seppburgh2 The major airlines announced the co-pilot is a redundant job position thanks to advanced cockpit automation...
The major airlines announced the co-pilot is a redundant job position thanks to advanced cockpit automation...
You left out the part where support will come from drone railroad trains.
seppburgh2 I see this all the time in IT, just because it is on the PowerPoint makes is so. Until the poor guy in the cab is sitting there in the dark, in the rain, in the the middle of a long bridge without a walk way about 200 feet in the air.
I see this all the time in IT, just because it is on the PowerPoint makes is so. Until the poor guy in the cab is sitting there in the dark, in the rain, in the the middle of a long bridge without a walk way about 200 feet in the air.
How is 1 poor guy different from 2 or more poor guys in the middle of a long bridge without a walk way about 200 feet in the air?
Patrick Boylan
Free yacht rides, 27' sailboat, zip code 19114 Delaware River, get great Delair bridge photos from the river. Send me a private message
seppburgh2 The major airlines announced the co-pilot is a redundant job position thanks to advanced cockpit automation. Starting in 2015, expect to see the introduction of one man flight crews on modern jet aircrafts for major traffic routes using a new centralized air-traffic control system being introduced this fall. The FAA is rolling out a centralized Super Air Traffic Controller position to oversee these one man flights via inward/outward facing cameras along with links between the Super Air Traffic Controller's ground based workstation and the aircraft. Additionally, the plane's Central Processing Units will link to the workstation proving consent instrument monitoring. Voice communication will continue via existing radio communication systems. Super Air Traffic Controllers will start with managing 1 to 2 flights and the projection is one Super Air Traffic Controller managing all flights in a given route. With future advances in technology, the goal is to remove the human factor in flying by turning the Super Air Traffic Controller's supervision duties over to high-speed supercomputers. Thus achieving a single point of blame. Traditional Air Traffic Controllers are required to apply for the new Super Air Traffic Controller positions, those not selected will face permanent layoffs. Experience with X-Box One and PS-4 controllers is mandatory. Plans call for implementing one man crew on the New York to LAX , LAX to Huston, and Huston to New York as proof-of-concept. This loop route approach provides for easier system tuning and real world experience interacting with normal heavy (two man flight crew) air traffic. The cabin Stewards will receive 20 hours of flight simulation training as a contingency should they need to take over for a disabled pilot. The Super Air Traffic Controller will talk the plan down in the event of a pilot emergency. However, future plans call for replacing cabin Stewards with vending machines as a cost saving move. The FAA expects advances in pilotless drone control will allow a Super Air Traffic Controller, or high speed supercomputers when implemented, to safely land the plane remotely thus making the cabin Stewards fully obsolete. Airlines expects migrating their heavily used trunk lines to one man flight crews by 2024. Short hop turbo-prop flights will continue with two man crews. There is no positive ROI to heavily invest in the required technology for these low volume routes and aircrafts. So, if the air lines and the FAA can implement one-man crews for the safest form of transportation in the world, than old fashion railroads can step up to 21th Century style command and control management systems.
The major airlines announced the co-pilot is a redundant job position thanks to advanced cockpit automation. Starting in 2015, expect to see the introduction of one man flight crews on modern jet aircrafts for major traffic routes using a new centralized air-traffic control system being introduced this fall. The FAA is rolling out a centralized Super Air Traffic Controller position to oversee these one man flights via inward/outward facing cameras along with links between the Super Air Traffic Controller's ground based workstation and the aircraft. Additionally, the plane's Central Processing Units will link to the workstation proving consent instrument monitoring. Voice communication will continue via existing radio communication systems.
Super Air Traffic Controllers will start with managing 1 to 2 flights and the projection is one Super Air Traffic Controller managing all flights in a given route. With future advances in technology, the goal is to remove the human factor in flying by turning the Super Air Traffic Controller's supervision duties over to high-speed supercomputers. Thus achieving a single point of blame. Traditional Air Traffic Controllers are required to apply for the new Super Air Traffic Controller positions, those not selected will face permanent layoffs. Experience with X-Box One and PS-4 controllers is mandatory.
