Railroads want one-person crews on freights

[samfp1943]

The argument for the one man train crew goes like this:

RRs have impending labor shortage and want to reduce operating costs.

Gov't wants PTS - badly - but won't pay for it.

RR can't afford PTS w/o offesetting savings to generate sufficient ROI.

RRs propose win-win-tie.

Win: Gov't gets added safety from PTS.  Saftey from 1 man + PTS  >  2 men + no PTS

Win: RRs avoid labor shortage, use some savings to pay for PTS

Tie:  RRs offer lifetime employment for all current T&E employees.

Unions reject.

Stay tuned!

P.S. Is "one man crew" oxymoronic?

RRs propose win-win-tie.  This is the biggest bunch of baloney ever to be thought up. I sure the Human Resource person who came up with this got what was coming to them.  Everytime someone in a management position starting espousing this garbage, I'd draw up. It is the entre to your getting the shaft, the only question is how BIG it is and how Deep are they going to bury it in you. 

One man crews may play well in the board room, and in the shortline arena; but out there on the BIG Roads it will translate to lost time, lost productivity, increased terminal dwell time, and ultimately big money.  They[ RR employers]  will need to decide if they are going to have engineers who are lawyers, or lawyers who are engineers. One man crews and the situations they create will need plenty of explanations!  

Gabe here's your chance to get a Railroad JOB!

[trainfan1221]

I know this has been discussed in the past, and as always I will state my opinion that to have one person on something as large and powerful as a freight train is a terrible idea.  At least outside of yard duties.  It just doesn't make sense and it's a lousy way to get people to lose their jobs too. 

[MichaelSol]

The direct capital investment represented by a "railroad train" is between $14 million and $22 million. The cost of a two man crew through the entire cycle time of a trip represents .03% -- three one hundredths of a per cent  -- of the capital investment in the train. The cost savings would represent only .015% of the total direct capital investment in the train.

Few industries would begrudge that level of "human investment" to protect the capital investment.

[StillGrande]

For example, what if the engineer should have a heart attack or something like that?  If this plan goes through, like the railroads want, then there'll be no conductors to help them.  Or better yet, what if there's a derailment and the engineer gets killed, who's going to inform their families? 

This argument doesn't make sense.  Wouldn't the railroad be reducing the risk of having to stop a train for a medial emergency since there is only one person who can have a heart attack rather than two?  And wouldn't they have less families to notify in the event of an accident? Does the conducter really drive over to the engineer's house to tell his family he was killed in an accident? 

With more double track mains this actually sounds like a more feasible action.  More ability to pass around the problem.  The breakdown is still going to be there with one or 2 people on the train.  With more computer operation and more computer monitoring, this seems like an inevitable event.  Cell phone coverage is getting better all the time.  I am not saying it is perfect, but would the engineer need to "radio" the dispatcher when he could just call him.  Railroads could install cell towers (maybe get some revenue out of them. Don't tell UP!) for low coverage areas. 

I doubt one person crews would be used on locals with a lot of switching.  There are still cabooses out there for some activities. 

Not saying it wouldn't be boring.  Tough to go all that way with one person.  Still, other industries manage. 

The terrorism argument is a joke though.  Other than armed guards, who still could not stop a vehicle attack, a rocket, or sabatoge to the tracks, you cannot secure the load 100%. 

[oltmannd]

The argument for the one man train crew goes like this:

RRs have impending labor shortage and want to reduce operating costs.

Gov't wants PTS - badly - but won't pay for it.

RR can't afford PTS w/o offesetting savings to generate sufficient ROI.

RRs propose win-win-tie.

Win: Gov't gets added safety from PTS.  Saftey from 1 man + PTS  >  2 men + no PTS

Win: RRs avoid labor shortage, use some savings to pay for PTS

Tie:  RRs offer lifetime employment for all current T&E employees.

Unions reject.

Stay tuned!

P.S. Is "one man crew" oxymoronic?

RRs propose win-win-tie.  This is the biggest bunch of baloney ever to be thought up. I sure the Human Resource person who came up with this got what was coming to them.  Everytime someone in a management position starting espousing this garbage, I'd draw up. It is the entre to your getting the shaft, the only question is how BIG it is and how Deep are they going to bury it in you. 

