Passenger Trains > Trip Report: Dead in the water

513 yesterday Seattle - Portland 3 min late Portland (if I remember correctly, didn't write it down. Good trip but a little aggravating to cross over apparently needlessly three tomes between Seattle and Tacoma for 6 minutes. Yes I don't have the big picture but having been crossed over needlessly when I did have the big picture and even crossed over needlessly from the fast track to the slow order track then back to the fast track at the next crossover, chances are good that I saw what I thought I saw. We still could have made Portland on time but the engineer has to bighole the train at the Vancouver platform for something as we were stopping. ugh!

Today, 518 Portland, Vancouver, Kelso, Centralia on time. freight train in on the new Main 3 at Longview Jct, the slow track, as should be, crossed over at Ostrander, where crossover speed is closest to track speed, as should be.

However...sitting at Bucoda since 1638 (now 1738) engine dead. BNSF North man blew by a while ago will apparently at Tenino, and bring us a unit. Fortunately, the Talgo trains some folks dislike so much for whatever reason, have their own hotel power car.

Why do we have trouble convincing folks that rail is a viable mode? This doesn't involve threats to life and limb that didn't used to be considered such. This is even more fundamental than that. The engine is a Charger. It came out of the house in Seattle 300 miles ago. It has an air problem that sounds like a computer kind of thing. PTC, computer controlled locomotives, computer-dependent dispatching (it's CTC, who needs to know the territory?, etc.) are we depending too much on technology that is developed and implemented too quickly or inappropriately? (Rhetorical question)

1800 now BNSF engine is out there north of us coming back this way, so they say.

Train crew...excellent job of keeping passengers informed about the situation. Some sunshine through the dark clouds of 21st Century railroading.

Engine on 1802.

TAW

Thanks for your prospective TAW.  Sadly, just about everyone who knows what they are doing is gone from railroading.  This includes those in the designing of equipment.  You should see dispatching nowadays...any kid with a degree in liberal arts can grab a seat in the dispatchers room and control 500 miles of busy mainline...why...the computer does 90% of the work!  And yes, I'm being sarcastic.  But that's how management sees it.  I really enjoy all your stories, and the stories of all the old rails.  Sadly the number of those who know how to railroad get smaller and smaller every day...

Moving 1847.

TAW

cabsignaldrop Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>   Sadly, just
> about everyone who knows what they are doing is
> gone from railroading.  

Yep, those of us that do it for a living every day are just a bunch of dumbasses, winging it every day.

Typhoon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> cabsignaldrop Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >   Sadly, just
> > about everyone who knows what they are doing is
> > gone from railroading.  
>
> Yep, those of us that do it for a living every day
> are just a bunch of dumbasses, winging it every
> day.

That's not what he said and you know it. There are some really good folks left. In my experience that percentage of the railrod industry population has diminished considerably. Thati what I m saying. That is what he's sying. If where you work is fully highly qualified professionals, check your pulse. You've appently died and gone to heaven.

TAW

Perhaps the 737 Max's wouldn't have crashed had they been flown by actual qualified people rather than a computer. Sounds like railroading is experiencing the same problems...albeit it without the crashes. 

andersonb109 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Perhaps the 737 Max's wouldn't have crashed had they been flown by actual qualified people rather than a computer. Sounds like railroading is experiencing the same problems...albeit it without the crashes.

The pilots were FULLY qualified.  Too bad the "Qualification" did NOT include the knowledge of what to do when Boeing's kludge took a crap.

Brian

andersonb109 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Perhaps the 737 Max's wouldn't have crashed had
> they been flown by actual qualified people rather
> than a computer.

They wouldn't have crashed if Boeing had designed a plane that would fly straight without the need of software to try and correct it.

andersonb109 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Perhaps the 737 Max's wouldn't have crashed had
> they been flown by actual qualified people rather
> than a computer. Sounds like railroading is
> experiencing the same problems...albeit it without
> the crashes. 

This is just another thinly veiled racial slur, coming from andersonb109.  What he is actually trying to say is that the pilots involved in thees two crashes were from the Third World, and as such they, by virtue of their nationality, were obviously not qualified to fly the airplane.

tomdoyle409 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> andersonb109 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Perhaps the 737 Max's wouldn't have crashed had
> > they been flown by actual qualified people
> rather
> > than a computer. Sounds like railroading is
> > experiencing the same problems...albeit it
> without
> > the crashes. 
>
> This is just another thinly veiled racial slur,
> coming from andersonb109.  What he is actually
> trying to say is that the pilots involved in thees
> two crashes were from the Third World, and as such
> they, by virtue of their nationality, were
> obviously not qualified to fly the airplane.

The 737 Max crashes were not the pilots' fault.  That is the general agreement within the aviation community.

When I was still working I thought that a cheap, effective training tool
for the DS would be a train simulator such as TM3.  Not that it really 
simulated the operation of a train but it did show what a time killer
slow orders, yellow signals, etc. can be.  

Try asking a DS what the crossover speeds are on his territory.  Or what
signal aspects are displayed in certain situations. Or where the slow orders
are.  Even better, ask his supervisor.

I would put labels on the track diagram showing the location of temporary
speed restrictions.   When I came back the next day the labels ( but not
the restrictions) would be gone.  Always funny to hear a coworker bitch
about how slow a train was moving when he has routed the train over
every slow order.

When I have the stomach to turn on a scanner I still hear clowns that can't
properly authorize a train to pass a stop signal.  They feel compelled to
add "and check your line up".

