BaltACDI suspect, in view of PSR and the carrier efforts to reduce manpower counts that the normal yard day is now 12 hours. Two crews to give a job 24 hour coverage.
Around here they got rid of a lot of yard jobs. Few that were left got turned into locals.
And they don't like 12's. They like 10s.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
zugmann BaltACD I suspect, in view of PSR and the carrier efforts to reduce manpower counts that the normal yard day is now 12 hours. Two crews to give a job 24 hour coverage. Around here they got rid of a lot of yard jobs. Few that were left got turned into locals. And they don't like 12's. They like 10s.
BaltACD I suspect, in view of PSR and the carrier efforts to reduce manpower counts that the normal yard day is now 12 hours. Two crews to give a job 24 hour coverage.
Likely a difference between NS & CSX. I don't know, since I have been blissfully retired for approaching 4 years.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACDLikely a difference between NS & CSX. I don't know, since I have been blissfully retired for approaching 4 years.
About 40 years of change in those 4.
zugmann And they don't like 12's. They like 10s.
Is that part of some 28 hour day type plan?
Or can you guys also give notice of your intent to book rest after 10 hours?
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
Engineers on some of our yard and local jobs have to keep a delay report. They have to indentify the times when they were stopped and why. The yard engines are supposed to be in motion within 10 minutes of the on duty time.
Many of our yards have "footboard" yardmasters. That is the yard engine foreman also acts as yardmaster. Deciding where to build pick ups, where to have set outs placed and how to switch the cars, how many to handle in each cut, which track to place the cars on, etc. And the foreman has 10 minutes to plan this work. Of course it takes longer than 10 minutes to line everything up.
In the meantime, the yard engine sits. Management higher up sees (by GPS) the engine sitting. They don't take into account the why (the reason local management wants the documentation) nor do they probably care. All they see is no movement and then think the job should be cut off because it doesn't have enough work to keep the engine moving. It's been suggested while waiting to just move the engines back and forth on the lead while waiting so GPS shows it moving.
PSR in action.
Jeff
SD70DudeIs that part of some 28 hour day type plan?
Quote from the article:
“He told his bosses that his medical team had recommended he get a service dog to mitigate his flashbacks, anxiety and migraine headaches.”
If the flashbacks, anxiety, and headaches were not mitigated by a service dog, would those medical problems compromise safety when this engineer is running a train compared to a person running a train without those problems? I am guessing the answer is “yes.”
If so, do the flashbacks, anxiety, and headaches compromise safety to the point of disqualifying him from running a train?
If they do, what assurance is there that the dog will be 100% successful in adequately suppressing those medical conditions that would cause an unacceptable lack of safety?
If the dog is required in order to provide adequate safety, how can this be guaranteed? I don’t think that is possible.
EuclidIf they do, what assurance is there that the dog will be 100% successful in adequately suppressing those medical conditions that would cause an unacceptable lack of safety?
I agree. Plus, if the man's well being is dependent upon the animal, then the well being of the animal is going to be crucial to the man. What happens if the dog suddenly starts barfing, right at a moment that is critical to the engineer's attention? Where will the priorities stand?
Euclid Quote from the article: “He told his bosses that his medical team had recommended he get a service dog to mitigate his flashbacks, anxiety and migraine headaches.” If the flashbacks, anxiety, and headaches were not mitigated by a service dog, would those medical problems compromise safety when this engineer is running a train compared to a person running a train without those problems? I am guessing the answer is “yes.” If so, do the flashbacks, anxiety, and headaches compromise safety to the point of disqualifying him from running a train? If they do, what assurance is there that the dog will be 100% successful in adequately suppressing those medical conditions that would cause an unacceptable lack of safety? If the dog is required in order to provide adequate safety, how can this be guaranteed? I don’t think that is possible.
Guaranteed? Nothing is guaranteed. It's all about probabilities. Meanwhile there are obese engineers with untreated sleep apnea who could have compromised concentration. There are engineers with untreated ADHD who have lapses if attention. Where is the handwringing concern about that?
Convicted One What happens if the dog suddenly starts barfing, right at a moment that is critical to the engineer's attention? Where will the priorities stand?
We can say the same for a conductor.
zugmannWe can say the same for a conductor.
But a conductor is just a single risk, by adding a dog we are doubling the probability, aren't we?
