remote control

[edblysard]

Hi Noel, back again after efficiently flat switching 362 cars, and building 3 outbound trains, 2 for Uncle Pete, and one for the Brand New Santa Fe. Oh, we set 5 cars out for the TexMex,(talk about a inefficient operation) cant really can that a train. Used a three man crew, 1 engineer, 1 foreman(me) 1 switchman. No remote. Finished in 6:30. You never answered, what type of course do you teach?
Well, I said I would try to explain about the railroad culture, so here goes.
First, throw out any concept that you may hold as to the truly agtagnositc stance the unions and the carriers have for each other. It really isnt there. Both realize that they need each other to accomplish what they want. The railroads use the unions to introduce their ideas and wants to the workforce, and the unions realize that without the railroads or management to rally against, there would be no need for the union in the first place. Most unions, on the surface, seem to be a socialist group, all claiming they want equality for their rank and file, but in fact they are run just as you would expect any business to run, and they get paid to be a union and a union officer just as any corporation would pay its executives.
By the way, I agree with you, a CEO who pulls a comapny back from the brink deserves the pay they get. The people a Chrysler should have built a monument to Lee Icocca.
The unions realize also that they no longer have any real power, striking is no longer a option, the US President can just issue an executive order, and force us back to work, and force us to undergo binding arbitration under a goverment referee.
So they changed from what the public still sees as a union into a business, namely a insurance underwriter. Their main focus is to sell job and life insurance to their members. As for contract negoations, well, I cornered one of the UTUs vice presidents, and he told me the process works like this. The union and the carriers meet, each lays out what they want, argue a little, then agree to meet later to review the "new" contract. The carriers then go back, and writes the contract, brings it to the next meeting, and if it contains some of what the union wants, its approved, and sent to the members for a vote. Did you catch that? The carrier writes the contract, not the union. Ever read one of the contracts? They read like something a law school drop out might write after a night of pub crawling. So ambiguous that no concrete conclusions can be drawn from it, and any part is open to several interpertations, which suits both parties just fine. Theirs is a symbiotic relationship, both feed off of each other, and neither can survive with out the other.
The unions need the railroads to justify their exsistence, the railroads need the unions to keep the workers in line and introduce the railroads next set of needs and wants to them, alibet in a adversarial setting, which further justifies the union exsistence.
The work place culture is a bizzare mix of everyday, mundane task and duties mixed with a clash of rules and regulations verses time and demands. There is a rule that says I can only operate a uncoupler lever with my hand when kicking cars, yet the needs arises every single cut of cat I handle to ride on one of the cars and hold the lever up with my foot, because the uncoupling pin wont stay up on its own. Big time safety rules violation. Yet the trainmaster and yardmaster sit in the tower, and watch me do this every day, with out saying a word. If asked by someone other than a railroader if this was safe for me to do, they would deny it, and say " no, its very unsafe, and we would fire anyone we see doing it". In reality, they could care less how I perform the task, as long as I get it done and dont tear anything up. Now, if a accident did happen, and they could find no other reason or cause, and felt like it, they could and would fire me for using my foot to uncouple cars.
But thats okay, I have job insurance. Ever hear of job insurance? Odds are, unless you work for a railroad, you havent. Its just what the name implies, insurance for when you lose your job. Fireing someone is the railroad punishment of choice in reguards to disipling an employee.
Where you work, if you did something wrong, the personel supervisor would make note of it in you personel file, "write you up" so to speak. You are reviewed yearly, and based upon on your job performance, given raises or perks, or not. If you repeatedly failed at some part of your task or job, at some point, based upon the documentation in you file, you would be fired, and never return to work there.
Railroads, on the other hand, fire you, and hire you back, repeatedly. Say I lined a switch under a moving car, and tore up the switch. There would be a investigation, held, conducted and ruled upon by the railroad, and final judgement made by the very officers who charged me in the first place. They decide I should be fired, for 90 days, starting tomorrow. Wow, should I go look for another job? No, because they will send me a letter in 60 to 90 days telling me to contact the superintendent, go to his office, take a tounge lashing, and then mark back up. While I was off fired, the job insurance I purchased pays my salary. Starting to get a idea of what a topsy turvy world railroading is? Ever hear of anything more silly and wierd? Do you think something like this would ever happen at your workplace?
Well, my hands are tired,(feet too!) pulled a lot of pins today.
So maybe more on railroad culture later.
May make a oddball posting, who knows.
Stay Frosty,
Ed

[Anonymous]

It's bothersome to hear all the cutthroat actions that RR's dish out to is employees. At almost every job..no change that... at every job I had the employer tryed to make me an happy employee (with in reason of course).

Productivity is important at most business as we all know. This is the main reason that this thread was started.. Remote Trains. Some one higher in the food chain said 'Hey, this would be an good idea to save time & money'. If the RR did not beleive this then they "probibly" would have/should have killed this project. But remember this is the same business that belives Amtrak an bring in profits..so don't get your hopes up! Also how can the only business (besides cars, trucks,& motorcycles) that has such a high number of people who are fans (of RRs) and always hide and lie to the public. I am not saying that every RR is like this. The only TV commercial I've ever seen was for UP. Yet the RR whine about not attracting new customers or loosing them to trucks. More people can name off 5 truck shippers then 5 RRs.

