They (we?) may have pride, a sense of self-worth through children, hobbies, cooking for friends, charity work, politics, etc.
I feel fortunate that I had work that was interesting and economically sufficieint, plus the railfan hobby and music, but I regret I did not have the pleasure and pride in a family. So I can understand a person who has all those pleasures and pride but does not derive anything except economic self-sufficiency from his or her work.
PsychotRegarding the latter, I'm amazed that anyone could do something for a living, day in and day out, and be content with doing a half-assed job of it and wallowing in mediocrity. Yet you see it all the time...
Perhaps such people simply are not as starstruck over the wonderous opportunities of capitalism, and are just paying their bills?
jeffhergert Convicted One Murphy Siding hat culture is prevalent in most all industries now. I can't tell if it's always been that way or if it started out better and has gotten progressively worse. Perhaps it is a consequence of the predictability that veteran employees tend to think in terms of "there really is no other answer" (eg, "we've ALWAYS done it this way"), while some might prefer to explore other options? This is a favorite meme of mine. https://me.me/i/i-have-no-idea-how-to-do-your-job-but-3117529 I think it's because it seems that those who do the work aren't considered by management to be smart enough to breathe on their own, let alone do the work anymore. I think this line of thinking has become more prevalent as work, especially if it in any way involves physical work, seems to be devalued in our culture. That if a person was smart and had talent, they wouldn't be working at a 'plain' job. (Of course it doesn't help that people in general have changed, with many not as 'motivated' at doing their jobs. This isn't and old vs young thing either. I've seen young people who were real go getters at their job, older people who weren't.) Jeff
Convicted One Murphy Siding hat culture is prevalent in most all industries now. I can't tell if it's always been that way or if it started out better and has gotten progressively worse. Perhaps it is a consequence of the predictability that veteran employees tend to think in terms of "there really is no other answer" (eg, "we've ALWAYS done it this way"), while some might prefer to explore other options?
Murphy Siding hat culture is prevalent in most all industries now. I can't tell if it's always been that way or if it started out better and has gotten progressively worse.
Perhaps it is a consequence of the predictability that veteran employees tend to think in terms of "there really is no other answer" (eg, "we've ALWAYS done it this way"), while some might prefer to explore other options?
This is a favorite meme of mine.
https://me.me/i/i-have-no-idea-how-to-do-your-job-but-3117529
I think it's because it seems that those who do the work aren't considered by management to be smart enough to breathe on their own, let alone do the work anymore. I think this line of thinking has become more prevalent as work, especially if it in any way involves physical work, seems to be devalued in our culture. That if a person was smart and had talent, they wouldn't be working at a 'plain' job. (Of course it doesn't help that people in general have changed, with many not as 'motivated' at doing their jobs. This isn't and old vs young thing either. I've seen young people who were real go getters at their job, older people who weren't.)
Jeff
I think you're right on both counts: blue-collar work is not valued in our society as much as it should be on the one hand, and on the other, a lot of people don't seem to take much pride in their work and do as little as they can to get by. Regarding the latter, I'm amazed that anyone could do something for a living, day in and day out, and be content with doing a half-assed job of it and wallowing in mediocrity. Yet you see it all the time...
jeffhergertI'm not sure that just lifting a rail on a connecting track would be enough to isolate an operation from the national system. The Boone and Scenic Valley RR did that a few years back. I forget the reason why, but they temporarily pulled a rail up to try to isolate them from the national network. One of their full time mechanical/maintenance people said that he didn't think that was enough to isolate them and exempt them from Federal regulations.
Indeed - I can't claim to be an expert, by any means. It's going to be up to the FRA to make that determination, and I'm not the FRA.
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 Lithonia Operator How many isolated systems are there in the US? A handful of narrow-gauge tourist lines? A mining operation or two? It seems that a RR that cannot receive rolling stock and engines by rail has a big full-time headache. Can equipment be brought to certain lines via abandoned lines? I don't know the answer for that - however all it takes to isolate a line is lifting a rail. Said rail could be replaced to temporarily reconnect to the "system" to move a car in or out. I know the rail operation at Greenfield Village in Dearborn, MI is exempt, although they are hard by the NS line. In fact, there is an Amtrak station at Greenfield Village, although I don't know that it's in use right now.
Lithonia Operator How many isolated systems are there in the US? A handful of narrow-gauge tourist lines? A mining operation or two? It seems that a RR that cannot receive rolling stock and engines by rail has a big full-time headache. Can equipment be brought to certain lines via abandoned lines?
