243129 Here is a template for hiring, vetting and training procedures that I presented to the Amtrak Chief Transportation Officer in 2015. They felt that they had a better idea. Hiring and Training Template for Train and Engine Service EmployeesAmtrak is rife with inexperience from top to bottom. Since it's inception Amtrak, eschewing the knowledge and experience of the veteran workforce it inherited in the 1983 takeover of operations on the Northeast Corridor (NEC), has used hit and miss trial and error tactics and nowhere is it more apparent than in their hiring and training procedures which have resulted in many incidents, most notably the incidents in Philadelphia involving the 'wrong way train' and the tragedy at Frankford Junction which could quite possibly have been avoided through vetting and proper training by experienced operations personnel not those of questionable pedigree that Amtrak chooses to employ.That being said I have a template for hiring and training of operations personnel. It is a comprehensive and multifaceted program.I have experienced operations personnel for an oversight committee made up of seasoned T&E veterans which can also screen prospective candidates, advise instructors, conduct field testing and evaluate trainees. Seasoned operations veterans can better assess the acumen for train operations a candidate possesses than a non experienced in operations Human Resources employee.Physical ability. Candidates must be able to pass a physical agility screening. How can one assist in an evacuation situation if that person cannot safely and without assistance evacuate themselves?OJT, OJT and more OJT. Nothing beats on the job training. Real-time situations with the accompanying conditions in all classes of service. Basic rules at the outset, more instruction midway, intense instruction at the end of OJT to be followed by final examination. All instructions on rules and special instructions are to be tailored to situations on the division for which hired. This way there is a mental picture when applying the rules. No 'generic' rules situations. Physical characteristics for engineers are extremely important and the candidate must exhibit intimate knowledge of such. Testing will be conducted by veteran engineers with 35 or more years of experience in all classes of service.Train handling for engineers, which I suspect is one of the culprits in the recent rash of crude oil derailments, instruction should be intense and evaluated strictly.Car handling for train service candidates should be extensive and equally intense.Present operating employees and supervision, most of who are 'victims' of Amtrak's inadequate training program, would be subject to evaluation and field testing and if need be assigned to other duties should they not measure up. No loss of job to present employees. Create a new position for those who cannot attain the standards for participating in train operations i.e. “ticket taker” where the individual would only be involved in collecting revenue and have nothing to do with train operations. They can observe operations and benefit with what would be considered 'paid training'. Seniority would be preserved in the craft from which they came should they be able to pass the required exams/tests at a later time.Amtrak must shed its arrogance and acknowledge its shortcomings and yield to the willing assistance from seasoned active and retired operations employees.Amtrak in its present state is an accident waiting to happen.
Here is a template for hiring, vetting and training procedures that I presented to the Amtrak Chief Transportation Officer in 2015. They felt that they had a better idea.
Hiring and Training Template for Train and Engine Service EmployeesAmtrak is rife with inexperience from top to bottom. Since it's inception Amtrak, eschewing the knowledge and experience of the veteran workforce it inherited in the 1983 takeover of operations on the Northeast Corridor (NEC), has used hit and miss trial and error tactics and nowhere is it more apparent than in their hiring and training procedures which have resulted in many incidents, most notably the incidents in Philadelphia involving the 'wrong way train' and the tragedy at Frankford Junction which could quite possibly have been avoided through vetting and proper training by experienced operations personnel not those of questionable pedigree that Amtrak chooses to employ.That being said I have a template for hiring and training of operations personnel. It is a comprehensive and multifaceted program.I have experienced operations personnel for an oversight committee made up of seasoned T&E veterans which can also screen prospective candidates, advise instructors, conduct field testing and evaluate trainees. Seasoned operations veterans can better assess the acumen for train operations a candidate possesses than a non experienced in operations Human Resources employee.Physical ability. Candidates must be able to pass a physical agility screening. How can one assist in an evacuation situation if that person cannot safely and without assistance evacuate themselves?OJT, OJT and more OJT. Nothing beats on the job training. Real-time situations with the accompanying conditions in all classes of service. Basic rules at the outset, more instruction midway, intense instruction at the end of OJT to be followed by final examination. All instructions on rules and special instructions are to be tailored to situations on the division for which hired. This way there is a mental picture when applying the rules. No 'generic' rules situations. Physical characteristics for engineers are extremely important and the candidate must exhibit intimate knowledge of such. Testing will be conducted by veteran engineers with 35 or more years of experience in all classes of service.Train handling for engineers, which I suspect is one of the culprits in the recent rash of crude oil derailments, instruction should be intense and evaluated strictly.Car handling for train service candidates should be extensive and equally intense.Present operating employees and supervision, most of who are 'victims' of Amtrak's inadequate training program, would be subject to evaluation and field testing and if need be assigned to other duties should they not measure up. No loss of job to present employees. Create a new position for those who cannot attain the standards for participating in train operations i.e. “ticket taker” where the individual would only be involved in collecting revenue and have nothing to do with train operations. They can observe operations and benefit with what would be considered 'paid training'. Seniority would be preserved in the craft from which they came should they be able to pass the required exams/tests at a later time.Amtrak must shed its arrogance and acknowledge its shortcomings and yield to the willing assistance from seasoned active and retired operations employees.Amtrak in its present state is an accident waiting to happen.
