Passenger Trains > FRA recommendations to prevent psgr. train speeding

PRESS RELEASE NUMBER: FRA 11-15
SUBJECT: Passenger Rail

> WASHINGTON — The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) today issued a
> safety advisory recommending actions that passenger railroads take to
> prevent trains from speeding.  The advisory is the latest in a series
> of steps FRA has taken to keep passenger railroads safe for the
> traveling public.
>
> “Today the FRA is taking a smart and targeted approach to addressing
> a major issue involved in recent passenger rail accidents,” said U.S.
> Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx.  “Safety is our top priority
> at the Department, and today’s advisory is but one step we are taking
> to raise the bar on safety for passenger rail.”
>
> The FRA recommends that passenger railroads immediately take the
> following actions to control passenger train speeds:
>
> Identify locations where there is a reduction of more than 20 mph
> from the approach speed to a curve or bridge and the maximum
> authorized operating speed for passenger trains at that curve or
> bridge.
>
> Modify Automatic Train Control (ATC) systems (if in use) to ensure
> compliance with speed limits.
>
> If the railroad does not use ATC, ensure that all passenger train
> movements through the identified locations be made with a second
> qualified crew member in the cab of the controlling locomotive, or
> with constant communication between the locomotive engineer and an
> additional qualified and designated crewmember in the body of the
> train.
>
> Install additional wayside signage alerting engineers and conductors
> of the maximum authorized passenger train speed throughout the
> passenger railroad’s system, with particular emphasis on additional
> signage at the identified locations.
>
> “The FRA fully expects passenger railroads to take immediate action
> and implement these recommendations,” said Acting Federal Railroad
> Administrator Sarah Feinberg.  “We will continue to take action in
> the coming weeks to prevent human error from causing accidents and to
> keep passengers safe on the nation’s railroads.”

A veteran railroad manager and industry observer has already noted, "So far this
only applies to passenger railroads, not passenger trains traveling over freight
railroads."  I'm not so sure about that.

Full advisory:

Operational and signal modifications for compliance with maximum authorized passenger train speeds and other speed restrictions



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/09/15 08:17 by GenePoon.

> If the railroad does not use ATC, ensure that all passenger train
> movements through the identified locations be made .. .. .. ..
> with constant communication between the locomotive engineer and an
> additional qualified and designated crewmember in the body of the
> train.

So now we have a case of a governmental agency recommending that the blind lead the sighted?

Constantly yakking on the radio with someone back in the train, who is relatively clueless about the train's location at any given time, about these sorts of things  . . .  how much different is that from using a cell phone while driving the locomotive?

A second person in the cab is viable, and used to work until the race to the bottom mentality set in, but only if there is the explicit understanding and encouragment by all concerned that they keep an eye on each other and speak out (even intervene if necessary) when things look like they might be headed into the toilet, points which routinely fail to appear in dialogue for or against more than one person in the cab.

The only problem though is that even with a second person in the cab, the type of problem that they are supposedly trying to avoid, turns up multiple times each year. So second person in cab is really no solution to the problem. Yeah it might catch a few but provably it does not come even close to catching all.

I am sure the government can fix the problem, any problem!

GenePoon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A veteran railroad manager and industry observer
> has already noted, "So far this
> only applies to passenger railroads, not passenger
> trains traveling over freight
> railroads."  I'm not so sure about that.
>
> Full advisory:
>
> Operational and signal modifications for
> compliance with maximum authorized passenger train
> speeds and other speed restrictions

Definitely *does* apply to passenger trains on a host railroad. See p. 8.

Paul Wilson
Arlington, VA

It is just an "encouragement and recommendation" and not a manadatory requirement though. I am sure many host railroads will take it under advisement, and of course if it is at all possible to screw Amtrak any which way they can they will figure it out and apply the screws. Look out for lengthening of schedules and such as this unfolds. :-/

Way back, many long years ago, there used to be a joke
going around that all that was really needed was an extra
relay in the electrical cabinet or control stand of each lead
locomotive.

