# Cab Cams an "invastion of privacy"???



## VentureForth (Oct 21, 2009)

Apparently, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers don't want cameras in locomotive cabs. "Invades privacy." Article in the LA Times here.

Are there cab cams in Amtrak locos other than for accident recording?

This is the sort of stuff that give unions a really bad name, and quite rightly a sour taste in the public's opinion. Why should they object to cameras in the cab? Only if they're not doing their job. In fact, instead of just recording to a hard drive or tape on board, they should quite frankly be live to a central office in my humble opinion!


----------



## profwebs (Oct 21, 2009)

For as anti union as I am, I partly agree with the BLE here. My union decided to put GPS in our trucks, and lost the battle. GPS is one thing, camera's is another. If they are recording to a hard drive to be used by accident investigators, that is one thing, I guess I could live with that. Having a live feed sent to a central office where any manager can look at it is quite another. Big brother is already watching us enough.

It just has to do with invasion of privacy....


----------



## VentureForth (Oct 21, 2009)

Perhaps this is naive, but am I wrong to believe that there shouldn't be an expectation of privacy when you are working at the will of your employeer? If they decided to put a camera in my cubicle, they have that right - just as I have the right to do my job as it was described to me and if not, I have the right to leave.

When it comes to the safety of passengers, why should privacy take precidence? Unless you're doing something private (ie: going the bathroom), you're employeer has the right to know what you're doing on their dime.


----------



## saxman (Oct 21, 2009)

Same thing with airliners. Some companies wanted to put cameras in the cockpit. My union said not only said no, but they said H...L No! Many companies would try and use it to dicipline pilots rather than for safety purposes. They had enough of a hard time making it illegal for companies to use the black box against pilots for diciplinary action instead of safety improvement. Luckily there is a law that allows only the black box to be used for investigation purposes in an accident or incident.

So this is the exact same thing. They're worried the camera will be used against the engineer, even if the engineer didn't willfully do anything wrong. So I think the union has a legit concern here.


----------



## wayman (Oct 21, 2009)

VentureForth said:


> Perhaps this is naive, but am I wrong to believe that there shouldn't be an expectation of privacy when you are working at the will of your employeer? If they decided to put a camera in my cubicle, they have that right - just as I have the right to do my job as it was described to me and if not, I have the right to leave.
> When it comes to the safety of passengers, why should privacy take precidence? Unless you're doing something private (ie: going the bathroom), you're employeer has the right to know what you're doing on their dime.


One argument I can see against the cameras:

If an employee has an exemplary performance record and safety record, but has a personality conflict for some reason with his supervisor, there is no real measure for that supervisor to discipline the employee (nor should there be). But if there is a camera recording the employee's every movement while on the job, the supervisor -- having a grudge for non-work-related reasons -- could look through the tape for any possible issue, no matter how insignificant to performance or safety. For instance, NORAC prohibits reading anything other than NORAC while on the job. What if, while safely stopped at a red signal waiting for a freight to pass, an engineer pulled out a shopping list? _Technically_ that is (as I understand it) a rules infraction. Is it actually dereliction of duty or compromising safety? No, not really. Or what if, while stopped in the same safe situation, the conductor overhears passengers discussing the sports score of a big game and radios the engineer to mention "how 'bout them Yankees? I just heard they're up in the sixth inning!"? That too is probably _technically_ against some rule or another.

The supervisor could probably collect a few such instances and write up a disciplinary complaint against this employee which might have serious repercussions, even though these are minor things that have no actual relevance to performance or safety. And the supervisor would never do the same thing for another employee with whom he had no personality conflict. The video record enables a supervisor to hold employees to very different standards based on personal and subjective -- not objective -- measures.

I don't know if that is the union's argument (or one of several arguments), but it's something I would argue were I in the union's position.


----------



## VentureForth (Oct 21, 2009)

It would seem to me that a witch hunt would be obviously discernable from a legitimate safety concern. Why would anyone even look at the tapes unless someone were doing something wrong, with the exception of random screenings? I think that an objective panel that doesn't come from the public school system's zero tolerance union could make a reasonable discernment between a shopping list at a red light vs War and Peace with the highball.

I understand your other arguments, but to them, I say what's the problem with that? There are rules on the books that allow rest periods while at a siding for x amount of time during which cell phone calls, texting, reading, and even sleeping is allowed. In all of these scenarios, there is always a 2nd human in the cab.

Where there is no other human in the cab, what's wrong with the eye in the sky? So long as it is not government controlled (I didn't say used by the NTSB for investigation), even a quasi government entity like Amtrak should think of these to be in the best interest of the safety of their passengers and the protection of their expensive equipment paid for by you and me.


----------



## Amtrak839 (Oct 21, 2009)

I have 2 friends who I know have not only gotten cab rides, but have had their hands on the throttle of a P42. And I don't mean for just a minute, I mean for a good hour or so. One of these cab rides was about a year ago, not long after the Chatsworth wreck, surprisingly. So as of a year ago, Amtrak didn't have cameras in the locomotive cabs watching the engineers. I'm with the BLE 100% on this one.


----------



## wayman (Oct 21, 2009)

VentureForth said:


> It would seem to me that a witch hunt would be obviously discernable from a legitimate safety concern. Why would anyone even look at the tapes unless someone were doing something wrong, with the exception of random screenings? I think that an objective panel that doesn't come from the public school system's zero tolerance union could make a reasonable discernment between a shopping list at a red light vs War and Peace with the highball.


There isn't always going to be an "objective panel" overseeing these things. All it takes is one supervisor with a grudge putting one thing on an employee's record. And it's not unreasonable to expect that such a thing could happen, and that it's something the cameras make possible.



> I understand your other arguments, but to them, I say what's the problem with that? There are rules on the books that allow rest periods while at a siding for x amount of time during which cell phone calls, texting, reading, and even sleeping is allowed. In all of these scenarios, there is always a 2nd human in the cab.


As I understand it, it is very rare for there to be two people in the cab on Amtrak. So long as a shift is scheduled to be under some limit -- six hours? -- I think a second person is not required. Since this is generally cheaper for Amtrak, they tend to schedule crew changes such that they can run this way. At least, that's what several Amtrak engineers have told me.

Also, I'm not sure where the rule on the books allows cell phone calls, texting, reading or sleeping while on a siding. The rule I'm aware of is NORAC General Rule E, which states



> E. Prohibited Behavior The following behaviors are prohibited:
> 
> 1. While on duty or on company property: Gambling, fighting or participating in any illegal, immoral or unauthorized
> 
> ...


Can you cite the exception to this? I couldn't find it, skimming NORAC (8th Ed) just now.


----------



## transit54 (Oct 21, 2009)

profwebs said:


> For as anti union as I am, I partly agree with the BLE here. My union decided to put GPS in our trucks, and lost the battle. GPS is one thing, camera's is another. If they are recording to a hard drive to be used by accident investigators, that is one thing, I guess I could live with that. Having a live feed sent to a central office where any manager can look at it is quite another. Big brother is already watching us enough.
> It just has to do with invasion of privacy....


Well, it's not a live feed. I'd assume these are hard drive based recorders, in which case the hard drive needs to be removed from the recording unit for the video to be played. There are a few companies on the market that produce recording units where videos can be pulled or watched live via WiFi, but that would require a supervisor's vehicle to be within a few hundred feet of the train. Transmitting video live over a cellular connection would be prohibitively expensive and to the best of my knowledge, there's not even a product on the market that does this.

If there are concerns about videos being used inappropriately, then restrict access to the recording units. Only give keys to higher level management to ensure that videos are only used in serious incidents. Or create a policy that requires documentation in advance of why the videos were pulled. Or restrict the offenses for which an engineer can be disciplined on to only a few specific areas of egregious safety violations. There's ways to protect employees against abuse and ensure that management can enforce safety standards.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Oct 21, 2009)

I'm confused-- are they protesting the cab cams that watch the tracks, or an addition camera that watches them as they drive-- to make sure that they aren't texting or something?


----------



## VentureForth (Oct 21, 2009)

wayman said:


> There isn't always going to be an "objective panel" overseeing these things. All it takes is one supervisor with a grudge putting one thing on an employee's record. And it's not unreasonable to expect that such a thing could happen, and that it's something the cameras make possible.


Understood. However, THIS is the time and place for the Union to take action against renegade management.



