DeggestyAs for the fixed basic miles for a day's work, passenger trainmen ordinarily had a 150 mile day. About 50 years ago, i rode the night train from Atlanta to Nashville; going into Nashville, the conductor told me of the discrepancy between his assignment (Chatttanooga-Nashville) and the assignment of the crew he relieved in Chattanooga (Atlanta-Chattanooga) The other crew received a full day's pay for the 134 miles they ran--and he received only a day's pay for the 153 miles that he ran.
Passenger service had a totally different basis for their 'standard day'. I don't know what the exact terms were - but they were different than freight. Additionally on the B&O Passenger and Freight had different crew change districts. This was all based on the higher speeds that passenger trains were operated at.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACDAny T&E employee that makes it past the probationary period of their employment knows to the penny what they are owed by the company pay period to pay period - even if they need two witnesses to their making their mark.
I have an engineer's personal log book from the 1950's. In addition to such interesting things as the engine numbers he ran, and where he was working out of, was that last item in each entry - how much he would be paid for that day.
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...
What does T&E stand for?
Transportation and ... ?
Lithonia OperatorWhat does T&E stand for? Transportation and ... ?
Train (Conductors & Brakemen) & Enginemen (Engineers and Firemen).
Thanks.
BaltACD Deggesty As for the fixed basic miles for a day's work, passenger trainmen ordinarily had a 150 mile day. About 50 years ago, i rode the night train from Atlanta to Nashville; going into Nashville, the conductor told me of the discrepancy between his assignment (Chatttanooga-Nashville) and the assignment of the crew he relieved in Chattanooga (Atlanta-Chattanooga) The other crew received a full day's pay for the 134 miles they ran--and he received only a day's pay for the 153 miles that he ran. Passenger service had a totally different basis for their 'standard day'. I don't know what the exact terms were - but they were different than freight. Additionally on the B&O Passenger and Freight had different crew change districts. This was all based on the higher speeds that passenger trains were operated at.
Deggesty As for the fixed basic miles for a day's work, passenger trainmen ordinarily had a 150 mile day. About 50 years ago, i rode the night train from Atlanta to Nashville; going into Nashville, the conductor told me of the discrepancy between his assignment (Chatttanooga-Nashville) and the assignment of the crew he relieved in Chattanooga (Atlanta-Chattanooga) The other crew received a full day's pay for the 134 miles they ran--and he received only a day's pay for the 153 miles that he ran.
All the passenger stuff is still in our agreement, even though CN crews operate few, if any passenger trains these days.
Basic day is 150 miles, compared to 100 for freight.
Passenger crews will work up to 6450 miles per month, compared to 4300 for freight, and 3800 for Engineers.
Passenger crews are paid less per mile than freight crews, but due to the greater mileage a Passenger Conductor would make more money than a Through Freight Conductor if both worked their full mileages.
Passenger train crews on CN would work three subdivisions on transcontinental trains, as an example the same crew would work through from Vancouver to Blue River, BC, where they would be replaced by a Edmonton-based crew. Engine crews on the same trains would only work one subdivision.
This is the 2005 revision of the CN West CTY (Conductors, Trainmen, Yardmen) Agreement, covering employees west of Armstrong, ON. I believe all the passenger stuff is still current.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnx0Y3JjY3R5eWFyZHxneDoxZDY5NmZiMGU0Mzg4NzZh
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
I have some agreements/rules and rates of pay from the Rock Island, North Western and Burlington. Most regulated passenger service to a maximum of 4000 miles a month, pool freight (aka the 'chain gang') between 3200 and 3800 miles a month, extra boards between 2600 and 3800 miles. (There's some slight difference between the three, the miles stated are a composite.) The mileages are for regulating the number on a specific board. They weren't a guarantee.
When a person made the maximum monthly mileage, they were to be laid off for the remainder of the month. When the board (pool or extra) started to average at or above the maximum, turns were supposed to be added. When the average dropped below the minimum, turns were supposed to be cut. These numbers were adopted in an agreement dating to the late 1920's. For us, and I think others too, these mileage provisions have been superceded by newer agreements.
Jeff
Edit. The passenger miles should read 4800 per month.
Vetting seems to require selecting only those job candidates with the so-called, Right stuff. But how do you define that term?
