Union Pacific railroad along with 6 other carries announced their intention to bring to the table the issue of “One-Person Crews.” I knew it was coming because of management plants previewing the issue on a number of railroad boards.
We as citizens along the Right-Of-Way don’t have to except it. What are your thoughts on this big want from the carriers?
JIm
been running one man trains on british rail for 20 years never been a problem.
Thats nice, how long is your train and how far is your district?
Jim
European trains do tend to run with one man crews but there are an awful lot of factors which make this practicable here and difficult in North America.
How many crewmen would be on, say, a Chicago-LA double stack train over each district? What would be their functions and what would be the average length of a district? What percentage of their shift would actually be spent in motion?
I could look this information up, I’m sure, but I’d rather get it first hand.
I think it’s pretty obvious that one person crews will work just fine on some trains and not that well on other trains.
That’s what the union/management negotiations should focus on. Under just what conditions can this type of operation be used.
The railroad companies should not be required to use more labor than is needed. Agreeing on when and where the extra person is required should be the point of the negotiations. People barganing in good faith can work this one out just fine.
Does the UP RoadRailer train out of E. Minneapolis really need a two person crew? I don’t think so. Does a double stack train on a 220 mile crew district need two people? Yes, I believe it does.
Work it out in good faith guys.
Sheer idiocy promulgated by a bunch of bean counters who have never operated a train let alone worked under the conditions now in effect. These are the clowns who think that train crews that are working 60-80 hrs per week still have days off to spend with their families.
This is the railroads historical slash and burn mentality we have seen for decades. When the business slows down, rip out yards and industry tracks. When the business comes back there is no way to serve the customers and handle the business. Reduce the size of switch crews to the point they can barely handle the business so abandon the boxcar business since everyone knows that single car moves are not profitable. Reduce road crews since they mostly just sit around all the time anyway. Then the have to establi***raining programs since there is no OJT anymore. When something goes wrong and more people are need they just are not there.
Reducing employment levels is the only game in the railroad industry. Management could care less about safety and effeciency and they prove it all the time. Remember this is just the last step before they try crewless operations. Management has the feeling that if NASA can operate robots on Mars they should be able to do that with trains on Earth.
Greyhounds,
Absolutely not, there is no wiggle room here, if its a freight train it needs two crew onboard, no exceptions. Out here in the west a 220 mile crew district is a thing of the past. Many districts are now 330 miles or more.
Union Pacific even got a Z train pool, I think was Elko-Oakland most times it doesn’t work. I don’t care if the district is 30 miles long or 600 miles long, if its a freight train it needs the engineer and conductor, period.
No way am I going to allow my two senators to vote on a one man crew. I’m not so worried by Harry Reid, but that John Ensign is a wild card when it comes to labor issues!
Jim
I don’t remember if this is still in effect or not, but I think the state of Wisconsin, after the Weyuwega barbeque passed a law requiring a mininum of two people in a locomotive cab.
I’m not exactly sure that one-person crews are a good thing, especially with the long hours railroaders put in. If it somehow goes through, maybe the industry should take a hard look at limiting the hours train personnel put in per week, similar to truck drivers.
My [2c] worth.
Randy
…I am not a railroader, so my comments are the visual from the outside. My first thoughts are on safety of the operation of the train, both for the crew and the living souls the train comes near along the way. We’re human and that engineer placed in the cab by himself is subject to health problems and that means no help available to him in his emergency, etc…And is the profit on a train a mile, or mile and a half long so shallow that the wages of one man is going to determine profitabliity or not…?? One could think of other reasons to comment on but believe the above makes my point.
your just now finding this out jim…we have known about this since the section 6 came out…
csx engineer
One thing that needs to be brought to attention is the PTC technology concept of single person crews is still atleast a decade away. The NTSB in a recent symposium in DC on this issue went on record stating this. The carriers are trying to shove the single person crew concept down the throats of rr labor now because one reason they have their man in the White House who will approve this if the contract talks go to PEB. Fact: trains are not ready currently to operate engr only. A carrot has been dangled in front of the rr CEO’s and they’re grabbing for it. Their reward to to eliminate thousands of more jobs while they continue to receive bigger bonuses in future yrs. If anyone thinks this is fair, you are full of bs. These bonuses already received by the likes of Rose, Davidson, Harrison, Gunn & others were made possible by the thousands of dedicated workers (such as CSXengr & myself) who spend more time at work than at home w/their own families. In return the work force gets a few crumbs thrown at their feet. This is a more important issue facing the industry now than the Amtrk mess. Its reasons like this why the work force doesn’t give a crap anymore. When I started w/the rr in 1998, it was fun. Now it is only a miserable job. I only hope I can make it through 18-20 more yrs until rr retiement.
it’s just a matter of time.