One man crews may play well in the board room, and in the shortline arena; but out there on the BIG Roads it will translate to lost time, lost productivity, increased terminal dwell time, and ultimately big money.  They[ RR employers]  will need to decide if they are going to have engineers who are lawyers, or lawyers who are engineers. One man crews and the situations they create will need plenty of explanations!  

Gabe here's your chance to get a Railroad JOB!

.

Actually, the RRs called it win-win-win, since the guys running reduced crews would get lonesome pay along with job guarantees.

BTW, I wasn't advocating for or against, just laying out the RR's argument.

I'd be willing to bet it happens, slowly, and only where PTS is implemented.  It's just a matter of how loud and long the argument goes on.

[oltmannd]

The direct capital investment represented by a "railroad train" is between $14 million and $22 million. The cost of a two man crew through the entire cycle time of a trip represents .03% -- three one hundredths of a per cent  -- of the capital investment in the train. The cost savings would represent only .015% of the total direct capital investment in the train.

Few industries would begrudge that level of "human investment" to protect the capital investment.

I'm gonna get more than one "train cycle" out of my investment, no?  Assuming a cycle is 2 days and investment life is 10 years, then 0.03% *365*10/2 = 54%

Every industry I can think of has spent capital to replace labor.  Name one that hasn't.  Even the USPS.....

[BaltACD]

One-man crews are feasible, practical, and inevitable, for most of the road jobs in North America. 

If it's safety you want to improve, ask Congress to change its instructions to the FRA and start permitting U.S. railroads to implement the systems that are on-the-shelf and available today that positively enforce authority violations and excess speed.  Those systems do more to improve safety than any number of extra employees in the cab.  (Ironically, those systems -- which are engineered and manufactured in the U.S. -- are being installed in developing-world countries where the FRA has no jurisdiction.)

S. Hadid

Be my guest to be that One Man 'crew' on a 9000+ foot train that is in emergency in the middle of a cold rainy night in a hostile enviornment.

[selector]

I agree with you that the whole idea of a one-person crew is totally stupid and can be extremely dangerous.  For example, what if the engineer should have a heart attack or something like that? 

Rob Knight

Cuba, MO

Why, the tail brakeman would have to run up and become an engineer, wouldn't he?  Field promotion and all....a good day for him.  It wouldn't take more than about 10 minutes of walking up a coal train to effect it, either.  Of course, what if he dies of a heart attack over the excitement.  Hooo, now we have a real problem.  Maybe we need three man crews, you know, just in case...?

[Anonymous]

One-man crews are feasible, practical, and inevitable, for most of the road jobs in North America. 

If it's safety you want to improve, ask Congress to change its instructions to the FRA and start permitting U.S. railroads to implement the systems that are on-the-shelf and available today that positively enforce authority violations and excess speed.  Those systems do more to improve safety than any number of extra employees in the cab.  (Ironically, those systems -- which are engineered and manufactured in the U.S. -- are being installed in developing-world countries where the FRA has no jurisdiction.)

S. Hadid

Be my guest to be that One Man 'crew' on a 9000+ foot train that is in emergency in the middle of a cold rainy night in a hostile enviornment.

I've been in worse, but that's not the point.  You and I aren't the point.  The point is that if someone wants better safety, there's better ways to do it than insist on two men in the cab and resist installation of authority-violation systems that already exist, and already work.  And the economics are creating immense pressure that we aren't going to stop.

S. Hadid

 

[selector]

One-man crews are feasible, practical, and inevitable, for most of the road jobs in North America. 

S. Hadid

 

  I listened to a dispatcher a couple of nights ago trying to talk a crew through a set of double crossovers with instructions to handline some of them.  In frustration, he finally told them to just sit still and let the signal maintainer come out rather than risk the crew running through the switches.  Pretty basic stuff but obviously no real comprehension on the train of what needed to be done. 

This may say more about specialized roles that anything, where unions insist on one person one job, and the engineer couldn't figure out what had to be done.  If you have a more encompassing approach to train operation in one well-rounded individual, you would not have the incident you report above.

[oltmannd]

One-man crews are feasible, practical, and inevitable, for most of the road jobs in North America. 