Whne the engineer tried to do something stupid, a little
door would open and a large hand (think: Addams Family)
would pop out and slap the engineer upside the head. 

 

Realist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Way back, many long years ago, there used to be a
> joke
> going around that all that was really needed was
> an extra
> relay in the electrical cabinet or control stand
> of each lead
> locomotive.
>
> Whne the engineer tried to do something stupid, a
> little
> door would open and a large hand (think: Addams
> Family)
> would pop out and slap the engineer upside the
> head. 
>
>  

what would work is if the engineer gets hooked up to sensors pretty much like a EKG same thing an astronaut is and CNOC would be a replica operating center like NASA Houston and monitor all engineers functions and stress levels and CNOC and engineers would be in constant communication ...

Posted from Android

Out_Of_Service Wrote:

> what would work is if the engineer gets hooked up
> to sensors pretty much like a EKG same thing an
> astronaut is and CNOC would be a replica operating
> center like NASA Houston and monitor all engineers
> functions and stress levels and CNOC and engineers
> would be in constant communication ...
>
> Posted from Android

I know yours is a sarcastic answer to the thread, but you  are okk with this but not inward facing cameras? Interesting. Take your idea one step farther and add the PFR relay. It is embeeded in the seat and measures sucking power of the vinyl.    

Sucking power of the vinyl? Are you referring to a sort of dead mans switch kept on by pressure on the chair? I'm lost apparently.

EtoinShrdlu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A second person in the cab is viable, and used to
> work until the race to the bottom mentality set

A second person in the cab is not viable.  Its an economic disaster for passenger railroading in general, which already loses money in buckets and a pysical impossibility in many EMU's and cab cars.

A lack of labor productivity is the single biggest impediment to the expansion of passenger rail service becauase it is the driver of operating, MOW, and MOE costs.

If we are to believe what the NTSB puts out the cause of the accident will not be known for six months.
There should be no rush to judgements until the investigation is complete.. 
Why is the FRA coming out with this BS when the federal investigation is not complete?
(because it is a government organization that must show it is protecting us)
If for some reason the cause is NOT human error, will the FRA withdraw the recommendation?
(NO)

>> A second person in the cab is viable, and used to work until the race to the bottom mentality set

>A second person in the cab is not viable. 

Now you're spin-doctoring in the worst way because you left out the other part of my sentence, the part which reads: 

"but only if there is the explicit understanding and encouragment by all concerned that they keep an eye on each other and speak out (even intervene if necessary) when things look like they might be headed into the toilet, points which routinely fail to appear in dialogue for or against more than one person in the cab."

You're laboring under the misapprehension that a second person is ipso facto not necessary. My point is that it is, to a certain extent, because that's how the operational culture and attitudes of the employees get passed along. Its' no different than if you don't listen to somone who speaks a language idiomaicatlly, you'll never really learn it well. What's happened in the race to the bottom is that the old heads no longer pass along the pride in doing things right because they got driven off. And believe me does it show. You can't say I'm blowing smoke because I lived and worked throughout the whole race downwards.

> passenger railroading in general, which already loses money in buckets and a pysical impossibility in many EMU's and cab cars.

OK, name a time and place, other than WWII, when passenger service really paid its own way, particularly commuter service (which absolutely never has).

>A lack of labor productivity is the single biggest impediment to the expansion of passenger rail service

Are you ever out to lunch. But never mind, by all means have another sandwich.

>becauase it is the driver of operating, MOW, and MOE costs.

Playing with your alphabet blocks again . . .

