Amtrak Crew Practices / Freight Crews

[Tadman]

The same key that accounts for the variables in elevators and people movers is what you use to account for variables in passenger trains. Using something like actuarial data, it probably wouldn't be hard to find the average weight of male/female passengers and their luggage. That data could then be refined through a ticket scanning system that discretely weighs every passenger as they board. Then machine learning refines the data and incorporates it into the algorithm.

Not quite. The elevators can more readily measure weight because it's pushing/pulling it up and down. People movers have a bit more work to do because it has to keep track of how much power it's pushing to get the speed it needs. Trains you'd have to do it in aggregate, but if your load is constant through the trip, it's an easier calculation -- something that doesn't need a PC that makes hard-core gamers drool into lake-sized pools to do.

I'm not really sure what you're saying here, but it does not appear to be correct. Through the use of load cells, encoders, and variable frequency drives, either an elevator or modern people mover can immediately ascertain acceleration rates, speeds, and weights of loads. We don't use high end PC's to do this, it's usually very simple processors. They cost $1000-3000, but a lot of that is building them to withstand the industrial environment (IE motion, vibration, heat, shock).

[Tadman]

I guess I suggested the idea because I've had good luck in the past cross-training personnel and giving folks a bump in their pay. It's kept the company competitive or allowed us to enter new areas of business, while the guys take home more money most of the time. We were lucky to have a really good relationship with our unions but there was a lot of communication and give-take to get there, and it wasn't always that way.

Again, this has nothing to do with "union" rules or cooperation. This has to do with a federal rule was passed and you have not made a business case for why a host railroad would want to shoulder the additional costs to train and keep their personnel qualified on an operation (passenger) that doesn't pertain to their business model (freight).

I've made a very clear business case.
1. Amtrak pays the freight railroads to supply crews. The freight railroad makes profit.
2. Not only is there an accounting profit, but the added flexibility makes it far easier for both carriers to get trains over the road, cutting intangible costs like having a dead crew cooling their heals on single track and blocking 10 other trains.
3. Because these trains are now crewed by host crews, the host is incentivized to move the train more expediently so as not to incur cost overruns.

Trip optimizer is a very interesting issue. If an algorithm can be written to run a freight train, an algorithm can be written to run a passenger train. Automated trains, until recently, have only been on isolated mines and are basically an abstract concept. Not anymore. With the massive R&D effort going into autonomous vehicles and drones, it's a safe bet that engineers will not have a job in 2050. There will probably be 20 humans in a control room in Omaha or Jacksonville that supervise 100 trains each. This is currently how many intermodal and port cranes are run, a similar harsh operating environment to railroading.

A lot of these areas are confined, have sealed right of ways or as you stated are on isolated routes. As long as you have people in vehicles challenging trains to a joust at grade crossings, wandering down the tracks as it were a sidewalk, playing chicken on the tracks(forgive me but I don't recall people playing "chicken on the port crane") and lawyers continuing to defend these actions, I'm pretty sure you'll have someone present in the locomotive cab.

Regarding sealed ROW, that's not an issue for long. Plenty of the top tech and auto companies are pouring billions into autonomous vehicle research. If they can make a semi run down the road autonomously, they can sure make a train do it. We're not there yet, but we're getting there. This is not a pet project, this is the future for companies like Google, Ford, and GM.

Again, if you go back to the CFR which undermines the premise of your post and thread, it was only 8 years ago that the FRA enacted rules that made the presence of a conductor MANDATORY.

It hardly undermines the premise of the post. First, the premise is that there should be crossover of crews. I suspected there was a work rule against it. That's a detail. Turns out I was wrong about that detail, there is a CFR against it. That's a detail as well. Regardless, there is a legal roadblock, and there are ways of getting around those when there is an economic case. I spelled out the economic case above. Cross-certify a percentage of available crews.

Second, in stating that there could be passenger train automation, I didn't say that the passengers were going to ride devoid of any employees. I said that if an algorithm can be written to manage train handling for freights, it can be written for passengers. That means the engineer is on short time. But the conductor not only serves as the conductor, the conductor serves as the business manager of the train, which is much harder to automate. You'll probably not see that go away any time soon.

Finally, what FRA giveth, FRA taketh. If some lobbyist gets a burr under his hat and gets to the right President or congressman, this regulation disappears tomorrow. Or if there's a national emergency where crews are infected with a plague, and a train needs moved, and the FRA indicates they might be wiling to bend rules for sixty days. Like today. Plenty of rules and regs have come and go. What is real today may change tomorrow.

