"When you get ready to run her, let me know and I'll come out and show y'all how to run her. I ran this engine back in the old days"

Okay, let's do the math. The year is 2006. The Southern dieselized in 1953. This particular locomotive was retired in 1948. That is 58 years ago. If this self-professed "expert" was steam qualified at age 21, he would be 79 years old. Yet he doesn't look a day over 60. Would you let him in the engineer's seat? I would hope note.

This is crap that we hear all the time at TVRM. I am sure that the other steam operators hear it as well. If I had a dollar for every person that has told me they ran the 4501, I'd be retired on a South Pacific Island right now. That is we, and all other railroads that operate trains (are there any tourist railroads out there that do not have a 49CFR240 program?), have a Engineer Qualification Program in accordance with 49CFR240 and all of our engineers have been through a rigourous training and qualification program. We don't care what you ran, when you ran it, or how long you ran it. You do not get a Class 1 license to operate a steam locomotive on our railroad until you complete the same program as everyone else. If you have had experience somewhere else, you will probably move through the program faster than some others but you must still go through the process.

Now, let's suppose that the XYX group rebuilds an old tea kettle and wants to run it to Fantasyland and back. The groups owns no railroad and has no FRA approved 49CFR240 program but yet they have a locomotive they want to run. How do they find qualified people? Who determines if they are qualified? What responsibilites do the owners of the old tea kettle have to make sure the crew is qualified? To what standards are they to be qualified to? Unless you can find someone who was qualified to run steam on the N&W at age 18, you are going to be hard pressed to find an old head that has steam experience. I am sure there are still a few out there but could they pass the mandated hearing and vision acuity tests?

For those of you familiar with human error avoidance, you would probably call the 745 problem a "skills based" error. A skills based error has the lowest probability of occurence but yet it happened. Two water glasses did not help. A tank level water indicator did not help. A locomotive being towed did not help. We can continue to add barriers but when you consider the barriers that were broken, too add more would be futile. The bottom line is that the reason for a skill based error is due to the individuals involved not possessing the skills to perform the task at hand. This takes us back to the root cause question, who determined if the crew was truly qualified?

I expect much discussion about this at the upcoming ARM-TRAIN conference. This is an opportunity for TRAIN to take the lead on establishing a blue ribbon panel charged with the development of some qualification guidelines for steam locomotive engineers. If we don't do this, I am sure the FRA will do it for us.

Amen, Brother Ray.......

no piece of machinery can be idiot proofed, and sometimes I fear that no amount of education can cure idiocy.

Such solutions as adding electronic probe type low water alarms, crownsheet temperature sensors, automatice water pumps and other impracticle lunacies for historic steam are just expensive faux solutions to a problem with a simple, much cheaper fix.

Let' actually teach folks how to be responsible steam operators. How do you inforce that, without calling in the Feds (which may or may not be the best approach). If your crew ain't qualified to a certain set of industry accepted standards, you don't get excursion, or any other, insurance.

There are any number of old correspondance courses and other educational texts on steam locomotive operation, complete with tests.

Those are a good start. Couple that with a good classroom/seminar system and apprentice program, and any group can start a reasonable operations education program. But here's the catch...to have an apprentice program, you gotta have some old heads with experience, or some youngheads who learned from the old heads.

And don't forget, the mainlines are turning out engineers with just a fraction of the time out on the road as they did just 15 years ago, so we needn't look there for experience very deeply.

I think that the 745 could well be the last amateur, non railroad company fixer up and run her group. In the future, as in the past, a successful group that wants to run steam must have their own railroad, or have the sponsorship of someone who does.

I don't know that I'd limit consideration of this problem to regulated railroads - the majority of instances I have seen that truly made me want to move away from the train very quickly have happened on unregulated operations such as theme parks, historic sites, etc. At least regulated operators are mandated to have some documented program for training and qualification - very few unregulated operators I have found have taken the initiative to create their own, apart from a simple rules class and some supervised hands-on from somebody whose qualifications are themselves in question.

Technological solutions don't work - apart from the uncanny ability of many idiots to make efforts to make machines idiot resistant oxymoronic, the effects of incompetence on the new technology are just expanded. If you don't know how to maintain one water glass, why would you be able to maintain two?

I agree, we gotta do a better job. I'm just not sure how it can be done across the board without some public sector mandate.

I'll email a recently passed engine driver I know in Oz - who will contact people in Canada and the UK?

dave

Over the last four decades I have seen a number of incidents where negligent individuals, who were given lots of training, found new and creative ways to damage equipment and hurt themselves and others. I would expect that any federal response to a serious incident caused by negligence in a steam operation with death resulting is very likely to be the occasion for the introduction of new technology, whether it looks appropriate on old equipment or not. Just take a look at the cab of any diesel or electric locomotive operated by Amtrak or a commuter agency and see all the safety related equipment that was mandated during the last 40 years. Lots of changes in personnel policies and security too! And I can assure you that FRA people read these postings, our local inspector certainly does. So be sure to give your people training on operating laptop computers, one of these days you are going to be downloading event recorders too!

