UP says it is ready for 1 man crews

[Anonymous]

UP ready for crews of one, CEO says

Union Pacific Railroad is more prepared for one-person train crews than the nation's other large railroads, and trains traveling across Nebraska and into Wyoming's Powder River Basin likely would be the first to be operated by just one person, the company's top executive said.

One-person crews would not operate trains throughout UP's system, though, Chairman and Chief Executive *** Davidson said in an interview. Areas where modern signal systems are in use with up-to-date technology would see one-person crews, and then probably just on through trains, he said, not those with additional stops.

"In and out of the coal fields of Wyoming, for instance," he said. "And the North Platte to Council Bluffs route."

Those areas have restrictive signals, which stop trains if crew members don't respond to alerts, and other advanced train-control systems, he said.

"We have large sections of our railroad that have the technology that would make (one-person crews) safe."

The nation's railroads have asked to negotiate with the 13 rail unions to allow one-person crews and to consolidate engineer and conductor job categories.

The railroads' national bargaining committee requested federal mediation this week to get negotiations started with the United Transportation Union, which represents mostly conductors.

The UTU filed a lawsuit over the one-person crew issue. The union also has said no technology exists today that would make one-person crews safe.

Switching to one-person crews would require changes beyond technology, Davidson said. "We have to change our paradigm of how we manage our railroad."

One change now taking place in some areas is the use of troubleshooting crews that assist when trains stop for mechanical or other unexpected reasons. The troubleshooters respond quickly, Davidson said, so the train can get going and its crew doesn't have to try to fix the problem itself.

Davidson said one-person crews would not operate trains in areas where crew members must manually line switches or where trains are not in contact electronically with dispatchers.

"If we do it, we'll do it productively."

Davidson said trains with one-person crews would be no more vulnerable to terrorist attacks or to other crime. When trains now must be left unguarded, crews lock down the locomotive so that the train can't be moved, he said. - Stacie Hamel, The Omaha World-Herald

[Anonymous]

LC -Pardon me for getting into an area that I am somewhat limited in, but is this not a practice that is seen in Britian on long distance trains? PL

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by piouslion

LC -Pardon me for getting into an area that I am somewhat limited in, but is this not a practice that is seen in Britian on long distance trains? PL

PL -

Essentially, yes, this practice is used in GB and elsewhere. At present it is prohibited by labor agreements and in some cases State statutes in the U.S. As has been discussed in much greater length on several other threads lately, the Class 1 RRs in the U.S. are attempting to gain approval for one man train crews.

LC

[jeaton]

OK, here is a thought (from someone somewhat sympathetic to unions). One man crews are allowed when certain standard for train control are met-say CTC with positive train control features. Details to be part of the agreement.

Hey-What's the going per diem rate for a good arbitrator?

Jay

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

OK, here is a thought (from someone somewhat sympathetic to unions). One man crews are allowed when certain standard for train control are met-say CTC with positive train control features. Details to be part of the agreement.

Hey-What's the going per diem rate for a good arbitrator?

Jay

On this type of topic? I think the old man J.P. Morgan put it best; If you have to ask how much it costs, you can't afford it. [:-,]

[Anonymous]

....and the ball has started rolling.

[Anonymous]

Ya well how about NO MAN CREW TRAINS? Trains on the Main line running them selves without no crews at all. Just think,Won't have no one to wave at. According to the UP that day is a coming!

[Anonymous]

And that would be a shame.

[arbfbe]

This is from the same guys who were 'ready' for the C&NW, MP and SP mergers, look what that brought about. There is no doubt in my mind one man crews are one the way and the railroads will make them 'work'. Just not very well and not very productively. Productivity as defined by the railroad will go way up but productivity as defined by the customers will take yet another blow. Job quality and job satisfaction as defined by the crews will continue it's downward spiral.

No man crews? The railroads are all for it. After all there is no one manning the Martian rovers, are there? It will depend if Congress can develop a comfort level with crewless trains and if there will be any public outcry over unmanned 16,000 ton trains rolling through their towns. I think that may be problematic to the railroads.

[Anonymous]

It's going to be interesting to see how this kind of thing progresses, not only to see what kinds of technology are brought in, but also to see what kinds of new jobs are created and how many of the old ones will be axed.

[coborn35]

And it would be kinda BORING!

[Dutchrailnut]

For the Engineer there won't be a difference, just as boring as before.
now if these Conductors wanted job security they should pretend to stay awake.
Not all are sleeping but a good amount are on any train, my apologies to those that do stay alert.

[BNSFGP38]

"Used to be a time when working for the railroad was the best thing a man could do for himself"--Haney from End of the Line.