In the case of the conductor in this Cayce accident, he held out against the doubt of his engineer about the switch position for some time in addition to the final drama starting only minutes prior to the disaster. They had all the time in the world to settle the question by taking a 600 ft. walk to see the switch. But somehow, the issue was left to fester along through confusion over the official Switch Awareness Form and protocol, and the lack of any recent experience with that process. Somehow, they got the job done and released the track back to the dispatcher.
The details about this reporting and release of track authority seem lacking in the NTSF report, apparently because they have shifted much of the burden of this onto the CSX Company itself rather than the two employees working on the freight crew.
But as far as knowing what to vet for, The conductor did not have enough conviction to question whether he really knew he had restored the switch. But he had too much conviction when it came to believing he was correct simply because he had made that decision. For some people, changing their mind is something they regard as a sign of weakness. There are people who go through life getting around the problem of making a mistake by believing that if they make a decision, it cannot be a mistake. Vet for that personality trait.
Euclid Vetting seems to require selecting only those job candidates with the so-called, Right stuff. But how do you define that term? In the case of the conductor in this Cayce accident, he held out against the doubt of his engineer about the switch position for some time in addition to the final drama starting only minutes prior to the disaster. They had all the time in the world to settle the question by taking a 600 ft. walk to see the switch. But somehow, the issue was left to fester along through confusion over the official Switch Awareness Form and protocol, and the lack of any recent experience with that process. Somehow, they got the job done and released the track back to the dispatcher. The details about this reporting and release of track authority seem lacking in the NTSF report, apparently because they have shifted much of the burden of this onto the CSX Company itself rather than the two employees working on the freight crew. But as far as knowing what to vet for, The conductor did not have enough conviction to question whether he really knew he had restored the switch. But he had too much conviction when it came to believing he was correct simply because he had made that decision. For some people, changing their mind is something they regard as a sign of weakness. There are people who go through life getting around the problem of making a mistake by believing that if make a decision, it cannot be a mistake. Vet for that personality trait.
But as far as knowing what to vet for, The conductor did not have enough conviction to question whether he really knew he had restored the switch. But he had too much conviction when it came to believing he was correct simply because he had made that decision. For some people, changing their mind is something they regard as a sign of weakness. There are people who go through life getting around the problem of making a mistake by believing that if make a decision, it cannot be a mistake. Vet for that personality trait.
That's a good point. A good psychologist could design questions that would indicate that trait.
Along the same lines are people who refuse to say "I don't know." I was recently on a tour of a steam locomotive shop. The (volunteer) guide showed us a piston that was sitting on a rack. The piston had grooves in it. I asked if those grooves were for piston rings. He looked slightly disconcerted, then said, "Steam locomotives did not have piston rings." When I then moved from behind some other tourists to get a better view, I could see some piston rings sitting right next to the piston. (At least I am 99.9% sure that's what they were; they were big honkin versions of the kind in a car engine, and looked like just the right size.) I've met lots of people who when they don't know an answer, they just make one up. It can be very frustrating.
EuclidThere are people who go through life getting around the problem of making a mistake by believing that if make a decision, it cannot be a mistake. Vet for that personality trait.
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
zugmann Euclid There are people who go through life getting around the problem of making a mistake by believing that if make a decision, it cannot be a mistake. Vet for that personality trait.
Euclid There are people who go through life getting around the problem of making a mistake by believing that if make a decision, it cannot be a mistake. Vet for that personality trait.
Seems as if some of those types frequent this forum.
I have no idea if the CN has changed the disttricts between Memphis and New Orleans or not, but 50 years ago, the Louisiana Division had two districts between Gwin and New Orleans. All crews were based in McComb, which is 150 miles from Gwin and right at 100 miles from New Orleans. Chaingang crews preferred being called for a run to Gwin over a run to New Orleans. At that time the ETT showed three freights a day each way on this run. Through freights ran through the Mississippi Delta above Jackson; passenger trains and locals ran through Grenada. (Amtrak trains run through the Delta.)
Johnny
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
When I retired in 2014 there was a dearth of engineers who were not lost when these systems, ATC,PTC etc. failed.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
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?
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. 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.
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.
Murphy SidingWhen 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.
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.
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?
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 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?
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 SidingHow 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 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.
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.
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!)
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 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?
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.
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.
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.
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 How do you vet someone to determine if they would be able to adjust to a new techmology that has yet to be invented?
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 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.
BaltACDDing Ding Ding - so Vetting can't do it all, you can't vet for the unknown.
Who said vetting does it all?
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.
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.
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.