According to personnel still in the workforce, Amtrak, to this day has engineers running trains that should never have been qualified to, train service personnel who cannot even change/replace a burst air hose which has resulted in major delays and sundry other incidents which will eventually lead to another human error disaster.
What is this a result of? Yup, you guessed, it poor vetting, poor training and poor(er) supervision.
243129 Murphy Siding Yeah, yeah, yeah. I'm quoting you in the posts and you've just proved all three assertions. Quoting me in the posts? Where? Present your case.
Murphy Siding Yeah, yeah, yeah. I'm quoting you in the posts and you've just proved all three assertions.
Quoting me in the posts? Where? Present your case.
So where are you quoting me in the posts? I, and I see that am not alone, cannot decipher what you are saying.
Murphy Siding 243129 Murphy Siding Yeah, yeah, yeah. I'm quoting you in the posts and you've just proved all three assertions. Quoting me in the posts? Where? Present your case. 243129 243129 BaltACD You have been claiming the vetting is the answer to everything. Please show where I state that. BaltACD Which shows how little you know about either the operating environment or the office environment. My, my aren't we a bit testy. Are you getting enough fiber in your diet? I think I can see why no one takes you seriously, here, at Amtrak or anywhere else for that matter. 1) You can't communicate effectively with others. 2) You don't deal well with any kind of criticism. 3)You have never learned how to effectively interact with those who aren't willing to concede that you know everything and that the only opinion that matters is your own. Is this not you?
243129 243129 BaltACD You have been claiming the vetting is the answer to everything. Please show where I state that. BaltACD Which shows how little you know about either the operating environment or the office environment. My, my aren't we a bit testy. Are you getting enough fiber in your diet? I think I can see why no one takes you seriously, here, at Amtrak or anywhere else for that matter. 1) You can't communicate effectively with others. 2) You don't deal well with any kind of criticism. 3)You have never learned how to effectively interact with those who aren't willing to concede that you know everything and that the only opinion that matters is your own.
243129 BaltACD You have been claiming the vetting is the answer to everything. Please show where I state that. BaltACD Which shows how little you know about either the operating environment or the office environment. My, my aren't we a bit testy. Are you getting enough fiber in your diet?
BaltACD You have been claiming the vetting is the answer to everything.
Please show where I state that.
BaltACD Which shows how little you know about either the operating environment or the office environment.
My, my aren't we a bit testy. Are you getting enough fiber in your diet?
I think I can see why no one takes you seriously, here, at Amtrak or anywhere else for that matter. 1) You can't communicate effectively with others. 2) You don't deal well with any kind of criticism. 3)You have never learned how to effectively interact with those who aren't willing to concede that you know everything and that the only opinion that matters is your own.
Is this not you?
I don't understand your question: "Is this not you?" What you quoted above was said by you, but above, you attribute it to Joe.
