Maybe just a misunderstanding...no twisting intended.
There seems to be a problem in understanding here...Bucyrus says that you took issue with someone stating that Sanchez was a railfan. Bucyrus did not say that you were down on railfans. You seem to have twisted his last post into something it was not meant to imply.
-Crandell
I have no issues with railfans...I am one.
Ulrich But his interest in trains shouldn't be identified as the problem..if anything, an interest in something is an asset. Interest alone is never enough however...it has to be supported by knowlege, discipline, and ability.
But his interest in trains shouldn't be identified as the problem..if anything, an interest in something is an asset. Interest alone is never enough however...it has to be supported by knowlege, discipline, and ability.
I am not suggesting that it is a problem. I am only responding to an earlier post where you took issue with someone saying that he was a railfan.
Ulrich He was texting while he was supposed to be doing his job...how does that make him a railfan? And I too would say the industry is doing pretty good IF...
He was texting while he was supposed to be doing his job...how does that make him a railfan? And I too would say the industry is doing pretty good IF...
Somewhere I think I read that Sanchez was a railfan before he became an engineer, and it was his dream to become an engineer. I don’t see that readily confirmed in the current news reports, however, from the text messages, there are indications that he had more than the typical occupational interest in trains.
We've had crews that called an approach, even told they were going to be meeting a train, and still got by the red board. So, no, calling signals would not prevent that unfortunately.
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
zugmann On my piece of the RR pie, we call out our signals over the radio. So you just pull the tapes at the dispatcher office to see if the signals were being called. We don't need a separate microphone in the cab for that.
On my piece of the RR pie, we call out our signals over the radio. So you just pull the tapes at the dispatcher office to see if the signals were being called. We don't need a separate microphone in the cab for that.
BaltACD Bucyrus Ulrich It may not be an invasion of privacy but I doubt onboard cameras would do much in the way of motivating people to do their best. A better way to go may be to become a better employer...and to raise the bar on hiring, pay, and training standards so that people don't need to be watched. I’ll bet Sanchez would not have been text messaging in the cab if there were a camera looking at him. And I’ll bet he would not have had railfans in the cab or running the engine if a camera were looking. There was considerable concern expressed by Sanchez and "Person A" about getting caught during the time that Person A was to be driving the engine. They were worried about direct observation of railroad personnel and even photos taken by other railfans on the route of the illegal run. Realistically, considering Sanchez past demonstrated history....he would have found a means to defeat devices devised to keep him on the 'straight and narrow' in rules compliance. While the locomotives in the Chatsworth incident may not have been equipped, many locomotives are being equipped with video equipment....the equipment does not record actions taking place in the locomotive cab but takes a forward view of what is seen from the cab in the forward direction, additionally this video has audio to record horn and bell activity, the video can also be time matched to the 'black box' data that each locomotive records (speed, throttle position, braking inputs, alerter responses, cab signal inputs and responses if the engine is so equipped, horn and bell initiations)....matching these data inputs creates a accurate, up to the second (or more frequently) picture of what was taking place in the operation of the train during the period prior to and including the incident. Additionally all radio communications with Dispatchers at the Control Point are also recorded, capturing both sides of the conversation.
Bucyrus Ulrich It may not be an invasion of privacy but I doubt onboard cameras would do much in the way of motivating people to do their best. A better way to go may be to become a better employer...and to raise the bar on hiring, pay, and training standards so that people don't need to be watched. I’ll bet Sanchez would not have been text messaging in the cab if there were a camera looking at him. And I’ll bet he would not have had railfans in the cab or running the engine if a camera were looking. There was considerable concern expressed by Sanchez and "Person A" about getting caught during the time that Person A was to be driving the engine. They were worried about direct observation of railroad personnel and even photos taken by other railfans on the route of the illegal run.
Ulrich It may not be an invasion of privacy but I doubt onboard cameras would do much in the way of motivating people to do their best. A better way to go may be to become a better employer...and to raise the bar on hiring, pay, and training standards so that people don't need to be watched.
It may not be an invasion of privacy but I doubt onboard cameras would do much in the way of motivating people to do their best. A better way to go may be to become a better employer...and to raise the bar on hiring, pay, and training standards so that people don't need to be watched.
I’ll bet Sanchez would not have been text messaging in the cab if there were a camera looking at him. And I’ll bet he would not have had railfans in the cab or running the engine if a camera were looking. There was considerable concern expressed by Sanchez and "Person A" about getting caught during the time that Person A was to be driving the engine. They were worried about direct observation of railroad personnel and even photos taken by other railfans on the route of the illegal run.
