Finger Lakes Railway Solvay Yard

I was given more info regarding operations;

"The train starts in Geneva and runs to Solvay to interchange with CSX in the morning and returns back to Geneva later that night. Norfolk Southern interchanges directly in Geneva with the FGLK. The Line ruining North to Lyons is owned by NS and went OoS this past summer. There is Remote Control Job crew assigned to work the Auburn area 5 days a week but traffic has slowed down marking it a 3 day per week operation. There is a remote control job that works the area in and around Solvay 7 days a week as well."

Do remote op's really save that much? And what about the safety concern?

sean3f wrote:I was given more info regarding operations;

"The train starts in Geneva and runs to Solvay to interchange with CSX in the morning and returns back to Geneva later that night. Norfolk Southern interchanges directly in Geneva with the FGLK. The Line ruining North to Lyons is owned by NS and went OoS this past summer. There is Remote Control Job crew assigned to work the Auburn area 5 days a week but traffic has slowed down marking it a 3 day per week operation. There is a remote control job that works the area in and around Solvay 7 days a week as well."

Do remote op's really save that much? And what about the safety concern?

The RC Jobs save the company money by haveing one person do all the local switching in an 8 or more hour shift. There are plenty of Bright Red signs warning people that the locomotives might be under Remonte Control and not be maned by a person. The guy on the ground rings the bell and toots the horn when he is moveing the locomotive. Its up to the public to follow the laws if they get hurt its there falt for being stupied... By now most if not all the Local city, and county Sharriffs departments should have been informed of whats going on with the RR.

scharnhorst wrote:

sean3f wrote:I was given more info regarding operations;

"The train starts in Geneva and runs to Solvay to interchange with CSX in the morning and returns back to Geneva later that night. Norfolk Southern interchanges directly in Geneva with the FGLK. The Line ruining North to Lyons is owned by NS and went OoS this past summer. There is Remote Control Job crew assigned to work the Auburn area 5 days a week but traffic has slowed down marking it a 3 day per week operation. There is a remote control job that works the area in and around Solvay 7 days a week as well."

Do remote op's really save that much? And what about the safety concern?

The RC Jobs save the company money by haveing one person do all the local switching in an 8 or more hour shift. There are plenty of Bright Red signs warning people that the locomotives might be under Remonte Control and not be maned by a person. The guy on the ground rings the bell and toots the horn when he is moveing the locomotive. Its up to the public to follow the laws if they get hurt its there falt for being stupied... By now most if not all the Local city, and county Sharriffs departments should have been informed of whats going on with the RR.

Man, if that wouldn't be the height of fun.... watching those big boys ply the yard like an overgrown train set... how much does one pay to get a chance to do that for a day? I can see why it saves the RR money.

jayenelee wrote:Man, if that wouldn't be the height of fun.... watching those big boys ply the yard like an overgrown train set... how much does one pay to get a chance to do that for a day? I can see why it saves the RR money.

Unfortunately, it has it's dis-advantages, too. Ask any railroader working for CSX, NS, et al how good (and safe!) it is. Many a debate has been had on this very subject here on this website.

Click this link.........

http://www.railroad.net/forums/search.p ... mit=Search

It's a search I did for RCO (Remote Control Operator) for the employment forum. I think it's safe to say many railroaders frown on it........

Sorry to hijack the thread, I'm just sayin' there's two sides to that coin......

Charlie

RC operation have led to the deaths of 3 employees in Syracuse in the past 5 years. Selkirk has had dozens of incidents and fatalities since it's implemetation. Not to mention productivity dropped by over 30%. All to save the cost of one employee. Yeah, what fun. A big train set.

charlie6017 wrote:

jayenelee wrote:Man, if that wouldn't be the height of fun.... watching those big boys ply the yard like an overgrown train set... how much does one pay to get a chance to do that for a day? I can see why it saves the RR money.

Unfortunately, it has it's dis-advantages, too. Ask any railroader working for CSX, NS, et al how good (and safe!) it is. Many a debate has been had on this very subject here on this website.

Click this link.........

http://www.railroad.net/forums/search.p ... mit=Search

It's a search I did for RCO (Remote Control Operator) for the employment forum. I think it's safe to say many railroaders frown on it........

