DutchRailnut wrote:The subject is :Short answer is no.
Is there still a Fireman up front ?
Do you want this thread locked?
Railroad Forums
Is there still a Fireman up front ?
- General discussion about railroad operations, related facilities, maps, and other resources.
Moderator: Robert Paniagua
by wigwagfan
MODERATOR'S NOTE:
Do you want this thread locked?
Do you want this thread locked?
--------------------------------------------------
Erik Halstead - Portland, Oregon
Erik Halstead - Portland, Oregon
by slchub
The third seat makes an excellent place to place your grip among other things. Also, when you are training students they need a place to sit if there are two crew members on-board, a pilot needs a place to sit for instance the UPRR Pilot who piloted the CZ between Denver and Salt Lake City this past summer, FRA Inspectors, the RFE (manager), etc.
Concur with no difference in pay. All is the same unless a hogger comes over still on the 85%-100% sliding 5% scale.
Concur with no difference in pay. All is the same unless a hogger comes over still on the 85%-100% sliding 5% scale.
by Gilbert B Norman
Interesting, Mr. Hoghead, how you are also questioning the efficacy of lengthening the Amtrak Engine crew districts.
"Back in my day" and "when I did this stuff for a living" on my road, we did review the lengthening of both T&E crew districts using the 'freedom" that the Carriers gained under the previously mentioned October 27, 1972 Agreement with U2 (a parallel agreement with BLE as I recall was dated Nov 15).
Under that Agreement, carriers were free to unilaterally impose "reasonable and practical' crew districts so long as they were willing to pay all miles at the higher basic mileage, and of course pay relocation expenses under 'Washington Job". Since Engine crew consist was a non issue on our property (assignment of Firemen was controlled by separate provisions within that same Agreement) unlike the present day case on yours, economies were realized with "run 'em as far and as long as you can" with of course constraints being "The Law (HOS)", intermediate "work' (non issue in passenger save emergency), and the previously noted "reasonable and practical".
But I would think that with your existing crew consist Agreement (Second Engr >6hrs), you would want to keep the districts short. With only "one a day', lodging and possibly even HAFHT ("Cabin", Alimony Pay"), should there be such provision on your property covering ASSIGNED service, are just going to be part of the drill.
Naturally in districts where there is a high frequency of trains, such as the Corridor, you definitely want to keep your districts short. With plenty of trains, "(most) everybody goes home at night,'
No 60 Mass, I'm not looking for a job or consultancy; be assured I am quite comfortably retired and haven't seen a railroad paycheck since 1981 (save some back pay). But if I were still behind the desk, I would question any proposals to lengthen existing Engine crew districts anywhere on the System coming to mind.
(Edited to reflect Member's posting from which these thoughts are drawn - GBN)
"Back in my day" and "when I did this stuff for a living" on my road, we did review the lengthening of both T&E crew districts using the 'freedom" that the Carriers gained under the previously mentioned October 27, 1972 Agreement with U2 (a parallel agreement with BLE as I recall was dated Nov 15).
Under that Agreement, carriers were free to unilaterally impose "reasonable and practical' crew districts so long as they were willing to pay all miles at the higher basic mileage, and of course pay relocation expenses under 'Washington Job". Since Engine crew consist was a non issue on our property (assignment of Firemen was controlled by separate provisions within that same Agreement) unlike the present day case on yours, economies were realized with "run 'em as far and as long as you can" with of course constraints being "The Law (HOS)", intermediate "work' (non issue in passenger save emergency), and the previously noted "reasonable and practical".
But I would think that with your existing crew consist Agreement (Second Engr >6hrs), you would want to keep the districts short. With only "one a day', lodging and possibly even HAFHT ("Cabin", Alimony Pay"), should there be such provision on your property covering ASSIGNED service, are just going to be part of the drill.
Naturally in districts where there is a high frequency of trains, such as the Corridor, you definitely want to keep your districts short. With plenty of trains, "(most) everybody goes home at night,'
No 60 Mass, I'm not looking for a job or consultancy; be assured I am quite comfortably retired and haven't seen a railroad paycheck since 1981 (save some back pay). But if I were still behind the desk, I would question any proposals to lengthen existing Engine crew districts anywhere on the System coming to mind.
(Edited to reflect Member's posting from which these thoughts are drawn - GBN)
Last edited by Gilbert B Norman on Sat Nov 10, 2007 10:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
by Noel Weaver
If there is enough trains operating over a district to ensure that crews
can make turns and be back home in one day, then short crew districts
are the best way to go.