If it's safety you want to improve, ask Congress to change its instructions to the FRA and start permitting U.S. railroads to implement the systems that are on-the-shelf and available today that positively enforce authority violations and excess speed.  Those systems do more to improve safety than any number of extra employees in the cab.  (Ironically, those systems -- which are engineered and manufactured in the U.S. -- are being installed in developing-world countries where the FRA has no jurisdiction.)

S. Hadid

Be my guest to be that One Man 'crew' on a 9000+ foot train that is in emergency in the middle of a cold rainy night in a hostile enviornment.

 

...one single track stretched accross a bridge.

Obviously, single man trains will have to have a flying squad handle any mishaps enroute.  I doubt anyone believes the single crewman should have to walk a train in emergency.  There will have to be more flying squads if single man operation becomes the norm.

[Anonymous]

I'd like to hear a little more about how this concept of "lonesome pay" gets calculated.  Also, Selector,  w/r/t your "well-rounded individual", it reminds me somewhat humorously of Charles Barkley, who, when queried about his excessive salary demands during negotiations with his then team, the Phila. 76ers, replied, "If they expect me to play like two people, I wanna be paid like two people!"  Yes, I know that it probably won't come to pass (the two-person pay), but I thought it was a succinct thought...

Riprap

[BaltACD]

One-man crews are feasible, practical, and inevitable, for most of the road jobs in North America. 

If it's safety you want to improve, ask Congress to change its instructions to the FRA and start permitting U.S. railroads to implement the systems that are on-the-shelf and available today that positively enforce authority violations and excess speed.  Those systems do more to improve safety than any number of extra employees in the cab.  (Ironically, those systems -- which are engineered and manufactured in the U.S. -- are being installed in developing-world countries where the FRA has no jurisdiction.)

S. Hadid

Be my guest to be that One Man 'crew' on a 9000+ foot train that is in emergency in the middle of a cold rainy night in a hostile enviornment.

 

...one single track stretched accross a bridge.

Obviously, single man trains will have to have a flying squad handle any mishaps enroute.  I doubt anyone believes the single crewman should have to walk a train in emergency.  There will have to be more flying squads if single man operation becomes the norm.

With mention of a 'flying squad' you are dreaming.  The Car Dept. will be home in  bed, need 2 hours to get to their reporting location and then be lost in trying to get to the inaccessable location where the train is in trouble and then request 'Blue Flag' protection once the get on the scene.  Trains that are stopped on Main Tracks for reasons other than Dispatcher controlled Red Signals are VIRTUAL DERAILMENTS.

The One Man crew, for Main Line US railroads is the figment of a Bean Counters illusions of running a railroad.  The Bean Counter that could not run a Christmas garden toy train system.

[MichaelSol]

The direct capital investment represented by a "railroad train" is between $14 million and $22 million. The cost of a two man crew through the entire cycle time of a trip represents .03% -- three one hundredths of a per cent  -- of the capital investment in the train. The cost savings would represent only .015% of the total direct capital investment in the train.

Few industries would begrudge that level of "human investment" to protect the capital investment.

I'm gonna get more than one "train cycle" out of my investment, no?  Assuming a cycle is 2 days and investment life is 10 years, then 0.03% *365*10/2 = 54%

Every industry I can think of has spent capital to replace labor.  Name one that hasn't.  Even the USPS.....

It is true there is a reducto ad absurdum to any concept, including a 2 day train cycle. And, "protecting" an investment is certainly a qualified idea. Get rid of the .03% entirely. Save that 54% over ten years. Better yet, apply the same analysis to fuel --  save 86,000%. I'd say, cut back on fuel! Well, I'm not sure either analysis makes sense on its own two feet ... but, if you cut out the labor entirely ...

Nothing moves. The rate of return is hugely negative on the capital investment because it can produce nothing.

Replacing people by machines is was/is all the rage.  No one looks very hard at the results. The follow-up studies on these things in industry are notoriously poor or even non-existent. "We did it, therefore it was good," is the Biblical mantra of the modern incentive-driven, option-exercising executive. Not much PR value in a study showing the opposite.

One of the biggest such capital investments "to replace labor" in terms of scale was made by GM in the 1970s.  They've been suffering a negative rate of return on those investments ever since.

The auto company that has spent the least for capital to specifically replace labor?

Toyota.

