OPRRMS Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Keith Ode Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > tundraboomer Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > >
> >
> [seekingalpha.com]
>
> >
> > > rol-is-a-failure-for-railroads
> >
> > "They threw billions of dollars in the Remote
> > Control Locomotives industry that not only
> slowed
> > their car count to a crawl, but also spent more
> in
> > technology than they did in a human being with
> > full benefits."
> >
> > So OPRRMS and theconductor, you were saying?
>
> I can't speak for theconductor, but I will say
> this.
>
> Firstly, the story you've linked is apparently a
> blog that's related to the stock market, and is
> from 2009. The complete story isn't readable
> unless the App is downloaded, which I'm not
> inclined to do, and without being able to read the
> full story, it's unwise to comment on it, much
> less place much truck in it. After all, anyone
> can write anything on their blog, based on one's
> own opinion regardless of the actual facts - same
> as they can here on AP.
>
> Secondly, you might remember that 2009 was in the
> midst of a recession and financial instability.
> The railroads - including Union Pacific - were not
> immune. Asssociating that to RCL is quite a
> stretch.
>
> Your move . . .

This pretty much agrees with my sentiment. The fact that there is one less crew member to get hurt should be enough to consider their safety as a potential plus. Not to mention the man down feature.

Sure, in some cases car handling volumes may be down, or at least were down, but that has all been absorbed into the norm by now. I have personally witnessed remote crews out switch conventional crews on the east lead of Albina yard. It didn't happen overnight, but it did happen.