Remote Control

[Anonymous]

Previous threads in this discussion topic have been removed.

Please keep discussion threads on topic. Personal attacks do not add to the collective sharing of opinions, ideas or knowledge and will be removed.

- Mike Williams
Editor, Trains.com

[Anonymous]

How can I be certain that my hoppy shop is selling me the latest version of the Atlas commander Dcc Commander containing latest upgrades?
Thank you for prompt reply as I intend purchasing said system this week.
Regards
Rudy Montreal Canada

[thirdrail1]

Rudy, I believe this topic concerns the CANAC "Beltpak" and similar devices to operate the real thing.. Suggest you go to www.atlasrr.com to see the latest Atlas DCC offerings and compare those to the ones at your hobby shop.

[Anonymous]

I don't know who came up with the remote or robots as we call them, but they are terrible. If you were just playing with them it would be fine but to do any switching work is awful. I use them on a daily basis at work and the braking is incosistant and you don't have the same feel as the hogger would when making a joint on cars. I would like to see the engineers back in the engine. Many times in the winter the beltpak doesn't work and they have to call a engineman to run the job. Some jobs should just be left to people and not a computer!!

[Anonymous]

Hi, I don't know much about the RC engines, but I have seen them in use in the Cleveland Steel Mills Were they used to swicth the laddle and scrap cars around in close proximity areas and they seemed to do well and be liked by they're operaters. I would think that they work well in this case because of the small train size. (one to three cars) I would think that with larger train size, it might not work as well. But I don't know.......Jamie

[Anonymous]

I was just reading about the CSX and other class 1 railways buying robot engines and have to dispute the accident rate claim. I know many of the accidents now aren't as bad because speed is limited to 15 mph. The frequency of accidents is up greatly. The accidents get brushed under the carpet now because the railways want to eliminate jobs to make more money. If they had to admit that the beltpak wasn't as safe then they would have to put engineers back in the chair. Which they wouldn't like because they would now have to hire at CN due to the shortage of engineers.

The railways don't cre about safety it's all about the bottom line!

[Anonymous]

You are correct my freind. All the big four carriers care about is the bottom line. I work for CSX at Garrett, IN and Fort Wayne, IN. We all stand to lose a great deal if they implement RC in the yards. All the yard engineers would be forced to the road and a good many engineers that are working now would either be forced to go back as conductors or be furloughed. We have a lot of big yards around our area. I also agree that the safety record of the remote control is a farce. I for one could not get used to operating the engine from the ground. I rely on seat of the pants to help control the movement when switching.
I would hate to be the one at the end of the move when I coupled to a string of cars. Maybe I should apply for a job with the CN.

[Anonymous]

Scott, you don't want a job at CN. The remote is a pain, carring your lists, handlamp,(at night), and your radio, what fun!! The only application it makes sense on is the hump yard. At CN the hump yard is just a one man operation.

When it gets cold the remote does all kinds of goofy things. The air won't come up in the main res and it goes in the hole. Then they have to call a hog, which takes 2 hours, and then we fall way behind.

In Toronto and surrounding area they are only about 10 yard engineer jobs.The rest are beltpak. When they brought in the remotes they gave early retirement packages to the enginemen. I wish I could get one of those now.

[Anonymous]

I'm a new generation of railroader. Just 4 years seniority on one of Canada's class 1s. Two years ago I was trained to use beltpack technology. It is interesting to note that I have worked with beltpack more than I have worked with "conventional" crews.

The opinion with me and with other "fudgepackers" is that we usually would want a beltpack over an engineer. Wow! Blasphamy. It is true that it is easier to control the movement yourself than it is to relay the information to an engineer. Most experienced beltpackers can control the movement just as well as an engineer and most beltpack crews are just as productive as conventional crews.

Now to flip the coin over. I find it amazing that the railroads claim beltpacks are safer than conventional crews. The accidents I have seen in my yard with the beltpacks are serious. Usually, the accidents are caused by a failure to properly protect the point, thus two opposing movements coliding with each other. There maybe fewer accidents but the ones that do occur are much more severe.

Currently, the technology has not matured yet. There are many mechanical problems that plague the beltpack. It is rare in our yard to have all the beltpack units operational. This is where the largest loss of productivity occurs.

My company uses beltpack for one reason. To reduce the workforce. In my yard we now have former BLE members on the ground again after 15 years of being a hog.

Unfortuneately, beltpack is here to stay and we will see more of it. It is clear now that we will see wayfreights and roadswitchers beltpack. All class 1s will become beltpack in order to compete with the other class 1s. It comes down to dollars and cents. Beltpack = smaller workforce = lower operating ratio.

[Anonymous]

As a former switchman I've watched the development of RC with interest. My former employer is now barred form using RC in much of its operations due to a state law. But now that it is owned by CN,I can see the handwriting on the wall.

When I first heard of RC, my first concern was protecting the point. One the former yards I switched in had a drive that the public used across one of the leads. Imagine the liability if there was an accident there while pulling out a cut to kick!

As far as the reliability of the units go, I think we all know they will improve. Every tecnologhy in every industry went through growing pains. Mobile phones are now going digital and are much more reliable than at first.

