tree68And don't cop out with "it's in the thread, if you read it." It's not.
"Cop out"? No "cop out" here, you obviously have no Class I railroad experience which is why you cannot see that the engineer was not a good candidate for his position. He had to learn 15 miles of new territory with a maximum speed limit of 79MPH and a 30MPH speed restriction in the mix. Common sense would dictate that upon entering that territory foremost on your mind would be the drastic change in speed would it not? Common sense would also dictate that as time went on you must be getting closer to the restriction and common sense would dictate that you slow down if you were not entirely sure of its location.
Common sense would also dictate that if you were not familiar with your locomotive that you call for a 'rider' to instruct you.
Common sense would also dictate that if you feel you have not had enough instruction on the territory that you call for a 'rider'.
The above should have been presented to the candidate during the vetting process in the form of questions
The vetting process obviously did not contain the question: What would you do if you were not entirely sure of your location?
15 miles is not a lot of territory.
243129 tree68 And don't cop out with "it's in the thread, if you read it." It's not. "Cop out"? No "cop out" here, you obviously have no Class I railroad experience which is why you cannot see that the engineer was not a good candidate for his position. He had to learn 15 miles of new territory with a maximum speed limit of 79MPH and a 30MPH speed restriction in the mix. Common sense would dictate that upon entering that territory foremost on your mind would be the drastic change in speed would it not? Common sense would also dictate that as time went on you must be getting closer to the restriction and common sense would dictate that you slow down if you were not entirely sure of its location. Common sense would also dictate that if you were not familiar with your locomotive that you call for a 'rider' to instruct you. Common sense would also dictate that if you feel you have not had enough instruction on the territory that you call for a 'rider'. The above should have been presented to the candidate during the vetting process in the form of questions The vetting process obviously did not contain the question: What would you do if you were not entirely sure of your location? 15 miles is not a lot of territory.
tree68 And don't cop out with "it's in the thread, if you read it." It's not.
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 243129 tree68 And don't cop out with "it's in the thread, if you read it." It's not. "Cop out"? No "cop out" here, you obviously have no Class I railroad experience which is why you cannot see that the engineer was not a good candidate for his position. He had to learn 15 miles of new territory with a maximum speed limit of 79MPH and a 30MPH speed restriction in the mix. Common sense would dictate that upon entering that territory foremost on your mind would be the drastic change in speed would it not? Common sense would also dictate that as time went on you must be getting closer to the restriction and common sense would dictate that you slow down if you were not entirely sure of its location. Common sense would also dictate that if you were not familiar with your locomotive that you call for a 'rider' to instruct you. Common sense would also dictate that if you feel you have not had enough instruction on the territory that you call for a 'rider'. The above should have been presented to the candidate during the vetting process in the form of questions The vetting process obviously did not contain the question: What would you do if you were not entirely sure of your location? 15 miles is not a lot of territory. All hindsight. If this candidate were sitting in front of you four years or so ago, what questions would you have asked him, not knowing that four years hence this incident would occur? Or maybe a better way to frame this, if a new candidate were sitting in front of you today, what questions would you ask him? You keep bringing up this nebulous thing called vetting, but you don't seem to be able to give us any real life examples. Other than one question that is clearly based on the incident in question. Most of us have no Class 1 experience. Here's your opportunity to educate us.
Here is a real life example:
If I had a candidate in front of me today, one question I would ask is: "What would you do if you were not entirely sure of your location?"
For clarity, common sense is a layman's term that encompasses several character and cognitive features in an individual. These would include In the personality realm: conscientiousness, responsibility, a realistic sense of one's own strengths and weaknesses, as opposed to an inflated, know-it-all attitude and non-defensiveness (taking and using constructive feedback). In the cognitive area, abilities to learn, remember and be vigilant would be key. There may be others, but these would be some which I think would be essential and which can be measured directly or inferred. There are also physical standards which are also important
EuclidIf I had a candidate in front of me today, one question I would ask is: "What would you do if you were not entirely sure of your location?"
And my answer would be "it depends."
And what it depends on is the consequences of not knowing exactly where I am.
Hindsight tells us that for the incident in question, there were issues.
However, If I'm not sure exactly where I am, if there is no potential for issues, and I can regain my orientation in short order, then that's exactly what I'll do.
tree68You keep bringing up this nebulous thing called vetting, but you don't seem to be able to give us any real life examples
There is nothing unclear about vetting, it is a very important procedure in the hiring of candidates for railroad operations. I gave you a real life example and you dismiss it as "hindsight" or clearly based on this incident.
