PL42AC design problems
 

1. The “submarine” doors: The Ergo Committee is on record as to the hazardous situation this design creates for the engineer and the four (and eventually more) injuries that have occurred due to this design are testimony to the problem. Placing red reflective tape as suggested by the safety department and implemented by the mechanical department merely transfers the responsibility of injury to the employee and is not the answer. Another problem with the submarine doors is the tripping hazard inherent in the raised sill. Only a complete redesign of the doors will correct these problems (not a likely event).
    
2. The toilet: This item is written in August of the year 2008. Having arrived in the eight month of the seventh year of the twenty first century it should be hard to imagine that the elimination of human waste in a clean sanitary way would be a problem...but it apparently this is a problem for the designers and purchasers of locomotives (remember the debacle a few years ago when NS removed toilets from their locomotives?). More and more engineers are spending more and more time in the locomotive seat. We run the train, we wait to run the train, we eat our lunches while waiting to run the train, and relieve we ourselves while waiting to run the train. Is it too much to ask that locomotive engineers be allowed to do these things in an environment that is clean and free of the stink that invades our work spaces from a poorly designed and poorly maintained toilet? 
   
   In our newest locomotive acquisition (although the PL42AC is just the latest in the line of locomotives with poorly thought out toilets) it seems as though Alstom finished designing  the PL42AC locomotive and then somebody realized that they had not included a toilet for the engineer and then crammed it into a space too small for its proper use and function. This design is another Alstom disaster and has left us with a toilet that is almost impossible to get into and out of and does not even have a provision for a roll of toilet paper. What were they thinking? This design does not come close to the recommendations of the FRA for locomotive toilets. http://www.ble272.org/Toilet_construction.htm Because of this poor planning and design the Ergo Committee will dedicate itself to the proper design and venting of the locomotive toilet so that the health of locomotive engineers (and any  others who work to maintain the locomotives and thus have to work in this environment) are not threatened daily by the stupidity designed into the locomotives that NJ Transit purchases. 
    
3. A/C vents: The placing of these vents confound the FRA’s recommendations for the placement of A/C and heating vents in that they are positioned directly above the engineer’s (and fireman’s) seats. The vanes used to divert the flow of air can only be manually changed and each vane must be changed individually. The vanes have sharp edges and are subject to being broken and accidentally removed. 
    
4. The PL42AC loads strangely. While not an Ergonomic concern, when taken individually each throttle notch causes a surge that can be felt throughout the train until the engine reaches five MPH then the computer gets its act together and the engine  loads smoothly again.
    
5. The reflection of the SDU and IDU on the windshield in front of the engineer: For me personally, the SDU reflection is directly in my line of sight and is very distracting when going through tunnels or between sundown and sunrise. We have talked with the mechanical department about installing a glare shield and a member of the Ergonomics Committee has designed one that is cheap and effective. Quick Installation is imperative but has not been forthcoming for a number of reasons including cost, warranty violations, who is to install the shield, injury proof design, etc. You can see the roadblocks to correcting this problem.
    
6. Washed out Speed Display Unit: This is a problem common to all our equipment with the SDU. Sun light from the side window, even with the tinting, washes out the SDU so the speed cannot be read by the engineer. This problem is especially irksome when running on the markers of other trains and the cab signals are constantly dropping. With the washed out SDU it is almost impossible to see when your speed has dropped sufficiently to satisfy the requirements of the CSS.
    
7. Side windows: In spite of the efforts of the mechanical Department, some of the side windows are still hard to open requiring, in some cases, that the rear of the movable window be raised before the window can be opened (when you get one of these write them up and give the engine number to a committee member). The window is positioned in such a way that the engineer must reach out to open it and places his/her arm in such a position from the seat (with the arm almost straight out) that injury to the arm can occur. The other option for the engineer is to leave the seat and stand up to open the window. I understand that the distance of the window from the seated engineer is required by the Feds as part of the cab crash worthiness but the potential for injury should not be part of the design. Write up windows that are hard to open.
    
8. Seat adjustment knobs: These are too hard and many are missing. Softer knobs are available and have been specified for the Multi-level cab seats. There is also a problem with these knobs coming loose or are missing making seat adjustment difficult if not impossible. Write up missing knobs.
    
9. Tripping and head banging hazards: There are too many tripping and head banging opportunities for anyone trying to navigate from the cab to the rear of the locomotive. The doors to the engine room from the electronics bay and from the engine room to the air room are much too narrow for an engineer with a bag to get through without the possibility of getting their grip/bag/knapsack caught on the door jambs. As a result of poor design of wire runs and overhead pipes, tripping and head banging hazards abound in this engine.

   If  you have more suggestion please contact a member of the Ergonomics Committee so that if, someday, we can get another meeting with the Mechanical Department we will bring up more deficiencies and, hopefully, address them in upcoming new locomotive programs.

   We can't make this happen without your input.

   Steve Kay
   Chairman
   Ergonomics Committee

Return to the "Unofficial" Hoboken Engineer's Web Page