MX (not my real name)

I agree with you Mark.

This is definitly a skills based issue. I have ready many posts in the LASTA thread regarding additional technology to "fix" the low water issues. While I have nothing against these devices, at the end of the day, society is creating better "idiots" much faster than the "idiot proof" technology can keep up. I have read several accounts where a tower operator reported hearing the low water alarm going off on a passing locomotive, yet the locomotive kept right on going at track speed, and blew up several miles down the track. I believe that the second water glass was a great idea. Who wants to run off gauge cocks when you can use a glass? Why not have a spare? However, if the fireman isn't watching the first two, I don't believe that he/she will watch a third either.

Does anybody remember the empty comercial jet that crashed a year or two ago because the crew took the plane to the roof at 40k feet, and kept overiding the autopilot and raising the nose? The flight data recorder showed that the pilots made intentional gross error after intentional gross error over a period of 10-15 minutes before the engines locked down and the plane/crew were doomed. I believe I remember an expert talking about the incident, and basically said that it just goes to show how hard it is to crash a plane, yet it happened anyway!

The other side to this is that even with the greatest training program in the world, there still has to be check rides, written and hands on tests, continued training, suprise tests, etc. Even at that, some people are just not cut out to be steam fireman or engineers. At the end of the day, as much as it may hurt, these people may not be allowed to run ol' 97 by themselves, even if they do have the medal for the most volunteer hours for the year. That is not to say they are not usefull to the operation, or they should be kept away from the loco, only that they are not able to fill certain positions. There must be some mechanism in each operation that ensures that the operators are qualified. There is also a difference between capable and qualified. I believe those two terms are often confused or used interchangably.

Bottom line, find a solution before somebody finds one for you. There is still enough knowlege out there to learn from as long as that thing called ego doesn't get in the way. I hope this is a topic for discussion at TRAIN, formal or informal. I'll be there.

Ryan Scott

I believe one of the first steps is to see where we are at with various training programs and historic materials. It may be time to develop a reference library of crew training materials and other technical issues that everyone is encouraged to use. But who or what organization would support such an endeavor and who would do the research and other work? How would such an endeavor be managed? I feel that when the material is put together we may find that there are a lot of different ideas to get the same job done of getting a locomotive over the railroad. A one size fits all program may not be what the industry needs given the differences in various types of equipment.

Robby Peartree

OK, I have sent a specific inquiry to Australia and a general one to SteamTech, which has a very international representation. The gist was that we are better off developing a good program from within rather than having one imposed, and soliciting information about any governmantally recognized program used in other countries where steam is used only in preservation or tourism. I hope to have some response within the next couple days, or at least a sense of how people in other countries are dealing with this situation.

dave

The last time I heard something like that was on a trip with the 2816 in North Dakota after the NRHS convention a couple of years ago.

This old man told his grand kids, or maybe his grand kids that this (the 2816) was the engine he re ran when we worked for the railroad in ND.

Only problem with that is this was the first time the engine had been in ND !

True story !!!

Bob H.

I have had a couple responses and am learning a lot.

I was mistaken about a national standard in Canada, I am told by a gentleman in Ontario. Each province has their own way of doing things. Ontario has a certification program for traction boilers including locomotives which has requirements of 160 hours of practical hands on, and a 4 hour exam. I don't know how this compares with other provincial requirements.

Things are in flux in Australia. A national set of standards is under construction for the entire railway industry, to replace individual state standards, and much has yet to be spelled out. The late Mr Braedon was instrumental in working on the tourist railway parts of the proposed legislation, and hopefully others are now picking up where he left off. I expect an update from there soon.

dave

Dave,

There isn't a national qualification program in the UK but it is fairly safe to say that all the organisations follow a similar path. We do not have to start as Brakemen as is the usual way in the USA. The path is (usually) cleaner, passed cleaner, fireman, passed fireman, driver (the term passed means that can be used in the grade above but are waiting for a vacancy or time limit before being promoted. Assuming at least a year in each grade it takes 5 years minimum to make driver. It took me far longer but I've been driving for 6 years now and still learning.

I've encountered some people in each of the grades who should never progress because they don't have what is needed to make the step up, these people need weeding out because they can prevent better ones progressing - length of service is not necessarily a sign of ability. Some are naturals whereas others never will be.

Not necessarily the popular answer but a point that needs making.

