I believe the stable choice for long term, in excess of 30 years, application from a regulatory point of view would be electronic based water monitoring. My reasoning is (1) I suspect these are commercial items today (2) the technology is more familiar to modern regulators and more likely to gain their approval (3) the power requirements for most modern electronics are shockingly low, for example, the end of train devices currently powered by miniature air turbines (4) the ability to cheaply include redundancy and self diagnostics and (5) the flexibility that an electric or data warning signal provides for interaction with other safety appliances, including wireless messaging. None of this has to interfere with the realism or fun of running the engine, or require automatic water pumps. Besides the warning siren, safety could be provided by a fuel oil cutoff or, in solid fuel engines, a water/steam spray extinguisher.

The argument that safety appliances "replace" proper training is not true and not what I want to defend. However, with every activity there is in fact a certain statistical risk, whether we mentally estimate it or a team of engineers and statisticians calculate it, and we should reduce that risk when physically and financially possible. If that risk falls below a certain threshhold of probability, we call the activity "safe". Riding Amtrak is "safe", but accidents happen and there is a small statistical chance you will die. If that risk rises above our allowable threshhold, usually determined after a major accident, then the activity is "unsafe", and changes or prohibition occur. Link and pin couplers were "safe" if employees took all precautions and used appliances, but human failings and work time pressures prevented that. Knuckle couplers dumbed down the skill required to couple cars. It was no longer necessary to estimate a myriad of possible outcomes such as mismatched coupler height or a rusty pin hole. Knuckle couplers did not eliminate the need for training, rules, or awareness. Crewmen still occasionally get crushed between knuckle couplers, but we no longer identify brakemen by their missing fingers.

Even with professional crews, today and in the good old days, there is a statistical chance of a major accident. Evidence the post WWII class I boiler explosions. Evidence that poor guy that scalded himself to death in the enclosed cab of a 2-8-2T in the northwest a decade ago. Evidence any situation in which a conscientious, trained employee makes a series of simple mistakes and suffers injury or death.

I recommend safety appliances so that less experienced, less active persons can participate as hobbyists at a risk threshhold we can call "safe".

My question would be how many volunteers could get a month off to go work for the Strasburg? A second question is how many volunteers could afford to take a month off without pay? I certainly could do neither. I am not saying we do not need the training. I am just not sure leaving our jobs for a month is practical.

John Bohon

.

Unfortunately the best training available cannot cannot counter errors made by an employee that is impaired by drugs or alcohol.

MX (not my real name)

Some people cannot take the rapid amount of input that is required when you are out on the road. A good engineer or fireman at 10 MPH does not also make a good engineer at 40 50 or 60 MPH. Add that in some cases unfamiliar territory,bad water,the helper that does not show up,host railroad idiosyncracies and you can get into information and situational overload very quickly unless you have a very good grasp instinctually of the situation. You cannot teach instinct,just reactions. The big problem I believe we have is personal egos deciding who is going to be in the cab versus common sense. I'm an experienced steam fireman and engineer,and if I went to work for Strasburg or someplace like that,my experience would be apparent,as well as my lack of experience if I had none. They would make a professional judgement as to my fitness for running their equipment,not a personal one. The discussion that more often than not takes place is "I got old so and so out of the park,I raised the money,so I get to run it". If I gave Doyle McCormick a million dollars for the care and feeding of 4449, I would expect him to say thank you,and if he was comfortable with me being in her cab firing or running ,he would invite me to do so,but it would not be a commandment or a prerequisite to doing so. It takes a lot of guts to step forward to make these things run in this day and age but you have to step back and realize what is best for the equipment and the industry.........some operations and individuals are too selfish and too incompetent to realize their actions may endanger the rest of us. The learned responsible members of our craft are going to have to take the bull by the horns and call out organizations we feel may not have the best interest of our profession at heart. If we do not,what we love to do sits in joepardy.

As many have stated, I am extremely glad to see a rational and thoughtful discussion taking place on this subject.