Plans call for implementing one man crew on the New York to LAX , LAX to Huston, and Huston to New York as proof-of-concept. This loop route approach provides for easier system tuning and real world experience interacting with normal heavy (two man flight crew) air traffic.
The cabin Stewards will receive 20 hours of flight simulation training as a contingency should they need to take over for a disabled pilot. The Super Air Traffic Controller will talk the plan down in the event of a pilot emergency. However, future plans call for replacing cabin Stewards with vending machines as a cost saving move. The FAA expects advances in pilotless drone control will allow a Super Air Traffic Controller, or high speed supercomputers when implemented, to safely land the plane remotely thus making the cabin Stewards fully obsolete.
Airlines expects migrating their heavily used trunk lines to one man flight crews by 2024. Short hop turbo-prop flights will continue with two man crews. There is no positive ROI to heavily invest in the required technology for these low volume routes and aircrafts.
So, if the air lines and the FAA can implement one-man crews for the safest form of transportation in the world, than old fashion railroads can step up to 21th Century style command and control management systems.
Having been seriously involved in aviation for over thirty years, all I can say is "Thanks for the laugh".
Norm
I've run a lot of one man trains, I never had a problem , never broke a knuckle (yet) . I did have hoses come apart so I just cut in the remote and ran the train remote control. I only had to walk in one direction. I suppose if I got a broken knuckle I'd use the remote too. If there were a bridge or something I would probably sit there until help came.
I never really liked or disliked our one mad crews. I never thought that it was unsafe as much as inconvenient.
UlrichThey've probably thought of that but concluded that the one person on the train can deal with it. You guys would know that better than I..
She who has no signature! cinscocom-tmw
Lets take this a step forward. OK, we have PTC and one man in the cab. There is a busted air hose or a broken knuckle. Now, what's going to happen? Call dispatch and say "Huston, we have problem" then sit tieing up the main for hours while some tries to use a speedster or hi-railer to get to there? With all the talk of hitting capacity or near capacity, can the RR afford to tie up the main for hours?
Or, is the plan to invest $$$ to double or triple track all PTC territory so other trains can 'run around?'
In the original news item the ground level operational work (fixing something that broke) isn't covered. Looks like the assumption is air hoses don't fail and broken knuckle only happen on steam railroads.
BigJimUlrichBigJim Ed,You left out that the broken knuckle was on the other side of the bridge over a raging river and the bridge has no walkway. Nope. no bridge, no river, no walkway. I was not addressing you.
UlrichBigJim Ed,You left out that the broken knuckle was on the other side of the bridge over a raging river and the bridge has no walkway. Nope. no bridge, no river, no walkway.
BigJim Ed,You left out that the broken knuckle was on the other side of the bridge over a raging river and the bridge has no walkway.
Ed,You left out that the broken knuckle was on the other side of the bridge over a raging river and the bridge has no walkway.
.
1. Mr. Buffett would have nothing to do with this agreement. This would be worked out between BNSF management and the unions.
2. If an engineer has a heart attack and the train approaches a PTC control point telling the train to slow down or stop, the PTC system will do it by remote control. With inward looking carmeras a master conductor can see what is happening and stop the train before the PTC takes over.
Think about it!!!
BaltACD It is possible that the implementation of PTC may change the mechanics of these operations.
It is possible that the implementation of PTC may change the mechanics of these operations.
I think when the BN was testing it's ARES system years ago, track warrants/bulletins etc, were transmitted directly to the screen in the locomotive cab. I don't know if the existing system would be able to get updated messages, I would think it would have to. Whether it can or not, I expect there will be a lot of rules changes for one person operation. All of a sudden certain things considered unsafe with two will magically become OK for one.