Yea Im a rail fan not an employee but after hearing how some of them treat employees, I can only imagine how poor quality some of the companies logistics are. Even with remote trains, you need a happy well trained well staffed crew to be effective in ANY business.
Ok, Ok, Im done rantin' for now
Icemanmike2-Milwaukee

[Anonymous]

The people that decided to use RCOs are not likely to change there minds. If their heads were the size of their egos, they would dwarf Mount Rushmore. Thus they don't take admitting to mistakes lightly.

[edblysard]

Want to know how they get away with treating us like that? They know if you made it pass your derail, the hook is set. If you didnt quit in the first 90 days, you arent going to ever leave. You either love it, and stay, or hate it and quit within a week, theres no gray area involved. Yes, we whine, complain, curse and yell, but we show up every time we are called.
Some one showed management a staged demostration of remotes, with every thing set up to make it look like it works, and works well, then trotted out the money side, "look how much you can save on your payroll" and they bit, and bit hard, without ever really testing this technology in the real world.
Remember, these are ego driven men, who have a hard time admitting they made a mistake, and they have the resources and the ability and the culture to make this look like it works, regardless of wether it does or does not. Question to the railroaders who read this. Have you ever had anyone above the rank of trainmaster ever admit they were wrong, or they made a mistake?
And management realizes that we love the job more than we hate the harrassment, and we will keep coming back for more.
You are looking at a industry which is highly regimented and stratified. Trainmasters often come from the ranks, yet the instant they step out of work boots and jeans, and into loafers and slacks and polo shirts, they become different people. Their peer group has changed, from one of friends and comradrie, into one of arrogance and distain for those of us who still sweat for a living. Its a culture unlike any other, anywhere. Most often, the General Manager and Superintendent are far out of touch with what really happens on their railroad, the only information they get are from their trainmasters and such, who of course spin everything in their favor. So if your the head honcho, and you say lets try remotes, and all you underlings have been trained to make what you want happen, or else, well, it dosnt take a rocket scientist to figure out these guys are going to make it work, or at least make it looks like it works, wether it does or dosnt. And the numbers they crunch will make it look good to the GM, even if the numbers do not reflect the real facts. Like I said, if Enron had hired railroad accountants, no one would have ever had a clue.
Stay Frosty,
Ed

[wabash1]

Noel I only have a few things for you.
1) you say that unions are taking a active role in remote control saftey. my question is where? I have never seen a union rep standing beside anyone running a remote and telling him how he can be safer. ive seen plenty of trainmasters looking for rule violations waiting to fire someone. so where do you get this idea that the union is there making this work and be safe?

2) rco on main line? First off i have no idea what a main line is. there is a main track but no line. So if this is what you mean then the fra says that remotes will not operate on the main track outside of yard limits or over crossings at grade. So i am not worried in short term about the rco on the main. but it may come.

3)you said that the pay saved on a trainman is used to buy a new locomotive. as far as i have seen the only units getting rco equipment are the old emd units gp38 and sd40 on our rail. so i dont see how that is justified

4)you said we will look back at this chapter and say we are glad we didnt live in the good ole days. When was this? as far as you know this my be my good ole days. Until you been here and done what i do i wouldnt comment on these things.

5) it seems you are talking about teaching a railroad class or something like it. ( i may be wrong that is the impression i get) But do you tell your students after they pay money for this that they are not getting a job with the railroad? at least a good class 1 that wants to train them their way. in short it seems to me that you started with good intentions and ended up in left field.

[petitnj]

Well, I am glad we don't resort to personal attacks here. Ed, thanks for the insight into employee/employer relations. And whoever talked about contented employees has a point -- I realize the railroads have never figured this one out. I have been part of similar organizations where management watches over your sholder for mistakes; it is no fun.

Thanks for the discussion, but I think that it has run its course for now. I see "Remote Control" signs going up around the yards here. It will soon be used on the main [track] in spite of the screams of the FRA, etc. People will take a grade crossing much more seriously if they know there is no way the train is going to stop if they sit on the tracks. The power company doesn't have to monitor each power line to see that no one flies a kite over it or walks around with an aluminum ladder. We have learned to accept those dangers. Once the main train trains are remote controlled, the snow mobiles will find another path.

Drinking reheated Starbucks.

