Crew Reduction > "And then there was one."

Trains Magazine General Discussion
1

So the idea has been kicking around, and now it’s starting to come more into the forefront.

There are a few railways that already engage in Engineer Only Operations, such as the Cartier (Iron Ore) Railway in Quebec, Canada.

The idea that freights on Class One Railways (when possible) would be running with a single crew member in the locomotive doesn’t seem quite right to me, but it seems like this is more of a reality in the future than a far-fetched idea.

Seems that railways would prefer to get rid of the few remaining classes of running trades employess and just have everyone trained to do the same thing “a transportation employee.”

I understand clearly why railways would want to do this to save not only costs, but also make crew calling much easier, you’ll only have to have one list of employees and they all have the same credentials.

What are some of your thoughts on the one manned-crew, would like to hear others opinions.

[quote]
QUOTE:
(The following story by Larry Swisher was published by the Bureau of National Affair’s Daily Labor Report on November 26.)
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Negotiations between a dozen unions and the five largest U.S. freight railroads for new contracts to cover 155,000 employees have barely begun but already face stumbling blocks, according to labor representatives.

Although face-to-face sessions have yet to be scheduled, the latest round of national bargaining officially began Nov. 1, when the National Carriers’ Conference Committee, representing the railroads, began exchanging written lists of demands with the unions, which negotiate separately except on health and welfare issues.

Heading the carriers’ list of major demands is a proposal to do away with minimum crew sizes on trains as well as to eliminate the different operating employee crafts, such as engineer, conductor, and switchman. Instead, the railroads want to be able to use a single qualif

2

Some of this is aimed at reducing 3 man crews to 2 man as well. Think about all the 3 man yard jobs going to 2 man Remote jobs already.

As to one man crews I think it can work well under certain well defined situation such as short distance locals and shuttle type junit trains. I seem to recall an article in TRAINS a couple years back about the Indiana RR and hom Tom Hoback and his guys were running mainline trains with one man crews as well as some local or switching operations that wouldn’t support a 2 man crew.

LC

3

Scary stuff. It’s bound to happen, but it’s too bad, in my book.

4

European railroads run freight trains with one-man-crews. there is no safety-problem.

5

Ah, but thefre are other issues. Check out this month’s TRAINS magazine article about european freight railroading. Simply put, one man crews run shorter, lighter trains and are less able to perform switching enroute. In addition, there can be safety issues as well…

LC

6

Yes, that was a good article.

European railroading, really is an entirely different story altogether.

7

In the past how many people worked on a single freight train. Also, how about passenger trains. In the late 60’s I heard more people worked on some trains than rode them California Zepher

8

Ya well very soon you won’t be seeing NO Trains with any Humans at all!

9

At one time there was a mightly crew of 5 to run a freight train.

In the locomotive there was the Engineer, Fireman, Head End Brakeman.
In the Caboose there was the Conductor and Tail End Brakeman.

The Fireman was the first to go, leaving the train with 4 crew members, then they ditched the caboose and tail-end brakeman.

They also then got rid of the head-end brakemen on most trains (usually just locals will have a brakeman nowadays) leaving the trains with a crew of two, and now of course the next logical step, they want to ditch the conductor and run with a single crew member.

10

Way down here in New Zealand we have been running single man trains since the late 80’s.

http://www.steelribbons.org.nz/

11

In the old days, didn’t the Conductor outrank the Engineer? And today with 2 man crews, doesn’t the Engineer outrank the Conductor? How have the duties of the Conductor changed? When they got rid of cabooses, did the former Conductors get demoted?

12

The conductor was never demoted.

The conductor has always been responsible for the administration of the train, whereas the engineer is responsible for the physical running of the train.

Technically you could say that the conductor is still the boss, even though if that train goes through a red light, both conductor and engineer will be responsible.

From CROR rules 106 —

106. CREW RESPONSIBILITIES

(a) A train will run under the direction of its conductor.

(b) The locomotive engineer of a train is in charge of and responsible for the operation of the engine of such train.

(c) When a train is operated without a conductor, the locomotive engineer will perform the duties of the conductor.

(d) The conductor and locomotive engineer, (also pilot if any) are responsible for the safe operation of the train or equipment in their charge and for the observance of the rules. Under conditions not provided for by the rules, they must take every precaution for protection. Other crew members are not relieved of their responsibility under the rules.