> As I understand it, it is very rare for there to be two people in the cab on Amtrak. So long as a shift is scheduled to be under some limit -- six hours? -- I think a second person is not required. Since this is generally cheaper for Amtrak, they tend to schedule crew changes such that they can run this way. At least, that's what several Amtrak engineers have told me.
> Also, I'm not sure where the rule on the books allows cell phone calls, texting, reading or sleeping while on a siding. The rule I'm aware of is NORAC General Rule E, which states
> 
> 
> ...


It actually is referred to in a policy issued byBNSF back a decade ago. I guess napping isn't an FRA rule per se, but the Railroads have some wiggle room. And that's fine. I saw the policy somewhere but can't find it at the moment.



Amtrak839 said:


> I have 2 friends who I know have not only gotten cab rides, but have had their hands on the throttle of a P42. And I don't mean for just a minute, I mean for a good hour or so. One of these cab rides was about a year ago, not long after the Chatsworth wreck, surprisingly. So as of a year ago, Amtrak didn't have cameras in the locomotive cabs watching the engineers. I'm with the BLE 100% on this one.


Until your last sentence, you were making my point! YIKES  This 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???



ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> I'm confused-- are they protesting the cab cams that watch the tracks, or an addition camera that watches them as they drive-- to make sure that they aren't texting or something?


The additional camera looking inside the cab.

For crying out loud, people, everytime you call any sort of company by phone these days, they want to record the call "For your protection." What's the freakin' problem with a camera if you're not doing wrong?


----------



## Ryan (Oct 21, 2009)

wayman said:


> VentureForth said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps this is naive, but am I wrong to believe that there shouldn't be an expectation of privacy when you are working at the will of your employeer? If they decided to put a camera in my cubicle, they have that right - just as I have the right to do my job as it was described to me and if not, I have the right to leave.
> ...


I think the counter to this (usually used when discussing red light or speed cameras) is that non-enforcement of bad rules isn't the best solution. Write better rules that allow for some "wiggle room", and enforce them as strictly as possible, rather than depend on uneven enforcement based on personal judgment.
Personally, I find the union's position ridiculous.


----------



## Long Train Runnin' (Oct 21, 2009)

> Until your last sentence, you were making my point! YIKES This 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???


I understand what your saying, but under supervision its not to bad IMHO. I am a voulnteer with the New Jersey Museum of Transportation. Where I am training to be an engineer. The first time I drove a train there were people on board. We operate under NORAC although we don't have the highest passanger comfort standards, driving a train isn't as hard as you'd think, its more about watching absoultly everything going on in front and to the sides of you.

As far as cameras go sadly they are invading everything. I guess it becomes part of the job there are a lot of jobs where your on camera everyday while at work I guess it becomes just part of the job. Hopefully it doesn't happen but you never no.


----------



## Ispolkom (Oct 21, 2009)

Long Train Runnin said:


> > Until your last sentence, you were making my point! YIKES This 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???
> 
> 
> I understand what your saying, but under supervision its not to bad IMHO. I am a voulnteer with the New Jersey Museum of Transportation. Where I am training to be an engineer. The first time I drove a train there were people on board. We operate under NORAC although we don't have the highest passanger comfort standards, driving a train isn't as hard as you'd think, its more about watching absoultly everything going on in front and to the sides of you.
> ...


I think that there is a qualitative difference between a trainee operating a locomotive under direct supervision and an engineer letting John Q. Foamer at the controls. I imagine NORAC agrees -- certainly the Long Island Railroad does.

With regard to the cameras, what proportion of railroad accidents are due to engineers violating operating rules as opposed to other reasons? This Metrolink disaster is perhaps an especially egregious example, but I'd imagine that most fatalities are caused by people and vehicles violating the railroad right of way. Is operator error a major cause of freight derailments?

I'm wondering if the camera scheme is a case of authorities trying to CYA, rather than spend money in a way that would really increase safety.


----------



## wayman (Oct 21, 2009)

Ispolkom said:


> I'm wondering if the camera scheme is a case of authorities trying to CYA, rather than spend money in a way that would really increase safety.


If the tapes are only going to be viewed as part of an investigation after an incident -- a derailment or collision, most likely -- then the damage has already been done. The cameras would certainly provide useful data for such an investigation. But the only way I see that the cameras could help to "prevent an accident" is that an engineer might feel its presence (and post-incident evidence) is a deterrent towards unsafe behavior (because if there were an investigation, it would prove the engineer was texting, smoking weed, whatever). I don't know how strong or successful a deterrent it would be, though -- the sad truth is that, in the most serious accidents, the engineer isn't going to care whether there's camera evidence against him because he'll already be dead.


----------



## Ispolkom (Oct 21, 2009)

That's what I was trying to get at. Cab cameras are great at showing why an accident happened (if the cause was human error), but I'd think the emphasis should be on preventing accidents. Perhaps cameras do discourage misbehavior, but how much? Surely Metrolink isn't going to review every video recording of every engineer's run.

I imagine that improving grade crossings and more strictly punishing employees who violate safety rules (wasn't Sanchez "counseled" about cellphone usage before the accident?) will prevent more accidents than installing cab cameras will. But hey, I could be wrong. Are cab cameras in use anywhere? Do they improve safety?


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Oct 21, 2009)

The main problem you have here is what you call the slippery slope. Every year in every way, more electronic devices monitor us and watch us, checking our behavior. They are put there for "safety", which really means enforcing rules.

Let me give you an example of where it is not a good thing. Normally I stop at every red light. In fact, I'm pretty conservative about it. But here are a few scenarios:

1) As I'm approaching, it turns yellow. As is normal, I look in my reaview mirror as I begin to downshift in preparation for stopping. Behind me, though, is an ancient pickup truck, about 4 inches off my bumper. Deciding that I don't want to risk being rear-ended, I enter the intersection just as the light turns red. The pickup truck has slammed on its brakes and stops, its nose perhaps 3-4 feet into the intersection, 6-7 feet past the cross walk. This happend once. I got a ticket, and lost it in court. Had I stopped, I'd probably be dead.

2) Its a rainy day. The light turns yellow. As has happened a few times, when I step on my brakes, my ABS light comes on. ABS computer failure- or I screwed up and pumped the brakes accidentally and shut the thing off (an odd MB feature that I find both useful and frustrating). Either way, if I brake hard I'm going to enter the intersection anyway, probably sideways. Run through the intersection after taking my foot off the brake.

3) Its a cold winter day. No precipitation recently, no reason to suspect ice. Driving along at the speed limit or slightly above. Light turns yellow at that point where its flip a coin as to whether to stop. As I'm approaching I see that at some point something spilled on the road right near the intersection. It is now a sheet of ice. If I brake through it, I'm going to slide into the intersection. Take my foot off the brake and go through.

In each situation, unusual, but not obvious, circumstances prevailed that made a normally unsafe action (running a red light) not only wise, but the safe choice. Cameras can't see that. There are people in this country who have run red lights, with damned good reasons to do so, with tickets and points on their license for doing so.

So already we are using these watchdogs to the detrement of people who were doing the careful, safe option. A cop watching the red light would have seen the truck up my six. He would have pulled over the truck, and left me alone. A cop would probably have pulled me over for the second one, but I could show him the lit ABS light and explain why I did it. He'd probably let me off. I could probably explain the third one, too- and the cop could walk back and look to see the ice on the road.

But the camera can't see any of this. Standing in the location, a cop can gauge the reasonableness of the story. In court, it sounds like BS with no supporting evidence. By the time I know I'm ticketed, the truck has moved on, I've shut off my car (ABS computer resets) and that sheet of ice has long evaporated.

Where does it end? At what point do we decide that we are beginning to infringe on people's privacy. At what point do we decide that safety has reached a point where furthering it is less then then the detriment to our quality of life and freedom?

An engineer is supposed to do his job. Shouldn't read war and peace. But what about that engineer running a Sunset Limited that is spending 4 or 5 hours sitting. Is it not reasonable for him to have the oppurtunity to read, or even call his wife to tell her that he will be VERY late for dinner? Abnormal circumstance. But they exist.

I'm not that concerned about this camera. Probably won't be too concerned about the next. But how long is it from now that I have to be watched taking a dump in a public restroom so as to make sure I do the safe thing, wiping down the seat with disinfectant wipes? (I do clean up after myself in restrooms, incase you were wondering)

Tell me, VentureForth- where DOES it end?


----------



## The Boss (Oct 21, 2009)

It really is pretty simple. "Welcome to Amtrak. You are an engineer. Amtrak has a camera in the cab."

