• Weight on Drivers

  • Discussion relating to the NYC and subsidiaries, up to 1968. Visit the NYCS Historical Society for more information.
Discussion relating to the NYC and subsidiaries, up to 1968. Visit the NYCS Historical Society for more information.

Moderator: Otto Vondrak

  by urrengr2003
Anyone following this forum with old timebook or railroad paper that would indicate how an Engineer was paid on forty-hundred class locomotives? We were paid for weight on drivers but only 2/3 of the locomotive weight was on drivers with the DFA's. Did we get the weight of the locomotive or only 2/3 for calculating daily rates?
  by DutchRailnut
correct since only 2/3 of weight was on drivers that is what you got paid.
for example a RDC only has two drivers and two idlers so only half car weight is payable.
  by Allen Hazen
Is weight on drivers still part of locomotive engineers' contracts? If it is (somehow I doubt it, but if…), how is the engineer of a GE ES44C4, with its varying weight on drivers, paid? (I suspect the terms of the contracts have been changed so the problem doesn't arise, but I can imagine an alternative reality in which the locomotive's onboard computer has to integrate the w-o-d over time…)
  by Noel Weaver
On most of the major freight railroads I believe weight on drivers is a factor in the pay for each trip. I had a job out of Selkirk to Buffalo with two six packs on the head end and two more about half way back in the train which were radio controlled from the head end although I could also run them separately. The pay for a 300 mile run was enough higher to make the extra work well worth while. Everybody on the railroad was afraid of this job but I liked it. It took us considerable time to get rolling out of Selkirk but once we started it was usually clear signals all the way with about three and a half miles or more of train. The conductors hated the job because they were afraid they would have to walk it but it never happened at least with us between Selkirk and Buffalo. I liked it because it paid bigger bucks, we almost always had high greens all the way and it was usually a good train to run. I don't know if any major railroads have done away with weight on drivers or not but I don't think the passenger carriers use it any more. Incidentally the question about how the weight question is settled? So far as I know the manufacturer will dictate the actual weight of the locomotive as well as the weight on drivers if it is dilfferent. It would only be different if there is a non powered axle in the truck.
Noel Weaver
  by Allen Hazen
I had assumed that factoring weight on drivers into an engineers pay rate was obsolete, and asked my question rather as a joke, but it sounds from Noel Weaver's reply that it is still a factor. In which case, I am curious about how BNSF pays engineers running ES44C4 units. These locomotives have an unpowered centre axle on each truck, and mechanism (visible parts include cranks on the centre axle connected to what look like extra brake cylinders) that allow weight to be shifted from the unpowered to the powered axles when extra tractive effort is needed-- all, I assume, controlled by the on-board computer.
  by DutchRailnut
again the weight on drivers is not used anymore, but in a for example a ES44c4 unit would not be any different from a E unit with A1A trucks only 2/3 of engine weight is on drivers.