 |
Re: SMART/UTU misstep on one person crews?
Author: OPRRMS
Date: 07-31-2014 - 15:42
mook Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Big red STOP button as the only control? Sounds
> like BART. BART "drivers" were originally (when
> the system opened) called "train attendants"
> because of their limited role in operations.
>
> The "safety" aspect is that, theoretically, they
> can keep each other awake and alert. There are
> machines to do that, too. Also, coffee, and
> reasonable work hours. They can also distract each
> other by shooting the breeze.
>
> The real plus of more than one person on a freight
> train crew is dealing with hand-throw switches,
> adding/dropping cars, and the inevitable messes
> (engine drops off-line and has to be isolated, air
> hose or coupler breaks, hotbox, doubling the hill,
> etc.). With one person on the train, they either
> have to yell for help on the radio or take hours
> fixing it, or both, blocking the line. Those
> issues exist regardless of whether and how much
> hazardous material is on a train, and whether or
> not PTC exists (PTC would just stop all the other
> trains on the railroad while the messed one gets
> fixed). THOSE are valid reasons for 2-person crews
> for freight trains, IMO, but a generic reference
> to "safety" vaguely tied to "oil train" or
> "hazmat" isn't.
Couple of comments.
Union Pacific already has a GPS-based computer system called Trip Optimizer in place in selected locations, and will be expanding its use to other areas. In its fully automatic mode, it'll run the train without any interaction from the engineer (including blowing the whistle, getting through Form B's, etc.)
As to the question of needing a second person to perform on-the-ground work, virtually all those functions can be performed by the remaining crewmember using a Belt Pak (similar to RCL) or by someone in a highway vehicle (who might be an outside contractor).
Bottom line: there's a New World coming, boys 'n girls. SMART is, um... smart, to try to salvage what it can now, before it's too late.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Big red STOP button as the only control? Sounds
> like BART. BART "drivers" were originally (when
> the system opened) called "train attendants"
> because of their limited role in operations.
>
> The "safety" aspect is that, theoretically, they
> can keep each other awake and alert. There are
> machines to do that, too. Also, coffee, and
> reasonable work hours. They can also distract each
> other by shooting the breeze.
>
> The real plus of more than one person on a freight
> train crew is dealing with hand-throw switches,
> adding/dropping cars, and the inevitable messes
> (engine drops off-line and has to be isolated, air
> hose or coupler breaks, hotbox, doubling the hill,
> etc.). With one person on the train, they either
> have to yell for help on the radio or take hours
> fixing it, or both, blocking the line. Those
> issues exist regardless of whether and how much
> hazardous material is on a train, and whether or
> not PTC exists (PTC would just stop all the other
> trains on the railroad while the messed one gets
> fixed). THOSE are valid reasons for 2-person crews
> for freight trains, IMO, but a generic reference
> to "safety" vaguely tied to "oil train" or
> "hazmat" isn't.
Couple of comments.
Union Pacific already has a GPS-based computer system called Trip Optimizer in place in selected locations, and will be expanding its use to other areas. In its fully automatic mode, it'll run the train without any interaction from the engineer (including blowing the whistle, getting through Form B's, etc.)
As to the question of needing a second person to perform on-the-ground work, virtually all those functions can be performed by the remaining crewmember using a Belt Pak (similar to RCL) or by someone in a highway vehicle (who might be an outside contractor).
Bottom line: there's a New World coming, boys 'n girls. SMART is, um... smart, to try to salvage what it can now, before it's too late.