While the locomotives in the Chatsworth incident may not have been equipped, many locomotives are being equipped with video equipment....the equipment does not record actions taking place in the locomotive cab but takes a forward view of what is seen from the cab in the forward direction, additionally this video has audio to record horn and bell activity, the video can also be time matched to the 'black box' data that each locomotive records (speed, throttle position, braking inputs, alerter responses, cab signal inputs and responses if the engine is so equipped, horn and bell initiations)....matching these data inputs creates a accurate, up to the second (or more frequently) picture of what was taking place in the operation of the train during the period prior to and including the incident. Additionally all radio communications with Dispatchers at the Control Point are also recorded, capturing both sides of the conversation.
Depending on the position of the camera in the cab and the lighting conditions, the camera can pick up reflections of what is going on inside the cab off the windshield. I happened to meet someone from the UP who reviews some of these tapes and she said you'ld be surprised at what sometimes shows up.
Jeff
[ Ok rob. I got this in my mind definatly. Get some rest and ill ttyl. Thanks so much for such a great present . Ttyl man. …% very happy... ]
[ the only time I’d know if it was one of them is when I came back on duty from my mid-day break. It could happen %. I just wanted to let you know. ]
BucyrusUlrich It may not be an invasion of privacy but I doubt onboard cameras would do much in the way of motivating people to do their best. A better way to go may be to become a better employer...and to raise the bar on hiring, pay, and training standards so that people don't need to be watched. I’ll bet Sanchez would not have been text messaging in the cab if there were a camera looking at him. And I’ll bet he would not have had railfans in the cab or running the engine if a camera were looking. There was considerable concern expressed by Sanchez and "Person A" about getting caught during the time that Person A was to be driving the engine. They were worried about direct observation of railroad personnel and even photos taken by other railfans on the route of the illegal run.
I wouldn't take that bet.
RWM
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
I don't think this applies to one-man cabs, but part of the way we deal with the stress and BS out here is to female dog about it to the other guy in the cab. If you put a microphone in the cab, then you are taking away that stress reliever. The last thing you want is someone out here running angry and afraid to voice what they are feeling.
spokyone Of course it would not. A video recorder would not record if the engineer called out the signals either. A digital audio signal can easily be added to a locomotive data recorder. And that can be uploaded to a central coimputer to be analyzed after each run. That would insure the engineer was calling the signals. No need to wait for an accident. The company could take action to enforce the rules. No invasion of privacy issue.
selector How would an audio recorder record key strokes during text messaging above the din inside the cab?
How would an audio recorder record key strokes during text messaging above the din inside the cab?
Bucyrus I can imagine one downside of the crew camera concept is the cost of the system and its operation. Another downside that I have heard is that the camera invades privacy. I am baffled as to how that case can be made.
I agree. I don't see this as an invasion of privacy. If you're in the cab of a locomotive, you are at work. It isn't home or your car. It is your workspace where you are to be doing what you're paid to do, not send text messages or talk on the phone or have unauthorized visitors come in to play.
Kevin
http://chatanuga.org/RailPage.html
http://chatanuga.org/WLMR.html
Railway Man Murphy Siding tdmidget One has to wonder if this would have happened if a real engineer had been in the cab. Sanchez was not even an employee of Metrolink. He was supplied by Veolia Services, most commonly known as a supplier of school bus and garbage truck drivers. You can be sure that his pay was much less than any class 1 railroad. If this man was qualified to be entrusted with the lives of passengers then why was he basically working for peanuts? I don't know if this happened on UP tracks or not. However, it would seem there would be a good case for UP to demand that the engineers running trains on the same tracks as UP be up to the same levels that UP requires their engineers to be. All engineers in the U.S. are FRA certified and all operating on UP are UP Rules Qualified. And all are GCOR qualified. RWM
Murphy Siding tdmidget One has to wonder if this would have happened if a real engineer had been in the cab. Sanchez was not even an employee of Metrolink. He was supplied by Veolia Services, most commonly known as a supplier of school bus and garbage truck drivers. You can be sure that his pay was much less than any class 1 railroad. If this man was qualified to be entrusted with the lives of passengers then why was he basically working for peanuts? I don't know if this happened on UP tracks or not. However, it would seem there would be a good case for UP to demand that the engineers running trains on the same tracks as UP be up to the same levels that UP requires their engineers to be.
tdmidget One has to wonder if this would have happened if a real engineer had been in the cab. Sanchez was not even an employee of Metrolink. He was supplied by Veolia Services, most commonly known as a supplier of school bus and garbage truck drivers. You can be sure that his pay was much less than any class 1 railroad. If this man was qualified to be entrusted with the lives of passengers then why was he basically working for peanuts?
