Western Railroad Discussion > Federal Lawsuit Alleging Leader System Caused Injuries

A UP Engineer has filed a federal lawsuit against the railroad alleging
that use of the Leader system caused his injuries from its actions.

https://www.freightwaves.com/news/federal-suit-alleges-ai-system-injured-union-pacific-employee?oly_enc_id=2793J7314167I8G

Leader and all the other Robot engineers have done one thing I like.
They have taken the Company blame game and stood it on its head.

The traditional “Something Wrong happened so it’s an agreement employees fault” don’t carry as much weight anymore when the UniBlabb 2000 is running the train and commits a stupid. 🤷‍♂️

Regards

Posted from iPhone

Drknow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Leader and all the other Robot engineers have done
> one thing I like.
> They have taken the Company blame game and stood
> it on its head.
>
> The traditional “Something Wrong happened so
> it’s an agreement employees fault” don’t
> carry as much weight anymore when the UniBlabb
> 2000 is running the train and commits a stupid.
> 🤷‍♂️
>
> Regards
>
> Posted from iPhone

Things get quiet when it pops a knuckle and you graciously let them know Trip Sodomizer/Energy Management was running.

This could have some real implications for both Leader and BNSF's Trip Optomizer....often called a less flattering name. I often hear of crews complaining about getting slammed around by these systems, especially on the BNSF where they often will run grain trains setup 1x2. I was amused by the railroad lawyer trying to equate it as a vehicle's cruise control. I would have retorted that vehicle's cruise control doesn't suddenly slow down causing the following vehicle to slam into you like the Leader system does.

Ted Curphey
Ontario, OR

Settle out of court.

Have plaintiff sign a non-disclosure agreement.

Sweep under the carpet.

Lobby to remove humans from cab so they don't get hurt.

Drknow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Leader and all the other Robot engineers have done
> one thing I like.
> They have taken the Company blame game and stood
> it on its head.
>
> The traditional “Something Wrong happened so
> it’s an agreement employees fault” don’t
> carry as much weight anymore when the UniBlabb
> 2000 is running the train and commits a stupid.
> 🤷‍♂️
>


Careful about that. When BN started kludging CTC from dependable relay CTC and assorted technostuff, the systems started doing stuff we didn't tell it to do. The control system (office) is actually subsidiary to the logic in the field, so the office equipment could not, for example,. line opposing signals on the same track or line a signal through a bad iron, but it could do other things that we didn't want it to do, typically letting a train go that we didn't want, resulting in a delay to another train. Blocking for CTC permits was entirely local and as a result, we occasionally had signals lined through a permit.

Part of the kludge was 'touch screen' displays. The weren't really 'touch' touch screens. There was an array of infrared sensors around the edges, making a matrix of coordinates.  They were out of adjustment a lot, resulting in the system thinking that, for example, 10-19 was 12-22. Thus, it would line or take down signals we didn't intend or throw switches we didn't intend.

One night, I was Pacific Divison (basically the GN west of Spokane) Chief. The trick man had a west man lined out of Adrian toward Quincy, intending to hold the east man at Quincy. His attention moved to another situation that needed attnetion right away. Meanwhile, the east man got a signal at Quincy. They found themselves headlight to headlight at the holding signals east of Quincy.

Another guy had the trainsheet at the incredibly cramped desk kludged into the array of touch screen (sort of) CTC monitors. The trainsheet interfering with the sensor array dropped a signal in the face of a passenger train.

If I remember correctly, one guy did time for the system error, maybe both of them, or it was Alternate Discipline or overhead suspension. Anyway, the bottom line was that we were responsible for monitoring the signal system and ensuring that it didn't make any mistakes.It was actually put in writing by the Chief Dispatcher.

Just a note from the dystopian past of the possibilities for a dystopian future.

TAW

 

Believe me, Tom, I have all faith in the Carrier’s ability to make Kafkaesque decisions daily.

“Do NOT read this! Under penalty of death!!”

Only 5 years… I can do this, I can do this….

Regards

Posted from iPhone

Leader tried to do this to me the other day. Going down a decent grade Leader finally prompted Auto Control Available. So fallowing the rules i hit Engage like I was listening to Captain Picard. I was in Dynamic 6 at the time. Leader wants you to place it in Notch 1 for it to complete the auto transition so i slapped the DB into off and went notch 1. Its supposed to hold DB6 while doing that. I happened to hear the dynamic brake fan rev down, double checked the amperage saw it was Green on the screen vs orange. Threw it back into DB with out waiting 10 seconds and started yelling for the conductor to brace for slack. We managed to avoid a run out. But it could have resulted in tearing the train apart, derailment, or injury's.  Ive even had Trip Optimizer do the same thing. Its a matter of time till something bad happens. 

Let me see if I have this straight. The lawsuit involved a train with DPU in use? Does Leader know if you're in DPU mode or not?

Both EMS auto throttle want to run mid train and/or rear DP consists higher than the head end in most cases. I think Trip Optimizer is worse, but LEADER does funny things too.

So if EMS wants to slow down, it usually backs off the head end, sometimes raising the DPs at the same time. This gives a nice kick in the butt.

I believe the carrier's want EMS programmed this way because they feel the slack has to be bunched all the time.

Posted from Android

57A26 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> I believe the carrier's want EMS programmed this
> way because they feel the slack has to be bunched
> all the time.


I remember a time when engineers were admonished to carefully control slack action to avoid damage to the lading. Old days/old school, etc.

TAW

57A26 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I believe the carrier's want EMS programmed this
> way because they feel the slack has to be bunched
> all the time.

This is why UDEs are so common now. TO runs trains bunched, hoses droop or peak then come apart at the most inconvenient locations. Extra fun if you have a key train. Crapware. 

TAW Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I remember a time when engineers were admonished
> to carefully control slack action to avoid damage
> to the lading. Old days/old school, etc.
>
> TAW

Can you imagine if we still had occupied cabooses with this wonderful technology?

irhoghead Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TAW Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I remember a time when engineers were
> admonished
> > to carefully control slack action to avoid
> damage
> > to the lading. Old days/old school, etc.
> >
> > TAW
>
> Can you imagine if we still had occupied cabooses
> with this wonderful technology?

I never experienced radio in main line railroading until BN in the late 70s. I learned to add it to my dispatching tools - listening, not talking. There is a lot to be learned by listening (well . . . there was). No, they weren't calling every signal and landmark like an AM radio DJ like apparently some railroads require now. No, it was 'green flag' or 'highball the eyeball (or my favorite - 'three donuts and a twinkie') or remarks about something that would only be seen at one place along the line. In the early 80s when BN prohibited stretch braking. That added a new marker to my list of stuff to listen for - 'hang on back there.'

TAW