Re: Does NR know about this?

[Eben Levy <tkid@ozemail.com.au>]

James Robinson wrote:

> Maurie Daly wrote:
> >
> > James Robinson <NOSPAM@ERIE.NET> writes:
> >
> > >New technologies and practices have made railroads safer than they have
> > >ever been, and there is no reason to assume that, with proper care,
> > >crews cannot be reduced even more.  Probably inevitable, if not
> > >required, to keep the industry healthy and competitive.
> >
> > Could you please enlighten us as to what you are talking about here.
> > What technologies and practices .
> > In Australia today , a prang will occur for exactly the same reason that it
> > would have occurred 100 years ago, ie driver error or physical infrastructure
> > fault , like broken rails or broken wheels.
>
> The list of technological improvements is significant.  While railroads
> may at times appear to operate with 100 year old technology,
> (particularly in management practices,) in reality much has changed.
> One only has to look at photographs taken as little as 20 or 30 years
> ago to see a marked difference.  The changes seem to come slowly, but
> they have been continuous.
>
> Looking at track, consider the improvements in rail metallurgy, concrete
> sleepers, clips, continuous welded rail, heavier, crushed rock ballast
> instead of cinders or pit-run, heavier rail sections, improved turnout
> geometry, better rail fastening and anchoring, larger double shoulder
> tie plates, etc.
>
> In equipment, there is all steel car construction, improved wheel
> metallurgy, roller bearings, hydraulic cushioning units, automatic slack
> adjusters, improved brake valves, and the new electrically controlled
> pneumatic brake systems.  Locomotives offer the obvious switch from
> steam to diesel, but even diesels have been evolving with turbocharging,
> microprocessor control systems, AC traction, advanced adhesion control
> systems, electronic fuel injection, more effective dynamic braking,
> roller bearing traction motor suspension bearings, better operator's
> cabs, pressure maintaining brake equipment, driver alertness systems,
> etc.
>
> In signalling, the introduction of radios, data radio communication
> systems, automatic wayside inspection systems (hot bearing, wheel
> impact, shifted load, broken wheel, inoperative brake, etc.)
> end-of-train communications systems, centralised traffic control,
> electric switch machines, computer based control systems, fax machines,
> etc.
>
> While accidents still happen, the number have significantly overall, and
> each of the technology improvements listed above has contributed to the
> improvement.  Accident statistics show that the safety of rail systems
> has been consistently improving over time.
>
> > If drivers are expected to drive for longer hours , and there are to be less
> > of them , and there is no form of electronic train protection to override
> > drivers when they may mistakes (no ATP in use in Australia yet.), then the
> > prang rate will increase.
> > Hines Hill, Mt Christie and Beresfield wernt statistical anomalies.
>
> There is no question that such changes cannot be implemented without
> carefully thinking through the consequences, and addressing them to
> sustain safety.  It is also incorrect to assume that just because there
> are more people operating trains that there will necessarily be an
> improvement in safety.  Canadian statistics show that with the
> introduction of radio controlled shunting locomotives, for example, the
> employee injury rate as well as the number of reportable incidents have
> been reduced.  While some of this reduction can be attributed to the
> technology (the person directing the movement is also personally
> controlling the locomotive) there has also been a reduction in the
> number injuries simply because there are fewer employees to get hurt.

Bassically because fewer people are around.

>
>
> It is possible to safely operate trains with fewer than two people on
> the train.  There are examples of trains that operate without any people
> on board at all, like unmanned transit systems and in plant ore hauling
> systems.  Newer technologies will make such operations more and more
> practical and widespread.  The operation of trains with only one person
> on board in many places in the world is fairly commonplace.  Not all of
> these systems have ATC or in-cab signalling systems, and their safety
> records have been good.  This is not to say that the safety records
> can't be improved.
>
> In all, the advances in technology will make the operation of trains
> with only one on-board person commonplace.  Get used to the idea.

Well, as someone else said, what if something goes wrong and they need to fix it?

Example of two man crew needed

NR 12/110 Wallandbeen 3NP2 14/7/98

They rounded the corner and struck a tree smashing the drivers window. We where
talking to the driver on the tranii while the observer went to inspect the tree.
The driver was going to call for a releif loco but on saying to him, get the other
person to tell you the road and go into Coota, he thought about it and did it, this
saved time and money and man power. Both persons where qualified drivers and they
had no problem procceeding at reduced speed.

Now if it was one man crew, the driver would've had to inspect the tree then the
loco in turn. then report it all to control. then wait for relief loco. I doubt he
would've liked to stick his head out the window all the way.

--
Bye for now,

Eben

http://www.ozemail.com.au/~tkid/

And one ring to rule ... err ... moderate them all!