Point and call is a practice of acting alone to self-reinforce a conscious decision. If it were done in the presence of others with a stake in the safety, perhaps they too would benefit. I would say the same effect comes from calling signals. While the main point is to call signals to someone else to remind them and receive affirmation from them, the effect will also be to affirm it in the mind of the first to call. In that part of affirming to yourself, it is identical to point and call.
The embarrassment associated with using point and call flows from feeling silly or demeaned because it implies that a trainman needs a crutch to do their job safely. It is a common reaction to any new safety device. It was a widespread reaction by nineteenth century brakemen being told to use link and pin coupler safety paddles. They felt than no capable brakeman needed to use a sissy safety paddle.
But I suggest that it is that very attitude of being in a competition to prove no need for safety practice that leads to accidents. I have seen less experienced equipment operators who seem to have an attitude of busting a bronco to prove they can make the machine submit to their wishes. That is their idea of being a good operator. People with that attitude are not going to want to do point and call. A good operator respects the machine and treats it like a trusted friend.
I would say that the bad equipment operator or a brakeman refusing to use a coupling paddle is just like a person who rejects point and call because they feel it is beneath them.
But to a responsible person, point and call is a kind of theater of confidence and competence. It has a very specific and tangible mental purpose. It is a memorized drill that is habitually performed for specific selected tasks. It is a conscious call to clear the mind. And the conscious call itself begins the clearing process. Those who use it routinely are not embarrassed by it. And it is apparently very constructive in preventing accidents rather than just a superfluous habit. It can become mindless habit to those who treat it like the bad equipment operator. But, obviously, the Japanese trainmen respect the system and treat it like their friend. It won’t work otherwise.
I have used point and call before I ever heard there was such a system. In times of needing to make very important conscious decisions, the practice of point and call comes naturally because it is constructive and makes sense. It serves a purpose.
tree68 Euclid Or, just perhaps it's because it is a direct challenge to ones caring about safety - ie, "we don't trust you to be safe, so we have to make you go through this (silly) routine." Like I don't know enough to look both ways before I cross the street (or the tracks). I suspect that if you were to use the pointing routine before crossing the street at a busy city intersection, you'd get a lot of funny looks, and maybe even be made fun of. Note, too, that in all of the instances I saw, it was an individual acting alone. There was no interface with another employee, ie, calling signals across the cab.
Euclid
Or, just perhaps it's because it is a direct challenge to ones caring about safety - ie, "we don't trust you to be safe, so we have to make you go through this (silly) routine." Like I don't know enough to look both ways before I cross the street (or the tracks).
I suspect that if you were to use the pointing routine before crossing the street at a busy city intersection, you'd get a lot of funny looks, and maybe even be made fun of.
Note, too, that in all of the instances I saw, it was an individual acting alone. There was no interface with another employee, ie, calling signals across the cab.
CSX rules require crews to call signals and other operating conditions over the road radio channel as they are encountered. This is great and unobstrusive on low to moderate volume lines and keeps all employees that monitor the road radio channel for the territory informed in real time of the movements that are taking place in their 'hearing range'.
On high volume lines with lots of trains and lots of MofW work areas the road radio channel become a never ending bable of noise, trains calling signals, defect detectors announcing and reporting their results, MofW Flagmen communicating instructions and receiving the read back of those instructions and 1001 other communications that end up on the road radio channel.
Not all carriers rules require calling signals on the road radio channel.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
EuclidI would say that that embarrassment flows from a lax attitude that creates a degree of indifference toward safety. The discomfort is the point-and-call technique challenging that indifference.
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...
SD70M-2Dude- "Maybe we as a society have to live out that lesson to learn it, unfortunately."
I'm afraid you may be correct. This likely cannot be stopped ...not good.