I don't know the answer for that - however all it takes to isolate a line is lifting a rail. Said rail could be replaced to temporarily reconnect to the "system" to move a car in or out.
I know the rail operation at Greenfield Village in Dearborn, MI is exempt, although they are hard by the NS line. In fact, there is an Amtrak station at Greenfield Village, although I don't know that it's in use right now.
I'm not sure that just lifting a rail on a connecting track would be enough to isolate an operation from the national system. The Boone and Scenic Valley RR did that a few years back. I forget the reason why, but they temporarily pulled a rail up to try to isolate them from the national network. One of their full time mechanical/maintenance people said that he didn't think that was enough to isolate them and exempt them from Federal regulations.
The problem leading to the rail being pulled was eventually resolved and the rail reinstalled.
Jeff, I like it. I never had any superior say such to me, but I did have one supervisor who did not know as much about my work as I did. On at least one occasion, I did something which I saw as being beneficial to the company (I had done it two three times before under other supervision), and my supervisor thought I had done something extraordinary, and gave me an award. Thought I was simply doing my job.
Johnny
Lithonia OperatorHow many isolated systems are there in the US? A handful of narrow-gauge tourist lines? A mining operation or two? It seems that a RR that cannot receive rolling stock and engines by rail has a big full-time headache. Can equipment be brought to certain lines via abandoned lines?
jeffhergert . . . This is a favorite meme of mine. https://me.me/i/i-have-no-idea-how-to-do-your-job-but-3117529
"I have no idea how to do your job, but I saw it on YouTube . . . "
- PDN.
jeffhergertThis is a favorite meme of mine. https://me.me/i/i-have-no-idea-how-to-do-your-job-but-3117529 I think it's because it seems that those who do the work aren't considered by management to be smart enough to breathe on their own, let alone do the work anymore.
That's great! Glad you shared that. I bookmarked the site.
Several years ago there was a Dilbert strip where the boss always took the strategic advice of a particular outside supplier over his subordinates.
The final frame had the salesman reassuring Dilbert that if he would just buy 10,000 (whatever the dude was selling), he'd make sure Dilbert got a nice year end raise.
We had a landscaping contractor who (it's owner) was real tight with the big boss where I worked, who had a similarly curious level of influence in our office on matters that had nothing to do with landscaping. I tacked that cartoon up on the bulletin board in our breakroom, and had the pleasure of seeing the boss's expression the first time he saw it. I hit the mark I was aiming for.
tree68 243129 I thank you as well. I should point out that these requirements extend to any such crewmember on any railroad which connects to the national system, whether they actually wander off their own tracks or not. An isolated system may be free of the regulations, but they, too, are starting to come under scrutiny.
243129 I thank you as well.
I should point out that these requirements extend to any such crewmember on any railroad which connects to the national system, whether they actually wander off their own tracks or not. An isolated system may be free of the regulations, but they, too, are starting to come under scrutiny.
How many isolated systems are there in the US? A handful of narrow-gauge tourist lines? A mining operation or two?
It seems that a RR that cannot receive rolling stock and engines by rail has a big full-time headache. Can equipment be brought to certain lines via abandoned lines?
charlie hebdo If it's so simple, why did the accident happen? Stupidity? Why are they on such a tight headway? I live along the very busy UP West line. It's triple tracked, with many freights on their transcontinental line plus many Metra trains. Because of congestion, many freights, especially IM creep along at about 10 mph or halt. No collisions.
If it's so simple, why did the accident happen? Stupidity? Why are they on such a tight headway?
I live along the very busy UP West line. It's triple tracked, with many freights on their transcontinental line plus many Metra trains. Because of congestion, many freights, especially IM creep along at about 10 mph or halt. No collisions.
They were on tight headway because one had stopped and the other closed in. It was ABS/TWC territory. The block signal system protects the rear of following trains, no flagging required by crew members. If the rules had been followed, the collision wouldn't have happened.
(I suspect-from hearing bits and pieces at work-that he had thought the train was farther ahead, that maybe he thought the rear end would've been at worst towards the very top at Bradford, maybe hanging into the block by a few cars. Possibly he thought they were still moving, or starting to move from the radio conversations he heard. To me, him letting his speed getting up to 32 mph meant he was trying to make a run for the uphill grade into Bradford. I myself would've stayed at the signal until it changed from red to yellow, maybe until it went green. I wouldn't want to stop on the hill if I could avoid it and anything less than green there at that time meant a possible stop on the uphill section.)
