Someone posted sometime ago I believe, that this was comming. I doubt this is a good idea from a safety stand point.
One topic on the single crew proposal that has not been brought up in relation to worker protection is rule 1.12-- weapons. This rule is going to have to be amended to give the single crew worker the option of having a weapon w/them for protection. This is a issue that is going to have to be brought up w/the carriers. Also the latest rumor going around is that the single crew operation will be only for through or unit trains where the crew run is 130 miles or less or a run that can get over a crew district in under 8 hrs.
What’s going to happen if there is a mishap on the train, ie broken coupler?
Is the Engineer going to leave the cab to fix it?
Gordon
look on the bright site: more room for cab riders 
Since the airlines are fighting bankruptcy, is this going to give them the idea to eliminate co-pilots?
…It is inconceivable to see how saving the wages and benefits of one crew member at the cost of in one broad word…safety…and of course the delays when the 2nd crew member is not present to do the break in two situations and I imagine many others as well…How can whom ever controls such conditions allow this to take place…???
I refuse to support one man crews on the main.
That is cutting wages and jobs at the expense of safety. Besides who is going to keep that hogger awake?
I read about this on one of TRAINS’s competitor’s web site some time ago, and to my way of thinking it is sheer lunacy. Any number of things can go wrong, things that are dealt with better if you have at least a two-man crew.
CANADIANPACIFIC2816
[#ditto][#ditto][#ditto]
Matthew
It doesn’t sound like such a good idea to me. However, if people are dying to try it, it should be tried on an efficient short line or even a “landlocked” one to reduce the number of competing variables that might distort the basic efficiency premise. Trying it out on a huge western system that has chronic power and capacity problems is like asking for trouble. This is especially sure since only a small portion of operations will be used for this sampling, and it is almost completely impossible for a corporation to pick sample runs that would NOT be prejudiced; i.e., the segments surveyed are already pretty free of other problems, perhaps even lighter-than-average in traffic. It’s hard to come up with countervailing metrics or algorithms to shake that out to “normal,” especially when that kind of survey simply can’t be double-blinded and inevitably there will be pressure–albeit subtle pressure at times–to produce the rosy results that the basic reduction-of-crew hypothesis posits.
No slur at the UP, I don’t think any of the Class I’s would make a good testing ground for reduction-in-crew experiments.
I agree with you 100 percent. I personally feel as though railroad employees who are employed under the train service department should be allowed to carry a firearm or a weapon. However, the company should regulate the weapon carrying policy as they see fit. I say this because there are some areas in which train service employees particulaly engineers, conductors, and brakemen have to carry out their duties in places that are not in the best of neighborhoods or locations to be in. The area could have a high crime rate, or maybe it might just be selecuded enough for someone to comit a crime agaist a railroad employee.
On another matter I don’t see why airline pilots are able to carry a firearm but, railroad employees (other than police) can not. I would think railroad employees’ job is a bit more dangerous in terms of “street crime” than an pilot.
This subject has been fully discussed previously on other threads. However, I remain open-minded about the subject. If the railroad companies can make a good case that addresses the safety issues etc then I think they should be able to try it out if they wish. While I know passenger trains are not freight trains there are lot of passenger trains that already operated with only a single engineer on both Amtrak and the European railways.
As far as the comparison between pilots and engineers in terms of safety, I can see how a railroad engineer could be more suscetible than a pilot but the motivation to hijack a train seems lower than a plane. How many engineers have been hijacked with catostrophic results compared with pilots in the last 30 years? Having said that, I have nothing against either pilots or railroad engineers carrying weapons if they wi***o.
Protection against…what?
How about simply making the cab doors lockable from the inside (just like the pilots wanted)? The locomotive glass is sufficiently thick to prevent most small-arms fire from penetrating; plus if the bad guys are armed so well that the locked doors do not stop them, I think any pistol an engineer would carry might just cause a simple robbery to turn into a shoot-out.
No engineers need to carry a gun at work. Perhaps to get through the neighborhood in order to get to work one might need a weapon, but not on the train (if the doors can lock).
Some engines are being equipped with locks on the inside.
Still, there are a lot of menacing deer out there.[:D]
Jeff
First off, the railroads do not give a rip about what railfans or the public think about the idea of one man crews. Management is for a way to reduce employment levels and that is all that is important, get rid of those pesky, problematic employees to raise the bottom line. State legislators are no problem account federal regulation supercedes state regs like was determined in the caboosless train issues. The US Congress is too busy now with wars, disasters and budget problems as well as political maneuvering to show much interest. Besides, the party in power is businesscentric and what business wants is what the party in power will give them. So the railroads need to get this done before W leaves office and since the national contracts with the operating crafts, BLE&T and UTU are currently under renegotiation this is the carrier’s best shot at getting it done.
Promises about 130 mile runs, 8 hr on duty times and employees in trucks for assistance will be made and soon forgotten.
Packing iron? I have mixed feelings on that one. I am pretty sure I would do it if allowed but I would hope some training through the local county attorney’s office and sheriff’s department would be offered to all employees whether or not they elected to carry at work.
Remember, in the big picture view, one person crews is just the first step in running crewless trains across the country. Well, perhaps the fifth step after eliminating the fireman, the first brakeman, then the caboose and then the second brakeman.
I don’t know why MoW can’t carry weapons either. I see deer most every day. We need to protect ourselves too. Plus, they taste good too.[}:)]
It’s gone beyond that. On one of the predictive exchanges someone has already set up a future for the arrival of automated (pilotless) airliners.
Crewless Trains. That would be very scary. I mean what if a Nuckle where to break on the Train? Or would stall on a hill. Or worse,Derail out in the middle of no where.
Allan.
I’ll tell you this much… if crew less trains or crew of one starts to run over the division in the name of almighty profit…Im a thinking of a better place far away from any railroad because there is going to be a one hell of a problem eventually and I dont want to be around when (not if) it happens.