Euclid tree68 I don't know if you've seen the Japanese "point" system, wherein employees (including engineers/drivers) point at those things they need to take note of before taking an action. For an engineer, that might be an upcoming trackside signal, an in-cab signal indication (if so equipped), the signal as represented on a chart on the cab wall, and the speedometer. In theory, this shows that the engineer is aware of all of those factors. In reality, I feel it just means that he looked and pointed at them - there is no indication that he actually recognized them for what they are... I am intrigued by the Japanese point-and-call safety system. They say that users must often overcome a feeling of embarrassment when first using it. I would say the closest thing in U.S. railroad practice to point-and-call is calling out signals. But point-and-call is more than just confirming to others that you understand a safety-critical operational detail. It is also a way for the person performing this drill to reinforce their own attention to the critical task at hand. The rule requires a conscious action of pointing at a detail and calling out the required action. This conscientious hard focusing of the mind mandated by the rules prevents a person from drifting into a critical task with their consciousness scattered in a daydream-like state of mind as they approach the task. The point-and-call system is a memorized, habitual drill routine that is there like a permanent structure to pull the mind into one-pointed focus at every step where that mindset is critically necessary. They claim that testing shows that it makes a big improvement in preventing accidents. It is interesting that they find that people are often embarrassed by using point-and-call. I would say that that embarrassment flows from a lax attitude that creates a degree of indifference toward safety. The discomfort is the point-and-call technique challenging that indifference.
tree68 I don't know if you've seen the Japanese "point" system, wherein employees (including engineers/drivers) point at those things they need to take note of before taking an action. For an engineer, that might be an upcoming trackside signal, an in-cab signal indication (if so equipped), the signal as represented on a chart on the cab wall, and the speedometer. In theory, this shows that the engineer is aware of all of those factors. In reality, I feel it just means that he looked and pointed at them - there is no indication that he actually recognized them for what they are...
For an engineer, that might be an upcoming trackside signal, an in-cab signal indication (if so equipped), the signal as represented on a chart on the cab wall, and the speedometer. In theory, this shows that the engineer is aware of all of those factors. In reality, I feel it just means that he looked and pointed at them - there is no indication that he actually recognized them for what they are...
I am intrigued by the Japanese point-and-call safety system. They say that users must often overcome a feeling of embarrassment when first using it. I would say the closest thing in U.S. railroad practice to point-and-call is calling out signals.
But point-and-call is more than just confirming to others that you understand a safety-critical operational detail. It is also a way for the person performing this drill to reinforce their own attention to the critical task at hand.
The rule requires a conscious action of pointing at a detail and calling out the required action. This conscientious hard focusing of the mind mandated by the rules prevents a person from drifting into a critical task with their consciousness scattered in a daydream-like state of mind as they approach the task.
The point-and-call system is a memorized, habitual drill routine that is there like a permanent structure to pull the mind into one-pointed focus at every step where that mindset is critically necessary.
They claim that testing shows that it makes a big improvement in preventing accidents.
It is interesting that they find that people are often embarrassed by using point-and-call. I would say that that embarrassment flows from a lax attitude that creates a degree of indifference toward safety. The discomfort is the point-and-call technique challenging that indifference.
I do find that calling signals (or anything else) out loud makes me remember it better than if I did not. Even if my Engineer doesn't respond I still continue to do it throughout the trip.
As for the Huxley/Orwell part of this thread, a main point of all those stories is that giving more power and monitoring ability to the authorities at the top is a bad thing. Maybe we as a society have to live out that lesson to learn it, unfortunately.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
Electroliner 1935 zardoz But just for clarification, in case other members would like to benefit from reading two very thought-provoking books, the term Big Brother is from George Orwell's prophetic masterpiece 1984; whereas Brave New World was written by Aldous Huxley in 1931. I was afraid I might have reversed the reference. They both seem to have relevance in todays world. Thanks for the correction.
zardoz But just for clarification, in case other members would like to benefit from reading two very thought-provoking books, the term Big Brother is from George Orwell's prophetic masterpiece 1984; whereas Brave New World was written by Aldous Huxley in 1931.
I was afraid I might have reversed the reference. They both seem to have relevance in todays world. Thanks for the correction.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
BaltACDBut who is watching Big Brother?
You may find the answer to that question in "Animal Farm."
"All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others..."
Yes - I had to read it in 9th grade.
zardoz Electroliner 1935 tree68 Shades of Aldus Huckly's Brave New World. Big Brother IS watching. I totaly agree, and your point is well taken. However, just for clarification (not nitpicking), in case other members would like to benefit from reading two very thought-provoking books, the term Big Brother is from George Orwell's prophetic masterpiece 1984, written in 1949; whereas Brave New World was written by Aldous Huxley in 1931.
