• Hours of Service

  • Discussion of the operations of CSX Transportation, from 1980 to the present. Official site can be found here: CSXT.COM.
Discussion of the operations of CSX Transportation, from 1980 to the present. Official site can be found here: CSXT.COM.

Moderator: MBTA F40PH-2C 1050

  by jg greenwood
 
On the CN the only way one can receive 8-hours undisturbed rest at the away terminal is to log at least 12-hours on your previous shift. What does this "safety first" policy force one to do? Does "hosing the canine" come to mind?

  by Cowford
 
I'm happy to see that posters recognize that challenges in changing hrs of service (rest) come from management AND labor. Labor deserves management's dedication to improving quality of life issues. And management deserves labor's dedication to improving railroad efficiency in order to assure a future. Extending rest periods to 10-12 hrs has many arguable merits, but it will cost the railroads more (more crew hiring, higher hotel costs, etc)... it's not realistic for labor expect to work less but still get the same (or more) wages.

How 'bout a compromise through collective bargaining. Extended rest with no wage reduction in return for one-man crews on road jobs.

  by jg greenwood
 
Cowford wrote:I'm happy to see that posters recognize that challenges in changing hrs of service (rest) come from management AND labor. Labor deserves management's dedication to improving quality of life issues. And management deserves labor's dedication to improving railroad efficiency in order to assure a future. Extending rest periods to 10-12 hrs has many arguable merits, but it will cost the railroads more (more crew hiring, higher hotel costs, etc)... it's not realistic for labor expect to work less but still get the same (or more) wages.

How 'bout a compromise through collective bargaining. Extended rest with no wage reduction in return for one-man crews on road jobs.
How do you equate working less for equal pay? We're talking adequate rest here, not fewer hours for the same pay. We should agree to one-man operations in exchange for safety? IIRC, the carriers reserve a block of rooms at the individual hotels. These rooms are paid for, occupied or not. I'm missing something in your post.

  by CSX Conductor
 
Cowford wrote:How 'bout a compromise through collective bargaining. Extended rest with no wage reduction in return for one-man crews on road jobs.
One-man crews: I get a knuckle on my train on single track, by the time I wrap sufficient number of hand-brakes per rules so I can walk the train (with an 85lb knuckle) to the break in the train (about 3/4 of a mile from head-end)...then tie-down the seperated portion of train with "sufficient amount" of hand-brakes so that I can walk back to the head-end, seperate the equipment by no less than 50ft and no more than 250ft, secure 3-step for MYSELF and repeat the process of tying down the front of train.....and hike to rear of train........................ugggh OUTLAWED just securing the equipment..........that's not saving money by putting me alone!!! lol :P meanwhile no other trains can move.

etc

  by Noel Weaver
 
Cowford wrote:I'm happy to see that posters recognize that challenges in changing hrs of service (rest) come from management AND labor. Labor deserves management's dedication to improving quality of life issues. And management deserves labor's dedication to improving railroad efficiency in order to assure a future. Extending rest periods to 10-12 hrs has many arguable merits, but it will cost the railroads more (more crew hiring, higher hotel costs, etc)... it's not realistic for labor expect to work less but still get the same (or more) wages.

How 'bout a compromise through collective bargaining. Extended rest with no wage reduction in return for one-man crews on road jobs.
I totally disagree with you on this one. How much money do mishaps
cost when two trains bump and the blame is put on one of the crews?
Fatigue is a factor in many of these unfortunate events.
The crews will be losing money if the hours of service law regarding off
duty time between trips as they will likely make less trips per pay period.
Now you want them to work alone too.
Who is going to call for help if the one remaining crew member gets
injured or sick enroute? I had a appendicitis attack on a freight train back
in 1972 out in the "middle of nowhere". The other crew member(s) called
for help on the radio and literally saved my life as I had major
complications from this sickness.
If I had been running this train alone (one man crew), I would not be here
typing this right now.
Many of the crews would not support a change of the hours of service law
but I surely would if I was still working.
What you said here convinces me that management truly does not care
about their help.
Noel Weaver

  by AmtrakFan
 
Would this be possible as a new Service of Hours
12 On
10 Off up from 8
Would it help Fataige?
  by JoeCollege
 
went to a schedule with 12 hours on, 12 hours off for three days of each- 3 days of 12 off 12 on followed by 3 full days off. Claims are that it saves a ton of overtime and has reduced fatigue.

Any figures as to what this would cost the railroads?

  by LCJ
 
If you read up on the large amount of study that has gone into the issue of crew fatigue, you will find there are no simple answers such as offered above.

There are many programs out there that the railroads have implemented to combat sleep deprivation -- most of which advocate the steps employees should take to mitigate the harmful effects of not having a regular sleep pattern.

Until you live this lifestyle, you have no idea what it does to you. I remember clearly the years I spent on an extra list. It was seldom that I ever felt really rested during periods of quick turns. Sleep deprivation does terrible things to your body and your mind over time. It's not, for me anyway, worth the extra money you make doing it.

I could name several people who worked road pools for years on end who never made it to retirement because of the effects. I can still see their gray, drawn faces as they got to where congestive heart failure (one of the results of long-term sleep deprivation) was taking them down.