[in the galley may prove useful in a case of food poisoning, as well.]

"Don't like it? Go sell shoes or something. Thanks for your interest in Amtrak!"


----------



## volkris (Oct 21, 2009)

When people start complaining that cameras will allow every minor rule violation to be acted upon, one thing they don't normally consider is that once every insignificant violation is in play there's an opportunity to reconsider whether those should actually be violations in the first place.

Right now our rule- and lawbooks are full of tiny, silly, or even wrongheaded infractions that most wouldn't consider necessary, but so long as they are just ignored they're never thought about... that is until someone goes out specifically looking for violations to pin on an individual.

Improved enforcement (which is what these cameras really bring, for better or worse) doesn't just shine daylight on the violator, but also on the rules themselves.

Anyway, just another little factor to the equation...


----------



## Ispolkom (Oct 21, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> The main problem you have here is what you call the slippery slope.


It's always helpful when a post is headed with the logical fallacy it comes under.

Cab cameras do not equal red light cameras do not equal toilet cameras. Work place safety is not the same as traffic safety is not the same as... umm... hygiene.

While red light cameras are unconstitutional in my state, I'm always fascinated by explanations drivers give for violating traffic laws. The reports I read indicate that drivers are very good at obeying signals that have cameras, even nonfunctioning ones, and that the decrease in side collisions from cars running red lights is much higher than the increase in rear-end collisions.

With regard to the Sunset Limited engineer, I would rather she be alert and monitoring the large piece of equipment she is running by herself. Her spouse can find out that the train is going to be late the same way we do, by calling Julie. Somehow people got by for generations without cellphones, and I'd suggest that people operating large vehicles (say, larger than a go-cart) ought not to use them.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Oct 21, 2009)

volkris said:


> When people start complaining that cameras will allow every minor rule violation to be acted upon, one thing they don't normally consider is that once every insignificant violation is in play there's an opportunity to reconsider whether those should actually be violations in the first place.


Get real. Rules exist to circumvent other rules. They exist to put controls on things, for good and bad reasons. Some rules exist for good reasons, but a lot of them exist to give government the machinery it needs to crunch over people when they see fit to do so. It is the very nature of our system that it is like that. Rewriting everything in a manner that makes sense would require a full blown revolution, a new constitution, and then 2-300 years hence you'd have to do it again.



Ispolkom said:


> It's always helpful when a post is headed with the logical fallacy it comes under.
> Cab cameras do not equal red light cameras do not equal toilet cameras. Work place safety is not the same as traffic safety is not the same as... umm... hygiene.
> 
> While red light cameras are unconstitutional in my state, I'm always fascinated by explanations drivers give for violating traffic laws. The reports I read indicate that drivers are very good at obeying signals that have cameras, even nonfunctioning ones, and that the decrease in side collisions from cars running red lights is much higher than the increase in rear-end collisions.
> ...


Driving a car is a free-form operation. Cars can go anywhere and do so at any speed. The rule books for driving are guidlines. Stray too far from those guidelines and you get a ticket. If the system was too rigid, it would be unsafe. Too many variables take place when driving a car.

As for your comment on red light cameras, you are right. They do decrease the number of ran red lights. They decrease the number of accidents due to actually running a redlight by about 10%- most red light running is being done on the edge, and it doesn't create many accidents. People who are racing through and cause the major accidents are drunk, crazy, or both, and don't give a crap about cameras.

However, the main purpose of traffic light cameras is revenue. It increases it substantially, and states work to do even more. Point one: the average distance traveled at the speed limit between the time the light turns yellow and the light turns red is about 40% lower for lights that have cameras then ones that don't- thereby increasing the chance of getting an early red runner. Secondarily, and more safety oriented, when New York City instituted its red light cameras, the number of rear endings in NYC went up by about 30%, and the number of rear-endings occuring to the first car at a traffic light went up 317%.

Safety focused indeed.

As for our Sunset Limited engineer, I don't consider sitting at a red signal on a siding for 4 hours twidling their thumbs an example of running a big piece of equipment. Sitting and doing nothing is likely to lead to boredom, and boredom to dulled reflexes when the train starts moving again. In that way, you could argue that her reading improves the safe operating of the train.


----------



## Chatter163 (Oct 21, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> The main problem you have here is what you call the slippery slope. Every year in every way, more electronic devices monitor us and watch us, checking our behavior. They are put there for "safety", which really means enforcing rules.
> Let me give you an example of where it is not a good thing. Normally I stop at every red light. In fact, I'm pretty conservative about it. But here are a few scenarios:
> 
> 1) As I'm approaching, it turns yellow. As is normal, I look in my reaview mirror as I begin to downshift in preparation for stopping. Behind me, though, is an ancient pickup truck, about 4 inches off my bumper. Deciding that I don't want to risk being rear-ended, I enter the intersection just as the light turns red. The pickup truck has slammed on its brakes and stops, its nose perhaps 3-4 feet into the intersection, 6-7 feet past the cross walk. This happend once. I got a ticket, and lost it in court. Had I stopped, I'd probably be dead.
> ...


Nothing posted above has ANYTHING to do with privacy issues. There is no slippery slope here (except maybe the ice in scenario three). Each of the three scenarios presented demonstrates how cameras, by their limited points of view, may provide incomplete and imperfect perspectives of documented events. However, that reality is unrelated to privacy issues, which was the point of discussion here.


----------



## Amtrak839 (Oct 21, 2009)

VentureForth said:


> Until your last sentence, you were making my point! YIKES  This 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???


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.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Oct 21, 2009)

Amtrak839 said:


> VentureForth said:
> 
> 
> > Until your last sentence, you were making my point! YIKES  This 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???
> ...


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.


----------



## leemell (Oct 21, 2009)

volkris said:


> When people start complaining that cameras will allow every minor rule violation to be acted upon, one thing they don't normally consider is that once every insignificant violation is in play there's an opportunity to reconsider whether those should actually be violations in the first place.
> Right now our rule- and lawbooks are full of tiny, silly, or even wrongheaded infractions that most wouldn't consider necessary, but so long as they are just ignored they're never thought about... that is until someone goes out specifically looking for violations to pin on an individual.
> 
> Improved enforcement (which is what these cameras really bring, for better or worse) doesn't just shine daylight on the violator, but also on the rules themselves.
> ...


One other thing that seems lost here, the camera can vindicate just as well as incriminate. Ask any cop whose patrol car is equipped with video cameras. Most cops love those things now, even though they fought them tooth and nail to try to prevent the installation. The BLE is far too defensive on this, they should look at both sides. BTW, the cameras look inside and out.


----------



## Amtrak839 (Oct 21, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Amtrak839 said:
> 
> 
> > VentureForth said:
> ...


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.


----------



## tp49 (Oct 21, 2009)

Amtrak839 said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > Amtrak839 said:
> ...


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.


----------



## Amtrak839 (Oct 21, 2009)

tp49 said:


> Amtrak839 said:
> 
> 
> > Green Maned Lion said:
> ...


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.

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)?


----------



## AAARGH! (Oct 21, 2009)

Amtrak839 said:


> 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.


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.


----------



## Amtrak839 (Oct 21, 2009)

AAARGH! said:


> Amtrak839 said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


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 (Oct 21, 2009)

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! (Oct 21, 2009)

Amtrak839 said:


> 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?


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.


----------



## wayman (Oct 21, 2009)

Amtrak839 said:


> AAARGH! said:
> 
> 
> > Amtrak839 said:
> ...


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.


----------



## Long Train Runnin' (Oct 21, 2009)

Amtrak839 said:


> AAARGH! said:
> 
> 
> > Amtrak839 said:
> ...


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.


----------



## Ispolkom (Oct 21, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> As for our Sunset Limited engineer, I don't consider sitting at a red signal on a siding for 4 hours twidling their thumbs an example of running a big piece of equipment. Sitting and doing nothing is likely to lead to boredom, and boredom to dulled reflexes when the train starts moving again. In that way, you could argue that her reading improves the safe operating of the train.


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.


----------



## The boss (Oct 21, 2009)

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


----------



## Amtrak839 (Oct 21, 2009)

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 (Oct 21, 2009)

Amtrak839 said:


> 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.


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.



> 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,


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?


----------



## tp49 (Oct 21, 2009)

tp49 said:


> Amtrak839 said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


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?


----------



## Amtrak839 (Oct 21, 2009)

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).


