Railroads' most important assets: lobbyists

[CArailroader]

Layoffs are normal yes, but not to this extent. On UP alone, 195 cut from Hinkle, OR as of yesterday. 450 mechanical positions cut from El Paso and Pine Bluff and 250 jobs cut from Omaha in February. Several more yards will get the axe swinging through as the year progresses. And that doesn't count the 600 jobs cut in 2018.

And this is being felt in NS and CSX systems too. BNSF hasn't adopted PSR, but I don't know if they will or plan too.

[buzz456]

That's 2% of the total. Considering what's happening with the decrease in coal I don't think that's strange.

[Chacal]

What I’m about to say should be understood in the context of the experience of somebody who was in train service

Thanks phil for this cogent explanation and letting peek behind the scene.

[GSkid]

Well if there was any form of transportation that was the most ideal for automation, it's trains. Since the tracks take care of all the steering, computers with the ideal code can eliminate a lot of problems.

You can have them do things like....

#1: Determine train makeup based on weight of loads, length of cars, curvature of it's scheduled route, length of sidings, changes in gradients and ideal distribution of power, loads and empties. That can all be mathematically calculated.

#2: Based on the factors in #1, know where on the route to correctly apply throttle, braking/dynamics and engage fencing when applicable. Keep both the train speed steady and drawbars within their rated limits. You can have a person onboard to supervise the computer's actions... or not. Maybe have them there to simply replace broken knuckles and air hoses.... or have a regional guy in a 4x4 high-rail vehicle to go out to fix these problems.

#3: Have multiple onboard cameras so that somebody can control or supervise these actions remotely. Say overseeing like 2-4 trains at once on a multi-display control desk at an operations office.

That may all sound crazy to some, but I seriously think it could be safely done if the technology is done correctly. We are perfecting self-driving cars and we already have airplanes that can fly and land themselves safely. So something on rails should be much easier to control safely. As subways, regional commuter rail and Amtrak have shown, you can safely have just one person up in the cab. And even more so with computer control systems in place. So it's not surprising why they wouldn't think it couldn't be done on freight trains as well.

[BNSFdude]

Amtrak have shown, you can safely have just one person up in the cab.

LOL

[GSkid]

Amtrak have shown, you can safely have just one person up in the cab.

LOL

Yes I can chuckle at that too. But keep in mind that I bet the majority of operator error accidents had a conductor in the cab too. Remember the 2012 Goodwell, Oklahoma Union Pacific head-on collision? That had 2 crew members. The final NTSB report said ..

"In this accident, as the train passed signals for advance approach, approach, and stop, the engineer actively adjusted the throttle and dynamic brake as if all three signals were clear. The fact that the conductor was disengaged from his duties and did not appropriately intervene as the train proceeded through the signals demonstrates a serious failure of the UP’s safety management system that allowed lagging implementation of crew resource management"

Or the 2016 BNSF Panhandle, Texas head-on collision? It had 2 crew members too. There still isn't a final report, but the preliminary report says .....

"Preliminary review of signal event recorder data and tests of the signal system indicate the last signal the eastbound train passed before the collision was a stop (red) signal. The previous signal the eastbound train passed was an approach (yellow) signal. [1] A preliminary review of locomotive event recorder data revealed that the eastbound train was traveling about 62 mph when it went by the approach signal at the west end of the Panhandle siding and about 65 mph when it went by the stop signal at the east end of the Panhandle siding."

So I guess in this instance a red signal means speed up by 3 mph?

Just 2 quick instances of where 2 sets of eyes ignored multiple signals telling them to slow down and stop. So having people in the cab isn't really the issue.

[BNSFdude]

The issue is the complete failure to acknowledge the fact the carriers have done basically nothing to solve the utter unpredictability of working and people fall asleep because they can work up to 276 hours covered service and around 40 hours of limbo time within a month. All excluding any time spent in the AFHT. People are tired. Falling back onto the shoulders of PTC and TO is how we're getting a generation of locomotive engineers who have no clue what to do when they actually have to run a train when neither are available or are working. I could go on an absolute tirade on it, but all I can say is, unless you have trains going point to point only with absolutely no need for stopping and making pickups or serving customers who are less than unit train load, full automation will never work.

My territory is the most productive portion on the BNSF for the agriculture sector, and automating the trains here would never work. Spotting, pulling, setting up DP, air testing.. You won't be able to do any of that with 1 person, nor would it be efficient to have 1 engineer, and a roaming conductor, when any given day of the year there could be multiple trains needing to be spotted and pulled.

[buzz456]

You can cherry pick facts to think you're proving something anytime but the fact remains that under normal circumstances there is no doubt that four eyes and two brains is going to be inherently safer than just two eyes and one brain assuming everyone is paying attention. I believe and one of the real railroaders can correct me if I'm wrong however I think the conductor has other duties some of the time other than looking out for signals and such. I need to go back again to my flying time and tell you from real life experience that sometimes one member of the crews sees thing that the other one doesn't see.

[buzz456]

Since we're having so much fun with mission creep here let add this to the conversation.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/railroads- ... 1559133129

Some smaller shippers said the fees were wiping out all of their profits and costing them customers. Harry Shea said his lumber distributor, Shea BrothersLumber Handling Inc. in Delanco, N.J., hadn’t accumulated any significant demurrage fees over the past three decades. Last year, the company was hit with about $115,000 in fees by CSX and $33,000 by Norfolk Southern, erasing its profit.

Mr. Shea said the company unloads lumber shipments as fast as it always has, emptying nine railcars a day, but a quirk in the handoff from the railroad to his facility often means he starts paying a fee before he even gets the railcar.