13

But aren’t today’s conductors paid less and have less experience than the engineers? It seems a little backwards to call the conductor the boss. I always thought that in the old days, engineers were promoted to become conductors, but today conductors are promoted to become engineers. Maybe the term conductor is a misnomer for the modern position. Do today’s conductors do paperwork for managing their trains?

14

Yes it does seem a little backwards, nowadays running trades employees are hired on as conductors, and when (if) the time comes, they are trained to become locomotive engineers.

Yes, the conductors on the trains today are responsible for the paperwork, and talking on the radio, etc.

Really, all the locomotive engineer does is run the locomotive, the conductor does pretty much everything else.

It does seems backward, perhaps, but it is the way it’s done nowadays.

15

Much of the time, especially with new hires (like myself not too long ago), engineers end up taking control of the train, radio, and thinking out the moves because many of us newbies are marked up without knowing our head from our feet. Thankfully most engineers will help you and are patient as long as you listen to what they have to say and for god sakes don’t sleep on them!!! In my experience most engineers like to use the radio to call signals and get through work authorities themselves. Each engineer is different. I have worked with some that simply want to run and that’s it. I talk on the radio, etc. I’m easy come easy go, so it’s really up to the engineer when it comes to the radio.

16

It was explained to me one time that when there used to be larger crews, brakemen were promoted to conductor and firemen were promoted to engineer, and those were two separate things. That’s how I understood it, anyway. As far as I know, ever since there have been only conductors and engineers on most trains, new employees start off as conductors and then get promoted to engineer. But don’t quote me on that…I’m sure someone will come along and correct me if I am wrong. :slight_smile:

17

Single man crews can be done, but will it save? First you should have CTC or some other train control that the engineer can keep his eyes on the road, we have CTC in many places but not everywhere yet.

Then you need to address breakdowns such as broken hoses, bad orders, knuckes including some of the false alarms. This can be done by running shorter trains and/or having mobile brakeman in pickup trucks roaming the roads around the subdivision.

Then you have work on route, swichting at lineside industries and yards. This again can use the mobile brakeman or increased staff at yards.

Some technoligies could help.

Then you have to deal with bad weather.

Trains would get over the road slower, block swapping less of an option (or run short trains again). But like I said, it can be done, but would it save money?

18

That’s correct Nora.

There used to be “Train Service” (Brakemen and Conductors)
and “Engine Service” (Firemen and Engineers).

As you stated, Brakemen would become Conductors and Firemen would become Engineers. Depending on seniority in their area, some brakemen would transfer from Train service to Engine service because their seniority could hold better jobs on the other board, and visa versa, a fireman my transfer from engine service to train service so he could hold a better job.

Generally you didn’t go back and forth, you were usually one or the other and that would be your career path (Train or Engine Service).

That’s also why you have engineers out there that have never been conductors, and conductors out there that never took engineer training, those guys are the last of the breed, as now all new hires start in train service then are trained too become engineers when seniority permits.

19

Those are definately some of the issues that come to mind. And I’m sure if it weren’t for those reasons, we would already be seeing wide-spread one man operations.

As I mentioned, the Cartier railway in Quebec runs engineer only… but they run nothing but solid unit trains of Iron Ore, never any work on-line.

If the train brakes a knuckle or has a problem, then Cartier simply flies a guy out in a helicopter, they fix the problem and away the train goes.

The thoughts of “Road Brakemen” sound interesting, as it probably would be cheaper to have a certain number of brakemen or conductors (call them what you want) on the roads ready to go when something goes wrong, they can be in 3 shifts of 8 hours, and chances are you would rarely have to worry about overtime.

The one major problem that comes to mind is that there are still many parts of the railways out there that aren’t easily accessable by truck, and that would certainly create problems.

20

[quote]
QUOTE: Originally posted by macguy

That’s correct Nora.

There used to be “Train Service” (Brakemen and Conductors)
and “Engine Service” (Firemen and Engineers).

As you stated, Brakemen would become Conductors and Firemen would become Engineers. Depending on seniority in their area, some brakemen would transfer from Train service to Engine service because their seniority could hold better jobs on the other board, and visa versa, a fireman my transfer from engine service to train service so he could hold a better job.

Generally you didn’t go back and forth, you were usually one or the other and that would be your career path (Train or Engine Service).

That’s also why you have engineers out there that have never been conductors, and conductors out there that never took engineer training, those guys are the last of the breed, as now all new hires start in train service then