Why don't they mandate two Locomotive Engineers per train? ...

[1StrongBlackMan]

"Because that would mean having TWO people do the job of one, and that is a waste of money, silly! We'd be paying the second guy/gal, just to sit around!"

That is the, unspoken, sentiment that I am hearing ... the same mentality that has some people riling whenever they want to make some sophomorically profound anti-public works point ... i.e., "How many City workers does it take to dig a ditch? 3. One to do the digging and 2 to stand around holding shovels."

Yes, "positive train control" would/will prevent these train crashes ... until the technology breaks, as technology is known to do ... In the meantime, SPEND THE EXTRA COUPLE OF MILLION A YEAR, to save real peoples' lives.

Edited to reflect new knowledge ... Locomotive Engineers drive trains; Conductors, collect tickets.

[brooklynite]

1. How about two taxi drivers? Two bus drivers?

[jschurchin]

9. Really???

You have never been in a locomotive running down the rails at speed, have you? Actually from such a statement, it's amazing you are able to walk and chew gum at the same time.

[yeoman6987]

48. Is it time to maybe rethink if maybe these are too dangerous

And not viable. It seems too many deaths are occurring. A total revamp might be in order. Or at least see if there is truly a need for them.

[CreekDog]

67. you're asking whether rail transportation is necessary

on the basis that it might be too dangerous?

as usual, wrong again. why is your record here replete with incredibly uninformed statements?

[yeoman6987]

69. Obviously you don't like my replies

Just like I don't like your constant complaining about me.

[My Good Babushka]

10. I suppose..

if we were super careful and concerned about safety, we would have two drivers for every commercial vehicle, because an aneurysm or stroke or seizure could happen at any time. But we're not. And it is probably assumed that one of the passengers of those street vehicles would have enough familiarity with those machines to step in and take over the controls in a dire emergency. The number of passengers on a train or plane, the amount of casualties possible in a crash of those types of vehicles, the inability of a passenger to assume command of those types of machines, is what should dictate the necessity of two operators.

[Javaman]

20. the average airplane carries hundreds of people, travels at hundreds of miles per hour...

and has a copilot.

a train, carries hundreds of people and travels at high speeds 9not quiet 100 miles per hour due to our antiquated train system), yet has no copilot and relies on a single person to make sure they are always awake and alert. No one checks on them.

sounds just fine to me.

in fact it sounds just like a cab, which carries a maximum of 3 passengers at speeds in midtown traffic topping 35 miles per hour and a bus driver carrying tens of people also traveling a maximum of maybe 55 mph on a freeway.

yup all modes of transportation are exactly alike and all look like a nail.

[RedCappedBandit]

26. Do you understand the difference between a taxi and a train? Lol, wow. nt

[Major Nikon]

44. Don't forget two airline pilots

Oh wait. Nevermind.

[brooklynite]

55. Trains operate in two dimensions; planes operate in three

Operating a plane is far more complicated than a railroad engine, and there are tasks for the First Officer to perform. The implication of the OP is that you need a second engineer primarily to look out of the window for obstacles and keep an eye on the job that the first engineer is doing.

[Human101948]

60. They should mandate catheters and urine bags for pilots so the German airline suicide scenario...

can never happen again!

Seriously, if there were two guys they would probably be playing cards at the time of the next crash.

Better yet would be automatic devices that would brake the train if it was coming into a dangerous section at too high a speed.

[brooklynite]

62. That's what PTC was supposed to address...

Amtrak doesn't have the capital funds to implement it everywhere.

[Major Nikon]

64. I don't think your point signifies what you think

Everything a train might hit also operates in two dimensions. Operation in three dimensions means there's far less chance of running into something, particularly when you have people on the ground whose primary job is to keep you from running into something. In addition to the entire National Aerospace System supporting them they also have things like TCAS. Modern autopilots and flight management systems that can virtually fly the plane to it's destination and land it with very little crewmember input. Modern airliners are designed to be flown by one crewmember, the 2nd crewmember is there for redundancy, cross checking, and crew resource management, which are the same reasons why passenger trains should have two crewmembers operating the train.

[CreekDog]

68. we know what you were attempting with that post and you failed miserably

don't try to play games here.

[CreekDog]

66. And two airline pilots, how ridiculous!

nice try though.

[Ms. Yertle]

2. How could two conductors

have stopped the engineer from going twice the speed limit, if one couldn't?

