Why no more cabooses?

cabooses are a thing of the past.

signed,
the pittsburgh pirates being a winning team

Yes, but we have 10% unemployment right now, and 45% of those unemployed have been so for 2+ years! Recent news report said that 15 million unemployed and only 3.2 million jobs available. Again I say what do you tell the unemployed railroad worker that he is no longer needed just so we can save money and pay someone else more?

Technology is great but nowadays business is all about shareholder value, market share, bottom line, numbers, etc. It's more about money and less about the people working for you.

What if that little computer fails? Then what?

What if the man fails? Then what?

... nowadays business is all about shareholder value, market share, bottom line, numbers, etc.

That's what business has ALWAYS been about. Actually, it's quite easy to make the argument that corporations are now MORE employee-oriented than ever before.

I'll assume that (unless you live in NJ), you purchase gasoline from self-service stations, possibly use automatic toll tags, frequent ATMs, are ok with consuming milk extracted using automatic milkers, etc.... If so, you are also exhibiting behavior indicating that, for you, it is all about saving money and convenience and less about the people working for you. For shame!

Again I say what do you tell the unemployed railroad worker that he is no longer needed just so we can save money and pay someone else more?

Good luck.

Not trying to be flip, but if the railroad worker thought he was guaranteed a job for life when he signed on, they were fooling themselves. Time to read a copy of "Who Moved My Cheese"

Well, several reasons have been given, and most of them and more were listed in the 'Enthusiast Color Series' book 'Caboose', by Mike Schafer (1997) - Chapter Five, 'The Caboose Falls From Grace'.
The EOT/FRED has already been mentioned several times.
So have line-side hot-box detectors.

So has economics - more detail:
"With New Cabooses costing as much as $80,000 apiece in the mid-1980s, railroads were blanching at the thought of having to replace old ones...To replace all the cabooses that were still operating on American railroads as the 1980s got under way would have cost nearly $1 billion"
"then there was the cost of operating a caboose...estimated that it cost nearly 70 cents a mile to operate a caboose, or about $1,300 per trip. Even adding or removing a caboose at the end of its run had a cost (about $30.00)"

And decreased injuries arising from 'slack-action':
"...crews would be first to admit that slack acution was still a major concern in safe caboose operation...studies and reports also indicated significantly fewer job-related accidents on caboose-less trains"

And of course, if railroads ever get 1 man crews...who's going to ride in the caboose anyway?

At this point, it would simply be impractical to use a caboose since anything that one would use a caboose to monitor could be integrated into the EOTD. The marker already has an accelerometer built in which lets the engineer know if the marker is in motion. If they wanted to be able to see what is going on at the end of the train, a video camera could be implemented into the EOTD for far less money than it would cost to pay someone to sit in a caboose. The idea of setting the hand brake on a caboose could be done by having a radio controlled valve between the brake line hoses between the last car and the second to last car which could dump the air in the last car while the rest of the train's brakes are released, again, not something that is being done, but could be done for far less money than using a caboose. If they wanted to have a view over the top of the train, like the view from the cupola, they could reasonably easily have a video camera with a magnetic mount that could sit on the roof of the last car of the train with a wire running to the EOTD. If they wanted to be able to dump the brake line, a radio controlled valve could be implemented into the EOTD as well.

Really, it's all comes down to the fact that technology has advanced to the point that any benefit that could come from using a caboose could be integrated into an EOTD for far less money and effort than it would take to use a caboose, so it's just not practical to use one anymore. If all they need is a platform for a crew member to stand on, a special small car could be built for that purpose. The only reason that any railroad still has a caboose for reverse moves is because they still had the caboose and they're using it rather than spending money on a different approach. There is simply no practical reason to buy a new caboose anymore.

I understand what someone said before about the employment rates, but railroads are not going to go out of their way to add equipment just for the sake of creating more jobs, that would not be cost effective no matter how you look at it.

I understand what all you guys are saying. But...I think that technology should be used to make life easier for people, not to take away their jobs.

Yes anything you want/need can be done with the "fred" blinking light. That sounds reasonable.
On that note railroads going to a 1-man crew, wouldn't surprise me one bit. (although if something were to happen with that man, hence the need for at least 2 men)

And yes, saving money is a good thing, I try to save money wherever I can, but not because I'm trying to take someone's job, because I have a family and money's tight.

