243129 charlie hebdo Being good at one's job doesn't necessarily mean you would be good at teaching others, even if you want to. I'm not sure that would apply to railroad operations.
charlie hebdo Being good at one's job doesn't necessarily mean you would be good at teaching others, even if you want to.
Being good at one's job doesn't necessarily mean you would be good at teaching others, even if you want to.
I'm not sure that would apply to railroad operations.
It applies universally in all forms of human endeavor.
For those the know their job inside, out and sideways - have trouble accepting that when they say or do something - those they are training can't comprehend what they are being told or shown and the 'old head trainer' doesn't know how to break down and frame the 'transaction' in a different way that makes more sense to the one being trained. People don't learn in the same ways, it is the trainers responsibility to communicate the information in a manner that the trainee can comprehend and learn from.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Joe, the key word was 'necessarily'to which I would add that it is very much an individual matter. For example, some excellent therapists are also good teachers and supervisors, but some are most definitely not. Ditto in sports.
jeffhergert Lithonia Operator Mark, was that change made simply to get the trainee thru the program as quickly as possible? Seems like a really bad change. Yes and Yes. We have two little packets, called 'crew packs', provided for train crews. One has a small roll of toilet paper, napkins, some little alcohol wipes, etc. The other has more operational items. An air slip form, mail in card for crossing close calls, bad order tag, etc. I've noticed in the operational pack, they've also started including what to do when a crew has to inspect for a hot wheel. Things to look for, like a partial hand brake or retainer in a retaining position and how to remedy some items, like cutting out the air brakes on a car. When I first saw this cared, I thought, "Really. They have to do this?" Then I thought about some of the new hires I've worked with once they were newly promoted and on their own. It's not that I feel that they aren't capable or that they won't turn out to be good railroaders. It's just that they are turned loose too fast. Once when I was a conductor I had a student and our train was stopped at a control point. The dispatcher couldn't get the switches and frog machines to lock up. He said a signal maintainer was coming and it was OK for us to wait for him to fix what was wrong. I told the dispatcher I had a student and asked if we could hand line ourselves through to teach him how to do it. The dispatcher said OK and gave us authority to do so and we did. Some would've just waited for the maintainer, even some with students. Others would do what we did. Jeff
Lithonia Operator Mark, was that change made simply to get the trainee thru the program as quickly as possible? Seems like a really bad change.
Mark, was that change made simply to get the trainee thru the program as quickly as possible?
Seems like a really bad change.
Yes and Yes.
We have two little packets, called 'crew packs', provided for train crews. One has a small roll of toilet paper, napkins, some little alcohol wipes, etc. The other has more operational items. An air slip form, mail in card for crossing close calls, bad order tag, etc. I've noticed in the operational pack, they've also started including what to do when a crew has to inspect for a hot wheel. Things to look for, like a partial hand brake or retainer in a retaining position and how to remedy some items, like cutting out the air brakes on a car.
When I first saw this cared, I thought, "Really. They have to do this?" Then I thought about some of the new hires I've worked with once they were newly promoted and on their own. It's not that I feel that they aren't capable or that they won't turn out to be good railroaders. It's just that they are turned loose too fast.
Once when I was a conductor I had a student and our train was stopped at a control point. The dispatcher couldn't get the switches and frog machines to lock up. He said a signal maintainer was coming and it was OK for us to wait for him to fix what was wrong. I told the dispatcher I had a student and asked if we could hand line ourselves through to teach him how to do it. The dispatcher said OK and gave us authority to do so and we did. Some would've just waited for the maintainer, even some with students. Others would do what we did.
Jeff
In my line of work, you stall out at a certain pay grade if you're one of those people who "just want to do my job" and cannot or will not share their knowledge with others and help out the skill community in other ways. To get promoted beyond that pay grade as a technical person (i.e. non-manager), you must demonstrate that you are consistently willing and able to mentor junior people and otherwise share your knowledge with others.
It seems to me such a system would benefit the railroads, because it rewards people like you who want to help junior people out, and it also provides motivation for those who might otherwise be tempted to sit in their corner and not talk to anyone.
When I was an engineer trainee on the Chessie System I was assigned to the same veteran engineer for several weeks, being called whenever he was.
