Convicted One While reading the feature in th August issue, a few thoughts occurred to me. While in many instances this makes no sense whatsoever, there are some applications where it can work. And lets not fool ourselves, where ever implementation is prescribed, the prime motivation is money. It's a money grab where already well compensated executives and "contribute nothing to the productive work flow" stockholders wish to continue their assault upon the middle class by creating yet another opportunity to skim profit off the top, and keep it for themselves. Opposition, unsurprisingly, is strongest among the trade right where jobs will be lost. Some of the non-economic arguments they offer in opposition are valid as well, but the people whose pockets this savings will come out of obviously see this for what the final effect on them will be. So, in effort to find a happy median, why not use "market incentives" as an inducement? An engineer who is having to do his shift alone will unquestionably have additional responsibilities and duties, and he should be deserving of a reward for his additional efforts. Why not create a payrate dedicated to the position. Call it a "master engineer" or whatever you will, but assign say a 20% premium to his pay rate for services performed solo. I believe doing so would offer two advantages currently lacking. #1, it would stimulate an ambition for many that are currently opposed to the idea, to seize opportunity. And #2, It would put in perspective for the above mentioned beneficiaries, that continung to squeeze the livelihood out of the middle class, comes at a cost for all, and might even cause them to reconsider (since this way not all of the fruit is going to end up in their basket. Thoughts? What happens if the Solo Engineer has a heart attack or dozes off,you won't see the Airline's going to a single pilot.
While reading the feature in th August issue, a few thoughts occurred to me.
While in many instances this makes no sense whatsoever, there are some applications where it can work.
And lets not fool ourselves, where ever implementation is prescribed, the prime motivation is money. It's a money grab where already well compensated executives and "contribute nothing to the productive work flow" stockholders wish to continue their assault upon the middle class by creating yet another opportunity to skim profit off the top, and keep it for themselves.
Opposition, unsurprisingly, is strongest among the trade right where jobs will be lost. Some of the non-economic arguments they offer in opposition are valid as well, but the people whose pockets this savings will come out of obviously see this for what the final effect on them will be.
So, in effort to find a happy median, why not use "market incentives" as an inducement? An engineer who is having to do his shift alone will unquestionably have additional responsibilities and duties, and he should be deserving of a reward for his additional efforts.
Why not create a payrate dedicated to the position. Call it a "master engineer" or whatever you will, but assign say a 20% premium to his pay rate for services performed solo.
I believe doing so would offer two advantages currently lacking. #1, it would stimulate an ambition for many that are currently opposed to the idea, to seize opportunity. And #2, It would put in perspective for the above mentioned beneficiaries, that continung to squeeze the livelihood out of the middle class, comes at a cost for all, and might even cause them to reconsider (since this way not all of the fruit is going to end up in their basket.
Thoughts?
THOMAS M BROWNWhat happens if the Solo Engineer has a heart attack or dozes off,you won't see the Airline's going to a single pilot.
Apples and oranges. A train doesn't have to land. With technology that has been around for many years, if the engineer is incapacitated/non-responsive, the engine stops automatically. PTC will enhance that protection.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Tony SchillThe real reason that one-person crews won't happen anytime soon is because way too many trains are blowing up these days. I never heard of a derailment of an iron ore train in the Canadian wilderness burning down a town, so I guess I'm not very impressed by references to the wonderful experience of the QNS&L with one-person crews.
And the question is would having more than one person on that crew have made a difference at Lac Megantic? If one person decided that they had properly secured the train, its just as likely that two people might have decided that the train was secured properly, especially if that was the way "they always did it."
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
dehusmanAnd the question is would having more than one person on that crew have made a difference at Lac Megantic?
Moot point. We'll never know the answer to that question. It's now history.
Norm
I think the real enemy there was complacency. "It's been good enough in the past." With two men it could have been "I thought you set the handbrakes." At the end of a long shift, tired people can make assumptions or take risky shortcuts.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Paul of CovingtonI think the real enemy there was complacency. "It's been good enough in the past." With two men it could have been "I thought you set the handbrakes." At the end of a long shift, tired people can make assumptions or take risky shortcuts.
I think a five person crew could have engendered the same result. By most accounts, their practice of securing the train was itself inadequate. If it was the accepted practice, the only difference would have been that five people would have agreed beforehand that the train was adequately secured.
It's been said that armies train by fighting the last war. That's what we're doing here - hoping that the next "war" will be the same as the last. We all know that mankind is ingenious, and nature is marvelously inconsistent. No matter the safeguards enacted based on previous experience, someone, somewhere, will find a way to circumvent those safeguards, or the safeguards themselves will be found to be flawed by a new and unexpected development.
I can hear it now - "so we shouldn't do anything." Nope - That's not what I'm saying.
But there is no cure-all. We can fix the problems we know about, and thus hopefully prevent recurrances. But we can't fix what we don't know about. And that's lurking around the next corner.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
I was just thinking about the Chlorine disaster in Graniteville SC. I think that was a 2 (or more) man crew that left a switch open killing the crew on another train and killing nearby people asleep in thier beds, I do not know if PTC would have detected the open switch in dark territory, I think not.
In the many cases of toxic chemical releases the public appears to be duped into thinking that a 2 man (or more) train crew could have prevented it. Face it, all (save one) of the high profile train wrecks in the last 150 years have been with multiple crewmen.
Then I think about the runaway trains on Cajon pass. I think of how at that time having PTS would have been useless because the brakes weren't working.
I think of the poor engineer running a heavy train in deep snow and freezing temps failing to warm his brakes sufficiently to decend a heavy grade and passing red signal after red signal only to have his train accelerate while in full emergency.
I think about the train that has derailed cars at a meeting point and as soon as the derailed cars get to the switch they collide with the standing train killing the crew and spilling toxic waste.
I think about the Weyawega Wisconsin derailment that evacuated the town for 17 days and how PTC and the second crewman couldn't mitigate the effect.
I think that the government is forcing the railroads to spend billions of dollars on technology that really only protects from sleepy or incompetant railroad employees. I don't care if its 2 man crews or 1 man crew. If the employees don't follow the rules and do their damn job someone is going to die.
How many times have we read about head on collisions that killed crews because EVERYONE was asleep (at least with a one man crew there aren't 2 dead in the cab) ? This is the real issue. PTC won't stop derailments but it appears that everyone who knows nothing has been hoodwinked into a false sense that machines and technology will protect us from ourselves.
BTW , crew alertors are not even required in the US.
23 17 46 11
Tony Schill The real reason that one-person crews won't happen anytime soon is because way too many trains are blowing up these days. I never heard of a derailment of an iron ore train in the Canadian wilderness burning down a town, so I guess I'm not very impressed by references to the wonderful experience of the QNS&L with one-person crews. Perhaps once the railroads figure out how to prevent catastrophic derailments caused by human or mechanical failures (which will always be possible, even with PTC), they will have more success in advancing acceptance of one-person crews. But for so long as oil trains are exploding and communities are being evacuated because of toxic chemical releases, one person crews ain't gonna happen...
The real reason that one-person crews won't happen anytime soon is because way too many trains are blowing up these days. I never heard of a derailment of an iron ore train in the Canadian wilderness burning down a town, so I guess I'm not very impressed by references to the wonderful experience of the QNS&L with one-person crews.
Perhaps once the railroads figure out how to prevent catastrophic derailments caused by human or mechanical failures (which will always be possible, even with PTC), they will have more success in advancing acceptance of one-person crews. But for so long as oil trains are exploding and communities are being evacuated because of toxic chemical releases, one person crews ain't gonna happen...
I hate to put words in your mouth, but I get the impression you're saying what I've complained others have said "because there are some cases where 1 man crews won't work, 1 man crews cannot happen in any situation." What bearing does the supposed need for multi person crews on hazardous materials have on the possibility for 1 person crews on trains carrying nonhazardous cargo?
THOMAS M BROWN What happens if the Solo Engineer has a heart attack or dozes off,you won't see the Airline's going to a single pilot.
What happens if the Solo Engineer has a heart attack or dozes off,you won't see the Airline's going to a single pilot.
