Cab riders have always, and will probably continue to be a controversial topic. It is a way that many operations can add revenue, but it will always be up to the railroad/museum regarding risk. An FRA inspector might say something, especially if there is some kind of personal protective equipment (PPE) required by railroad rules, or if the railroad does not have rules or policy’s that prevent it.

Many years ago, when I was the Trainmaster /Safety Rules Director in the early days of the Grand Canyon Railway, cab rides were common with friends, family, etc. When I was an engine crew member and someone was put up into the cab, it always made me uncomfortable. I was skilled at operating a steam locomotive, but…I had to focus every bit of my concentration on what I was doing. Riders were a distraction to me. Others had no problem and could operate and function with cab riders. As the practice was getting more and more common, senior railroad management asked me what I thought about it. Well, I wasn’t going to win with this as the employees had worked their butts off to get our operation up and running. The ability to have open access to the locomotives for friends and family was one of the perks for doing a good job. As the safety guy, I weighed the risk vs. the reward and in my mind, formed the opinion that it wasn’t worth it, especially as our operations were growing and we had more to lose. Senior management made the decision and developed policy that that cab rides would no longer be allowed by non-railroad employees, unless it would benefit the GCRY. This exception would allow for occasional dignitaries, potential investors, film crews and media access as determined by management.

Needless to say, I wasn’t very popular after that with the employees. I have seen large (main line) operations with multiple guests, friends, etc., riding in cabs that were so full of people, I don’t know how they could keep from falling out and/or burning themselves. Many don’t have proper footwear, safety glasses, gloves, etc. As in other areas in the tourist railroad/museum industry, the operation should have a safety plan with a way to assess the hazard and risks associated with their particular operation and environment. Cab riders would be one of those potential hazards and should be addressed. If the operation decides cab riders are OK, they will be accepting that risk.

MD Ramsey

The cab ride question can be dealt with very simply.

1. A 'guest' in the cab is defined as 'any person other than an employe whose duties require presence therein'

2. The number of guests shall not exceed the number of seats available

3. No guest will displace a member of the engine crew.

4. Under no circumstances shall the number of persons in the cab exceed X

Interpreted in the real world, the road foreman, the superintendent et c are not guests.
(I remember an orientation ride for local police once where two wide-cab GP 40s were used. Approximately 12 officers and their instructors were in the cab of one unit and the consist was run from the other. When the unit with the students was leading the general manager of the line was on the forward deck with a radio.)

A functional safety culture requires two things from the workers (at all levels). One is an understanding of not just the verbiage of the rules but the reasons for them. The second is an almost excruciating attention to to detail to insure that the minor mistakes and shortcuts which ultimately lead to the larger catastrophe are not overlooked but are corrected. The multiple layers of inspection called for in many regulations exist to insure that the mistakes get caught and corrected because we are mere human beings and do make mistakes. 'For want of a nail the shoe was lost...' translates very readily into 'For want of a spike the plate was lost..."

This thread has been active for approximately 10 days. That is more than adequate time to correct a seemingly minor error. Were I an operating practices inspector and I found this same error this prominently in any of the documentation at a railroad I was inspecting, their documentation would be subject to an audit that they would never forget and that audit would include employe interviews and verifying signatures. If you do not notice or do not bother to fix the spelling of 'Safety' then I, as the inspector, am obligated to insure that there are no other oversights.

If you think compliance with the rules can be expensive, try not complying with them.

GME

(Though archaic, the use of one 'e' is a proper spelling of employe.)

Aviation. Missing the point. Some of you couldn't be more lost if you were on Oceanic flight 815.

You know, there's an old Star Trek episode where Deanna Troi is trying to get her commander's stripe. She's frantically memorized every technical manual and just keeps flunking this simulator problem where she has to tell Geordi what to fix. She cannot find the way to "tech the tech" and she's about to wash out of the commander program.

So here you guys are. Stick shaker this, fuel tank that, rudder motion, might as well toss in a stripped jackscrew for all it matters. Deanna Troi passes the exam when she has an epiphany: it's not about the tech at all, it's about the people. And when I say aerospace is ahead of other industries, it's because they don't just cram everything un-tech into a tiny box you call


There's a whole universe inside that box, and aviation has greatly evolved its understanding, and come with very effective methods to make pilots safer and more effective that have come out of it. They've shattered the myths (that live on elsewhere) that a pilot can fly the plane better if he just works harder, or crashing a plane is a personal failing. In other words aviation very much wants to understand the machine that humans didn't design.

In railroading, Chase was caused by pot, and Chatsworth was caused by cell phones, because the crew were weak people, not like us.

Aviation doesn't dismiss Fairchild or Tenerife as a mere error. Eastern Flight 401 was an error, but they delved deep into how that error could occur and how they change conditions and practices so it doesn't occur. CRM (crew resource management) became a very serious matter that added a bunch of procedures and practices, including one that would have cured both Chase and Chatsworth. (yes even though it's a single crewman in one case.)

