Training a Steam Engineer on Diesel

[richhotrain]

As a lifelong Chicagoan, I was fascinated with a story in the Summer 2010 issue of Classic Trains magazine titled "Working The Stock Yards Transfer".

The story, the photos, and the route map, added greatly to my knowledge of train operations within the Chicago city limits.

But what also interested me was the concluding portion of the story in which Bull the steam engine engineer retired shortly after dieselization took place because he only enjoyed operating steam engines.   But, before he retired, one day upon coming to work he was confronted with a situation in which he was told to operate a diesel for the first time after untold years of operating steam engines.  It made me wonder about the steam-to-diesel transition period.  What kind of training, if any, did steam engine engineers receive on the new diesel engine?   Was it difficult to for a steam engine engineer to learn how to operate a diesel?

Rich

[henry6]

In reality, especially from today's perscpective, there was not too much different. Throttle, brake, dyamics if applicable.  Feel the train behind you, know the application of the throttle poured more energy to the driving wheels or trucks.  From here it appears to be a simple acclimaton to the appliances.  A factory representative was always available to insgtruct the freshman class and their teachers; there were cab classes and cab rides and "student" operators.  Some engineers welcomed the closed and clean cab, the relative lower noise level, the lack of need to stop every so often for water and coal, and for the most part being able to see ahead better than through the length of a steam boiler.  We all probably know and understand the visible differences of a steam locomotive, your being able to see, hear, and feel the working parts unlike the diesel electric with everything hidden in engine comparments and electrical cabinets.  Yes, some engineers quit at the thought of running a diesel, others adapted.  Often the cry was "If I wanted to run a trolley car...."  I know of some engineers who quit outright.  I know of one who took the "trolley car..." way out: never touched a diesel but ran electric trains for over 20 years after the introduction of diesels.  As with anything new, there are those who fight it and others who pick it up like breathing.  Getting over the fact that you weren't relying on a fireman to provide the righe amounts of water, coal, and, thus, steam, at the right time, knowing that it was all at the tip of one's own fingers in the throttle and brake controls, was the major factor in accepting the operating of steam over diesel. With a factory mechanic/engineer/instuctor/field representative on the property, the transition was made as easy as possible from the application point of view.

[richhotrain]

henry6,

Thanks for that discussion.  Until I read that aricle in Classic Trains, I had never really given any thought to it.  But, once read, I really started to wonder about the whole issue of training during the transition period.

Rich

[cnwfan51]

    The story I got was that when the CNW brought diesels to Eagle Grove Iowa my grandad was an engineer, The traveling engineer sat him down in a cab of a GP7 I think  showed him the manual on the loco and sat with showing him how to operate it. Thet traveled up and down the yard for about an hour and when done My grandad was told youre qualified. On a side note My grandad was glad to see the diesels arrive they were easier to run and cleaner and quieter Larry 

[baberuth73]

I've never been in the cab of a steam locomotive while it was working. What kind of temperatures was the crew exposed to?

[henry6]

I've at least experienced the NKP 759 at speed for about 30 miles, fired and ran a small 0-4-0 tanker up and down a siding for days, and rode a narrow guage locomotive on the Sandy River and Rangely Lakes on the ride back to the station.  There is one temperature and it can be cozey in cold weather, agonizing in hot weather.  It can be described as da*n hot, hotter than H***, blistering hot, miserably hot, and worse if you had to "work" the engine.  As a rail fan, it was just right!

Oh, I must add how dirty and smelly it was, drafty, too.  Really, it was great!

[cnwfan51]

     I got to ride in a Fremont and Elkhorn Valley 2-8-0 ex Reader Railroad it was a hot and humid August day about 25 yrs ago, The Thermoeter mounted on the backhead of the boiler topped out at 165 degrees when the glass broke I think I sweated off about 5 to 8 lbs that day .  After that I understood why my Grandad that I talked about in the above post, was deaf as a post the noise was terrific Larry

[BaltACD]

The hardest part of operating a train over the road is not in the application of power to keep it moving....but in the use of the brakes to both control slack actions within the train and to slow and stop the train.

