Remote Control Is a Failure for Railroads

CSX (CSX) and the Norfolk Southern Railroad (NSC) released their 2009 first quarter earnings. CSX reported that it had “a better-than-expected first-quarter net profit, due in part to continued strong pricing”, while the NS said it was “aggressively cutting costs in order to offset the drop in freight volumes”. Better than expected, according to CSX, is a 23% drop from 2008. (I would hate to see what it thought a bad quarter would be.) Today, BNSF (BNI) and the Union Pacific Railroad (UNP) will release their first quarter earnings, but will Wall Street continue to celebrate their lackluster performance?

It is apparent that the Class 1 railroad network had a dismal first quarter, however who is really to blame for their sluggish start? The Union Pacific, CSX, BNSF, and the NS rolled the dice a few years ago in an attempt to eliminate what they saw as a drain on their budget — their manpower. They used investors' money in an experiment that has failed miserably over the past 3 to 5 years. They threw billions of dollars in the Remote Control Locomotives industry that not only slowed their car count to a crawl, but also spent more in technology than they did in a human being with full benefits.

The theory of the Remote Control Locomotive (RCO) was good, but the execution and reality was a complete failure. The railroads wanted to eliminate the cost of a locomotive engineer by eliminating the cost of a benefit package, as well as the threat of personal injury lawsuits. However, the investment to eliminate those costs proved to be grossly underestimated.

To eliminate the human factor, the railroads poured money into satellites, receivers, on board computers, radio repeaters, RCL boxes (GE, Cattron and Canac), speed pucks, stop pucks, new timetables, switching zones, retro-fitted safety equipment, and countless hours of specialized training. This investment resulted in the estimated cost of $6-8 million per locomotive and had a life span of only 5 to 6 years. When you did the math, the human being that was replaced was actually much cheaper than the sluggish remote control project.

Another problem with the RCL project is that the bean counters failed to realize that reducing the size of a crew would actually result in fewer car counts. CSX, the first Class 1 railroad to release its 2009 first quarter results, stated that its volume was down across all segments, as construction and consumer-related markets remained weak. We expect that BNSF and the Union Pacific Railroad will say the same. The railroads have become reactive by furloughing employees and taking locomotives out of service. As of today, there is no definite word on the Remote Control Locomotive experiment and the billions of dollars wasted on the failed project.

The first quarter of 2009 is dismal, but Wall Street still doesn’t understand that the problem with the railroad industry is the poor decision making from the executive offices. When the executives finally realized that there are customers who would like to ship via rail, the car counts will increase. When they invest in their workers instead of trying to replace them with a failed RCL program, then their productivity will increase. The executive bean counters need to be replaced by people who actually know how to run a railroad.

Disclosure: UNP, CSX, NSC.

Comments

[mcdaddy:]

At the very time in American history, the RR could take a leadership role and keep it's employees working. At the very time the American people need leaders the RR have decided to squash it's people. At this very important time the RR have made a decision to make a single man remote a priority. Unions where are you. Take the money and run.

Apr 26 10:02 AM

[boxcarcowboy:]

As a UP Switch Foreman working the 'box' since its inception in 2002, I cannot comment on the financial efficacy of RCO ops, however I do agree that the expense must be enormous given the technology. On the UPRR they seem to have taken the oldest, funkiest, locomotives, given them them a first class 'spruce up' and installed the very expensive technology. I would not be surprised that the RCO tech improvements far exceed the value of the refurbished locomotive.
Nevertheless, I must disagree concerning the productivity. I can assure you that with the experience I have had with RCO, I can perform as much work with a two-man RCO crew as with a three-man crew (engineer included). The younger the crew, the better they can do the job and troubleshoot problems given the experience. Furthermore, RCO engines don't complain, they do what you tell them (usually), don't demand 'coffee' and 'beans' or try to 'run the job'. I realize that I am waxing 'tongue in cheek' and I want it known that I enjoy having a 'real' engineer on the job, but the argument that RCO jobs are not productive is incorrect. We do the job and we do it well. Brian Lewis, Oakland RCO operator.

