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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Johnny
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!
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
I think that engineer only train operation is safe. And it can be made safer with PTC.
EVERYBODY DUCK!!
CN9625 wrote: You hit the nail right on the head, employee cutbacks are a major problem when it comes to public safety! If there was a second engineer 26 people WOULD still be alive today as he/she would have been there to see the signals and stop the train.
You hit the nail right on the head, employee cutbacks are a major problem when it comes to public safety! If there was a second engineer 26 people WOULD still be alive today as he/she would have been there to see the signals and stop the train.
Can you prove that? What about the head on in California when a BNSF train with BOTH engr. and condr. which overran a red signal at a junction had collided with a commuter train?
SRen wrote: Why hasn't anyone pointed out the fact that having passenger train engineers working alone in a locomotive cab is a recipe for disaster? I know from personal experience that having a second person in a locomotive cab can prevent accidents, as a frieght train conductor I have intervened on several occasions to prevent an engineer from making a mistake. Now I am not refering to "dumping the air" intervention here, just reminding an engineer that he should be operating at restricted speed or that he should be preparing to stop at the next signal are things that I occasionally have to do in the course of my duties. Have there been occasions were I felt that I may have just prevented an accident? YES!!!Before the Feds start insisting on mandating Positive Train Seperation technology maybe Amtrak and the commuter agencies should consider putting a second employee back into locomotive cabs. After all, Commercial Airliners fly with both a Pilot and Co-Pilot in the cockpit, why should passenger trains be any different?
Why hasn't anyone pointed out the fact that having passenger train engineers working alone in a locomotive cab is a recipe for disaster? I know from personal experience that having a second person in a locomotive cab can prevent accidents, as a frieght train conductor I have intervened on several occasions to prevent an engineer from making a mistake.
Now I am not refering to "dumping the air" intervention here, just reminding an engineer that he should be operating at restricted speed or that he should be preparing to stop at the next signal are things that I occasionally have to do in the course of my duties. Have there been occasions were I felt that I may have just prevented an accident? YES!!!
Before the Feds start insisting on mandating Positive Train Seperation technology maybe Amtrak and the commuter agencies should consider putting a second employee back into locomotive cabs. After all, Commercial Airliners fly with both a Pilot and Co-Pilot in the cockpit, why should passenger trains be any different?
I agree totally with the concept of two crew members on all passenger trains since they call out signals and double check the operation.
If you consider the cost of the accident after the lawsuits for the dead and injured, the amount of money for this one accident would pay for the second man in the cab of evey passenger train in America for many years.
And our leaders wrote a law to prohibit using a cell phone while operating a train. The law they wrote about using cells in automobiles in California has not prevented most from using the cells while driving. You can see people with their cell phone to their ears daily since they made it a law in July this year.
The real solution to this problem is to go back to steam locomotives on every passenger train since they would require a fireman and engineer. The solution is so simple and would add many jobs.
Sorry! I just could not help myself.
ValleyX wrote: henry6 wrote: Then there was the infamous Ohio wreck back in the 70's I believe, where everybody was back in the B unit playing cards!No, training, education, dedication, and intellegent oversight are the only things before and after a so called failsafe computer, or other safety stop device.Infamous? Pray tell us more, I don't recall this.Today, you don't have enough crewmembers for a decent game.
henry6 wrote: Then there was the infamous Ohio wreck back in the 70's I believe, where everybody was back in the B unit playing cards!No, training, education, dedication, and intellegent oversight are the only things before and after a so called failsafe computer, or other safety stop device.
Then there was the infamous Ohio wreck back in the 70's I believe, where everybody was back in the B unit playing cards!
No, training, education, dedication, and intellegent oversight are the only things before and after a so called failsafe computer, or other safety stop device.
I am trying to find the detials...I checked the DOT ICC reports list and cannot find it...I do note that there are quite a few reports missing from thier on line file as I can recall being at several EL wrecks in the Southern Tier of New York which are not listed. But I will check the Trains magazines of that era sometime soon.
Ulrich wrote:Silence is music to my ears. Everywhere you go these days the muzak is blaring...do you really need it in locomotive cabs too?
I have not been associated with Muzak (a brand name, registered trademark) in over twenty years. The research I statetd was done largely by the U.S. government with some college and businesses doing independent research as well. The product has changed considerably in several way. So, I am not advocating Muzak, or any music for that matter, in the cab but rather asking if something other than music is desireable or effective, and if so, what? Muzak--or again, any music-- in such small quarters as a commuter train cab, Iwould think, can be very distracting and intrusive.
ValleyX wrote:Without going into depth, it sounds as though Australian railroading must be far more user-friendly than working for the Class Ones in the USA.
