See linked stoiry @ U.S. to Impose Two-Person Crew Mandate on Freight Trains (msn.com)
It sounds like it was the current popularity of ultra-long freight trains that was used to justify the mandate for 2-person crews. Was that connection anticipated by the industry?
When you get right down to it, Amtrak has been running one person crews virtually since Day 1. Yes there is a conductor on the train, but the engineer is more often than not alone in the cab.
A meaningful metric would be how often (besides calling signals and the like) the services of the conductor are required. Then how many of those instances could be handled by any of the other resources available (most of which have already been discussed).
That said, I’m not opposed to the two “man” rule.
The so called ‘flying squad utility conductor’ is a load of bovine excrement. Many of the locations where trains have ‘issues’ are in locations that are near or actually impossible to reach by other means of transport. The thought of a Engineer leaving the operating cab of his locomotive to inspect and deal with conditions back in his train is unsafe on its face and too many other ways to count.
The Feds have stepped in and saved PSR management from its own lunacy.
RE Amtrak and single man in the lead engine - whenever a Train Message or other Mandatory Directive is issued to that train - if there is not a Conductor in the locomotive cab to copy them - the train must be stopped so the Engineer can copy them. Engineers are not permitted to copy such things while the train is in motion.
Interesting about Amtrak I can’t see how this would work safely and legally. On Via, two engineers are in the locomotive cab. At station stops the non-operating engineer exits the cab, in situations I have seen, and basically ‘supervises or oversees’ the platform activity. Once that activity is near its end, the engineer returns to the locomotive.
Charlie, Chilliwack BC
As a practical matter - Dispatchers will endeavor to transmit train messages and/or mandatory directives to Amtrak or others with only a engineer in the cab while their trains are making scheduled station stops. However, if a station stop is not in the offing either the Conductor must come to the operating cab or the train must be stopped. These rules apply on CSX - other carriers ‘may’ have differ
Why does the message need to be copied instead of transmitted wirelessly and displayed or printed?
Cut directly to the chase:
49 CFR Part 218 [Docket No. FRA-2021-0032, Notice No. 5], RIN 2130-AC88, Train Crew Size Safety Requirements
Because ‘at present’ that is not the procedure. To my knowledge locomotives have not been equipped with wireless printers that can be addressed through the CADS. I believe all the Class 1 are using one form or another of CADS to run their properties.
However the communication is made, there must be positive confirmation between Dispatchers and trains that the communication is both received and understood. If display or wireless printer is used, I suspect, the person receiving the communication will be required to verbally repeat the communication over the radio to the Train Dispatcher.
It’s that word-for-word verification that’s the hang-up, I would opine. Simply pressing an “acknowledge” key doesn’t guarantee that the directive in question has been read or understood.
It’s the railroad version of why aircrews have to read back any communication ‘in their own words’ – it’s supposed to confirm that they understood it well enough to repeat it.
CYA says it’s even more proof if you have to write it out as well as be able to repeat it. And you have written proof if anything ‘fails’.
Seems to me that written confirmation of various kinds of flimsy was standard procedure on American railroads. This is no different.
(Of course, SPAFs were mandatory to fill out and keep, too, and we all know how that came out…)
Dealing with the issues both as a Train Order Operator and as a Train Dispatcher. It is amazing that some people can’t listen and write what they hear at the same time and then can read what they have written in order to be able to repeat it to the party that originally transmitted it.
The biggest issue, that I have stumbled over during my career, was MofW Personnel wanting a Track Occupancy Authority - in many cases they would have the ‘particulars’ of the authority already written in their books when the made the request - because of operating conditions the Dispatcher was not able to give them the exact authority they had prewritten in their books - in many cases they would repeat what they had prewritten, not the authority they had actually been given.
Let us talk about a derailment. Worse case. Train “X” derails about 5600 feet behind last loco. Flamable oil Haz Mat is leaking and starting to burn. Some 10 - 20 cars in front of the burning oil is a bunch of TIH is in the train. Now the alone engineer tries to move train but cannot due to emergency brakes applied. Also he cannot back to take up slack. So, he walks to closest safest car, turns off air valve, trys to pull car’s pin then walks back to engine still cannot go forward, backs against slack walks back to cut off car, pulls pin and hopes it stays pulled walks back to engine and pulls away with the very hazardous cars.
Now if engineer has a conductor the conductor can walk back bleeding some emergency air from some cars and goes to where it is safe to cut train as engineer start trying to pull away. Once engineer gets train moving conductor boards whatever car he is at and rides away from burning car(s).
Track warrants and track bulletins can be transmitted electronically to trains. It can be done through PTC or railroad supplied electronic devices. However, they still need to be copied by a crewmember and then read back to the dispatcher. (You are supposed to read back the instructions received from the hand copi
[#oops][#oops][#oops][#oops][#oops]
For the record, even Hunter Harrison said that he thought 1-man crews are a bad idea in the majority of situations.
Our railway-supplied electronic devices have a tendency to try to update whenever they get a bit of cell signal, and they won’t let you use certain apps until the updates are complete. In practice this means that in areas of poor cell service you can lose access to your rulebook in the middle of a trip. I would hate for that to happen to my TGBOs, clearances or track warrants.
Even in the 21st century hard paper copies are still better for some things.
At least two on board seems like a good idea, even when the amount of work doesn’t necessarily call for two people. It’s the issue of people working alone for long periods of time… if something happens there’s no fall back, and even a relatively minor setback can quickly turn into something quite bad.
Most anybody that has used a cell phone from a vehicle that is in motion will come across ‘dead zones’. The dead zones may actually be someplace where there actually is no cell service - but there are also numerous locations where service exists, however, for what ever the reason signal goes dead - even though cell tower placements indicate there SHOULD be a signal.
From my railroad experience with the railroad radio systems - there are STILL some dead zones. While the company was not using DPU locomotives when I retired, I do know that the company has added a number of ‘radio repeaters’ to facilitate the operation of DPU locomotives within my old territories.
Just throwing this out for everyone’s consideration.
Suppose the FRA said:
“You want one-person trains? OK, we’ll go along with that but on one condition, the maximum size of a freight train will be 50 cars and no more. THEN you can have your one-person crews.”
I wonder what the reaction might have been? [;)]
The medical professions certainly think so. Even in this day and age they still swear by faxes, they like that hard copy and for various reasons, all good.