Training@ TRAIN/ARM
John E. Rimmasch


In an effort to clear the air, I have a few final remarks before TRAIN/ARM.

1. I have no real idea where the misconception came in that it was I that had plans to teach our industry about steam. I made it very clear in many of comments that my concern over this issue has nothing to do with my company or our ability to drum up business. Those of you who felt that my concern was motivated by potential business should A.) Review past minutes of ESC meetings where the I have raised the issue repeatedly and B.) Review the past posts and messages I have sent making it very clear that I am not after business. The fact remains; this IS an industry wide issue that needs resolve.
2. A very big and hearty thank you to those of you who read the messages I have posted as well as other related messages very clearly. I am very grateful for the input and the advice. Many of you and you know who you are, have added very positive comments and ideas. I feel strongly that if presented well enough, some of these ideas may hold plausible solutions. You should feel good knowing that your voices have been heard.
3. Through all of this, and through discussions with TRAIN and ESC Board Members, the overwhelming obstacle in this whole deal is going to be ego. Yes, we, our own selves stand in our own way of making this happen. A short story if I may. Some 15 years ago, even BEFORE Gettysburg, one man, namely Mr. Moedinger saw in our industry rules that needed to be changed. He fought great animosity and was called countless names. Then Gettysburg happened and low and behold….every body began to listen. 15 Years later, we have a far better system and a much easier system. It is a safer system and it works well. Why, I must ask are we not making the issue of training a higher priority. Our industry (NOT Wasatch Railroad Contractors), I repeat, our industry, needs to be concerned about this issue. As concerned as we were after Gettysburg. This leads me to my last point.
4. The accident of a few weeks ago has some bearing on this issue, but it is not solely the driving force. I have not speculated or made comments in my posts as to what happened or why. It goes without saying however that if it happened, and if it was at all a result of human error, this issue is still one of great concern. Who, I ask who in our industry can not be concerned about human error accidents and IF, I say IF there is a way to minimize the number of such accidents, WHY, I ask WHY should this industry not be concerned and further, WHY, I ask why, should we sit idly by and wait for somebody else to tell us what to do. Either we address the issue, or we stand to have clear damage done made to our industry. (Please note again to those who wish to criticize me, the use of WE and OUR (context) and THIS industry not ME or I or MY BUSINESS).

These threads and this issue have strayed far from the real issue. May we begin to remove names, faces, impressions, ideas or preconceived notions from this discussion. I asked once and I ask again, may we come to the table, as a concerned industry to solve the problem, leaving the ego at the door?

Respectfully,

John E. Rimmasch

It never occurred to me you may have been drumming up bussiness. My first steam test as well as the first test on a diesel shortline were both oral. For me at least these were the most difficult and comprehensive tests I have ever taken on the railroad. There was no true or false and you had to satisfy the examiner you knew what you were talking about. Of course the problem with such a test is lack of documentation. Somewhere in one of the LASTA threads I said I was not smart enough to have any of the answers to these questions but as an industry we had better address the issue before the government shoves something down our throats. I stand by that statement.

John Bohon

At the Pacific Southwest RR Museum, in Campo, CA, we have "always" had a training program. When we started operations over 20 years ago, our line was not part of the "general system' ( several collapsed tunnels and trestles to the east, and the Mexican border to the west). We do have three public road crossings at grade. Our feeling was that, sooner or later, either the line would open up, or FRA would decide we came under them anyway. So, we have a training program.

In 1993, or whenever the 240 requirement to submit a program to FRA came out, we complied. Our program starts with brakemen. After time in that position, they can get certified as conductor. Only people who have spent significant time as brakemen & conductor can be trained as engineers (diesel). Because we only operate on weekends (all volunteers) we severely limit the number of engineers, so that all the engineers are able to run on a relatively frequent basis, to keep up their skills.

When we were running steam (1996-2000) only experienced brakemen, who had worked on the restoratoion (so they knew how things were put together) could train as firemen (oil). Similarly, only experienced diesel engineers who had worked on the restoration could train as steam engineers.

Also, from the beginning, we have used GCOR. Two reasons: why re-invent the wheel, and for liability reasons. If our rules are the same as every other railroad, we couldn't be faulted for using some Mickey Mouse rules we had made up on our own.

I was the Training Officer for seven years, and all crew training was my responsibility. A big job, especially for someone with no experience on "real" railroads. It sure would have been helpful if there was some kind of program from TRAIN/ARM that I could have used as a model. I would heartily endorse such an "industry-wide" program. Not only would it make things easier, but possibly make the individual organizations look better in the eyes of the FRA and/or insurance companies, and maybe the public, if we could advertise something like, "Our crew training meets or exceeds the standards of TRAIN."

By the way, the line opened up a few years ago, and we have joint operations with a common-carrier.

See you in Sacramento.

Jim Baker