… crew fatigue
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/rail-companies-fight-new-rules-to-prevent-crew-fatigue-1.2785581
Talking to train crews this has been a sore point for some time.
In the US Naval Aviation community, there is a certain amount of mandated “crew rest” after flying and before being eligible to fly again: OPNAVINST 3710.7T states :
8.3.2.1.1 Flight Crew and Flight Support Personnel. Commanders should make available eight hours for sleep during every 24-hour period. Schedules will be made with due consideration for watch standing, collateral duties, training, and off-duty activities.
8.3.2.1.2 Flight Crew. Ground time between flight operations should be sufficient to allow flight crew to eat and obtain at least 8 hours of uninterrupted rest. Flight crew should not be scheduled for continuous alert and/or flight duty (required awake) in excess of 18 hours. If it becomes necessary to exceed the 18-hour rule, 15 hours of continuous off-duty time shall be provided.
Note the dissonance between the words should, will and shall. 
Should has always been interpreted as shall, or will. 
Unfortunately, no such guidance applies to the folks who drive the surface ships. I’ve seen Conning Officers literally asleep on their feet, after being awake for far to long.
To me, it only makes sense to mandate crew rest before handling something that can take a mile or more to stop.
Steve said ----
Note the dissonance between the words should, will and shall. Should has always been interpreted as shall, or will.
Should =shall or will . I bet the lower rank crew members don’t interpret it that way . Except of course when it refers to their break time .
Mike
Well, “should” has always implied some wiggle room.
Before the longer detour on the semantics path
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/should
with and without wiggle (or waggle).
And the rules as they stand
https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/railsafety/rules-tco140-364.htm
Not much wiggle room in there and chances are the stricter regulations will tighten/close a few of the loop holes the companies presently employ.
Hans-Joerg Mueller said:
Before the longer detour on the semantics path
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/should
with and without wiggle (or waggle).
“Indicating a desirable or expected state:”
This still leaves some wiggle room that will and shall does not. While assigned to the staff of Commander, Naval Surface Forces, Pacific Fleet, I had the task of updating the Force Medical Manual, a rather thick book that attempted to give guidance for a multitude of sin. The first thing I did was replace “should” with shall, or will, so there was never any question.
HJ, your original post indicated that the companies are fighting these rules. Why? Are the few bucks they save in crew costs offset by lost equipment and other damage and loss in the community?
I think that I got that right, I didn’t get much sleep last night.
Hans-Joerg Mueller said:
Before the longer detour on the semantics path
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/should
with and without wiggle (or waggle).
There is a saying in Oxford , England that puts all semantics to one side .
“Should doesn’t mean it would”. Ages old , sums up people who cannot interpret dictionaries .
Mike
“His Smartness” aka Hunter Harrison layed off a lot of employees, mothballed a lot of motive power, idled a lot of railcars and and and in order to get the operating ratio down, the share price up and a maximum on share holders value.
And then he got bit in the behind by last winter’s conditions. Now both CP and CN try every which wiggle to get out of the jam they set themselves into. BTW prior to getting the call at CP Hunter Harrison was in charge at CN for a number of years until the board selected not to renew his contract.
Basically there are now two railways which suffer from “Hunteritis” . Lac Mégantic and the current grain transport situation (both sides of the 49th) have been the wake-up calls for the regulatory agencies to (finally) take action.
Until those actions get traction (pun intended) both equipment and employees are worked to the very max. I don’t know about the employees burning out, they probably get the extra winks on the job. Traction motors on engines are a different story, they burn out and quit.
Mike Morgan said:
sums up people who cannot interpret dictionaries .
Mike
Mike, do half of your posts have to be digs at other people? Knock it off.
Righto , boss , It was not actually aimed at anyone in particular though . Had it been so , I would have named him .
Mike
Steve Featherkile said:
HJ, your original post indicated that the companies are fighting these rules. Why? Are the few bucks they save in crew costs offset by lost equipment and other damage and loss in the community?
I think that I got that right, I didn’t get much sleep last night.
Steve, yes, companies are always looking to squeeze as much “production” out of as few employees as they can. Companies also feel that “it will never happen to them”, as far as major loss accidents are concerned. Many companies have come to ruin that way. They push and push and push until something breaks. And then they stand back and act surprised when it happens.
To have only one crew member on a train is just begging for something to happen eventually. There is always that element out there, that will cut one too many corners when left alone.
We don’t want to discuss how many D.O.T. regulation I violated when I was a truck driver. Part of it was the company wanting the truck to make as much money as it could. Part of it was me wanting to make a decent amount of money each week.
I suppose. In the Navy, we had eight or nine sailors make up the pilot house team during normal steaming. Merchant ships get by with three, and often try to make do with just two.
Still, catastrophic accidents will happen, even to the best prepared.
Steve said----
“Still, catastrophic accidents will happen, even to the best prepared.”
Let us all remember those poor souls who are worst prepared .
An occasion way back in the UK involved a crew , fresh out of port in an Ocean Going Fishing Boat ; they had imbibed a lot of lemonade before sailing and at some point , all crew were below decks . Everyone .
They awoke with a start as the boat , with engine still running , drove so far onto a rocky island that it is still there to this day .
The eleven crew including Captain and Mate spent a very long time as ordinary seamen afterwards .
Non-regulation lemonade , you see .
Mike
Notwithstanding other impressions, this thread is actually about railways - to be specific Canadian railways - and how the railway companies try to resist changes in regulations that are long overdue.
Basically how trains are crewed, how cars/trains are inspected, how maintenance is carried out (or not) etc. None of that happens in the blue yonder on the blue seas. It all happens on terra firma.
Yes, HJ, but similar things happen in other enterprises. We are using these examples to explore the “why” of it all. If you prefer, we can go mute.
That’s a good idea Steve .
All I was doing was trying to show that any regulation is only as good as those enforcing it .
Like the ship’s captain .
But on second thoughts , why should I have to explain myself ?
Mike
According to my dictionary/understanding “enterprise” in that sense refers to economic and business matters. Last I heard no branch of any armed forces anywhere in the world qualifies in that category.
So as mentioned it’s about railways and railroads. I’m looking forward to Craig Townsend pitching in with his “real world” examples.
The Fishing Fleets of the UK are indeed enterprises , so , what were you saying Steve ?
Mike