# BNSF proposes one man crews on positive train control lines



## Paulus (Jul 18, 2014)

The proposal



> D. In all through freight service, on every through freight train where positive train control is in use upon departing the terminal/crew change point and in use on such train on the territory traversed, no ground service crew shall be required; though a conductor, and additionally, a brakeman may be added as determined by the company. On every through freight train not having positive train control in use upon departing the terminal/crew change point, the minimum ground service crew shall be one conductor; though a brakeman or brakemen may be added as determined by the company.


And according to Trains Magazine, the union is supportive of it.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jul 18, 2014)

Here in Central Texas UP already runs all of their freights and rock trains with an engineer and conductor only! I haven't seen a brakeman or second engineer in years on these trains!

Really surprised the Union would support this, it seems like a sweetheart contract for the company to me!!!


----------



## GG-1 (Jul 18, 2014)

Aloha

The Union may support the provision becauuse not supporting may cause more loss of jobs. Most (Good) unions realize that it is a two way street, the needs of both sides must be met.


----------



## Paulus (Jul 18, 2014)

There's some rather substantial benefits that BNSF is offering in the contract as well including layoff protections.


----------



## railiner (Jul 19, 2014)

It sure amazes me, the improvement in productivity labor-wise, in modern railway's....I recall when a train required a "full-crew" consisting of an engineer, fireman, conductor, head brakeman, brakeman, and flagman....six, in all. And railway's actual made money (sometimes), while paying good wages in that era.

What's next? Fully automated, no-crew trains? Certainly technologically feasible, although I would not like to see that happen......


----------



## Erin (Jul 23, 2014)

Yea pretty sure there was a kick back for the smart union on this to even be presented. The unfortunate part is that these conductors that pay this union are paying them to help eliminate their own lives and careers. Not to mention they are there to better serve their sheet metal workers than conductors. WTG UTU! GREAT MERGER!


----------



## Post 1980 conductor (Jul 26, 2014)

The elimination of the furlough is by far the biggest thing in this agreement when you figure 90% of the conductors on the NW division are not protected under a existing crew consist agreement and we are surrounded by PTC.


----------



## CHamilton (Jul 30, 2014)

Rail workers protest proposal for 'one person crews'


----------



## Acela150 (Jul 31, 2014)

I am one of those folks who thinks while a cost cutting measure. It's also a major safety hazard. God forbid the engineer has a heart attack or just drops dead at the stick. Who's going to stop the train? It's got CSX's Crazy 8's runaway train written all over it. Freight trains don't have as many safety features as Passenger Trains do. I'm not 100% sure that freight trains have the "Alerter". It's just a matter of how you want to look at it.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 31, 2014)

Freight trains have some sort of deadman switch. It's the law. And this is only on lines with Positive Train Control. It is a cost cutting measure, presumably to offset the cost of installing PTC in the first place. Remember the Law of Unintended Consequences?


----------



## cirdan (Jul 31, 2014)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Freight trains have some sort of deadman switch. It's the law. And this is only on lines with Positive Train Control. It is a cost cutting measure, presumably to offset the cost of installing PTC in the first place. Remember the Law of Unintended Consequences?


Yes, you've got to allow the railroads some kickback from installing something as expensive as PTC.

It's a take some give some world.


----------



## jis (Jul 31, 2014)

Acela150 said:


> I am one of those folks who thinks while a cost cutting measure. It's also a major safety hazard. God forbid the engineer has a heart attack or just drops dead at the stick. Who's going to stop the train?


That is what PTC does. Enforce all civil speed limits and signals including absolute stops.


----------



## NW cannonball (Aug 1, 2014)

jis said:


> Acela150 said:
> 
> 
> > I am one of those folks who thinks while a cost cutting measure. It's also a major safety hazard. God forbid the engineer has a heart attack or just drops dead at the stick. Who's going to stop the train?
> ...


Presumably that would include such cases as "stopped by detector" 120 miles from nowhere on single-track main line on a grade? So the lone driver takes the pocket remote and walks the train looking for the problem?

Need more info on how this one-person crew might actually deal with real-world problems - even with the help of PTC.

PTC can apply the brakes, and stop the engine - but it can't repair anything, can't set the hand brakes.


----------



## Flummoxx (Aug 1, 2014)

PTC won't replace a second pair of eyes looking for kids playing on the tracks and cars stalled/stopped on crossings. PTC won't notice and talk to a tired engineer to keep them awake while running at track speed through communities. PTC can't help fight off someone trying to break into a cab to cause harm to the crew while the train is stopped. PTC can't call 911, provide medical first response and guide via radio or phone EMT's to the obscure locations that tracks run through.

One man crews are unsafe for railway workers and communities that they run through.

The only thing one man crews accomplish is help billion dollar railroads make more money.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Aug 1, 2014)

I'm glad you are a flummox. That means what you are saying is flummery.


