Railroads dealt setback in bids for one person crews.

[Anonymous]

http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_pg=46&u_sid=2131454

[Anonymous]

That is good news for the present but I believe sooner or later the railroads will win on this issue. Twenty years from now 1-man crews may be the norm. The technology may advance where it is possible. As long as the train encounters no mechanical issues a one man crew is ok. However, just let it go into emergency out in the middle of no where and no road close by.

The link to the article is just a tidbit of the story. I am not going to register just to read this one story. Many other people will also not register just for one story.

It would be nice to have the whole article to be able to read it.

[Anonymous]

i am a retired railroad conductor ( road conductor) back in the late sixties there was a full crew law in the state of indiana that there had to be five men, the engineer , the fireman the head man and third man, and at the rear was the conductor and the rear brakeman or rear flagman. that is all gone now thanks to the union and the government. before i retired there was the engineer and the conductor. no matter if the railroad have the technology that one man crew is safew,it is not whgat happens if the engineer has a heart attack will the on board system stop the train, or say if the train goes into emergency, say a broken drawbar or knuckle that has happened. so a two man crew is safer than one man crew. thank you

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by skydome

i am a retired railroad conductor ( road conductor) back in the late sixties there was a full crew law in the state of indiana that there had to be five men, the engineer , the fireman the head man and third man, and at the rear was the conductor and the rear brakeman or rear flagman. that is all gone now thanks to the union and the government. before i retired there was the engineer and the conductor. no matter if the railroad have the technology that one man crew is safew,it is not whgat happens if the engineer has a heart attack will the on board system stop the train, or say if the train goes into emergency, say a broken drawbar or knuckle that has happened. so a two man crew is safer than one man crew. thank you

Just out of curiousity, what was a fireman's duties on a diesel locomotive?

And for that matter, what was a brakeman's job (after the airbrake system was universal)?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by skydome



no matter if the railroad have the technology that one man crew is safew,it is not whgat happens if the engineer has a heart attack will the on board system stop the train, or say if the train goes into emergency, say a broken drawbar or knuckle that has happened. so a two man crew is safer than one man crew. thank you

Oh, I coun't agree more. But like you stated, the power of the unions has been eroding for years. Many union people are not happy that the unions are not doing more to fight for pay, insurance costs, and other issues. We have very good insurance, but mine just incresed about 35 bucks a month.

I think that the might dollar will win for the railroads and we all know that the railroads can definately throw around some money. It seems like the current administration's logo is "Show Me the Money." Sonner or later, they will win on this issue. I am not for it, but that will not stop the railroads from doing it. Few people like the RC locos but the railroads are doing it. Many cities have passed legislation against the use of RC locos (mine included) but since the railroads are Federally chartered the cities have no control. Sometimes a railroad will cooperate with a city in a noise issue such as not blowing the horn during certain hours or days but it is a voluntary thing.

The railroads will keep plugging away at this issue and someday will win. Just how long it takes is anybody's guess. The fact that we don't like it will not matter to Washington DC. We don't have the money to pass under the table like the railroads do. This is just a minor setback now, the railroads will not give up on this issue. They may let it cool for a while, but they will not be giving up.

[zardoz]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TheAntiGates
Just out of curiousity, what was a fireman's duties on a diesel locomotive?

The fireman's job was to keep the sparkplugs clean so the gas was all used.


Seriously,
The job of the fireman was to learn how to be an engineer. Why do you think we have these 60-day wonders running signals and derailing trains (such as the 2 incidents on Metra in the last year or so). There is so much to learn about operating a train that only experience can teach you.

The brakemans job was (is) to do the 'dirty work' like crawling under a car that has sticky brakes so they can loosen the brake rigging, or to carry the knuckle the engineer just broke, or sweeping switches during snow, walking the train checking the brakes after a set-out or a pick-up. Now the conductor has to do all that fun stuff.


The railroads play the odds with crew size, just like they do with other safety concerns. They examine how much it would cost to implement a resolutiuon to a safety issue, versus the cost if they do nothing and hope nothing ever happens. Sometimes they win, sometimes they lose (see above). I'm sure that would be comforting to the survivors of the "accidents" that have claimed lives, knowing that their loved one was killed because the railroad (or any company for that matter) decided the potential for death was not worth spending some of their profits to address the issue....