----------



## Ryan (Oct 21, 2009)

Amtrak839 said:


> Of course I can't give a rational reason. I know railfans *I*have no business being in the cab. A lot of people do things they have no business doing, and railfans are *I am* no exception to that. Railfans *I* probably do things they have no business doing more than most people, considering that a lot of us trespass, etc.


Speak for yourself, don't paint us all with the same brush.



> (which I do not do).


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 (Oct 21, 2009)

Amtrak839 said:


> tp49 said:
> 
> 
> > Amtrak839 said:
> ...


In one second a train traveling at 60 mph travels 88 feet. That's enough distance to make a difference between safety and trouble.


----------



## Amtrak839 (Oct 21, 2009)

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?


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Oct 21, 2009)

Amtrak839 said:


> 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?


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 (Oct 21, 2009)

Amtrak839 said:


> 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?


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 (Oct 21, 2009)

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)


----------



## Karen (Oct 21, 2009)

ThayerATM said:


> 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?



Would you have taken it if there was a video camera in the cab?


----------



## ThayerATM (Oct 21, 2009)

Karen said:


> ThayerATM said:
> 
> 
> > 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?
> ...


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 (Oct 21, 2009)

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.


----------



## wayman (Oct 21, 2009)

Amtrak839 said:


> 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?


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.


----------



## MattW (Oct 21, 2009)

Dutchrailnut said:


> 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)


Just for clarification what is private property in this case? I thought just about all trackage in the U.S. IS private except for the NEC, part of Michigan track, and some track near stations owned by Amtrak. You say "factory or such" but RR is private, factory is private...seriously, what's the difference here?

Before anyone jumps on me, please go a few posts back and read my stance on a regular person at the controls.


----------



## oldtimer (Oct 22, 2009)

How about the legal aspect of an inward pointing camera when the train is involved in a grade crossing incident. I believe that in a lawsuit this tape/hard-drive would have to be turned over as it would by called an item subject to "discovery". The actions of the operator would be questioned in court and if negligence were found there is the possibility that the operator would face criminal charges.

If his actions were in any way questioned IE he made a full service brake application first then an emergency application versus a initial emergency application I am sure that negligence would be brought out.

All you engineers here; How many times have you done this?

As for being on camera if you are in an Amtrak yard or maintenance facility you are on camera except when you are in locker rooms or restrooms. They know when you going the locker room or lunchroom. They have on record all moves made in the yard and it is not only downloadable but in some cases your supervisors can even log on at home and see you. I personally know that this info can be used in an investigation against you. When you sit there and see 3 different views of you doing something you cannot deny it!

Amtrak employees should also know that every road vehicle that Amtrak uses is being tracked with a hidden GPS system and its location is known at all times. This too has been used to assess discipline.


----------



## RTOlson (Oct 22, 2009)

It is an interesting issue and I hope it is certainly debated at length. While there are obvious pros (including better documentation of incidents), there are also a large number of cons (possibility of abuse). I would hope that a vigorous debate would lead to a decent compromise.

I would love to be behind the controls of a locomotive, but lacking the proper training, I would rather do in the relatively safe confines of a historical museum (like the Western Pacific Railroad Museum in Portola, Calif.).

As for live monitoring, it is possible to stream video over a cell phone (or using a computer and a cellular data connection). Web sites like UStream.TV and Livestream are two sites that specialize in such things for the average Web user.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Oct 22, 2009)

Amtrak839 said:


> 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.


If an engineer, operating on a entirely separated right of way behind a fence wants to take upon themselves the risk of letting a nincompoop like you operate a train, my hat comes off to them- and to Charles Darwin.

But if that engineer does that when his locomotive is attached to a train that I happen to be riding on, or on a train on the same line that I happen to be riding on, I would like to drag his sorry arse out of his cab, and kick him all the way down his bloody train and back again.

I don't care about your life. If you have this reckless and selfish disregard for the safety of other people, perhaps I'd even lean in the other direction slightly. But I do not care to have you endanger mine, or have some jerk off of an engineer facilitate your so doing.



Ispolkom said:


> 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.


It really makes it easy to ignore an argument by simply dismissing it, without reason, as a fallacy, doesn't it? Do better.

Secondly, rules are often written in blood. Others are written to cover peoples asses so that the railroad can transfer blame from themselves to other people. I'm sure Jay and others would be willing to cite examples of rules that are intended to simply further managements goals rather then actually accomplish safer running.


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Oct 22, 2009)

MattW said:


> Dutchrailnut said:
> 
> 
> > 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)
> ...


Private property in this case is any railroad not being part of general railway system of USA.

A general railroad system falls under Federal Railroad Administration guidelines and laws.

And those CFR 49 laws are making it ilegal for anyone without a Locomotive Engineers licence to operate a locomotive.

Even engineer trainees get a licence before being let loose for on the Job training, after having passed Airbrake and rules training.


----------



## Amtrak839 (Oct 22, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Amtrak839 said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


Really GML, name calling? Do you really care that much about what some kid on an internet forum says? I think the picture below applies to you.

I do not care that you do not care about my life. I do not care about yours. I do not care what you or anyone else here thinks of me.





<----GML???

Let's review what I've said here:

1. I do not think there should be inward facing cameras in locomotive cabs for privacy reasons *(this is my logical reason)*.

2. I *(selfishly and illogically)* hope that cameras are not installed, as I would not feel comfortable taking a cab ride with a camera watching me. *I would enjoy a cab ride, and would take one if offered, but I do not seek opportunities for them. If I were in the cab, and the engineer offered to let me take the throttle for a moment, with him/her supervising, I would. I do not seek opportunities to do this either.*

Now why is it that I am labeled as a threat to public safety? The odds of me ever getting a cab ride are *tiny*. The odds of me ever taking the throttle of a locomotive are *minuscule*. The odds of me causing harm to anyone by operating a locomotive are *microscopic*. Why are some of you so worried by what one *insignificant 16 YO* says on an internet forum? How many of you drive a car? Do you realize how much more likely you are to harm yourself or someone else while driving a car than I am to harm anyone while operating a locomotive? Really, if some of you this concerned by some comments by an *idiot teen* on a forum, I don't know how you get by in the real world.


----------



## jis (Oct 22, 2009)

So the bottom line that I am seeing evolve here is that camera in cab is inevitable since such exists in other contexts where an operator who is responsible for the lives of many people and their well being is involved. My suspicion is that BLE will not win this one. Additionally, for what it is worth (minuscule I am sure) it seems to make sense to me. Whenever any change is proposed there is always some opposition to it some reasonable and some off the wall, and this time is no different. Such is life.


----------



## AAARGH! (Oct 22, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> If an engineer, operating on a entirely separated right of way behind a fence wants to take upon themselves the risk of letting a nincompoop like you operate a train, my hat comes off to them- and to Charles Darwin.
> But if that engineer does that when his locomotive is attached to a train that I happen to be riding on, or on a train on the same line that I happen to be riding on, I would like to drag his sorry arse out of his cab, and kick him all the way down his bloody train and back again.
> 
> I don't care about your life. If you have this reckless and selfish disregard for the safety of other people, perhaps I'd even lean in the other direction slightly. But I do not care to have you endanger mine, or have some jerk off of an engineer facilitate your so doing.


Tactful as always GML... :huh:

As a Duran Duran song line went: "You are about as easy as a nuclear war".


----------



## AAARGH! (Oct 22, 2009)

I was thinking about when the History Channel did their train series (what was it called again?) on the Acela. Of course there was the engineer, the (_idiot)_ host, and the camera man (and maybe a sound guy too). If that is not a distraction, I don't know what is.

I would not have wanted to be on that Acela train with him being distracted by stupid questions and comments. Perhaps the only time I would not have wanted to be on an Acela! 

Same thing when they were on the LD train.


----------



## ThayerATM (Oct 22, 2009)

Amtrak839 said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > Amtrak839 said:
> ...


Peter,

Your cartoon gave me a chance to laugh this morning. It was cleverly presented.

However, I think we might be talking about a problem concerning "impulse control." This involves being able to reasonably foresee the consequences of your actions.

Sure --- there are many things that I'd *like* to, like slapping that obnoxious customer on the other side of the counter, but I don't do it. There are several reasons, but the primary one is that I'd get fired.

As for me handling the throttle of a railroad engine... It's not really that difficult to reasonably foresee the consequences of a split second mistake, or a split second delay in reaction time due to the fact that I'm unqualified. In that split second the engineer would have to intervene.

