But is it always unsafe?
charlie hebdoHe's never given any answer to what is wrong or what he proposes other than, "poor vetting, poor training, poor supervision. A(nother) disaster waiting to happen."
Poor vetting, poor training, poor supervision are indeed contributory factors to both the #188 and #501 disasters. What are your observations as to the causes?
What proposals I have will not be given to you to enhance your minimal knowledge of railroad operations. I have attempted to effect change and will continue to do so.
charlie hebdoJudging from some of his comments, it appears what he really wants is to bring back fireman (call them jr. engineers?) and have engineers control their vetting, training and supervision: a "plan" with many flaws, but which most of us could easily envision
Bringing the fireman back will not happen. Engineer candidates should be hired from within. An oversight committee composed of veteran operations personnel should be formed to monitor the procedure.
You level much criticism at me so here is your chance to shine. Point out these "flaws" that you "easily envision".
Backshop But is it always unsafe?
Really?
It is indeed wrong, and I won't dispute that.
But it happened to be common practice during WWII and for some years afterward.
I observed 100 mph operation, timing mileposts, on the NEC behind GG1s run by PRR, more than once, and on the SAL north from Jacksonville to Savanna riding the obs of the Silver Meteor, the latter authorized for 79. 90 mph on the New Haven on the Turbotrain westbound from Stamford to Rye, authorized for 70, 136mph Baltimore to Washington MU original Metroliners, authorized 125mph.
And recall the story of 120 mph with a T1 posted on one of these Forums!
243129An oversight committee composed of veteran operations personnel should be formed to monitor the procedure.
So what makes someone a "veteran operations person"? And what would their duties be?
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
Safety is never 100% or zero%. It comes in varying degrees. So yes, I would conclude that running 80 mph in a 79 mph zone is a little less safe than running 79. You are likely to get a little more damage or chance of death/injury if the train derails, for one thing. So exceeding the speed limit by just a tiny amount is a tiny bit less safe.
But it is always 100% wrong to exceed the speed limit.
OvermodThey were speeding because of poor judgment. 'Supervision' is only peripheral;
"Poor judgement". Yes. Competent supervision can be peripheral. From the testimony of the RFE in Brown's case he was skeptical of allowing him to go alone on the first revenue run. That same RFE had also certified Brown on the territory??? I firmly believe that a well qualified engineer can assess through real time observation and circumstances whether or not a candidate or a 'qualified' engineer possesses the acumen for the position.
Overmod I don't really see anything in Bostian that would make 'vetting' catch him as particularly incompetent
Observation of Bostian in a pressure situation by experienced personnel possibly could have prevented the disaster. Had he the right 'make up' radio chatter and the subsequent stoning could have been dealt with.
Overmod Which leaves training, and yes, that needs to be not so much 'improved' as thoroughly rethought
Agreed. Amtrak has the unknowing teaching the unknowing. There are instructors with as little as three years total service hired to train engineers. I find that incredulous.
Please refrain from personal attacks. Pretty please?
Angela Pusztai-Pasternak, Production Editor, Trains Magazine
243129Poor vetting, poor training, poor supervision are indeed contributory factors to both the #188 and #501 disasters. What are your observations as to the causes?
If you have read the NTSB'S final report about Amtrak #188 you must have realized that poor vetting and poor supervision is not one of the propable or contributing causes. Regarding training there was a recommendation to Amtrak to improve training for unexpected situations.
For Amtrak #501 it waits to be seen. I trust NTSB more than a biased ex-engineer.Regards, Volker
VOLKER LANDWEHRIf you have read the NTSB'S final report about Amtrak #188 you must have realized that poor vetting and poor supervision is not one of the propable or contributing causes. Regarding training there was a recommendation to Amtrak to improve training for unexpected situations.
Oh but they are. The view from the inside is much clearer than from the outside in.
VOLKER LANDWEHRFor Amtrak #501 it waits to be seen. I trust NTSB more than a biased ex-engineer.
Yes and you also trusted a picture of the Acela control stand that you gleaned from the internet which was totally inaccurate.
Sie sind nicht so über Eisenbahnangelegenheiten informiert, wie Sie denken. Grüße, Joe
243129Bringing the fireman back will not happen. Engineer candidates should be hired from within. An oversight committee composed of veteran operations personnel should be formed to monitor the procedure. You level much criticism at me so here is your chance to shine. Point out these "flaws" that you "easily envision".
"Hired from within" and "oversight committee of veteran operations personnel" and "monitor the procedure" is simply Newspeak for promoting cabmen, aka, firemen, based on the rcommendations of the senior engineers, who would then supervise them. If you cannot see what can wrong with that, then that's your issue.