In our organization, firing crews are drawn from those on the mechanical crew so they have knowledge of the locomotive systems. They are then given instruction and practice in spot firing before moving on to hostling, etc. We also hold review sessions and do occasional non-hostile spot checks of the crews to keep them refreshed and thinking about safety. I am sure many of your operations follow similar practices.

The question of national crew training standards is certainly one that is worthy of debate. However, I would like to suggest an intermediate step that can be taken. Gather a small group of experienced operators - perhaps at the upcoming TRAIN convention in Sacramento - and develop a basic set of training guidelines. The guide should capture key concepts and elements that would be applicable across most any type of operation. They should also be crafted in a way that would allow individual operators to adapt them to their specific situation. Once codified they should be posted on the web for easy access.

This will accomplish several things: 1) demonstrate that the industry is taking pro-active steps to police itself 2) provide a flexible set of standards for operators to follow without imposing them 3) be a stepping stone or alternative to national standards such that SAFE operating practices can be easily disseminated while the debate over national standards continues.

Best regards,
Wolf Fengler
3751

As a follow-up to the "how many can afford a month at Strasburg?" question, I pointedly ask:



These people and others (Moedinger, etc.) are professionals. They deserve to be paid. Who's going to pay them? Where is that money coming from?

Furthermore, as I've found out long ago in other fields, simply because someone is utterly the best at their field of expertise does not make them a worthy educator. I once sat through a training course for a railroad's steam fireman training that was all centered around effective coal fire management--and completely disregarded the fact that both of the line's then-operable steamers were oil-burners, and that the coal-burners weren't due from rebuild for several years! Teaching the skills effectively is often a different skill from doing it effectively, especially when actual hands-on time in a cab or at a firebox may be at a premium. In addition to the "brains," you may be looking for effective photographers, writers, and editors. We ain't usually free, either.

It would be nice to imagine that someone might be persuaded to offer their services to such an educational pool (and trust me, we would want to reach as far as Britain, Poland, and maybe even Argentina, China, etc.) out of the love for steam and wanting there to be a future for their charges, but we will probably get what we pay for.

So--anyone got grant applications or scholarship funding? Are we going to raise the dues of the Tourist Railway Assn. for this? Get the British, etc. associations on board?

You cannot teach experience. You can read and read and read, but before you utilize the most basic knowledge in practical application, it's impossible.

Having said that, even with all of the steam locomotive operators out there who have their own locomotives and dedicated crews, the learning curve will always be impeded by the fact that the engine only gets out once or twice (or never) a year. You can't train an entire operating crew over a weekend of excursions (especially when you need already confident and experienced people in the cab) and the best some can do is rotate observers through the cab who will watch and learn and not take in the scenery. It's a long process. Even after a few sessions in the cab under optimal circumstances, these inherent variables cannot be fully understood unless they are experienced. There are principle rules and practices to be adhered by (keep water up, don't die), but learning them on one locomotive will create a new influx of changes when you climb aboard another locomotive. The same applies for crews and CMOs. Everyone will have their own different take (whether wrong or right) on operating and firing practices, with the same essential principles involved. If anything, these should be made more organized, standardized, and "learned" through all groups, if possible.

In the groups that I have worked with and visited, I have seen extreme organization, almost regimental (but very friendly) organization in terms of learning how to operate and fire. In others I have seen a hodgepodge of volunteers milling around while one or two people promote themselves to cab royalty. It takes leadership to promote the education and passing on of these heritage skills. And it takes time, time, time.

As we've noted, it's unfortunate we do not have more of it.

Kelly Lynch

So we have identified three key issues:
1) standardized guidelines that need to be adaptable to individual operators
2) training for instructional staff on how to teach (good for other things as well)
3) operating time to gain that all important hands-on knowledge

For point number 3, my friend Kelly has correctly noted that each locomotive and operation has its own peculiarities. However, once the basic priciples are mastered, it is a lot easier to come up to speed in a new environment.

One thing I have proposed in our group is to make use of the local live steam club as a means of "cross-training" crews since we rarely get to head out on the mainline. Certainly the feel will be different and phenomena (water surge in the site glass, etc.) not as pronounced, but there can still be a lot of hands-on learning/reinforcing of basic principles: fire-water balance, etc.

