Everyone is missing the obvious in the Metrolink wreck.

[CliqueofOne]

As a counter-example, what about New York City subway trains or PATH commuter trains?  During rush hours some trains have about 500 passengers and run at intervals of about a minute.  That's a huge responsibility.  They're remarkably safe, and I don't hear anyone saying safety suffers for lacking a second person in the cab -- remarkable in a city filled with so many people quick to criticise.  One thing not mentioned is that most commuter operations run on a thin edge, requiring a second person would probably make most of them economically unviable.

I don't know of any subways that have crossings at grade; that many trespassers; heavy equipment getting foul of the tracks; washouts; floods; landslides; trees on the tracks; sun kinks; snow drifts; blizzards; signals hard to see because of snow, fog, and sunlight; farm animals running loose on the right of way; obscured site lines because of rampant vegetation growth; Rule 42s; slow orders; freight trains going by; railway equipment on or near the track; manual derails to set; etc.

I'm not positive but isn't there some form of fail safe mechanism if a subway train goes by a stop signal or exceeds a set speed limit?

There's just way too much going on in the head end for just one person on a busy rail line especially in an urban area. Multi track mixed with single track aggravates the situation.

It's not viable to have an extra employee in the head end when it conflicts with the bottom line. Remember, the new age mantra is 'Profit Before Safety'. Shareholders come first. Also the commuter service in question is operated by contractors and it's their business to make money, not provide a safe working environment for their employees or a safe environment for the public both on and off the train. Contractors will cut corners left and right to save expenditures on the maintenance of the infrastructure and maintaining adequate personal.

In the long run contractors cost more.

[marknewton]

Of course in the EU where the railroads have been subsidised by Socialist infrastructure programs I am willing to bet all locomotives and rail lines have some sort of Positive Train Seperation system already in place. 

You'd lose that bet. Not all locos or lines in Europe have PTS, nor do all railways in Europe receive subsidies from "socialist infrastructure programs"...

Mark.

[marknewton]

In responding to a prior post I would like to add that having a second pair of eyes in the cab is exactly what is need in commuter train service.

Hmm. You're in commuter train service yourself?

Since these trains run on tight scheduals that run in a predictable manner each day, engineers run the risk of getting into the mind set that they will get the same signal aspets at the same locations every day.  I suspect that the Metrolink engineer assumed he had a light at that Control Point because he almost never got held there by the dispatcher in the past.  Had a second person been in that cab to call attention to the unusual signal aspect the accident would never have happend.

Assuming of course that the second person was paying attention. Big assumption, based on my experience.

Mark.

[marknewton]

So you mean to tell me that you have never had an experience where someone riding with you didn't point out or remind you about something that you may have missed.  I am willing to bet you have had such things happen to you but the occasions were so minor that you have forgoten all about them.  Remember everyone, the history books are full of major tragedies that could have been avoided had one single factor been changed.  Had a second man been in that cab I doubt he would have kept silent while the train was aproaching a stop signal without at the very least making some sort of comment.

Quite possibly, but as I don't have any first-hand experience of running US commuter trains, I wouldn't like to say with certainty. As I wrote earlier, I think each case should be considered on its merits. I've never run loco-hauled commuter trains, only EMUs and DMUs, all of which are equipped with deadman control, vigilance control - alerters - and trip gear - automatic train stops.

If you don't acknowledge the vigo, or don't operate a nominated control during the timing cycle, the system will activate, and you will eventually get a penalty if you don't respond. In our case, the vigo will make an emergency application and take the power away, and the train will stop. If you spad, the trip gear operates, the brake pipe is opened, power is shut off, and the train will stop. In either case, getting the air back requires the co-operation of the guard - conductor - before you can proceed. So as I wrote before, I can't see any advantage in two-man crews for our operation. But as I said, horses for courses. You may well be right about a second person where Metrolink is concerned.

Cheers,

Mark.