Plus, and I know this sounds horrible, but I'd likely be more emotionally attached to "my" animal being sick, than a conductor. Not that I wouldn't care about a conductor, but I believe I would have more .....sensitivity?....if my dog suddenly turned sick.
You can ask a conductor "are you okay?" You really can't ask a dog that, you have to focus your attention upon it, and deduce your answer based upon observations.
What if the conductor has a bona fide allergy to dogs? Who gets bumped off the crew?
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...
Man, we found every way from Sunday to justify this not happening on here.
zugmannwe found every way from Sunday to justify this not happening on here.
Oh, I think that a couple Dobermans would make a nice crew addition, say on a local working questionable neighborhoods. So, I'm not entirely opposed to the concept.
charlie hebdo Euclid Quote from the article: “He told his bosses that his medical team had recommended he get a service dog to mitigate his flashbacks, anxiety and migraine headaches.” If the flashbacks, anxiety, and headaches were not mitigated by a service dog, would those medical problems compromise safety when this engineer is running a train compared to a person running a train without those problems? I am guessing the answer is “yes.” If so, do the flashbacks, anxiety, and headaches compromise safety to the point of disqualifying him from running a train? If they do, what assurance is there that the dog will be 100% successful in adequately suppressing those medical conditions that would cause an unacceptable lack of safety? If the dog is required in order to provide adequate safety, how can this be guaranteed? I don’t think that is possible. Guaranteed? Nothing is guaranteed. It's all about probabilities. Meanwhile there are obese engineers with untreated sleep apnea who could have compromised concentration. There are engineers with untreated ADHD who have lapses if attention. Where is the handwringing concern about that?
"My use of the term "guaranteed" is just a figure of speech to ask if the dog can be depended on to provide the crucial link to the safety of the engineer's performance, if that is a requirement. This also brings up the question of what actually is that crucial link?
But my main question is the first part of the above post in which I ask whether the sypmtoms of flashbacks, anxiety, and headaches would interfere with the engineer's ability to safely run the train. U.P. has apparently concluded that they do not since they have had him running trains without a service dog.
It seems hard to make the case that you need the dog to mitigate the disomfort of the potential symptoms, but that those symptoms are not sufficient to compromise the engineer's full attention to working safely.
EuclidIt seems hard to make the case that you need the dog to mitigate the disomfort of the potential symptoms, but that those symptoms are not sufficient to compromise the engineer's full attention to working safely.
I mean, we'll see what happens.
Convicted OneOh, I think that a couple Dobermans would make a nice crew addition, say on a local working questionable neighborhoods. So, I'm not entirely opposed to the concept.
Nah, Dobies are out, Rottweilers are in!
Personally, we've got an attack Bassett. Put out food, she'll attack it.
The dog's presence really doesn't bother me. It's the employee's dependency on the dog that bothers me.
I just get this vision in court after some incident, with the plaintiff's attorney asking "And just what was the dog doing at the moment your employee ran over my client?"
I don't believe that any railroad wants to put their head in that barrel.
If the guy get's permission for the dog, my bet is he gets reassigned to a position with limited public exposure.
Euclid charlie hebdo Euclid Quote from the article: “He told his bosses that his medical team had recommended he get a service dog to mitigate his flashbacks, anxiety and migraine headaches.” If the flashbacks, anxiety, and headaches were not mitigated by a service dog, would those medical problems compromise safety when this engineer is running a train compared to a person running a train without those problems? I am guessing the answer is “yes.” If so, do the flashbacks, anxiety, and headaches compromise safety to the point of disqualifying him from running a train? If they do, what assurance is there that the dog will be 100% successful in adequately suppressing those medical conditions that would cause an unacceptable lack of safety? If the dog is required in order to provide adequate safety, how can this be guaranteed? I don’t think that is possible. Guaranteed? Nothing is guaranteed. It's all about probabilities. Meanwhile there are obese engineers with untreated sleep apnea who could have compromised concentration. There are engineers with untreated ADHD who have lapses if attention. Where is the handwringing concern about that? "My use of the term "guaranteed" is just a figure of speech to ask if the dog can be depended on to provide the crucial link to the safety of the engineer's performance, if that is a requirement. This also brings up the question of what actually is that crucial link? But my main question is the first part of the above post in which I ask whether the sypmtoms of flashbacks, anxiety, and headaches would interfere with the engineer's ability to safely run the train. U.P. has apparently concluded that they do not since they have had him running trains without a service dog. It seems hard to make the case that you need the dog to mitigate the disomfort of the potential symptoms, but that those symptoms are not sufficient to compromise the engineer's full attention to working safely.