EtoinShrdlu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >> A second person in the cab is viable, and used
> to work until the race to the bottom mentality
> set
>
> >A second person in the cab is not viable. 
>
> Now you're spin-doctoring in the worst way because
> you left out the other part of my sentence, the
> part which reads: 
>
> "but only if there is the explicit understanding
> and encouragment by all concerned that they keep
> an eye on each other and speak out (even intervene
> if necessary) when things look like they might be
> headed into the toilet, points which routinely
> fail to appear in dialogue for or against more
> than one person in the cab."
>
> You're laboring under the misapprehension that a
> second person is ipso facto not necessary. My

It isn't, because we've invented technologies to make it obsolete, especially cab signals and automatic train control.  This is like pilots demanding a return of the third person on the flight deck - flight engineers - and ignoring the existence of the auto-pilot system.

> point is that it is, to a certain extent, because
> that's how the operational culture and attitudes
> of the employees get passed along. Its' no

Training of new employees cannot be a perpetual condition in the cab or a reason for two people to occupy it.

> different than if you don't listen to somone who
> speaks a language idiomaicatlly, you'll never
> really learn it well. What's happened in the race
> to the bottom is that the old heads no longer pass

Its not a race to the bottom.  Its a balancing act between paying decent wages to T&E employees vs. revenue.  You can have two people in the cab if you go back to relative payscales that would halve engineer salaries.

> along the pride in doing things right because they
> got driven off. And believe me does it show. You
> can't say I'm blowing smoke because I lived and
> worked throughout the whole race downwards.

I understand what you are talking about, but this is not a solution to not using safety technology that has existed for almost 100 years and instead going back to a high labor cost non-solution.  Two people in the cab has been repeatedly found to have no correlation to the prevention of accidents.  Two people in the cab are just as likely to cause additional distractions by losing focus through socializing as they are to act as a check on each other's mistakes.

> > passenger railroading in general, which already
> loses money in buckets and a pysical
> impossibility in many EMU's and cab cars.
>
> OK, name a time and place, other than WWII, when
> passenger service really paid its own way,
> particularly commuter service (which absolutely
> never has).

Studies were repeatedly conducted in the 1960's that found passenger operations at the time on many railroads were at least a break-even proposition.  This was not the conclusion people like Lou Menk were looking for, but they got it anyway.  There is also no way to account for the continued purchasing of modern passenger equipment by roads like the ATSF and GN without this.

Several commuter services were noted to be profitable into the 1970's, including the well run Chicago and Northwestern service in Chicagoland.  This was correlated with the adoption of modern practices like push-pull service and bi-level cars which helped change the cost equation vs. revenues.

It is well known that services using more modern technology and labor saving devices were able to run at a profit into the 1970's, for example, the new PATCO suburban system.

Auto Train operated as a successful for-profit business until the misguided expansion to Louisville and several accidents.

Why was passenger service losing money overall starting from the 1950's?  These are the primary internal problems.

1) A secular downtrend in ridership that ended and reversed in 1973.  Part of this was caused by lackluster marketing and operations, part by malicious abandonments and schedule changes that segmented service or made use of the service very difficult.
2) Excessive branchline and secondary mainline service with hopeless cost equations from low ridership and high staffing and very slow operating speeds.
3) High staffing levels on mainline trains and overstaffing of small stations.
4) Numerous slow mainline services that gobbled up equpment and staff to simply operate in comparison to the speedy streamliners.
5) The terminal problem - too many urban stations, parallel routes, yards, shops and other overhead items.
6) The lack of system integration nationwide - difficulties in transferring between railroads, sharing equipment and staff, duplicate management structures.
7) Huge fleets of inefficient and outdated and unattractive equipment.
8) A lack of offering new value added products (think things like slumbercoaches, auto-ferry service, high speed corridor service).

The formation of Amtrak solved a number of these problems but introduced two new criplling features - a bare-bones route system politically ossified in the population settlement pattern of 1960 that could not support the overhead, and significantly slowed down services vs. the best offerings of the 1940's and 1950's that ate-up equipment and crews at an unacceptable level.

