Railroad Workers United: Freight trains in excess of one mile in length too risky for 2-man crews (1446761) | |
Home > SubChat |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
(1446761) | |
Railroad Workers United: Freight trains in excess of one mile in length too risky for 2-man crews |
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Aug 17 01:32:53 2017 Funny how they forgot about trains of up to five miles in length behind big steam.Albany Times-Union
|
|
(1446782) | |
Re: Railroad Workers United: Freight trains in excess of one mile in length too risky for 2-man crews |
|
Posted by orange blossom special on Thu Aug 17 13:41:45 2017, in response to Railroad Workers United: Freight trains in excess of one mile in length too risky for 2-man crews, posted by Olog-hai on Thu Aug 17 01:32:53 2017. Inference from article. Short trains are better. Should they be 1 car or 5 cars tops?"There is currently no federal regulation limiting the number of cars in a train or number of crew needed." Federal regulations come from: "The only thing that regulated how many cars were in a train were union contracts." Do we need a federal bureaucrat copying union contracts? What is easier to change, that union contract, or the edict from Washington? "But when oil boomed in the Midwest, the industry shifted to much longer trains to get oil to markets faster." Made Obama's backer rich. Helped that he didn't want oil pipelines to ease that flow and spent the money on oil pipelines in Kenya instead. Screwed up the Canadian wheat markets too with the oil tankers, in other words, should've never had this issue. " and make sure the car numbers and cargo correctly matched what was on the manifest," Don't the trains get made by those super-centers where it's all automated? |
|
(1446791) | |
Re: Railroad Workers United: Freight trains in excess of one mile in length too risky for 2-man crews |
|
Posted by italianstallion on Thu Aug 17 14:38:00 2017, in response to Re: Railroad Workers United: Freight trains in excess of one mile in length too risky for 2-man crews, posted by orange blossom special on Thu Aug 17 13:41:45 2017. The issue is not the length of the train. It's the size of the crew. |
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It
|
(1446792) | |
Re: Railroad Workers United: Freight trains in excess of one mile in length too risky for 2-man crews |
|
Posted by italianstallion on Thu Aug 17 14:38:50 2017, in response to Railroad Workers United: Freight trains in excess of one mile in length too risky for 2-man crews, posted by Olog-hai on Thu Aug 17 01:32:53 2017. "Funny how they forgot about trains of up to five miles in length behind big steam."Did those trains have a 2-man crew? Funny how you forgot about cabooses. |
|
(1446801) | |
Re: Railroad Workers United: Freight trains in excess of one mile in length too risky for 2-man crews |
|
Posted by Asgard on Thu Aug 17 17:19:13 2017, in response to Railroad Workers United: Freight trains in excess of one mile in length too risky for 2-man crews, posted by Olog-hai on Thu Aug 17 01:32:53 2017. Could you give some examples of steam trains up to five miles? Longest train I can find a reference to is an Australian Diesel-powered freight, 7.352 km.Thanks. |
|
(1446804) | |
Re: Railroad Workers United: Freight trains in excess of one mile in length too risky for 2-man crews |
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Thu Aug 17 17:38:55 2017, in response to Re: Railroad Workers United: Freight trains in excess of one mile in length too risky for 2-man crews, posted by Asgard on Thu Aug 17 17:19:13 2017. 4.5xx is *almost* 5 miles long.RAOR |
|
(1446858) | |
Re: Railroad Workers United: Freight trains in excess of one mile in length too risky for 2-man crews |
|
Posted by orange blossom special on Fri Aug 18 10:09:57 2017, in response to Re: Railroad Workers United: Freight trains in excess of one mile in length too risky for 2-man crews, posted by italianstallion on Thu Aug 17 14:38:00 2017. If a union contract can include the length of trains in it's contents, you'd think there is a natural segway to relate that to crew lengths.But I disagree, the length of train and size of crew seems to be both issues, hand in hand with how this is all framed. |
|
(1446866) | |
Re: Railroad Workers United: Freight trains in excess of one mile in length too risky for 2-man crews |
|
Posted by Asgard on Fri Aug 18 12:37:17 2017, in response to Re: Railroad Workers United: Freight trains in excess of one mile in length too risky for 2-man crews, posted by Broadway Lion on Thu Aug 17 17:38:55 2017. Yes, but the OP mentioned "big steam"; this was Diesel. |
|
(1446867) | |
Re: Railroad Workers United: Freight trains in excess of one mile in length too risky for 2-man crews |
|
Posted by Nilet on Fri Aug 18 12:45:31 2017, in response to Railroad Workers United: Freight trains in excess of one mile in length too risky for 2-man crews, posted by Olog-hai on Thu Aug 17 01:32:53 2017. Funny how they forgot about trains of up to five miles in length behind big steam.Funny how you forgot about the vast numbers of worker injuries and deaths before safety rules were implemented. |
|
(1446870) | |
Re: Railroad Workers United: Freight trains in excess of one mile in length too risky for 2-man crews |
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Aug 18 13:23:33 2017, in response to Re: Railroad Workers United: Freight trains in excess of one mile in length too risky for 2-man crews, posted by Asgard on Thu Aug 17 17:19:13 2017. It was mentioned on Last Of The Giants. Back then, of course, a long train does not necessarily mean a heavy train compared to today's very heavy trains. |
|