A lot of unpleasant things could happen because of that split second delay.


----------



## AAARGH! (Oct 22, 2009)

Peter:

This may also be an age perspective. You are 16, and at that age I was impulsive and took risks that I should not have. That comes with being 16. As we all know, the most dangerous drivers on the road are between 16 and 21.

Having been behind the wheel of something as "simple" as a car for 27 years, I have a different perspective on safety and about risk taking in general. I am not saying you are wrong, but that your opinion may be coming from the perspective of a 16 year old. I would like to know what your opinion would be 20 years from now.

Now, I am a still a risk taker to a point. I am not an old fogey (yet) and still do things that are somewhat dangerous. BUT I never will do anything that would endanger the safety of others. (I was given the controls of a sail plane (glider) with no experience, so I was putting the pilots life in danger, but it was only he and I and the consequenses of me doing something wrong could be immediately corrected by the pilot. I know this sounds contradictory, but I see it as a different situation than operating a train.)

Back to the topic at hand, if offered a cab ride, so long as I was not a distraction to the engineer in any way, I might accept. But I would remain quiet and a completely passive observer. Under no cirumstances would I take the control of a train on non-private tracks OR with anyone else (public) on the train besides the engineer.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Oct 22, 2009)

Well I got to engineer a park train, the Breckenridge Eagle, a few years ago when a friend owned the concession!

It was a replica of the MP Eagle with a steamer on the front end but of course there were no pax aboard and it was really like running a golf cart or maybe a Prius! :lol:

I would love to ride in a Steam Engine but am not so keen on being in a diesel but thats just me! No how,no way would I attempt to operate a real train without going through training and being qualified and I am a licensed pilot,glider qualified,had a SCCA competition license in my younger days and did lots of stupid things back in the day!

I agree about being young, fantasies and dreams are wonderful things, even we folks of a certain age as they say still have them and that is great, as Bob Dylan said: "he not busy being born is busy dying.."

I too would sit quietly and enjoy being in a cab but would like to blow the whistle and ring the bell!!!


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Oct 22, 2009)

AAARGH! said:


> Tactful as always GML... :huh:
> As a Duran Duran song line went: "You are about as easy as a nuclear war".


That's me. I'm just your natural born diplomat right here.


----------



## Ryan (Oct 22, 2009)

Amtrak839 said:


> I do not care about yours.


Clearly.



> 1. I do not think there should be inward facing cameras in locomotive cabs for privacy reasons *(this is my logical reason)*.


Except that there is no logic to it. There's no expectation of privacy when you're on the job.


> Do you realize how much more likely you are to harm yourself or someone else while driving a car than I am to harm anyone while operating a locomotive?


Of course I do. That's why I attended training, was tested and granted the proper license to do so.


> *idiot teen*


Finally, we agree on something.


----------



## Amtrak839 (Oct 22, 2009)

HokieNav said:


> Amtrak839 said:
> 
> 
> > I do not care about yours.
> ...


Well, that post was obnoxious and unnecessary. Way to take the high road. Fine example you're setting. And you complain about people like me? People like you contribute to the problem. What exactly do you expect a post like that to accomplish?

I want to thank other posters here for at least trying to understand my point of view, and being respectful of it. Despite that we disagree, I can see the points some of you try to make, and respect your views.

Let's try to get this thread back on topic, shall we?


----------



## Neil_M (Oct 22, 2009)

As someone who has operated a number of trains in the UK under supervision from the driver (engineer, if you must) at speeds up to 125mph and instructs members of the public on a heritage line on paid for driving courses as a passed driver on that line I can see both sides to this, 99% of the time it is fine to let someone have a go at the controls, but the problem is when stuff goes wrong. If its against the rules then the staff member is taking a big risk, if its illegal then its even more of a risk.

As I have said, I have done it in the past, now I wouldn't and even travelling in the cab would be a no no, unless in possession of the correct documentation.

(That said, blasting along at 125mph in the seat of power is a lot of fun!)


----------



## Long Train Runnin' (Oct 22, 2009)

Peter I am only 17 you can start voulnteering at the age of 14 at most places. You can start working on your certifications if you were so inclined. I am only 17 years old I won't be able to run alone until my 18th birthday but intend to be fully quailfied to do so on my birthday. Things don't just happen you have to work at them.


----------



## jis (Oct 22, 2009)

Neil_M said:


> (That said, blasting along at 125mph in the seat of power is a lot of fun!)


Heh heh! I have done that (and perhaps a bit more in speed) sitting just behind the seat of power on an ICE  It is fun. But that was from the passenger compartment, no distraction for the operator.


----------



## AAARGH! (Oct 22, 2009)

Amtrak839 said:


> Well, that post was obnoxious and unnecessary. Way to take the high road. Fine example you're setting. And you complain about people like me? People like you contribute to the problem. What exactly do you expect a post like that to accomplish?
> I want to thank other posters here for at least trying to understand my point of view, and being respectful of it. Despite that we disagree, I can see the points some of you try to make, and respect your views.
> 
> Let's try to get this thread back on topic, shall we?


I will say this Peter, for 16 you get your point across very well. That is, you write very well, better than most who are (at least) twice as old as you.

I would say you have more maturity than several posters on this board as well.


----------



## Amtrak839 (Oct 22, 2009)

Long Train Runnin said:


> Peter I am only 17 you can start voulnteering at the age of 14 at most places. You can start working on your certifications if you were so inclined. I am only 17 years old I won't be able to run alone until my 18th birthday but indeed to be fully quailfied to do so on my birthday. Things don't just happen you have to work at them.


Interesting. Where exactly can you volunteer? Are you talking about a tourist line? The only railroads in my area are Amtrak, CSX, NS, VRE, and MARC. There are some tourist lines farther a way, but I don't think there are any I could get to on a regular basis.


----------



## VentureForth (Oct 22, 2009)

Amtrak839 said:


> 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.


Lawyers have something to do with this because people have been injured and the owners of the property and the jobs which rules were broken had to pay out big bucks because of their negligence.



Amtrak839 said:


> 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)?


As mentioned by so many other folks already, standing behind a trespasser that's sitting at the cab controls requires at least a couple more seconds of reaction time than if the trained professional employee was sitting in his/her seat.

You also asked in another post who _wouldn't_ take a cab ride if offered? Who _wouldn't_ take the controls of a P42 going 79 MPH if offered? Me, for one. I'm a railfan, but draw the line at foaming. I draw the line at rules. For all those who keep yelling at the dead "If you wouldn't have trespassed, you'd be alive!" remember that an unauthorized person in the cab is WAY more dangerous! For what it's worth, I think you've almost scared me from riding Amtrak, knowing that there are engineers out there who let unauthorized persons in the cab. I'm going to pay much closer attention to the cab as it comes into the station on my next ride.

The "private" tracks which were referred to as the preference for railfans playing with locomotives, means those tracks that are isolated either physically or with enough safety measures, from a main line. Yes, most rail is privately owned, not public.

As for speed, almost by definition I would say, a mainline freight or passenger train running at 20 - 40 MPH is probably much more dangerous than 79 if for no other reason than that the speed limit is set for the very reason that extra attention is necessary (ie: yards, sidings, etc).

I have no right or expectation of privacy at my little cubicle at work. IT monitors my internet usage. My boss can hover behind me at any time. If I'm slacking, the worst damage I can do is let go of a trade secret or cost the company in productivity. But it won't _kill_ anyone. A train engineer _can_ and should be monitored more because of that one differentiating fact.


----------



## wayman (Oct 22, 2009)

jis said:


> Neil_M said:
> 
> 
> > (That said, blasting along at 125mph in the seat of power is a lot of fun!)
> ...


Likewise, when a Keystone is running cab-car-forward, the view out the front window is pretty exciting. But you're behind a closed door between you and the engineer's cab. Nice clear view of both the tracks ahead and the cab controls, but totally safe.


----------



## wayman (Oct 22, 2009)

Amtrak839 said:


> Long Train Runnin said:
> 
> 
> > Peter I am only 17 you can start voulnteering at the age of 14 at most places. You can start working on your certifications if you were so inclined. I am only 17 years old I won't be able to run alone until my 18th birthday but indeed to be fully quailfied to do so on my birthday. Things don't just happen you have to work at them.
> ...