Ulrich wrote: marknewton wrote: henry6 wrote:Classical music is not a good general environmental music because of it often being in minor keys and has very low and very high volumed passages that will first lull you off and then startle you.Interesting you should say that, as classical music seems to be preferred by a fair percentage of the blokes at work. Can you expand on this a bit? What are minor keys, for example? You've got me curious now.Cheers,Mark.Should you really be listening to music that lulls you and then startles you at work? Hey... just askin... What are minor keys?... Are you serious???
marknewton wrote: henry6 wrote:Classical music is not a good general environmental music because of it often being in minor keys and has very low and very high volumed passages that will first lull you off and then startle you.Interesting you should say that, as classical music seems to be preferred by a fair percentage of the blokes at work. Can you expand on this a bit? What are minor keys, for example? You've got me curious now.Cheers,Mark.
henry6 wrote:Classical music is not a good general environmental music because of it often being in minor keys and has very low and very high volumed passages that will first lull you off and then startle you.
Should you really be listening to music that lulls you and then startles you at work? Hey... just askin... What are minor keys?... Are you serious???
Yes, I am serious as there has been many studies about music and its effects on people. I like to compare the use of Ravel's Bolero to a Susa march as two extremes. The science of it is that having sounds, like music, in an ambient environment will allow the person or persons to be more responsive to other sounds around them while still being able to concentrate on the tasks at hand. In ambient situations...and that d$%*&! music on hold...classical music because of the variation of low and high passages is disconcerting to the ear and mind; the minor keys of classical music also has a negative effect on a persons emotional being in these situations; and there the effect that it is never completed during the time a person in exposed to it in public places. This is not putting down classical or anyother kind of music. The use of music in public places to cover sounds, to create environments that allow people to shop or work better, is quite different than listening to music for pleasure. For your listening pleasure, if you will, you will choose music you like and want to hear, then listen as attentivley as possible, ignoring all else around you. Ambient music is just something that is there, creating a pleasant environment to relax you and let you do what ever it is you are doing. Loud, intrusive music may make you leave the premises or distract you into not being able to handle the task at hand; too familiar music (especially music with lyrics as opposed to instrumental music) will often cause you to sing along thus distracting you from your task. Are all situations the same? No. But there are enough similarities in given situations to allow one type or style of music to be present. And so, getting back into the railroad engineer's cab there is a delima of choosing the right ambient noise or music for one individual. Again, then, my question, is, is there such an ambient noise/music solution in the engineer's cab?
selector wrote: I know this is by the by, but context is important, ambient noise is important, and so on. I would think one's favourite music would either be inspiring or a nuisance, depending on what the task was at hand. -Crandell
-Crandell
The train rolls down the rails as the engineer dances to his/her favorite dance tune....
The crew was singing along with two part harmony. "Hey - trainmaster. We need two more guys on the crew so we can form a Barbershop Quartet..."
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...
marknewton wrote: Ulrich wrote:The words ALONG and ON do not mean the same thing.. YES...I walk ALONG railroads...since when is that trespassing? ALONG can mean 50 feet away or even a few hundred feet away...no? Most trains around here run ON the tracks.."The other day I pulled a spike on a mainline..I see busted ties...I check things out first hand..."You pulled a spike, and can see busted ties from 50 feet away, or even a few hundred feet away? You're in the wrong game, in that case. You should sign up as a superhero.Mark.
Ulrich wrote:The words ALONG and ON do not mean the same thing.. YES...I walk ALONG railroads...since when is that trespassing? ALONG can mean 50 feet away or even a few hundred feet away...no? Most trains around here run ON the tracks..
. No superhero over here...I do break the law on occasion...but most people here do not EVER trespass..or EVER speed in their cars...or spit on the ground... or swear..or stretch the truth on their tax returns..thus it is you who are the superheroes...I sit here in humbled awe..
Yes, I am curious, too. I have been an avid classical listener all my life, and I know what you mean about its typical dynamics. Perhaps some of the subtleties might be lost against a pounding prime mover, but the dynamics tend to keep me interested, even anticipating, and not lulled. I may be wrong, but I find rock to be quite distracting overall, so it would not be a very good "fit" in my case.
On the other hand, my experience is in battle tanks, not in locomotives. In my case, we were required to attend to at least two radio nets simultaneously, to fight our own vehicle as the crew commander, and to lead the rest of the three tanks in our troop. No music there, except the sound of our "prime mover" labouring to get 50+ tons of heavy armour through sand and brush, up hills and down....well...not down. When the your headset crackled with someone talking, it got your attention real quick, especially if the speaker yelled, "Contact, wait, out!" That meant he had either been engaged or was about to engage an enemy force, and was going to broadcast the enemy's map grid reference as soon as he was safe from direct fire.
I know this is by the by, but context is important, ambient noise is important, and so on. I would think one's favourite music would either be inspiring or a nuisance, depending on what the task was at hand.
selector wrote:Mark...shame on you...taking candy from "kids" like him.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.