The fact that whole industries "do it" -- whatever "it" is -- in my mind has never been an adequate substitute for a rigorous cost benefit ratio analysis. The hardest part of the process is designing an appropriate cost benefit analysis for new systems, and generally the least amount of time and budget is spent on that part.

I suppose if the argument is as simple as "capital" replacing labor, then it's an automatic conclusion -- makes it easy. You're entitled to make it, but good luck if you invest on that basis alone.

Insofar as mechanization has replaced humans in process streams, there has been a logic to it -- but transferred in many cases to inappropriate circumstances, and the history of industrialization is littered with the corpses of companies that replaced humans with machines inappropriately.

I agree with arbfe above -- these things tend to be driven by past experience (well, we cut expenses doing this before, let's do it again), not a recognition that the current situation is different, in fact, from the past.

GM spent billions in "capital to replace labor". Exactly in the words you use.

Toyota has always offered that it spends capital to assist its people to do their jobs better, always better.

There is a world of difference there between your vision, and, say, Toyota's. But, you're in good company -- "replacing people" has been a decision driver, right or wrong, for over 100 years.

But, three key questions:

1) In what sense is a railroad "investing capital" to replace the second crew man?

2) How does it assist the remaining "crew" member to do his or her job better?

3)  Aside from a small decrease in the operating expense, does it leverage the productivity of the existing capital investment? Does it contribute or subtract from that productivity?

[jeffhergert]

   According to the carriers, PTC (Positive Train Control) would allow them to safely operate with one person crews.  I've read articles where the carriers question whether some of the other benefits, like capacity enhancements, are worth the cost.  It leads me to think that the railroads don't really want PTC, except maybe on a limited basis such as lines hosting passenger trains.

  If the carriers could get a contract to go to one person crews before installing some kind of PTC system, they never will install it unless forced to.  I doubt that any business friendly administration, and despite the political rhetoric most are, would force a wide spread use of PTC.  

  BTW, currently with two persons in the cab, if the engineer has to use the restroom and the conductor doesn't have an engineer's license, you have to come to a stop.  A literal reading of our rules wanting the conductor to be in the operating cab all the time, except when on the ground during switching moves, would require you to stop if the conductor has to go. 

Jeff

[arbfbe]

This may say more about specialized roles that anything, where unions insist on one person one job, and the engineer couldn't figure out what had to be done.  If you have a more encompassing approach to train operation in one well-rounded individual, you would not have the incident you report above.

 

The point of the post is more people add more years of experience in the cab.  After nearly 30 years in the cab and on the ground I knew exactly what the dipsatcher was talking about and what needed to be done at that location.  The two crewmembers at the site did not.  Now take away one of those crewmembers on ALL the trains and there is a higher probablility the remaining crew member will not have had any experience in a new or unusual situation.  That can lead to truoble.  One thing for sure on the old 4 and 5 person crews where at least one of the members had 20 or more years experience, at least one of the crew had been in this situation one or more times and had advice to offer.  That has been largely lost and will only get worse with one person crews.

 

You will not believe how much railroading experience has been lost over the last 20 years.  As the baby boomers start to pull the pin in the next 3 years or so even more will be gone.  The hand line the switches scenario will become much more prevalant and that is not a good thing in the railroad industry.  

[greyhounds]

This may say more about specialized roles that anything, where unions insist on one person one job, and the engineer couldn't figure out what had to be done.  If you have a more encompassing approach to train operation in one well-rounded individual, you would not have the incident you report above.

 

The point of the post is more people add more years of experience in the cab.  After nearly 30 years in the cab and on the ground I knew exactly what the dipsatcher was talking about and what needed to be done at that location.  The two crewmembers at the site did not.  Now take away one of those crewmembers on ALL the trains and there is a higher probablility the remaining crew member will not have had any experience in a new or unusual situation.  That can lead to truoble.  One thing for sure on the old 4 and 5 person crews where at least one of the members had 20 or more years experience, at least one of the crew had been in this situation one or more times and had advice to offer.  That has been largely lost and will only get worse with one person crews.

 

You will not believe how much railroading experience has been lost over the last 20 years.  As the baby boomers start to pull the pin in the next 3 years or so even more will be gone.  The hand line the switches scenario will become much more prevalant and that is not a good thing in the railroad industry.  

