dpeltier jeffhergert PS. Oh, one other thing. I think what's being referred to as an "odometer" is the footage counter. Usually used to determine when your train is clear of a restriction. I use them at times, I usually preffer to convert my train's footage to the nearest tenth of a mile and use mile posts. They aren't always accurate, even those integrated into the computer screens. Just out of curiosity - how does this work? If mileposts are only every mile, knowing to the tenth of a mile where your head end has to be doesn't by itself seem that useful, unless you also have a trick for estimating your current head-end location to a tenth of a mile... Or does your territory have 1/4 mile posts (which at least get you a lot closer)? Thanks, Dan
jeffhergert PS. Oh, one other thing. I think what's being referred to as an "odometer" is the footage counter. Usually used to determine when your train is clear of a restriction. I use them at times, I usually preffer to convert my train's footage to the nearest tenth of a mile and use mile posts. They aren't always accurate, even those integrated into the computer screens.
PS. Oh, one other thing. I think what's being referred to as an "odometer" is the footage counter. Usually used to determine when your train is clear of a restriction. I use them at times, I usually preffer to convert my train's footage to the nearest tenth of a mile and use mile posts. They aren't always accurate, even those integrated into the computer screens.
Just out of curiosity - how does this work? If mileposts are only every mile, knowing to the tenth of a mile where your head end has to be doesn't by itself seem that useful, unless you also have a trick for estimating your current head-end location to a tenth of a mile...
Or does your territory have 1/4 mile posts (which at least get you a lot closer)?
Thanks,
Dan
Documentation given to freight crews on Class 1 carriers give the calculated length of the train - all cars and locomotives have detailed listings of all their pertinant dimensions in a database known as UMLER - Universal Machine Language Equipment Register - The computer program that creates the Train Documents pull the lenght of each listed car and locomotive and add them up to the total length of the train.
When the head end passes the 'end limit' of whatever the restriction is, the Engineer starts his counter - when the counter (in feet) exceeds the documented length of the train - the train has cleared the restriction -
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
When we scrapped steam.
UlrichThis will likely become more of a problem over the next five years as smart technology becomes more pervasive, yet an operator is still required.
Just imagine how much fun the highways will be a few years after "smart" cars hit the road.
I saw an ad last night for a Buick SUV. If you've ever seen Buick ads, they are certainly NOT targeted to the critical thinkers of the planet. But this ad really said a lot (between the lines); it showed the driver pushing a dashboard button which caused the vehicle to parallel park itself, while at the same time the occupants were busy writhing and cavorting to some pop music song.
In addition, some cars have wipers that turn on when rain is detected, and/or headlights that turn on when the wipers are activated. Or how about the stories of drivers that turns down the railroad tracks because their GPS told them to.
When did we become such a lazy, stupid culture?
The advanced speed reduction sign was right before the line went from two mains to a single track. Seems like that would be a major landmark that would not be obscured in the darkness, but I guess you have to be looking outside.