[ThirdRail7]

I've made a very clear business case.
1. Amtrak pays the freight railroads to supply crews. The freight railroad makes profit.

So, now you want Amtrak to pay more than is necessary to train a workforce that doesn't belong to them(and typically costs more since they are typically paid mileage instead of hourly) so that a provider of service can profit. How is that a good business case when......

. Not only is there an accounting profit, but the added flexibility makes it far easier for both carriers to get trains over the road, cutting intangible costs like having a dead crew cooling their heals on single track and blocking 10 other trains.

.........You have overlooked the fact that there are provisions for moving a train over the road with crews that don't comply with CFR part 239. So, a dead crew under hours of service is irrelevant to who or what company controls the crews, particularly when you have trains with attendants. They comply with CFR part 239 and are not governed under the HOS laws. So, again, a train that is en route can be moved in an emergency.

3. Because these trains are now crewed by host crews, the host is incentivized to move the train more expediently so as not to incur cost overruns.

Not really. According to your first point, Amtrak would pay to the freights to provide crews. So, any costs would go directly to Amtrak. So, what is the incentive particularly since your words were"the freight railroad would make a profit" when they can just bill Amtrak for the costs if the train is late? are we going to throw our hat on some "on time" provision or bonus? It works so well for OTP and dispatching priority, doesn't it?

To review, not only does Amtrak have no real effective control over the territory, the dispatching or priority, but they would also have to pay more money to hosts for crews that they have no real control over. Additionally, there is more than one host. There are crew bases that fan out in multiple directions over multiple hosts intertwined into one assignment. All you've done is muddy the waters by adding another layer (or four) into the operation by having to work with every single host to negotiate training, uniforms, pay, revenue...and again, it would cost more.


Your business case is very poor, nonsensical and overlooks history...and not even ancient history. There is a reason freight got out of the passenger business. There is a reason why you continue to see freight providers shed their remaining passenger operations...even with their costs covered.

I can imagine the board meeting on that call.

CEO: We need to find ways to increase our revenue stream.

Go-Getter at the Board Meeting: Hey, everyone, I have an idea on how we can make money.

CEO: How?

G-G: We can dual certify our T&E force over 2000 miles and contract out crews to Amtrak!

CEO: How will this increase our bottom line?

G-G: We can subcontract our workforce and Amtrak will pick up the costs.

CEO: How many people are on the territory would we need to cross train?

G-G: Roughly 600 people for our system.

CEO: How many trains does Amtrak run over our territory?

G-G- Roughly 15 a day...except they sneak in an extra train 3 days a week. It will still say Amtrak on the side so we will still be a "behind the scenes' entity.

CEO: Right. So in other words, even though it says Amtrak on the side if there is a derailment, it'll not only be our infrastructure in the public eye, it'll also be our crews in the public eye and our training plan that is under scrutiny?

Gilbert B Norman (who crashed the meeting after hearing rumors of this plan): If you do this, I will sell every piece of stock that I can get my hands on.

CEO: Thank you for your suggestion, GG. Can you please see Human Resources on your way out? They will help you through what will happen next.



Your problem is you're still attempting to think like an old railroader. You're attempting to, you know "railroad" and move goods, commodities and people. That is a side business. It is all about: Costs, Costs, Costs, and RES Centers, Tadman. That's what it is all about. Still luv you, though!

Again, if you go back to the CFR which undermines the premise of your post and thread, it was only 8 years ago that the FRA enacted rules that made the presence of a conductor MANDATORY.

It hardly undermines the premise of the post. First, the premise is that there should be crossover of crews. I suspected there was a work rule against it. That's a detail. Turns out I was wrong about that detail, there is a CFR against it. That's a detail as well. Regardless, there is a legal roadblock, and there are ways of getting around those when there is an economic case. I spelled out the economic case above. Cross-certify a percentage of available crews.

Again, your economic case is based upon nothing than you're probably bored and have too much time on your hands. The freight operators (once again, UP is attempting to SUE to get out of 100 million dollar contract for providing crews and assistance for Metra) would have the costs covered by are STILL ultimately responsible for complying with all aspects of the CFR. It isn't on the contractee...it is on the contractor to make sure that everyone complies. Take a company the size of UP or CSX and consider they would have to cross-train their employees....and it wouldn't be a percentage. It would be anyone that has the potential to operate over passenger lines and people can move around. This is why CSX ran for the hills and tried to create tight crew districts when it handled the MARC trains. Since there is no real way to keep people out of crew districts, they had to train entire pools for stand by and emergency service. They have no incentive to do that and a passenger operator with a nationwide range would have no incentive to be on the hook for such costs particularly

since they can control their own product,
make their own assignments,
control their own wages.