There is the issue of operating safety as well. One's alertness level suffers a great deal. I wish I had a dollar for every time I had to run a train standing up, jumping up and down, splashing water on my face, or poking my head out the window to stay awake in the early morning hours.

And there is no feeling worse than failing to recall what that last signal aspect was....

The main problem stems from the lack of regularity much more than how many hours are available for rest between tours of duty.

  by CSX Conductor
 
AmtrakFan wrote:Would this be possible as a new Service of Hours
12 On
10 Off up from 8
Would it help Fataige?
Not really. You need to remember that crews are often on-duty longer than the 12 hours......12 hours of train service, but then however long it takes for relief crew / taxi to get to you......and in addition to this, the time travelling to home or away terminal. (In some cases could be close to 16 or more hours.....maybe even more i the winter when driving conditions are terrible).

Also, even if you have 10 hours "rest" it is 10 hours between off-duty and on-duty times. If you ae off duty at home terminal @ 800hours and live 2 hours away, you would be getting home around 1000 and the caller might need you out on your rest at 1800 hours....in which case they would be calling you at least 2 hours before the report time which in this case would be 1600 hours, giving you.............6 hours to try to sleep. (Nevermind having children at home that haven't seen you in a few days).

  by Cowford
 
Noel - you're convinced that management doesn't care about labor... aren't you being a bit melodramatic? Gosh, I just said that there are considerations and resistance from BOTH management and labor perspectives. And don't think for a minute that management has no concerns about this... just not true.

One-man crews will most likely bring about Positive Train Control, which will, WITHOUT QUESTION, improve train safety. Other concerns: "utility" crews could be used to when an extra man is needed... they're already used when two man crews need help to break trains at road crossings, etc. Now, about crew rest. Hotels price their rooms for railroads based in part on how often they can flip the rooms. Longer layovers means slower room turnover. Slower room turnover means eventual higher rooms costs. And as for crew pay... longer layovers may mean fewer hours for crews. So, are crews going to be accepting of that? Dispute this? What if the mandatory rest went up to 24hrs. Would crew on-duty hours be affected? Of course they would.

  by JBlaisdell
 
I do not think railroads should EVER go to one-man crews. People are human, they fall asleep at bad times, don't see hazards, get distracted. Also equipment breaks of fails. A second man in the cab is insurance if nothing else.

etc

  by Noel Weaver
 
Cowford wrote:Noel - you're convinced that management doesn't care about labor... aren't you being a bit melodramatic? Gosh, I just said that there are considerations and resistance from BOTH management and labor perspectives. And don't think for a minute that management has no concerns about this... just not true.

One-man crews will most likely bring about Positive Train Control, which will, WITHOUT QUESTION, improve train safety. Other concerns: "utility" crews could be used to when an extra man is needed... they're already used when two man crews need help to break trains at road crossings, etc. Now, about crew rest. Hotels price their rooms for railroads based in part on how often they can flip the rooms. Longer layovers means slower room turnover. Slower room turnover means eventual higher rooms costs. And as for crew pay... longer layovers may mean fewer hours for crews. So, are crews going to be accepting of that? Dispute this? What if the mandatory rest went up to 24hrs. Would crew on-duty hours be affected? Of course they would.
By your statements on this forum, you are indicating that management
does not particularly care about its troops.
You fail to address the consequences if one of your "one person trains"
has a mishap enroute, maybe a serious derailment where one person
could perhaps save the life of the other person, one person got seriously
sick and the other person arranged for help or a major problem that
requires two people to correct.
Cowford, I rather doubt from your posts that you have ever worked a
long mileage through freight train over the road. It is not always peaches
and cream and the second person does not always sit on his rear end
doing nothing.
The requirements of the hours of service law are set by the federal
government while the number of people on trains is negiotated between
the railroads and the unions. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME AND ONE DOES
NOT NECESSARILY DICTATE THE OTHER.
Noel Weaver

  by Cowford
 
Noel, where you get that "management doesn't care about it's troops" from my postings is beyond me. To make such a blanket statement is unfortunate.

Yes, rest and one-man crews are two different subjects. They sort of got blended together in this string, maybe in part because the subjects would in a collective bargaining negotiation. Your claim that another is in the cab out of emergency necessity is hard to swallow. I don't see much concern about the fact that, to my knowledge, ALL passenger trains in this country are run with a one man crew in the cab.

  by LCJ
 
It's a good thing these two aren't in charge of negotiating contracts.

  by Railjunkie
 
Cowford not all passenger trains are run with one man on the head end in ALB we have a train that has an engineer and a asst engineer every trip, and I do beleive that if a trip has a running time of over seven hours you must have a asst engineer (could be a local agreement). When I hired out all trains going west had two men on the head end, now we change at SYR.

Working the extra board I can tell you that there are plenty of times I have only gotten the manditory eight hours off, with only 5-6 hours of sleep. As any T&E employee can tell you one moment of brain freeze can put you into the jackpot ie fired. Traveling at 80 to 110 mph you have got to be on top of your game with a clear head because things can and will go bump in the night.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7