BigJim wrote: On shorter cuts, hand signals are far easier and safer. No fighting with 15 other crew on the radio (including remote engines that can't go 30 seconds without some kind of automated message). And if the engineer can't see you, he stops.It's amazing how the radio has displaced the "fine art" of hand signaling. These poor pups today couldn't give a decent hand signal if they wanted to. Without their radio they are useless. The bright colors are not meant as a total solution but anything that makes you easier to spot is a good idea.Anything that would make the "hand" easier to see was a good idea. So no, it is not a step backwards!!!
On shorter cuts, hand signals are far easier and safer. No fighting with 15 other crew on the radio (including remote engines that can't go 30 seconds without some kind of automated message). And if the engineer can't see you, he stops.
The bright colors are not meant as a total solution but anything that makes you easier to spot is a good idea.
So no, it is not a step backwards!!!
You have hit on one of my pet peeves about modern operations. Now, it seems that everyone is totally dependant on radios. I see conductors standing right in front of the engineer using the radio. I get a good laugh out of those guys.
We used to switch out 40 car grain trains with whistle signals and lanterns. We were quick and safe while we did it.
On many days I will force my young conductors to learn hand signals and use them and to maybe think ahead more than one move at a time. They hate it at the time, but as they mature they thank me later.
There was an element of trust between crew members that doesn't seem to exist these days under the big brother effect of 100% rules compliance or else. Maybe that's just me.
Now, in my job we do long shove moves daily. Some back up moves are more than 2 miles in length. You have to have somebody on the rear. Not just to look out, but to dump the train with his back up hose if necessary. Sometimes it is quicker to act and avoid an accident rather than call the engineer and then he acts, then it's too late.
.
I think that I speak for myself and others when I say that keeping cabooses in service for use as a conductor's work platform during shoves would be the ideal safety protocol as well as assurance of their continued existence. I like the camera idea, but as it was stated earlier having someone on point is the best way to go and what better way to protect them than with a caboose?
Ted M.
got trains?™
See my photos at: http://tedmarshall.rrpicturearchives.net/
So no, it is not a step backwards.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
tdmidget wrote: This reminds me of watching Exxon's engine crew at Baton Rouge. All the men on the ground were dressed like they were at a masquerade party at Ringling Bros clown college, stripes, loud colors, etc. supposedly so their engineer could see them and not push over them. Duhhhhhh. Take away their radios, make them step outside the rails to give hand signals. Can't get run over if the engineer can see you. No amount of stripes, polka dots, or bizarre colors will make you visible between cars. It won't hurt to think these things thru.
This reminds me of watching Exxon's engine crew at Baton Rouge. All the men on the ground were dressed like they were at a masquerade party at Ringling Bros clown college, stripes, loud colors, etc. supposedly so their engineer could see them and not push over them. Duhhhhhh. Take away their radios, make them step outside the rails to give hand signals. Can't get run over if the engineer can see you. No amount of stripes, polka dots, or bizarre colors will make you visible between cars. It won't hurt to think these things thru.
I hope that no one employs you as a safety director. The bright colors are not meant as a total solution but anything that makes you easier to spot is a good idea. Reverting to hand signals instead of radio would also be a step backward, especially on a long cut where visibility is difficult because of distance.
WIAR wrote:I'm sorry I brought it up (I guess).
Don't be. Just because the idea is taken apart and put back together to be examined, that doesn't mean it was a lousy idea or inappropriate in the first place. After all, if George Westinghouse didn't ask a few "why nots" we might still be tying handbrakes on the tops of freight cars to stop trains....:0)
Don't be sorry you brought it up. I don't expect to see it on rolling stock, but I think it would have great potential on commuter trains, subways, etc. Don't appologize for bringing something up. If people don't like the idea, they don't have to pay attention.
WIAR,
No need to be sorry...
In limited industrial use, it makes sense, in a way.
But, like an EOT, it needs to be almost indestructible, and someone will have to hang it on the rear car...and if someone is back there already....?
Here is one of the reason railroaders wouldn't want to rely on it...
As Wabash pointed out, he listens to the conductor's tone of voice as much as the words, and a conductor is his eyes...and if the engineer sees something in the video that causes him to stop, without receiving a stop command from the conductor, the chances of snapping the un-aware conductor off the car with slack is pretty good, and that is something you don't want to happen.
And, as Wabash pointed out, you have to have someone back there to line the switches...in yard movements it is required to have a man ride the point or be at the other end of the track providing visual protection if the shove exceeds ½ the track capacity.
A good engineer could make a shove movement blindfolded, if he was working with a crew he was familiar with and you would never know the difference.
