Remote Control operations

RadioPersonality wrote:The Interim Report was sent to Congress on May 13, 2004. The report indicates that fewer accidents and injuries have occurred during RCL operations than conventional operations.

That's because the remotes are killing jobs, with less humans around there's a good chance of reducing human error.....but unfortunately the companies usually cover-up most RCO incidents. REMOTES ARE NO GOOD, neither are the guys who are proud to be working with them.

As far as I am concerned, robots do NOT belong in railroading. If these remote control switchers are to be properly operated, then it should be done by a certified engineer who usually knows what he is doing after years of experience at the throttle. That trainmen and/or conductors are doing what should be the engineer's job has been asking for trouble and that Syracuse accident where the conductor was killed is ample proof of that. Locomotive equipped for this type of operation should retain the cabcontrols to retain conventional operational capabilitiy. In this age of terrorism and that sort of thing, now is NOT the time to allow robots to get into the act of railroading. It would not take much for a bunch of Islamic terrorists to get control of a remote, pack the cab full of explosives and send it careening head on into a passenger train on the main line or whatever target at which they can kill the maximum number of people. Even those remote switchers used in steel mills should have retained conventional operational capability so that the operator can operate it from in side the cab in the conventional manner when switching outside the mill.

slchub wrote:I'm more concerned with riding on top of two traction motors for 8 - 10 hours at a time. Although guys have been doing it for years, I wonder what the long term effect is on TE&Y crews?

as it would be a revolving magnetic field , i would imagine it would be canceliing itself out to a large degree . maybe at starting / slow speed it may be more .

Caseyjim wrote: Even those remote switchers used in steel mills should have retained conventional operational capability so that the operator can operate it from in side the cab in the conventional manner when switching outside the mill.

In a steel mill I can understand use of RC units when switching hot steel cars around one slip and that glass won't stop whats next at leased if the guy is standing 20 or 30 feet or more away he has a chance should there be an accdent during loading/unloading of molton steel..

Caseyjim wrote: Even those remote switchers used in steel mills should have retained conventional operational capability so that the operator can operate it from in side the cab in the conventional manner when switching outside the mill.

I never knew Remote controlled engines lost their cab controls. Why would they do this, especially of with the risk of electronic malfunction. Humans can do more than a remote.

It depends on the railroad. All of CN's Beltpack units are all working GP9Rm's that can be used in conventional or remote operation.

gp9rm4108 wrote:It depends on the railroad. All of CN's Beltpack units are all working GP9Rm's that can be used in conventional or remote operation.

Same thing here with one of the local shortlines in my area all units are set up to run with both RC and conventional. They only run them with a Caboose in tow if on R/C becouse the RC stand is in the Caboose and hooked up to the loco by way of an electrical connection..

In an integrated steel mill, alot of the switching is no where near the hot end of the mill. If the mill uses molds to pour the steel into, there is still a need for a groundman to make cuts on the cars. At U S Steel's Fairless Works, the remote locos still had the usual manual controls in the cab.

locobill

Where I worked, I saw crew size go from 3 men to 2 men to 1 man thanks to remote locos. There's one big advantage to using remotes....lower payroll expense.There was one other advantages over 3 man crews before the use of walkie talkies, and that's not having the need to keep in postition to relay signals. We might of atleast kept the 2 man remote crews if the crews didn't take turns running the remote while the other man read the paper, slept, etc. Why they didn't realize that management was watching what was going on is beyond me. Another problem was that the manager in charghe of the railroad had all of the grabirons and steps removed from all of the company cars making it impossible to ride the cars so now you have 1 man trying to switch cars, throw switches, carry a walkie talkie, wear the remote box,
and provide point protection. a job that once took 20 minutes now tool 30-60 minutes if done safely. What often happens is that eventually, the operator gets so exhausted, that he or she starts taking shortcuts to save time and work. When switching cars, it was often necessary to constantly go back and forth over road crossings which had no gates. Three of the crossings had flashing lights, but it's common for vehichles to try to beat the train across the road. Especially at shift change. It was impossible to switch cars and at the same time watch the head end of the train. All we could do was put on the bell and blow the horn and hope nobody crossed the road ahead of the train. From the ground, you couldn't watch both sides of the roadway. The view is blocked by the gondolas, hoppers, etc.
The remotes often go into emergency, and if you're riding a car when they do, you better be holding on tight or you could be thrown off the car.
There were many mechanical or electrical problems with remotes too. I had one engine that when the switch was put in the first notch, it took off at full speed. Another engine ran away out of control and hit a MOW track car, flipping it and landing on a worker causing severe physical damage.
I'd have to say no thanks to remotes. Not all new inventions are an improvement over the old way of doing things.

