Join the discussion on the following article:
Engineers’ union calls on government to stop locomotive automation
They crash planes now with this type of technology. Some airlines now have pilots who no longer know how to prevent an accident from happening as their skills have atrophied.
Asiana_Airlines_Flight_214 Wikipedia excerpt:
Over-reliance on automation and lack of systems understanding by the pilots were cited as major factors contributing to the accident.[80]
Question for political philosophers: Once all the jobs are automated what will you do with the leftover humans?
Jan M Zweerts, bad things happen when you allow unskilled persons to interact with modern equipment. This Union’s leadership doesn’t have any faith that it’s members can LEARN to operate this new technology safely, thus is requesting that new technology NOT be allowed to be implemented in locomotives. I’m thinking that the Union would like to see the railroads go back to a time when brakemen were required to set each railcar’s brakes by hand in order to stop a train. Membership numbers would soar and the graft would increase.
No Mr. Haws, Mr. Zweerts is spot on with his assesments. Your analogy to brakeman decorating the car tops serves no one. Not the point here. Point is a disableing of the engineers skills in place of a machine that is not infallable…
Remote controls in the yards serve the same purpose, getting rid of people while slowing down the operation by my estimation of 40 to 60 percent. This will do the same to road engineers, disable their skills when they are needed…hell try to get a good air guy these days…and you don’t even know what an air guy is do you? Its all dynamic, all the time and the computer squeels on you to headquarters…
Glad I am retired. I’m sick of it after 37 years.
No Mr. Gless, Your time, as well as mine, has come and gone. Technology is here to stay, you either adapt to it or become just another unskilled worker. There is ‘no turning the clock back’ with regards to technology. In the locomotive or in any vehicle for that matter, if you can not operate it in accordance to what and how you are paid to, then you are lying to your employer and willingly endangering the public and your fellow workers. The point is and will always be, learn the new technology or find a simpler job. As for the computer squealing on you when you do something bad to headquarters, hopefully the computers, with PTC, will be able to put a halt to those same engineers, doing something bad and killing themselves in others with their poor operating skills. Where could I find a good AR when I need one?
I suspect the ideal situation will need to combine both the human computer (the amazing human brain) and the artificial computer. Both have their attributes and weaknesses, but tailor each to compliment the other to provide the safest and most efficient outcomes. To stress or under utilize the human computer will not provide a better outcome, but nor will ignoring the artificial computer. The management versus employee strife needs to be repaired, management needs employees and vice versa.
The main reason this technology was implemented was to save fuel $$$. The #1 operating cost for RRs (#2 being management salaries) Now with fuel about 1/2 or less than what it was a year or so ago the savings might not be that great. One of the problems that might crop up in the future is when a solar flare takes out all the GPS and internet connections. What then? Everyone will have to go “Old School” if they can remember how.
For those that think technology is here to stay and we need to fully embrace it and live by it I bring up the plane that crashed at SFO where the pilots went by the computer info rather than what they could see out the window. Also there was the Air France flight that crashed coming from South America to France out in the middle of the Atlantic ocean because the crew soley believed what the computers said was going on. The plane stalled and crashed killing everyone on board. There has been multiuple other plane crashes due to an overraliance on technology. If you think it is just planes several crashes killed several people on the Washington DC metro and they were caused by either faulty detectors of automatic operation ignored weather induced condition variables like trains not stopping in normal distances.
Well I guess you could say I’m an expert on this subject since I have to use LEADER everyday in the performance of my duties. I have also been a LEADER instructor to other Engineers too. As a professional skilled Locomotive Engineer I prefer to run the train myself as I take pride in my work, constantly evaluating my judgment in order to run the train safely, efficiently and as close to the maximum allowable speed over every mile of the district I operate on. I’m not alone either as I personally know of a lot of good “quality” engineers who share the same sentiment. For those engineers that i will refer to as Conductors with Engineers licenses I can see how they might love a system that makes all the judgments for them.
