 |
Responding To The Response
Author: Holly Gibson
Date: 02-24-2009 - 05:08
Earlier comments by Holly Gibson in boldface
Comments by OPRRMS in italics
More recent responses by Holly Gibson in normal font
I would say that the chances of this wreck being prevented would have been MUCH, MUCH better if a second set of eyes and ears had been on the head end observing what signal was displayed at CP Topanga.
You're certainly entitled to your opinion. As I mentioned before, if you can provide some data to support your theory, I'd be more than happy to read it. The fact is, though, every day hundreds of passenger trains are successfully operated in this country with only a single person in the cab.
Is the glass half empty or half full? You tout that "every day hundreds of passenger trains are successfully operated in this country with only a single person in the cab." While that may be true, my question is, how many collisions and mishaps that have occurred (such as the ones at Secaucus, NJ and Chatsworth, CA) may have been avoided had their been two people in the cab?
Metrolink's management (or legal department) apparently is on the same page as I am on this issue.
So how come neither the federal or state government, nor the politicos, have made any effort to prohibit the use one-person-in-the-cab operation?
Because they've been heavily lobbied and influenced by the railroad industry. I'm sure it wasn't lost on you that both BNSF and UP ran special VIP trains to both the Republican and Democratic conventions -- the main purpose of which was to lobby lawmakers. The railroad industry ranks right near the top of the list of industries that rely on intense lobbying efforts.
How else would you explain their scrambling to place a second person in the cabs of their trains since the Chatsworth wreck?
Simple: It's a knee-jerk reaction.
True. But what's the message -- either direct or implied? My reading of it is that they are recognizing, albeit begrudgingly, that there is a legitimate purpose for having a second person on the head-end. They're trying to reassure their riders that their trains are being safely operated. And to do that, it has required them placing a second person up there.
I would submit that a better question is, would the collision still have happened if the cab car had been equipped with Cab Signals?
I think that's a fair question. Personally, I think cab signals may have made all the difference. With cab signals, the engineer can glance up on the control console at any time and see what type of signal he's running on. That's a definite advantage.
OK. Then why hasn't the government required it? After all Cab Signals are a tried-and-true application that's available now, and is much more reliable than a GPS based system.
Because the government has been intensely lobbied by the railroad industry. Cab signals cost money. The railroads don't want to spend lots of money on cab signals. It's a lot cheaper to make a $250,000 campaign contribution to an influential politician when, down the road, his "good ol' boy" legislation will save you millions.
Ray Kroc, of McDonalds, pulled this same crap in 1972:
[McDonalds] was also criticized for its extensive use of part-time teenaged help, and especially for the $200,000 which Kroc donated to Richard Nixon’s re-election campaign, since the administration soon after recommended amending the minimum wage law to provide for a “youth differential.” This would have allowed employers to hire teenagers at 80 percent of the minimum wage.
SOURCE:
[blog.worldsgreatesthamburgers.com]
See how it works? McDonalds and the Railroad Industry understands how it works.
Well, we seem to be re-hashing the same arguments here over and over.
Yup. But now that the thread's about to drop to the third page, fewer and fewer people will read it.
>snip<
Likewise, I've never seen any data that shows collisions are more frequent in "lonesome cab" situations, but if you have something to that effect I'd be pleased to read it.
I'm not sure if such documentation has been collected. I DO know this: If we asked representatives from the UTU or the BLE, they would have a certain type of data, and if we asked representatives from the railroads or the Association of American Railroads, they would have entirely different data.
Well, the FRA collected data and issued a report regarding Cab Car operation. Do you feel their conclusions were correct?
If anything, I feel their conclusions were biased and bought-and-paid-for by the railroad industry. Recall what I said earlier about the FRA being involved in a much-too-cozy relationship with the industry that it's supposed to be policing. Remember the former head of the FRA named Betty Munro who was caught vacationing on several occasions with a lobbyist from U.P.? Gosh! I wonder if that might be a conflict-of-interest?
An excerpt from a Feb. 10 NEW YORK TIMES article:
Citing a series of serious accidents in recent months, the Transportation Department's inspector general said he was concerned that the Federal Railroad Administration's approach to regulation, which stresses "partnership" over punishment, might be failing to fix the most persistent safety problems. He asked the agency to prepare a comprehensive plan to improve its inspection of railroads and enforcement of federal safety rules.
The report also criticized the railroad agency's former acting chief, Betty Monro, saying she had failed to recognize the ethical problem of vacationing on four occasions with a Union Pacific lobbyist.
