Fearmongering Against One-Man Crews

by Aaron Hockley on June 25, 2006

I just saw this article by a Kansas City news outlet which is stirring the pot regarding one-man operating crews on freight trains.  While safety is a valid concern, unfortunately the article quickly delves into nothing but scare tactics, and the so-called real world examples they cite have nothing to do with crew size.  Here’s some bogus examples cited in the article:

  • The London Subway bombings.  Not freight trains, totally irrelevant to how many men are in the cab.
  • A plan to release chlorine gas into the New York Subway.  Again, irrelevant to how many men are in the cab.
  • An air hose broke in the back of the train. One person would not be able to get to it quickly.  So what?  It’s not like the current two-man system is quick.
  • A train is involved in a grade crossing crash. One person would not be enough to handle such emergencies.  Huh?  It takes two people to plug the air?  The person who goes to check out the carnage can’t also use their radio to call for help?

I won’t argue that one-man crews would be safer, but I’ve yet to be convinced of any doomsday scenario of losing a crew member.  Yes, there’s union labor issues involved, and job security is really the number one issue, hiding behind the screen of “safety” and “think about the children!”

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

  • Mike Smith

    “…engineers and conductors argue that one person is not enough if the train encounters mechanical problems and the lone crew member must check them out, leaving the engine idling and the controls unattended.”

    Because we all know that locomotives never, ever sit unattended with their engines running. Certainly not for hours on end. Never.

  • http://www.adronbhall.name adron

    From a very technical viewpoint, they could even take a guy out of the cab, put a camera in, and have one guy watching 10-20+ trains. Either way the second person does 0 needed items at this point.

    It’s just Unions using their mob threats to keep unneeded employes employed. :( Very sad.

  • http://peterzpicts.smugmug.com Paul Petersen

    I am the last person to support union feather bedding. But I have serious reservations about running trains with a lone crew member.
    1. Human factor, expecting someone to operate a hot, dirty and noisy locomotive cab for 12 hours bouncing down the road. Having a companion can take the edge off of the stress of that environment. I think it would be a lot smarter to have both crewmembers qualified to share the operation and management of the train.
    2. Operator overload. Imagine the public outrage and embarrassment when solo crewman misses honking for a unsignalled crossing and take out a pedestrian or kid on a bike because they were distracted copying a order or restriction. Look at how concern there is over people driving and talking on a cell phone.
    3. Second set of eyes can monitor the alertness of the the man at the controls. Second check the reading of signals and compliance with restrictions.
    4. Keeping the train going…. A solo crewmenber cannot restart or reboot a trailing unit that drops offline while the train is in motion. Also there is no way a solo crewman could replace a broken knuckle and remake the train to get it going again.
    Unless railroad are going to remake the way they operate their railroads I don’t think one man crews would be a more workable option. Things that would have to happen would be like operating smaller more frequent trains on shorter runs. Advanced computerized signaling to second guess operations in the cab. More support people on the ground to help with train issues a lone crew member cannot fix.
    Paul

  • angry Conductor

    another reason why I hate railfans

    stick to taking pictures

  • Pingback: 9 Things I’ve Learned from Blog Stats » Another Blogger

  • allblack

    “A train is involved in a grade crossing crash. One person would not be enough to handle such emergencies. Huh? It takes two people to plug the air? The person who goes to check out the carnage can’t also use their radio to call for help?”

    Often the portable radio is not strong enough to send out a distress call and must be relayed to the engineer in the cab. If the train takes a long time to stop that could be a long hike back to the engine to make the call. Also the crossing may need to be cut to allow emergency people access.

  • angry engineer

    I hope all you anti union railfains on here lose you lobs someday! Go rub off to some train photos!

  • http://None Kevin Kirkpatrick

    As a 29 yr RR conductor, I can see how ppl who dont work for the RR might think there is no need for two men but I dont think those ppl have ever worked the number of hours required of the job and the unknown schedules that we work. Keeping up with track warrants, slow orders, track gangs on the track and hazmat requirements not to mention the vagrants and possible terror attacks, keeps two men fairly busy most of the time. Short hauls might be another animal but for long haul freight, night and day with irregular sleep, safety is an issue. Most of the criticism is from ppl with day jobs who sleep every night and cant imagine how difficult it is to work the weird and varied schedules.

Previous post:

Next post: