The evolution of train crew assignments is interesting. Crews working a timetable scheduled train pretty much knew when they were going to work, and even kept the same engine and caboose. The extra board was not guaranteed, so you worked only when work was available, but at least got the same pay for it.

Did the establishment of pool turns coincide with CTC which allowed all trains to run as "extras"? The same crew members work together, and the run is over the same territory, but pretty much pool turns in effect just a type of extra board?

Soo Line had an unusual arrangement. The size of the pools were determined by the union. I had a UTU official explain that by running them short, those working the pool turns could to some extent pick which days they wanted to lay off. Since the pools were turning on their rest, filled in with extra crews, it was unlikely crew management would deny someone on a pool a trip off. Another interesting rule is that if you worked the same job or pool position for so many days (90?), you got a free bump. When one of the main lines to Canada closed for a couple weeks due to soggy track, most of the pool turns bumped to the guaranteed extra board, forcing juniors to the pools that were only working about once a week. Soo also had a rule where the yard board bid their two days off, and then the actual jobs rebid every day.

I think the new hours of service rules are causing issues with the railroads. They no longer have the "right" to force crews to turn on their rest almost indefinately. I am somewhat surprised that they did not have an allowance for 6 days on with one day off, at least on scheduled jobs. I am sure crew management would have a much easier time if everyone in a terminal working the main was on the same board. To a large extent, this takes away any advantage of seniority, because crews can't bid on who they work with or on what run. Years ago, I had a WP/UP conductor explain that out of Portola, the run to Elko had higher seniority compared to the run the Stockton through the canyon. It camedown to money. The run to ELko was over three old crew districts, to Stockton only over two. Plus, the run to Elko was faster, so the pool turned faster.

Is starting pay still at 75% gaining 5% per year? I had heard that some railroads had to raise the starting pay to 85% for the fisrt three years, then adding 5% the enxt two years. I always thought it was a crock that in 1985 the old heads sold all the future generations down the river. It really never made any sense to me why someone newly promoted was expected to do the worst jobs for half the pay, and stood no chance of ever reaching the same pay.

Forcing conductors to become engineers is also a bad idea. The number of old head experienced conductors should be getting down to almost nothing. At least under the old system, a newly promoted engineer had a chance of working with a conductor with experience. Now, you can easily get a crew that is lucky to have 5 years between them, and in boom times might have less than 2 years experience. With all the stink over certifying engineers, they let a trainman become a RCO with two weeks of training?

I think within 5 years we will be seeing engineer only - at least on those lines that have reasonable road access. GE/Harris makes a RCU for their Locotrol III/DPU type system, so there may be some lines that figure an engineer can resolve many of their own issues. Somehow the railroads have penciled out tying up the railroads for hours with a failed monster train is economical. Much of the justification for engineer only will come from the implementation of PTC.

Bottom line - railroad labor has become too expensive. This is not just because of union agreements and work rules, but the horrendous increases in benefit costs and the avalanche of federal regulations. It is now far cheaper for a railroad to invest in technology than hire more people. How much will a railroad have to invest in "certifying" anyone to work on a railroad, and then add in the drop out rate? I think the railroads will be using contractors more and more whenever possible. We may also see railroads depending more on hiring graduates of certain "choo-choo-u" programs since this will shift much of the initial training costs to the potential new-hire.

Rant over - until someone comes up with another new "idea".