 |
Safety vs. Saving Money --- The Debate Continues!
Author: Holly Gibson
Date: 02-13-2009 - 05:23
J's comments in italics
No need to state the obvious. Of course a major factor in such decisions is to save money.
Yeah, we both know that. The point I’m trying to make is that it appears that safety is taking a back seat to saving money.
Do your homework and present data demonstrating a solo crewmember is more dangerous.
Well, I don’t have raw data because I don’t know that any raw data has been collected on this issue. I DO know that there’s a BNSF conductor based out of Needles, CA who agrees with me. He wrote an excellent letter to the editor of the LA TIMES that was printed in their Sept. 24, 2008 edition, reproduced below. He and I both feel that it boils down to simple mathematics. Two sets of eyes and ears can absorb more “situational awareness” than one set of eyes and ears.
Look at the fact that Metrolink is scrambling to place a second set of eyes and ears on their trains in the aftermath of the Chatsworth wreck. Does’t that tell you something? There’s a message there somewhere. It appears that Metrolink begrudgingly agrees with both me and the Needles BNSF conductor, although I'm sure they would never admit that in writing.
INRD
That railroad runs solely within the state of Indiana, and that’s probably how they slipped one man crew operation under the wire. Again, I’m merely saying that, in my opinion, two sets of eyes and ears can absorb what’s happening better than one set of eyes and ears. INRD is a radically different operating model than Metrolink. INRD probably has no more than two or three trains operating on its property at any given time. Metrolink has dozens of trains operating at certain times of the day, inter-mingling with dozens of freight trains. INRD pretty much hauls coal to power plants on lightly trafficked lines. When the day comes that they’re hauling tank cars of chlorine, LPG and anhydrous ammonia to, from and through densely populated areas while iner-mingling with high-speed freight trains in signaled territory, the FRA would be wise to insist on their trains being staffed with a second crewman. Again, that’s just MY opinion. But, we all know, of course, that the FRA is a pretty impotent watch-dog agency and pretty much allows the industry it’s supposed to be policing to do whatever it wants. Think of a tail wagging a dog. Other government watchdog agencies are just as inept. The FDA is supposed to be keeping an eye on food quality, but you'll note that peanut butter can now kill you. That’s why toys coming from China still have lead paint on them. The FCC is equally asleep at the switch and that’s why TV viewers in Tucson, AZ were treated to pornography when they were trying to watch the Super Bowl.
Want more examples? Just ask!
This thread has alredy discused several serious accidents involving more than one person in the cab.
Indeed it has. And I’ve already said that two-man operation is not some magical cure-all that’s going to prevent every rail mishap between now and the end of time. I do, however, feel that it’s safer than lonesome cab operation. But, it costs more money than lonesome cab operation, and THAT, my friend, is what this is all about. It’s about keeping the accountants and bean counters happy at the expense of the traveling public and the people who live alongside the railroad tracks.
See the following - yes, I know it was not photographed at Indianapolis. [www.shorpy.com]
Remember, too, that the second man was there functioning solely in a role as a mechanic --- to keep the car moving. He wasn’t there to question the driving skills of the driver and over-ride him if necessary. Once upon a time, the GO Transit commuter operation in Toronto was so concerned about the punctuality of their trains that they had locomotive mechanics riding along to make sure the locomotive perfomed flawlessly and the schedules were maintained. No more. Now, they’ve succumed to the beancounters and those postitions have been eliminated. Yeah, who cares if the trains are late and the commuters don’t get to work? At least the bean counters are happy!
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Re "NTSB tries to sort it all out," Sept. 20
I have yet to see noted in the stories printed regarding the Metrolink crash in Chatsworth the fact that the engineer was alone running the train.
I work as a freight train conductor for a major railroad out of the terminal in Needles, Calif., traveling to San Bernardino.
On freight trains, we have an engineer and a conductor in the lead locomotive. That translates into two sets of eyes looking for signals, two minds on the lookout for potential problems.
I cannot tell you how many times over the last few years an engineer who had been distracted has asked me, "What was that last signal?"
Perhaps Metrolink should have to live by the same standards as the freight railroads. Can you imagine an airline having only one pilot on an airplane? I suppose the lives on Metrolink are not as important as those on an airline, or we few on a freight train.
