If you consider that sort of situation to be dangerous, then yes, it does. However, I do not, and I do not see the need for cameras watching the crew. That, and I also would like to get a chance to get my hand on the throttle of a P42 or another locomotive, and I don't want these cameras interfering with that.I have to say that much as I'd like to get my hand on the throttle of a P42, your perspective on the issue DOES rather reinforce the point of the camera.Well, the engineer was with them both the entire time, telling them what to do step by step ("put it into run 8, then sound the horn for this crossing"). There's really no danger in a situation like this, the engineer is still in complete control, and can grab the throttle, brake, or horn at any time.Until your last sentence, you were making my point! YIKESThis is exactly WHY the cameras are needed! What the heck are engineers thinking letting someone pull the throttle on a locomotive carrying human beings??? I might could understand a short line going 20 MPH, but Amtrak???
Cab Cams an "invastion of privacy"???
- Thread starter VentureForth
- Start date
Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
- Status
You want to get your hands on the throttle of a P42 or another locomotive get hired on by a railroad, go through the appropriate training and run a train as an employee. Do I and a number of other people consider that sort of situation to be dangerous? Yes. Not only that but in a case where something goes wrong the railroad's liability skyrockets. Your line of reasoning will have railroad legal departments everywhere looking to paper the cab walls with cameras.If you consider that sort of situation to be dangerous, then yes, it does. However, I do not, and I do not see the need for cameras watching the crew. That, and I also would like to get a chance to get my hand on the throttle of a P42 or another locomotive, and I don't want these cameras interfering with that.I have to say that much as I'd like to get my hand on the throttle of a P42, your perspective on the issue DOES rather reinforce the point of the camera.Well, the engineer was with them both the entire time, telling them what to do step by step ("put it into run 8, then sound the horn for this crossing"). There's really no danger in a situation like this, the engineer is still in complete control, and can grab the throttle, brake, or horn at any time.Until your last sentence, you were making my point! YIKES
Legal departments. Lawyers have far too much to do with this. Before there was any means of monitoring crews, no one would have worried about this sort of situation. So why is it that every precaution must be taken to prevent something now, that a few decades ago would not have been nearly as big a deal? I think once someone has gone through the necessary training to operate one of these machines, they should be allowed to operate them without big brother watching their every move. If they want to take the risk upon themselves of violating the rules and letting an unauthorized person in the cab or committing some other violation, then that is their decision.You want to get your hands on the throttle of a P42 or another locomotive get hired on by a railroad, go through the appropriate training and run a train as an employee. Do I and a number of other people consider that sort of situation to be dangerous? Yes. Not only that but in a case where something goes wrong the railroad's liability skyrockets. Your line of reasoning will have railroad legal departments everywhere looking to paper the cab walls with cameras.If you consider that sort of situation to be dangerous, then yes, it does. However, I do not, and I do not see the need for cameras watching the crew. That, and I also would like to get a chance to get my hand on the throttle of a P42 or another locomotive, and I don't want these cameras interfering with that.I have to say that much as I'd like to get my hand on the throttle of a P42, your perspective on the issue DOES rather reinforce the point of the camera.Well, the engineer was with them both the entire time, telling them what to do step by step ("put it into run 8, then sound the horn for this crossing"). There's really no danger in a situation like this, the engineer is still in complete control, and can grab the throttle, brake, or horn at any time.Until your last sentence, you were making my point! YIKES
Could you please describe a scenario in which an unauthorized person being in the cab operating the locomotive under the close guidance of the engineer, with him or her ready to take control at a seconds notice, could endanger anyone (physical danger, ignoring potential legal trouble for the engineer or unauthorized person)?
Last edited by a moderator:
AAARGH!
Conductor
While your physical operation of the engine may not be dangerous, your distraction to the engineer is. There is much more to it than knobs, buttons, and levers. I think your opinion is based on the fact you want to operate an engine again. Is that being selfish? That is for you to answer.
It is extremely selfish, I am well aware of that. However, I speak for many railfans out there, not just myself. You could spend a long time searching for a railfan who wouldn't take a cab ride if offered one, and never find one. I have never operated an engine, but I have been in the cab of a parked locomotive before, and I am well aware of the skill it takes to operate one of those monstrous machines. What makes the presence of an unauthorized person so distracting to the engineer? His/her main focus is still the operating of the engine, and communicating using the radio. If for some reason they need to take over, they can do so at any time. There are plenty of other factors that could distract an engineer (e.g. talking with the other engineer, talking on the radio, something trackside, etc.). What makes an unauthorized person so dangerous?