[wabash1]

all i have to say is it dont matter. most all the conductors i have get on the engine and go to sleep. i have been working on my rest with no days off . i have nodded off running and have stood up and run the train to stay awake. while the conductor is sleeping. i look at it this way im not the baby sitter if they cant stay awake and do thier job or wake up and fight for thier job then let them do away with it. its dangerouse out there now with the fatige . it aint going to get any better soon

[Anonymous]

Thank god.

I say crew em up. The payroll is still cheaper than the lost productivity, time, effort of additional resources and blocked mainlines because of a simple busted coupler or whatever that requires several people to fix it.

What I would like to see is accidents due to falling asleep with one man crews. You gotta have folks with ya to stay awake.

[zardoz]

QUOTE: Originally posted by wabash1

all i have to say is it dont matter. most all the conductors i have get on the engine and go to sleep. i have been working on my rest with no days off . i have nodded off running and have stood up and run the train to stay awake. while the conductor is sleeping. i look at it this way im not the baby sitter if they cant stay awake and do thier job or wake up and fight for thier job then let them do away with it. its dangerouse out there now with the fatige . it aint going to get any better soon

Try my solution:
Wait until the conductor is sound asleep, and you're drifting along in the 3rd or 4th notch. Quietly pick up the wrench, slowly unlatch the rear door so you can get out fast, then hold down the independent bail-off for about thirty seconds.

Then, when the time is right, very quickly and in sequence first toss the wrench so it makes a big noise when it lands, then immediately or at the same time release the independent, open the back door and run out yelling and/or swearing like you're about to hit something. I can almost guarantee the conductor will be awake most of the rest of the trip.

[PigFarmer1]

The one man crew is going to happen. It's just a matter of time because the technology is available today. As someone working in MoW I don't see a one man crew as being much more unsafe than two men. Two man crews blow through 10 mph slow orders now. I'm not going to feel much more unsafe with a one man crew.

[Anonymous]

I am sorry to say that 1 Man Operating Crews will be come a regular occurance on Freight Trains very soon but on Commuter Trains and Passenger trains No it won't happen.

[coborn35]

You think they would be worried about terrorism! Who knows who's in the enigne when the only crewmember is at the back of the train fixing the F.R.E.D.!

QUOTE: no matter if the railroad have the technology that one man crew is safew,it is not whgat happens if the engineer has a heart attack will the on board system stop the train,

If I understand you right, then....The Dead mans pedal will stop the train if he has a heart attack.

[zardoz]

QUOTE: Originally posted by AMTK200

I am sorry to say that 1 Man Operating Crews will be come a regular occurance on Freight Trains very soon but on Commuter Trains and Passenger trains No it won't happen.

Metra and Amtrak began using one-man engine crews many years ago. If the dispatcher has to transmit a restricting order to the train, the engineer must stop the train before he can copy the order.

However, like many of you, I totally disagree with the idea to have only one person in the cab. Of ANY train.

I could tell you about many dozens of situations I was in while working for Metra where the second person in the cab helped prevent an accident. Now the lone person in the cab must rely on luck. And like I mentioned in my post above, for some Metra trains, their luck had run out. I bet it will not be the last time we hear of an incident where a second person in the cab would have made the difference preventing a serious accident. I'm not saying a second person in the cab will prevent every accident; what I am saying is the second person drastically reduces the odds of an accident.

I wonder how many years of wages the lawsuits would have paid for from the Metra trains that derailed going throught the crossovers too fast and derailing. And that's just the money part of it. In one of those accidents, two people died. How much in saved wages are those lives worth? How much are the future victims lives worth?

[Anonymous]

Published Saturday
March 11, 2006

Railroads dealt setback in bid for 1-person crew

BY STACIE HAMEL




WORLD-HERALD STAFF WRITER


A judge ruled Friday that a union has no obligation to take part in national bargaining with railroads over the size of train crews, apparently thwarting carriers' immediate hopes of implementing one-person crews.

The carriers affected include the Omaha-based Union Pacific Railroad and BNSF Railway Co., which also operates in Nebraska and Iowa.

The lawsuit was filed in March 2005 by the United Transportation Union, which represents mostly conductors, against railroads represented in negotiations by the National Carriers' Conference Committee.

