WRECK OF THE REMOTES, STRIKES AGAIN

I guess you still don't get it. There is NO need, for radar, TV's, etc., that cost money, and are operational headaches. There are a PAIR of eyes, on every employee, and those eyes are responsible for seeing the rails ahead, are clear. If you gotta walk 50 cars back, before you shove, to see it's clear, then HEY, that's part of your job. Wrecks are caused simply by complacency, or extreme laziness, of the people running these things. Complacent, in "I don't need to worry, it's been clear all day......" or Lazy "It's too far to walk and check, it should be clear......."
Either one of these is a recipe for disaster, and it happens literally every single day, somewhere around the country, and that's unacceptable, in my mind. Operations with full crews screw up as well, but it's again, the reasons I stated above, or a crewman lying, to his engineer. "I got the shove, come on back 50 cars", and the guy is sitting on a bench, counting down an unprotected move.
Yes, that poor guy does the switching, by himself, on that lone remote job. The Union was just voted in, on this property, and that might change, you never know.

The UTU bargained for RCL jobs, displacing engineer positions. Putting barbs aside, carriers only give RCL operators (Conductors) about 1-2 weeks training on remote use. Whereas engineers have to undergo
15 months of training to operate a locomotive.
It basically boils down to a lack of training and experience when RCL's
are involved in accidents.

Yes, with an engineer, proximity radar and TV would not be needed.
But once the initial investment is made, it would be so much morexpense to have an engineer.

It scares me that they DON'T have proximity radar and TV to discover someone or something behind the engine. The working end is covered by the remote guy, but not the engine end.

And yes, it is bad to assume something is clear without really checking, even when it should be clear.

But if you have to walk 50 cars, that takes a long time, and then you have to walk 50 cars back to the working end? (A remote guy may have a very healthy job if he runs back and forth all day.)

Does the remote guy also take a train between cities?
I would think they'd want an engineer for that more tricky accomplishment requiring skills with acceleration and deceleration
and slack action, etc.

GOLDEN-ARM wrote:The BigC said "I've noticed that most Yardmasters talk like they've got mice in their pockets!"
I've noticed most Trainmasters are the same, as well.......

OK, off topic, but this sig-line has been bugging me - even if we assume the mice are in the front pockets, near the groin area (no further detail added, as this is a family oriented forum ) - just what the hell would the effect be on the person speaking?!? (I have not personally spoken with any yardmasters, and certainly have NOT watched any mice pr0n either)

Sir Ray wrote:

GOLDEN-ARM wrote:The BigC said "I've noticed that most Yardmasters talk like they've got mice in their pockets!"
I've noticed most Trainmasters are the same, as well.......

OK, off topic, but this sig-line has been bugging me - even if we assume the mice are in the front pockets, near the groin area (no further detail added, as this is a family oriented forum ) - just what the hell would the effect be on the person speaking?!? (I have not personally spoken with any yardmasters, and certainly have NOT watched any mice pr0n either)

It's all about the "WE". "WE gotta get a motor". "WE gotta kick out a shop on 5". "WE gotta fuel the yard pup". Then the yardie put his phone down and picks his knife and fork back up while WE the crew, the real WE, have to do the work.

thebigc wrote:It's all about the "WE". "WE gotta get a motor". "WE gotta kick out a shop on 5". "WE gotta fuel the yard pup". Then the yardie put his phone down and picks his knife and fork back up while WE the crew, the real WE, have to do the work.

Oh, the 'Schizo-Man' concept of labor duality - you (the rail/mechanic/track gang/laborers/etc) provide the physical component, and the yardmaster provides the moral support component. Hmm, I wouldn't have gotten that concept, since the yardmaster isn't gonna do the actual work, and neither would the mice come to think of it.

All rightly, then! I was thinking along the lines of what a man with literal rodents in his pants would sound like (presumably nervous, jittery, and high pitched - Jim Carey probably has already done a scene like this as Ace Ventura)

Yeah, you beat me, there. Lot's of bosses talk about what "WE" need to do, then they sit back, in their swivel chair, and go back to their newspaper, while we head out, into a torrential rainstorm........
As for Robert, I don't know if you are a kid, a fool, or both. Talk about radar, and removing engineers, makes you an A$$, in my opine. I am finished, answering your assinine questions, opinions and thoeries......