[eastside]

As a counter-example, what about New York City subway trains or PATH commuter trains?  During rush hours some trains have about 500 passengers and run at intervals of about a minute.  That's a huge responsibility.  They're remarkably safe, and I don't hear anyone saying safety suffers for lacking a second person in the cab -- remarkable in a city filled with so many people quick to criticise.  One thing not mentioned is that most commuter operations run on a thin edge, requiring a second person would probably make most of them economically unviable.

I don't know of any subways that have crossings at grade; that many trespassers; heavy equipment getting foul of the tracks; washouts; floods; landslides; trees on the tracks; sun kinks; snow drifts; blizzards; signals hard to see because of snow, fog, and sunlight; farm animals running loose on the right of way; obscured site lines because of rampant vegetation growth; Rule 42s; slow orders; freight trains going by; railway equipment on or near the track; manual derails to set; etc.

Tokyo has grade crossings and they're about as busy as it gets.  Chicago also has some.  I think subway train drivers have plenty of hazards to look out for such as people wandering on the tracks, over-, under-shooting platforms, etc.  AFAIK snow drifts, farm animals, etc. weren't factors in the L.A. crash.

I'm not positive but isn't there some form of fail safe mechanism if a subway train goes by a stop signal or exceeds a set speed limit?

There's just way too much going on in the head end for just one person on a busy rail line especially in an urban area. Multi track mixed with single track aggravates the situation.

It's not viable to have an extra employee in the head end when it conflicts with the bottom line. Remember, the new age mantra is 'Profit Before Safety'. Shareholders come first. Also the commuter service in question is operated by contractors and it's their business to make money, not provide a safe working environment for their employees or a safe environment for the public both on and off the train. Contractors will cut corners left and right to save expenditures on the maintenance of the infrastructure and maintaining adequate personal.

In the long run contractors cost more.

MTA (NY city subway system), Metro North, PATH are all public agencies and aren't run for a profit.  My guess is that they carry more passengers than all of the rest of the North America, yet fatal accidents to riders are extremely rare. Pretty remarkable to me.  AFAIK, none employ contractors for train operations.  Nevertheless, they have to live in the real world of budgets (minimizing the cost to taxpayers).  I've never heard a call for a second person in the cab on any of these lines.  So far, I haven't seen any compellingly persuasive argument in this thread that Metrolink is so different from Chicago or NYC that it should have a second person and the other cities doing fine without one for over a century.

[ndbprr]

I don't know of any subways that have crossings at grade; that many trespassers; heavy equipment getting foul of the tracks; washouts; floods; landslides; trees on the tracks; sun kinks; snow drifts; blizzards; signals hard to see because of snow, fog, and sunlight; farm animals running loose on the right of way; obscured site lines because of rampant vegetation growth; Rule 42s; slow orders;

West side of Chicago crosing several main streets.

[Anonymous]

As a counter-example, what about New York City subway trains or PATH commuter trains?  During rush hours some trains have about 500 passengers and run at intervals of about a minute.  That's a huge responsibility.  They're remarkably safe, and I don't hear anyone saying safety suffers for lacking a second person in the cab -- remarkable in a city filled with so many people quick to criticise.  One thing not mentioned is that most commuter operations run on a thin edge, requiring a second person would probably make most of them economically unviable.

Subway systems are equiped with fail safe devises that will stop train in the advent of a speed limit or signal aspect violation.  As I said before you are comparing apples to oranges here. 

[Anonymous]

In responding to a prior post I would like to add that having a second pair of eyes in the cab is exactly what is need in commuter train service.

Hmm. You're in commuter train service yourself?

Since these trains run on tight scheduals that run in a predictable manner each day, engineers run the risk of getting into the mind set that they will get the same signal aspets at the same locations every day.  I suspect that the Metrolink engineer assumed he had a light at that Control Point because he almost never got held there by the dispatcher in the past.  Had a second person been in that cab to call attention to the unusual signal aspect the accident would never have happend.

Assuming of course that the second person was paying attention. Big assumption, based on my experience.

Mark.