BaltACD SD70Dude BaltACD NorthWest I fail to see how making self-deprecating jokes is a career-disqualifying character flaw. The engineer made a mistake. That's on him. But he was provided with a route that he'd only operated once, at half of track speed, with a brand new locomotive that he'd never operated before (that has much larger blind spots to the right and left) and a conductor trainee that he was supposed to help qualify. A pretty stacked deck against him. Which should have him tightning up his male attachments and stating to anybody that was listening and to all those that weren't listening - I am NOT Qualified on this route and I am NOT Qualified on this locomotive. I will not depart until I am provided a pilot that is qualified on both the route and the locomotive. No matter how stacked the deck was against him he held but did not use the ultimate trump card - I'm NOT Qualified! If he did that he most likely would have been told to go anyway, and if he refused that direct order he most likely would have been suspended or fired, and at minimum would have earned a big target on his back. I'm not saying his decision to take the train was right, but I understand why he did it. I have seen incompetent Trainmasters or Chiefs telling Engineers to go out and get a freight train on territory they are unfamiliar with, and then refusing to call a pilot when the Engineer requests one. There are two common endings to that scenario: 1. The Engineer invokes Part II of the Canada Labour Code, which is our right to refuse unsafe work. Everything then stops until the appropriate parties are notified, by which time the train has been delayed even longer than it would have been if they had just called a pilot, who is then called anyway. The original Engineer then becomes a favourite target for harassment by management. 2. The Engineer obeys his instructions and takes the train, but operates at restricted speed until he gets to an area he is more familiar with. As of yet I have not been put in that situation yet, but if I am I will choose option 1. if push comes to shove. I have a good work record and lately they have backed off on disciplining people around here. But if I was carrying 50 demerits and had a big family to feed option 2. would look much more appealing, especially in the heat of the moment. Get the Supervisor that is ORDERING you to go being unqualified on both the route and the locomotive on a recorded line stating ther Name, Rank and Serial Number and their statement of the ORDER that is in conflict with your belief that you are not qualified on either/or/both the route and the locomotive. With a follow up response to the order - YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE OUTCOME, good bad or indifferent.
SD70Dude BaltACD NorthWest I fail to see how making self-deprecating jokes is a career-disqualifying character flaw. The engineer made a mistake. That's on him. But he was provided with a route that he'd only operated once, at half of track speed, with a brand new locomotive that he'd never operated before (that has much larger blind spots to the right and left) and a conductor trainee that he was supposed to help qualify. A pretty stacked deck against him. Which should have him tightning up his male attachments and stating to anybody that was listening and to all those that weren't listening - I am NOT Qualified on this route and I am NOT Qualified on this locomotive. I will not depart until I am provided a pilot that is qualified on both the route and the locomotive. No matter how stacked the deck was against him he held but did not use the ultimate trump card - I'm NOT Qualified! If he did that he most likely would have been told to go anyway, and if he refused that direct order he most likely would have been suspended or fired, and at minimum would have earned a big target on his back. I'm not saying his decision to take the train was right, but I understand why he did it. I have seen incompetent Trainmasters or Chiefs telling Engineers to go out and get a freight train on territory they are unfamiliar with, and then refusing to call a pilot when the Engineer requests one. There are two common endings to that scenario: 1. The Engineer invokes Part II of the Canada Labour Code, which is our right to refuse unsafe work. Everything then stops until the appropriate parties are notified, by which time the train has been delayed even longer than it would have been if they had just called a pilot, who is then called anyway. The original Engineer then becomes a favourite target for harassment by management. 2. The Engineer obeys his instructions and takes the train, but operates at restricted speed until he gets to an area he is more familiar with. As of yet I have not been put in that situation yet, but if I am I will choose option 1. if push comes to shove. I have a good work record and lately they have backed off on disciplining people around here. But if I was carrying 50 demerits and had a big family to feed option 2. would look much more appealing, especially in the heat of the moment.
BaltACD NorthWest I fail to see how making self-deprecating jokes is a career-disqualifying character flaw. The engineer made a mistake. That's on him. But he was provided with a route that he'd only operated once, at half of track speed, with a brand new locomotive that he'd never operated before (that has much larger blind spots to the right and left) and a conductor trainee that he was supposed to help qualify. A pretty stacked deck against him. Which should have him tightning up his male attachments and stating to anybody that was listening and to all those that weren't listening - I am NOT Qualified on this route and I am NOT Qualified on this locomotive. I will not depart until I am provided a pilot that is qualified on both the route and the locomotive. No matter how stacked the deck was against him he held but did not use the ultimate trump card - I'm NOT Qualified!
NorthWest I fail to see how making self-deprecating jokes is a career-disqualifying character flaw. The engineer made a mistake. That's on him. But he was provided with a route that he'd only operated once, at half of track speed, with a brand new locomotive that he'd never operated before (that has much larger blind spots to the right and left) and a conductor trainee that he was supposed to help qualify. A pretty stacked deck against him.
