Eastern Railroad Discussion > 2 man crew bill Headed to Congress again.

https://smart-union.org/news/smart-td-announces-introduction-two-person-train-crew-legislation/   Lets hope it passes 

 

It will be interesting to see where this goes. There's a strong safety angle to it, but the Majority Party and the incoming President say they want fewer regulations.

NY State maintained its full crew law for years after it fell by the trackside elsewhere. There was even a "NY brakeman" on the NYNH&H who rode east out of Maybrook, and dropped off at Danbury fair grounds just over the border to hop a (NY bound) train back home.

The once busy Maybrook line is a streak of rust, the fair grounds is a sparkling new mall, and the NYNH&H has been gone for almost 50 years.

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It will be interesting to see where this goes.
> There's a strong safety angle to it, but the
> Majority Party and the incoming President say they
> want fewer regulations.
>
> NY State maintained its full crew law for years
> after it fell by the trackside elsewhere. There
> was even a "NY brakeman" on the NYNH&H who rode
> east out of Maybrook, and dropped off at Danbury
> fair grounds just over the border to hop a (NY
> bound) train back home.
>
> The once busy Maybrook line is a streak of rust,
> the fair grounds is a sparkling new mall, and the
> NYNH&H has been gone for almost 50 years.

I know tho Sessions & Shelby i have asked are in favor in this Law But Now Sessions is going to the AG office and plus this would save jobs that all the Railroadswant to do away with. the Democrats were the ones last time to not pass this simmular bill. I would add I wished they would require the Railroads to have 3 man crews for RCL operations
 

shooting4fun Wrote:

> the Democrats
> were the ones last time to not pass this simmular
> bill.

I was directly involved in lobbying efforts for the prior versions of these bills (the Safe Freight Act), and you are very much wrong. The previous incarnation of this bill was in the 114th Congress as H.R. 1763, and had 60 Democrats who sponsored it, as opposed to 9 from the G.O.P.

It was never brought to a vote in the house, which was under GOP control.

Posted from Android

When this bill fails miserably, maybe some union men will finally see that elections have consequences...but I doubt it and it will be too late anyway.  

I'm Shocked that there were 9 GOP members.  They must've been confused.  This bill SAVES good paying UNION jobs and makes the country SAFER.  If you explained that to those 9 individuals they would've surely withdrawn their support. 
 
> previous incarnation of this bill was in the 114th
> Congress as H.R. 1763, and had 60 Democrats who
> sponsored it, as opposed to 9 from the G.O.P.
>
> It was never brought to a vote in the house, which
> was under GOP control.
>
> Posted from Android

The P.R.R. Elmira branch extended from Williamsport, Pa. to Elmira,N.Y. The "swing brakeman" rode between Elmira and the first block station in Pennsylvania. According to the special instructions in the employee timetable the traims were to slow down to 10 mph so he could get on or off. This was when the trains were steam powered, the engines did not have speedometers!

Posted from Android

This sounds like one of those Jeff Foxworthy lines.....

We live in a country that will let trucks operate over public highways without drivers.....

But makes railroads have 2 crew members in the cab. 

 

sixaxlealco Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This sounds like one of those Jeff Foxworthy
> lines.....
>
> We live in a country that will let trucks operate
> over public highways without drivers.....
>
> But makes railroads have 2 crew members in the
> cab. 
>
>  

I completely agree with that statement. There doesn't seem to be much fuss over driver less cars or trucks....technology is inevitable. Just like the diesel locomotive did away with the steam locomotive, which did away with tons of shop personal and shops, just like the computer did away with many if not most clerk positions, just like the radio did away the flagman and brakeman. Instead of fighting a losing battle.....why not figure out how to protect the employees currently working. Just my two cents for free.

Posted from iPhone

False Equivalence.  Just like comparing a gun to a swimming pool.  A single truck trailer is not the same thing as a mile or more long freight train that blocks crossings and carries hazmat.  That being said, truck driver is the most common job in 29 states.  If you think we are having a populist uprising now, just wait. 

sixaxlealco Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This sounds like one of those Jeff Foxworthy
> lines.....
>
> We live in a country that will let trucks operate
> over public highways without drivers.....
>
> But makes railroads have 2 crew members in the
> cab. 
>
>  

If the mile plus long container trains flying past my office at 60 miles per hour carrying hundreds of containers cannot be profitable due to the need to cut to only one operator then I think we have a really big problem.  Common sense and the constant "concerns" about employee safety blathered by the rail industry say it's downright insane to have only one crewman/pair of eyes operating a multi thousand ton battering ram...

Driverless   truck  convoys are  coming.  Better get those container trains  down to one person soon. And  I hate to  say that.

A better question is who proposed the idea of driverless vehicles? A second, better question is how should they be shot?

I am still having a  hard time   understanding  that when you add all the costs associated with moving  a unit train of intermodal
​from point A to point B  and then  you  factor  in everything, that the percentage of the  cost of the conductor spread out over each load  is significant enough for the train to  
​no longer be competitive

partsguy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If the mile plus long container trains flying past
> my office at 60 miles per hour carrying hundreds
> of containers cannot be profitable due to the need
> to cut to only one operator then I think we have a
> really big problem.  Common sense and the
> constant "concerns" about employee safety
> blathered by the rail industry say it's downright
> insane to have only one crewman/pair of eyes
> operating a multi thousand ton battering ram...

-------

This is a very good post, and brings up a good point.

