If you live in the new england area or have access to the new england cable news network you should tune in this evening. Looks like a green line train slammed into another on the riverside line. This is a high speed section of the green line and the cars are heavily damaged. Speaks plainly to the need for us all to practice safe practices at our museums.

Yesterday also saw a derailment of two cars on the el structure on Chcago's GREEN line. Seems first reports may indicate the operator overrode a RED over RED signal and proceeded thorough a switch not set correctly.

Bob Kutella

The incident on the Green Line as well as the incident in Chicago are perfect examples of what can happen when someone lets their guard down for just a few seconds. A distraction as small as turning your back on the railroad to talk to a passenger could result in disaster. An incident like this could close the doors on a museum due to lawsuits and deaths. We, the museum community, must always remember that what happens on the mainline railroads can happen on museum railroads as well. We are using the same type of equipment, just for a different purpose.

We now know that there was one fatality in the crash-the operator. The more we're learning about the facts, the more I suspect that there are some deficiencies that have allowed this incident to happen. One matter of concern that I have is the operator's age and relative lack of experience. Many of the older and best run transit operations do not hire out for train operators-they promote from the ranks of bus operators. Minimum age for a bus operator per federal regulations is 25. The operator in this case was 24 with less than one year of employment with MBTA and evidently no prior experience operating transit vehicles.

From a management perspective, this is looking more and more like a failure of the system to ensure that rules are enforced and that experienced staff are in place to serve the public.

As for this situation, it is now appearing that operator distraction from use of a cell phone may be the more probable scenario. I find that to be particularly worrisome. Our organization is currently reexamining our policies regarding use of personal communications and electronic devices while on duty and might possibly place further restrictions, partially based on what findings come from this incident.

Alan's comments possibly answer some questions older guys like myself have been asking, at least on the Aberdeen and Rockfish.

We are a railroad where few, if any, of our employees in the field have less than 10 years on the railroad regardless of the department in which they work. We keep seeing new rules that seem to assume we know nothing about what we are doing. The rules seem to be taking away the employees ability to think and reason their way through situations by telling you what the procedure will be regardless of the situation. Several of us with 25 or 30 years keep wondering how we suddenly got to be so stupid.

When we put people to work they are in the field for a long period of time before being qualified for a job. Not until they prove they have the experience, knowlege, and ability to do the job are they qualified to do that job. Unless a new hire already has experience as an engineer it will years before they sit in the right hand seat. This is on a freight only shortline not a commuter railroad.

I personally get a little offended being told I do not know how to do my job. Things like three step protection should be unnecessary. If I do not know when I need to hold the train with brakes or can be charging the train while waiting for a brakeman to do his work then I should not be in the seat without supervision. The same goes for the new rules on throwing switches, reverse moves, etc. I learned to run several years before my 24th birthday like the engineer in question but had been firing and training in the engineer's seat for far more than a year. Those who promoted me felt I had learned enough to do the job.

What happened to companies hiring the next generation and training them before the previous generation grew old and retired? I have been told, but have trouble believing, there are engineers with only a year or so of experience running Amtrak trains 100 mph on the NEC. I hope this is not true but now think it may be possible. Have we become so concerned about the bottom line that hiring people and training them properly is no longer done? Do upper level managers think just anybody with a minimal amount of training can do the job so there is no need to hire anybody until the last minute?

I understand I do not know what is going on and certainly do not have the answers to any of this. With many of us on the A&R comiming up to retirement age in the next 10 years I tell our bosses we need to start finding the next generation. I may get my answer in the next 10 years or so.

What does this have to do with preservation? We will have to follow these same rules and train our people to the same rules. Some, like myself, will decide it really is not worth the hassle to qualify and simply not be a part of the operating department regardless of how much I like firing or running steam locomotives. Others may just be overwhelmed causing us to lose potential future volunteers or employees. We need to think now about how to keep as many of these people as possible.

If the railroads are really putting people with so little experience in positions they are not really qualified for then perhaps these new rules are really needed for public safety. Perhaps I am just looking at things wrong as usual. I will be looking forward to reading any comments the folks here have on this subject.

John Bohon

My recent experience is that railroads seem to hire away from experience. I'm not sure if it reflects a misunderstanding about old dogs being able to adapt to new tricks in terms of standards and practices, or if they believe a blank slate is the easiest kind for them to write on what they like - no erasing necessary. Brain drain, anybody?

dave

In reply to John Bohon's comments, The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, as a public, political, entity, is subject to pressures to hire not only on the basis of actual qualifications for the duties, but to also meet both real and perceived quotas based on race, gender, sexual orientation, and whatever the politicians think will get votes. I cannot help but wonder how much this was responsible for a 24 year old woman operating a high speed LRV.

Thankfully, most museums, tourist operations and short lines are of insufficient size to attract the attention of those who believe in "diversity" at the expense of safety and everything else. Kind of hard to demand "diversity" in volunteers, is it not?