The engineer made a mistake. That's on him. But he was provided with a route that he'd only operated once, at half of track speed, with a brand new locomotive that he'd never operated before (that has much larger blind spots to the right and left) and a conductor trainee that he was supposed to help qualify.
A pretty stacked deck against him.
Which should have him tightning up his male attachments and stating to anybody that was listening and to all those that weren't listening -
I am NOT Qualified on this route and I am NOT Qualified on this locomotive. I will not depart until I am provided a pilot that is qualified on both the route and the locomotive.
No matter how stacked the deck was against him he held but did not use the ultimate trump card - I'm NOT Qualified!
If he did that he most likely would have been told to go anyway, and if he refused that direct order he most likely would have been suspended or fired, and at minimum would have earned a big target on his back.
I'm not saying his decision to take the train was right, but I understand why he did it.
I have seen incompetent Trainmasters or Chiefs telling Engineers to go out and get a freight train on territory they are unfamiliar with, and then refusing to call a pilot when the Engineer requests one. There are two common endings to that scenario:
1. The Engineer invokes Part II of the Canada Labour Code, which is our right to refuse unsafe work. Everything then stops until the appropriate parties are notified, by which time the train has been delayed even longer than it would have been if they had just called a pilot, who is then called anyway. The original Engineer then becomes a favourite target for harassment by management.
2. The Engineer obeys his instructions and takes the train, but operates at restricted speed until he gets to an area he is more familiar with.
As of yet I have not been put in that situation yet, but if I am I will choose option 1. if push comes to shove. I have a good work record and lately they have backed off on disciplining people around here.
But if I was carrying 50 demerits and had a big family to feed option 2. would look much more appealing, especially in the heat of the moment.
Get the Supervisor that is ORDERING you to go being unqualified on both the route and the locomotive on a recorded line stating ther Name, Rank and Serial Number and their statement of the ORDER that is in conflict with your belief that you are not qualified on either/or/both the route and the locomotive. With a follow up response to the order - YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE OUTCOME, good bad or indifferent.
Sometimes even when they are on a taped line it doesn't seem to matter, they are so far out to lunch. And having the conversation on tape is a small comfort when you are living on BRCF (if you even have it) benefits for 6 months waiting for an arbitrator to listen to that conversation, and reverse your termination for refusing to obey a direct order.
Meanwhile the manager who gave the order continues working as though nothing happened.
BaltACD We outsiders have been told of Amtrak's lack of a safety culture. The engineers acceptance of his instructions, to our knowledge, without raising the qualification question on EITHER of the elements he wasn't qualified on, is a exclamation mark that indicates how far from employee's concious actions SAFETY is. Safety starts at the top and must mean the same thing to all managers and employees as it works its way down the chains of command. Real safety begins with employees recognizing things that are NOT SAFE and taking actions against those things moving forward. Safety takes individual mental strength.
We outsiders have been told of Amtrak's lack of a safety culture. The engineers acceptance of his instructions, to our knowledge, without raising the qualification question on EITHER of the elements he wasn't qualified on, is a exclamation mark that indicates how far from employee's concious actions SAFETY is.
Safety starts at the top and must mean the same thing to all managers and employees as it works its way down the chains of command. Real safety begins with employees recognizing things that are NOT SAFE and taking actions against those things moving forward. Safety takes individual mental strength.
Indeed it does. But sometimes it feels difficult to carry on in the face of such adversity, when nothing you do seem to matter or affect change.
I agree that the Engineer in question should not have taken 501 alone that day (the trainee doesn't count, and made his task even more difficult) , and should have demanded a pilot Engineer or other qualified person ride with him.
But when safety does not matter to a Company or its managers we should not be surprised when that attitude trickles down to the employees, even those who might have started out with a different, better mindset.
