Railroads Want One Man Crews

[neverforget]

I've posted about this last year when my union, SMART formerly UTU, was in negotiations with the railroads for 1 person crews. It was the union heads that negotiated in secret and membership was blind sided by it. Membership voted it down. It's blatantly obvious how dangerous that would have been. However, the railroads have been pushing this for a long time because it's a cost cutting move to increase profits.

The conductor on the train would have been replaced with a so-called "master conductor" that would be in a vehicle to go help an engineer if/when they needed to set out some cars on the train. If the engineer should have a medical emergency, too bad for that person as there would be no one there to help.

From Feb 20, 2015 Railroads Want One-Man Crews on Massive Freight Trains

Railroads have proposed eliminating the job of on-board conductor on most trains, leaving just an engineer aboard. The workers argue that one-person crews will mean more out-of-control trains, like the runaway that caused the Lac-Mégantic disaster in 2013. An oil train rolled downhill in the tiny Quebec town and exploded, killing 47 people. The company that owned the train had just downsized to a one-man crew, and that engineer failed to set the brakes properly, according to regulators.

Railroad executives counter that a new GPS-based braking system—required by Congress by the end of this year—will be enough to blunt that risk. But railroad workers, environmental groups, and people in the communities along the tracks strongly disagree.

"It's a recipe for disaster," said Mark Voelker, a switchman for BNSF Railway and an organizer for the SMART union, which represents conductors nationwide.

"These are mile-long trains carrying every kind of hazardous material you can think of through communities," said Jen Wallis, another BNSF employee and founder of a caucus with members from 13 different railroad unions. "Why would you compromise the safe passage of these trains for profit?"

[Oktober]

1. A redundant GPS system should be more reliable than a human being...

... if the whole thing is kept on a dead man switch as opposed to just plowing on in the absence of command.

[neverforget]

2. The train will stop because the alerter will go off every couple of minutes.

However, the engineer will have no one there to help should they require medical assistance such as CPR. There are many places where it is extremely difficult to get too.

There is aleady GPS on the engine and the end of train device (ETD) that tells the dispatcher where the train is located.

[Oktober]

3. So is your concern that the engineer would be working alone...

... and could suffer a medical problem as opposed to the necessity for two people to make the train run properly?

[neverforget]

4. Both. It's difficult to stay awake plodding along down the tracks at track speed 45-55 mph.

You have to stay alert for up to 12 hours all the while sitting down with the train rocking back and forth. It's difficult to do. If there is a problem with the train such as a hot box, the conductor on the train will walk back to the car with the problem while the engineer stays on the locomotive. If that car needs to be set out in a siding, the conductor has to do it while giving the engineer commands over the radio.

PTC would be a safety enhancement but shouldn't be a replacement for the conductor.

[MicaelS]

7. Would you fly in an airliner with only one pilot? n/t

[Oktober]

15. The difference is that a plane can't just stop...

... And a train can.

[DanTex]

5. I wonder, what percentage of the operating cost of a train would a second crew member be?

It would seem to be tiny, compared to everything else involved.

[xfundy]

6. Even tiny costs are too much for corporate gasbags.

Every penny is up for scrutiny. Every damn one.

[Initech]

11. What I don't get is...

Poor people have to account for every last dime they spend, and god forbid that they spend a dime on any sort of luxury items. But corporate crooks can make billions dissappear. Billions!!! And no one is held accountable, no one is punished. Kansas can pass a law saying poor people can't spend money on cruise ships. Buy corporate criminals can steal, lie, cheat, murder, and destroy the environment. Not a damn thing happens to them. What is wrong with this picture?

[Initech]

8. These greedy corporate crooks would sell their loved ones if it meant cutting into their profits.

[pansypoo53219]

9. crapitalism. profits the ONLY option.

[lostnfound]

10. On Aircraft one reason for copilot is in case pilot has a stroke, heart attack, black out, etc.

around 260 people were on board that train .. like a big airplane.

Would I trust technology to replace one person? Maybe, but not here, with all of the skimping on infrastructure we do here.

[cherokeeprogressive]

12. Why does a train need a crew at all?

The ISS moves at 17,000+ mph yet we send unmanned capsules to it on a regular basis. Tell me a vehicle on rails traveling routes that in some cases haven't changed in way more than a century needs someone to guide it, and I'll sell you a really neat bridge in NYC.

[neverforget]

13. Eventually, it'll happen. The technology isn't there yet.

The train isn't going to stop with people or a vehicle on the track because the train doesn't know that there is something on the rail that's not supposed to be there. A human can see it and attempt to stop or blow the whistle to get them to move.

[pinboy3niner]

14. Tech can detect obstructions

But a human will still be needed both as a fail-safe against the possibility of tech failure, hacking, and programming sabotage, and as a reassurance to the traveling public that if the tech goes haywire for ANY reason, there is still someone there to make sure it won't kill us all.

[1939]

16. Stopping distance

If you are on the tracks and the train is moving at 40 MPH or more, by the time the engineer sees you, it is already too late.