Re: The Issue That Was NOT Addressed
Author: Holly Gibson
Date: 02-27-2010 - 07:55

Quote:
Since neither one of us was there to confirm the Rialto situation, I'll switch to the subject of freight crews. I'd like to see statistics comparing the accident rate to crew member count. I might change my position after seeing the data.

I don't know if those statistics have been compiled. But, you know what they say: There are lies, damn lies and statistics. Look at the hot button issues of our day (universal healthcare, illegal immigration, to name two) and the misleading statistics that the pro and anti people have thrown at us. I don't necessarily put a lot of value in statistics, especially if they're coming from a trade organization, political action committee or corporation that wants to resist change. There's an awful lot of misleading and downright false statistics floating around out there.

Quote:
A second crewmember doesn't always equal a second set of eyes. I suspect you're aware that two engineers working nights or split shifts sometimes results in one guy running the train and the other guy taking a nap.

Yeah, and that's not good. That kinda defeats the intent of having a second set of eyes and ears observing things. But, at least with the second person up there, s/he can take over if the one who's running is becoming exhausted or fatigued. "Lonesome cab" doesn't offer that luxury.

Quote:
What I'm saying is having a second guy might be totally useless. If the engineer knows there is another engineer to bail him or her out, they're less likely to come to work fully rested or fully focused. In these scenarios I think it amounts to 1 + 1 = 1.

What's to guarantee that an engineer is going to come to work fully rested or fully focused under "lonesome cab" conditions?

Quote:
Sanchez wasn't a complete loner as you pointed out. I think the moral of the story is that most Metrolink engineers are forced to be loners 5 days a week straight. Therefore, it shouldn't be surprising they reach for their phones while at work, an act rooted in desperation, IMHO.

Yep, and with the stricter new rules prohibiting cell phone use in effect, it will, unfortunately, probably translate into a situation where they'll be using their cellphones a lot more when they're on their mid-day breaks at the hotel --- time when they should be sleeping.

Quote:
I'm really disappointed the NTSB overlooked their 85 hour work week, out of which 60 hours (at least) Sanchez was all by himself.

I'm sure they know its a problem, just as the FRA knows it's a problem, just as the railroad industry knows its a problem. But nobody wants to do anything about it because it will cost money. And it's not limited to just railroading. Airline pilots have the same problem. Pity the poor intern who's accumulating his hours to become a doctor.

Quote:
This is government and government loves to hire people. So it shouldn't be a problem to hire additional crews for the morning and evening commutes.

No, this is the world of sub-contracting. Metrolink loves to sub-contract everything to keep their costs down and, most importantly, to allow them to shirk responsibility and liability when things go wrong. The airlines do the same thing. That "Continental Express" plane that crashed outside of Buffalo, NY was actually operated by sub-contractor Colgan Air. The surviving relatives will only be able to sue Colgan Air / Pinnacle Airlines. Continental Airlines is shielded from liability. How convenient. Go on the PBS - FRONTLINE website and watch their episode called "Flying Cheap." VERY similar to the Metrolink arrangement. Sub-contractors such as Amtrak, Connex-Veolia (T&E operating crews), Bombardier (maintenance), MassElectric (signals) and others all have to keep their costs down or else some other sub-contractor will under-bid them when the contract comes up for renewal.

If Metrolink ever wants to get serious about solving some of their ingrained problems, they can start by weaning themselves off this sub-contracting addiction.

Quote:
Eliminating the overtime, layover, and hotel expenses would offset the costs of hiring more people.

I'm not so sure about that. I'm sure the bean counters have crunched all the numbers. Rest assured that they've selected the cheapest option.

Quote:
Besides, it's a drop in the bucket compared to the money Metrolink wastes. Train crews constitute 10% of SCRRA expenses.

Well, if they were to shell out additional money for more T&E employees, it might translate into less money that could be channeled toward assisting David Solow in paying off his home mortgage. You ARE aware that he receives financial aid in that regard, aren't you? It was part of the "package deal" he negotiated. It also seems like they re-do their company vehicle fleet every year or so. Remember, too, that Metrolink doesn't have to worry about all these details. That's the sub-contractor's problem to solve.

Quote:
I frankly don't understand the SCRRA folks that cling to these ridiculous schedules for the money. I ask myself what's the point of earning that cash for a luxury car or house, when you're never around to enjoy them?

People immersing themselves in their work is the American way. Everybody wants to "keep up with the Jones's" and everyone wants to have a boat, three or four jet skis, flat screen TVs, private schools for their kids, time-share condos, you name it. Plus, as screwed up as their lives are, the people with regularly-assigned jobs still get two days off per week. That's when they rest up and/or play with their toys.