Regarding sealed ROW, that's not an issue for long. Plenty of the top tech and auto companies are pouring billions into autonomous vehicle research. If they can make a semi run down the road autonomously, they can sure make a train do it. We're not there yet, but we're getting there. This is not a pet project, this is the future for companies like Google, Ford, and GM.

Second, in stating that there could be passengerin automation, I didn't say that the passengers were going to ride devoid of any employees. I said that if an algorithm can be written to manage train handling for freights, it can be written for passengers. That means the engineer is on short time. But the conductor not only serves as the conductor, the conductor serves as the business manager of the train, which is much harder to automate. You'll probably not see that go away any time soon.

Finally, what FRA giveth, FRA taketh. If some lobbyist gets a burr under his hat and gets to the right President or congressman, this regulation disappears tomorrow. Or if there's a national emergency where crews are infected with a plague, and a train needs moved, and the FRA indicates they might be wiling to bend rules for sixty days. Like today. Plenty of rules and regs have come and go. What is real today may change tomorrow.

We can agree on neither of us knows what the future holds (and I sincerely hope I'm long gone by 2050. The CFR can change. The operating rules can change as technology increases. I do note that VIA doesn't seem to have the title of "conductor," and as I readily said

As long as you have people in vehicles challenging trains to a joust at grade crossings, wandering down the tracks as it were a sidewalk, playing chicken on the tracks(forgive me but I don't recall people playing "chicken on the port crane") and lawyers continuing to defend these actions, I'm pretty sure you'll have someone present in the locomotive cab.

They may have a different title but I'm pretty sure someone will be on the train if something occurs.

[ThirdRail7]

I believe that the US government should declare aa national emergency for essential workers. That includes RR engineers. For the engineers that have retired require them to return to work especially Amtrak engineers that have recovered. Let the RR retirement board requirements be dammed!
There is already a shortage for CAL Z and also Florence, SC.

Pretty sure the CFR for certification would require them to be recertified if they have been out for more than 3 years. Additionally, there are yearly qualifications that would have expired (territorial, rules) etc,

I'd love to see someone mount up and grapple with PTC. That would be very entertaining.

What's this, now? What the hell is all of that beeping?

[east point]

Right now Amtrak has two locations suffering from crew shortage due to covid19. That is the CAL Z west of Denver and Florence. The FRA has issued a proposal to allow non qualified Engineers to operate over some routes with some use of pilots. With operative PTC they can be rapidly sent out on their own. IMHO this will enable Amtrak now and when this virus finally goes mostly dormant to fill in. That will be especially important for PTC enable routes.

[Ken W2KB]

I believe that the US government should declare a national emergency for essential workers. That includes RR engineers. For the engineers that have retired require them to return to work especially Amtrak engineers that have recovered. Let the RR retirement board requirements be dammed!
There is already a shortage for CAL Z and also Florence, SC.

Require retired engineers and other essential personnel to return to work? That constitutes involuntary servitude which was made unconstitutional shortly after the Civil War by the 13th Amendment. The US Government cannot override the Constitution which is the highest law of the land. "XIII. Section 1
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

Perhaps you meant to say permit them to return to work if they so desire?

[mtuandrew]

I believe that the US government should declare a national emergency for essential workers. That includes RR engineers. For the engineers that have retired require them to return to work especially Amtrak engineers that have recovered. Let the RR retirement board requirements be dammed!
There is already a shortage for CAL Z and also Florence, SC.

Require retired engineers and other essential personnel to return to work? That constitutes involuntary servitude which was made unconstitutional shortly after the Civil War by the 13th Amendment. The US Government cannot override the Constitution which is the highest law of the land. "XIII. Section 1
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

Perhaps you meant to say permit them to return to work if they so desire?

And why? Amtrak doesn’t seem to be hurting for actual engine crews - only at a couple of bases. It’s easier for them to just shut down the bases rather than to roll in a mobile trailer, fly crews out to Utah and South Carolina, and get a pilot engineer until the qualified crews are back. We aren’t in a wartime situation where we need every qualified butt in a seat, traffic is pretty far down on both passenger and freight roads.