> >A lack of labor productivity is the single
> biggest impediment to the expansion of passenger
> rail service
>
> Are you ever out to lunch. But never mind, by all
> means have another sandwich.

Unit labor costs and output per employee are the driver of overall passenger operating costs.  A change in the direction of unit labor costs is needed to change the cost equation of providing passenger service.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/10/15 07:25 by abyler.

GenePoon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > If the railroad does not use ATC, ensure that all passenger train
> > movements through the identified locations be made with a second
> > qualified crew member in the cab of the controlling locomotive, or
> > with constant communication between the locomotive engineer and an
> > additional qualified and designated crewmember in the body of the
> > train.
 
Ridiculousness will follow in the wake of this SA. And I guess the reduction from 79 to 60 (19 MPH reduction) will not be included. And what about the 79 to 50 reduction for a siding switch? Not included because it is neither a curve nor a bridge? Increased radio usage will be hard to stomach at first. Just more distractions.

FRA just micro-managing what carriers have already been tasked to do: insure the competence of the operating employees.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/10/15 07:10 by Highspeed.

> Studies were repeatedly conducted in the 1960's
> that found passenger operations at the time on
> many railroads were at least a break-even
> proposition.  This was not the conclusion people
> like Lou Menk were looking for, but they got it
> anyway.  There is also no way to account for the
> continued purchasing of modern passenger equipment
> by roads like the ATSF and GN without this.

Perhaps, but the situation continued to deteriorate. By 1977, Southern had concluded there was no way to financially justify replacing motive power and rebuilding/replacing passenger cars for the Southern Crescent... as much as Graham Claytor would have preferred to retain the train for public relations value. (Stan Crane, not so much.) The Rio Grande threw in the towel not long later.

> Auto Train operated as a successful for-profit
> business until the misguided expansion to
> Louisville and several accidents.

Many businesses can operate profitably in the short run. But then they discover they've made inadequate financial provisions for equipment life, accidents, etc. Expansion to Louisville was definitely a mistake, and the company didn't have enough financial reserves to sustain it through mistakes. (Every business makes mistakes.) But whether the original A-T would have survived 25 years even if they had not done Louisville, we will never know. I have my doubts. Eventually they would have had to replace the passenger car fleet and run into the same calculations that Southern did. 

> 1) A secular downtrend in ridership that ended and
> reversed in 1973.  Part of this was caused by
> lackluster marketing and operations, part by
> malicious abandonments and schedule changes that
> segmented service or made use of the service very
> difficult.

Note that the Interstate highway system in many parts of the nation wasn't 90% open until the mid-1970s. Airline deregulation, the consequent decrease in inflation-adjusted prices for airline tickets, and increased demand for long-distance mobility among the population were factors as well.

> 2) Excessive branchline and secondary mainline
> service with hopeless cost equations from low
> ridership and high staffing and very slow
> operating speeds.

Really? In the south and midwest, at least, rationalization of the rail network was well underway prior to 1971.
 



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/10/15 08:24 by ctillnc.

>> You're laboring under the misapprehension that a second person is ipso facto not necessary. My

>It isn't, because we've invented technologies to make it obsolete, especially cab signals and automatic train control.  This is like pilots demanding a return of the third person on the flight deck - flight engineers - and ignoring the existence of the auto-pilot system.

and blah ba blah ba blah.

As usual, you complete ignore what I was trying to say: 1) exposure to the old heads' attitudes way of doing things over a prolonged period of time is beneficial. You want someone operating on your appendix who went to med school for just six months of powerpoint presentations and never assisted in this type of operation? Bostian had at least a year of student training with many old heads (and I see "they" finally reached the conclusion that he wasn't using his cell phone, DOH!); Sanchez did not.

2) passenger service, particularly commuter service has always been borderline profitable. Commuter service in particular has always been a losing proposition because of all that capital investment in equipment which earns its keep for only about two out of every twenty-four hours. Makes it virtually impossible to amortize the investment in equipment. Public agencies are faced with the same problem.

