We do have some very professional RRers with this group. Should the 92 day (Quarterly, or Q inspection) be kept as it is, or should it be linked to something elese, like mileage?
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
I'd say leave it as-is. It works.
Under the time-honored calendar method, locomotives can be routed toward the home shop predictably for date-scheduled inspections scattered throughout the 92 days, so as to evenly utilize shop space and manpower. Using a mileage-based inspection would upset the whole apple cart, with out-of-date locomotives being hauled dead, excess shop space and idle employees one week, and a waiting line with employees working overtime the following week. And the record keeping would be more costly and difficult.
Tom
For the last five years, or longer, newer production diesel units from both EMD and GE have been designed for the newest FRA "proposed" 180 day inspection cycles.
I'm with Wyhog and Number 90 on this one.
With the inspection cycle based calendar days, motive power managers can plan the movement of locomotives, procurement of parts and the deployment of shop forces months in advance. Many items on the inspection list are items that should not go longer than 92 days without inspection anyway, regardless of mileage. Even if a locomotive only runs a few hundred miles between inspections and spends a lot of time shut down and sitting, the passage of time dries out rubber items, hardens seals and does a lot of other things that justify the time line.
Newer locomotives use better materials in many of these age-prone areas, which may qualify them for the proposed 180-day inspection.
Originally Posted by Wyhog:
I've known some who simply walk thru and sign the cards.
Wyhog
You rang the bell there, Hawg.
I would occasionally be asked by Engineers if they "had to sign the card" under certain circumstances. My answer was "Not unless you perform the inspection." At first I got the deer-in-the-headlights look, but they caught on after I assured them that if they were ever caught falsifying a Federal form, the railroad would have to fire them and the FRA could fine them painfully. Some were slow learners, though. I watched a crew pick up 2 units at Black one afternoon. I had already checked the inspection cards and the engines needed an inspection. The Engineer and Conductor coupled the 2 units onto the rear of their consist, made the air brake tests (sort of), and went back to the train. While the train line was charging, the Engineer went back and signed the cards, then returned immediately to the cab. That's when I stepped aboard and wished him well. (Deer-in-the-headlights look.) "I want to wish you well because it's your last day on the railroad." (More deer-in-the-headlights) "Well, since you only looked at the brakes on one side during the air brake test and signed the daily inspection card without making an inspection, shucks -I just figured you fellows were both planning to resign when you tie up at Amarillo." (Oh . . . uh . . . how about if we do all that again?) They did it again, properly, and the story got out. It worked well for everybody and caused no pain.
A few questions:
How long do these inspections take if there are no problems found?
How many people inspect each engine?
Can a crew of,say,six people inspect one engine and knock it out in a couple hours,or is there normally one person on each engine taking longer(1 day,2 days)?
Are the inspector's jobs specialized(one guy only inspects brake systems,one guy does traction motors,one guy does diesel engines,etc.)?
On average,what percentage of a railroad's fleet is in the shop for inspection at any given time?
TIA,Mike
Yes, timewise, how long does a proper Q take? And does it HAVE to be done at a particular shop? Could, say, a shop in Houston do a Q on a unit whose home base is Little Rock?
And what IS inspected during a Q?