Yes, stupidity was in clear view at Bradford. I knew the engineer, he was in my class. His nickname was "bandanna" because he wore bandannas to class when we attended UP's engineer school at Salt Lake City UT. (The school is set up in the community college there and one of the CC's rules was not to wear bandannas on campus.) He wasn't a bad sort, as people go. But for whatever reason, he had poor judgement on that day. (His brother, also an engineer who eventually left and went to the CN/IC before getting fired there, 'mort'-his nickname from formerly being a mortician-was also cut from the same mold. Both had been fired, both came back on technicalities only to get into trouble a second time. Both left and went elsewhere.)
I don't know about the conductor. I don't remember, but I don't think he had too much time in service. Most new conductors seem to rely too much on their engineer's judgement. I can't say if he was one like that, but I'm thinking that may have been the case. While the student was part of the crew, being as new as he was, I can't really see holding him responsible. I don't even know if he knew about the conductor's side emergency brake. But that's me.
Why do those trains creep along at 10mph? Because they are following the rules and/or using good judgement in the operation of their trains under prevailing conditions.
jeffhergert Euclid What is the proper speed with a large freight train that must be moving slow enough to stop short of a broken rail? If you don’t know what the restricted speed is for, should you stop and inspect a switch to determine whether the points are fully closed? Here is what Jeff posted about how people in the cab must work together: 3. When the engineer and/or conductor fail to comply with a signal indication or take proper action to comply with a restriction or rule, crew members must immediately take action to ensure safety, using the emergency brake valve to stop the train, if necessary. What if crew members don’t agree on whether it is necessary for them to use the emergency brake valve to stop the train? I don't believe the rule requires taking a vote. If a crew member feels it's necessary, it's necessary. Jeff
Euclid What is the proper speed with a large freight train that must be moving slow enough to stop short of a broken rail? If you don’t know what the restricted speed is for, should you stop and inspect a switch to determine whether the points are fully closed? Here is what Jeff posted about how people in the cab must work together: 3. When the engineer and/or conductor fail to comply with a signal indication or take proper action to comply with a restriction or rule, crew members must immediately take action to ensure safety, using the emergency brake valve to stop the train, if necessary. What if crew members don’t agree on whether it is necessary for them to use the emergency brake valve to stop the train?
What is the proper speed with a large freight train that must be moving slow enough to stop short of a broken rail?
If you don’t know what the restricted speed is for, should you stop and inspect a switch to determine whether the points are fully closed?
Here is what Jeff posted about how people in the cab must work together:
3. When the engineer and/or conductor fail to comply with a signal indication or take proper action to comply with a restriction or rule, crew members must immediately take action to ensure safety, using the emergency brake valve to stop the train, if necessary.
What if crew members don’t agree on whether it is necessary for them to use the emergency brake valve to stop the train?
I don't believe the rule requires taking a vote. If a crew member feels it's necessary, it's necessary.
on the meme!
There will probably be a heated argument in the cab after such an emergency application.
The emergency brake valve is nowhere near as complicated as the nuclear launch mechanisms etc that require all crew members to turn different keys at the same time. It's a exposed handle. If you want to pull it, then pull it. It isn't hard.
I'm done with this thread, except for using it to up my post count (should we call that mining?).
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
243129I thank you as well.
tree68 charlie hebdo You operate on a shortline and tourist line, right? Traffic density? Length of trains? Typical speed? That's correct. Train lengths run 4 to 13 cars in "dark" territory (Form D Control System). Shortline speed is 30 MPH. Tourist line portion ranges 30-45 MPH. The FRA guys we have to please are the same ones CSX, NS, etc., have to please. We use the same rules (NORAC) that Amtrak and a host of other railroads use. Have you operated: 10,000 ton freight trains, passenger trains in excess of 100mph, local freights, work trains, yard switchers ? How many years have you been operating trains? Are you a certified engineer? What is IAW appropriate? Nope - haven't run big trains or fast trains. Have done some switching of passenger cars, and have run a yard switcher (like all our locomotives, it's vintage - 1939 SW1). We don't do any freight, so the extent of my freight work has been shifting around a couple of ballast hoppers. On the other hand, our Polar Express trains generally have over 500 passengers. Maybe not as many as a commuter operation, but still a consideration. I am certified under 49 CFR 240 as an engineer, and 49 CFR 242 as a conductor.
charlie hebdo You operate on a shortline and tourist line, right? Traffic density? Length of trains? Typical speed?