"I want my old job back."

"I'm sorry, you can't have it.  A machine does it".

From the movie "Take This Job and Shove It".  It's about inevitable industrial change and the difficulties people have adjusting.  Set in a brewery in one of my favorite places, Dubuque, Iowa.  You see,  in this movie  Art Carney sells the brewery to Edie Albert and Albert sends in this young hotshot corporate type, who grew up in Dubuque with the guys working in the...Oh, never mind.

It's a good movie about how things like this have to happen and how people get upset with the need to change.

Recomended corporate reading is "Who Moved My Cheese", a book that deals with the same subject, but not as well as the movie does.

[tomikawaTT]

     Holy cow!  You don't suppose the fact that this man is running a political campaign has any effect on his newfound concern for railroad safety from terrorism, do you?

Bingo!!!

How long will it take him to start demanding two people in the cab of every 18-wheeler?  Note that the 18-wheeler driver has to be his own CTC operator as well as engineer.

As for a terrorist threat, I can think of a number of scenarios where having an armed guard on every car loaded with anything more hazardous than gravel still wouldn't do any good.

I would rather have one person in the cab with appropriate computer assistance than three people there with a bottle of rye whisky!

Chuck

[L&N_LCL_SUB]

To everyone saying "It won't work", "It won't be safe", "It won't be efficient", etc.

One person crews do work, they are safe and they are very efficient.  Besides being a very normal thing in other countries, the Indiana Rail Road has operated with one person crews for years.  And they operate everything up to, and including, unit coal trains with one person crews.

It's been a very successful operation in its 20 years of existance - turning a decrepit ex-ICG line running south and west from Indianapolis into a raging success.  The Indiana recently expanded by acquiring the CP operation between Chicago and Louisville.  They aren't exactly a 'short line'.

Now the Indiana doesn't have high traffic density and that mitigates some of the potential drawbacks to one person operation.  But given the right set of circumstances, in the right situatiions, one person crews will be just as effective on the UP as they have been on the Indiana.

It seems the unions should be negotiating the conditions and situations where one person crews may be used.  They could protect their members by seeing that there were no layoffs due to one person crews, for example.  But no.  The unions don't even want the issue on the barganing table.

It is a proven fact that one person crews can operate some trains in a safe, efficient manner.  For the unions to try to block the idea from even being on the table is a return to the days when they insisted on diesel locomotive "firemen".  

   

As a railroader  I often run the old Monon route from Louisville to Washington In. and when we pass an Indiana RR in a siding they always have a conductor on the train.  Maybe they do this in a very limited area, but the government won't even allow this yet.

There is a lot of mis-information out there about the one man crew demands.  It is coming, however it will take years, and only work on limited lines of road.  Say you have a line that is 150 miles long and runs 25 trains a day.  Take three utility men stationed at 50 mile intervals with a high-railer and the closest one runs to the train to assist.  Two twelve hour shifts and you have 6 utility men.  Or more likely to cut over time, three shifts of 8 hours and you have 9 utility men.  Max that pay out at about 36 large a year and then you have savings!

This was explained to me by a Terminal TM.  That's what they want and will get.  Nothing in the U.S. works as is.  The positive train control will only assist the engineer in place of a conductor.  That's why all the big boys are installing forward facing cameras in the cabs.  It saves money in case of an accident and is a second set of eyes. I do agree with most everything else you had to say

[greyhounds]

As a railroader  I often run the old Monon route from Louisville to Washington In. and when we pass an Indiana RR in a siding they always have a conductor on the train.  Maybe they do this in a very limited area, but the government won't even allow this yet.

There is a lot of mis-information out there about the one man crew demands.  It is coming, however it will take years, and only work on limited lines of road.  Say you have a line that is 150 miles long and runs 25 trains a day.  Take three utility men stationed at 50 mile intervals with a high-railer and the closest one runs to the train to assist.  Two twelve hour shifts and you have 6 utility men.  Or more likely to cut over time, three shifts of 8 hours and you have 9 utility men.  Max that pay out at about 36 large a year and then you have savings!

