Railroads want one-person crews on freights

[SFbrkmn]

A little history on single person crew proposal...This is nothing new. The first US rr which made a proposal to run trains w/just an engr was Wisconsin Central after their 1988 start up. They had a very poor safety record to begin with, FRA told them to take a hike on it. The first class 1 to speak on this during contract talks was the old BN in 1991. I can't recall which station it was, but they wanted to start a pilot program (possibly St.Louis?) on running some trains w/just a hoghead. Again that did not fly at all. As a UTU member I nor anyone else want to see this but it will happen at some point. This is just another attack on the hard working middle class that will result in loss of good paying jobs while the CEO's will continue to live the life they do.

[owlsroost]

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

[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.

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?

[traisessive1]

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.

[route_rock]

  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.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Unions in a variety of industries and situations (Chicago convention set-ups comes to mind) have long suffered very negative public relations and little public sympathy on work rules issues.  The public associates work rules disputes with unions attempting to protect unnecessary jobs.  It may not be true, but it is the perception.  Reasonable negotiations by the operating unions on the one-man crew issue will go a long way in defusing the issue and minimizing any damage that may result.

[oltmannd]

   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.

[zapp]

  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 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)!

[selector]

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?

Logically, every time.

[arbfbe]

  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.   .  

[arbfbe]

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.    

[arbfbe]

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.

 

   

 

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. 

[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.

..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.....

[Limitedclear]

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

[sanvtoman]

Mechanized track gangs, no towers, central dispatching, one person crews. After all of this cutting the "good" railroads only operate at 75 to 90% ratios. Hmmm what they need to do is build more track in more areas than they are. Instead of enlarging capacity for the most part it is still cut slash chop. What would be the point in hiring thousands of new trainman then cutting most of them or maybe just get rid of the few remaining "protected" employees. Just like GM and Ford are now trying to "cut" themselves into profitabilty it wont work . Ford and Gm need to build better products and Railroads need more track in certain places to compete better with trucks. 

[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.

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.....

Not CSX, I meant a real railroad..... :-)

[greyhounds]

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"?

[arbfbe]

Greyhound,

The problem is that the word 'short' is not in the railroad vocabulary.  If it were the railroads would be operating short intermodal trains of beef to Chicago NOW with a two man crew.  Tell me how 50 drivers can beat the rate for two train crew members hauling 50 loads of beef now on a short train?  Even if you pay the railroaders 5X the rate of a trucker, after 10 loads of beef in the train the railroaders will beat the 11+ truckers every time.  Now the truckers drive on subsidized rights of way and the railroad pays full fare on their own right of way but still the railroad could beat the truckers every time with a short train.  The carriers just do not want to do it that way.  They want 150 or more trailers for a much longer haul or they are not interested.  That is the way transportation accounting and economics works.

 

The MILW tried your concept in the 1970s with Sprint trains between Milwaukee and Chicago and the unions let them go short crew there to be competitive with the truckers.  Then MILW was a special case.

I think your proposal is agreat idea but run it by any class 1 nearby and see how you get treated.  The railroads think it is a bad idea with two or even one crewmembers. 

[L&N_LCL_SUB]

  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.   .  

I am right there with you, my old head friend.  I am saving every penny now because when this all happens, I will take my savings and find another job.  I have no seniority and understand what this "reserve board" amounts to.  It is going to happen.  Period.  No one knows the details yet, but they do nothing in the mean time to prepare for it.  I work with guys everyday that brag about the new boat or jet skis that they bought and are so secure that railroad retirement will take care of them.  What happens when you don't get the time in to retire?  Everyone has their own opinions about what may happen.  So what.  Rail fans will still take pictures, management will still get bonuses and I will be sitting in my home that was paid for before they took my job away. 

[greyhounds]

Greyhound,

The problem is that the word 'short' is not in the railroad vocabulary.  If it were the railroads would be operating short intermodal trains of beef to Chicago NOW with a two man crew.  Tell me how 50 drivers can beat the rate for two train crew members hauling 50 loads of beef now on a short train?  Even if you pay the railroaders 5X the rate of a trucker, after 10 loads of beef in the train the railroaders will beat the 11+ truckers every time.  Now the truckers drive on subsidized rights of way and the railroad pays full fare on their own right of way but still the railroad could beat the truckers every time with a short train.  The carriers just do not want to do it that way.  They want 150 or more trailers for a much longer haul or they are not interested.  That is the way transportation accounting and economics works.

