From: ehr@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Ernest H. Robl)
Newsgroups: rec.railroad
Subject: Re: Cabooses Et.Al.
Summary: some answers
Date: 21 Jul 92 06:43:00 GMT
Organization: UNC Educational Computing Service

In article <Brpwpx.6Ew@acsu.buffalo.edu>, ztsindi@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (The Independents - SUNY Buffalo) writes:
> 
> 	I'm not a fanatical train watcher. I have only once pulled
> my car off the road near a bridge and ran back to watch the train,
> that was because I was under the impression that the track the train
> was travelling on had long ago fallen into disuse because it was way
> off the main lines. Apparently Fisher Price Corp. had opened a 
> warehouse in an industrial park that was getting its second wind and
> the line was needed again (thats what my wife's grandfather told me).
> 	Anyhow, on THAT train and others I've seen recently I've
> noticed a conspicous lack of cabooses. I remember as a child I would
> watch trains out the window of the Laudromat my mother went to and
> would wave at the guys in the caboose. The last caboose I can recall
> seeing was on the back of a train going through Nicholasville Kentucky
> in 1985. Has the caboose been negotiated out of thunion contracts or 
> something? Has train traffic dropped so low that they are deemed
> unnecesary? 

This, like some of your other questions, does not have a simple 
answer.  Let me begin by saying that some of your assumptions are
wrong.

Just because you do not see much traffic on a particular line does
not mean that over-all rail traffic has dropped off.  In fact, 
despite the recession, it has been increasing on some lines during
the past year.

The decrease in the use of cabooses has come for a number of reasons.
The over-all one is probably that in most cases, they are simply not
necessary and that the cost of using and maintaining them is not
justified.  Among subsidiary factors are:  (1) The reduction in crew
size to two or three crew members on through trains has made it more
effective for the entire crew to work on the same end of the train --
even though that now means a longer walk if a problem is encountered
on the rear of the train.  (2) Electronic end-of-train (EOT) devices
make it possible to monitor brake line pressure without having to
have a crew member at the rear of the train.  The more sophisticated
of these devices can even be used to remotely make a brake application
from the rear of the train.

Note, however, that cabooses have not been eliminated entirely.  They
are still used by some railroads under some circumstances, including
on work trains and on trains in territory with manual switches (where
it makes sense to have someone on the back of the train to close
the siding switch when the train leaves the siding.)

> 	A comment on that last note: Why have trains lost out to
> trucks? I was under the impression that they could pull more for
> less using less fuel. Are trucks THAT much cheaper? It would seem
> that if you want to move several hundred tons of something you
> should use a train. 

Again, not a simple question and probably one involving some wrong
assumptions.  There are some things that trains do better and some
things that trucks do better.  Trains work most efficiently when
they are hauling a large amount of cargo over a large distance -- in
other words, when a long train moves over a substantial distance
without having to do any intermediate switching.

I question your assumption that trains have lost out to trucks.  Many
of the problems that railroads had in the last two decades were the
result of the regulatory climate.  A few were the results of bad
management decisions.  Railroads today are in a far better financial
position than they were two decades ago, though they still have some
problems.

One of the fastest growing segments of the rail industry is intermodal
transportation, particularly using containers, where railroads do what
they do best (handling long hauls) while trucks do the short hauls.

Check out one of the heavy-duty mainlines.  I recently spent several
days at Essex, Mont., (Glacier National Park area) on Burlington
Northern's main line.  If you watched the continuing parade of trains
on that line, including many double-stack container trains, unit
grain trains with 100 or more cars, etc., you would not come to the
conclusion that railroads were in such bad shape.

Yes, railroads have cut back on branch lines which did not produce
adequate amounts of revenue.  Once the regulatory climate changed
to allow them to abandon unprofitable lines, it also allowed them
to make adequate investments in maintaining and upgrading the major
trunk lines.

> 	And ANOTHER question! What is the modern crew complement
> of a train, freight and passanger? Not in the yard but out on
> the rails. Or doesn't it make a difference?
> 						Thanx All!
> 						-Joe


As noted above, most long-distance (through) freight trains now have
a crew of two or three.  The crew of passenger trains varies and
depends on whether you count only the operating crew (engine crew,
conductor, brakemen) or also include the on-board crew (dining and
sleeping car attendants, etc.)

You're welcome.  (I'm sure you will also hear from many others on
these questions.) 

-- Ernest

-- 

"My other computer is a Nikon N8008." -- Ernest H. Robl
Ernest H. Robl (ehr@ecsvax)  Durham, NC, USA   +1  919   286-3845
                                         FAX:  +1  919   286-1696