[1StrongBlackMan]

5. How about ...

"Hey Joe. Slow down." Or maybe, "Jane ... Wake up!"

[Ms. Yertle]

12. So,

would two have to say it in unison to make the engineer understand?

[DURHAM D]

23. Why do you think this is funny?

Are you a lobbyist?

[Ms. Yertle]

25. Um, no

I don't know why you think I think this is funny. Seven people are dead, scores of others are injured, some still critical, and there is nothing funny about it.

I don't understand the question in the OP. How would having two conductors be better than one, if, as the OP has seemed to suggest, they would be responsible for telling the engineer to slow down.

[DURHAM D]

28. Seems like everyone else in this thread understands

the question yet you are mocking it.

[Ms. Yertle]

34. Poster changed the OP

His original question was about having two conductors. Just noticed the edit. I don't think two conductors could have done more than one.

[Renew Deal]

30. To keep each other honest or even awake.

[Major Nikon]

47. Cross checking and crew resource management just to name a couple

[HERVEPA]

51. Hey Schmuck. The poster mistook conductor for engineer. And you know that.

Why not stuff the obnoxious comments.

[Brickbat]

17. Was the conductor in the cab?

[jschurchin]

19. Ma'am, you couldn't possibly have ever been in charge of a train.

Your statements are very frustrating to a person who earns his living working for one of the United States Class 1 Railroads.
Please educate your self just a little on how trains work.

[Ms. Yertle]

24. Well, why don't you educate me?

If two conductors would be better than one, then why not three, or five, or a dozen conductors, all shouting "Slow down!!!"

FYI, my dh used to work for a short line railroad. I asked him last night about what a conductor does, and he explained. Sounds like they have a real responsibility.

[jschurchin]

32. Kinda lazy, huh?

Not my Job to educate you. All the information is available on the web. Don't be so lazy. Go discover the information for your self and make a educated decision. Don't allow others to make your decision for you. Limbaugh fan's do that.

[HooptieWagon]

3. Maybe because Conductors don't drive the train.

The people who drive the train are Locomotive Engineers. Conductors collect tickets. I don't think adding a second ticket collector would improve safety one bit.

[1StrongBlackMan]

7. My bad ... Clearly a Non-train rider here. Thanks n/t

[PotatoChip]

8. Not necessarily just 'ticket collectors'.

While I realize that we are talking about a passenger service in this instance, it's still good to point out that freight conductors do other things, such as switching and generally keeping an eye out for possible issues, including unsafe track conditions and potentially even unsafe speed on the part of the engineer.

Eta: The point I'm making is that having both a conductor (and his input) along w/an engineer (which is the OP's bottom line point) on a passenger train would be a good thing.

[CTyankee]

16. Isn't there something called the Dead Man's Switch?

I thought all trains had one in case of the train operator's sudden death or other incapacity.

[PotatoChip]

39. I don't know much about it, but have heard the term.

I can't seem to copy/paste, but wikipedia says that it is some type of alerter system that they began using in 1995 for both freight and passenger trains. It apparently puts the brake into a 'penalty brake application' if the engineer does not acknowledge an alert by turning it off.

My knowledge of this sort of thing is obviously limited, but from what I gather, it doesn't actually do any switching, just (more or less) keeps the engineer alert. (Someone please correct me if I am wrong)...

Mr PotatoChip is the railroad guy in our family (freight only), and is not here to ask.

[Brickbat]

49. The alerter is an electronic siren-like noise that goes off every minute or so and gets

progressively louder if you leave it. If you don't hit a button that turns it off, the alerter assumes your dead and shoots the brakes.

Imagine having something shriek at you every minute of your work day. For safety!

[PotatoChip]

50. Ugh! That would be annoying, wouldn't it.

But still a good thing, as you rightly point out.

Thanks for the info.

[Brickbat]

53. You mistook my sarcasm for support.

I think it's bullshit to have an alerter shrieking at the engineer every minute, myself.

[PotatoChip]

54. Oh, sorry.

Do you think the 1995 alert requirement has anything to do with these companies trying to get away with no conductor in the cab? Iow, using it to replace the conductor's input so that they can save a few bucks?