 

The MILW tried your concept in the 1970s with Sprint trains between Milwaukee and Chicago and the unions let them go short crew there to be competitive with the truckers.  Then MILW was a special case.

I think your proposal is agreat idea but run it by any class 1 nearby and see how you get treated.  The railroads think it is a bad idea with two or even one crewmembers. 

Well, I resprectfully disagree.

If you want to see about a shorty intermodal on the BNSF check out this thread:

http://www.trains.com/trccs/forums/897684/ShowPost.aspx

They will do short trains if the money is right and there is capacity on the line.

I don't think the train would get 50 (as in half) the loads per day out of the plant.  That facility is kicking out loads for a lot of destinations, only some of which can be served by the train.  A two person train crew costs $8.30/mile (and that's 2002 dollars).  You can get all the drivers you want for $0.40/mile.  So before you get a labor advantage you've got to have over 21 trailers/containers.  And throw in the dray to the ramp. And  the extra handling loading and unloading the trailers/containers that the trucker doesn't have.  That 21 trailers/containers figure goes up real quick.  And it goes up to a point where the two person crew becomes uneconomic.  Reduce it by 40% by eliminating the second crew member and the situation improves.

And the Milwaukee "Sprints" were not unique.  Remember, I worked in ICG intermodal marketing.  We had the "Slinghsots", which were 15 car intermodal trains shutteling between Chicago and St. Louis.  They pre-dated the Sprints.

We didn't care how long the train was.  We cared how much money it made.  Not that the Slingshots made a lot of money, but we didn't have anything better to do with that rail line.

 

  

 

[MichaelSol]

greyhounds:

 We had the "Slinghsots", which were 15 car intermodal trains shutteling between Chicago and St. Louis.  They pre-dated the Sprints.

We didn't care how long the train was.  We cared how much money it made.  Not that the Slingshots made a lot of money, but we didn't have anything better to do with that rail line.

"Illinois Central 'Slingshot' service (Chicago-St. Louis) was abandoned due to lack of demand." -- Short-Haul Intermodal Service: Can Rail Compete with Truck? Transportation Research Board, Alternative Freight Capacity Workshop, January 11, 2004, Randolph R. Resor, Vice President, Costing and Economic Analysis, ZEtA-TECH Associates, Inc.

 

 

[Lord Atmo]

If you really want to have humans monitor the train for safety reasons, then you should have a crew member at each end.  Maybe even build a special car for the rear end with bump outs on the side or a cupola on the top so the crewman can sit and monitor the train.

but Fred is sooo much more convenient than a caboose!

not!

i'm also in favor of seeing the caboose come back

[arbfbe]

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

It all depends on how you define it will work.  Sure, 90% of the time the train is in motion it is only one person doing anything to control the train.  The RRs look at that and say, "See, we only need one person there to get from point a to point b".  So it 'works'.  I do not deny that.  Now handlining a set of double cross overs in February during a blizzard is a whole different matter.

Local switching with the engineer and a belt pack will 'work' also.  Just figure on dogcatching the train but hey, two one person crews to get over the road is about the same as two people in the cab from the start.

Many of the coal mine and power plant operations have been contracted out by the railroads.  The RR crew brings the train to the tipple and a mine employee takes charge to load the train.  The same at the power plant, the RR crew delivers the train to the plant and a contract employee takes over.  I am surprised they have not yet changed to allow a contract employee in the control compartment at both locations to set the train up in remote and dump it without anyone on the train at all.  That low hanging fruit has already been plucked.

The railroad may settle for some restrictions on single crew operations but do not count on it.  If they do they will sharpshoot the agreement to the point it will become meaningless.  When the rear brakeman was given up there were train length limitations.  Pretty soon the railroads were running trains in excess of this limitation on a regular basis.  Their attitude was, "file a claim and take it to arbitration".  The limit became meaningless.  The same will happen to any restrictions on single person operations.

