Railroads dealt setback in bids for one person crews.

[samfp1943]

This seems to be becoming a circular argument, which came first the chicken or the egg? Safety in numbers [2 or more] on the head end, securityissues [ takes two to make a decision].
One of the original questions was when one man is in the cab, who will wake him, when has has been stoped for an extended period?
If the engineer must stay in the cab for safety and communication, who will walk the train when needed? who will make repairs when needed?
Who will notify the dispatcher when the sky is falling?
I think Anti-Gates was right, one man crews are coming, but from a liability standpoint, I believe it will be devilishly expensive for the railroads, and what about situation response crews to respond to incidents of problems that close the line that will take more than one individual to resolve? In the above situation the second man in the cab might need to be a lawyer.
Sam

[craig4]

My brakemen days ended in mid 1970's, still had 4-man crews, way before radios. The comment about sleeping conductors is disturbing and hope it is not the norm. In my day we verbalized to the hoghead of any change signal; green to yellow ect., as we approached. This was a safety issue so we both saw the same indication and responded properly. Is this not standard operating procedure today?

CJ

[Anonymous]

I keep hearing the same "safety" and "economics" arguments batted back and forth, but I still don't understand the carriers' answer to a one-man "crew" on a single track main with a broken knuckle a mile deep and the nearest block truck two or three hours away. Are we just going to shut down the railroad for a few hours? Seriously, I'm not taking one side or the other, but I have never heard this issue addressed in these arguments. A knuckle weighs 72 pounds and no one is going to carry it a mile on level ground in the daylight, let alone at trackside in the dark. Even if the engineer is Superman, how does he make the joint and recouple the air after he replaces the knuckle?

[Anonymous]

heck, one man engine crew sounds like the CORP in Oregon when switching the mills around Roseburg!!! the switcman drives a pickup between the switches!!!! lol oh well why not just put in remote operator like the air force wants to do with fighter planes!!!!

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jh3449

the nearest block truck two or three hours away.

That is the variable I expect will change.

They mught have to hire as many as 3 roving arrendants for every 25 conductors eliminated, and will get to problem areas sooner

[Anonymous]

Gentlemen;

As a third generation railroader as well as a former train dispatcher, chief train dsipatcher and rules man, I am greatly concerned at the attempts of the railroads to push one man train crews.

The railroads are truly violating the very first rule in their timetables and rule bookers which is "SAFETY FIRST!" As it stands right now the situation is extremely dangerous with the two man crew.

Fatigue is very much in the forefront of the problems that the railroads have. They do not have enough crews to allow proper rest of these crews. I have seen engineers get so sleepy that the conductor has to slide over and run the locomotives and train. The engineers and conductors are having to resort to drugs and alcohol to keep themselves going which further compounds the problems. This problems also exists with some of the new hires as they are placed in service with relatively little experience. Schools are nice but on the road real life experience is the best teacher. Just as I had to learn by being a telegrapher first, learning train orders, interlockings and signals, I had to prove I had a thorough knowledge of these as well as the ability to handle responsibility before the company offered the promotion to train dispatcher, the same should be true with engineers and conductors.

The railroads' reliance on mechanical objects such as hotbox detectors, dragging equipment detectors and the infamous FRED are going to create the perfect cocktail for a MAJOR DISASTER, if one man crews are implemented. If implemented and a train gets away while the engineer is off checking some problem, and something happens to controls or mechanical operations, the consequences could be devastating. Heaven forbid if the one man gets himself injured or killed.

With the vast amounts of money the railroads and their insurance companies pay out each year for accidents and damages, they have paid enough to put the head brakemen, rear brakeman and cabooses back on, which in turn would cut down on the accident rate of rear end collisions.

Then the railroads will want to remote control the train with the one man. Can anyone say " Playing Model Railroad." It won't work and it is not safe! The problem is the railroads are not being run by railroaders, but businessmen whose only concern is the bottom line and dividends paid to the stock holders with little concern for the public safety or their employees safety.

