I agree about railroad unions stepping up,but it's called modernization taking jobs.
Every time a new gee- wiz idea pops up and it's introduced,it's sure to take a job no matter what industry it involves .
When the power to form an organized strike was took away,the unions power and authority diminished.
When the cabs were cut off 2-3 jobs (according to the road) on the cab moved to the head-end.There use to be an Engineer,Fireman and head brakeman on the lead.When I hired on there was an Engineer,conductor and two brakeman.Never thought I'd see an Engineer and conductor only.Now one person WOW !
Collin ,operator of the " Eastern Kentucky & Ohio R.R."
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.
Take it from me boys, electronics can FAIL, and the more gee-whiz they are and the more people get addicted to them the more catastrophic the failure.
Nothing beats the ol' brain housing group.
UlrichAccording to the numbers I've seen recently the railroads appear to have outstanding management. In various threads people come down on the management side as if they're a bunch of idiots who get in the way of running the railroad. All I can say is look at the numbers.
You must be in management,or don't have a clue as to how the railroad works.
I can remember when most of the management come from T&E and it worked great.Trains were built correctly out of the yards,all your paper work was right,and the trains run on time.
Since the railroads went to the OST programs most all of this has fallen off.What's keeping the rail industry on the ups is business is good because of the cost effectiveness,and the hard working men and women getting the trains up and down the roads .
If the railroads didn't have the cost savings/tonnage effectiveness on their side,they would collapse !
mackb4 If the railroads didn't have the cost savings/tonnage effectiveness on their side,they would collapse !
Well, yes. What is your point? The most efficient system wins. That's it. Do you think rail management is any different than other management? Do you think rail labor is any different than other labor?
greyhoundsWell, yes. What is your point? The most efficient system wins. That's it. Do you think rail management is any different than other management? Do you think rail labor is any different than other labor?
I could think of a lot of things to respond with,but it's pointless
mackb4:Ulrich can speak for himself, but let me chime in here....I believe he knows how to run a transportation business.
Ed
One small correction: "Ulrich knows how to run a trucking business."
This is according to his own bio. I can respect that, but I don't think that knowledge automatically translates into running a railroad. I don't know him, and would rather withhold judgment. Maybe he would do a fine job running a railroad, but I think he would have to go through a bit of a learning curve first. Comparing the railroad to trucking or air transportation is not apples to oranges. It's more like apples to elephants.
I'm not sure making the railroad industry less efficient than the trucking industry is the way to preserve railroad jobs.
Patrick Boylan
Free yacht rides, 27' sailboat, zip code 19114 Delaware River, get great Delair bridge photos from the river. Send me a private message
I would think that the BNSF/SMART agreement is an example of a union "stepping up to the plate". If you look at history, any time somebody tries to maintain the status quo against change, they ultimately lose.
The railroad industry is changing. The economic conditions are changing. Technology is changing. Regulation is changing. One man crew operation is already here. Its not going away.
SMART saw that things were changing and is trying to adapt ahead of the curve. Whether its the right way or whether their approach will work is certainly up for debate. But you can't say that the union (and the railroad) aren't "stepping up" to try any keep their people relevant and part of the future of railroads.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
Ulrich:
It's true that a good manager can manage anything. But it takes a very special person to do that. Many can't. I've met exactly two in my 52 years in the work force. I've also seen many situations where the productivity of the workers increased in direct proportion to their distance from the manager.
The innate efficiency of the railroad, in terms of fuel efficiency alone, probably contributes more to the bottom line than any ten MBA's ever did. And compare the number of tons of freight that can be handled by one trucker, with the number of tons that can be handled by one two-man railroad crew. If freight railroad management can't make that profitable, they're not likely to make anything profitable. Does the second person in the cab absorb so much profit that it's really necessary to get rid of him?
Ulrich I look at the numbers... if the railroads weren't well managed then that would show up in the numbers. No?
Most of us are of the opinion that the company makes money in spite of itself. Not so much that they can't make money the way they are run, but they could be making more money. (On the other hand, most of us out in the field would probably be making less.)
My conductor and I were just taking about this today. It sometimes seems like our company, probably like many large corporations, have departments fighting against each other. Each has it's target for their numbers. Each wants to make it's numbers. Sometimes what shows as a savings to one, becomes a cost to another. In the long run, the company isn't any better off.
It might be an urban legend, but Warren Buffet supposedly called one of the railroads serving Omaha, "The biggest mismanaged gold mine in the world." If it's true that he said it, I don't think he meant that it wasn't successful, just that it could be more so.
Jeff
ACYDoes the second person in the cab absorb so much profit that it's really necessary to get rid of him?
It may seem unsavory to overstress profit, but profit only comes after putting money at risk. That money can be lost without any profit materializing. So profit is sweet reward, and every speck of it counts in business.
Reducing cost increases profit and replacing labor with automation often can reduce costs. So yes, reducing crew size is important. And it won’t stop by just removing the conductor. PTC removing the conductor is the door to removing the engineer. And then there is the potential to automate and speed up the vast complex of yard switching. Don’t think that is not being eyed with an aim to revolutionize.
Railroading lends itself to automation because of the self-guiding track principle, and it will one day be a giant transportation vending machine.
henry6Railroads, like so many other industries in this country, are investor controlled with management seeking to get the most money back to the investors as possible.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy Sidinghenry6Railroads, like so many other industries in this country, are investor controlled with management seeking to get the most money back to the investors as possible. When was that any different?
UlrichI'm not so sure reducing crew size is the best way to go at this point, even from a cost effectiveness standpoint. Maybe someday.. Unless you run a very inefficient business, cost cutting will only incrementally improve the bottom line. In this case the savings are capped at whatever the railroad currently pays out in conductors' wages. A much better way to improve the bottom line is to focus on improving the top line, by increasing sales.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Jeff Hergert: "My conductor and I were just taking about this today. It sometimes seems like our company, probably like many large corporations, have departments fighting against each other. Each has it's target for their numbers. Each wants to make it's numbers. Sometimes what shows as a savings to one, becomes a cost to another. In the long run, the company isn't any better off. "
Yes, you will almost always have the accounting and one or more other departments at odds with each other. Accounting wants to keep inventory low; Production wants a continuous supply of raw material and other items that go into the manufacture; Maintenance wants a supply of spare parts for the manufacturing equipment such that production will not have to stop because a particular part is not in stock--and "Machine Downs" can be costly in terms of lost production time and the higher cost of overnight shipping.
At one time, in consultation with the lead maintenance techs, I was able to reduce our inventory of various spare parts for the manufacturing equipment--and the maintenance department treated us to a lunch! I thought I was simply doing my job.
