Railroads dealt setback in bids for one person crews.

[zardoz]

Ed, I think we might as well give up. Antigates has no clue about what it is like out there, so no matter what we say, it cannot be processed, for he does not have the experience with which to relate.

Antigates, I wish for there to be no hard feelings; we're just coming at the problem from two widely divergent approaches (sort of pun intended). I have enjoyed many of your posts, and usually agree with what you say.

So lets just leave it where it is. You have your opinions, and we have ours.

Let us simply agree to differ.

[Anonymous]

Zardoz....ValleyX.....Ed....others.

Hey, yanno. I am really sorry if the views I have expresed here have hurt your feelings.

Hurting any of your feelings is the last thing I really wanted to do.

If I was smart I'd just shut up there, but since I ain't, I don't know any better.

ValleyX, it isn't so much a matter of trying to fix the blame for grade accidents on loco crews, what I was looking at was that everytime there is a grade crossing accident, the claims ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS say that there was nothing the crew could do to avoid the accident.

So any attempt to claim that a human crew member is needed for the safety of cars crossing grade crossings illegally...seems kinda contrived to me. If humans already have no ability to stop the train in such situs, how could their elimination from the equation make things any worse?

It wasn't Zardoz I had the problem with, it was just his argument that didn't sit well with me.

Zardoz, I'm sorry you've had such tragic experiances, and if my resentment over the way some of the hardheads here make scathing editorial assessments of grade crossing victims ended up spilling over here and caused you grief, I am sorry. I'd much rather have you as a friend, than an enemy.

Ed ..I worked in industrial automation for a number of years, and although maybe I have never been an locomotive engineer, I recognize the opportunity calling of a highly entrenched, fixed plant, repetitive tasks, and millions and millions of decisions based upon speed and proximity, which are typically decisions that robotics make superior to humans.

Just look at the operatorless subways and tram ways we already have. You never see the concourse trains at Atlanta airport overshoot their station stops, do you? Wonder why..

It's only a matter of time, IMHO, before the freight lines employ this type technology.

So, if you guys' robophobia requires that you must reject my vision, well fine. thats life I guess. I'll get over it. Hope you will too. Hopefully that doesn't require that you have to hate me. for being of a different vision.

[edblysard]

Gates,
No hurt feelings here.
I don’t have robophobia at all.
In fact, as I stated in many other postings, the computer control concept imbedded in my car will become standard on almost all cars in the near future and I can’t wait!
Nothing in the world like getting 30 mpg plus in a fully loaded, 4400 lb stations wagon doing 70 mph with the A/C on, tapping the gas pedal and being at 140mph in a few seconds!

And I grasp the concept of the machine building the machine more efficiently that the human can...they are more precise and persistent, and they don’t require toilet breaks or lunch hours.

But two points come to mind right now... (More will show up in the morning, I am sure)...
Point one.
If your automated plant gets a glitch and the redundant safety features fail, which does happen...who and how many people die?

Point two.
You can’t automate a part of the railroad and leave the rest on a manual basis...it is either the whole process, or none at all.

I don’t mean things like automatic gates or signal system, but the true nuts and bolts...from switching, to coupling up and spotting tracks, to the air test and lining switches too...well, you get the point.

Because whenever you have an interaction between the "machine" and the human, some degree of error will occur, be it because the human fails to understand what the "machine" needs or requires to fini***he task, or because the person who programmed the "machine" failed to grasp or anticipate the ability of the human to think away from a program, and the possession of free will that enables them to make decisions based on instinct and experience.

Besides, the cost of doing that would be phenomenal, far above the cost of the crew's pay and the associated cost of employing humans to perform the same task on a manual labor aspect.

As for the ability of the engineer to be a safety device at crossings, no, he isn’t...he is just cheaper that a version of Windows 2000 on a HP 704 running the train, someone that has the ability to make a qualified decision based on experience, as opposed to a computer that can only execute a program based on a predefined set of circumstances through a program which might not fit all the situations found, and one which will have to be written by a human in the first place so therefore flawed in some manner to begin with.

I have noted that quite a few of the non railroad folks here have the biased concept of fault always being that of the automobile the driver...and note most of the railroaders here agree, but only up to a point.
It is rather hard to “drive” the train off the tracks into a car, and about the only way a car can get in the way of the train is if the driver places himself in that position.
We do base our comments on real life experiences, and yes, most of the time, nothing truly useful could be done to prevent the incident, by a human or a computer, so unless you invent a computer that can read drivers minds, they will continue to drive in front of trains, no matter if a computer is running, or a human is on the seatbox.

