Railroad Accident

[wabash1]

QUOTE: Originally posted by nhs792

Bottom line is that where ever a human is in control of the locomotive, be it RCO or Engineer, there will be the possibility of failure.

If you relplaced all the RCO's with engineers tommorrow you would still have rough joints, you'd still have people run over, you'd still have sideswipes. The railroads had them before RCO, if you eleiminated all the RCO, you'd still have them.

The Canadians have had them a lot longer than the US and their rail systems haven't collapsed.

The whole point of this campaign is not safety, its that you're pissed because the UTU was awarded the position of RCO and the BLE is losing jobs.

Smith

Smith

sounds tp me like you are giving opinion based on properganda instead of facts. The remotes are dangerous because the way the carriers want to work them. there needs to be a man on the point and on the rear. there use to be to men switching cars and 1 running the engine. now it is one man switching and one man on the point . real safe ? i dont think so. but you brought up another good fictional remark in that the utu was awarded the remotes not the ble. the real truth is we didnt want them the carrier was mad so they gave in to the utu if they take the contract for the remotes they gladly did this for the sake of their men. ( made them look better in a losing situation) so they sign a agreement to have the remotes and get 100% deadhead for their guys no step rate of pay and run remotes. Now reality is that the remotes are here and none of the other contract is been implimented . In other words they are negotiating a new contract now and not even working under the last one. they are working under the 95 agrement. where did they come out ahead .... they didnt only the carrier who is getting remotes run and screwing the conductors. But the bigest lie you told was that ble is mad cause we are losing jobs. wrong again. see senority is what we have we dont lose jobs the new guys do.( the utu guys who have the remotes) if they cut a engineer off well we just bump the young guys and they are on the street. so who lost a job? the utu did just because the hold the rights of the remote dont mean that i haft to belong to thier union. So you see its like this the utu has sold out jobs for years and now they sold out again. the sad thing is the carrier is winning and the worker is losing we are losing jobs money and lives. here on the ns where i work there have been 3 derailments involving remote engines. and if the rules where followed not any of these would have happened. they are all fra reportable but never happened .

[Anonymous]

Hey Smith, are you RCO qualified? Have you operated one? If not then shut up! I am RCO qualified and they are more dangerous.....period. I hate running them.
Ken

[zardoz]

Sounds to me like nhs792 has never pounded the ground, therefore has no concept of what it is like on the lead, with rain, cold, snow, heat, darkness, tripping hazards, etc to contend with. Probably works in management.

[dekemd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by nhs792

Bottom line is that where ever a human is in control of the locomotive, be it RCO or Engineer, there will be the possibility of failure.

If you relplaced all the RCO's with engineers tommorrow you would still have rough joints, you'd still have people run over, you'd still have sideswipes. The railroads had them before RCO, if you eleiminated all the RCO, you'd still have them.

The Canadians have had them a lot longer than the US and their rail systems haven't collapsed.

The whole point of this campaign is not safety, its that you're pissed because the UTU was awarded the position of RCO and the BLE is losing jobs.

Smith

Smith

You're right if human is in control there is a possibility of failure. All the engineer has to do is run the engine and there are still accidents. With RCO the operator has to throw switches, pull pins, check the switch list AND run the engine. The chance of accident is greater because he has to divide his attention among several things.

As for the Canadians, back in the April or May issue of Trains Magazine, the was a quote from the president of CN (i think or maybe CP) that said they were scaling back RCO because of safety concerns and because it was less productive.

Derrick

[dharmon]

Technology SHOULD reduce the number of incidents that occur in just about any profession, and by far the majority of incidents involves some degree of human factor. However, taking the man out of the loop and/or reducing his role in it can be just as dangerous. Commercial airliners for the most part spend most of their flying time on autopilot...because it provides a smoother ride for the passengers and flying straight and level over long period is extremely fatiguing for flight crews. The pilot is there to react to the unforseen changes that occur...wx, route changes, malfunctions etc....and because no one wants to hop on a plane that doen't have one....but as military experince shows even when technology replaces or augments some of the functions, stuff still happens...in fact the accident rate of single piloted aircraft (even those with high tech systems) is far higher than that of multipiloted planes. The task saturation issues remain, even with technological advances. I would say that movement towards single or no man trains is a mistake. The short term costs may be lessened but long term are probably greater.

