Exactly, Modelcar, and as a railfan and enthusiast, I truly fear that one day, the system may indeed be shut down, and the "other line of work" will be the only one that exists. If (or since) technology is advanced to the point where one crew member is enough, how long will it be until/before the technology replaces the one guy? Since profit margins appear to be ever growing in importance (I'm probably revealing my political stripes here, but oh well), how long will it be before, as has been suggested elsewhere on this board, a Maersk or a Hanjin will snap up a US transcontinental RR and, ahem, liquidate the assets? Call me crazy if you like, but it's hardly outside the realm of possibility, is it? I truly hope it is.....
Riprap
....Are the profit margins so close on a mile long freight train that {if possible}, the railroad must eliminate one crew member to make the freight run viable...!! If it is, they better shut the system down and get into some other line of work....
Balancing one and two member crew status against the safe operation of a class one freight train should play over to the use of two bodies on the train.
I'm sure genuine railroaders {on here}, can cite {rear world}, multiple conditions {with today's technology}, why two crew members are superior in the safe and efficient running of such trains.....
Perhaps some day when conditons and technology have changed it will be safe to do such an operation.
Quentin
Hugh Jampton wrote: One person crews are the norm in more places than they're not nowadays, and these other places don't have problems. You will conform to the majority eventually.
One person crews are the norm in more places than they're not nowadays, and these other places don't have problems.
You will conform to the majority eventually.
I know an Indiana shortline that are running one man crews. They have a rover that comes to trains in distress. But that wouldn't work on a 22,000 mile system! It's more efficiant to have the cornductor to drop off and walk it out, then to wait for some guy to come out. Just think of the train delays.
And before you say the engineer will get off and walk, well that doesn't work either example...(1) I would have to tie the train down. (2) start walking (pray your not on a coal train) (3) found problem-broken knuckle/air hose (4) walk back to the headend (again, I hope this ain't a 133 car coal drag) (5) Get knuckle/air hose w/wrench. (6) walk back to problem car (7) fix problem (8) (I would assume the engines are remote control) couple train back together (9) walk back to head end (10) call dispatcher and request limo because by now your either "hogged out" or your about to!...and I should add so is everyone else!!
I agree with the thoughts of some others that a one man crew scenario could work provided the following:
1. There absolutely has to be a backup of some kind - video assistance from the home base comes to mind - where constant feedback aids in detecting operational anomolies.
2. Automation should be the primary operational dynamic, with the one man crew acting more as an on board monitor rather than the de facto driver. With automation it is possible for the crew member to take those occassional breaks without having to stop the train.
3. Regardless, the feds should only allow one man operations under scheduled conditions, not call up conditions. Fatigue issues are bad enough with two man crews, thus a separate set of working rules for one man crews to ensure full rest and physical replenishment of the one man crew member.
There are several reasons to have more than one crew member on a train. First, I think the most important is a derailment or train seperation. Who is gonna walk the train and whose gonna call for help you cant do both, hand held radios rarely can talk to the dispatcher, having someone relay that information is imperative. Or are the railroads gonna issue sat-phones? Unlikely since the railroads have the same disease every other company has. We dont know how to make our product better so why dont we just cut staff till we cant make any product.
Second, will you have to stop the train to copy a mandatory directive. i.e. track warrant, track and time, speed restrictions, crossing warning notiofications. That is really gonna help the velocity of the railroad. I realize that it will come to one man crew someday, but, I want everyone to understand that this is for the company to save money, not for safety, not for efficency, this is simply a money saving concept.
There are many reasons why one man crew should be scrutinized before its implementation, safety is a concern I just think we try to use the topic of the day such as terrorism to justify blocking it, when the answers are sitting there satring at us.
Hmmmm... this one-person crew concept begs another question:
Would railroads then cut shipping prices if this happens, or would they keep the extra profits in-house?
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?
Of course that's what it is. With the election coming up in November, he suddenly has developed a selective concience based on a topic's appeal to the largest block of voters. Not that one-person train crews are a good idea, but in an effort to call attention to himself he decided to push the magic, attention-getting "terrorism" button while making a statement about preserving jobs, a potentially volatile combination punch -- which surprisingly can have a great effect in heartland cities like Galesburg (which would still be corn and soybean fields if it weren't for the railroads).
Let us also consider that his town is trying to build a multi-million dollar National Railroader's Hall of Fame tourist trap... er, attraction -- and want the nation's railroads to pay for it, natch.
Really the most stupid argument for a good cause. A only one person crew in America is , beside some special cases (commute trains?), not realistic.
But you need to bring forward much better arguments that this one, or it will be counterproductive.
No one can make me believe that a mile long train can be even half efficiently be secured (while standing on some unlit siding or moving slow etc) with less that 20 armed and trained people. It does not need much to place a time bomb on a tank car.
Just think to the ww2 resistence in france/italy/Russia/Jugoslavia. Not even armored cars in front and behind were enought to avoid attacs on trains.
Lets be honest. the only way to avoid that is to give to no 'right minded' people the reason to even try. Our societies are like so, they work on trust, or everything come to a stop..
sebastiano
Mechanical Department "No no that's fine shove that 20 pound set all around the yard... those shoes aren't hell and a half to change..."
The Missabe Road: Safety First
Have fun with your trains
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Railroad staffing plan 'backward,' Hare says
Reduction could mean up to 300 lost jobs in Galesburg area
Thursday, August 31, 2006
BY KEVIN SAMPIER
OF THE JOURNAL STAR
"This community has had enough of jobs leaving," said Democratic candidate Phil Hare. He is running against Republican Andrea Zinga for the 17th Congressional District seat held by U.S. Rep. Lane Evans, D-Rock Island. Evans is retiring at the end of his term.
Hare said the country's major railroad companies want to switch from two-person crews to one-person crews to operate their freight trains.
Hare said the move would not only harm local economies but would present a national safety threat, because one person wouldn't be able to monitor an entire train alone.
Hare said one train car of ammonia rigged with explosives could kill about 100,000 people in Chicago, and he added other hazardous materials move by train all the time. He said these trains could be targeted by terrorists and should be watched by more people, not fewer.
"This is priority backwards as far as I'm concerned," Hare said. "I'm more than angry about it."
In addition to safety concerns, Hare said the plan would mean between 200 and 300 lost jobs for the Galesburg area. That would be another blow to the city that suffered economically when Maytag closed its plant.
"I'm really angry that they would even remotely propose this," he said.
Burlington Northern Santa Fe, which has its second-largest train yard in Galesburg, is among the national companies that would reduce staff from two to one person per train if the plan is approved.
However, there are still many steps before it comes to that point.
Bud Linroth, a conductor for BNSF and a legislative representative for the United Transportation Union, attended Hare's news conference.
Linroth said a contract drafted in 1980 requires BNSF to operate with at least two people on board each train until all those people protected under that contract are no longer working.
Several hundred protected people are working in Galesburg, Linroth said.
The National Carriers' Conference Committee represents the railroad companies during contract negotiations and is pushing for the reduction, Linroth said.
BNSF spokesman Steve Forsberg said the focus should be on the committee and its decisions, not the individual railroads.
"BNSF isn't doing anything on its own," Forsberg said. "The individual railroads don't negotiate contracts."
Forsberg disputed Linroth's numbers, saying it is still too early to know if 200 to 300 jobs would be lost.
"They don't know that, we don't know that," he said. "We're not going to speculate."
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.