Two man crews

Wow prayers for the fellow Engineer and his family, and railroad family.

This has been a heated debate for years and one that I hope never comes to fruition . 

The hours ,especially spent on long haul I.D.'s are hard on any age of person.And to throw in the situations such as an individual having a health problem only adds fire to those proponents of one man crews.

Thanks for the post and your concern on the matter from an Engineer's view.

Has any credible research been done comparing instances of accidents on 3 man crews vs. 2 man crews?  In other words, did we get safer with the reduction of crew size or did matters get worse?  I have always been convinced that the "brotherhood" of on-duty trainmen kept our "heads in the game", alert, and accountable.  And it seems that all the "progress" that has transpired in the last 30 years has wrecked that "brotherhood". 

If the railroads are going to continue their quest for a safe working environment, I wish they would look at me with a straight face and say, "one man operation is much safer for everyone".

I had a neighbor who is an engineer for NS who runs through the curve every week out to Pittsburgh and back to Harrisburg the next day. I made the comment to him how I would love to be an engineer and have that run. Well he went off on a rant for about a half hour telling me how stressful his job is and what very little exercise the body gets.  He also suffered a heart attack while on the job and after surgery is ok now, but feared another could occur in the future. He said you are so mentally exhausted after the run out, all you want to do is sleep. Then you wake up knowing those mountains and steep grades are waiting for you when heading back, with another heavy load, that the stress starts all over again. After that rant a second one started on how the stress of living life "on call" and not being home every night is so hard on a relationship. He said he not only suffered a heart attack but also a divorce. While the cats away the mouse will play. It ended with, so Dave, do you still want to be an engineer on the curve run? I said I'll just stick to standing at the curve's fence and waving to you as you pass by. The good news is his wife came back to him 5 years later and they remarried. She was sitting there the whole time listening and joked with him that she came back cause she missed spending all the money he was making. He joked right back saying he had a girl friend in Pittsburgh. I got out of there before things got ugly. I don't get to talk to him anymore since I moved, so I hope it wasn't him having another heart attack. 

There are a lot of stressful jobs out there, some more than others. Depends on the person, too.  I have watched a train being recrewed and the old crew usually looks tired and weary. Nobody make you do it. I think the one man crew idea is ridiculous and typical management cost cutting.

Lets see. we have a bad order car that must be set off,  Probably a little tricky to do with one man but I suppose possible...2 hour later ... done...

Clearly the conditions being described are rugged. But......the railroads have a "solution" waiting in the wings:   engineer-less trains, run with automation.   Making a living has become very close to completely intolerable.

If not a one person crew then as Mark said, "automation "

the testing is already beginning. 

Technology is advancing at a alarming rate, some good and some not so good. 

I feel for some of the engineers, it's a very tough job but pay is good, you have to deal with it or find another job. 

Yes David it can be a stressful job , What amazes  me is how far working conditions have deteriorated  over the last number of years... I had to retire early due to a switching mishap but what has happened?   The unions have been pretty much  decimated .Now one man crews...

This is serious business . This should never have happened  Yes the engineman is going to take the heat but,,,,come on...  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...gantic_rail_disaster

Concerning the desire for "two person" crews; how well did the "two person crew" work out in many of the most serious head-on crashes in the western states, over the last 10 years or more? Especially that really terrible one out in Texas, where the freight with a two person crew, passed three restrictive signal indications and crashed head-on into the on-comming freight at better than 68 MPH, killing three out of the four crew members?

We could go back and forth on this all day long.... I'll take my chances with a 2 man crew especially if I'm  one of the crew members. Of course you never really  know  who's  coming at you from the opposite direction.... But an  experienced crew  just might.....

 Let's not forget the terrible Amtrak train 188 derailment..... Just Brandon Bostian  in the cab... 8 dead and over 200 injured. and   as mentioned the Quebec runaway.