If I'm not mistaken the FRA has mandated that whenever an accident occurs it must also note whether RC was being used at the time. Hopefully this will alert the government to the specific types of problems related to RC. Then they can write the necessary rules.

The fact is railroads are not making enough money to improve their plant let alone expand it. The fireman is gone, the caboose is dead, RC will be here to stay. Railroads must improve their operating ratios to attract capital for investment.

Now is the time for the UTU to be constructive and negotiate how RC will be used not just try to stop its use. Training must also be negotiated. I had a hard time with only about three actual weeks of of training to experience switching boxcars. Imagine if I was supposed to learn RC shortly thereafter.

RC is a natural for shorter haul transfer jobs where little road switching exists between yards and between yards and larger shippers and terminals. Especially where the shift isn't so long that you need somebody to talk to to keep from falling asleep.

One final thought. It sure is funney that "Railway Age" and the rest of the trade press don't report on the problems RC is encountering. They only publi***he stories and parts that are good news. Maybe "Trains" could publish stories that contain opinions and facts from different prespectives on all sorts of rail related topics. A less biased point of view would be refeshing than just schilling for management or for labor for that matter.

[timberlane1]

I saw the beltpack being used at a small steel mill near Lewistown Pa. The operator would run the engine past the switch and set the brakes while walking over to throw the switch. the locomotive would slide to a stop. Then after reversing, the locomotive accelerated with spinning wheels. The operator did couple somewhat gently but, the wear and tear on the locomotive must have been increadable. At least there were no crossings or other units operating in the yard.
On another note the PP&L power company ran 0-6-0
fireless steamers by remote control as late as the mid 70s. The operators seemed to be more in control/caring of the steamers. No rough moves or sliding stops.

[Anonymous]

Remotes, another legacy bought to us by 'the CompanyUnion, the UTU. We are but pawns in this 'trial run'. Please, any of you with ANY EXPERIENCE, email me, [e-mail]

[Anonymous]

I am an LCS (remote control) instructor at a Class 1 yard in Canada. I have an idea of the railroad and yard you work in by your account of the incidents that have occurred there. Personally, I believe that the instructors and the attitude of the trainees make all of the difference. In my yard, there have been very few incidents or accidents involving beltpack. We instructors take safety very seriously and strive to ensure that the trainees put safe operations ahead of everything else.

You are right in saying that beltpack is here to stay. That means that we have to deal with it. The best way to do so is to work with the equipment as safely as possible. The use of a little common sense goes a long way. Is beltpack safer than conventional switching operations? Undoubtedly. Does that safety begin with a good attitude and with appropriate instruction? Most definitely.

[Anonymous]

The RCO and the terms safety and efficiency are mutually exclusive. To get a reasonable
amount of work done switching practices are changed with the blessings of local management. No longer is it necessary to protect movements up the lead. Riding on the end of a movement is now much more hazardous, if radio contact is lost or the goofy thing decides something is wrong when it isn’t, the air gets dumped and the operator has a good chance of getting launched. The RCOs are supposed to be unlinked when they boxes are not passed on directly to the next crew. The unlinking doesn’t happen because it takes too much time to relink on the next shift. Speed changes are inconstant and jerky, I watched an RCO operator take slack to uncouple from a single car and the engine kicked the car five car lengths. Still no matter which op rules are violated they are lucky to do 2/3 of the work that a switch engine with an engineer did. Overtime and late dinner claims rise dramatically. Money is saved if you look only at the reduced cost per engine when only two employees are used. If you look at the reduction of worked completed, extra costs caused by cars bypassing a yard and moved to the next yard to later be sent back, the increase in overtime, increase in penalties and extra engines put on to catch up on work, money is not saved.

[Anonymous]

I agree with you there. I see 'em doing this all the time in KC, they send a train on down the line using a 2person road crew, to the the next spot with a yard, where a real (3man) switch crew switches it, then they send part of it back to KC, again with a 2man road crew, and part of it on to somewhere else, again with a 2 man road crew. and this is supposed to save money and be more efficient??????!!!! About the only money I can see 'em saving is the health/retirement benefits they would have to pay the switchman who is now cut-off because he got bumped by an engineer who is running, by remote, the same engine he used to run regular, but since they abolished his job now is working as a switchman!
Also, just a question, since (canadian judge's opinion not mine) the computer is running the engine, who get's decertified when one of these things runs past a red block? the box? the switchman? (he can't he's not certified). Just one of those things that make you go HMMM. About that judges decision too...isn't him saying that the engine is being operated by computer, rather than the guy with the box, sort of like me getting a DUI in a car with computer controlled fuel injection saying I wasn't driving, the computer was....give it the ticket???!!!!! Anyway enough of a rant about that. the one and only purpose of remote control switching is to eliminate a job, it has absolutely nothing to do with efficiency or safety, it's just the next step in the elimination of firemen, brakemen, MofW people, clerks, etc., etc.. etc. If the companies had their way, all there would be is the CEO, chairman of the board, and the board itself, and they would all be sitting around congratulating themselves on how they have saved millions in payroll, but at the same time wondering how come the trains don't move and they can't make any money! The ol' spend 5 dollars to save 5 cents!!!