[cabforward]

mr. noel,

personal attacks in forums should not be tolerated against anyone, by anyone.. the vapidity of your comments begs a reply in the hope of casting light in a very dark recess of your mind, to-wit:

your comment, people take a crossing seriously if there is no way a train is going to stop, is an egregious example..

i can only speak for my part of town, but there are people here who intentionally sleep on rails.. they certainly know this route is frequently used, if they are from around here.. drunks at the wheel typically don't know or don't care that they could be racing to a crossing in competition with train, or which is presently occupied by a train..

presumably sober, capable drivers approach a crossing with windows up; stereos up; talking on a cellular phone and passengers chattering; what makes you think any of these people know or care where they are?

hundreds of people fail to show any concern for dangers at r.r. crossings yearly; why should they change now? because the local gazette had an article about rcls? you spoke of some position(s) you have held that supposedly required some professional training..
and you write hokum as this? how can you speak so trivially of people's lives which are put at risk daily to save a minute by driving around a crossing gate?

i wonder if there are college grads who conduct psych. studies of people who write to forums.. they pick a subject known to incite strong emotion and write as a devil's advocate for the unpopular side.. they collect the replies for several days and analyse them for expression, coherence, etc..

then they leave that forum, go elsewhere, pick an unpopular side of a touchy subject, express a few incendiary views, and start tallying again.. i don't know if that's a good idea for studying human response on an anonymous level, but it seems like you are picking fights by presenting unpopular, if not totally outrageous, views..

you'r either doing a study of responses to forum comments; you're terribly callous, or you're just plain dumb.. considering the kentucky derby was won by a gelding (first in 84 years) who was a 12-1 shot, i can't say which is most likely for you.. as i said before, don't go bragging about being the guy who spoke here..

[Anonymous]

Go Sea Biscuit!! Ohh...igg sorry. It seems that the mentality of the RRs are 'If ya cant take the heat get your A** out the Kitchen' Stay off of our land. Yea this is a re occurring topic in these threads but again ironic. I just want to know who would get the blame if/when a 1 mile long coal train doing 60 mph slams in to a Amtrak or Metra train running 80+ mph....Who cares we should not even have to worry about such a thing just to save a buck Pathetic! I hope I never turn on CNN or the Trains home page to see such a story!

Icemanmike2-Milwaukee

[cabforward]

the magic word is 'blame'.. there is no blame.. criminal charge, forget it.. there was no pre-meditated act; no negligence, ergo, no case.. there may be violations of fra regulations, which involve fines, oversight of the offender to insure 'new' safeguards are in place, etc., and no admission of guilt..

there are civil cases, which involve money only.. thay start w/$800M suits, settle for $8-10M and no admission of guilt..

everybody gets their 15 min on the news; survivors get $$; r.rs get out from under.. and so it goes..

[petitnj]

Wow! What'd I say now? I am glad this is a public forum where veiled threats can be used as evidence in a trial.

We have seen a few nice crashes (Fullerton, CA, and Ricky Gates on the NEC) where operators were at fault. This is always going to happen. Planes forget to use flaps on take-off, trains forget the signal just before the station stop, etc. Could an automated system be built that is more reliable than a human system? Isn't that the issue here? If it can be shown that an automated system is less prone to errors than a human operated system, automation will win out.

Many people mover systems are automated and there is no outcry against those. So what's your point? Convince me that the mile long coal train rounding the corner and seeing the tail light on an Amtrak train up ahead is going to stop faster with a human in control. Why don't we make a list of tasks which the on-board human can do that could not be done with remote control? Remember there is no reason you couldn't operate the train from your home computer with multiple screens showing system controls and video from the cab and tail. Wouldn't that be cool to get your hours in wearing your PJ's?

[wabash1]

yes the human would be able to stop it sooner couse he would have already have his speed down to look for such a problem. another situation is you have 2 main tracks and train "a" is going west train "b" is headed east train "b" goes into emergency and derails if you had a engineer on train "a" he would stop short of train "b" and save equipment but with rcl that wont happen and all those chemicals spilling out on the ground with nobody there to let anyone know to start evacuations will only get more people killed. but this is the way you want it. if its the way the public wants it. thats fine with me. ill invest in law school. as this will certainly be a booming market.

[edblysard]