Not a fair question. You don't know how many accidents were prevented by a 2 man crew. Would you tell your boss that you screwed up but the other guy was a saviour ??  Doubt it.

Two man crew absoulutely !    We kept each other alert to any and every event unfolding ahead before our eyes. conrail john

mark s posted:

Clearly the conditions being described are rugged. But......the railroads have a "solution" waiting in the wings:   engineer-less trains, run with automation.   Making a living has become very close to completely intolerable.

Ah yes the wonderful PTC then ATC . There's a 10,000 h.p. "KEY TRAIN" (Hazmat or Hazardous Chemical ) headed to your hometown.Just the thing that people want to know 

PTC is already a big step that the railroads did not really want.The cost the man hours spent installing the new signals,switches re-configuring the dispatch controls,the training of crews...it goes on and on.

I know and understand from a companies point of view autonomous operations sounds cost effective .But I can't see it happening in every part of the industry. Way too many situations that will cause problems.

Already here on the Pocahontas District PTC won't run on the entire district due to lack of signal reception.And the branches have already been downgraded in speed to meet the governments requirements because PTC won't be used on those tracks.

I've  worked when there was a four member crew (Engineer,Conductor,two brakeman),and have seen on over the road trains where 4 members ,even 3 member crews weren't needed.But two man crews for safety of the public and railroad should always be in place. 

Betcha that suit and tie pushing for it has a few assistants in their building that could be on the chopping block instead 

Adriatic posted:

Betcha that suit and tie pushing for it has a few assistants in their building that could be on the chopping block instead 

To be accurate, the "suit and tie" group that "pushed for it", PTC that is, were/are our elected officials in Washington D.C., non of which had/have ANY CLUE what PTC is, nor how it doesn't work well in all occasions.

The people in Washington  are experts in feather bedding and excess employees. Develop robots to be politicians.  What will happen when someone hacks in to the computer controlling  train ??

jim pastorius posted:

The people in Washington  are experts in feather bedding and excess employees. Develop robots to be politicians.  What will happen when someone hacks in to the computer controlling  train ??

Do you really think that the elected idiots in Washington are aware, or even CARE, of such occurrences? In their minds, they have done their part to "protect the citizens".

I'll choose not to discuss crew size. 

The fellow had a heart attack. The railroad lifestyle surely contributed to this.   Unless you're an oldhead with enough seniority for your own regular (daylight) job and you work out of your home terminal it's nearly impossible to eat and sleep properly let alone get enough exercise to stay healthy.

You're either trying to adjust your sleep schedule to your next turn or sleeping somewhere or driving to work somewhere. Or working.

Neither a better salary or more crew members can solve this.  

Rule292 posted:

I'll choose not to discuss crew size. 

The fellow had a heart attack. The railroad lifestyle surely contributed to this.   Unless you're an oldhead with enough seniority for your own regular (daylight) job and you work out of your home terminal it's nearly impossible to eat and sleep properly let alone get enough exercise to stay healthy.

You're either trying to adjust your sleep schedule to your next turn or sleeping somewhere or driving to work somewhere. Or working.

Neither a better salary or more crew members can solve this.  

 

I don't know if this holds true for every seniority district on every road.  In the early 1980's I worked with guys that had served in the Army RR Corp in WW II, and many other guys who were just as old, but they were in really good shape.  They could hang off moving cars and climb up to set hand brakes just like us kids.  We worked all hours of the day and night, and switched our butts off.  I can't prove anything but I attribute this "forever young" experience that was happening on our board to the fact that we loved to railroad and almost everyone was really good at it.  We were a brotherhood with young people learning from old heads who were mesmerizing.  Some were mean, some eccentric, some a continual cut-up,  some so talented you aspired to be as smooth as they were.  We lost Jim this year, he was 91 and enjoyed almost 28 years of retirement...railroading didn't wear him out...it kept him alive.  Those of us still living organize and attend reunions annually...why?...because we had such good times before the crews were cut to pieces (and if you are a railroader you know how difficult those times actually were) but we long to get together and see each other to rekindle those good days.  My twofold point is: 1. railroading doesn't necessarily kill you when you have a cohesive brotherhood of workmen in place.  2. The brotherhood seems to have been squashed.  Today's reduction of crewmen complete with tedious additional rules and regs has me wondering if new hires enter into the excellent learning environment that once existed.  ? 

