Does the Cartier run with signaled track, CTC or other? Otherwise if it is dark territory how can a single engineer be safe?
Single man crews sound expensive to me. Fly in an APE !? That sounds like a cheap solution, and if you run short trains you might not ever have so many broken knuckles. But then you need an engineer for each short train. How can you save?
I would guess the railroads have shoved some numbers around and concluded that even with the cost of personel traveling to deal with problems on the road, reducing train crews by one man has the potential for generating a big chunk of cash.
I think the unions will go to the wall on this one, and they may be successful in holding the line at least for this round. Until they can demonstrate methods for dealing with a lone engine operator becoming disabled, the railroads are going be in a big fight on the safety issue.
Jay
Drawing a parallel to aviation, the single operator concept is flawed, even with technology assisting. From a safety point of view single piloted aircraft have a significantly higher mishap rate than multi-piloted aircraft, which is why airliners still have two pilots, whether or not they are both needed all the time. Task saturation, target/objective fixation and distraction cause single piloted aircraft to plow into the ground all the time. Even with whiz bang technology, the Navy is reverting back to two seat strike aircraft, to minimize crew task loading and operational effectiveness.
You may not need two guys in the cab all the time, but I’m sure that when you do, two isn’t enough. If you go to one, might as well go to none.
The Inidana Rail Road runs one man crews and doesn’t seem to have significant problems doing so.
I think that several safety issues would have to be solved before one-man crews become the ‘norm’. First, I see it as practical or cost-saving in only two situations: a mainline, through train with no switching in Automatic Train Stop Territory or a single train a day line. How will the railroads deal with the possibility of a fatigued and/or diabled operator in other situations? Relying solely on technology won’t help. Technology that is “foolproof” also has more ways to fail or go into fail-safe mode (nothing moves). What about equipment problems en-route? Are the railroads going to position ‘helpers’ ready to assist in the changeout of a broken knuckle or air hose? You lose a good chunk of your savings paying someone to standby waiting to be called. (If I’m standing by waiting for a call, I’m not doing as I please, and I would want compensated somehow, but this is up to the unions and employees.) Then, as someone earlier posted, some locations are just not accessible. Some might argue using remotes on all trains is the answer. I don’t think there are enough radio freqeuncies available (bandwidth) to eliminate interference in crowded areas like terminals from all the remotes transmitting nearly simultaneously. Having the remotes “check for a clear channel” before broadcasting may mean a fatal delay in train response to operator input. Will the cost of installing all those remotes and maintaining them result in savings? I think it will take years for that investment in equipment to pay off in reduced crew costs. How willing will everyone from the FRA on down to the operating employees be willing to compromise safety to save a buck or two? I hope the answer is not dollars.
True about Indiana Rail Road, but they also operate shorter trains. As I recall from the Trains article, hey have also invested in some technology to assist the one man operation. For example, the engineer is equiped with a pack that will automaticly send a message to an operations center if the engineers falls down.
I am not suggesting that one man trains can’t be done, but I would be skeptical about safety and cost effectiveness. However, it is not my call, so it will be interesting to see how the railroads and unions play this out.
Jay
IIRC the Indiana RR also has remote controlled power switches so that the engineer can also 'key up" a switch when needed on the radio. (Like keying up the dispatcher only it bends the iron instead of attracting the dispatcher’s attention.)
Correct. A number of railroads including BNSF and KCS use train crew controlled remote switches. KCS crews refer to the control as a “Garage Door Opener”. On KCS the switches are installed on much of the “Meridian Speedway”
LC
RRN-
Indiana RR is already using a U-man to follow trains and assist one man crews. Other RRs (Railnet?) also use what they refer to as a 2 man crew, but the conductor drives along in a company pickup.
LC
All of those BNSF Dash 9 units can be operated as remote units. The lead unit can either be another locomotive or a belt pack type of control. The belt packs are not currently available on the units but I imagine they could be in rather short order.
This was bound to come along sooner or later. It’s ashame, I think, to sacrifice history, safety, nostalgia and whatever other description you want to add for the sake of money. That’s what it comes down to. How much more do railroads need to make or think they need to make? If, say, a train with one crew member is cruising along and an engine in the consist has a problem how are you supposed to deal with it while running ‘blind’ in the cab, that is, you’re rummaging around somewhere else in the train while blowing by signals or roll bys for other trains or whatever? The standard answer, of course, will be the computer will take care of these ‘problems’ while you’re are occupied elsewhere. How is a computer going to take care of a separated train because of broken knuckles or brake line come aparts, etc? What about a derailment? I’m still not sure a computer can do everything; they do shut down or go into a loop or whatever problems they inherently have. You’re not going to avoid troubles by eliminating the human element and replacing it with a computer. The Air Force has done this on a small scale by going to remote control planes as evidenced by the last several ‘wars’. Someday some robot plane is going to bomb something it shouldn’t have and the benefit will be there is nobody to blame. What’s going to happen and who will be to blame when a train derails and runs into a public place or takes out a refinery? The public won’t stand still for that.