Amtrak was formed at the behest of the freight RRs to streamline the passenger train-off process.

>Studies were repeatedly conducted in the 1960's that found passenger operations at the time on many railroads were at least a break-even proposition.

Wasn't this before the Federal Government subsidy known as the Railway Mail Service went away?  J.S. Reed is quoted in a Trains article that passenger trains weren't really an economic problem -for the Santa Fe- until the Post Office discontinued the RPOs.

Ever hear of Follmer-Graphlex? They used to make Speed Graphic cameras. Singer got ahold of them in the 1968. In 1973, Singer shut it down and liquidated the assets because it wasn't making a large enough return on investment.

So even if the USPO hadn't ended its government subsidy, getting rid of passenger trains, even the marginally profitable ones, was merely a matter of time.

>Two people in the cab are just as likely to cause additional distractions by losing focus through socializing as they are to act as a check on each other's mistakes.

To assert that this is supported by statistical analysis is self-deceptive because because the statistics themselves are one-sided, skewed. There are none to show how many times that second person prevented a serious problem from arising. Near misses are never recorded in any database. "Statistics don't lie, but some liars statistic."

>A change in the direction of unit labor costs is needed to change the cost equation of providing passenger service.

Consecutive translation: let's pay the crews even less than they're getitng now. In 1987, I took a 50% cut in pay rate to perform the same work when I transferred from the SP to Amtrak. Between 1998 and 2008, Amtrak engineers had no union contract, and it became increasingly difficult to live on an engineer's pay (which is wage, not a salary).

The freights have virtually destroyed the mileage pay system, which has caused all the seniority (and experience) to migrate to what had become higher-paying yard jobs and locals, leaving the newbies stuck on the road jobs. Heard of any derailments lately? How does today's rate of derailments compare to that of pre-1995? In The Race To The Bottom, you get what you pay for.

>> 2) Excessive branchline and secondary mainline service with hopeless cost equations from low ridership and high staffing and very slow operating speeds.

>Really? In the south and midwest, at least, rationalization of the rail network was well underway prior to 1971.

Marty Lummus tore up the RGS long before 1971. The Colorado Midland went away in, what, 1918?

>Increased radio usage will be hard to stomach at first. Just more distractions.

As I aksed earlier, what's the difference between constantly talking to the C on a cell phone and doing the same thing over the radio?

EtoinShrdlu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> >Two people in the cab are just as likely to cause
> additional distractions by losing focus through
> socializing as they are to act as a check on each
> other's mistakes.
>
> To assert that this is supported by statistical
> analysis is self-deceptive because because the
> statistics themselves are one-sided, skewed. There
> are none to show how many times that second person
> prevented a serious problem from arising. Near
> misses are never recorded in any database.
> "Statistics don't lie, but some liars statistic."
>

Unfortunately this argument is invalid for one man crews. In addition, nearly impossible to prove for two man crews.  One another note, I am really enjoying and learning a lot from the dialogue in this thread.
 

EtoinShrdlu Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------
> say: 1) exposure to the old heads' attitudes way
> of doing things over a prolonged period of time is
> beneficial. You want someone operating on your

I think that it is a great idea to have older employees nearing retirement help mentor newer ones, but it doesn't require two men in the cab permanently.

> assisted in this type of operation? Bostian had at
> least a year of student training with many old
> heads

And for all that, what did it benefit him?  He still crashed a train in just about the most dramatic way possible.

> 2) passenger service, particularly commuter
> service has always been borderline profitable.
> Commuter service in particular has always been a
> losing proposition because of all that capital
> investment in equipment which earns its keep for
> only about two out of every twenty-four hours.
> Makes it virtually impossible to amortize the
> investment in equipment. Public agencies are faced
> with the same problem.