 

 1.  Actually I am a frieght train conductor who works in Commuter train territory, so I do know what kinds of things Commutrer train crews confront.

2.  The rule book says that both members of a train crew are responsible for the safe opperation of their train.  The rule book also states that each crew member has the responsibility to remind their co-workers to follow the rules, including the one that states that employees must be alert and atentive while on the job.  Clearly Mark, if you have had trouble with inatentive crewmembers it is your fault for not correcting that situation. 

[erikem]

Here's how it works.  The dispatcher initiates an authority for main track movement.  The dispatching computer runs a conflict check, and if the requested authority has no conflicts, it grants the dispatcher the ability to transmit the authority to the train.  The dispatching server transmits the authority to the PTC server (which is in the same rack), and the PTC server transmits the authority to the locomotive-based PTC computer.  The PTC computer on the locomotive is listening at all times for incoming signals.  When the computer on the locomotive receives a new authority, it runs its own conflict check ("Am I activated?  Am I operating properly?  Does this authority have any conflicts with existing authorities stored in my memory for my train and any other train I know about?")  If there are no conflicts, it accepts the authority and transmits back to the PTC server its acceptance.  When the PTC server accepts the receipt, it transmits back its acceptance and when the locomotive receives this final handshake, the authority is now valid for the train.  The PTC server is meanwhile locked-up and can create no new authorities (but all of this takes a matter of a few seconds at most) in order that no conflicts can be created during the handshake.

Presumably the servers at least a couple of steps up from an e-machines rack mount box running Windows Vista home edition... Probably the most straightforward way of getting reasonably decent hardware would be to specify NEBS certified servers. Attention also needs to be paid to proper redundancy and diversity in communications and power routing (nothing too far out of the ordinary for someone used to setting up data centers) - from what I've heard/read, getting five nines availability requires a lot of attention to detail - you did point out that the protocols have a lot of fail-safes built in.

 

Your other concern was whether the railroad would have schedule and efficiency loss if communications fail.  Different manufacturers have different solutions, but one common solution is to have a primary pathway via VHF radio, a secondary pathway through hot-standby VHF radio, and a tertiary pathway through Iridium satellite.  The locomotive polls the primary system first (it's the cheapest to operate.  The secondary is automatic within the VHF system and not visible to the locomotive.  If VHF doesn't respond the locomotive polls the Iridium satellite in geostationary orbit, and usually the locomotive can "see" five or more satellites at once.  Each of these systems is built to at least five-nines reliability (but usually seven-nines reliability) meaning that the total probable downtime per year when there is no communication with the locomotive is a few seconds.  During those few seconds the system remains fail-safe.

Minor nitpick: Iridium is in low earth orbit (LEO) and requires (IIRC) a constellation of 66 satellites to provide coverage. This has three very distinct advantages over geosynchronous (GEO): first being that coverage at high latitudes is much better (even available at the poles); second is that the path loss is approx 20dB less at LEO than GEO, thus requiring less transmitter power; third is the latency is much shorter, maybe a few hundreths of a second as opposed to a few tenths of a second.

[eastside]

As a counter-example, what about New York City subway trains or PATH commuter trains?  During rush hours some trains have about 500 passengers and run at intervals of about a minute.  That's a huge responsibility.  They're remarkably safe, and I don't hear anyone saying safety suffers for lacking a second person in the cab -- remarkable in a city filled with so many people quick to criticise.  One thing not mentioned is that most commuter operations run on a thin edge, requiring a second person would probably make most of them economically unviable.

Subway systems are equiped with fail safe devises that will stop train in the advent of a speed limit or signal aspect violation.  As I said before you are comparing apples to oranges here. 

I'm really speaking about all commuter trains in Chicago and NYC including Metra and Metro North.   They don't have such systems in place.  The triple track on the west side of Chicago, for example, extensively runs both freight and passenger as do many routes in Chicago.