The Engineer's failure to operate safely does not absolve Amtrak from creating the culture that led him to think working 501 that day was a reasonable option.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
Euclid I don’t see his making of jokes as being the character flaw. What the jokes do is reveal a flaw in the kind of character that is needed to run a passenger train. The jokes and his behavior both show an attitude that he just runs the engine and it is Amtrak’s responsibility to make sure he knows where he is going. Amtrak offered him the run with all of the hardships of not knowing the territory. So he took the offer, but then acted like the hardships were not his problem. In Doug Riddell’s story, he was put in the same position and he refused the run unless the company sent someone more qualified with him. We know the engineer knew about the 30 mph curve, but he did not know how to identify the approach to it by landmarks. We know that if he were to just wait until he saw the curve and then took action to slow down, it would be too late to slow down. He must have known that too. So apparently, the engineer intended to rely on spotting the 2 mile advance warning sign to learn that the curve was 2 miles ahead. What was his plan to make sure he did not miss that 2 mile advance warning sign? He would have had to resolve to not take his eyes off of the right side of the track where the sign would be located. Obviously, he either did not do that or he did it, but somehow failed to assimilate the advance warning sign. As I seem to recall, he did say that he looked at some instrument gauges in the cab, and therefore, might have missed spotting the advance warning sign while looking at the gauges. What was his plan if someone had stolen the sign, or knocked it down so it could not be recognized? This is the gamble that he knowingly took with many lives at stake including his own. How much training did he need to understand the rule, “When in doubt, take the safe course”?
I don’t see his making of jokes as being the character flaw. What the jokes do is reveal a flaw in the kind of character that is needed to run a passenger train. The jokes and his behavior both show an attitude that he just runs the engine and it is Amtrak’s responsibility to make sure he knows where he is going. Amtrak offered him the run with all of the hardships of not knowing the territory. So he took the offer, but then acted like the hardships were not his problem. In Doug Riddell’s story, he was put in the same position and he refused the run unless the company sent someone more qualified with him.
We know the engineer knew about the 30 mph curve, but he did not know how to identify the approach to it by landmarks. We know that if he were to just wait until he saw the curve and then took action to slow down, it would be too late to slow down. He must have known that too.
So apparently, the engineer intended to rely on spotting the 2 mile advance warning sign to learn that the curve was 2 miles ahead. What was his plan to make sure he did not miss that 2 mile advance warning sign? He would have had to resolve to not take his eyes off of the right side of the track where the sign would be located. Obviously, he either did not do that or he did it, but somehow failed to assimilate the advance warning sign.
As I seem to recall, he did say that he looked at some instrument gauges in the cab, and therefore, might have missed spotting the advance warning sign while looking at the gauges. What was his plan if someone had stolen the sign, or knocked it down so it could not be recognized? This is the gamble that he knowingly took with many lives at stake including his own. How much training did he need to understand the rule, “When in doubt, take the safe course”?
I read some of the interview of the engineer linked on another thread. It seems that he felt he knew, by landmarks, where to slow for the curve. However, he missed the landmark he was looking for, but thought it was still coming up. He missed the two mile advance sign, but my reading of the interview is that he wasn't looking for it. That he felt that 2 miles was too early of a warning to start braking at that point.
He wasn't prepared after minimal qualifying trips. (I note in the interview that he said there were 5 or 6 in the cab on some of these trips, and some time may have been spent in a trailing unit. He stated there were two regular seats and one jump seat, which wasn't used, in the cab. I'm surprised that our experts haven't jumped (no pun intended) on this. It's my understanding that's an FRA violation right there.) In hindsight, he should've recognized this. But then hindsight is always 20-20.
I haven't followed this or the other threads fully. I haven't seen anything in what little I've seen that (IMO) would disqualify him from being an Amtrak engineer, although that has been asserted. If someone could point me to those posts that describe why they feel he shouldn't have been hired, I'd appreciate it. I note someone said maybe a high school diploma isn't enough. Well, it sounds like he had degrees in transportation and business, so no soap there.
