RR Carriers Bring One-Person Crews to the Table

[BaltACD]

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!

[Anonymous]

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?

[Anonymous]

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".

[tree68]

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.

[TH&B]

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.

[BaltACD]

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.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

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.

[CSXrules4eva]

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.

[spbed]

It could probably work on local & yard type moves. But over the road jobbers would be real scary if the 1 man crew has a emergency. [:o)][:)]

Originally posted by SP9033

Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR  Austin TX Sub

• Reply