I welcome any responses.

NYCDISP1968

[johncolley]

OK the question nobody asks...who is minding the store when the engineer is taking a potty break? do you just put a tool box on the deadman? Somehow, I don't see him stopping the train for 5 or 10 minutes in the middle of nowhere?

[natelord]

Greyhounds barrel down highways at 75 m.p.h. with but one man crews. The extra 4 m.p.h. allowed on most stretches of track do not add up to a need for another crewman. If the brotherhoods had organized bus companies, would there be a brakeman crouching on the floor beneath the driver's feet so the brakeman could pu***he brake pedal?
Railroading could get miles ahead of other forms of transportation if nearly all employees developed capabilities in several fields--some in offices, some on the road, some out selling, &c. To avoid getting stale and unhappy a variety of kinds of work is ilndicated.

[edblysard]

Ok,
Just to add into the mix...
From the FRA inspector on our property...
If a engineer has to leave the locomotive, for any reason, like lining a switch, he has to...
A: Obtain permission from the dispatcher to leave the locomotive, (if applicable) giving full details of what task he has to perform, such as lining a switch, opening a gate, inspecting close clearance, ect...
B: Isolate each and every locomotive in the consist, after doing a full reduction on the train line, turning the generator switch off, then centering and removing the reverser.
C: Tie a hand brake on each and every locomotive in the consist, whether it is on line or not.
D: Tie sufficient handbrakes on the cars to prevent movement (ask any engineer how many hand brakes a pair of Dash 9s can drag!)
E: Notify the dispatcher (if applicable) of his intent, how long he expect the task to take, and when he expect to return to the cab.
F: Notify the dispatcher when he returns to the locomotive, and removes all the hand brakes he tied, and returns all his controls to a functional position.
(This rule will apply in all territory, dark, ABS, CTC, RTC ect...)
Failure to follow this procedure will result in immediate removal from service.
This will be in the next revision of the GCOR.

So, from experience, I can promise you that just two switches will add an hour or two on every trip, depending on the attitude and the physical condition of the engineer.

Big Z...depends on the local contract, but most Class 1s require you to accept engineers training when they require it, although you can request it earlier if you qualify.
Mark up to engine service is by seniority.
My road, a Class 3, has in our agreement the provision to force the youngest conductor into engineers training if the required number of men do not apply for it, and then work their way up from the bottom of the seniority roster.

Ed

[Modelcar]

...No trains over the main line in the future without crew......

[Anonymous]

might see a lot more of this type thing

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2005/07/09/news/top_stories/23_08_527_8_05.txt

[ValleyX]

Well, Gates, I don't understand the connection between that story and the topic at hand, that's an old story, the crew outlawed on the hours-of-service and secured the train, someone who had no knowledge of railroading took the story and ran with it.

As for being promoted to engineer within twenty-four months, it's turned into more like five to eight years in many areas on the railroad that you did your hiring session with. They might be saying twenty-four months but that's not realistic.

I read these posts and if I were an outsider, I would be convinced that all conductors sleep and are a hazard to themselves and others. Although it would not be honest for me to say that I've never seen a sleeping conductor, I will state that not all conductors sleep and that isn't the norm, nor is it acceptable.

As for bathroom breaks, the train has to be stopped or a licensed engineer has to be in the seat, the conductor running is not permitted unless he holds an engineers' license. With the great increases in business most places, the likelihood of having a promoted engineer working as a conductor is slim. Yes, in moments of desperation, you might actually stop the train and tell the dispatchers that's it, can't make it another inch.

[Anonymous]

Over here in the UK single man in the cab is nearly the norm, certainly there are no train orders or such or dark areas, we also do haul the tonnage and issues like broken knuckles are virtually unheard off, GNER [Great North Eastern Railways] run 125mph passenger trains non stop York to london approx 200 miles in approx 2 hours in track that is nearly at capacity with one man in the cab. Freightliner run one man with the engineer [driver over here] having to drive, switch, couple etc all on his own on most instances. So no doubt there will be people over there saying that if they do it so can we.