[JoeKoh]

My sympathies and prayers go to the mans family.Technology is supposed to improve safety not hinder it.
please stay safe
Joe

[edblysard]

Heavyd,
No, we dont "shove blind", unless you want kill someone or be fired!

In yard service, the rule states you may not shove any more than half the visual distance or half the car count length of a track unless a crewmember is in a position to observe the leading end(the point) of the movement and be in such a position as to provide protection the entire length of the shove.
When working industries, all shoves, no matter what the distance, must have protection at all times.

In other words, if I know a track in my yard holds 100 cars, I can "shove blind" into that track up to half the distance of where I can see the point, or 50 car lengths, whichever comes first, unless I am riding the point, or my helper is at the other end of the track and can watch the movement, at which point he takes over control of the movement.

When working inside a industry or plant, no shoving movement is allowed, not even one car length, unless someone is on the point, or in position to observe the point clearly the entire length of the shove.
I cant shove a cut halfway, then let my helper at the other end of the track take over, I have to ride the entire shove all the way in, or he has to be in position to watch the entire shove from the start.

When bringing a cut of car around from the receiving yard, we drag out, then shove back into the yard. We have to have a man on the leading end the entire shove.
So, we have the engineer on the head end in the locomotive, and I or my helper ride the point back into the yard.

I think the point someone was attempting to make was that as long as a human is in control of any of this, accidents will happen.

Yup, but I would rather bet my life on the experience of a engineer in the cab, listening to me tell him which way and how far to go, than trust a electronic box whos failure rate has never been reported.

Keep in mind I cant, by the rules, stand inside the plane of a car, I have to be on the side, in a sill step or hanging on the side ladder.

Now try and run a 250000 lbs switching locomotive, plus 100 cars with no air brakes, while hanging on the side of a covered hopper.

Sounds real safe, dosent it.

Accidents with remotes happen as frenquently as with engineers, side swipes, shove out, collisions and head ons happen as much, if not more so.

But the carriers bend the reporting rules, or write new rules, that allow them to not report theses accidents to the FRA, because they save quite a bit of payroll dollars not paying engineers...and when they do report them, it is allways reported as human failure, so it dosnt count against their safety record.

The makers of remotes point to the "safer Canadian" records, but they fail to mention Canadian railroads dont report to the FRA, and I am sure whatever agency in the Canadian goverment that is the counterpart of the FRA is just as much a political creature as the FRA is.

And I would bet the Canadian carriers learned a long time ago how to not report a lot of accidents, but to create the human failure needed to prevent the record from showing the correct number of accidents.

Because they value the almost non exsistent "savings" of one less crewmember salary over human life.
Stay Frosty,
Ed

[dharmon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by nhs792

OK, one very tragic fatality with an RCL engine. How many fatalities have we had this year involving trains with engineers? How many collisions, sideswipes and revocable violations on trains with an engineer?
Why isn't there an outcry to ban the operation of trains with engineers since they have so many more accidents?
Oh that's right, these stories are being fed to the press by the BLE and they represent the engineers. That's why you'll never hear a peep out of them if a train blows through a red block, but it will be a national disaster if an RCL job derails one wheel.

Smith

And based on that logic I'm sure that whole requiring a pilot to actually be in the plane idea is a story being fed to the press by the pilot's union....since just about every aircraft incident has had a pilot at the controls. You willing to be the first passenger in the remote controlled airliner???

[Anonymous]

In my opinion, eliminating jobs for "safer technology" is a bad move, they should be training to help lower the unemployment rate, not raise it. Besides, as the old saying goes, there's safety in numbers, so the more men per operation, the simpler a task it would be.

[heavyd]

From these stories it sounds like in the US the switchman is all by themselves. They are working at the tail end while no one is at the point. Is this true? Are there different operating procedure in the US that allow yard movements without anyone at the headend? I worked for CP in Toronto and all the remote jobs except for the hump had two crew members. Somebody was always watching the point. I can't image why side-swipe and other loco collisions keep happening! I am not a big fan for RC operations either but how is it done in some of those big US yards?

[Anonymous]

Bottom line is that where ever a human is in control of the locomotive, be it RCO or Engineer, there will be the possibility of failure.

If you relplaced all the RCO's with engineers tommorrow you would still have rough joints, you'd still have people run over, you'd still have sideswipes. The railroads had them before RCO, if you eleiminated all the RCO, you'd still have them.