Hopefully I got the quote attributed to the correct person. Excuse me, correct' person. For what it's worth, I was passenger on a couple of puddle jumper airplanes, Kansas City-Topeka and Barbados-Bequia, each one round trip, on each trip we had 1 crew member.
Patrick Boylan
Free yacht rides, 27' sailboat, zip code 19114 Delaware River, get great Delair bridge photos from the river. Send me a private message
Article posted this week on the "Railway Age" website:
http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/blogs/bruce-kelly/is-ptc-a-prelude-to-crewless-trains.html?channel=00
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Randy StahlBTW , crew alertors are not even required in the US.
Do many roads use them in any case? Seems like they should be mandatory.
schlimm Randy Stahl BTW , crew alertors are not even required in the US. Do many roads use them in any case? Seems like they should be mandatory.
Randy Stahl BTW , crew alertors are not even required in the US.
Right, it appears that most railroads use them however I do know of a couple that do not. Some event recorders have the alertor built ringt in the the hardware.
They are required in Canada and they are required in the US for single man crews. Yes there are rules in place for single man crews in the US.
Randy StahlThey are required in Canada and they are required in the US for single man crews. Yes there are rules in place for single man crews in the US.
Was that added after the Metro North accident? So now all cab cars and locomotives used on commuter trains with one man crews are required to have alerters? Are alerters designed to moniter activity or some defined operation on a timed interval?
Electroliner 1935Are alerters designed to moniter activity or some defined operation on a timed interval?
Yes - move a control (throttle, brake) and the timer resets. Ours seem to be speed sensitive, too. At low speeds it's about 20 seconds, at track speeds it runs about two minutes before the warnings begin.
The warnings begin with lights flashing on the alerter, followed by beeps, then a steady tone, then the brakes apply.
In a way, it's kind of nice to have the alerter start the notification process while running at speed on the main - it usually means you've found a spot where everything has settled in, so you aren't constantly making adjustments.
gardendance I was passenger on a couple of puddle jumper airplanes, Kansas City-Topeka and Barbados-Bequia, each one round trip, on each trip we had 1 crew member.
Under 49 CFR Part 135, on demand charter, that is perfectly legal. OTOH, under 49 CFR Part 121, scheduled airlines, it would not be.
Yesterday, it was announced at our union meeting that California now requires two person crews on freight train and light engine moves.
http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/state-government/governor-signs-wolk-rail-safety-bill-into-law/
Jeff
From the article: "Such redundancy is a fundamental safety principle that is evidenced in certain industries, such as using two pilots in an airplane cockpit, or requiring back-up cooling systems for nuclear reactors.” Comparing a train to a ceashing airplane or a nuclear reactor meltdown seems about right don't you think? Why aren't they requiring at least 2 qualified operators to be in each semi-truck heading down the highway? They carry a lot of the same stuff, and they casue a lot more injuries and deaths per year.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Why doesn't their logic apply to passenger trains, and why light engines ??
This is twisted logic ...
Randy Stahl Why doesn't their logic apply to passenger trains, and why light engines ?? This is twisted logic ...
Do the legislators and governor know what a light engine is? Did they issue an unfunded mandate?
I am not astounded that Governor Moonbeam signed the legislation.
Johnny
While passenger trains may only have one man in the operating cab of the locomotive - they do not operate with one man crews, as there is at least a Conductor on board the train and on some runs Assistant Conductor(s) - on my carrier the engineer communicates all signal aspects observed with the Conductor (and the rest of the railroad) over the radio on the road channel. Engineers also communicate Defect Detector reading with the Conductor over the radio.
If the engineer must copy a 'mandatory directive' (block authority, speed restriction, flood warning etc. etc. etc.) either the train must be stopped or a qualified individual sent to the operating cab to copy and repeat the directive.
One thing to remember for all trains at terminals - not all track switches are power operated and someone must line the proper route over hand throw switches. The reality is that far fewer track switches are power operated than are hand throw. Engineers comment all the time that they are operating millions of dollars of equipment being guided by the light of a 10 dollar lantern and the man that uses it.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
tree68 The fire service is facing similar challenges. As has been noted, if all is going well (ie, no fires), then the crews sitting around waiting for the bells to go off are a huge cost with no payback. When there is an incident, however, oftimes all the folks available aren't enough. The politicians don't get this - all they see is firefighters lounging around (they actually are usually training or going over equipment, but no matter). So they look to cut the fire department.
