The other Thread running concurrently here: referencing the implementation of PTC . Upon reading through, it seems to be pretty much hung-up on the area of safety at highway-grade crossing safety and actions of vehicular operators. Admittedly, this is a really problematic area of concern.; therefore needs a thorough discussion.
So I am going to start this Thread to separate the that issue and its discussion, and move to ask if any of the RR employees around here are hearing any scuttlebutt about other issues concerning the works and implementations of PTC.
Recently, in casual conversations with some local railroad employees, the ‘crewing’ subject has come up. There seems to be a school of thought that says there will be (Under the full implementation of PTC) a crew reduction of on-board personnel. (?) Now there is a Conductor, and an Engineer. on-board.
Basicly, the Conductor does Data Input to be transmitted to the Company Central Computer System. With the advent of the on-board cameras and recording devices, Is there a need for a Conductor on board? Could that job be done by a Clerk at a remote location?
In any event, the conductor is there to provide a witness9 extra eyes) to what happens in an incident; To ‘back-up the Engineer’s story’ (or NOT). Certainly to provide another perspective to the Company investigation. . Maybe, a case could be made for the presence of the Conductor in the cab , as a means of training that person as an Engineer. ( Bearing in mind that the Industry d
Not sure where your heading with this(crew reduction?). Right now, there are two crew members in the cab on most trains. If you only had an engineer, how would you set out a hotbox or repair a broken knuckle, or align a switch? Someone has to do the ‘walking’ to handle these tasks - And they do happen every day. Not every train gets to run non-stop from Point A to Point B. Walking a train due to an emergency brake application can take an hour just to walk the train to inspect it, repair something like a broken knuckle, and get an air test complete - and you have tied up everything else on the line. I cannot imagine trying to do this with only the engineer.
Single man operation is possible - WC Ltd did this on remote branch lines using an RCL caboose attached to the locomotive. The operator was able to walk around to throw switches, align knuckles and other duties by him/herself - but this was on a branch line with no other trains present. As you mentioned, some short lines also operate with a single crewman - and I suspect only that train is allowed on the line as well. Other than yard RCL, there has not been any one man operation of freight trains in a Class 1 railroad. Amtrak and some of the commuter lines do operate with just an engineer in the cab on short routes.
Most railroads are struggling to implement PTC due to unavailability to acquire hardware and communications gear so they can start full scale testing. BNSF has mentioned that they may be able to implement a partial system by next year, but cannot give a full implementation date due to the above mentioned issues. UP has stated that 2017 is the target date right now if they get the hardware & gear on schedule.
Unless rail management and safety oversight officials have completely thrown away all time and motion studies done since 1920 there should not be a reduction to one person in the cab of a freight train. As a matter of safety in both conversation and observation, two people are needed. The work outside the cab is a no brainer, too, in that an engineer and a man on the ground can complete a task quicker, more efficiently, and safely than one man. PTC itself is for the safe movement of trains in conjunction with one another and has nothing to do with the work that has to be done by the crew other than observe and operate the motion or movement of the train in accordance with rules, schedules, signals, etc.
The concept of PTC is presented in a way that makes it seem like a single item that will be implemented, but I expect that it will be an indistinguishable component of a vast, evolution of automation including remote train operation. There is a link that I had posted before that describes all the computerized, automated systems that the FRA is looking at. It includes the automatic management of everything from locomotive production to crew rest. There is nothing that they have not thought of conquering in this vast, unending quest for computerization. The FRA wants to automate coupling and uncoupling to reduce exposing personnel to danger of being near these operations.
We think of automatic train running as something to consider in a vacuum. In a vacuum, it seems that there are too many problems with it to make it work. But all those little problems will be overcome along the way.
From a business perspective, I don’t think rail management sees PTC as being the way to reduce their labor forces. Considering how much the “bottom-line” is important to shareholders, logic would say that management would have been investing heavily into PTC technology prior to the Chatsworth crash and would have tirelessly worked to get the technology implemented as soon as possible to cut the labor force with or without a government mandate. Prior to Chatsworth, management seemed to have been more interested in remote control operations for local switching and yard service as the way to reduce crew sizes.
While I do agree with the notion that rail management would like to see crew reductions, I don’t think PTC was the solution that they had in mind to have that happen.
My own “conspiracy theory” has me thinking that the railroad’s legal and operations departments are the two forces that are keeping two-man crews alive… legal thinks that one-man crews would increase the company’s liability would cost too much while operations says that benefits of a one-man crew (at least on main line trains) does not outweigh its drawbacks (namely that certain functions may take twice as long with a one-man crew which would affect the fluidity of the system).
People who think only one person is needed to move a line of road train - have never tried to move line of road trains across the line. Pick up and set out of cars requires a person on the ground. Inspecting trains that have a emergency application of the brakes require a person on the ground. Inspecting trains when they activate the various defect detectors requires a person on the ground.
