clarkfork wrote: I think that engineer only train operation is safe. And it can be made safer with PTC.But if we want another person in the cab, why does he/she have to be an employee on pay? Every one of the hundreds of people riding the train has a vested interest in the safe operation of that train. Why not have a volunteer passenger ride in the cab with the engineer as an "Engineer Monitor" (EM?) The EM could call signals with the engineer and make sure the engineer complied with the signals. Running a locomotive, especially in passenger service, is not rocket science. Probably the biggest thing is estimating stopping distance. The EM would need some training on the operating rules; 40 hours would probably be enough.Perhaps as an incentive the EM could be given a discount on his ticket. Or maybe a pass. What we don't need is another employee to drive up costs.
But if we want another person in the cab, why does he/she have to be an employee on pay? Every one of the hundreds of people riding the train has a vested interest in the safe operation of that train.
Why not have a volunteer passenger ride in the cab with the engineer as an "Engineer Monitor" (EM?) The EM could call signals with the engineer and make sure the engineer complied with the signals. Running a locomotive, especially in passenger service, is not rocket science. Probably the biggest thing is estimating stopping distance. The EM would need some training on the operating rules; 40 hours would probably be enough.
Perhaps as an incentive the EM could be given a discount on his ticket. Or maybe a pass.
What we don't need is another employee to drive up costs.
Seriously, I am surprised a BLE has not flattened this response! Yes, with PTC and other so called fail safe devices and programs one man in the operating cab of a train will probably suffice in 99.999999999999999999999999% of the situations. But, as far as a "volunteer passenger" riding shotgun, is a ridiculous notion that no one can take seriously. Especially when followed by Clarkfork's description of an engineer's job, "especially in passenger service".
Let me first say this about myself: I have "driven" a 44 tonner and an 0-4-0T, even had my hands on the controls of a GP35 with a few cars. I, at one time, could say I knew how to operate a locomotive. But never, at anytime, have I ever considered myself an engineer. I don't know squat about it. No, its not rocket science, but it does take a lot of skill and knowledge and responsibility, a hell of a lot more of all of that than what Clarkfork seems to think. It is far from driving the family car or SUV when you are pulling the weight of a train with so much slack action between each unit or car...with the weight of the responsibility of the value of the cargo or the lives of the passengers on your shoulders...with speed limits, speed restrictions, slow orders, meets, schedules, train orderss, or no train orders, books of operating rules, the likes of the conductor and trainmaster and road foreman of engines and thier dislikes, too, the number of cars to be spotted at each stop at a different spot at each location, the different meanings of each signal at each location and under differening geographical, topographical and meteorlogical circumstances, was that tree limb down yesterday, will that gasoline tanker truck make it across the crossing before you get there or will he stop before he gets to the tracks, look out for the kids who throw rocks at such and such a bridge, etc. The stress, the decisions, the boredom, and the quick thinking that goes along with all the above and thensome makes the job more than just rocket science. In fact most rocket scientists would probably have a hard time being a locomotive engineer. So lets bring in that daily commuter and have him sit next to the professional engineer and tell him there is a yellow light up ahead? No, that doesn't make sense at all!
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
Marknewton asked "What are minor keys?" I do not know how much you know basically about music, but you could say that basically one difference between a minor key and a major key is three flats. If you go to a piano and play the C major scale, you will start with any C, and go up to the next C, playing only the white keys. However, if you play the black key before the E, which is E flat, instead of the E, and A flat and B flat instead of A and B, you will have played the C minor scale. There are actually two C minor scales, C minor harmonic and C minor melodic; I do not recall which one is which, though I can play them.
Music played in a minor key has an element of sadness in it (listen to Rimsky-Korsakov's "Russian Easter Overture"), and it certainly would not be recommended as background music for someone who has to concentrate on his work.
When I was working, I had a radio at my desk that was set to a station that plays classical music (I certainly did not blast the eardrums of the other people in the same room), and several of my co-workers and other people with whom I interacted expressed appreciation of the music when they were by my desk.
