Major derailment @ Spuyten Duyvil

justalurker66 wrote:It certainly sounds like the difficulty of getting such a license/certificate is up to the issuing railroad. More of a formality than getting a license from an outside source such as the DOT. If the railroad wants an individual to operate a train they give that individual the level of instruction the railroad feels is necessary then issue the license/certificate to say the railroad did its part. The exact standards are set by the issuer.

The standards as set by the FRA, which has to give the ok after the railroad creates its certification course. As part of the deep dive operation the FRA is looking into all of these records for MNR. The purpose of doing this is not to make it difficult to get the certificate, but rather to have a standard to which all locomotive engineers and conductors are held to nationally and that they are trained and inspected periodically for compliance.

JimBoylan wrote:We're splitting hairs or words here:

Patrick Boylan wrote:...this is the first I've heard it called a license.

JimBoylan wrote:The word "licensing" only comes from a "pretty decent" Brotherhood or Union source, it is not used in the more authoratative Federal Regulation!...As Patrick hints, there is a weasel clause that could permit the word "License" to appear on the Certificate.

Another Gotcha! shot by the Boylan brothers!

Guys what you're misconstruing here is....the point.

No one was challenging the legal language. It was the use of the word "license" to describe the certification needed under CFR 49 to operate a locomotive that was challenged. A person who is a locomotive engineer referred to the CFR 49 certificate as a license. He was challenged on the use of that word. I've heard other locomotive engineers use that term. The locomotive engineer's union refers to it as licensing.

Who cares?

It's ok just as long as you remember I'm the younger and handsomer of the Boylan brothers.

Patrick Boylan wrote:It's ok just as long as you remember I'm the younger and handsomer of the Boylan brothers.

Is that unanimous?

Actually I'm the middle and handsomest of the 3 Boylan brothers, but as far as I know the baby, Tom, does not participate in rr.net.

Jim's railroad knowledge however far exceeds mine. If he says something about railroads it's very rare that I'll feel comfortable disputing him.

EM2000 wrote:And where do you base that from?

§ 240.223

Thanks!

RearOfSignal wrote:The standards as set by the FRA, which has to give the ok after the railroad creates its certification course. As part of the deep dive operation the FRA is looking into all of these records for MNR. The purpose of doing this is not to make it difficult to get the certificate, but rather to have a standard to which all locomotive engineers and conductors are held to nationally and that they are trained and inspected periodically for compliance.

The simple statement seems that the certificate/license indicates "that the railroad, acting in conformity with this part, has determined that the person to whom it is being issued has been determined to be qualified to operate a locomotive". The determination is not made by the government or a third party examiner but by the railroad that will benefit by having that person operate a locomotive.

I'm not saying that getting a certificate/license is trivial - and hopefully no railroad treats it as a trivial part of the rules. But if the railroad wants a person to operate their locomotives and the railroad determines that person is qualified then the railroad is going to issue the certificate/license.

Does a "locomotive engineer license" from one company help an engineer at all when it comes to working for other companies? Would a person with an NS issued license have to get a new license if they went to work for CSX? Would it be worth any more than a note on a resume showing that the individual might be able to qualify to operate locomotives at the new company? (Especially if the new company has a high opinion of their own training and operations?)

justalurker66 wrote:I'm not saying that getting a certificate/license is trivial - and hopefully no railroad treats it as a trivial part of the rules. But if the railroad wants a person to operate their locomotives and the railroad determines that person is qualified then the railroad is going to issue the certificate/license.

Does a "locomotive engineer license" from one company help an engineer at all when it comes to working for other companies? Would a person with an NS issued license have to get a new license if they went to work for CSX? Would it be worth any more than a note on a resume showing that the individual might be able to qualify to operate locomotives at the new company? (Especially if the new company has a high opinion of their own training and operations?)

This is exactly the point of certification, to hold engineers and conductors to a federally approved standard throughout the nation. A railroad seeking to hiring conductors or engineers can see that someone is already holding a valid certification and can expect a certain level of proficiency because the testing and training that railroads provide must meet FRA standards. These records are kept by the railroad for inspection by the FRA. Thus a hiring railroad can assume a candidate that holds a certificate has already demonstrated an ability to perform the job and that might give that particular candidate an advantage over someone who does not hold a certificate. There are specific rules about transferring certificates from one railroad to another, even from Canada. Nevertheless a hiring railroad would still train an engineer or conductor on that roads specific rules, whether they're certified or not. Basically, the point of certification is to have an equal standard for all conductors and engineers, not necessarily for hiring purposes though.

Get back on the topic of the Spyten Duyvil incident SPECIFICALLY - start a NEW THREAD for extraneous discussion.

LAST WARNING - ONE MORE FLAME POST AND I WILL LOCK. THIS APPLIES TO ALL.

Please do not take away my ability to read new posts in this thread. If you have a problem with flame posts I don't understand why you have to punish me and reward the flamers who probably want you to lock the thread.

Patrick Boylan wrote:Please do not take away my ability to read new posts in this thread. If you have a problem with flame posts I don't understand why you have to punish me and reward the flamers who probably want you to lock the thread.

I agree with you, I am at the point of reducing my participation on railroaddotnet and cutting out Metro-North on railroaddotnet alltogether. Metro-North is falling apart at least in Connecticut and this forum is not much better.
Noel Weaver

No one is forcing anyone to stay - If you don't like the forum rules or moderation, you are free to go elsewhere.

Wonder how far into the process of working on the report of this accident the NTSB is.

I do agree with the idea of giving him another chance somewhere - yes, it was a fatal accident - that doesn't mean, though, that it ceases to be an accident.

The FRA is still working "Operation Deep Dive" (the 60 day review).
Progress can be tracked on the FRA website: http://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0675" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;