You also have to look at it this way…a computer could operate a railroad “safer” that humans, but the things a computer would have to do, like run at speeds that would allow the computer to stop the train, would bankrupt that railroad in a few weeks.

There is always going to be risks in this business, to railroaders and to the “civilian” population…the trick is to reduce those risks.
You can never eliminate them altogether, and any attempt to do so through more crew reductions or removing the crew completely will not accompli***hat goal, nor will automating the process.

Fools at crossing will always be fools at crossings, and someone will always try and beat the train, no matter what.

For those of you who love to point to the safety record of automated trains that run in captured service at mines and power plants, remember, they have nothing to run into other that air, as they are running on tracks that do not have any public crossings.

This should make the brainy ones out there think about that concept as an alternative…after all, the safest crossing is the one that isn’t there.

Ed

[zardoz]

Antigates--I would think that with a "handle" like that, you would be more reluctant to put too much faith into computers. [:-,][swg]

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by zardoz

Antigates--I would think that with a "handle" like that, you would be more reluctant to put too much faith into computers. [:-,][swg]

[(-D][(-D][(-D] Not much a guy could add to that!

[ValleyX]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by zardoz

Antigates--I would think that with a "handle" like that, you would be more reluctant to put too much faith into computers. [:-,][swg]

[(-D][(-D][(-D] Not much a guy could add to that!

Gates is an APPLE kind of guy! 'Nuf said.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

Gates,
No hurt feelings here.
I don’t have robophobia at all.
In fact, as I stated in many other postings, the computer control concept imbedded in my car will become standard on almost all cars in the near future and I can’t wait!
Nothing in the world like getting 30 mpg plus in a fully loaded, 4400 lb stations wagon doing 70 mph with the A/C on, tapping the gas pedal and being at 140mph in a few seconds!

And I grasp the concept of the machine building the machine more efficiently that the human can...they are more precise and persistent, and they don’t require toilet breaks or lunch hours.

But two points come to mind right now... (More will show up in the morning, I am sure)...
Point one.
If your automated plant gets a glitch and the redundant safety features fail, which does happen...who and how many people die?

Being completely honest, If I had all the answers, you'd all be working for me, now wouldn't you?[:-,][:-,]

Of course you'd all have to retrain and become robot repair technicians,....but it would beat unemployment..[}:)]

Seriously, I started to look at the direction the discussion was going, and when people start to throw their emotional scars out as though I'm some kind of insensitive monster, the discussion is no longer worth winning, or losing.

Some things to think about:

Blacksmith's once used to muse that "they'll never build a machine that can shoe a horse"...I guess they were right, weren't they?



The guys on GM's assembly lines once thought that their skill level was far too demanding for them to ever have to worry about being replaced by robots... can you say 'Body by Fisher"





You guys can deny the future all you want, and I can't stop you, but just listening to the buzz here, the way the jobs are so so hard, too demanding, the companies are unfair etc etc and seeing that the major railroads are giving salaries and benefit packages the evil eye, , I see automation of your industry as inevitable...they sure can't send your jobs to china, so they will do the next best thing. [xx(]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by zardoz

Antigates--I would think that with a "handle" like that, you would be more reluctant to put too much faith into computers. [:-,][swg]

Microsoft is 'blunderware", no doubt. It trys to be too many things to too many morons, and it succeeds in that ambition quite well I might add.

I used to have a link to a story about when Windows NT version 4 was being rolled out, the navy had one of their ships oufitted with a complete control system designed to run on it.

On it's shake down cruise the system locked up and had to be towed 250 miles back to port....

Which only goes to prove, that when computers take over the railroads., your new boss will run on Unix...

Oh, and by the way, I'd like for you to meet the new guy I'd like for you to help get oriented, maybe you could show him around, let hin see what you do, so that way the next time you go on vacation he can fill in....... temporarily...heh heh, yeah, just temporarily..

Zardoz, say hello to the new guy, his name is "chip"





[}:)][}:)][}:)]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by 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.

