freightguy wrote:If you want to see at great automation is just look at the Washington DC metro over the last 12 years. Though not fully automated they've had some serious incidents over that time frame. LIRR is pretty remarkable being they haven't had a passenger related crash death since the early 1950's. Metro North has had 10 in the past 3 years though nottte total fault of Railroad or their personnel.
EM2000 wrote:Having two Locomotive Engineer's on a crew as opposed to a Conductor, primarily a customer service representative, only makes sense.
mark777 wrote:Lastly, there is no reason why the conductor or any crew member can not be up front in the cab to assist the engineer in calling signals while entering critical areas of the RR such as terminals or sharp curves....Announcements could also be done by the brakeman. The conductor could very well be in the cab with the engineer while the train enters the station. While maybe a distraction to some, having that additional person with an extra set of eyes can offer another level of protection while their hand is on the dump cord. You don't need an additional person in the cab full time. A simple redirecting of duties onboard would be suffice.
Now, do you need 2 people in the cab to run a loco? No. But if the suggestion of 2 people in the cab is to be made, it would need to be economically feasible. You'd have to create a role for the 2nd person in the cab, a role that is hands on int of operation, in order for it to make sense.
Head-end View wrote:Very good posts by mark777 and puckhead. In terms of realistic operating procedure, I think Mark's suggestion re: crew deployment and tasking is the most likely to happen and be successful. Mostly because it seems practical and it won't cost the railroad any $$$.
But going back to my initial concept, unless you have a pair one engineers INTERGRATED and sharing in the running the train in the same way an airliner does, (THERE BOTH HAVE HANDS ON ROLES), it doenst make logistic nor financial sense.