Here we go, NS taking preemptive action

[mu26aeh]

Someone I know that works at the one that crashes, spills and explodes says if a favorable contract agreement isn't made, he expects at least 30% to leave once back pay has been deposited in the bank acct

[signalmaintainer]

Yeah you can. RRs are the one transportation mode that can mostly operate crewless given the current state of the tech. Camera in the cab, remote locomotive operator at the management level handling multiple trains over the road through AI assist. It's doable.

From a technology point, yes. But you are overlooking the other components needed to run trains -- track, signals and PTC, a network backbone, locomotives that work, freight cars that are safe to run. Who maintains, inspects, installs, repairs and tests those? Not AI.

Point is, it's not just the TY&E crafts that are disillusioned, tired, and worn out, and thus bleeding talent and experience. It's across the board. BNSF can't keep Telecom techs; they leave faster than their replacements can get hired. Signalmen with only a few years seniority have been leaving BNSF in a steady trickle, tired of being forced to work away from their families.

I have five years to my planned retirement, but could go in two years. And the latter is looking better every day.

[Philip H]

From a technology point, yes. But you are overlooking the other components needed to run trains -- track, signals and PTC, a network backbone, locomotives that work, freight cars that are safe to run. Who maintains, inspects, installs, repairs and tests those? Not AI.

This is true, but most of the economy - including vast swaths of the federal government - have outsourced the analogous functions over the last 2 decades.  BNSF would love to have a firm fixed price contract for this rather then having to hire and train and run these operations.  It makes the accounting easier - and lowers liability costs for the railroads because any failure can be pawned off on contractors.

[C855B]

^^^^^

Phil has it. Maintenance and other support functions have been outsourced for years. Every day I see Hallcon vans, as a micro example.

Then think of all the money that will be saved when lineside signals become our generation's steam engines. Tech isn't just supplanting trained staff in the cab.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Technology is not replacing anyone in a locomotive cab any time soon.

I do not want unmanned weapons of mass destruction driving through my town.

[signalmaintainer]

This is true, but most of the economy - including vast swaths of the federal government - have outsourced the analogous functions over the last 2 decades.  BNSF would love to have a firm fixed price contract for this rather then having to hire and train and run these operations.  It makes the accounting easier - and lowers liability costs for the railroads because any failure can be pawned off on contractors.

But where are contractors going to get and train the people?

This isn't as cut and dried as you outsider guys think. FRA regulations alone regarding training come into play for signal maintainers. They're not growing on trees like truckers or barristas. And who's going to work for lower wages that will contractors pay compared to what we make now when higher paying careers are available?

You guys who have never worked in the industry think you've got it all figured out. Crew vans and Hallicon are not harbingers of much that's significant.

I've been around enough to see what happens when carriers outsource work such as building maintenance and signal engineering. Didn't take long for it all to come back in house.

[learmoia]

I was just looking at an article the other day where they were PTC testing functionality where a trains signal was the train ahead EOT position. 

Basically the railroad equivalent to adaptive cruise control.

[signalmaintainer]

^^^^^
Then think of all the money that will be saved when lineside signals become our generation's steam engines. Tech isn't just supplanting trained staff in the cab.

Not as much money saved as you might think. What's replacing them is exponentially more expensive and more complicated.

[signalmaintainer]

Just hit the news that the rank and file of the International Association of Machinists have voted down the tentative agreement and authorized a strike that could commence after Sept. 29.

Things are getting interesting. ...

[signalmaintainer]

I was just looking at an article the other day where they were PTC testing functionality where a trains signal was the train ahead EOT position. 

Basically the railroad equivalent to adaptive cruise control.

Yes, it's called Virtual Moving Block. Cool stuff.

[C855B]

... This isn't as cut and dried as you outsider guys think. ...

Don't be too quick pressing the "outsider" button. Granted, when I left SP 40 years ago the FRA was still teething and the technology was nothing like it is today. However, I've been in transportation control engineering since. Just don't make the assumption we can't know what's happening on the ground.

Like it or not, third-party contractors are the future, as they are the present in several other trades. The training requirement situation will be met. Not tomorrow or the next day, but soon enough.

Yeah, I just caught the news about the IAM vote on my investor feed. Combined with yesterday's BS, RR holdings are taking quite a beating.

[Hawghead]

In my opinion the only thing stopping an agreement is the punitive attendance policy.  Eliminate that and I'm pretty sure the PEB recommendation would be ratified by the engineers and trainmen (I can't speak for the rest of the crafts).  As far as autonomous trains are concerned, the current technology in the U.S. is no where near ready for that.  Currently the installed Energy Management Systems (cruise control, auto pilot etc.) can't even start a train or bring it to a controlled stop.  When reaching an approach signal EMS automatically disengages and the engineer must bring the train to a stop and when stopped the engineer must start the train before EMS can take over.  Many times, especially with big heavy trains EMS has gotten itself into a situation it's programming didn't know how to handle and has basically dumped control into my lap as if to say, "I completely hosed this up and I need you to fix it."  On a dead straight run with no curves and no grades with a zero slack ore/coal drag out in the middle of the Australian out back maybe, but with a 10,000' manifest train in undulating/heavy grade territory forget it.  Recently two guys were killed when they struck cars in a siding.  This was in PTC controlled territory.  I don't have all the details, like how a train could get a permissive signal into a siding with cars in it, or if the crew was "persuaded" to disengage PTC to make the move work. (Yes I've often been told by the dispatched to "disengage" PTC to be able to force a train within feet of a red signal to squeeze it into a siding in which it doesn't really fit.)  I've always refused because disengaging PTC is overriding/disabling a safety feature.  This post is long enough so if anyone wants to here more of what I think to how the railroads could eliminate the punitive attendance policy and get the contract signed, let me know.

Scott     

[Philip H]

In my opinion the only thing stopping an agreement is the punitive attendance policy.

this mirrors the press I've seen where trades are interviewed - and not focused on management or formal press releases. I have theories abotu why the PEB sidestepped that, and none of my theories are good.

[Chris333]

Just saw on the Twitter that Amtrak canceled all their long distance trains because of the strike.

[RockGp40]

AI may one day get the trains from terminal to terminal, but I'd like to see AI spot a cut of cars at an industry, chock/skate them, close anglecocks and tie them down. Trains need people in the engines for more than the "easy" transfer from terminal to terminal.