I personally think the fact that the operator was only 24 and may have been talking on a cell phone troubling at best. How many people do we see everyday talking on the cell phone or distracted by some other electronic device rather that paying attention to what they are doing. It also seems that many younger people do not seem to feel that they need to take responsiblity for their actions. In the eighties we ran up to eight cars on our trolley line at a time at night with huge crowds. We did not have or use radios. We had train orders and magneto telephones if we had an issue. We followed the train orders and signals and did not deviate. If somone did, they were pulled and replaced with someone who would. We did not have any issues. Now We have radios, lots of squaking, and people who probably could not handle much more than 3 car operation. I am only 45, but I sometimes wish for the days of just a few years ago when we did things at museums as they did in the past, simple, but effective.

There's another side to the coin on the "experience/training" discussion.

The "old way" of doing things is certainly a way to get appropriate experience before taking the throttle. But it was also largely fixed in the days of heavy union control, "hundred-mile days," and seniority--days when the hire date was more important than actual ability and fitness.

Today's railroading is different. Major railroads are having an increasingly difficult time getting new blood with the increasingly onerous job requirements--longer runs, more time away from home, fewer people doing more work, etc. Short lines are different, true--but those differences would certainly mean a shorter learning curve for trainees, no?

I've ridden on commuter MUs with new hires meticulously learning the route--with track charts, notebooks, and a supervisor to answer the many questions. Young punks? Affirmative action? I strongly doubt it, based on what I've seen.

Now, look at your rail museum/operation. Are you in a position to take advantage of the vo-tech graduate that's a mechanical and operational wizard, or are you going to put the young guy through two years of rust-scraping before he can work on the diesel engine?

I have a 26-year-old brother-in-law that is a heavy equipment operator for a county government. One day, he may run a front-end loader, another a heavy asphalt oil truck on steep Interstate grades, another he might be driving county vehicles to auction. In the old ways of doing business, he'd be driving the same thing day in and day out. In the old railroad environment, he'd probably still be an engine wiper.

He also never carries a cell phone on duty.

I would also point out that far fewer of today's railroad or transportation executives really know their businesses. They might know the financial end of the business, but how many of them know the business from the ground up? Many of the executives are attorneys or bankers, not second or third generation railroaders who had relatives working in the mechanical department, etc. The fact is, training and maintenance are budget items that are expenses. In today's environment of doing anything to make a profit, companies will do shortsighted things to make a short term profit at the expense of long term viability.

For those of us who have experience in maintenance or operations, we know that good track is expensive but that it pays off in less wear and tear on equipment and cargo and cuts down on long term track maintenance costs. Many executives look at maintaining good track as an expense that has low return on investment. That cost of maintenance will look like a bargain when compared to fines and damages paid out after a derailment.

Whatever savings the T might have realized from putting new hires on the cars instead of promoting experienced coach drivers there will be undone by the civil litigation that will surly follow. Perhaps we will see federal legislation passed that requires anyone operating a trolley/streetcar to obtain a license similar to that required for engineers.

Perhaps we will see federal legislation passed that requires anyone operating a trolley/streetcar to obtain a license similar to that required for engineers.

As stated, we have federal legislation governing the licensing of engineers, but there are still accidents, errors and plain old screw ups.

I know the 10th amendment and the principle of subsidiarity are forgotten, but there's a juridictional issue here.

Having dealt with "federal legislation", both as an obedient follower in this advocation, and as as a pension analyst, I can say federal legislation makes people feel good, allows Congressman/woman or Senator blowhard free camera time, ensures employment for consultants, lawyers and others, but never, never ends the issue addressed in the legislation.

Going back to a previous post. The old way of training and promotion did not always get good results.

I recall talking about 30-35 years ago with a about 30-year old, experienced brakeman who had worked for each of the Class I railroads serving the San Francisco Bay area. He told of a problem engineer that worked on one of the railroads in local service. He would never stay put when stopped. A crew might be hooking up the air hoses and he would decided to move without waiting for a signal. The conductor and brakemen might then get on his case and he would behave for a few days or weeks; but, he would go back to his old ways.

In time, a young brakeman lost both legs because of the man. I'm not sure if the story told of what happened to the engineer.

What is needed is appropriate supervision that is responsive without being diabolical.

Possibly this particular line is still considered trolley - entry level, rather than bus or train - promotion level.
Is that a typo, I think the Feds only want age 21?

No. To operate a transit coach you have to have a Commercial Driver's License-minimum age to obtain a CDL is 25. I would doubt that the Green Line is an "entry" level line, given its age and operational challenges.

The old way of promotion did not always get good results. However, in more cases than not the results were acceptable.

Not true. To obtain a CDL and drive interstate you must be 21 years of age. Many states allow you to get an intrastate CDL at 18 and once you reach 21, you are automatically drive interstate.