The way LEADER functions is that it strives to run the train without resorting to any kind of braking method be it the use of air or dynamic brake. In sections of track where there are not very long defending grades it will simply slow the train down and pull it through in a low notch even when the train is light enough that dynamic braking is sufficient enough not to rely on air. A lot of Intermodal trains fall into this category. So for example, instead of running a Priority Intermodal track speed at 60 mph and using dynamics to keep the speed at 60 downgrade the computer will slow the train down to 30 mph and pull it through the section in notch 1 or 2. This directly effects train velocity. Sure LEADER can save fuel when a train travels hundreds of miles but it can result in a train not reaching the destination on time. This can also have an adverse effect when the power that is on the late running train is late on the next train the units were designated for. Lower network velocity means more Locomotive’s are needed to do the work.
A better method of fuel conservation is the use of AC equipped technology operated in conjunction with Distributed Power. Two AC units up front and One AC unit on the rear of an 8,000 foot train run by a skilled profession
People will die before anyone tries to do anything to stop this nonsense just as many have died on airplanes. Some airlines have issued directives that pilots should land the plane by themselves at least once a month (?) so as to keep their hand in on how it’s done. Sad!
As a retired locomotive engineer, I am generally amused by the folks who seem absolutely sure of how a train should be handled, and are quick to point out the superiority of technology over the human operator–with no time in the seat to back up their assertions.
If there is a legitimate way to save lives, prevent injuries, and guarantee public safety, I feel sure the operating employees of rail commerce–my former colleagues–are supportive.
At the same time, we have become a society that devalues experience in favor of “certification” and technology.
By certification, I do not mean educational and operational testing of workers, but rather, giving the impression that an individual is really prepared to perform assigned tasks simply because they have been given a piece of paper that says they are qualified, or have performed well on a simulator.
Any engineer you would want to ride with, or behind, has learned far more on the job than in a classroom, or as result of simulators. A well rested, experienced, rail worker, who is focused on their task, and not distracted or apprehensive about being hauled in for an investigation because the “machine” questions all acts and reactions, is a safe and productive employee.
As to computer-based technology, it provides an additional tool for engineers, but after running anything from intermodals up to 13,000 feet long, coal drags exceeding 18,000 tons, down to light engine moves, I contend the “feel” of the train must be experienced by people, before they discard it in favor of the computer. I say, do the job, work the hours, and ride the miles. Then you have earned the right to become a fair commentator, not just a harpie sitting or standing beside the tracks.
Finally, Trip Optimizer was just being mandated when I retired in 2012. The crews called it “Trip Lobotimizer”.
Between it, and ERAD–a CSX monitoring system which makes reports to Jacksonville,
As an engineer I totally suppport the BLET in this move. Here in the UK the ASLEF union seems to be sleepwalking toward automation with, in many cases, blanket acceptance of devices similar to LEADER and Trip Optimizer.
I’m glad that the BLET has realized there is a problem with this technology and that it is a threat to not just jobs but to safety. It won’t require rocket science to eventually marry these engineer ‘advisory’ devices direct to the locomotive throttle controller interface and braking systems and hey presto the engineer is suddenly demoted to the rôle of overseer, with a hefty cut in earmings and possibly also the shoehorning in of one-man crews at the same time.
I’ve made my living as a computer programmer for nearly 40 years and am dismayed by current trends in automation. I cannot express it as eloquently as some have in these comments but I do think the skeptics are right. The loss in everyday skills that I was proud to achieve in my day is appalling. Who can read a roadmap or shift a manual transmission or even cook his own dinner? To say nothing of the continued denigration of craftsmanship and its deadening effect in the human spirit. Remember the heroic airline pilot who landed his plane in the Hudson River?
Many people have a fetish with new gizmos & gadgets. Some, not all, of them are bean counters in disguise who need to continually justify their jobs. Others are enamored with all that is bright and shiny. These technologies are too new and untested for us place our reliance on them at the expense of lifetimes of experience and knowledge.
I wish I could express these thoughts as eloquently as others have on these pages.