When I was the engineer doing the training on CSX the trainees were being called whenever their rest was up, thus working with a different engineer, some of whom were just out of the training program themselves, nearly every trip. It was impossible to know what the trainee had been taught earlier, if he was making progress, or repeating the same mistakes. Thus it was difficult to do a meaningful evaluation.
Mark Vinski
charlie hebdo Based on what zug and Larry are saying and what I know about the problems with so-called mentoring and the hazards of an old boy network, I stated that experienced engineers might contribute to developing both the vetting and training processes, but shouldn't be actually doing either.
Based on what zug and Larry are saying and what I know about the problems with so-called mentoring and the hazards of an old boy network, I stated that experienced engineers might contribute to developing both the vetting and training processes, but shouldn't be actually doing either.
I would opine that one should never say never - you may find some experienced engineers who would excel at vetting, and I'm sure you'll find a lot of fantastic mentors as well. But the vetting process has to continue right up the chain.
Once again, the Peter Principle plays a part here. As in Peter's own example in the book, an exemplary salesman might make an atrocious sales manager.
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...
zugmann How many engineers of 30+ years have been willing to go into those jobs?
As noted by others, not everyone wants to be in that position. And sometimes those senior people who are excellent at their craft are terrible at teaching. Asking them to train a new employee is almost worse that just cutting the newbie loose and letting them learn it on their own.
BaltACDPart of the problem with have existing employees assisting in the vetting during OJT is too many of the employees don't want to 'drop the hammer' on trainees that they see are struggling. As employees they didn't sign up to make HR type decisions, even when they are faced with them. Nobody wants to give a report that someone should be terminated - the employees want too much to be a 'good guy' and not make the critical reports that are necessary. It takes a personality trait that many don't have to 'fire' somebody - but doing it is best for the company and the individual involved.
That's a very good point. I know I wouldn't want to be in that position. I hadn't thought about that aspect.
jeffhergert Lithonia Operator I'm with Joe. Some people with hands-on experience are vital to the process. I don't know about other railroads, but part of the vetting process really is done during the training portion. Conductors and engineers are supposed to fill out a daily evaluation after each tour of duty. I remember one guy in my new hire class who didn't make it through the OJT. He was sttugling a bit and realized it wasn't for him after some frank discussions. The hard part sometimes is getting the right experienced people to take on students. Some don't want to. They also changed (and shortened up) the new hire training program. They used to assign a new hire to a specific conductor for a set period of time. That still happens on assigned jobs like yard and locals, but now on the unassigned through freight pool they have them work first in - first out. Instead of working with one person for awhile, they work with whom ever they happen to catch. While that may be ok after a new hire has some experience, at first they really need to work with a good trainer to establish a good grasp of the basics. The worst was 10 or so years ago when they were training a large number of new hires out of Chicago. For their road familiarization trips, they assigned two or three new hires to a 'super' conductor for a trip. This conductor wasn't the train's actual conductor, just a trainer who was riding the trailing engine with his charges pointing out the territory. Jeff
Lithonia Operator I'm with Joe. Some people with hands-on experience are vital to the process.
I'm with Joe. Some people with hands-on experience are vital to the process.
I don't know about other railroads, but part of the vetting process really is done during the training portion. Conductors and engineers are supposed to fill out a daily evaluation after each tour of duty. I remember one guy in my new hire class who didn't make it through the OJT. He was sttugling a bit and realized it wasn't for him after some frank discussions.
The hard part sometimes is getting the right experienced people to take on students. Some don't want to. They also changed (and shortened up) the new hire training program. They used to assign a new hire to a specific conductor for a set period of time. That still happens on assigned jobs like yard and locals, but now on the unassigned through freight pool they have them work first in - first out. Instead of working with one person for awhile, they work with whom ever they happen to catch. While that may be ok after a new hire has some experience, at first they really need to work with a good trainer to establish a good grasp of the basics.
The worst was 10 or so years ago when they were training a large number of new hires out of Chicago. For their road familiarization trips, they assigned two or three new hires to a 'super' conductor for a trip. This conductor wasn't the train's actual conductor, just a trainer who was riding the trailing engine with his charges pointing out the territory.