It's the same concept as the fireman, when the railroads switched from steam to diesel, suddenly there was no practical need for the fireman. Notice that they didn't continue running steam for the sole purpose of keeping the firemen employed, that wouldn't make sense. Same thing with the brakemen, there used to be a brakeman every 4th car until the implementation of the Westinghouse pneumatic brake system. Once pneumatic brakes became the standard, there was no need to have a brakeman on every 4th car performing one of the most dangerous jobs in the world. When they came out with hirail trucks, there was no need for section crews since one crew could easily go anywhere on the system. When they came out with electric signals, there was no need for people to go around lighting the switch stand lanterns.

This is the way the railroads (and the rest of the world) works, it's progress, new technology comes out and it renders some jobs obsolete, it's bound to happen, and thus it does. Railroads don't invest in new technology for the sake of laying people off, they do it to improve safety and efficiency because what they care the most about is the bottom line, running a profitable business. The layoffs are a side effect of using newer technology, and as hard as it is on the employees, that's just the way it works. They come out with newer and more efficient technology and phase out older and less efficient technology.

RedLantern wrote:It's the same concept as the fireman, when the railroads switched from steam to diesel, suddenly there was no practical need for the fireman. Notice that they didn't continue running steam for the sole purpose of keeping the firemen employed, that wouldn't make sense. Same thing with the brakemen, there used to be a brakeman every 4th car until the implementation of the Westinghouse pneumatic brake system. Once pneumatic brakes became the standard, there was no need to have a brakeman on every 4th car performing one of the most dangerous jobs in the world. When they came out with hirail trucks, there was no need for section crews since one crew could easily go anywhere on the system. When they came out with electric signals, there was no need for people to go around lighting the switch stand lanterns.

This is the way the railroads (and the rest of the world) works, it's progress, new technology comes out and it renders some jobs obsolete, it's bound to happen, and thus it does. Railroads don't invest in new technology for the sake of laying people off, they do it to improve safety and efficiency because what they care the most about is the bottom line, running a profitable business. The layoffs are a side effect of using newer technology, and as hard as it is on the employees, that's just the way it works. They come out with newer and more efficient technology and phase out older and less efficient technology.

Well you make a good point, I didn't think of it that way. Couldn't they just find some other job for guys like you mentioned to do within the company? And just curious it was mentioned it would cost $80,000 for a new caboose. What would it cost just to refurbish an old/exsisting one?
Maybe it would be a bit cheaper to fix a few up and keep them around?

One more thing too...I think at least for the remaining in service cabooses it should be so that they can be used fully, and as a caboose, not just as a shoving platform.

no one lost jobs, despite the caboose gone, now conductor and brakeman(trainman) ride at head end.
as for going with one man operation, doubtfully, in Europe yes every freight train runs with engineer only.
But then 95% of their freight trains are less than 40 cars long and just about everywhere there is signalled territory.

airman00 wrote: Well you make a good point, I didn't think of it that way. Couldn't they just find some other job for guys like you mentioned to do within the company? And just curious it was mentioned it would cost $80,000 for a new caboose. What would it cost just to refurbish an old/exsisting one?
Maybe it would be a bit cheaper to fix a few up and keep them around?

One more thing too...I think at least for the remaining in service cabooses it should be so that they can be used fully, and as a caboose, not just as a shoving platform.

I'm sure they don't just lay off everybody whose job is phased out, most likely they do give those employees other positions within the company. It's not that the individual employees are phased out, just the job functions that they do.

The thing is that it takes extra time to add a caboose on to the end of the train, and time = money. Also, they would have to be maintained to stay in usable conditions that meet OSHA and FRA standards. Sure a railroad could refurbish an old caboose, the cost would depend on the state of the individual caboose, I'm sure they could afford the $80,000 to buy a new one, but why would they do that?

After they finish putting together a train, a locomotive would have to move the caboose to the end of the train, and the conductor would have to sit in the caboose rather than in the locomotive where there's plenty of room for him. Either that or there would have to be someone else in the caboose. This adds an extra half hour or so of work to get the caboose on there and ready to go. Add to that the cost of maintenance, the cost of paying an employee to ride in it, the cost of heating it in the winter, air conditioning in the summer, gas for the electrical generator, etc. All of this to avoid using a small device that one person can carry and stick on the coupler on the end of the train. Are you starting to see the point?

