One-Person Crews

I agree Aaron, doesn't seem like a good idea.  I can't imagine the compensation for one crew member could be a significant percentage of the total revenue generated by one freight train. 

 

The driving motivation is more likely to completely eliminate train crews, and operate "drone" trains.   With news of major system hacks every week, I could never be convinced that any "remote" system could ever be 100% secure.

 

And wouldn't that be the perfect setup for a major cyber terror incident.  Hackers take over the railroad control systems and put oil and chemical tanker trains on a 80 mph collision course, right on main street. 

 

All for a fistful of dollars.  

 

Alan

What if they have to set a car off?  Or missed some details from a track warrant.  That's a lot for 1 person.  

IMO it's all heading toward automation for through freights.  It's already been done in Australia and on a smaller scale in several places, and PTC will make it a possibility here.

I suspect the Class 1's will have a hard uphill fight on this one.  Post Lac Megantic, the regulators in the U.S. and Canada have become adamantly opposed to one person crews and the brotherhoods certainly aren't in favor of it either.

Speaking as a 35 year shipper, the last 17 dealing with hazmat, the thought of one person crews makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up. 

When BNSF had proposed this back in the May/June timeframe, their solution was to have traveling conductors who had responsibility for any train in their assigned territories.  While they might start out with adequate staffing of this position, at some point it would become another opportunity to "do more with less" and that is when serious issues would arise.


Curt

And belt pack rail operation in the yards are nothing new now. In the case of a set out or bad order on the road, it might eventually get to the point where the engineer just puts on his belt pack, sets the engine up as a receiver, goes back and ties a few hand brakes, makes the cut and does it himself. All the RR's have to do is change the flagging rules a little bit like they did when we went to two man crews. Example: Before two man crews, a crew member had to walk the plant to flag a controlled signal. After two man crews, if the conductor was back at the cut, the engineer could go ahead and flag the plant by being prepared to stop, without having to walk it first. What could possibly go wrong?

Trust me   this is the first step say a big toe in the water, If UP gets there way there will be no one onboard transcon runs as soon as public opinion can be coerced in UP favor. Remember perception is everything. This die was cast with the development of the Harriman center with the eventual computer control of all locomotives system wide. Why think of the savings read PROFIT even less people working and nobody to afford or buy the products shipped. We can be taxed just for breathing all we got to do is turn it around and get paid for breathing so all can afford the GI Joe with the Kung Fu grip.

Remember awhile back there was a thread on unattended locos idling. No matter what anyone could or would have done that engine consist can and will not be made or coerced to move with out proper codes and some one at Harriman knowing about it. The tech has been here. Now the illusion of safety  must be promoted

And someday the Harriman center might be operated from the India call center instead of Omaha.

A buddy of mine works for a firm that is developing the computer systems for a few class 1 railroads to run crewless trains. In the near future they will be able to pick up and set out cars without anybody on board.

 

It seems this is the direction the railroads are going and whether it is a good thing or not we will find out.

I doubt they ever will allow totally crewless trains, even mostly automated systems like the BART in the bay area and such have an engineer on board. The reason is very simple, I don't care how sophisticated the system is, I don't care how much they have claimed to test it, there are going to be failures, whether software or hardware it doesn't matter. Systems get overloaded and crash, a transient electrical spike wreaks havoc, even if they have redundant systems (and yeah, anyone wanna bet how little the railroads would spend on those). I think from a safety regulation standpoint the ICC wouldn't allow it, nor would the federal railway adminstration, just too many things that can go wrong. I test software and systems for a living, and no matter how well you do it, no matter how many automated test cases you have in your harness, the systems are going to have problems, and even minor ones when you are talking a mile long freight train going 30,40 MPH, is not minor.....

 

The other question I would love to ask the efficiency experts is if they keep cutting out labor, if they keep automating everything, who is going to buy the products they are shipping, since their brother beancounters are doing the same thing all over? 

Remember the vent wing window? Actually rolling the window down by hand? try to find a new car with that option lately? Bigkid all of your points are rational and valid. That is why it will happen. The tech exists now and has, but the perception has to change. Ask yourself why UP would spend millions to advertise? Think they need business? The average Joe ain't going to ship boxcar freight, or bulk commodities  any time soon. Advertising works or no one would be paying millions ,especially a corporation. to influence the perception of the masses. After all Corporations are people! Notice I didn't say are made of people. PERCEPTION IS ALL THAT MATTERS CURRENTLY. Why he is such a stand up guy pillar of the community he would never do such a thing. Any of this sound familiar  The Tail Wags the dog   PERCEPTION

I understand the evolving technology. I don't understand how a computer sees a car about to run the crossing and dumps the air, or how a computer changes a knuckle in the middle of nowhere. 

 

Paul

When i hired there were crew of 5...with a caboose. then no caboose and 3 men...then i got laid off for 7 years came back to stack trains and crew of 2 now they are investing in PTC and to pay off some of that investment will eliminate the conductor position on the trains and then when technology allows ,the guy who blew the whistle will be gone too! there is no end to the GREED !  sincerely your fellow train enthusiast...conrail john

To quote Ian Malcolm:

"...[they] were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they never stopped to think if they should!"

How will crewless trains manage issues like people in the tracks...washouts that only a human can see etc etc...

Few years back I read an article about 1 man trains up in Canada on some mining rr?? Real desolate but running some big heavy ore trains.  

Ptapsco and Big River railroad. operates I think entirely with slugs  which are crewless and remote controlled. I'm not sure but I red somewhere that it is the oldest continuous operating railroad in the US?

There will be crewless trains in the near future, that is a given. What railroad will be the first? But once one does it the rest will follow If successful. 

 

One person crews are only the step in the direction of no crew at all. Computers are getting more intelligent and as they do certain jobs will go away. 

 

 

They could do this.  Technology exists today to permit it.  However, it doesn't look good, and probably would be prohibited by Federal or State regulations.  Senators and Congressmen have to think about being re-elected, and you could guarantee that they would hear from many constituents who would be nervous and unhappy about one person crews operating trains through their communities.

 

This is also brewing in the airline industry as applied to the cockpit crew.  I don't want to fly on an airliner with only one pilot.