SD70DudeBang Head Do they not stock wrenches and spare hoses on your locomotives anymore?
Yes they are there but they don't know how to use them. To appreciate Amtrak's training procedures ride one of their trains and ask a couple of 'innocent' questions about operations and my point will be made concerning poor vetting, poor training, poor supervision.
zugmann 243129 A burst air hose is a major delay. As you state new hires are given minimal training and 'put out there'. I asked a conductor, that hired after I retired so he didn't know I was a railroader, what happens if you have an air hose burst? His reply was "oh we just call somebody". This is why I chant "vetting training supervision". I dunno - that was one of the things they taught us.
243129 A burst air hose is a major delay. As you state new hires are given minimal training and 'put out there'. I asked a conductor, that hired after I retired so he didn't know I was a railroader, what happens if you have an air hose burst? His reply was "oh we just call somebody". This is why I chant "vetting training supervision".
I dunno - that was one of the things they taught us.
Johnny
Deggestythere would not be time to find the answer when a bad situation arose.
That is where proper training comes in.
243129 zugmann Conductor trainee or qualifiers are given a day or two to learn what I had weeks/months to learn. A burst air hose is a major delay. As you state new hires are given minimal training and 'put out there'. I asked a conductor, that hired after I retired so he didn't know I was a railroader, what happens if you have an air hose burst? His reply was "oh we just call somebody". This is why I chant "vetting training supervision".
zugmann Conductor trainee or qualifiers are given a day or two to learn what I had weeks/months to learn.
A burst air hose is a major delay. As you state new hires are given minimal training and 'put out there'. I asked a conductor, that hired after I retired so he didn't know I was a railroader, what happens if you have an air hose burst? His reply was "oh we just call somebody". This is why I chant "vetting training supervision".
Do they not stock wrenches and spare hoses on your locomotives anymore? If you can't figure that out he would be lost trying to change a knuckle, or chain up a car with a broken drawbar (on CN we are still expected to do that ourselves).
Granted, in passenger service you probably rarely have to do any of those things, but there will probably be a few occasions where you are in just the right spot to help out another train that is blocking you.
I learned the way Zug did, and have also never been afraid of pulling wrenches at home, so I suppose I had a leg up over the fellow you describe.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
243129A burst air hose is a major delay. As you state new hires are given minimal training and 'put out there'. I asked a conductor, that hired after I retired so he didn't know I was a railroader, what happens if you have an air hose burst? His reply was "oh we just call somebody". This is why I chant "vetting training supervision".
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
Zug, from what you wrote, when a problem came up, there was someone there to lead you through solving it--you did not need Cliff's Notes on Switching. I fear that such a work would be useful today--of course, there would not be time to find the answer when a bad situation arose.
zugmannConductor trainee or qualifiers are given a day or two to learn what I had weeks/months to learn.
zugmannGuys who trained with this stuff, and had to learn to run with it, and not have it added on later in life after they were all set. Plus some guys running since velociraptors roamed the earth can forget what it's like to be new and lose that perspective.
Let me try to realte this better. When I learned to switch in my yard, we had brakemen. I started as a brakeman. Conductors would take me under their wing and I would learn to switch cars over many days, many assignments. Then when it was my turn, it wasn't a huge deal.
Now? No brakemen. Conductor trainee or qualifiers are given a day or two to learn what I had weeks/months to learn. It's like being assigned a chapter to read vs. having the whole book thrown at you. It's not easy for me to try to teach a new guy/gal how to switch in the yard in a day or 2. Because I had the luxury of learning it over a longer time. I can try my best - but someone that got the "cliff's notes" training will have a easier time, becuase as you have pretty much said, "they've been there" - moreso than me.
Please don't get me wrong - I'm not knocking the guys who've spent many years out here. But I think younger guys have their own persepctive to add as well. I'd rather not jump from one extreme to the other.
If that makes sense.
Honestly, I think we agree on a lot more than we disagree with. Even if I'm your sniper!