MattW
Conductor
Much as I'd love to have my hands on the throttle of a P42, I actually hope it doesn't happen. Too much responsibility for someone as untrained as me to have hundreds of lives relying on the engineer jumping back on and saving the day. If I want to drive a choo choo, I'll find a museum that lets you operate a locomotive for an hour or so and pretend (while still fully paying attention) that it's a P42 or GEVO or whatever. If you're so adamant about the P42, the best you can ever hope for is getting a 5-minute cab tour at a 15+ minute stop (ATL, BHM, WAS etc.) with the train fully parked and the engineer just has to wait it out (i.e. has no other responsibilities)
AAARGH!
Conductor
An engineer should have 100% concentration on what they are doing. An unauthorized person detracts from that. The engineer is not only concenting on his/her job, but that you are as well. It is human nature that when there are distractions to normal operation (which require significant concentration), that the operator is not able to apply the same level of concentration, thus creating a potentially dangerous situation.
Multi-tasking is not a good idea when driving a train IMHO.
Last edited by a moderator:
wayman
Engineer
Peter, it's not hard to get cab rides in legal and safe places, and even to operate without being an employee. There are several museums and heritage railroads which have special programs for visitors who want to operate locomotives or trolleys. Here are three I can think of off the top of my head:
The Nevada State Railroad Museum offers its "Your hand is on the throttle" program, where you receive instruction and then, under supervision, operate a steam locomotive for an hour.
The Pennsylvania Trolley Museum offers its Operator for an Hour program to visitors.
The Santa Fe Southern offers cab ride tickets on each ride, allowing you to ride "third seat" after receiving some basic safety lessons.
In addition to these programs--which you can just show up as a visitor and do--just about every heritage and tourist railroad is run by volunteers, and that includes the engineers and motormen who operate the locomotives and trolleys. They'll train you. This is the safe and proper way to do it. Or, actually working for a railroad. But not being a foamer and hopping in the cab of a real train with a willing engineer.
Last edited by a moderator:
Long Train Runnin'
Engineer
Taking a cab ride and running are totally different things. Running isn't as much fun as you think it would be even when being guided at slow speeds. I can't imagine you being able to safely operate that locomotive your first time at 79 MPH. I have 20 hours of training down, and I assure you the first time you run if you do anything over 30 MPH its unsafe. Even when being told what to do, you don't know where everything is in the cab, or what you might be looking at. I've never run anything as advanced as a P42 but the concept of self lapping brakes is not something your going to get your first application. Toss in you have 200+ passengers behind you, not to mention all the things that can stumble on to the ROW. When your doing it as a railfan your thinking about your self not the safety. When you hit your first ever grade crossing are you watching for cars or people or are you thinking how nice it sounds to be hitting the horn?
I really dont know what to say here ive been trying to write this for a half hour, but as a railfan I was pumped the first time I gave to blasts of the horn and pulled the throttle toward me. Those feelings though had to be put on the shelf when you start to run its not just a hobby or something to brag about there are suddenly a whole book full of rules and responsibilities you need to think about and take seriously. There is no safe way to take a train for a joy ride on a mainline...
If you want a cab ride all you have to do is ask, you can't run but your more then welcome up front, and in the station we all young kids and adults to hit the horn sound the bell aplly the brakes all with the hand brake on in the station. If you want to run, join up as a member take a book of rules exam train as a conductor then you can learn to run.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ispolkom
Engineer
I'm not interested in red light cameras, and since your slippery slope was a logical fallacy, I'll leave you to your visions of the riches New York skims from those poor red light runners. Me, I'm always happy for local government to extract more money from people who break laws.
I'm glad that you've abandoned your assertion that a locomotive engineer should have a cellphone to tell his spouse he'll he late for dinner. As for your claim for reading, engineers have an important job, one that is obviously so important that they outlaw after 10? 12? hours regardless of the situation (that train in Michigan last winter comes to mind). Given that it is so important, I don't think it's too much to ask for them to put aside distractions while on duty. It's a cliche that safety rules are written in blood, but I'm sure the rule about reading materials is written in at least as much blood as the new rule against cellphone use.
T
The boss
Guest
Then there's guy like this who broadcast what they do in real time to the world. It's not unusual to hear him speak poorly about his employer even knowing thing is archived. http://tinyurl.com/ykglg68
I do realize that having an unauthorized person in the cab is an additional risk, however, I don't think it is serious enough to warrant cameras. If given the chance, I would still not hesitate to take a cab ride, or operate any locomotive on any railroad (provided the engineer was their to guide me), realizing that I am taking a risk for both myself and the engineer, which the engineer must also realize if they are offering me such an opportunity. I'm not actively seeking either of these opportunities, but would gladly take them if they were offered. This is just my opinion, which I know is shared by a lot of people out there. I also know that there are a lot of people out there who would consider people such as myself reckless and lacking in regard for safety.
wayman
Engineer
Looking for unauthorized people in the cab is not the reason the cameras might be installed. It's certainly one of many rule infractions the cameras might observe, but it's not by any stretch the driving reason behind the idea.
