General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy don't they mandate two Locomotive Engineers per train? ...
"Because that would mean having TWO people do the job of one, and that is a waste of money, silly! We'd be paying the second guy/gal, just to sit around!"
That is the, unspoken, sentiment that I am hearing ... the same mentality that has some people riling whenever they want to make some sophomorically profound anti-public works point ... i.e., "How many City workers does it take to dig a ditch? 3. One to do the digging and 2 to stand around holding shovels."
Yes, "positive train control" would/will prevent these train crashes ... until the technology breaks, as technology is known to do ... In the meantime, SPEND THE EXTRA COUPLE OF MILLION A YEAR, to save real peoples' lives.
Edited to reflect new knowledge ... Locomotive Engineers drive trains; Conductors, collect tickets.
brooklynite
(94,302 posts)jschurchin
(1,456 posts)You have never been in a locomotive running down the rails at speed, have you? Actually from such a statement, it's amazing you are able to walk and chew gum at the same time.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)And not viable. It seems too many deaths are occurring. A total revamp might be in order. Or at least see if there is truly a need for them.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)on the basis that it might be too dangerous?
as usual, wrong again. why is your record here replete with incredibly uninformed statements?
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)Just like I don't like your constant complaining about me.
My Good Babushka
(2,710 posts)if we were super careful and concerned about safety, we would have two drivers for every commercial vehicle, because an aneurysm or stroke or seizure could happen at any time. But we're not. And it is probably assumed that one of the passengers of those street vehicles would have enough familiarity with those machines to step in and take over the controls in a dire emergency. The number of passengers on a train or plane, the amount of casualties possible in a crash of those types of vehicles, the inability of a passenger to assume command of those types of machines, is what should dictate the necessity of two operators.
Javaman
(62,497 posts)and has a copilot.
a train, carries hundreds of people and travels at high speeds 9not quiet 100 miles per hour due to our antiquated train system), yet has no copilot and relies on a single person to make sure they are always awake and alert. No one checks on them.
sounds just fine to me.
in fact it sounds just like a cab, which carries a maximum of 3 passengers at speeds in midtown traffic topping 35 miles per hour and a bus driver carrying tens of people also traveling a maximum of maybe 55 mph on a freeway.
yup all modes of transportation are exactly alike and all look like a nail.
RedCappedBandit
(5,514 posts)Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)Oh wait. Nevermind.
brooklynite
(94,302 posts)Operating a plane is far more complicated than a railroad engine, and there are tasks for the First Officer to perform. The implication of the OP is that you need a second engineer primarily to look out of the window for obstacles and keep an eye on the job that the first engineer is doing.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)can never happen again!
Seriously, if there were two guys they would probably be playing cards at the time of the next crash.
Better yet would be automatic devices that would brake the train if it was coming into a dangerous section at too high a speed.
brooklynite
(94,302 posts)Amtrak doesn't have the capital funds to implement it everywhere.
Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)Everything a train might hit also operates in two dimensions. Operation in three dimensions means there's far less chance of running into something, particularly when you have people on the ground whose primary job is to keep you from running into something. In addition to the entire National Aerospace System supporting them they also have things like TCAS. Modern autopilots and flight management systems that can virtually fly the plane to it's destination and land it with very little crewmember input. Modern airliners are designed to be flown by one crewmember, the 2nd crewmember is there for redundancy, cross checking, and crew resource management, which are the same reasons why passenger trains should have two crewmembers operating the train.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)don't try to play games here.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)nice try though.
Ms. Yertle
(466 posts)have stopped the engineer from going twice the speed limit, if one couldn't?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)"Hey Joe. Slow down." Or maybe, "Jane ... Wake up!"
Ms. Yertle
(466 posts)would two have to say it in unison to make the engineer understand?
DURHAM D
(32,603 posts)Are you a lobbyist?
I don't know why you think I think this is funny. Seven people are dead, scores of others are injured, some still critical, and there is nothing funny about it.
I don't understand the question in the OP. How would having two conductors be better than one, if, as the OP has seemed to suggest, they would be responsible for telling the engineer to slow down.
DURHAM D
(32,603 posts)the question yet you are mocking it.
Ms. Yertle
(466 posts)His original question was about having two conductors. Just noticed the edit. I don't think two conductors could have done more than one.
Renew Deal
(81,844 posts)Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)Why not stuff the obnoxious comments.
Brickbat
(19,339 posts)jschurchin
(1,456 posts)Your statements are very frustrating to a person who earns his living working for one of the United States Class 1 Railroads.
Please educate your self just a little on how trains work.
Ms. Yertle
(466 posts)If two conductors would be better than one, then why not three, or five, or a dozen conductors, all shouting "Slow down!!!"