Your right PigFarmer. We should go to 1 man crews. Doesn't mean anything to a genius spike maul swinger like yourself if they do away with half of the operating craft........Your job is safe.....umm that's until your job gets scabbed out to a growing number of scab outfits jockying for the RR's maint. work. PigFarmer meet Herzog, we pay them less than your gang costs us, bye,bye! I won't make harsh statements toward your craft as you did mine. Even after I was talked thru a form B a few weeks ago while an outrigger from a boom truck was still fouling the track. I could have said like you did, "let them get rid of our MOW forces and scab it out, probably would be safer anyway," but, I wouldn't say that about your craft. Think about it!

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by natelord

Greyhounds barrel down highways at 75 m.p.h. with but one man crews. The extra 4 m.p.h. allowed on most stretches of track do not add up to a need for another crewman. If the brotherhoods had organized bus companies, would there be a brakeman crouching on the floor beneath the driver's feet so the brakeman could pu***he brake pedal?
Railroading could get miles ahead of other forms of transportation if nearly all employees developed capabilities in several fields--some in offices, some on the road, some out selling, &c. To avoid getting stale and unhappy a variety of kinds of work is ilndicated.

Wow, the holy grail! Too bad you aren't a RR advisor.....all of our problems would be over. You are talking out of your butt about brakeman...you have no idea that a brakeman is very instrumental on some trains in expediting its work. All trains do not have brakeman, and the ones that they are called for need them. Go back to your hole with your misinformed opinions.

[AntonioFP45]

QUOTE: Originally posted by natelord

Greyhounds barrel down highways at 75 m.p.h. with but one man crews. The extra 4 m.p.h. allowed on most stretches of track do not add up to a need for another crewman. If the brotherhoods had organized bus companies, would there be a brakeman crouching on the floor beneath the driver's feet so the brakeman could pu***he brake pedal?

Whoa there, Nate. [%-)]

With all due respect, we need to compare APPLES to APPLES......not Watermelons to grapes!

I drove those big buses part-time back in the 80s and 90s. They were 40 ft. long and averaged about 34,000 lbs in weight. At 65 mph, I could lock up the brakes and come to a full stop in less than 350 feet!

How in the world can you compare that to massive EMD, GE, and MLW locomotives that easily weigh in at 300,000 lbs, pull trains that weigh millions of pounds, and require MILES, not feet to stop if running at speed? Add to that, while transporting hazardous materials.

I live near a major CSX line, and I would certainly be extremely concerned if those 60 m.p.h, four locomotive, 90 car intermodal "hot shots" that rip by my area everyday had only one person in the lead unit's cab!

If a major derailment occurs, the engineer is killed, and the communications equipment is damaged, who is in control? The dispatcher who may be 300 or so miles away? Does the GPS unit tell the dispatcher that the locomotive is crushed or that Chlorine tankers are leaking? Does the dispatcher read the detailed manifest to the firefighters over the radio?

Sorry, it just doesn't wash. I'm more conservative in most of my views, but in scenarios where heavy freight trains traveling long distances are involved, the idea of one-man crews is corporate insanity. [V][V][B)]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Alexander1

Over here in the UK single man in the cab is nearly the norm, certainly there are no train orders or such or dark areas, we also do haul the tonnage and issues like broken knuckles are virtually unheard off, GNER [Great North Eastern Railways] run 125mph passenger trains non stop York to london approx 200 miles in approx 2 hours in track that is nearly at capacity with one man in the cab. Freightliner run one man with the engineer [driver over here] having to drive, switch, couple etc all on his own on most instances. So no doubt there will be people over there saying that if they do it so can we.

the UK's RRs are not even in the same class as American freight. Try again.

[zardoz]

Unfortunately, the people that will be making the decision regarding crew size will have the same amount of real railroad experience as those here on the forum that support the crew size reduction: ZERO!

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by zardoz

Unfortunately, the people that will be making the decision regarding crew size will have the same amount of real railroad experience as those here on the forum that support the crew size reduction: ZERO!

Probably less.

[Anonymous]

I would like to have a little discussion about some of these clowns on this forum having their jobs done away with........I bet their tune would change if the shoe were on the other foot. I bet they would get pretty butt hurt if a person that knew squat about their jobs started cockin off about their jobs. Anybody in favor of reduced crew size wanna tell us what it is that you do for a living and let us non insiders scrutinize your careers? Anyone?

[Anonymous]

I'm just thinkin I'd rather have a brake woman workin the pedals on the bus rather than a brakeman if I were driving.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ironken

I would like to have a little discussion about some of these clowns on this forum having their jobs done away with........I bet their tune would change if the shoe were on the other foot. I bet they would get pretty butt hurt if a person that knew squat about their jobs started cockin off about their jobs. Anybody in favor of reduced crew size wanna tell us what it is that you do for a living and let us non insiders scrutinize your careers? Anyone?