If you runs trains all day long and into the evening and on weekends, then the equipment is doing more.  As to the track and stations, they don't get cheaper only using them at rush hour.  And of course its hard to develop off peak demand vs. the car when frequency is only every 1 to 3 hours.  Part of the current equipment price is driven by a lack of standardization among authorities.  Everyone has to have their own special car even though 100 EMU's and 50-100 bi-levels could be ordered per year in a constant pattern.  Equipment prices are dramatically lower with larger purchases which helps solve the amortization problem.

> Wasn't this before the Federal Government subsidy
> known as the Railway Mail Service went away? 
> J.S. Reed is quoted in a Trains article that
> passenger trains weren't really an economic
> problem -for the Santa Fe- until the Post Office
> discontinued the RPOs.

Much of the mail was carried on dedicated trains that the ICC did not allow to be dropped because they served so many small towns.  The example of the Chief and the Grand Canyon is apt since you brought up the Santa Fe.  The closure of the RPO's also corresponded with a major drop off in ridership in 1968 that continued through 1973.  The drop off in ridership was really even more painful than losing the mail, since you could at least dump the costs of the mail operation, but you couldn't dump the costs of handling passengers just because you had fewer of them.

> Ever hear of Follmer-Graphlex? They used to make
> Speed Graphic cameras. Singer got ahold of them in
> the 1968. In 1973, Singer shut it down and
> liquidated the assets because it wasn't making a
> large enough return on investment.

It was making zero return on investment after closing it.  And how is Singer doing nowadays?

> So even if the USPO hadn't ended its government
> subsidy, getting rid of passenger trains, even the
> marginally profitable ones, was merely a matter of
> time.

That was what some people projected based on trends in ridership, and then in 1974, the trends completely turned around and have never looked back, so the projection would not have been correct.  Amtrak carries double the riders today that they did then and would carry even more if the pruning of routes had not continued.  The carrying of passengers was also a part of the certificate of operation possessed by the railroads as common carriers which is why it was not just a matter of time to kill off all the trains.  They had and have real obligations towards the public, currently via the medium of Amtrak and the commuter authorities.

> >A change in the direction of unit labor costs is
> needed to change the cost equation of providing
> passenger service.
>
> Consecutive translation: let's pay the crews even
> less than they're getitng now. In 1987, I took a

You said that, not me.  Its a typical ignorant response that sees the world of a dichotomy of more or less pay cut from a fixed pie, and not a link of pay and performance.  I support high pay rates to get good workers.  High pay rates need to come with high productivity.  The unit labor costs should be controlled by higher average speeds and overall productivity measures of carrying more people more miles for more money.

> newbies stuck on the road jobs. Heard of any
> derailments lately? How does today's rate of
> derailments compare to that of pre-1995? In The
> Race To The Bottom, you get what you pay for.

Derailments have been decreasing in frequency, media attention not the contrary.

> >> 2) Excessive branchline and secondary mainline
> service with hopeless cost equations from low
> ridership and high staffing and very slow
> operating speeds.
>
> >Really? In the south and midwest, at least,
> rationalization of the rail network was well
> underway prior to 1971.

Yes, it was underway, but there was still too much parallel operations needing consolidation, and there were plenty of branchline services to nowhere with nobody riding right up until 1971 even as mainline trains with riders were pulled.

> As I aksed earlier, what's the difference between
> constantly talking to the C on a cell phone and
> doing the same thing over the radio?

On the radio to the dispatcher, you can't text your buddies like the Metrolink engineer was doing, and you can't surf the internet and play games.  You presumably are not gabbing about non-work subjects either and are focusing on the task at hand.

 >> assisted in this type of operation? Bostian had at least a year of student training with many old heads

>And for all that, what did it benefit him?  He still crashed a train in just about the most dramatic way possible.

The statement "he . . . crashed a train . . " implies deliberation on his part, on the same order as "that Germanwings pilot crashed a plane" (deliberately), and never mind the dammatic comparisons in outcome. This is skating on the thin ice of slander and libel on yours.