Peter, you're also endangering the lives of any passenger who might be on the train. You're also endangering the lives of any trainmen who might be on the train. You're also endangering the lives of any trainmen or yard personnel or station personnel who have actual reason to be near the train or on the right-of-way. You're also endangering the lives of any engineers or trainmen or, god forbid, passengers who might be on another train nearby. Even while the engineer may be fully aware of what danger he is placing himself in and making that decision -- however bad a decision it is -- none of these other people have given their consent to let you put their lives at risk. And all of them are trusting that the engine you would be in is actually under the full and undistracted control of a real engineer.
Can you read every signal? At a quick count in NORAC, I see 36 different signal/sign rules, and some of those rules can be indicated by well over a dozen different types of physical signals. Quick quiz: What do three yellow lights angled "-" over three blinking yellow lights angled "/" mean? What about three yellow lights angled "/" by themselves? Exactly when do you change speed for each of these?
If the engineer is watching you, he won't see the signal the moment it comes into view. You will. Do you know it cold? For one of these two signals, you must begin the speed reduction "as soon as the signal is clearly visible", not "after asking the engineer what you should do, while moving at 45 or 55mph, waiting for him to look at the signal and respond". If the engineer is watching for signals, he won't be watching you. What if he's watching for signals, sees one, tells you what to do and watches you while you change speed to make sure you do it right ... and you pass a whistle-for-grade-crossing sign at speed? Oops, you just entered a grade crossing without whistling! Are you dead yet? Is somebody else?
Where do you want to start? Lowered reaction time including the lag in reaction time between when the instruction exits the engineers mouth and the unauthorized person reacts to it, unfamiliarity with the controls and how they work, that there is nothing happening in the time it would take to get the unauthorized person out of the seat and the actual engineer in control of the train.
You also can't ignore the legal consequences to the railroad who would most assuredly be made to pay a large damage award in the event of an accident while operating the train, the engineer who also can be held liable for any damages as well as losing his license to operate a train (and by proxy his livelihood), and to the unauthorized person operating the train who would also face liability. Do you think the average unauthorized person can afford the financial liability not to mention legal fees from defending a civil suit in such a situation? Also, as seen on Long Island recently unauthorized persons in this situation have faced criminal charges. Is this a risk you're willing to take?
As time progresses the world evolves. What was acceptable as you say a few decades ago is no longer acceptable today.
However, you present no rational reason for an unauthorized person to be in the cab in the first place let alone operating a train other then the selfish desires of you and other railfans desire to ride there. Can you give even just one rational reason why you or any other railfan needs to be in the cab of an operating locomotive?
Last edited by a moderator:
You both make good points. But I stick with what I said earlier - if given the chance, I will take it.
The signal aspects described are medium approach (reduce speed as soon as the signal is visible) and approach (reduce speed as soon as the engine passes the signal).
Of course I can't give a rational reason. I know railfans have no business being in the cab. A lot of people do things they have no business doing, and railfans are no exception to that. Railfans probably do things they have no business doing more than most people, considering that a lot of us trespass, etc. (which I do not do).
The signal aspects described are medium approach (reduce speed as soon as the signal is visible) and approach (reduce speed as soon as the engine passes the signal).
Of course I can't give a rational reason. I know railfans have no business being in the cab. A lot of people do things they have no business doing, and railfans are no exception to that. Railfans probably do things they have no business doing more than most people, considering that a lot of us trespass, etc. (which I do not do).
Ryan
Court Jester
Speak for yourself, don't paint us all with the same brush.
So you'll not put yourself in any danger by yourself, but put your hand on the throttle and you have no issues endangering hundreds of people along with you. Cool.
