SD70DudeNo, it's just that years on the railroad turn you into a cynic.
No, no cynic here. I am a realist and have no sense of humor where the safety of the traveling public is at risk.
SD70DudeBut by harping on over and over again about the same tired phrases he comes across just like the worst type of trainmaster.
I repeat those phrases ad nauseam on purpose, a clarion call if you will, in the hope that someone, somewhere, who is in a position to do something that will get Amtrak to revamp its hiring, vetting, training and supervisory procedures. I repeat, Amtrak's hiring, vetting, training and supervisory procedures are the prescription for another disaster. Only by pure luck have there not been more over the years.
BaltACD Even a stopped analog clock is right twice a day. When the message never changes, no more valid information ever gets communicated.
Even a stopped analog clock is right twice a day. When the message never changes, no more valid information ever gets communicated.
If you had read, you should know that is not true. Yes, Joe is repetitive but there were plenty of opportunities for you and others to make constructive contributiond but mostly it was empty sniping.
charlie hebdoIf you had read, you should know that is not true. Yes, Joe is repetitive but there were plenty of opportunities for you and others to make constructive contributiond but mostly it was empty sniping.
I asked questions. All I ever heard was "you need to go back and read the thread." Or silence. Joe had the opportunity to enlighten us on what he's looking for in an engineer candidate. All we ever heard was "they need to be properly vetted."
His knowledge and experience can be a valuable resource, if he cares to share.
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...
Larry: My last statement was not directed at you. But instead of asking (or were those just baiting the lion?) Joe what he wants, why can't you contribute your own ideas?
Miss a day and you miss a lot.
One thing Joe mentioned a while back was something about the change in personel since Amtrak took over the actual crewing of trains. That when they did they had veteran employees. Yes they did. Back then you worked your way up to passenger service. It took years to gain the seniority to hold a passenger assignment regularly. Just like it took time to become a freight conductor or become promoted to engineer.
Those days are gone. The jobs that used to provide the training for conductor or engineer (brakemen and fireman) are all but gone. New hires go through a too short (and they've cut the training time since I hired on where I work) training program to the point that many newly promoted conductors are lost at first. (Our crew-packs now have an instruction card on how to check for hot wheels and possible remedies for them.)
The same goes for engineers. I don't know about Amtrak, but the freight railroads mostly don't hire off the street for engine service. You have to hire out as a trainman first. Now with the cut backs, it takes some time before they run engineer classes. For a time 15 or 20+ years ago the time as a trainman was shorter. (Those that paid attention to what the engineer was doing, where you were at any given time generally transitioned better than those that didn't.) I was a trainman for 6 years. Some a few years earlier (who were craft transfers) had 6 months as a trainmen. That is, their training was 6 months long. They were promoted to conductor on a Friday and started engine service training the next Monday.
I guess my point is, is that I get the impression that Joe feels they should only hire experienced (20 years kind of experience) people for Amtrak. Those types, while there are some around, are getting harder to find. For one thing, those hiring out on the railroads are generally older than many years ago. No longer is it usual to hire out right out of, or shortly after high school. Many any more have at least a four year degree, many already have started a family. The major railroads like a new hire to be a bit older, with some non railroad work experience because they feel they are more stable. While there have been young people in their mid-twenties, it seems there are more in the mid-thirties to forties represented. (35 was once the age limit for hiring out without prior railroad experience. 45 with prior experience.)
So except for those leaving the freight railroads (and a few of my old co-workers went to Amtrak) it's going to be hard to find experienced workers. And many of them from the freight carriers probably won't have 20+ years. Now if you want to talk about the caliber of people hiring out now compared to 50 or 60 years ago, their attitudes and work ethics... Well, it is what it is. I'm not saying people in general are better or worse, but attitudes are different. And that is the pool you hire from. The human race.
That's why I have a problem with all the talk about vetting. But I can agree with poor or minimal training and supervision. Trying to do more with less. Forcing someone to be qualified on a territory with minimal trips. Those are problems within the industry, maybe even beyond the railroad industry, and sometimes bad things will happen because of them.
Jeff
I've seen people of all walks of life become RRers. I still don't know if there's a common trait for success.
And the railroad has changed a LOT in the past few years (PTC and PSR being major players). Probably more so than in the past couple decades. Hiring and training standards are not the same from 30+ years ago. Employee expectations and demands are different. For better or worse (I know how many would argue), I just don't think you can use a decades-old strategy and apply it to modern times.