243129As I stated previously that while 'deadheading' on many occasions I have felt numerous hits from the PTC indicating to me that the engineer(s) was not well qualified on the physical characteristics. That event is commonplace so I am told by my colleagues who are still employed there.
Sometimes I think it's the PTC that isn't qualified. It can get touchy at times.
243129When PTC fails, and it does, there are those who become 'lost'. On my former division there was/is a good amount who fit that category. Automated addiction is present on the NEC. The RX for disaster.
Unfortunately, that's one thing that is going to happen with PTC. Even if you DON'T want to get dependent on it, you are required to use it. How do we solve that? Use it or lose it sort of thing.
243129I believe that an oversight committee consisting of 3 or 4 engineers and conductors with 40 or more years experience in the operating department could vastly improve safety, service and save lives. Consider it a 'think tank'.
I think you should add some yougner engineers in there as well. Maybe more of a consulting tank for the think tank. Guys who trained with this stuff, and had to learn to run with it, and not have it added on later in life after they were all set. Plus some guys running since velociraptors roamed the earth can forget what it's like to be new and lose that perspective.
Accidents are always going to happen. 100% accident free makes a great T shirt slogan, but let's be real. Humans are imperfect machines. Even when they program the machines that are supposed to end human imperfections.
zugmannYou'll have to inform me - have you ever had the pleasure to run with PTC?
Yes I have and you are correct you cannot "run a smooth, fast train".Anticipating the 'machine's' action adds a certain amount of stress to the operation. As I stated previously that while 'deadheading' on many occasions I have felt numerous hits from the PTC indicating to me that the engineer(s) was not well qualified on the physical characteristics. That event is commonplace so I am told by my colleagues who are still employed there.
When PTC fails, and it does, there are those who become 'lost'. On my former division there was/is a good amount who fit that category. Automated addiction is present on the NEC. The RX for disaster.
zugmann But you also have to be careful of the fine line between critiquing someone's running as "incompetent" and "not how I would run it in that situation".
Absolutely, everyone has a 'style'. However an experienced engineer can determine whether or not it is a safe 'style'.
zugmannThere's going to be a long line of vetters. You knew many engineers. I'm sure you can think of plenty that were fine engineers - but you sure as hell wouldn't make them a manager. 2 sets of skills. Both are needed. Hence your RFE choice, which I'm sure succeeded at both.
I believe that an oversight committee consisting of 3 or 4 engineers and conductors with 40 or more years experience in the operating department could vastly improve safety, service and save lives. Consider it a 'think tank'.
Amtrak is an accident waiting to happen...again.
243129One I have in mind had over 40 years of experience as an engineer, Choo Choo U. instructor (Penn Central) and road foreman. Quite qualified to assess acumen for running trains wouldn't you say?
I'd bet he knows at least 16 ways to keep an old engine running with a flag and fussee cap. I probably worked with a few hoggers he trained.
243129I have ridden trains since I retired and quite often I have 'felt' PTC running the train. What does that tell you?
You'll have to inform me - have you ever had the pleasure to run with PTC? I can't say how amtrak's PTC is, but ours, it's a whole 'nother beast to run with. The way it reacts - you can't run a smooth, fast train. You either have to run below the nickel, or you have to run it harsh. There isn't much slop built into it (like with cabs/lsl). Hard to describe in words, but as you run, the damned screen is always demanding something, or flashing some pretty colors and threatening to dump your train because of whatever is or isn't out there. It's not exactly "well-integrated" (for lack of a better phrase I can't think of right now) to good operation, if you get my gist. But it is what we have to work with.
243129You are an engineer, can you tell if someone running a train is competent by observation? I feel that I can. How can the person who vets the vetter know what questions to ask and observations to make when they themselves have zero knowledge of the operation? Are we going to have a vetter who vets the vetter who vets the vetter?
Yeah, there's people that probably should find another line of work. But you also have to be careful of the fine line between critiquing someone's running as "incompetent" and "not how I would run it in that situation". I've met a few who blurred that line.