Johnny
Firelock76 Take it from me boys, electronics can FAIL, and the more gee-whiz they are and the more people get addicted to them the more catastrophic the failure. Nothing beats the ol' brain housing group.
I seem to recall that the brains were the prima facie failure in Lac Megantic. Some would argue that brains don't fare much better in the long run than do the gee-whiz thingamabobs.
-Crandell
Selector:
Very true. I don't have an in-depth knowledge of the Lac Megantic situation, but from all accounts the engineer was at the end of a long solo trip, and evidently failed to set enough hand brakes. He was understandably tired. This was complicated by incorrect information from a railroad representative (not a qualified engineer) who allowed fire fighters to leave the train unattended and without power after putting out the first fire.
To my mind, the fact that tired people can and do make mistakes, is a persuasive argument in favor of two-man crews to ensure that all procedures are carefully followed.
ACYI don't have an in-depth knowledge of the Lac Megantic situation, but from all accounts the engineer was at the end of a long solo trip, and evidently failed to set enough hand brakes. He was understandably tired. This was complicated by incorrect information from a railroad representative (not a qualified engineer) who allowed fire fighters to leave the train unattended and without power after putting out the first fire.
The fact that the engine had been shut down was known to the company, and they approved leaving it like that. But there was no reason for them to expect a problem from leaving the engine shut down.
Euclid ---
You say they had no reason to expect a problem. Human beings get tired. Human managers should know that, and should understand that one tired person at the end of a long and lonely shift might be tired, and perhaps not as sharp and alert as we would like. Long hours and one-man crews are seen as efficient, but maybe they should more properly be seen as red flags.
Tom
selector Firelock76 Take it from me boys, electronics can FAIL, and the more gee-whiz they are and the more people get addicted to them the more catastrophic the failure. Nothing beats the ol' brain housing group. I seem to recall that the brains were the prima facie failure in Lac Megantic. Some would argue that brains don't fare much better in the long run than do the gee-whiz thingamabobs. -Crandell
Oh, no argument with you there, there was a massive brain failure at Lac-Megantic, on someone's part. The thing is, you can't put a failed circuit board in prison as an example to the others.
ACY Euclid --- You say they had no reason to expect a problem. Human beings get tired. Human managers should know that, and should understand that one tired person at the end of a long and lonely shift might be tired, and perhaps not as sharp and alert as we would like. Long hours and one-man crews are seen as efficient, but maybe they should more properly be seen as red flags. Tom
How would a conductor, probably, equally tired, have helped prevent what happened?
I was referring to you saying this: “This was complicated by incorrect information from a railroad representative (not a qualified engineer) who allowed fire fighters to leave the train unattended and without power after putting out the first fire.”
In the first place, the fire fighters shutting down the engine and the MM&A employee who left the train unattended after the fire had absolutely nothing to do with the runaway.
In the second place, no supervisor is responsible for making sure that an employee does not fail to do his job because he might be tired after long hours on duty.
If the MM&A engineer was too tired or lacked the time to secure the train, he should have told his supervisors, so they could arrange help or relief.
Ullrich you sure you werent a CN manager around the time of the DM&IR takeover? "I know how to do things and I don't care that you did things a certain way for 70 years I am going to change it!"
Mechanical Department "No no that's fine shove that 20 pound set all around the yard... those shoes aren't hell and a half to change..."
The Missabe Road: Safety First
........and while they're arranging help or relief, they would probably also organize a disciplinary hearing. In this industry, it's always the guy at the bottom of the food chain. Nobody at the top takes the heat if they can push it to someone lower on the totem pole.
EuclidIn the first place, the fire fighters shutting down the engine and the MM&A employee who left the train unattended after the fire had absolutely nothing to do with the runaway.
Alas, I must disagree.
There is no question that the engineer did not properly secure the train. Setting sufficient handbrakes on the cars would certainly have prevented the runaway.
BUT - it certainly appears that the engineer did secure the train, however incorrectly. The train did not run away until after the firefighters and non-T&E employee left the scene (having shut down the locomotive which was keeping the independent brakes applied - the loss of which I surmise caused the runaway).
I suggest that it's doubtful that this was the first time this engineer had employed this short-cut to secure the train (I'm sure that will come out in the trial(s)). It was, however, apparently the first time that a train at that location had run away under those circumstances. Given the timeline as we know it, I would opine that the actions of the firefighters and non-T&E employee had everything to do with the runaway.
Since we don't yet know if the practice was wide-spread among the engineers who routinely parked trains at that location, we can't say how lucky it is that such an incident didn't happen earlier.
This in no way relieves the engineer of responsibility for what happened (assuming our assumptions are correct about insufficient brakes - and it appears they are).
I would also opine that barring evidence to the contrary, that the DS and the supervisor, undoubtedly believing that the train had been properly secured, have little responsibility in the incident. That assumes that they were unaware of the practices that caused the runaway (apparently relying on the independent brakes to hold the parked train). Another factor may be whether any checks and balances (ie, the engineer reporting number of brakes set) were in place and properly observed.
Now - let's get back to our regularly scheduled programming.
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...
tree68 EuclidIn the first place, the fire fighters shutting down the engine and the MM&A employee who left the train unattended after the fire had absolutely nothing to do with the runaway. Alas, I must disagree. There is no question that the engineer did not properly secure the train. Setting sufficient handbrakes on the cars would certainly have prevented the runaway. BUT - it certainly appears that the engineer did secure the train, however incorrectly. The train did not run away until after the firefighters and non-T&E employee left the scene (having shut down the locomotive which was keeping the independent brakes applied - the loss of which I surmise caused the runaway).
When I use the term “secure,” I am referring only to proper securement in compliance with MM&A special instructions and Canadian Rule 112.
By using the term “secure,” I do not intend it to include holding a train with air brakes supplementing handbrakes even though this may indeed prevent the train from rolling away.
One could say that if a train does not roll away, it is secured, but I use the term “secure” exclusively to refer to its technical meaning of proper securement according to the rules.
Saying the train ran away because it lost its airbrakes is like saying it ran away because of gravity.
Perhaps that semantic point is your only intent. So just to clarify, when you say:
"The train did not run away until after the firefighters and non-T&E employee left the scene (having shut down the locomotive which was keeping the independent brakes applied - the loss of which I surmise caused the runaway)" ---do you mean that you surmise that the MM&A employee and firefighters are at fault?