Depending on where you are in Northern Virginia and what your transportation options are, the following may be possibilities:

The National Capital Trolley Museum is located near Silver Spring, MD. It's been closed for moving and renovations for a while but is reopening on November 28th of this year. They're an all-volunteer organization, and they're not very large -- for what it's worth, Wikipedia says they have 125 volunteers. The smaller operations might be less exciting, but they've also got much smaller volunteer bases, which means a lot more opportunities for earnest new volunteers.

The Old Dominion Chapter of the NRHS owns locomotives and passenger cars and operates them for excursions on the Buckingham Branch (a freight short line, which Amtrak's Cardinal travels upon for a stretch between Charlottesville and Clifton Forge, I believe). Their website says they welcome volunteers of all stripes. Because the Buckingham Branch is part of the national railway system, one has to be fully qualified to be an engineer or conductor, but for all other positions -- including trainmen -- no qualification test is necessary. Just show up and demonstrate interest and competency and you could find yourself in that role pretty quickly, depending on how many volunteers they tend to have; you'll find the old hands are very willing to teach you all about everything, and you'll may find that they offer their own qualification classes to dedicated volunteers, too. You may spend a lot of time doing non-train work at first -- track work, or car restoration, or ticket sales, who knows. But the more they see that you're reliable and genuinely interested, the more opportunities you'll have. The Chapter is based in Richmond, and the address for the excursion ticket office is just north of Petersburg -- not exactly "northern", but not terribly far.

And the Western Maryland Scenic Railroad is based in Cumberland, MD -- about 2.5 hours from Washington, so it's probably quite a hike for you -- but it looks to be a pretty solid operation, and they too seek volunteers of all sorts, and have volunteer positions for trainmen and engine crew. Again, you have to work your way up to those positions, but it's easy to start.


----------



## Neil_M (Oct 22, 2009)

jis said:


> Neil_M said:
> 
> 
> > (That said, blasting along at 125mph in the seat of power is a lot of fun!)
> ...


Whoooosh...........

http://50031.fotopic.net/p52883946.html


----------



## Long Train Runnin' (Oct 22, 2009)

Its just like Wayman says these tourist RR and Scenic RRs love to have people our age. Granted you have to ready to work. When I showed up on day one they don't just hand you a radio and get you on the train. As a younger guy you turn into a great resource to them since you provide a set of arms ready for heavy lifting. You have to work hard to earn their trust and respect. Once thats in places you get your book or rules and start spending time on the train. Personally I love both aspects and now spend my entire weekend from 9 AM to 6 PM saturday and sunday over there. If you have an interest in railroading you really should try and find an outfit you can make it to regularly. They will accept you with open arms and teach you everything you want to know about trains and then even more.


----------



## wayman (Oct 22, 2009)

Long Train Runnin said:


> Its just like Wayman says these tourist RR and Scenic RRs love to have people our age.


That's a very good point, too. Many of the tourist and scenic railroads I've visited are run by a volunteer base whose average age is well north of 50. The most extreme example I can recall is the Ft. Smith Trolley Museum (in Arkansas), which was started about thirty years ago by a group of retirees in their 50s and 60s, with some additional volunteers who were a little younger. They're still operating, the equipment is beautiful, but they haven't had much success with recruiting new volunteers from the next generation ... and all the original guys are now in their 90s, 80s, and 70s. What they wouldn't give for some enthusiastic teenagers and twentysomethings! That's an extreme case, but I think you'll find that at most of these railroads your youth can give you some extra opportunities.


----------



## Long Train Runnin' (Oct 22, 2009)

wayman said:


> Long Train Runnin said:
> 
> 
> > Its just like Wayman says these tourist RR and Scenic RRs love to have people our age.
> ...


Yeah there is a big age gap there is no one there in their 20s or 30s everyones either 50+ or a teenager. Granted there are only 3 of us younger guys. They are looking for the lost generation of railfans to keep things going. Although they've always have had things work well they've been running continuously since 1952.


----------



## RTOlson (Oct 23, 2009)

I'm thinking about looking at this from another perspective —

A public bus might have one or two cameras aboard. One faces the driver and outward, the other faces toward the interior. That's for a bus that might carry 50 passengers.

A train can carry six to seven times that amount of passengers. Perhaps it should have seven times the cameras?

Of course, the train is different, considering that the engineer is isolated from the rest of the consist. But I think the example of having cameras in mass transit systems is very common in this day and age.


----------



## transit54 (Oct 23, 2009)

RTOlson said:


> I'm thinking about looking at this from another perspective —
> A public bus might have one or two cameras aboard. One faces the driver and outward, the other faces toward the interior. That's for a bus that might carry 50 passengers.
> 
> A train can carry six to seven times that amount of passengers. Perhaps it should have seven times the cameras?
> ...


I'll jump back in here because one of my day to day responsibilities is managing a fleet of camera systems for a public transit agency.

Most bus systems that I've seen have 3-4 cameras, with some more advanced systems having as many as 6-8. However, there are different considerations with a bus. On a train, you're basically concerned with what's in front of the train, and perhaps what the engineer is doing. Some systems (Trirail in Flordia comes to mind) have cameras within each car, but I think that's pretty rare.

On a bus, there's a much greater risk for collisions and other issues. We have a camera looking down each side of our bus, in front of the bus and in the interior of the bus. The side cameras help in the event of a merging accident, if a bus scraped into another vehicle/object, or in similar situations. In the event of a sudden stop (which is obviously much more sudden than a train) the interior cameras help document what happens and if there are any injuries.

We don't have driver facing cameras, but the driver is recorded on audio, which helps with complaints regarding "the driver said X to me." All in all, in a public bus situation I think things are a little less black and white than incidents on a train. So I think you'd actually need less cameras on a train unless you wanted to record the interior of the cars to address liability issues.

Just to give you can idea of what ours looks like, here's an image out of our viewing software:


----------



## AlanB (Oct 23, 2009)

Boy you've got some really funny looking people up there in Vermont. :lol: :lol:


----------



## Rob_C (Oct 23, 2009)

Barefoot on the bus?? Yikes!


----------



## GG-1 (Oct 23, 2009)

AlanB said:


> Boy you've got some really funny looking people up there in Vermont. :lol: :lol:


The classic "empty-headed"


----------



## DET63 (Oct 23, 2009)

AAARGH! said:


> I was thinking about when the History Channel did their train series (what was it called again?) on the Acela. Of course there was the engineer, the (_idiot)_ host, and the camera man (and maybe a sound guy too). If that is not a distraction, I don't know what is.
> I would not have wanted to be on that Acela train with him being distracted by stupid questions and comments. Perhaps the only time I would not have wanted to be on an Acela!
> 
> Same thing when they were on the LD train.


I remember back in the '70s there was this syndicated TV series called "Special Edition" with a female host (Barbara Feldon of "Get Smart" fame) who interviewed people with interesting lives or occupations. One was a woman who was getting most of her body tattooed. Another was a female train engineer. The engineer let Barbara operate the freight train. I don't know if such would be permitted today, or if it should have been allowed back then.

I remember seeing another program about trains, I think on PBS, that showed what it was like operating the _Indian Pacific_ across the Nullarbor Plain in Australia, where there is a long straight stretch. The engineer or driver (or whatever he was called Down Under) had to push a button once every 30 seconds (or less) to prove he wasn't dead (or asleep, or in the john, or whatever). The interviewer asked him how many times he pushed the button during the crossing. I think the engineer was a bit annoyed, and told the interviewer how many frequently he had to push it, how fast the train was going, and how far the train had to go, and then something to the effect of "You do the math!"


----------



## ThayerATM (Oct 24, 2009)

VentureForth said:


> Apparently, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers don't want cameras in locomotive cabs. "Invades privacy." Article in the LA Times here.
> Are there cab cams in Amtrak locos other than for accident recording?
> 
> This is the sort of stuff that give unions a really bad name, and quite rightly a sour taste in the public's opinion. Why should they object to cameras in the cab? Only if they're not doing their job. In fact, instead of just recording to a hard drive or tape on board, they should quite frankly be live to a central office in my humble opinion!


Getting back to the original question...

How far should my expectation of privacy go?

If I reserve a bedroom on an Amtrak train, I expect privacy, especially while in the shower/bathroom. I prefer privacy in the whole room.

In the hallways, vestibules, etc, I wouldn't mind if a camera was watching, recording, and giving live feed back to a central location. On our last trip no one was at the service bar at on the Pacific Parlor Car. I went down to the lower level to see if I could find anyone. Everything was shut closed, EXCEPT a door to the outside. That door was wide open, and the train was moving at quite a speed. I hustled right back upstairs. <_<

I think, on a PUBLIC train, there should be no expectation of privacy for anyone, except for those places where people do PRIVATE things, like a bedroom or bathroom.