This was not done as a salary cost savings move to reduce the overhead, and they are still piloted by humans, albeit not ones onboard. UAV / UCAVs are designed to fly and loiter in high threat environments and in flight profiles which would otherwise place crews in an unacceptable degree of danger, and the loss of which would not result in the loss or capture of a crew. There is still a pilot to blame however.
Crews don’t generally handle broken knuckles by themselves now. Usually you get at least the block truck with a carman to help. In remote areas you might have to but it is rare. Same with derailments. The crew of two we have now isn’t even gonna get a train with one wheel off back on the track without some help. Problems with remotes have already happened. Unless it is spectacular and attributable to the remote equipment nothing much will change.
LC
To dharmon; WOW, Must have hit a nerve with the ref. to the Air Force. Were you a pilot by chance? I usually don’t always come across the right way or at least the way I intend to, unfortunately. Sorry! But I do believe the military DID make cut backs as (ultimately) a cost cutting measure when they removed navigators or flight engineers from the flight deck. Computers did replace these people since there are only 2 or 3 individuals in the cockpit now instead of 3 or 4. We don’t have any dedicated recon. aircraft anymore which in some cases took 2 or more crew members depending on the airframe, i.e. RB-66 to RF-4C or whatever. Now it’s a UCAV or UAV with 1 person ‘flying’ it. Don’t get me wrong, I’m for keeping people involved or hands on but the fact is that computers are replacing people and not just in the military although saving a pilot from unnecessary harm by replacing him with an expendable vehicle is fine by me as long as the pilot doesn’t mind losing his/her flight pay/combat pay. (that’s intended to be humorous) So it is inevitable that there could or will be single person train crews. I was just trying to illustrate the point albeit poorly. But this is a train forum so let’s get back to the trains, shall we?
Actually, I am an active duty pilot in the Navy. It doesn’t really strike a nerve per se, but it all needs to be taken in perspective. Taking the man out of the loop means a less expensive aircraft (no need for controls, displays, ejection seat, physiological support) and provides the capability to fly in a flight profile that would place a larger manned aircraft in a higher degree of danger (ie well within a SAM, MANPAD or AAA envelope). Does it save money…sure, it requires less maintenance because of the removal of the above systems, and if it gets shot down, the tremendous level of effort (and it is huge) that would be expended to get the crew out is not required. Positions have been removed from aircraft…yes, but technology has replaced the need for some of them. Banks of analog gauges can be monitored by a computer that doesn’t get tired, and long range navigation is no longer tied to taking fixes from LORAN, OMEGA or cell shots. It does make a cost savings to remove a position that can be better used elsewhere…That being said, after the lessons of the F18C vs F18D (1 vs 2 seat) the Navy is returning to a two seat aircraft option for strike, because 1 pilot can become very easily task saturated in a combat environment. I like having Navs and FEs, but at the same time, a C40 (737) and C130 are different airplanes technology-wise and in user complexity, so not having an FE in a new Boeing jet is going to have much less of an impact than removing one from a complex old turboprop.
In my earlier post, I was using the 1 vs 2 seat aircraft as an example of task saturation and mishap rates. In the end by going to single man, in my opinion the RRs are going to learn what the military has been learning, is that in a labor, attention and task saturated environment, you do in fact sometimes get less with less. I would equate running a train to a combat environment, with multiple threats awaiting to get you while trying to conduct a mission. Technology can certainly assist, but when it com
Very good analysis. One-man crews for Class I’s? Rethinking operations?
Sure: A dispatchers center, probably more than one dispatcher needed even at 2AM for the center of the operation, say 2AM in Omaha for the UP, and a huge “model board” with every track and every switch and every signal on the whole system on a 270-degree almost circular wall, with the location of every train shown, with rapidly blinking lights for one class, slowly blinking lights for another, and constant lights for a third. Of course various colors used to differentiate switches and signals and their positions. Every locomotive radio transmitting the details of its condition to the center at all times, along with brake-pipe pressure and speed. Of course ATC or at least ATS for the whole railroad. CTC with even derails remotely controlled or at least seen with their condition on the model board. Something like that and, yes, one man crews might just be safer than two-men are now. Might. Not a certainty.
Mark…are you saying Amtrak now runs with just a one man crew…? Wow, if that is the case I missed that one and am super surprised.
From a citizen’s point of view {not railfan}, I simply through out my opinion of absolutely no one man crews on class I’s…Safety simply the issue…{not to the railroad, but to the public}.
My cat could run 40MPH
Better yet just crack open a can of tuna.
If I can’t find her then that’s what I do, it never fails, as soon as that opener cracks the seal for the first time she’ll be standing right in front of me. [:D]
So, off to the races.