PC verbals

Does any one out there know why all of a sudden the verbal for PC has become much harder to pass? Trainmen are getting scores in the upper 80's on the written and just last week a trainan failed in the verbal with a 95on the written. Have the new rules examiners been given marching orders from their boss to be much tougher in the verbal or are they just trying to make a name for themselves? Maybe Clem might have some insight?

Might just be that there is no one taking the time to show them how the railroad wants it done. When I qualified, there were classes given once a week by Joe Cassidy Senior, on his own time, and our own time. These classes were extremely helpfull, he used to quiz us, and give us sample tests, so by the time we got up to the actual tests, it was like repeating his class. I dont think anyone who took his classes ever failed to make it as Conductor. What the new people seem to have against them, is I dont see them studying together in groups. Get together with others who will be "going up" soon, and study together. Also, i see a lot of the new guys playing with electronic devices, and I pods. We did not have those distractions back in the stone age. Take the time to study together, and put the time in, and you will be fine. Ask some of the people who have been through it recently what they are looking for.

I know all the rules examiners quite well and they are not trying to make a name for themselves nor prove anything to anyone. Nor have they received any orders to toughen up. They simply share the feeling that memorizing a PC map does not give anyone the right to a promotion.

Some of the high grades on written PC test were made by people who couldn't answer how many platforms were in Lynbrook station on the verbal.

Or those who consistantly demonstrated that they never looked out a window when studying the Railroad. For example, most test takers cannot tell the examiner that Wood's home signal can be seen from Woodside Station.

No rules examiner wants to fail a candidate for promotion. However, no examiner wants to be responsible for signing the card of a man who goes on to cause a deadly wreck either.

Talk to one of these guys who "scored a 90% on the written and failed the verbal" and see if you'd trust them with the safety of your wife and kids. I'll bet in every case you'll agree that they are probably seriously lacking in basic understanding of the Railroad.

Trust me, I am speaking on behalf of some very fair rules guys here, and this is the whole story.

Clem

How many platforms are in Lynbrook?

Clem,

It just seems something changed when this new batch of rules examiners came on board. Were the last three examiners not doing the job correctly? Has the training department changed? It just seemed unheardof someone failing that did well on the written.

Looks like "Zero" platforms but an unprotected grade crossing to me!!!! Hope this ain't a quiet zone or else it looks like that hoggers gettin three days off...........

With qualifications being a somewhat subjective condition, each examiner is going to have slightly different standards. Unfortunately, when a new examiner arrives, he is sometimes taken aback by the lack of skill that is presented by candidates for promotion. A new examiner is more likely to feel an employee is dangerous than is a seasoned examiner.

Remember that written tests are somewhat new. There was a time, until they were challenged a few decades ago, that all PC testing was verbal.

Thus an examiner should rely heavily on the verbal part of the test. With the system being what it is, failing someone who successfully completed a written test takes more effort and work. The reason for failure must be documented and the examiner's judgement is subject to question.

Perhaps the former group of examiners grew weary of that and relied more on the written test.

The incidence of rules violations and careless mistakes has grown ten fold. We have more signal run-throughs now in six months than we once had in twenty years. We've demolished so many bumper blocks that the manufacturer cannot supply them fast enough. This puts pressure on management to more carefully screen employees.

Ask anyone who has been here for twenty years and they would agree that the standards for qualification have dropped dramatically. The irresponsible behavior and a broad lack of interest in learning the job is the main cause for the more aggressive testing.

Clem

Thanks for your reponse Clem. Maybe the two to three years is not enough time to qualify. These employess are going to have less of an understanding of how the railroad works. The railroad should go back to five to six year qualifing.