You can say new hires today wouldn't have lasted a week 30 years ago on the RR. But I know guys who retired over the years after 30+ years that probably wouldn't have lasted a week in today's RR environment.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
charlie hebdoLarry: My last statement was not directed at you. But instead of asking (or were those just baiting the lion?) Joe what he wants, why can't you contribute your own ideas?
I'm not the one insisting that the vetting is poor, he is. We've seen some information on what should be included in proper vetting (including psych testing), but he seems to feel that Amtrak isn't hiring people with the "right stuff." I'm curious as to what he considers the "right stuff." What are the questions he would ask a candidate? What factors would he look for in a background check? Or is it just a nebulous, "I know it when I see it" phenomenon?
If someone wants to become an engineer on our tourist line, they have to complete some paperwork, a few short classes (that any operating personnel have to have, so they may already have them under their belt), and we put them in the seat, with an instructor/coach.
Some people take to it like a duck to water, some make it obvious from the outset that they'll never get their license. After 80 hours of seat time, we may cut them loose in the yard. It takes over 200 hours to get cut loose on the mainline.
Larry, who licenses engineers?
Is it the FRA, the (in your case) state of New York, or just your railroad?
Is the licensing procedure/requirements the same on all US roads?
Lithonia Operator Larry, who licenses engineers? Is it the FRA, the (in your case) state of New York, or just your railroad? Is the licensing procedure/requirements the same on all US roads?
That's all spelled out in 49 CFR 240, which is what the FRA enforces.
Our program (as with any railroad's) is verified and endorsed by the FRA, which means we meet at least the minimum standard. We also have to please the shortline on which we are a tenant.
Any railroad which connects to the national network must meet the same standard. A totally disconnected line does not need to, although the FRA is taking a closer look at them from what I understand.
New York State keeps an eye on us, but has little regulatory oversight on operations.
I can't speak to the Class 1's procedures, other than to say that it appears they require more classroom time at the outset than shortlines, which tend to lean more toward OJT.
In the 1985-1990 period of time the Class 1 carriers all revised their methods of operation. Gone was the Timetable & Train Order method of operations for trains in non-CTC areas and also gone was the Track Car Lineup method of operating MofW equipment on track. In their place came the Direct Traffic Control and Track Warrant methods of operating non-CTC territory and the Track Occupancy Authority method of operating MofW Equipment on track.
Personal observations, today's new hires would not have been able to operate under the old rules considering that in today's railroad world, Conductor and Train Dispatcher are considered entry level positions. In today's world Engineers are one step beyond entry level, as on my former carrier, one year of Conductor's experience was required to get one to the Engineers training curriculum. The TT&TO as well as Track Car Lineups could not be taught and learned to the required levels of safety to new hires, as one could get in the position of understanding the words but not understanding the application of those words in the real time issues of railroading.
Read through any number of the incidents in the https://dotlibrary.specialcollection.net/Home (requires non-monetary registration) for railroad accidents over the years and one sees any number of incidents where differing understandings of the meanings of train orders between Train Dispatcher and the train crews involved created a accident.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
jeffhergert I get the impression that Joe feels they should only hire experienced (20 years kind of experience) people for Amtrak.
Where pray tell did you get that "impression"?
I don’t think the point of vetting is to find people with a common trait that is conducive to railroading. Instead, it to find less obvious traits that would be incompatible with railroading. These flaws would have to do with common sense and taking responsibility. They would relate to the extreme danger of railroading extreme consequences of making an operational mistake.
In my opinion, the engineer in this DuPont wreck is a good example of such a person. I don’t think his level of training had anything to do with it, even though he was lacking in training for the route. The real problem was his willingness to take a risk with so many lives on his guess that he was not lost. Instead of taking responsibility and refusing the run, he took the run and must have felt it was Amtrak’s problem because they did not train him enough. That is an attitude. Vet for that.
I understand Joe’s idea of having a panel of highly experienced engineers doing the vetting, and I think that would be very effective. And this then raises the questions about what kind of questions these experienced people ask as part of the vetting. For those questions, I think you need a highly developed test that would probe for things like the oddly irresponsible engineer in this case. The military must have such tests that they use to look for the “right stuff” for the most challenging assignments. The experienced engineers doing the vetting could ask their own questions, depending on how they read the job applicant, but there would also be standard, specialized test questions.
The key point overall is that the vetting and training/experience are two entirely different things. Training could be complete and seemingly effective, yet the subject may still have personality traits that would prevent a trained activity from being properly executed. For instance, you could train an engineer that it was essential to know the territory. If he agrees and says he understands, you might consider him trained. But just the phrase, “knowing the territory” might have different meanings to different people. The average non-railroader is likely to have a far less demanding definition of the phrase than what is required in running trains over a section of track.
