# Train crews



## Classof66 (Jul 9, 2011)

Reading tonight how the railroads want to go to a one man crew. Just an engineer. This is just plain scary.


----------



## big rockpile (Feb 24, 2003)

:facepalm: Very Bad Idea!

big rockpile


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Classof66 said:


> Reading tonight how the railroads want to go to a one man crew. Just an engineer. This is just plain scary.



How many are they currently using?


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

Saw the other day they're considering one pilot per commercial plane also. Right now the pilots leave the flying to computers 90% of the time, but I'd still like to know there are 2 people paying attention the other 10%.


----------



## Classof66 (Jul 9, 2011)

My son is an engineer. A freight train has one engineer and one conductor. (This isn't the friendly guy who hollers All Aboard anymore) The engineer operates the train, the conductor is responsible for the train itself, its freight and the crew. Knowing the number of cars, any maintenance issues, etc. Both are full time responsibilities and essential to safe operations. These are hands-on jobs that cannot be properly done by someone in a faraway location. 

http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/railroa...on-in-charge-of-long-freight-trains-1.2158795

We need to stay abreast of this. It's important.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

I know there ar so many sensors now that can even tell if one wheel is over heating. A air hose comes off the train shuts down. But going down to one only thats nuts.


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

Just my opinion, but I don't think just one person should be in control of such a tremendously powerful, and potentially destructive operation. Too many times people have disconnected safeties, muted alarms, or found ways around sensors, any of which might be acceptable if nothing unexpected happened. 

I don't know if this is possible, but let's say the engineer has a "dead man" switch in his seat, but gerry-rigs his way around it to use the bathroom. He has a heart attack in the bathroom. Bad timing, as there's fuel truck stuck on the track where there's no guards. The train is carrying hazardous/flammable materials. Whoops.

It would seems to me the railroad would be taking on a tremendous liability if their cost saving actions could be shown as the cause of a catastrophic accident. Seems like false economy to me.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Although the incident did was not caused by reduced staffing, I do believe the disaster in Lac Megantic should serve as a reminder of the potential destruction a train accident can cause. 

I would think there should be at least one other live body on a train in case of a medical or mechanical emergency.


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

When I worked in the munitions dump there were places and jobs that required that a minimum of two people be present at all times. It was basically the law. There are things that one person will do when alone that they wouldn't think of doing with others present.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Ozarks Tom said:


> Saw the other day they're considering one pilot per commercial plane also. Right now the pilots leave the flying to computers 90% of the time, but I'd still like to know there are 2 people paying attention the other 10%.


I was on a plane once when the first officer developed a bad migraine and could not function anymore. Fortunately, the captain can land the plane by himself in an emergency, and there happened to be another airline pilot flying as a passenger who stepped in to assist, but it would have been quite a conundrum had there been only one pilot onboard.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

vicker said:


> When I worked in the munitions dump there were places and jobs that required that a minimum of two people be present at all times. It was basically the law. There are things that one person will do when alone that they wouldn't think of doing with others present.


Boy, that describes me to a tee!


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

I remember the days, when trains has to have a brakeman and fireman. 

They smoked pot and looked out the window, because their jobs were obsolete 20 and 70 years earlier.

Trains will probably run remote in the future.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Classof66 said:


> Reading tonight how the railroads want to go to a one man crew. Just an engineer. This is just plain scary.


The trains where I work have no crew. They, AFAIK, are all operated remotely.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

watcher said:


> The trains where I work have no crew. They, AFAIK, are all operated remotely.


What kind of workplace is this? Is it actually on a railroad, or a rail yard of some sort?


----------



## jross (Sep 3, 2006)

The proposal of just one person consists of the engineer on the train, and "master conductor" responsible for an set area which would have any number of trains in it at any given time. The Federal government has mandated the railroads install Positive Train Control by 2017 at their own expense of course. This would consist of sensors on the train and track. If a train ran a red signal it would immediately go into emergency and stop. This was not brought about by the incident at Lac Megantic', but by the incident where a commuter engineer in California( one man crew)who was texting and ran a red, then plowed into a BNSF freight train which had the clear signal. The wreck on the Metro North due to inattention of the engineer which increased the pressure for PTC. Lac Megantic was caused by poor maintenence on the engine, design of the prime mover, carelessness by the dispatcher , the engineer who parked the train, and the fire department which put out the fire. I have a problem with only one person on the train in remote areas and imagine what would happen in Montana bear country if the engineer had to walk the train at night. A second person with a .308 with him or her would come in handy.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

jtbrandt said:


> What kind of workplace is this? Is it actually on a railroad, or a rail yard of some sort?