Just like over the years how other things have changed. Once upon a time, a train couldn't pass a red block (automatic) signal without sending a flagman ahead, waiting a prescribe time and then following. Eventually a red block signal could be passed after stopping. Now some railroads don't require a stop at a red block signal at all, it's OK to pass them at restricted speed. (I don't have a problem with that, except there are a few that still don't understand that even when you can pass that next signal, you might not be able to. That there could be a train, or red flag/fusee, sitting a foot past the signal. You still need to be prepared to stop.)
Jeff
All Amtrak runs that are less than 8 hours scheduled time - are normally operated with only a Engineer in the cab. There is a conductor, but he is stationed on the passenger portion of the train. Engineers and Conductors communicate about the approach of restrictions on the train messages and on my carrier the display of signals - absolute and intermediate.
If a mandatory directive is to be sent by the Train Dispatcher, that must be written and repeated by the person copying the directive - the directive cannot be copied by the person operating a moving locomotive. The person copying the directive must be on the locomotive. Either the Conductor must make his way to the locomotive or the train must be stopped for the Engineer to copy and repeat the directive. (Station stops can be used for this purpose).
Issuing or annulling Slow Orders, changing the operating condition of Defect Detector, issuing or annulling Weather Orders are a few of the reasons for issuing a Mandatory Directive.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BigJimEd,You left out that the broken knuckle was on the other side of the bridge over a raging river and the bridge has no walkway.
It is best that I do not reply to some of the moronic statements made here!
zugmann UlrichWhoever wrote the article said it. They're still full of crap. And the piece doesn't specify who made that statement. I hope it wasn't some 'official' with the Office of Management and Budget. They probably know as much about railroading as my cat does.
UlrichWhoever wrote the article said it.
They're still full of crap.
And the piece doesn't specify who made that statement. I hope it wasn't some 'official' with the Office of Management and Budget. They probably know as much about railroading as my cat does.
Johnny
UlrichMookie UlrichIf there's only person present then only one person can potentially get hurt. Two people can't get hurt when only one person is present. So from that standpoint fewer workers present translates into fewer injuries on the job i.e. a safer workplace. I am not the brightest marble in this box, but either you have your tongue firmly planted in your cheek or we need to find a quiet room and talk! I know there are other components to safety. But I did state "from that standpoint". From another standpoint five sets of eyes might prove safer.
Mookie UlrichIf there's only person present then only one person can potentially get hurt. Two people can't get hurt when only one person is present. So from that standpoint fewer workers present translates into fewer injuries on the job i.e. a safer workplace. I am not the brightest marble in this box, but either you have your tongue firmly planted in your cheek or we need to find a quiet room and talk!
UlrichIf there's only person present then only one person can potentially get hurt. Two people can't get hurt when only one person is present. So from that standpoint fewer workers present translates into fewer injuries on the job i.e. a safer workplace.
There is something here, I just can't seem to grasp it. From my standpoint only - I can't see having something as big as an airliner, or a fully loaded train traveling at more than a creep being operated by only one person. I can't help but imagine there must be plenty of times every day (on all rr's) that 2 people are needed for something out of the ordinary. I am all in favor of progress, but let's do it in inches, not yards. Do we have any safety statistics about 5 vs 2 vs 1?
MookieUlrichIf there's only person present then only one person can potentially get hurt. Two people can't get hurt when only one person is present. So from that standpoint fewer workers present translates into fewer injuries on the job i.e. a safer workplace. I am not the brightest marble in this box, but either you have your tongue firmly planted in your cheek or we need to find a quiet room and talk!
But the only guy in the two man crew doing and dangerous labor is the conductor, who exploits the fact he has an engineer to move the train for him, thereby lessening the amount of labor he has to perform.
Well, the engineer might get tennis elbow, but…..
