In trouble because he waved.

[jeffhergert]

Euclid

Steve said: “I checked with a couple of my friends at CN who were privy to what happened, and apparently it was not pretty. The crew indeed got called on the carpet, and when the incident came up they immediately attempted to blame us!”

Why did the crew get called on the carpet?  Is there a rules violation involved in waving or leaving the cab?

Or did Steve’s complaint letter allege some other behavior that was a rules violation? 

There is a lot of talk about this episode involving overreaction on the part of both parties.  If the letter only says what Steve tells us happened, then it seems to me that it was only CN that overreacted.  I am surprised that a large railroad company would have even answered the letter, let alone get bent out of shape over it. 

There must be more to this story.      

 

Waving by itself wouldn't be a rules violation.  Going out on the lead platform while (I'm assuming) at track speed might be.  You would really need to see their safety rules to answer that.  (Maybe he wasn't wearing safety glasses or ear plugs while outside of the cab.)

Under GCOR (which the CN doesn't use) you could stretch a couple of rules to cover this situation.

1.6 Conduct.  "Employees must not be:  1. Careless of the safety of themselves or others.  2. Negligent  3.  Insubordinate  4. Dishonest  5. Immoral  6. Quarlelsome or 7. Discourteous.  

Any act of hostility, misconduct, or willful disregard or negligence affecting the interest of the company or it's employees is cause for dismissal and must be reported.  Indifference to duty or to the performance of duty will not be tolerated."

1.9 "Employees must behave in such a way that the railroad will not be criticized for their actions."  This one has gotten guys in trouble because of their actions at the away from home motels while off duty.

I'm sure the CN US rules have some similar provision(s).  It would be a stretch to apply those rules to this situation, but they are good at stretching things when they feel like it.  (You never know, they could've been looking for something to get the conductor on.)

Jeff

  

 

[wanswheel]

Euclid

I am surprised that a large railroad company would have even answered the letter

 

Perhaps a railroad is wary of authors.

[gardendance]

There could be more to the story, but at this point all we know is what little Steve said. For all we know he's making up the whole thing, including the "not pretty" part.

[Euclid]

Steve said: “I checked with a couple of my friends at CN who were privy to what happened, and apparently it was not pretty. The crew indeed got called on the carpet, and when the incident came up they immediately attempted to blame us!”

Why did the crew get called on the carpet?  Is there a rules violation involved in waving or leaving the cab?

Or did Steve’s complaint letter allege some other behavior that was a rules violation? 

There is a lot of talk about this episode involving overreaction on the part of both parties.  If the letter only says what Steve tells us happened, then it seems to me that it was only CN that overreacted.  I am surprised that a large railroad company would have even answered the letter, let alone get bent out of shape over it. 

There must be more to this story.      

[Firelock76]

That video of the Conrail crew stepping out of the cab, one of them with a camera of his own reminds me of a bit of railfan footage I've seen of the old New York and Long Branch taken back in the '50s.

As a Pennsy K4 is passing the railfans movie camera the fireman gives the fan a big smile, and then PRESTO!  He pulls out a movie camera of his own and starts filming the railfan!

Is it a spoiled shot?  Not in my opinion.  It's priceless! It cracks me up every time I see it! How often do you look at a piece of vintage film and make a human connection with a long-ago and certainly now passed-on railroader? 

Railroading ain't just equipment.  It's people too, probably more so than equipment, for what good is the equipment without people to run it?

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

Norm48327

Personal opinion, but I'm disappointed Trains editors let that blog slip through. It never should have been published as all it serves to do is create aanimosity between railfans and railroaders. The letter was uncalled for. Steve should have cut his loses and not whined about it. Railfans will suffer because of it for some time to come.

"+1"

Some of the comments to the blog suggested that railfans at trackside will need or want to have a T-shirt with a "I am not Steve Glischinski" on it. 

We should all know this: THE RAILROAD - AND ITS EMPLOYEES - HAVE NO DUTY TO POSE AND 'MAKE NICE' FOR OUR PHOTOGRAPHS.  NONE. 