Well see, *that* is just the whole deal. The real spark behind the negativism about one man crews is probably 90% sensitivity over reduction in the work force ("jobs" in other words) and about 10% over safety concerns, yet the safety angle is the one getting played because it appears on the surface more altruistic.

I'm not saying that the people don't care about safety, I'm just saying that their real motive for griping is loss of jobs first, and safety a distant second...

"Safety" is getting trotted around the pony show because it looks less selfi***o be concerned about than someone griping "hey, what about our jobs?"

That's my take on it anyway. As was mentioned earlier the well being of the public seems to get shoved so far down the totem pole here whenever some "moron" drives past a gate and gets plowed, that it seems more than just a little suspect that all of a sudden their wellbeinghas become paramount and justifies 2 employees remaining vigilant in the cabs, for the public's safety.

Me? I'm retired.... Company downsized and I took the exit package and bailed.

[Anonymous]

Well Gates, everyone is entitled to their opinion. Just so happens that yours is horse-s**t. Safety is a concern, so are jobs. I'll bet that if this were a discussion about how the US should ship all retired citizens to China because they are a parasitic load on our government programs and dangerous behind the wheel you may become passionate about it. To me, I think it would be a great idea! Or better yet, confiscate all senior's drivers licenses after the age of 62, due to new studies finding the slower reflex of a 62 year old driver......See where I'm going here. We all have issues where our butts are in the breeze and can be hit. Now mind your own business on this issue.....you've made your point.

[Mookie]

I am really concerned about safety. This has always been an issue with me.

I am a realist and know that jobs are going to be lost in any industry. Part of doing business. And I figure if they have a short stretch of track that can have a remote engine doing the work pulling cars up and down it without much more involved than watching a model train set run around on a track - ok. I can even buy into that.

I just do not see sending one person on say 100 mile run, through towns and cities or even through the flatlands of Kansas or the wide open spaces of Nebraska if for no other reason than something is eventually going to go wrong and you are going to need two people in that situation.

Hunters always go in pairs - loggers don't try to do it alone - (think of some of the stories of singles trying to cut down a tree and oops....) Is it really that expensive to have a two person crew vs a one person crew on trains that are not confined to a particular space?

Or maybe I am a sissy and afraid of the dark?

Mookie

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TheAntiGates

QUOTE: Originally posted by ironken

I would like to have a little discussion about some of these clowns on this forum having their jobs done away with........I bet their tune would change if the shoe were on the other foot. I bet they would get pretty butt hurt if a person that knew squat about their jobs started cockin off about their jobs. Anybody in favor of reduced crew size wanna tell us what it is that you do for a living and let us non insiders scrutinize your careers? Anyone?

Well see, *that* is just the whole deal. The real spark behind the negativism about one man crews is probably 90% sensitivity over reduction in the work force ("jobs" in other words) and about 10% over safety concerns, yet the safety angle is the one getting played because it appears on the surface more altruistic.

I'm not saying that the people don't care about safety, I'm just saying that their real motive for griping is loss of jobs first, and safety a distant second...

"Safety" is getting trotted around the pony show because it looks less selfi***o be concerned about than someone griping "hey, what about our jobs?"

That's my take on it anyway. As was mentioned earlier the well being of the public seems to get shoved so far down the totem pole here whenever some "moron" drives past a gate and gets plowed, that it seems more than just a little suspect that all of a sudden their wellbeinghas become paramount and justifies 2 employees remaining vigilant in the cabs, for the public's safety.

Me? I'm retired.... Company downsized and I took the exit package and bailed.

It almost sounds like the two of you are saying the same thing, but disagreeing because you're focusing on a different aspect.

The "safety" as TheAntiGates seems to be saying is in the operational aspect, control, braking, observation of signals and hazards, etc.

The "safety" as Ironken seems to be saying is in emergency response and problems encountered on the road.