My point, which you missed/deliberately ignored/etc., is that Bostian is dedicated to his job and Sanchez was a flake.

>Much of the mail was carried on dedicated trains that the ICC did not allow to be dropped because they served so many small towns.  The example of the Chief and the Grand Canyon is apt since you brought up the Santa Fe.  The closure of the RPO's also corresponded with a major drop off in ridership in 1968 that continued through 1973.  The drop off in ridership was really even more painful than losing the mail, since you could at least dump the costs of the mail operation, but you couldn't dump the costs of handling passengers just because you had fewer of them.

Circular logic because a mail car paid for part of the costs of running whichever train it was in. When the mail car went away, the costs of operating the remaining cars in the train suddenly became chaged against revenue 100%, and this is what tipped the scales toward making that passenger train uneconomical. At least this is what J. S. Reed said. This means the RMS was a Governmental subsidy. Go argue with Reed, not me.

>It [Follemer-Graplex] was making zero return on investment after closing it.

Everything, even Micro$oft, will make zero return on investment after being closed. Graphlex was making something like 3%, while still "open", which was below interest/investment rates at the time. What has transpired with Singer since then is completely irrelevant.

>That was what some people projected based on trends in ridership, and then in 1974, the trends completely turned around and have never looked back, so the projection would not have been correct.

A turnaround has no bearing on the situation because the service would have been gone; there would have been nothing to turn around.

>The carrying of passengers was also a part of the certificate of operation possessed by the railroads as common carriers which is why it was not just a matter of time to kill off all the trains.

The RPOs went away; SP's Lark went away shortly thereafter. How did all those other passenger trains get discontinued between WWII and 1965?

>They had and have real obligations towards the public, currently via the medium of Amtrak and the commuter authorities.

Phooey. If this is true, why hasn't the LA-Las Vegas train come to pass, despite repeated attempts?

>> Consecutive translation: let's pay the crews even less than they're getitng now. In 1987, I took a

>You said that, not me.  Its a typical ignorant response that sees the world of a dichotomy of more or less pay cut from a fixed pie, and not a link of pay and performance. I support high pay rates to get good workers.

The BS is getting deep, but don't worry, I've got my feet off the floor.

If, what you assert is true ("A lack of labor productivity is the single biggest impediment to the expansion of passenger rail service becauase it is the driver of operating, MOW, and MOE costs."), it implies the source of funding is confined to specific limits ("read my lips, no new taxes"). This in turn means that to expand services you have to rob Peter to pay Paul, and the fist scapegoat here is "overpriced employees" (excepting, of course, for management).

Doncha just love them alphabet blocks?

>High pay rates need to come with high productivity.  

What you completely fail to comprehend is that that 1987 "pay cut" I mentioned also represented a 100% increase in productivity. Even a Presidential Emergency Board or two has recognized this.

>The unit labor costs should be controlled by higher average speeds and overall productivity measures of carrying more people more miles for more money.

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs", typical paternalistic, socialist BS.

>> As I aksed earlier, what's the difference between constantly talking to the C on a cell phone and doing the same thing over the radio?

>On the radio to the dispatcher, you can't text your buddies like the Metrolink engineer was doing, and you can't surf the internet and play games.  You presumably are not gabbing about non-work subjects either and are focusing on the task at hand.

Fine. Then why aren't engineers allowed to use their cell phones to call the DS (or the C)? The conversations would be no different than on the radio (I've actually had to do this in areas where there was no radio reception -- before the cell phone ban; after it we would just sit there, motionless with trainload of passengers). Think of that video on youtube of the of the high speed train derailment in Spain last year (or the year before) because the proximate cause turned out to be talking to the DS on the cell phone.

It's a case of being able to walk and chew gum at the same time. Some people can pull it off, others can't, and it's the "can'ts" who set the lowest common denominator.