Jeff, a plain old high school graduate, class of 1981, who has pulled 3 or 4 Amtrak detours. Everyone survived despite my lack of edgukation. Let the music begin.
To Volker Landwehr's points: "...It was Amtrak's fault to send an engineer unfamiiar withSomeone the route and locomotive on that trip..." Absolutely,Someone at Amtrak screewd up! With no further information on the [#501's]Engineer's side; of what happend when he took the throttle, there is only supposition(?). What if any 'pressures' were brought to bear on the engineer; as to him making the decision to take that trip [#501]? What was said, to him to make him leave out(?). Threats? Cajoling? Who knows? Obviously, at the point of departure, #501 was making a very important trip, for the State of Washington, and not to mention one of immense political importance , as well.
Volker Landwehr further stated:"...It is the engineer's fault that he didn't protest or refuse to run the train. To judge from that little information we have that he shouldn't have been allowed to become an engineer seems a bit exaggerated..."
It would seem to me at that point the 'first safety' for AMTRAK would have been to have assigned a knowledgeable Pilot Engineer, as well ; The 'second safety' would have been, to BaltACD's point. The assigned engineer to #501,should have made his demands to be 'replaced' due to his unfamiliarity of that track and territory. Followed by demanding to have an assigned Pilot; one who was competent to operate under the existing rules; #501 over that track and territory
From the link provided in the OP's initial post: The author, Doug Riddell noted: "...The two key findings so far in the Dec. 18, 2017 deadly Amtrak Cascades crash seem to focus on the 30 MPH curves on an otherwise mostly 79 MPH route, and the training—or more aptly, the lack of it—afforded the locomotive engineers who were to operate over the newer passenger-train-only section of track. One headline claimed that the engineer was given only a minute or so seconds to familiarize himself with the controls of the new Charger locomotive picked to lead the inaugural train..."
Mr. Riddell [further stated], to show what he had to do when transferring from SCL freight service to AMTRAK in 1986: "...I no longer carried in my pocket a small compact SCL rulebook, and traditional division timetable. Instead, I toted an encyclopedia-size case filled with the materials I would refer to in order to be instantaneously knowledgeable of the signal systems and rules of eight different railroads—the RF&P, B&O, C&O, Southern, Washington Terminal, NORAC, Conrail and Pittsburgh & Lake Erie, in addition to Amtrak’s own requirements. I also had to have in my possession, and had to be totally familiar with, up-to-the-minute documentation, that allowed me to be ready for service on any run, at any time, given only a two-hour telephone call...Suffice to say, most of my first year was spent in intense learning mode. My teachers were tenured locomotive engineer pilots, supplied by the host railroads, who patiently rode in the cab with me. A few were bitter that I’d taken jobs to which they had previously been entitled. Most, however, were senior employees, proud men who would retire once I was deemed qualified to operate on my own. I then began tutoring junior engineers over the various routes..."
There is much more to the description of how he became qualified to be an engineer of the territories he was to operate in, in the OP's link.
Reading that story, it certainly made Louis Menk's statement sound as if Menk was more intersted in establishing a tough bargaining position with the unions he was then dealing with over a contract, than just maaking the derisive statement he was quoted as making.
NorthWestI fail to see how making self-deprecating jokes is a career-disqualifying character flaw. The engineer made a mistake. That's on him. But he was provided with a route that he'd only operated once, at half of track speed, with a brand new locomotive that he'd never operated before (that has much larger blind spots to the right and left) and a conductor trainee that he was supposed to help qualify. A pretty stacked deck against him.
I fail to see how making self-deprecating jokes is a career-disqualifying character flaw.
And people are frustratingly unpredictable.. I hire people too. And more often than I'd care to admit, I'm dead wrong in my assessment. Hired a straight laced articulate intelligent guy with credentials a mile long.. had to fire him for spitting at an MTO officer (among other things). Also hired a "biker dude".. rough looking would be an understatement.. no credentials.. best worker ever. Go figure. Test all we want.. people are unpredictable..
