Your chance to be a lawyer.....

[Anonymous]

And as far as trying to do this remote control automated stuff. Well, that is what management is for now days. To waste money and screw up peoples way of earnign a living. Have over ten years of railroad experiance and can say there are way to many variables in operating a train with no one on board to go wrong.Just running a train itself without considering any other part of the operations involved in going from one point to another would require a lot of different inputs to do remotely. Train handling changes considerably because of several factors. Train length, weather, terrain, track geometry, tonnage and a host of other things. If management thinks they can work all of these problems out good luck trying. The more complicated something is the more people it takes to have around to fix the problems when something goes wrong. What someone really needs to do is tell management, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".

[Anonymous]

And as far as trying to do this remote control automated stuff. Well, that is what management is for now days. To waste money and screw up peoples way of earnign a living. Have over ten years of railroad experiance and can say there are way to many variables in operating a train with no one on board to go wrong.Just running a train itself without considering any other part of the operations involved in going from one point to another would require a lot of different inputs to do remotely. Train handling changes considerably because of several factors. Train length, weather, terrain, track geometry, tonnage and a host of other things. If management thinks they can work all of these problems out good luck trying. The more complicated something is the more people it takes to have around to fix the problems when something goes wrong. What someone really needs to do is tell management, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".

[wabash1]

If i remeber right wasnt it a csx train that was a runaway about 2-3 years ago. and it was because the engineer put it in number 8 instead of hitting the brakes when he was getting off the engine to get a switch. the reports i read ( made up of course) said that this was csx first try at running a train with out a crew. it was because the ns said they would be employee free by 2003. the report stated that it was going along fine til someone saw a train without a crew and reported them. At least they had a engine on their train look at the union pacific last month they didnt even try it with a engine. if these trains can make it over crossing with out crews horn blowing lights . Oops a slight relapse.

[wabash1]

If i remeber right wasnt it a csx train that was a runaway about 2-3 years ago. and it was because the engineer put it in number 8 instead of hitting the brakes when he was getting off the engine to get a switch. the reports i read ( made up of course) said that this was csx first try at running a train with out a crew. it was because the ns said they would be employee free by 2003. the report stated that it was going along fine til someone saw a train without a crew and reported them. At least they had a engine on their train look at the union pacific last month they didnt even try it with a engine. if these trains can make it over crossing with out crews horn blowing lights . Oops a slight relapse.

[Bergie]

QUOTE: Originally posted by David Voss

Interesting...I just saw that the cover story for the September issue of TRAINS is about remote-control locomotives. I haven't read the article (yet), but it should be interesting to read it and then come back and read through this discussion (again).

I just read the article yesterday (advance copy... in addition to five stars in the forums, another perk of doing what I do [8D]). It's a great article by Kathi Kube. The most noticable thing for me was that every upper-level official quoted in the article wanted to remain anonymous.

Erik

[Bergie]

QUOTE: Originally posted by David Voss

Interesting...I just saw that the cover story for the September issue of TRAINS is about remote-control locomotives. I haven't read the article (yet), but it should be interesting to read it and then come back and read through this discussion (again).

I just read the article yesterday (advance copy... in addition to five stars in the forums, another perk of doing what I do [8D]). It's a great article by Kathi Kube. The most noticable thing for me was that every upper-level official quoted in the article wanted to remain anonymous.

Erik

[Anonymous]

I have a major qualm about remote road train scheduling. This qualm is caused by the road maintenance question. If someone at headquarters decides (possibly correctly based on the balance sheet) that we must cut track maintenance and inspection, We ALL would be at risk as that remote train highballed down the main line until someplace (possibly in a town or suburb) a derailment happened spilling the contents of the wrong tank car, or cars. Based on our present tort procedures, the area lawyers would be flocking around like bees to a nectar source to legally collect "damages" and further cause delayed maintenance. In short, using of remote controlling quite possibly could break (aga9n) the railroad . In short, I live in a suburb of Miami, Fl. and know how the FEC trains leave the yard here and go through the city of Hialeah to reach the main line going North. I know this main line, and shudder at the thought that the time freights between Miami and Jacksonville would be going through all the downtowns with no one being immediately present to take action on situations caused either by railroad or driver (pedestrian) failure. I already know from riding Tri-Rail how you can sit while you wait for the CSX geniuses in Jacksonville Despatch to clear the line for real live passenger trains.