The UTU has been in negotiation with the carriers since Jan. 1, 2005, over rates of pay and working conditions.

A union spokesman called the ruling a significant victory. National Carriers' Conference Committee representatives were not immediately available.

The ruling by U.S. District Court Judge G. Patrick Murphy of Southern Illinois also rebuffed railroads' request that the union join in proposing that Congress repeal or change the Federal Employer Liability Act, which allows injured railroad workers to sue carriers for on-the-job injuries.

The agreements over crew size - known as crew consist agreements - were negotiated railroad-by-railroad, rather than through national bargaining, and require at least one conductor and, in some cases, a brakeman on all through freight trains.

In his order, Murphy wrote, "UTU has no obligation to bargain with Defendant Carriers in national handling regarding the crew consist issues . . . the subject is local as a matter of law."

He wrote, however, that national bargaining is appropriate on a wage-reduction proposal once crew consist has been resolved at the local level.

On the proposal regarding the Federal Employer Liability Act, Murphy wrote that the issue is outside the scope of mandatory bargaining and railroads have no right to insist that the union negotiate.


Contact the Omaha World-Herald newsroom

Copyright ©2006 Omaha World-Herald®.

[CShaveRR]

Jim, and others wanting the whole story:

http://www.utu.org/worksite/detail_news.cfm?ArticleID=26874

Don't be put off by the fact that it comes from the UTU's website--I've always thought that their "editing" was nonexistent, and the articles are quoted verbatim.

[ValleyX]

One man crews are coming, I'm sure, but I don't expect to see it. They won't get it this year or next but it's coming. I agree with the other railroaders on here, I don't have any desire to be out there alone, not that every conductor is the most alert individual, but it totally spooks me out thinking about running a train for about 200 miles all by myself.

Zardoz, I like your "wake up" story but its only a temporary fix. The notorious ones usually stay that way.

As for firemen, Gates, Zardoz'es comments are right on the money, I, too, attribute many of the recent troubles to engineers that were made engineers way too soon, without seasoning.

[Modelcar]

....As a rail fan, not a railroader....I wonder how the desire to go to a one man crew by the company measures against saving a certain amount of money up against certain safety features a two man crew must bring to the table on the average....I hear some of the posters saying the 2nd man is no help, but surely, overall there must be some help from most of the 2nd man being present in safety and help when problems do arise.....I find it difficult to understand the Co. needing to remove that one salary from the thousands of dollars of income from a current freight train loadings. As I stated, I'm not a railroader and there must be reasons I don't see......

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ValleyX


As for firemen, Gates, Zardoz'es comments are right on the money, I, too, attribute many of the recent troubles to engineers that were made engineers way too soon, without seasoning.

Well not to brew any bad sentiment, but paying a guy full scale to basically sit around as a student is somewhat pork barrelish, isn't it? Especially when you look at the time frame involved, when the RR's were having the trucking industry carve their own lunch right out of the RR's rib meat...etc. Costs had to be trimmed somewhere.


And, just playing devil's advocate, if there is ample spare time on todays 2 man crews that conductors sleeping on the job is the widespread sin that everybody knows about but no one will admit to...then put yourself in the employer's position and imagine how they would feel paying for 3 man crews. let alone 5 man crews.

Tell ya what I think, it may take 10 years, and it might take 30 years, but I suspect NO MAN CREWS will become the eventual norm.

Automation at the industrial level is very robust already. And if one thinks that "safety" is the best argument for keeping a human in the cab, all I can say is think about all the grade level accidents where the engineer says "I threw the train into emergency, which was all I could do. The amount of train I had behind me required 4000 feet to stop, but unfortunately I only had 1500 feet between me and the car sitting in front of me... ...cause that is what the railroad hears time and again, ... Proximity sensors on engines and photo sensors at grade crossings could today make the decision to throw the train into emergency equally well to a human,....plus an automated crew won't die on hours and require rescue and replacement via the taxi, won't require a motel bill at "away" terminals, and won't close their eyes to "rest" them while on duty.


It's inevitable I'd say.

Probably have fewer broken knuckles to boot, since computers never get ants in their pants.

what has to happen to allow this to work is a cost effective way to build in the necessary redundancy for safety, and wireless communication protocols with adequate "fail safe" provisions programmed in, and I think it could happen. Probably in my lifetime

[zardoz]

Antigates,
I must respectfully disagree.