Although Ken has agreed that AntiGates points are valid, they're not the only concern as related to safety. As someone else pointed out above, emergency braking a bus from 65 MPH takes a few hundred feet to full stop. Braking a train at the same speed to a full stop can take MILES. Even if it were required, a full walkaround inspection of the bus after such a stop would take a few minutes. The same inspection of the train takes a lot longer, and is rarely in an area with good shoulders along the track on both sides for the crew member to easily walk along to perform this inspection. The next aspect is if the crew member finds a problem. By the law according to Murphy, the problem is NEVER in the first few cars behind the locomotive. Even a simple gladhand separation is hardly a one man job to reconnect, especially in cold weather. It's like wrestling a beligerent snake. I know there's no way I'd be able to lug a coupler knuckle 30 or more cars back from the locomotive, just to get it to the break, let alone install it by myself.

Do I support the idea of one man crews? No

Do I think they will happen in the future? Probably yes.

Just from the operational point of view, the scenerio above, and probably a lot more like it, will have to be addressed in contingency plans, before the idea becomes practical.

[zardoz]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Mookie
I just do not see sending one person on say 100 mile run, through towns and cities or even through the flatlands of Kansas or the wide open spaces of Nebraska if for no other reason than something is eventually going to go wrong and you are going to need two people in that situation.
Mookie

Good points Mook. Except for one thing. Division points are usually much longer than 100 miles. Many are over 200. And a person is permitted (required) to work 12 hours non-stop.

So here is a not-too unrealistic scenario.

An Engineer (lets call him OT) gets done with a tour of duty at 8am and goes home. He's been working a lot lately, and has real-world stuff to catch up on. He finally has a chance, as he is home during regular business hours, so he requested 10 hours rest, so the railroad cannot call him until 6pm. He has to get to the bank and see his lawyer. Or any of 50 other different things a non-railroader can get done either at he end of their 8-hour day, or maybe even during their lunch hour. He cannot have his wive do this stuff, because she divorced him last years, due to lousy work schedule. That is why he has to see the lawyer.

So after taking care of his personal business, he finally gets home at, say, 1pm. He showers, has something to eat, and gets to sleep by 2pm. Of course, at 2:30 the neighborhood kids get home from school and make lots of noise, so OT cannot get good sleep. He is also upset after talking to the lawyer, so that is on his mind as well, further preventing him from getting sleep.

So after 4 hours of tossing and turning in bed, guess what? The phone rings. Ordered on duty ASAP. He stumbles to the kitchen, throws together something resembling food, and staggers out the door having a total of maybe two hours fitful sleep.

He arrives at the yard office at 7:30pm, and his train is waiting for him. He climbs up in the cab, sits down, and is rolling by 8:00pm. Mind you, he didn't have any "breakfast" as it was evening, he didn't feel like having a burger just after waking, and he didn't have time to find a resturant that served breakfast. But he did get coffee. Lots of coffee. So in a sense, he is "running on empty".

So off he goes on his train. It is dark. It is quiet. He is alone. And now that all the commotion of getting ready for work, getting to work, and getting situated on his train is over, he is settling down and beginning to relax. It is dark. It is quiet. He is alone. He is already falling asleep. And he has been on duty for less than hour.

After only a few miles, he is out in the county. Not much to see at night. Except dark. Lots of dark. He sees a few houses along the way. Sees the people inside their houses having a normal life. He starts to feel lonely. And depressed. And tired. Oh so tired. Only the occasional road crossing to whistle for to break up the monotony. The cab alerter system isn't helpng, because after a while he treats the alerter as a snooze alarm. He knows he can nod off for 90 seconds, because the alerter will wake him. After about 30 cycles of "nod off--alerter wake up", he barely notices the alerter any more. He is so dead tired that he is now hitting the alereter without even realizing it.

WHOOPS!-OT missed whistling for the grade crossing. OT was asleep. Forgot the crossing was coming. He thinks, "CRAP! I hope there wan't anyone on that crossing. ***! Did I miss any signals? The shot of adrenaline keeps him awake for a while, but then begins to wear off. The there is the post-adrenaline let-down, where the body tries to restore normalcy. He looks at his watch. On duty for only 3 hours. God, this is going to be a long night.

It's now 1am. Ground fog is beginning to form, reducing visibility to about 100 feet. And the headlight is SO bright reflecting off the fog, that is nearly impossible to see anything in the glare. So now he has NOTHING to see. NOTHING to help him maintain his orientation to the railroad plant. Only the occasional reflective milepost or whistle post. Other than that, he can just barely see the ballast in front of the engine. Now there is nothing to keep him focused. Nothing to relieve the monotony. Nothing to keep him awake except the occasional shot of adrenaline as he awakens startled that he missed another crossing or signal.