This was explained to me by a Terminal TM.  That's what they want and will get.  Nothing in the U.S. works as is.  The positive train control will only assist the engineer in place of a conductor.  That's why all the big boys are installing forward facing cameras in the cabs.  It saves money in case of an accident and is a second set of eyes. I do agree with most everything else you had to say

Hi guy, and welcome to the discussion.

I had the opportunity to interview with the Indiana Rail Road for a management position about 2 1/2 years ago.  (Obviously, I didn't get the job.)

During the interview process they were very emphatic about their one person crews while I was kind of astonished. (maybe that's why I didn't get the job).  They talked about running the unit coal trains with one person - "That's all you need" I was told. 

They talked about how a one person switch job would meet up with a general mixed freight with a one person crew.  The two would work remote control locos and get the necessary work done safely and efficiently.  Then the road freight would be on its way with one person on board.

I don't doubt that you see a conductor - it doesn't make sense to run every train with a one person crew.  But I will say that if a conductor is there on the Indiana it's because he/she is needed, not because of any law or union contract. 

And I think it's important to note that those one person "crews" on the Indiana are BLE/Teamster members.  This can be done.  It's not right for every operation, but it's also not wrong for every operation.  The unions and the carriers just need to sit down and, acting in good faith, work this out.  (I know, pigs will fly first.)

 

[Anonymous]

is the change just for BNSF in galesburg or is going to be a system wide change for BNSF, and if it is what other railroads have inherited this dumb idea which would mean job loss to all of the hardworking men and woman that help move this country's frieght

[arbfbe]

Since it is part of the national contract negotiations between the National Carriers Conference which represents all the railroads the a similar group negotiating for all the labor organizations you can figure this will cover all railroads at all locations.  If the railroad assignes roving employees at locations where work may be done you can bet even locals will have a single person crew.  All of the DPU units can be controled with a belt pack just like remote switch engines are so the engineer can be on the ground when needed to work alone or with the roving employees.

You can bet the railroads will make lots of promises and paint quite a rosey picture and when the papers are signed they will back pedal, reinterpret and out right lie to have it their way.

The NTSB has been after the railroads to install PTS for more than 30 years and the carriers have always found a plethora or reasons why the systems are untried and unreliable and too expensive.  Now they plan on hinting they will install if the investment will eliminate jobs.  You can bet dark territory will not rate the investment in PTS like it will not rate installation of signals but will become single person territory account the lack of traffic.

Greyhounds,

No, I am not whining to get the old jobs back but enough is enough.  On person crews on the railroad is really a bad idea from an operational standpoint and probably will not realize the financial returns predicted.  No, it will not be nearly as safe either.  Trucks that run 24hrs nonstop like trains try to do actually are supposed to have two drivers.  If railroad profit margins are so small on freight train operations they cannot afford to have two crewmembers in the cab perhaps it is time to raise the freight rates to allow that.  Afterall, isn't it the UP that is so busy they are turning back traffic?  Doesn't economics allow that when you have more traffic offerred than you can handle you should raise the rates to reduce the traffic to what can be handled?    

[greyhounds]

Greyhounds,

No, I am not whining to get the old jobs back but enough is enough.  On person crews on the railroad is really a bad idea from an operational standpoint and probably will not realize the financial returns predicted.  No, it will not be nearly as safe either.  Trucks that run 24hrs nonstop like trains try to do actually are supposed to have two drivers.  If railroad profit margins are so small on freight train operations they cannot afford to have two crewmembers in the cab perhaps it is time to raise the freight rates to allow that.  Afterall, isn't it the UP that is so busy they are turning back traffic?  Doesn't economics allow that when you have more traffic offerred than you can handle you should raise the rates to reduce the traffic to what can be handled?    

I think your truck comparison is off the mark.  Two person truck "crews" run through from origin to destination.  One sleeps or rests in the back of the truck while the other drives.  They don't change crews like railroad workers do.

When I was with International Harvester (Now Navistar, a major truck manufacturer) we were out yakking with a dealer.  That's an important thing to do.  You have to talk to the people who use the product and sell the product to understand what's going on.    He pointed to a 9370 he had sold that was in for servicing and said: "that truck runs 250,000 miles a year hauling perishables from California to Toronto." 

Two people came out of Salinas with a load of lettuce and just drove at 70 MPH to Toronto.  They didn't stop for anything except fuel.  At the fuel stop they would relive themselves and eat.  It was "one on and one off" from Salinas to Toronto.  If you want to work a two person "crew" like that, I'm sure your company will be glad to oblige.

