BNSF and SMART agree to eliminate Conductors on board trains

Surprised this has not been posted else where, but BNSF, a major Class I RR and it's conductors union, SMART (former UTU) have proposed to allow 1 man train operations on road trains equipped with Positive Train Control, PTC. Conductors will still be required on certain yard jobs, locals. and road jobs without PTC. Road jobs that need to make a cut of cars or a make a push move will be assigned a "utility conductor" apparently.

I think this is insane. BNSF does not have the best safety record and they want to get rid of essential trainmen. One day it will be computers running everything and 60 MPH crude oil trains will be unmanned. These so called utility conductors will be called out to specific location to perform the duties required of them, and leave. They will not be assigned to a single train. After the accident up in Quebec, I think it is obvious that conductors are needed.

Please help us sign this petition to congress to stop 1 man trains in the US.

http://t.co/X2eEa69lAD" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Just an opinion but I wouldn't want to be in the job pipeline for conductor right now. Where the BN can go, and shows it has, others won't be far behind.

I have little confidence they will succeed in doing this for more than year without getting someone killed. Hopefully it won't take another small town to blow up for them to realize that this is just reckless. And it doesn't surprise me that BNSF is spearheading this. With their safety records it is obvious they will give up way to much to make an extra buck.

http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/suppor ... by=5476410" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Like and share on social media.

GE45tonner wrote:I have little confidence they will succeed in doing this for more than year without getting someone killed. Hopefully it won't take another small town to blow up for them to realize that this is just reckless. And it doesn't surprise me that BNSF is spearheading this. With their safety records it is obvious they will give up way to much to make an extra buck.

I'm with ya man, both on the idiocy of such a proposal and the BNSF part. I can see this from maybe UP, but not the case. They're talking about having a master conductor or conductors available to go out. I mean, it just doesn't make sense. First its going to be trains getting delayed like crazy waiting on those MCs to get out to problems, simple ones at that, then its going to be jamming up entire lines probably states long. Snowball effect. Hell, if we can get our switch lists taken care of it delays 3-5 trains easily. Not to mention the safety concerns. They may eventually get this up and running, but I figure it won't take long for them to start losing a ton of money, customers getting pissed, and probably some accidents. Its all about the money. They want to cut conductors to save money, but how many conductors will you have to cut in order to save enough money to pay for all the delayed trains and accidents and still come out ahead? Doesn't seem feasible.

Hopefully it will get enough backlash by the crew members and management (remember, everyone pays into RR retirement, so management has a lot to loose if a majority of conductors leave the system). If it doesn't, there's also hr 3040 which could pass, it's getting about a thousand signatures a day on a petition to support it.

If all else fails and the agreement goes into effect, I have no doubt that something will go wrong. If the railroads think they can stick an engineer (who may have less than 8 hours of sleep since his last run) into a cab alone and travel across the country for up to 12 hours and NOT have anyone hurt or killed, they are gravely mistaken. As dark as it may sounds, the most likely thing to prevent this is another tragedy, which, lets face it, with the hours current engineers are working, it's probably gonna happen at some point.

I would hope that everyone who is concerned with railroad safety sign this petition. Especially train crew members.

I have spent most of my career on small railroads that allow 2-person crews. Generally, that means a conductor in a pickup truck. Only when working in places inaccessible by road, or when running on signaled Class One's trackage, are two people in the cab required (to call signals).

I have worked on one-man crew operations, too, handling trains of up to 155 cars. One day, I was pulling a 150+ car train when the rear car derailed. The trainline didn't separate, and were it not for a Roadmaster following the train noticed it (he was not part of my crew), considerable damage could have happened before the train would have gone into emergency. Probably at a switch or a bridge.

The people who make these rules generally are those who do not have to work under them.

Les

Having gone through the massive downsizing on the railroads in all crafts during the '80s & '90s Railroad Retirement survived. We had those fears on downsizing when 3 out of 5 train crew members were eliminated by 1993, clerks jobs were gone over computers, centralization on some railroads with train & crew dispatchers, MOW with equipment ect.....RRB survived. Management is also in RRB they also have a stake in another round of downsizing. Positive Train Control (PTC) isn't what some railroads are making it out to be a cure all on train safety. Forms of it have been used for decades. Northeast Corridor is one with Train Traffic Control (TTC) which does the same a penalty application of the train brakes if a retrictive signal goes ignored. The stakes are higher this time with one man operations. Locomotive engineers aren't truck drivers, we don't have the right or means to pull off in a truck stop or rest area for a break. Once on that train pretty much hostage to the inside of the cab. Railroads like CSX a locomotive engineer can't even get off on the ground to streach their legs unless the train is secured with X% of handbrakes ect...no conductor then they're hostage. No longer would they be able to take turns in a siding with the conductor to get a much needed 40 winks. Rail safety would become a bigger joke than it is today. FRA, STB, NTSB seems they're all bought out.

I agree completely with what COEN has said.

As more jobs are handled by contractors or are just plain eliminated, the number of people paying into RRB has been drastically reduced. Train crew jobs covered by operating dept. contractors are covered by RRB. I would not have worked as an operating dept. employee for a Social Security retirement.

I think what ought to happen is, every position normally covered by RRB should remain covered by RRB regardless of who the employer is. This would include Engineering Department contractors, Mechanical Dept. contractors, and Car Dept. contractors. This would reduce the savings for railroads by replacing their own people with contractors, perhaps save some railroad jobs, and strengthen RRB.

