I heard a few years ago that Canadian Pacific was planning on using one man crews on trains going through the mountains. Was there any truth to these rumours or were they squashed for any reasons? I can’t see one man crews working because of safety reasons or the engineer falling asleep at the switch.
Speaking of one man crews. How many crew memembers are there on modern frieght trains?
Most mainline trains have two, an engineer and conductor. Some locals, if they’re very busy may get a brakeman (or switchman or helper or some other term) to help the conductor, but most still have only two.
One person “crews” work well and safely under the right conditions. They are regularly used in Europe and on the Indiana Rail Road here in the USA.
Adoption of single person crews, where appropriate, would be benificial to the US economy and increase rail employment. The safety issue is a red herring - IF, and it is a BIG IF, single person crews are used in the proper situations.
Increase rail employment? I don’t think so.
Single person crews, if anything, will decrease employment due to engineers that also bid conductors jobs and now will be trimmed to a one man crew.
It will eliminate “conductors” from many trains. What do you do with all the extra guys?
Not buying it - and I wouldn’t trust a one-man train as far as I could throw it.
What a loaded thread this could be!
I’ll just refer you to the “speed limit” thread that was also posted today. I think my answer there is a fairly accurate idea of what an engineer has to go through to get a train from Point A to Point B at the proper speed. Now, be on the lookout for signals, flags, whistle boards, idiots at grade crossings. Oh, and keep in mind your tonnage profile, the track profile (which usually isn’t written down anywhere!), what all of your units are behaving like, and anything else the keeps you from stopping completely.
Your conductor will help you with the track bulletins, watching the signals, keeping track of what’s where in the consist, work to be done en route, doing the legwork when something goes amiss, and looking back at the train when he can out of either side, depending on the curvature.
Shall we see whether one person, perhaps aided by PTC, can do all of this?
What about when you’re running long-hood forward and there’s a signal on the opposite side on the inside of a curve?
And believe me - there are places where this happens. How is one person going to see that? Cab signals? I don’t think so - You don’t just rely on cab signals to tell you what the signal is. Those fail too.
What happens when the engineer is fatigued and isn’t yet on the law? Having the conductor there is a great way to keep from letting the fatigue effect you.
We deal with this every day we run. Running short-hood forward our engineers often do run alone - the conductor and trainman will usually work on the train with the passengers. Never so with long-hood forward. We have no signals to call, so it’s strictly a visibility issue. Sometimes we have enough folks that we can put someone extra in the locomotive for the whole trip. But not always.
…But one man crew on a mile plus long freight train out on the main…Surely it won’t come to this anyway soon…
As an outsider, I think it should not. Safety wise, and I’m sure plenty of other reasons from the crew.
Having been on (as a “guest” on both, not staff obviously) both the Adirondack and the Upper Hudson RR in NY state, it may not be as big of an issue for a small tourist line such as either of those. But when it comes to hauling big freight, mile-and-a-half long trains, there’s a big difference.
Freight or passenger, volunteer or career, tourist line or class one, there’s really no justification for not having that second set of eyes up in the cab. Whether it be to watch for something at grade crossings, to pay attention to the timetable and slow orders as necessary, to help keep the engineer aware from the monotonous hum of the engine and jointed rail, they’re all valid reasons. Alerters may help the situation, but they don’t fix the problem even with penalty applications.
It comes down to the simplest of safety issues like who watches the train around curves the engineer can’t see? Or a red flag in the tracks that the engineer doesn’t notice because he is looking back at his train through the inside of the curve? Two sets of eyes are better then one, short hood or not.
The idea of having one person in a cab even goes back to things like the recent Metrolink crash where there is a debate of the aspect of the signal displayed or if the engineer was focused on something else that caused an irresponsible disregard for safety. Would two sets of eyes seen the signal? I’m positive it would have changed the outcome of that situation dearly. W
Main Line railroad on the Class I carriers is the world of 9000+ foot trains with 10000+ tons. Trains are great when they are moving. Keep them moving and on man in the cab is sufficient. The reality of 9000+ foot trains with upwards to 200 cars and all the mechanical components that make up those cars, couple all that together with defect detectors every 15 to 25 miles and the likelyhood that the train will operate from origin to destination without either having a mechanical failure, or activating a defect detector and require inspection begins to shrink rapidly to zero.
3 AM - middle of nowhere - single track - 25 degrees F - snowing - 20 MPH breeze - 9000 feet of train on a 1.5% grade and your 1 man crew has had a train initiated emergency application of the brakes…What Do You Do!
I’m not real good with math so would you please explain how instituting single person train crews will aid the economy and increase hiring on railroads? It has always been my understanding that eliminating good paying jobs hurts the economy. Hopefully those people who do lose their jobs will be able gain employment at some comparable job such as the door greter at WalMart. Also when reducing the number of employees it usually insures that there are fewer employment opportunities in that particular place of employment.
What will be the “proper situations” in which it is safe to operate trains with one crewman? It’s scary enough on the tracks knowing that a train crew of two can fall asleep and come into your Form B unannounced. Are we going to be safer with only one person in the cab???
Why does one farm pigs but ranch cattle?
I’d call the CFO or accountant that justified one-man crews to the Board of Directors. Otherwise the trainmaster might have to put his doughnut down.
Most replies to my post, like this reply, are viewing the situtation as a zero sum game. It is not.
It seems that these folks feel that allowing one person crews would just remove one crew member from existing trains and nothing else would change. That’s not what will happen.