First issue. When you began your job, did not someone sit with you for a while to teach you. And if not in your particular case, ask around, you will likely discover most everyone had a training period. And if it was your wife, mother, kid, whatever, that was saved by that second person, would you not agree that it was worth it?

Second issue. I do agree about the 3 and 5 man crews. But remember, it was not too many years ago that those "extra" men's jobs were to flag opposing trains in the event of a delay of derailment. Trains used to be operated by train orders, even in dark territory. The only assurance of a clear track was the authority granted by train order or timetable, and if there was a delayed train in front of him, an engineer would not know about it until it was visible, which in most cases was way, way too late. The men would walk ahead or behind the train with fusees (flares) and torpedoes to warn advancing trains. Radios, when they became manditory, alieviated the need for flagmen.

Third issue. Your faith in automation shows either a lack of understanding of what it is like to be in a cab of an operating locomotive, and/or the physics of train handling. Ther's more to stopping a train than "throwing it into emergency". In addition, if AI ever gets smart enough to do what you suggest, there will be very few humans with jobs.

And all of those fancy sensors and cameras? Just imagine how much the kids will have playing "chicken" with the trains. Just step in front for a second, and the train stops! Wow! Such fun! And while their at it, maybe they can help themselves to some of the goodies in the trailers and boxcars.

Every time a car runs around the gates, the computer puts the train in emergency, and the community is blocked waiting for the train to restart. And who will walk the train to ensure it did not derail when it went into emergency?

Fourth issue. Fewer knuckles?!? That really made me laugh. No disrespect intended, but even after running trains for twenty years, I still got the occasional surprise action/reaction from the train. Sure, computers don't get "ants in their pants", but they also have no "feeling", no intuition, no ability to do independent thought.

Again, if technology does get that advanced (and I agree it is quite possible), then what I said above still applies. Robots and computers will be doing most everything. Including making high-level corporate decisions. And what will we be doing? The laid-off railroaders will be in the same unemployment line right along side of the CEO's, or maybe we'll all be sitting at home watching computer-generated soap operas. Gee, I just can't wait.

[edblysard]

Firemen were engineers in training.
Brakemen, both head end and rear end were there to throw switches, protect back up moves...tie down cuts of cars....
With the advent of the FRED or EOT, the caboose, which is the conductors office, went away and he moved to the cab.
You had a head end brakeman to line switches for forward moves...You dont want the engineer to leave the cab to line a switch....the rules that allow that are out of this world.

Rear brake man and conductor handles the reverse moves.

Ed

QUOTE: Originally posted by TheAntiGates

QUOTE: Originally posted by skydome

i am a retired railroad conductor ( road conductor) back in the late sixties there was a full crew law in the state of indiana that there had to be five men, the engineer , the fireman the head man and third man, and at the rear was the conductor and the rear brakeman or rear flagman. that is all gone now thanks to the union and the government. before i retired there was the engineer and the conductor. no matter if the railroad have the technology that one man crew is safew,it is not whgat happens if the engineer has a heart attack will the on board system stop the train, or say if the train goes into emergency, say a broken drawbar or knuckle that has happened. so a two man crew is safer than one man crew. thank you

Just out of curiousity, what was a fireman's duties on a diesel locomotive?

And for that matter, what was a brakeman's job (after the airbrake system was universal)?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by zardoz

Antigates,
I must respectfully disagree.

Which is fine, i sure didnot hope to get anybody mad, and I'm not trying to say I am looking forward to this happening....but I bet it does happen, none the less..

There are too many benefits available for it not to happen....

it may entail trains being ran in a manner completely different from what we are used to, , to make the objective more "machine friendly", but the savings available might make that worthwhile.

Sure, employee training is important. But just how long were you proposing that a full wage "fireman" sit in the students chair in the cab? 2 years? 5 years?

That doesn't sound very realisitic to me.

Don't the rail roads put 3 man crews out already when one is a student engineer? to learn the specific route he will be running on?

Maybe current training levels are too short, but adding a 3rd staff position to every train just to always have a man in training (which is the way I read what you were saying) seems like overkill by a couple degrees of magnitude.