Euclid Perhaps that semantic point is your only intent. So just to clarify, when you say: "The train did not run away until after the firefighters and non-T&E employee left the scene (having shut down the locomotive which was keeping the independent brakes applied - the loss of which I surmise caused the runaway)" ---do you mean that you surmise that the MM&A employee and firefighters are at fault?
Given our current understanding of the situation, engineer set up the firefighters and the non-T&E employee to fail. Had he properly secured the train, it would have stayed put.
But, if the firefighters had not followed what appears to be established procedure (shutting down the unit that was having problems) and had left the unit running, the train would likely have stayed put. If the non-T&E employee had the ability to start another unit, thus maintaining main res air, the train would likely have stayed put.
The firefighters and non-T&E employee took the actions they took unaware that their actions would be the straw that broke the camel's back. I would opine that their actions did, indeed, cause the runaway. However "fault" implies that they acted in a negligent way, and I don't believe that's the case. I believe they acted within their training, unaware of the deficiency, and with no obligation to ensure that the train was otherwise properly secured.
For now, though, we just have to wait to see what comes out of the legal proceedings.
Come on bucyrus. Are we going to re fight this battle on every thread?
.
Murphy Siding Come on bucyrus. Are we going to re fight this battle on every thread?
It is a point that needs continuous clarification. I understand what Larry is saying and agree with his point that the train would not have run away if the air brakes did not release. However, on this forum and in others, people often continue to blame the runaway on the firemen shutting down the engine. I correct that every time I see it.
Euclid Murphy Siding Come on bucyrus. Are we going to re fight this battle on every thread? It is a point that needs continuous clarification. I understand what Larry is saying and agree with his point that the train would not have run away if the air brakes did not release. However, on this forum and in others, people often continue to blame the runaway on the firemen shutting down the engine. I correct that every time I see it.
We would never have noticed.
Norm
ACY Euclid --- ........and while they're arranging help or relief, they would probably also organize a disciplinary hearing. In this industry, it's always the guy at the bottom of the food chain. Nobody at the top takes the heat if they can push it to someone lower on the totem pole.
I understand your point, but I would not conclude that the engineer would be disciplined for saying that he was too tired to secure the train. What is the alternative? Certainly he cannot walk away from it, leaving it unsecured, and not tell anybody.
The issue may have been not that he was too tired, but rather, that he was out of time. Certainly his supervisors would have known if that were the case. If it was, that puts the onus on them, and not on the engineer.
So for the engineer, I don’t see how being tired or lacking a second man on the crew can be an excuse for not securing the train. I can see two scenarios:
1) The engineer failed to properly secure the train and told nobody so.
2) The engineer failed to properly secure the train and told his supervisors so.
Euclid ACY Euclid --- ........and while they're arranging help or relief, they would probably also organize a disciplinary hearing. In this industry, it's always the guy at the bottom of the food chain. Nobody at the top takes the heat if they can push it to someone lower on the totem pole. I understand your point, but I would not conclude that the engineer would be disciplined for saying that he was too tired to secure the train. What is the alternative? Certainly he cannot walk away from it, leaving it unsecured, and not tell anybody. The issue may have been not that he was too tired, but rather, that he was out of time. Certainly his supervisors would have known if that were the case. If it was, that puts the onus on them, and not on the engineer. So for the engineer, I don’t see how being tired or lacking a second man on the crew can be an excuse for not securing the train. I can see two scenarios: 1) The engineer failed to properly secure the train and told nobody so. 2) The engineer failed to properly secure the train and told his supervisors so.
You forgot #3
Engineer 'secured' train in the manner he had successfully used multiple times in the past - without understanding that the train was not 'actually secured' when the operation of the locomotive was stopped by the fire department.
I have read that 7 hand brakes had been tied on the train, if so, a effort was made to secure the train. The effort wasn't successful.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
The following is an opinion, full of assumptions and educated guesses….
First, I think the engineer tied up the train in the manner it had always been secured, based on this assumption, I would also opine that the management never checked the securement of the train, which they should have done, FRA requires every employee to undergo several safety test per month, and depending on the number of employees a carrier has, they require a given amount of safety tests per month covering the entire carrier.
No one ever told him he was doing it incorrectly.
Now, whether he knew he was not securing the train properly or if he believed he was, the lack of testing and checking by management plays a role in this…not that blame or fault is removed from him, but it can be spread out some.
I seriously doubt you will ever hear a T&E employee tell management they are too tired to complete their work, and if they did, the next words they would hear from management is ,”that’s ok, your out of service for 30 days pending an investigation, so you will have plenty of free time to rest up”.
We are expected to report for duty rested and ready to complete our duty time work, up to 12 hours.
Telling management you are too tired to finish just isn’t an option.
As for him hitting the hours of service before he could secure the train, if that was the case, the rules require him to remain on the train until such time as a relief crew arrives, by rule he can’t leave, even if he hogged out, until one of the following has occurred…either the train is properly secured, (which I assume he thought it was) or a relief crew arrived and takes possession and control of the train.
Based on that, and the fact he did leave, I can only assume he though the train was secure…he had called in the bad order locomotive, and from statements already made, had been instructed to leave it as it was, that someone was on the way to check it, so again, I am pretty sure he was under the assumption that things were going as usual.
There are so many events in the time line of all of that that any one single incident or action, performed at a different time or in a different manner would have drastically altered the outcome…had the firemen not shut down the unit, had the carrier sent say, Randy instead of a Mow guy out to check, had management checked the securement beforehand, had the engineer tied a few more hand brakes…the list goes on, but from my point of view, there is no one single event that caused this, but rather a series of events that coincidentally lined up to cause it.
And, for the record, I don’t think he intentionally failed to secure the train, even though that appears to be the root cause, I think he simply followed the established practice as he had been shown, and management never checked to see if that practice was safe or sufficient.
23 17 46 11
Yes......but......
edblysardAnd, for the record, I don’t think he intentionally failed to secure the train, even though that appears to be the root cause, I think he simply followed the established practice as he had been shown, and management never checked to see if that practice was safe or sufficient.
I believe that is true. I don’t think the engineer intentionally failed to secure the train. I believe that he was following a practice that had proven successful in the past, and was habitually repeated with success to the point where it was never questioned as being inadequate.
I do not know whether the engineer alone developed this methodology or if it was developed by other engineers as well, or even requested by MM&A supervisors and management. I believe that the securement method relied on air brakes to hold the train, and some handbrakes were added just to make sure, and to concede to the requirement to set a minimum number of handbrakes. If this was the case, I assume that the saving of time and money played a part in the motivation for the rationalization for such a compromise in proper securement.
If this is what happened, the careless securement routine must have become extremely comfortable, or else it would have been obvious to the engineer and any others who happened to know about it that the shutdown of the engine would have set the stage for a high probability of disaster. So I suspect that company culture and peer pressure reinforced the complacency.
Yes. Yes we are.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
Ed ---
Thanks for backing me up on the tiredness/disciplinary action issue. It's an important factor that is conveniently ignored by an awful lot of folks who aren't in the industry.
Aside from splitting hairs and regurgitating the "securing train" issue, no one has shown how a 2nd onboard crewman, tired or not, would have prevented the runaway.
Well,
You and I and every other railroader knows once the train sheet is in your hands, you work until
A: The work is finished.
B: you run out of time on the hours of service, or
C: A relief crew takes the train from you.
There is no “Too tired”, even if you are.
The first thing we were told on the first day of training was, “Never report for duty late or drunk.”
The second thing we were told was “you can expect to be out here for 12 hours, each and every day, so plan your personal life accordingly”
schlimm Aside from splitting hairs and regurgitating the "securing train" issue, no one has shown how a 2nd onboard crewman, tired or not, would have prevented the runaway.
Well, one man didn't work. Since the trains can't run themselves yet, have to go to at least 2 people. Or maybe one man and a dog?
Uhhh, one guy ties ten hand brakes, the other guys ties ten and so forth and so on, lots faster than one guy doing it all..add in the fact that if you’re working with someone, they expect you to follow the rules and do it right because you have their life and livelihood in your hands, and you expect the same from him, and you both are going to check each other as you go.
There is a tremendous amount of trust between engineers and conductors, there has to be to get anything done, and that trust is not betrayed lightly or out of laziness, you kill your friends that way.
ACY Ed --- Thanks for backing me up on the tiredness/disciplinary action issue. It's an important factor that is conveniently ignored by an awful lot of folks who aren't in the industry. Tom
Ignorant folks who don't understand the railroad industry....on this forum???
That's unpossible!!!!
Not intending to regurgitate anything, but the topic of Lac Megantic being caused by the lack of a two person crew has come up repeatedly in this thread, the other one called Goodbye Conductors, and a third one in Fred Frailey’s blog. The point has always been that the Lac Megantic runaway was caused by not having a second man on the crew. I think that is complete nonsense.
The point about being too tired was introduced not by me, but by poster, ACY contending that the engineer should be excused for failing to secure the train because he was too tired. He continued by saying that the engineer’s supervisors should be held responsible for the runaway because they should know better than to expect a tired man to secure a train. My point in responding to that was that if he was too tired, he had the obligation to tell his supervisor that he failed to secure the train because he was too tired. You don’t get to just walk away from it because you are too tired.
Certainly it is less work for two men to set the handbrakes than for one man. But a lack of a second man does not excuse the Lac Megantic negligence.
edblysard Uhhh, one guy ties ten hand brakes, the other guys ties ten and so forth and so on, lots faster than one guy doing it all..add in the fact that if you’re working with someone, they expect you to follow the rules and do it right because you have their life and livelihood in your hands, and you expect the same from him, and you both are going to check each other as you go. There is a tremendous amount of trust between engineers and conductors, there has to be to get anything done, and that trust is not betrayed lightly or out of laziness, you kill your friends that way.
schlimm You seem to be saying that by splitting the workload of setting handbrakes, they would have done the job properly? Do you actually mean that, because you are also strongly suggesting that the engineer was lazy and following the rules because there was no one to check up on him? And that since there would be no one else on the train who trusted him with life and livelihood, he left caution to the wind? Please clarify.
You seem to be saying that by splitting the workload of setting handbrakes, they would have done the job properly? Do you actually mean that, because you are also strongly suggesting that the engineer was lazy and following the rules because there was no one to check up on him? And that since there would be no one else on the train who trusted him with life and livelihood, he left caution to the wind? Please clarify.
RRKen Murray ACY Ed --- Thanks for backing me up on the tiredness/disciplinary action issue. It's an important factor that is conveniently ignored by an awful lot of folks who aren't in the industry. Tom Ignorant folks who don't understand the railroad industry....on this forum??? That's unpossible!!!! Very possible, just ask the Perfessor.
Murray ACY Ed --- Thanks for backing me up on the tiredness/disciplinary action issue. It's an important factor that is conveniently ignored by an awful lot of folks who aren't in the industry. Tom Ignorant folks who don't understand the railroad industry....on this forum??? That's unpossible!!!!
Very possible, just ask the Perfessor.
schlimm As you know, we don't know anything, are ignorant.
As you know, we don't know anything, are ignorant.
Admitting your shortcomings is part of the first steps Professor.
schlimm If you had read the thread, you would know that it was ACY who said the engineer was too tired, not a non-railroader. Or do you consider ACY a non-railroader now? As you know, we don't know anything, are ignorant and not entitled to voice an opinion.
At least an opinion with some basis, and not upon a whim. ACY has experience. You, not so much.
No, there is no “seems to” in what I wrote.
I am saying is that, had there been two men on the job, the odds go up that one or the other may decide the number of brakes set, even if it was the “normal” for that train, was not sufficient, or one of them may have decided to do a pull test, or that it may have been, had it been a two man crew, that ten/ twenty brakes each would become the norm, or any number of variables.
You read what you wish to in my post, twisting people’s words around to imply something they didn’t seems to be your forte.
Never said the engineer was lazy, nor did I say or imply he left caution to the wind…I did say he followed what seems to be the normal established procedure with that train…and I did say management seems to have not checked that procedure with a field safety test, as they are required to..
Of course, you feel free to be obtuse if that furthers your purpose.
RRKen schlimm You seem to be saying that by splitting the workload of setting handbrakes, they would have done the job properly? Do you actually mean that, because you are also strongly suggesting that the engineer was lazy and following the rules because there was no one to check up on him? And that since there would be no one else on the train who trusted him with life and livelihood, he left caution to the wind? Please clarify.
edblysard No, there is no “seems to” in what I wrote. I am saying is that, had there been two men on the job, the odds go up that one or the other may decide the number of brakes set, even if it was the “normal” for that train, was not sufficient, or one of them may have decided to do a pull test, or that it may have been, had it been a two man crew, that ten/ twenty brakes each would become the norm, or any number of variables. You read what you wish to in my post, twisting people’s words around to imply something they didn’t seems to be your forte. Never said the engineer was lazy, nor did I say or imply he left caution to the wind…I did say he followed what seems to be the normal established procedure with that train…and I did say management seems to have not checked that procedure with a field safety test, as they are required to.. Of course, you feel free to be obtuse if that furthers your purpose.
"add in the fact that if you’re working with someone, they expect you to follow the rules and do it right because you have their life and livelihood in your hands, and you expect the same from him, and you both are going to check each other as you go."
"There is a tremendous amount of trust between engineers and conductors... and that trust is not betrayed lightly or out of laziness, you kill your friends that way."
OK. glad you cleared that up. But those were YOUR words, not mine. I asked a question of you, but YOU choose out of your defensiveness to insult the person who asked you.
" twisting people’s words around to imply something they didn’t seems to be your forte." But you sure imply things which you then deny.
"you feel free to be obtuse" Oh, my!!
CRIMANEE ! Good thing this computer doesn't have a feature that allows me to scream into your ear.
If you were educated in this country, you should understand English! If you weren't, then maybe some nuance has escaped your grasp.
Did I ever say the engineer was too tired? Reread my posts of 7/24/14 at 5:49 and 6:22 PM. You will find the following terms used there:
From all accounts...
Evidently
Might
Perhaps
Maybe
Does that tell you that I'm certain what happened up in Quebec? I wasn't there. Neither were you. Neither was his boss, and certainly neither was the second man in the cab. Because the man was working alone.
And Euclid, when did I say the Lac Megantic engineer should be excused? I didn't. I did suggest that the Supervisors have some responsibility if they keep themselves willfully ignorant of the realities of their employees' work environment. Call it a moral responsibility, if you like. Whether they can or will be called to account by the legal system, is a question I don't claim to be qualified to answer.
Excerpt from the Montreal Gazette, July 23, 2014
There was a strange kind of silence outside Lac-Mégantic’s temporary courthouse on a warm afternoon in May as three employees of the now defunct MMA — Thomas Harding, Jean Demaître and Richard Labrie — arrived to be arraigned on 47 charges of criminal negligence arising from their actions or failure to act on the night of the deadly derailment. Charges were also filed against MMA itself — just two days before final transfer of the bankrupt company’s assets to Central Maine Quebec. Yet relatives and friends of the victims took little satisfaction that justice would be served by prosecuting three low-level employees while MMA’s abrasive founder, Ed Burkhardt, walks free.
http://www.montrealgazette.com/M%C3%A9gantic+long+road+recovery/9981810/story.html
http://tomhardingdefensefund.com/
ACY CRIMANEE ! Good thing this computer doesn't have a feature that allows me to scream into your ear. If you were educated in this country, you should understand English! If you weren't, then maybe some nuance has escaped your grasp. Did I ever say the engineer was too tired? Reread my posts of 7/24/14 at 5:49 and 6:22 PM. You will find the following terms used there: From all accounts... Evidently Might Perhaps Maybe Does that tell you that I'm certain what happened up in Quebec? I wasn't there. Neither were you. Neither was his boss, and certainly neither was the second man in the cab. Because the man was working alone. And Euclid, when did I say the Lac Megantic engineer should be excused? I didn't. I did suggest that the Supervisors have some responsibility if they keep themselves willfully ignorant of the realities of their employees' work environment. Call it a moral responsibility, if you like. Whether they can or will be called to account by the legal system, is a question I don't claim to be qualified to answer.
The fact that I paraphrased your comments rather than directly quoting you does not change your meaning.
You said that a tired man cannot be expected to set all the handbrakes, and his supervisors should know that. Therefore they are at fault and the tired man is not. I said that if a man is too tired, he has an obligation to tell his supervisors that, rather than just walk away from the job. If he tells his supervisors and then walks away, the supervisors have the responsibility to get the train secured. You said that if he tells his supervisors he is too tired to work, they will discipline him. Ed confirmed that point, and you thanked Ed for backing you up. So fine, the engineer gets to walk away from the securement responsibility and burn up the town because he is too tired, and it is the mean railroad’s fault because they will discipline him if he tells them that he is too tired to secure the train. So it is the fault of the mean railroad for making the engineer work alone.
Quoting exactly:
YOU SAID:
“You say they [the engineer’s supervisors] had no reason to expect a problem. Human beings get tired. Human managers should know that, and should understand that one tired person at the end of a long and lonely shift might be tired, and perhaps not as sharp and alert as we would like. Long hours and one-man crews are seen as efficient, but maybe they should more properly be seen as red flags.”
I SAID:
“…no supervisor is responsible for making sure that an employee does not fail to do his job because he might be tired after long hours on duty.
If the MM&A engineer was too tired or lacked the time to secure the train, he should have told his supervisors, so they could arrange help or relief.”
“........and while they're arranging help or relief, they would probably also organize a disciplinary hearing. In this industry, it's always the guy at the bottom of the food chain. Nobody at the top takes the heat if they can push it to someone lower on the totem pole.”
I belive you've quoted me accurately, and I stand by what I said. Notwithstanding your phoney-baloney interpretations of what I said. Sorry I can't continue this discussion this morning. I have to go trim my toenails.
Euclid The fact that I paraphrased your comments rather than directly quoting you does not change your meaning.
Murphy Siding Wouldn't it be simpler to just let others posters say what they mean, without you having to say what you think they mean?
Wouldn't it be simpler to just let others posters say what they mean, without you having to say what you think they mean?
So what you mean is that you would like some chocolate ice cream on your pancakes as you change flat tires?
Yes....but...
Murray Yes....but...
butt... but
BaltACD Murray Yes....but... butt... but
Roast Butt, it's what for dinner tomorrow.
Murphy Siding Euclid The fact that I paraphrased your comments rather than directly quoting you does not change your meaning. Wouldn't it be simpler to just let others posters say what they mean, without you having to say what you think they mean?
Well I don't care if Mars is the red planet, if I want to patch tires, I'll just stop eating.
I prefer both.
EuclidI prefer both.
Which means you only prefer one.
It sees to me that the railroaders are not in a position of expertise when it concerns language. Maybe we are to defer to your wisdom about railroading but when you make a declarative statement. It is subject to examination. Euclid did not alter the meaning of what ACY said.
zugmann EuclidI prefer both. Which means you only prefer one.
No it does not mean that.
Euclid zugmann EuclidI prefer both. Which means you only prefer one. No it does not mean that.
Yes, but!
As Murphy Siding says, it might be simpler to just let people say what they say without interpreting them by paraphrasing them, but often people write in a way where their meaning is unclear. Sometimes people will even paraphrase themselves to clarify their meaning.
Take this quote from ACY replying to me, for instance:
Earlier ACY had begun this exchange by a speculating a two-part reason for the Lac Megantic runaway. The first part was that the engineer was tired because he was working solo, and that may have caused him to not set enough brakes. Clearly he is referring to the on-going discussion of changing from two-man crews to one-man crews.
But in his second part, he extended the blame to the engineer’s supervisors because they should have known that a man working solo would be tired. Therefore poster ACY asserts that the supervisors should have checked to make sure the engineer has secured the train. And since they did not check that, they are partly at fault. So the engineer was too tired to do his job, and that is not totally his fault because he was tired; and the supervisors should have known he was too tired, and made sure the engineer’s job got done. And since they didn’t, they are at fault for the failure of the engineer.
I said that the engineer had no right to walk away from his responsibility without telling his supervisors. Poster ACY said the engineer had no choice because his supervisors would have disciplined the engineer for claiming that he was too tired to perform his responsibility. In this torturous logic, poster ACY blamed the company for putting him in a bind by requiring him to work solo.
Which means yes it does.
Deleted.
I'm not getting into yet another one of Bucky's oil train story time posts.
zugmann Deleted. I'm not getting into yet another one of Bucky's oil train story time posts.
In response to your original comment asking how we got stuck on Lac Megantic:
We got stuck on it because in three different threads about changing to one-man crews, people have numerous time asserted that Lac Megantic is an example of the problem with one-man crews. I say that is nonsense.
Another thing people alway say is that disasters are the result of many things going wrong at the same time. I think that has been stretched too far.
However, I do hold out the possibility that the Lac Megantic disaster was the fault of the company culture of a compromised train securement policy. So I would not be surprised if the trial discovers that and largely vindicates the engineer.
I don't care. I didn't even read your last post.
I think you did read it.
Not the one you made before this one? Not beyond the first sentence.
When I said I didn't read it, I meant I didn't read it. If I read it, I wouldn't have said I didn't read it. that's how it works.
schlimm It sees to me that the railroaders are not in a position of expertise when it concerns language. Maybe we are to defer to your wisdom about railroading but when you make a declarative statement. It is subject to examination. Euclid did not alter the meaning of what ACY said.
And like a bad toenail fungus, Schlimm shows up again.
zugmann Not the one you made before this one? Not beyond the first sentence. When I said I didn't read it, I meant I didn't read it. If I read it, I wouldn't have said I didn't read it. that's how it works.
I read his sentence 'till I didn't read it.
Murray And like a bad toenail fungus, Schlimm shows up again.
Not like State Farm I take it?
Yes.....but....
Murray zugmann Deleted. I'm not getting into yet another one of Bucky's oil train story time posts. Yes.....but....
Pork Butt?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqYdXzRxlVk
Murray https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqYdXzRxlVk
Was that the Perfessor in a past life?
The Professor at a recent meeting of the Trustees:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29E6GbYdB1c
Murray The Professor at a recent meeting of the Trustees: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29E6GbYdB1c
I bet the Trustees were against it too!
Euclid As Murphy Siding says, it might be simpler to just let people say what they say without interpreting them by paraphrasing them, but ........................
As Murphy Siding says, it might be simpler to just let people say what they say without interpreting them by paraphrasing them, but ........................
Murphy SidingEuclidAs Murphy Siding says, it might be simpler to just let people say what they say without interpreting them by paraphrasing them, but ........................ I think that's why the question was invented. It allows you to ask what someone meant, not tell someone what they meant.
EuclidAs Murphy Siding says, it might be simpler to just let people say what they say without interpreting them by paraphrasing them, but ........................
I think you are mistakenly paraphrasing what I meant when I explained my purpose of what I meant in the above quote.
Telling someone what they meant is not the point of paraphrasing what they said in order to seek clarification. “Telling someone what they meant” is only your erroneous perception of the point of paraphrasing to seek clarification. You suggest the use of a “question” to ask the person what they meant. Yet, the use of the question is right there in the paraphrasing. It implied in the paraphrase of what they said. The person who made the original statement is free to correct my paraphrase if they disagree with it. There is nothing sinister or illegal about paraphrasing for this purpose.
If someone says something, and I paraphrase it, my only purpose is to restate it because I don’t understand what it means as the original person stated it. I have not removed what that person said in order to rewrite it to counter their position.
If I disagreed with someone’s position, I would just say so and not get into some stupid game of a clever paraphrase of what they said in order to twist their words to make it look like they agree with me. I will leave that silly technique to others.
Murphy Siding schlimm It sees to me that the railroaders are not in a position of expertise when it concerns language. Maybe we are to defer to your wisdom about railroading but when you make a declarative statement. It is subject to examination. Euclid did not alter the meaning of what ACY said. I'll paraphrase you, rather than directly quoting you. What you're saying is, that it's common knowledge that many members of our forum actually do work for a railroad. Since we have no reason to believe that Bucyrus is an English professor, it seems unreasonable to let him paraphrase you.
Not even close. D+
schlimmMurphy Siding schlimm It sees to me that the railroaders are not in a position of expertise when it concerns language. Maybe we are to defer to your wisdom about railroading but when you make a declarative statement. It is subject to examination. Euclid did not alter the meaning of what ACY said. I'll paraphrase you, rather than directly quoting you. What you're saying is, that it's common knowledge that many members of our forum actually do work for a railroad. Since we have no reason to believe that Bucyrus is an English professor, it seems unreasonable to let him paraphrase you. Not even close. D+
I've been away from the forum for a while due to personal matters, and due to difficulties with the computer. I don't claim to know much about computers. However, I do know something about communication in the English language, and I take serious offense at Schlimm's and Euclid's insistence on the notion that my statements can be better understood if they inaccurately "paraphrase" those statements. I use quotation marks because the word carries with it an implication that the rephrasing ACCURATELY restates the ideas expressed in the original statement. Since Euclid's "paraphrase" did not do that, I reject it categorically. I stand by what I said, and not by his so-called paraphrase.
On July 26 at 10:05 PM, Euclid admitted that my comments were speculative; yet he insists that I expressed certainty about the events at Lac Megantic. I say again that I wasn't there and neither was he, so neither of us can be certain about those events.
Euclid, you said "If someone says something, and I paraphrase it, my only purpose is to restate it because I don't understand what it means...." If you don't understand it, what makes you think you're competent to restate (i.e., paraphrase) it?
As Tom Lehrer said on his album "That Was The Year That Was" (1965), "I feel that if a person can't communicate, the very least he can do is to shut up." That is an accurate quote; not a paraphrase.