[edblysard]

Alex,
How many 125 car grain trains, or 100 plus car coal trains do you guys run?
Down here in Houston, the average length of a general mixed freight is over 100 cars.
Whats the numbers for the UK, including the loaded weight of the cars?

For those of you who wonder how well the "no man" concept will work...
http://www.lemonzoo.com/funny_videos/15089/The_First_Fully_Automated_Plane.html

It only takes one time and one "glitch" in the system.
Ed

[Anonymous]

In this era of terrorism issues and the governments contempt for the American Worker, it is high time that the American worker rise up and overthrow this corrupt administration, A one man crew on freight trains would be potentially unsafe. It is time for Corporate America to stop treating workers like so many disposable sacks of garbage and the government to either do the will of ALL of the people or risk overthrow.

[Mookie]

Ed - what a day starter! That was truly funny - in a grim sort of way!

Mookie

[loadmaster747]

My background is in aviation, but there are some similarities. Way back when, 5-man flight crews were the norm: pilot, co-pilot (pilot-in-training, usually), flight engineer, radio operator and navigator. Advances in communications technology eliminated the need for a radio operator first. Then, inertial navigation systems and GPS "retired" the navigators. Computers now monitor the hydraulic, electrical and electronic systems on the aircraft, so on modern airliners the 2-man crew is the norm. As far as I know, there is NO interest in the airline industry in even exploring the possibility of one-man or pilotless airliners. Additionally, for flights exceeding a certain length (usually over 8 hours), a third flight crew member is required, to allow rest time for the captain and first officer. This third crewman is sometimes called a "senior first officer", and he is usually fully qualified to be a captain but doesn't have the seniority to get that 4th stripe. What you should do is more widely publicize the efforts of the railroad to reduce the crew size as a money vs. safety issue. And I agree with Zardoz about the issue of full automation. In a perfect world, there is no vandalism or mischief; in the real world, computers are still subject to failure (rare), programming errors, power outages, physical damage to communications (tornadoes or lightning strikes, anyone?), and not -so-innocent hackers. Add in the current paranoia about terrorism, and automation does not seem so inviting.

[Anonymous]

As an x railraoder of many years ago who worked as a switchman, brakeman, freight conductor and then up into engine services in the title of assistant engine men (engineer in training) all I have to say to "edblysard" and "zardos" is thank you, being that you speak for all who have worked in the railroad environment. I left and went back to school after almost six years of putting up with the elements. The bottom line is that most rail fans or others for that matter have no concept of what it is like to handle two, three, four or more locomotives with horsepower in the thosands and train weights that are beyond their grasp, let along the long hours of service and moving at slow speeds which all add to fatigue. Railroads today are a disaster waiting to happen, with all of the industrial automation that is out there railroads appear to be the slowest to react or utilize it. This will contiue to be the norm as long as taxpayer money pays for highway maintenance and railroads play on an uneven field.

[Chris_S68]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TheAntiGates

And even on a more down to earth basis, how many conductors that you are aware of have wrestled the control stand away from a beserk engineer,.. thus thwarting threats to ram his Z train into the trackside bowling alley?

My bet is that someone would have to wake him up first. [}:)]

AHHH, NOW we have a reason for the 3rd man on the crew....[:D] The conductor's valet.

I haven't read a more asinine comment for some time.
It never ceases to amaze me how opinionated and cavalier people can be on a subject they know little or nothing about. I suppose the hiring session you attended (how'd that go by the way?) makes you qualified to spew such BS.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ValleyX

Well, Gates,


A.I don't understand the connection between that story and the topic at hand, that's an old story, the crew outlawed on the hours-of-service and secured the train, someone who had no knowledge of railroading took the story and ran with it.

BAs for being promoted to engineer within twenty-four months, it's turned into more like five to eight years in many areas on the railroad that you did your hiring session with. They might be saying twenty-four months but that's not realistic.