[oltmannd]

As a counter-example, what about New York City subway trains or PATH commuter trains?  During rush hours some trains have about 500 passengers and run at intervals of about a minute.  That's a huge responsibility.  They're remarkably safe, and I don't hear anyone saying safety suffers for lacking a second person in the cab -- remarkable in a city filled with so many people quick to criticise.  One thing not mentioned is that most commuter operations run on a thin edge, requiring a second person would probably make most of them economically unviable.

Subway systems are equiped with fail safe devises that will stop train in the advent of a speed limit or signal aspect violation.  As I said before you are comparing apples to oranges here. 

These are mostly reactive, not predictive.  This wreck probably would have occurred anyway with reactive system.  That is, the brakes wouldn't apply until after the train passes the stop signal.  At 40 mph, the train would have rolled thru the switch before stopping. 

[Expresslane]

Hey zardoz     You seem to not like conductors.

Not true.  I just do not like someone who's behavior puts my (as well as others) life at risk.

EVERYONE in the operating department of any class 1 railroad has fallen asleep on duty at one time or another (but only the honest ones admit it).  I certainly have. And when I did, I was not happy with myself, for I knew I put my life, as well as my conductor's life, as well as the life of everyone who lived near the tracks, at risk.

    Hey thanks and good answer.

[zardoz]

 1.  Actually I am a frieght train conductor who works in Commuter train territory, so I do know what kinds of things Commutrer train crews confront.

That almost qualifies you to comment on what the suburban crews have to deal with.

Almost.

[css2004]

Apparently you're not doing your job completely.  It is your responsibility to remind the conductor to perform his duties, by the rules.  I would never trust my life with the engineer, not that I don't trust him, but that we are human.  There have been countless times, where both the Engineer and I  have had to remind the other of something coming up.  Situations occur all the time and because of the diligence of both crew members in the cab, most are averted.  You might get irritated because your conductor's a chatter box, but he may be keeping you awake during the late night run to nowhere.  You should really thank him for it.

[marknewton]

There's just way too much going on in the head end for just one person on a busy rail line especially in an urban area. Multi track mixed with single track aggravates the situation.

That's an opinion which is at odds with reality. There are any number of urban railways I could cite that are far busier than those in North America, and which have anything up to 12 separate tracks, and yet they operate quite safely and happily with just one bloke up the front. My own railway has a lengthy stretch of electrified line which is six tracks, right through the middle of the city, and as busy as all get out in the am and pm peaks. Running there requires concentration, but saying "There's just way too much going on in the head end for just one person" is incorrect, and insulting.

Mark.

[CN9625]

 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.

[marknewton]

1.  Actually I am a frieght train conductor who works in Commuter train territory, so I do know what kinds of things Commutrer train crews confront.

Not the same thing at all. We share our line with freight trains day and night, but I wouldn't presume to know what their crews are up against - their situation is quite different.

2.  The rule book says that both members of a train crew are responsible for the safe opperation of their train.  The rule book also states that each crew member has the responsibility to remind their co-workers to follow the rules, including the one that states that employees must be alert and atentive while on the job.  Clearly Mark, if you have had trouble with inatentive crewmembers it is your fault for not correcting that situation. 

Spare me the lecture - we don't have a "rule book", we have a number of separate documents such as the TOM, OMET, NWP, etc. There's nothing in any of ours like the one you've quoted.

The fact is, there's a world of difference between what the "rule book" says, and what actually happens on the road, which you would acknowledge if you were being completely honest. Even the "100%ers" slip up sometimes.

Mark.

[CliqueofOne]

There's just way too much going on in the head end for just one person on a busy rail line especially in an urban area. Multi track mixed with single track aggravates the situation.

That's an opinion which is at odds with reality. There are any number of urban railways I could cite that are far busier than those in North America, and which have anything up to 12 separate tracks, and yet they operate quite safely and happily with just one bloke up the front. My own railway has a lengthy stretch of electrified line which is six tracks, right through the middle of the city, and as busy as all get out in the am and pm peaks. Running there requires concentration, but saying "There's just way too much going on in the head end for just one person" is incorrect, and insulting.