In certain assignments one man crews are very practical and can allow railroads to provide better service to the customer in a way that is economical. Under such circumstances it can actually create new jobs. Several different short lines are already using one man crews in various different switching applications in serving individual customers or industrial parks.
Jim, please spare us the usual tired refrain of the crew reduction to one man takes away our jobs. It is a change that is here to stay. It won’t work everywhere, but in some applications it is the best thing…
LC
Yeah, this is at least the third time we have discussed it too. There are a couple of places on our district where a one man crew would be a great job. I would bid it in if it could be set up properly. Remember, such jobs are virtually all daylight 5 or 6 day jobs. Outside of a yard no RR is going to run a one man job. Obviously, long pools are not a great application of the concept. That is what collective bargaining is for.
As far as certain people being able to stop senators (theirs or anybody elses) from voting on one man crews, this isn’t a Congressional issue unless the unions make it one. If they do, I strongly suspect they will lose, just as they already have on Remote Control.
LC
I think it is Bad Idea because if the One-Person crew gets sick on the road or illness in the cab they is know second person in the cab take over the Train, also if the train stops somewhere in needs to check his train out he will have to walk back 100 to 150 cars to find the problem and to go back to the Headend to call to get help.[V][V]
The carriers want the agreements in place before the technolgy is ready so they can put it to use as soon as possible.
It could probably work on local & yard type moves. But over the road jobbers would be real scary if the 1 man crew has a emergency. [:o)][:)]
[quote]
Originally posted by SP9033
I agree with you Randy. I think having a one man train on short passanger and freight runs is fine but, if your talking going over a good long distance covering some of the roughest terrein, um. . . . . . .I would say you would need two people. There is no way one person could take care of all the paper work, switching, navigation, operation, signals, listening, car seting out or pick up (if have to). Another thing what would happen if that one person had to use the restroom?? Is he/ she supossed to leave the controls while the train is in motion??
Despite this I can see later on in the future railroads useing one person trains on certain routes. With the way Remote Control Technology is booming I’m sure we’ll end up with one man trains. Who knows mabe in the future the situation would call for something like this along with modern technology, of course. That is my prediction.
This is an issue that will need to be negotiated very carefully. As mentioned in some of the above postings, one-person operation may be appropriate in limited applications. As I’ve mentioned in other threads, the unions have to tread cautiously on work rules issues to avoid a public relations disaster like the diesel fireman matter.
A one person crew is fine…as long as the train is moving…and as long as there are no hand throw switches to operate.
Now what do you do when your 9000 foot train has a Un-Desired Emergency application of the brakes in the middle of nowhere at 3 AM. The nearest car department forces are 100/150 miles away at home sleeping. Lets bring the whole rairoad to a stop as the single person crew dismounts the locomotive and begins the inspection procedure…no sweat walking 9000 feet on main track ballast at night with a brakemans lantern and a locomotive operating belt-pak to find a broken knuckle or a brake rigging down 8000 feet from the engines…now we walk 8000 feet back to the locomotive that contains the tool (and knuckle) that were too heavy and cumbersome to inspect the train with on the initial inspection trip…now we drop off the knuckle or other tools at the locomotive’s position and pull the train ahead the 8000 feet and walk to the final car and place the knuckle or tools on that car and climb aboard the car and use the belt-pak controls to shove the car back to the balance of the train…stopping short of the coupling so that you can now begin working on the defect (over 2 hours have now elapsed - 2 hours that no other traffic has been able to use your track) figure another 15-45 minutes to complete the necessary repair or temporary fix. Use the belt-pak controls to make the coupling and walk another 8000 feet back to the locomotive. Gee, 3.5 to 4 hours to fix a routine problem…routine problems that occur daily on every high volume sub-division.
Whenever the Carriers do negotiate ‘work rule’ changes that permit some action that previously was a penalty situation they have not will power but to abuse it to their own detriment…I’ve seen it happen for 40 years and it will happen again on whatever the next work rule change that occurs.
The motto of the industry is ‘If you can, you must…even if it doesn’t work’.
A number of years ago, wo