Railroad Forums 

  • Toilets in CSX engines

  • Discussion of the operations of CSX Transportation, from 1980 to the present. Official site can be found here: CSXT.COM.
Discussion of the operations of CSX Transportation, from 1980 to the present. Official site can be found here: CSXT.COM.

Moderator: MBTA F40PH-2C 1050

 #194904  by paulrail
 
Does CSX provide toilets in the nose section of their engines for the crews?

I remember seeing an article about Norfolk Southern RR not providing a "facility" for it's crews but handed out plastic bags instead. I believe this led to a union grievance and I think the railroad lost and was ordered to provide a toilet for the crews.

It must get a little uncomfortable knowing that one is on a ten to twelve hour trip if here is no place "to go"!

I'ts odd how strange thoughts come randomly to mind! :wink:

Paul

 #194919  by conrail_engineer
 
The railroads are required to provide facilities on the power. An inoperative toilet is justification for refusing power.

That said...most of those toilets are so FILTHY you wouldn't use them except in extreme, dire need. On my run, we used to do enough stopping and starting that we'd have time to "water the ballast" over the railing of the walkway of the engine. The other...plan ahead, plan ahead. Watch what you eat before going to work; and the last thing before leaving the crew room is a trip to the lavatory.

On CSX the commodes are flush-type but with "water" that's endlessly recycled...supposedly there's a compound in the tanks that's supposed to bio-degrade waste, but based on the smell, I don't buy it.

Conrail had a chemical toilet like you'd find in a larger RV.

NS used to have a urinal that just drained onto the roadbed; and a seat with nothing below it. The crew was supposed to have their #2 bags that they'd lay over the seat and go into.

As you might imagine, the crews were not thrilled with that concept. Newer NS power has some sort of regular commode, although I haven't seen one.

 #195076  by Dieter
 
A gross but necessary subject.

Thanks for the "Royal Flush" link above this entry.

Question for here now, even with a toilet aboard, what's a guy to do if the railroads get their way and get away with "The Crew of One"?

How is a guy in distress supposed to keep the train running while in the #2 position? No pun intended, is management suggesting putting a "Dead Man" switch in the head?

Beyond safety issues, I think that mother nature should kill the folly of reducing a crew to one soul engineer.

Dieter.

 #195493  by badneighbor
 
boy what a subject ... blue ice on the high iron...

 #195585  by PWV PETE
 
There is nothing like a clean toilet,I used to clean the lav,s on airplaines, just because its a porable potty doesn't mean it has to smell like one.

Pete

 #195731  by CSX Conductor
 
Dieter wrote:Question for here now, even with a toilet aboard, what's a guy to do if the railroads get their way and get away with "The Crew of One"?
The engineer would have to stop. That is actually what they want now as opposed to the conductor "watching the alertor and cab signal" as many do now. I'd rather jump in the seat and keep everything rolling whether or not I have my license since on the B&A we don't start on overtime until 11hours and 53 minutes. :P

As for the types of toilets, the road power has the type with a push-button flush feature as another poster mentioned. The older stuff like the GP40-2's and SD40-2's have either the manually pumped or the "porta-potty" type (where it's best to squat over the seat in case a "#2" should cause everything to splash back up) :P . Everything stays in their until they are "pumped" at a servicing area.

 #195843  by Robert Paniagua
 
Now, how about a "shower room" or even an old passenger car converted to a crew car for the freight train crews. Those could be a lot better than a small restroom in the engine, and you can have stretching legroom also.

 #195916  by CSX Conductor
 
I'd prefer what we have now.....especially in the winter.....why go outside to get to a "bathroom car" when you can stay on the lead unit. :-)

 #196159  by conrail_engineer
 
Robert Paniagua wrote:Now, how about a "shower room" or even an old passenger car converted to a crew car for the freight train crews. Those could be a lot better than a small restroom in the engine, and you can have stretching legroom also.
That's actually something I've thougth about. Take an old engine and make it into a "road slug" with powered trucks...but instead of just pouring concrete into the space left empty in the engine bay, take and modify an old coach body and graft it to the rear of the cab.

Put some bunks in there; some easy chairs and a workable lavatory - the crew has a place to stretch out in with those interminable red-signals; and deadhead crews could travel in comfort with minimal expense.

The deadheading crews would like it too. Given a choice, most deadhead crews would rather hop a train than deal with those cabs and questionable drivers.

 #196659  by mmi16
 
While the John's on engines may be filthy....

The 'company' doesn't make them fillth....the preceeding Engineers, Conductors and Trainmen that don't respect those that will use the facility later do.

 #197527  by roadster
 
It's not that the prior users made a mess. The problem is the service facilities rarely if ever flush out the holding tank leading to obnoxious smells overfilled toilets which while traversing our superior tracks slushes all over the toilet room and stinks up the cab with these and cheimcal smells. If you have ever cleaned a bathroom before you understand the some if not most of the chemicals used for this service are caustic and dangerous to inhale. Do you want to spend 8-12hrs plus in this type of environment? If we complain, the Trainmaster or Roadforeman comes out and threatens "intentional delay of Train and insubordination" charges on the crew. The power shortage has been so critical that engines spend minimal time being serviced before rushed out on the next overdue train.
A bathroom car?, can't get the exisiting facilities serviced now!

 #198439  by CSX Conductor
 
conrail_engineer wrote:The deadheading crews would like it too. Given a choice, most deadhead crews would rather hop a train than deal with those cabs and questionable drivers.
Personally I'd prefer the taxi as opposed to dead-heading on a train because Selkirk to Boston is only 2&1/2 or 3 hours...opposed to possibly another 10 ot 12 hours on the rails.

 #198474  by blippo
 
I prefer a taxi also. At the rate we get trains over the road on our subdivisions , if we had to deadhead by train, we'd never get home. As far as them putting a car behind the motor equipped with shower, chairs, etc. . Don't give the railroad that idea. As twisted as they are, they'd have us work like over the road truckers. They's work two crews from Florida to Maine. 12 hrs shifts, one crew take rest in the sleeper car while the other crew work the train. Non stop. lol

 #202807  by Silverliner II
 
Dieter wrote: I'd rather jump in the seat and keep everything rolling whether or not I have my license since on the B&A we don't start on overtime until 11 hours and 53 minutes. :P
11 hours and 53 minutes? You get OT sooner than we do out of Philly.... :-D