Or does your question mean, is this person you describe with all the deficiencies Joe? You certainly intended that to describe Joe. He might disagree with your conclusions about him though.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy SidingYeah, yeah, yeah. I'm quoting you in the posts and you've just proved all three assertions.
243129 Murphy Siding I think I can see why no one takes you seriously, here, at Amtrak or anywhere else for that matter. 1) You can't communicate effectively with others. 2) You don't deal well with any kind of criticism. 3)You have never learned how to effectively interact with those who aren't willing to concede that you know everything and that the only opinion that matters is your own. I respond to your post yet you choose to reference another post in an effort to chastise me? When I am challenged I can provide proof, when someone wishes to put their own spin on statements I have made I will confront them for proof. I have provided the explanations you requested but instead of responding on topic you choose to criticize and chastise. I am reactive, not proactive, when attacked I will react. You play nice. I play nice. Take your choice.
Murphy Siding I think I can see why no one takes you seriously, here, at Amtrak or anywhere else for that matter. 1) You can't communicate effectively with others. 2) You don't deal well with any kind of criticism. 3)You have never learned how to effectively interact with those who aren't willing to concede that you know everything and that the only opinion that matters is your own.
I respond to your post yet you choose to reference another post in an effort to chastise me?
When I am challenged I can provide proof, when someone wishes to put their own spin on statements I have made I will confront them for proof. I have provided the explanations you requested but instead of responding on topic you choose to criticize and chastise.
I am reactive, not proactive, when attacked I will react. You play nice. I play nice. Take your choice.
charlie hebdo It's really not worth it as some of this is based on long-standing dynamics far beyond your time on the forum
As I said I am reactive not proactive. I treat folks with respect and expect to be treated that way in kind. Perhaps I react too quickly, I shall have to work on that as I am not well versed in 'forum dynamics'
Joe: You provide factual information more than most. You tend to avoid commenting on topics outside your range of experience. Others do not though that's OK. As I see it, and I speak from past kertuffles with you, you are too quick to hit hard when you see others aren't playing nice with you or acting like experts about stuff they are clueless about. It's really not worth it as some of this is based on long-standing dynamics far beyond your time on the forum.
charlie hebdo I think both Balt and Joe are very knowledgeable in the areas of their careers, Joe as an engineer and Balt with the dispatching area. The trouble is when they step outside those areas.
I think both Balt and Joe are very knowledgeable in the areas of their careers, Joe as an engineer and Balt with the dispatching area. The trouble is when they step outside those areas.
Murphy SidingI think I can see why no one takes you seriously, here, at Amtrak or anywhere else for that matter. 1) You can't communicate effectively with others. 2) You don't deal well with any kind of criticism. 3)You have never learned how to effectively interact with those who aren't willing to concede that you know everything and that the only opinion that matters is your own.
BaltACDYou have been claiming the vetting is the answer to everything.
BaltACDWhich shows how little you know about either the operating environment or the office environment.
243129 BaltACD Ding Ding Ding - so Vetting can't do it all, you can't vet for the unknown. Who said vetting does it all? BaltACD A second requirement of teaching advancing technology is having someone, that after years of employment, WANTS to learn the new technology. Not everyone does. Had a number of Yard Clerks when Chessie implemented the computerized Terminal Services Center concept that, form prior personal experience were fully capable of mastering the new skills required for the TSC operation, hid from the TSC office by displacing to 'dead end' non-TSC clerical positions when their Yard Office jobs were abolished. I realize that your area of expertise is desk jobs but we are speaking of operations in the field. Desk jobs versus operations procedures are akin to comparing apples to oranges.
BaltACD Ding Ding Ding - so Vetting can't do it all, you can't vet for the unknown.
Who said vetting does it all?
BaltACD A second requirement of teaching advancing technology is having someone, that after years of employment, WANTS to learn the new technology. Not everyone does. Had a number of Yard Clerks when Chessie implemented the computerized Terminal Services Center concept that, form prior personal experience were fully capable of mastering the new skills required for the TSC operation, hid from the TSC office by displacing to 'dead end' non-TSC clerical positions when their Yard Office jobs were abolished.
I realize that your area of expertise is desk jobs but we are speaking of operations in the field. Desk jobs versus operations procedures are akin to comparing apples to oranges.
