Are seat belts used in locomotives for the Engineer and Conductor? If they’re not used, what are the thoughts on their use pro or con?
Reminds me of the decades-old question: Why don’t they use seat belts on Star Trek?
The answer is easy. Locomotives and starships share the same gravitiational technology. They use intertial dampeners.
Seat belts are not used, and would just be an added encumbrance in the event that exiting the cab proved to be a more prudent course of action. With more space in the cab than in the passenger compartment of a car, it might be more prudent for a crew to duck and cover–and seat belts would again delay this.
As for those inertial dampeners, I wouldn’t want to be belted to the seat if it was in the process of being dampened!
Locomotives aren’t usually subject to the same kind of starts and stops that cars and airplanes are (not to mention the up-and-down factor in airplanes). Generally if a locomotive stops that suddenly there are other things to worry about besides whether or not you’re wearing a seatbelt.
yea, I would hate to be strapped in the seat when something like this happens
Whoa! Shoulda’na gone through the Wendys drivethrou![(-D]
Conrail had seat belts in their bay window cabooses back in the '70’s. Never saw any body use them.
[4:-)]I own former IC Caboose 9570 & it has seat belts. Unlike the engine, the slack running in and out in a long train can make for a pretty rough ride in the caboose.
I know that slack can make an engine buck, but the engine crew has the advantage knowing (most of the time) when it is going to happen & can prepare somewhat for it.
Rob
Locomotives alone or pulling trains are so heavy that, in a collision with rolling stock or colliding with obstacles in a derailment, they are not likely to come to such an abrupt stop, which would cause occupants to become missiles inside the cab. Even in a collision with other locomotives, the impact is substantially absorbed by the yielding of metal forms. In this case, there is a danger that the cab will be chewed up along with its occupants, in which case seat belts would not help.
However, I would think that seatbelts would protect cab occupants from being thrown around inside the cab if a locomotive is rolled over in a derailment, which often happens. Belts would also protect a crewmember from being dropped against a window opening that is being slid against the ground in the case of a locomotive sliding on its side. So obviously, there are some good reasons to provide locomotive seatbelts and force their use. Certainly the idea is not novel, and the cost cannot possibly be an issue. So why not use them in locomotives?
The only reason I can think of is the inconvenience and discomfort of wearing them. Yet our society has clearly decided that reason to be invalid.
For anyone who ever operated locomotives, the use of seatbelts on locomotives would be useless, and installing them would be a useless endeavour by safety freaks that do not know.
I doubt that many people in a locomotive cab would want to wear seatbelts, let alone being ordered to wear them. I don’t want to be ordered to wear a seatbelt while driving a car. The safety freaks may or may not know what is good for us, but they get their way by getting laws passed. Bulldozers, loaders, and other off-road equipment have seatbelts. That application is analogous to locomotives. I always felt that the argument against seatbelts on school busses was a rather strange proposition.
I haven’t been railroading that long but I don’t think they would be used just something to get in the way I do agree that they might be benficial if the loco when on its side thought but that is rare occurance
the big issue with school bus seat belts in busses is them being used as weapons when I was in middle school we got a brand new bus with seat belts all it took was about 2 weeks and they were removed as several kids ended up getting thier skulls split open and had to go get stiches
For 30 years my hobby was working as an auto racing track worker: Flagman, Turn Marshall, Observer. As such I came to appreciate seat belts very early. It doesn’t take too may incidents where a friend walks away from a total wreck because of his seat belts to convince you of their value. In 1961 I bought a new car and installed seat belts at my own expense. I have used belts religiously ever since. I even put them on to move my car from the garage to the street. In a plane I wear my seat belt snugly any time I am in my seat.
If I were to get a job driving or riding in a locomotive I would feel uncomfortable without seatbelts. The danger that they prevent is not the big impact with a major obstruction, it is the secondary collision of human body with the windshield, or control panel, or window, or roof, etc. True, a seat belt may hinder a flying leap, but aren’t those incidents fairly rare? And, if there is major damage and the crew needs to evacuate after a wreck, this is greatly aided if they are actually conscious and relatively uninjured. A broken collar bone could mean the difference between life and death if the engine catches fire after a rough ride.
The big reason for mandating seat belts in cars is “Societal Cost”. The number of people injured n car accidents was just costing too much in medical care. The numbers of RR crews injured in wrecks is just too low to cause much of a stir due to societal costs.
So, while I would like seatbelts for myself, I can’t see them being offered or ordered in the foreseeable future.
Jack
I generally agree, but I think the only reason seatbelts are not mandated on locomotives is that society has not got around to it yet. Surely it is coming. A locomotive overturning is a rare thing, but car accidents are rare occurrences for each driver. Indeed, seatbelts are targeted at that “rare” occurrence, not to any everyday utility.