Time will tell, I guess

[mackb4]

Great news [:D]! I don't want to ride alone.I can't carry on a good conversation with my self at all.And as for no man crews. Technology may work in other areas,but not all.I don't want to be around a train loaded down with hazardous cars going down the rail 50+mph[xx(].Hey what ever happened to national security anyway.The UTU and BLET both are working to get this one man crap done away with.People should write their state reps. to complain about such a thing.Hasn't this country done away with enough jobs[:(!]?Tell the people that come up with this hair brain ideas that a computer may replace them one day,and could very well.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by AMTK200

I am sorry to say that 1 Man Operating Crews will be come a regular occurance on Freight Trains very soon but on Commuter Trains and Passenger trains No it won't happen.

ON WHAT PLANET??! Amtrak already runs many short distance trains with only an engineer in the cab. There are Conductors and Assistant Conductors on these trains (back in the consist) but no Assistant Engineer in the cab, or anyone besides the engineer...

LC

[Modelcar]

...From a fan and a citizen's point of view....It seems so unnecessary to create such a situation where it is not necessary to do so. The salary and benefits of ONE person being the turning point whether this dangerous situation is created or not....It probably sounds like a no-brainer to most folks.

[zardoz]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TheAntiGates
Sure, employee training is important. But just how long were you proposing that a full wage "fireman" sit in the students chair in the cab? 2 years? 5 years?

Don't the rail roads put 3 man crews out already when one is a student engineer? to learn the specific route he will be running on?

Maybe current training levels are too short, but adding a 3rd staff position to every train just to always have a man in training (which is the way I read what you were saying) seems like overkill by a couple degrees of magnitude.

Time will tell, I guess

Regarding the 3-man crew that includes a student: I believe you are correct. My point is that the training time is way too short. Which addresses the other point you made: I agree that having a third person on every crew regardless of training needs is overkill. And on freight trains that already have a two-person crew, the third is completely a waste, unless they are in training.

However, I do not agree with the one-person crew idea at all! Like I said before, it is a matter of the companies evaluating safety vs efficiency. How much value do you put on the lives that the second person might/will save? If one person's life is saved by having a second crewman on every train at a cost of, say, two million per year, is not that life worth 2 million? How about 1 million? What is the acceptable cost of a life over EXTRA profitability?

Railroads certainly are not alone in operating this way. For example: Think of all the auto design defects that were knowingly implimented by automakers. They would allow a defect to go into production knowing that it would cost only a few dollars to fix per car, because when they add up all the cars sold the total becomes large. So they allow production figuring that the cost of the lawsuits they may get will be offset by the EXTRA profit (think Pinto, Corvair, etc. SUV's are well known to roll over easier than autos. The manufacturers know this. But do any of the domestic manufacturers reinforce the roof supports? NO. Why? Because they do not have to. No social conscience. No guilt about those that will die. Just more corporate profit at the expense of safety.

How about air travel? Would you be comfortable knowing that there is only one person in the cockpit? I understand that planes can land themselves at certain equipped airports. So why do we need the extra person up there?

Another safety issue I do not see raised is the possibility of an individual having their own agenda and acting on it. What if your only pilot is having suicidal thoughts? How about the lone engineer? What if your sole operator has his own political agenda? Or wants to go out in a 'blaze of glory'? Or maybe a political organization could bribe an operator do perform an act of terrorism, or perhaps threaten an operator's family? A second person would help to prevent the above from happening; not eliminate it, just reduce the likelyhood. Which brings us back to the 'playing the odds' with safety.

Why do you think the military requires TWO persons with special keys to launch missiles? Safety.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by zardoz


(A)Regarding the 3-man crew that includes a student: I believe you are correct. My point is that the training time is way too short. Which addresses the other point you made: I agree that having a third person on every crew regardless of training needs is overkill. And on freight trains that already have a two-person crew, the third is completely a waste, unless they are in training.

(B)How much value do you put on the lives that the second person might/will save? If one person's life is saved by having a second crewman on every train at a cost of, say, two million per year, is not that life worth 2 million?


(C)Why do you think the military requires TWO persons with special keys to launch missiles? Safety.