Apr 27 02:17 AM

[conductor25801:]

Your the dope man. I work in the rail industry and he is exactly right!!! The remotes have done nothing but get men killed. If we let companys like this have there way will all will be without a job!! NS needs men now but they choose to keep us furloughed to cut cost but who cares about the cost of a mans family anymore


On Apr 23 08:50 AM G. Kahn wrote:

> What a dope. Yeah, the car count is down because of RCL -- nothing
> to do with customers moving less freight in a down economy? Dope
> has an axe to grind. Grind it at the water cooler, not in a financial
> blog.

Apr 27 02:56 PM

[conductor25801:]

also another thing about this so called high tech equipment. We can be running down a single track with a coal train and something can mess up and block everything coming and going down this one track!! Thats how car counts go down!! Because we are dicking around with something thats broke when the system before it wasnt broke. Why fix it when its not broke

Apr 27 03:06 PM

[signalman67:]

This type of technology is not limited to just locomotives. There is currently a good number of electronics in service at railroad crossings that perform the FRA mandated tests. The technology is specifically designed to eliminate signalmens jobs. If the FRA ever approves the testing, we can expect to lose thousands of signal jobs across the country. My question is, what will that do to help a failing economy? There are so many companies, today, that are laying off workers by the thousands. What will any of this do to help the failing economy? The leaders of this nation(corporate america) are completely clueless when it comes to a strong economy. I once read, "when corporate america does good, the economy does good." That statement completely defies logic. When the majority of this nation(the working class) does good, the economy does good. It is the working class, together, purchasing items that keeps the economy strong. If the work force is layed off, who will be purchasing new cars, groceries, and other day to day needs? Put America back to work, folks. That is the only way the economy will ever recover. Stop engineering ways to eliminate jobs. If one worker is layed off at one company, that single move affects countless other companies. There is nothing else that could possibly make more sense.

May 01 12:51 AM

[Rebel22:]

Your comment is just plainly wrong. Everyone I know that uses RCL in Atlanta cannot stand it. So counterproductive that they have to reroute train traffic around Atlanta because they just can't handle it anymore.


On Apr 24 05:08 PM jmw1611 wrote:

> Your article is just plainly wrong. I am a remote control operator
> that knows the truth. The technology is awesome and is much safer
> to use than having an engineer on the engine. We have no problem
> at all building four trains a day on our regular yard assignment
> and getting off on time. I was one who really doubted the implementation
> of the technology, but after being trained to use it, a 30 year employee
> at CSX, I was astonished at how productive it is to use. It is hard
> to believe but the locomotive seem like an extension of your own
> body once you learn to use it effectively; just imagine a backhoe
> operator that's able to make the arm of his machine look like an
> extension of his hand. That is exactly what I mean. It is much safer
> to make a coupling with your own hand/eye coordination than to tell
> an engineer over the radio. To go back the old way to me is like
> going back 40 years. The best thing they ever did for a yard people
> was to implement this technology. They could take it much farther
> than this, such as pull in doglaw trains and even work locals with
> it.

May 02 07:37 PM

[mr.green:]

how many of you acually work for a railroad? These railroads(NS) cant even maintain engines ran by engineers across this country. These remote engines are dangerous and ineffective. they lose communication constantly, in order to properly operate RCO a man must be at each end of movement..... so that means with the engineer GONE, its just the conductor and brakeman... (here comes the kicker) so if both ends need protecting only one man is really doing the work.. how it this more efficent? it has become a one man crew. they hide all the real major crashes! do more research


On Apr 23 09:32 AM JoMo0101 wrote:

> Remote control is an excellent form of operation for certain rail
> applications/assigments. It is more efficient on all Hump and most
>
> yard operations. Yes, railroads have spent money to iron out "bugs"
> and they have been successful in many areas. The future of remotes
> is much brighter with these improvements. Making money most always
> costs in the beginning. I have over 40 years of service in the railroad
> industry and have been heavily involved in remote control.