[Anonymous]

I have a major qualm about remote road train scheduling. This qualm is caused by the road maintenance question. If someone at headquarters decides (possibly correctly based on the balance sheet) that we must cut track maintenance and inspection, We ALL would be at risk as that remote train highballed down the main line until someplace (possibly in a town or suburb) a derailment happened spilling the contents of the wrong tank car, or cars. Based on our present tort procedures, the area lawyers would be flocking around like bees to a nectar source to legally collect "damages" and further cause delayed maintenance. In short, using of remote controlling quite possibly could break (aga9n) the railroad . In short, I live in a suburb of Miami, Fl. and know how the FEC trains leave the yard here and go through the city of Hialeah to reach the main line going North. I know this main line, and shudder at the thought that the time freights between Miami and Jacksonville would be going through all the downtowns with no one being immediately present to take action on situations caused either by railroad or driver (pedestrian) failure. I already know from riding Tri-Rail how you can sit while you wait for the CSX geniuses in Jacksonville Despatch to clear the line for real live passenger trains.

[Trainnut484]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard



Lastly, you would have to overcome the public outcry over un manned locomotives screaming through their towns, or move the roadbed so far away from people that you defeat the porpose of moving freight in the first place.

What public outcry? Thats the point. Outside of the rail industry, this forum and others like it, and a few railfan magazines, John and Jane Doe have no idea this is even happening, they have no clue that remote switchers are using their crossings already. And the industry wants to keep it that way, until its a accomplished fact, and no one could do anything about it.

Also what about shipper outcry? Some probably don't care, until a major derailment happens.

[Trainnut484]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard



Lastly, you would have to overcome the public outcry over un manned locomotives screaming through their towns, or move the roadbed so far away from people that you defeat the porpose of moving freight in the first place.

What public outcry? Thats the point. Outside of the rail industry, this forum and others like it, and a few railfan magazines, John and Jane Doe have no idea this is even happening, they have no clue that remote switchers are using their crossings already. And the industry wants to keep it that way, until its a accomplished fact, and no one could do anything about it.

Also what about shipper outcry? Some probably don't care, until a major derailment happens.

[Anonymous]

Problem is, that RRs must find a way to cut expenses. Easiest way is to hack away at the largest expense item, employees. If you do the math, even cutting three man crews to two man crews with RCL could pay for a LOT of extra liability insurance and still allow the RR to show a profit. Just imagine what eliminating the entire crew would do...scary...but it does illustrate the reasons that management is always trying to cut employment...

Glad I won't be around to see it...

LC

[Anonymous]

Problem is, that RRs must find a way to cut expenses. Easiest way is to hack away at the largest expense item, employees. If you do the math, even cutting three man crews to two man crews with RCL could pay for a LOT of extra liability insurance and still allow the RR to show a profit. Just imagine what eliminating the entire crew would do...scary...but it does illustrate the reasons that management is always trying to cut employment...

Glad I won't be around to see it...

LC

[Mookie]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

Problem is, that RRs must find a way to cut expenses. Easiest way is to hack away at the largest expense item, employees. If you do the math, even cutting three man crews to two man crews with RCL could pay for a LOT of extra liability insurance and still allow the RR to show a profit. Just imagine what eliminating the entire crew would do...scary...but it does illustrate the reasons that management is always trying to cut employment...

Glad I won't be around to see it...

LC

LC - they did that where I work. They cut the hourlies, badly. It was a case of having termites in the house and burning down the house to get rid of them. No forethought. Now....they are really suffering and we are really bleeding badly!
[:(!]

Jen

[Mookie]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

Problem is, that RRs must find a way to cut expenses. Easiest way is to hack away at the largest expense item, employees. If you do the math, even cutting three man crews to two man crews with RCL could pay for a LOT of extra liability insurance and still allow the RR to show a profit. Just imagine what eliminating the entire crew would do...scary...but it does illustrate the reasons that management is always trying to cut employment...

Glad I won't be around to see it...

LC

LC - they did that where I work. They cut the hourlies, badly. It was a case of having termites in the house and burning down the house to get rid of them. No forethought. Now....they are really suffering and we are really bleeding badly!
[:(!]

Jen

[Anonymous]

Jen-

Yeah, I just feel fortunate we don't have RCL here. We lost all the yards on our Division long ago so no place to put them. Of course, it means we have no real yards ( a handful of small ones switched by locals) but we lost al the larger yards and the people that went with them long ago...

LC

[Anonymous]

Jen-

Yeah, I just feel fortunate we don't have RCL here. We lost all the yards on our Division long ago so no place to put them. Of course, it means we have no real yards ( a handful of small ones switched by locals) but we lost al the larger yards and the people that went with them long ago...

LC