FYI, my dh used to work for a short line railroad. I asked him last night about what a conductor does, and he explained. Sounds like they have a real responsibility.
jschurchin
(1,456 posts)Not my Job to educate you. All the information is available on the web. Don't be so lazy. Go discover the information for your self and make a educated decision. Don't allow others to make your decision for you. Limbaugh fan's do that.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)The people who drive the train are Locomotive Engineers. Conductors collect tickets. I don't think adding a second ticket collector would improve safety one bit.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)PotatoChip
(3,186 posts)While I realize that we are talking about a passenger service in this instance, it's still good to point out that freight conductors do other things, such as switching and generally keeping an eye out for possible issues, including unsafe track conditions and potentially even unsafe speed on the part of the engineer.
Eta: The point I'm making is that having both a conductor (and his input) along w/an engineer (which is the OP's bottom line point) on a passenger train would be a good thing.
CTyankee
(63,883 posts)I thought all trains had one in case of the train operator's sudden death or other incapacity.
PotatoChip
(3,186 posts)I can't seem to copy/paste, but wikipedia says that it is some type of alerter system that they began using in 1995 for both freight and passenger trains. It apparently puts the brake into a 'penalty brake application' if the engineer does not acknowledge an alert by turning it off.
My knowledge of this sort of thing is obviously limited, but from what I gather, it doesn't actually do any switching, just (more or less) keeps the engineer alert. (Someone please correct me if I am wrong)...
Mr PotatoChip is the railroad guy in our family (freight only), and is not here to ask.
Brickbat
(19,339 posts)progressively louder if you leave it. If you don't hit a button that turns it off, the alerter assumes your dead and shoots the brakes.
Imagine having something shriek at you every minute of your work day. For safety!
PotatoChip
(3,186 posts)But still a good thing, as you rightly point out.
Thanks for the info.
Brickbat
(19,339 posts)I think it's bullshit to have an alerter shrieking at the engineer every minute, myself.
PotatoChip
(3,186 posts)Do you think the 1995 alert requirement has anything to do with these companies trying to get away with no conductor in the cab? Iow, using it to replace the conductor's input so that they can save a few bucks?
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)ellenrr
(3,864 posts)listen to Democracy now this morning.
excellent segment on "WHY"
Augiedog
(2,543 posts)The republican congress just removed all doubt about where their true alliance is. When they voted to cut funding for Amtrack in the shadow of the latest fatal crash, the blood hadn't even dried on the tracks, and they still would rather give tax breaks to the rich than save even one human life. The Republican Party has become the party of death and mass abortion. The despicable, evil and rapacious nature of republican philosophy is exposed by their actions day after disgusting day of their existence. A vote for a republican candidate is like voting to send yourself to hell.
Phentex
(16,330 posts)and people don't care until something like this happens.
appalachiablue
(41,102 posts)DURHAM D
(32,603 posts)also on Lawrence O'D last night and he said that freight trains have two engineers in the cab. He referred to the cab as an island of one on passenger trains.
He also stated last night that there are all sorts of warning messages/lights/indicators and the engineer would have been actively turning them off instead of properly reacting to them and he does not understand why the NTSB is not talking about it.
Ms. Yertle
(466 posts)kind of like the German pilot?
jschurchin
(1,456 posts)Remember Freight trains carry commerce, they have nothing to do with carrying people. The reason is, Engineers job is to operate the locomotive, he IS NOT in CHARGE of the train. The Conductor is IN CHARGE of the train.
This is also the same for Passenger trains, however, the Conductor does indeed ride in the Passenger Cars to, among other things, collect tickets.
I believe the real question we need to ask our Congressmen and Senators is, if we believe Freight is so important that we need 2 people in the Cab of the Locomotive, how is it we don't consider people so important to have 2 people in the cab?
I'm not saying it still would have not occurred, however, we absolutely know what the result is with a single person in the cab.
Brickbat
(19,339 posts)jschurchin
(1,456 posts)Guess that's why if your in our industry, we are working very diligently to try and make them understand what a horrible idea this is. Hopefully the Congress and Senate is paying attention to how bad a idea single operators is.
Brickbat
(19,339 posts)Ms. Yertle
(466 posts)is that freight is unlikely to cause a problem or a disturbance, like human passengers could. Maybe the conductor rides with the passengers in order to take care of any potential problems.
I don't really know--just throwin' in out there.
Response to Ms. Yertle (Reply #29)
jschurchin This message was self-deleted by its author.
jschurchin
(1,456 posts)Oh yea?? Remember this??
Renew Deal
(81,844 posts)Some behavior I've seen on trains and mostly the NYC subway:
Vomiting
Fights
Arguments
Urinating and possibly more than that
Medical issues
Smoke conditions
Malfunction
Doors jammed
No AC on hot days
Bathroom overflows
And then there's the stuff I've seen on video or heard about.