With regards to the verbal being hard. I took my qualification tests 4 years ago. I took a good year and half to study. What I was told by the various conductors and engineers who helped me was that you have to know the railroad not by just repeating the pc verbatum by a list of cheat cheats but by actually being able to know what you are looking at when you encounter it. I tell this to people who are doing their definitions and signals. It is great that you can repeat or parrot what a Push pull train is but can you apply it. If I point to a train consisting of the 418 with the 5016 on the other end, can you give me all the definitions associated with that train? Same with the PC. If we are going through Bellport Station. Can someone drawing the PC be able to walk me through there . The same for yards. How many tracks in Speonk yard. How numbered . Derails etc. If PD tower tells the crew to put the train on 6 Track, does the conductor know where 6 track is . Also, do they know car capacities. Very important if you are bringing the 8 car Dm train from Montauk to Speonk. It will not fit in BH siding but will fit in AG and SN along with ND and WH. I have always felt that it is important not to just parrot the paper but to be able to identify it in the field where it is important. I always have believed those who are qualifing should get on a braking job. Even if it is a horrible braking job, to get experience. You will not know the railroad as a collector.
Just my two cents

Well said, Sean!

Dave Keller

You know its funny I can remember Sean doing that to me on the way to Montauk when I was his brakeman. Its funny, after a few times you start thinking to yourself...NOW WHAT THE HELL IS HE LOOKING FOR.. but in the end it make the trip out go faster, and you may not realize it but you learn alot.

Clem.. to say the last batch of rules examiners might have been more lax is absurd. When I qualified on my PC and my Rules I was tested very hard, but then again as engineers we see and live it more on a daily basis then a conductor. When I was studying as a trainee, we had a more structured system, whereas a conductor is giving a bunch of papers and told to study, theres a big difference right there!

I dont think its anyone out to make a name for themselves but more that most are bnew and maybe arent comfortable passing people until they are really sure they know what they are doing confidently.

Peanuts,

I agree with you completely. I don't think any of us had an easy time qualifying. Anyone who siad they did probably is fibbing.

Clem

I have heard few guys complaining about the new "regime" of examiners in the rules dept, I just chalked it up to sour grapes. It's frustrating to put in all that time and short, and sometimes people will lash out the most convient target. People say that it is impossible to score in the high 80's 90's on the written and fail the verbal. Well that is just flat out wrong, it can very easily happen, and it does. I person I hired on with got an 87 on their written and failed the verbal, and that was with the old examiners.

I guess a person can learn the Railroad from a line map but when asked to put that to practical use, they bog down. And it's the practical use of PC knowledge that the Railroad wants..not just the ability to draw the Railroad.

When I was an Engineer Trainee, I was out on my days off every weekend and after class on my own time to ride the Railroad and learn it. I will admit, that part of putting time in on relief days was because I was finally doing what I wanted to do since I was a kid but also to learn the road.

When I was coming up, it took months to learn the to run the "old" diesels. Most of the older Engineers that ran them would not let you run..some made you sit in the back- which was good because you became friendly with the Conductors who you were going to work with but horrible to learn the Railroad. When you got a guy that would let you run, we hogged his job which meant that we had to come on our relief days or if we had a class in the daytime, after class to get time in on branches. I spent many days coming to class at 8am and not getting home until 2am because we ran off to LIC to run trains to Montauk or Pt. Jeff to get running time. I can go on about how many weekends were spent on freight jobs on our own time to try to learn how to get this goofy train up over the Montauk Cut-Off and into the Stink track in Yard A without pulling a knuckle out or losing control of the train. Knowing the PC was absolutely essential in order to anticipate what was ahead so you didn't stall your train and were able to control your slack

If a person is having trouble, the extra effort to come on days off to learn might be in order. And that way he can learn it practically and do better in a verbal exam. It's up to the individual and only that person knows what he/she must do to get it down and pass.

I give trainmen a lot of credit who qualify. I work with mostly younger people who are learning and you can see how hard they are trying to learn and qualify on the LIRR. Most put all they have in them to pass and let's face it..it's a skill that is unique to the business and cannot be used anywhere else but on a railroad. When I was coming up, there were so many Conductors who were supportive and patient with us throwing them all over the train with our horrible train handling, sliding past stations and generally making their day awful because we were learning..Many would go off on the Engineer for not letting us run or go up to the Road Foreman after a train handling test to tell them what a good job we did or even go to bat for a Trainee that failed over some stupid common mistake to try to convince the Road Foreman to change his mind. To those who did that I am eternally grateful because it made the difference having a nice supportive Conductor while you were with a grouchy Engineer who didn't want you there and made you a nervous wreck.

Just my thoughts!

Form 19 that was great to read all of that. Thanks for sharing!