I am NOT proposing this as a substitute to the "real thing", only as a teaching tool.

More food for thought...

Wolf

Having participated in an event this past weekend with several live steam boat models and full-sized steam launches cruising a harbor, I heartily agree that a live steam club would be probably the "perfect" place for the introductory classes, to get a working understanding before graduating to the big things.

And this being the good ol' US of A, here's what will happen:

"Sorry, you can't use MY live steam model as a demo."

"Yeah, that loco was willed to the club, but in order to participate you all have to join the organization as full members at $150 each a year........."

"You have to go through our safety course before you can hold a class in our shop."

"Why, sure, come on over...... [cruddy water glasses, glowing crown sheets, leaky propane tanks, and all........]"

However, we have at least one live steam operator/club member on here as a frequent participant; perhaps he'd like to shoot down my flaming gas bag of cynicism?

And if we shoot all this cynicism aside, perhaps we have "NRHS RailCamp 201", to be followed by "Steam Firing 301", etc.?

And one more issue, who is going to provide the insurance for the people you are drafting to act as instructors, since it is now very stylish for somebody who does something stupid and hurts themselves (or others) to try to sue the person who trained them, along with their employer or the hosting organization. I wonder how many of the list of folks offered as potential instructors want to bet their house and their future on whether or not somebody else's steam operation has an accident.

Alexander D. Mitchell IV wrote:

And if we shoot all this cynicism aside, perhaps we have "NRHS RailCamp 201", to be followed by "Steam Firing 301", etc.?


You're not to far off, Sandy/Wolf.

Seth Corwin, a fireman at Steamtown, brought out his little propane fired live steamer for a day of off and on operations behind the roundhouse for the RailCampers to get familiar with steam operation. And later on, a few found out what happens when you get too much water in the boiler...

Dave, here is a link to the Ontario Standards
http://www.tssa.org/regulated/operating ... cate08.asp

I have a valid certificate in Ontario, for traction cert # T-0127. Any questions beyond what you read here I would be happy to answer.

Brian

Kelly - I definitely agree with you about dumbing down. I had GMA on while making breakfast this morning, and a segment showed a car that parked itself since "so many drivers have trouble parking". If you can't park, you certainly shouldn't be trusted to drive down the highway at high speed! I HAD to demonstrate parking ability to get a license. What is happening to us? McDonalds has warnings on coffe cups about the coffee being hot - shouldn't we expect that? If we keep skills requirements high, only highly skilled people will be able to fill the jobs, making us all better off.

Tex - not only a function of speed, but also Murphy. Many people can operate a machine when all is going well, but far fewer can deal with things going wrong. Knowing when things are going haywire and asking for help when you exceed your range of experience isn't shameful. I haven't met too many people in this business who won't help out when asked, and I ask for help a lot.

In general, I am moved by the increasing recognition of the value of cooperative work shown in this thread (and the other two relating to it) not only within our own country, but internationally. I have often wanted to try to build an exchange program between operators, and have unofficially done what I could to make people welcome, and many have done the same for me. Nothing else I have done has broadened and deeepened my understanding of our business more than sharing it with others in many places with an open mind, and I am always trying to learn more. I wonder if we can't find a structure in which to build opportunities for many of us to do more of it.

dave

Not sure if you were referring to me, but I am happy to offer encouragement. Each live steam club is different, but I am sure if you could offer them fair compensation for their time, either cash or in kind work, you could arrange a deal. I am sure a live steamer would trade for time on the big steamer. Also, if you are not picky, these models can be affordable. They seem to hold their value, so a used model could be kept for a while and then resold to recover the investment. The smallest model scales and gauges are very affordable, but have the drawback of limited track facilities. You can find a functional, boiler tested, 3.5 inch gauge engine for less than $3k and sometimes a little tank engine for $1500.

I bought my little, 55 pound, 2-6-2 Bantam Cock ten years ago for $1800, and similar models are selling in the $3,000+ range today.

See my next post for a related comment.