Here is an excerpt from a letter I sent to numerous Amtrak officials just after Frankford Jct.
It was ignored.
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 a 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.
Joe:
That's a more comprehensive and detailed program than you presented before. Good, though you shouldn't overlook the screening I've suggested or something similar in the vetting stage. But neither Amtrak management nor folks like Tree and Balt will do anything beyond sniping, for obvious reasons.
If properly vetted, would it be possible for an engineer with, say, 10 or more years of solid experience (works safely and concientiously by all accounts during that time) to then make a mistake, such as missing a speed restriction? Would that, then, constitute a failure of the vetting process ten years earlier?
adkrr64 If properly vetted, would it be possible for an engineer with, say, 10 or more years of solid experience (works safely and concientiously by all accounts during that time) to then make a mistake, such as missing a speed restriction? Would that, then, constitute a failure of the vetting process ten years earlier?
Anyone can make a mistake.
No procedure is perfect or fail-safe.
charlie hebdoBut neither Amtrak management nor folks like Tree and Balt will do anything beyond sniping
You left out zugmann
243129 adkrr64 If properly vetted, would it be possible for an engineer with, say, 10 or more years of solid experience (works safely and concientiously by all accounts during that time) to then make a mistake, such as missing a speed restriction? Would that, then, constitute a failure of the vetting process ten years earlier? Anyone can make a mistake. No procedure is perfect or fail-safe.
The purpose of vetting is to reduce the probabilities of a new hire making serious errors in the future. Everything is using probabilities to guide choices, just as in games of skill and chance, like poker.
Left unsaid is the need to retain those good hires in skilled positions and not lose them through layoffs at every downturn in the economy. They are not easy to replace at an upturn. A modern, enlightened management would find ways to do that.
Less filling!
No! Tastes great!
No! Less filling!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjoMQJf5vKI
Lithonia Operator Less filling! No! Tastes great! No! Less filling! No! Tastes great! No! Less filling! No! Tastes great! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjoMQJf5vKI
Not interested anymore? Don't participate.
243129 Lithonia Operator Less filling! No! Tastes great! No! Less filling! No! Tastes great! No! Less filling! No! Tastes great! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjoMQJf5vKI Not interested anymore? Don't participate.
I just did.
Look, I'm interested in the subject. But both sides have made good points. I agree with you personally on some, and with others on different points. But certainly I don't see either faction ever "prevailing."
And if I wish to make a fun post rather than argue, that is precisely what I will do.
(Or maybe I'll argue. This is America.)
Carry on!
Vetting will NEVER prevent ALL incidents that happen - especially 5 years, 10 years and more after the vetting process was completed for the individual.
Vetting gives a better opportunity for success than not, but nothing is perfect in the real world. Even the best fail.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACDVetting will NEVER prevent ALL incidents that happen -
Nobody intimated that it would.
BaltACDVetting gives a better opportunity for success than not
Ergo the importance of proper vetting.
Mistakes are always possible, but vetting is not intended to weed out people who are capable of making a mistake.
Moreover, this DuPont crash was not caused by the engineer making the mistake of not watching for the 2-mile curve warning sign. He was required to know the territory, which means he should have recognized where the sign was located without needing to actually spot the sign to learn his location. He also should have recognized he was approaching the curve, and slowed down accordingly.
But he was mostly unfamiliar with the territory, and decided to rely on mile markers, signal locations, etc. One problem with mileposts is that you only know you are passing one if you see it go by. If you fail to notice you are passing one, you will believe you have not yet gotten to it. His plan for this rickety form of navigation fell apart for some reason. By the way this was described, I believe he began to question his location, and at that point, he should have slowed to 30 mph to be prepared for the curve. But this may have led to questions from management if he prematurely slowed the train. Saying he was lost would have been embarrassing. So he crossed his fingers and sped on in blind faith that everything would work out okay. This was a major failure to take the responsibility that the situation gravely required.
This failure to take responsibility is likely to be a personality trait than just a miscalculation or mistake. Looking for such a trait is what vetting would be intended to accomplish. Many other traits should be looked for as well. And even for this one trait of taking responsibility, many questions should be asked in order to evaluate the candidate. Vetting is never going to catch everything that might be a personality issue, but some vetting that catches some issues is better than no vetting at all.