OT is now so tired, he becomes confused as to his whereabouts. Due to fatigue, he failed to realize that his train has started down a grade. His locomotives are in the 3rd or 4th notch, the train drifting along nicely. He is now sound asleep. Having hit the alerter 89 seconds ago, and being so tired, those 89 seconds were plenty of time to really get to sleep. His train drifts into a curve. He is so sound asleep he does not hear the alerter this time. The system causes a penalty brake application.

Unfortunately, his locomotives were not pulling sufficiently to outrun the slack that was running in due to the downward grade. So the slack in his train is mixed: some is bunched, some is stretched, most of it is mixed. The penalty application causes a full-service reduction of the brake pipe pressure. The brakes start to set hard on the front of the train, especially the block of empty grain cars. Unfortunately, the brakes on the block of lumber towards the rear of the train have yet to set hard enough to retard motion, due to the extra inertia the loads have.

BANG! All of the sudden, the block of lumber cars runs into the block of empty grain cars, whose brakes have firmly set, and have already reduced speed by almost 10 mph. So in effect, you have a 10mph impact occurring in the middle of your train. Bad, but usually survivable, other than everything on the control stand being knocked off by the impact (including the last of the coffee). But this time it is worse, because the middle of the train happens to be in the middle of the curve. The inertia of the lumber cars is so great, and the head-end block so large, that the inertia energy is dissapated in the easiest direction--sideways: DERAILMENT. And if there is any hazmat: DISASTER. And if it near any homes or businesses: MAJOR DISASTER.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Except for the last 3 paragraphs (and the divorce part), I assure you that the scenario described did occur. And does occur. To me. And with slight modification of details, it probably happened to most every engineer.

Now I'm not saying that a second crewman would prevent such a tragedy, but I guarantee you that a second person in the cab can make a big difference on a trip like that.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I suppose this is where the technophiles tell us that if the train was automated none of the above would occur.

But ya know what? Unfortunately, they would be right.

However, the cost of automating just the entire main line such that a computer could deal with the extremes of weather, (not to mention unforseen situations), would seem to be so capital-intensive, that no matter how much the CEO and CFO hated paying train crews, the investment would not likely be worth it.

Even if an engineer makes $100K/year (including benefits), that enginee has probably operated 300 or more trains in a year, and runs on a 150-mile division. So over a year, he has operated 45,000 train-miles. That comes to $2.22 in wages per mile. And it is probably less, because he likely operated more than 300 trains, and likely runs on a longer division. But I will stay with the conservative numbers for now.

Last time I checked, a unit coal train made about $.01per ton per mile. On a 1000 mile trip from Powder River to Pleasant Prairie, with a 18,000 ton train, the railroad makes $180,000 in revenue . And even if it takes as many as 10 crews to run those 1000 miles (not likely), and even if each crewman makes $200 per trip (again, not likely), the railroad has only spent $40,000 in wages on a $180,000 revenue run.

Of course, I am not figuring in track wear costs, fuel costs, and such. But we are talking wages; those other costs remain fixed no matter if the train has a crew or a robot running it.

It would be interesting to find out how much it would cost to bring those 1000 miles up to the standard necessary to automate. And don't forget the locomotives. Must modernize them as well. And that is just the main line. As Ed pointed out previously, there is more to operating a railroad than the trains on the main line.

Now that I have enlightened us as to the crew costs of operating a train, perhaps some of our members that pray at the altar of technology could do a cost analysis to support their position. I would be very interested in seeing the report. As I'm sure every CEO and CFO of every railroad would be, as well. Heck, you might just be the one that changes railroading everywhere.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the numbers support the transition to automation, then I'm sure it will come to pass. And considering my above engineer scenario, if the technology works, then it might not be a bad idea; in fact, the automated train would be safer.

However, if the numbers do not support automation, then perhaps we can just forget the whole idea, and we can get back to our lives.