Electroliner 1935 tree68 Shades of Aldus Huckly's Brave New World. Big Brother IS watching.
tree68
Shades of Aldus Huckly's Brave New World. Big Brother IS watching.
I totaly agree, and your point is well taken.
However, just for clarification (not nitpicking), in case other members would like to benefit from reading two very thought-provoking books, the term Big Brother is from George Orwell's prophetic masterpiece 1984, written in 1949; whereas Brave New World was written by Aldous Huxley in 1931.
But who is watching Big Brother?
zardozBut just for clarification, in case other members would like to benefit from reading two very thought-provoking books, the term Big Brother is from George Orwell's prophetic masterpiece 1984; whereas Brave New World was written by Aldous Huxley in 1931.
Electroliner 1935 tree68 You do realize that your personal vehicle may well be recording what you are doing while you're driving.... Shades of Aldus Huckly's Brave New World. Big Brother IS watching.
tree68 You do realize that your personal vehicle may well be recording what you are doing while you're driving....
I was taught that it was impolite to point--perhaps this matter of ettiquette is enforced even more in Japan that it is (was?) here.
Johnny
tree68I don't know if you've seen the Japanese "point" system, wherein employees (including engineers/drivers) point at those things they need to take note of before taking an action. For an engineer, that might be an upcoming trackside signal, an in-cab signal indication (if so equipped), the signal as represented on a chart on the cab wall, and the speedometer. In theory, this shows that the engineer is aware of all of those factors. In reality, I feel it just means that he looked and pointed at them - there is no indication that he actually recognized them for what they are...
As to On Star, I used it the day in 2002 when we bought a new car--and never used it afterwards.
WHen I bought another car, in 2013, I never used the system at all, and when I sold the car to my granddaughter last year, the button was absolutley untouched.
tree68You do realize that your personal vehicle may well be recording what you are doing while you're driving....
If you choose to let your auto insurance company install their monitor on your car, (it plugs in to the diagnostic computer plug) they give you a lower rate but they also know how fast you drive and much more. State Farms discount for having the monitor dosen't come close to the cost of the cell service. Or GM's On-Star requires you to have a cellular service for your car which you have to pay for after the first year and they monitor what your car is doing. Shades of Aldus Huckly's Brave New World. Big Brother IS watching.
UlrichMaybe that would be ok.. why monitor someone that closely when its really not required?
You do realize that your personal vehicle may well be recording what you are doing while you're driving....
Invasive management notwithstanding, constant monitoring needs to be constant because we don't schedule when things will go wrong. Just to pick on an incident we've been discussing elsewhere - how useful might in-cab video have been in determining what happened in Philly?
I don't know if you've seen the Japanese "point" system, wherein employees (including engineers/drivers) point at those things they need to take note of before taking an action.
Even office workers use it - point in both directions and at the crosswalk before crossing the street...
Recall a story in Trains some years ago about a newish fireman working with an old head engineer (on a Diesel). The fireman looked over at the engineer and saw that the engineer appeared to be asleep - yet he didn't miss a single crossing as they roared down the line at track speed...
Maybe that would be ok.. why monitor someone that closely when its really not required?
UlrichWouldn't PTC make the cameras redundant?
Actually, I might tend to think it would be just the opposite. Since the engineer has PTC to keep an eye on things, he/she can just kick back and enjoy the ride, blowing the horn on occasion and taking action when PTC reminds him...
We just had a driver that had a cop suicide dive him up in Ohio. The cop misjudged his space clipped the front end of our truck and then had the balls to say our driver rear ended him. The other cops agreed with him of course. Our driver was cited came back with the camera footage. My boss and the driver involved flew out for the court hearing this week with a DVD of the crash in their carry-on luggage. I was told not only did the judge throw out the ticket he ordered the DA of the county to cite the Policeman for Perjury reckless driving and abuse of power in the courtroom. We got a formal apology from the agency involved this week along with a check to cover the damages to the truck.