Sorry to hijack the thread, I'm just sayin' there's two sides to that coin......

Charlie

I thought the emotocons would communicate my facetious mood. Ho trainsets are one thing, but the responsibility and liability that goes with the real job, I wouldn't envy in the least. For sentimental rail fans like me, I think all this automation takes the romance out of the job; and I ain't touchin' the safety issue with a 10' pole.

In my opinion RC jobs are good for Industrial use and maybe for shortlines that are straped for cash. I could see it as a last resort if a crew could not arrive on location or if the Owner/Operator did not want to pay Overtime on a weekend for 2 guys to spot some cars in an industrial park it might be much more easyer to have one guy go in with an RC Job and get the job done.

I could see the issue with RC in a large yard it would make more sents to have a 2 or even a 3 man team working on switching cars. We all make mistakes on the job and get raped up in are paper work or replying to radio calls and lose track of whats going on around us for a seconed or two.

Scharnhorst wrote:We all make mistakes on the job and get raped up

Ain't THAT the truth!

That's one spell-check wouldn't catch.

R/C has it's place - a short line in a contained area where there's few or no one else working, it's not too bad. A large yard with other crews, clerks and car department people all over the place and the risk amps way up.

I know this is likely a dumb question, but In those larger yards, why isn't the operator in the locomotive and the switches remotely controlled, from the cab of the loco? Because you still need that other person to do the coupling?

Wouldn't the safety interlocking and signal technologies already be present, or are these RC jobs mostly hand throw switches and dark territories? (Yea I'm exposing my igorance of rail operations bigtime!!!)

It seems to add a layer of safety to when the operator is part of the moving component, in any machine operation I've observed.

Someone has to protect the lead end of every move. Remoting yard switches would cost millions of dollars per yard, too.

The botton line about RCO operations, is just that....the bottom line. The railroads constantly stress safety, safety, safety at any cost......AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T COST TOO MUCH! RCO crews are not TOLD to take short cuts, but a blind eye is turned towards them when they do, as long as they're "saving the company money". The people in charge of running the yards on the big railroads (and I would guess the small ones too) are are judged on their performence, and what it costs to get that performence. There are many aspects to RCO use that can compromise normal, safe operations, but the railroads put regulations in place that will cover their asses in most cases, and shift the blame for accidents to the man performing the job, even though he may be using (unwritten, and not enforced) short cuts that enhance performence.

jayenelee wrote:I know this is likely a dumb question, but In those larger yards, why isn't the operator in the locomotive and the switches remotely controlled, from the cab of the loco? Because you still need that other person to do the coupling?

Wouldn't the safety interlocking and signal technologies already be present, or are these RC jobs mostly hand throw switches and dark territories? (Yea I'm exposing my igorance of rail operations bigtime!!!)

It seems to add a layer of safety to when the operator is part of the moving component, in any machine operation I've observed.

not all large yards have remote switches many of them are still ground throw here in the Northeast parts of the U.S. switches freeze up a lot in the winter so your more able to see more grown throw switches in the yards compared to the main line and main interlocking switches which are remotely thrown. The man or women running the R/C is both the engineer and the conductor and throws the switches in the yards.

roadster wrote:RC operation have led to the deaths of 3 employees in Syracuse in the past 5 years. Selkirk has had dozens of incidents and fatalities since it's implemetation. Not to mention productivity dropped by over 30%. All to save the cost of one employee. Yeah, what fun. A big train set.

Now, I'm just a layman... but I'm not a fan of RCO either. I think a second set of eyes in a crew is worth its weight in gold. Example: an RCO operator may be so fixated on swtching the train that he doesn't notice a kink in the rail and a derailment occurs. Having another person present adds perpsective to prevent that kind of accident.

Some model railroaders or tin platers may look at RCO as a giant train set. I do not. A derailment on a layout won't kill anyone, start a fire or pollute the groundwater. All of those things happen in the rail world ... so I'd like to see a minumum mandatory crew of two at all times.

We're really not talking about FGLK's Solvay Yard anymore, are we?


-otto-