[Tadman]

Again, your economic case is based upon nothing than you're probably bored and have too much time on your hands. The freight operators (once again, UP is attempting to SUE to get out of 100 million dollar contract for providing crews and assistance for Metra) would have the costs covered by are STILL ultimately responsible for complying with all aspects of the CFR. It isn't on the contractee...it is on the contractor to make sure that everyone complies. Take a company the size of UP or CSX and consider they would have to cross-train their employees....and it wouldn't be a percentage. It would be anyone that has the potential to operate over passenger lines and people can move around. This is why CSX ran for the hills and tried to create tight crew districts when it handled the MARC trains. Since there is no real way to keep people out of crew districts, they had to train entire pools for stand by and emergency service. They have no incentive to do that and a passenger operator with a nationwide range would have no incentive to be on the hook for such costs particularly

since they can control their own product,
make their own assignments,
control their own wages.

The UP example has nothing to do with the price of tea in China. UP is suing to get out of the contract because Metra is attempting to shift common carrier liability to UP despite the fact that UP's work here is purchase of service to operate a common carrier called NIRC or Metra. Down the road BN has not made similar moves.

And the economic case is based on government entity trying to do something it doesn't do well and didn't use to do at all. That's one thing government entities are good at, is not doing things well.

Let's face it, Amtrak needs to pay some pretty sharp attention to whats going on. The institutional inertia is really ugly there. I have firsthand knowledge as a vendor. One of these days a politician looking to make some points is going to tear into that place like a wolf. They're not going to cancel the trains. Instead there's going to be more and more strings attached to things like dining cars, baggage cars, sleepers, seating density. The current Alfred E Neuman "what me worry" attitude is not going to help.

[Ken W2KB]

But what do you have with passenger trains? Well... the same as freight, but your haul weight isn't really known even along the trip because:

• You got stops to handle (okay, we can code that in)
• People lie about their weight and the average American is heavier than what the FAA says (grabbing the nearest relevant standard)
• The amount of actual people on the trip is unknown even along the trip because last minute purchases and cancellations
• People's luggage is NOT weighed
• Person may be handicapped and in addition to their luggage, they gotta load their mobility scooter.

Add onto that the actions of those people and how much time they take... and the mistakes they make. What's to stop some passenger from pulling the emergency cord because they overslept their stop five stops ago? Or the train's getting hijacked? Or someone's having a stroke or heart attack?

You can fully automate a freight train RIGHT NOW. You can't automate a passenger train.

BTW, note I restricted it to commuter rail and Amtrak. People movers are a separate story equal to elevators.

The same key that accounts for the variables in elevators and people movers is what you use to account for variables in passenger trains. Using something like actuarial data, it probably wouldn't be hard to find the average weight of male/female passengers and their luggage. That data could then be refined through a ticket scanning system that discretely weighs every passenger as they board. Then machine learning refines the data and incorporates it into the algorithm.

All that could be a moot point. Assuming the following - P42 at 268k lbs, Surfliner at 150k lbs, average passenger 150lbs, six cars, 75 people capacity. The train itself weighs 1.3m lbs dry. A full passenger load is 67,000lbs, half is 33,500lbs. Is that enough to change the train handling characteristics? The weight of the passengers is about the weight of a caboose. I've never experienced that from the controls.

No need to reinvent the wheel for determining passenger weight. The FAA has lengthy instructions for that purpose for aircraft passengers as weight and balance is critical for performance and safety of an aircraft in flight. See for example: https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/med ... 20-27F.pdf

[ThirdRail7]

The UP example has nothing to do with the price of tea in China. UP is suing to get out of the contract because Metra is attempting to shift common carrier liability to UP despite the fact that UP's work here is purchase of service to operate a common carrier called NIRC or Metra. Down the road BN has not made similar moves.

It has everything to do with tea in China. Regardless of the reason, it is yet ANOTHER example of a freight operator no longer wanting to be involved in passenger operations. Yet, what does your plan do? It attempts to do just that....lure them into an operation that they didn't want years ago and still don't want.


If you left it to the freight operators, they'd probably be just as happy if a passenger train didn't operate on their infrastructure.

On Amtrak's part, they used to operate WITH the freight crews and were subject to all of their various contracts. This doesn't even play into the current environment. What would you do with the ALB crew base that fans out in multiple directions and even operates over two lines that aren't owned by freight? Sign a contract with Metro-North to borrow their crews for a profit....when they make more and have a better benefits package than Amtrak employees? It would also put Amtrak at the whims of any issues the occur with the host employees.