Me, I'd be happy with any photograph of the train.  The con on the front porch waving would be a nice added touch - no problem with that.  Link to one of my favorite photos - indeed, one of my best 2 or 3: https://www.flickr.com/photos/48838227@N02/6910326129/in/photostream/#  

What this reminds me of is the 'rivet-counter' syndrome - people who are so obsessed with the equipment that they ignore the people who operate and maintain it, and the context and purpose, etc. for which it exists in the first place.  Many of us try to add the human element to the photos - it's a quality that many of the better photos in Trains have - and this guy is complaining about it.  Sorry, no sympathy here.

- Paul North.     

[tree68]

gardendance

How does the blogger know what the conductor's intent was?

Until someone talks to the conductor, we won't know.  The inference, of course, is that because said conductor repeatedly appeared on the front platform, with the door open, he was trying to ruin their otherwise pristine 3/4 views of the locomotives.  One might also conclude that if said interference wasn't his intent, he wouldn't have continued to do so after the first couple of times, and particularly not when they "ambushed" the train at one crossing.

Or not.

Personally, if I'd drawn that conclusion during the chase, I think I'd have hidden my camera as well as possible in the surroundings and perhaps used a cable or other remote release (assuming I had one) so they couldn't see me at all.  At least until I waved as they went past me...  

[gardendance]

I have a cheap internet connection with low data limits, so I have to wait till I get to the library to watch videos.

I too would like to see the photo the blog poster mentioned. Other than the union rep saying "his guys did not like being photographed and just wanted to be left alone" there's nothing to hint that the blogger has evidence that the conductor wasn't trying to help enhance the photographer's enjoyment. As a couple of other commenters have said, don't some people want to have crew waving? I know when I've taken video I'll wave to the crew and hope they wave back. Does the photo show that the conductor's wave is an obscene gesture? How does the blogger know what the conductor's intent was?

[Euclid]

I can see how a trainman might get nervous about being photographed up close and personal, considering the context of strict rules and people watching for compliance with those rules.  I can also see how a crewmember could overreact to a sense of entitlement to not be photographed at work.

Perhaps this will lead to a new law saying that you cannot photograph trainmen on duty because it might distract them and threaten public safety. 

Here is a video that I believe depicts the same sort of thing that Steve describes.  Although, I cannot be sure of what is going on.  It is a very good shot of an impressive train.  But that little bit of odd behavior of the engineer and conductor seems weird and a little ominous. 

I assume that the crew out of the cab and apparently mimicking someone taking photos is to send a message to the person doing the video.  I also assume that this relationship began sometime prior to this time of this video sequence. 

What I cannot determine is the spirit of the two people sending this message.  But in any case, I think this surely adds a strange touch to the video.  Here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmCXJaA-eaA&mode=related&search=

So what do you think this was all about?  Were the conductor and engineer trying to ruin the video?  In the comments, people speculate about what the crew was doing, and nobody concludes that they were trying to ruin the shot or acting out of spite.  To me, this shows how people might misinterpret the intent of such antics. 

[schlimm]

dakotafred

 

 

edblysard

"The conductor is obviously a cretin whose behavior was unprofessional and probably unsafe. That he could be spared from the cab for such antics" ....

So, again, what was "unsafe" about him being "spared from the cab"?

 

 

 

 

I think my meaning is clear enough -- nobody else seems to have had trouble understanding it -- and does not need another repetition.

 

Perfectly clear and beyond contoversy.  The whole thing is a tempest in a teapot by two mopes engaging in juvenile behaviors.  The camera guy named Steve sounds like a troller while the conductor seems to have had issues.

[dakotafred]

edblysard

"The conductor is obviously a cretin whose behavior was unprofessional and probably unsafe. That he could be spared from the cab for such antics" ....

So, again, what was "unsafe" about him being "spared from the cab"?

 

I think my meaning is clear enough -- nobody else seems to have had trouble understanding it -- and does not need another repetition.