23 17 46 11
Ulrichzugmann UlrichIf there's only person present then only one person can potentially get hurt. Two people can't get hurt when only one person is present. So from that standpoint fewer workers present translates into fewer injuries on the job i.e. a safer workplace. Yeah. I knew you'd agree.. :)
zugmann UlrichIf there's only person present then only one person can potentially get hurt. Two people can't get hurt when only one person is present. So from that standpoint fewer workers present translates into fewer injuries on the job i.e. a safer workplace. Yeah.
Yeah.
Oh yeah. I'm glad we relocated all railroads into a vacuum in the 1980s (part of the stagger's act, I guess). That helped a lot.
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
zugmannUlrichIf there's only person present then only one person can potentially get hurt. Two people can't get hurt when only one person is present. So from that standpoint fewer workers present translates into fewer injuries on the job i.e. a safer workplace. Yeah.
UlrichYes Ed.. my question was about engineer alone verses engineer and conductor, and I think you and zugman answered it. Thank you.
One man crew, engineer only.
Train separates about halfway back, goes into emergency.
Follow radio rule about such event, radio dispatcher and inform.
Secure the train and locomotive per rule.
Walk back to the break, close the anglecock on the front portion, and assess the damage.
Secure the rear portion of the train by rule, do not close the anglecock on that part, you would bottle the air and risking the rear portion running away
Walk back to the locomotive, get the proper knuckle, let’s be nice and say it was the light one, and carry it back to the break.
You replace the broken knuckle.
Now, the rear and the front portion of the train are separated by, let’s say, a car length…how do you couple up the train if you, the only employee, are at the break?
Walk back to the locomotive, release the securement, recover your air and back up guessing the distance, (feeling for the bump) and there it is…secure the locomotive and train by rule, walk back, lace air hoses back up…now, do you trust the joint /coupling made?
If so, release securement on the rear of the train, hope the EOT plays along and the coupling really made, walk back to the head end, and release the securement and go.
Two man crew, engineer and conductor.
Train separates halfway back goes into emergency
Follow radio rule about such an event, radio dispatcher and inform.
Conductor hops off walks back, finds broken knuckle and torn air hose, radios engineer which type knuckle.
Engineer tosses off E type knuckle, knuckle pin and hose plus wrench; light a fussee, sticks fussee in knuckle.
While engineer is doing that, conductor secures rear portion of train, closes anglecock on only the front portion, to recover air.
Engineer radios conductor knuckle/pin/hose/wrench on south side of tracks with fussee….air has been recovered, so conductor hops on last car of the front portion and has the engineer drag him up to pile of junk/parts…if the car he is riding is the damaged car, he stops train next to pile, repairs car, shoves back and couples up, then stretches the train to check the coupling made, then laces the hoses and cuts in the air, releases securement on the rear and, has engineer drag him back up to spot knuckle was originally left, gets off, shoves the locomotive back to himself, gets on and goes.
If the car damaged is the lead car of the rear portion, he piles all the junk on the running board of the last car of the head end, and has the engineer shove him back to the break…beats carrying a knuckle, and fixes the problem as above..
Try picking two fifty pound bags of dog food (or anything close to 100 lbs) and start walking and see how far you can carry them, then imagine you are walking on un-even rocks and dirt.
Out of the two scenarios above, which do you think is faster and best serves the carrier?
And I am being nice here, I didn’t add in a trailing train with a time bonus tied to it, nor are there any crossings blocked, just a plain 80 or 90 car mixed freight out in the boonies.
Utility man concept…again, not being a smart alec, but what in the world makes folks think trains only break down near a usable road?
The Teague Amy BNSF to and from us (PTRA) runs through the middle of Sam Houston National forest, there are no roads, for miles and miles and miles, so how does the utility guy get to the break?
Utility guy replaces 3 or 4 conductors and saves salary money.
But you have to buy each utility guy a truck, welding torch, tools, fuel for the truck, and you have to have enough of them to handle the jobs.