One has to wonder if this would have happened if a real engineer had been in the cab. Sanchez was not even an employee of Metrolink. He was supplied by Veolia Services, most commonly known as a supplier of school bus and garbage truck drivers. You can be sure that his pay was much less than any class 1 railroad. If this man was qualified to be entrusted with the lives of passengers then why was he basically working for peanuts?
I don't know if this happened on UP tracks or not. However, it would seem there would be a good case for UP to demand that the engineers running trains on the same tracks as UP be up to the same levels that UP requires their engineers to be.
All engineers in the U.S. are FRA certified and all operating on UP are UP Rules Qualified. And all are GCOR qualified.
That makes sense. tdmidgets's concern then, is, I suppose, that the engineers on Metrolink are non-union?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy Sidingtdmidget One has to wonder if this would have happened if a real engineer had been in the cab. Sanchez was not even an employee of Metrolink. He was supplied by Veolia Services, most commonly known as a supplier of school bus and garbage truck drivers. You can be sure that his pay was much less than any class 1 railroad. If this man was qualified to be entrusted with the lives of passengers then why was he basically working for peanuts? I don't know if this happened on UP tracks or not. However, it would seem there would be a good case for UP to demand that the engineers running trains on the same tracks as UP be up to the same levels that UP requires their engineers to be.
In response to the incident, Metrolink has proposed installing cameras in locomotive cabs that would point at train crews while they work. The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen has said it opposes this move,..
The airline pilots association (ALPA) have succesfully prohibited video recordings in the cockpit. The audio from the CVR is adequate to establish what happened before a crash.
Evidence so far presented indicates that Mr. Sanchez was consistant and persistant rules violator....even after he was caught 'red handed' in a violation and after those he worked with turned him into supervisors.
RWM, I understand your point that crew cameras would not be a positive deterrent to collisions, whereas PTC would be such a deterrent, and I am not advocating one over the other. But it seems like crew cameras would be somewhat of a deterrent to conscious rule violations by the crew, even if the crew knew that their supervisors might not see their violation because the cameras are not continuously monitored.
I can imagine one downside of the crew camera concept is the cost of the system and its operation. Another downside that I have heard is that the camera invades privacy. I am baffled as to how that case can be made.
Railway Man Bucyrus Are we talking about on-board cameras that watch the track ahead, but not the crew, or are we talking about cameras that watch the crew? I am not advocating on-board cameras watching the crew, but would they not add a measure of rules compliance? Is it not probable that Sanchez would have refrained from text messaging if he knew a camera was watching him? On board cameras that watch the crew. I don't see how on-board cameras that watch the crew can directly cause rules compliance unless there's going to be someone monitoring a video feed in real time. Indirectly, the camera might induce rules compliance because someone is afraid of getting caught in a random check or being assigned all the blame after an accident occurs. Random drug testing works the same way -- it doesn't stop anyone directly from taking drugs, nor does it prevent someone who is impaired from sitting in the engineer's seat, but also works after the fact and to incent behavior. However, random drug testing effectivness is almost 100% viable because the drug leaves markers in the system later. If someone invented a drug that left no traces 5 seconds after the effects on the user ended, random drug testing would be fairly useless. Random drug testing is also a very curious quid pro quo society has made with its members -- it says, in effect, "I know you're not high right now when, but you were high last week some time, and who knows what you were doing then, and you might have been at work, and anyway we've all agreed that drug use is bad and should not occurred, and we've made it a condition of employment, so you're off to rehab and if that doesn't work, you're not meeting the conditions of employment and you're fired." It's not possible to show a direct reduction in probability that any specific person like Mr. Sanchez would be less likely to text message, if a camera was in place. It is possible to use after-the-fact averages, but those predict only averages, not specific behavior by a specific person. PTC is a direct, pre-emptive enforcement tool, whereas in-cab cameras are an indirect, after-the-fact assignment-of-blame tool. The camera doesn't stop anyone from engaging in unauthorized behavior, and most of the time the person doing the unauthorized behavior will never be caught, unless someone wants to sit there and review a few thousand hours of tape (I doubt it's possible to write a program to automate the process of reviewing video for all the myriad types of unauthorized behavior). After a big accident, yes, someone will watch every last second of tape, but if someone never gets involved in a big accident, what's the chances that their bad behavior will be caught on camera? Very, very low. Whereas the chances that PTC will prevent an accident like Chatsworth are very, very high. It's legal to institute a policy that cameras will watch the crew. There are plenty of examples -- grocery store cashiers, bank tellers, casino dealers, etc., who are monitored by camera. However, unless the monitoring is real-time, or random looks are at least once a day for every crew for at least 15-30 minutes, its effectiveness as a railway safety tool might be nil. In fact, it might be counterproductive because it encourages everyone who resents it to leave or not apply, and the remaining job applicant pool might be less desirable. RWM
Bucyrus Are we talking about on-board cameras that watch the track ahead, but not the crew, or are we talking about cameras that watch the crew? I am not advocating on-board cameras watching the crew, but would they not add a measure of rules compliance? Is it not probable that Sanchez would have refrained from text messaging if he knew a camera was watching him?
