One man crews: Spread the enthusiasm

  1. European freight trains often move at much higher speeds with scheduled (just in time) deliveries of higher value cargo.

  2. Consequently, higher rates can be charged and engineer jobs preserved, as well as fewer accidents.

  3. Higher speeds yield greater track capacity.

  4. Ed, you sound like short-sighted management, only thinking about labor costs, first and foremost.

In the middle of that “One Man Crew” article in the August issue, two similar rear-end collisions on a major 1-man crew user - Quebec, North Shore, & Labrador - were described. In both, the dispatcher warned the crew of the following train of the other train ahead, the crew acknowledged the presence of the other train ahead by pushing the "proximity alerter"s button - and the collisions still happened.

So ? In one instance, it was a solo engineer; in the other, it was a trainee and an experienced trainer = 2 man crew.

My knee-jerk conclusion is that this - and the several NTSB reports linked above - demonstrates that there is no inherent added safety - or lack thereof - with either a 1-man or 2-man crew.

Instead, the key is undeviating attention to the task at hand.

Note that in over 50 years of nuclear operations, the US Navy has never had a major reactor accident. Why ? “You shall pay full attention to all gauges and controls, all the time.” But, they usually have rotating 6-hour “watches”, off for 12 hours, then repeat, with occasional 24-hour stints, so that can mess up their biological clocks/ circadian rhythyms similar to a railroad crew (non)schedule. (See: http://www.rickcampbellauthor.com/styled/index.html#topic7 , “The Daily Routine - The Watch Cycle”.) Then again, they’re in/ on a relatively stable and comfortable platform with colleagues and supervisors close at hand.

  • Paul North.

Thanks Paul. That was a very interesting read.

The things one can learn on a railroad forum; amazing.

Okay. I’m all for two person crews for the same reasons others have offered. Your comment about stockholders wishing to continue their assault on the middle class is, however, completely silly. The stockholders are generally people like you and I and your neighbour who either own shares directly or through an instrument like a mutual fund. For the most part they’re middle class with a sprinkling of poor and rich thrown in. Moreover, as a stockholder in five of the big systems I’m never consulted about such decisions, so I’m not sure how this assault you speak of is perpetrated in my (and other stockholders’) interest.

Executives who contribute nothing to the workflow? I’m sure there aren’t too many of those anymore. Their contribution may be more esoteric and indirect than miles run or number of containers loaded, but if they’re on the payroll for any length of time they’re likely earning they’re keep. I read the quarterly and annual reports, and unless there is massive and unprecedented fraud and deception these are all very well run businesses.

Don’t worry about getting downsized for now. But if you’re young you should indeed worry if you’re not upgrading your skills. The Internet of Things and AI are just around the corner and will change life for all of us in drastic ways over the next decade. Your job and mine will change or be eliminated. O

No, you’re not consulted directly, but you look to buy the stock that gives you the best return on your investment. The executives know that they are judged on the value of their stock so they will act to reduce expenses now, this year or this quarter no matter what the long term consequences are. You vote with your dollars.

Someplace recently I saw the following quote (or similar):

“Smart equipment, smart network, smart data, dumb management”.

  • Paul North.

No… I (and any smart stockholder) will look at the long term consequences first. This is because I don’t care what the price of the stock is today, tomorrow, or next week or in ten years from now even. I care about what the price of the stock is in 20 + years from now when I retire. So the long term repercussions of any decisions that are made today are of more interest to me than the short term. Other than that I care about dividends, but not that much… so long as the dividend is consistent with what other profitable companies pay out then I’m happy.

I’ve run one man trains and for me, I was ULTRA aware of what was going on. If there was a problem with the train it sure wasn’t going ot be because of train handlng !!

For mandatory directives and such I would always stop the train in a suitable location before diverting my attention to another task.

I would often get out of the seat and walk to the other side of the cab to observe the train on a curve on the conductors side and also to keep from getting too " comfortable" .

Toilet time was with a safely stopped train.

ON the rare occasion I did have problems I simply sat and waited for help.

You rightly look at the long-range, even ultra-long-range picture. Unfortunately, because of the methods of investment analysts and management’s manner of compensation, many of them only consider a range of one quarter out up to one to two years.

The rails have correctly focused their operations on the movement of bulk commodities. Unfortunately, the infrastructure they have now will require many changes to accomodate business lines for the future, such as fast, scheduled, hi-value cargo, to replace the shrinking of transport of coal, ethanol and oil in the not-too-distant future.

I agree, and from the reports I’ve read they’re all making massive investments in upgrading their plant and in realigning assets to meet anticipated future demands. They’re on the right track (yeah I know… pun).

Let’s hope so. Up-to-date or even ahead-of-its-time infrastructure (not limited to cyberspace) is essential to economic growth and prosperity for our future.

Based upon the nature of this and other of your replies, I don’t believe that you paid close attention to my original post.

In my post I clearly stated: “already well compensated executives and ‘contribute nothing to the productive work flow’ stockholders”

Where did you ever get the idea I said that the executives were the ones contributing nothing to the productive work flow? [}:)]

I likewise believe that your typifying the majority stock holders as being small time “mom and pop” type investors is a little naive. What about the large institutional investors and hedge funds, both often having representation on the board? Personally I suspect they see any penny saved as going right into their pocket. But I’m a cynic.

Stock corporations today could give a flying flip about the ‘mom & pop’ stock holders - their only concern is the institutional investors that can buy or sell enough stock to require SEC filings on their activities and have a big enough voice to get the company leaders to listen to what the institutional investors have to day.

I don’t care if they only care about the large institutional investors. Ever heard the phrase “a rising tide lifts all boats”? If ABC Aggressive Funds forces the stock to rise then my stock goes up too… I, the little “mom and pop guy” gets a free ride on their efforts. The only difference is that the folks who invest in the funds pay fund managers out of their earnings while my stock goes along for the ride (for free). So who’s smarter here? A good case in point is Bill Ackman and Pershing Square. CP’s stock went up due to his investment in time, effort and resources and due in large measure to his smarts in bringing about much needed management changes. Guess what… the price of my stock went up too… and my contribution in time and effort and thought was nothin.

A rising tide lifts all boats. Unless your boat has some holes in it.

Many activist investors will think nothing of ruining a company long term for short term profit. Once they are through with them, Mom and Pop may have a few extra dollars in their portfolio. However, if their livelihood was working for, or owning a business that served employees at that company, are they better off if the company was shut down to gain that stock increase?

Jeff

True Jeff; however I doubt very much that’s what happening at any of the big 7…I’ve read of that happening but I can’t think of any specific examples… can you?

Research “Carl Ichan” and “corporate raiders”. You’ll find plenty.

Whether Ichan is a corporate raider or not is certainly open to debate and probably not relevant to this discussion. All I’ve stated is that stockholders aren’t what’s drivng the interest in one person train crews. Most stockholders, including myself, aren’t all that interested in that issue and defer to whatever solution management and labor can come to terms with. What do I care if trains have one crew member or ten so long as the railroads remain safe and profitable. Notice I stated SAFE too…because I’m interested in the longterm profitability of the businesses I invest in.

If two-man crews are more cost effective than one-man crews, wouldn’t the railroads want to use two-man crews so the investors would have more money to plunder?

The investors ideal is the one button company. Push the button and it returns money in mass quantities - without the necessity of having employees, raw materials, structures, equipment or anything that requires expenditure.