ValleyX As for weed weasels, oh, the things I'd like to say but hesitate to, usually the rules being interpreted are being interpreted increasingly by some low-level official who spent little or no time doing the actual job they are supervising. That's my opinion, based on long years of observation and participation from a T&E standpoint
As for weed weasels, oh, the things I'd like to say but hesitate to, usually the rules being interpreted are being interpreted increasingly by some low-level official who spent little or no time doing the actual job they are supervising. That's my opinion, based on long years of observation and participation from a T&E standpoint
This is one major problem. Ask ten Trainmonsters what a rule means, and you'll get ten different interpretations, of at odds with each other. The street hired ones often have bizarre interpretations that leave you going If I do it that way, I'll be breaking six other rules .
Also, rule may not be applied equally across a system. We have a certain type of PPE that always must be carried on a certain division; only needed under certain conditions on my division; and flat out banned on others.
BaltACD With the injury pyramid as the model, Senior Management has 'hard facts' on the number of injuries and Major Rule Violations...their thinking is....If we have had X Injuries/MRV's then we MUST have had Y failures of subordinate rules to reach the top of the pyramid. Why haven't our Trainmasters uncovered this 'pattern' of rule violations in their efficiency tests? Let's apply more pressure to the Trainmaster's to find failures in their efficiency tests.
With the injury pyramid as the model, Senior Management has 'hard facts' on the number of injuries and Major Rule Violations...their thinking is....If we have had X Injuries/MRV's then we MUST have had Y failures of subordinate rules to reach the top of the pyramid. Why haven't our Trainmasters uncovered this 'pattern' of rule violations in their efficiency tests? Let's apply more pressure to the Trainmaster's to find failures in their efficiency tests.
This is the other. Trainmonsters are required to preform a certain number of E-tests every month, and are expected to have a certain percentage of failures. So Trainmonsters "find" failures. Even though something like 90% of failures resulting in investigations are later overturned.
Nick
Take a Ride on the Reading with the: Reading Company Technical & Historical Society http://www.readingrailroad.org/
"As for weed weasels, oh, the things I'd like to say but hesitate to, usually the rules being interpreted are being interpreted increasingly by some low-level official who spent little or no time doing the actual job they are supervising. " That does indeed happen with some 'college wonders'. They graduate, then wonder what is happening.
I am friends with a track foreman of many years experience who recently got a new track supervisor. I asked if the super had any experience, The answer I got was 'No, but he's making a sincere effort to learn'.
Seems to me that at least some of the supervisors do make a serious effort to work with those they supervise and keep things running smoothly while they learn the tricks of the trade.
Disclaimer: I've not had any contact with YM's or RFE's.
Norm
The battle of wits between train-crew and TrainMaster goes way back. Recommending reading Charles F. Steffes' "Life and Times of a Locomotive Engineer" (ISBN # 1-880365-13-8, Old World Publishers, 1992.) Charles was fire-craker of an engineer from 1942 to 1976 on the Souther Pacific and he documents many a battle with the TrainMaster trying their best to trip crews up.
From an outsider looking in with an MBA and 28 years in the IT project experience, this 1800 era thinking of a TrainMaster cooking up ways to test crew behavior would have been replaced with more modern methods of labor management. I don't ever recall reading about United Airlines or Delta management flying a plan for a "near miss" to test pilot reaction or seeing an FAA inspector pull a rules book inspection while passengers are boarding the plane. There are better ways of testing then to put several millions of dollars worth of equipment at risk by jumping out of a bush with a lite flare on a downgrade curve and expecting the whole thing to stop right there.
Be interesting to read what comes of your post.
Rule enforcement-the big yellow wrench
The purpose of Efficiency Testing is not to trip up crews. The purpose is to gain rules compliance. On line of road, the most frequently performed test is the so call 'Banner Test'. The train being tested is given verbal permission by the Dispatcher to enter the appropriate track under rules that require operating the train at Restricted Speed, which on my carrier is a speed that will permit stopping the train within 1/2 the range of vision, not exceeding 15 MPH. The Trainmaster sets up his 'Banner' (which is a device that can be readily seen and will do no damage to the train) across the track and waits....If the train hits the 'Banner' test is failed. If the train stops prior to the 'Banner' the test is passed.
Our division has had several accidents caused by trains operating under Restricted Speed striking the train ahead during recent years.
The Accidents and Injuries that occur on a particular territory have a big weight on what types of Efficiency Tests are performed on that territory.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.