Neither Schlimm nor Euclid has entered a biography. Therefore, I have no reason to suspect that either is a Professor in any scholarly field, even though others have used that term. Certainly, nothing I have read in their posts suggests any particular expertise in any field of study, nor any particularly high level of education, nor of intelligence. That's not a paraphrase; it's just a logical conclusion drawn from the (admittedly limited) available information. I have entered a bio because I have nothing to hide, no reason to dissemble, and nothing to apologize for.
I would like to quote (not paraphrase) Schlimm:
"It sees [sic] to me that the railroaders are not in a position of expertise when it concerns language. Maybe we are to defer to your wisdom about railroading but when you make a declarative statement. [sic] It is subject to examination. Euclid did not alter the meaning of what ACY said."
Let's see..... that would be a misspelling and an incomplete sentence in a single three-line paragraph. I didn't count the lack of a comma after "but" because I have no idea how to correctly punctuate a nonsense sentence. At my High School, Brother Harold would have certainly given you a poor grade for that one --- maybe a D+.
I don't think I am paraphrasing when I suggest that this paragraph is an affront to every railroad employee. We are "not in a position of expertise when it concerns language", huh? I guess you planned that comment as a dismissive, patronizing insult directed at me and presumably other railroaders on the forum. However, since our hosts at Kalmbach trade in language, have you considered that this statement is an insult to every railroader who reads or writes for Trains, as well as Kalmbach's other publications?
I am reminded of Victor Fleming's wonderful 1930's film Treasure Island. As Long John Silver (Wallace Beery) and Jim Hawkins (Jackie Cooper) leave the company of a motley group of pirates, Long John turns to Jim and says, "Will you join me in a bit of fresh air, Matey? There's so much XXXXXXXXX* in here that I can't breathe properly."
* I won't put the actual word in here. The moderators might think I'm insulting Schlimm and Euclid, and we wouldn't want that, would we?
schlimm You appear to be an angry person, like many of the railroaders. However, there is no reason to believe that given the requirements of your former job you have anything more than your parochial high school education. The only purpose in my comment was to point out how some of the railroaders dismiss the comments of non-railroaders while at the same time being qualified in most other fields, though lacking in the qualifications. Judging by the insults I receive, they also have displayed little respect for professionals and folks in higher education beyond myself.
You appear to be an angry person, like many of the railroaders. However, there is no reason to believe that given the requirements of your former job you have anything more than your parochial high school education.
The only purpose in my comment was to point out how some of the railroaders dismiss the comments of non-railroaders while at the same time being qualified in most other fields, though lacking in the qualifications. Judging by the insults I receive, they also have displayed little respect for professionals and folks in higher education beyond myself.
Funny - you seem to be the angry one.
Your whole post was nothing but a thinly-veiled insult against railroaders. Yet you accuse us of lacking respect?
And because someone is a professor, does not mean they instantly deserve respect. Respect is something that is earned. Many with higher degrees have done nothing to earn it.
Zug
(yes, I have a college degree. whoop-dee-doo)
Schlimm:
Your bio doesn't say you're a professional at anything. The evidence indicates perhaps professional troll. Whatever your profession or level of education, you certainly are no star when it comes to making logical statements:
"...at the same time being qualified in most other fields, though lacking in the qualifications."
Even an ignorant railroader such as I can see that as nonsense. Railroaders, as a group, are some of the most matter-of-fact people I know. They don't dismiss the statements of non-railroaders because the speaker is a non-railroader. They dismiss the statements of people who are talking through their hat, whether that speaker is a railroader or not. The respect of most railroaders is not conferred by a fancy title, but by the quality of the speaker's ideas, so maybe that has something to do with the lack of respect you believe you're getting.
Lastly, I don't see any reason that you have any need or qualifications to analyze me or anybody else. In fact, I am generally very happy and easy-going. However, a person who changes my words and their meaning, and then presents the inaccurate "paraphrase" as a correct interpretation of my sentiments, is either ignorant or a liar. I have tried unsuccessfully to get you and your pal to accept my original meaning, but have had no success. I think you're both full of yourselves, but I don't think either of you is ignorant. So I resent the lie.
I can imagine a Japanese diplomat, late on December 7, 1941, saying "Mr. Roosevelt, you appear to be an angry person."
I am not a railroader. I am a retired veteran, and am now a working as a Senior Consultant.
The bottom line is that you demeanor does not fit well in this forum. You have absolutely no respect for your fellow posters. You are acerbic in your comments, and you seem to take great pleasure in how you mock the men and women of the railroad industry,
You really have no conception of how little you on regarded on this forum. If that is your desire, then so be it. But you have absolutely no right to call into question what the professional men and women in the rail transportation industry do day in and day out.
If you could perhaps interact in a more positive way, you posts would be received much more positively.
I'm sure you'll dismiss my comments, as well as the others that have immediately preceded me. But I wanted to get on the record (speaking as a non-railroader) to point out how wrong your perceptions of our professional railroaders.
Murray schlimm You appear to be an angry person, like many of the railroaders. However, there is no reason to believe that given the requirements of your former job you have anything more than your parochial high school education. The only purpose in my comment was to point out how some of the railroaders dismiss the comments of non-railroaders while at the same time being qualified in most other fields, though lacking in the qualifications. Judging by the insults I receive, they also have displayed little respect for professionals and folks in higher education beyond myself. Schlimm: ...But you have absolutely no right to call into question what the professional men and women in the rail transportation industry do day in and day out.
...But you have absolutely no right to call into question what the professional men and women in the rail transportation industry do day in and day out.
You have got to be kidding.
EuclidYou have got to be kidding.
What is your profession, Euclid?
Euclid You have got to be kidding.
zugmann EuclidYou have got to be kidding. What is your profession, Euclid?
What difference does it make what my profession is? I certainly don’t go around with a big chip on my shoulder believing that everybody who is not in my profession has no right to question my work. Of course maybe all my fans believe that.
Well, since you like to discuss so many railroad issues at great length, I think it is only fair you tell us what you do for a living, since you like to criticize us so much (e.g. the big chip comment). I could sit here and give a lecture on nuclear fission, but I'd be making up 99.99+% of it. So yeah, context helps.
I ask again - what is your profession? Or at the very least - what is your field?
PS. I know you are not going to answer. And I know schlimm is going to respond with more insults. And some more of us stupid railroaders will respond to that if we can gather enough brainpower to figure out how to use our computer machines and remember what that one letter is called... (you know, the one that looks like a man wearing a hat). Eventually a mod will drop by and ask everybody to play nice, then a padlock will appear on the thread. And time marches on.