[zardoz]

The trainmen's union did not gripe when the engineer was removed from yard assignments (replaced by belt-packs), so I do not imagine the engineer's union getting too upset when the conductor is replaced by a clipboard.

Ah, yes....teamwork......and looking out for your "brothers".

[Anonymous]

Brilliant, this used to take 4 guy's now 1! Post '85 railroaders you got the shaft from your "brothers" who covered themselves at your expense. Up hill slow down hill fast tonnage first and safety last, and you'll never make cash like the old heads! Good luck! Glad I'm out of that outfit.

[Anonymous]

Ok.

Put one man crew (Why are we using the word crew anyway? That's plural) on that train UP.

The very first busted coupler you see on that train 100 miles from anythingville is going to be the one that halts that division.

Or even that through train has to sit sometime at a red signal.

Perhaps that engineer goes to sleep while waiting for it to turn green again. Who is going to be the one to be sent to wake him or her up?

Or worse yet... some kind of freak accident that breaks the boot of the engineer and causes a injury that must be tended to right now.

Who is going to be found to be sent out to drive that train huh?

Answer these questions UP. If you think you have ways to solve these problems in a timely manner then you go ahead and put one man crews on them dar trains.

I strongly state my position that more than one person be assigned to a train. Any train.

If you can deploy 100 men on a MOW train for a week at a time replacing ties in my town, you can afford to deploy 2 or even 3 on your through trains. The cost of the crew's time driving your trains is but a drop in the revenue of that train load.

Is the railroad so hard up that they cannot afford the payroll? I dont think so.

[chad thomas]

Hope that one man "crew" never has to run long hood forward.

[Rustyrex]

I, for one, am not for this at all. But I am willing to listen to answers to the following scenerios:

"quote" Davidson said one-person crews would not operate trains in areas where crew members must manually line switches or where trains are not in contact electronically with dispatchers."end quote"

-What happens when you have to manually hand line a power switch, does the engineer now have to make about 8 moves on and off the engine to do this?

How about if it's about 20 degrees out and for some reason the train dumps and youo have to walk the train and find kickers?

I also imagine this would require a complete stop to copy track warrents, delays and form Bs, etc. as opposed to "keep rolling", correct?

"quote" One change now taking place in some areas is the use of troubleshooting crews that assist when trains stop for mechanical or other unexpected reasons. The troubleshooters respond quickly, Davidson said, so the train can get going and its crew doesn't have to try to fix the problem itself. "end quote" How is this saving money by elemintating a conductor job, for a troobleshooter? Are these non-union 5 dollar an hour jobs or outside contractors?

[Anonymous]

Trouble shooter/ HAH!

They better be good troubleshooters. What does it take to troubleshoot a train?

In trucking we call the dispatcher (Satellite, cellphone or payphone)
Dispatcher routes to the shop. Shop asks all kinds of questions.

1 hour gone....

Shop finally gets back to you and let's you know what to do or to expect help...
You wait some more...

1 to however many hours gone.

Help arrives...

Bends over busted part and says "I dont have that part with me" and "Will need to go back to the shop to get (Insert reason)

That is for trucking. I know very little about breakdown recovery on trains. But I will imagine very many people within the company would want to talk to this one engineer with penetrating questions and grilling to get the story.

The only troubleshooters I have respect for are Licensed and trained people who actually build/work on the machine that is broken. Like Carrier or Transicold for example.. they are a great example on how to recover a reefer unit on a truck or train.

I support the trouble shooter idea provided they are paid and trained well. Seems to me everywhere a railroad or company turns to try and cut costs, even more costs are incurred.

[BNSFGP38]

QUOTE: Originally posted by macguy

It's going to be interesting to see how this kind of thing progresses, not only to see what kinds of technology are brought in, but also to see what kinds of new jobs are created and how many of the old ones will be axed.

Some please explain to my feeble short line mind how cutting half the operation positions......IE conductors creates jobs????????????[zzz]

[greyhounds]

QUOTE: Originally posted by BNSFGP38

QUOTE: Originally posted by macguy

It's going to be interesting to see how this kind of thing progresses, not only to see what kinds of technology are brought in, but also to see what kinds of new jobs are created and how many of the old ones will be axed.

Some please explain to my feeble short line mind how cutting half the operation positions......IE conductors creates jobs????????????[zzz]

If the cost of running a train is reduced more trains will be run. There will be more engineers needed.

The equation for maximizing profits is marginal costs = marginal revenue. Reducing the costs of running a train will reduce the revenue needed to justify a train. So more engineers will be needed.

Additionally, there will be workers needed to assist the engineer in certain situations - these will also be added workers.

I love this idea.

[DPD1]

QUOTE: Originally posted by HighIron2003ar

Ok.