The inspector general, Kenneth M. Mead, said in the report, dated Dec. 10 and obtained through the federal Freedom of Information Act, that it was wrong for Ms. Monro to have shared a house on Nantucket, Mass., with the Union Pacific lobbyist "at the same time the agency you represent is, among other things, proposing and settling millions of dollars in fines against that railroad."
Talk about being "in bed" with the industry that she's supposed to be keeping an eye on! I think the U.P. lobbyist is/was a female. Maybe they literally were in bed in that cozy little cottage on Nantucket. I wonder what her position is on gay marriage...
There once was a lobbyist from Nantucket;
With payoffs big enough for a bucket;
She said with a smirk to her good friend, a jerk;
"'Til my railroad is fluid I'll truck it!"
No doubt about it. We have the best government that money can buy.
Here's another little riddle, from the viewpoint of the female UP lobbyist . . .
I "bedded" Monro for a reason
So FRA fines she'd be easin'
She came with a shivver
I said, "We Deliver"
(A slogan that's always in season.)
So, who do you believe?
I tend to believe 10% of what I read and 50% of what I see.
I think you and I may have some common ground here!
Are you a "union man" or are you a "management man"?
Fair question. Glad you asked it.
I was a local UTU-E officer from 1972 til 1999, when I finally got fed up, resigned my positions, and joined the BLE. I also "retired" from active union participation at that time.
Did the unions do something that turned you off? Union leadership is only as good as its members who are willing to step up to the plate and lead. Sounds lie you carried the torch for awhile and then became disappointed with carrying the torch.
Three or four times between 1973 and the early Nineties I was offered low-level management positions with Southern Pacific, but declined. In late 1986 I was offered a low-level management position in Amtrak's Zone 12, but also declined. And last but not least, over the years I've been offered operating or low-level management positions with several shortlines and one reginal heavy rail authority, and also declined those.
Those railroad managements must have "pigeon-holed" you as a "management man", lest you wouldn't have had all those offers to join their little "club". Years ago, I noticed at a major western railroadd that the fastest way to be invited into management and work your way up through the ranks was for "them" (management) to make a determination that you were "anti-union" and were willing to cross picket lines. A willingness to cross a picket line pretty much assured an invitation to join their management. YUCK! POOIE!
Comments by OPRRMS in italics
More recent responses by Holly Gibson in normal font
I would say that the chances of this wreck being prevented would have been MUCH, MUCH better if a second set of eyes and ears had been on the head end observing what signal was displayed at CP Topanga.
You're certainly entitled to your opinion. As I mentioned before, if you can provide some data to support your theory, I'd be more than happy to read it. The fact is, though, every day hundreds of passenger trains are successfully operated in this country with only a single person in the cab.
Is the glass half empty or half full? You tout that "every day hundreds of passenger trains are successfully operated in this country with only a single person in the cab." While that may be true, my question is, how many collisions and mishaps that have occurred (such as the ones at Secaucus, NJ and Chatsworth, CA) may have been avoided had their been two people in the cab?
Metrolink's management (or legal department) apparently is on the same page as I am on this issue.
So how come neither the federal or state government, nor the politicos, have made any effort to prohibit the use one-person-in-the-cab operation?
Because they've been heavily lobbied and influenced by the railroad industry. I'm sure it wasn't lost on you that both BNSF and UP ran special VIP trains to both the Republican and Democratic conventions -- the main purpose of which was to lobby lawmakers. The railroad industry ranks right near the top of the list of industries that rely on intense lobbying efforts.
How else would you explain their scrambling to place a second person in the cabs of their trains since the Chatsworth wreck?
Simple: It's a knee-jerk reaction.
True. But what's the message -- either direct or implied? My reading of it is that they are recognizing, albeit begrudgingly, that there is a legitimate purpose for having a second person on the head-end. They're trying to reassure their riders that their trains are being safely operated. And to do that, it has required them placing a second person up there.
I would submit that a better question is, would the collision still have happened if the cab car had been equipped with Cab Signals?
I think that's a fair question. Personally, I think cab signals may have made all the difference. With cab signals, the engineer can glance up on the control console at any time and see what type of signal he's running on. That's a definite advantage.
OK. Then why hasn't the government required it? After all Cab Signals are a tried-and-true application that's available now, and is much more reliable than a GPS based system.