The Canadians have had them a lot longer than the US and their rail systems haven't collapsed.

The whole point of this campaign is not safety, its that you're pissed because the UTU was awarded the position of RCO and the BLE is losing jobs.

Smith

Smith

[Anonymous]

nhs792, the BLE doesn't have to tell anybody about running a red block the railroad does that. What the railroad does with the RCO is cover up the accidents.

I talked with an RCO that went in on a track engine lite. He made such a hard joint he put several loads and the engine on the ground. He got called into the superintendent's office to explain what happened. Afterward he told me there wasn't going to be any discipline because there was no damage. He rolled about 150 foot of rail and put several cars and the locomotive on the ground. They called out the hook to rerail and the section worked about eight hours putting it all back together. The super told him the section-men were already out here and they were getting paid anyway. My guess is the cost was put at under $6700 so it would not be a reportable accident. If there had been an engineer on the job there would have been an investigation. This type of thing happens all of the time and is covered up.

Now tell me whose statistics stink.

[trainfan1221]

It is a shame that such an incident occured. I still am not sure eliminating more jobs in favor of technology is really an advancement. For what its worth, I think a locomotive is too big and powerful to not have somebody properly operating it as it should be.

[edblysard]

According to the FRA, in 2002, the last year they posted figures for, 22 of us were killed in train accidents.

They did not collect data on how many were remote controled trains, (funny how they skip that part)

I am sure Jody Herstine's next of kin really dosnt care about the other accidents, but is very concerned about this one.

I can tell you from personel experience, that having to pull pins, line switches, talk to the engineer and keep a eye on not only the cars I kick, but my field men too, switching is dangerous.

Now add into the mix having to try to run the locomotive, while running alongside and holding up a cut lever that wont stay up.

Nah, give me the skill and the extra set of eyes that comes with the engineer, and take the remote and stuff it.

Its hard enough hanging onto the side of a car with one hand, and talking to the engineer on a radio with the other, while shoving a cut around to the yard,
now I am supposed to try and run the locomotive one handed too?

And if I can use both hands, then I have to be standing on the end platform, which means I am in the red (dead) zone of a moving train.

But I guess that dosnt count when its a remote control train?

So the rules change to fit what the carrier wants, safety be dammned.

After all, its only one fatality.

I am sure Jody dosnt mind anymore.
Ed

[Anonymous]

OK, one very tragic fatality with an RCL engine. How many fatalities have we had this year involving trains with engineers? How many collisions, sideswipes and revocable violations on trains with an engineer?
Why isn't there an outcry to ban the operation of trains with engineers since they have so many more accidents?
Oh that's right, these stories are being fed to the press by the BLE and they represent the engineers. That's why you'll never hear a peep out of them if a train blows through a red block, but it will be a national disaster if an RCL job derails one wheel.

Smith

[mudchicken]

You're going to blame this on the engineer up in the cab?

[Anonymous]

Railroad worker killed by train engine operated by remote control
By The Associated Press
(12/08/03 - SAN ANTONIO) — A railroad worker was struck and killed by a locomotive he was operating by remote control.

The death of Jody Allen Herstine has revived a debate over whether the devices assist rail workers or threaten their safety.

The locomotive hit the 37-year-old worker just before 1 a.m. Sunday at the Union Pacific rail yards on San Antonio's near East Side, said Union Pacific spokesman Mark Davis.

Davis said Herstine was using the waist-mounted device to operate two locomotives when the accident happened. Davis said he did not know if the five-year Union Pacific switchman was hit from the front or from behind.

The National Safety Transportation Board and the Federal Railroad Administration are investigating.

Concerns over remote-control locomotive conducting are only as old as the new technology, the San Antonio Express-News reported in Monday's editions. A Union Pacific engineer was injured in June when the locomotive he was in was struck by another being operated by remote control near the old Kelly Air Force Base.

Similar accidents have prompted many rail yard workers to appeal for the remote controls to be discarded, and several cities across the country have banned their use, the newspaper reported.

Davis said the system has been used in Canada for more than a decade and have cut rail yard accidents in half.

However, Don Hahs, international president of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers union, said the remote-controlling of locomotives is dangerous. He also said the two weeks of training workers is not enough. Even worse, he added, is the practice of sending conductors out without any backup.

Davis confirmed that Herstine was working alone at the time of the accident.

(Copyright 2003 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved