Euclid zugmann Today? Insubordination. Probably will easily get his job back with back pay, though. You have to understand how "being fired" works on the railroad. Also probably why the whole good faith challenge thing was created. 60 years ago? Probably stay fired? I don't know. I wasn't alive then. I am just asking how someone can be fired or even given a lesser reprimand for failing to speed when nobody will admit to ordering the speeding.
zugmann Today? Insubordination. Probably will easily get his job back with back pay, though. You have to understand how "being fired" works on the railroad. Also probably why the whole good faith challenge thing was created. 60 years ago? Probably stay fired? I don't know. I wasn't alive then.
Today?
Insubordination.
Probably will easily get his job back with back pay, though. You have to understand how "being fired" works on the railroad. Also probably why the whole good faith challenge thing was created.
60 years ago? Probably stay fired? I don't know. I wasn't alive then.
I am just asking how someone can be fired or even given a lesser reprimand for failing to speed when nobody will admit to ordering the speeding.
Because it's a kangaroo court and the Company can do whatever they want, at least initially. Like the Original Sniper said being fired from the railroad is far from a permanent condition in many cases.
The automotive comparisons are valid, speeding is speeding, no matter what type of vehicle you are operating. Doing 65 in a 60 zone for a long period of time is unlikely to result in disaster, on both track and pavement. But one will get you in deep doo-doo with management, while the other is normally ignored by the cops.
But the same token, doing 40 or 50 over the limit in a speed-restricted zone is likely to have negative consequences on the roads too.
I am sure if automobiles were equipped with Wi-Tronix and the cops received constant remote downloads there would be a huge number of speeding tickets handed out for minor violations.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
SD70Dude Euclid zugmann Today? Insubordination. Probably will easily get his job back with back pay, though. You have to understand how "being fired" works on the railroad. Also probably why the whole good faith challenge thing was created. 60 years ago? Probably stay fired? I don't know. I wasn't alive then. I am just asking how someone can be fired or even given a lesser reprimand for failing to speed when nobody will admit to ordering the speeding. Because it's a kangaroo court and the Company can do whatever they want, at least initially. Like the Original Sniper said being fired from the railroad is far from a permanent condition in many cases.
My point highlighted in orange is simply this: Say a superintendent is known to expect engineers to exceed the speed limit in order to make up time. Now say an engineer is running behind schedule and he knows what the superintendent expects, but he does not comply with the superintendent's expectations. So, to send a message or get even, or whatever; the superintendent fires the engineer.
Wouldn't the superintendent have to give a reason for the firing, even if it is not permanent? If so, he can't say he fired the engineer because he failed to exceed the speed limit in order to make up time. So what reason does he give?
50 - 60 and more years ago was a different world. Trying to foist today's world on what happened on the past is a exercise in futility.
All the BS that is being spouted about it in this thread is just so much BS. What I and others have described is what was done - like it or not - that form of management is done and over.
History is history - BSing about it doesn't change it.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD 50 - 60 and more years ago was a different world. Trying to foist today's world on what happened on the past is a exercise in futility. All the BS that is being spouted about it in this thread is just so much BS. What I and others have described is what was done - like it or not - that form of management is done and over. History is history - BSing about it doesn't change it.
The point being it was wrong then and it is wrong now.
EuclidI suspect much of the tales of similar bravado in the 1950s is urban legend.
Absolutely but there are those here who are afflicted with the 'romance of the rails' and embrace these "urban legends" a.k.a. BS.
Those who would comply with such an order would be every bit as ignorant as the one 'ordered' it.
243129 BaltACD 50 - 60 and more years ago was a different world. Trying to foist today's world on what happened on the past is a exercise in futility. All the BS that is being spouted about it in this thread is just so much BS. What I and others have described is what was done - like it or not - that form of management is done and over. History is history - BSing about it doesn't change it. The point being it was wrong then and it is wrong now.
The point being it is over and done. Then and now don't coexist and never have.
243129 Euclid I suspect much of the tales of similar bravado in the 1950s is urban legend. Absolutely but there are those here who are afflicted with the 'romance of the rails' and embrace these "urban legends" a.k.a. BS. Those who would comply with such an order would be every bit as ignorant as the one 'ordered' it.
Euclid I suspect much of the tales of similar bravado in the 1950s is urban legend.
It isn't urban legend - it was rural reality.
Fear is a hell of a motovator - as we find out daily with all the lies that define the USA today.
Euclid SD70Dude Euclid zugmann Today? Insubordination. Probably will easily get his job back with back pay, though. You have to understand how "being fired" works on the railroad. Also probably why the whole good faith challenge thing was created. 60 years ago? Probably stay fired? I don't know. I wasn't alive then. I am just asking how someone can be fired or even given a lesser reprimand for failing to speed when nobody will admit to ordering the speeding. Because it's a kangaroo court and the Company can do whatever they want, at least initially. Like the Original Sniper said being fired from the railroad is far from a permanent condition in many cases. My point highlighted in orange is simply this: Say a superintendent is known to expect engineers to exceed the speed limit in order to make up time. Now say an engineer is running behind schedule and he knows what the superintendent expects, but he does not comply with the superintendent's expectations. So, to send a message or get even, or whatever; the superintendent fires the engineer. Wouldn't the superintendent have to give a reason for the firing, even if it is not permanent? If so, he can't say he fired the engineer because he failed to exceed the speed limit in order to make up time. So what reason does he give?
I'll start with what was already mentioned at the top of this quote: insubordination.
"Dereliction of duty" or "conduct unbecoming" would be others, for allowing the train to fall behind schedule in the first place. I've actually seen that accusation used out here, that case did not involve speeding but the employee in question was someone who management was (and still is) out to get.
Or (and this is more likely) the Superintendent could order some of his weed weasels to follow the Engineer around on future trips, and keep spying until they saw him make a minor mistake or rule violation. A few years ago CP fired a Conductor for urinating outside behind a yard office, the only bathroom in the building was occupied and he couldn't hold it any longer.
This happened around 1979 to 1980 time period. The CNW had finished upgrading the eastbound main in Iowa. At least western Iowa where this happened. The superintendent, or division manager in CNW terms at the time, was riding one of the Birds, one of the hot TOFC trains with the Falcon moniker. He wanted to see if they could get up to 100 mph. The conductor, who didn't care for the idea, said if they were going to do it, he and the rear brakeman would first move up to a trailing unit. He wasn't about to ride the waycar on a move like this.
They moved up, the attempt was made and the train was able to reach 100 mph (I think they got up to 102.) going down Arcadia Hill. All the crewmembers received a card from the CNW, marking them as members in the Century Club. Those who have been on a train that made it to, or over, 100 mph. I knew the conductor (after he retired) and worked with one of the brakeman (who later became a conductor himself) many times. While both have passed away, the brakeman's card is on display in our yard office with a brief description of how he got it.
Jeff
SD70Dude Euclid SD70Dude Euclid zugmann Today? Insubordination. Probably will easily get his job back with back pay, though. You have to understand how "being fired" works on the railroad. Also probably why the whole good faith challenge thing was created. 60 years ago? Probably stay fired? I don't know. I wasn't alive then. I am just asking how someone can be fired or even given a lesser reprimand for failing to speed when nobody will admit to ordering the speeding. Because it's a kangaroo court and the Company can do whatever they want, at least initially. Like the Original Sniper said being fired from the railroad is far from a permanent condition in many cases. My point highlighted in orange is simply this: Say a superintendent is known to expect engineers to exceed the speed limit in order to make up time. Now say an engineer is running behind schedule and he knows what the superintendent expects, but he does not comply with the superintendent's expectations. So, to send a message or get even, or whatever; the superintendent fires the engineer. Wouldn't the superintendent have to give a reason for the firing, even if it is not permanent? If so, he can't say he fired the engineer because he failed to exceed the speed limit in order to make up time. So what reason does he give? I'll start with what was already mentioned at the top of this quote: insubordination. "Dereliction of duty" or "conduct unbecoming" would be others, for allowing the train to fall behind schedule in the first place. I've actually seen that accusation used out here, that case did not involve speeding but the employee in question was someone who management was (and still is) out to get. Or (and this is more likely) the Superintendent could order some of his weed weasels to follow the Engineer around on future trips, and keep spying until they saw him make a minor mistake or rule violation. A few years ago CP fired a Conductor for urinating outside behind a yard office, the only bathroom in the building was occupied and he couldn't hold it any longer.
Supervisor believes he has spread the word that he prefers engineers to exceed the speed limit if necessary to keep a train on time.
Supervisor has never told any engineer to exceed the speed limit in order to keep a train on time.
An engineer’s train is delayed for reasons outside of the engineer’s running, and the engineer maintains the speed limit, but does not exceed it.