To those who think proper vetting is not important. Consider this. Amtrak (on the NEC) early on had predominantly hired engineers 'from the street'.Some of these folks still remain and are a danger to the traveling public. I have offered/challenged Amtrak management, most notably the VP Operations at the time to accompany me on a random train ride and quiz the crew on the duties and performance of their job and present them with 'what if' situations. They declined.
If they (Amtrak) were so proud and confident of their 'state of the art' training and vetting program why not show it off and shut me up?
243129 jeffhergert I get the impression that Joe feels they should only hire experienced (20 years kind of experience) people for Amtrak. Where pray tell did you get that "impression"?
------------
Well, I don't know where I get that impression from.
BaltACD In the 1985-1990 period of time the Class 1 carriers all revised their methods of operation. Gone was the Timetable & Train Order method of operations for trains in non-CTC areas and also gone was the Track Car Lineup method of operating MofW equipment on track. In their place came the Direct Traffic Control and Track Warrant methods of operating non-CTC territory and the Track Occupancy Authority method of operating MofW Equipment on track. Personal observations, today's new hires would not have been able to operate under the old rules considering that in today's railroad world, Conductor and Train Dispatcher are considered entry level positions. In today's world Engineers are one step beyond entry level, as on my former carrier, one year of Conductor's experience was required to get one to the Engineers training curriculum. The TT&TO as well as Track Car Lineups could not be taught and learned to the required levels of safety to new hires, as one could get in the position of understanding the words but not understanding the application of those words in the real time issues of railroading. Read through any number of the incidents in the https://dotlibrary.specialcollection.net/Home (requires non-monetary registration) for railroad accidents over the years and one sees any number of incidents where differing understandings of the meanings of train orders between Train Dispatcher and the train crews involved created a accident.
Even train dispatchers are considered an entry-level job to management. Our dispatchers are management employees, not union craft employees.
My engineer's classroom work had one week of initial training, mostly basic mechanical and basic air brake information. This was done at the home terminal. Then a few months in, everyone is sent to Salt Lake City where the UP has a training facility on a community college campus. Three weeks there, some simulator work, some more about air brake operation, but mostly rules, rules and more rules. Then back home for more field training. The whole process took about six months.
I made my qualifying trip March 5, 2005.
Jeff, what was the nature of the training conducted between that initial one-week stint and the time spent at the community college?
jeffhergertWell, I don't know where I get that impression from.
Neither do I.
jeffhergertConsider this. Amtrak (on the NEC) early on had predominantly hired engineers 'from the street'.Some of these folks still remain and are a danger to the traveling public.
You get the "impression" from this statement???
jeffhergertjeffhergert I get the impression that Joe feels they should only hire experienced (20 years kind of experience) people for Amtrak.
Where do I mention or infer "20 years kind of experience"???
Does the FRA publish (and require use of) any type of standardized tests?
Obviously, much of the testing of railroaders needs to be railroad-specific and/or division-specific. As well as equipment-specific. But does the FRA have its own tests, or language that is incorporated in the roads' test?
Lithonia Operator Jeff, what was the nature of the training conducted between that initial one-week stint and the time spent at the community college?
All time between classroom and after Salt Lake City was on the job training. Operating the engine under the supervision of the engineer. We did a week of yard switching, a week of local freight, and the rest was being assigned to a pool turn on each of the road pools out of my home terminal. Before Salt Lake City, you're termed a "fireman in training." After SLC and the final test there, you're now termed an 'engineer in training.' Until you get set-up, you're informally known as a "fireman" and termed to be "firing."
On the road pools, you got whatever type of train that came up in rotation. Now, when trainees get assigned to a pool, they work first in-first out. (Trainmen's training also made that change for road training. It's partly to run them through the training programs faster.) I think it's better, at least at first, to be working with the same trainer. They can see how someone is progressing, what areas may need more instruction, what areas don't. Working with someone different every trip, even each leg of a trip, the instructor won't know where the student is at in that respect.
243129 jeffhergert Well, I don't know where I get that impression from. Neither do I. jeffhergert Consider this. Amtrak (on the NEC) early on had predominantly hired engineers 'from the street'.Some of these folks still remain and are a danger to the traveling public. You get the "impression" from this statement??? jeffhergert jeffhergert I get the impression that Joe feels they should only hire experienced (20 years kind of experience) people for Amtrak. Where do I mention or infer "20 years kind of experience"???
jeffhergert Well, I don't know where I get that impression from.
jeffhergert Consider this. Amtrak (on the NEC) early on had predominantly hired engineers 'from the street'.Some of these folks still remain and are a danger to the traveling public.
jeffhergert jeffhergert I get the impression that Joe feels they should only hire experienced (20 years kind of experience) people for Amtrak.
