Atlantic Avenue Brooklyn Terminal

[kenorian]

Sleep apnea and insomnia are quite different.

Sleep apnea happens WHILE you are sleeping. It's a pause of anywhere from a few seconds to a half a minute while you are sleeping. It's often prevalent in a person who snores.

When the brain determines that the blood oxygen level has dropped a small amount of adrenaline is triggered to start breathing again. The result is that deep REM sleep isn't achieved. So, even though a person may have had many hours of sleep, it is not productive restful sleep.

[mirrodie]

Having two Locomotive Engineer's on a crew as opposed to a Conductor, primarily a customer service representative, only makes sense.

Actually I'm not advocating that as sensible. But if the idea being mentioned here is to have 2 people in the cab at all times, it must meet the scales of economic efficiency.

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.

in a perfect world, sure. But even in your own example, its tough. At first you state that 2nd person being present only upon entiing terminals. But then mention sharp curves. How about going over RR crossings too, then? Too many variables. It would have to be a full time position. But again, not perfect.

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.

So many people here keep harping that there is no way to have a 2nd qualified engineer in the cab at all times. Why not? Cost? YES

And since that the case, having that 2nd engineer, brakeman, or conductor up front will pose the SAME exact reason why it cant' work: COST

Honestly, from an potential engineers point of view, if I were told I'd need a conductor to keep an eye on me to make sure I'm awake, with it and paying attention, that would be demoralizing. And if I were the boss, having to pay a 2nd employee just to make sure the 1st one gets it right makes zero financial sense.

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.

[mirrodie]

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 $$$.

Oh, and I meant ot ask, how is it NOT costing any $$$? Its an allocation of resources with costs tied to it.

[ExCon90]

Don't airplanes have dual controls, with duplicate controls on both sides of the cockpit? Lots of retrofitting to do that on a locomotive.

[rr503]

Comparing flying an airplane and driving a train isn't valid. The workload that pilots have to deal with is orders of magnitude larger than that of an engineer. Automation actually has reduced the number of people needed in the cockpit from three to two, and has (generally) prevented many dumb pilot error crashes.

The AF 447 crash was so much more than just automation caused ineptitude. It was TERRIBLE CRM, a lack of communication on all parts, a total loss of situational awareness, bad cockpit design on the part of Airbus, and AF's failure to replace bad pitot tubes.

As far as automation goes, while I agree that it working well is a long way down the road, it'd be a whole lot easier than making some contemporary autopilots, just by the merit of a railroad being a 1 dimensional proposition. Once a way is found to detect trespassers, rail faults, cars on tracks, build reliable computers, etc, we can automate.

More OT though, I think that having 2 ppl in the cab while entering terminals is a no brainer.

[Datenail]

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.

The engineers are the problem. AS was the first with a solution and we are proceeding with his recommendation.

[Liquidcamphor]

Morisot I dont know why you wrote that post so it was redacted by me. Gentlemen, please keep with the topic.

[STrRedWolf]

Trucking industry will go in par with the rail industry, so if you have a CDL, get ready.

Not only trucking, but anything CDL w/Passenger endorsement and rail. That will affect any mass transit agency, so the FTA will get involved. That will be part of the CDL Medical certification at least. Betcha the transit unions are going to start howling until they see the edict the FTA is slapping on the MTA's.

[Head-end View]

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 $$$.

Oh, and I meant ot ask, how is it NOT costing any $$$? Its an allocation of resources with costs tied to it.

It's not adding any additional costs because you are only using crew members who are already being paid to be on the train anyway. Their tasks are just being reorganized. Read Mark's post carefully

[Morisot]

Sorry, I was trying to be a bit too cute I think. I was hoping that there might be a relatively cheap, current technology that could be employed quickly and effectively to accomplish the same thing as having a 2nd person in the cab without actually having a 2nd body there.

[scopelliti]

I feel you are all being very human in being quick to try to jump to a solution. It is a very human reaction.

