who you are, or how much sleep you've had, it is my personal experience that trying to stay awake between 2am and 5am is very difficult. Just recently I was on a very small and light intermodal train that had two beasts on the head end (SD70ACe and an AC6600CW totalling 11,000 horses). Needless to say, maintaining trackspeed was not an issue. About 2/3 of the way through the trip I went to use the toilet for about a minute. I checked our speed, how close the next crossings were, the next signal, and if the engineer was awake. Everything was fine when I went down to the toilet. A minute to 90 seconds later I walk up to see us going well over speed! The engineer is asleep and he's still got the thing in throttle 8!!! I said "Wake up man, we're flying!!!" Anyways, this is a perfect example of why one man crews are not a good idea. People get tired, and on certain overpowered trains, things can go wrong very quickly. Just like Shrek I'm new and I'm wary of what will happen. I stay awake on all my trips for the sake of myself and the engineer. Two sets of eyes is always better than one, and sometimes when a split second decision is needed it's just better to have that second person there backing you up.

[BigJim]

When I have a heart attack and there is no one beside me to safely stop the train or get it to a place where I can get help or I just die out in the middle of nowhere, I hope the wife knows a good lawyer to toast the RR's butt.

I hope this one man stuff never happens!

[csxengineer98]

QUOTE: Originally posted by HighIron2003ar



The day we start stripping men (women too but speaking fugitevly (Spelling?) from that train for the sake of a few dollars savings (Profit) is the day everything is going to run slower because only so many people can turn wrenches, throw switches, pull couplers etc...

the day has come...sad to say... how many trains still have firemen on them..how many trains still have a flagmen...how many still have a brakemen?... not many at all... what happend to the 5 man crew? replaced by technology for saving a few dollors in labor.... please go back to the begining and reread eveything i stated already....and you can see that it is in fact POSSABLE....and CAN happen...if the UNIONS let it happen.... its time for the unions to show if they are realy for the men or are in the companys back pocket.....
and speaking of the unions..im suprised the resident labor zar (SP Jim) hasnt posted anything on this topic for some time.... maybe some of the facts dont fit well with his ideology (spelling?)
csx engineer

[Anonymous]

They put me in a automatic transmission equipped class 8 truck. I swore up and down that they cannot match the strength and precision of the Manual. (I'd die with a manual and so forth...)

When I sat thru rush hour traffic with the stop and go, the feet did not hurt so much as they normally would. My wife appreciated the technology as it enabled her to drive. Only then did I accept that autos in class 8's are to stay.

While trucks are not trains, I must point out that equipping trains with technology that will sometimes fail or is mishandled by a tired or undermanned crew on a given train and situations will be created that will cause damage and possibly death like the recent incident elsewhere in the forums of someone who apparently was not equippted per saftey rules.

I recall reading in a book some time ago that aircraft now have the ability to generate a solution to execute a take off or landing without the pilot or crew's interaction at airfields properly equipped.

This does not mean they will just have one person passing out soda and peanuts on the plane with 300 souls aboard.. oh no sir!

This then should not be applied to trains of any size doing what ever task that it may be needed to do within the great workday that may be needed. Anything from taking a boxcar to a place to be loaded with paper or hauling 110 cars double stack 300 miles across your division.

You NEED people to do this work. I say at least 2 the more you can get on a task the faster it will get done.

Now I have accepted long ago that you can tie a pusher to the lead consist with wireless and computer control that you dont need a crew on the helper. That is ok. You can manuver a engine about the yard pushing 3 cars or whatnot... that is ok too... as long you have PEOPLE on the job.

If the day comes that there are actually too few people on the job across a given railroad there is a real danger that a meltdown maybe reached and the monies that are lost will probably destroy any short term investors profits that they may be seeking.

Railroading is FULL of stories seeped in tradition about how fast one can get across the country coast to coast or gather up little bitty loads from all over and assemble it into one train (Or several) and do it day in and day out 365/ without too much problem.

The day we start stripping men (women too but speaking fugitevly (Spelling?) from that train for the sake of a few dollars savings (Profit) is the day everything is going to run slower because only so many people can turn wrenches, throw switches, pull couplers etc...