Because the government has been intensely lobbied by the railroad industry. Cab signals cost money. The railroads don't want to spend lots of money on cab signals. It's a lot cheaper to make a $250,000 campaign contribution to an influential politician when, down the road, his "good ol' boy" legislation will save you millions.
Ray Kroc, of McDonalds, pulled this same crap in 1972:
[McDonalds] was also criticized for its extensive use of part-time teenaged help, and especially for the $200,000 which Kroc donated to Richard Nixon’s re-election campaign, since the administration soon after recommended amending the minimum wage law to provide for a “youth differential.” This would have allowed employers to hire teenagers at 80 percent of the minimum wage.
SOURCE:
[blog.worldsgreatesthamburgers.com]
See how it works? McDonalds and the Railroad Industry understands how it works.
Well, we seem to be re-hashing the same arguments here over and over.
Yup. But now that the thread's about to drop to the third page, fewer and fewer people will read it.
>snip<
Likewise, I've never seen any data that shows collisions are more frequent in "lonesome cab" situations, but if you have something to that effect I'd be pleased to read it.
I'm not sure if such documentation has been collected. I DO know this: If we asked representatives from the UTU or the BLE, they would have a certain type of data, and if we asked representatives from the railroads or the Association of American Railroads, they would have entirely different data.
Well, the FRA collected data and issued a report regarding Cab Car operation. Do you feel their conclusions were correct?
If anything, I feel their conclusions were biased and bought-and-paid-for by the railroad industry. Recall what I said earlier about the FRA being involved in a much-too-cozy relationship with the industry that it's supposed to be policing. Remember the former head of the FRA named Betty Munro who was caught vacationing on several occasions with a lobbyist from U.P.? Gosh! I wonder if that might be a conflict-of-interest?
An excerpt from a Feb. 10 NEW YORK TIMES article:
Citing a series of serious accidents in recent months, the Transportation Department's inspector general said he was concerned that the Federal Railroad Administration's approach to regulation, which stresses "partnership" over punishment, might be failing to fix the most persistent safety problems. He asked the agency to prepare a comprehensive plan to improve its inspection of railroads and enforcement of federal safety rules.
The report also criticized the railroad agency's former acting chief, Betty Monro, saying she had failed to recognize the ethical problem of vacationing on four occasions with a Union Pacific lobbyist.
The inspector general, Kenneth M. Mead, said in the report, dated Dec. 10 and obtained through the federal Freedom of Information Act, that it was wrong for Ms. Monro to have shared a house on Nantucket, Mass., with the Union Pacific lobbyist "at the same time the agency you represent is, among other things, proposing and settling millions of dollars in fines against that railroad."
Talk about being "in bed" with the industry that she's supposed to be keeping an eye on! I think the U.P. lobbyist is/was a female. Maybe they literally were in bed in that cozy little cottage on Nantucket. I wonder what her position is on gay marriage...
There once was a lobbyist from Nantucket;
With payoffs big enough for a bucket;
She said with a smirk to her good friend, a jerk;
"'Til my railroad is fluid I'll truck it!"
No doubt about it. We have the best government that money can buy.
Here's another little riddle, from the viewpoint of the female UP lobbyist . . .
I "bedded" Monro for a reason
So FRA fines she'd be easin'
She came with a shivver
I said, "We Deliver"
(A slogan that's always in season.)
So, who do you believe?
I tend to believe 10% of what I read and 50% of what I see.
I think you and I may have some common ground here!
Are you a "union man" or are you a "management man"?
Fair question. Glad you asked it.
I was a local UTU-E officer from 1972 til 1999, when I finally got fed up, resigned my positions, and joined the BLE. I also "retired" from active union participation at that time.
Did the unions do something that turned you off? Union leadership is only as good as its members who are willing to step up to the plate and lead. Sounds lie you carried the torch for awhile and then became disappointed with carrying the torch.
Three or four times between 1973 and the early Nineties I was offered low-level management positions with Southern Pacific, but declined. In late 1986 I was offered a low-level management position in Amtrak's Zone 12, but also declined. And last but not least, over the years I've been offered operating or low-level management positions with several shortlines and one reginal heavy rail authority, and also declined those.
Those railroad managements must have "pigeon-holed" you as a "management man", lest you wouldn't have had all those offers to join their little "club". Years ago, I noticed at a major western railroadd that the fastest way to be invited into management and work your way up through the ranks was for "them" (management) to make a determination that you were "anti-union" and were willing to cross picket lines. A willingness to cross a picket line pretty much assured an invitation to join their management. YUCK! POOIE!