A port where they load grain off ships and into rail cars. Signs EVERYWHERE telling you to watch for trains because they are remotely controlled.


----------



## wes917 (Sep 26, 2011)

We had RCLs in our yard when I worked rr. On the main thats a scary thought


----------



## big rockpile (Feb 24, 2003)

watcher said:


> A port where they load grain off ships and into rail cars. Signs EVERYWHERE telling you to watch for trains because they are remotely controlled.


 
I know times have changed but when I worked at the Mill it was part of my Job to move Cars after Loading or Unloading.

big rockpile


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

jross said:


> The proposal of just one person consists of the engineer on the train, and "master conductor" responsible for an set area which would have any number of trains in it at any given time. The Federal government has mandated the railroads install Positive Train Control by 2017 at their own expense of course. This would consist of sensors on the train and track. If a train ran a red signal it would immediately go into emergency and stop. This was not brought about by the incident at Lac Megantic', but by the incident where a commuter engineer in California( one man crew)who was texting and ran a red, then plowed into a BNSF freight train which had the clear signal. The wreck on the Metro North due to inattention of the engineer which increased the pressure for PTC. Lac Megantic was caused by poor maintenence on the engine, design of the prime mover, carelessness by the dispatcher , the engineer who parked the train, and the fire department which put out the fire. I have a problem with only one person on the train in remote areas and imagine what would happen in Montana bear country if the engineer had to walk the train at night. A second person with a .308 with him or her would come in handy.



I'm guessing you're addressing my comment and if not, I apologize. 

My point in bringing up the Lac Meganic issue was simply to point out how badly these things can go wrong. If I lead anyone to believe that it happened because of reduced crew, it was not my intention.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

wes917 said:


> We had RCLs in our yard when I worked rr. On the main thats a scary thought


IDK, seeing as how most (all?) the major accidents have been linked to human error maybe removing the human from the train would make things safer.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Isn't it strange that in a 65 foot long semi the operator must be able to see both sides of the rear of the vehicle at the sides and rear.
Not to mention at least 4 lights on both sides in that space.
But in a train a mile and a half long that can stop across several roads at once there's no need for lights OR the ability to see what's going on?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

girl tapped in car under moving train
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/1999/apr/05/motoring

And the railroads comment?

Conrail spokesman Ron Hildebrand said the crew couldn't see her and didn't know a car had become trapped.

"We have no way of seeing these things. When our engineer went by, the car was sitting there" at the crossing, Hildebrand said from the rail company's offices in Philadelphia. "She's really lucky she wasn't seriously injured."


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

watcher said:


> IDK, seeing as how most (all?) the major accidents have been linked to human error maybe removing the human from the train would make things safer.


Add the technology to the humans rather than replacing the humans with technology...then you have two layers of safety. Technology screws up, too.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

watcher said:


> IDK, seeing as how most (all?) the major accidents have been linked to human error maybe removing the human from the train would make things safer.


The problem with that sort of thinking is that we sorta like humans and think we should keep them.
Humans dont just drive the trains the trains inhabit a world filled with humans doing things that dont have the trains as a priority.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Ok, I thought the sarcasm in the removing humans would be apparent but I guess not. Computers maybe good at somethings but making decisions which are not part of their programing is not one of them. 

IDK because I don't fly them but I was told that one major difference between Airbus (Europe) and Boeing (USA) is Airbus allows the computer to override human commands while Boeing allows the human to override the computer. If its true I much rather be on a 7X7 than an A3XX


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

I missed the sarcasm...I just thought you were crazy...good to know you're not.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

jtbrandt said:


> I missed the sarcasm...I just thought you were crazy...good to know you're not.


That last part is very debatable. Just ask the wife.


----------



## Seth (Dec 3, 2012)

More jobs lost to greed. One more brick out of the wall.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Seth said:


> More jobs lost to greed. One more brick out of the wall.