I don’t doubt that kids made weapons out of seatbelts, but surely this can’t the reason officials refuse to equip school busses with seatbelts. As I mentioned above, exempting school busses from seatbelts strikes me as one of the most unusual inconsistencies of our society.
The only explanation that I can think of is that school busses are unique vehicles in terms of seating and internal arrangement, and they have never had seatbelts. Therefore, the seatbelt restraint system needs to be designed from scratch.
With all of the officialdom involved with this endeavor, it would be such a bureaucratic quagmire that the job would never get done. With unlimited public money to throw at the problem, the problem would not get solved in order to keep the money flying its way.
A collision may be an unusual event for the average drive, but it doesn’t take a collision to appreciate your seat belts. I, too, wear them religiously - my father had installed them in the family car around the time I started driving (a coincidence - he got the belts from where he worked, a major auto manufacturer). I pulled out of a driveway with a little too much gas. Didn’t hit anything, but the left turn left me sitting in the middle of the vinyl bench seat. I pulled myself back behind the wheel and buckled up.
Believe it. Add to the mix the high seat backs (also a safety feature) which prevent the driver from seeing most of the kids.
Belts on dozers and such make a lot more sense if you watch them working at some of the angles they do.
Can anyone remember incidents in locomotives where an employee was injured sitting down and not having a seatbelt on? I imagine for a head-on crash it would help but in the rare head-on crashes at high speed, not much is left.
I have had a few “rough” joints during switching operations but even my coffee cup ususally stays put for those. A rough joint for me would be anything over 2mph. My coffee cup is rated to survive a 4mph joint. [:o)]
With some long, poorly marshalled (for train handling) trains, slack run-ins or slack run-outs would be an issue but injuries for those would be more likely while moving around in the cab and being thrown off-balance. We are always prepared for these.
Luckily, so far I have only hit one vehicle, a 3/4 ton truck. Although it was rather loud, parts were showered around the cab and the locomotive suffered damage to the brake cylinders and some dents at the front and under the conductors window, the momentum of the train kept our stop even with the emergency brakes applied rather smooth. The driver of the truck did not make out too well.
I have also been on my side in a derailment where the track was washed out in front of us as we came along at 40mph. Both of us remained in our seats thoughout the entire experience. It was surpisingly smooth. The locomotive suffered more damage being dragged back to where it was lifted back onto the track than damage done derailing.
I doubt seat belts will ever be installed in Locomotives unless studies show injuries are a concern. Can anyone think of an injury that has happened while sitting down that a seatbelt would have prevented? I’m sure there are some, but how many? I cannot think of any after 20+ years.
Then again, I have been driving automobiles for 30+ years without once hitting anything. I religiously wear my seatbelt. I’ve even caught myself putting it on movi
Not wearing a seatbelt may make you uncomfortable, but cruising along at track speed and seeing a log truck pull in front of me makes me very uncomfortable. In the event that I ever hit one, the last place I would want to be is strapped down to a chair.
Belts on dozers and other off-road equipment are there to prevent the operator from being thrown around the cab, or out of it, in case of an upset. It is exactly the same reason locomotives could benefit from them. As Jack pointed out above, one of the hazards in a vehicle upset is getting burned up in a subsequent fire if you fail to get out. And while seatbelts have been cited as posing an escape impediment, they can prevent you from being injured by striking objects inside the cab, and then being unable to escape because of those injuries.
I am not advocating seatbelts in locomotiv
Again all opinions from people who NEVER operated a locomotive other than around the chrismas tree.
Locomotives do not stop on a dime and even impacting heavy objects like trucks do not throw you out of the seat.
these heavy objects will have engineer and conductor dive out of their seat, something the seatbelt would prevent, and so increasing danger to crew.
Do you really think I would wear a seat belt, knowing that at any time one of the little darlings can and will hurdle a brick through the windshield. NO I want to be able to dive away.
Nuff said , 19 years in cab have proven one thing, safety experts are not experts, and people who think they know how to operate locomotives most of time have never done so.
It is true that colliding with trucks or vehicles will not throw you out of the seat, but rolling over in a derailment will throw you out of the seat, and there is always some risk of a derailment. Incidentally, that risk is considerably heightened in a collision with a truck or other motor vehicle.
Similar to your example of diving out of a seat to avoid flying objects, a popular argument against seatbelts in cars is that they hinder escape is some situations where quick escape is needed such as fire or water submersion. Experts dismissed this objection though in view of the greater good provided by seat belts.
Maybe what they could do is mandate seatbelts in locomotives and make a law that you have to use them, but just don’t enforce the law.