What do you think about the belt-packs?

[Trainnut484]

What do you think about UP and BNSF's remote controlled switcher program in major and smaller yards[?]

[Trainnut484]

What do you think about UP and BNSF's remote controlled switcher program in major and smaller yards[?]

[Anonymous]

I think the engineers should have the option of operating the locomotive from either inside the cab or from on the ground and that the engineers, NOT just the trainmen should have them. Since CSX on the Albany Division, has had several men killed during belt pack operation of locomotives during switching operations in Buffalo and near Syracuse, I think operation of the belt pack locos should be suspended until further notice. Moreover, I think locomotives set up for this type of operation should retain their manual controls to permit in-cab operation at the option of the engineer. It is the engineer who knows locomotive operation the best and he or she is the one who should have the belt pack available should he or she choose to use it. Railroads have cut far too many corners on safety as it is, which is why, I do not believe that unmanned freight trains on the main line should never be allowed. There are far too many public relations and safety issues for this to be allowed even if technology makes such operation possible.

[Anonymous]

I think the engineers should have the option of operating the locomotive from either inside the cab or from on the ground and that the engineers, NOT just the trainmen should have them. Since CSX on the Albany Division, has had several men killed during belt pack operation of locomotives during switching operations in Buffalo and near Syracuse, I think operation of the belt pack locos should be suspended until further notice. Moreover, I think locomotives set up for this type of operation should retain their manual controls to permit in-cab operation at the option of the engineer. It is the engineer who knows locomotive operation the best and he or she is the one who should have the belt pack available should he or she choose to use it. Railroads have cut far too many corners on safety as it is, which is why, I do not believe that unmanned freight trains on the main line should never be allowed. There are far too many public relations and safety issues for this to be allowed even if technology makes such operation possible.

[Anonymous]

Jim-

I don't think there have been "several" CSX folks who have been killed from RCL in the Buffalo area. There has been one incident in Syracuse. The incidents I am aware of in Buffalo had nothing to do with RCL.

I don't think RCL is a wonderful thing, I do think it is here to stay, like it or not. It is changing the face of our industry.

LC

[Anonymous]

Jim-

I don't think there have been "several" CSX folks who have been killed from RCL in the Buffalo area. There has been one incident in Syracuse. The incidents I am aware of in Buffalo had nothing to do with RCL.

I don't think RCL is a wonderful thing, I do think it is here to stay, like it or not. It is changing the face of our industry.

LC

[Anonymous]

I personally think that remote control operations are a farse from management on csx. they told all of us engineers that we are being replaced by the rc for cost savings on the crew. what do they do then they spend money to put a brakeman in the engineers place. now you have two barely unqualified people operating the train. i came into syracuse one night with a train and on the east end puller job in dewitt yard was a conductor with 7 mos.experience and one with 6 mos as a brakeman. those two combined breaking down a 63 car cut while here i am running over a hundred car freight. the first thought that came to my mind was that the combined experience of those two being on the railroad was the same amount of time it took me to become a licensed engineer. it scared the **** out of me. i know the one man was that was killed in dewitt in feb. of 2003. he was a good safe worker. one death with someone using remote control is one two many

[Anonymous]

I personally think that remote control operations are a farse from management on csx. they told all of us engineers that we are being replaced by the rc for cost savings on the crew. what do they do then they spend money to put a brakeman in the engineers place. now you have two barely unqualified people operating the train. i came into syracuse one night with a train and on the east end puller job in dewitt yard was a conductor with 7 mos.experience and one with 6 mos as a brakeman. those two combined breaking down a 63 car cut while here i am running over a hundred car freight. the first thought that came to my mind was that the combined experience of those two being on the railroad was the same amount of time it took me to become a licensed engineer. it scared the **** out of me. i know the one man was that was killed in dewitt in feb. of 2003. he was a good safe worker. one death with someone using remote control is one two many

[Mookie]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Trainnut484

What do you think about UP and BNSF's remote controlled switcher program in major and smaller yards[?]

In case you missed the Missouri Fiasco, this topic generates the next most opinions.

Remotes are universally hated by most railroaders and they scare the beejeebers out of John and Jane Q Public.

We have remotes here in Hobson Yard and so far so good. They are used for yard switching and train make-up. And when they come to the east end of the yard, the operator is always on the engine. (two public crossings).

Jen

[Mookie]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Trainnut484

What do you think about UP and BNSF's remote controlled switcher program in major and smaller yards[?]

In case you missed the Missouri Fiasco, this topic generates the next most opinions.

Remotes are universally hated by most railroaders and they scare the beejeebers out of John and Jane Q Public.

We have remotes here in Hobson Yard and so far so good. They are used for yard switching and train make-up. And when they come to the east end of the yard, the operator is always on the engine. (two public crossings).