[edblysard]

"The conductor is obviously a cretin whose behavior was unprofessional and probably unsafe. That he could be spared from the cab for such antics" ....

So, again, what was "unsafe" about him being "spared from the cab"?

[dakotafred]

Ed: Please read my post again. I didn't say a conductor never has legitimate business outside the cab of a moving train.

However, in this case, if something had happened, the guy could hardly have pled legitimate business. And the company doesn't need employees showing gratuitous disrespect to members of the public. (And I hope non-trespassing railfans are still considered members of the public.) 

[edblysard]

dakotafred

Just read the subject blog post. By the time Steve G. and his pals had descended to hiding in the weeds, the whole thing had become low, childish comedy on both sides.

The conductor is obviously a cretin whose behavior was unprofessional and probably unsafe. That he could be spared from the cab for such antics could be turned into a strong argument for one-man crews, at least on that line.

As for Steve G.: He is HOW old, and has been taking pictures for HOW many years?  

 

Not picking a fight, but…

 

Dakota Fred….why is it you seem to think the conductor shouldn’t leave the cab?

 

There have been several days where I not only leave the cab and go back to the trailing unit, ride on the front platform getting in a smoke and a cup of coffee, but more often than not, I never get in the cab the entire day, so why would you think it was not safe for him to be out there?

 

And I wonder who the blogger would have written to and complained about if, once he drove all that way, and discovered the special train he wanted to photograph was running long hood out?

 

According to his posting, he and his buddy drove there for other photographic efforts, and the train he is griping about was an added “bonus” they discovered once they were there…

 

[Anonymous]

tree68

 

 

Euclid

In his blog, Steve said he has a photo. 

 

 

Ahh - I missed that.

If the employee is recognizable, though, this could go beyond "face in the crowd" exemptions from getting "models" releases.

You only need a model release if you're using someone else's likeness to promote an idea (advertising use). This is called the Right of Publicity. News use, fine art, and personal use are all protected by the First Amendment.

Note that this is separate from the Right of Privacy. Publicity is for publishing the photo, Privacy is for actually taking the photo. You have no reasonable expectation of privacy on the front porch of a locomotive, but you do in your bedroom with your blinds are closed.

[Paul of Covington]

   What happened to people's sense of humor?   Steve should have laughed it off, then set up camouflage around his gear and self and made a game of it.  Of course, I don't know how very important his pictures are.   As I said before, some people enjoy confrontation.

[Norm48327]

Personal opinion, but I'm disappointed Trains editors let that blog slip through. It never should have been published as all it serves to do is create aanimosity between railfans and railroaders. The letter was uncalled for. Steve should have cut his loses and not whined about it. Railfans will suffer because of it for some time to come.

[tree68]

Euclid

In his blog, Steve said he has a photo. 

Ahh - I missed that.

If the employee is recognizable, though, this could go beyond "face in the crowd" exemptions from getting "models" releases.

[Euclid]

tree68

 

Euclid

What could better illustrate a conductor purposely ruining a photo than the ruined photo itself? 

An excellent point, but it's possible that they didn't bother to take any pictures because the shot with the open door and conductor was not what they wanted.  

 

In his blog, Steve said he has a photo.  He said, “I wrote to the superintendent in charge of the lines we had photographed, describing the events, the open door, and the employee. The employee in question apparently failed to take into account we had cameras. I made sure to enclose a large print of the person in question standing in the doorway of No. 8895.”

So I think he ought to post the photo here.  Saying that the conductor waved, does not leave me convinced that this was done with malicious intent.  Railfans sometimes complain when the crewmembers refuse to wave. 

And if the photo does indicate malicious intent or bad will, it is a very newsworthy photo that can serve to illustrate the grievance of railroad employees resenting being photographed while on the job.      

[tree68]

Euclid

What could better illustrate a conductor purposely ruining a photo than the ruined photo itself? 

An excellent point, but it's possible that they didn't bother to take any pictures because the shot with the open door and conductor was not what they wanted.  Most likely by the time it occurred to him to write the letter, the opportunity to document the "transgression" was gone.

If he was shooting film, why waste the exposure?