I still think it is a bad idea.  I still think the railroads will not see the benefits they are predicting from implementation.  I will likely be out voted or have it forced upon me.  Then we can watch the railroads spout fourth on all the 'improvements' they have made (in a limited number of locations) which make crewless operations feasible and reliable and safet than even one person operations.  I will think that is a bad idea as well but not for the hardships on the crew.  Too bad the railroads could not make all the investments on powered switches, more reliable signals and improved safety systems while they had people on the trains who might have benefitted from it.       

[Anonymous]

arbfbe, I'm afraid you're right.  As I've asked/speculated before, it seems to me that two leads to one (-person crews), one leads to crewless, and crewless, at some point, leads to the question of why you even need a RR holding co to operate the trains.  Speaking as a very intensely interested RR fan and photography enthuiast, I hope to Gd I'm wrong, but I'm afraid not, at least in this day and age.  How long do you think it'll take?

[arbfbe]

riprap,

My time line figures would run something like this.  Single person operations in 1-3 years becoming the standard in 3-5.  Crewless trials in 3-5 years and implementation in 10 years or so.

 

That assumes either is allowed.  I suspect single person operation is inevitible though legislatively it could be stopped.  Funny how the railroads are not interested in hearings on the practice before implementation.  They can lie to the employees but when the start making promises to Congress and the FRA it becomes harder to back peddle and tweak the plan on the cheap.

Crewless trains in general freight service is not something I would hold much hope for.  There may be some limited applications but I doubt there will be trains without crews from New Jersey to Los Angeles in the next 20 years.if then.

[SD60MAC9500]

One man crews aye...................................What a joke anybody who backs this concept has no idea the true intentions or consequences of this action. You can go on all day about why a one man crew can do this can do that etc..Mecahnical issues are going to come up where one man can't do it while providing supervision or other duty.  Hey instead of trying to eliminate the conductor why don't railroads look at their capacity issues indepth.  Railroads should instead eliminate the current traffic control if they want to compete with trucks? How about eliminating the current signal system? How about railroads start putting more money into maintnence eliminate slow orders?  How about designing new next generation track struture for higher speed and heavier trains? How about redesigning rail itself?  Or better yet improve braking systems (maybe even the elimination of the airbrake on freight cars yet retain airbrake for locomotive's) on trains with an all new concept beyond ECP braking?  Last but not least better locomotive design/egineering allowing for greater power than currently in production? These are things the Railroads should pump money into instead of wasting money on trying to eliminate the conductor.  One more thing two head's are better than one when it comes to problem solving!!!!

[ValleyX]

One man crews aye...................................What a joke anybody who backs this concept has no idea the true intentions or consequences of this action. You can go on all day about why a one man crew can do this can do that etc..Mecahnical issues are going to come up where one man can't do it while providing supervision or other duty.  Hey instead of trying to eliminate the conductor why don't railroads look at their capacity issues indepth.  Railroads should instead eliminate the current traffic control if they want to compete with trucks? How about eliminating the current signal system? How about railroads start putting more money into maintnence eliminate slow orders?  How about designing new next generation track struture for higher speed and heavier trains? How about redesigning rail itself?  Or better yet improve braking systems (maybe even the elimination of the airbrake on freight cars yet retain airbrake for locomotive's) on trains with an all new concept beyond ECP braking?  Last but not least better locomotive design/egineering allowing for greater power than currently in production? These are things the Railroads should pump money into instead of wasting money on trying to eliminate the conductor.  One more thing two head's are better than one when it comes to problem solving!!!!

Clear, logical thought will not be encouraged, in fact, it will not be tolerated!

[greyhounds]

greyhounds:

 We had the "Slinghsots", which were 15 car intermodal trains shutteling between Chicago and St. Louis.  They pre-dated the Sprints.

We didn't care how long the train was.  We cared how much money it made.  Not that the Slingshots made a lot of money, but we didn't have anything better to do with that rail line.

"Illinois Central 'Slingshot' service (Chicago-St. Louis) was abandoned due to lack of demand." -- Short-Haul Intermodal Service: Can Rail Compete with Truck? Transportation Research Board, Alternative Freight Capacity Workshop, January 11, 2004, Randolph R. Resor, Vice President, Costing and Economic Analysis, ZEtA-TECH Associates, Inc.