Cabooses were phased out because with the new technology it's impractical to still use them. Why would a railroad want to spend money, time and resources to use an old inefficient technology when newer and more efficient technology exists and is already in use? It's just like the kerosene lanterns, why would they use flashlights when they could use kerosene lanterns? It's because kerosene lanterns can start fires when dropped, they need to be refilled each day, verses an LED flashlight where it needs new batteries once a month, so it just makes more sense to use the flashlight rather than deal with the dangers of the lanterns. It's essentially the same thing, cabooses were designed before the EOTD was invented, and once the EOTD came onto the scene, there was simply no point in spending money and time to keep using the cabooses.

When a caboose is used as a riding platform, it's because the railroad still has the caboose on the property and figures they can put it to use for reverse moves. The doors are usually welded shut or at least locked and boarded up to keep homeless people from trying to live in them since they aren't being used every single day and spend most of their time sitting in a yard. Sure they could just lock it and have the train crews carry keys, but they know that some (by no means all) employees might get a little too comfortable inside there. The purpose of the riding platform is so that a crew member can safely ride on the rear end of the train while the train is running in reverse, that employee is watching the tracks and signals and stays in radio contact with the engineer in case there's any reason that the train may have to stop. Usually the conductor just holds on to the ladder on the side of the last car. Since there's no reason for an employee to be inside it, it just makes more sense to avoid vandals from getting inside it.

As a railfan, I would love to see cabooses being used again, but there is simply no point in using them when more efficient technology is already in use. Saying that they should use them anyway is kinda like saying "Why would you use a DVD player that you already have when you could get a betamax player and pay someone to copy all your movies on Betamax tapes?" It just wouldn't make any practical sense.

airman00 wrote:

Gadfly wrote:

airman00 wrote:If you ask me, no more cabooses is a really bad idea. Replacing a human's eye's and ears, with a small computer with a blinking red light, just to save money is just plain stupid. And for those railroads that still have cabooses to close them up tight is equally stupid.

I would prefer to have a man or two, at the end of the train, then a computer. That branchline situation is a prime reason why change isn't always a good thing. Railroads will spend millions of dollars on engines and maintanence and the such like, but won't spend a dime on keeping a few cabooses around. The more technology replaces a job normally done by a person...well let's just say that's bad.

Not necessarily. Surely folks here have not now just noticed the lack of cabs! They've been gone since the early 90's. With the advent of "Fred" or the EOT device that monitors for the things you bemoan, IF cabs were generally needed, they WOULD be used. But they, in truth, and for the most part, are part of the march of technology!

Tell the truth now. Isn't this more the laments of railbuffs than the realities of modern railroading? Admit it! IF the foamers had their way, railroads would still be running steam trains, maintaining track with "gandy dancers", and running little red cabooses just so the buffs could stand around and take pictures!!! Um, you'd also not have many railroads around to take pictures OF if they couldn't modernize! And cabs just AIN'T part of modern railroading anymore! Hey, I wish I had $.50 for every cab I supplied with coal, soap, towels and water back in the 80's!

GF

There is nothing wrong with modern technology. With today's advances in modern technology, it is quite amazing what can be done. I signed up recently for google earth, and it's pretty cool. However getting back, I've been saying that no cabooses is a bad idea, and not just because I like them. Reducing manpower isn't always a good idea. What if that little computer fails? Then what? You could just as easily have a man with a laptop computer in a caboose doing the same thing as that little blinking red light.

Now yes it is amazing that little device can do so much. But now railroad crews have been reduced from 3-5 men to just 2. Imagine being that guy who gets laid off because he's not needed anymore. Is that great? Technology is replacing too much of what humans used to do.

And it's gonna continue because the bottom line and objective is a profitable company and a return to its investors. If some of us had our way, the railroads would be still running steam choo choos, maintaining track with "gandy dancers", and running cabooses just because we think it is "pretty" and gives our cameras something to shoot! Trouble with that is, there'd not be too many railroads left to "foam" over. When the investment dries up, the profits and capital with which to run the company dries UP. Manpower ALWAYS is one of the things first to be replaced (if possible). It's just the way it is!