Part of the problem with have existing employees assisting in the vetting during OJT is too many of the employees don't want to 'drop the hammer' on trainees that they see are struggling. As employees they didn't sign up to make HR type decisions, even when they are faced with them. Nobody wants to give a report that someone should be terminated - the employees want too much to be a 'good guy' and not make the critical reports that are necessary. It takes a personality trait that many don't have to 'fire' somebody - but doing it is best for the company and the individual involved.
jeffhergert just a trainer who was riding the trailing engine with his charges pointing out the territory.
That's what I mean about inadequate(poor) training. Learning the physical characteristics from the trailing unit? Really? The unknowing teaching the unknowing.
The other question is who is going to want to be a vetter? Most guys I worked with that had 30+ years just want to work their regular (usually daylight) job and go home. And once retired, have lots of other things to catch up on/do (don't we all?) Are we really going to have much of a choice of people WANTING to do HR work?
Amtrak has RFEs and rules department people. How many engineers of 30+ years have been willing to go into those jobs? And why do we think a council of elders on Amtrak would be able to draw more?
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
charlie hebdo This is where I disagree with Joe. Experienced, highly capable operating personnel should have input into developing a vetting process but not doing it. I'm not sure about supervision.
This is where I disagree with Joe. Experienced, highly capable operating personnel should have input into developing a vetting process but not doing it.
I'm not sure about supervision.
Why wouldn't those with hands-on experience be directly involved with the vetting. Who better to assess acuity for the position?
charlie hebdo This is where I disagree with Joe. Experienced, highly capable operating personnel should have input into developing a vetting process but not doing it.
This could be known as "how do we make sure we don't hire people who are going to take our jobs?"
charlie hebdoI'm not sure about supervision.
The Peter Principle is undoubtedly still alive and well...
That said...
I know of someone whose attention to detail is second to none. But I wouldn't want to put my life in his hands.
zugmann Who vets the vetters? And how do we keep it from becoming a breeding ground of nepotism and outright discrimination?
Who vets the vetters? And how do we keep it from becoming a breeding ground of nepotism and outright discrimination?
A little nepotism might not necessarily be a bad thing. Now before everyone hits the ceiling on this let me explain.
Years back on a "Christmas in Colorado" we (myself, Lady Firestorm, and Mom and Dad) visited the Colorado Railroad Museum in Golden. One of the items on display was a personnel roster book of road crews. There were four men on the list with the same last name. My father noticed it first and with a "Hey, look at this..." exclaimation brought it to my attention."
"Not unusual for those days Dad," I said. "That could be a father and three sons, or a father and an uncle and two sons, or four brothers for that matter. Railroads used to like hiring members of the same family, especially if the father was a veteran employee. The family was a known quantity, in addition to the old belief that an apple doesn't fall too far from the tree."
"And of course, if you loused up on the job not only would you catch hell from your supervisor, you'd get it even worse from Dad when you got home! And your brothers and probably Mom too!"
A different day and age, I know, but sometime I have to wonder if the old-timers were just a little bit smarter about certain things than we are today.
OK, now everyone can get back to venting about things we have no control over.
Overmod tree68 Legendary in the fire service are the firefighters whose breathing apparatus always seems to malfunction when it's time to go after the "big one..." Malfunction before or after they actually get into the flames and smoke?
tree68 Legendary in the fire service are the firefighters whose breathing apparatus always seems to malfunction when it's time to go after the "big one..."
Malfunction before or after they actually get into the flames and smoke?
Before...
Lithonia OperatorI you mean black and brown people are being hired to meet quotas even though they aren't qualified, then please just say that.
There's a potential aspect of that. I purposely don't cite it because it feeds knee-jerk prejudices on both extremes of the political spectrum.
The point is that Amtrak, as a Federal agency, is subject to political meddling into whatever kinds of 'remediation of result' might be deemed desirable -- this might be 'people of color'; folks with different sexual preference or identity; traditionally underrepresented groups such as women or Native Americans; veterans; folks with a history of financial or educational disadvantage ... there's probably a long list, and I would not rule out people or groups that key legislators find attractive or important, or that have 'pull' in the appropriate parts of the Washington system.