Richard K. Cox
Fort Mohave, Ariz.
No need to state the obvious. Of course a major factor in such decisions is to save money.
Yeah, we both know that. The point I’m trying to make is that it appears that safety is taking a back seat to saving money.
Do your homework and present data demonstrating a solo crewmember is more dangerous.
Well, I don’t have raw data because I don’t know that any raw data has been collected on this issue. I DO know that there’s a BNSF conductor based out of Needles, CA who agrees with me. He wrote an excellent letter to the editor of the LA TIMES that was printed in their Sept. 24, 2008 edition, reproduced below. He and I both feel that it boils down to simple mathematics. Two sets of eyes and ears can absorb more “situational awareness” than one set of eyes and ears.
Look at the fact that Metrolink is scrambling to place a second set of eyes and ears on their trains in the aftermath of the Chatsworth wreck. Does’t that tell you something? There’s a message there somewhere. It appears that Metrolink begrudgingly agrees with both me and the Needles BNSF conductor, although I'm sure they would never admit that in writing.
INRD
That railroad runs solely within the state of Indiana, and that’s probably how they slipped one man crew operation under the wire. Again, I’m merely saying that, in my opinion, two sets of eyes and ears can absorb what’s happening better than one set of eyes and ears. INRD is a radically different operating model than Metrolink. INRD probably has no more than two or three trains operating on its property at any given time. Metrolink has dozens of trains operating at certain times of the day, inter-mingling with dozens of freight trains. INRD pretty much hauls coal to power plants on lightly trafficked lines. When the day comes that they’re hauling tank cars of chlorine, LPG and anhydrous ammonia to, from and through densely populated areas while iner-mingling with high-speed freight trains in signaled territory, the FRA would be wise to insist on their trains being staffed with a second crewman. Again, that’s just MY opinion. But, we all know, of course, that the FRA is a pretty impotent watch-dog agency and pretty much allows the industry it’s supposed to be policing to do whatever it wants. Think of a tail wagging a dog. Other government watchdog agencies are just as inept. The FDA is supposed to be keeping an eye on food quality, but you'll note that peanut butter can now kill you. That’s why toys coming from China still have lead paint on them. The FCC is equally asleep at the switch and that’s why TV viewers in Tucson, AZ were treated to pornography when they were trying to watch the Super Bowl.
Want more examples? Just ask!
This thread has alredy discused several serious accidents involving more than one person in the cab.
Indeed it has. And I’ve already said that two-man operation is not some magical cure-all that’s going to prevent every rail mishap between now and the end of time. I do, however, feel that it’s safer than lonesome cab operation. But, it costs more money than lonesome cab operation, and THAT, my friend, is what this is all about. It’s about keeping the accountants and bean counters happy at the expense of the traveling public and the people who live alongside the railroad tracks.
See the following - yes, I know it was not photographed at Indianapolis. [www.shorpy.com]
Remember, too, that the second man was there functioning solely in a role as a mechanic --- to keep the car moving. He wasn’t there to question the driving skills of the driver and over-ride him if necessary. Once upon a time, the GO Transit commuter operation in Toronto was so concerned about the punctuality of their trains that they had locomotive mechanics riding along to make sure the locomotive perfomed flawlessly and the schedules were maintained. No more. Now, they’ve succumed to the beancounters and those postitions have been eliminated. Yeah, who cares if the trains are late and the commuters don’t get to work? At least the bean counters are happy!
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Re "NTSB tries to sort it all out," Sept. 20
I have yet to see noted in the stories printed regarding the Metrolink crash in Chatsworth the fact that the engineer was alone running the train.
I work as a freight train conductor for a major railroad out of the terminal in Needles, Calif., traveling to San Bernardino.
On freight trains, we have an engineer and a conductor in the lead locomotive. That translates into two sets of eyes looking for signals, two minds on the lookout for potential problems.
I cannot tell you how many times over the last few years an engineer who had been distracted has asked me, "What was that last signal?"
Perhaps Metrolink should have to live by the same standards as the freight railroads. Can you imagine an airline having only one pilot on an airplane? I suppose the lives on Metrolink are not as important as those on an airline, or we few on a freight train.
Richard K. Cox
Fort Mohave, Ariz.