May 04 10:55 AM

[Ron Retired:]

I can't believe some of the comments I have read. Some of you speak of remotes like it is the best thing since sliced bread. This is nothing more than eliminating your job. None of you have mentioned the job loss. One of you even said they should put it on locals. What a shame some of you only think about yourself. I guess none of you really knows what it is to be Union, and think about what your brother is going through. Who cares, I have a job and I'm running a remote that took one of my Union brothers job, lucky me. Remotes are dangerous, and they cost jobs. Union folks!! Wake up!!

May 04 12:23 PM

[JOHN DIZZO:]

I can , as a raolroader, tell you the car counts where down long before the economy slide!!!!!!!!


On Apr 23 08:50 AM G. Kahn wrote:

> What a dope. Yeah, the car count is down because of RCL -- nothing
> to do with customers moving less freight in a down economy? Dope
> has an axe to grind. Grind it at the water cooler, not in a financial
> blog.

May 04 02:40 PM

[JOHN DIZZO:]

A 30 year union employee?????? No way would any union employee condone, even glorify the loss of so many jobs. I to am aan employee and was in the very first RCO class in our yard in 2000, and the technology was slow then and is slow now. SAFER??? WOW.... Good luck with that management position your after!!!


On Apr 24 05:08 PM jmw1611 wrote:

> Your article is just plainly wrong. I am a remote control operator
> that knows the truth. The technology is awesome and is much safer
> to use than having an engineer on the engine. We have no problem
> at all building four trains a day on our regular yard assignment
> and getting off on time. I was one who really doubted the implementation
> of the technology, but after being trained to use it, a 30 year employee
> at CSX, I was astonished at how productive it is to use. It is hard
> to believe but the locomotive seem like an extension of your own
> body once you learn to use it effectively; just imagine a backhoe
> operator that's able to make the arm of his machine look like an
> extension of his hand. That is exactly what I mean. It is much safer
> to make a coupling with your own hand/eye coordination than to tell
> an engineer over the radio. To go back the old way to me is like
> going back 40 years. The best thing they ever did for a yard people
> was to implement this technology. They could take it much farther
> than this, such as pull in doglaw trains and even work locals with
> it.

May 04 02:52 PM

[jmw1611:]

This one would Johnny boy! The truth is the truth is the truth! I'm sure the track people felt the same way when all those machines took their jobs too. And in any other industry for that matter. That's technology; don't give me this smoke and mirrors about protecting jobs. You've been right in there with technology in your lifetime eliminating jobs too. My father's job as a fireman was sold out by the BLE, a fellow labor organization, for a little over a buck a day. It turned out that those old hogheads were not afraid to run their new shiny diesels by themselves were they? The engineers used to brag and say, "Nothing will ever take our jobs, you can't replace us". Now, in the yard, they are nothing more than a toggle switch on a switchman's belly. The remotes are here to stay and are working as designed; and might I add, a whole lot safer than having an engineer taking signals on a congested radio network. Now, cry me some tears Johnny boy!


On May 04 02:52 PM JOHN DIZZO wrote:

> A 30 year union employee?????? No way would any union employee condone,
> even glorify the loss of so many jobs. I to am aan employee and was
> in the very first RCO class in our yard in 2000, and the technology
> was slow then and is slow now. SAFER??? WOW.... Good luck with that
> management position your after!!!

May 05 02:48 PM

[Dodah1948:]

I, too, am a BNSF engineer, recently retired, and day in and day out I saw the inefficiencies and wastefulness of RCO operations. RCO jobs were despised by the yardmasters and trainmasters but were shoved down our throats by the higher ups. Production dropped to about half, derailments were covered up, and engineers were constantly called out to work when the remotes failed. The switchmen loved these RCO's, they quickly figured out that all they had to do was drag and shove--no rescuing hoglawed trains, no transfer work and no industry work. Most of the RCO jobs
worked 4 or 5 hours and went home--A conventional job was
held over to protect. The ATM's explanation being " I can't let you
go, I've got to have an engineer here.": So much for the superintendent's "I can do anything with a remote that I can to with an engineer." Never once did I see them drag in a 13,000 ton train with a remote. You'll never convince me that RCO is a time-saving, money saving operation