Noel,
I think one of the things few realize is that its the very primitive, simple and uncomplicated way rail cars and rail equipment is used and built that makes it so efficent. I can see, smell and hear things a computer cant. Yes, you could add sensors to the cars to check on brake shoe heat, yaw and pitch,and such, but then you would have to hire someone to hook this stuff up when the train was put together, and un plug it all when the train arrived at its destination. So the money saved on enginer is now spent on support services for the automation.
Sure,you could find a way to uncouple the cars automaticly when switching, but that would require a new piece of equipment on each car, adding to the cost of each one. Machines wear out, need to be maintained and serviced. But you can hire a a guy to pull pins all day, and all you have to do is let him eat lunch, and you back in business. If you saw what really held couplers closed, how primitive and un complicated it really is, you would understand that trying to automate it would only make it harder and more expensive. Can you design a machine to realize when the slack is in, and know thats when to lift the pin? Remember, this stuff takes a beating beyond anything you can dream up. I doubt any piece of computer equipment could withstand the forces.
And yes, I would bet my life that a engineer could stop your coal train better than a computer, because he, or she, can feel the slack run in, feel and interpet the forces behind them, and react better than the remote operater could.
I understand that its the very simple tasks, like uncoupleing cars that seems, on the surface, to scream out for automation, but its the very simplicity of the function that make its so cheap and easy in the first place. Complicate it any more, and the cost per car goes up. Any device that can apply sufficent force to life the un coupleing lever would be complicated, have to be added to each car, and get the tar beaten out of it every day.
I have seen hump yards, where the switches are all automated. Sure , it saves on switchmen, but they have to have a entire crew of switch maintainers to keep them all working. So which is more efficent? The yard with hand thrown switches, which requite little maintaince, and only one person to operate, or the yard with electrict or hydraulic switches, which requires at least three men full time to tune, repair and maintain? For a hand thrown switch, the maintainer needs a bucket of grease, and a few tools, for the electric or hydraulic switch, he needs a van or truck full of parts and diagnostic tools. Remember the old phone company? You picked up you phone, and could call your sister across town, or your brother five states away, with about the same ease. It was cheap, too. Sure, old technology, but the stuff was about bullet proof. Now, you just about need a instruction manuel to make a phone call, have to decide which long distance service to use, and put up with the solictors and phone marketers who "steal" your number from the carrier. And my phone bill is three times what it was. And its more efficent? Heck, its a 50/50 chance when I call my niece wether I will get her, or the Firestone tire store, which has a phone number one digit off from her's. My point is, some things do lend themselve to technology and automation, some things dont. With railcars and railroads, its the very primitive nature of how cars are moved that makes it efficent. The equipment itself it primitive, heavy and made to be hammered. Take the air brakes on trains. Its not the presence of air in the system that makes them work, its the absence of air. Simple technology, if the train line loses air pressure, like when a coupler breaks and the train comes apart, the brakes come on. Period. 60 year old technology? Yup, but it works, and works well, so why change it? Because you can isnt a good answer. You yourself pointed out in one of your early postings that remote or automated systems would creat a whole bunch of new jobs. So, lets do away with realitively cheap labor to manuely run the trains, and replace them with just as costly or even more expensive service personel, and make the equipment even more complicated, therefore more expensive?
How do you think all these railcars have survived so long, 40 years plus? Because they are simple to repair, simple in design, made from easily fabricated parts, and you can weld on them. Wanna put a cutting torch anywhere near you computer? Ask your self this, could the CPU your sitting beside survive riding in a railcar, thats going to slam into another car at 5 mps at least once a week, be exposed to heat, rain, lightning strikes, dirt, grit and grime and diesel fumes and brake shoe dust, and survive 40 years with out much in the way of maintaince?
Heres another comparison, the space shuttle vs the old Apollo. The shuttle was going to be the Mack truck to the stars, right. But it turned out to be a lamborginia to low earth orbit. Totally reusable, except for them pesky tiles.
Look at the saturn and the Apollo, 30 something years ago, it went to the moon, several times. Never lost one. You can take the main engine from the apollo command module, and shoot it with a gun, beat on it with a sledge hammer, they even droped one from two stories up, and it still works, every single time. Its never failed.
Ever. Know why? Less than 100 moving parts, all with tripple redundency. Know how apollo 13 got home? They guy in the seat, with his hands on the controls, flew it back. Fired their retro burn by hand, timed it with a watch, and hit the LZ on target. Sometimes we overcomplicate things, and dont realize that the "progress" we think we have accomplished, really isnt progress.
My neighbor must have 5 or 6 cordless drills, Dewalt 16v, a millwalkie, sears, lots of them. He will burn one up at least once a year, chunk it out, and buy another one. I still have, and use almost daily, my dads old, steel bodied skill 1/2" drill. Cost of a new cordless drill? Mike just spent $174.00 for the dewalt 16v. Yup, it drills holes, drives screws, and is a cool yellow and black. Guess what, my old skill drills holes, drives screws, is a dull silver, and cost my dad $15.00 in 1958. Mike has been through at least 3 drills I know of. My old skill is still working, I put a new set of brushes in it last year, $3.00. So I have a piece of equipment that so far has a total cost of $18.00, survived almost 50 years, my neighbor has a piece of equipment that has to be replaced at a cost $174.00 every year or so. Both do the exact same work. Which is more efficent?
Stay Frosty,
Ed

[cabforward]

mr noel, how.... how strange to read of your return.. so much.... bizarreness, so little time.. where should i begin? you speak of veiled threats and a trial.. what veiled threat? did someone do something wrong; where was it? was there a trial? what for? did someone dog's dig up a flower bed?

you speak of convincing you that a train can stop faster with a human in control.. who and why must anyone convince you of anything? one who advocates change in any system has to do the convincing; it isn't the one using the present system who has to do anything.. if there's any convincing to be done, it's your job.. you want change, you make the case for it.. in case of a tie, the present system remains in place....

you come up with the weirdest scenarios--do you watch much tv? maybe the sci-fi network? you say nothing of the questions you asked previously and which were answered by writers to this topic.. maybe because you have no points with which to argue?

you refer to crashes in some town.. what crashes are those? fender-benders in front of city hall? you sputter some comments about planes and flaps.. what is this? romper room? what are you talking about?

your comments, and i use the term loosely, have left my radar screen.. i can't track what you're trying to say, nor can i follow your examples.. check-in again when you've collected yourself.. adios!