If there is only one or two trains each way a day and they can't be
returned easily to their home terminal each day then it is probably better
to have as long of a district as practical as each crew change point
usually calls for an extra list as well as other people on the payroll and
probably lodging as well.
Case in point, the Auto Train probably operates overall with fewer engine
people on its run between Lorton and Sanford with just the one crew
change as the other trains do for the same distance with their shorter
crew districts.
The vast majority of train and engine crews in the north east are able to
be returned to their home crew base each day but on a long haul train,
this is simply not possible.
Noel Weaver
can make turns and be back home in one day, then short crew districts
are the best way to go.
If there is only one or two trains each way a day and they can't be
returned easily to their home terminal each day then it is probably better
to have as long of a district as practical as each crew change point
usually calls for an extra list as well as other people on the payroll and
probably lodging as well.
Case in point, the Auto Train probably operates overall with fewer engine
people on its run between Lorton and Sanford with just the one crew
change as the other trains do for the same distance with their shorter
crew districts.
The vast majority of train and engine crews in the north east are able to
be returned to their home crew base each day but on a long haul train,
this is simply not possible.
Noel Weaver
by slchub
I am fine with a two-man crew to Winnemucca and Grand Junction. Any longer and it is just plain tiring. Just as holds true in the airline industry, "get there itis" come into play and mistakes and rules violations start to happen.
Last edited by slchub on Sat Nov 10, 2007 3:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
by Gilbert B Norman
czhoghead wrote:There is no pay differential, Engineer and Second Engineer positions pay the same.It appears Mr. SLCHub that I did misquote you. My comments were drawn from those made by a colleague of yours and cited above.
The logic of closing the so-called "mini" crew bases escapes me; they were created, in theory, to streamline and economize the operation. OMA - CHI will require nine spots, the same number needed for single Engineer LNK - OTM and OTM - CHI operation. In fact, due to manpower shortages, the service has been covered with eight men as LNK is often (as it is currently) down to just three.
Likewise, SLC - GJT requires the same number of men as SLC - HER and HER - GJT did and, in fact, created Held Away pay in GJT that did not previously exist; apparently that decision was at least partially based on the inability of the SLC Road Foreman to effectively manage the GJT men "from a distance".
I have edited the faulty posting to reflect such; possibly you will choose to withdraw yours or at least the quote.
However, I stand on my premise that in "one a day' territory, in either class of service, economies were realized by "rum 'em as long and as far as you can". However, with the existing Engine Crew Consist agreement on Amtrak requiring two engineers to be assigned to scheduled runs greater than six hours, that premise is mitigated.
Again my apology, but if you are of thought that Engine Crew districts should be as long as possible, assignment of two Engineers notwithstanding, I hope you will choose to share your thoughts..
by CHANGEATJAMAICA
A long time ago in the age of propeller driven airplanes that flew the Atlantic (and Pacific) on schedules over twelve hours there wasn't a convenient place to stop to change operating crews when they exceeded 8 hours on duty. Enter the "multiple crew" made up of a captain, copilot, relief pilot and TWO flight engineers. In theory that multiple crew could operate a plane that flew for days. In fact the first polar flights between London and San Francisco had schedule times of 23 hours 55 miniutes.
Once the plane landed all crew members required two hours rest for every hour in the air.
Unfortunately the economics aren't there for Amtrak.
Best regards,
Rodger
P.S. And oh yes there were also a navigator and radio operator. Today the Atlantic and Pacific can be crossed with three follks on the flight deck
ALL with airman/woman cirtificates.
Once the plane landed all crew members required two hours rest for every hour in the air.
Unfortunately the economics aren't there for Amtrak.
Best regards,
Rodger
P.S. And oh yes there were also a navigator and radio operator. Today the Atlantic and Pacific can be crossed with three follks on the flight deck
ALL with airman/woman cirtificates.
by Gilbert B Norman
Oh well, continuing with airliners.com at this topic. I think most carriers call the third Flight Officer on overseas flights the "International Officer".
Secondly, to continue with Rodger's thoughts on aircrew "featherbedding', look for a TV run of the Humphrey Bogart flick "China Clipper", It appears there is more flight crew than passengers.
Meanwhile, back on the rails, existing Labor Agreements, and likely the FRA as well, would preclude any kind of "team driver' arrangements with the Operating Employees grabbing some "shut eye" while on board.
Secondly, to continue with Rodger's thoughts on aircrew "featherbedding', look for a TV run of the Humphrey Bogart flick "China Clipper", It appears there is more flight crew than passengers.