Yes, symptoms of PTSD could interfere with attention at the job of an engineer
charlie hebdoYes, symptoms of PTSD could interfere with attention at the job of an engineer
And from my laymans point of view - a service animal is no GUARANTEE that those flashbacks won't happen and thereby comprimise safety.
To my knowledge, limited though it is, there is no real 'fix' to a individual's response to PTSD and its triggers.
tree68 What if the conductor has a bona fide allergy to dogs? Who gets bumped off the crew?
What if the conductor is scared to death of dogs? Then he/she will need an emotional support animal. Probably not a dog.
Most of the new cabs are pretty crampt the way it is. Room for a dog, especially a large one, could be an issue on some of the engines.
Are we going to screen everyone's mental halth at regular intervals?
Remember that ports of LA engineer who tried to yeet his engine across 3 parking lots into a red cross hospital ship?
jeffhergertWhat if the conductor is scared to death of dogs? Then he/she will need an emotional support animal. Probably not a dog.
You have the chance to come upon dogs out here. Should that person be a RRer?
HAd a conductor that was terrified of spiders. Would spend 3 minutes smacking at a car that had spider webs on it. (I, OTOH, would feel bad if I messed up a spider-bro's web).
I told him to watch out for cool spring mornings when the snakes would come out to sun themselves on the ROW. He wasn't amused.
zugmann Are we going to screen everyone's mental halth at regular intervals? Remember that ports of LA engineer who tried to yeet his engine across 3 parking lots into a red cross hospital ship?
Maybe they are afraid of what they know they'll find. Once they know about it they will have to deal with it.
BaltACD charlie hebdo Yes, symptoms of PTSD could interfere with attention at the job of an engineer And from my laymans point of view - a service animal is no GUARANTEE that those flashbacks won't happen and thereby comprimise safety. To my knowledge, limited though it is, there is no real 'fix' to a individual's response to PTSD and its triggers.
charlie hebdo Yes, symptoms of PTSD could interfere with attention at the job of an engineer
So if you believe that no treatment works, you're saying anyone with such a condition should be declared unfit and terminated, since reassignment might violate his contract? Man, you must have been really popular with engineers.
jeffhergert kicking cars uphill.
kicking cars uphill.
CN banned that after a fatality a few years ago in Melville, SK. Some cars started rolling back and the conductor got on to apply a handbrake, which didn't work.
She was still on the end of the car when it ran into the other cars on the lead.
https://tsb.gc.ca/eng/enquetes-investigations/rail/2017/R17W0267/R17W0267.html
charlie hebdo BaltACD charlie hebdo Yes, symptoms of PTSD could interfere with attention at the job of an engineer And from my laymans point of view - a service animal is no GUARANTEE that those flashbacks won't happen and thereby comprimise safety. To my knowledge, limited though it is, there is no real 'fix' to a individual's response to PTSD and its triggers. So if you believe that no treatment works, you're saying anyone with such a condition should be declared unfit and terminated, since reassignment might violate his contract? Man, you must have been really popular with engineers.
The relevant Agreement(s) will normally outline how such employees can be accomodated.
It wasn't my job to be popular. It wasn't my job to be an *** either. My job was to follow the policies and procedures that the company wanted followed.
If therapy can make a individual 'whole' fine - that is the therapist call, not mine. If the therapist can't make the individual 'whole' I don't feel a support animal is sufficient 'medication' to permit the individual to work in a stressful safety critical position with the lives of himself and others in his control. Are commercial airline pilots working with support animals in the cockpit?
Making a person whole? You think someone who now suffers from PTSD is less than whole? 66% person? How about diabetes? 3/4 person? Myopia? 52% person? Treatments of all kinds for chronic conditions are effective if they allow a person to return to adaptive functioning, but they need to be used. You clearly know little about chronic conditions and handicaps and have even less empathy.
Maybe if rail management weren't living in the stone age, line workers could get the treatments they need instead of trying to hide their conditions.
BaltACDIt wasn't my job to be popular. It wasn't my job to be an *** either. My job was to follow the policies and procedures that the company wanted followed.
How about we leave the medical questions to the qualified medical professionals?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.