There's going to be a long line of vetters. You knew many engineers. I'm sure you can think of plenty that were fine engineers - but you sure as hell wouldn't make them a manager. 2 sets of skills. Both are needed. Hence your RFE choice, which I'm sure succeeded at both.
Does anyone remember the PETER principle? I've met some that were great at what they did until they were promoted and then sucked at the new level of responsiblility.
The Peter Principle is an observation that the tendency in most organizational hierarchies, such as that of a corporation, is for every employee to rise in the hierarchy through promotion until they reach a level of respective incompetence.
Also, don't Amtrak locomotives have forward facing cameras? Would give a precise time to match with the "black box" that I presume are on the engines.
zugmannAnd another question to ask ( a serious question - not a snipe), is how well these potential engineers would be at a V(T)*S system? Have they ever done such a thing before (esp for a gov't corp like amtrak)?
One I have in mind had over 40 years of experience as an engineer, Choo Choo U. instructor (Penn Central) and road foreman. Quite qualified to assess acumen for running trains wouldn't you say?
I have ridden trains since I retired and quite often I have 'felt' PTC running the train. What does that tell you?
zugmannSo we need to vet the vetters. Which means we need someone that knows how to vet so the vetter can vet those vetters.
You are an engineer, can you tell if someone running a train is competent by observation? I feel that I can.
How can the person who vets the vetter know what questions to ask and observations to make when they themselves have zero knowledge of the operation?
Are we going to have a vetter who vets the vetter who vets the vetter?
TY;DMI
charlie hebdo TLDR = ?
(too long; didn't read). I forgot the semicolon in there.
zugmann I offer no arguments with that - but would you also say that supervising in and of itself is a skill that also takes experience to master? I'm sure you (as I) know of many that were great ground people that made terrible supervisors. Sometimes it may have been the fault of their supervisors, but other times I don't think they had what it took to be a supervisor. Just like running a train - it's a skill. I honestly don't think many of the railroads put enough emphasis on training in that side of the department either. Just a "throw them out to the wolves" sort of thing.
I offer no arguments with that - but would you also say that supervising in and of itself is a skill that also takes experience to master?
I'm sure you (as I) know of many that were great ground people that made terrible supervisors. Sometimes it may have been the fault of their supervisors, but other times I don't think they had what it took to be a supervisor. Just like running a train - it's a skill.
I honestly don't think many of the railroads put enough emphasis on training in that side of the department either. Just a "throw them out to the wolves" sort of thing.
Thank you for turning this into a potentially informative discussion, as opposed to dueling monologues.
TLDR = ?
zugmannOne more small point ( and a bone of contention with me)- many modern engines a dimmed headlight is still pretty bright.
243129Had you read the report you would have seen that both trains had dimmed their headlights.
One more small point ( and a bone of contention with me)- many modern engines a dimmed headlight is still pretty bright. Older, non-rebuilt engines, a dimmed headlight was dull and yellow and just enough to be used as a marker. Now on many engines, a dimmed headlight is barely below bright.
With LED technology, I wish we'd have dual red/white markers for such situations, but that's another barrel of fish.
243129Some very valid observations and questions contained within. I shall be back later to discuss.
I look forward to it. Genuinely.
zugmann charlie hebdo I might add that my assumption is that there are very few good senior engineers remaining and few would want to be involved in the vts process. And another question to ask ( a serious question - not a snipe), is how well these potential engineers would be at a V(T)*S system? Have they ever done such a thing before (esp for a gov't corp like amtrak)? It's fun to mock supervisors that never spent time in the trenches (I've done it, too), but then again - those supervisors have their own trenches. We've also seen many that went from the ground to a supervisor level and quickly get fired or quit or stay around and quickly forget everything they learned. And how many that never attempted such a job to begin with? I think several of us fit that category - yes, present company included. I'm going to say the door swings both ways - and just because someone is a great engineer - it may not make them a great candidate when it comes to vettting or supervising. So we need to vet the vetters. Which means we need someone that knows how to vet so the vetter can vet those vetters. * I am going to pretty much leave training off that list, because that is one thing many engineers have done a lot of in their careers (even if it's more OJT and less systematical). But would it be enough? TLDR: there is no 10-word solution to this. Perhaps our potential panel includes people that *do* have VTS experience in addition to being on the ground. I've seen such unicorns in real life - and honestly, they may be our last and fading hope. Presented snipe free and without commerical interruption.
