Perhaps you meant: This cult is way TOO funny. I think that’s how the Queen would write it if she cared.
You know…
I think it’s obvious that some trains can be safely and efficiently operated with one person crews. It’s being done. The entire Chicago rapid transit system runs with one crew person on a passenger train. I’ll agree that’s an extreme example, but it does show that one person crews can operate some trains without serious problems.
I think it’s equally obvious that some trains can not be safely and efficiently operated with one person crews.
People of good faith, representing the carriers and the unions can work out the ground rules. They should do this. If anyone from either side goes into a negotiation with the idea that “THEY’RE GONNA’ SHOW 'EM” it’s a plan for disaster.
Nobody should loose their job, and every employee should have good pay, benifits and safety with reasonable job security. (There is no possible absolute job security.) And no railroad should have to pay unnecessary employees. If only one person is needed for the job, that’s all that should be on the job. People of good faith can work this out.
Change is inevitable. Just work out the rules using good faith and common sense. Everybody should go home safe and sound with a good paycheck in their pocket and in their future. And the railroads should make good profits.
Those two goals are not incompatible.
Of course, all of the above is applicable ONLY if things are going as planned. Throw in an occasional hotbox or sticking brake; or a switch not properly lined; or an interlocking switch that has to be lined manually and the front wheels of the locomotive brought on to the switch before power is restored; or a few inches of snow and ice; or an incident with the public; or the one or two thousand other things that can go wrong during a tour of duty, and the advantages of a reduced crew quickly evaporate.
On a busy main line, just think how quickly things will deteriorate when a train has to stop and wait for a utility ‘man’ to drive 75 miles to inspect a train that has been stopped by a hot wheel or some other situation. By the time the U-man has gotten through traffic, finds a place to safely park his (her) vehicle, trudge along how many miles from the closest grade crossing to get access to the train when there is already 3 feet of snow on the ground, and then try to figure out what the problem is, the main line might more closely resemble a parking lot.
However, management might be willing to accept the risk of the above occasional delays in order to try to save money (or at least try to make it LOOK like they are trying to save money) on daily operations.
Let’s hope not.
It has been my experience that the Railroad want what they want…until they get it and find out that it wasn’t what the really wanted or needed at all.
Was this job description floated and posted before the Rail Labor Bargaining Coalition started its little power game with the ground rules of engagement for negotiations?
If Bergie will permit, this seems like it might be a railroad version of the old joke about the “battle of the sexes” – as my father’s best friend once put it, being quick enough to say “am I hurting you, dear?” before she says “is it in yet?”
No doubt that “one-man crews” will be a logistical disaster in most forms of freight railroading – even point-to-point intermodals. But carefully, carefully look at what GE is talking about with that ‘digital system’ in their annual report. Think for a moment about what happens when you have really good, continuously-updated GIS coupled with NDGPS… and, if I remember correctly, NDGPS is slated for effective completion to coverage of Class 1 rail mileage ahead of schedule, if not already…
Who said the one guy left on the train would be primarily an engineer? ;-}
LOL. Yup. Sounds like he might be from the mechanical side. Combination Locomotive Mechanic and Carman. He can sling a nice hammock where the Conductor/Fireman’s seat used to be. Set the alarm for when a knuckle breaks…
LC
Tom – in my opinion:
The principal advantage of the new technologies is as follows: Proper PTC gives minimum safe headway control, but by default has full proportional control over throttle and brake; more importantly, there’s the capability to modulate sections of the train (via inline valves similar to those in the FRED at the end of the train line). If there’s distributed air supply (possibly through small “genset”-style compressors and not just from DPU locomotives) it becomes possible to control release, recover from UDEs with more flexibility, etc.
GIS is used to obtain a detailed profile of grade and curve resistance – with proper programming (and interface with PTC that has civil enablement) this includes slow order information, etc. NDGPS gives a very precise indication of the train’s position (and repeated fixes give a good figure for speed, momentum values, etc. just as for conventional GPS). In between these two, the need for ‘special knowledge’ of the ins and outs of a route becomes much less important, and the automatic train control (which “knows” the load distribution, make-up and running characteristics of the train, as well as the state of the power) can easily anticipate the necessary power changes for smooth train handling with minimum fuel consumption, or minimum wear and tear, or precise point-to-point scheduling a la rally driving. Your choice, boys.
The answer to your question, tom, is that train lengths will be precisely optimal based on the desires (and perhaps needs, if they’re smart enough) of the people who pay the bills, or who pay the salaries of the folks who call the operational shots. Some of the conventional arguments against relatively short, light, faster and more frequent movements (a la WP under Perlman as described in Trains) might no longer apply as stringently if single crews were used; alternatively, I’d expect there to be a ‘sweet spot’ for train length determined by siding and yard-entry capacity, and perhaps by the ease w
Overmod:
An interesting observation on the use of these new technologies as a way to possibly adjust the efficiency curve back in favor of shorter, faster trains. On the macro employment front, wouldn’t the institution of shorter faster trains increase total railroad employment, even if it results in the eventuality of a one man crew?
I would bet that NS uses the new technology optimumly without making crew size reduction the end all and be-all. Then maybe the other three (or five) can learn from their example.