(A) . SO really we agree on this area, we just have differing perspectives on how needed extra training should be performed/scheduled. Really not related to the "one man crew" debate. We could (theoretically) do away with the conductor, yet have student engineers spend longer time being field trained, and the point you raise over training would be resolved.


(B) .Might/ will, shoulda, coulda ..... those emotional appeals are real tear jerkers, especially if the deceased's survivors have an attorney who thinks he can prey upon the emotions of a jury and argue the value of that life up to $50 million.

Which, THAT is exactly where the concept of the over valuation of the value of a single human life comes from in our society. It's a fairy tale. Just because some scaley skinned viper can smooth talk 12 gullible people into boo-hoo hooing in their hanky and awarding the plaintiffs survivors $2 mil, that doesn't mean the value of human life is that much.

But no, to be more direct to your point, no I do not think that railroads should be expected to carry unneccessary burden day in and day out based on no more than what could happen in a worse case scenario.

When you are out driving, you COULD run a redlight , and push a gasoline tank truck into a school bus killing 35 kids.

Do you carry a liability limit on your car insurance that would cover up to $350 million? (attorneys always get more sympathy out of a weepy jury when kids are involved) $10 million per kid you might cause death to?

Of course you don't because the day in and day out impact of carrying that expense is not justified by the realistic level of exposure.

That doesn't mean you are 'insensitive" to the plight of the 35 children you may, or may never hit,..does it? So why hang that load around the neck of the railroads?



(C) I always thought it was security, to prevent one lone nut from instigating armageddon?

[zardoz]

Antigates:

A. Agreed. Actually, you have a great idea. Leave the second person in the cab to gain experience AND to take care of the other needs.

Perhaps a current rail can enlighten me--are the conductors of today forced to go through engineer training, and are they subsequently forced into engine service as needs and seniority dictate?

B. I agree that the railroad should not have to carry and extra burden based on worse-case scenario. But when (if) that scenario does happen, then the decision does not look so good. Especially if the deceased is someone you love. Or the town you live in has to be evacuated.

C. You are correct, I interchanged the terms. In this discussion I equate security with safety. We must be secure if we are to be safe, and we must be safe if we are to be secure.

[Bergie]

QUOTE: Originally posted by wabash1

all i have to say is it dont matter. most all the conductors i have get on the engine and go to sleep. i have been working on my rest with no days off . i have nodded off running and have stood up and run the train to stay awake. while the conductor is sleeping. i look at it this way im not the baby sitter if they cant stay awake and do thier job or wake up and fight for thier job then let them do away with it. its dangerouse out there now with the fatige . it aint going to get any better soon

Wabash, tell your story about dropping the locomotive into neutral and knocking the sleeping conductor to the floor. That's my favorite story of all time in this forum.

Bergie

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by zardoz

Antigates:

A. Agreed. Actually, you have a great idea. Leave the second person in the cab to gain experience AND to take care of the other needs.

Perhaps a current rail can enlighten me--are the conductors of today forced to go through engineer training, and are they subsequently forced into engine service as needs and seniority dictate?

B. I agree that the railroad should not have to carry and extra burden based on worse-case scenario. But when (if) that scenario does happen, then the decision does not look so good. Especially if the deceased is someone you love. Or the town you live in has to be evacuated.

C. You are correct, I interchanged the terms. In this discussion I equate security with safety. We must be secure if we are to be safe, and we must be safe if we are to be secure.

A. The interviewer with NS that ran a conductor hiring session I attended a year ago, stated that it would be MANDATORY that all conductors try out for the engineers position after 24 months, and passing was also MANDATORY. Meaning if you flunked the engineer's test , you couldn't just remain a conductor.

B. whenever anyone dies, the deceased is almost ALWAYS somebody's loved one. So I fail to see how your argument makes that person "special" in any way. Maybe that makes me a cold heartless sons-a-gun, but I really think that western culture has a wildly exaggerated sense of "value" on the individual. Created in no small part by attorney's cultivating the victim mentality, to maximize the value of their percentage.

C. I understand, but do not endorse, your intent there.

No psycho engineer is gonna launch his SD-70 at Moscow to create an international incident.

And even on a more down to earth basis, how many conductors that you are aware of have wrestled the control stand away from a beserk engineer,.. thus thwarting threats to ram his Z train into the trackside bowling alley?