On Apr 25 01:44 PM BNSFengineer wrote:

> jmw1611 I can't figure out if you are a manager or just an odd duck.
> I work on remote jobs extensively and your characterization of the
> RCLs is simply off. A remote crew is simply much slower and much
> less safe. I work for BNSF in the Northwest. The majority of yard
> accidents have involved remote jobs. It is inherently unsafe to not
> have someone in the cab. I would prefer to focus on my work and let
> someone else drive. Remote crews get so focused on playing with their
> remote box that they blow through switches or simply make mistakes.
> We don't use remote zones because management feels it's too cumbersome
> and slows down yard traffic. In addition, the remote motors frequently
> fail because computers aren't able to handle the banging around that
> happens when you switch 100 ton rail cars. We often have to call
> an engineer in the middle of our shift because the remote is busted.
> When we have an engineer on the job we are much faster and safer,
> in my opinion. I'm also an engineer, so I know the difference between
> running a remote and running conventional. The remotes are sluggish,
> slow to load, slow to stop, slow to change direction. I believe our
> local management would love to get rid of them because of all the
> accidents and headache, but my assumption is that those decisions
> are made at the top. I think the guys at the top don't want to admit
> the remotes are a waste of money.

May 05 04:24 PM

[mr.green:]

just an F.Y.I., to all those NS RCO operators. did you know that a proper engine brake test can not be performed with the box? I would strongly urge that you contact your union to get some answers. What happens when a SAT team approaches you about not performing a proper brake test? most management haven"t been properly introduced to the remote. ther are no real rules that assist in the event something goes wrong. how many of you have a hand book on the proper way to handle the remote? or a book of rules that need to be followed? if this remote is going to be around for a while, i challenge all T&E to pressure our leaders to provide us(T&E) with a book of rules for the remote.. a trainning manual showing the proper way to operate the remote.. provide locks for the area in which the remote operates...( oh, if you didn"t know, cross overs and or leads are to be lined and locked by the RCO operator while performing duties) a step towards safety.. but overlooked to keep things moving. they demand that we follow their rules. I think its time they do the same!!!

May 05 09:41 PM

[jmw1611:]

Dear BNSF Engineer, bring your boys to Alabama and we'll show them how to run their remotes.
JMW1611

On Apr 25 01:52 PM BNSFengineer wrote:

> One more comment. If I were a manager worried about efficiency, expenses,
> and safety and was given six employees, I would choose two conventional
> jobs with three people on each crew (an engineer and two switchmen)
> over three remote crews with two people on each crew (with a remote
> locomotive and two switchmen). It's really a no-brainer in my opinion.
> It would be interesting to have an anonymous survey of operations
> managers to see what they would prefer.

May 06 05:45 AM

[jmw1611:]

Nearly all you fellows crying admit that you are "engineers" and don't even work with the remotes unless you're certified in both crafts. That tells me everything I need to know. Your opinion is biased. You're the ones the remotes replaced! The Carriers, like CSX, have figured out that safety, execution of movements without destroying equipment, and a "slow" pace saves money, and lives. That old mentality of "rush, rush, rush" has long-since been replaced with "slow down, work slower, think about what you're doing, obey the rules and we're going to make money". They don't give a rip about your speed Mr. Engineer; besides, they can sit in their offices now and watch everything your doing on your locomotive with their eye in sky; and charge you and fire you when you screw up! They do it on CSX! So all you're doing is blowing a bunch of hot air that could be better used to pat your remote control operator on the back and tell him he's doing a good job". Ha! ha!.
JMW1611


On May 06 05:45 AM jmw1611 wrote:

> Dear BNSF Engineer, bring your boys to Alabama and we'll show them
> how to run their remotes.
> JMW1611
>
> On Apr 25 01:52 PM BNSFengineer wrote:

May 06 06:05 AM

[uhlijohn:]

