Get ready for one man crews on the Main line.

[Anonymous]

http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_pg=46&u_sid=2007514
Allan.

[edblysard]

Well,
I am sure the Omaha Herald knows mind of a Federal court judge...
Guess the Federal Judge who is deciding if it is even legal for the carriers to attempt to negotiate crew consist changes must have called and tipped them off to his decision.
Can’t wait to hear what the Herald says about the Judges decision on FELA.
Please keep us up to date on all of this…

Ed

[Modelcar]

....That's one change and "improvement" to allow the RR to be competitive...I hope we never see....! That sounds too crazy....a profit margin that thin that such drastic measures would be necessary to be competitive...

[Anonymous]

Too bad you have to be a member to read the whole article, I only got to read the first 3 sentences.

[Anonymous]

yeah i would like to get to read the entire article

[Anonymous]

Just sign up with your Name and your E-mail addresse.
Allan.

[Anonymous]

Is that death and chaos i smell in the oven? [:0]

[Jordan6]

Won't believe it, until I see it.

[Anonymous]

I can't just see Trains going down the Main line with only just the Engineer only. What would happen if the Engineer where to fall asleep at the Throttle?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by BNSF railfan.

I can't just see Trains going down the Main line with only just the Engineer only. What would happen if the Engineer where to fall asleep at the Throttle?

Exactly ! ! !

I am not sure how many railroads are actually pushing this. But you can bet that if UP were given the green light to reduce train crews to only one person, EVERY railroad would jump on that bandwagon.

Given the past stories about crew fatigue I think one person crews is a hugh diaster waiting to happen.

[Rodney Beck]

Us railroaders belive nothing what we hear and half of what we see (lol).

Rodney

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by BNSF railfan.

I can't just see Trains going down the Main line with only just the Engineer only. What would happen if the Engineer where to fall asleep at the Throttle?

No problem. You just pull off at the rest area and take a nap, right FM??

LC

[Junctionfan]

I heard that every once in awhile, the engineer has to push a button or something like that just to make sure everything is o.k. Failure to do it with in a certain time frame and the train automatically goes into emergency and alerts dispatch of the alarm.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

QUOTE: Originally posted by BNSF railfan.

I can't just see Trains going down the Main line with only just the Engineer only. What would happen if the Engineer where to fall asleep at the Throttle?

No problem. You just pull off at the rest area and take a nap, right FM??

LC

Sure, as long as you got a sleeper cab.

[arbfbe]

Yeah, sure the UP needs one man crews to be competitive, with whom? The trucker who handles two 40 foot trailers or three 28 foot pups at best? Isn't UP the company who has been turning away business from long term customers? So lower crew costs will allow them to reduce rates to attract more business?

It is all smoke and mirrors, they only want to reduce employment levels and perhaps improve the bottom line for stock holders. We all know how well remote switch engines have lived up to their predictions in that regard.

[Anonymous]

Sure...Now that the Caboose has been gone for a long time,So will the Conductors and then the Engineers.......Then someday Trains will going from coast to coast with NO crews at all. Hmmm,Makes you wounder doesn't it? Some where I heard UP's John Bromely say that awhile back. Allan.

[DPD1]

I still don't get how this would work... The train has to be walked from defects all the time. So then they have to contract a third party to patrol the whole line in trucks acting as U men? Of course those would be nonunion, but it seems kind of ridiculous to go through all that.

Dave
-DPD Productions - Featuring the NEW TrainTenna LP Gain RR Scanner Antenna-
http://eje.railfan.net/dpdp/

[jeffhergert]

They (UP) say they're ready for one man crews, but they're still hiring trainmen.
If they believed they were close to going engineer only, they wouldn't keep on hiring like they are. Not because they have any qualms about furloughing employees when business slows, but because of the cost involved in training new employees only to cut them off permanently.
Even if they aren't realistically ready for one man crews, they can benefit by forcing the UTU to renegotiate crew consists. Just imagine what give backs the company could get to keep the conductor. At the very least, they could get rid of the few remaining brakemen assignments.
And yes, if one man crews came to pass, they would have U (utility) men with trucks to help with break in twos or to check problems. Some areas already have them to help out with minor mechanical problems. At Fremont, NE there is one. The job is called Foreman General.
Jeff

[Anonymous]

A certain shortline railroad in North Carolina uses one man crews regularly. There is a conductor on every crew, but he is usually in a company vehicle down the line getting switches lined for the approaching train and what not, rarely actually riding on the train.... [:(]

[Mookie]

I read the article in the paper - Driver and I discussed it - article did say a two man crew caught a hotbox that the detector missed. They caught it looking back going around a curve about 10 miles past the detector.

And there was an interview with a female engineer (15 years) that wasn't too hep on the idea.

I got the feeling that they were thinking of running this in an area that would be equivalent to using a remote engine. It would be for a short distance between two towns where only the coyotes roam and no major switches or divergents. Still....

Is it really that expensive to have two people on an engine? And what if someone has a major medical problem and can't function well enough to get on the radio for help. Are they going to install cameras to watch them 24/7?

I'm confused!

