4 ms·
> Rail companies laid off more than 20,000 rail workers during a year period in 2018-2019, representing the biggest layoffs in rail since the Great Recession, a
by fnimick 4y ago
> Rail companies laid off more than 20,000 rail workers during a year period in 2018-2019, representing the biggest layoffs in rail since the Great Recession, and the nation’s rail force has dipped below 200,000 – the lowest level ever, and down from 1 million at its peak. “They have cut the hell out of the workforce, and there are big plans to cut it further,” Kaminkow said. “Just because the rail companies are profitable doesn’t mean they’re healthy.”
No, the rail company is perfectly healthy and thriving. The workers aren't, but as long as the trains move, the workers could be ground under the wheels for all that Wall St cares.
- SoftTalker 4y agoThe goal is totally autonomous train operations.
- fnimick 4y agoThat doesn't seem likely considering their terrible safety record with people at the scene who should be empowered to detect and stop it.
- parasubvert 4y agoRail has a very good safety record compared to other forms of freight, considering the quantity of freight that moves.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- thmsths 4y agoI doubt it. From what I understand, on top of squeezing the workers, railroad companies have been underinvesting in the infrastructure. I don't see how they would accept to spend billions in R&D (to my knowledge there is no fully automated train yet) and track/signals upgrades.
- jcranmer 4y ago> (to my knowledge there is no fully automated train yet) Several metro lines are fully automated and driverless--Paris Metro Line 1 has been fully automated for 11 years now.
- thmsths 4y agoI should have been more specific. I am aware of some automatic metro systems but in my opinion the challenges they overcame are very different from the challenges freight or even long distance passenger trains would have to overcome.
- yabones 4y agoFully automated freight rail is not possible with the infrastructure and technology we currently have unless the rail companies accept insane risk. For example, if one of the locomotive engines stops working and the train must stop, you need to keep the brake lines pressurized. For some archaic reason they fail open instead of closed, so you have to keep the engines running at all times. Otherwise, you need to send a guy out to manually apply the emergency brakes. This was part of the cause of the Lac-Mégantic disaster. So it's not impossible, but there's zero chance that NS or CSX would ever invest $MM to upgrade the brakes on all their trains to let them run automated. But the real crux of it is that they'd be responsible for any disaster, and their go-to strategy is to just blame whoever happened to be in the cab that night. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C3%A9gantic_rail_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C3%A9gantic_rail_disaste...
- sofixa 4y ago> For some archaic reason they fail open instead of closed, so you have to keep the engines running at all times This sounds incredibly stupid. Do you happen to know the archaic reason?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- 4y ago
- thatfrenchguy 4y agoLiterally impossible in the terrain they operate on
- rattlesnakedave 4y agoBold claim
- Supermancho 4y agoBeing ignorant makes many realities seem like fanciful thinking.
- scottLobster 4y agoWhich is only slightly less hard than full self-driving vehicles. The traffic/rail conditions may be simpler by comparison, but the added complexity of the vehicles in question more than makes up for it.