Tadman wrote: ↑Mon Apr 06, 2020 9:49 am
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......
Tadman wrote: ↑Mon Apr 06, 2020 9:49 am
. 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.
Tadman wrote: ↑Mon Apr 06, 2020 9:49 am
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!
ThirdRail7 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 04, 2020 8:13 pm
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.
Tadman wrote: ↑Fri Apr 03, 2020 8:49 am
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.
Tadman wrote: ↑Fri Apr 03, 2020 8:49 am
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.
Tadman wrote: ↑Fri Apr 03, 2020 8:49 am
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
ThirdRail7 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 04, 2020 8:13 pm
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.