Meanwhile, in railroading...


LOL

I wonder how that would play to the general public.

That's one of those sacred cows I spoke of earlier, "oh yes, safety first, safety before all else... oh, but crew's right to gossip unsurveilled, well no, not before that."

It is possible to do the job well without military regimentation and instilling fear and loathing on members of a train crew. I will grant you that does require conscientiousness on the part of a crew to paying attention when it counts, but in 12 hours on a train there are usually more than a few idle minutes that don't have to be monitored.

This is a prime example of micro-managing in lieu of training to promote understanding. I will postulate that you are now as likely to have injuries when some motorman thinks he is slowing too fast, forgets the reverse key is in reverse, and knocks passengers to the floor as he plugs the car by taking a point on the controller, as you are to prevent injuries by having the car run off the end of track because the brakes have failed.

The proper way to handle this is to train people to run the car, INCLUDING emergency procedures, which for brake failure is hand brake first; plug reversing as a last resort. Plug reversing should really be done with the canopy switch OFF, setting up a circuit where the motors act as generators without applying power in reverse. Of course, taking power in reverse is just about guaranteed to blow the breaker, thereby just using the motors as generators, but it's not very kind to the historic equipment.

Once this is the training program, then institute a speed limit that requires the car to slow to half speed at a distance far enough from end of track for the hand brake to be used. In the training explain that the purpose of this speed reduction is to allow the brakes to be tested; if the brakes don't work, time to start winding up the hand brake, with plug braking as a last resort.

Much kinder to both equipment and passengers, and much safer all around.

A camera is pointless on an aircraft such as the 777. The FDR and CVR provide the same information. The only usefulness cameras have is for the flight crew to view certain parts of the aircraft to confirm proper operation (ie) extension of landing gear. Bottom line is that theft of an airplane as large as a 777 is extremely rare. It's not unheard of for aircraft that have gone missing to remain unfound for years either.

The trolley only has a hand brake no air so the extra step is taken. If the motorman breaks too soon all they have to do is let go of the hand break and the car will start costing again. It is also running on lower power than most trolleys 240-300 VDC so you can get away with more.

About cab rides for your kid, I am all for it JUST NOT WHEN THE FRA IS STOPPING BY.

Yes, many accidents have been solved, or CVR data affirmed or contradicted, by listening to the CVR. Most things in a cockpit capable of making noise make a unique sound, like the clack clack clack of the elevator trim wheel. Yes, CVR/FDR will survive transonic collision with open sea. Probably moreso lately since they are going to Flash instead of magnetic tape. They also have pingers on them so submarines and dipping sonars can hear them. That said, they are dealing with an ocean that is staggeringly immense and their chance is slim of finding it before the pingers run out of battery.

Safety cannot be achieved by political rhetoric. You can't play the scoreboard game (and it may not flatter you if you tried). Even if trains were safer, they have a much lower "bar" to meet. Aviation is, by nature, not only more dangerous, but is so by orders of magnitude. Because of the sheer, intrinsic danger of being up in the sky, in a pressurized vessel, all the fire hazards implicit in the large amounts of fuel onboard, extremely high power/weight ratio engines pressing the limits of the materials, very very very far from civilized help, no alternate descent plan. The safety equation is stacked so wildly against aircraft that it's just ridiculous to claim that an equal scorecard reflects equal safety practices.

As far as hiding your operating practices from the FRA, then I go to an old axiom I learned in ethics training at a dot-com: if you don't want the public/govt/X knowing you're doing something, then maybe you should not be doing that.

I've seen an interesting alternative to this kind of restrictions.
At one operating rail museum with which I have had some involvement, they have an annual banquet by a local history group. The group comes in "after hours" on a regular working day, setting up as the last visitors are leaving. Then, as an unadvertised bonus to members of the group: "cab rides" are offered on an out-and-back run, with a couple different locos, where members of the group can sign up for a "few minutes as an engineer." They are given the quick "how-to" in the cab, with a qualified operator up to the task standing by/over the "pupil." It's JUST enough to be able to say "I ran a train!" but nowhere near enough to be dangerous or be a training session.
The museum uses it as the seed for future volunteer/member recruitment. It's a closed session, members only, and the museum screens the potential "engineers" and retains right to refuse anyone they wish if they sense any potential problem. (The one year I was there as a guest, the one official, aware of my craft beer hobby, personally inspected my nonalcoholic "Roundhouse Root Beer" I had brought from a Midwestern brewpub, just to be sure!)

Be forewarned. I am in full curmudgeon mode. This comment has raised my ire.

That comment alone is good cause to bar you from operating on many properties.

Safety (note the spelling) rules exist to prevent bad things from happening. The bad thing may not happen immediately when the rule is violated and it may not happen every time. It has, however, happened and it will happen again. A prior post stated that Chase happened because of pot and Chatsworth happened because of texting. Neither is fully correct. Both collisions happened because a crew member or members made conscious knowing decisions to take actions which they knew were in violation of the various rules and apparently believed they would get away it. They had gotten away with it in the past. The conduct in each case would have justified the dismissal of the involved employes even had the collisions not occurred.

