Western Railroad Discussion > News: PTC can change out knuckles and hoses and more!

https://www.progressiverailroading.com/federal_legislation_regulation/news/FRA-withdraws-proposed-train-crew-staffing-rule--57649

So PTC can prevent Restricted Speed collisons now, change out knuckles and hoses, throw out rips. The CTC salesmen of the 50s are still alive and well.

TAW

Article stated in part:

Jefferies added that train-crew staffing size has been a matter of collective bargaining between railroads and their employees for decades.
"Over that time, the safety of train operations has steadily improved even as crew sizes have been reduced, through the bargaining process, from five or more down to today’s standard of two — and in some cases, one," said Jefferies.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If this is really true, then what would be the problem for continued bargaining between the roads and the unions to settle it? Is government regulation of this issue truly the best way? And if the unions feel so strongly about keeping the 2-man crew, also pointed out in the article, isn't it better for them to take responsibility of this demand and do whatever it takes to keep the status quo? If they can't fight for this, what will they fight for? Otherwise their union is worthless. I was a union member for years and felt that even with some givebacks over time, anything that was really worth keeping or absolutely necessary was our repsonsiblility to fight for at any cost to get what we felt was needed (like staffing levels). Of course, it's a lot easier to have the government do it for you...

JG

jgilmore Wrote:
> If this is really true, then what would be the
> problem for continued bargaining between the roads
> and the unions to settle it? Is government
> regulation of this issue truly the best way? And
> if the unions feel so strongly about keeping the
> 2-man crew, also pointed out in the article, isn't
> it better for them to take responsibility of this
> demand and do whatever it takes to keep the status
> quo? If they can't fight for this, what will they
> fight for? Otherwise their union is worthless. I
> was a union member for years and felt that even
> with some givebacks over time, anything that was
> really worth keeping or absolutely necessary was
> our repsonsiblility to fight for at any cost to
> get what we felt was needed (like staffing
> levels). Of course, it's a lot easier to have the
> government do it for you...
>
What you say is all well and good, but.....
the RR's know that they can stonewall up to the union calling a strike...
and then they cry National Emergency and run to Congress.
When the dust settles, it probably will not be in the employees favor.
zr190

jgilmore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> If this is really true, then what would be the
> problem for continued bargaining between the roads
> and the unions to settle it? Is government
> regulation of this issue truly the best way?

Unions are getting walked on like gum on a sidewalk. That's pretty much the reason for 49 CFR 218.97. That one shouldn't be necessary either...but it is.

TAW

Wonder why 2 pilots are in every cockpit of every commercial flight?

Present RR rules will have to be changed for one man crews (3 step, securement, flagging crossings, manitory directives). Railroads will be glad to change the rules to make this happen, with the FRA just sitting on their hands. Think Boeing and the FAA.

Posted from Android

All about safety guys



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/24/19 12:09 by 20yearrrman.

Now let's see here, some railroads are running off business which could be profitable if handled correctly,
and generally pissing off shippers but making up for it by cutting costs, got it. Uh guys, that one disaster
under PTC and zero man crews can't be sloughed off on the insurance company if you're self insured.
And, if it happens in California, some jury is going to try and bankrupt you. But hey, since you're all looking
shorter than the length of your nose, everything will be just fine.

Out

One-man crews == Lac Megantic ....

 

Will MacKenzie
Dundas, ON

thehighwayman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One-man crews == Lac Megantic ....
>

How about the one in Australia involving a train so long that the one man crew couldn't tie a sufficient number of brakes before it got away? That the helper that was sent got the wrong train is irrelevant.

TAW

Feds are really blundering here.  Railroads will now start to get rid of the conductor even though they are lengthening trains to 12,000- 15,000 feet or more. Oh wait, they will have some vehicle guy come to the rescue even though he may be 90 miles away and train just sits there.

This really is getting to the point of ridiculous.

tomstp Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>  Oh wait, they will have some vehicle guy
> come to the rescue even though he may be 90 miles
> away and train just sits there.

...or gets away like the one in Australia.

TAW

The ultimate decider in every Federal agency decision is the person in the White House.
Harry Truman had a sign on his desk that read: "The buck stops here."

Bill Deaver
Tehachapi, CA

Its not like there havent been run away trains with a full crew..
RB

up833 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Its not like there havent been run away trains
> with a full crew..
> RB

Apparently, the idea of increased risk was lost on you. Nobody has claimed it eliminates accidents completely.

Right now, Boeing has an entire fleet of 737 variant grounded, because they relied too much on technology "fixing" an issue. Have we not learned anything from that?

Posted from Android

Especially considering that "new Technology" on the 737 Max seems to be embued with the ability to
be smarter than the pilots.

Out

The 737max demonstrated that the FAA was a puppet of the aviation industry, and now the FRA has publicly declared that they are a puppet of the railroad industry. Why even bother having government regulatory bodies? Lets just let the all wise corporate executives decide what is safe for the general public.

One man crew= Chatsworth. A fireman or crewman in the locomotive would’ve stopped the lone engineer from running a red block. No one ever brings that up, the spin on that one is just the evil cell phone.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/24/19 18:01 by handsignals.

That's exactly the point. Too many people that get to make decisions have never once spent a night running a train after having terrible train line ups, being forced to take a call outside of the order they are expecting, being sick, etc etc.  The industry and the fra are and have been in bed for years. This just solidified this. Batory serves at the pleasure of the sitting president. Cops don't NOT enforce law based on who the damn president is. THAT is the problem. PTC still isn't 100% reliable. I don't expect it to be either. I'm praying for a buy out of some sort when it goes to 1 man crews as I don't want that job.  I know it's unsafe to operate the way these class one roads have with only one person. The fra doesn't care. Nor do the stock holders. It's MY life in that cab.

Joe

tomstp Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Feds are really blundering here.  Railroads will
> now start to get rid of the conductor even though
> they are lengthening trains to 12,000- 15,000 feet
> or more. Oh wait, they will have some vehicle guy
> come to the rescue even though he may be 90 miles
> away and train just sits there.
>
> This really is getting to the point of ridiculous.
Estbound stalls can sit at El Casco for 5 or 6 hours or more though I haven't seen one in a few weeks

handsignals Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> One man crew= Chatsworth. A fireman or crewman in
> the locomotive would’ve stopped the lone
> engineer from running a red block. No one ever
> brings that up, the spin on that one is just the
> evil cell phone.

According to whom?

TAW Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> thehighwayman Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > One-man crews == Lac Megantic ....
> >
>
> How about the one in Australia involving a train
> so long that the one man crew couldn't tie a
> sufficient number of brakes before it got away?
> That the helper that was sent got the wrong train
> is irrelevant.
>
> TAW

I admit that I don't know all of the details of that event, but how many people do you think are tying brakes on a train with a two man crew?