And the economic case is based on government entity trying to do something it doesn't do well and didn't use to do at all. That's one thing government entities are good at, is not doing things well.

Oh...yes...and the private railroads were so well with passenger service and were experiencing record ridership and growth. Much better than the government. I guess that's why they didn't use to do it. Oh well. I guess we'll just sit back and watch the results from the bidding war that is occurring over the contracting of three long-distance routes. I can't wait to see all the changes for the better that will come.

Let's face it, Amtrak needs to pay some pretty sharp attention to whats going on. The institutional inertia is really ugly there. I have firsthand knowledge as a vendor. One of these days a politician looking to make some points is going to tear into that place like a wolf. They're not going to cancel the trains. Instead there's going to be more and more strings attached to things like dining cars, baggage cars, sleepers, seating density. The current Alfred E Neuman "what me worry" attitude is not going to help.

Yes...that's never happened before. Oh..wait...do you mean like Rep. Mica? Sen. McCain? How about Sen. Moran when CEO Anderson, wanted to cut a whole in the SW Chief? I seem to remember Sen. "Quick..there's a podium" Schumer chiming in when Amtrak mentioned it might increase seat density. Seems like Mr. Anderson was trying to make a lot of changes and people were offended when someone didn't sit back and maintain the inertia.

One of these days indeed......

[eolesen]

I think there's a business case to be made to let the freight roads bid to crew the locomotives.

Sure, contracting out does sometimes cost more than doing it in-house, but in addition to all the operational benefits, you get rid of all the labor relations issues, training costs, and HR related costs.

I'll guess that engineers are probably the second largest workgroup, and requires supervisory headcount, labor relations folks to handle grievances and negotiations, etc.

That stuff ain't cheap, and should balance out the per-hour cost, but by far the biggest driver should be operational efficiency. BNSF won't leave their own folks sitting in a siding until they time out if it's their problem to fix when the time-out actually happens.

[Tadman]

The UP example has nothing to do with the price of tea in China. UP is suing to get out of the contract because Metra is attempting to shift common carrier liability to UP despite the fact that UP's work here is purchase of service to operate a common carrier called NIRC or Metra. Down the road BN has not made similar moves.

It has everything to do with tea in China. Regardless of the reason, it is yet ANOTHER example of a freight operator no longer wanting to be involved in passenger operations. Yet, what does your plan do? It attempts to do just that....lure them into an operation that they didn't want years ago and still don't want.

When you say "regardless of the reason" you completely lose the plot. Do you really think there are a bunch of guys in Omaha dreaming up ways to get out of a tidy profit because they hate passenger trains? Do you really think UP is just looking for a reason to cede control of their east end because they just don't like passengers? Are passengers ill-bathed or something?

No. Railroads don't like passengers trains because they don't provide a return that is reflective of the cost and/or risk. UP is trying to get out of the Metra business because Metra and Illinois are trying to foist their common carrier status on UP, which materially shifts the risk/reward. Why they are trying to do this, I have no idea, but things worked just fine for 45 years until perpetually corrupt and bankrupt RTA/Illinois decided to get crafty.

Let's face it, Amtrak needs to pay some pretty sharp attention to whats going on. The institutional inertia is really ugly there. I have firsthand knowledge as a vendor. One of these days a politician looking to make some points is going to tear into that place like a wolf. They're not going to cancel the trains. Instead there's going to be more and more strings attached to things like dining cars, baggage cars, sleepers, seating density. The current Alfred E Neuman "what me worry" attitude is not going to help.

Yes...that's never happened before. Oh..wait...do you mean like Rep. Mica? Sen. McCain? How about Sen. Moran when CEO Anderson, wanted to cut a whole in the SW Chief? I seem to remember Sen. "Quick..there's a podium" Schumer chiming in when Amtrak mentioned it might increase seat density. Seems like Mr. Anderson was trying to make a lot of changes and people were offended when someone didn't sit back and maintain the inertia.

One of these days indeed......

Ha, I know Jerry Moran a bit, we sat on a board together about 10-15 years ago. Nobody made him the right trade on that one, he is not exactly a friend of yours. The chief came about ten minutes from being dead in the water. The plains. The grass. Whatever...

But like I said, they know enough not to try to cancel trains anymore so it's going to be something like airline-style seating or less diners. There's a reason a flock of new diners are being used for axle count cars and cooling their heals.