End-of-train devices with TV cameras and monitors in the cabs would be an even greater help. If they got FRA approval for backup moves.
Occasionally, the local railroad taxi/cab will assist crews by shuttling crews around, assuming there is road access to the places they need to go.
Then there's always "radar joints," which were apparently somewhat common back in the days before radios...
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...
Or do what CSX did here. The siding train which was supposed to fit did not. ~ 1 - 2 cars too long. Long train just coupled to and pushed last cars to next siding and proceeded with only a 1/2 hr delay for both trains.
blue streak 1 Or do what CSX did here. The siding train which was supposed to fit did not. ~ 1 - 2 cars too long. Long train just coupled to and pushed last cars to next siding and proceeded with only a 1/2 hr delay for both trains.
Why not just double track the whole route or in areas of congestion and quit playing around with siding lengths.
About engineers lining switches....
Sorry, can't do it. I used to get switches that were immediately in front of the engines, but not anymore. It's not because of a "it's not my job" thing, which it isn't, but because managers started writing up engineers for leaving their engines and train unsecured when getting their own switches. To be able for an engineer to get a switch, he/she would have to tie down all the engines in the consist and a sufficient (or prescribed by bulletin) number of hand brakes on any cars attached. Then do a release test to make sure the hand brakes hold. Then they can go line a switch.
So I no longer get my own switches. If one's against me, I call for the conductor. If it takes 20 minutes for him/her to get to the switch, and it has, so be it.
Jeff
CMStPnP blue streak 1 Or do what CSX did here. The siding train which was supposed to fit did not. ~ 1 - 2 cars too long. Long train just coupled to and pushed last cars to next siding and proceeded with only a 1/2 hr delay for both trains. Why not just double track the whole route or in areas of congestion and quit playing around with siding lengths.
Your checkbook or the railroads?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
jeffhergert To be able for an engineer to get a switch, he/she would have to tie down all the engines in the consist and a sufficient (or prescribed by bulletin) number of hand brakes on any cars attached. Then do a release test to make sure the hand brakes hold.
Can't leave the train without it being secured, yet you can't secure the train without stepping off of it. Kind of a catch-22.
Also, in the original, a unless the crewmember is a utility, he can't work with two crews (with our railroad - but I think that's a federal regulation thing - I'm not sure). So that means conductor A can't couple up to cars with engineer B, and then turn air in, knock brakes off, etc. He can watch shoves in our little railroad universe. Don't know the case with others.
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
Perhaps only on regionals and short-lines, and not on Class Ones, but there are two-man crews where both men are qualified as conductors, trainmen, and engineers.
The his rule against engineers throwing switches seems very stupid to me. After all, to tie down handbrakes on a standing cut of cars, one has to assume that the airbrakes will hold after the cut is made until the hand brakes are applied. This takes as much time as an engineers leaving the lcoomotive, throwing over the switch, and returning to the locomotive.
In fact, if engineers throwing their switches is illegal, than remote control of switcher locomotives by engineers/trainjmen on the ground is also illegal. Shure the man on the ground has a controller in his hand, but not at the times when he is throwing switches or coupling and uncouplikng cars.
Either your raiklroad is inconsistant or the FRA is inconsistant.
I'm truly amaxed at this bit of blatent stupidity.
daveklepper In fact, if engineers throwing their switches is illegal, than remote control of switcher locomotives by engineers/trainjmen on the ground is also illegal. Shure the man on the ground has a controller in his hand, but not at the times when he is throwing switches or coupling and uncouplikng cars. Either your raiklroad is inconsistant or the FRA is inconsistant. I'm truly amaxed at this bit of blatent stupidity.
Yes. Even more stupid is the attempt to cut corners on proper operation. Busy lines should be double-tracked with sidings. There should be shorter, less heavy trains with adequate crews. If the rails cannot afford to run trains the way most other industrial nations do, then it is about time for RoW to be nationalized and brought into the 21st century. Let the freight lines compete to run trains on that RoW as is the case elsewhere.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm If the rails cannot afford to run trains the way most other industrial nations do, then it is about time for RoW to be nationalized and brought into the 21st century. Let the freight lines compete to run trains on that RoW as is the case elsewhere.
I agree with your sentiments. Again, I do not see sawbys as normal operations. But say a short line or regional parallels a Class I, and for some reason for the Class I route is disrupted. Sawbys could then permit some of the Class I trains to detour over the short line or reigional until the disruption is cured.
As for this idea that engineers may not dismout to throw a switch, do engineers have to wait until the conductor is the cab to make a potty call in the nose?
daveklepper Perhaps only on regionals and short-lines, and not on Class Ones, but there are two-man crews where both men are qualified as conductors, trainmen, and engineers. The his rule against engineers throwing switches seems very stupid to me. After all, to tie down handbrakes on a standing cut of cars, one has to assume that the airbrakes will hold after the cut is made until the hand brakes are applied. This takes as much time as an engineers leaving the lcoomotive, throwing over the switch, and returning to the locomotive.
The CSX runaway with locomotive 8888 and train was caused by an Engineer leaving the locomotive to throw a switch. Many more rules than just leaving the locomotive were broken by this engineer.
Runaway CSX 8888 must have been caused by more than just leaving the locomotive to throw a switch. Had he made a full service brake application to bring the train to a stop? Had there been a check to insure that all brakes on all cars were working? WAs the end-of-train device working properly and did the engineer pay attention to whatever message it was sending? Was the trian on a heavy grade?
I do not think my sawby technique is applicable, even in emergencies, if there is a heavy grade, many sharp curves, trafficked grade crossing immeidate in the vacinityof the siding or through the siding, and htere may be other constraints.
Assume any of the adverse conditions listed. Assume the siding A passed before reaching the siding in question is nearer than the siding that B passed. Then A has to reverse to that siding, leave half its train there, return to the siding in question, allow B to pass both halves on the two sidings, reverse again followiing B to p;ick up its second half. Then proceed.
daveklepper Runaway CSX 8888 must have been caused by more than just leaving the locomotive to throw a switch. Had he made a full service brake application to bring the train to a stop? Had there been a check to insure that all brakes on all cars were working? WAs the end-of-train device working properly and did the engineer pay attention to whatever message it was sending? Was the trian on a heavy grade? I do not think my sawby technique is applicable, even in emergencies, if there is a heavy grade, many sharp curves, trafficked grade crossing immeidate in the vacinityof the siding or through the siding, and htere may be other constraints.
As I stated - a whole host of rules were broken, not just leaving the engine, a moving engine and train.
The carrier rule books these days are written so as to never put an employee at the risk of injury, if the rules are followed to the letter - railroading efficiency is not a consideration. Rules written by injury and tort lawyers, not railroaders.
Do Short Line and Regional rule books follow those of the Class Is precisely?
daveklepper Do Short Line and Regional rule books follow those of the Class Is precisely?
I believe most shortlines and regionals use one of the "big" rulebooks (GCOR, NORAC, etc). There may be local variations, based on local requirements, but the basis will be the same.
CSX has it own rules. The former Conrail lines used NORAC for a while, but were eventually folded into the CSX rules. Can't speak to NS.
All that said, rule numbers notwithstanding I think you'll find that the rulebooks are remarkably similar.
BaltACDYour checkbook or the railroads?
It's not saving them a whole lot of money by being stingy on the single tracking. They still have to pay property taxes on their full 200 foot wide ROW in most cases regardless of how many tracks they have on it. Going back through history, how many times have they redone the length of rail sidings because of changing technology (pretty sure we are on the 4th iteration of this)? I can understand not double tracking the full length of a route but C'mon get some common sense here and put in a second track or if it makes you feel more cozy call it a 6-10 mile long passing siding. Railroads need to look to the future and the past when they make engineering decisions and not just think of the here and now.
I did have the good fortune of watching UP RR replace a C&NW railroad bridge that over passed I-94 West of Milwaukee recently. They didn't just replace the span but they lengthened the span correctly figuring out that at somepoint in the future the freeway would widen more and the expanded span would save them another service interruption in the future or having to argue with the State of Wisconsin over splitting the cost.................thats an example of the common sense I am referring to. Same with lifting bridges over rivers a little higher in some places to account on future forecast increases of floods instead of just the past 100 years of floods.....that we get with a changing climate. Why wait until the line floods to do that?
CSSHEGEWISCH schlimm If the rails cannot afford to run trains the way most other industrial nations do, then it is about time for RoW to be nationalized and brought into the 21st century. Let the freight lines compete to run trains on that RoW as is the case elsewhere. Sounds like a pitch for open access.
No. Not at all. It is a call for modernization and efficiencies on a scale that freight lines cannot and will not do.
schlimmNo. Not at all. It is a call for modernization and efficiencies on a scale that freight lines cannot and will not do.
Just as a note: what he's discussing is not exactly open access, but I have to wonder if it is so functionally identical to it as makes no difference practically. If we agree that full 'open access' is worthless to any entity that lacks the capitalization and access to money needed to set up and run an effective freight operation, then what schlimm is calling for -- full national ownership of the 'general rail system' and equally full use of that system by competing private service providers on the European model -- is effectively what practical open access would be.