Put one man crew (Why are we using the word crew anyway? That's plural) on that train UP.

The very first busted coupler you see on that train 100 miles from anythingville is going to be the one that halts that division.

Or even that through train has to sit sometime at a red signal.

Perhaps that engineer goes to sleep while waiting for it to turn green again. Who is going to be the one to be sent to wake him or her up?

Or worse yet... some kind of freak accident that breaks the boot of the engineer and causes a injury that must be tended to right now.

Who is going to be found to be sent out to drive that train huh?

And how about the poor sob that hits somebody... What does he do? Get down out of the cab and leave it unattended, away from the radio, while he walks the train in the dark waiting to come upon some nightmare all by himself?

Dave

-DPD Productions - Featuring the NEW TrainTenna LP Directional RR Radio Monitoring Antenna-
http://eje.railfan.net/dpdp/

[Simon Reed]

Jason1

In the UK and Europe we've had single manned trains for decades. To answer your questions from a European perspective:-

1 - We have a device called a DSD - driver safety device. This relies upon constant pressure from the driver (engineer). If, in the worst case scenario, a driver collapses at the controls the pressure is released and the train brakes are applied. It's generally a footpedal in the UK.
The rulebook insists upon the driver checking the correct functioning of his DSD before taking his train. If it don't work, the train don't go and the rulebook protects him from management wrath.

2 - Trains are inspected in yards, where there are other employees in abundance. If an on-road inspection is called for the signalling centre (dispatcher) is notified and will monitor the length of time the man is "incommunicado."

I provide this information as an insight. There are a huge number of reasons why single-manning can work satisfactorily here and not in North America.

Don't close your mind to every application of the proposal - single manning can make economic sense and thereby keep a financially marginal operation viable.

By the same token, I've seen main routes in the US where the trackwork would'nt make a third rate spur in Europe. I'd not fancy taking a mile long train across them on a dark night!

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by DPD1

QUOTE: Originally posted by HighIron2003ar

Ok.

Put one man crew (Why are we using the word crew anyway? That's plural) on that train UP.

The very first busted coupler you see on that train 100 miles from anythingville is going to be the one that halts that division.

Or even that through train has to sit sometime at a red signal.

Perhaps that engineer goes to sleep while waiting for it to turn green again. Who is going to be the one to be sent to wake him or her up?

Or worse yet... some kind of freak accident that breaks the boot of the engineer and causes a injury that must be tended to right now.

Who is going to be found to be sent out to drive that train huh?

And how about the poor sob that hits somebody... What does he do? Get down out of the cab and leave it unattended, away from the radio, while he walks the train in the dark waiting to come upon some nightmare all by himself?

Dave

-DPD Productions - Featuring the NEW TrainTenna LP Directional RR Radio Monitoring Antenna-
http://eje.railfan.net/dpdp/

He stays on the locomotive and notifies the Dispatcher for help, just like he is supposed to do right now.

LC

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jason1


In a single person operation what would happen if the train is running along and the engineer has a heart attack? I realize that the software would automatically stop the train. But, what if for some reason it fails? It sounds very much like the railroads are assuming that these systems will never fail. And that is a very dangerous assumption. Or suppose something happens during an inspection of the train. The engineer falls or gets his hand or leg caught in something. The engineer will have a radio and probably a cell phone. What if they both fail? I know its not likely, but it could still happen.

And then we have no man trains. Sounds great in theory. However, what happens if something fails and the train stops and no one is aboard to fix it? Some of these trains run in pretty remote locations, and it would take awhile for someone to get out and fix it. Meanwhile, the train sits and ties up the railroad or blocks road crossings. I don't think the latter will endear the operation to the public. That would be the best case scenario. I think everyone in here knows what the worst case scenario is. In short, single person trains/ no person trains are a disaster waiting to happen. I will never support these operations no matter how good technology gets. I'd also like to hear what the public has to say about this.

Jason -

As far as one man trains goes there are numerous safeguards and fail safes already built into the systems such as alertors on the locomotive and man down alarms on the beltpacks. Will they always work, no, but then, what does. You should also be aware that short distance Amtrak trains already operate with only a single man in the control cab as does almost all commuter rail. There have been some incidents and problems, but solutions have been found or built.

LC

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by HighIron2003ar

Trouble shooter/ HAH!

They better be good troubleshooters. What does it take to troubleshoot a train?

In trucking we call the dispatcher (Satellite, cellphone or payphone)
Dispatcher routes to the shop. Shop asks all kinds of questions.

1 hour gone....

Shop finally gets back to you and let's you know what to do or to expect help...
You wait some more...

1 to however many hours gone.

Help arrives...