----------



## In4aWildride (Aug 2, 2014)

PTC will not reduce the number of crossing accidents, but it will reduce the amount of slow orders ran, blown form B's, and getting by a red block. So while the crossings stay the same, when the carrier holds up their safety sheets, it will show how much safer it is with PTC then when you had a conductor on board because it will eliminate a lot of human error. it's gonna be tough to fight for your job and win when the carrier starts waving these safety reports around. Good thing PTC doesn't work worth a damn now, but when the S hits the fan in 8 years (if the TA gets voted down) it's gonna be a tough sale that it's safer with two then one


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Aug 2, 2014)

I petition for the elimination of guest posters. This is getting silly.


----------



## jis (Aug 2, 2014)

I gather a few people are a bit hot under their collar regarding what their Union is doing to them.

All that PTC will do is enforce signal instructions and speed limits. The rest is not going to be handled by PTC. Therefore it is possible that the railroads and unions together may be jumping the gun a bit.

Maybe the railroads will have to maintain a fleet of helicopters instead of maintaining staffing on trains. Maybe that is cheaper. Who knows?

It depends on where one man crew is being used under what circumstances. In some cases it may make sense and indeed in others it may not. It is now also known that sometimes multi-person crew is not safer than one man crew due to the distraction provided by the additional crew in the cab. So it really depends on how cab resource is managed. Railroads typically are pretty lax about such things when compared to airlines, who spend a lot of time in cockpit resource management training. There are no cut and dried black and white answers to this issue.


----------



## Flummoxx (Aug 2, 2014)

> I'm glad you are a flummox. That means what you are saying is flummery.


Thats why little kids and small animals follow me around. Each utterance from my lips is like dessert for the brain.


----------



## Flummoxx (Aug 2, 2014)

> It is now also known that sometimes multi-person crew is not safer than one man crew due to the distraction provided by the additional crew in the cab.


Yes. A conductor does distract from an engineer nodding off whilst driving. Being engineer qualified myself, most of the time I just offer to take over the controls.

I've seen that this quote quite a few times, but I'd be interested to see the study that arrived at this conclusion.

In my anecdotal experience, the times that a two-man crew has resulted in distraction is vastly outweighed by the times a two-man crew has resulted in both members being more alert and informed.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Aug 2, 2014)

Flummoxx said:


> > I'm glad you are a flummox. That means what you are saying is flummery.
> 
> 
> Thats why little kids and small animals follow me around. Each utterance from my lips is like dessert for the brain.


Drawing on my fine® command of the English language, I will say nothing more.


----------



## Shortline (Aug 8, 2014)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Freight trains have some sort of deadman switch. It's the law. And this is only on lines with Positive Train Control. It is a cost cutting measure, presumably to offset the cost of installing PTC in the first place. Remember the Law of Unintended Consequences?


Not quite. The law requires, that if equipped, alertness devices must be operational, but there is no requirement for them to be equipped on freight locomotives that Im aware of.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Aug 8, 2014)

Alerters are allowed to be equipped, IIRC, I'm place of traditional dead mans switches, which requires the engineers weight to be on either the control or a pedal.


----------



## Shortline (Aug 8, 2014)

Again, incorrect. There is no mandate to equip. There is a mandate that if equipped must work. They can even be removed, from locomotives, if a RR chooses. Dead man pedals like you are referring to are almost extinct, due largely to ergonomic reasons. Almost all have been removed for years and years now.


----------



## Shortline (Aug 8, 2014)

That said, most freight locomotives across the US ARE equipped with alerters, but many are not, especially older switcher/gp type locomotives on other than class 1 RR's. New locomotives made after 2013 are required to have them, and I believe all will eventually have to be equipped after 2017, to operate over 25 MPH I believe, but not required right now.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Aug 8, 2014)

Thanks for the clarification and elaboration Shortline.


----------



## Kreschendalyn Backus (Aug 27, 2014)

I agree about the heart attack. Just posted on Facebook about the impact of that happening to a small town and the uproar if it happend in a large city. BLET seems to be fighting but they are telling us UTU will roll over on their members.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Aug 28, 2014)

With a PTC train, it makes little difference. Complain about labor relations problems as labor relations problems. Hiding everything behind safety is disgusting.


----------



## MIrailfan (Aug 31, 2014)

how about require 2 man crews on hazmats? That would be a good compromise.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Aug 31, 2014)

That's a terrible compromise. Hazmats are not only to have one crew only, but are to be left on steep inclines with only a handful of hand brakes set and the lead unit running and on fire.


----------



## jis (Aug 31, 2014)

Green Maned Lion said:


> That's a terrible compromise. Hazmats are not only to have one crew only, but are to be left on steep inclines with only a handful of hand brakes set and the lead unit running and on fire.


That's how it used to be done in Canada


----------



## MIrailfan (Aug 31, 2014)

come back when youre serious.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Aug 31, 2014)

Serious? SERIOUS?! This is cruel and unusual.


----------



## CHamilton (Sep 10, 2014)

Via Facebook:



> GO-001 Local Chairpersons (and members)
> 
> Brothers and Sisters,
> 
> ...


----------