It appears to me the guy is new, is making a sincere effort to learn, but like much of the public at large really does not (yet) understand the realities of railroading. My vote is cut him some slack.

Yah.
I'm an ignorant novice newbee.
So cut me some slack-action.

After three tries you still haven't answered if these remote guys can take a train cross country to another yard to do their switching.

Until this subject, I had no idea remotes even existed.

As a child watching a switching operation, I thoughthe locomotivengineer would become totally bored just following hand signals of the brakeman.
I wondered if the brakeman could do everything himself if he could somehow control the engine.

I took the process to my HO layout and it worked really well.

Now I can see a company would want just one person to do the work to save money.

But I don't see how FRA or anyone could ever approve of this with no one watching the back of the engine - unless they had a videocamera broadcasting to a TV on the remote so the operator could see who or what he is about to run over.

Robert Gift wrote:Yah.
I'm an ignorant novice newbee.
So cut me some slack-action.

After three tries you still haven't answered if these remote guys can take a train cross country to another yard to do their switching.

Until this subject, I had no idea remotes even existed.

As a child watching a switching operation, I thoughthe locomotivengineer would become totally bored just following hand signals of the brakeman.
I wondered if the brakeman could do everything himself if he could somehow control the engine.

I took the process to my HO layout and it worked really well.

Now I can see a company would want just one person to do the work to save money.

But I don't see how FRA or anyone could ever approve of this with no one watching the back of the engine - unless they had a videocamera broadcasting to a TV on the remote so the operator could see who or what he is about to run over.

Robert,
No. There's no such animal as cross-country remotes, YET. Supposedly, the technology exists for remote controlled main-line trains. Due to right-of-way problems, crossing protection problems, etc., this concept is a long ways away. Remote controlled operations are frowned upon by most all railroaders. Why? Loss of jobs. It's not only the engineers that stand to lose positions. This concerns, or should concern trainmen as well. Many engineers hold seniority as trainmen and will "flow" right back to the ground should remotes become as wide-spread as the carriers would like.
The FRA? Friends of Railroad Administrators.

Thanks JG.

What I should have asked, is, can the remote guy ride in the cab taking the train to another town where he would perform switching operations?

Hope your "FRA" is notrue.

I presume the remotengine has a bell which sounds whenever it moves?

Also, I heard there is a railroad with fenced-off track on which an unoccupied engine pulls a train to the other end and back. No grade crossings.
Is this true?

Did British engines travel down their tracks with no headlights?
I've seen pictures and can find no headlights!
Also, when a powerful new British engine arrived in the US for display, and WWII broke out, they kepthengine here for the duration of the warather than risk it being sunk on the way back. It had to be outfitted with a headlight and bell to be put in service here.

Thank you,

Robert Gift wrote: The working end is covered by the remote guy, but not the engine end.

One crew member is on the engine to protect the point.

Does the remote guy also take a train between cities?

Absolutely not. Beltpacks are restricted to yard jobs only. BTW the bell rings automatically when the Beltpack engine starts to move. The Beltpack controller also has a switch for the bell and horn.

Probably best not to answer, if you don't have a correct answer, ENR. During remote operations, NOBODY is on the engine, to protect the engine. This is a complete fabrication. Next, there are trains that run from one city to another, with a remote, and a single crewman. If you had read the entire thread, instead of making a response, to the last post, on the last page, you would have known that. You might believe that remotes are restricted to yard jobs only. And you might be wrong............

GOLDEN-ARM wrote:Probably best not to answer, if you don't have a correct answer, ENR. You might believe that remotes are restricted to yard jobs only. And you might be wrong............

Golden-Arm, I work these beltpack jobs. I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt we have one person on the engine, or in a position to protect the point, and we never, NEVER take Beltpacks out on the road, they are restricted to yard jobs only. RCO probably varies from railroad to railroad but I was answering from my own personal experience.

Well, how is any money saved if there are TWO people, one RCO and one on the engine?
Or is it simply replacing a real engineer with a lesser paid lesser skilled observer?
Interesting!
Thank you,