It seems to me that 243129 (Joe McMahon, retired engineer) disagrees with and is less than polite to everyone on these forums, whether outsiders or current/retired railroad employees, except Euclid. There is a term for folks with these characteristics used in my profession. Those interested can look it up in the DSM-V.
charlie hebdo"Hired from within" and "oversight committee of veteran operations personnel" and "monitor the procedure" is simply Newspeak for promoting cabmen, aka, firemen, based on the recommendations of the senior engineers, who would then supervise them.
No, that's the strawman argument that some here have put together to try to make out that there's no more to Joe McMahon's concern than re-establishing the old fireman advancement system.
If you look at what he actually SAID, it's quite different (but preserving some of the potential advantages of the older system).
"Hired from within" in the modern context implies nothing more than getting your engineer candidates from the ranks of current Amtrak hires. Not conducting cattle calls outside the organization ... as I recall they did for Bostian. Was Mr. Brown running for Amtrak in any capacity before he was brought on board to run trains like 501?
The idea being, in part, that an employee record of any type with Amtrak might have, or be made to contain, information on that employee's potential "trustworthiness" (for want of a better or more specific term) in the responsibilities of engine service. And their ability to acquire and retain information, more specifically the kinds of landmark and route knowledge that constitute much of 'situational awareness' in a proper railroad context.
"Veteran operations personnel" doesn't apply strictly to old engineers, hidebound or not. It refers to people who at least understand what qualities are useful on a railroad, and what characteristics are not. I think it implicitly refers to people who have some knowledge of what engine-service trainees ought to know, or learn, and who can assess if and when those trainees are missing important things.
If you cannot see what can wrong with that, then that's your issue.
There actually isn't anything 'wrong' with it; it's just that it's gone and will almost certainly never recur, at least insofar as having a ... what is that Japanese term for master and disciple? ... comparatively long mentor relationship as trainees learn the road and the ways of practical engine service. It would be nice if the modern analogue of this, which would involve conductors instead of 'firemen', could be implemented over the corresponding general timespan (which is part of what I think Joe wants to bring about), but the 'problems' with this involve time more than quality of learning or memory. Railroads want the conductors set up running as fast as possible, in weeks if that can be arranged, as they need more people to call at 2am to move trains.
Sure, there were all sorts of drawbacks to the way engineers taught firemen back in the day, and we could read about some of them in the old railroad stories and anecdotes. But there are surely things missing from current training modalities that could be re-introduced, one of them being to foster the right attitudes in severe conditions (anyone here who was a med-school intern? there can be similarities) and another being to have someone who can put up realistic red flags (and not HR-style political performance review reports) if they see problems extant or developing in how trainees are learning.
Overmod"Hired from within" in the modern context implies nothing more than getting your engineer candidates from the ranks of current Amtrak hires. Not conducting cattle calls outside the organization ... as I recall they did for Bostian. Was Mr. Brown running for Amtrak in any capacity before he was brought on board to run trains like 501?
All Amtrak employees at one time came from the outside. There is no such thing as a employee that is born inside an organization. Even the children of current employees, when they are hired, are from outside Amtrak. Bostain, if I remember correctly, worked for several years as a Amtrak Conductor before he followed Amtrak's procedure to become an Engineer. So he, therefore, became a Engineer from within Amtrak.
If Amtrak is making 'cattle call' hires for Engineers - they are seeking Engineers that alread possess a Engineers Certification Card from their service on another railroad. Their training for Amtrak's needs will differ in some respects to those Amtrak employees that are trying to attain a Engineers Certification Card through their Amtrak training.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
243129 BaltACD 243129 cx500 Being "ordered" is not what was happening, nor is it what we are claiming. Talk to BaltAcd about that . Never learned the finer points of leadership have you? Again the imperious attitude surfaces. Remember that as a dispatcher you sat at a desk not a throne. Did you or did you not post on another thread that your father, who was a superintendent, 'instructed' an engineer to ignore timetable speeds in order to get the train in on time ?
BaltACD 243129 cx500 Being "ordered" is not what was happening, nor is it what we are claiming. Talk to BaltAcd about that . Never learned the finer points of leadership have you?
243129 cx500 Being "ordered" is not what was happening, nor is it what we are claiming. Talk to BaltAcd about that .
cx500 Being "ordered" is not what was happening, nor is it what we are claiming.
Talk to BaltAcd about that .
Never learned the finer points of leadership have you?
Again the imperious attitude surfaces. Remember that as a dispatcher you sat at a desk not a throne.
Did you or did you not post on another thread that your father, who was a superintendent, 'instructed' an engineer to ignore timetable speeds in order to get the train in on time ?
Seeing as how you are back Balt I have a question for you. See above.
charlie hebdo It seems to me that 243129 (Joe McMahon, retired engineer) disagrees with and is less than polite to everyone on these forums, whether outsiders or current/retired railroad employees, except Euclid. There is a term for folks with these characteristics used in my profession. Those interested can look it up in the DSM-V.