Hum. . .say you need a water line put in. Two companies come out and tell you how they would do it and give you the cost break down. Parts are parts so the difference there is nothing but. . .

The first one says it'll send out 4 guys making $15/hr each to work 8 hrs a day for 10 days to dig the trench by hand. Then it'd take a day to install the line. Then it would be another 5 days to refill the trench. Adding up to $7,200 for labor and 16 days until you get your water.

The second comes in and says they will have one guy, making $40/hr, show up with a trencher. It'll take him 1 day to dig the trench, 1 day to install the line and 1 day to back fill. Giving you a labor bill of $960 and you get your water in 3 days.

So are you going to be a greedy SoB and hire the second company and cost *THREE* jobs just to save a lousy $6,000 or so? Are you truly that evil? Don't you realize that those men at the first company have families and you are starving them with your greed! What's $6,000 to you?

Sounds really silly when you put yourself in the place of a company doesn't it?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Watcher I see that as a valid point.
But dont you see it as a apples and oranges thing?
Having single person crew trains set up a lot of dangerous situations.
What level of safety does the railroad owe the public and its employees?


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

Assuming the RR isn't self insured, I wonder what the insurance company's underwriters would think of the idea. I could see their rates going up in excess of the 2nd engineer's pay.


----------



## Snowfan (Nov 6, 2011)

As a health and safety guy, I have several issues with the one man crew. I'm assuming this would mean only one engineer in the cab of a freight train engine(s). I read about trains hitting vehicles on the tracks. Well, the train was where it was supposed to be. The vehicle was where it was supposed to be. Just not at the same time. In more and more communities, trains are not allowed to blow the horn so as not to disturb neighbors. How does a 100 car freight train "tip-toe quietly" through a town? Two crewmen in the cab, properly trained, tested, qualified and physically and emotionally able to perform the job, are an absolute minimum. As an old fart, computers and technology, safety systems and back-up-safety systems are good. Good people, are better. I realize you can't cover every possible "what if" scenario, but trained (no pun intended) people are key. Just my opinion.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Here is a picture of a self driving car by Google.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Watcher I see that as a valid point.
> But dont you see it as a apples and oranges thing?
> Having single person crew trains set up a lot of dangerous situations.
> What level of safety does the railroad owe the public and its employees?


Based on what research? 

You could say that having 2 people on a train is more dangerous than having 3? What about 3 instead of 4? At what point is the risk balanced? Properly set up I don't see why one person can not operate a train just as safely as 2 or 7 or 100. The weak point is almost always going to be the human in the system. I can't think of a major accident which was caused by computer error, they all were caused by people. Many of them because the human ignored or over-road the safeties.


----------



## Classof66 (Jul 9, 2011)

My son has been in trains for 11 years now. He is 36 and healthy. I would worry about him terribly if he were out there alone. 
His older brother used to be a deputy sheriff in our county. Most of the time he was OK, but there were a lot of times I wish he had had a partner.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

watcher said:


> Based on what research?
> 
> You could say that having 2 people on a train is more dangerous than having 3? What about 3 instead of 4? At what point is the risk balanced? Properly set up *I don't see why one person can not operate a train just as safely *as 2 or 7 or 100. The weak point is almost always going to be the human in the system. I can't think of a major accident which was caused by computer error, they all were caused by people. Many of them because the human ignored or over-road the safeties.


That YOU cant see any of the possable dangers is a reflection of you not a statement of fact that there isnt any.

But Watcher I must agree with you. Having more crew should be safer than less, well at least for the public. Its obvious that the railroads should go to 6 person crews and train lengths of no more than can be seen from one end on the sharpest corners in route.
That way someone could observe the train on each side from both directions and have a safetyman to observe if the 5th man had to go between cars for anything.
That would seem the safest course.
But of course the railroads dont want to pay for that level of safety.
Since they are allowed to operate in public as a public conveiance we, the public have a vested interest in the level of safety we require of them.
So what criteria do we use to achive "Balanced Risk" ?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> That YOU cant see any of the possable dangers is a reflection of you not a statement of fact that there isnt any.


Educate me. Tell me what's so dangerous for one man to run a train that is properly set up.




