arbfbe wrote: I never said it will not work under some circumstances some of the time. I have said it is a bad idea that will not work as well as proponents claim and will not yield the returns managers are expecting. Remember, this is just the preliminary steps for crewless train operations which some managers believe are attainable anytime they want to invest in the infrastructure. Once the railroads get a green light to run with less than two crewmembers or even less than one crewmember they will never go back no matter how senseless the planned course of action becomes.
I never said it will not work under some circumstances some of the time. I have said it is a bad idea that will not work as well as proponents claim and will not yield the returns managers are expecting.
Remember, this is just the preliminary steps for crewless train operations which some managers believe are attainable anytime they want to invest in the infrastructure.
Once the railroads get a green light to run with less than two crewmembers or even less than one crewmember they will never go back no matter how senseless the planned course of action becomes.
Why is something that "will work" a bad idea?
OK, Tyson has one huge beef plant in Joslin, Illinois - near Moline. This plant kicks out around 100 trucks of beef and hides per work day. The only beef that would move railcar would be frozen export loads.
What would be "bad" about originating a short intermodal train at or near Joslin and having a one man crew run it into a NS ramp in Chicago. At the Chicago ramp the trailers/containers are placed on trains headed for Harrisburg, New York, etc.
Of course, the loads could be trucked into Chicago. But that means non-union truckers get the work. And it costs more.
Again, why would the short intermodal, one person crew, operation be "bad"?
BaltACD wrote: oltmannd wrote: BaltACD wrote: oltmannd wrote: BaltACD wrote: 1435mm wrote: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. HadidBe 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. ..and I guess utility brakemen and EOTs won't work either? Let's see....800 miles of Main Line double track.....includes 6 major terminals.....2 U men at 2 minor terminals. Yea....that's the ticket. At the minor terminals the 'crews' are RC crews....can't operate outside of the yard proper.....
oltmannd wrote: BaltACD wrote: oltmannd wrote: BaltACD wrote: 1435mm wrote: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. HadidBe 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. ..and I guess utility brakemen and EOTs won't work either?
BaltACD wrote: oltmannd wrote: BaltACD wrote: 1435mm wrote: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. HadidBe 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.
oltmannd wrote: BaltACD wrote: 1435mm wrote: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. HadidBe 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.
BaltACD wrote: 1435mm wrote: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. HadidBe 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.
1435mm wrote: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
...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.
..and I guess utility brakemen and EOTs won't work either?
Not CSX, I meant a real railroad..... :-)
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Like anything else in the railroad business, one man crews will work if used properly. Unfortunately, this is one of those issues that polarizes management and labor. Inevitably this will result in abuses on both sides and charges and countervailing charges about the quality of the idea. Look at what happened with remote control. Nobody likes it, but it is still being used.
The reality is that management will implement one man crews where it will work. They will start with what one senior manager at a Class 1 recently referred to as "low hanging fruit". His example was the loading or unloading of a unit train of coal or grain on a loop track. Often, a road crew brings the unit train to the facility for loading or unloading. In at least some places a conductor is not needed where the train must simply be moved slowly through the loading/unloading area. This is one area that has been identified as an opportunity to reduce labor costs/crew starts. As the train is within a manned facility and moves slowly an incident is unliekly to occur and help is immediately at hand. There are no hazmats involved and stops can be coordinated. Industrial rail users such as steel mills have used one man crews and remotes in similar circumstances for decades.
There are no doubt other such simple examples that could easily handle one man crews. Equally, as has already been pointed out above, there are numerous potential issues with one man crews. Some can be solved with time and effort and others will simply never work.
One man crews are coming, management will be able to implement them. Labor will be able to fight them and in the end some uneasy truce will be reached. Likely some jobs will be preserved and others lost and in the end the companies won't save as much as they thought and the unions won't preserve as many jobs as they would like. Its nice to think there might be a world where the process could be short cut and resolved prior to the egos and grandstanding, but that won't happen...
LC
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
greyhounds wrote: arbfbe wrote: 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? 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.
arbfbe wrote: 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,
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?
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.
owlsroost wrote: I'll happen eventually, and if the unions have the best interests of their members at heart they'll start negotiating sensible terms and conditions soon for a trial program on a busy CTC/ABS signalled route (to help minimise the safety concerns). That way they might stand a chance of having some control of the process - like pushing for PTC or similar as a condition of agreeing to one-person operation. Tony
I'll happen eventually, and if the unions have the best interests of their members at heart they'll start negotiating sensible terms and conditions soon for a trial program on a busy CTC/ABS signalled route (to help minimise the safety concerns).
That way they might stand a chance of having some control of the process - like pushing for PTC or similar as a condition of agreeing to one-person operation.
Tony
That is exactly what the UTU did when the railroads demanded removal of the two brakemen on all trains. They negotiated job guarantees, i.e. EVERY train would ALWAYS have a conductor on it. They added lonesome pay to the two remaining employees, a fixed amount for working shorthanded as well as a split of a productivity fund made up of wages that would have been paid to employees no longer on the train. It worked well for the conductors who suddenly were making more money than the engineer. Since then the other unions have berated the UTU for "selling out" those trainman's jobs. Inevitibly the jobs were doomed in the face of arbitration and the UTU made good for the employees remaining.
Two union guarantees are at odds here. The aforementioned UTU agreement with the carriers that each and every train will always have a conductor on board. The BLET agreement in all railroad contracts which says that there will always be an Engineer represented by the BLET at the controls of every train or switch engine. Both Brotherhoods claim a spot on the train. One of the unions will find themselves out of business if some arbitrator rules against them and in favor of the company. This is an all or nothing deal if single person crews are allowed. The carriers have played the unions against each other for some time now and managed to drive a wedge between them. At long last the two unions have agreed not to sell each other out on the manning issue. We will see if they hold true to their word.