[Anonymous]

Nicely put there Z

[Anonymous]

Every time this issue comes up I see the same cost versus safety arguments, but one thing I seroiusly hope someone can tell me is what the railroads plan to do when a one-man "crew" on a single track main breaks a knuckle a mile back in the train two or three hours from the nearest block truck. Are we just going to shut down the railroad for several hours? A knuckle weighs 72 pounds. Even if some super-human engineer is going to walk a mile in the ballast with a knuckle in his back pocket, how does he make the coupling and restore the air to the rear of the train? If you break a coupler, how does a one-man "crew" set out the car?
Most of the class 1's are running pretty close to capacity now. Taking one man off every crew start will save a lot of money, but tying up the mains has got to be very costly.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ironken

Well Gates, everyone is entitled to their opinion. Just so happens that yours is horse-s**t. Safety is a concern, so are jobs. I'll bet that if this were a discussion about how the US should ship all retired citizens to China because they are a parasitic load on our government programs and dangerous behind the wheel you may become passionate about it. To me, I think it would be a great idea! Or better yet, confiscate all senior's drivers licenses after the age of 62, due to new studies finding the slower reflex of a 62 year old driver......See where I'm going here. We all have issues where our butts are in the breeze and can be hit. Now mind your own business on this issue.....you've made your point.

Fine with me...I'm 48 years young... that's right, I retired at 46....while I was still young enough to enjoy it.....


Not bad for a guy who thinks like Horse**** huh? Wise investing does pay off.

I'm just bitter because my middle age fantasy of becoming a foamer working on the railroad didn't pan out when NS decided not to call....[V] [:D][:D]

I figure if I can't work there for fun, then nobody can [}:)]

Say, [:-,][:-,] [:-,][:-,] tell me what these guys all have in common:













(???)

[zardoz]

Partial quote from the Dallas Morning News business section of 2/19/06:

Crews have been shrinking because of technological advances and huge leaps in productivity. As a result, an industry that once employed 1.8 million people in 1917 – more than any other – now operates with just 236,000 workers. Yet railroads are moving four times more freight today than they did 100 years ago.

So far, railroads are in various stages of testing the technology, with BNSF the leader. For almost two years, the railroad has been piloting Wabtec Corp.'s Electronic Train Management System on 50 locomotives operating on 135 miles of track between the southern Illinois towns of Centralia and Beardstown.

Wabtec officials said last October that the pilot program had produced 1,300 error-free runs. BNSF is now seeking the federal government's permission to deploy the technology from Fort Worth to Arkansas City, Kan., southeast of Wichita, said Denny Boll, BNSF's assistant vice president of signals.

"It's ready to go," he said of the system.

So confident is BNSF of the technology that it filed a product safety plan with the Federal Railroad Administration in December to get approval to implement the system across its network. The plan is now being reviewed, a process that could take up to 180 days.


http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/DN-bnsf_19bus.ART.State.Edition1.3e887e5.html

[Anonymous]

They're all eyein up your trike?

[Anonymous]

so tell us antigates
why the heck are you here in this forum?
is this how you enjoy your alleged retirement (probably got fired)
by sitting at your computer and acting like a know it all and making fun of railfans as you visit the railfan site?
why dont you just go away and let us poor losers have our fun ?

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by equinox

so tell us antigates
why the heck are you here in this forum?
is this how you enjoy your alleged retirement (probably got fired)
by sitting at your computer and acting like a know it all and making fun of railfans as you visit the railfan site?
why dont you just go away and let us poor losers have our fun ?

That should be obvious from his posts:

He likes posting old pictures.

[Eric Stuart]

Never say "Never."

I speak as ex -raincrew and ex-manager.

"Protecting" jobs is a dangerous thing. One can be hoist by one's own petard - ie, bitten by the dog you are using!!!

If a job can safely be done by one, then do it that way. Fair enough, discuss the safety issue.

Using a Second Person in the Cab job as a training ground is a different issue and I'm all for that.

If dispencing with a second or more perso causes snarl-ups, an examination of the cost:benefit should soon put 'em back.

In Europe, One-person op of buses allowed fraud and security issues, so a second person was re-introduced to sort them in some cities (eg, Amsterdam (Netherlands), Sheffield (UK)).

Just don't say "No" just because you don't like it.

Erm - how many drivers do trucks/lorries have?!?!

Eric Stuart

PS This is probably a new issue, but do you have shunting locos with the driver/s on the ground with controllers? It seems a safer way for shunting, but I think the Unions would not accept it.

[edbenton]

Yes OTR trucks have one driver maybe 2 if it is a team however. I was one and know what I am talking about when we are hauling hazmat the BOL has to be in the door pocket so if we are in an accident a first responder can grab it right away if the driver is killed. 2 OTR drivers are run harder than you can ever realize we pu***he limits of human endurance everyday and night. More than once I ran 30 hours straight without sleep to get a load someplce. But do I want 15K tons in control of one person the answer is no.