RCLs more efficient? Forget it! When the UP brought RCLs to its Proviso hump yard, the car count plummeted. Solution? Put on another RCL to combat it! That does not sound efficient to me! That failed too. Solution? Add another RCL! That went bust also. Too many RCLs to be efficiently managed by the humpmaster. One sat idle most of the shift. Prior to RCLs we had two humpers with a trainman and an engineer, and one trimmer with an engineer and two trainmen. We humped more cars. Way more. In less time, too. If the Canadian Pacific's experiment with RCLs is any indication, I think that RCLs are on the way out. According to a high level CP official, the CP's experience with RCLs was bad and they finally dumped them as being too expensive and too inefficient after a ten year test. Most of them were withdrawn by the CP. It is instructive to note that when the FRA approved RCLs for the US, the CP didn't even try to put them to work at their Bensenville, IL hump yard! "Been there, done that!" Bye-bye RCLs!


On Apr 23 09:32 AM JoMo0101 wrote:

> Remote control is an excellent form of operation for certain rail
> applications/assigments. It is more efficient on all Hump and most
>
> yard operations. Yes, railroads have spent money to iron out "bugs"
> and they have been successful in many areas. The future of remotes
> is much brighter with these improvements. Making money most always
> costs in the beginning. I have over 40 years of service in the railroad
> industry and have been heavily involved in remote control.

May 08 04:06 AM

[jmw1611:]

That's right Uhlijohn, the Carriers are using RCL because they're losing money, right; and I'm sure you know exactly what you are talking about, those bad old RCLs are on their way out! Yes sir, you know all those "high ranking officials" don't you boy. Dream on my friend, "dream about the world we're going to live in one fine day", ain't that how the song goes? You could blow up a hot air balloon with all that nonsense. RCLs are here to stay; and "all the king's horses and all the king's men cannot put the Locomotive engineer back together again". Have a nice day.


On May 08 04:06 AM uhlijohn wrote:

> RCLs more efficient? Forget it! When the UP brought RCLs to its Proviso
> hump yard, the car count plummeted. Solution? Put on another RCL
> to combat it! That does not sound efficient to me! That failed too.
> Solution? Add another RCL! That went bust also. Too many RCLs to
> be efficiently managed by the humpmaster. One sat idle most of the
> shift. Prior to RCLs we had two humpers with a trainman and an engineer,
> and one trimmer with an engineer and two trainmen. We humped more
> cars. Way more. In less time, too. If the Canadian Pacific's experiment
> with RCLs is any indication, I think that RCLs are on the way out.
> According to a high level CP official, the CP's experience with RCLs
> was bad and they finally dumped them as being too expensive and too
> inefficient after a ten year test. Most of them were withdrawn by
> the CP. It is instructive to note that when the FRA approved RCLs
> for the US, the CP didn't even try to put them to work at their Bensenville,
> IL hump yard! "Been there, done that!" Bye-bye RCLs!

May 08 02:51 PM

[uhlijohn:]

To jmw611: 'FYI: The CP official I spoke of attended a Shriner's convention several years ago and another engineer in my terminal who is also a Shriner asked about the CP's experience with RCLs and this is what the CP official related: "Yes, RCLs can "work" - if you're willing to throw money at them! They are not as efficient as a fully-manned crew and they take more money to operate and maintain." Do you think a Mason would lie to a brother Mason? :-) I can only assume that's why the CP didn't even bother to put them to work at Bensenville! You doubt this? Why don't you call up the CP Bensenville, IL yard and ask the general yardmaster if they have any RCLs working there? Put that in your pipe and smoke it!
In so far as the UP's experience with the RCL humping operations, I can put you in touch with one of our humpmasters and he can relate to you the very same thing I posted in my comment. They actually tried ot use 5 stinking RCLs to replace 3 engineers and 4 trainmen and it just didn't work! As far as the RRs using them even though they are losing money: Why did the CP use them for 10 years before dumping them for the most part? You seem to forget that people make mistakes. And if a high level RR exec, whose job may be on the line, has a stake in making RCLs appear to work, what do you think will happen? They will spin the numbers and try to make it appear that they are working. When the RCLs fist came to the UP, they would have to call conventional fully-manned crews to pull them out of the mud, but they made the designation of the job remote control! Every one of those jobs began with the "RY" designation! Hoggers complained bitterly about this because it was making the RCLs appear to be working when, in fact, it was the hogger-manned engines that were pulling them out of the mud.
You don't know what you're talking about, unless you are a UTU member who stole our jobs! One thing I can't stand it's a scab. Especially a UTU scab. Well, my UTU friend, I have a wake up call for you: The carriers will soon do away with the road conductor as the technology now exists for his exit. And the conductor is the number one employee that the carriers want to do away with! Then the BLET will let the last part of the plan to fall into place by inking an agreement with the carriers to throw switches and pull pins - for a "small" fee, of course. You guys are dinosaurs and you don't even know it! When the BNSF demostrated their new Positive Train Control to UTU and BLET LCs and GCs a few years ago, a UTU GC remarked to a BLET GC, "It was like riding on my our own funeral train." And so it was! Bye-bye dinosaur! You will soon join the ranks of the unemployed! Ha!