People jumping on tracks
People pushing people on tracks
Cars on tracks
Sex
Violence using weapons
Groping
Freight trains don't have to deal with almost any of the above issues
jschurchin
(1,456 posts)CBGLuthier
(12,723 posts)They run the train. Just want to clarify that.
Of course years ago there were two men in the cab. The engineer and the fireman. Not much call for the fireman nowadays.
There used to also be brakemen in the caboose but tech removed that need years ago too.
I don't really think it makes sense to spend millions and train extra men just too stop the really rare occurrence of train crashes.
Personally I think some day technology will replace the engineer altogether and airline pilots too. So many of these things are nothing more or less than human error.
Renew Deal
(81,844 posts)It is computer operated, though each train has a camera and I believe it is remotely operable. The trains are 2 small cars long. It is a smooth ride on new and not very long tracks. I don't know of this would be possible for very long distances over sometimes unpredictable terrain (because of weather and human interference).
1939
(1,683 posts)In days of yore, the train crew consisted of the conductor and two brakemen. The engine crew consisted of the engineer and the fireman. One of the brakeman (the head brakeman) rode in the cab with the engineer and fireman so that he could throw switches or flag to the front of the train. The rear brakeman and the conductor rode in the caboose and handled switching and flagging to the rear of the train. The conductor was responsible for all of the paperwork regarding the freight cars making up the train. The train crews and the engine crews were assigned separately.
The fireman was busy stoking, so the head brakeman acted as the "co-pilot" and the engineer would call the signal ahead (green, yellow, or red) and the head brakeman would parrot the call to assure that the engineer wasn't mistaken.
Sensors and radio communications have eliminated the cabooses (cabeese?) and reduced freight crews to two people (engineer and conductor) who both ride in the cab.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)It could be two or it could be oneand some may even argue none, eventually, as technology advances. There is no correct response to this vexatious question because the answer depends onand they are not necessarily mutually exclusivethe success of Positive Train Control (PTC) technology, congressional whim, a regulatory edict, collective bargaining, and even federal court oversight.
Currently, collective bargaining agreements between the major railroads and their two operating unionsthe Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET) and the United Transportation Union (UTU)require that a conductor and engineer operate all trains traversing main line track.
In fact, the UTU has in place, separately on each major railroad, a contract provision mandating a conductor be aboard every main line freight train, and the provision provides for a moratorium on reopening that provision for negotiation until the last conductor affected by that provision retiresand that could be many years in the future.
An attempt by the major railroads in 2004 to negotiate, in national handling, an industry reduction in crew-consist to engineer-only was halted by a federal court in 2006the court ruling the matter of crew consist historically has been negotiated railroad-by-railroad, and because of the moratorium, the matter is not appropriate for national handling.
Trains are more similar to aircraft and large ships than a truck on the highway.
DURHAM D
(32,603 posts)mandating a conductor be aboard every main line freight train
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)DURHAM D
(32,603 posts)Please see my comment #11 above.
The friggin' title doesn't matter. What matters is having two people in the cab.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)What was surprising, though, was that the FRA said it may apply the same rules to passenger trains, both intercity (like Amtrak) and commuter (like Caltrain in Silicon Valley or the Long Island Rail Road in New York). We believe that safety is enhanced with the use of a multiple person crew, FRA Administrator Joseph Szabo said in a press release, even though a number of working groups established to examine the issue did not come to a consensus.
Downwinder
(12,869 posts)Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)Back in those days, freight trains had two people in the cab & a brakeman in the caboose, and the railroads were battling the unions to reduce the number of personnel on the train. The unions argued safety, and the RR magnates argued cost. There was quite a public campaign to portray the union contracts that required three on the train as "featherbedding." It's pretty easy to tell who won. Next time you see a freight train, look for the caboose.
eppur_se_muova
(36,247 posts)Vinca
(50,236 posts)ladjf
(17,320 posts)brachism
(82 posts)Although Im sure some others have suggested this theory, so far I havent seen it. Perhaps the train engineer was suffering from a psychological issue and acted in a similar fashion to the Germanwings pilot; the one who supposedly did a deliberate control descent into terrain (mountain) earlier this year. A two person flight crew didnt prevent that event.
I surmise a train engineer at the controls wouldnt have that many options to commit a mass homicide/suicide event. He/she could either (1) crash into another train or (2) force the train to derail, ideally at a high rate of speed. As for the latter it seems the easiest method to ensure maximum carnage would be to max out the train speed prior to a slow curve.
That said, the engineer could have simply suffered a medical condition. Perhaps something similar to a truck driver having a seizure with his foot on the accelerator. Another more reasonable explanation would be mechanical failure.
Two engineers is probably a good idea; but wouldnt for example necessarily stop a suicidal/homicidal person from being successful.
Just my 2 cents.