Are we talking about on-board cameras that watch the track ahead, but not the crew, or are we talking about cameras that watch the crew? I am not advocating on-board cameras watching the crew, but would they not add a measure of rules compliance? Is it not probable that Sanchez would have refrained from text messaging if he knew a camera was watching him?
On board cameras that watch the crew.
I don't see how on-board cameras that watch the crew can directly cause rules compliance unless there's going to be someone monitoring a video feed in real time. Indirectly, the camera might induce rules compliance because someone is afraid of getting caught in a random check or being assigned all the blame after an accident occurs. Random drug testing works the same way -- it doesn't stop anyone directly from taking drugs, nor does it prevent someone who is impaired from sitting in the engineer's seat, but also works after the fact and to incent behavior. However, random drug testing effectivness is almost 100% viable because the drug leaves markers in the system later. If someone invented a drug that left no traces 5 seconds after the effects on the user ended, random drug testing would be fairly useless. Random drug testing is also a very curious quid pro quo society has made with its members -- it says, in effect, "I know you're not high right now when, but you were high last week some time, and who knows what you were doing then, and you might have been at work, and anyway we've all agreed that drug use is bad and should not occurred, and we've made it a condition of employment, so you're off to rehab and if that doesn't work, you're not meeting the conditions of employment and you're fired."
It's not possible to show a direct reduction in probability that any specific person like Mr. Sanchez would be less likely to text message, if a camera was in place. It is possible to use after-the-fact averages, but those predict only averages, not specific behavior by a specific person.
PTC is a direct, pre-emptive enforcement tool, whereas in-cab cameras are an indirect, after-the-fact assignment-of-blame tool. The camera doesn't stop anyone from engaging in unauthorized behavior, and most of the time the person doing the unauthorized behavior will never be caught, unless someone wants to sit there and review a few thousand hours of tape (I doubt it's possible to write a program to automate the process of reviewing video for all the myriad types of unauthorized behavior). After a big accident, yes, someone will watch every last second of tape, but if someone never gets involved in a big accident, what's the chances that their bad behavior will be caught on camera? Very, very low. Whereas the chances that PTC will prevent an accident like Chatsworth are very, very high.
It's legal to institute a policy that cameras will watch the crew. There are plenty of examples -- grocery store cashiers, bank tellers, casino dealers, etc., who are monitored by camera. However, unless the monitoring is real-time, or random looks are at least once a day for every crew for at least 15-30 minutes, its effectiveness as a railway safety tool might be nil. In fact, it might be counterproductive because it encourages everyone who resents it to leave or not apply, and the remaining job applicant pool might be less desirable.
I understand your point that crew cameras would not be a positive deterrent to collisions, whereas PTC would be such a deterrent, and I am not advocating one over the other. But it seems like crew cameras would be somewhat of a deterrent to conscious rule violations by the crew, even if the crew knew that their supervisors might not see their violation because the cameras are not continuously monitored.
Murphy Siding Besides, I can visualize how having a camera in the cab would do anything except provide after the fact evidence when a problem occured. For it to have any kind of deterent effect, someone would have to be monitoring the camera while the train is in operation, and communicating with the crew. "***Big Brother to conductor, train 52........quit picking your nose.....over****" I don't think so.
Besides, I can visualize how having a camera in the cab would do anything except provide after the fact evidence when a problem occured. For it to have any kind of deterent effect, someone would have to be monitoring the camera while the train is in operation, and communicating with the crew.
"***Big Brother to conductor, train 52........quit picking your nose.....over****" I don't think so.
If you cannot depend upon the integrity of personnel who have no on-site supervision, on what can you depend?
Johnny
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.