There are people who cannot stand classical music at all, and there those who love it greatly, both as background music and as music to be listened to.
Johnny
Deggesty wrote: Marknewton asked "What are minor keys?" I do not know how much you know basically about music, but you could say that basically one difference between a minor key and a major key is three flats. If you go to a piano and play the C major scale, you will start with any C, and go up to the next C, playing only the white keys. However, if you play the black key before the E, which is E flat, instead of the E, and A flat and B flat instead of A and B, you will have played the C minor scale. There are actually two C minor scales, C minor harmonic and C minor melodic; I do not recall which one is which, though I can play them. Music played in a minor key has an element of sadness in it (listen to Rimsky-Korsakov's "Russian Easter Overture"), and it certainly would not be recommended as background music for someone who has to concentrate on his work.When I was working, I had a radio at my desk that was set to a station that plays classical music (I certainly did not blast the eardrums of the other people in the same room), and several of my co-workers and other people with whom I interacted expressed appreciation of the music when they were by my desk.There are people who cannot stand classical music at all, and there those who love it greatly, both as background music and as music to be listened to.
I have always noticed a definite emotional feeling with a minor chord that could be described as sadness. It might be also described as a feeling of surrender that takes one out of the immediate, workaday, normal mindset, and into a kind of higher or spiritual feeling. Religious might be the right word for it. There is also something in a minor chord that makes it stand out as "prettier" than its surrounding major chords.
I have always wondered if a minor chord evokes this same emotion in everybody, or if it is just my personal reaction. If it evokes it in everybody, it suggests that music produces a common emotional response in people, rather than an individual response in the ear of each listener.
Some locomotive air horns seem to sound minor chords. To my ear, the EMD normally aspirated V-16 engines sound like a minor chord, although it is not immediately obvious.
True, this is not the place for discussing music, but I can't stand music in the work place having spent my formative years involved deeply in music. Neither can my wife who has never studied music.
I wouldn't want the themes from Godfather 1 and 2 ('Speak Softly Love' and 'Love Said Goodbye') nor the theme from Love Story ('Where Do I Begin') played in a loco cab on a train I was riding in; all three are dismal songs in minor keys.
But not all songs in a minor key are morose, maudlin, or melancholy, For example, the Jewish folk dance and song "Hava Nagila' is in a minor key and is very lively!
Art
I will agree my idea is unorthodox. But I don't see where it is "a ridiculous notion that no one can take seriously."
There is a perception by some that "engineer only" is unsafe. Well, if it is, or if we want to make it "safer," perhaps my suggestion has some merit.
I do not intend to insult locomotive engineers with the "rocket science" remark. But if fact it is true that most jobs are not "rocket science."
I do not consider running a locomotive "rocket science" because it is a skill that can be (and has been) acquired by a wide variety of human beings with very different levels of intelligence, education and raw talent. Some engineer training programs run about six months in duration. Years ago the skill was acquired "on the job" with no formal training.
The job of sitting next to the engineer to call signals is not that demanding. I can say that because historically, in practice, the second person in cab often did not have many qualifications. In years past the second person in the cab was a brakeman or a fireman. Many head brakeman and firemen went to work in the cab just after being hired right off the street, without any training. They didn't know any more about locomotive operation than the people riding behind them. Thirty years ago in the Powder River Basin, because of the explosion in coal traffic, the combined experience of a four person train crew, engineer included, was sometimes measured in months, not years. Yet there were few accidents.
I can see that my suggestion will not please the UTU or the BLE. However passenger trains are high cost operations. Adding a second paid position in the cab adds to the cost. There is only so much taxpayers and passengers can and will pay to run these trains. If we can find novel ideas that save money and enhance safety, why not adopt them. And, I'll bet a lot of railfans would like an opportunity to ride the cab as the observer.