Unless he is going to claim there should be oligopolistic restraint on the number or size of the 'freight lines that compete' to use a particular part of the nationalized 'pool' -- and an 'ocean' is a big pool -- of presumably improved, and competently and fairly dispatched, track. I specifically note that schlimm did NOT say that competing freight providers would be extended exclusive rights to parts of the network (with perhaps periodic reassignments or the equivalent of 'spectrum auctions' that would give exclusive rights to one company and only subordinate 'trackage-rights' like permissions to otherse) but if that's what he meant I'm sure he'll elaborate on it.
Personally, I happen to think his fundamental idea is reasonably sound, and moreover it might have been initiated as part of a practical answer to what has become a more-or-less ridiculous boondoggle, the implementation of functional PTC for the purposes it was mandated. There is a fairly immediate corollary that is still more 'intrusive' (for those who dislike and distrust 'national' or 'government' incentives) -- the extension of government control and oversight into the areas of railcar construction (a funded mandate and standards for ECP and other 'smart' braking tech) and incremental electrification (as found nearly everywhere railway electrification has been implemented to positive operational effect).
I am against the idea. I think the seven Class I's are generally doing a decent job of investing in improvments, and my short siding long trains effort is intended only for temporary and emergency situations. I don't see freight railways in Europe having anywhere near the market share that USA railways have, except possibly Switzerland.
Where's Futuremodal when you need him?
Things got so heated here for a while that the term "open access" almost became banned, much as "graffiti" and "hobo" are essentially verboten.
That said, moving to an open access model in this country would probably be impossible - waaaay too many roadblocks.
If it were to happen, I'd see it operating as does the air traffic control system, combined with toll roads. And anyone with the funds to become licensed, and purchase the necessary equipment, would be able to use any tracks, anywhere. The current Class 1's would become the Schneiders/JB Hunts/name-a-trucking-companys of the railroad world, but smaller operators could pick out niche markets.
I don't expect to see it in my lifetime...
daveklepper I am against the idea. I think the seven Class I's are generally doing a decent job of investing in improvments, and my short siding long trains effort is intended only for temporary and emergency situations. I don't see freight railways in Europe having anywhere near the market share that USA railways have, except possibly Switzerland.
The modal split for EU28 is about 18% rail; maybe double that in US because of far more heavy bulk cargos. In Tkm, more modern Germany shows road 310,000 million Tkm vs rail 113,000 China might be a more apt comparison. But I am not sure how any of that is relevant.
We could do much better, with electrification and more efficient routings and tracks that could be used for decent passenger services, among other benefits.
zugmann jeffhergert To be able for an engineer to get a switch, he/she would have to tie down all the engines in the consist and a sufficient (or prescribed by bulletin) number of hand brakes on any cars attached. Then do a release test to make sure the hand brakes hold. Can't leave the train without it being secured, yet you can't secure the train without stepping off of it. Kind of a catch-22. Also, in the original, a unless the crewmember is a utility, he can't work with two crews (with our railroad - but I think that's a federal regulation thing - I'm not sure). So that means conductor A can't couple up to cars with engineer B, and then turn air in, knock brakes off, etc. He can watch shoves in our little railroad universe. Don't know the case with others.
The requirement that a crewmember, even a utility person, can only be "attached" to one crew at a time is a Federal requirement.
The engineer actually did make a full service application. They were switching in a yard and the air brake system wasn't connected or charged. The engineer knew this but still made the application. At the time, a lot of "expert" railfans commented how dumb this engineer was to do this, even though he knew the brake system wasn't charged.
I would've done the same thing. (Setting full service, not getting off the moving engine to try to line the switch.) I guess I'm dumb too, or I know something that others don't.
jeffhergertThe requirement that a crewmember, even a utility person, can only be "attached" to one crew at a time is a Federal requirement.
Thanks. That's what I thought, but didn't know 100%.
jeffhergertI would've done the same thing. (Setting full service, not getting off the moving engine to try to line the switch.) I guess I'm dumb too, or I know something that others don't.
Even with lite power, if I'm going to be sitting more than a few seconds, I toss on full service. An old engineer once said something about how a faulty valve could leak off independent only, or some such stuff. I just do it... because.
If I remember right, that 8888 engineer also thought he put on full dynamic, when it was full throttle (engine had one of those dynamic/throttle selector switches). I only ever ran a few engines with those, but I never understood the reasoning behind them. Wasn't like you saved a lever or anything - since you had to add the selector lever.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.