Supervisor punishes the engineer for not exceeding the speed limit by catching him on some petty offense and disciplining him.
The engineer tells everyone what happened.
How does the engineer know that the petty offense was just a pretext for punishing him for not exceeding the speed limit? Why would he even suspect that let alone know it to be true? People are punished for petty offenses all the time, so how do you know when it is being done as a pretext for something other than the actual petty offense?
What would be the point of punishing someone for a sin while they don’t realize they have committed it?
243129Absolutely but there are those here who are afflicted with the 'romance of the rails' and embrace these "urban legends" a.k.a. BS.
So I guess all those stories told to me by 30+ yr old heads (10+ years ago) were all lies? Somehow I doubt it. I think you are the one afflicted with "romance of the rails".
Or maybe the NH was just a bunch of boyscouts.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
243129The point being it was wrong then and it is wrong now.
No one is arguing that.
zugmann Or maybe the NH was just a bunch of boyscouts.
Who ran trains on time.
Speeding is mentioned a couple times in this thread about the New Haven TurboTrains. One references an Engineer being fired, while another mentions the Dispatcher asking the crew for a "good run"...
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/thenhrhtanewhavenrailroadforum/turbotrain-fires-t5385.html
Perhaps Joe knew some of the folks in that thread.
Euclid SD70Dude Euclid SD70Dude Euclid zugmann Today? Insubordination. Probably will easily get his job back with back pay, though. You have to understand how "being fired" works on the railroad. Also probably why the whole good faith challenge thing was created. 60 years ago? Probably stay fired? I don't know. I wasn't alive then. I am just asking how someone can be fired or even given a lesser reprimand for failing to speed when nobody will admit to ordering the speeding. Because it's a kangaroo court and the Company can do whatever they want, at least initially. Like the Original Sniper said being fired from the railroad is far from a permanent condition in many cases. My point highlighted in orange is simply this: Say a superintendent is known to expect engineers to exceed the speed limit in order to make up time. Now say an engineer is running behind schedule and he knows what the superintendent expects, but he does not comply with the superintendent's expectations. So, to send a message or get even, or whatever; the superintendent fires the engineer. Wouldn't the superintendent have to give a reason for the firing, even if it is not permanent? If so, he can't say he fired the engineer because he failed to exceed the speed limit in order to make up time. So what reason does he give? I'll start with what was already mentioned at the top of this quote: insubordination. "Dereliction of duty" or "conduct unbecoming" would be others, for allowing the train to fall behind schedule in the first place. I've actually seen that accusation used out here, that case did not involve speeding but the employee in question was someone who management was (and still is) out to get. Or (and this is more likely) the Superintendent could order some of his weed weasels to follow the Engineer around on future trips, and keep spying until they saw him make a minor mistake or rule violation. A few years ago CP fired a Conductor for urinating outside behind a yard office, the only bathroom in the building was occupied and he couldn't hold it any longer. Supervisor believes he has spread the word that he prefers engineers to exceed the speed limit if necessary to keep a train on time. Supervisor has never told any engineer to exceed the speed limit in order to keep a train on time. An engineer’s train is delayed for reasons outside of the engineer’s running, and the engineer maintains the speed limit, but does not exceed it. Supervisor punishes the engineer for not exceeding the speed limit by catching him on some petty offense and disciplining him. The engineer tells everyone what happened. How does the engineer know that the petty offense was just a pretext for punishing him for not exceeding the speed limit? Why would he even suspect that let alone know it to be true? People are punished for petty offenses all the time, so how do you know when it is being done as a pretext for something other than the actual petty offense? What would be the point of punishing someone for a sin while they don’t realize they have committed it?
People get the message that is being implied. Pretty odd coincidence that management started harrassing Buddy right after he brought the varnish in late, right?
The point of punishing people is to maintain the culture of fear, and for management to get revenge on those they believe have wronged them. It's not right, but it still happens.
I have seen the same thing today with regard to people who book off unfit or take what management believes to be excessive rest, thereby delaying a train. In at least one case a manager pulled a employee aside for an unofficial discussion about this, and when the employee did not change his "bad" habits he became the target of harrassment and discipline.
As already stated, we are talking about speed. And exceeding the speed limit is just as wrong on the highway as it is on the railroad, even if you seem to think there is a difference by admitting you have done that while driving a highway vehicle. In both rail and road there are places where it can be done without affecting safety (and of course other areas where exceeding the speed limit is unacceptably dangerous). Fifty years ago both engineers and superintendents understood the difference and there could be some unofficial flexibility about enforcement.
