> I don't think that either Dave or I were
> advocating training at the expense of safety
> appliances.

I don't think you were either. This is the statement which caught my eye:

> and use good comprehensive
> training and testing to qualify truly
> qualified operators instead of relying on
> hardware

This is a recepie for disaster for several reasons. The one which is most frequently overlooked is that someone reading this on this forum is going to take it as gospel and use it as a rationale for removing safety devices willy-nilly, which eventually will lead to an accident.

> I was merely making the point
> that adding gadgets does not necessarily
> result in a safer transit vehicle (or
> vintage trolley for that matter),
> particularly when the added gadget removes
> some of the operator's skill and
> attentiveness from the equation.

Well, I sort of hate to say this, but this assertion doesn't stand up under scritiny. It's a shame that this is the case, because there is no subsitute for a skilled and alert operator. They're just scarce as hen's teeth, which is the problem.

> One has
> only to ride rapid transit with cab signals
> to observe the phenomenon in action. Ride
> around on a couple different trains and
> you'll find it.... up goes the control
> handle to full acceleration until the cab
> signal beeps, wham go the brakes unitl it
> stops beeping, slam goes the control handle
> up to speed again, all the while jerking the
> passengers in their seats. Never mind
> learning the territory, anticipating the
> speed restriction for that curve ahead, and
> braking smoothly without ever getting
> "beeped".

This is what we called on the rr "highball and washout" operation.

> I can think of numerous transit accidents
> that happened despite an overwhelming number
> of additional safety gadgets being in place,
> caused because an operator just wasn't
> paying attention. More gadgets doesn't
> automatically mean "safer". Not
> only is first cost and maintenance
> increased, but I wonder about the
> advisability of the ever increasing drive to
> remove the human factor from operation.

Well, BART has been proving the case for removing train drivers for several decades, but that is a captive, fully fenced operation (which RCL operations on the RRs are not, by the way).

> Clearly a balance is required between the
> two extremes.

For museums yes. But, back-dating a safety car to an earlier pre-safety configuration, as mentioned on an earlier post, is lawyer bait. If your unconverted straight air cars start generating statistics (i.e. accidents) then you may find yourself required to "take corrective action", like adding a deadman.

BTW, the FRA doesn't generally permit removing a safety appliance once it's been installed. I know of one train operator several years ago who installed alertors in order to substitute them for foot pedals. The idea was to improve the safety appliances, not complicate them. But, the result was that you had to run the engine with your foot on the pedal AND deal with the alertor. I think the FRA was out to lunch on this one.

> There is a problem of when someone does the
> same thing day in and day out that they
> become complacent and inattentive.

Familiarity breeds contempt.

old safety message



Old Time Trains
oldtimetrains@rrmail.com