I am sure the results of the November elections will have some bearing on the status of negotiations over this and other major issues. Do not expect large installations of PTS systems on US railroads no matter how many crew members are left in the cab when the dust settles.
route_rock wrote: Go one person crews please I am so low on the list I will be on a paid reserve board. I will be the one laughing when they call us all back in to work two man trains. Better yet I will just go shortline and get paid twice. .
Go one person crews please I am so low on the list I will be on a paid reserve board. I will be the one laughing when they call us all back in to work two man trains. Better yet I will just go shortline and get paid twice.
.
I sure hate to burst your bubble there, Brother but you ain't going to have the seniority to hold the guarantee reserve board. My 30 yrs seniority will trump your 30 months seniority every time. The old heads will bid the reserve board and use flex time, vacation and personal days to mark to the bottom of the board any time they are close to being called. Expect them to regulate the extra board LONG, really long. Then the greybeards will stay at home, travel around the country and leave the railroad to you pups to figure out how to make one person crews work. The railroads will be in cahoots with the older guys since the high maintenence guys with the weak knees, shoulders and backs will not be out on the ground packing knuckles, walking trains and throwing switches in the yards.
You will at last be completely in charge of running the train you want to and switching cars the way you want to and never have to listen to an old head story ever again. Just keep working since I may wait until I am 70 to retire from the best job I will ever have held on the RR. .
Hugh Jampton wrote: ValleyX wrote: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 wrote: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.
Logically, every time.
route_rock wrote: Go one person crews please I am so low on the list I will be on a paid reserve board. I will be the one laughing when they call us all back in to work two man trains. Better yet I will just go shortline and get paid twice. I get a kick out of all the non rails out here beating their chests about how one man crews are needed to _______ fill in the blank. All I can say is thanks for your support. And to all the "foamers" who think crews are crabby now just wait till this goes into effect. Velocity is a big word we use at BNSF but kinda hard if the engineer pulls a knuckle and is on single track CTC ( I dont understand why in CTC you dont need a conductor but oh well thats your pipe dream) waiting for the 50 mile u man to come out and change it. So here we sit with z trains behind us waiting for said u man to get there. What if the big E needs to use the restroom and is on a coal train working uphill? cant stop ( well according to the MSTS crowd you can)so what does he do now? I seriously canty believe all the people that claim to hate big profit hungry corparations on here and yet I have seen more people trying to say this will work because of x,y,and z. then I have for those that think its insane. Makes me wonder.
I get a kick out of all the non rails out here beating their chests about how one man crews are needed to _______ fill in the blank. All I can say is thanks for your support. And to all the "foamers" who think crews are crabby now just wait till this goes into effect.
Velocity is a big word we use at BNSF but kinda hard if the engineer pulls a knuckle and is on single track CTC ( I dont understand why in CTC you dont need a conductor but oh well thats your pipe dream) waiting for the 50 mile u man to come out and change it. So here we sit with z trains behind us waiting for said u man to get there. What if the big E needs to use the restroom and is on a coal train working uphill? cant stop ( well according to the MSTS crowd you can)so what does he do now?
I seriously canty believe all the people that claim to hate big profit hungry corparations on here and yet I have seen more people trying to say this will work because of x,y,and z. then I have for those that think its insane. Makes me wonder.
I totally agree with you brother!
It gives me heartburn to hear all these people say "...yes one man crews will work...blah, blah,blah..." and then they'll complain about how the carriers either got rid of the caboose, their favorite paint job, etc...but when they get rid of the conductor...well...sorry.
I guess you can do that when your on the outside looking in. Haven't a one of them ever tried to do the things we do every day (well I haven't done it in a couple of years since Uncle Sam put me on orders!!!). I'll tell you what, we are gonna make a truck load of cash when this actually goes through (I don't think it will. The carriers aren't that crazy)!
route_rock wrote: What if the big E needs to use the restroom and is on a coal train working uphill? cant stop so what does he do now?
What if the big E needs to use the restroom and is on a coal train working uphill? cant stop so what does he do now?
He shoulda gone an hour ago when he was stuck waiting for that Z train ahead to get it's air hose replaced! (sounds a lot like my kids 30 minutes after the rest stop they didn't use....)
There are always "what ifs". "What if the E7s on the Broadway crap out and the steam mechanics have no clue?" "What if the second from the rear car has a hot box and there are no towers to inspect the passing trains? "What if second from the rear car of a 9000' foot train needs to be set out 5 miles back and there's no caboose?" "What if there are no rail joints to allow for thermal expansion?"
One man crews are no panacea. They will require a whole bunch of other things to be different if they are to be anywhere near universal - like PTC, more reliable equipment and less ad-hoc operation. But if you think there's no "there" there, you will probably be proven wrong.
Yes we are on time but this is yesterdays train
I want you all to think about this.
CN already does a good job of running their railroad with as few employees as possible. They have possibly their lowest operating ratio ever and they keep making money. Also CN does extended runs where some of the higher priority trains and the train crews go the whole 270 miles of a subdivision without changing crews. In this case, the conductor is qulaified to operate the engine if the hogger needs to step out for a bit.
If they go one man, CN will have to totally change their operating strategy. Will they go back to all single sub runs again and trade off half way for all trains instead of being able to do the extended runs?
Doubtful.
And if they go one man, their will be vans stationed at places along the subs where carmen will be able to get to the trains to help aid in work to be done.
10000 feet and no dynamics? Today is going to be a good day ...
vsmith wrote: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 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 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.
badcareerchoice wrote: 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
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.)
greyhounds wrote: 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".
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".
Murphy Siding wrote: 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
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.