UlrichWouldn't PTC make the cameras redundant? To my understanding PTC would over-ride any egregious crew error that could involve a collision. And the cameras wouldn't capture crew activities outside of the locomotive.. i.e. hooking/unhooking cars etc. Outward facing cameras that cover blindspots might make more sense.
PTC is not being implemented on all tracks of the carriers. There will be a lot of lines that don't require PTC because of the traffic they handle.
Wouldn't PTC make the cameras redundant? To my understanding PTC would over-ride any egregious crew error that could involve a collision. And the cameras wouldn't capture crew activities outside of the locomotive.. i.e. hooking/unhooking cars etc. Outward facing cameras that cover blindspots might make more sense.
selectorIt's well beside the point of the thread, but this sounds terrible. Why work there?
Money, bennies and surprizingly personal satisfaction.
Over my 51 year career the aim of management was always to take the fun and sense of accomplishment out of the employment experience. (note - I was managemtnt for 20 years)
SD70M-2Dude Come work for a railroad for a while. We'll see how long that attitude lasts. ... The problem (which has been discussed at length on the forum before) is that management is vengeful and somewhat incompetent. As I mentioned earlier they already target certain people (union reps, safety reps etc) who do not deserve it...
Come work for a railroad for a while. We'll see how long that attitude lasts.
... The problem (which has been discussed at length on the forum before) is that management is vengeful and somewhat incompetent. As I mentioned earlier they already target certain people (union reps, safety reps etc) who do not deserve it...
It's well beside the point of the thread, but this sounds terrible. Why work there?
Norm48327Just another tool for those who need someone other than themselves to blame. I feel for those who have to work under such conditions.
I've had engines with the inward cameras. To be honest, after intially seeing it when walking in the cab, I usually forget it's there. Of course I keep the damned phone turned off and in my grip (unless it is for prescribed and permissable company business). In this day and age, you are nuts to do otherwise. Are there other things they can get you for on the camrea? Sure. But a trainmaster watching you through binoculars from the side of the ROW can probably see the same thing. As far as actual train operations - that stuff is all recorded, sattelite-ed(?), and reviewed all the time - sometimes in real time. A camera isn't going to make much difference.
You're not going to keep them out of the cab. It just is what it is. I run the train the same with or without a camera. No use in getting paranoid.
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
There have been several times when in a lawsuit inward driver cameras have destroyed a defense for a trucking company in a civil lawsuit. Why because2 mins prior to whatever happened the jury sees the driver do something that they feel wasn't safe. It doesn't matter that the plaintiff underrode the trailer beheaded his wife the trucker took his eyes off the road to get a drink or had to shift gears.
If you think these cameras aren't going to be used as a punishment tool I've got an oceanfront condo in Colorado for sale cheap.
Phoebe Vet What you have just said is that your employer has no right to supervise your work or to know what you are doing when operating his very expensive and potentially deadly train. You also seem to believe that it is a violation of your rights if authorities investigate and assign blame when an accident occurs. An inward facing camera or data recorder cannot be used to discipline you unless you are doing something wrong.
What you have just said is that your employer has no right to supervise your work or to know what you are doing when operating his very expensive and potentially deadly train. You also seem to believe that it is a violation of your rights if authorities investigate and assign blame when an accident occurs.
An inward facing camera or data recorder cannot be used to discipline you unless you are doing something wrong.
As a railroader, I have no problem with management trying to have a safe and efficient operation. That's what we employees want as well. The problem (which has been discussed at length on the forum before) is that management is vengeful and somewhat incompetent. As I mentioned earlier they already target certain people (union reps, safety reps etc) who do not deserve it and the cameras will just make that worse. The goal is not purely safety, but intimidation and furthering the culture of fear.
I have a feeling the inside-facing camera footage will be used to further the situation that already exists: the golden boys and brown-nosers will be able to get away with murder and any who have been deemed 'unworthy' will get 15 demerits for not having their safety glasses on with the window open a crack (seen them throw that one at several people already even without the cameras); at 60 demerits you get fired automatically.
For a everyday world comparison, the inward facing locomotive cab cameras are just like the police/goverment putting a inward facing camera inside your car, and using the footage to give you tickets for traffic violations, and suspend/revoke your driver's license once you have accumulated enough tickets. Seems fair, after all shouldn't the authorities who are responsible for the roads have the right to monitor those who use them?
