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]

I would have to agree with hoggerjeff. I am not an instructor or a manager but a yard employee with the U.P..
No problems here!!

[Trainnut484]

I don't like the idea of Class 1 carriers using beltpaks and reducing crews in yards.

[Anonymous]

I MUST BE MISSING SOMETHING,HAVE READ A FEW OF ARTICAL POSTED & THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT UNIONS,WHAT HAS THIS GOT TODO WITH ( TRAIN ) REMOTE CONTROL??????????????AKA HUB

[Anonymous]

I absolutely agree with you about the companies covering stuff up. They UP in KC has covered up several accidents already, blaming anything and everything except their beloved beltpacks. The KCS ran over someone in KC a couple weeks ago, but not a peep about it anywhere except the underground gossip mill. I bet the FRA wasn't informed about it either. (I must admit though, since this happened I haven't seen a single unit working as an RCO since on the KCS in KC). I do agree with a few things about going home alive and well, and I still say you have more chance with someone at the throttle than at the box. It scares me to death to see one of these RCO's out on the main. (especially when the guy running it is sitting in the engineer's seat!! Radio control when you are at the seat???? How stupid is that?)
Plus these goofy things mess up and all you are left with is the darn thing sqwaking on the radio every 2 or 3 minutes about whatever it's problem is. That's just great, I'm trying to get through a form B and this darn thing is walking all over the foreman in charge. Yep, that's safe. I'm trying to set out a bad order, same thing, how many cars to a joint? what? that remote is walking all over you. 95% or more of engineer's will tell you running a train/engine is feel, what can you possibly feel holding a model airplane radio? nothing. that is safe? blind pulls and shoves, illegal with someone at the controls, but ok by radio control? that is safe? give me a break, I said it before and I'll say it again, the one and only reason the companies want this to get rid of a man and his benefits package. that's it, there is no other reason. the fact that it is comming is no reason to like it. It is absolutely not more efficient (in terms of getting things done in the least amount of time, however it is (technically) in terms of manpower (reference my previous comments about this fallasy)). And for the UTU, they have a vested interest in having these things as long as they hold the contract to 'em. Due to progression (which they signed their own death warrant on this, a whole other story), if they don't encourage this and work with the companies to keep the contract they eventually will have no members, as everyone would be an engineer. Thus it serves them well to have RCO's. The UTU has always played this game of selling out a man in exchange for something (what, I'm not really sure, but someone must have some mighty fat bank accounts) anyone remember the fireman or the head and rear brakeman. Or how about this "war" with the BLE, what, instead of working together to get better contracts, living conditions, etc etc, let's fight with the BLE. Whose side is the UTU on any way? I guess as Bush says "you're either with us or against us" the UTU is against the BLE so I guess they are with the companies!! We all have to work together on some issues, however the needs and wants of companies are almost completely the opposite of the needs and wants of it's ground level employees..company wants cheap labor, employees want a good wage; company wants less (or none) benefit costs, employees want decent insurance and retirement; company wants more done with less, employee wants more time off; etc etc, there's a lot more differences. So that begs the question why is the UTU so for the remotes. Why lay down so easily and virtually testify in court how wonderful they are? does the UTU actually =Company. Why give away something for virtually nothing? It is quite apparent that the UTU would lay down and go satellite/computer control of all trains for maybe $12 per shift, the only problem is there wouldn't be anyone to pay the $12 to! But it would be safer and more efficient!

[Anonymous]

I knew you had some personal benifit from RCO.
I see remote control accidents covered up on a regular basis. If an accident happens on a remote control job a drug test is no taken.

Maybe what I heard about the CN cutting back on RCOs is true. Smart people. Because if what you say is true the CN got rid of Canac since August 30, 2002 This is from the CN site.
Frank Trotter
President and CEO, CANAC Inc.