Mark.

To suggest that what works in Australia, must by all means work in North America is also incorrect and insulting. As a Canadian who spent 37 years on the Canadian National Railways, I witnessed and experienced enough to have a solid foundation to base my opinion on. Thus I stand firmly behind my opinion and I refuse to get into a pissing contest with anyone who insults my opinion. I had enough of that childish and simplistic garbage from management on CN and now that I'm retired, I find that life is really too short to waste my time getting all bent out of shape over it.

[marknewton]

There's just way too much going on in the head end for just one person on a busy rail line especially in an urban area. Multi track mixed with single track aggravates the situation.

That's an opinion which is at odds with reality. There are any number of urban railways I could cite that are far busier than those in North America, and which have anything up to 12 separate tracks, and yet they operate quite safely and happily with just one bloke up the front. My own railway has a lengthy stretch of electrified line which is six tracks, right through the middle of the city, and as busy as all get out in the am and pm peaks. Running there requires concentration, but saying "There's just way too much going on in the head end for just one person" is incorrect, and insulting.

Mark.

To suggest that what works in Australia, must by all means work in North America is also incorrect and insulting.

Is it? One-man operation works quite well on busy multi-track urban railways all over the world, not just Australia. And I'm talking about operations that dwarf anything found in the US and Canada. Perhaps it's just North American traincrew who aren't up to the challenge?

As a Canadian who spent 37 years on the Canadian National Railways, I witnessed and experienced enough to have a solid foundation to base my opinion on.

Of those 37 years, how many were as traincrew? Your opinion is not based on as solid foundation as you'd like to think.

Thus I stand firmly behind my opinion and I refuse to get into a pissing contest with anyone who insults my opinion. I had enough of that childish and simplistic garbage from management on CN and now that I'm retired, I find that life is really too short to waste my time getting all bent out of shape over it.

Good for you. You stated an opinion which is demonstrably wrong, and now you're going to spit the dummy because I pointed that out. I bet you and the management got on real well! ;-)

Cheers,

Mark.

[zardoz]

 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.

Conjecture.

 

Now, if you had wrote, "If there was a second engineer 26 people WOULD MORE LIKELY still be alive...."

I do agree that employee cutbacks put safety at risk, not only in the railroad industry, but in many industries (trucking, airlines, etc).

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Would Metrolink even be in existence if it had to cover the added expense of an extra crewman on all of its trains?  What people say they want (more safety) and what they are willing to pay for (the carrier should eat the added costs) are usually two different things.

[zardoz]

There's just way too much going on in the head end for just one person on a busy rail line especially in an urban area. Multi track mixed with single track aggravates the situation.

That's an opinion which is at odds with reality. There are any number of urban railways I could cite that are far busier than those in North America, and which have anything up to 12 separate tracks, and yet they operate quite safely and happily with just one bloke up the front. My own railway has a lengthy stretch of electrified line which is six tracks, right through the middle of the city, and as busy as all get out in the am and pm peaks. Running there requires concentration, but saying "There's just way too much going on in the head end for just one person" is incorrect, and insulting.

Mark.

There are many mitigating and agravating conditions that would preclude either of the above blanket statements.

Are the trains just cruising through town, or are they making a station stop?
Are the trains going fast or slow?
Are you running a 15K ton 9000' train, or a 3-car suburban train?
Are there any significant grades to deal with?
Are there signals that blend in with traffic lights?
Are there multiple crossings with good/poor protection?
Are there other trains in the vicinity?
Does the engineer have to monitor pedestrians and passengers as well as autos?
What are the weather conditions?
How good is visibility?
Is it night or day?
etc, etc.

My point is that just because an area is busy or not should not be the only criteria used to decide if an engineer's ability is overtaxed.

[marknewton]

There are many mitigating and agravating conditions that would preclude either of the above blanket statements.

Yes, I would tend to agree with you. I simply objected to the sweeping generalisation made by the OP.