Jello
BaltACDJello
You cannot help yourself, can you? Sniping has origins in jealousy.
You don't mention a specific number of years, or even that they must have experience. But to me it certainly is implied because you seem to be critical of those 'hired off the street.'
Tell me, does Amtrak have any employees in engine service hired 'off the street' that are worth a ....?
Lithonia Operator Does the FRA publish (and require use of) any type of standardized tests? Obviously, much of the testing of railroaders needs to be railroad-specific and/or division-specific. As well as equipment-specific. But does the FRA have its own tests, or language that is incorporated in the roads' test?
No.
Until recently there was no territory specific questions in our periodic rules testing program. We are allowed to use the time table for that portion. It's more about knowing how to read the timetable and symbols used for certain items like type of defect detectors, etc.
When referring to people hired off the street, I assume Joe means hired without vetting.
He means 'hired off the street'. Amtrak at one time had public advertisements for interest in learning to run trains -- they certainly couldn't be accused of lack of diversity appeal -- with the tacit assumption (as I thought was their belief at the time, and still think is) that their modern and effective training could make an engineer out of anybody with enough interest to go through it.
I doubt whether there was much interest in the pre-existing traits of the candidates, as the training program would doubtless instill the 'right stuff' as the company expected it to be. Including all that responsibility, attention-to-detail safety-first-las-and-always stuff. Didn't we recently read about the guy at Amtrak that runs the training, discussing about how he uses the latest proven-effective methods?
Naturally there would be the usual run of background checks, 'permissible' questioning, right to work in a Government job, and so forth that go along with any other employment. But the formal 'hire' will be, on equal-opportunity grounds alone, less selective from a 'trait-vetting' standpoint than many of us would like it to be -- the logic being you can always fire them, or gin up some excuse to make them quit, when it's no longer inexpedient to do so.
The time for weeding will come after the grunts are through basic and start deciding whether the life is actually for them. Joe is arguing in part that a great deal of time and potential trouble can be avoided if you weed the often-predictable 'no's out of the pool before you expend training resources and time on them. Others here have pointed out that sometimes you can't predict how it will go ... or who will turn out to be problems or dangers to themselves and others.
Euclid When referring to people hired off the street, I assum Joe means hired without vetting.
When referring to people hired off the street, I assum Joe means hired without vetting.
He might think so, but I don't.
I assume Amtrak, like the freight railroads, do interviewing, some basic testing and back ground checks. It's not like you just walk in and say "here I am" and they say "You're hired."
I know of one of our ex-engineers, with a less than stellar record, didn't get hired at Amtrak for engine service.
EuclidWhen referring to people hired off the street, I assume Joe means hired without vetting.
Which really means back in 'those days', there was no vetting. Show up at the hiring location, not being actively chased by the police, and you got hired.
Those days have been gone for decades, vetting at some level has been a part of the hiring process for well in excess of thirty years.
jeffhergert Lithonia Operator Jeff, what was the nature of the training conducted between that initial one-week stint and the time spent at the community college? All time between classroom and after Salt Lake City was on the job training. Operating the engine under the supervision of the engineer. We did a week of yard switching, a week of local freight, and the rest was being assigned to a pool turn on each of the road pools out of my home terminal. Before Salt Lake City, you're termed a "fireman in training." After SLC and the final test there, you're now termed an 'engineer in training.' Until you get set-up, you're informally known as a "fireman" and termed to be "firing." On the road pools, you got whatever type of train that came up in rotation. Now, when trainees get assigned to a pool, they work first in-first out. (Trainmen's training also made that change for road training. It's partly to run them through the training programs faster.) I think it's better, at least at first, to be working with the same trainer. They can see how someone is progressing, what areas may need more instruction, what areas don't. Working with someone different every trip, even each leg of a trip, the instructor won't know where the student is at in that respect. Jeff
During this OJT, how much time is the student at the controls? Hardly ever? Half the time? Most of the time?
jeffhergertTell me, does Amtrak have any employees in engine service hired 'off the street' that are worth a ....?
Yes they do, through no fault of theirs.
jeffhergertI know of one of our ex-engineers, with a less than stellar record, didn't get hired at Amtrak for engine service.
That was easy, even Amtrak noticed it.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.