243129 tree68 You keep bringing up this nebulous thing called vetting, but you don't seem to be able to give us any real life examples There is nothing unclear about vetting, it is a very important procedure in the hiring of candidates for railroad operations. I gave you a real life example and you dismiss it as "hindsight" or clearly based on this incident.
tree68 You keep bringing up this nebulous thing called vetting, but you don't seem to be able to give us any real life examples
So, offer up something else you'd ask. I'm sure that wouldn't be the only question you'd want an answer to.
I get to evaluate our engineers (along with several others). Your valuable knowledge might help me do a better job, if you'd be willing to share. We might save ourselves some valuable time trying to train a new engineer if we knew what values you felt were important to look for at the outset.
Physical agility? Within reason. I know of an NS conductor applicant who couldn't make the grade because they couldn't hang off the side of a car long enough.
Initial and ongoing training - absolutely. We have to take a territory test each year, too, plus check rides, unannounced tests, etc. The FRA looks over our shoulders as well.
Not trying to be difficult here - just trying to dig a little deeper into the process. "Then a miracle occurs" doesn't get it.
Euclid adkrr64 If properly vetted, would it be possible for an engineer with, say, 10 or more years of solid experience (works safely and concientiously by all accounts during that time) to then make a mistake, such as missing a speed restriction? Would that, then, constitute a failure of the vetting process ten years earlier? Mistakes are always possible, but vetting is not intended to weed out people who are capable of making a mistake.
Everytime there has been an Amtrak incident, the first thing said is the employee wasn't properly vetted, and then the poor training and supervision. So you have to excuse adkrr64 for asking the question.
Jeff
(I was feeling left out of the club. Probably a personality defect that proper vetting would've caught.)
jeffhergert(I was feeling left out of the club. Probably a personality defect that proper vetting would've caught.)
The sniping club is always accepting new members. But we will have to order more jackets soon. Almost sold out.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
zugmann jeffhergert (I was feeling left out of the club. Probably a personality defect that proper vetting would've caught.) The sniping club is always accepting new members. But we will have to order more jackets soon. Almost sold out.
jeffhergert (I was feeling left out of the club. Probably a personality defect that proper vetting would've caught.)
I think mine got lost in the mail. Or it got shipped by rail, and is currently stuck behind a blockade....
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
You can put in a claim for not getting your jacket.
Now it will be denied, but turn it into your LC to be denied again at a later date.
zugmann You can put in a claim for not getting your jacket. Now it will be denied, but turn it into your LC to be denied again at a later date.
I'll have to ask around here and see just how many jackets have gone "missing".
This could be a much bigger issue than I initially thought, we might have to try and get it raised in national negotiations.
SD70DudeThis could be a much bigger issue than I initially thought, we might have to try and get it raised in national negotiations.
Nah, I have a federal judge that already said it doesn't have to be negotiated.
zugmann SD70Dude This could be a much bigger issue than I initially thought, we might have to try and get it raised in national negotiations. Nah, I have a federal judge that already said it doesn't have to be negotiated.
SD70Dude This could be a much bigger issue than I initially thought, we might have to try and get it raised in national negotiations.
Right on topic.
I see that old game of starting a string of silly posts when certain members don't like a thread has started. The goal then was to disrupt the discussion. Some things never change.
charlie hebdo The goal then was to disrupt the discussion.
The goal then was to disrupt the discussion.
No, it's just that years on the railroad turn you into a cynic. And give you a morbid sense of humour.
Joe is right that proper training and vetting are extremely important for employees in safety-critical positions. And he is probably correct that Amtrak could use a lot of improvement in those areas.
But by harping on over and over again about the same tired phrases he comes across just like the worst type of trainmaster.
SD70Dude charlie hebdo The goal then was to disrupt the discussion. No, it's just that years on the railroad turn you into a cynic. And give you a morbid sense of humour. Joe is right that proper training and vetting are extremely important for employees in safety-critical positions. And he is probably correct that Amtrak could use a lot of improvement in those areas. But by harping on over and over again about the same tired phrases he comes across just like the worst type of trainmaster.
True but I had hoped there could have been a productive exchange of ideas, especially by experienced operating personnel, even if Joe was the only one with Amtrak experience, including High Speed.
Even a stopped analog clock is right twice a day. When the message never changes, no more valid information ever gets communicated.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.