Mook

[CShaveRR]

The Union Pacific is mentioned in the article because it was an Omaha paper. What's being presented here is what the carriers--all of them--want to discuss in this round of contract negotiations--their Section 6 notices.

No, I wouldn't want to see--or be--a one-person crew on an over-the-road train, for any railroad, even with an army of support people following along in trucks to throw my switches and shoot my troubles. Savings in cost, yes. Savings in safety and efficiency, questionable at best.

[edblysard]

Part of the conflict is this...
Each location or home terminal that is a union shop has a local agreement with the carrier as to crew consist...
In other words, my union has a contract with the PTRA that says the bare minimum crew on any PTRA train is an engineer and a conductor...
Yet on the UP at Englewood, the minimum crew consist is an engineer, conductor and a brakeman...due to the type of work they perform.
But at other UP terminals, it may be only an engineer and conductor.
It is negotiable only on a local level, not on a national level, and only at those terminals or divisions.


In National contract, this set up was ratified by the carriers, and part of that same contract stated that, as long as a pre 1985 employee was working at that home terminal, the crew consist was a non-negotiable issue.
This is along with the agreement that a change in crew consist could not result in any T&E employee losing their job, or having their job abolished.


The idea behind it was of course to protect jobs, if the carriers were given a clean slate, they would reduce every job to one man and remotes, which is a dangerous idea...
Imagine me switching alone, just one man trying to switch 150 to 200 cars a day...but the carriers endorse just such activities, they claim with a remote, it would be easy.

So, because we (unions) and the carriers are in the process of negotiating a new Nation wide wage and work contract, they threw this into the mix, as a bargaining chip/lever to get other concessions from the unions.

But the UTU has filed a lawsuit, in Federal court, to block this becoming a bargaining issue, after all, the National contract agreed upon by the carriers specifically prohibits the crew consist issue being debatable on a national level, as long as a per 1985 employee is in T&E service.

We are awaiting a Federal Judges decision as to weather the crew consist can be "bargained" for on a National level.
Right now, it is changeable only by the local committee of adjustment at each terminal and home station, and just for that district or division, not on a nation wide basis.

Ed

[Mookie]

This is scarey and it isn't even Halloween yet!

[bobwilcox]

The Class I railroads have been working up to this for some time. Why didn't they ask for national barganing on this as a part of their Section 6 notices?

This was simpler in the 19th Century. The Eastern Railroads were in a business slump, as usual the cut wages 10% but then the trainmen responded by burning down Pittsburgh![:)]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox

The Class I railroads have been working up to this for some time. Why didn't they ask for national barganing on this as a part of their Section 6 notices?

This was simpler whey the Eastern Railroads cut wages 10% and the trainmen responded by burning down Pittsburgh![:)]

it was asked in the section six notices!!!! go to the utu web site and you will see that the railroads propose the ablilty to call conductors when they want too on what train they want too. the crew constist is the only thing protecting the conductors. if the court decides to deslove the crew contist the railroads will not ever have to call another conductor on a road train ever again!!!!

[Anonymous]

Has there been a study done about the number of remote related injuries vs a "full crew" or how about the number of minor derailments or accidents? Somehow the Corporation has done some type of feesability study to make this decission? Though greed has motivated stranger changes.

Bad idea I think, as stated above about medical, and what about if a train only has one person, how are they going to multi-task effectively? I would think stress will take it's toll.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Mookie

This is scarey and it isn't even Halloween yet!

Funny you should mention Halloween.... the original Crew Consist Agrmnt on the SP West lines was termed "The Halloween Agreement".....

Virlon

[bobwilcox]

QUOTE: Originally posted by [e-mail]

QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox

The Class I railroads have been working up to this for some time. Why didn't they ask for national barganing on this as a part of their Section 6 notices?

This was simpler whey the Eastern Railroads cut wages 10% and the trainmen responded by burning down Pittsburgh![:)]

it was asked in the section six notices!!!! go to the utu web site and you will see that the railroads propose the ablilty to call conductors when they want too on what train they want too. the crew constist is the only thing protecting the conductors. if the court decides to deslove the crew contist the railroads will not ever have to call another conductor on a road train ever again!!!!

The UTU better get ready for some very tough negotiations. If the carriers provide job protection to current trainmen Congress will not be on the UTUs side.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox

QUOTE: Originally posted by [e-mail]

QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox

The Class I railroads have been working up to this for some time. Why didn't they ask for national barganing on this as a part of their Section 6 notices?

This was simpler whey the Eastern Railroads cut wages 10% and the trainmen responded by burning down Pittsburgh![:)]

it was asked in the section six notices!!!! go to the utu web site and you will see that the railroads propose the ablilty to call conductors when they want too on what train they want too. the crew constist is the only thing protecting the conductors. if the court decides to deslove the crew contist the railroads will not ever have to call another conductor on a road train ever again!!!!

The UTU better get ready for some very tough negotiations. If the carriers provide job protection to current trainmen Congress will not be on the UTUs side.

Are railroads allowed to strike? If so, would that be a loud enough voice to get attention? Though now that I think about BNSF had a short strike not long ago I seem to remember, was like 6 or 12 hours?????

[dldance]

Amtrak has been running with a one man crew in the engine for a number of years...

dd