zugmannAnd an engineer is an engineer. If you have a license, you are an engineer.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
schlimm [snip] As far as the training issue, why not have assistant engineers or co-engineers, who get promoted to engineer after X years experience, etc.?
I believe that's what Amtrak calls them - Assistant Engineers - or at least they were some years ago.
Y] Zug; That is a really snappy good comeback. keep up the good work HEH HEH.
Cannonball
Y6bs evergreen in my mind
Deggesty As to being busy firing, the only time I rode a steam engine for any distance (Anniston to Birmingham), both firemen were busy keeping the engine hot. The wife of Southern's man in charge of steam operation (I must be having a senior moment, since I cannot recall his name) sat on the fireman's box, but I did not notice her giving the engineer, Bob (another senior moment) any information.
Johnny
schlimm I believe the titles "fireman" and "brakeman" described the function and duties of these members of a train crew, going back to the 19th century. As there is no fire to shovel coal into, run a stoker or drop ashes (doubt if they had much time to be a 2nd set of eyes back then), the fireman has been out of date for 50 years. As brakemen were from an era with hand brakes applied from the top of most cars, they have been outmoded for even longer.
I believe the titles "fireman" and "brakeman" described the function and duties of these members of a train crew, going back to the 19th century. As there is no fire to shovel coal into, run a stoker or drop ashes (doubt if they had much time to be a 2nd set of eyes back then), the fireman has been out of date for 50 years. As brakemen were from an era with hand brakes applied from the top of most cars, they have been outmoded for even longer.
As to the title of the man riding the rear of a passenger train and subordinate to the conductor, the KCS gave him three tasks: rearend brakeman, flagman, and porter. "Trainman" fit very well. The Southern gave the trainman at the front of the train two tasks: frontend brakeman and baggageman. And, once when I was going into Birmingham on the Birmingham Special, the conductor asked me if I would assist passengers getting off one of the coaches. What was my title?
Why change the title? Brakeman works fine. We're also switchmen in the yard, but I still like the term brakeman. I was a conductor today, though.
And an engineer is an engineer. If you have a license, you are an engineer.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
zugmann Brakemen still exist. We're a rare breed, but we be here!
Brakemen still exist. We're a rare breed, but we be here!
Zug: Maybe you should change the titles? Instead of brakeman, try trainman; instead of fireman try...wait, no need to, they are all gone, but long after their fires were dead. As far as the training issue, why not have assistant engineers or co-engineers, who get promoted to engineer after X years experience, etc.?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Yeah, brakemen were around after firement because there often needed to be someone to make cuts and set outs at the head end. There also was a brakeman/flagman with the conductor on the hind end. .
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
There were brakemen a long time after firemen were removed.
The guys that spent considerable time as firemen out here are 100x better hoggers than most of the "engineer trainees" that go to choo-choo U and learn from a book.
As far as brakemen... I better tell someone since I seem to be outmoded.
Can you imagine a full crew of six on a short train consisting of an engine, a boxcar, and a caboose? That probably happened from time to time..
Present operating rules on my carrier require that the person copying a Written Mandatory Directive (Speed Restriction etc.) must not be operating the moving locomotive at the time or the movement must be stopped so that the engineer can copy the directive. Amtrak, who operate on our territory with just a Engineer in the cab, must stop when given these directives.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Changes to low forward hood, full view cabs helped remove the fireman as did the loss of the caboose at the end of the train and bringing the conductor to the locomotive as a second set of eyes. Firemen's jobs were holdovers from the steam era but not as cost effective in the diesel era. (I am not disputing the hands on experience a fireman got by any means. (And despite computer simiulations, there is nothing like the real thing, baby!) Plus there is encouragement today for cross learning and qualifying which alleviates the need of a fireman; the technical suport he gave early on pales in comparison with what he'd have to know today because of electronics, electrical, and other advances; you need technical degree of some kind!. PTC, engineer response mechinisms (beyond deadman pedel), radios, two or more crewmen in the cab, are some of the things that also go into the mix. Even with all that I wonder how much better it would be for two men in the cab of high speed trains just the same. I don't believe there are two in Europe, Japan or China. Still....
Yep back in those days when radios were not reliable and engines broke down more a fireman was an asset. I think you got a better engineer from the ranks of fireman because in training a lot longer and attained more knowlege..
In 1963 I was hired as a " fireman" for the CB&Q in Chicago. (Mind you I was a green college kid.) The Q was in the first year of a major rebuild of Cicero Avenue and hiring extra crews. (The Arbitration award - eliminating firemen - didn't go in til '64.)