And remember, railroads are cheap, cheap and cheap...and most collisions occur at crossing with the train moving forward...collisions involving properly protected shoving movements are very rare, so the equipment cost is not justified.
I understand you were suggesting that the camera would be a complimentary tool, not a substation for a conductor, but it would be an additional cost and additional operational step that can't be justified.
23 17 46 11
What a brilliant idea! We can
A. put cameras on several million cars and still need a conductor there
B. Slow down operations putting it on each time with already expensive labor and make a case for eliminating the conductor
C. Add a man to the crew to tote this crap to the end of the train
D. Come to our senses
DanLW wrote:An ultra wide angle lens would solve the field of view problem. Or a 3 camera array. The key would be in not skimping on the equipment. Get some cameras and display devices with decent resolution. It doesn't have to be HD, but please, none of this B&W 240 line resolution junk.
As an Engineer who makes shoves with a loaded passenger train 3 times a week or more, I WANT a human being on the point of the shove. A wider angle lense distorts depth and does not give an accurate portrayal of conditions ahead. Weather such as rain and sleet can adversely affect the view. And frankly, I have enogh things in the cab to be concerned with during a shove than to distract myself by watching a video monitor.
The human being on the rear, while fallible, provides a more accurate rendition of conditions, not only with factual car counts and descriptions, but also with such things as tone of voice.
Shoving is a hazardous job anyway, as is railroading in general. Let's not tech it up and potentially make it more so with something that cannot think, reason or act to prevent an accident.
Adding a camera to the rear still will not relieve the people from their responsiblities under the rules and would probably add another layer of uneccessary rules to complicate what used to be a simple procedure even more. The key is not to add techno-gadgets; rather it is to get everyone on a crew to fully understand and comply with the rules regarding such movements.
wabash1 wrote: it never will work for these reasons1) You can not get a depth perception ( or lack oF ) to a coupling and if your coupling who would be there to connect the hoses2) who going to hang this device and if its a person hanging this device why put money into somethng to replace a human when it cant do human work.3) at crossing you can not get a wide angle lens to see up the road clearly like a human can, so looking 1 block up both sides of the road a camera cant do this. 4) the only time you have to shove is work trains and locals yard jobs and these need men to switch. road jobs have no reason to shove that far and a engineer is looking at the ground or at other fixed points to judge speed and distance a monitor is only going to take his eyes and attention off his job, 5) cost who is going to pay for the equipment and who is going to be resposible for it. we dont remove eots so who going to pull all of this junk and tote it around
it never will work for these reasons
1) You can not get a depth perception ( or lack oF ) to a coupling and if your coupling who would be there to connect the hoses
2) who going to hang this device and if its a person hanging this device why put money into somethng to replace a human when it cant do human work.
3) at crossing you can not get a wide angle lens to see up the road clearly like a human can, so looking 1 block up both sides of the road a camera cant do this.
4) the only time you have to shove is work trains and locals yard jobs and these need men to switch. road jobs have no reason to shove that far and a engineer is looking at the ground or at other fixed points to judge speed and distance a monitor is only going to take his eyes and attention off his job,
5) cost who is going to pay for the equipment and who is going to be resposible for it. we dont remove eots so who going to pull all of this junk and tote it around
Bear in mind, my idea wasn't to replace the human presence during movements, only to provide an additional level of visibility. I was thinking more along the lines of a safety enhancement to help the engineer verify the conductor is not in the way before a shove is started (I was thinking back to the horrible story we heard in safety class at the B&SV about misinterpretted radio communications in Mason City causing the death of a CNW conductor).
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Cheaper to use an old caboose instead.
WIAR wrote: With cellphone-type technology being so advanced, I thought-up an idea to improve safety during shoves (and I doubt I'm the first to think of this):A portable camera, hardened for industrial/all-weather use, that could be easily affixed to the drawbar of a freight car, or maybe the grabs, that could stream video back to the engineer's console, so s/he could have much better visibility during a shove.Has anything like this been developed or is in-use today?
With cellphone-type technology being so advanced, I thought-up an idea to improve safety during shoves (and I doubt I'm the first to think of this):
A portable camera, hardened for industrial/all-weather use, that could be easily affixed to the drawbar of a freight car, or maybe the grabs, that could stream video back to the engineer's console, so s/he could have much better visibility during a shove.
Has anything like this been developed or is in-use today?
Rear-view camera technology has been in place on automobile for years. I can't think of one reason why it can't be applied to railroading. I'm not saying that it can replace the conductor all together, just that it would be a fitting compliment to the entire operation. Such a device could be incorporated in E.O.T.Ds to not only provide telemetry, but a clear view of what's happening behind the train.
I like that idea.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.