May 09 01:03 PM

[blet447:]

In case JMW1611 is unaware, a CSX yard conductor was killed in an RC accident in New York here just this week, as was that incident I believe in 2006 when the CSX Carknocker was runover in his truck by an unprotected shove at De Witt yard in New York. Conventional and Remote both have hazards, the true culprit is us, the railroaders, and the almighty quit. On the NS we have remote guys that run there nuts off for that quit, but when that thing goes one man, i think the tune will change. I do know this, and it is obvious from an Engineers perspective or even a road crews that the remotes are costly and less productive. The engines are constantly in the shop for brake shoes, a yard Engineer makes $198 a day vs. the $240 +/- the RCO makes. The cost of training an RCO does not have as much of a benefit as say an Engineers since an Engineer is more versatile; road, yard, local, etc. RCO's are restricted for now by location. Management also spends less time on tape pulls, discipline, banner checks etc (if at all) on RCO's vs. Engineer 's. I have never heard of an RCO getting a tape pull or getting bannered. I see the same old heads doing the same thing with remotes you say on CSX, it comes to wanting too protect the work you have, because it pays higher, it is two man (for now), and the company does not watch the rule violations like they do on Engineers. This stuff catches up with us all eventually, and it has turned brother against brother, union against union in the fight for work. Next time think about the quit your going for rushing around the yard at 10 mph with 5000 plus tons in the bowl and think about how safe that is, especially if the head end is not protected.

On Apr 24 05:08 PM jmw1611 wrote:

> Your article is just plainly wrong. I am a remote control operator
> that knows the truth. The technology is awesome and is much safer
> to use than having an engineer on the engine. We have no problem
> at all building four trains a day on our regular yard assignment
> and getting off on time. I was one who really doubted the implementation
> of the technology, but after being trained to use it, a 30 year employee
> at CSX, I was astonished at how productive it is to use. It is hard
> to believe but the locomotive seem like an extension of your own
> body once you learn to use it effectively; just imagine a backhoe
> operator that's able to make the arm of his machine look like an
> extension of his hand. That is exactly what I mean. It is much safer
> to make a coupling with your own hand/eye coordination than to tell
> an engineer over the radio. To go back the old way to me is like
> going back 40 years. The best thing they ever did for a yard people
> was to implement this technology. They could take it much farther
> than this, such as pull in doglaw trains and even work locals with
> it.
The following article came from Trains.com, it says nothing of remote control, but I am hearing that this poor guy coupled himself up in a remote fatality.

BETHLEHEM, N.Y. - CSX conductor Jared C. Boehlke, 33, died last night in a yard accident, the Albany (N.Y.) Times-Union has reported. Officials are investigating the accident.

Boehlke's father and brother are railroaders, and according to a United Transportation Workers Union official, his brother was on duty at the time of the accident and accompanied him to the hospital.