Railroads do not hire Operating Dept. contractors to save money on payroll. Operating Dept. contractor employees earn up to twice the company wage for the same job. They also are paid per diem, lodging, and transportation costs. The reason for hiring Operating Dept. employees is avoiding costs involving training and certification, and avoidance of issues surrounding short-term employees. Also, if a railroad does not like a particular temporary employee, they send him back to the temp agency for a replacement. The temporary employee only needs a short orientation on the railroad's company policies, familiarization trips over the territory, and a check ride with an Operating Dept. official. The railroad also has to pay a per-day fee to the temp. agency for the use of the employee. And the temp pays his share of the RRB and the railroad pays their share.

This can be a good deal for all parties. The railroads save the expense and hassle of hiring people who may not work out. The temps trade a home life for a good paying job and a life in nice hotels. The temp. agency gets paid for matching up employees with employers. The railroads can turn down any temp. they may not like, and the temp. can turn down any situation they may not like (few temps. will take work that involves crossing picket lines or breaking unions). The railroad gets a flexible labor pool that can expand or contract with seasonal traffic demands.

In my own case, I started out as a clerk and worked in station operations for ten years. I became a locomotive engineer as the clerks' jobs were taken away. I have seen Engineering Dept., Mechanical Dept., and Car Dept. jobs replaced by non-RRB contractors. Now, it appears to me, the next target is the operating employees. This began with the elimination of the firemens' jobs, and has progressed through the elimination of the brakemens' jobs. Now, we are down to the Conductor and Engineer. Do we make the Conductor the Engineer? Or, do we make the Engineer the Conductor? Do we put the Conductor in a mini-pickup truck with a radio pack to run the train? Or do we put a laptop in the locomotive so the Engineer can keep track of all the switching work (ground work done by a long-suffering "utility man")?

Maybe the train crews can be eliminated altogether, and the train operated by the Dispatcher, like running a train on a model railroad? This is not a pretty picture.

Les

There are plenty of transit systems that don't even have a real dispatcher, a computer runs them. Maybe this works on a subway system, but do we want to risk using that technology on trains 100 times the size? Not to mention more yards, more trains, grade crossings, single track main lines. Earlier this year there was a signal malfunction on a CSX mainline down south. A home signal into a siding was showing a slow approach I believe for an incoming amtrak train. The (human) engineer was sharp enough to notice a freight train sitting on the siding! The dispatchers board showed a stop signal. According to the article they have no idea what caused it. And I've heard of plenty of bugs in PTC.

After the deadly MN crash in New York last winter, I really think there should be more crew members. Not only should their be two men freight trains, but for passengers trains where the engineer is alone, bring back the fireman. That sounds crazy but it's logical. The task of operating a locomotive can't be placed on one person. Not only do they need someone to keep them awake, but they do need an extra set of eyes and hands when running these beasts.

As of now it looks like SMARTS union member is voting NO to this agreement, but there is a long road ahead to fight off the railroads constant moneyoversafety.

With the upshot of the Megnantic accident, this will be hard for the railroads to implement. They are just trying to push the envelope. I think the government will say 2 is the minimum crew size. When I was at BNSF, the push was to train engineers, so they could have co-engineers. This would be safest, as one guy could sit on the left side and relax somewhat. As it is now, if I have a conductor who is a setback, we sometimes share the running. This makes the day go easier on a long road run.

Let the UTU have their coveted belt packs.

Engineer Spike wrote:With the upshot of the Megnantic accident, this will be hard for the railroads to implement. They are just trying to push the envelope. I think the government will say 2 is the minimum crew size. When I was at BNSF, the push was to train engineers, so they could have co-engineers. This would be safest, as one guy could sit on the left side and relax somewhat. As it is now, if I have a conductor who is a setback, we sometimes share the running. This makes the day go easier on a long road run.

Let the UTU have their coveted belt packs.

I hope you're right. SMART has opened up a can of worms. Reading their website the president of the transportation division does a lot of double talk. States he's against it but it's up to each BNSF general committee to vote on the agreement. What does that mean? LOL!

As a legislative officer for the BLET, we are still pushing for a 2 man crew bill.

If you go with co-engineers (I think having a conductor would be best, but for the sake of argument...) you should bring back the fireman, basically a locomotive engineer trainee...This way you can still have some of the old heads teach the new guys, and engineers can also get a little break from running the train.

Anyway, the reason I think you need a conductor is you still need someone with their mind dedicated to slow orders, signals, RWP orders, etc, along with lists with the contents of their train. And you need an engineer dedicated to the mechanical and safe operation of the train. I think one of the reasons both unions are weaker these days is because the two crafts are pitted against each other with the "last man standing" mentality. If UTU and BLET could fight this together and say you need both an engineer and a conductor.

I've been thinking about this for a bit. Even though I work in the industry and the impact could force me out of a job, I think the writing is on the walls. One man crews are coming. I worked in a terminal that had a brakeman list. When the locals were heavy a brakeman would be called out. That list went away despite doomsday predictions. Then beltpacks came. Again the doomsday predictions failed to materialize. Remotes are still here.

My point?

Railroads exist to maximize profit for shareholders or investors. Period. What are the biggest expenses? Wages, benefits, and fuel. Any wonder why one-man will ever eventually happen? And now add PTC with its huge price tag and its ability to pretty much run the trains itself. I'm sure they'll be a need for some conductors on some trains or to act as yard and road utilities, but you aren't going to find them on every train.

So instead of the unions passing around useless online petitions or shoving their head into the sand, they need to realize this is going to happen and get into a position where they can make sure that the most of their members will see maximum benefit from this inevitable change.

It sucks but it is how this country is. Most work out of the fewest people. Maximize profits.

····Just my opinion. Yours may vary.···