GF

About riding platforms for reverse moves.

What is used when there isn't a spare caboose lying around? A flatcar?

airman00 wrote:

RedLantern wrote:It's the same concept as the fireman, when the railroads switched from steam to diesel, suddenly there was no practical need for the fireman. Notice that they didn't continue running steam for the sole purpose of keeping the firemen employed, that wouldn't make sense. Same thing with the brakemen, there used to be a brakeman every 4th car until the implementation of the Westinghouse pneumatic brake system. Once pneumatic brakes became the standard, there was no need to have a brakeman on every 4th car performing one of the most dangerous jobs in the world. When they came out with hirail trucks, there was no need for section crews since one crew could easily go anywhere on the system. When they came out with electric signals, there was no need for people to go around lighting the switch stand lanterns.

This is the way the railroads (and the rest of the world) works, it's progress, new technology comes out and it renders some jobs obsolete, it's bound to happen, and thus it does. Railroads don't invest in new technology for the sake of laying people off, they do it to improve safety and efficiency because what they care the most about is the bottom line, running a profitable business. The layoffs are a side effect of using newer technology, and as hard as it is on the employees, that's just the way it works. They come out with newer and more efficient technology and phase out older and less efficient technology.

Well you make a good point, I didn't think of it that way. Couldn't they just find some other job for guys like you mentioned to do within the company? And just curious it was mentioned it would cost $80,000 for a new caboose. What would it cost just to refurbish an old/exsisting one?
Maybe it would be a bit cheaper to fix a few up and keep them around?

One more thing too...I think at least for the remaining in service cabooses it should be so that they can be used fully, and as a caboose, not just as a shoving platform.

Not to be mean, but you sound as if you guys just now noticed that cabs are gone. I mean, this occurred over 20 years ago and we are NOW lamented the demise of the cab? Most of the cabooses were SOLD long ago and appeared in long lines awaiting scrapping or sale. Some of them became summer cabins and reverberate with the sound of kids on vacation, awaiting a call that will never come again. Others became fixtures in city parks for kids to climb in and over. A few did survive--not many.

When some of the guys post here, it comes across as the lament of "foamers" who only see the issue from the standpoint of being able to watch a bypassed technology and take pictures---even tho the advantages of "FRED" far outweigh any advantage gained by "another pair of eyes". You know, I would generally regard control of any railroad by foamers with a sense of impending doom!! If many railfans had their way, railroads would still be using steam locomotives, maintaining track with "gandy dancers", and using little red cabooses---all of which are GONE!!! And they SHOULD be gone!!!! If these things had been so great, and nothing was able to do the job BETTER, these things will still be around!! But they ARE NOT!!! And there is a REASON why! Cabooses are NOT the way to operate/observe trains. About the only advantage I can think of is the ability for the conductor/brakeman to walk his train, if needed, and have someone from the head end meet him in the middle. Yeah, going into emergency------that might be quicker in and of itself. But that or any other thing, taken singly or on the whole, is not enough to overcome the advantages of "F.R.E.D." "Fred" saves $$$$$$$$$$$$$!!!!!!!! And that's what it's all about!!

GF

Passenger wrote:About riding platforms for reverse moves.

What is used when there isn't a spare caboose lying around? A flatcar?

Most railroads don't use a caboose for that purpose, the brakeman just hangs on to the ladder on the last car. If it's a really long move, some railroads will just put a spare locomotive on the end and let the conductor ride in the cab like it's a caboose, this is mainly done for local switchers though. If for some reason there was a problem with them riding on the ladder, they could always wear a harness clipped to a rung on the ladder, but I haven't seen this being done.

If the last car is a hopper, often times the conductor will ride inside the bulkhead.

RedLantern wrote:If the last car is a hopper, often times the conductor will ride inside the bulkhead.

I could attest to that. When CSX has to back up to the mainline from the P&W yard in Worcester, the usual consist is two engines facing south making a reverse move. The conductor rides the ladder/bulkhead of the last car. I have witnessed them riding the hoppers in this fashion mentioned.