I am less polite when I am treated less politely. Euclid and Overmod give lucid, insightful contributions. You and others resort to sniping ergo you are treated less politely. Got that chuck or should I call you Dr. Phil? DSM-V. Your 'type' is on page 330.
see below
243129Seeing as how you are back Balt I have a question for you. See above.
BaltACD see below 243129 Seeing as how you are back Balt I have a question for you. See above.
243129 Seeing as how you are back Balt I have a question for you. See above.
Why am I not surprised. You had much to say before but when confronted you clam up. Your avoidance of my question speaks volumes for your character.
So 243129, why didn't you ever go into management?
243129Oh but they are. The view from the inside is much clearer than from the outside in.
Not necessarily. The view from the outside is usually unbiased. Yours is extremely biased.
243129Yes and you also trusted a picture of the Acela control stand that you gleaned from the internet which was totally inaccurate. Sie sind nicht so über Eisenbahnangelegenheiten informiert, wie Sie denken. Grüße, Joe
I'm sure that I have a lot to learn about railroading. But on the other hand I know a lot more than you about management, dealing with the real big boys. So we have all our shortcomings
But I would prefer to be corrected shortly after I'm wrong. I don't like it when a mistake is used weeks later to let me look bad. You are an expert in this.
I posted the following Acela control desk picture: http://i1085.photobucket.com/albums/j437/micaelcorleone/Acela%20Cabshots/AcelaMainContol.jpg
So what is wrong with it?
Here is another Acela control desk picture: http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=494981
If I remember correctly I posted the control desks of Acela and ASC-44 to look if there are any major differences in the control's placement.Regards, Volker
VOLKER LANDWEHRNot necessarily. The view from the outside is usually unbiased. Yours is extremely biased.
Mine is extremely informed.
VOLKER LANDWEHRBut I would prefer to be corrected shortly after I'm wrong. I don't like it when a mistake is used weeks later to let me look bad. You are an expert in this.
I did point it out to you. You missed or ignored it. I didn't make you look bad, you made yourself look bad.
Hint: The handles were labeled incorrectly.
Backshop So 243129, why didn't you ever go into management?
Not enough money.
243129 Backshop So 243129, why didn't you ever go into management? Not enough money.
Backshop 243129 Backshop So 243129, why didn't you ever go into management? Not enough money. 243129 Backshop So 243129, why didn't you ever go into management? Not enough money. Just think of all the lives you could have saved...
Just think of all the lives you could have saved...
Do you have anything substantial to offer to this thread?
I didn't think so.
I am contributing. I'm pointing out the fallacies of some of your arguments. You rail on and on about the shortcomings of Amtrak's hiring, training and supervision policies, yet you never tried to get into a position to change them. It's a lot easier complaining about what's wrong than to get into a position to change things. You're right about everything (in your own mind) and get upset if everyone doesn't tell you how right you are.
BackshopI am contributing. I'm pointing out the fallacies of some of your arguments.
Where do you do that?
BackshopYou rail on and on about the shortcomings of Amtrak's hiring, training and supervision policies, yet you never tried to get into a position to change them.
I have tried to effect change to no avail. It's all here on this forum. Get yourself informed.
I'm talking about when you were working. It's easier to get things changed from within. You know, the whole management thing...
So you put a price on other people's safety, that is sad.....
An "expensive model collector"
243129 VOLKER LANDWEHR Not necessarily. The view from the outside is usually unbiased. Yours is extremely biased. Mine is extremely informed. VOLKER LANDWEHR But I would prefer to be corrected shortly after I'm wrong. I don't like it when a mistake is used weeks later to let me look bad. You are an expert in this. I did point it out to you. You missed or ignored it. I didn't make you look bad, you made yourself look bad. Hint: The handles were labeled incorrectly.
VOLKER LANDWEHR Not necessarily. The view from the outside is usually unbiased. Yours is extremely biased.
VOLKER LANDWEHR But I would prefer to be corrected shortly after I'm wrong. I don't like it when a mistake is used weeks later to let me look bad. You are an expert in this.
Informed and biased don't exclude each other. I prefer the unbiased information.
I posted the pictures in the first thread about the Amtrak #188 accident's true story one late evening, I think. The next morning the thread was deleted.
If you corrected me, I never saw it. At that time I made myself look bad, OK.
But here you used this again to belittle me as I don't agree with you. As I said before it is your preferred method.
In another post in this thread you said: I am less polite when I am treated less politely. Euclid and Overmod give lucid, insightful contributions. You and others resort to sniping ergo you are treated less politely.
You forgot one important requirement, the need to agree with you.Regards, Volker
n012944 So you put a price on other people's safety, that is sad.....
Your assumption is ridiculous.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.