The fire service is facing similar challenges. As has been noted, if all is going well (ie, no fires), then the crews sitting around waiting for the bells to go off are a huge cost with no payback. When there is an incident, however, oftimes all the folks available aren't enough. The politicians don't get this - all they see is firefighters lounging around (they actually are usually training or going over equipment, but no matter). So they look to cut the fire department.
Many of the politicians do get it. It is most of the voters that elect them and pay taxes, that do not get it.
Politicians in towns I lived in, Pacifica, San Francisco and now Clearlake, do know the fire fighters and police officers as well as many others who provide services such as these.
You may get elected in some places, by being ignorant of what goes on, but many not so.
Ken G Price My N-Scale Layout
Digitrax Super Empire Builder Radio System. South Valley Texas Railroad. SVTRR
N-Scale out west. 1996-1998 or so! UP, SP, Missouri Pacific, C&NW.
Single man in the cab, one or more crew members aboard the train..
Exactly how the fatal California metrolink train was staffed....
Deggesty Randy Stahl Why doesn't their logic apply to passenger trains, and why light engines ?? This is twisted logic ... Passenger trains don't carry dangerous cargo? Do the legislators and governor know what a light engine is? Did they issue an unfunded mandate? I am not astounded that Governor Moonbeam signed the legislation.
Randy Stahl Why doesn't their logic apply to passenger trains, and why light engines ?? This is twisted logic ... Passenger trains don't carry dangerous cargo?
I'm sure that some one has figured this out. And Brown got that name only because he wanted California to have its own satellite system for state emergency use. Which Republicans, of course did not want to spend money on. Just like they do on PTC, and other safety measures.
jeffhergert Yesterday, it was announced at our union meeting that California now requires two person crews on freight train and light engine moves. http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/state-government/governor-signs-wolk-rail-safety-bill-into-law/ Jeff
I would have to wonder how well the law would stand up in court. Someone challenging the law would have ample example in California of one person operation of rail. The many public transport rail operations, operated by one person in varying levels of control.
narig01 jeffhergert Yesterday, it was announced at our union meeting that California now requires two person crews on freight train and light engine moves. http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/state-government/governor-signs-wolk-rail-safety-bill-into-law/ Jeff I would have to wonder how well the law would stand up in court. Someone challenging the law would have ample example in California of one person operation of rail. The many public transport rail operations, operated by one person in varying levels of control.
Indiana had a 3rd Brakeman law on trains greater than 69 cars for any number of years until it was ultimately repealed. To my limited knowledge it passed all legal challenges.
BaltACD Indiana had a 3rd Brakeman law on trains greater than 69 cars for any number of years until it was ultimately repealed. To my limited knowledge it passed all legal challenges.
The Indiana law required more crew for longer trains. The California laws only covers freight trains and engine moves. The attack on the law would be why are not passenger operations covered. Say BART or Muni. And yes both BART and Muni are regulated by the PUC for safety. Or many of the commute operations.(Caltrain,ACE,Coaster to name a few) . Or what happens if California High Speed Rail goes into the express business?
The point I should have made above is this,
The California law covers all freight trains irregardless of length.
ouibejamn Deggesty I am not astounded that Governor Moonbeam signed the legislation. When you come to visit us from the "Crossroads of the West", bring a "Sister Wife", so you can drive in the carpool lane.
Deggesty I am not astounded that Governor Moonbeam signed the legislation.
When you come to visit us from the "Crossroads of the West", bring a "Sister Wife", so you can drive in the carpool lane.
DeggestyYou certainly betray great ignorance of my marital status and my religion. When my one and only wife was living, there were times that we rode in a carpool lane here, so it is not necessary for me to go to any other state to have that experience.
You certainly take yourself very seriously, as someone told me here awhile back, your sarcasm meter needs adjusting. No offense intended, sorry for any thing I said that you consider hurtful.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.