Oh, good grief.  Sol's quoting Randy Resor.  I went to grad school with Resor.  Leave it to Sol to take a bullet point out of a slide show and pond the table with it.  After all, it fits his agenda.

I was still at ICG intermodal when the Slingshots went away.  It was a kind of "Lack of Demand" - but not a lack of demand for intermodal transportation between Chicago and St. Louis.  The ICG didn't abandon the market.  (Eventually, the IC did) We replaced the Slingshots with conventional overnight intermodal trains. 

The Slingshot concept was flawed.  It used short, fast, freqent trains.  The idea behind it was that freight became available throughout the day and that truckers would just take it and go.  Intermodal service required the freight to sit for hours until the train left.  The theory was that if you ran several trains you would cut down on the truckers' advantage.

Well freight does become available for movement throughout the day.  But few receivers want to unload a trailer at 2:00 AM.  Now there were exceptions.  Avon Cosmetics would dispatch an over the road trailer from their Morton Grove facility to St. Louis at 6:00 PM.  Scheduled arrival in St. Louis was midnight.  The orders would be sorted and delivered to their customers homes the next day.    An Avon rep could phone in a cosmetic order Monday afternoon and deliver the product on Tuesday.  But it was one trailer per day.

UPS wanted three trailers per day delivered before midnight so they could sort the contents and deliver the packages the next day.  So that was four trailers per day total.  Virtually everything else was in a "Load it today, deliver it tomorrow morning" situation.

The Slingshots just didn't fit the market.  At all. 

The union agreement was no more than 15 cars per train.  There was no flexibility.  If there were 31 trailers to go overnight on the Slingshot, one got left behind.  And I got the handle the angry phone call the next morning from the shipper.

A conventional overnight train, which could have flatcars added as needed, fit the market better.  And that's where we went.  Right back to where things were before the Slingshot experiment.  Overnight intermodal trains between Chicago and St. Louis.  But before the Slingshots they ran on the N&W and were called "Roadrunners".

There was no lack of demand for intermodal service.  There was a lack of demand for the Slingshots' short, fast, frequent service. 

I'd guess that the reason the IC eventually exited the Chicago-St. Louis intermodal market was not "Lack of Demand" (Demand, in this case, would be determined by price.)  There's A Lot 'O Freight moving between Chicago and St. Louis.

It was the very low margins on this business for the railroad.  The unions required the use of four crew members to move a train 275 miles - and that will kill intermodal competiveness on a 275 mile haul.

And that's why one person crews are an excellent idea for such service.  One person crews that don't change in Bloomington. 

[arbfbe]

greyhounds:

 We had the "Slinghsots", which were 15 car intermodal trains shutteling between Chicago and St. Louis.  They pre-dated the Sprints.

We didn't care how long the train was.  We cared how much money it made.  Not that the Slingshots made a lot of money, but we didn't have anything better to do with that rail line.

"Illinois Central 'Slingshot' service (Chicago-St. Louis) was abandoned due to lack of demand." -- Short-Haul Intermodal Service: Can Rail Compete with Truck? Transportation Research Board, Alternative Freight Capacity Workshop, January 11, 2004, Randolph R. Resor, Vice President, Costing and Economic Analysis, ZEtA-TECH Associates, Inc.

Oh, good grief.  Sol's quoting Randy Resor.  I went to grad school with Resor.  Leave it to Sol to take a bullet point out of a slide show and pond the table with it.  After all, it fits his agenda.

I was still at ICG intermodal when the Slingshots went away.  It was a kind of "Lack of Demand" - but not a lack of demand for intermodal transportation between Chicago and St. Louis.  The ICG didn't abandon the market.  (Eventually, the IC did) We replaced the Slingshots with conventional overnight intermodal trains. 

The Slingshot concept was flawed.  It used short, fast, freqent trains.  The idea behind it was that freight became available throughout the day and that truckers would just take it and go.  Intermodal service required the freight to sit for hours until the train left.  The theory was that if you ran several trains you would cut down on the truckers' advantage.

Well freight does become available for movement throughout the day.  But few receivers want to unload a trailer at 2:00 AM.  Now there were exceptions.  Avon Cosmetics would dispatch an over the road trailer from their Morton Grove facility to St. Louis at 6:00 PM.  Scheduled arrival in St. Louis was midnight.  The orders would be sorted and delivered to their customers homes the next day.    An Avon rep could phone in a cosmetic order Monday afternoon and deliver the product on Tuesday.  But it was one trailer per day.