As has been stated earlier, for the engineer to move from steam to diesel encompassed a rudimentary explanation of how to operate the throttle and reversing lever...many of the earliest diesels did not have dynamic braking, so that would not be explained....if there was dynamic braking available they would be given a quick 1-2 on it operations, however I suspect most steam engineers would have been very hesitant to use dynamic braking, at least initially, as it was a concept they weren't familiar with.  The brake valves used on both steam and diesel of the same period would have been of similar, if not identical schedules and would have been very familiar to any engineer and their operation would have been taken for granted.

Some carriers on their diesel powered passenger trains used electro-pneumatic train braking systems...I don't know if any steam engines were equipped for this type of braking system.  Operation of such systems would have required some level of training for those who had never operated such equipment in the past.

[Grantham]

I can understand why drivers would quit after losing their steam engines and being given diesel electics, diesels are dead boring after working steam. Steam engines need constant attention, both from the driver and the fireman.

Some drivers would be pleased to be given a cleaner and simpler work environment, but some used to enjoy their work for what it was. 

There are times where there is a high degree of action, fuss and drama in the cab, while the crew try to turn potential energy into kinetic energy. Sometimes an unwilling machine will take quite some convincing! Diesels are easier...just open the throttle and the work will get done with no further attention than occasionally stepping on the sand button.

I'm lucky enough to have old mates who were drivers and firemen in the steam/diesel transition era in Australia, I know two who quit when steam did.

I also qualified on diesels after steam (at my local tourist railway) and only had to poke my nose in the engine compartment and shuffle the thing up and down a siding to get rubber stamped like Larry's grandfather a couple of posts up.

And yes, I avoid diesel days like the plague...it's not a patch on steam!

Mick

   

[aricat]

My Mother-in law, whose Dad was a GN hogger out of Kelly Lake Minnesota, said that he could have retired from the GN while they were still operating their Mallets but chose to continue working after the F3's and SD9's arrived. GN had an unwritten policy that if an enginner could pass a company physical they could continue to work. I don't know if this was system wide but there were hoggers working past 65 at Kelly Lake.He worked until 1958,by then Kelly Lake was all diesel.He came back from a run from Allouez Wisconsin, went to sleep and never woke up. She said he loved being an engineer. My wife and her sister remember riding on one of his Mallets a few times in the Kelly Lake Yards. I told them that you two were the luckiest two kids on the planet.Other guys might wear baseball caps and sports shirts, not him; he dressed like an engineer, steam or diesel.

[upjake]

Is it true that many ex-steam engineers actually preferred long-hood running diesel road switchers to the view of an F unit because it was more like a steam engine? I thought I heard this somewhere.

[henry6]

upjake

Is it true that many ex-steam engineers actually preferred long-hood running diesel road switchers to the view of an F unit because it was more like a steam engine? I thought I heard this somewhere.

Probably more an old wive's tale than fact.  Being able to see more of the railroad ahead--grade crossings, curves, signals, ROW in general--had to be a comforting safety factor from the cab of an E, F, or PA/PF or C Liner.  And remember, too, that early road switchers--GP, RS--were bi-directional from the same seat, so half the time there was long hood forward, the other half short.  I think that the cab forward or short hood forward won out simply on the grounds of being able to see more and more safely.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

The case for the soulless diesel
Trains, November 1966 page 48
diesels have as much soul as steam
( BR, BRITAIN, FRONTISPIECE, "JOYCE, ANTHONY", TRN )

An interesting commentary by somebody who was an engineering student during the steam-to-diesel transition on British Rail.

[Wabashbud]

 Boy Rich, you sure started and interesting thread.

 

Bud

[richhotrain]

Wabashbud

 Boy Rich, you sure started and interesting thread.

 

Bud

Innocently, I might add.  I was curious after reading the article in Classic Trains about how the old steam engine engineers made the transition to diesel.

Rich

[wjstix]

I just received the latest issue of the NYC Historical Society "Headlight" which has part 2 of the story of Maurice Lewman, a railroader whose long career started as a steam engine fireman on the Central and retired as a Conrail engineer in 1992. It mentions that when he went to be certified as an engineer 1956, he could choose to do the three tests on either steam or diesel, even though steam was almost gone. There was a rules exam everyone took, once he passed all of them he was certified to run steam or diesels.