Let the debate rage on:  in the end, is it more cost effective to save on labor costs by chopping the crew in half and buying out your best people, or to clean up disasters usually caused by book-trained new hires?

Rob wrote:
"I don't know if this holds true for every seniority district on every road.  In the early 1980's I worked with guys that had served in the Army RR Corp in WW II, and many other guys who were just as old, but they were in really good shape.  They could hang off moving cars and climb up to set hand brakes just like us kids.  We worked all hours of the day and night, and switched our butts off.  I can't prove anything but I attribute this "forever young" experience that was happening on our board to the fact that we loved to railroad and almost everyone was really good at it.  We were a brotherhood with young people learning from old heads who were mesmerizing.  Some were mean, some eccentric, some a continual cut-up,  some so talented you aspired to be as smooth as they were. "

Right on Rob!

If you read the history of railroading there was a lot of military culture in it going back to the Civil war and after.  I think the buddy system evolved from that in part. But that is all old school and not popular today. More of everyone for them self.

I just reread my post from last night and saw that the conclusion didn't make good sense.

Does it cost more to keep and pay your best people?

Does it cost less to clean up mistakes made by less-than-well trained employees?

I have a special name for entities that treat their profit margins with more regard than the people who help create those profits.

Rule292 posted:

I'll choose not to discuss crew size. 

The fellow had a heart attack. The railroad lifestyle surely contributed to this.   Unless you're an oldhead with enough seniority for your own regular (daylight) job and you work out of your home terminal it's nearly impossible to eat and sleep properly let alone get enough exercise to stay healthy.

You're either trying to adjust your sleep schedule to your next turn or sleeping somewhere or driving to work somewhere. Or working.

Neither a better salary or more crew members can solve this.  

 

Well not all true in today's "modern contract railroading ". 

With 26 years seniority and the PWS bid  system the NS now has,my job is apt to change week to week.

Sure I do have enough seniority to pretty much stay on locals or on yard jobs ,but with around 14 people ahead of me on the roster you still don't know from week to week what your schedule will be . 

So in my opinion the railroads have introduced another hurdle as far as what they refer to as a predictable work schedule. Yes maybe for them but not for the rank and file .

Two weeks ago I worked a job that had two 7am starts, then three 6:30pm starts. Then got placed on an extra list on call for a week,now this week a local that goes to work at 9:00 pm. 

Very predictable with 26+ years seniority ��

Gregg posted:

We could go back and forth on this all day long.... I'll take my chances with a 2 man crew especially if I'm  one of the crew members. Of course you never really  know  who's  coming at you from the opposite direction.... But an  experienced crew  just might.....

 Let's not forget the terrible Amtrak train 188 derailment..... Just Brandon Bostian  in the cab... 8 dead and over 200 injured. and   as mentioned the Quebec runaway.

 

A friend of mine who worked in Amtrak's safety department told me that their studies showed that 1 person in the engine was safer than two person's in the engine.  Two people tend to distract each other.  Of course, Amtrak trains also have conductors and others on board who communicate with the engineer.  Passenger trains, especially on commuter railroads, have had one person engineers for many years.  The RDC had only one person in the cab.  Subways have only person driving the train.  I rode the CZ from Oakland to Chicago.  The CZ had only one person in the cab during the entire trip.  The crew did change several times.  The Amtrak 188 accident just proves that there is an exception to every rule. 

The Quebec train should have had a two man crew.   I can't believe that any railroad thought it was safe to park a train of explosive oil and leave it unmanned all night with an engine running.  This was an accident waiting to happen and it did with tragic results.