You have been claiming the vetting is the answer to everything.
Which shows how little you know about either the operating environment or the office environment.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACDDing Ding Ding - so Vetting can't do it all, you can't vet for the unknown.
BaltACDA second requirement of teaching advancing technology is having someone, that after years of employment, WANTS to learn the new technology. Not everyone does. Had a number of Yard Clerks when Chessie implemented the computerized Terminal Services Center concept that, form prior personal experience were fully capable of mastering the new skills required for the TSC operation, hid from the TSC office by displacing to 'dead end' non-TSC clerical positions when their Yard Office jobs were abolished.
I realize that your area of expertise is desk jobs but we are speaking of operations in the field. Desk jobs versus operations procedures is akin to comparing apples to oranges.
Murphy Siding Or are you saying that those that can't keep the train rolling when the technology falters need to be retrained or shown the door?
Yes, that is what I mean. As I stated previously that when I retired in 2014 there was a dearth of engineers who were not lost when the 'technology' failed and that is primarily due to Amtrak's hiring, vetting, training and supervisory procedures which are dangerously inadequate. Amtrak has evolved into a culture of the unknowing teaching the unknowing. It is just a matter of time until the next disaster that will be a result of the aforementioned reasons/conditions.
243129 Murphy Siding My question is this- what happens when you have an engineer with 35 years experience who was properly vetted, trained, etc. and new technology is introduced that the engineer just can't seem to grasp? If you have someone with 35 years of operations service I would be confident that they could be trained to adjust to new technology which would be applied to a field in which they are proficient. Murphy Siding How do you vet someone to determine if they would be able to adjust to a new techmology that has yet to be invented? Can you see 35 years into the future? How can you vet someone about something that nobody knows anything about?
Murphy Siding My question is this- what happens when you have an engineer with 35 years experience who was properly vetted, trained, etc. and new technology is introduced that the engineer just can't seem to grasp?
If you have someone with 35 years of operations service I would be confident that they could be trained to adjust to new technology which would be applied to a field in which they are proficient.
Murphy Siding How do you vet someone to determine if they would be able to adjust to a new techmology that has yet to be invented?
Can you see 35 years into the future? How can you vet someone about something that nobody knows anything about?
Ding Ding Ding - so Vetting can't do it all, you can't vet for the unknown.
A second requirement of teaching advancing technology is having someone, that after years of employment, WANTS to learn the new technology. Not everyone does. Had a number of Yard Clerks when Chessie implemented the computerized Terminal Services Center concept that, form prior personal experience were fully capable of mastering the new skills required for the TSC operation, hid from the TSC office by displacing to 'dead end' non-TSC clerical positions when their Yard Office jobs were abolished.
Murphy: I think in the old days, long-term employees who were no longer able to perform at their job were given alternate duties. On the rails this was often physical, so an engineer might operate crossing gates. That is much harder to do now.
I had no idea you also taught. In my experience, one must reach people where they are in the first 10 minutes or you lose them, whether in the classroom, therapy or some sort of job training. Yes, making people aware of terms and jargon in the field is essential, but the focus is on connecting initially.
Given the choice between using one word familiar to less than 0.05% of a population vs a three or four commonly-used word string to explain what I am talking about , I try to choose the latter (but don't always succeed) especially in a lecture. The goal is always maximizing the understanding of your audience, nothing else.
243129 Murphy Siding My question is this- what happens when you have an engineer with 35 years experience who was properly vetted, trained, etc. and new technology is introduced that the engineer just can't seem to grasp? If you have someone with 35 years of operations service I would be confident that they could be trained to adjust to new technology which would be applied to a field in which they are proficient. Murphy Siding How do you vet someone to determine if they would be able to adjust to a new technology that has yet to be invented? Can you see 35 years into the future? How can you vet someone about something that nobody knows anything about?
Murphy Siding How do you vet someone to determine if they would be able to adjust to a new technology that has yet to be invented?