Then they go on to describe situations where one person operation would not be appropriate. While I agree that one person crews will not be appropriate under many conditions, I know that they are already safely and effectively used. Requiring more workers on a job than are needed does harm the economy because it wastes resources. To be of benifit to the economy a worker must produce more than he/she cost. If the second train crew member does not produce
Class I’s have been cutting line of road supervision, just as hard as they have been cutting all other positions. Nearest TM is 200 miles away, handling a derailment caused by a one man crew that didn’t line a switch, ran through it and then backed up derailing 2 cars.
I will reopen this thread with the thought that perhaps the ZERO man crew will soon be on the horizon. Visibility of signals, etc is certainly an issue, but with positive train control on the horizon, communication and location of the train will be fully automated in the next few years. The engineer will sit comfortably in the Fort Worth bunker and run from there. Unmanned flight is so routine that the northern border of Minnesota is guarded by an unmanned airplane (and a couple of heavily armed moose). Anyway, the Zero man crew is the safest way to operate. Folks on the ground will go “jeeze that thing is running on its own, I shouldn’t try to out run it.” When an automobile is impaled by the train, the operator in Fort Worth can treat it like a video game. I know this is gruesome but at some point we need people to be serious about trains. Yard and terminal work would still use operators, but all long haul rail would be remotely operated. And yes as rail transport becomes more efficient, it attracts more business and more people would be employed. The railroad is not in business to employ people. It is in business to make money. The more they make, the more are employed. I suggest all future engineers should practice “Train Simulator” at least 12 hours per day.
( As an aside, I hope your post is filled with so much satire that I’m blinded by my own stupidity to notice it. )
Zero man crew? No thanks.
Multiple reasons - First being your totally out of touch rationale that running a train can be like train simulator. I had a co-worker that thought because he could run a train in MSTS that he should get his engineer card before me. That was laughable. So much that he was laughed right out of the job.
Secondly, Unmanned flight is much different then an unmanned train traveling the rails. Airspace is wide open with few obstacles in the path of any plane, jet, or other flying vehicle. Trains have to deal with grade crossings, people, switches, restricted speed, and many other obstacles that can pop up in the middle of no where. Just the other night we had a car drive into a ditch, go airborn, and cross over our mainline. The dispatcher had to run all trains at restricted speed through the area, how do you propose complying with the requirements of restricted speed if you cannot watch for broken rails or any other issue trackside?
This does not make sense, in one bit. If you’re talking about the high efficiency of zero man crews, that’s justification to cut jobs! How does this attract more people into the industry?
Just some quick responses. Train simulator doesn’t respond with the real response of the train (speed, acceleration, braking…) So yes, MSTS is not running a train. But in spite of that, we can provide feedback to a remote operator to help them control trains. Laughing is not part of serious discussions. Unmanned flight is different from unmanned trains, yes. But, my claim is that if we can develop remote systems for 3D aircraft that go anywhere is 3 space. we can do it for trains that operate in 1 dimensional space. Yes trains deal with grade crossings, people, switches, restricted speed but in most cases for the long distance high-speed freight train the way they deal with obstacles is to run them over. I suspect that there will be cases where the track will need a flagman-like monitor as in the case you mentioned with the car into ditch. Why can’t a remote operator run at restricted speeds? Video cameras in high definition are far more flexible than the naked eye. The video camera can operate at night with very little light – or with as much as the headlight and ditchlights can dish out. In fact I suspect that video cameras will be installed on all long distance locomotives soon for visibility and recording the actions along the track. Now, about efficiency with business. Businesses thrive if they provide a useful function at a good price and make money. (You cannot have the latter without the first two). They are not in the business to employ people. If they can operate more efficiently (as is with fewer people and resources) they will make more money. Now as they make money, they can grow and compete in many places (short haul freight) where railroads cannot compete now. Thus the business expands and more employees are needed. Maybe these new employees are not train crew. (Yea! What a terrible job!) Some are technicians, some maintain the expanded track structure, some handle the additional switching jobs in town, some are folks who design new equipment. This is the reality of the free
Just some quick responses. Train simulator doesn’t respond with the real response of the train (speed, acceleration, braking…) So yes, MSTS is not running a train. But in spite of that, we can provide feedback to a remote operator to help them control trains. Laughing is not part of serious discussions. Unmanned flight is different from unmanned trains, yes. But, my claim is that if we can develop remote systems for 3D aircraft that go anywhere is 3 space. we can do it for trains that operate in 1 dimensional space. Yes trains deal with grade crossings, people, switches, restricted speed but in most cases for the long distance high-speed freight train the way they deal with obstacles is to run them over. I suspect that there will be cases where the track will need a flagman-like monitor as in the case you mentioned with the car into ditch. Why can’t a remote operator run at restricted speeds? Video cameras in high definition are far more flexible than the naked eye. The video camera can operate at night with very little light – or with as much as the headlight and ditchlights can dish out. In fact I suspect that video cameras will be installed on all long distance locomotives soon for visibility and recording the actions along the track. Now, about efficiency with business. Businesses thrive if they provide a useful function at a good price and make money. (You cannot have the latter without the first two). They are not in the business to employ people. If they can operate more efficiently (as is with fewer people and resources) they will make more money. Now as they make money, they can grow and compete in many places (short haul freight) where railroads cannot compete now. Thus the business expands and more employees are needed. Maybe these new employees are not train crew. (Yea! What a terrible job!) Some are technicians, some maintain the expanded track structure, some handle the additional switching jobs in town, some are folks who design new equipment. This is the reality of the free