Quote:
How is this any different than working TWO full-time jobs? Alas, they don't see it that way. That's what happens when you love the green in your wallet. Pretty soon, those red signals begin to look green too.

Europeans look on in shocked amazement at us Americans and the amount of hours we enslave ourselves to our employers. I think only the Japanese or Chinese are more intense work-a-holics than we are. If you or I were to push for as much leisure time as, say, a Frenchman or a German, next thing you know, we'd be labeled Socialists and we'd start demanding universal healthcare. Oh GAWD! Heaven help is if THAT were to ever happen!



Subject Written By Date/Time (PST)
  NTSB Chatsworth report now posted [link] OPRRMS 02-23-2010 - 10:34
  Re: NTSB Chatsworth report now posted [link] Mongo 02-23-2010 - 16:53
  Re: NTSB Chatsworth report now posted [link] Jeff 02-23-2010 - 18:46
  Re: NTSB Chatsworth report now posted [link] Ray Eiser 02-23-2010 - 20:01
  Re: NTSB Chatsworth report now posted [link] Mongo 02-23-2010 - 20:46
  Re: NTSB Chatsworth report now posted [link] Jeff 02-23-2010 - 23:44
  The Issue That Was NOT Addressed Holly Gibson 02-24-2010 - 17:09
  Re: The Issue That Was NOT Addressed Mark 02-24-2010 - 20:58
  Re: The Issue That Was NOT Addressed Holly Gibson 02-24-2010 - 21:45
  Re: The Issue That Was NOT Addressed Mark 02-25-2010 - 00:56
  Re: The Issue That Was NOT Addressed Holly Gibson 02-25-2010 - 16:13
  Re: The Issue That Was NOT Addressed Mark 02-25-2010 - 20:32
  Re: The Issue That Was NOT Addressed Curt 02-26-2010 - 17:37
  Re: The Issue That Was NOT Addressed Holly Gibson 02-27-2010 - 07:55
  Re: The Issue That Was NOT Addressed Michael Mahoney 02-27-2010 - 17:26
  Re: NTSB Chatsworth report now posted [link] Dan White 02-24-2010 - 17:41
  Re: NTSB Chatsworth report now posted [link] George Andrews 02-24-2010 - 19:18
  Re: NTSB Chatsworth report now posted [link] Mongo 02-24-2010 - 20:07
  Re: NTSB Chatsworth report now posted [link] Unk Diego 02-24-2010 - 21:36
  Re: NTSB Chatsworth report now posted [link] Dan White 02-24-2010 - 21:52
  Re: NTSB Chatsworth report now posted [link] Unk Diego 02-24-2010 - 22:22
  Re: NTSB Chatsworth report now posted [link] George Andrews 02-25-2010 - 06:42
  Re: NTSB Chatsworth report now posted [link] Dan White 02-25-2010 - 11:47
  Re: NTSB Chatsworth report now posted [link] Mongo 02-25-2010 - 19:05
  Re: NTSB Chatsworth report now posted [link] OPRRMS 02-25-2010 - 19:35
  Re: NTSB Chatsworth report now posted [link] Mongo 02-25-2010 - 20:39
  Re: NTSB Chatsworth report now posted [link] ron 02-26-2010 - 14:15
  Re: NTSB Chatsworth report now posted [link] Dan White 02-25-2010 - 10:51
  Re: NTSB Chatsworth report now posted [link] Unk Diego 02-25-2010 - 15:48
  Re: NTSB Chatsworth report now posted [link] Dan White 02-25-2010 - 17:01
  Re: NTSB Chatsworth report now posted [link] Q 02-25-2010 - 22:45
  Re: NTSB Chatsworth report now posted [link] Karl 02-26-2010 - 09:06
  Re: NTSB Chatsworth report now posted [link] Dan White 02-27-2010 - 08:11
  Re: NTSB Chatsworth report now posted [link] Leonard Slye 02-27-2010 - 11:53
  Re: NTSB Chatsworth report now posted [link] Dan White 02-27-2010 - 17:00
  Re: NTSB Chatsworth report now posted [link] Leonard Slye 02-28-2010 - 19:44
  Re: NTSB Chatsworth report now posted [link] Dan White 03-04-2010 - 18:23


Go to: Message ListSearch
Subject: 
Your Name: 
Spam prevention:
Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically.
 **     **   *******   **    **  **     **  **     ** 
 **     **  **     **  **   **    **   **    **   **  
 **     **         **  **  **      ** **      ** **   
 **     **   *******   *****        ***        ***    
 **     **         **  **  **      ** **      ** **   
 **     **  **     **  **   **    **   **    **   **  
  *******    *******   **    **  **     **  **     ** 
This message board is maintained by:Altamont Press
You can send us an email at altamontpress1@gmail.com