AmericanStand said:


> But of course the railroads dont want to pay for that level of safety.
> Since they are allowed to operate in public as a public conveiance we, the public have a vested interest in the level of safety we require of them.
> So what criteria do we use to achive "Balanced Risk" ?


The same we use for all the other risk. For example look at the risk of allowing people to drive private autos. Why don't we require cars to be built NASCAR standards? Why don't we require individual drivers to wear Nomex suits and helmets with HANS devices? Plus why don't we require all drivers to use log books? Why shouldn't they have to prove they have had 'adequate' rest before they get behind the wheel to keep them and others safe?

All of those would certainly save lives but the cost is considered too high for the lives it would save. That's the standard we have set. 
How many individual lives would we save?


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Consider this: how likely are two humans to make the same human error at the same time?

It's easy for one human to screw up, but not as easy for two to screw up in the same way at the same time. Two brains, two sets of eyes, hands, etc. could increase human error if it were in series, but in parallel it should theoretically reduce human error...or maybe it's the other way...series/parallel isn't a great analogy.


----------



## Snowfan (Nov 6, 2011)

Watcher, I see your point. With few exceptions (like GM's ignition switch disaster), most passenger car, aircraft, OTR trucks, trains and even maritime disasters are caused, to some degree, by human error. The source, reason or cause of the human error could be another, lengthy discussion.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

watcher said:


> Educate me. Tell me what's so dangerous for one man to run a train that is properly set up.


Im not a expert in rail safety. 
It would seem more sensible to ask those who are , or who's lives are on the trains every day.
Those are the people who don't want one man crews.

As for the accidents being caused by people remember that people are not just on the trains the trains inhabit a world filled with people.


----------



## Classof66 (Jul 9, 2011)

My son has been engineering 12 years. He says engineer and conductor. On board.


----------



## stickinthemud (Sep 10, 2003)

Analysis of Causes of Major Train Derailment and Their Effect on Accident Rates
http://railtec.illinois.edu/CEE/pdf/Journal Papers/2012/Liu et al 2012.pdf

Looks like human factors are concentrated at lower speeds but out on the main line derailments are more often caused by equipment failures: broken wheels, bearing failure, axle & journal defects, etc. 

Track Caused Derailments:
http://www.rta.org/assets/docs/ComprehensiveRail/sec14/track-caused derailments.pdf


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

jtbrandt said:


> Consider this: how likely are two humans to make the same human error at the same time?
> 
> It's easy for one human to screw up, but not as easy for two to screw up in the same way at the same time. Two brains, two sets of eyes, hands, etc. could increase human error if it were in series, but in parallel it should theoretically reduce human error...or maybe it's the other way...series/parallel isn't a great analogy.


Ever study major accidents? Such as airliner crashes or most infamously the sinking of the Titanic. Accidents come from a chain of errors. True the more links you have the more likely someone will break the chain. But just having more eyes there doesn't mean they will see differently. 

You also have the fact the more people you have working the more chances there are for someone to do something stupid or to just assume something was done by someone else.

The old saying that an idiot proof system has just not met a big enough idiot it true but if you make it properly it takes a really big one to cause a problem.

If you design the system correctly with the proper fail safes the difference, IMO, adding more people to the system only increases the odds of one of them being that big enough idiot.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

That's all probably true, but designing the system correctly is another place for human error...having imperfect humans depend on a system designed by other imperfect humans isn't necessarily any better...the more complex, the more room for flaws.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

watcher said:


> Ever study major accidents? Such as airliner crashes or most infamously the sinking of the Titanic. Accidents come from a chain of errors. .