CI read these posts and if I were an outsider, I would be convinced that all conductors sleep and are a hazard to themselves and others. Although it would not be honest for me to say that I've never seen a sleeping conductor, I will state that not all conductors sleep and that isn't the norm, nor is it acceptable.

DAs for bathroom breaks, the train has to be stopped or a licensed engineer has to be in the seat, the conductor running is not permitted unless he holds an engineers' license. With the great increases in business most places, the likelihood of having a promoted engineer working as a conductor is slim. Yes, in moments of desperation, you might actually stop the train and tell the dispatchers that's it, can't make it another inch.

A. my intended reference was in reply to Ed's recount of the elaborate preparations required to tie down a locomotive. Obviously if the owning RR wants the crew to tie down, thay have no reservations to instruct the crew to do exactly that.

B. I don't think it was a "promise" they were offering. AS I recall, the guy said it would be the RR's option to require the conductor to test if THEY needed him to. Maybe I should have said it better, : It is mandatory that the Conductor must be willing to convert to engineer at the RR's request anytime after his initial 24 months, and if asked to do so, must be succesful, OR ELSE. Is that better? Ido recall the interviewer saying it could be longer, but it was completely up to the RR.

The reason why I even recall that is because during another part of the session he stated it would probably take a new conductor 5 years to work up enough seniority to bid the desireable jobs, then the turns around later and pretty much lays out a strategy where that seniority would never happen, making me wonder if they threw all their employees around like a sack of potatoes like that.

Spending years working ones way up the seniority list of conductor just to get ripped up and put at the bottom of the engineers list didn't look like a bargin to me, it looked like a rip.

C. I wouldn't think it was that wide spread, given that 'sleeping on the job' is a bad infraction at any company. But, when one reads the DOT accident reports where somebody misses a signal, or runs into something they shouldn't, the investigatiors who examine these accidents for a living seem to have an almost tongue in cheek non-chalance in their methodology, where they know that the employee's were sleeping, and that the employees are gonna deny it. Sure looks from the outside to be a 'problem everybody knows about, but no one will admit to'

D. And have to tie down like ED says is required? I'll bet the guy wets himself before he can set all those brakes. if his call to nature is all THAT urgent.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Chris_S68



I haven't read a more asinine comment for some time.

I'm glad it was as good for you as it was for me... [:I]

Comparing the security of an ICBM launch silo to train safety seemed equally absurd to me as well, so I just picked up the ball and ran with it.

I believe that the 'public safety' aspect of this discussion is the weakest argument of all, and I'll tell you why .

Read these boards about collisions long enough and you will begin to see a theme.

It's never the engineers fault, ther is never "anything I could do" except throw the trian into emergency, and plow on through the fool/idiot/moron who DARED venture out on the tracks.

The call for prevention is always for "louder horns", or "better, more restrictive crossing gates", or taxpayer funded grade seperations...etc etc because avoidance is ALWAYS beyond the control of the poor poor engineer, because "there is only so much one can do with a 10000 ton freight moving 45 mph"...and there you have the poor engineer, scarred for life with the vision of the looks of horror on the faces of the people just before he (unavoidably, of course) smashed them to pulp ... and if you read people here, it's ALWAYS the victims fault for not realizing that the engineer has no control...

so lets listen to that message.

If the belly aching is always a call for better horns, better crossing gates, better grade seperations etc etc then the only solution is for MECHANICAL enhancements.

If the engineers themselves are claiming that the "only solution" to safety issues are mechanical...then why begrudge the railroads for listening, and going one step further? Afterall, it's such a shame to have these human engineers scarred for life by the morons who wander out in front of them.


Fully automated railroads would solve that "problem" once and for all.

[Anonymous]

The main duty of a diesel psgr service fireman was to keep the boilers running and from what I have learned from old head stories, that was a very lousy job.

[zardoz]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TheAntiGates
Comparing the security of an ICBM launch silo to train safety seemed equally absurd to me as well, so I just picked up the ball and ran with it.