That's correct. Train lengths run 4 to 13 cars in "dark" territory (Form D Control System).
Shortline speed is 30 MPH. Tourist line portion ranges 30-45 MPH.
The FRA guys we have to please are the same ones CSX, NS, etc., have to please.
We use the same rules (NORAC) that Amtrak and a host of other railroads use.
Have you operated: 10,000 ton freight trains, passenger trains in excess of 100mph, local freights, work trains, yard switchers ? How many years have you been operating trains? Are you a certified engineer? What is IAW appropriate?
Nope - haven't run big trains or fast trains. Have done some switching of passenger cars, and have run a yard switcher (like all our locomotives, it's vintage - 1939 SW1). We don't do any freight, so the extent of my freight work has been shifting around a couple of ballast hoppers.
On the other hand, our Polar Express trains generally have over 500 passengers. Maybe not as many as a commuter operation, but still a consideration.
I am certified under 49 CFR 240 as an engineer, and 49 CFR 242 as a conductor.
I thank you as well.
"IAW" means 'in accordance with'
Thank you.
charlie hebdoYou operate on a shortline and tourist line, right? Traffic density? Length of trains? Typical speed?
charlie hebdo Perhaps the 1/2 the range of vision distance should be modified?
Perhaps the 1/2 the range of vision distance should be modified?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
charlie hebdo tree68 243129 What are your qualifications? Training IAW appropriate federal (Part 49) regulations. Plus all the other training and certifications I need for engineer and conductor. You operate on a shortline and tourist line, right? Traffic density? Length of trains? Typical speed?
tree68 243129 What are your qualifications? Training IAW appropriate federal (Part 49) regulations. Plus all the other training and certifications I need for engineer and conductor.
243129 What are your qualifications?
Training IAW appropriate federal (Part 49) regulations. Plus all the other training and certifications I need for engineer and conductor.
You operate on a shortline and tourist line, right? Traffic density? Length of trains? Typical speed?
Euclid Murphy Siding charlie hebdo I was referring to the apparent lack of agreement about responsibility for what to do and who should do it in situations like the collisions. Professionals on here don't agree. After the fact conclusions are rather beside the point. If the guidelines were clearer to operating personnel and training were better, collisions like this wouldn't happen. Instead they are trained with confusing rules. Fortunately nobody was killed. I also wonder why the dispatcher had the two trains running with so little headway? So then we move on to PTC 2.0? A totally automated system? In the meantime....... Right or wrong, I think I can understand why the rules seem to be so general and vague. There are so many what ifs involved in every possible situation that to cover all the possibilities, you'd have a book that looks like it was written by euclid. In addition, the rules -maybe by neccesity?- are written in a general fashion to protect the railroad? In essence, it is against the rules to do anything that causes problems. Whether that rule is broken shall be determined by the company after the fact. ps. life isn't fair. What are some examples of rules that you feel are too general and vague? When I write, I do think of the clarity of railroad rules as a model. I don't see anything too general and vague about restricted speed except maybe the part about watching for broken rails. I notice they don't require you stop short of them. If that were required, you would be going slow enough to be considered malicious. What are you supposed to do if you see a broken rail? What I do see as vague is how the people in the cab are supposed to cooperate and each one has the authority to stop the train, on their own independent judgement, under certain condtions, while considering that their judgement may be questioned after the fact, resulting in discipline.
Murphy Siding charlie hebdo I was referring to the apparent lack of agreement about responsibility for what to do and who should do it in situations like the collisions. Professionals on here don't agree. After the fact conclusions are rather beside the point. If the guidelines were clearer to operating personnel and training were better, collisions like this wouldn't happen. Instead they are trained with confusing rules. Fortunately nobody was killed. I also wonder why the dispatcher had the two trains running with so little headway? So then we move on to PTC 2.0? A totally automated system? In the meantime....... Right or wrong, I think I can understand why the rules seem to be so general and vague. There are so many what ifs involved in every possible situation that to cover all the possibilities, you'd have a book that looks like it was written by euclid. In addition, the rules -maybe by neccesity?- are written in a general fashion to protect the railroad? In essence, it is against the rules to do anything that causes problems. Whether that rule is broken shall be determined by the company after the fact. ps. life isn't fair.
charlie hebdo I was referring to the apparent lack of agreement about responsibility for what to do and who should do it in situations like the collisions. Professionals on here don't agree. After the fact conclusions are rather beside the point. If the guidelines were clearer to operating personnel and training were better, collisions like this wouldn't happen. Instead they are trained with confusing rules. Fortunately nobody was killed. I also wonder why the dispatcher had the two trains running with so little headway? So then we move on to PTC 2.0? A totally automated system? In the meantime.......