[Mookie]

Noel: For the sake of discussion - I don't work for the railroad. I am just a simple country person (shades of Watergate). But the idea of remotes distresses me. I keep thinking about these well-marked crossings to which you refer. I live in flatland USA and we don't have a lot of marked crossings outside the big city. We have cross bucks. And a ton of coal trains daily thru here on their way to and from Wyoming. After watching people at crossings that have gates and lights and then watching the young men and women who figure it is a challenge to see if you can beat the train to the crossing and get there first, I realize there isn't too much fear in the general public.
I know of an incident where a train crew of 3 going thru a small town, ran over the legs of a little boy 3 years old. He got out of the house while Dad was sleeping instead of babysitting. Crawled over a fence that had been knocked down many times, due to vandalism, after his dog and onto the tracks. The train crew went to all lengths, hanging off the front end, while in emergency to grab the baby before he was hit. To no avail - the dog was killed and the baby lost both legs. The point is, the crew saw this coming and went into emergency. Remote wouldn't do that.
The crew held the baby and applied their own belts to keep him from bleeding to death while on the radio to get help. Remote wouldn't do that. There had been a fence to protect the tracks or the public whichever side you were on. Vandals tore it down, so they could cross over.
So while I can't speak to the cost and the company putting the savings back into whatever, I can tell you that from a strictly human point - remotes scare me to death.
It makes me wonder if they will look at airplanes next!

Jen

[Anonymous]

No veiled threats here, pal. Don't be stupid! When I said "wish me luck, we all need it, including you." I meant that I was going to work to switch hazmat.....wish me luck. It could affect the whole community if the remote screws up. As for your stating "good thing that this is a public forum...etc. Evidence...etc," don't be a crybaby sissy. I stated fact....If you walked up to an oldhead and spouted your crap you may very well get your as* kicked. Pretty straight forward. Now run along back to your little wannabe class where you are all knowing and the misguided students think that you know what you are talking about. Leave it to the pros to handle the real RRing. Bye Noel!

[petitnj]

Well, I came back and am still trying to move thru this discussion. I agree that technology has changed over the years, but the cordless drill is an example of the market place. If I were to try to sell a high quality drill that lasted years it would cost so much that no one would buy it. (BTW I have a 20 year old rechargable on its first NiCad battery, Guess they were putting in quality to get it sold then. I can't afford to buy cheap.)

The technology of RCO is more like the computers in your car. Have you noticed how reliable the modern auto is? There are millions on the road and very few fail due to the computer. The auto companies have used a very robust technology that can stand wide ranges of temperature, moisture, voltage, etc. They have realized that quality is what sells cars.

Now someone mentioned the fact that if one train derailed and went into emergency (train A), train B in RCO wouldn't know to stop. I beg to differ. The computer would know the exact location of each train and would realize that an emergency occured on an adjacent track and stop train B. The engineer on train B would have to be contacted on the radio and would have to know exactly the location of train A (if the engineer of train A could provide such information). This is not a hard problem. Give me a hard one.

I still want an example of something that cannot be done by a computerized train under remote control.

[Jackflash]

Let the computer go back and repair a broken knuckle, or something draging under the train.

[Anonymous]

I hate to be the one to toss salt in someone wounds but there is a legitmate reason for fear here. I HATE my OBD II computer on my car. It sucks. It runs/ruins every freakin thing in my car. If I had a 69 gto I could look at the engine and say oh that cable is bad or yea I nees a new gasket. Instead the car of today does not show any problem until Im stranded on the way home at midnight. I knew there was a problem the mechanic new there was a problem..we just could not pin point what it was. Why not error codes. And then 3 months later a error code shows up. $150 later guess what the problem was A fuel filter and the main computer was bad! Thank god I have connections or the bill whould have killed me. Oh yea, my car still cannot acclerate past 3500 rpm...and whe still dont know why. The computer does not SEE a problem code. These are a small example of the reason people dont trust new technolgies! You cannot run them by feel, smell or looks like a human can. Funny how stupid we made our selfs due to our own lazyness.
Icemanmike-Milwaukee
Ps for some odd reason I love that car still!?!?

[Anonymous]

Noel, an automobile does not take near the beating a rail car does. If a car did, it would be in a scrapyard so your argument about auto computers doesn't hold water.

Also, the cost would be so prohibitive to automate everything that the railroads would be out of business before it could accompli***his.

And have you really ever seen where most rail cars end up at industries? Parts of town where you probably wouldn't want to be after dark. Just let a crackhead or graffitti creep get a shot at that "automated" car and it's just another bad order. Pay someone to fix it!

The classroom is a nice esoteric environment--the real world of railroading isn't. You can teach your theory all you want, but I feel for your students who will believe it--more misinformation about railroads to the general public.