Jen

[Trainnut484]

I've been on the forums for a few months, and didn't know there were other threads on this topic. I do feel that this is an important topic due to the RR employee and public safety factor. The September TRAINS magazine will focus on RC, and I'm eager to read it![:)]

[Trainnut484]

I've been on the forums for a few months, and didn't know there were other threads on this topic. I do feel that this is an important topic due to the RR employee and public safety factor. The September TRAINS magazine will focus on RC, and I'm eager to read it![:)]

[Anonymous]

i am here to update people about the stats of rc operations in syracuse. it has come to my attention that of all the rc operators in syracuse yard 83% of them have less than a year experience on the railroad. how is that for a safety statistic

[Anonymous]

i am here to update people about the stats of rc operations in syracuse. it has come to my attention that of all the rc operators in syracuse yard 83% of them have less than a year experience on the railroad. how is that for a safety statistic

[Anonymous]

I really don't like them because they take away jobs and the spirt out of railroading.
But it would make switching safer. Not much room to argue there right Mookie

[Anonymous]

I really don't like them because they take away jobs and the spirt out of railroading.
But it would make switching safer. Not much room to argue there right Mookie

[Anonymous]

CN determined that RCL were not worth the money saved as productivity was decreased which in turn increased cost and decreased locomotive utilization. The data provided that shows RCL operations as "being safer" are calculated using new math. The operating rules are different with RCL use. If the same rules were implemented with non-RCL, perhaps the operation would be even safer than RCL. The Railroads should invest their time and money into bringing their service up to acceptable standards, not slowing things down further in attempt to save a couple bucks on labor.. The performance of the Railroads is quite pathetic, which is why the trucking industry (the most expensive means of transportation) has almost all of the business. What good is it to be penny wise and dollar foolish? If the Railroads are only concerned about labor cost, I have a solution that will bring the cost of labor to zero. Shut down the operation completely. No more labor costs or headaches and no more customer complaints either.

[Anonymous]

CN determined that RCL were not worth the money saved as productivity was decreased which in turn increased cost and decreased locomotive utilization. The data provided that shows RCL operations as "being safer" are calculated using new math. The operating rules are different with RCL use. If the same rules were implemented with non-RCL, perhaps the operation would be even safer than RCL. The Railroads should invest their time and money into bringing their service up to acceptable standards, not slowing things down further in attempt to save a couple bucks on labor.. The performance of the Railroads is quite pathetic, which is why the trucking industry (the most expensive means of transportation) has almost all of the business. What good is it to be penny wise and dollar foolish? If the Railroads are only concerned about labor cost, I have a solution that will bring the cost of labor to zero. Shut down the operation completely. No more labor costs or headaches and no more customer complaints either.

[Mookie]

QUOTE: Originally posted by bryan9664

I really don't like them because they take away jobs and the spirt out of railroading.
But it would make switching safer. Not much room to argue there right Mookie

I agree up to the last line. I am not sure switching is all that unsafe, unless you have newbies. But it sounds like the remotes are pretty much newbies. I still don't understand why they don't take experienced engineers and put them on remotes. Surely there must be some that don't mind yard jobs and would do it for decent pay?

Mookie

[Mookie]

QUOTE: Originally posted by bryan9664

I really don't like them because they take away jobs and the spirt out of railroading.
But it would make switching safer. Not much room to argue there right Mookie

I agree up to the last line. I am not sure switching is all that unsafe, unless you have newbies. But it sounds like the remotes are pretty much newbies. I still don't understand why they don't take experienced engineers and put them on remotes. Surely there must be some that don't mind yard jobs and would do it for decent pay?

Mookie

[CShaveRR]

It's a seniority thing. I'm not paying that much attention to who is going to the "Remote Classes", but here it seems that it's either people who want to keep their old jobs after they've "gone remote", or people from the low end of the seniority roster who were assigned to the classes because they couldn't get enough bodies otherwise.

I've seen glitches, but nothing that's blatantly unsafe at this point. As for the engineers, Jen's probably right that they would make good RCOs. But they wold not be allowed, while working as an RCO, to operate their locomotives in the normal mode. And maybe it's just the people involved, but last night we had a crew with an engineer, and they were getting less done with more problems than the other two crews, which used remote units.

Me? I'm still scared of it, and don't intend to qualify if I don't have to. However, I've had to take vision and hearing tests, and consent to a federal and state driving-record search...all of which are needed for us to qualify for RCO.

[CShaveRR]

It's a seniority thing. I'm not paying that much attention to who is going to the "Remote Classes", but here it seems that it's either people who want to keep their old jobs after they've "gone remote", or people from the low end of the seniority roster who were assigned to the classes because they couldn't get enough bodies otherwise.

I've seen glitches, but nothing that's blatantly unsafe at this point. As for the engineers, Jen's probably right that they would make good RCOs. But they wold not be allowed, while working as an RCO, to operate their locomotives in the normal mode. And maybe it's just the people involved, but last night we had a crew with an engineer, and they were getting less done with more problems than the other two crews, which used remote units.

Me? I'm still scared of it, and don't intend to qualify if I don't have to. However, I've had to take vision and hearing tests, and consent to a federal and state driving-record search...all of which are needed for us to qualify for RCO.

[Anonymous]

they suck, they cause jobs to be lost and they're just out and out dangerous cause if your working at the rear you can't see the front [xx(][V][B)][}:)]

[Anonymous]

they suck, they cause jobs to be lost and they're just out and out dangerous cause if your working at the rear you can't see the front [xx(][V][B)][}:)]