I do not at all appreciate your inflection.

I used that example to indicate that, in a position of lethal responsibility, two people are usually safer than one. Granted, it was not the best example I could of used...

And your callous disregard for the feelings of engineers that have lived through fatalities is very disturbing, and I feel it disqualifies you from further opinions on the subject.


No engineer I ever knew would simply "throw the train into emergency" as you seem to believe. Any engineer worth his reverser knows the inherent danger of such actions. With a loaded or empty unit train, you could go right to the big hole without too much risk, but with any manifest train, where loads and empties are mixed, a straight-to-emergency application is a last resort, only to be used when there is the possibility that the action might reduce the severity of an impact, or to possibly stop short. However, in 99.99% of the situations, an emergency application only shortens the walk the conductor must face after the crash. In those situations, the impact happens before the air is even exhausted from the trainline, and usually before the bakes have even begun to set up.

The "bellyaching" you refer to is genuine concern for the lives of the morons as well as for their own lives and those of the people living near the tracks. Trains do not only hit pedestrians, they hit cars, trucks, and buses. And if some of the debris from the struck vehicle gets lodged under a wheel, then a derailment is a distinct possibility. And since freight trains carrly all sorts of nasty stuff, a derailment in the middle of a community could be a real disaster. THAT is the reason for wanting better protections. Your so-called technological fix would do absolutely nothing to mitigate that risk.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by zardoz


I do not at all appreciate your inflection.

I used that example to indicate that, in a position of lethal responsibility, two people are usually safer than one. Granted, it was not the best example I could of used...

And your callous disregard for the feelings of engineers that have lived through fatalities is very disturbing, and I feel it disqualifies you from further opinions on the subject.

Look, lets be honest, OK, your attempt to pair the issues of train safety and thermonuclear husbandy was an attempt to make your appeal on an emotional level, as though every train should be accorded the same risk assessment as a weapon of mass destruction.

Emotional appeals are great fun, I'll admit. It tends to motivate people at the irrational 'phobic' level, when it works.

When it doesn't...well if you wanna paint me as the villain...then go ahead.it will change nothing..

Being the social beings that we are, I'm sure that the contemplation of long lonely solo shifts greatly disturb many who've grown accustomed to having a captive audience for their entire shift.

But at the very core of this "protest" against progress, is another "John Henry" sentimental moment, and not much else.

Someone else mentioned that a human "attendant" in the cab of otherwise fully robotic trains would be a likely out come.

For a time, I'm sure that will be a TRANSITIONAL stage... Only time will tell.

[edblysard]

Hummm.
I don’t remember arguing for louder horns...trust me, what you hear at the grade crossings is not all the sound the horns can produce.
If the engineer really laid it on, he could actually damage your hearing, the horns are that loud.

As for better grade crossing protection, most of us already know it matters not one whit what you install, there will always be the one or two folks who try to defeat it and get wiped out.

What we are arguing for is a minimum of two men in the cab...we would prefer they both have engineers licenses, buts that’s another argument.
There are rules and rules and rules about my duties as a conductor to announce or call out things to my engineer, like calling "all clear this side" at crossings when we are running long hood forward, or calling and confirming signal aspects.
If one man could do it all, then why all the rules requiring me to be as attentive to the surroundings as the engineer?
Why am I required to “back up” my engineers signal calls?

Same reason most systems, machine or human, work best with a redundant set up…people make mistakes, and with two men in the cab, the likelihood of the engineer’s or conductors mistake causing a catastrophe are lessened a great deal, we do catch each others mistakes.


What we really want is at grade separation...the safest crossing is the one that doesn’t exist at all.
Over or underpasses work, I have yet to see a train run into a car that was in an underpass.


Ed

QUOTE: Originally posted by TheAntiGates

QUOTE: Originally posted by Chris_S68



I haven't read a more asinine comment for some time.

I'm glad it was as good for you as it was for me... [:I]

Comparing the security of an ICBM launch silo to train safety seemed equally absurd to me as well, so I just picked up the ball and ran with it.