My bet is that someone would have to wake him up first. [}:)]

AHHH, NOW we have a reason for the 3rd man on the crew....[:D] The conductor's valet.

My bet is that within 30 years the major class 1's will be operatorless, and will function more like a netwotk of interconnected conveyor belts.

the trains will all run in carefully regulated sync throughout the entire network such that trains will never have to stop between origin and destination. That train may roll out of LA headed for chicago at only 23.7 mph, but it's speed (and the speed of all trains it will meet along the way) will be controlled by a central computer and synchronized, and continuously updated and revised as needed, like an electronic ballet, for perfect meets.

Humans will only be dispatched to manually straighten out the occasional glitch.

[zardoz]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TheAntiGates

QUOTE: Originally posted by zardoz

Antigates:

A. Agreed. Actually, you have a great idea. Leave the second person in the cab to gain experience AND to take care of the other needs.

Perhaps a current rail can enlighten me--are the conductors of today forced to go through engineer training, and are they subsequently forced into engine service as needs and seniority dictate?

B. I agree that the railroad should not have to carry and extra burden based on worse-case scenario. But when (if) that scenario does happen, then the decision does not look so good. Especially if the deceased is someone you love. Or the town you live in has to be evacuated.

C. You are correct, I interchanged the terms. In this discussion I equate security with safety. We must be secure if we are to be safe, and we must be safe if we are to be secure.

A. The interviewer with NS that ran a conductor hiring session I attended a year ago, stated that it would be MANDATORY that all conductors try out for the engineers position after 24 months, and passing was also MANDATORY. Meaning if you flunked the engineer's test , you couldn't just remain a conductor.

B. whenever anyone dies, the deceased is almost ALWAYS somebody's loved one. So I fail to see how your argument makes that person "special" in any way. Maybe that makes me a cold heartless sons-a-gun, but I really think that western culture has a wildly exaggerated sense of "value" on the individual. Created in no small part by attorney's cultivating the victim mentality, to maximize the value of their percentage.

C. I understand, but do not endorse, your intent there.

No psycho engineer is gonna launch his SD-70 at Moscow to create an international incident.

And even on a more down to earth basis, how many conductors that you are aware of have wrestled the control stand away from a beserk engineer,.. thus thwarting threats to ram his Z train into the trackside bowling alley?

My bet is that someone would have to wake him up first. [}:)]

AHHH, NOW we have a reason for the 3rd man on the crew....[:D] The conductor's valet.

My bet is that within 30 years the major class 1's will be operatorless, and will function more like a netwotk of interconnected conveyor belts.

the trains will all run in carefully regulated sync throughout the entire network such that trains will never have to stop between origin and destination. That train may roll out of LA headed for chicago at only 23.7 mph, but it's speed (and the speed of all trains it will meet along the way) will be controlled by a central computer and synchronized, and continuously updated and revised as needed, like an electronic ballet, for perfect meets.

Humans will only be dispatched to manually straighten out the occasional glitch.

A. Interesting; I thought that was how it works now, but I wasn't sure.

B. I understand, but do not endorse, your intent there.

C. Actually, I don't subscribe to that either; I just thought it sounded good.


You are correct about the 'berserk' engineer. I forgot to take my anti-paranoid pills this morning. My apologies for such ridiculous statements.

However, I do believe that your optimism regarding the operations of railroads thirty years hence is unjustified. I do realize that technology has, at least for recent memory, become more sophisticated at an ever-increasing pace. I just do not believe it will be economically feasable to invest the huge amounts of capital into the current rail system in order to just save on crew costs.

I started railroading back in '73, and have seen many changes in railroad operations during that time. Concrete ties, 97-channel radios, authority granted via radio transmissions, roller bearings on every car, ABDX brake systems, self-lapping brakes (26L), extended-range dynamic brakes, computer-controlled wheel-slip circuitry, and so on. But those are enhancements to an established system; what you are proposing is a complete shift in transportation procedures, a new paradigm.

Perhaps the conveyor-belt analogy might work out, but my guess is that there will still be at least one person on those 23 mph trains, even if their role is observer, sitting there ready to take over in the event of system failure. The cost of upgrading the system to operate in your conveyor-belt manner might just be justified someday, but with so many grade crossings, and so much access to the physical plant by the public, I cannot see trains being uncrewed.