Been done already, on C&NW in the 1960s, with TOFC ‘scoots’ to be operated much the same way Perlman suggested for Western Pacific. Run 'em fast, frequent, and loaded a la People Express – when the consist is full, or if the schedule time arrives, you go, and any overflow goes on the next one…
Of course that was in an age when delivery speed was expected to compete with contemporary OTR truck timing. That’s not in the PSR business model any more (and service based on high speed very, very seldom pays its costs in modern freight operation vs. precision JIT…)
I don’t think the industry would accept the offer. Crew cost is not just based on crew size, but also on train size. The railroads have already reduced their crew cost by reverting to monster trains. If they are forced to have two-person crews, they will just try to make their trains even longer.
Viewing just car counts - one doesn’t understand what is actually happening in the operations.
At present signal separation distances nominally define how big a train is in operational reality. Today the carriers are in the process of spacing signals about THREE MILES apart. If we consider the most basic of signal progressions - Clear, Approach, Stop. Capacity wise it makes little difference it a train is 1500 feet long or 15000 feet long. it takes 2+ blocks behind any train for a following train to get a Clear signal - no matter if the train ahead is 1500 feet or 15000 feet.
If a train is operating on an Approach indication - it must operate in a manner that will allow the train to STOP at the next signal - thus it is not operating at Maximum allowed speed - it makes no difference if the train ahead is 1500 feet or 15000 feet in length.
Crunch time comes, nominally, at two places - destination terminals and crew change locations. Trains longer than the ‘receiving’ tracks at the destination terminal will block out that yard in the time that is required to yard its entire train. At Crew Change location - you must have an Outbound Crew available and on duty to keep the train moving and the line segment fluid. Most Crew Change locations, in the PSR world, are
Anyone who watches the cams at Deshler, OH can identify with the congestion issue. If NWO (the Northwest Ohio intermodal yard) is clogged (which happens all too often) it just cascades out.
Trains often sit on the west yard track at South Desher for hours at a time, either for space at NWO, or waiting for a crew.
I’ll agree. For the majority of situations as they exist today.
A solution could be to require all trains handling cars placarded for HAZMAT/TIH to have a 2nd crew member. Preferably someone trained for such an emergency and provided with a protective mask and protective clothing. Put the cost in the freight rate,
<
I wouldn’t be surprised if we eventually get a train-size limit as well.
Granted these can all be rescinded with the net administration, but buckle in, contract negotiations are going to be fun. Or probably lack of fun, since there will be no negotiation and it will go straight to the PEB.
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."
Amtrak did not start with one person engine crews. I worked as a fireman on the Capitol Limited at least into the mid 1980’s.
This may not be the best example of the limitations of one-man operation but the Chicago Transit Authority has operated its rapid transit service with only a motorman, no conductor, for some years now. There haven’t been any major issues but the equipment is rather homogeneous in its dimensions and performance characteristics.
To me, if you are going to have a 2 man road crew then it should be something like the airlines have. Namely an Engineer and Assistant Engineer or maybe Senior Engineer and Engineer. That way one man doesn’t have to be at the trottle all of the trip. The Assistant would probably be younger so would be the one doing any required groundwork. [Local freights would probably have one Engineer and 1 or 2 Conductors.]
The economics driving the need for one person train crews (and long trains for that matter) are compelling. They will be, or are, of great benefit the people of the US and Canada. They will make our logistics system more efficient. This will lower the cost of logistics to the general public.
I reckon I’ve greatly irritated some people with what I wrote in the preceding paragraph. They shouldn’t be so upset; I’m not suggesting running 200 car manifests with HAZMAT cars on busy main lines with one person aboard.
And some people will be irritated that I’m focused on money instead of people. Well, I don’t think that economic concerns (money) are everything. I do think that such concerns are the foundation of everything. A good economy enables things such as good health care, good schools, good nutrition, etc. Anything that reduces a major and necessary cost to the people, such as logistics, improves the overall economy. This is good. We can then get more good things and services to make our lives better.
OK, let’s start. All benefits have costs. Reducing these costs makes more benefits more available to more people. This improves the standard of living.
Costs can be broken down into two almost distinct categories: 1) Fixed and 2) Variable. Fixed costs don’t change with the volume produced while variable costs do change with the volume produced.
An example would be someone leasing an auto repair facility f
I too would not be surprised if the FRA limits train length. In some of their recent publications, they seem very concerned about the possibility that the trend of major increases of train length is causing more derailments. They attribute this to rising “in-train” forces and unfavorable train makeup, which are working together to increase the risk of derailment. They also talk about how the longer trains affect grade crossings.
What I suspect you’ll see with ‘long trains’ is a combination of assessing new, much larger penalties for cutting crossings, combined with very strict enforcement of high dollar penalties for any train above a certain length, say what was being proposed in the House and Senate bills (about 80 cars?)
In other words, disincentives that remove the perceived ‘cost advantages’ of operating very long DP consists slowly. Rather than an outright ban on train length, for which there is likely no contrived “safety” justification now any more than at other times the idea of train-length restrictions has been floated.
Not surprisingly, if there is a guaranteed $5000 to $25000 fee for every crossing left ‘uncut’ after 15 minutes from certain kinds of stop… much of the big perceived savings from one-man crews goes away.
Here is an FRA report on the topic of the emerging “longer train” trend. It is a discussion of the issue by the FRA, railroad management, and railroad labor. They cover things like increasing in-train forces, blocked grade crossings, the need for increasing crew training for handling longer trains, and optimizing train makekup.
Not only are these issues covered from the differing perspectives of the Stakeholders, but they are covered in detail to the extent I have never seen before.
For instance, here is a detailed description of how a grade crossing may be blocked for days:
• Initial congestion may contribute to further congestion due to HOS limitations. According to focus group transcripts, congestion and bottlenecks, such as those related to infrastructure limitations, may result in crews running up against their HOS limitations. It takes time to get new crews out to the train, and the train is tied down at the location where it is stopped. When this happens while a train is over a grade crossing, it can extend the length of time the train blocks the crossing for hours or even days.