243129 When I retired in 2014 there was a dearth of engineers who were not lost when these systems, ATC,PTC etc. failed.
When I retired in 2014 there was a dearth of engineers who were not lost when these systems, ATC,PTC etc. failed.
charlie hebdoFor a start, good training manuals and programs need to be written in clear, simple declarative sentences using a vocabulary appropriate to the job, but best at a seventh grade level.
There is no question that clear, simple, declarative sentences, carefully arranged in sensible paragraph structure, with a correct set of indices (or indexes, for non-pedants) and probably well-thought-out use of hypertext, are always correct for both manuals and training material.
I would argue, though, that strict adherence to the seventh-grade vocabulary may be limiting. The example I use when teaching expository writing is Steinbeck's Log from the Sea of Cortez, which by itself is almost a model of how to craft the language for the material required.
In my opinion, which of course is somewhat biased when it comes to the English language and so can be taken with more than a little salt, it is fully appropriate to introduce new words or concepts during the course of training, even when these are not strictly related to railroading or to the immediate subject of instruction. In part this addresses the issue raised by
Thus reduce/eliminate the use of words like instantiations.
There may be a 'better' unambiguous word to address a complex software environment, subject to change in rapid and varied ways, when considering a particular 'build' or provision in a machine. I have certainly looked for one for over 30 years. The usual alternatives to this term in the computer industry all involve multiple words or involve less specific use of jargon. So it might make sense to actually teach this word as part of training to understand the difference between what a program 'in general' is supposed to do and what a specific installation can, without having to explain each and every time what the differences involve.
On the other hand, I use the term here in Forum posts serene in the understanding that everyone either appreciates why I use it or gives up as hopeless the idea I can write unconvoluted* prose.
( right back at'cha! and with, I see, *another wonderful five-syllable word!)
For a start, good training manuals and programs need to be written in clear, simple declarative sentences using a vocabulary appropriate to the job, but best at a seventh grade level. Thus reduce/eliminate the use of words like instantiations.
Murphy Sidingwhat happens when you have an engineer with 35 years experience who was properly vetted, trained, etc. and new technology is introduced that the engineer just can't seem to grasp?
The 'right' answer, at least in my design philosophy, is that you throw out the bums who couldn't design correct railroad IxD and find people who can do the new technology 'right'.
See for example the way that MTU designed the control logic for refitting the HST with 16-cylinder 4000s in the early 2000s. A great deal of care was taken to make the operation of the repowered trains as 'common' and familiar as possible.
We have had long and repeated discussions about certain railroads introducing exciting new technology without training or even, in some cases, informing crews of the differences. Some large part of the relative failure of PRR T1s in first-line passenger service, for example, could be linked to this. What was deplorable then is just as deplorable now.
How do you vet someone to determine if they would be able to adjust to a new technology that has yet to be invented?
Most of the traits that are actually involved in the 'vetting' will translate just as appropriately as they do for professions like medicine, where tremendous and often modal changes occur frequently and accepted paradigms for treatment may be dramatically changed in a comparatively short time. While a solution like continuing education requirements may not work as directly for railroading as it does for, say, medicine or architecture, it can certainly be designed to keep railroaders abreast of the bleeding edge of technology applied to them. And conscientious rejection of 'automated addiction' is one trait in particular that can be both 'vetted-for' and trained effectively.
Now, the question of older railroaders having to deal with wacky Mickey-Mouse technology (like much of the current PTC instantiations) is something a bit different. And I am not sure that the personality type that Joe advises is 'best' is going to be fully tolerant of the doublethink involved in working effectively with such 'improvements'. Those reading this thread will already probably have thought carefully about the 'difficulties' involved in training people to understand when to follow rules and when to bend them in a culture where bending any rule may be grounds for arbitrary discipline or dismissal.
Murphy SidingMy question is this- what happens when you have an engineer with 35 years experience who was properly vetted, trained, etc. and new technology is introduced that the engineer just can't seem to grasp?
Murphy SidingHow do you vet someone to determine if they would be able to adjust to a new techmology that has yet to be invented?