Who they are is much less important in the present discussion than is the need to provide proper and effective support to get them into the right mindset to succeed as safety-conscious railroaders. Personally, I found the kinds of support being provided by the Amtrak 'school' to be lacking in a number of key respects, perhaps precisely because some of them would involve approaches tied to 'proscribed' ethnic or other characteristics that might be considered either condescending or 'racist' in the extended sense so beloved of many current social 'warriors'. It has been, and probably will continue to be, difficult to separate fair accommodation in training from condescension.
Frankly I'm in favor of extending employment and training opportunities to many 'historically-underrepresented' people (or to folks who may make excellent railroaders but haven't been exposed to sufficient classical education or experience to give them a 'leg up' on doing the work. A large part of initial vetting consists of determining what I call 'coachability' -- the ability to learn and remember, to take to heart the gist of information that is conveyed in training, to ask about something that is not fully understood in the course of normal training ... but not the ability to kiss up to instructors (or weed weasels, come to mention it) or lack enthusiasm to learn 'the right stuff' as a way of reaction. (The Marine Corps training is supposed to inculcate a direct and positive response to following orders; it might be thought that a similar approach to 'remembering and following rules' might be a model for training, but many posts here and in other threads indicate a different and 'more nuanced' approach would often be preferable.)
tree68Legendary in the fire service are the firefighters whose breathing apparatus always seems to malfunction when it's time to go after the "big one..."
To those it may concern:
If you mean black and brown people are being hired to meet quotas even though they aren't qualified, then please just say that.
I have no idea if that's the case or not. Maybe it is. But before I buy in, I'd like to see some evidence.
Only doing the dog-whistling does not make your points clear, or provide any proof of the "politically correct" hiring preferences alleged.
......and who would vet the vetters who vet the vetters who vet the vetters
A panel would hopefully mitigate that condition.
OvermodI think it is much more a result of 'incorrect' hiring policies, most notably what might be considered politically-correct ones.
I would hate to think that the airlines would do this when hiring pilots.
Vetting by a panel of veteran operations personnel should be able to alleviate the non-suitable and perhaps they could be placed in a position more suited to their acuity.
OvermodI don't think it is entirely fair to blame supervision for employees who were never properly qualified in the first place, or 'can't' change an air hose or knuckle
Most supervision on my former home division did not have the knowledge to instruct newbies on basic 'emergencies' such as burst air hoses or knuckles. I have quizzed some of the new hires on what their procedure would be if one of the aforementioned incidents occurred. More often than not the reply was; "oh we would just call somebody".
OvermodA very real problem occurs when you give 'supervisory personnel' both the authority and the responsibility to do that weeding-out: you give carte blanche to the weed weasel types to find 'more' excuses for people they don't like, and opportunity to support their pets.
The panel I recommend in my presentation would hopefully eliminate that possibility.
Overmodyou give carte blanche to the weed weasel types to find 'more' excuses for people they don't like, and opportunity to support their pets.
One possible definition for "people they don't like" is people who are competent, but don't toady up to the weed-weasel types. Which leaves....
Legendary in the fire service are to firefighter's whose breathing apparatus always seems to malfunction when it's time to go after the "big one..."
243129What is this a result of? Yup, you guessed, it poor vetting, poor training and poor(er) supervision.
I think it is much more a result of 'incorrect' hiring policies, most notably what might be considered politically-correct ones.
To an extent these are probably imposed on Amtrak externally, and perhaps are less than completely 'documented'. "Vetting" is at least partly the finding of personality traits unrelated to nominal hiring criteria, so it becomes even more important when primary selection is on 'non-railroad-safety' grounds. Proper training then becomes critical in the sense that it needs to be made relevant, familiar, and then second-nature to people with very different mindsets from historical 'safety-first' railroader culture.
I don't think it is entirely fair to blame supervision for employees who were never properly qualified in the first place, or 'can't' change an air hose or knuckle, or did not get the combination of vetting and training that would have 'weeded them out' before going into service critically unprepared to follow the true safe course. A very real problem occurs when you give 'supervisory personnel' both the authority and the responsibility to do that weeding-out: you give carte blanche to the weed weasel types to find 'more' excuses for people they don't like, and opportunity to support their pets.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.