Running a short train is much different than running a long train. I've gotten in surprised a couple times (but nothing dangerous). If you have 8,000+ tons of freight train moving at 40+, you are aware that you have a big train and bad things can happen if you don't pay attention. Unfortunately, our human nature makes most of us more relaxed at lower speeds or smaller trains. The basic physics of air brakes are simple, assuming you have the same tons per oeprative brake, and the dynamic brake per trailing ton, it takes just as long to stop a short train as a heavy train.

Modern commuter operations put a huge amount of reliance on the skill and an unfaltering judgement of the engineer. Almost all these oeprations are engineer only, and even though the conductor is jointly responsible for the train - in reality the conductor isn't physically able to do much to "assist" the engineer in the observation of many of the rules. Commuter engineer's are under pressure to keep the schedule, so most of them tend to run on the edge. The railroad industry has also become too reliant on complicated systems. Even though a passenger train has about twice the braking ratio of an empty freight train, and about four times that of a loaded freight train - if you are running at those speeds any "hiccup" in the blended dynamics or loss of adhesion and you will overshoot your stop.

As far as PTC - every issue of authority violation for the last million NTSB reports (OK - I exaggerated) insists that the accident would have been prevented by a form of PTC. The interesting thing is that part of the argument for PTC is that it will improve capacity by allowing trains to run closer together without regard to fixed blocks. The funny thing is, they use a similiar argument for the digital brakes, yet it is the private car owners that will pay the most and they get no direct benefit. If PTC is supposed to be so valuable, wouldn't the railroads have alreasy invested in it?

Reality is that trains will collide and good employees will get hurt (or worse). The only acceptable rate is zero, and I don't think that a "big brother" electronic system will end all collisions. The more complicated a system is, the more likely it is to fail - either by its design, in use failure, or maintenance error. My prediction - the railroads will use PTC to justify engineer only trains, especially where there is road access paralleling the tracks. I'm sure sooner or later most high volume mainlines will run in an automatic mode, with the "engineer" there to push a big red stop button if anything goes wrong.

Has anybody really considered the "big" picture regarding train crews? Most Class 1 railroads are under the national agreement (except Soo/CP, Amtrak and ?). When they started cutting the caboose and flagmen/brakemen, the basic agreement was that any brakeman or conductor working before 1985 was grandfathered in. Soo Line even had this agreement - I had less than 90 days seniority working as a temp conductor and my switchman had 30 years. Since 1985, all new hires must be qualified as a conductor, which means they no longer get several years experience as a switchman or a brakemen first before assuming the responsibility as a conductor. Just as they start to get experienced as a conductor, they can be force assigned as an engineer. After a few months of school and OJT, they are thrown into the engineer's job. Since most grandfathered conductors now have 27+ years in - it won't be long before there will not be any conductor with more than a few years seniority (and don't forget they may be working as an RCO).

Is "our" government so dumb to believe that more regulations, technology and simulators can replace pure skill and experience? I guess if you look at the national debt and how they are handling it, the question is answered.

Does anyone else think future railroading is looking real scary?