[Anonymous]

Noel, you have taken the wrong position in this forum. You have taken the position of authority, the same position that you undoubtedly take in your classroom. Here is where the problem lies! To help you out, I will set you straight. You are the ammature here! Don't forget that! You no doubt have knowledge on the business end of the RR through books, lit., and discussion. But, that is where your knowledge ends. You don't learn RRing from discussion, books, etc. You learn it by living it. You present yourself as the authority on the RR and we (the ones who live it) as the ones who must prove our point to you. A slight role reversal here. It is you sir who must prove himself to us. Your limited knowledge of the RR is showing in your posts. In your behalf, I would not even dream of comparing the quality of an on-line class to one that I am face to face with an instructor. I believe that alot is lost there. I did go to college, and I had some very good instructors that got through to me where as an on-line course couldn't have.....period. Now, Noel, quit portraying yourself as the expert and listen. I operate those remotes every day and will answer questions about them honestly. By not working on the RR, there are so many things that you have not a clue about. There are rules and operating practices that you most likely have no idea even were in place. There are scenarios that you would not think of unless you were a part of them. Here is your chance to learn and take to your class a less opinionated, more factual take on the real world application of new technology on the RR.
As far as your weak scenario of the train A and B emergency thing, there are GCOR rules that apply after a train has gone into emergency. Tell me how these rules can be complied with if they were ran by GPS remotely (seems here that you are confusing RCO and the GPS technology currently being tested. There is a great difference)

[Mookie]

Noel, go read my answer to you up above and tell me how a remote would handle that situation.

Jen

[Anonymous]

Noel, you are attributing too much intelligence to these things, they simply aren't that bright. The current RCOs do some very simple things, if contact is lost they just set the brakes they don't know which end the cars are on or even how many cars they have, if there is air in the cars or not. I know when you are making a shove on a cut of cars with air only in the head twenty or thirty cars that I had better get the slack out before I put the cars in emergency. The computer just dumps the air throwing off the guy riding on the end (that computer doesn't even know exists) or tearing a knuckle out. I had to go out and relieve an RCO because they tried to pump up the air in a whole train, when it hadn't reached what it considered the right amount of air in the amount of time it allowed it put itself in emergency and started all over again. Say there is a washout and the rail is dangling over the newly formed canyon, the washout has been discovered and a person tries to flag down the train to make it stop, will the computer recognize the danger to the community and stop? Will the computer look back and see a hot bearing or the car that is on the ground bouncing along? Will it notice the handbrake twenty five cars back? Will it be able to alter it's train handling because of a problem in the train. Computers are not very flexible!

[petitnj]

1. Broken knuckles - xray the things (like all the other industries do to critical parts). Most fail due to faulty forging. This is good in that the knuckle fails before any other train part. But often the failure is well below the 80k# rating. Most engineers are constantly conducting quality control on the knuckles--it breaks, it was a bad knuckle. Pick up a broken one some day and look at the break. If you see rust or crystalization it is where there was a weak spot in the forging and the knuckle was doomed to failure. With remote control systems the manufacturers will most likey require quality control on critical parts and that will significantly reduce down time.

2. As for the wash out or broken rail, time domain reflectometry (used on Japanese high speed lines) will indicate any change in the configuration of the rail. This is a very durable and mature technology that can be installed on each piece of cwr.

3. As for the citizen flagging down the train. A more practical answer is to ensure that the 911 operators have the railroad's emergency number and can get to special agents/track inspectors/dispatchers quickly. Remember that there is no reason we can't put a video camera in the locomotive and bring that picture back to the control center. Why not have the engineer in the dispatch center?

4. As for the troublesome computer I am sorry that some have had bad experiences. I purchase high end systems for the school and have many machines that sit for years with no failures. We have data processing systems in the arctic and antarctic that run unattended from -60 F to +30 F and have no problem. The technology of fail-safe systems (with dual computers checking on each other) is mature and most likely the trains web site is using such a system.

5. Dragging equipment -- install more track-side detectors. This would help with stuck brakes, bad bearings, flat wheels too.

6. GCOR rules -- computers are very good at rules. They never forget once properly instructed.

7. As for train handling, here the remote engineer would be a valuable tool for monitoring the train and compensating for conditions.

8. As for computers on each rail car. Yes the simple rail car has its advantages, but I am sure that the railroaders of 1900 scoffed at the thougth of a triple valve in each car to control the brakes. Electro pneumatic braking systems are feasible and soon possible on most equipment. Remember that we have cell phones, satellite positioning and computer control on the perishable goods cars now.

9. RCO today is certainly a long way from the systems of the future. The manpack (oops PC peoplepack) is the first step in controlling equipment. The next step is to centralize the control in one place. 50 years ago who would have thought that we can dispatch an entire railroad from a bunker in Fort Worth?

10. I know this will change the employment of the railroads. Alot more inspectors and car/locomotive maintainers. Wouldn't that be great to have a regular shift of inspection?

[wabash1]

Noel you are beyond help. all you want to do is start a flame war here. it is a rule violation for me not to say over the radio that my train is in emergency. that wont happen if it is remote control. and if it is derailed the computor wont know it either. pretty simple except for you. you think the computor is the answer. your wrong. but you dont want to be confused with the facts when your mind is made up.

[wabash1]

as ussual you are still out in left field ill answer the statments to give you a idea on what happens, as it is plain to see you have no idea.