ThayerATM
OBS Chief
In one second a train traveling at 60 mph travels 88 feet. That's enough distance to make a difference between safety and trouble.Legal departments. Lawyers have far too much to do with this. Before there was any means of monitoring crews, no one would have worried about this sort of situation. So why is it that every precaution must be taken to prevent something now, that a few decades ago would not have been nearly as big a deal? I think once someone has gone through the necessary training to operate one of these machines, they should be allowed to operate them without big brother watching their every move. If they want to take the risk upon themselves of violating the rules and letting an unauthorized person in the cab or committing some other violation, then that is their decision.You want to get your hands on the throttle of a P42 or another locomotive get hired on by a railroad, go through the appropriate training and run a train as an employee. Do I and a number of other people consider that sort of situation to be dangerous? Yes. Not only that but in a case where something goes wrong the railroad's liability skyrockets. Your line of reasoning will have railroad legal departments everywhere looking to paper the cab walls with cameras.If you consider that sort of situation to be dangerous, then yes, it does. However, I do not, and I do not see the need for cameras watching the crew. That, and I also would like to get a chance to get my hand on the throttle of a P42 or another locomotive, and I don't want these cameras interfering with that.I have to say that much as I'd like to get my hand on the throttle of a P42, your perspective on the issue DOES rather reinforce the point of the camera.Well, the engineer was with them both the entire time, telling them what to do step by step ("put it into run 8, then sound the horn for this crossing"). There's really no danger in a situation like this, the engineer is still in complete control, and can grab the throttle, brake, or horn at any time.Until your last sentence, you were making my point! YIKES
Could you please describe a scenario in which an unauthorized person being in the cab operating the locomotive under the close guidance of the engineer, with him or her ready to take control at a seconds notice, could endanger anyone (physical danger, ignoring potential legal trouble for the engineer or unauthorized person)?
Well, I can see my opinion on this is very unpopular. And I'm sorry a lot of you feel that way. But nothing I read on this forum is going to change the decision I would make that in that situation.
How many of you can honestly say that there was never a point in your life where if offered a cab ride or a chance at the throttle you would have taken it?
How many of you can honestly say that there was never a point in your life where if offered a cab ride or a chance at the throttle you would have taken it?
Last edited by a moderator:
ALC Rail Writer
Engineer
Nope. Never been offered the controls. And never will take them unless I'm going 20mph on private track with supervision, basic training, and supervision. Part of appreciating trains is appreciating their power.
ThayerATM
OBS Chief
You obviously have a reckless regard for the safety of others.
I'd turn down the chance simply because I'm unqualified to operate a locomotive, supervised or not.
Dutchrailnut
Conductor
Stopping inward facing camera's is not gone be easy, after all, toll takers, cashiers, bank telers, police officers, fire fighters etc etc are all taped.
To object to a safety device would and could backfire on union.
As for those individuals claiming they were at controls of a moving locomotive, I would keep that very very quite.
It is a federal crime and if proven could back fire on you for years to come, think about job interviews and having to disclose that you commited a federal crime involving safety of general public.
Its unlawfull for anyone, not holding a valid Locomotive Engineers certificate to occupy the engineers seat or operate a locomotive, unless inside a private property (factory or such)
To object to a safety device would and could backfire on union.
As for those individuals claiming they were at controls of a moving locomotive, I would keep that very very quite.
It is a federal crime and if proven could back fire on you for years to come, think about job interviews and having to disclose that you commited a federal crime involving safety of general public.
Its unlawfull for anyone, not holding a valid Locomotive Engineers certificate to occupy the engineers seat or operate a locomotive, unless inside a private property (factory or such)
K
Karen
Guest
Would you have taken it if there was a video camera in the cab?
ThayerATM
OBS Chief
Careful, Karen.
You attributed that quote to me.
I wasn't the one who asked the question. I was just pointing out how far a train going 60 mph travels in a second.
But to answer your question --- NO, I would not even be in the cab. I'm not qualified to operate a Locomotive.
Ryan
Court Jester
Karen, you've attributed your quote to the wrong guy - worth noting since they're on completely opposite sides of the coin here.
To answer the question for me, absolutely not. I'd probably take the cab ride if offered, but I've got too much respect for the training that's required to sit in the hot seat and actually do the job to think that I'd even be remotely safe doing it. The upside of things is that thread opened my eyes to the fact that it's possible to volunteer to do this wort of thing - something that I may consider in the future.
To answer the question for me, absolutely not. I'd probably take the cab ride if offered, but I've got too much respect for the training that's required to sit in the hot seat and actually do the job to think that I'd even be remotely safe doing it. The upside of things is that thread opened my eyes to the fact that it's possible to volunteer to do this wort of thing - something that I may consider in the future.
wayman
Engineer
I read NORAC in my spare time, because someday I hope to have time to volunteer heavily for a heritage railroad and having a good grounding in railroad safety, procedures, and signals will put me in good stead for becoming a conductor or engineer trainee. Meanwhile, it gives me tremendous respect for engineers and trainmen. Someday I hope to be offered the chance at the throttle ... after I've been properly and thoroughly trained. And then I'll gladly take it.
And as for cab rides, there are as I said above plenty of opportunities for them on heritage railroads. I had one a few years ago with the West Chester RR. I was given some very basic rules by the engineer -- sit there, it's ok if you stand up and walk around a bit, but don't touch anything without asking, and don't distract me visually or with chit-chat -- and was absolutely not offered any controls, nor did I ask. Yes, it was a neat experience. And it's one that's not hard to come by. But do it there, not with Amtrak or CSX or NS.
- Status