EuclidHe knew where it was by mileposts, and there was a 2-mile advance warning sign. He did not happen to see that sign and one of the mileposts. He had an oddometer that he could have used to spot mileposts and thus know exactly where it was, but he did not do that. He knew he was lost at this point, and yet he did not slow down.
All what you tell is the recollection of the engineer four weeks after the accident.
For me all his actions (e.g. not using the odometer) show he didn't realize he was lost until the last moment. So he didn't slow down.
EuclidYou would have to read the transcript of the cab conversation and see how he was almost joking about getting lost in other locations. He seemed to dismiss the his responibility to know his territory in these conversations. It was as if he regarded it to Amtrak's fault for thusting into unfamiliar territory.
I'm not sure if one can take the joking literally.
It was Amtrak's fault to send an engineer unfamiiar with the route and locomotive on that trip. It is the engineers fault that he didn't protest or refuse to run the train.
To judge from that little information we have that he shouldn't have been allowed to become an engineer seems a bit exaggerated.
If better vetting would have found possible flaws I'm not sure.
I was involved in vetting processes of civil engineers at my employer. Often enough I was proven wrong, in both directions.
Don't forget that people go prepared into this kind of interviews. You mostly can only look at their head not into.
And you can select only from those offering their labor.Regards, Volker
The engineer knew about the 30 mph curve as he approahced it at 79 mph. He just did not know exactly where it was by actual landmarks. He knew where it was by mileposts, and there was a 2-mile advance warning sign. He did not happen to see that sign and one of the mileposts. He had an oddometer that he could have used to spot mileposts and thus know exactly where it was, but he did not do that. He knew he was lost at this point, and yet he did not slow down. The rules says, "When in doubt, take the safe course." He was in doubt and the safe couse was to slow down to 30 mph until he arrived at the curve and proceeded through it. Distraction probably played a role in this, but he should have not let it play a role. He knew he was lost. Yet, he kept running at 79 mph apparently in hope of regaining the knowledge of where the curve was before actually encountering it.
You would have to read the transcript of the cab conversation and see how he was almost joking about getting lost in other locations. He seemed to dismiss the his responibility to know his territory in these conversations. It was as if he regarded it to Amtrak's fault for thusting into unfamiliar territory.
If we assume the man was no fool, and experienced, and not possessed of a 'fat head', what could possibly have led him to be where his body is today...first time on that route, no experience to speak of on type, and this happens?!?!?! I'm inclined to think he was distracted, inattentive, lacked situational awareness (if just for two minutes...), or had way too much hubris to have been the great choice for this inaugural run.
Euclid Ulrich This is what appears to have happened here with the Amtrak engineer.. he was well trained and likely capable.. just wasn't paying attention. Actually what appears to have happened is that the engineer was dismissive of the need to apply dilligence to safety. This appears to be part of his personality, and Amtrak did not let that prevent their hiring of him. He also was not well trained for the route. But he did know about the deadly curve, and did not make enough effort to make sure he knew when he would encounter it along the route. If you read the transcript of the in-cab conversation between the engineer and the conductor, it is stunning how he jokes about how difficult it can be to navigate your way on unfamiliar railroad routes. The conversation as they begin the run is almost predictive of an impending disaster.
Ulrich This is what appears to have happened here with the Amtrak engineer.. he was well trained and likely capable.. just wasn't paying attention.
Actually what appears to have happened is that the engineer was dismissive of the need to apply dilligence to safety. This appears to be part of his personality, and Amtrak did not let that prevent their hiring of him. He also was not well trained for the route. But he did know about the deadly curve, and did not make enough effort to make sure he knew when he would encounter it along the route.