Are the trains just cruising through town, or are they making a station stop?

Depends on the diagram, you can get a high-wheeler, skip stopper or a deep sea job - all stations.

Are the trains going fast or slow?

Again, depends. Our maximum permitted speed is 115kmh, and there are plenty of places where we do that easily, other locations you're down to 40 or 50 due to sharp curves.

Are you running a 15K ton 9000' train, or a 3-car suburban train?

Maximum length for us is a ten-car double-deck interurban, approximately 550 tons, 230 metres.

Are there any significant grades to deal with?

Yes. Sydney is surrounded by mountains, every direction is uphill. Ruling grade on the Illawarra is 1 in 33, 1 in 30 on the west and north.

Are there signals that blend in with traffic lights?

Yes, many locations have this problem.

Are there multiple crossings with good/poor protection?

Not as many as when I first started on the job, but there are still a fair number once you get away from town. All now have boom gates and F-type crossing lights, but I still don't like them...

All the best,

Mark.

[CliqueofOne]

"Perhaps it's just North American traincrew who aren't up to the challenge?"

Perhaps you should come to Canada and show the the crews how to be "up to the challenge". But first put in some quality time actually running trains up here, since we surely don't need another cocksure manager spouting off how it should be done. I will not go into how extraordinarily diverse the working, weather, infrastructure, and track conditions are in Canada. I guarantee after spending 10, even 5 years with the 'New CN', that high and mighty attitude of yours will either change or you will quit, if not fired first.

Yes come on up to Canada. What's another foreign surly braggart.

[zardoz]

There are many mitigating and agravating conditions that would preclude either of the above blanket statements.

Yes, I would tend to agree with you. I simply objected to the sweeping generalisation made by the OP.

Are the trains just cruising through town, or are they making a station stop?

Depends on the diagram, you can get a high-wheeler, skip stopper or a deep sea job - all stations.

Are the trains going fast or slow?

Again, depends. Our maximum permitted speed is 115kmh, and there are plenty of places where we do that easily, other locations you're down to 40 or 50 due to sharp curves.

Are you running a 15K ton 9000' train, or a 3-car suburban train?

Maximum length for us is a ten-car double-deck interurban, approximately 550 tons, 230 metres.

Are there any significant grades to deal with?

Yes. Sydney is surrounded by mountains, every direction is uphill. Ruling grade on the Illawarra is 1 in 33, 1 in 30 on the west and north.

Are there signals that blend in with traffic lights?

Yes, many locations have this problem.

Are there multiple crossings with good/poor protection?

Not as many as when I first started on the job, but there are still a fair number once you get away from town. All now have boom gates and F-type crossing lights, but I still don't like them...

All the best,

Mark.

So now we have an idea of the operating conditions you work with.  I would bet that if railroaders from around the world would answer the very same questions, each one would reply with different answers to some or all of the questions.

The guy running coal and grain trains up and over Palmer Lake in Colorado has an entirely different set of circumstances to deal with than the guy running an IM train over the Kansas plains.

Just as the guys in Canada have their own operational headaches to deal with, you have your own unique situations to manage.

I'm not familiar with the area where the Metrolink train crashed, but I would bet that his operational situation is different than that of my suburban territory, as well as different from that of the suburban trains in New York.  Or Tokyo. Or __________(fill in the blank of any railroad location).

Each engineer has their own set of operatioal parameters, as well as their own definition of how to operate is said area.  None of us are any better than anyone else.  We each do what we must to get over the road the easiest and (usually) safest way possible.

[marknewton]

"Perhaps it's just North American traincrew who aren't up to the challenge?"

Perhaps you should come to Canada and show the the crews how to be "up to the challenge". But first put in some quality time actually running trains up here, since we surely don't need another cocksure manager spouting off how it should be done.

I'm not a manager, never have been, never will be. I've spent some of my career fixing trains, the remainder running them. As for quality time spent running trains, you're in no position to criticise. How many hours footplate time did you rack up when you were a signal mechanic? Or did you hope I wouldn't notice what you did for a living??? I certainly noticed how you avoided answering the question I put earlier about your operating experience.

