Re: Banned from Interchange - was Re: Real or no?


Kenneth Montero
 

Mel,

Not necessarily so. Equipment could be banned from interchange because (1)  its use away from home roads could be such that its use could exceed what the equipment could be expected to handle (truss rod cars without center sills) or (2) such equipment needed more monitoring than could be expected in interchange (arch bar trucks). Home road usage, especially in MOW service, could deal with such concerns, or at least that was the perception.

Jim's point about risk of injury and its cost to the railroad is a lot different now than it was in the past, mostly because the risk and cost  of injury and death were perceived many years ago by railroad management as less than the resulting savings.

Steve's point about standards of safety is well-taken, but not always observed. Not many years ago in Richmond, Virginia, a railroad employee died while moving an interchanged freight car (not a home road car) because he was unable to operate the brakes with the brake wheel and the boxcar crashed into a flood wall gate being closed for its test. It was discovered that a brake rod had dropped from the brake linkage. However, the employee's railroad had accepted it in interchange (supposedly after checking it for compliance with rules for interchange acceptability). I don't recall which railroad had to assume responsibility, but there was a lot of finger-pointing.

Ken Montero

On 11/05/2020 1:31 PM mel perry <clipper841@...> wrote:


the true nature of railroad ownership,
in other words basic capitalism
;-(
mel perry

On Thu, Nov 5, 2020, 10:28 AM Jim Betz < jimbetz@...> wrote:
Hi,
  We often hear of equipment that was "banned from interchange".  I get that and it
doesn't surprise me.  So here's the thing ... if something like the Allied trucks are
banned from interchange it is probably the result of a failure (probably repeated)
that caused an accident/derailment/something important.  And I get it that the RR
doesn't want to get rid of "serviceable equipment".  So why was (is?) it acceptable
to put your RR employees at risk by using them in stuff like MOW service?
  Yes, you get some extra miles "for very little cost" ... but wouldn't a single 
employee injury make that savings not worth it?  Why wouldn't just one lawsuit
for "negligence" void all of those savings?
  The same would be true of truss rods, brake equipment, lighting changes, ladders
and ladder placements, etc. etc. etc.  It doesn't seem to make "solid" economic
sense in the long run.  Why wouldn't the unions have objected? 
  What am I missing? 
                                                                                                           - Jim 



Join main@RealSTMFC.groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.