Bends over busted part and says "I dont have that part with me" and "Will need to go back to the shop to get (Insert reason)

That is for trucking. I know very little about breakdown recovery on trains. But I will imagine very many people within the company would want to talk to this one engineer with penetrating questions and grilling to get the story.

The only troubleshooters I have respect for are Licensed and trained people who actually build/work on the machine that is broken. Like Carrier or Transicold for example.. they are a great example on how to recover a reefer unit on a truck or train.

I support the trouble shooter idea provided they are paid and trained well. Seems to me everywhere a railroad or company turns to try and cut costs, even more costs are incurred.

At present one can simply call the trouble desk from mechanical for assistance and they will talk you through most basic issues. Most of the issues we have with newer power is computer related anyhow it seems. Second, if on scene troubleshooting is required, on our district there are already four block trucks staffed 24/7 that can respond to our location to help. This is usually what happens when someone gets a knuckle now and the mechanical guys assist the Conductor put the new one on.

When the problem is with the locomotive, and basic toubleshooting fails there is usually enough power on the train to shut the unit down or set it out and use the remaining units to get home with the train. In situations where there is not enough power to make a hill, power from a following train or local will be used to pu***he ailing train. Can it be a pain? Sure. But it works now. And most of this process doesn't even require a Conductor today.

LC

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the lesson LC, I understand it a little better now. =)

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by HighIron2003ar

Thanks for the lesson LC, I understand it a little better now. =)

No problem. One other thing. A company called Lat-Lon has a satelite monitoring system that handles numerous measures of locomotive health and includes GPS locating within 100'. They are currently marketing new systems with "man-down" alarms that will better enable single man operation. The system can also communicate via the cellular telephone system or RF, making it quite redundant and resilient. Their website is at www.lat-lon.com. I have no affiliation with the company.

LC

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by BNSF railfan.

Ya well how about NO MAN CREW TRAINS? Trains on the Main line running them selves without no crews at all. Just think,Won't have no one to wave at. According to the UP that day is a coming!

I am a conductor for the BNSF, as unfortunate as all of this sounds, this is all a reality...the No Man Crew might still be a little ways off...however the 1 man crew is right on the doorstep, our unions and the company are currently in Austin TX doing their collective bargaining process working up new agreements and such. I have heard and read a message from John Fleps with the BNSF that basically says that they will not settle until the crew consist agreement is shortened.
Also on a sidenote, I spoke with my union rep a couple weeks ago while coming on duty, and he said he had recently spoke with a Road Foreman of Engines who said that the new locomotives are coming out with GPS technology, essentially the conductor will board the train, swipe his card, and the GPS will be activated, the train will then proceed. On the locomotive a remote control beltpack will be mounted, when a setout or pickup is to be made, the conductor will link up his RCO and make the setout or pickup, then when hes done, board the locomotive and swipe his/her card again, and off the train goes again.

I am fully against this "technology" simply because this is stealing jobs, especially younger guys such as myself, i have a little over 2 years seniority, and over 3000 under me systemwide...but my job is now in jeopardy thanks to this madness...

[jeaton]

In their 2003 annual report to the Surf, the UP reported unit, through and way train mileage of about 162 million miles. T&E payroll was about $1.12 billion. That comes to about $6.91 per train mile for crew costs. Add about 15% for fringe benefits and you are at $7.95. If engineers get a little more than half that, let us say that the potential savings for the one man is somewhere around $3.95 per train mile. That is assuming that the lonesome pay is insignificant.

I think *** Davidson shot himself in the foot by saying that one man would only be use where technology is in place. The UTU may talk the talk about no one man crews allowed, but may find that they are not going come away with total victory. It seems to me the union's fall back position would be to have the contract spell the technology that has to be in place. "One man engine assignments if CTC and Positive Train Control are in place along with effective monitoring of the condition of the man". If they can't play the safety card for that position, you UTU guys need another negotiating crew.

So what happens next. Going back to 2003, the UP reported cost for train crews (separated from engine crews) at $493 million so maybe some portion of that cost can be reduce when the new contract goes in effect.

What about expansion of the trackage with the required technology in place. Consider this. I have seen the number of $1 million per mile to install CTC. If 8% is the cost of capital, that means interest of $80,000 per year on the investment. If, BIG IF, 55 trains a day are running that mile of track, the cost savings for one man will cover the interest. $3.95X55 trainsX365 days=$79,296. Don't look for massive upgrading with new technology everwhere.

Shorter trains? I doubt it. Assume a 2500 mile run from Chicago to the West Coast. One man saves about $10,000. Isn't that about the revenue from four or five cars? In other words, a one man train could only be four or five cars shorter and still provide the same dollars to common costs, overhead and profit.

Bottom line is, I am not going to bet that "one man" is diesalization or two man crews.

Jay