I worked at it and got to know the rules. It paid off in a when I was working the (22nd St.) District west job. Our crew was riding the front of the engine - a Baldwin - long nose forward when crossing Lumber Street which had a Gateway Transport terminal right by the tracks. One of the truckers pulled out and crossed the tracks without looking - bad move. I was the only one who could see that so I pulled the air. We stopped maybe 6 inches from the cab of the truck. The driver probably s--- in his pants as those Baldwins looked massive from the front - much bigger that his truck.
Yes those extra eyes did help.
BNSFwatcher If "Featherbedding", and the Interstate Commerce Commission, had been abolished twenty-years prior, I think some railroads would have survived. My 'short list', in no particular order: Rutland; New York, Ontario & Western; New York Central; Pennsylvania; Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific; New York, New Haven & Hartford; Erie; Delaware, Lackawanna & Western; Boston & Maine.... Like I say, the "short list". Thanks, unions. You cut your own throats! Hays
If "Featherbedding", and the Interstate Commerce Commission, had been abolished twenty-years prior, I think some railroads would have survived. My 'short list', in no particular order: Rutland; New York, Ontario & Western; New York Central; Pennsylvania; Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific; New York, New Haven & Hartford; Erie; Delaware, Lackawanna & Western; Boston & Maine.... Like I say, the "short list". Thanks, unions. You cut your own throats!
Hays
I think most of the road you list had far more problems than the amount of people on a freight train crew and the amount of crew members on a train was not the issue that sunk them. However, you do bring up an interesting point for discussion, it was the refusal of the unions on the EL to negotiate with Chessie for desired rule changes that brought about the demise of the Erie from essentially east of Akron. Chessie wanted to acquire that line.
And, I've often wondered what could have been done with the EL with intermodal doublestack traffic and two man crews.
Some of the other roads had other issues, the NYO&W was a declining property for years and from what I know of the other roads in New York, the state of New York held a gun to their heads when it came to property taxes. I will concede that New York also had a full crew law, requiring a third brakeman, much as Indiana did.
As for the PRR and NYC, their problems have been well documented.
I'm sure others know far more than I, I know nothing of such roads as the Rutland.
Back in the day I was hired account of the Indiana full crew law as a locomotive fireman. It required all jobs to have a fireman on the engine and also a middle brakeman on trains with over 70 cars. Featherbedding was a term coined by management , however we worked as hostlers and in passenger service were there was no brakeman on the engine. In effect a engineer in training ,then after a couple of years you were premoted and worked the engineers extra board when in was exausted . The company lobby finally busted the full crew law then when they ran out of engineers and trainman they had to hire them plus train them. Management has always had tunnel vision, they only see profit for the short term , therefore they almost went broke . Now OMG! they want to have only one man on the engine on most trains. Greed still fogs their brains....End of story..................
jeffhergertWhy isn't too much management not considered feather bedding? Maybe not so much in direct supervision, but how many vice-presidents and assistant vice-presidents does a company really need? Jeff
Why isn't too much management not considered feather bedding? Maybe not so much in direct supervision, but how many vice-presidents and assistant vice-presidents does a company really need?
Jeff
Yes and for the ultimate in FBing, how many workers or even mid-management types would $10-14 mil. CEO compensation packages buy? 100-200? Looking at it from the other end, RIFing 100-200 workers and supervisors pays for those huge bonuses.
I don't think that is a fair statement for either the unions or for management. There were jobs to be done and simply elminating manpower with nothing more than union vs managment as the reason would not have worked. I believe there were as many managers in the 50's willilng to give in to the unions because they themselves were looking at pension day just days ahead. And there were union leaders who were getting paid to do something so that is what they did. But because you were management you sat on one side of the table and pounded your fist on the table while the union leadership were on the opposite side of the table smashing thier fists. It was the dance that was expected with little ever changed. None of them really saw the future but were basking in the present. Finally in the 70's both union and management realized that the boat was full of holes and sinking. It all of a sudden dawned on the it was "thier" boat and they had better bail together. So they stopped fighting and came up with solutions to stop the holes where there was leaking. As for the ICC, yes, it was long overdue for an overhaul by 1960 at least. But more importantly Featherbedding didn't build the St. Lawrence Seaway with its Eisenhower Locks nor did it build the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System. And it wasn't either party's fault that industry and business closed shop and move south and west and that the homes and businesses were turning to oil and gas heat instead of the railroads' coal. No way can you say the unions cut thier own throats because there were so many others with knives cutting everything else at the same time in the same place..
