 |
If You're Gonna Preach Safety, Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is
Author: Holly Gibson
Date: 02-14-2009 - 22:39
Earl Pitts' comments in italics
You might have a little more credibility if you accounted for the millions and even billions of safe, incident-free train-miles or passenger-miles that have been and continue to be operated with single-man crew up front.
Well, with that logic, I guess there's no reason why we shouldn't start operating all commercial aircraft with just one person up in the cockpit. After all, if it works for the railroads, it should work for the airlines. Right?
And, most importantly, think how much money the airlines will save in labor costs! And those savings will, no doubt, be passed along to us consumers in the form of lower air fares. Just like how the cost of my Ford and Chevy radically nose-dived after those companies moved their manufacturing plants to Mexico!
You might also realize that having 2 or 3 or even 4 people in the cab does not guarantee that there will be no incidents.
As if having one person in the cab does?
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Two people in the cab is not a miraculous cure-all that will prevent all rail mishaps between now and the end of time. However, I feel, like the BNSF conductor in Needles, CA, that two sets of eyes and ears can absorb more "situational awareness" than one set. It's a case of simple mathematics.
History is replete with rear-enders, head-ons, sideswipes, run-through switches, violations of train orders, overlooked meets, and other mayhem committed despite 2 or 3 or 4 people being in the cab and supposedly alert and attentive.
So you're saying it's better, for the bottom line at least, to have just one person up in the cab while all that mayhem will continue to occur?
BART just has a collision that's supposed to be 100 per cent computerized and automated. What happened there? I thought computers never made mistakes.
One man operation dates back to the old camelback steam engines. The engineer was alone in the cab while the fireman was busy shoveling coal back on the deck of the tender.
No matter what you do or what device is installed, there are still going to be occasional incidents and accidents. Unless you shut down everything that moves, it's going to happen.
Well, some operations have better safety records than others. A lot of it has to do with the quality of management oversight. Metrolink's habit of sub-contracting everything out and continually shopping around for the lowest bidder hasn't helped matters. You get what you pay for in this world. Somebody needs to convey that to them.
The infrequency with which it occurs is a testament to the vigilence of those "cheap" railroads and the overwhelming majority of railroad employees who are out there every day and night doing their jobs.
I'm basically trying to make three points here:
(1.) Two men in the cab of a locomotive will not guarantee perfect safety for all eternity. I feel, however, that two sets of eyes and ears up there are better than one. Since Chatsworth, Metrolink must feel the same way now that they're scrambling to put a second person up there.
(2.) The ENTIRE reason for lonesome cab is to save on labor costs and, in my opinion, because of that, saving money has become a higher priority than safety.
(3.) If the railroads want to preach that they're safety-conscious, and if they want us to believe it, perhaps they should follow in Metrolink's footsteps and place a second man on the head end. Put your money where your mouth is, guys.
You might have a little more credibility if you accounted for the millions and even billions of safe, incident-free train-miles or passenger-miles that have been and continue to be operated with single-man crew up front.
Well, with that logic, I guess there's no reason why we shouldn't start operating all commercial aircraft with just one person up in the cockpit. After all, if it works for the railroads, it should work for the airlines. Right?
And, most importantly, think how much money the airlines will save in labor costs! And those savings will, no doubt, be passed along to us consumers in the form of lower air fares. Just like how the cost of my Ford and Chevy radically nose-dived after those companies moved their manufacturing plants to Mexico!
You might also realize that having 2 or 3 or even 4 people in the cab does not guarantee that there will be no incidents.
As if having one person in the cab does?
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Two people in the cab is not a miraculous cure-all that will prevent all rail mishaps between now and the end of time. However, I feel, like the BNSF conductor in Needles, CA, that two sets of eyes and ears can absorb more "situational awareness" than one set. It's a case of simple mathematics.
History is replete with rear-enders, head-ons, sideswipes, run-through switches, violations of train orders, overlooked meets, and other mayhem committed despite 2 or 3 or 4 people being in the cab and supposedly alert and attentive.
So you're saying it's better, for the bottom line at least, to have just one person up in the cab while all that mayhem will continue to occur?
BART just has a collision that's supposed to be 100 per cent computerized and automated. What happened there? I thought computers never made mistakes.
One man operation dates back to the old camelback steam engines. The engineer was alone in the cab while the fireman was busy shoveling coal back on the deck of the tender.
No matter what you do or what device is installed, there are still going to be occasional incidents and accidents. Unless you shut down everything that moves, it's going to happen.
Well, some operations have better safety records than others. A lot of it has to do with the quality of management oversight. Metrolink's habit of sub-contracting everything out and continually shopping around for the lowest bidder hasn't helped matters. You get what you pay for in this world. Somebody needs to convey that to them.
The infrequency with which it occurs is a testament to the vigilence of those "cheap" railroads and the overwhelming majority of railroad employees who are out there every day and night doing their jobs.
I'm basically trying to make three points here:
(1.) Two men in the cab of a locomotive will not guarantee perfect safety for all eternity. I feel, however, that two sets of eyes and ears up there are better than one. Since Chatsworth, Metrolink must feel the same way now that they're scrambling to put a second person up there.
(2.) The ENTIRE reason for lonesome cab is to save on labor costs and, in my opinion, because of that, saving money has become a higher priority than safety.
(3.) If the railroads want to preach that they're safety-conscious, and if they want us to believe it, perhaps they should follow in Metrolink's footsteps and place a second man on the head end. Put your money where your mouth is, guys.