Frank Trotter was named President and CEO, CANAC Inc., a fully-owned subsidiary of Canadian National Railway Company in April of 1997. CANAC provides rail services to railroads and rail-related companies in Canada, U.S., and Mexico. CANAC is headquartered in Montreal, Canada, with regional offices in Toronto, Winnipeg, Edmonton, Houston, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Washington DC, and Mexico City with five additional sales offices.

This link shows CN company officers as of August 30, 2002.
http://www.cn.ca/Index/investors/directorsofficers/companyofficers/en_InvOfficers.shtml


This Franks listing from above link.
Frank Trotter , President and CEO, CANAC Inc.

[Anonymous]

Actually, Canac is no longer owned by CN. They are now a private company. As for the safety stats, the numbers are there in Canada. That the better safety figures are obtained partly because the remote crews are working slower is, to me, irrelevant, as long as fewer switchmen are getting hurt or killed.

I don't know what operations you are basing your comments on, but in my yard on CP in Canada, shortcuts with beltpack are not encouraged. In fact, safe operations and compliance with the SOFA recommendations are mandatory for all crews, be they road, conventional switching or beltpack.

As for guys hating beltpack, they are in a minority here. The switchmen and hoggers who have been set back to working with the remote control equipment are equally competent with it, and can, in a lot of cases, switch circles around the hoggers that don't really care about their jobs. I'm not knocking hoggers - I am one - but there are just too many who are plain dangerous, and anything that puts my fate into my OWN hands as a switchman is a bonus. That's the feeling of the beltpackers around here.

As for me being a company man, I AM a beltpack instructor, but I still pay my union dues and was seclected for this job by a committee made up of management and local UTU and BLE reps. I work for the men, instructing them on how to use this equipment safely and to the best of their abilities, so we can ALL go home to our families at the end of the day. I can't change the fact that remote control is here, so I might as well make sure that those who have to use it know what they are doing.

[Anonymous]

Gee, the UTU has about as much invested in the beltpacks as Canac. I am not about to believe the garbage they put out.

I also disagree with you about safety, the problem is the shortcuts a RCO crew has to do to get anything done ie. not always protecting the point. Do you suppose the Canadian National owning Canac would have anything to do with how statistics are recorded in Canada.

If you saw a beltpack crew outpreform a crew with an engineer he wasn't much of an engineer because I have seen nothing that impresses me about beltpacks. Maybe you were that engineer? I doubt it, I don't think you run at all, you sound company to me.

Most men that use the beltpack hate it not only because it takes jobs but because it makes their job harder and unsafe.

[Anonymous]

Gee, the UTU has about as much invested in the beltpacks as Canac. I am not about to believe the garbage they put out. I also disagree with you about saftey, the problem is the shortcuts a RCO crew has to do to get anything done ie. not always protecting the point. If you saw a beltpack crew outpreform a crew with an engineer he wasn't much of an engineer because I have seen noyhing tha

[Anonymous]

You guys work things a little different in the States than here. Locomotive Engineers are not federally certified. They are qualified by the employing railroad to a standard in rules and mechnical knowledge. After passing a practial "qualifying run", they are qualified for life.

That isn't really the issue, though. As long as a beltpack operator is trained properly, he has the ability to handle rolling stock safely. I've seen yardmen with beltpacks outperform some locomotive engineers sitting behind a throttle.

The gist is that beltpack is hated because it eliminates jobs. The unions hate it and the men hate it for that reason only. They can't say that it's less safe than convention operations, because the Canadian statistics say that safety increases with belpack implementation.

Don't take my word for it. Check out this link and see what the Senior Vice-president of UTU Canada has to say about beltpack. Although he doesn't like the concept, he can't deny its safety record.

http://www.utu.org/WorkSite/detail_news.cfm?ArticleID=2943

[Anonymous]

Thanks, I didn't know that they were being certified.

[Anonymous]

I have seen the cards issued to the switchman, they are certified as a new class of engineer and subject to de-certification. What I have been told is even though Congress did not provide for RCO in the licensing, they allowed the FRA latitude to create a new class as the administrators of the law.

[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!!!

[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 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.