charlie hebdo I might add that my assumption is that there are very few good senior engineers remaining and few would want to be involved in the vts process.
And another question to ask ( a serious question - not a snipe), is how well these potential engineers would be at a V(T)*S system? Have they ever done such a thing before (esp for a gov't corp like amtrak)? It's fun to mock supervisors that never spent time in the trenches (I've done it, too), but then again - those supervisors have their own trenches. We've also seen many that went from the ground to a supervisor level and quickly get fired or quit or stay around and quickly forget everything they learned. And how many that never attempted such a job to begin with? I think several of us fit that category - yes, present company included.
I'm going to say the door swings both ways - and just because someone is a great engineer - it may not make them a great candidate when it comes to vettting or supervising. So we need to vet the vetters. Which means we need someone that knows how to vet so the vetter can vet those vetters.
* I am going to pretty much leave training off that list, because that is one thing many engineers have done a lot of in their careers (even if it's more OJT and less systematical). But would it be enough?
TLDR: there is no 10-word solution to this.
Perhaps our potential panel includes people that *do* have VTS experience in addition to being on the ground. I've seen such unicorns in real life - and honestly, they may be our last and fading hope.
Presented snipe free and without commerical interruption.
Some very valid observations and questions contained within. I shall be back later to discuss.
Not a fan of Chairman Mao but agree with his take.
charlie hebdo This *discussion* has degenerated into a mere, childish name-calling, confounding two separate and very different incidents as though they were one and the same.
This *discussion* has degenerated into a mere, childish name-calling, confounding two separate and very different incidents as though they were one and the same.
You are correct charlie re childish name-calling.
Yes, they are two separate and very different incidents however their cause is the same.
charlie hebdoI might add that my assumption is that there are very few good senior engineers remaining and few would want to be involved in the vts process.
Agree
BaltACDI had my time in the trenches - 10 years worth.
Ah, one of the unknowing supervising the unknowing.
BaltACD You have only become worthy of emojis
I'm devastated.
243129BaltACD, had you some experience 'in the trenches' you might have been able to participate intelligently in this discussion instead of posting emojis.
I had my time in the trenches - 10 years worth. You have only become worthy of emojis.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD, had you some experience 'in the trenches' you might have been able to participate intelligently in this discussion instead of posting emojis.
243129 BaltACD 243129 Your response indicates that you have not read, or perhaps not comprehended the NTSB report. BaltACD By whose estimate were the CSX men 'in sight' for 15 - 20 seconds? #175's engineer.That fact is in the NTSB report. BaltACD while also looking into the headlight of the NB Amtrak train with the CSX train being the backdrop for the scene. Had you read the report you would have seen that both trains had dimmed their headlights. BaltACD Does a engineer 'always' take braking actions when 'trespassers' are over 1/4 mile in advance of the train's location when running at track speed? In a situation such as described in the report, yes. Northbound on one track, freight on another track and your train in the middle of the two, and you see 'trespassers' on your track with no route for escape. An experienced engineer should be able to assess this situation instantly and apply the brake to emergency thereby granting precious seconds or even milliseconds to the 'trespassers' She did not. BaltACD It has been my observed experience that individuals involved in incidents do not possess Rolex accuracy when estimating the timing of their actions as it relates to the incident. The statement 'time stood still' ends up being their reality and at variance with actual reality. Your "observed experience" given you not reading or lack of comprehending the report along with no experience of real-time operations in the field does not bear any credibility. I am sure your Vetting, Training and Supervision would have prevented the incident in its entirety had you been at the control stand of #175. I'm not sure if it would have been prevented in its entirety but at least they would have had a chance with a well-trained engineer at the throttle something that was denied them due to her inaction.
