New equipment technology

Slippy, that post has so much to relate to "New Equipment Technology". Let's stay in the moment. Remember "Situational Awareness"? Where is my answer about the above post concerning the emergency responses? Helloooo???

Datenail is correct.

With the arrival of PTC, motormen training will be greatly reduced. This has been an ongoing transition, similar to many crafts whose need for expertise has been reduced through the introduction of new technology. When the PRR's "enginemen" lost steam equipment, their training in steam engineering was obsolete. In recent years, airbrake training has been all but eliminated. PTC will further reduce the level of skill required to that of "train operators" on most other urban/suburban transit operators.

Like it or not, the days of Casey Jones, his skill and broad training are drawing to an end quickly on the Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

And yes, we recall Ray's "retirement". He was relieved by the Assistant Stationmaster in New York for insubordination. Rule 801. Given a direct order, he refused and went home. And I recall him throwing his keys and his punch, along with some colorful language. He did retire the next morning, before standing trial. He was a conductor, and quite a senior one. Nasty Nick was an motorman. He was fired for insubordination after another New York Assistant Stationmaster order him on several consecutive days to make an added stop, which he refused to do. His criminal trespass charges were dropped when he was dismissed.

I thought the job title on the LIRR was engineer, not motorman. And even without being a LIRR employee, I'm surprised to hear that airbrake training for engineers has been reduced. Isn't knowledge of how that system works kind of important to operating a train safely?

And re: the story in the previous post, why would any engineer refuse to make an added stop on a run?

Or as some have suggested here, should we maybe not take some of these posts by certain people too seriously?

this thread will probably be removed and I hate to get involved in a who's in charge petty melee but here goe's,In my 30 year career I can honestly attest to the fact that most RRemployees who bash engineers have at some point in their career tried to get into engine service and failed.Most probably because those interviewing them discovered at the interview that said applicant was trouble and we are chock full of blowhards.Also I have noticed that those who demean and debase engine service employees ironically try to get their kids on as engineers.My personal observation

This thread was created to discuss technology and changes forthcoming and it's turned into who is the boss. Can we please stop this or I'll lock the thread.

I have been retired for some years now. How exactly does PTC affect train operation and when will it be installed on the LIRR?

Craft wars have been around since the start of railroading. A good employee knows a little about every craft and respects those who master their craft. It's no secret to anyone who "knows their stuff" and who's a "load". Because of the technical demands of engine service a skilled engineer is quickly evident.

The Nasty Man referred to refused to follow a station master's order on spotting his train. He was ordered to spot his train in a certain manner -- to place certain cars on the platform to accommodate a particular situation, and he failed to comply. This created confusion with the Conductor, who was operating the doors. The subsequent dispute among the crew delayed the train and compromised safety.

The investigation found The Nasty Man to be simply belligerent. He wasn't going to be told what to do. On the second day, he repeated his insubordination, as he did on the third. He was counseled, and the dangers to passengers were explained to him as well as the inconvenience to which he subjected his family by jeopardizing his continued employment and earnings. He continued his insubordination and was removed from service. He was subsequently discharged from the service for other, even more absurd indiscretions.

Why did this employee act in this manner?

Go to Five Guys Burgers and ask him.

I hope some caught onto the sarcasm in my last post.

And if you ask me, anybody who is entertaining the thought going into engine service these days I feel either love trains or they despise the prior craft/job they came from. There is no more grey area anymore. With the scrunity that comes with the job and PTC on the horizon, I have noticed the lust has worn off quite a bit. This was also evident with the transition from the old diesel fleet to the laughable effort replicating a Japanese bullet train that looks like a slug. Not to mention a lot of the finesse was gone during the transition.

I'm not getting this. Why would the installation of Positive Train Control discourage people from wanting to be engineers? Isn't PTC an expanded form of the existing Automatic Speed Control that LIRR has used for about 60 years? When that began in the 1950's did engineers bemoan the end of their profession as they knew it? I hope not 'cause engineers were still needed then and probably will still be needed with PTC. After all PTC isn't an automated operating system like on WMATA or BART is it?

If I'm mistaken, please correct me.

PTC will water down the craft a lot, Headend. I mistakenly omitted that inward facing cameras are in the immediate forecast, and its implementation and usage are still very much dependent on how well labor tightens loose ends with the language in the agreement. It is going to be a real test for the new General Chairman of Local 269 BLE. The Railroads, especially the LIRR, are very reactive.

Slippy, I could understand engineers being upset about inward facing cameras. I would consider that a form of harassment or an invasion of a semi-private work-space if I held that job. The BLE should consider suing over their installation or failing that, make sure to get very specific wording in their contract regarding the cameras, which you say they are doing.

Re: the "watering down" of the craft by PTC, again I suggest that engineers in the 1950's probably said the same thing about the then new ASC system.

Inward/outward facing cameras are a mandate and the unions have very little to say about how they are used. The ble lost a court action regarding inward facing cameras. Now all they can do is try to lessen the impact with diplomacy and tact. PTC will lessen the reliance on an engineer. It wont for now, eliminate the job but it will change our requirements for the job. When we hire engineers we not only look at their ability to move a train but also be attentive, memory capacity, etc. PTC will lessen that importance. Now em2000 will jump in and attack what i'm saying here.

EM2000 i'm a manager but not a Road foreman and I'm ordering you to reply!

Im going to reply and respectfully disagree with that statement.ptc is yet another layer of protection as speed control and alertness devices are. There is no way that this system is going to eliminate an engineers need to have knowledge of his speeds,physical charcteristics, grades, curvature in track, braking points etc. Yes ptc will avoid tragedies such as Amtrak and metro north, but to say that the the carrier will be allowed to look for less then attentive sub par applicants because of this technology implementation is a rather reckless statement

LirrEngr's post seems like a much more practical viewpoint of how PTC is likely to affect the operating of trains. Again, not a railroad employee myself, but I kind of figure it the way he does. PTC will be another layer of protection, not a replacement of the trained and skilled engineer.

Just as there is the occasional ASC Failure and at this point in time, still places on the RR without ASC, it is not wise for the RR to think in terms of dumbingdown the Job Of Locomotive Engineer. Im sure there will be situations where the PTC fails too. It would be wise to remember that, when you send an Engineer out on a train. In any case it will be several years before the entire RR has ASC, much less PTC.

The posts about reduced engineer training are disturbing. Even with PTC, with technology being fallible, the human element should still be equal to the task.

it seems that MTA is joining the ranks of organisations putting unqualified or underqualified people into jobs with inadequate training and telling them "This is the job - know what to do".