I believe that the 'public safety' aspect of this discussion is the weakest argument of all, and I'll tell you why .

Read these boards about collisions long enough and you will begin to see a theme.

It's never the engineers fault, ther is never "anything I could do" except throw the trian into emergency, and plow on through the fool/idiot/moron who DARED venture out on the tracks.

The call for prevention is always for "louder horns", or "better, more restrictive crossing gates", or taxpayer funded grade seperations...etc etc because avoidance is ALWAYS beyond the control of the poor poor engineer, because "there is only so much one can do with a 10000 ton freight moving 45 mph"...and there you have the poor engineer, scarred for life with the vision of the looks of horror on the faces of the people just before he (unavoidably, of course) smashed them to pulp ... and if you read people here, it's ALWAYS the victims fault for not realizing that the engineer has no control...

so lets listen to that message.

If the belly aching is always a call for better horns, better crossing gates, better grade seperations etc etc then the only solution is for MECHANICAL enhancements.

If the engineers themselves are claiming that the "only solution" to safety issues are mechanical...then why begrudge the railroads for listening, and going one step further? Afterall, it's such a shame to have these human engineers scarred for life by the morons who wander out in front of them.


Fully automated railroads would solve that "problem" once and for all.

[zardoz]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TheAntiGates
[

Look, lets be honest, OK, your attempt to pair the issues of train safety and thermonuclear husbandy was an attempt to make your appeal on an emotional level, as though every train should be accorded the same risk assessment as a weapon of mass destruction.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

Hummm.
I don’t remember arguing for louder horns...trust me, what you hear at the grade crossings is not all the sound the horns can produce.
If the engineer really laid it on, he could actually damage your hearing, the horns are that loud.

As for better grade crossing protection, most of us already know it matters not one whit what you install, there will always be the one or two folks who try to defeat it and get wiped out.

I know Ed,

But you have to admit that over time, reading this board, the "loud horns = safety, and more is always better" as well as the "All grade crossing accidents are either the fault of the people who get hit, or the fault of the taxpayers who are too cheap to fund total seperation" mindset gets so repetitive that it almost sounds like a closed loop.

The underlying theme that I believe to be noteworthy, is if all such collisions are beyond the control of the engineer (and that is ALWAYS the flavor here, I have yet to see anyone argue here that a grade crossing accident should have been avoided by a more reactive engineer) THEN IT SEEMS IMPRACTICAL tp argue that a live engineer in the cab is a safety "sacred cow" that we dare not do away with.

These guys think it is the end of the world to think one man crews are coming, just wait, I'll bet no man crews are not that much further down the road.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by zardoz


(A) When a train crew goes on duty, and their train is carrying a list of the hazmat it contains, and the instruction say that in case of derailment to evacuate a FIVE MILE area, I would consider that rather dangerous.

(B) I noticed you did not address your callous attitude. I'm not surprised.

A) that's not every train now us it? Perhaps (and I say perhaps because it is all just speculation) the answer would be (could be) a requirement that all haz mat trains include a toxics specialist chaparone?

B) Fully automated trains would prevent other men from having to bear the same "scars" as you have then, wouldn't it? I'm surprised you aren't more for it.

And before you condemn me for my "callousness", it is abundantly clear that I am far from alone in that quality. I'm in good company.

What about all the "insightfull" observations one reads here about people who drive around gates should be physically tortured (and worse) for their stupidity? Yet I am the only "bad guy" here? hardly.

[ValleyX]

Gates, you would be required to eventually take the classes and pass the exams to become an engineer, were you to start today. And yes, you would go from being a senior conductor to a junior engineer, starting over at the bottom, back to the extra boards or perhaps the midnight yard jobs, if you're lucky.