I think that it is funny when the remote operators talk about how fast they go. Management doesn't care. Only some lowly trainmaster who thinks that the railroad's president is going to hand over the reigns any day now. The company knows that productivity will go down. They just care about cutting jobs.
The jack a$$ who said that he goes so fast is just foolish. Follow the rules. If it takes that many more remote jobs to do the work of the fewer conventional crews, then that takes the incentive away from pushing ahead the remote programs. That ought to take the wind out of the company's sails. This may be a long process too. The bosses don't like to tell their superiors that the latest bright idea does not work.

remote control may make some switching operations ( and therefore traffic ) viable , whereas if you had to pay for a 2 or 3 man crew , the traffic would go by road . 1 job saved is better than no jobs saved .

The problem is that people don't stick together. Too many remote operators only think of themselves. Many operators make the remote system work by taking short cuts and going too fast. If you follow the rules and always provide point protection, remotes would not be used. When operators go too fast or take short cuts, many supervisors look the other way until something goes wrong. Then it's C.Y.A.

locobill wrote:The problem is that people don't stick together. Too many remote operators only think of themselves. Many operators make the remote system work by taking short cuts and going too fast. If you follow the rules and always provide point protection, remotes would not be used. When operators go too fast or take short cuts, many supervisors look the other way until something goes wrong. Then it's C.Y.A.

Even when you follow the rules, the cost savings of a remote control operation far outweigh the hogger...

I've seen the actual financial presentation that justifies beltpack operation, and the savings are there. Shortcuts or no.. accidents can and do still happen with 3 man or 2 man crews.

Don't get me wrong here.. I'm not saying one way is better than the other... in fact, some of the things I've seen CN do with their beltpack operations are just plain wrong. There are things you cannot and should not try to do with a remote controlled locomotive, yet they still try. In fact, we keep blowing up turbos on those SD40's because of what they're trying to do...

I've seen some unbelieveable things with remotes. One guy pull a gondola right off the center pin. Claimed he didn't feel anything wrong. I guess not, he was on the ground.When in doubt, notch it out seemed to be the rule.
One company I worked for failed to report all of the delays due to electrical and mechanical problems while using remotes. Didn't want to let Pittsburgh know the truth.
Once companies make the financial investment in remotes, they don't want to admit that it's not the best thing since sliced bread.
Two or three man crews using walkie talkies is just as efficient if not more so than one man remote crews. If a remote operator gets seriously hurt, he could lie there for minutes or hours before anyone comes to his aide. As I said before, the bottom line is cost and profit.

Remote control is a joke it has communication losses constantly. what happens when your pulling up to a red signal and it loses comm and you run into a passing train ? the railroad will have a hearing and blame the operator because that's what their lawyers are good at. think it can't happen then your crazy a trainmen was making a hook when he lost comm and had to jump before it slammed into a cut of cars. another time a crew lost comm slammed into another locomotive 3 people hurt but the railroad claimed the comm loss was way before the accident to cover their asses. if it lost communication how do they know how long it lasted hello comm loss no communication with the event recorder the FRA and railroads get kickbacks from the remote control manufacture to say it's the greatest thing since the invention of the wheel.