PDA

View Full Version : BNSF question


Tåg
09-13-2006, 03:54 AM
There is a rumor going around that BNSF is getting rid of its RCO (remote control) operations. Can anybody back this up?

NSFan14
09-13-2006, 04:15 AM
There is a rumor going around that BNSF is getting rid of its RCO (remote control) operations. Can anybody back this up?
i heard something about a week ago about this but i heard its not true but im not 100% sure

Coaster 655
09-20-2006, 04:01 AM
Not here in San Diego, thats for sure

Tåg
09-20-2006, 04:40 AM
I was talking to a buddy of mine that works for BNSF a couple of nights ago. According to him, BNSF has stopped doing RCO training in its conductor classes. If BNSF gets rid of the RCO ops, that will put UP under the gun to do the same.

J
09-20-2006, 02:05 PM
With the influx of new hires, carriers are providing a little time to get more experience as trainmen before embarking on RCO training. Class 1 RCL operations began after the issuance of the FRA Safety Advisory in February 2001. At that time conductors with some prior experience were placed in RCO training. In the last 2 years Railroad Retirement has been changed to allow full retirement with 30 years of service at age 60 (instead of 62). Add to that the significant increases in traffic in the last 2 years and the ranks of RCO candidates have become a lot younger - hence the postponement of training.

Tåg
09-20-2006, 11:14 PM
With the influx of new hires, carriers are providing a little time to get more experience as trainmen before embarking on RCO training. Class 1 RCL operations began after the issuance of the FRA Safety Advisory in February 2001. At that time conductors with some prior experience were placed in RCO training. In the last 2 years Railroad Retirement has been changed to allow full retirement with 30 years of service at age 60 (instead of 62). Add to that the significant increases in traffic in the last 2 years and the ranks of RCO candidates have become a lot younger - hence the postponement of training.


UP new hire training consists of three weeks of rules instruction, one week of hands on training (Portland and Kansas City only), 4 weeks of on the job training in switching operations, two weeks of conductor training, 3 weeks of on the job training on the road as a CIT, a week of remote control training, and 100hrs of remote control operations.

J
09-21-2006, 01:46 AM
UP new hire training consists of three weeks of rules instruction, one week of hands on training (Portland and Kansas City only), 4 weeks of on the job training in switching operations, two weeks of conductor training, 3 weeks of on the job training on the road as a CIT, a week of remote control training, and 100hrs of remote control operations.

Class 1 roads are currently in conversation with FRA, UTU and BLET on a RCO job task analysis and a review of current training practices. My prior comment was a general statement and the curriculum you outline above is already a modification of training practices from a year or so ago. Further changes may be ahead.

Ru1056
09-21-2006, 02:02 AM
Class 1 roads are currently in conversation with FRA, UTU and BLET on a RCO job task analysis and a review of current training practices. My prior comment was a general statement and the curriculum you outline above is already a modification of training practices from a year or so ago. Further changes may be ahead.

Question if I may. After reading and seeing pictures of alleged derailments due to RCO's my question is. Is the reason for problems with the RCO the operator (taking shortcuts, not following protocol,) or is it with the whole RCO system period? Or combination thereof?

Tåg
09-21-2006, 02:26 AM
Woops doublepost

Tåg
09-21-2006, 02:27 AM
My prior comment was a general statement and the curriculum you outline above is already a modification of training practices from a year or so ago. Further changes may be ahead.

I know. My statement was for the nonrailroaders reading this. ;)

The big reason I see Class 1 railroads getting rid of the RCO is due to the fact they really are not cost effective. It takes much longer to do anything with RCO than it does with a crew with a human engineer. But then again the railroad is famous for tripping over $100 bills to pick up pennies.

Thankfully my senority is such that I do not have to do any 1:1 scale Model Railroading.

Tåg
09-21-2006, 02:32 AM
Or combination thereof?

Yes.

Keeping mind that the guys that mess stuff up with RCOs are the guys that mess stuff up tieing their shoes.

mute
02-13-2007, 05:49 AM
rco operation sometimes forces the railroad to move the switching to other locations. one example is BNSF's mormon yard in stockton. after they implemented rco there, a lot of switching was just moved 25 miles east to riverbank where conventional switchers are in use.

its like they want it to work so bad they are willing to overlook accidents and fudge the numbers to make rco look favorable.

StL-rail
02-25-2007, 04:34 AM
It's all a money issue: the RR doesn't have to pay the higher cost of an engineer on the crew, but rather just 2 RCO's. They like that, regardless if it takes more time (which it does), or has more accidents (which it does) than a standard 3 man yard crew.

mute
02-25-2007, 04:48 AM
It's all a money issue: the RR doesn't have to pay the higher cost of an engineer on the crew, but rather just 2 RCO's. They like that, regardless if it takes more time (which it does), or has more accidents (which it does) than a standard 3 man yard crew.

Yeah i dont get the railroad's logic. They will eliminate one 12 hour job in place of two eight hour non-overtime jobs.