[Anonymous]

I was on a bike ride with my daughter last week- parallels the short-line track of the mmrr/csx here- and we stopped to watch one coming by. They stopped to drop-off a box car at the spur we were next to and the conductor came up to me and started a conversation (it was an RC consist with both the engineer and conductor wearing packs).
He said 'hard to believe we control trains by remote control nowadays, huh?'
I said 'I heard one-man crews are in your future'
He says 'yeah, I've heard that too. Anything to make our job harder'
I said 'I would think the union would have something to say about that'
He says 'the union brought it to the table'

So- there are 2 unions, right?
Which is he referring to?

Sorry if this is basic- i'm kinda confused by it.

[csxengineer98]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Q555

so 1 outta 100 huh you work thru frieght appearantly and your not counting how often its nice to have someone to keep you from dropping off into a coma. ya #2 is often there b4 the first signal but theres always the days when it works the way it should. tell the whole story ....... get off the 1 man crew its a bad idea !!! you really dont think it would better. brakeman would still be nice more than 1 outta 100


people good .... (Snow Bad)

you missed the point brother.... if you go back and reread eveything...you will see both sides of this issue.... im not in favor if it in the slightest...but i am showing some of you that think it is oh soooo impossable for what ever reason... that it is in fact possable and facts behind it.... and i also telling the "whole story"...go back and reread eveything agin...
csx engineer

[Anonymous]

well thanks for caring here in richmond a new mayor came in and saw a bad agreement for a mans severance pay and dropped a hammer on it (it was bad) whos gonna have the balls to drop the hammer on the agreement with the golden parachutes in the csx upperclass. explain it to the stockholders and make the company enough money to not worry about cutting into a mans moral . hmmm sounds alittle like what UP has done in the past

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by HighIron2003ar

I think we agree that cutting manpower does not do any railroad any good.

Why cannot the people pull together and claim what is thiers?

Companies with nothing but CEO's and no market for product is not the world we need to live in.

I don't entirely agree that cutting positions is necessarily a bad thing. The reason that RRs have historically cut jobs through technology (as have many other industries) is that the payroll is the largest cost on the balance sheet. If it is possible to use fewer people to handle the job, RRs need to take a good hard look at how it can be done. RRs need to move towards earning their cost of capital and giving their investors a return on their investment if they are to survive. Part of the pressure on the RRs is brought by investors who won't invest unless the company makes them a return on their investment. The other large pressure is the constant downward pressure on prices by customers intent on trucking or barging their freight.

The question is, what can be done with the minimum manpower and what is really the minimum manning. Is it two men, one man or perhaps in certain circumstances, none? There are already mine, industrial, and other operations of rail vehicles by remote control only. The companies will always look for the minimum unless and until employee reduction doesn't have a significant position in company finances or they are prohibited from seeking reductions by the laws of man or physics.

There is no such thing as being able to claim something that belongs to someone else. Luckily, those of us in the business probably have a few more years to work. I expect to make retirement without much difficulty. I do worry about the younger employees, especially those recently hired.

LC

[Anonymous]

so 1 outta 100 huh you work thru frieght appearantly and your not counting how often its nice to have someone to keep you from dropping off into a coma. ya #2 is often there b4 the first signal but theres always the days when it works the way it should. tell the whole story ....... get off the 1 man crew its a bad idea !!! you really dont think it would better. brakeman would still be nice more than 1 outta 100


people good .... (Snow Bad)

[Anonymous]

I think we agree that cutting manpower does not do any railroad any good.

Why cannot the people pull together and claim what is thiers?

Companies with nothing but CEO's and no market for product is not the world we need to live in.

[shrek623]

I'm not saying this because I'm a conductor( one that stays awake mind you, I pride myself in this), but whoever said that engineers would be running these one man trains. Engineers make the most sense obviously but but since when have RR's opted for common sense as their guide. If the UTU and BLE keep fighting each other it will come down to which union makes the most concessions to keep THEIR people working. IMO there is alot more at stake here than just the one man crew issue. I think RR labor as a whole is at the crossroads.

Of course, I just got off duty and haven't slept in over 24 hours( Yes, even while on the train!)[:D] and am feeling a little loopy[:p].

Later all,

Shrek

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by csxengineer98

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

Before you get to laughing too hard, realize that in a way what he is describing is very similar to both the CP Rail Iron Highway and to a lesser extent to Roadrailer trains.