[HERVEPA]

52. Actually, one conductor and the others trainmen.

[ellenrr]

4. Why? Lobbyists.

listen to Democracy now this morning.
excellent segment on "WHY"

[Augiedog]

6. Life does not matter to republican, only money matters.

The republican congress just removed all doubt about where their true alliance is. When they voted to cut funding for Amtrack in the shadow of the latest fatal crash, the blood hadn't even dried on the tracks, and they still would rather give tax breaks to the rich than save even one human life. The Republican Party has become the party of death and mass abortion. The despicable, evil and rapacious nature of republican philosophy is exposed by their actions day after disgusting day of their existence. A vote for a republican candidate is like voting to send yourself to hell.

[Phentex]

13. It does truly always come down to money...

and people don't care until something like this happens.

[appalachiablue]

65. +10 The GOP as the Party of Death, and the Dems. as the Party of Life is truer than not.

[DURHAM D]

11. The guy on Morning Joe this am was

also on Lawrence O'D last night and he said that freight trains have two engineers in the cab. He referred to the cab as an island of one on passenger trains.

He also stated last night that there are all sorts of warning messages/lights/indicators and the engineer would have been actively turning them off instead of properly reacting to them and he does not understand why the NTSB is not talking about it.

[Ms. Yertle]

14. Strange

kind of like the German pilot?

[jschurchin]

15. Ever wonder why Freight Trains have a Engineer and Conductor riding together in the Locomotive?

Remember Freight trains carry commerce, they have nothing to do with carrying people. The reason is, Engineers job is to operate the locomotive, he IS NOT in CHARGE of the train. The Conductor is IN CHARGE of the train.
This is also the same for Passenger trains, however, the Conductor does indeed ride in the Passenger Cars to, among other things, collect tickets.
I believe the real question we need to ask our Congressmen and Senators is, if we believe Freight is so important that we need 2 people in the Cab of the Locomotive, how is it we don't consider people so important to have 2 people in the cab?
I'm not saying it still would have not occurred, however, we absolutely know what the result is with a single person in the cab.

[Brickbat]

18. Carriers are lobbying heavily for one-person cabs.

[jschurchin]

21. Yep, don't we both know it.

Guess that's why if your in our industry, we are working very diligently to try and make them understand what a horrible idea this is. Hopefully the Congress and Senate is paying attention to how bad a idea single operators is.

[Brickbat]

27. Never seen an industry want to kill the golden goose the way RRs do.

[Ms. Yertle]

29. One obvious answer

is that freight is unlikely to cause a problem or a disturbance, like human passengers could. Maybe the conductor rides with the passengers in order to take care of any potential problems.

I don't really know--just throwin' in out there.

[jschurchin]

35. "One obvious answer is that Freight is unlikely to cause a problem or a disturbance"

Oh yea?? Remember this??

[Renew Deal]

40. I'm pretty sure he means a human disturbance

Some behavior I've seen on trains and mostly the NYC subway:

Vomiting
Fights
Arguments
Urinating and possibly more than that
Medical issues
Smoke conditions
Malfunction
Doors jammed
No AC on hot days
Bathroom overflows

And then there's the stuff I've seen on video or heard about.

People jumping on tracks
People pushing people on tracks
Cars on tracks
Sex
Violence using weapons
Groping

Freight trains don't have to deal with almost any of the above issues

[jschurchin]

46. I agree, 100%. nt

[CBGLuthier]

22. Uhhm Conductors do not just collect tickets. They are the boss of the crew.

They run the train. Just want to clarify that.

Of course years ago there were two men in the cab. The engineer and the fireman. Not much call for the fireman nowadays.

There used to also be brakemen in the caboose but tech removed that need years ago too.

I don't really think it makes sense to spend millions and train extra men just too stop the really rare occurrence of train crashes.

Personally I think some day technology will replace the engineer altogether and airline pilots too. So many of these things are nothing more or less than human error.

[Renew Deal]

36. In NY, the Long Island Rail Road runs the "Air Train".

It is computer operated, though each train has a camera and I believe it is remotely operable. The trains are 2 small cars long. It is a smooth ride on new and not very long tracks. I don't know of this would be possible for very long distances over sometimes unpredictable terrain (because of weather and human interference).

[1939]

37. Historic train crews

In days of yore, the train crew consisted of the conductor and two brakemen. The engine crew consisted of the engineer and the fireman. One of the brakeman (the head brakeman) rode in the cab with the engineer and fireman so that he could throw switches or flag to the front of the train. The rear brakeman and the conductor rode in the caboose and handled switching and flagging to the rear of the train. The conductor was responsible for all of the paperwork regarding the freight cars making up the train. The train crews and the engine crews were assigned separately.