You say a one person "crew" is a bad idea.  I know that it has its places.

Since I'm a "betting man", I'll propose a bet.  It goes to charity.  I'll donate up to $100.00 to any charity you name.  (Exceptions are:  No animal rights group or any group that lies about Greyhound racing.)  I'll give it to your church, your local humane society, the American Cancer Society, whatever group you name within the exceptions.  If you loose you do the same. You donate the agreed amount to Greyhound Pets of America.

I'll propose a specific operation of a one person crew.  With any detail you desire.  If you can reasonably say it won't work, I'll write the check.  And I'll agree that you are the judge.  You make the decision.  That's how confident I am that one person crews will work under the right conditions.

I'll give you some hints.  The origin is Joslin, Illinois and the product now predominatly moves by truck for long distances.   The product is perishable.

 

   

[Anonymous]

This is sounds like a stupid idea, a really stupid idea, and it all falls apart with one event. Does a one man crew have to stop the whole train to use the toilet, or will "Depends" be issued as standard equipment?

 

OK that sounds silly but its absolutely serious, a one man crew CANNOT even get up and relieve himself with no one to temporarily take control, dont all locos still have a deadmans control to stop the loco if its not activated at the proper interval, what do they do with that? get rid of it so the engineer can move around the cab?

 

I hope that someone will jump up and correct me if I'm wrong,   but I seem to recall from prior discussion here that it is against the rules for a conductor, or other non engineer qualified,  employee to operate the train at any time, without the direct supervision of a qualified engineer standing direcctly over them.

Seems like when I was arguing the inevitability of one man crews, Zardoz I think it was "straightened me out" that under such a situation with even a 2 man crew, the engineer has to notify dispatch and bring the train to a stop if he absolutely must use the restroom.

Zardoz?

[ValleyX]

Only a licensed engineer can operate the engine or a student engineer holding a valid student engineer license may operate the engine only under the direct supervision of the engineer.  The engineer is not to leave the cab at any time when the student engineer is running the engine, not if the engine is moving.  The only conductor that can run the engine is one holding a valid engineer's license or a conductor who is also a student engineer, as occasionally happens.  Even if the conductor holds an engineer license, the working engineer is not to leave the cab while the train is moving.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the confirmation...that's what I thought.

So really then the "gotta use the can" argument is not applicable, one man crew or two, it doesn't matter.

With all the time that crews say they spend jammed into sidings waiting on meets, restroom access doesn't appear to be in short supply.

[ValleyX]

Quite frankly, I don't want to be on a train all by myself, it would make a tough job tougher, absolutely no one to talk to, out there all by yourself, you stop only at the discretion of the dispatcher, I can't just swing over and stop at the roadside rest or the truckstop, and the delays when the inveitable happened, detectors tripping out, trains going into emergency account parted airhoses, etc., bad ordered cars to set out, power switch troubles requiring manual operation of the switch, thereby requiring proper securement of the train before the engineer gets off, and a whole host of other things and can and do happen, makes me think it would make it such a miserable job.  It's hard to work all hours of the day and night and that would make it that much worse.

[Anonymous]

I don't want to sound non-sympathetic, because I understand and would hate to be put in that position (long solo runs) myself.

But I think that it is an (eventual) inevitability.

I expect that 'no man' crews will eventually be the norm.

[Hugh Jampton]

Quite frankly, I don't want to be on a train all by myself, it would make a tough job tougher, absolutely no one to talk to, out there all by yourself, you stop only at the discretion of the dispatcher, I can't just swing over and stop at the roadside rest or the truckstop, and the delays when the inveitable happened, detectors tripping out, trains going into emergency account parted airhoses, etc., bad ordered cars to set out, power switch troubles requiring manual operation of the switch, thereby requiring proper securement of the train before the engineer gets off, and a whole host of other things and can and do happen, makes me think it would make it such a miserable job.  It's hard to work all hours of the day and night and that would make it that much worse.

How often does the inevitable actually happen though?

[ValleyX]

I fully expect it to happen but I'll probably be home free before it happens, retirement looms in a few years.  But then again, maybe not.