Moving freight trains across the country is not the ‘piece of cake’ some people think it is - it is hard work for all involved, and the work gets harder when the train stops or get stopped as it needs to get moving and that requires a person on the ground.
Totally agree with all the reasons presented, No argument with me. My reason for posting it was to kind of get a feel for what is happening in other areas.
The single crewman on board a moving train is apparently an operational reality for short line railroads. Generally there seems to be not only just the engineer on the train, but a ‘chase vehicle’ with another individual who flags ( when needed?) throws switches, and serves as that extra set of eyes for the engineer, seemed to be present in the area of the trains… Not real sure about how that works, but when I lived in South East Kansas, that seemed to be the case with the SK&O trains. particularly when they were doing switching chores where we lived.
My guess is when they had some sort of a problem, they were always able to get extra help(?) No idea how a single engineer would handle an inspection after an Emergency Stop, or train breaking apart. Seems like a lot of time not being able to run the train and plenty of time (wasted time?) on the ground chasing after materials, etc. Which is why I asked the original question.
There is no question that the major carriers would like to go to one person crews, with or without PTC. A couple of contracts back, (a few years, I don’t remember exactly when) the carriers broached the subject. It was preliminary, didn’t go very far and instead of pushing towards one person crews they changed focus on changes in our health care coverage. Before that contract, we didn’t pay anything towards health insurance premiums, now we do and that may have been what they really wanted at that time. When Dick Davidson was still UP Chairman/CEO, he made a statement that appeared in the Omaha paper that UP didn’t need PTC, they already had a system across Nebraska that would allow them to go to one person crews. This was in response to one of the perennial calls for PTC before the California incident brought it the forefront.
Before the last election, we were told that a member of our union (international level, not local) had met a member of the carrier’s negotiating staff at a social function. Our member asked their member what the railroads would be after in the next round of contract talks. He said it depended on the election. If Obama was re-elected, they would focus on more health care changes. If Romney was elected, they would start to go after one person crews. (The reason why who is POTUS matters, is that he gets to choose the members of a Presidential Emergency Board. A PEB is named when the process has gotten to the point when a strike or lock out occurs because the parties can’t come to an agreement. The POTUS orders a “cooling off” period and appoints a PEB. They look into the dispute and make recommendations for ending the strike/lock out. They can’t impose their recommendations, but after the cooling off period ends and a strike/lock out resumes, congress can. Most likely congressional action would
I would opine that the only place you’ll see one person crews in the foreseeable future (previous examples notwithstanding) will be on through trains that have no work. All they need is someone to get the train from crew-change point to crew-change point.
Trains with work to do will undoubtedly end up with multiple member crews - whether it’s engineer and conductor or engineer and utility.
I used to see the local trainmaster work as a third person on the crew when they were working at a nearby military base. Oftimes his contribution was little more than ferrying the conductor around, but it saved a lot of time. I’ve hear the cab drivers do the same thing.
I’m reminded of a major change enacted some years back by our state DOT regarding snowplows. Normal operation had always been to have a driver and a wing plow operator (normal configuration for snowplow trucks hereabouts). Then they decided that the driver could run both the main and the wing plow, and it’s been that way ever since. Of course, they don’t do any fancy plowing (winging back drifts, etc). If they’re going to do that kind of stuff, it’s back to a two man crew.
With the train sizes that Class I’s operate (9000 feet and sometimes longer) - with the territories traversed (many areas are not accessable by other means of land transportation) - with defect detectors every 25 miles[FRA regulations require trains to pass a defect detector every 50 miles - carriers have DD’s every 25 miles so that a single defective detector can be removed from service and still not require the train to be stopped for a manual inspection as the FRA regulations require if the 50 mile limit is exceeded] or more frequently (testing more and more areas critical to safe operations and needing on ground inspection when activated), with the multiple potentials for mechanical failure from 100-150-200 rail cars in a train - moving trains from crew change point to crew change point is not the fool proof operation people would like to think that it is.
Throw in engine failures, signal and/or switch failures that require hand operation of switches and the copying of written mandatory directives (my carriers rules prohibit the person operating the controls of a moving train from copying such directives - if only one person is on the train, train must be stopped for directive to be copied.) Going to a single person crew for road trains, from my vantage point, would be false economy. As the commercial says, ‘You can pay me now, or you can pay me later’ ; and what the commercial implies - YOU WILL PAY. A tr
If the trainmaster does much more than ferrying crew members, like throwing a switch, operating a cut lever or even just “baby sitting” the train, he then becomes subject to the hours of service law. Including the proper reporting requirements. Not to mention subject to a time slip claim by the agreement TE&Y people, at least on the class one railroads.