Now too many managers come out of college with a fancy degree, a very superficial knowledge of what is important down at track level, and an attitude of superiority. That may lie behind the minimal route familiarization that resulted in the Talgo wreck. And if you are fighting that mentality it is a lost cause.
The ICC issued the speed limit of 79 mph for lines without ATS or ATC in the late 1940s affter the CB&Q's 1946 Naperville accident. The speed limit got mandatory in 1951.
So crews were now running with a speed limit of 79 mph on routes where they had run at perhaps 90 mph or 100 mph before.
These crews knew were speeding was possible without risk to make up time.Regards, Volker
Edit: What I don't understand, how got ICC to 79 mph as speed limit without ATS or ATC.
In Germany braking distance and signal spacing determine the speed limit. Standards signal spacing is about 3,300 ft. On lines with PZB (intermittent cab signalling and train protection system) the speed limit is 100 mph. Every train, passenger and freight, must be able to stop within 3,300 ft.
For higher speeds LZB (contious train control) is required.
Thus began the days when the speed tapes from the Chicago Pneumatic speed recorders were removed from the recorder and tossed out a window if necessary.
VOLKER LANDWEHRThe ICC issued the speed limit of 79 mph for lines without ATS or ATC in the late 1940s affter the CB&Q's 1946 Naperville accident. The speed limit got mandatory in 1951. So crews were now running with a speed limit of 79 mph on routes where they had run at perhaps 90 mph or 100 mph before. These crews knew were speeding was possible without risk to make up time. Regards, Volker
Are you saying that crews stopped speeding after the I.C.C. mandatory 79 mph limit was imposed in 1951; or that they continued to speed after the speed limit was imposed because they knew speeding was possible without risk?
SD70Dude zugmann Or maybe the NH was just a bunch of boyscouts. Who ran trains on time. Speeding is mentioned a couple times in this thread about the New Haven TurboTrains. One references an Engineer being fired, while another mentions the Dispatcher asking the crew for a "good run"... https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/thenhrhtanewhavenrailroadforum/turbotrain-fires-t5385.html Perhaps Joe knew some of the folks in that thread.
Yes I do know those folks. One of them was involved in the Back Bay disaster. However I did not find the post about the engineer being fired.
I had run tests with the Turbo Train which was monitored, sanctioned and documented by railroad and United Aircraft officials. Those were controlled permissible tests. I had said signed documentation on my person.
cx500exceeding the speed limit is just as wrong on the highway as it is on the railroad, even if you seem to think there is a difference by admitting you have done that while driving a highway vehicle.
With a highway vehicle you do not have a couple of hundred lives that you are responsible for or a job to lose. Who has not done 25MPH in a 20MPH zone on a highway? That is 25% over the limit. As I said apples and oranges.
EuclidAre you saying that crews stopped speeding after the I.C.C. mandatory 79 mph limit was imposed in 1951; or that they continued to speed after the speed limit was imposed because they knew speeding was possible without risk?
Obviously as others told they didn't stop. Before 1951 speed limits were company rules based on state of the track. So before 1951 90 mph wasn't speeding it was track speed. After 1951 the same speed became speeding.
The crews knew from before the ICC's speed limit what the tracks were good for if the track was kept to the same standard.
I would suggest these crews didn't see a risk going faster than 79 mph to make-up time.They were officially allowed to a short time back.
I haven't been there so I don't know how they felt.Regards, Volker
243129 SD70Dude zugmann Or maybe the NH was just a bunch of boyscouts. Who ran trains on time. Speeding is mentioned a couple times in this thread about the New Haven TurboTrains. One references an Engineer being fired, while another mentions the Dispatcher asking the crew for a "good run"... https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/thenhrhtanewhavenrailroadforum/turbotrain-fires-t5385.html Perhaps Joe knew some of the folks in that thread. Yes I do know those folks. One of them was involved in the Back Bay disaster. However I did not find the post about the engineer being fired. I had run tests with the Turbo Train which was monitored, sanctioned and documented by railroad and United Aircraft officials. Those were controlled permissible tests. I had said signed documentation on my person.
It's in post #26, about halfway down the third page. On that occasion the Turbo had broken down (shocker) and its schedule was being run with an E-unit and coaches. The Engineer managed to beat the Turbo's schedule and arrived early in New Haven.