UPS wanted three trailers per day delivered before midnight so they could sort the contents and deliver the packages the next day.  So that was four trailers per day total.  Virtually everything else was in a "Load it today, deliver it tomorrow morning" situation.

The Slingshots just didn't fit the market.  At all. 

The union agreement was no more than 15 cars per train.  There was no flexibility.  If there were 31 trailers to go overnight on the Slingshot, one got left behind.  And I got the handle the angry phone call the next morning from the shipper.

A conventional overnight train, which could have flatcars added as needed, fit the market better.  And that's where we went.  Right back to where things were before the Slingshot experiment.  Overnight intermodal trains between Chicago and St. Louis.  But before the Slingshots they ran on the N&W and were called "Roadrunners".

There was no lack of demand for intermodal service.  There was a lack of demand for the Slingshots' short, fast, frequent service. 

I'd guess that the reason the IC eventually exited the Chicago-St. Louis intermodal market was not "Lack of Demand" (Demand, in this case, would be determined by price.)  There's A Lot 'O Freight moving between Chicago and St. Louis.

It was the very low margins on this business for the railroad.  The unions required the use of four crew members to move a train 275 miles - and that will kill intermodal competiveness on a 275 mile haul.

And that's why one person crews are an excellent idea for such service.  One person crews that don't change in Bloomington. 

See, there is the point of view of railroad management.  They want the one person crew implemented but do not want to give up anything to do it.  They will use a freight service as an example of where one person crews will work but fail to mention no customers want to use that service.  They promise the unions no more than 15 cars for the new service but complain when the union holds them to the service thresholds.  If 30 trailers, why not 31 once in a while?  If 31 why not 50 on occasion?  Why stick to the limit at all?  One person crews but no short hauls, the carriers want the full mileage, 12 or more hours a day every day, all hour of the day or night, inaccurate line ups, sudden changes of plans, long terminal delays watching the train being switched or seeing it's headlight just outside the yard for hours, power for their train which has not yet arrived on a train that is dead on the law 30 miles out and still needs to be fueled.  Fact is, the railroads are too irresponsible with crew management and quality of life to be granted the leeway to operate trains with just one person on the train.  I know I want to make twice as many people miserable by keeping train crews the same size but it will also keep them safer, train replacement workers so they can take vacations and days off and retire when the time comes.

So the short fast trains could not compete with trucks account the truck could move the trailer as soon as it was ready so customers were not happy waiting for 6 hrs for the train to be ready to move the trailer yet the best solution was to run fewer longer trains with greater dwell times for the trailers.  That and the idea longer and heavier is always better in railroad accounting.  Four persons on the crew or one person on the crew would not have made a difference with the short fast except perhaps instead on one 15 car train with 4 you could try four 4 car trains with one person crews running on 90 minute headways saving the 6 hr dwell time for the trailers.  Do you think management would go for it?  What would the trains/ton would look like for that?    

[MichaelSol]

I agree arbfe.

Bizarre contradictions in that particular fable in any case.

" We cared how much money it made.  Not that the Slingshots made a lot of money, but we didn't have anything better to do with that rail line."

 vs.

"A conventional overnight train, which could have flatcars added as needed, fit the market better.  And that's where we went.  Right back to where things were before the Slingshot experiment."

Apparently there was something better to do with the line, and ICG had been doing it, but then they stopped, did something else, it didn't work (even though it was first hinted it made money, then apparently it didn't)they went back to the former practice, and this guy now blames the unions and the workers because shippers didn't want the service!

Of course we weren't told in the original post that the service failed either.

Railroads, according to that fable, were handicapped by the required four crew members to move a 15 car train 275 miles. Well, whose decision was that? The truckers required 15 crew members for the same "move".

And the truckers got the traffic!

Management there was handicapped by a poor market, offering a service the shippers didn't need or want and poor management decision making. Apparently the "market analysis" was done after the service was initiated, not before.

"The Slingshots just didn't fit the market.  At all."

But, one man crews will solve those kind of problems, according to the poster.

"According to the poster".