1)knucles dont brake just for the heck of it, ive seen knuckles that been beat around for years and put that car in a unforgiving ill handling train with a rookie engineer and its going to brake. I have seen a engineer with 25 years exsperiance make a 100percent brake on one. yes it was his fault but i can tell you this the computor will tear more up than a human can.

2)as far as the japs go, on a monorail type system it might work but not on rails, what will a camera do it wont see any farther than the person in the cab. and the person in the cab know when he goes over a bad section of rail a computor wont. and a agent is not a engineer and since most have retired and not replaced that be difficult. dispatcher move several trains at a time i can see where this is helpful most have no idea where there trains are much less look at the rails and tell weather they are going up hill or down. wake up this wont happen

3)track side detectors, this is a joke, you must be one that believes in this. if it does catch something whos going to walk it . I know for a fact that detectors dont work. seen wheels blue from heat grease comming out of the end caps couse the brakes was on. so hot you couldnt stand beside the car melting the snow and 20 detectors this thing went by never said anything. but i have been stopped for no reason by detectors also. and there is so many cars out there with flat spots now a train never get any where.

4)train handling is done from the seat, not from a keyboard 1000 miles away, simulator cant give you train handling exsperance. i have had trains that should have been a nightmare from the looks of the paper work but handle great, and then some that should have been so easy that a child could run it and beat you to death all the way. I am sure you would get in your car and let some one 1000 miles away from you drive you cross country in a blizzard at 80 mph and 6inches of snow and ice on the road in compleate comfort couse the computor says it can handle it.

5) these electronic control valves whos going to plug these things in on each car. and try and make a train that has nothing but these type brakes. get real. and they aint been called triple valves for years. just thought you need to know

6)you need to learn more than what your books say. but the books you are reading must be wrote by the same collage students that never railroaded and the companies make them trainmasters and they are going to change the world, make it better and safer. the thing is they didnt listen eitherm now they are fired and being replaced by the people from the ranks who been there and knows what can and does happen. the best thing for you to do is listen to the real railroaders here learn something , or as i said before or dont you want to be confused with the fact while your mind is made up?

[edblysard]

Noel,
1: The rust is suppost to happen, the knuckles and wheels are made to rust lightly, the surface oxidation protects the component, and does not require painting. X-ray eack knuckle? I thought the idea was to save money.
2:Yes, it works, and so does the current signal system, broken rail results in a red board.
3:You apparently have never tried to call a railroad or 911. And the time it would take if everything worked perfectly would allow your train to still go quite a distance.
4:High end, dual computers, I thought the idea was to save money here? As for high end computers being the answer to all of our needs, well, go ask the Challenger and Columbia crews how well the technology served them.
5:Install more trackside dectors. I thought the idea was to save money. Besides, whos going to go and release the hand brake, or look at the bearing and decide if it should be set out or can be limped into the next terminal?. Your utility crew? How are they going to get to the train at the top of Donner pass or halfway up Sherman Hill?
6: So are people. And if you tried to put the GCOR into a computer language, you would fry your computer, the rules are so ambigous as to be nonsense.
7:Unless his or her butts in the seat, they cant compensate for a thing, they have to be able to feel what happening.
8: Yes, we have GPS on refeers. But I thought the idea was to save money? You just increased the cost per car around 25%, so far. And by the way, T&E people want the PTS system, the old train stop system from the pennesy worked, just cost to much.
9: Guess what those people in the Fort Worth bunker discovered? That they cant control a portion of their railroad less than 400 miles away, in the same state, on one of their main line into a major hub, namely Houston. So they build a joint dispatching center in Spring, (suburb of houston) with UP, because trying to do it from a remote location dost work.
10: A lot more car/locomotive maintainers?
I thought the idea was to save money? By your own addmission, we do a fine and safe job now, it aint broke, why fix it?
Again, its like swatting flies with a shotgun, you can do it, but the end result is that you destroy the things you were trying to protect from the flies in the first place.
Stay Frosty,
Ed

[petitnj]

1.Look for rust or crystalization along the knuckle break.

2. TDR is different from rail continuity. This sends a pulse down the rails and watches the reflected signal. Rail acts as a transmission line and if the line is moved or distorted, the returning signal changes. Works for a two rail system very nicely.

3. I called BNSF emergency line recently for kids sitting on the main track. Agent showed up 30 minutes later --well after the kids were escorted from the track. They claimed they were looking for their dog. Very poor response but this can be fixed. I suppose I should have said there was a terrorist taking pictures of the track. Tom Ridge would have called out the SWAT team.

4. Even high end computers are cheap. Neither Shuttle accident had anything to do with the computers, sorry.

5. If there are places where a maintenance crew can't access, put them on the train.

6. Rules are rules. The way GCOR and USOR are written is ambiguous, but there is only one meaning. Program that meaning into the computer. What I would suggest is that we have a GCOR discussion and offer to rewrite the ambiguous parts.

7. Here we can put you in a virtual reality. Noise from a microphone in the cab. Motion ala Star Tours and even pipe in some diesel exhaust smell, if that makes more realistic an experience.