VOLKER LANDWEHR Euclid Are you saying that crews stopped speeding after the I.C.C. mandatory 79 mph limit was imposed in 1951; or that they continued to speed after the speed limit was imposed because they knew speeding was possible without risk? Obviously as others told they didn't stop. Before 1951 speed limits were company rules based on state of the track. So before 1951 90 mph wasn't speeding it was track speed. After 1951 the same speed became speeding.
Euclid Are you saying that crews stopped speeding after the I.C.C. mandatory 79 mph limit was imposed in 1951; or that they continued to speed after the speed limit was imposed because they knew speeding was possible without risk?
So you are saying that pre-1951 a railroad may have had track on which they limited speed to 90 mph by their rule of track speed. Then in 1951, the ICC imposed a mandatory speed limit on that same track to be 79 mph.
However, since railroad's had prior experience running 90 mph on that track, they continued to run up to 90 mph if they chose to do so, and ignored the federal law requiring 79 mph maximum.
243129With a highway vehicle you do not have a couple of hundred lives that you are responsible for or a job to lose. Who has not done 25MPH in a 20MPH zone on a highway? That is 25% over the limit. As I said apples and oranges.
No, just very closely related varieties of apples. Whether it is that little child run over on a town street or more people in a train derailment, folks are still dead or injured. The number of deaths or injuries makes better headlines but is irrelevant to each individual victim. Even if you are alone in the vehicle you are still responsible for many other people by how you interact with the other road users. Collide with a bus and the toll can quickly mount.
As has been pointed out again and again, there are many places where the track (or highway) is fully capable of higher speed than the overall zone speed limit. Going a little faster in those areas is neither reckless nor putting people's lives at additional risk. On the rails, now, it might cause loss of job, and on the roads a minor citation.
SD70Dude 243129 SD70Dude zugmann Or maybe the NH was just a bunch of boyscouts. Who ran trains on time. Speeding is mentioned a couple times in this thread about the New Haven TurboTrains. One references an Engineer being fired, while another mentions the Dispatcher asking the crew for a "good run"... https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/thenhrhtanewhavenrailroadforum/turbotrain-fires-t5385.html Perhaps Joe knew some of the folks in that thread. Yes I do know those folks. One of them was involved in the Back Bay disaster. However I did not find the post about the engineer being fired. I had run tests with the Turbo Train which was monitored, sanctioned and documented by railroad and United Aircraft officials. Those were controlled permissible tests. I had said signed documentation on my person. It's in post #26, about halfway down the third page. On that occasion the Turbo had broken down (shocker) and its schedule was being run with an E-unit and coaches. The Engineer managed to beat the Turbo's schedule and arrived early in New Haven.
I knew Ben Perry (now deceased) but I do not recall that incident. I shall have to ask some former co-workers if they remember.
FYI the ACELA trainset is junk also. It never accomplished what it was touted to do.
Never happened and will not happen on the existing road bed.
243129FYI the ACELA trainset is junk also. It never accomplished what it was touted to do. Never happened and will not happen on the existing road bed.
What do you expect with the FRA issuing requirements for 800,000 lbs buffer load in 1999 in the midst of the planning process?
The Acela Express cars got 55% heavier than their TGV equivalents this way. Regards, Volker
zugmann 243129 The point being it was wrong then and it is wrong now. No one is arguing that.
243129 The point being it was wrong then and it is wrong now.
But it sounds like many here are indeed saying that. While they do seem to agree that it is against the rules or even against the law, they say that it is not wrong because it poses no danger. They say that the speed limits are set much lower than speeds which would pose danger. And they say that the railroad companies condoned speeding to keep their trains on time even if it meant violating Federal law. They also say that companies disciplined engineers who failed to exceed the speed limit in order to make up lost time.
Just because someone acknowledges that it happened, doesn't mean they agree with it.
zugmann Just because someone acknowledges that it happened, doesn't mean they agree with it.
They have not just acknowleged that it happened. They have strongly defended it.
Euclid zugmann Just because someone acknowledges that it happened, doesn't mean they agree with it. Maybe not as far as that goes, but the way people have presented these points in this thread sure makes it sound like they do not believe that speeding to make up time is wrong. They have not just acknoleged that it happened. They have strongly defended it.
Maybe not as far as that goes, but the way people have presented these points in this thread sure makes it sound like they do not believe that speeding to make up time is wrong.
They have not just acknoleged that it happened. They have strongly defended it.
Amen. Now back to train number 188 and the cause(s) of the disaster.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.