As for engineers throwing it into emergency, I think Zardoz covered that rather well but I can't quite understand how you come across as thinking that sometimes, in a pedestrian or a vehicle-train accident, it could possibly be the fault of the engineer. True, that's happened too, but I would guess that it is a very minute number of times that an accident with a pedestrian or a vehicle happened with the blame being laid square on the operating crew of the train. It happened in New York last year on CSX, when a crew failed to properly flag a road crossing, made headlines, you could look it up. But, in the vast majority of cases, you've got a front row seat to a accident and it's not pleasant being there.

I, too, think automated trains will eventually come but I really don't expect to live long enough to see them. I, too, think one man crews will come but don't really expect to be working when that happens, either, thank goodness.

[edblysard]

Gates,
Not all collisions are the fault of the driver, on occasion, the crew screw ups...fails to flag a crossing or, on the rarest of occasion, fails to blow the horn...but the vast majority of them are, indeed the fault of the driver or pedestrian.

Let me ask you, how often have you seen a at grade accident, or seen a crew not do what they were supposed to?
And, conversely, how often have you misjudged the train and almost got clipped?

As for the "gene pool cleaning" comments, well, consider the source.
Yup, the drivers made a mistake, but they were still humans, and someone’s son or daughter, a Dad or a Mom, brother or sister....sucks to be the one to remove them form the face of the planet, but they do not deserve the crude comments.

Na note most of those comments are not from the railroaders here, but the non railroaders, who have never experience first hand how horrible a grade crossing accident is.
They do, on occasion, deserve the anger aimed at them...in my case, the driver walked away with a little seat belt burn, but his daughter, in the back seat, was crushed to death...my anger at him was tempered some, when it finally hit him that he was going to have to call his wife and tell her he just killed their daughter.
That said, yes, the safety aspect of the engineer can and does make a difference.
The seat of the pants running that most go engineers can do is the difference between a simple grade crossing accident and a grade crossing accident and major derailment.
Zardoz pointed that out, but I don’t think you realized it.

Engineers can tell when a fool is about to run the gate...call it experience, second sight, whatever you wish, but they do make a huge difference.
Now, I am not against the technology, in fact, I drive a car that largely is managed by a computer, it doesn’t even have a throttle cable, and if the computer "thinks" you are not slowing down correctly, it will apply the brakes.
Fantastic machine, one of the best autos I have ever owned.
I know most aircraft also "fly by wire"...at the speeds military fighters move, you have to, humans couldn’t move the control surfaces at those speeds.

Point is, it isn’t so much the everyday movement of the train, but the once in a while need for the live person that make having a human at the controls necessary.

Add that to the fact that, as good as we can build things, most computers wouldn’t survive long in a locomotive, at least those beyond the simple black box event recorders and chip on chip fault detectors that pass for computers in locomotives today.

Find me any "foolproof" technology, and I will help you look for the foolproof human.
Both human and machine can serve a purpose, but I don’t know and any one of them that truly is foolproof.
Ed

QUOTE: Originally posted by TheAntiGates

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

Hummm.
I don’t remember arguing for louder horns...trust me, what you hear at the grade crossings is not all the sound the horns can produce.
If the engineer really laid it on, he could actually damage your hearing, the horns are that loud.

As for better grade crossing protection, most of us already know it matters not one whit what you install, there will always be the one or two folks who try to defeat it and get wiped out.

I know Ed,

But you have to admit that over time, reading this board, the "loud horns = safety, and more is always better" as well as the "All grade crossing accidents are either the fault of the people who get hit, or the fault of the taxpayers who are too cheap to fund total seperation" mindset gets so repetitive that it almost sounds like a closed loop.

The underlying theme that I believe to be noteworthy, is if all such collisions are beyond the control of the engineer (and that is ALWAYS the flavor here, I have yet to see anyone argue here that a grade crossing accident should have been avoided by a more reactive engineer) THEN IT SEEMS IMPRACTICAL tp argue that a live engineer in the cab is a safety "sacred cow" that we dare not do away with.

These guys think it is the end of the world to think one man crews are coming, just wait, I'll bet no man crews are not that much further down the road.