Everything else should be open for PUBLIC scrutiny, including the engine cab.


----------



## Amtrak839 (Oct 24, 2009)

ThayerATM said:


> Getting back to the original question...How far should my expectation of privacy go?
> 
> If I reserve a bedroom on an Amtrak train, I expect privacy, especially while in the shower/bathroom. I prefer privacy in the whole room.
> 
> ...


If I were an engineer (I'd be interested in talking to a few on this subject) I wouldn't be as comfortable operating a huge piece of machinery with a camera watching me the entire time. I think the training engineers go through is sufficient enough that cameras really aren't necessary. More importantly than that, there are better things Amtrak could spend its limited funds on.

On the subject of monitoring the passenger cars, that would be a *complete* waste of money. In most cars, there are already at least a few dozen eyes around to watch for anything suspicious/dangerous. The only place it might be even remotely useful would be preventing theft from sleeper car rooms, and I think that risk isn't high enough to necessitate cameras. I don't think most people expect security when they ride Amtrak. In fact, a lot of people (myself included) prefer Amtrak for the exact reason of avoiding paranoia and high security. It's nice knowing that I can still ride the train without big brother watching, and I want things to stay that way.


----------



## volkris (Oct 24, 2009)

ThayerATM said:


> More importantly than that, there are better things Amtrak could spend its limited funds on.
> On the subject of monitoring the passenger cars, that would be a *complete* waste of money.


That's really what it comes down to.

The employee, as a cog in the machine, should not be particularly opposed to a camera in his workspace. After all, the camera can do nothing but provide accurate information... it takes people, rules, bureaucracies, and contracts to actually act on the information.

The real, fundamental question is whether these cameras provide enough benefit to justify their costs (including the costs, if any, of paying more for operations willing to operate with a camera over their shoulders). Arguably they don't, and so such efforts should be booted to the curb.

But not because anyone's rights are being violated or because they're having a harder time breaking the rules with cameras around.


----------



## Ryan (Oct 25, 2009)

volkris said:


> The real, fundamental question is whether these cameras provide enough benefit to justify their costs (including the costs, if any, of paying more for operations willing to operate with a camera over their shoulders). Arguably they don't, and so such efforts should be booted to the curb.


Unarguably, you're wrong.

It's very unlikely that the engineer in Chatsworth was texting while operating for the very first time on that day. If inward facing cab cameras had been in place, he would have either been caught doing this and removed from the cab before he killed 25 people, or had the common sense to not break the rules. Either way, there would be 25 more people alive right now if those cameras were in place (and that's just in one incident). What's the value that you attach to 25 human lives?


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Oct 25, 2009)

HokieNav said:


> volkris said:
> 
> 
> > The real, fundamental question is whether these cameras provide enough benefit to justify their costs (including the costs, if any, of paying more for operations willing to operate with a camera over their shoulders). Arguably they don't, and so such efforts should be booted to the curb.
> ...


He would not be caught as the camera's are only used to collect evidence to a hard drive.

The Camera's on Metro link can not be viewed from a moving locomotive, even a download can only take place when stopped.


----------



## blueman271 (Oct 25, 2009)

Cab cams could be a good or bad idea, depending on the perspective one is looking at the idea from. However, anybody but trained or in training railroad employees riding in the locomotive is a bad idea. Non-qualified personel should never be allowed in the control rooms of any major piece of equipment while it is operating whether it be a train locomotive, an airplane cockpit, or otherwise. They create a distraction, even if they aren't at the controls, in an enviroment where the littlest distraction can lead to loss of life. And if you don't believe that civilians create distractions and cause operators to cut corners read about the USS Greenville and the accident she caused in 2001.


----------



## Ryan (Oct 25, 2009)

Dutchrailnut said:


> The Camera's on Metro link can not be viewed from a moving locomotive, even a download can only take place when stopped.


This doesn't mean that he wouldn't have been caught texting while driving on occasions before the accident.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Oct 25, 2009)

HokieNav said:


> Dutchrailnut said:
> 
> 
> > The Camera's on Metro link can not be viewed from a moving locomotive, even a download can only take place when stopped.
> ...


My friend from LAX says he was, in fact, caught a few times for similar violations and nothing was done about it.


----------



## Mark (Oct 25, 2009)

Hmmm- this is a difficult one for me but if there are cab cameras in Amtrak trains then shouldn't they be required in freight cabs as well? How about Airliners? Cruise ships too? Definitely oil tankers. Buses? Anybody object to having one in there car? After all driving is a privilege. It would be nice to be able to recreate who was at fault after a car accident as well. Was the person on a cell phone? Were they reading the paper? Maybe drinking coffee when they ran down a nine year old? I'm quite certain that cars kill many, many more people annually than Amtrak. If we make the case for cab cameras in the name of "safety", watch out- the rest I listed above _could_ be just around the corner.


----------



## Ispolkom (Oct 25, 2009)

HokieNav said:


> Dutchrailnut said:
> 
> 
> > The Camera's on Metro link can not be viewed from a moving locomotive, even a download can only take place when stopped.
> ...


That's what I don't understand about cab cameras. You can't have someone watching every engineer in real time. That would be prohibitively expensive. Are you going to randomly watch tapes? How often? Sure, I guess that cab cameras would make it easier to reconstruct an accident, but here you're talking about preventing one.

Here's an idea: you could have the *passengers* watch the engineer. Put up screens in each car. The passengers would certainly have good reason to watch their engineer for free! You could have the same thing in airline cockpits -- it would be even better then the channel that some airlines have to let you listen to air traffic control. Sure, it would change the nature of the job, making it more performance art, but so be it.

I still don't buy the slippery slope fallacy. If you are at work, I fail to see how you have any right to privacy while you're working. What you do in your off-hours is completely different, though I will grant that people often assume privacy there when none exists.


----------



## DET63 (Oct 26, 2009)

> Here's an idea: you could have the *passengers* watch the engineer. Put up screens in each car. The passengers would certainly have good reason to watch their engineer for free!


Like this?


----------



## rrdude (Oct 26, 2009)

HokieNav said:


> volkris said:
> 
> 
> > The real, fundamental question is whether these cameras provide enough benefit to justify their costs (including the costs, if any, of paying more for operations willing to operate with a camera over their shoulders). Arguably they don't, and so such efforts should be booted to the curb.
> ...


While I am a STRONG PROPONENT of cameras in the cab, (inward facing) having one in place is usually only for recording, to be viewed "in case of an event".

What we be ideal, is to have the camera available live streaming on the web............


----------



## leemell (Oct 26, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> HokieNav said:
> 
> 
> > Dutchrailnut said:
> ...


He was, in fact caught and disciplined more than once. On the run on the day of the crash, he had sent 22 text messages.


----------



## leemell (Oct 26, 2009)

Ispolkom said:


> HokieNav said:
> 
> 
> > Dutchrailnut said:
> ...


I can't speak for of them, but for airlines, almost all now have a 2 hour CVC loop and some are considering a CC Video camera. I believe American had or still has a live video feed from the cockpit and an audio channel for the Traffic Control channel. As a mission controller for a 3.5 B$ spacecraft, I was very comfortable with the live video feeds that watched the operations.


----------



## Ryan (Oct 26, 2009)

leemell said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> > HokieNav said:
> ...


That's freaking ridiculous (but this isn't the thread for that). Looks like that wasn't the best of examples. But, the point stands - at some point the camera is going to save someone's life. What value to you attach to that?


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Oct 26, 2009)

Boy does this thread bring back memories of John Locke's social contract theory--


----------



## Rob_C (Oct 27, 2009)

> Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.


 - Benjamin Franklin


----------



## jis (Oct 27, 2009)

Rob_C said:


> > Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
> 
> 
> - Benjamin Franklin


I don't see where any serious issue of Liberty is involved here. We are talking about what level of monitoring is appropriate when someone is on duty in a safety critical position, not when they are out on a garden stroll.  Afterall no one is taking away anyone's Liberty to not be in such a position. But if one willfully chooses to take on a responsibility it is reasonable to expect that a certain set of conditions including certain constraints on ones lifestyle might be involved.