I will not go into how extraordinarily diverse the working, weather, infrastructure, and track conditions are in Canada.

Very diverse, I'm sure, but it's irrelevant to your claim about the driver's workload in multiple track urban areas...

I guarantee after spending 10, even 5 years with the 'New CN', that high and mighty attitude of yours will either change or you will quit, if not fired first.

I've got 33 years service with the same high and mighty attitude. Its served me well so far.

Yes come on up to Canada. What's another foreign surly braggart.

What's another wannabe engineman who presumes to speak with authority about something he has never experienced?

Mark.

[marknewton]

So now we have an idea of the operating conditions you work with.  I would bet that if railroaders from around the world would answer the very same questions, each one would reply with different answers to some or all of the questions.

The guy running coal and grain trains up and over Palmer Lake in Colorado has an entirely different set of circumstances to deal with than the guy running an IM train over the Kansas plains.

Just as the guys in Canada have their own operational headaches to deal with, you have your own unique situations to manage.

I'm not familiar with the area where the Metrolink train crashed, but I would bet that his operational situation is different than that of my suburban territory, as well as different from that of the suburban trains in New York.  Or Tokyo. Or __________(fill in the blank of any railroad location).

Each engineer has their own set of operatioal parameters, as well as their own definition of how to operate is said area.  None of us are any better than anyone else.  We each do what we must to get over the road the easiest and (usually) safest way possible.

None of which I dispute. I've repeatedly stated that each case differs, and should be judged on its individual circumstances. Nor do I believe my operation is superior. So either we are at cross-purposes, or you agree with the OP's claim that "There's just way too much going on in the head end for just one person on a busy rail line especially in an urban area", which in my view is utter BS.

Cheers,

Mark.

[zardoz]

 So either we are at cross-purposes, or you agree with the OP's claim that "There's just way too much going on in the head end for just one person on a busy rail line especially in an urban area", which in my view is utter BS.

So then we agree on most points. 

Regarding the above quote, I do not agree with it, nor do I totally disagree with it.  There have been times when racing at 70mph through a suburban village with a crossing every city block, trying to time my train so I make a good meet at the next station with a train in the opposite direction,  other trains trying to contact me to arrange other meets, watching out for rock-throwers and gate-runners, in the darkness of winter, looking for signals lost in the glare of city lights, dealing with ATS or ATC, that I would appreciate another set of eyes and ears.  However, they are not necessary 99% of the time.

[Ulrich]

Hey Ulrich, 

I think the stakes are much higher when a train engineer screws up than when a single truck driver or crane operator makes a mistake.  Your knee jerk reaction that if engineers need a second pair of eyes to help do their job then everyone else will be entitled to the same "budy-team" system is a non-sequitur. 

PS:  A non-sequitur is an inference that does not follow from the premises. 

No knee jerk reaction...just commenting on how some folks can't do their jobs without supervision...I'm not singling out engineers or conductors...it is a broad commentary on most people who function at 30% interest, alertness, and ability. Yes..you guys have important jobs...and all the more reason to hire people who can do them properly...people who can be counted on to do the job right every time without error. Is that asking for too much? Apparently so. BTW..I do know what a non sequitur is...thanks.

[marknewton]

Hey Ulrich, 

I think the stakes are much higher when a train engineer screws up than when a single truck driver or crane operator makes a mistake.  Your knee jerk reaction that if engineers need a second pair of eyes to help do their job then everyone else will be entitled to the same "budy-team" system is a non-sequitur. 

PS:  A non-sequitur is an inference that does not follow from the premises. 

No knee jerk reaction...just commenting on how some folks can't do their jobs without supervision...I'm not singling out engineers or conductors...it is a broad commentary on most people who function at 30% interest, alertness, and ability...

Are you worried that one day when you're out trespassing on railroad property, you might get run down and killed by an inattentive crew?

Mark.