Had their goal been "railroaders at work," the conductor would have been playing right into their hands instead of thwarting their efforts.  In fact, returning friendly waves, giving thumbs up, etc would probably have frustrated the conductor as it would then appear that his attempts to ruin their shots did anything but...

[chatanuga]

Personally, I don't believe the letter should have been written.  So a railroader waved.  Wave back and move on.  It's not like the railroader threatened him or anything.  As one poster above said, the whole thing went on too long.  The railfan is lucky he didn't get himself reported.  While he may have been on public property, sneaking around in the bushes and popping out to get a picture would spook me if I was on the train.

Kevin

[wanswheel]

“To say we were upset would be an understatement. It was Memorial Day Weekend, and we had driven more than 200 miles to have some fun and pursue our hobby.”

This is where he went wrong. I’m so old I remember people were apt to be on their good behavior then. It was not the ‘unofficial start of summer,’ it was a day to honor fallen comrades. Millions of World II vets in the prime of life, thousands of World War I vets younger than I am now, elderly Spanish-American War vets and young Korea vets insisted the holiday be appropriately observed. Anybody who’s got arms, legs and eyes intact, the day off, a car and a camera should arrange to maintain a good mood and have nothing to complain about on Memorial Day.

Pardon off-topicness.

[dakotafred]

All:

The fast way to find the subject blog is to click on "Observation Tower" in the list for "Our Community." Steve's blog is third down.

The accompanying mug shows him to be physically mature. (His byline has been in TRAINS for years.)

[schlimm]

As I and others have said, both Steve and the conductor seem juvenile and need to chill out.  The only saving grace for Steve is that he may actually be a kid, albeit a spoiled jerk.   The conductor is simply a jerk posing as an adult.

[Euclid]

If Steve is going to write a blog piece about it, I think he ought to show us the proof since he has such clear documentation as pictures and letters.  Otherwise it is just a “he said, she said.”  It is a fascinating story.  But as we all know, in a conflict, both sides tend to shape the details in their favor.

If Steve’s letter has inflamed the entire northwest railroad community, the blog piece is going to pour more gasoline on the fire.  So let’s see the photo.  What could better illustrate a conductor purposely ruining a photo than the ruined photo itself? 

[dakotafred]

Just read the subject blog post. By the time Steve G. and his pals had descended to hiding in the weeds, the whole thing had become low, childish comedy on both sides.

The conductor is obviously a cretin whose behavior was unprofessional and probably unsafe. That he could be spared from the cab for such antics could be turned into a strong argument for one-man crews, at least on that line.

As for Steve G.: He is HOW old, and has been taking pictures for HOW many years?  

[ChrisB1962]

I suggest reading the article.  Steve didn't write a nasty letter because somebody leaned out a cab window and made a friendly gesture.  The employee in question left the cab mulitiple times to stand on the 'front porch' of the locomotive when he saw Steve's group trackside.  And since Steve presumably has the photos to back up his story, I'd say his description is accurate.

[lenzfamily]

[quote user="edblysard"]

One word…..

Unbelievable!

Are these adults?

From both sides….

Nothing better to worry about?.

 

edblysard

One word…..

Unbelievable!

Are these adults?

From both sides….

Nothing better to worry about?.

 

edblysard

One word…..

Unbelievable!

Are these adults?

From both sides….

Nothing better to worry about?.

 

I have to say I agree with Ed. Nobody is a winner in this one....

Sad that railfanning has (at least in this situation) come to this petty state of affairs.

Charlie

Chilliwack, BC 

[ricktrains4824]

Someone waved, and he got upset over it.... I get a crew to wave, I'm flat out elated... Happens so little anymore.... I just don't get it, but I also was not there, and I get the feeling there is a whole lot more to this story then what we have been given. I think we either need more information, or this will keep being a "oh my goodness" and "did you hear..." thread. All I know, is that we most likely have not got all the information that we need, and therefore am passing on giving judgement. 

[Andrew Falconer]

Take photos of everything that happens, not just locomotive shots.