----------



## VentureForth (Oct 27, 2009)

This isn't "Government" monitoring (even if a government agency is watching their own in acting as a form of commerce, ie: a government operated railroad). Having a job and being expected to follow rules is hardly an issue of individual "Liberty".

As for John Locke's Social Contract theory, again, we're not talking about government infringing on personal liberties. We're talking about the safe operation of a mode of transit where there is a significant amount of human lives under the control of a single person.

Aircraft MUST be operated with a crew of two in the cockpit when acting as an air transport. That's the FAA rule. Manufactures also have rules that say you gotta have two in the cockpit. There are only a smattering of jet aircraft that don't require a crew of two, and only when flown for non-air transport purposes.

Taxi and bus drivers can be seen by the passengers. If something is wrong, they can in effect mutiny. They don't have that luxury on a train like Metrolink.

I remember as a kid in Japan, the cab of the EMUs had a window behind the driver. They had the luxury of choosing whether they wanted to close the curtain or not. Loved it when they didn't. Without ANY exception and over hundreds of rides, I've never seen a Japanese commuter train driver act unprofessionally. Some actually called out every signal, every light, every indicator on their panel audibly - not for an audience, but because it was their job. They wouldn't care if there was a camera or a supervisor in the cab - they were doing their job.

Now, I haven't been there since texting came into existence, but I don't suppose things have changed at all.

Back to Dutchrailnut: Dude, you don't read, do you? The comment was specifically referring to the fact that they won't catch an infringement with the cameras immediately, but if they review the material on the hard drive regularly without prejudice, the could observe trends.

As for Metrolink, if they have disciplined Sanchez and he kept breaking the rules, the blood of 25 is on management's hands. Make cab distractions an immediate terminable event. Goes for freight operators that share their own lines with passsengers, too (ie: Amtrak).


----------



## leemell (Oct 27, 2009)

VentureForth said:


> [snip]As for Metrolink, if they have disciplined Sanchez and he kept breaking the rules, the blood of 25 is on management's hands. Make cab distractions an immediate terminable event. Goes for freight operators that share their own lines with passsengers, too (ie: Amtrak).


Actually the blood is mostly on the hands of Connex, the contracted operator of the line. (BTW, they just lost the contract to Amtrak). Metrolink gets some as well because they were aware of the discipline.

"A failure in management of the Metrolink operations that contributed to the accident was publicly revealed during the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) hearings. Apparently, the company that was contracted by Metrolink to run the operation of the trains, Connex, had been made aware of Sanchez’s cell phone use while operating the train. Connex managers did not enforce the absolute prohibition on cell phone use and failed to remove Sanchez from the cab."

One year later: is Metrolink safer now?

Lessons learned but still a long way to go

By Joan Trossman Bien 09/03/2009 Ventrua County Reporter.

BTW, I was wrong, he sent 57 text messages, the last one 22 seconds before impact.


----------



## Amtrak OBS Gone Freight (Oct 28, 2009)

Amtrak839 said:


> 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)?


In addition to "liability" which I am sure you are already aware....

OK.... hypothetically speaking.... you are in the locomotive cab with me on a trip. First off.... whether I allowed you in there or not, you are still trespassing in the eyes of the railroad! Did you have a cell phone in your pocket on your cab ride? If so, now you are with me on the trip in our hypothetical situation and during our tour of duty while the train is in operation, your phone rings, receives a text, or you make a call on it! In addition to your trespassing in an unauthorized area you are placing me at risk by having a personal electronic device in use in an area it is not supposed to be! The list can go on and on.....

Sorry, I had several cab rides as a kid and teen myself, but as an trainman I completely understand the risks those who allowed it took by having me "along for the ride." Hence is why I as a conductor won't allow it on my train or tour of duty.

OBS gone freight...


----------



## Amtrak OBS Gone Freight (Oct 28, 2009)

Amtrak839 said:


> 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?


No argument with you in respect to "nothing on this forum" is going to change your decision.

But have a railroad detective agent pay you a visit with evidence of your presence in an unauthorized area (such as a locomotive cab), and I am sure you will take note rather quickly!!!

You should consider how easy it is to be caught in this day and age! The camera doesn't even have to be there. And if something happens while you are present in the locomotive cab, chances are the event recorder "black box" has a record of your presence (i.e. your voice, etc)!

OBS gone freight...


----------



## VentureForth (Oct 29, 2009)

Amtrak839 said:


> 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)?


Totally unrelated scenario, but an example of a "supervised" encroachment of a professional space. When I was in 9th grade [one of four state-side furloughs my parents were on while I was growing up in Japan for those who are continuity fanatics], I was one of those kids that rode in the front of the school bus and always talked to the bus driver. He was a friendly sort and one day I asked if I could start the engine on the bus. He told me to make sure that it wasn't in gear - that I would feel slop in the stick. I pressed the clutch and turned the key. When the bus started, I let off the clutch, and it lurched forward and smaked the bus in front of us. Broke a headlight and tail light. I thank GOD to this day that there wasn't a student inbetween our busses. Turned out that the bus was in gear - but the stick was still loose in my opinion because I didn't have the experience to know the difference between in-gear slop and neutral slop on a 1980 Bluebird school bus. The driver told me to get in the back and shut up. He totally took the heat for me.

I'm not familiar enough with the cab of a P42 or an F59PHI. I don't know that there's nothing that I can touch that could mess things up real bad.

23 years later, I continue to remember that and other stupid things that could have really hurt people through my life. I've got to do a lot of exciting things, too. At the risk of sounding like a protectionist, I'd rather my son be a little less risky and a bit more safe.


----------



## George Harris (Oct 29, 2009)

VentureForth said:


> 23 years later, I continue to remember that and other stupid things that could have really hurt people through my life. I've got to do a lot of exciting things, too. At the risk of sounding like a protectionist, I'd rather my son be a little less risky and a bit more safe.


Don't we all, particularly those of us who have a kid that has gone in the other direction.


----------



## DET63 (Oct 29, 2009)

Rob_C said:


> > Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
> 
> 
> - Benjamin Franklin


Although Franklin probably agreed with that quote, it comes from Richard Jackson. Franklin actually said the following, which is very similar: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Wikiquotes


----------



## Robert** (Nov 4, 2009)

Rather than a 'Cab Cam' how about an 'Engineer Cam' ?

http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/11...-cams-for-cops/


----------



## Ryan (Nov 4, 2009)

Wow, a fox news story I agree with!


----------



## Donctor (Nov 4, 2009)

HokieNav said:


> Wow, a fox news story I agree with!



Although I agree with what is said in this report, its author employs the usual Fox English.



> ...department is developing it's [sic] camera policy...


----------



## VentureForth (Nov 5, 2009)

Amtking said:


> HokieNav said:
> 
> 
> > Wow, a fox news story I agree with!
> ...


Sheesh. Such an unnecessary shot. I've seen plenty of lib columnists not know which synonym of "there" to use. Besides, this is not even really a "Fox" reporter, but rather a blog contributor.

Wow, how people are so vitriolic against Fox!


----------



## Ryan (Nov 5, 2009)

And others are so defensive!


----------



## Kevin (Nov 5, 2009)

VentureForth said:


> Amtking said:
> 
> 
> > HokieNav said:
> ...


Hello,

Theses are not synonyms, "there", "their" and "they're". Each spelling means a very different thing.

But, back to the topic at hand, In the event of an accident, I think investigators might likely learn more from a camera mounted on an Engineer's hat as opposed to a camera focused on the Engineer himself.

Thank you.


----------



## VentureForth (Nov 5, 2009)

My bad. Homonyms.

...Unless the engineer hangs his hat on a coat hook and it's pointed down.


----------



## Kevin (Nov 5, 2009)

VentureForth said:


> My bad. Homonyms.
> ...Unless the engineer hangs his hat on a coat hook and it's pointed down.


In which case we might see his cover-alls around his ankles, which might explain something. :unsure:


----------



## VentureForth (Nov 5, 2009)

:YIKES:


----------



## Pastor Dave (Nov 6, 2009)

Hi Folks,

I'm a newbie to the board, but have ridden Amtrak for the last 30 years for around 75,000 miles. Have to be honest that I've never given much thought to what might be going on in the cab of a locomotive. On the pro-cam side, I guess having video to review could exonerate a driver in a wreck who has done nothing wrong. On the anti-cam side, it doesn't show much trust in the folks employeed to drive the train. Is this a safety issue? Or a management/union distrust issue? Does anyone know of further documentation that can give the rationale behind this?


----------