Thanks Gavin - at each step towards driver, are there generally any formal tests, or is an informal agreement among authorities regarding prospects abilities all that is required?

dave

I agree with Mark and Ryan that we need to find a solution before the solution finds us. TVRM has long had a good program and I am sure it is better now that when I was there. Most of the organizations I have been associated with had good programs that were based to some degree on their equipment and railroad. I am not sure how much good it would do for members of the Fort Wayne 765 group to go to a place like Cass and spend a month training on shays going up a 10% grade even if a law were passed and the training complied with the law.

Ryan makes a great point about the better idiot. No matter how much additional safety equipment you put on the locomotives someone will be just far enough ahead of the equipment to defeat it. I remember reading a report of someone riding beside a locomotive on the highway and the low water alarm whistle was blowing all the time he was following the engine. Neither the engineer, fireman, or head brakeman made a move for the water pump or injector. Eventually this fellow got a way from the engine not long before it blew up. The technology was working but the crew chose to ignore it. When you get down to brass tacks the same thing happened in the case of the 745.

When I was at Williams Grove I would often take the lite engine out in the evening after we were done running the train. On board would be some of the volunteers wanting to learn how to run and fire the locomotive. I would run the engine over the crossings and then let the others run it back and forth from there to the end of track getting the feel of running the locomotive. If someone wanted to do some fireman training they could or I would fire for everyone. Some sessions ran only an hour or two but others went on until midnight. We all got experience handling the locomotive including running in the dark. Several guys were able to qualify sooner because they got training time otherwise not available.

Perhaps doing something like this on an organized scale would help train steam crews. TVRM has the perfect railroad for such an operation with a wye on one end and the table on the other. With no crossings in between the trainees could really get a feel for running the locmotive. Spencer already does some of this training with diesels though it may be for brakeman and conductors only. I do not remember if engineer trainees are a part of their program. An operation like this does not cost the organization a lot of money but whatever the costs they would have to be absorbed by the railroad.

John Bohon

Dave,

The place where I'm involved uses written tests at each stage combined with practical demonstrations of ability (or lack thereof..). In the last few years there have been a few failures at various levels. Failures are not a bad thing per se but a sign that the candidate has not performed well enough to pass on that occasion.

One worrying problem, from my point of view, is that one individual who is of low intelligence (not his fault and I can't recall the name of the condition) was allowed to join the scheme in spite of his condition. He was subsequently removed from a locomotive because he was a danger to himself (primarily) and a dangerous distraction to the driver and fireman. It has been suggested that he be allowed to try again - I have stated that I will not have him on the footplate, under any circumstances, after one previous experience. I feel sorry for him but making allowances for an individual who could endanger himself and/or others is a critical issue.

Here is a copy of part of a very informative message i got from a gentleman who is actually an instructor in Ontario. I am not posting his name without his permission.

[i]

Quote:

You asked about other government certifications and qualifications.
Here in Ontario, we have a provincial government certification program
for a "Traction Boiler Operator". This covers all forms of preserved
boilers, be they on a tractor or on rails. It requires 160 hours of
experience of which at least 80 hours must be on an operating boiler.
The remainder may be made up of maintenance times. The pupil must
maintain their own log book reflecting hours and work done. Each entry
must be signed by a qualified individual until the individual is
certified. At completion of the time, a three hour exam is written on
all aspects of steam boiler operation. Eighty percent is required for a
pass.
Our regulatory body is the Technical Safety and Standards Authority

http://www.tssa.org/home/default.asp?loc1=home

[/i]

160 hours doesn't seem to me to be a terribly difficult thing to accomplish, particularly if half can be helping with washouts, lapping valves in, etc. Even on a very small operation with a one day a month schedule, a dedicated person could do it in a year.

dave

New Zealand ran steam later than we did, and the situation has not reached the critical point with them. Plenty of lifeling steam qualified retired rails left there.

[quote]Here in New Zealand (where there hasn't been a boiler explosion for more than 100 years), during
this last weekend about 14 steam locos were in operation on the main lines at a festival to
celebrate 100 years of the current Dunedin railway station. Privately owned steam locos are
regularly in operation on the main lines hauling passenger trains in both islands.

Private operation of steam locos on TollRail Ltd (formerly TranzRail Ltd) main lines has to meet
with a number of extremely stringent requirements that have been set down initially by Government
in the form of an Act, & expanded upon by LTSA (Land Transport Safety Authority) a Government
Department. On top of that FRONZ (Federation of Rail Operaters of New Zealand) has (with
co-operation of LTSA) come up with a set of standards that must be used by all rail operators
whether on private sites or on TollRail Ltd lines.

Currently TollRail Ltd uses its rapidly retiring steam certificated Drivers & Firemen to man locos
when on the main lines. There has been some training & certification been done, but not enough.
On privately owned Society sites, steam Drivers & Firemen are trained & certified according to
FRONZ standards.
Currently such people are only allowed to operate on their own sites. This may change in the not
too distant future.