I forgot to mention earlier that I’ve heard that down in the Des Moines terminal area, I’ve been told that the UP has used single person RCL on a couple of outlaying industry jobs. I assumed they called a utility man (yard brakeman) to help the RCO on the job, but the guy telling me this said they didn’t. They sent the RCO out by himself. I don’t know if they are doing that currently.
Yes…remote control yard work is being done with one man crews as is commuter and some Amtrak operations. A passenger engineer theoretically has nothing more to do than operate the throttle and brakes. But time a motion studies over the years have shown two people help each other to be more efficient, safer for all it you will. Two people will usually converse keeping each other active and alert. There are those that argue two people can distract the other from the job at hand but I believe most studies indicate keeping the other alert is a bigger factor than distraction…and in fact some will argue that one distracted by something like conversation is more likely to be alert to other things around and looking for something which may distract from the distraction…I haven’t seen these studies in years and so forget some of them, too.
Most recent research shows that conversations while driving, whether in person or on a cell are dangerously distracting. That’s why cell use by drivers, even with Bluetooth, is increasingly being banned in various states. Those studies are more analogous to driving a train than time and motion studies from the 1930’s and 40’s.
And remember, some freight roads have to contend with Amtrak trains getting behind schedule when blocked by a disabled freight train. I understand Amtrak fines them in these cases. It’s all about the money!
Railroads sometimes get distracted from their goal, which is to make as much money as possible moving stuff from “here” to “there”. They sometimes think they are in the “asset and employee productivity” business. They want to increase the utilization of locomotives, train crew productivity, etc, etc.
While these MAY be fine things to do, they only work if the quality of the product meets the market at a good spot. If increasing, say, car inspector productivity by having fewer of them around, delays outbound trains and degrades service reliability, then maybe it’s not such a good idea…
I do not know what limitations are now placed with having only one man on the engine of a passenger train, but when the SCL was operating a train between Lakeland and Naples, there was no fireman on board because the length of the run was within the then existing limit. When the train arrived in Naples, it was run around a wye with spring switches, so no one needed to throw a switch. Some might say that it was a cushy job for the two trainmen and the engineer. Incidentally, the engine used in February of 1971 (when I rode down and back) was the same engine SAL had used for the Venice connection with the Silver Meteor.
Right now PTC seems like it is something specific that is right around the corner. So when we talk about it including crewless operation, it seems so improbable to get to that goal in just the short few year timeframe of impending PTC.
In reality, PTC will be indistinguishable from a larger trend that will not be simply finished in a few years. I expect that automatic running is somewhere down the line more like 15-20 years from now. Part of the problem for railroads is that they are currently flush with success, so everybody is beating on their door trying to sell them new ideas. If they can’t get the railroads to buy them, they go to the regulators and get them to force them onto the railroads.
No one change comes about in a vacuum. All the problems preventing it also have to change along the way as well.
Crewless operations? That’s too much of a stretch for me. I can understand how railroaders may be freaking out over the prospect of job insecurity but having trains operated by themselves without any persons on-board will never happen except in very isolated cases.
I think the job of an train engineer will eventually go the way of the airline pilots. Airplanes have the ability to take off, fly and land themselves but they still have pilots just in case there is an issue that requires manual control as well as to calm passengers who would otherwise freak out if they knew nobody was in the cockpit. I suspect trains will eventually run on “auto-pilot” but like airplanes you will still have an engineer in the cab just in case there is a need for manual control as well as to provide the public a sense of security that someone is actually at the controls (even if they are not driving the train per se).
It seems sometimes that some people in management seem to listen more to the salesman promising them the moon and the sky on the lastest technology. Some things do work out, but not always in the short term and even when something does generally work out, not every promise will be realized.
Bucyrus, I hope you are right that crewless operation is at least 15 years out. I need at least 15 more years and wouldn’t mind going 20 years before pulling the pin, depending on how things are in 15 years.
The thing that will prevent totally crewless operation is more political than technical. The conventional wisdom that I’ve read is that before crewless operation can happen the railroads will have to eliminate all public crossings. Some have even suggested completely fenced off right of ways. Either one is probably close to impossible for the near future. So then the other option might be for railroads to go to the political arena and try to have all liability removed from them when accidents between vehicles or trespassers happen. I really don’t see something like that happening either, but I do think the main reason the class o
The problem remains people in high places that are expert at everything and proficient at none. Some of these folks do not know the difference between accuracy and precision to start with and have a sad idea of the capabilities of current technology. It was a known fact (going back into the 1980’s - anybody remember Rockwell ARES/ NorthStar?) that GPS has issues. Those same issues plague the six sigma reliabilty of the system’s precision today in all it’s various forms (partially caused by the multipath nightmare called a locomotive generator)…Cobbling-in all the other work-arounds just compounds the problem. The working solution is still a long, long ways off.