More to come later, the wife's calling me to dinner.
tree68PV - if you were in the military, then you remember "white glove inspections" - especially those where the powers that be were looking to cancel your weekend pass. They looked until they found enough to warrant action. Didn't matter how ***-n-span your stuff was, you were bound to have missed something. Whodathunk they'd find a smudge of mud on the sole of your dress shoes that offensive! And that's what RME is referring to. Did you blow the horn for the requisite amount of time, at the proper distance from the crossing, or were you a second too short? Did you start too early? You might have done everything exactly correctly, save letting go of the horn handle too soon... On an average trip, I'd bet someone looking for things you did wrong would be able to find enough to give you some time off, as nit-picky as those "violations" might be.
And that's what RME is referring to. Did you blow the horn for the requisite amount of time, at the proper distance from the crossing, or were you a second too short? Did you start too early? You might have done everything exactly correctly, save letting go of the horn handle too soon...
On an average trip, I'd bet someone looking for things you did wrong would be able to find enough to give you some time off, as nit-picky as those "violations" might be.
Just like in football - THERE IS holding on EVERY play. When it gets called??????
PV - if you were in the military, then you remember "white glove inspections" - especially those where the powers that be were looking to cancel your weekend pass. They looked until they found enough to warrant action. Didn't matter how ***-n-span your stuff was, you were bound to have missed something. Whodathunk they'd find a smudge of mud on the sole of your dress shoes that offensive!
A) YOU said "all the time", I didn't.
B) If I am paying you to perform a service under clearly defined conditions, I have the right to be sure you are doing what I am paying you to do just as you have the right to receive every cent I have promised you. If you are worried about being caught on your cell phone while operating the train then you must be on your cell phone while operating the train. You are watched by SOMEONE most of your day. Next time you go to Lowes or WalMart, look at the ceiling. Those are cameras. If you are not stealing, you don't have to worry.
C) Look back through this thread and you will find I suggested that such records only be preserved and reviewed in case of an incident.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Phoebe VetAn inward facing camera or data recorder cannot be used to discipline you unless you are doing something wrong.
There are no words.
I think, being charitable, you should go back and read a few of STCO's posts about the interlocking laws and regulations in the truckiing industry, which will cheerfully be analyzed by people who are motivated for any reason to go fishing for violations.
It could just as easily be said that Winston Smith's world of ubiquitous telescreens was just fine because only criminals would be afraid to be watched all the time.
Does your employer have the right to use inward-facing cameras in his property? Of course he does. He even has the right to require the camera as a condition for an owner-driver to handle his trailer (and note that certain hazmat shippers have their own camera suite running on their railcars)
What this argument has been about is whether an employer can selectively review data on individuals in order to try winkling out "offenses", no matter how slight, circumstantial, or merely statutory, that can be used for discipline. Some relevant cultural observations about this sort of mindset and its uses were in Hunter Harrison-related threads. And this before we take up the issue of employers representing to employees that camera data won't be released except in case of accident ... then whoops!
One of the things very easily proven is that someone performing a skilled task requiring judgment may be dangerously impaired if he or she has to keep foreground attention on formal avoidance of complex rule violations. I suspect that anyone who has driven in California, where the full-stop rule is often obsessively enforced, knows how the concentration on producing the 'documentation bounce' of the front end can take away from vigilance of traffic, especially bicycles approaching in the 'wrong direction' from behind. Making sure you're always good for the cameras or other sensors is going to take something away from vigilance and performance, and heaven knows it takes away from any sense of professional pride or job satisfaction.
Just dont trot out that platitude that 'only the guilty have something to fear from our oversight'. Eventually almost everybody will be guilty of something, and the point of the exercise is not to empower petty control but to provide things like better safety and 'lessons learned' for future accident prevention. I think those can be adequately provided in a system that does not give anyone but the employees involved primary access to datastream information except as specifically provided to law enforcement or other responsible public agencies. Not owners, and not insurance companies, unless they have shown and documented proper cause. Or unless they sign, and then abide by, firm agreements regulating the capture, monitoring, and use/release of any of the video or other data captured by the in-cab devices or monitoring systems.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.