8. Again you have to remember that employees are really expensive. I am suggesting that we increase capital costs to reduce operating costs. The nice part of capital costs is that they spread over many years. Trainmen want their pay check in full each month.

9. Aha, yes the centralized dispatching center has had some problems. This is not a problem with communicating with signals, trains, etc. It is a problem with communicating with the real world (weather, yards, other RR, etc). OK suppose you have a yard stuffed to the gills and a train approaching with a crew about to die from hours? Under remote control you stop the train and it sits quietly on the siding. With a crew you have to send a van out to relieve the crew and the cost skyrockets. This is the main problem with dispatching. There are too few places to stuff trains and crews to be very flexible.

[petitnj]

I didn't want the last one to be too long so I will continue the discussion here.

Imagine the totally remote controlled railroad. Yards (with real people to make up trains) make trains and the remote road engines pull out on a scheduled basis with a train. Since the engineer costs have been reduced we can afford to have smaller more agile trains. These trains handle more easlily, block grade crossings shorter times and reduce dwell times in yards. Wouldn't it be better to have smaller trains show up on a routine basis in a yard?

Just for comparison, let's calculate the cost of one trip with and without a crew.

Let's assume the trip is 200 miles and takes 12 hours. The train is valued at about $7M (2 locomotives @ $1M each and 100 cars @ $50k each). We have three costs: 1)lease on the equipment, 2) cost of track, 3) cost of fuel and 4) cost of employees (crew). For simplicity we will assume that this takes a crew of 4 (two road crews) and uses up their work days completely. At $30/hour for each crew member (including tax and benifits) we have 4 x $30 x 8 = $960. We assume that the train uses $1000 worth of fuel for the trip. I might need help on this but I think that trains get about 5 gallons/mile loaded.The cost to lease $7M of equipment for 1/2 day is about $800. The cost of the track is about $1/mile-day to maintain so $100 for this 200 mile trip. I admit that we can distribute this cost to other trains and we have to add signaling and dispatching and so on so we can use this $1/mile-day as a rough estimate and see what influence it has on our results. So here we go.

Cost with crew:
Equipment lease $800
Cost of track $100
Cost of fuel $1000
Cost of crew $960

Cost of trip $2860

Now take out the 4 man crew and put one and 1/2 remote control engineers in charge of the train.

Equipment lease $900 (up to pay for computer)
Cost of track $100
Cost of fuel $1000
Cost of crew $360

Total trip cost $2360

Both are plus or minus about $500 based on fuel, track and crew costs but both are affected in the same way. Now you see why the RR wants to head this way. The track, fuel and equipment costs are fairly fixed. The employee costs are the only thing that is really adjustable and remote control is how to adjust this. The other way to adjust this is to speed up the train. If the same train could cover 400 miles in 12 hours the track and fuel costs double but neither the lease nor the crew costs will go up (OK I realize that many leases are based on mileage, so there will be some affect.)

Now we have saved the railroad $500 on one simple trip or about 20% of their costs. This is the major motivation for RCO on the main track.

PS don't show this to Matt Rose. It will excite them more than they can stand.

Let me tell you that the same is true in education. The faculty member in the classroom costs $200/hour. A video tape replacement costs $50 (one time). I certainly will not show those numbers to the dean.

[Anonymous]

Guys, I think you should start to get used to the idea of remote/automatic control. Today it is for yard operations. It is pretty simple because locomotives are operated form the control tower, so visibility gets improved.

In the future, remote controlled locomotives will hit the road. But road locos will be a lot more complex than switchers. They will have permanent infrared and sonar/radar viewing that will make an emergency stop whenever needed. They will see day and night, in dense fog, rain or windstorm. No blinks.

Don't get so scared anyway. Remote controlled road trains are currently under trials in Europe. So it will take at least a decade to get here. There is enough time to get a good pension for many of you.

Cheers.

[Anonymous]

Electro pneumatic brakes Noel? They have allready been used on the BNSF on unit coal trains and none that I know of are in service anymore. The boxes sit on the control stand dormant.
X-ray knuckels, because the only time that they fail is due to metallurgical faults? Nope! Not always (went to school for metallurgy). An engineer avoids these problems by proper trainhandling, that the computer cannot calculate. You have no idea how these things work, do you?
Your reply to knowing GCOR rules (which I know and you do not, obviousely). Once the train has gone into emergency and if the trian falls into certain speed (at the time of the emergency app.) and weight criteria, the computer will walk the train and verify that nothing is on the ground. Sure ***! I have yet to see TWDs pick up a flat wheel...maybe in your classroom, but not in the real world. So you are telling me that all knuckles are rated at 80,000#s......hmmm, news to me. It is apparent that you are well out of your realm on the subject. You and Orson Wells have alot in common, you both dream crap up. Like I say, you have no idea what the RCT (GE) and RCO (Canac), or beltpack, not "manpack" are even capable of or incapable of. Like I said before, it is not up to us to prove to you our knowledge, it is up to you to prove your knowledge on the subject. You, sir are floundering. Stop before you make a complete fool of yourself.......