May 13 12:19 PM

[jmw1611:]

Yes Sir uhlijohn, I flushed you out didn't I? Yes I did! You're a BLET cry baby! However, the facts are the facts, the UTU has kicked the BLET's butt in every contract and you can bet your bottom dollar on it sonny boy when the time comes to negotiate the famous "one man train" agreement, we'll be in the driver's seat, as always! Uh, oh, sorry to use that expression, I didn't mean to hurt your feelings. You fellows are still crying about "crew consist" for crying out loud. There I go again. Sorry. But living in the past is no guarantee of a profitable future. We can call each other names all day long but if your agrument had any logic to it, or should I say "sense" to it, the carriers would have long-since done away with using the device. Don't kid me boy, go kid your grandmother! The fact is that's it is personal to you because it took your job; but there wasn't one UTU member that would have done that if he would have had a choice. We didn't beg the carriers to implement the technology and you know that too down deep in your heart. It had been in Canada for 10 years prior and the US carriers knew exactly what it would do! In fact it was offered to the BLE before it came out way. Your own BLET heads rejected it being so over confident that it would not work. They made a major blunder!!! But when the offer came the UTU's way, they out smarted the BLET (as always) and embraced the technology. Why? Because you can't STOP technology! Don't get mad at me Mr. "Mason" for telling it like it is. That's putting it waste high and right above the plate. The UTU smelled job loss and the BLET was worried about their pride. Such as, degarding themselves to actually have to be on the ground and, oh my gosh, line a nasty old switch. "Pride goeth before destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall". You can talk to all the "CP officials" you want to, but the facts and the Carriers' continual use speak volumes. Why has the BLET continually tried to get the technology back and in their control since losing it if it is so bad? I know why, "egg on their faces".

On May 09 01:03 PM uhlijohn wrote:

> To jmw611: 'FYI: The CP official I spoke of attended a Shriner's
> convention several years ago and another engineer in my terminal
> who is also a Shriner asked about the CP's experience with RCLs and
> this is what the CP official related: "Yes, RCLs can "work" - if
> you're willing to throw money at them! They are not as efficient
> as a fully-manned crew and they take more money to operate and maintain."
> Do you think a Mason would lie to a brother Mason? :-) I can only
> assume that's why the CP didn't even bother to put them to work at
> Bensenville! You doubt this? Why don't you call up the CP Bensenville,
> IL yard and ask the general yardmaster if they have any RCLs working
> there? Put that in your pipe and smoke it!
> In so far as the UP's experience with the RCL humping operations,
> I can put you in touch with one of our humpmasters and he can relate
> to you the very same thing I posted in my comment. They actually
> tried ot use 5 stinking RCLs to replace 3 engineers and 4 trainmen
> and it just didn't work! As far as the RRs using them even though
> they are losing money: Why did the CP use them for 10 years before
> dumping them for the most part? You seem to forget that people make
> mistakes. And if a high level RR exec, whose job may be on the line,
> has a stake in making RCLs appear to work, what do you think will
> happen? They will spin the numbers and try to make it appear that
> they are working. When the RCLs fist came to the UP, they would have
> to call conventional fully-manned crews to pull them out of the mud,
> but they made the designation of the job remote control! Every one
> of those jobs began with the "RY" designation! Hoggers complained
> bitterly about this because it was making the RCLs appear to be working
> when, in fact, it was the hogger-manned engines that were pulling
> them out of the mud.
> You don't know what you're talking about, unless you are a UTU member
> who stole our jobs! One thing I can't stand it's a scab. Especially
> a UTU scab. Well, my UTU friend, I have a wake up call for you: The
> carriers will soon do away with the road conductor as the technology
> now exists for his exit. And the conductor is the number one employee
> that the carriers want to do away with! Then the BLET will let the
> last part of the plan to fall into place by inking an agreement with
> the carriers to throw switches and pull pins - for a "small" fee,
> of course. You guys are dinosaurs and you don't even know it! When
> the BNSF demostrated their new Positive Train Control to UTU and
> BLET LCs and GCs a few years ago, a UTU GC remarked to a BLET GC,
> "It was like riding on my our own funeral train." And so it was!
> Bye-bye dinosaur! You will soon join the ranks of the unemployed!
> Ha!

May 16 06:02 PM