Meanwhile, back on the rails, existing Labor Agreements, and likely the FRA as well, would preclude any kind of "team driver' arrangements with the Operating Employees grabbing some "shut eye" while on board.
by David Benton
My word Rodger , i bet they took a pack of cards on those polar flights .
I doubt that Amtrak would ever reach the frequency level on ld routes to allow out and back in the same day , but my question to the operating crews on here , would you prefer to be back home each nite , or do you prefer the nites away from home ?
I doubt that Amtrak would ever reach the frequency level on ld routes to allow out and back in the same day , but my question to the operating crews on here , would you prefer to be back home each nite , or do you prefer the nites away from home ?
Moderator worldwide railfan , Rail travel & trip reports
The only train trips I regret are the ones I didn't take.
The only train trips I regret are the ones I didn't take.
by David Benton
Alimony pay ?, lol , well i guess it depends on the state of the union as to wether a nite away is a good or bad thing !
Wouldnt be so bad if there were some good hunting / fishing / hiking spots near the away bases .
Wouldnt be so bad if there were some good hunting / fishing / hiking spots near the away bases .
Moderator worldwide railfan , Rail travel & trip reports
The only train trips I regret are the ones I didn't take.
The only train trips I regret are the ones I didn't take.
by slchub
CHANGEATJAMAICA wrote:A long time ago in the age of propeller driven airplanes that flew the Atlantic (and Pacific) on schedules over twelve hours there wasn't a convenient place to stop to change operating crews when they exceeded 8 hours on duty. Enter the "multiple crew" made up of a captain, copilot, relief pilot and TWO flight engineers. In theory that multiple crew could operate a plane that flew for days. In fact the first polar flights between London and San Francisco had schedule times of 23 hours 55 miniutes.You will find than on longer flights, two complete flight deck crews will on-board the a/c. Case is South African JNB-JFK-JNB. Crew bunks are located behind the flight deck. Also a full complement of flight attendants plus relief f/a's are o/b, also with their own crew bunks.
Once the plane landed all crew members required two hours rest for every hour in the air.
Unfortunately the economics aren't there for Amtrak.
Best regards,
Rodger
P.S. And oh yes there were also a navigator and radio operator. Today the Atlantic and Pacific can be crossed with three follks on the flight deck
ALL with airman/woman cirtificates.
by slchub
David Benton wrote:My word Rodger , i bet they took a pack of cards on those polar flights .As the other gentleman, czhogger said, we used to have run one-man from Salt Lake City to Helper, UT. You would leave SLC at 0445 o/b #6, operate to Helper, layover, and then bring #5 back that evening. It made for a 20+ hour day, but you slept in Helper and were home the same day. I prefer that over an overnight, even if it pay held time. I'd rather be home than sitting 400 miles away.
I doubt that Amtrak would ever reach the frequency level on ld routes to allow out and back in the same day , but my question to the operating crews on here , would you prefer to be back home each nite , or do you prefer the nites away from home ?
Of note, when this happened, a one-man hogger operation was in place between Helper and Grand Junction, CO. That hogger would go on-duty in SLC, leave on #5, deadhead to Helper, swap out with the hogger, and continue onto GJT. He then spent the night in GJT and brought #5 home the next day.
This stopped a few months ago as the run is now a two-man operation from SLC-GJT-SLC. The best we can do out of SLC now is a 29 hour run, SLC-WNN (Winnemucca)-SLC. Out at 11:00 p.m. and back 29 hours later at 4:00 a.m.
by jp1822
It seems that Amtrak's labor agreements in some areas are antiquated and need to be updated. If it is one standard for the corridor trains and one standard for the long distance trains this may prove advantageous. If they do get updated, it may be beneficial for all - including perhaps the addition of trains.
For example, Gunn realized he could run more Springfield shuttles with the same crew numbers, as they would "turn" in New Haven quicker. This worked out pretty well and there was no real incremental increase i in labor costs. No one was laid off and additional shuttles were operated - that increased patronage and helped Amtrak's ridership. The only thing was that the crew was better utilized - sorry the had to run an extra shuttle train. Comes with the job - but they were not exceeding hours of service etc.
For example, Gunn realized he could run more Springfield shuttles with the same crew numbers, as they would "turn" in New Haven quicker. This worked out pretty well and there was no real incremental increase i in labor costs. No one was laid off and additional shuttles were operated - that increased patronage and helped Amtrak's ridership. The only thing was that the crew was better utilized - sorry the had to run an extra shuttle train. Comes with the job - but they were not exceeding hours of service etc.