I agree that freights need a least two people.  I don't see how one person can drive the train and fix a problem somewhere along a mile long train.  Automation is coming.  It will be a different world.  

NH Joe

If/when engineer-less trains come along, my bet is the railroads will use a traveling engineer shadowing a division in a hi-rail truck. Kinda like the traveling agent replaced all the depot bound station agents. Maybe a traveling brakeman in the same vehicle, too, for switching moves, bad-order setouts, etc. 

NH Joe makes some pretty good points about commuter trains, subways, etc. - - all one person operation.

jim pastorius posted:

The people in Washington  are experts in feather bedding and excess employees. Develop robots to be politicians.  What will happen when someone hacks in to the computer controlling  train ??

2001 meets UNSTOPPABLE!

Or more likely somebody jamming the PTC radio signals.  That could cause sections of the rail network to come to a complete stop.

A friend of mine who worked in Amtrak's safety department told me that their studies showed that 1 person in the engine was safer than two person's in the engine.  Two people tend to distract each other.  

 A  good head end crew keeps each other alert by   calling signals, slow orders,  inspecting the train and any other restrictions.

Yes  one man in the cab on subways, budd cars and  Amtrack . Seems to be working OK with the odd exception.

We have 2 engineman on all VIA trains, and  outpost commuter jobs.    Crews  are  usually  ex CN & CP experienced engineman although the supply is slowly dwindling.

Gregg posted:

A friend of mine who worked in Amtrak's safety department told me that their studies showed that 1 person in the engine was safer than two person's in the engine.  Two people tend to distract each other.  

 A  good head end crew keeps each other alert by   calling signals, slow orders,  inspecting the train and any other restrictions.

Emphasis (my own) has been added to a portion of Gregg's reply.  It is an absolute truth.  And the fine people who taught me to look through the cab window and look over the train as it travels through a curve also told me to "get off that toadstool and look at the engineer's side on a right hand curve.  It's your job! "

Question: Would it be fair to call Amtrak's findings a "government study" ??               

when I was a kid back in the late 40's and into the 50's this was the argument over keeping the fireman in the cab of a diesel where there was no fire nor boiler to tend. My grandfather a hogger for GN was at retirement and happy to avoid dieselization. But I remember long adult conversations on the subject.

Fast forward to the 1980's and technology finally eliminated the caboose and its crew, that let the company get rid of the fireman and move the conductor to the cab to meet the 2 man rule.

Bogie

Hot Water posted:

Concerning the desire for "two person" crews; how well did the "two person crew" work out in many of the most serious head-on crashes in the western states, over the last 10 years or more? Especially that really terrible one out in Texas, where the freight with a two person crew, passed three restrictive signal indications and crashed head-on into the on-comming freight at better than 68 MPH, killing three out of the four crew members?

Has the NTSB come up with any findings on this?  What is the name and case number so one can go to the site and take a look?

I thought one had to "do something" every so often or the brakes would come on.  But maybe one can do this in one's sleep.  In this case something or things went VERY WRONG.  

With GPS and other electronic equipment, and modern CTC boards, was there any way the DS on duty would have known there was a "Runaway"?

That one ore hauler railroad up in Quebec went with 1 man crews back in 1996? 3 days after it was implemented 1 train rear-ended another 

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rappo...96q0050/r96q0050.asp

Rob Leese posted:

Gregg posted:

 A  good head end crew keeps each other alert by   calling signals, slow orders,  inspecting the train and any other restrictions.

Emphasis (my own) has been added to a portion of Gregg's reply.  It is an absolute truth.  And the fine people who taught me to look through the cab window and look over the train as it travels through a curve also told me to "get off that toadstool and look at the engineer's side on a right hand curve.  It's your job! "

Question: Would it be fair to call Amtrak's findings a "government study" ??               

Yes, and a very self-serving one.