Remote Control Engines

Greetings

I have a question for any railroader who may be able to comment

CSX has embraced remote control engines for yard operations. It was believed that this technology would be efficient and safer. It has been noted that CP rail was instrumental in developing the remote control technology and convincing other Class 1 ‘s to follow suit.

The results on CSX have been very disappointing. Many more hours are required to complete jobs that were quickly handled by conventional crews. A conventional crew is often used to clean up the work a remote crew could not finish. Management is under orders to make the technologies work at any cost. Often operating rules are over looked and many carrots are dangled out to the remote crews to get work done in an expeditious manner. Most accidents and mishaps are swept under the carpet. This is very common knowledge to operating employees on CSX

This week we lost a fellow Railroader in Syracuse NY to a remote accident.

I am wondering if any railroads have given up yet on this technology? I have heard rumors that NS and maybe CP are backing away? Any other info would be helpful

Thanks
RR

See my post in the other category. Remotes are safe. CN, I don't think will ever back down on them. They are way to successful to lose them.

If they are used properly, and the operating crew protects the point WHEN THEY NEED TO, accidents wont happen.

I just get tired of everyone saying they are not safe, when they are perfectly fine. Remotes don't cause accidents, idiot operators do.

Several rail roads that operate these "robo units" or "remcons" have 1 man per robo train to operate the remote. CP uses two men on a remote controlled train. 1 man operates the remote on one end while there is another switchman on the tail end. This is a better process and increases safety. CN still uses 1 man crews and won't change that until the body count and accident rate reaches a peak- followed by law suits from the victims families. No, I don't see remote controls leaving the railway fold. I don't see remote controls leaving the railway field at all.

gp9rm4108 sounds like a company man, a scab, or one of the jerks from the UTU, who allowed engineer's jobs to get sold out.
I think that the BLE should go for having co-engineers, like some of the regionals. This way the UTU can have all of their prized remote controls, and we can own the road.
How can a remote operator, with about 2 weeks of training, be as safe? Engineers have much more extensive training.

Spike

Engineer Spike wrote:gp9rm4108 sounds like a company man, a scab, or one of the jerks from the UTU, who allowed engineer's jobs to get sold out.
I think that the BLE should go for having co-engineers, like some of the regionals. This was the UTU can have all of their prized remote controls, and we can own the road.
How can a remote operator, with about 2 weeks of training, be as safe? Engineers have much more extensive training.

Spike

I agree.

blacklist wrote:Several rail roads that operate these "robo units" or "remcons" have 1 man per robo train to operate the remote. CP uses two men on a remote controlled train. 1 man operates the remote on one end while there is another switchman on the tail end. This is a better process and increases safety. CN still uses 1 man crews and won't change that until the body count and accident rate reaches a peak- followed by law suits from the victims families. No, I don't see remote controls leaving the railway fold. I don't see remote controls leaving the railway field at all.

Where did you get that ? One man per robo train ? At CN we utilize 2 man crews for remote yard jobs and 1 man hump jobs from the hump.

Engineer Spike wrote:gp9rm4108 sounds like a company man, a scab, or one of the jerks from the UTU, who allowed engineer's jobs to get sold out.
I think that the BLE should go for having co-engineers, like some of the regionals. This way the UTU can have all of their prized remote controls, and we can own the road.
How can a remote operator, with about 2 weeks of training, be as safe? Engineers have much more extensive training.

Spike

Maybe you should do your homework moron. Its your precious BLE that gave the work away, not UTU's fault that you and your type are too ignorant to believe technology can't or won't overcome your ego or the ego of everyother engineer out there as prima donna as you are.

Technology is hear to stay, quit crying. The Remote didn't kill that guy in Syracuse either, that's stuff that even old head conductors do, shoving blind. See, the remote is irrelevant in this situation, because it could have been anyone, and I'm sure if and when you were on the ground, you shoved blind at some point so stop being hypocritical.

I hate using the remote, I shouldn't have to do an engineers job for a few dollars more than without the box. That's bs, but I'm alright knowing I can't change that the stupidity of the BLE left that on us under more retarded clowns heading up the UTU

PS, you can't sue CSX for anything if like in Syracuse, a conductor shoved blind with or without a remote because that is his or her own carelessness and that creates something known as manslaughter, therefore, this supercedes civil action because when that conductor goes to courts and gets put in prison, he is then the one held accountable to a civil liability. However, I'm sure that there is insurance against accidents on the property that can come into play, but that was a gross misconduct so I'm sure CSX got out of that one pretty nicely.

Okay, kids...

** Picks up fire extinguisher **

I'm going to ask that we all take a collective breath and calm down a little. I'm not going to start censoring just yet, but I would like to ask that there be a little more tact and civility used in the discussion of this topic.

I'm seeing some borderline flaming here and I don't like it. Cuss the situation, not each other.

Lest I get my magic lock.

Komachi has spoken.

mikelangelo11 wrote:A remote control engine starter apparatus for remotely starting an engine. A manually operable transmitter generates a signal, which is detected by a receiver when the receiver, is activated....

That's nice. And this has something to do with remote controlled railroad locomotives?