In the big picture it is best to keep the DS dumb.  That way they can never 
challenge the company leaders.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/20/20 05:54 by Englewood.

tomdoyle409 Wrote:

> This is just another thinly veiled racial slur,
> coming from andersonb109.  What he is actually
> trying to say is that the pilots involved in thees
> two crashes were from the Third World, and as such
> they, by virtue of their nationality, were
> obviously not qualified to fly the airplane.

Wow. That is not how I read it.  Perhaps I am not as perceptive as you.
Or perhaps I can't hear the dog whistle as well.  Those actually following
the 737 drama know that foreign airlines were requesting additional
training but Boeing was discouraging the training in order to keep the
overall airplane cost down. The office bound computer nerds kept
the pilots from being fully qualiified.  Hence they were unqualified.

tomdoyle409 Wrote:
----------------------------------
>
> This is just another thinly veiled racial slur,
> coming from andersonb109.  What he is actually
> trying to say is that the pilots involved in thees
> two crashes were from the Third World, and as such
> they, by virtue of their nationality, were
> obviously not qualified to fly the airplane.


Wow, it's amazing that you have the ability to read what someone typed on the internet and discern that they really meant something other than what they typed. It must be hard for you, being able to see how morally inferior everyone else is compared to you.

choodude Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> andersonb109 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Perhaps the 737 Max's wouldn't have crashed
> had they been flown by actual qualified people
> rather than a computer. Sounds like railroading
> is experiencing the same problems...albeit it
> without the crashes.
>
> The pilots were FULLY qualified.  Too bad the
> "Qualification" did NOT include the knowledge of
> what to do when Boeing's kludge took a crap.
>
> Brian

Yes, that could be a point. 
However, a well-trained pilot knowing how to handle a runaway stabilizer without craping their pants would be useful.  How many 737 Max aircraft were lost by American, Delta, United and other experienced crews?
Perhaps their check airmen actually knew how to train and critique their pilots for such a maneuver.

my aviation expert blammed it on training of these foriegn pilots, but even american pilots on talk forumns  had  problems , but handled it

Is there an air transport website that all this 737 talk can be transferred to?

Englewood Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is there an air transport website that all this
> 737 talk can be transferred to?
You bet there is.

https://www.airliners.net/forum/

Englewood Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is there an air transport website that all this
> 737 talk can be transferred to?

I was thinking of exactly that when I asked the rhetorical question. There are too many similarities for comfort. Technology is the essential be-all, end-all that is needed to fix all problems, even nonexistent ones, or so the technology salesmen tell us. Yes Boeing designed an airplane that won't stay level and stable without technology to fix the problems that other technology created. That's relevant.

In the instant case, the computer shut down the engine to correct an apparently nonexistent problem. In the case of the two 737s that fell out of the sky, the computer crashed the plane to correct an apparently non extent problem. Then comes that chant that the pilots should be trained better to overcome the technology when it fails. Back in the 80s, all of the BN Seattle office CTC machines were replaced with electronic CTC. Well, just as in an example of a Soviet control center that I read about, the CRT displays were not computer CTC but rather a CRT display hooked to a IBM 286 (wa hoo) computer running a mechanical code transmitter/receiver emulator that got it right most of the time. It was so slow that a slider by meet wold stop both trains. I had occasions where the train.that dived reported that the opposing train was long gone and asked what they were waiting for. I would respond that the train they were meeting hadn't gotten there yet, at least in my world. What did we get for the implementation of not-ready-for-prime-time technology? We got entrance-exit routing. Along with it, we got touch screens that would go out of adjustment and sometimes line the wrong route. We might have to resort to the keyboard because it wouldn't respond at all. One guy did time for dumping a signal in the face of a passenger train. How? The trainsheet hit the screen and cancelled the signal. One guy did time when the equipment lined two trains against each other to a holding signal control point that had no switches: headlight to headlight in the middle of nowhere. We were told that we were responsible for making sure the technology didn't make a mistake.

You and I can both remember managing traffic with mechanical or electric/mechanical locking plant towers, no computers, no radio (well maybe no radio just in my case) and did a lot better than what we see today. Even road trips are technological - watch a movie instead of being there. Look at what good that is doing.

The story is as old as CTC increasing capacity while tearing out track. Attractive claims sell technology. There are a lot of attractive claims and a lot of technology that just isn't ready and some that never will be, but it's bought and paid for already. S&F mechanical machines lasted for close to 100 years and still worked just fine. Later electric/mechanical locking and all relay machines lasted about as long. The panel-type USS and GRS CTC machines of the 40s were still working just fine 50 years later. How many new electronic traffic management systems have the Class 1 railroads been through in the past 30 or so years?

The 737 thing is part of the problem related to rail industry problems. Do we really need so much technology, or need to implement it so fast without non-technological backup? Do we really need technology that requires people to know how to overcome it when it fails, be alert for failure in the first place, or figure out if the technology has detected a real problem or an imaginary one?

Technology is great when it is a power tool for an expert user and is tried and tested before implementation that failure is extremely rare. That is not what is happening.

TAW



 

Paint one up for Delta and you can go for a ride. 

andersonb109 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Perhaps the 737 Max's wouldn't have crashed had
> they been flown by actual qualified people rather
> than a computer. Sounds like railroading is
> experiencing the same problems...albeit it without
> the crashes. 

Plane Orders

Englewood Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is there an air transport website that all this
> 737 talk can be transferred to?