If you read the transcript of the in-cab conversation between the engineer and the conductor, it is stunning how he jokes about how difficult it can be to navigate your way on unfamiliar railroad routes. The conversation as they begin the run is almost predictive of an impending disaster.
Sounds as if he was simply bored.. "dismissive of safety and diligence" is not an ingrained personality trait.. rather its a behavior acquired, probably over time, resulting from outside influences. He wasn't paying attention..It's somewhat akin to you and I driving down the freeway on a clear day with little traffic.. we've got the music turned up.. one hand on the wheel..and we're likely chatting with the passenger if there is one. Very few of us would be sitting bolt upright.. both hands on the wheel.. 100% focussed on driving.. The Amtrak engineer similarly wasn't engaged to the extent that he needed to be..maybe he was on other trips.. but this time 'round he wasn't.
UlrichThis is what appears to have happened here with the Amtrak engineer.. he was well trained and likely capable.. just wasn't paying attention.
Part of the problem with better "smarter" technology is that it allows the operator to become inattentive.. so he/she may be highly trained and capable, but that doesn't matter when they're asleep at the switch. This will likely become more of a problem over the next five years as smart technology becomes more pervasive, yet an operator is still required. This is what appears to have happened here with the Amtrak engineer.. he was well trained and likely capable.. just wasn't paying attention. The tech wizzards and designers need to consider how to keep the operator interested and engaged when applying new technology.. if the engineer is needed but has nothing to do for any length of time he/she (like any human being) grows bored and becomes inattentive.. with predictable consequences.
We have a training program here when we can not find drivers that we need. However it is not the standard OTR training program that catches so much grief in the media if you read transportation journals. The boss set it up after talking to both my hubby and his now late father on what would be the best way to train new drivers for what we haul around here. His father had over 3.7 million miles all accident free in his career and had been a trainer at several companies. How we set it up was a 12 week course most are 6 weeks. The first 4 weeks solid the trainee does all the driving however the trainer is in the passenger seat watching every thing that the trainee does and at the end of the day tells him what he is doing wrong and how to correct his mistakes. 2nd month the trainee drives his shift the trainer drives for another 5 hours. But again they do the post day debriefing. The last 4 weeks they run team. Our trainees before they are released to run on their own have at least 36K miles of OTR driving in real world situations and have gone down every single mountain we tackle on a routine basis. Then and only then do we turn them loose. The program must work pretty well our trainees according to our insurance carrier have a 80% lower rate of accidents than any other 1st year driver.
Thanks for reposting ... must have lost this in all the other discussion on the 501 thread.
One would have thought that a supervisor would have been in the cab for the inaugural run.
Murphy Siding Euclid came upon the curve unexpectedly. ?
Euclid came upon the curve unexpectedly.
?
He was not prepared to encounter the curve, so rather than slowing from 79 mph down to the 30 mph curve speed limit; he entered the curve at 79 mph. His last recorded remark to the conductor riding with him was, "Aww, we're dead."
Euclidcame upon the curve unexpectedly.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
The author draws quite a contrast to what is needed to know the territory and what was lacking in route knowledge with the engineer of #501. This appears to be a problem with Amtrak hiring and training. The engineer of #501 seems to have been very familiar with the deadly curve, although he failed to keep track of where he was and came upon the curve unexpectedly. It seems that he was in doubt, but did not take the safe course. Instead, he soldiered on in search for the answer.
Words spoken by someone who likely could do neither job (or maybe Menke was a qualified locomotive engineer.. I dunno). Both professions require alot of skill and training.. albeit, sadly, only one of them (locomotive engineer) is generally recognized as such.. Which requires more? I don't know.. I can only do one of them.. Nor does it matter.. Menke's words insulted truck drivers as well as locomotive engineers at a time of labor strife when a softer tone would have been more useful.. maybe proof that the position of CEO is also overstated.
https://www.railwayage.com/safety/more-than-just-a-glorified-truck-driver/
Posted separately so those who are not following the 501 thread will see this.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.