My carrier has 35 locomotives, and I can promise you, at least 2 trains per shift develops issues, not to mention the foreign trains that come on property, or the locomotives that need some form of servicing….2 utility guys per shift couldn’t come close to keeping up, so how many would you need?
Do the salary math and the cost of the trucks and the auto insurance need plus the travel time for the utility guy to get to the train.
I'm already a master conductor.
Yeah, right.
Whatever. If I can't railroad, I'll find another line of work.
From my understanding of the PTC version being deployed, it won't prevent collisions that happen at restricted speed parameters. Such as Creston, IA a few years ago where one train went past a red intermediate signal (not an absolute) at just above (23 mph IIRC) restricted speed and rear ended the train ahead. There our cases where there is a legitimate and legal need to pass a red signal. PTC allows this at low speeds, the system assuming the train is under control by it's speed. Sadly, that's not always the case as Red Oak, and other collisions like it, have proved.
PTC, like any other thing, can also fail. While I would expect most failures to be the system not letting a train move when it should, it would also be possible for it not to stop a train when it should. For that to happen, the human first has to fail first. Since humans have a pretty good record of not failing (the few instances grab head lines and lead to things like PTC) an individual engine's equipment could be faulty and no one know it. Until it was needed to do what it was supposed to and didn't. (Not to mention about existing equipment and systems that need to interface with PTC. Like the circuit controller that failed in showing a track occupancy at an open switch in Amtrak's PTC territory a year or two ago.)
[I know of at least two instances where the CNW/UP's ATC/cab signal system failed to go to restricting when it should have. One was after the UP added wayside signals and it was following signal indication that prevented a rear end collision. The other was before waysides, except at interlockings. That train's engine passed the required ATC system test at Clinton. While on dead track (unenergized rails) the cab signal stayed at restricting. Upon entering the live (energized) main track, the cab signal went clear. It stayed clear all the way to Boone, where the train went into the yard. Upon leaving the live track and entering the dead track, the cab signal stayed clear, it didn't drop to restricting like it should have. When did it fail? Just then or somewhere earlier? It's possible they went their entire trip with a defective cab signal and were just lucky enough not to encounter a stopped train ahead.]
The findings that two people in a cab is unsafe is just something that a management type pulled out of their... um, hat. A few years ago at my bi-annual employee review, my supervisor said that we didn't need to worry about the conductor going away with PTC. That the railroad (UP in my case) had determined that two people in a cab was safest. That three, such as a brakeman or maybe a student, was unsafe. That two sets of eyes were better than one, but the third mouth led to too much distractions. Of course I agreed. What I was really thinking was, "Yeah right. As soon as you get PTC to where you (the railroad) think it's reliable, you'll have studies showing one person is safer because two leads to distractions." So it's no surprise that BNSF or some other entity would say one is safer.
I can tell you, that there have been times when I've went to work tired. (GASP! It happens. No matter what the laws or railroads say, there are times when a person's sleep cycle doesn't sync with the work schedule. Trying to sleep in daylight, when you aren't tired can be hard. Even when you know you will be going to work in the middle of the night. My cats can sleep whenever they want, I can't. That's why sometimes too much time off between runs is just as bad as too little time.) I've been called to work at 1 or 2 in the morning (my worst time even when fully rested, if any one can be at 1 or 2 in the am) and dreading the trip. Working with a good conductor, one I have a good rapport with, and the time flies by without any feeling of being tired. On the other hand, I've had daylight trips with conductors, after having a good night's sleep, who I get along with OK but they don't engage in much conversation, beyond what the rule book requires. On some of those type trips, my "caboose" seems to be dragging to where you think I hadn't slept in days.
So I don't buy the position that one person is safer than two.
I also have no illusions that eventually, with upgrades and further developments, the ultimate goal is full automation of operations between yards. At first there may be an on board observer, but eventually I would look for that position to go away, too. I think I may be lucky enough not to see that. Which makes me wonder if railroad retirement will still be there when I'm ready to pull the pin.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.