The fireman was busy stoking, so the head brakeman acted as the "co-pilot" and the engineer would call the signal ahead (green, yellow, or red) and the head brakeman would parrot the call to assure that the engineer wasn't mistaken.


Sensors and radio communications have eliminated the cabooses (cabeese?) and reduced freight crews to two people (engineer and conductor) who both ride in the cab.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

31. There would be two engineers...in an economically just society. nt

[Agnosticsherbet]

38. As of 2013, a Conductor and an engineer are required, according ot this article from 2013

Crew-consist debate heating up once again
It could be two or it could be one—and some may even argue “none, eventually, as technology advances.” There is no correct response to this vexatious question because the answer depends on—and they are not necessarily mutually exclusive—the success of Positive Train Control (PTC) technology, congressional whim, a regulatory edict, collective bargaining, and even federal court oversight.

Currently, collective bargaining agreements between the major railroads and their two operating unions—the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET) and the United Transportation Union (UTU)—require that a conductor and engineer operate all trains traversing main line track.

In fact, the UTU has in place, separately on each major railroad, a contract provision mandating a conductor be aboard every main line freight train, and the provision provides for a moratorium on reopening that provision for negotiation until the last conductor affected by that provision retires—and that could be many years in the future.

An attempt by the major railroads in 2004 to negotiate, in national handling, an industry reduction in crew-consist to engineer-only was halted by a federal court in 2006—the court ruling the matter of crew consist historically has been negotiated railroad-by-railroad, and because of the moratorium, the matter is not appropriate for national handling.

Trains are more similar to aircraft and large ships than a truck on the highway.

[DURHAM D]

41. .

mandating a conductor be aboard every main line freight train

[Agnosticsherbet]

42. There was a conductor on this train. He survived.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20150514_Amtrak_Derailment__What_we_know.html

[DURHAM D]

43. Off point.

Please see my comment #11 above.

The friggin' title doesn't matter. What matters is having two people in the cab.

[Agnosticsherbet]

45. Proposed Two-Person Train Crew Rule Rattles Passenger Rail Advocates

Proposed Two-Person Train Crew Rule Rattles Passenger Rail Advocates
What was surprising, though, was that the FRA said it may apply the same rules to passenger trains, both intercity (like Amtrak) and commuter (like Caltrain in Silicon Valley or the Long Island Rail Road in New York). “We believe that safety is enhanced with the use of a multiple person crew,” FRA Administrator Joseph Szabo said in a press release, even though a number of working groups established to examine the issue did not come to a consensus.

[Downwinder]

56. The same reason there was no Flight Engineer on Germanwings.

[Jackpine Radical]

57. I remember an earlier version of this battle from 60 years ago.

Back in those days, freight trains had two people in the cab & a brakeman in the caboose, and the railroads were battling the unions to reduce the number of personnel on the train. The unions argued safety, and the RR magnates argued cost. There was quite a public campaign to portray the union contracts that required three on the train as "featherbedding." It's pretty easy to tell who won. Next time you see a freight train, look for the caboose.

[eppur_se_muova]

58. Exactly. And that's what gave us Lac-Megantic.

[Vinca]

63. Wasn't that one of the "bomb" trains (in addition to the underlying accident)?

[ladjf]

59. ... automated speed controls. nt

[brachism]

61. Two engineers would be good in many scenarios, but not foolproof

Although I’m sure some others have suggested this theory, so far I haven’t seen it. Perhaps the train engineer was suffering from a psychological issue and acted in a similar fashion to the Germanwings pilot; the one who supposedly did a deliberate control descent into terrain (mountain) earlier this year. A two person flight crew didn’t prevent that event.

I surmise a train engineer at the controls wouldn’t have that many options to commit a mass homicide/suicide event. He/she could either (1) crash into another train or (2) force the train to derail, ideally at a high rate of speed. As for the latter it seems the easiest method to ensure maximum carnage would be to max out the train speed prior to a slow curve.

That said, the engineer could have simply suffered a medical condition. Perhaps something similar to a truck driver having a seizure with his foot on the accelerator. Another more reasonable explanation would be mechanical failure.

Two engineers is probably a good idea; but wouldn’t for example necessarily stop a suicidal/homicidal person from being successful.

Just my 2 cents.