BUT sometimes that chain of errors is in the system not taking account the human.
For instance You take that one person crew hitting 79 mph out across the countryside. The system is all clogged up and the dispatcher has been on the enginners butts to move it or go in the hole for HOURS.
The engineer on THIS train knows it cause he sat for HOURS at the last siding. 
Drinking coffee to stay awake. Bored to tears but only him on board so no way to catch a nap even though nothing was happening.
MORE COFFEE.
Now two hours into that dash for the yard with a straight shot and with nothing around but fields he tosses his tool box on the deadman and steps into the bath room to pee. Just 15 seconds, nothing gonna happen in 15 seconds right.
Then the handle falls off and he gets his zipper stuck and finally 45 seconds later he gets back outta the bathroom and throws his tool box down and OMG theres a BUS across the tracks!
Its a mile away.
He throws it the big hole, locks down the brakes even thinks about dragging his feet but still even with that bus a mile away when he saw it BOOM people die.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> BUT sometimes that chain of errors is in the system not taking account the human.
> For instance You take that one person crew hitting 79 mph out across the countryside. The system is all clogged up and the dispatcher has been on the enginners butts to move it or go in the hole for HOURS.
> The engineer on THIS train knows it cause he sat for HOURS at the last siding.
> Drinking coffee to stay awake. Bored to tears but only him on board so no way to catch a nap even though nothing was happening.
> ...


The problem is a poorly designed system. Why was the system designed to allow the deadman to be over ridden so easily? Why not make it so that at random intervals the crewman must either rest it or the train automatically automatically applies the brakes and sends out a distress signal? Why not a pad where the driver must keep a body part (hand, forearm, etc) on in order to complete a circuit (think computer touch screen), if the circuit is broken form more then X milliseconds an alert sounds to notify the crewman he's not in the correct position then if its goes more than Y milliseconds the automatic emergency response system takes over? Why not have the system so the bathroom door applies the brakes? Why not just incorporate all of them?

There are usually ways to override any anti-idiot system but you can make it so that its very difficult and/or not worth the effort. And having layers of them make it more so.

Also what is to keep the same thing from happening with two crew members? One is grabbing some rack time and the other sees no need to wake him up just to take a quick whizz therefore he grabs the tool box and. . .


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

LOL watcher it was just a illustration of how humanity seems to find reasons and ways to override the system.
I have no way of knowing how the systems in trains actually work.
I have heard of a deadman switch but I don't know how it works now, perhaps it requires a retinal scan every 5 seconds?
Or perhaps locomotives have toilets built right into their seats?
But that last brings up something in your post. It seems like all your ways to address the problem are in favor of machines even to the point of abusing the worker. 
Where the simple accommodation of a toilet seat escaped you .
You don't seem to put the human first. Am I misreading this somehow?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> But that last brings up something in your post. It seems like all your ways to address the problem are in favor of machines even to the point of abusing the worker.
> Where the simple accommodation of a toilet seat escaped you .


Ah. . .that's what engineers (the kind who design things not drive trains) do. You bring them a problem and they give you solutions. Its up to you which, if any, of them you want to use.

In the example I was given the implied result of of going to the little boy's room was a bus load of dead school kids. Would you not say if going to the toilet puts human lives in danger making it so going to the toilet activates an automatic emergency system is a good thing?




AmericanStand said:


> You don't seem to put the human first. Am I misreading this somehow?


Engineers tend to view things differently than others. If you stress test something which safety depends on and it fails at 1,000 pounds you put its working load at 500. Why? Because the real world (as opposed to the test lab) is unpredictable AND the world is full of idiots. You see people as the weak link in a system because they seem to always be working against the system. Both consciously and subconsciously. BTW, the study of human reactions and though process which result in disasters is rather interesting. People do things which even the most out there engineer would never expect. 

[_Off the subject but one of the most fun parts of being a beta tester, at least for me, is trying to think of the most idiotic thing to do to try to get the program to crash. Another is the look on the programer's face when you tell him what you did._]

So when it comes to a system like we are talking about human comfort is usually only considered when it comes down to how it effects the operation of the system. You don't want a safety which is so uncomfortable or a general pain in the rump that it encourages people to look for a way to over ride. You also don't want one that is so simple even the smallest idiot out there can figure out how to get around it.

The "safety lever" that you probably have on your push mower is a good example. Its purpose is to make it so an idiot can't stick his hand under the mower while the blade is spinning. To do this manufactures made the simplest and cheapest system by having a lever which kills the engine if you let go of it. But most of the ones I've seen, including my own, have been rigged with a by-pass because no one wants to have to restart the mower every time they need to let go of the mower for a few seconds (PITA factor) and its so easy to by-pass (small idiot factor). About the only ones I've seen which are not rigged are the more expensive ones which disengage the engine and stop the blade when you let go. Because they don't massively interfere with your mowing its not worth the effort to by-pass them.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Australia has had a system in place for decades for the long haul from their east to west coasts. The engineer has to press a button at random intervals to prove he is on station, in control of the train, or the train stops. I'm not an expert, just something I saw on TV long ago. If they could do that in the days before cheap and easy computing, we can surely do something even better today. 