LC

that might work fine for runthrough unit type trains (which it already dose by the way)....but come on.... make 2 man crews only on 10 car locals? with solid drawbar cars? that idea is about as half baked as running the same crew coast to coast and never get off the train....
csx engineer

When you put it that way, I absolutely agree. All I'm saying is things like the Iron Highway (which I think was ultimately cancelled) and roadrailers could be run as through trains as they are(or have been). I'm not ready to mark up on a coast to coast pool either. Jeez, talk about LONG pools...lol...

LC

[ValleyX]

Is CP still running the Iron Highway? Whatever happened to CSX'es version of that or the CP run-through trains that CSX was going to run, I can't quite remember.

As for the Triple Crown trains, they do go into a terminal and get switched.

Still not ready to mark up on the cross-country pools, CSX? Gee, I don't think I am, either.

[csxengineer98]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

Before you get to laughing too hard, realize that in a way what he is describing is very similar to both the CP Rail Iron Highway and to a lesser extent to Roadrailer trains.

LC

that might work fine for runthrough unit type trains (which it already dose by the way)....but come on.... make 2 man crews only on 10 car locals? with solid drawbar cars? that idea is about as half baked as running the same crew coast to coast and never get off the train....
csx engineer

[Anonymous]

Before you get to laughing too hard, realize that in a way what he is describing is very similar to both the CP Rail Iron Highway and to a lesser extent to Roadrailer trains.

LC

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by 440cuin

How about this: One man crew for short haul unit trains of ten cars or less, perhaps even with solid drawbars through out exept for the power. No swithing, just pure hook and haul.

Hook and haul? You gotta switch something sometime.

I imagine in my mind a monster 10 car set used to reach into a little factory to pickup a boxcar.

HAW HAW HAW

[csxengineer98]

QUOTE: Originally posted by 440cuin

How about this: One man crew for short haul unit trains of ten cars or less, perhaps even with solid drawbars through out exept for the power. No swithing, just pure hook and haul.

ahahahahaha..... what planet did you come from?
csx engineer

[TH&B]

How about this: One man crew for short haul unit trains of ten cars or less, perhaps even with solid drawbars through out exept for the power. No swithing, just pure hook and haul.

[csxengineer98]

QUOTE: Originally posted by virlon

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.

So tell me what the difference is in having one man on a roadrailer as opposed to a two man crew on a stack...

its simple .....2 men on evey train...1 man to run it..and another to handle the ground work....but how offten dose the ground grunt actuly do something other then sit thier on road trains? not alot.... say for evey 100 trains the conductor might be on...he might have to actuly walk to check a deffect or fix an air hose maybe once....so... that is 99 times you payed someone to sit thier and "protect" the train... (also keep in mind..conductors do do more then just the mentioned above...but to keep this simple im only giveing the exampls as stated).... and that is done on evey train evey day... so if the railroad ran 100 trains in 1 day....thats 100 men.... now if you where to use 1 man..that "protected" 100 trains..you just saved yourself X number of dollors in labor savings... that is where the guy in a high rail truck (utility man) looks good to the railroad... and thus 1 man crews....
csx engineer

[Anonymous]

When I hired out with the SP in the mid 60s, the hogheads and trainmen would hardly talk to each other or be civil to one another. Then times changed and things got a little better. BUT NOW from the posts I see here, looks like you guys are reverting to the way it used to be. If enough jobs are eliminated there will be NO ONE making a living. All the goods that are shipped will have no market. I know this sounds extreme but think about it. If the carriers have their way they won't have anyone but CEOs and such in their employ. Those of you that are still employed by a RR need to FIGHT together, not against each other. Granted, Condrs sleep..... BUT I know of alot of hogheads that sleep also.
Virlon

[Anonymous]

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.

So tell me what the difference is in having one man on a roadrailer as opposed to a two man crew on a stack...

[csxengineer98]

sorry...wrong post...i thought i was responding to someone else.... by bad
csx engineer

[csxengineer98]

QUOTE: Originally posted by 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.

if you got to do work..that can also be what the utilty man is for...he could be stationed thier..or show up when he knows your getting close to the place where work is to be done....
csx engineer

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[Anonymous]

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

And we all know how that ended.