Murphy Siding 243129 Murphy Siding When I retired in 2014 there was a dearth of engineers who were not lost when these systems, ATC,PTC etc. failed. I think you misread my post. No, I think I understand what you're saying. My question is this- what happens when you have an engineer with 35 years experience who was properly vetted, trained, etc. and new technology is introduced that the engineer just can't seem to grasp? How do you vet someone to determine if they would be able to adjust to a new techmology that has yet to be invented?
243129 Murphy Siding When I retired in 2014 there was a dearth of engineers who were not lost when these systems, ATC,PTC etc. failed. I think you misread my post.
Murphy Siding When I retired in 2014 there was a dearth of engineers who were not lost when these systems, ATC,PTC etc. failed.
I think you misread my post.
No, I think I understand what you're saying. My question is this- what happens when you have an engineer with 35 years experience who was properly vetted, trained, etc. and new technology is introduced that the engineer just can't seem to grasp? How do you vet someone to determine if they would be able to adjust to a new techmology that has yet to be invented?
I think that is in the province of ongoing supervision and training, just as it should be in any endeavor where new technology or methodology is introduced to employees. Most adapt, some don't. The real question is whether or not you spot those who don't and what is their future? This has become a looming issue for those entering the workforce for the first time. We have shortages in certain occupations requiring certain skill sets.
Murphy SidingWhen I retired in 2014 there was a dearth of engineers who were not lost when these systems, ATC,PTC etc. failed.
blue streak 1Jeff. yes engineers can get lost but I submit that pilots can and do get lost. The two 737MAX accidents come from pilots getting lost both from lack of experience in other aircraft and the IT boys not believing that pilots should even know about the nose down push. We do not know if some other pilots handled the problem and may not have reported it. The test pilot in the simulator did but was shut up probably by non disclosure provisions in his contract.
Those 737MAX crash pilots were 243129's poster children for vetting, training and supervision and the lack thereof.
I am not giving Boeing and the FAA a pass, however, for whatever reasons more highly trained '1st World' airline had been flying the 737MAX for a year and a half without incident before the first crash.
Jeff. yes engineers can get lost but I submit that pilots can and do get lost. The two 737MAX accidents come from pilots getting lost both from lack of experience in other aircraft and the IT boys not believing that pilots should even know about the nose down push. We do not know if some other pilots handled the problem and may not have reported it. The test pilot in the simulator did but was shut up probably by non disclosure provisions in his contract.
Murphy Siding 243129 Murphy Siding I'm not sure I understand what automated addiction means. Can you explain? This can apply to railroad engineers also. https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/automation-addiction-pilots-forgetting-fly/story?id=14417730 When I retired in 2014 there was a dearth of engineers who were not lost when these systems, ATC,PTC etc. failed. This is common to a lot industries. A typical example would be truck drivers who can't drive a stickshift truck anymore. What would you do about longtime engineers who couldn't keep up with the times and fell behind, like in your example?
243129 Murphy Siding I'm not sure I understand what automated addiction means. Can you explain? This can apply to railroad engineers also. https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/automation-addiction-pilots-forgetting-fly/story?id=14417730 When I retired in 2014 there was a dearth of engineers who were not lost when these systems, ATC,PTC etc. failed.
Murphy Siding I'm not sure I understand what automated addiction means. Can you explain?
This can apply to railroad engineers also.
https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/automation-addiction-pilots-forgetting-fly/story?id=14417730
This is common to a lot industries. A typical example would be truck drivers who can't drive a stickshift truck anymore. What would you do about longtime engineers who couldn't keep up with the times and fell behind, like in your example?
I think the "automation addiction" applies less to the pilots (or truck drivers or railroad engineers or taxi drivers, etc.) and more to the airlines (or employers of the above alternative list). The addiction is to the 'bean counters' who think that they can fully automate all jobs, with the current automation just a stepping stone to that goal. The loss of proficiency is probably due more to the requirements of the employers to use as much as possible the automation provided. (Even when the automation sometimes doesn't live up to the salesman's promises.)
With our Energy Management Systems we are instructed, to the point of being disciplined, to use them to the fullest extent possible. If you don't use it, you had better have a good reason why you didn't. (One occurence without using EMS without reason won't lead to discipline, it's multiple occurences that will.) And it can lead to engineers being lost when something doesn't work.
Jeff
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.