Even in the good old days a passenger engineer was sometimes alone in the cab. This was true of gas electrics and Budd cars. It was also true in locomotive hauled trains. Often the fireman had to spend considerable time back in the engine room tending balky steam generators. Back there he had no view of conditions on the track ahead. And again there were few accidents.
clarkfork wrote: I will agree my idea is unorthodox. But I don't see where it is "a ridiculous notion that no one can take seriously." There is a perception by some that "engineer only" is unsafe. Well, if it is, or if we want to make it "safer," perhaps my suggestion has some merit. I do not intend to insult locomotive engineers with the "rocket science" remark. But if fact it is true that most jobs are not "rocket science."I do not consider running a locomotive "rocket science" because it is a skill that can be (and has been) acquired by a wide variety of human beings with very different levels of intelligence, education and raw talent. Some engineer training programs run about six months in duration. Years ago the skill was acquired "on the job" with no formal training. The job of sitting next to the engineer to call signals is not that demanding. I can say that because historically, in practice, the second person in cab often did not have many qualifications. In years past the second person in the cab was a brakeman or a fireman. Many head brakeman and firemen went to work in the cab just after being hired right off the street, without any training. They didn't know any more about locomotive operation than the people riding behind them. Thirty years ago in the Powder River Basin, because of the explosion in coal traffic, the combined experience of a four person train crew, engineer included, was sometimes measured in months, not years. Yet there were few accidents. I can see that my suggestion will not please the UTU or the BLE. However passenger trains are high cost operations. Adding a second paid position in the cab adds to the cost. There is only so much taxpayers and passengers can and will pay to run these trains. If we can find novel ideas that save money and enhance safety, why not adopt them. And, I'll bet a lot of railfans would like an opportunity to ride the cab as the observer.Even in the good old days a passenger engineer was sometimes alone in the cab. This was true of gas electrics and Budd cars. It was also true in locomotive hauled trains. Often the fireman had to spend considerable time back in the engine room tending balky steam generators. Back there he had no view of conditions on the track ahead. And again there were few accidents.
If only from the liability standpoint, this is not workable. I have seen non railroaders around trains. Real trains are not like the train running around the Christmas tree. But they too often don't understand that. I certainly don't want a car that was manufactured by a professional who was being monitored and prompted by a non professional, or house built by a carpenter who had a non builder looking over his shoulder every step of the way. If anybody wants to be a weekend "warrior", there are toursit and museum operations that are in desperate need of the help with those standing by to teach. But Joe or Jane Commuter spending thier commute in the cab of a train doesn't fly with me and I am sure not with unions, workers, rail management, lawyers, insurance companies, the STB, the FRA, or homeland security to name just a few. The responsibility is too great. I am afraid you underestimate the demands of railroad jobs. They may not need doctorates or masters or even bachelors degrees, but they do take skill, intellegence, preservernce, training, dedication and a whole lot more to be good at it. Check your history, too. Engineers came up from engine wiper to hostler to yard fireman to road fireman to yard engineer to road engineer. Likewise, other members of the train crew started low and worked up in their crafts. Even today there is a lot of training and apprenticing going on before being placed. And the other factor you are missing is that all employees of the railroad, whether aboard a train or not, are charged with the safe operation each train, all trains, and the railroad. You don't hire a high school drop out, or even a high school graduate the day after receiving a diploma, and set him up as an engineer or conductor within even six months.
As long as im the engineer there will never be a passenger in the cab of my train. it is loud enough in the engines and i dont need a passenger standing next to me asking questions and bothering me. making me turn off my cd player and removing my headphones so they can ask stupid questions. if you leave me alone i can get you there while keeping time to ac/dc and guns and roses, on those rainy days and long nights mellow to waylon jennings and willie nelson.
Our local light rail system only has a engineer or driver, but it operates on it's own tracks, not shared.
When you have a situation like this, they certainly need to have 2 people in the cab, so that one can take over if something happens. Only having one engineer can cause problems if he'd get sick or have heart attack at the throttle. Especially in a situation like this where they have to share tracks with freights. Anything to save a buck, but they'll end up paying a lot in the end when the lawsuits start.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.