The question should not be, if zero or one person is on the train will there be accidents, because of course, there are always going to be accidents, just as there are now with a crew of 2 and just as in yesteryears with crews of 4 or more and a caboose on every train. And asking train crews what they think is not a valid test. The crews fought like mad when cabooses and jobs were going to be eliminated and trains are safer today than back then. 

The proper question should be are accidents reduced with more automated trains, removing some or all of the on board human control. They have found with commercial airplanes, a much more complex system, it is safer to remove the humans in many ways. And just ask the auto companies that were forced by union contracts to retain unneeded workers in the 70s and 80s, unneeded people did not make for a higher quality product. Replacing workers with robots, for some of the less brainy jobs, is what led to the greatest improvements in quality. To be sure, except in sci-fi stories, a robot never intentionally sabotaged an assembly line, plane, or train. 

I once read a financial report from McDs or maybe Burger King, that said it was cost effective to install an automated $400K drink dispenser if they could remove one min wage employee from each shift. Think about that, 18 hours a day x $15 / hour (total employer cost) X 364 days a year = $98K. So the machine pays for itself in 4 years. Using the same sort of math, a railroad company can justify a lot of automation.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

watcher said:


> In the example I was given the implied result of of going to the little boy's room was a bus load of dead school kids. Would you not say if going to the toilet puts human lives in danger making it so going to the toilet activates an automatic emergency system is a good thing?.


NOPE!
See that's the sort of thinking that the guys at dodge used to design my truck!
Id say the answer is to design a system that lets people do normal things like go to the bathroom safely.
See how you got it backwards by not putting people first?
The rest of your reply was a GREAT explanation of people and design .



DEKE01 said:


> The crews fought like mad when cabooses and jobs were going to be eliminated and trains are *safer today than back then*.


 No! Not at all!


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> NOPE!
> See that's the sort of thinking that the guys at dodge used to design my truck!
> Id say the answer is to design a system that lets people do normal things like go to the bathroom safely.
> See how you got it backwards by not putting people first?
> The rest of your reply was a GREAT explanation of people and design.


I maybe not putting people first but they are one of the first things you think of when you start designing a system. People are almost ALWAYS the weak link in the system therefore in a system which protects life and limb you start by thinking how you can limit the damage they can do. 

If you have something which is a danger if the operator is not present while its operating you design a system which prevents it from working w/o the operator present. The danger isn't any different if the reason he's not there is he has to go to the bathroom than it is if he wants to take a nap.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Ya trains are much saver today from years ago. But if only one person is going to drive the train, what if a flat wheel? How in the world can one person stop and change that set of wheels all by himself?
But there are so many sensors on the train and on the tracks that many things can be detected long before they were in the past.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

AmericanStand said:


> NOPE!
> 
> No! Not at all!


So you believe that trains are more dangerous today than in yester years. Why do you think that?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

DEKE01 said:


> So you believe that trains are more dangerous today than in yester years. Why do you think that?


 I believe that longer trains with fewer people around to check on them is inherently unsafe.

Those flat tires that AK was talking about? They happen ,it used to be that there were plenty of eys and ears around to report them But now due to the lack of people they use automatic sensers.

Thats great for something like that That is expected and set up to be found but what about things outside the realm of normal?
Shifted loads leaking loads loose parts . bad drivers ect?


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

AmericanStand said:


> I believe that longer trains with fewer people around to check on them is inherently unsafe.


While there may be some truth to the fact that a train with more cars is more dangerous than a train with fewer cars, you are wrong in practice. Trains have gotten safer at the same time crews have gotten smaller. Much of this is due to improved highway crossings. 

http://oli.org/about-us/news/collisions-casulties

You'll note the steady decline in accidents, fatalities, and injuries from 1981 - 2013. In each category, they declined by roughly 2/3rds or more. I found one source that showed about 100 rail fatalities each year are suicide, about half of all fatalities in recent years; larger train crews are unlikely to significantly reduce that number. Trains have consistently gotten safer.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

arabian knight said:


> Ya trains are much saver today from years ago. But if only one person is going to drive the train, what if a flat wheel? How in the world can one person stop and change that set of wheels all by himself?