Before I begin, a few things. In the interest of full disclosure, I am a freight conductor with a U.S. Class 1 railroad. I also am a long-time shareholder of the parent company of this railroad. So, when it comes to skin in the game, I think I can look at this fairly objectively. Two, I do not wish to use this space to debate the need for a conductor as part of a freight train crew. Conversely, I also won't get into the costs associated with executive perks such as stock options and golden parachutes. Finally, I apologize in advance for the length of this post. I was a newspaper journalist in a previous life . . .

A recent "Trains Newswire" blurb made note of the fact that 2016 U.S. railroad employment closed the year at 215,300 (it was +1.5 million in 1947). The story also noted that "The labor data includes anyone employed within the railroad industry, including Class I, regional, short line, and commuter, and passenger railroads." So, we're talking about an entire industry with a current total employment force roughly the equivalent of the population of Des Moines. But remember, this 215,300 figure is not the number of freight conductors, or even all TY&E employees. It is everyone directly employed by a railroad -- white collar, blue collar, union, non-union, Class 1, regional, short line, freight, passenger, commuter.

Now, to narrow things, how many conductors are there? According to the U.S. Department of Labor/Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were 42,330 railroad conductors in the country as of May, 2015. To narrow things even more, you'd have to discard the passenger/commuter conductors, as they're included in this number (and the folks in the crosshairs are the freight cons). So, where are we? About 35,000 freight conductors? Let's go a little higher and say 37,000. Now comes pay. Both the median and mean annual gross pay for conductors in that same DoL summary came out to about $56,000 less than two years ago.  Let's make that number $60,000 (a conductor who doesn't lay off too much -- and doesn't get furloughed -- can break the $100k mark in gross pay at a Class 1, while some conductors I know on shortlines are lucky to make half that amount). Taking a stab here (and please know that's all this is), this comes out to a total gross annual income for freight conductors in the U.S. of about $2.2 billion. And, certainly, benefits are a factor as well -- again, pretty good with a Class 1, not always so good elsewhere.

Is $2.2 billion -- and the associated benefits costs -- a lot of money? One way to look at it is to do so against revenue, and that $2.2 billion TOTAL INDUSTRY figure goes up against a figure of $71.7 billion in annual operating revenue for 2015 for JUST the U.S. Class 1s (AAR Statistics, 5/3/16). Another way to look at it is to put it up against the total operating expense number for the same year of $48.7 billion . . . again, this is for just the Class 1s.

Throw in the fact that the companies already have acknowledged that some trains will always need conductors -- in the cab, or "roving" nearby in a pickup truck -- and the argument that the future of the U.S. freight rail industry hinges on 1-person crews is, at best, overblown. At worst, it is folly.

jmho



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/19/17 17:56 by Interlocker.

The law proposes to lock in a conductor and engineer by law. That would protect railroads from their own folly.

Posted from Android

i remember when we lost the brakemen even though the carrier was profitable.  how many of today's proposed good paying job losses (through automation or other reasons) are needed to keep the related businesses profitable?

66

 

goneon66 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> i remember when we lost the brakemen even though
> the carrier was profitable.  how many of today's
> proposed good paying job losses (through
> automation or other reasons) are needed to keep
> the related businesses profitable?
>
> 66
>
>  

American labor gives up benefit and staffing on a continuous basis. That produces ongoing benefit to the share owners. Not to labor, unless they own shares, or were given shares / options for their concessions.

(I go on this rant regularly. Labor gives up various hard earned rights "to keep the company solvent". Maybe there's some scraps thrown by management. Management and the share owners benefit from these concessions for decades. Labor has nothing, except more work to do. And the company is a lot more than just solvent, now.

If you owned 20% of the company, and had a seat at the board table, things would be a lot different.

[/rant] )

The Republicans have been talking about changing the rules on deducting debt vs investment in the business.

Depending on the back room deals, that could help railroads,too.

The nature of railroads tends toward low returns from a huge amount of assets. Which is why they prefer lots of debt.

Posted from Android

This is a very good post, and brings up a good point. 

Before I begin, a few things. In the interest of full disclosure, I am a freight conductor with a U.S. Class 1 railroad. I also am a long-time shareholder of the parent company of this railroad. So, when it comes to skin in the game, I think I can look at this fairly objectively. Two, I do not wish to use this space to debate the need for a conductor as part of a freight train crew. Conversely, I also won't get into the costs associated with executive perks such as stock options and golden parachutes. Finally, I apologize in advance for the length of this post. I was a newspaper journalist in a previous life . . . 

Interlocker... that was an excellent pragmatic and even keeled post. 

The thing you need to add is the cost of human capital in that equation. First off benefits. 1) Health insurance 2) FELA Insurance 3) Cost of FELA claims and lawsuits against the railroad. Like it or not FELA is a huge cost to the railroads and is not predictable. If the railroads had workmans comp then the railroads would at least be able to determine the annual approximate costs and budget...As it it FELA can swing wildly. So as long as FELA exists the class 1s will attempt to reduce their workforce and manpower. 

As to the argument about how a railroad is more dangerous than a truck I beg to differ. I feel a lot more uncomfortable driving on the Ohio turnpike in a lake effect squall, when a double-Wal Mart truck is passing me at 10 MPH above the speed limit that I do seeing a CSX train on the parallel trackage. Trucks have direct impact on automobiles, railroads do not.

SixAxleAlco