....a-a-a-a-an-d...the number one reason to avoid Denver ...remote controlled locomotives! 
http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM2V3M
http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM2V3M
Top Ten Reasons To Avoid Denver
- Thread starter Mountain Man
- Start date
N
nachoman
"Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers Union representative Mike Young said he is critical of the safety of remote control operations." (emphasis added)
Yeah, no bias there....
Yeah, no bias there....
So am I..I fear for the safety of yardmen from switchmen to car inspectors.
Who's minding the engine as it pulls a long cut of cars? Usually nobody as I have noted twice this year..
And that's safe?
I have no idea - maybe you can answer that one for us.
I posted it because:
a) I had no idea reailroads did this,
b) Denver is a very busy city with a lot of potential for accidents,
c) the concept was a little starting to the unitiated like myself, and
d) the accident rate clearly reveals that this is either a poor concept or improperly operated.
Personally, I would love to go to court, tell a jury my car was hit by a remotely operated several-hundred-thousand-pound locomotive and introduce their safety record into evidence. I could build my dream home with a dream building attached in which I could build my fantasy model layout, right after I got back from my first class world tour.
But I'm a man of simple pleasures...and I'm looking forward to hearing all about this sort of thing with your next post.
It is not just Denver. Remote control locomotives operate anywhere the U.P., BNSF, N&S, or CSX operate. I have probably forgotten one or two other class 1 railroads, but all of them are committed to operating remote control locomotives. I think the reason for this is that they put one man on the ground operating a locomotive with a hand held remote control and that one man can can replace 3 by operating the locomotive, throwing switches, and uncoupling cuts of cars. The only thing that will outlaw the practice is enough disasters with resultant loss of life to force the federal government to outlaw the practice. Apparently, not enough people have been injured or killed to make it into the national headlines and force the government to act.
That's interwsting, Russ. What kind of a deal do they have with OS
HA and the FTSB to get away with 200 accidents, including on involving a high potential for an exlosion and some that have involved amputations?
This one is especially worrisome.
I understand the advantages of less crew and so forth for mundane tasks - I also understand the over-riding mandate to operate safely, which does not appear to be the case.
HA and the FTSB to get away with 200 accidents, including on involving a high potential for an exlosion and some that have involved amputations?
This one is especially worrisome.
I understand the advantages of less crew and so forth for mundane tasks - I also understand the over-riding mandate to operate safely, which does not appear to be the case.
As I recall, the FRA requires protection (even within yard limits) at the forward moving end of the movement.
I will certainly concede that remote control is a dangerous practice, and it eliminates jobs. However, if it is done by the rules the danger is significantly lessened.
Railroading is a dangerous occupation. Complacency makes it more dangerous for everyone. My guess would be that whomever was at the controls when some of these accidents occured had become complacent and were not properly protecting there movement.
If they were moving at a restricted speed they would have no problem walking ahead of that train watching for problems.
Don't let my comments fool you, I am definately not in favor of remote control. It promotes complacency, eliminates jobs, and significantly raises the already high danger level.
Matt
I will certainly concede that remote control is a dangerous practice, and it eliminates jobs. However, if it is done by the rules the danger is significantly lessened.
Railroading is a dangerous occupation. Complacency makes it more dangerous for everyone. My guess would be that whomever was at the controls when some of these accidents occured had become complacent and were not properly protecting there movement.
If they were moving at a restricted speed they would have no problem walking ahead of that train watching for problems.
Don't let my comments fool you, I am definately not in favor of remote control. It promotes complacency, eliminates jobs, and significantly raises the already high danger level.
Matt
I would guess, if that report s correct, that isn't enough carnage to cause the FRA to act, yet.
The short answer is that it's not rare. I could go to a half dozen rail yards within two hours of my home that use remotes. There are easily 100 yards across the country that use it. It's not inherently unsafe, but railroads have found that it isn't as efficient as a two man switching crew, even without labor impediments. Since it cuts labor costs in half on the surface they're not terribly inclined to admit it's a failure, however.
At the South African National Railway Conference I remember this being advertised already in 2001. But they put i forward as being supposedly safer for train crews when loaing hazardous materials.
My question is: What's a train without the driver??
My question is: What's a train without the driver??
We have those same signs here in Saskatoon SK on the edge of the CN yard. So far I have not heard any complaints from the locals.
Isn't it kinda scary that someone has made a multi-ton machine a childs toy (in essence)?
When kids play with their remote control cars, they never consider danger. Same mind set at a casino. They make you play with chips because it is not real money you are gambling.
I understand the concept behind it, but I am sacared of it.
When kids play with their remote control cars, they never consider danger. Same mind set at a casino. They make you play with chips because it is not real money you are gambling.
I understand the concept behind it, but I am sacared of it.
As long as the remote control locomotives are restricted to inside of the yard operation, the only ones endangered by them are the railroad workers. What I find scary is when the railroad brings the remote controlled locos out to work industrial trackage along side of and crossing public streets.
If that were true, it would put things in a better perspective, but the derailment of a string of empty LNG cars in Denver demonstrates the extreme risk to the public. A fire or explosion would endanger hundreds, if not thousands, in a crowded area iof mixed business and residentail structures.