Oh don’t be offended by my big chip comment. I don’t think you or most have one. My point was that anyone who believes outsiders have no right to question what they do in their profession have a big chip on their shoulder. In fact I am sure that most railroaders do not feel that nobody has a right to question what they do or know. But Murray apparently believes that.
Murray schlimm You appear to be an angry person, like many of the railroaders. However, there is no reason to believe that given the requirements of your former job you have anything more than your parochial high school education. The only purpose in my comment was to point out how some of the railroaders dismiss the comments of non-railroaders while at the same time being qualified in most other fields, though lacking in the qualifications. Judging by the insults I receive, they also have displayed little respect for professionals and folks in higher education beyond myself. Schlimm: I am not a railroader. I am a retired veteran, and am now a working as a Senior Consultant. The bottom line is that you demeanor does not fit well in this forum. You have absolutely no respect for your fellow posters. You are acerbic in your comments, and you seem to take great pleasure in how you mock the men and women of the railroad industry, You really have no conception of how little you on regarded on this forum. If that is your desire, then so be it. But you have absolutely no right to call into question what the professional men and women in the rail transportation industry do day in and day out. If you could perhaps interact in a more positive way, you posts would be received much more positively. I'm sure you'll dismiss my comments, as well as the others that have immediately preceded me. But I wanted to get on the record (speaking as a non-railroader) to point out how wrong your perceptions of our professional railroaders.
Euclid:
Your fans? Yep. Both of them.
If you can't answer the question, could you just pipe down while the adults are trying to have a conversation?
Thanks ever so much.
schlimmThese would include, but not be limited to folks like Jeff Hergert, Carl (retired) BaltACD, and Don Oltmann. They are open to discussion, probably because they feel quite secure with themselves and their chosen careers.
You forgot me on that list!
schlimm They feel quite secure with themselves and their chosen careers.
They feel quite secure with themselves and their chosen careers.
Unlike yourself and Euclid.
The both of you are too insecure (perhaps ashamed) to even say what you do for a "profession."
Citations? This is not the defense of a Masters Thesis....
zugmann schlimmThese would include, but not be limited to folks like Jeff Hergert, Carl (retired) BaltACD, and Don Oltmann. They are open to discussion, probably because they feel quite secure with themselves and their chosen careers. You forgot me on that list!
He forgot RRKen too.
Murray schlimm They feel quite secure with themselves and their chosen careers. Unlike yourself and Euclid. The both of you are too insecure (perhaps ashamed) to even say what you do for a "profession." Citations? This is not the defense of a Masters Thesis....
Murray,
You are getting awfully serious. What happened to all that good time rock and roll humor?
Hmmmm. The original topic had something to do with Unions, I think. It's been so long ago that the memory is a bit hazy.
If you'd tell us something about your background, that might help us understand your point of view regarding the original topic. I believe most of us can respect anybody who does good, productive, honest work. Since you've shown no willingness to give us this potentially useful information, I can only conclude that your work involves something illegal or in some way disreputable. Using your own methodology, of course.
Thanks for helping us to unravel this mystery. Enquiring minds want to know.
ACY I believe most of us can respect anybody who does good, productive, honest work. Since you've shown no willingness to give us this potentially useful information, I can only conclude that your work involves something illegal or in some way disreputable. Using your own methodology, of course.
Mr. ACY; Some of us see no useful reason to discuss our backgrounds. Since they are not in the railroad industry, it adds nothing to the forum, only puffery. And given the utterly shameful contempt with which some of your "pals" (not you) treated "Dwight Branch" when he was nice enough share his academic background, a person would be naive to do so since that time. I might note that most of you do not use your actual names, either. That sounds no alarms or whistles because I do understand how some employers operate. If I worked for your railroads, given the current emphasis on the short term buck and the weakness of your unions, I would be cautious as well.
Just checking... I thought it was my real name, I was right
schlimmI might note that most of you do not use your actual names, either. That sounds no alarms or whistles because I do understand how some employers operate. If I worked for your railroads, given the current emphasis on the short term buck and the weakness of your unions, I would be cautious as well.
It's a common practice on forums of all sorts, and by folks of all sorts. You'll find darn few real names on any forum. Some may do so to "hide," as you suggest. I think a majority, however, use their "screen name" to highlight some interest of theirs, be it a certain locomotive, a railroad, a place, an interest, or some combination of those, at least in the case of denizens of these forums. Mookie, Mudchicken, Csshegewich, Eolafan, Bluestreak1, MP173, NKPGuy, Zardoz, and CopcarSS all come to mind here. One fellow on a local forum here goes by "John Q. Public."
I would suggest that those who like to stir the pot are more likely to "hide" behind a screen name.
But it's not just a case of "hiding" one's identity. Most forum members here aren't any more specific as to their location than their state, or maybe city - if it's of any size. That anonymity serves as protection against any wingnuts who might decide to take physical exception to something someone posts here.
Your point about possible repercussions from employers is valid, and has a legal basis. One topic that comes up all too often in the fire service is "suicide by social media," wherein someone makes a less-than-flattering statement or provides confidential information about their agency/employer on social media. People have lost their jobs because of it. In most cases, they have made no secret of their affiliation, oftimes posting pictures of themselves in firefighting garb and of their agency as part of their profile, potentially suggesting that they were speaking at least somewhat officially for that agency.
As for me (engineer and conductor for a tourist railroad, but a member of the forum since before I got on the railroad), "Tree68" has been a trademark of mine for well over 45 years. I see no reason to change. Some folks have learned my real name, and even where I live, via PM.
As Ulrich says 2 in 52 years. My average has been about the same. 1 in 40 years. Not very good, yet those who think they are the good ones are probably the MBA type that comes out on a "Fact Finding". What a joke.
Dick
I don't know Schlimm.. I don't know if he's a professional kick boxer, an English prof, or just a lonely old man in a walker who is trying to reach out. I would assume the latter and adjust the tone of my critique accordingly. He said some things that others didn't like...let's move on. .
Murray zugmann You forgot me on that list! He forgot RRKen too.
zugmann You forgot me on that list!
I will not loose sleep over the Perfessor forgetting, quite unremarkable as I am.
RRKen Murray zugmann You forgot me on that list! He forgot RRKen too. I will not loose sleep over the Perfessor forgetting, quite unremarkable as I am.
What Ken meant to say was.........
Murray RRKen I will not loose sleep over the Perfessor forgetting, quite unremarkable as I am. What Ken meant to say was.........
RRKen I will not loose sleep over the Perfessor forgetting, quite unremarkable as I am.
It isn't what I meant to say, but how I meant to say it.
"Pathetic harmless victims left to die, rancid angle of death flying free."
Jeff Henneman
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.