The first thing to do is to understand in depth the recent accidents and what all the contributing factors were. It is very easy to look at an accident and quickly decide what actions need to be taken. What experience should teach us is to investigate in depth and to understand all the factors that contributed to the accident. That will then allow us to list all the root causes of the accident.

And only then can we start to propose solutions. Yes, Start. When you propose a solution, you perturb the system and you have to try to ensure that the proposed change does not lead to unintended consequences.

A good example is the Air France 447 accident mentioned earlier. Yes, the pitot tubes froze over. Yes the autopilots turned off when they started getting bad flight data. Yes, the pilot in the right hand seat took some incredibly unexpected actions. Yes the Airbus flight control philosophy contributed to the loss of control.

But one root issue was found to have been something somewhat unexpected. Turns out the flight crew was not well trained in how to handle an aircraft that loses autopilot and flight data at 35000 feet. The dependence and reliance on automation had led to pilots not being properly trained how to "fly the plane" under those conditions.

As many of you know... virtually every railroad rule is written in blood. Let's hope some effective changes arise from this accident.

[B&M 1227]

hospital move just went westbound by my apartment on Atlantic Ave... crummy iphone grab shot from the bedroom window. NY&A 100, 2 cars, and NY&A 101 bringing up the markers. was so excited to see a 1001 out here that I neglected to get the car numbers.

[mark777]

As I mentioned already before, the easiest solution at the moment is to get the conductor to be in the cab when entering the terminal, maybe Atlantic terminal, Port Washington, Far Rock and Long Beach to be in specific where the line ends at a bumper block. In all of these stations, the brakeman can cover the doors and handle the announcements. Putting an extra person in the cab at critical curves might be overkill, Especially when PTC comes to play. Although I would say that it wouldn't hurt for Conductors to be familiar with speed restrictions at certain areas of the RR, that way, a Conductor that feels that the train is traveling too fast may take it upon themselves to stop the train if they had to. Most may not like it, but, if it is in the name of safety and if it won't cost the company more, why not? on the M-7s, anyone keyed in can see the speed the train is traveling. It's simply easier to shift the duties of crew members to accommodate a mandate of having two crew members in the cab when coming into the terminal.

[flexliner]

Kenorian is correct
sleep apnea occurs while sleeping
but it does result in excessive daytime sleepiness
especially in situations that are monotonous ie truck on long highway in low light plane flight at night and (gasp) train as well
also watching TV boring lectures
heck i have had snoring in my waiting room as OSA patients waited to see me for a consult and they fell asleep

watching TV who cares. when the CO2 level rises and stimulates the respiratory drive again the person will wake and not remember the scenes they missed
on the other hand driving anything - if VERY LUCKY they will wake but most of the time the end result is the (inevitable) accident

as i noted at MN the condition of OSA in some locales is reportable to DMV - unless treated
patients who use CPAP regularly (and let me stress when properly indicated) function perfectly well
its success rate in literature is over 90 maybe 95 percent

what might need to happen is screening of potential engineers truck drivers pilots etc for OSA
and if found mandate treatment prior to employment.
a sleep test with CPAP can prove the improvement and the patients will testify to such as well in most though not all cases

now as to whether that kind of a policy would be more cost effective than two people in cab that is for discussion
and as to whether that kind of policy is legal need to discuss as well though i suspect it is as people are screened for other conditions

and if someone is found to have OSA and is not hired because he is not treated - is that discrimination against a person with a disability?

[mark777]

flexliner

Ah... you touched on an issue that is to be known as the big can of worms that was opened. That was an excellent question. Is it discrimination? Interested to see how this plays out both in rail and trucking sectors. What happens then to an engineer that falls into my category? I have insomnia, but they said I have mild sleep apnea. CPAP didn't work, mouth pc wasn't covered, then what? Certainly I will not do that new contraption that they say gets implanted under your skin and sends electric stimulation or whatever to cause the muscle in your airways to stay open. So what happens to that engineer? out of service? disqualification? And this won't work well for the RRs or trucking companies either because that will cost them more with a reduction in staff. They come up with these ideas quickly but don't think things through.