Two people probably can't do it either...do they even carry spares? I admit most of my railroad knowledge comes from TV, but I thought they had crews with heavy equipment come and replace those. My brother-in-law did that kind of work for Conrail, but that was a long time ago. Even then, I doubt an engineer and conductor would change a wheel.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

DEKE01 said:


> While there may be some truth to the fact that a train with more cars is more dangerous than a train with fewer cars, you are wrong in practice. *Trains have gotten safer at the same time crews have gotten smaller. Much of this is due to improved highway crossings. *http://oli.org/about-us/news/collisions-casulties
> 
> You'll note the steady decline in accidents, fatalities, and injuries from 1981 - 2013. In each category, they declined by roughly 2/3rds or more. I found one source that showed about 100 rail fatalities each year are suicide, about half of all fatalities in recent years; larger train crews are unlikely to significantly reduce that number. Trains have consistently gotten safer.


There Is a hint as to Why trains are not safer in the statement Ive bolded.
The railroads have looked to other ways to make the interaction between trains and the public safer.
LONGER trains are probably safer since it reduces the number of FRONTS passing through a area. But a unveiwable area along the train is less safe.
LUCKY for everyone that is the least likely area for a problem, but they do happen there.
The organization quoted in the link is of course the railroads They just might have a vested interest in how the numbers ore presented.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

AmericanStand said:


> There Is a hint as to Why trains are not safer in the statement Ive bolded.
> The railroads have looked to other ways to make the interaction between trains and the public safer.
> LONGER trains are probably safer since it reduces the number of FRONTS passing through a area. But a unveiwable area along the train is less safe.
> LUCKY for everyone that is the least likely area for a problem, but they do happen there.
> The organization quoted in the link is of course the railroads They just might have a vested interest in how the numbers ore presented.


IOW, you now admit you were wrong. Thanks. :nanner:


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

jtbrandt said:


> Two people probably can't do it either...do they even carry spares? I admit most of my railroad knowledge comes from TV, but I thought they had crews with heavy equipment come and replace those. My brother-in-law did that kind of work for Conrail, but that was a long time ago. Even then, I doubt an engineer and conductor would change a wheel.


Railroad wheels are changed in the shops by trained crews. A single wheel is a rare thing they are usually in two wheel and a axle set. These can be changed in the field by two people with the right equipment and training . Its RARELY done and only on the tinyest of railroads would it be done by a operating crew.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> Railroad wheels are changed in the shops by trained crews. A single wheel is a rare thing they are usually in two wheel and a axle set. These can be changed in the field by two people with the right equipment and training . Its RARELY done and only on the tinyest of railroads would it be done by a operating crew.


 Well I saw it being done on Alaska Railroad the show. Many of their trains are a mile long. but they do have on the show at least 3 running it. But I don;t know if that is the standard. But they sure are saver with so many sensors.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

arabian knight said:


> Well I saw it being done on Alaska Railroad the show. Many of their trains are a mile long. but they do have on the show at least 3 running it. But I don;t know if that is the standard. But they sure are saver with so many sensors.


I saw that too...the train crew didn't change it. They stood there and watched while a maintenance crew with a crane did it. I love that show...one of the better of the seemingly hundreds of Alaska reality shows.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

DEKE01 said:


> IOW, you now admit you were wrong. Thanks. :nanner:


I did ? I what way?


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

AmericanStand said:


> I did ? I what way?


Sorry, I'm only arguing my side of the debate. You have to carry your own load.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

DEKE01 said:


> Sorry, I'm only arguing my side of the debate. You have to carry your own load.


lol
Your information shows trains got safer but not why.
And trains didn't much get longer if at all during that time


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

AmericanStand said:


> lol
> Your information shows trains got safer but not why.
> And trains didn't much get longer if at all during that time


Again you admit you were wrong. Thank you.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

DEKE01 said:


> Again you admit you were wrong. Thank you.


LOL you dont seem to have any logic to your statements. You dont seem to want to clarifiy anything.


----------