In steam days there was one other type of crewman not mentioned by the previous respondents. This was the "swing brakeman". On steeply graded lines, such as Cajon Pass, swing brakemen rode the car tops in order to operate the brake wheels on freight cars. Each swing brakeman was responsible for setting or easing the handbrakes on perhaps ten cars or so going downgrade responding to whistle signals from the engineer. It was probably the single most dangerous job to work on a train, especially at night or in bad weather. Diesels with dynamic brakes eliminated the need for these men on Cajon.
If you are speaking of your passenger runs only, yes, I agree that you need the second person in the cab. On freights, the conductor (and head brakeman, if needed) provide the extra "eyes". Sometimes they aren't to vigilant, but they are there. A 'fireman' would just be in the way.
Victrola1 A lot of branch lines were abandon from the 1950's - 1970's. This was before deregulation, smaller crews, short line spin offs etc. Five men to run 10 ten cars down a branch line was the rule. Would smaller crews have resulted in some branch lines not being abandon as quickly?
A lot of branch lines were abandon from the 1950's - 1970's. This was before deregulation, smaller crews, short line spin offs etc. Five men to run 10 ten cars down a branch line was the rule.
Would smaller crews have resulted in some branch lines not being abandon as quickly?
In the east, especially along the DL&W and EL, I am not familiar with reduced crews on branch lines, and I don't think it was a universal thing. Maybe more into the 70's but not that often to make a difference in payroll...remember there were many contracts by that time that allowed for a job to be filled as long as there was manpower to fill it; firemen in some cases, the extra brakeman in others.
As for the smaller crews resulting in the non abandonment of branch lines, probably not. Several major reasons: 1) crew costs for Class ones were higher than for a shortline, especially if shortline was manned by owner-manager and if not the owner-manager, then possibly because it was as non union operation anyway; 2) branch lines dissapeared because the traffic disappeared so even if the crews worked for free there was no traffic anyway; 3) you can't rule out track deterioration because as traffic dwindled less maintenance was done to the track; 4) as cars got bigger and heavier it still was not worth upgrading track and bridges to handle the sparse amount of traffic. I often wondered how PC got a way with running a train one way on branch lines one week and return the following like onthe U&D from Kingston to Bloomville, NY in the Catskills.
henry6 BNSFwatcher "ACD" = "Assistant Chief Dispatcher", no? We had them on the BNSF, but they changed them to "MCOs", whatever that means. Hays Offhand I don't know what MCO means, perhaps Movement something or other. . But I hope you are not implying that and Assistant Chief Dispatcher is featherbedding. He is merely second in command in the Dispatcher's office usually for second and third tricks and relief. A normal chain of command post on most railroads and definitely not a featherbed position.
BNSFwatcher "ACD" = "Assistant Chief Dispatcher", no? We had them on the BNSF, but they changed them to "MCOs", whatever that means. Hays
"ACD" = "Assistant Chief Dispatcher", no? We had them on the BNSF, but they changed them to "MCOs", whatever that means.
Offhand I don't know what MCO means, perhaps Movement something or other. . But I hope you are not implying that and Assistant Chief Dispatcher is featherbedding. He is merely second in command in the Dispatcher's office usually for second and third tricks and relief. A normal chain of command post on most railroads and definitely not a featherbed position.
On the UP, the chief dispatchers became Corridor Managers. If the BNSF uses something close in terminology, MCO may be Manager of Corridor Operations? Why they just can't call the positions what they have traditionally been is beyond me.
Some railroads did have reduced crews on branch lines. From the RI agreement quoted earlier about psgr service, there is a provision that any branch line assigned to local crews, even if part of the run is over the main line, may have one brakeman. The date this was effective was July 1, 1964 and there was a provision that if someone who was in service on that date and there be no other work, a second brakeman's position would be added. If everyone working on that date had other assignments, the second position would be vacant.
Most, if not all, agreements reducing crew size also carry a provision that the carrier may voluntarily add or remove a brakeman/switchman to any assignment. If a local train has a conductor and one brakeman, but the carrier deems there is enough work requiring a second brakeman that second position could be added. If later the work load for that assignment lessons, the second position could be removed.
wjstixIn the earliest days of diesels, the fireman wasn't superfluous
Even today, when we run long-hood-forward (which we do for half of every trip on our 'locals'), we have to put someone in the cab for the long-hood-forward portion of the trip as "eyes."
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.