There is a legal concept called Standard of care which is simply how well one follows the rules, procedures and accepted practices in any particular occupation. If you believe that there is a lower standard of care, that you are free to break (note this spelling also) the rules when nobody, such as an Inspector from the Federal Railroad Administration, is looking, then you would be invited to absent your sorry carcass from my railroad and to remain so until you are able to convince me that you have learned otherwise.

A competent manager can find a way of giving the rides legitimately. Hiding your practices from the FRA is simply not acceptable behaviour.

GME

Dear Mr. Trainlawyer,

I am going to take offense at your sarcasms of continually pointing out how to spell safety. As a dyslexic who has worked hard to over come the obstacle of the English language I can sympathies with someone who misspells a word. If it offends you so please do not openly criticize the person in public but perhaps with a private message in a more positive or meaningful way.

Robby Peartree

Trainlawyer is spot on. I am the most dangerous when I think that because of my skills, alertness, etc. I am not as likely as the next person - who, of course, isn't as competent as I believe I am - to make a mistake, to cause an accident.

If the cab rides compliy with all of the applicable rules and regulations, Federal, Company, etc., what is there to fear from the Federal Railroad Administration stopping by?

Hi All

To add to Mr. Ramsey point. Approximately 2/3 of GCR is a very challenging railroad. I heard early on in GCR existence that the southbound track inspector ( Mr. Sam Imbleau) got a rearview mirror full of 18 as it came down the grade from Apex to Anita at well over track speed. Mr. Paul King told me he used to break the railroad into 1/3 when teaching new locomotive engineers. The three sections were, Williams to Quivero, Quivero to Apex, and Apex to the South Rim. On southbound trips he would replace Apex with Anita as his separating point. Grand Canyon Railway has a bowl layout. Between Quivero and Williams the railroad is a roller coaster as it climbs out of the bottom of the bowl and it was the last section he taught. When Mr. Ambrose set up the AT&SF simulator in the late 1960’s he taped the Grand Canyon Branch. When I was at the NN I meet a Santa Fe engineer who was trained on the branch due to its operational difficulties compared to the relative ease of the territory he operated over.

With careful selection of who was in the cab and I made it a point the few times there was a cab rider to have a briefing with the cab rider about certain dangers and tasks that they needed to both be aware of and where they needed to be to stay out of the way. One time firing they put on two FRA inspectors at the Cowboy Stop and I did not have time to tell them about sanding the flues. You should have seen the look on their eyes when we got rolling and the fireman jumps out of his seat to go to work sanding the flues. My Engineer Mr. Ferguson was surprised by me going right to the sand box but I figured they would get out of the way. I found out latter from Mr. Imbleau that the FRA inspectors found it funny that I was not going to let their presence stop me from the tasks at hand. While you can not prepare cab riders for every situation that could possibly come forward it is a good idea to tell them of tasks and potential safety hazards. With the right cab rider it can be a memorable and positive experience but to ensure safety it needs to be done with care and forethought for those involved.

Robby Peartree


May my good friend Sam Imbleau forever rest in peace.

quote="Trainlawyer"]Be forewarned. I am in full curmudgeon mode. This comment has raised my ire.

That comment alone is good cause to bar you from operating on many properties.

Safety (note the spelling) rules exist to prevent bad things from happening. The bad thing may not happen immediately when the rule is violated and it may not happen every time. It has, however, happened and it will happen again. A prior post stated that Chase happened because of pot and Chatsworth happened because of texting. Neither is fully correct. Both collisions happened because a crew member or members made conscious knowing decisions to take actions which they knew were in violation of the various rules and apparently believed they would get away it. They had gotten away with it in the past. The conduct in each case would have justified the dismissal of the involved employes even had the collisions not occurred.

There is a legal concept called Standard of care which is simply how well one follows the rules, procedures and accepted practices in any particular occupation. If you believe that there is a lower standard of care, that you are free to break (note this spelling also) the rules when nobody, such as an Inspector from the Federal Railroad Administration, is looking, then you would be invited to absent your sorry carcass from my railroad and to remain so until you are able to convince me that you have learned otherwise.

A competent manager can find a way of giving the rides legitimately. Hiding your practices from the FRA is simply not acceptable behaviour.

GME[/quote] If you think my spelling is bad you should see some of the stuff that gets passed around class one railroads. So will you give it a rest. Also there also exist something called a gray area so while I am sure that the guy could safely operate the train with his kid in the cab and it might have not been technically agenest the rules doing it after that cornfield meet in CA due to distractions in the cab, in front of the FRA shows poor taste. But since it wasen't my railroad it dose't matter what I think. I also don't have a problem with people reading none railroad material while waiting at a siding even though that is against the rules but I would sstillenforce that rule if I was in a position that required it.