“We were hoping that the railroads would come to their senses and realize that it was just not doable to pay these amounts,” Mr. Shea said.

Apparently employees aren't the only ones unhappy with some of these changes. Nothing like annoying your customers to grow the business.

[BNSFdude]

Apparently employees aren't the only ones unhappy with some of these changes. Nothing like annoying your customers to grow the business.

pee all of them off so your rail car usage is less, now you need less locomotives and employees to move trains!

[minerman146]

Anyone can chime in right?

The first thing I noticed that the referenced article, not really the point of the OP, was really the old saw about eeeevil oil trains blowing up in your back yard. The Associated Press and its cohorts in the environmentalist uh movement, hate oil. This is really where they were going. Companies that transport oil (piplelines - the railroad) are also eeeevil. The second thing I wanted to chime in on was about the Lobbyist - the Railroads most important asset. I am not buying that any railroad has any sort of influential lobby in the US. Canada? Well if it is nationalized to any extent then I would expect there to be MORE crew on the train than less. I like where there conversation is going nonetheless. The debate for and against automation would be and is really interesting. I would like to read what the pro and con forces would post here. It would also be interesting to weave in state regulations on crew size and the issues that arise when a train traverses different jurisdictions. And last regarding the technology/computer algorithm argument, ya gotta dig a bit deeper in your cost benefit analysis. Do you really want a software based system, prone to coding error, being hackable, requiring periodic upgrades, that's completely dependent on a centralized development system with fewer and fewer humans to add knowledge and innovation to improve the coding? In other word do you want to be in a 2 hour troubleshooting call with techs from Mumbai because your train no go anymore? Latly, the Railroads most important asset is its customers ( remember them?)- how could you guys not mention that! Shaaaaaaame!

Great conversation !

[Chacal]

Well if there was any form of transportation that was the most ideal for automation, it's trains. Since the tracks take care of all the steering, computers with the ideal code can eliminate a lot of problems.

I think you are right about that, but I see automation as supplemental to humans for now, and eventually humans as supplemental to automation.
Also, about fatigue: some trains run on straight tracks for hundreds of miles, surely one crew member could be resting while the other checks the train.

[BNSFdude]

Well if there was any form of transportation that was the most ideal for automation, it's trains. Since the tracks take care of all the steering, computers with the ideal code can eliminate a lot of problems.

I think you are right about that, but I see automation as supplemental to humans for now, and eventually humans as supplemental to automation.
Also, about fatigue: some trains run on straight tracks for hundreds of miles, surely one crew member could be resting while the other checks the train.

Against the rules, not to mention that conductors are not certified to operate the train in any instance. The more logical approach would be to have two engineers, but that's a whole other debate.

A grey area the railroads and the FRA turns their eye from is the fact that, as humans, we have to periodically use the restroom. So the conductor does in fact sometimes watch the controls for the brief period while the engineer waters the rail pail. But with the implementation of inward facing cameras, it's been known that engineers will stop trains to perform this duty because it's a willful violation of the rules should the wrong person view it, or if something were to happen.

[CArailroader]

... I believe and one of the real railroaders can correct me if I'm wrong however I think the conductor has other duties some of the time other than looking out for signals and such...

That such is paperwork. Lots of paperwork

[GSkid]

I hear what you are saying Anthony. It's not that I don't have sympathy for fatigued crew members. My friend used to be an engineer with UP over Donner Pass. He mentioned that similar to a mother rocking their baby to sleep, that hours of cab sway can have a similar effect on tired crewmen. I just am still flummoxed as to how 2 crew members can see something as blatant as an approach signal or especially a red stop signal and not notice or react to it. The only thing that alerted them apparently was the triad of a headlight and two ditch lights heading straight at them...and then it's too late. And the 2 accidents I cited were in clear daylight conditions, so you are less likely to fall asleep at that time than during the darkness of the night.

I know engines are equipped with cab signal indicators, but I'm not exactly sure what they are used for. Are they only paid attention to when they go through areas of commuter passenger service? I never hear much said about their use. I would think that if a section of track isn't PTC equipped, that the cab signal indicator system would detect that your speed or actions are in conflict to the indicated signal and scream out with an audible alert for immediate action to be taken. Such a system would have gone a long way in helping avoid collisions.

As for inward facing cab cameras? I was unaware these had been implemented since I remember that unions and crews were steadfast against them when they were first suggested years ago. The messed up thing about stopping a train for the engineer to go to the bathroom is that although it's a written corporate safety rule that is supposed to be followed, how much you want to bet that doing so will hurt their career in some way over the long run? After all... the normal emphasis is to keep a train on time or even a little ahead of time. Stopping a train for a potty break not only puts your train's schedule at risk, but depending on where it's done, could also potentially affect the schedule of another train coming towards you from behind or from ahead of you. Especially if a high priority Z-train is involved in some way. I'd imagine if this happened often enough that somehow you would be scheduled to work less often or be passed up for promotions to basically punish you.

I'm guessing most engineers weigh the odds of the cab video being being viewed by a supervisor Vs. the guaranteed bringing of attention towards themselves that an unscheduled stopping of the train would bring and that most choose the former rather than the latter. It's a catch 22 scenario in IMO.

Somehow I think if there was good communication and common ground between crews and the corporate overlords that they could come up with a system that address the concerns of both sides of the issue. It doesn't sound like there is and that's unfortunate. With the rise of the fight for $15 minimum wage issue with unskilled fast food workers, a lot of chains are going to automated ordering kiosks to cut costs. It may be heading towards a similar automation in railroading to deal with the cost and risks of a fatigued workforce.