BaltACD 243129 Your response indicates that you have not read, or perhaps not comprehended the NTSB report. BaltACD By whose estimate were the CSX men 'in sight' for 15 - 20 seconds? #175's engineer.That fact is in the NTSB report. BaltACD while also looking into the headlight of the NB Amtrak train with the CSX train being the backdrop for the scene. Had you read the report you would have seen that both trains had dimmed their headlights. BaltACD Does a engineer 'always' take braking actions when 'trespassers' are over 1/4 mile in advance of the train's location when running at track speed? In a situation such as described in the report, yes. Northbound on one track, freight on another track and your train in the middle of the two, and you see 'trespassers' on your track with no route for escape. An experienced engineer should be able to assess this situation instantly and apply the brake to emergency thereby granting precious seconds or even milliseconds to the 'trespassers' She did not. BaltACD It has been my observed experience that individuals involved in incidents do not possess Rolex accuracy when estimating the timing of their actions as it relates to the incident. The statement 'time stood still' ends up being their reality and at variance with actual reality. Your "observed experience" given you not reading or lack of comprehending the report along with no experience of real-time operations in the field does not bear any credibility. I am sure your Vetting, Training and Supervision would have prevented the incident in its entirety had you been at the control stand of #175.
243129 Your response indicates that you have not read, or perhaps not comprehended the NTSB report. BaltACD By whose estimate were the CSX men 'in sight' for 15 - 20 seconds? #175's engineer.That fact is in the NTSB report. BaltACD while also looking into the headlight of the NB Amtrak train with the CSX train being the backdrop for the scene. Had you read the report you would have seen that both trains had dimmed their headlights. BaltACD Does a engineer 'always' take braking actions when 'trespassers' are over 1/4 mile in advance of the train's location when running at track speed? In a situation such as described in the report, yes. Northbound on one track, freight on another track and your train in the middle of the two, and you see 'trespassers' on your track with no route for escape. An experienced engineer should be able to assess this situation instantly and apply the brake to emergency thereby granting precious seconds or even milliseconds to the 'trespassers' She did not. BaltACD It has been my observed experience that individuals involved in incidents do not possess Rolex accuracy when estimating the timing of their actions as it relates to the incident. The statement 'time stood still' ends up being their reality and at variance with actual reality. Your "observed experience" given you not reading or lack of comprehending the report along with no experience of real-time operations in the field does not bear any credibility.
BaltACD By whose estimate were the CSX men 'in sight' for 15 - 20 seconds?
#175's engineer.That fact is in the NTSB report.
BaltACD while also looking into the headlight of the NB Amtrak train with the CSX train being the backdrop for the scene.
Had you read the report you would have seen that both trains had dimmed their headlights.
BaltACD Does a engineer 'always' take braking actions when 'trespassers' are over 1/4 mile in advance of the train's location when running at track speed?
In a situation such as described in the report, yes. Northbound on one track, freight on another track and your train in the middle of the two, and you see 'trespassers' on your track with no route for escape. An experienced engineer should be able to assess this situation instantly and apply the brake to emergency thereby granting precious seconds or even milliseconds to the 'trespassers' She did not.
BaltACD It has been my observed experience that individuals involved in incidents do not possess Rolex accuracy when estimating the timing of their actions as it relates to the incident. The statement 'time stood still' ends up being their reality and at variance with actual reality.
Your "observed experience" given you not reading or lack of comprehending the report along with no experience of real-time operations in the field does not bear any credibility.
I am sure your Vetting, Training and Supervision would have prevented the incident in its entirety had you been at the control stand of #175.
I'm not sure if it would have been prevented in its entirety but at least they would have had a chance with a well-trained engineer at the throttle something that was denied them due to her inaction.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.