On Tuesday while at a Seattle Mariners game I caught a glimpse of what I think was a BNSF SW15(SW1500 for non BN fans.) I did not catch the road number. On the cab side was a large decal with the words Remote Control Master(I think.) The cab roof has two large square antennas.
I did not get a real good look as the unit was in the middle of of 5 unit lash-up that was moving away from me.

Does anyone have any more info or photos of this switcher?

Martin N

P.S. The lash-up was a BNSF dash 9, the switcher wearing orange/green/yellow, a BN green/black SD40-2, a Santa Fe blue/yellow SD40-2, and a Santa Fe red/silver dash 8.

nitmo@nwlink.com

I spoke today with a BNSF engineer who also fires steam locomotives at the Mt. Rainier Scenic RR. He was describing his experience operating this or another radio-controled switcher at Interbay (Seattle).

The biggest complaint is that the "ground" engineer is no longer able to feel the weight of the train or cut by the "seat of the pants" and so has little information on which to judge brake effect and stopping distance.

The brake control selection is 1) coast, 2)coast/brake (18-24 psi on independent brake), and 3)stop. Throttle control is 1) off, 2)coupling speed, 3) 3 mph, 4) 7 mph, and 5) full, 10 mph.
Coupling speed is sort of like taking a man off the street, showing him the throttle and brake levers, then asking him to couple onto a car 15 feet away: the locomotive jerkily powers, brakes, powers, brakes.

The response time between entering a command on the radio and getting a result is inconsistent, sometimes happening "right now" and sometimes lagging a few seconds.

He learned that to throw a ground-throw switch, he must squat sideways to the handle and catch it with one arm, otherwise the handle swings up and crashes into the radio.

We all know that RC will become accepted and widespread, sort of like the way diesel displaced steam. My friend, Ed, wasn't really complaining, just explaining, and says that he's having a lot of fun.

Thanks

steamrr@mashell.com

Looks like there are efforts to challenge widespread use of remote locomotives as they are currently used. Safety is being cited, but I suspect there might be underlying job concerns, too. That's how I see this within a historical context. If an engineer is not actually on the engine, might the job of remote-controlling get a different name and pay scale?

"The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers is warning communities across the U.S. of the potential dangers associated with Remote Controlled Train Operations." :

http://homepage.mac.com/willroth/unmanned/index.html

"I am writing to express my concerns regarding the unregulated use of
remote control locomotives on the BNSF and other railroads. I have
worked for the BNSF for nearly 25 years and have always been receptive
to positive change. However, I believe remotes are being used in ways
they were never intended to be." :

http://www.wutc.wa.gov/rms2.nsf/0/21F1F ... mments.PDF

Good old progress. We can remote comtrol locos, probably even have them remotely built by robots. What we need is a locomotive that can preserve itself! Well, maybe not. Then we'd have a world full of well preserved diesels with an ego.

bilburns1313@tds.net

ge13031 was converted to remote control in 1969 and ran for many years switching the Lorain Bar mill complex. Who will be the first to "preserve" this method of locomotion ??


lamontdc@adelphia.net

Will computer controlled remote switching be next? Gravity yards without gravity but using a computer controlled switcher. Computer knows where everything is and will make up a consist and tell the main computer to hook up and get it out of the yard? Ouuucch! Union of Computer Controlling Switch Operators!

retsquid@tvec.net

> Looks like there are efforts to challenge
> widespread use of remote locomotives as they
> are currently used. Safety is being cited,
> but I suspect there might be underlying job
> concerns, too. That's how I see this within
> a historical context. If an engineer is not
> actually on the engine, might the job of
> remote-controlling get a different name and
> pay scale?

It's not a "might," it's already an everyday operating practice. The RR's, along with the UTU (United Transportation Union), have created the new craft and licensing certification for "Remote Control Operator." This position is represented by the UTU, and makes yard foreman rates of pay, plus the equivalent of an additional 46 minutes of compensation (total, per day) for handling the remote control box. Remote control operators receive 80 hours of training, as opposed to the six months an engineer typically gets. Both the UTU and Carriers are claming the remote equipment replaces the engineer's job through technology.

Without taking either side, both the UTU and BLE are engaged in a war to maximize the dues dollars they collect, with the UTU working closely with the carriers to destroy the craft of engineer in the wake of BLE members voting "no" to a proposed merger of the two unions.

It's basically a race to the bottom between the two unions, and the BLE is currently negotiating with the IBT (Teamsters) for a merger of the two unions.

I'm afraid it will get a lot uglier for rail labor in the coming months...

Fiv4HghStk@aol.com

> It's not a "might," it's already
> an everyday operating practice. The RR's,
> along with the UTU (United Transportation
> Union), have created the new craft and
> licensing certification for "Remote
> Control Operator." This position is
> represented by the UTU, and makes yard
> foreman rates of pay, plus the equivalent of
> an additional 46 minutes of compensation
> (total, per day) for handling the remote

Maybe BNSF can lease the unit to Puget Sound & Pacific RR. Seems a few months ago the remote control main line unit got out of range a John's Prairie Yard and headed for Shelton. Needless to say, it didn't blow for the crossing at Front & Railroad. PS&P bought two new semi-trucks, and the Simpson guards at the gate got a nice new guard shack out of the deal. How many crew member wages did that settlement cost??

> control box. Remote control operators
> receive 80 hours of training, as opposed to
> the six months an engineer typically gets.
> Both the UTU and Carriers are claming the
> remote equipment replaces the engineer's job
> through technology.

> Without taking either side, both the UTU and
> BLE are engaged in a war to maximize the
> dues dollars they collect, with the UTU
> working closely with the carriers to destroy
> the craft of engineer in the wake of BLE
> members voting "no" to a proposed
> merger of the two unions.

> It's basically a race to the bottom between
> the two unions, and the BLE is currently
> negotiating with the IBT (Teamsters) for a
> merger of the two unions.

> I'm afraid it will get a lot uglier for rail
> labor in the coming months...


nwstaybolt@reachone.com

> Seems a few months ago the
> remote control main line unit got out of
> range a John's Prairie Yard and headed for
> Shelton. Needless to say, it didn't blow for
> the crossing at Front & Railroad.

Most interesting, since all the remotes I have worked with shut down and apply the brakes on loss of signal.

lamontdc@adelphia.net