I was referring to the apparent lack of agreement about responsibility for what to do and who should do it in situations like the collisions. Professionals on here don't agree. After the fact conclusions are rather beside the point. If the guidelines were clearer to operating personnel and training were better, collisions like this wouldn't happen. Instead they are trained with confusing rules. Fortunately nobody was killed.
I also wonder why the dispatcher had the two trains running with so little headway?
So then we move on to PTC 2.0? A totally automated system? In the meantime.......
Right or wrong, I think I can understand why the rules seem to be so general and vague. There are so many what ifs involved in every possible situation that to cover all the possibilities, you'd have a book that looks like it was written by euclid. In addition, the rules -maybe by neccesity?- are written in a general fashion to protect the railroad? In essence, it is against the rules to do anything that causes problems. Whether that rule is broken shall be determined by the company after the fact. ps. life isn't fair.
What are some examples of rules that you feel are too general and vague? When I write, I do think of the clarity of railroad rules as a model. I don't see anything too general and vague about restricted speed except maybe the part about watching for broken rails. I notice they don't require you stop short of them. If that were required, you would be going slow enough to be considered malicious. What are you supposed to do if you see a broken rail?
What I do see as vague is how the people in the cab are supposed to cooperate and each one has the authority to stop the train, on their own independent judgement, under certain condtions, while considering that their judgement may be questioned after the fact, resulting in discipline.
Maybe a good idea. Maybe 1/3?
Obviously, management has to balance safety with trying to get trains over the road. The safest way to run a railroad would be to keep all the trains parked.
mvlandswThe collision of two opposing trains does not absolutely mean that neither complied with restricted speed rules. One could be going slow enough to stop within one half his range of vision and still be struck when the other could not stop in time.
No, it only means that one did not comply.
tree68Training IAW appropriate federal (Part 49) regulations. Plus all the other training and certifications I need for engineer and conductor.
charlie hebdoIn response to Lithonia, I think that is the problem. You are suggesting evryone in the cab was stupid or inattentive or lazy?
Those are all possibilities; and there are others, like a medical emergency or some strange or serious occurrence that grabbed their attention and caused them to react too late. Brake failure. Blinded by a lightning strike. Whatever.
I have no particular notion about why they did not react in time. And I doubt it was because someone was "stupid." I was only saying that they were unable to stop in time. So they were going too fast at restricted speed, and not within a stopping distance equaling half of their view forward. And/or there was a period of time when no one was looking forward.
If an event happened that caused them to not be able to follow the rules (which include looking forward), that's another story, but nonetheless the rules were broken.
If they can show management that there was good reason that not one of three persons could follow the rules in this situation (which is extremely unlikely), then maybe they get absolved.
BaltACD charlie hebdo As you said, the prevailing climate is don't mess with the engineer, a corollary to don't narc on other railroaders. If you do, you are ostracized or worse, so management employs people to observe, aka weed weasels. Hardly a culture of safety. Your alternative to, in your mind, create a culture of safety.
charlie hebdo As you said, the prevailing climate is don't mess with the engineer, a corollary to don't narc on other railroaders. If you do, you are ostracized or worse, so management employs people to observe, aka weed weasels. Hardly a culture of safety.
Your alternative to, in your mind, create a culture of safety.
I am just pointing out conditions not conducive to a climate for safe practices: "go along to get along" regarding the consequent need for observation as weed weasels and even some aspects of unions all contribute to a chilling effect on self-monitoring.
You are familiar with the rails, what would you suggest? Nothing?
BaltACD It is just that simple. 1/2 the range of vision permits opposing trains on the same track to stop before impacting each other, when that standard is complied with. Impacting each other means NEITHER complied.
It is just that simple. 1/2 the range of vision permits opposing trains on the same track to stop before impacting each other, when that standard is complied with. Impacting each other means NEITHER complied.
The collision of two opposing trains does not absolutely mean that neither complied with restricted speed rules. One could be going slow enough to stop within one half his range of vision and still be struck when the other could not stop in time.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.