Nostalgia increases as the time between two eras broadens. As steam (or railroad preservation in general) adds more bodies to the roster of third generation workers, I've wondered about the effects of our perception on history as they relate to the frequency (or infrequency) of steam operation for many organizations.

I think it's easy to forget in 2011 that even though there are fundamental standards and practices that were as verbatim then as they are now, that the real world practices from engine to engine and railroad to railroad often differed greatly in the early 20th Century. We do things differently now both because we presume to "know better" but also because we don't necessarily "do it every day."

Factor in the endless personal anecdotes, practices, lessons learned from coworkers, etc, and sometimes it's as if there is no one consistent way to do anything (far from the fact, I know -- but personal preferences alone feel like loose criteria to me.)

The reason I bring this up is because it seems easy to assume that the railroads and builders and crews had very specific ways of doing things historically, and with little variance. Similarly, I think it's easy to think that engines always steamed perfectly, grates never burned, firebox netting never broke, engines never primed and engineers never had bad days, and that there was a constant state of equilibrium attained because it was the "golden era."

Real world practice differs greatly from theory and sentiment. A problem I've noted as someone who has been a paid employee and a volunteer on different railroads and with different groups is that practices and standards often vary wildly and inconsistently between the two worlds. But ultimately, where and how/should decisions get made elsewhere? Or am I trying to fine tune something that is best left to individual discretion?

One small but indicative example was a conversation from a year ago revolved around how to treat rods in the off-season: with a) clear coat, b) kosmaline c) other. This can apply to countless other situations/examples, but perhaps in preservation it does ultimately wind up being based on a informed by practical experience, knowledge of standard practice, what someone else told you, and what you figure out for yourself.

Does it come down to the difference between the daily versus the monthly/yearly operations? Or is there a finer line to follow? I feel like there's the potential for less ego-gnashing and more collective problem solving if greater consistency can be achieved between the two "types."

KL

It isn't only foolish consistencies that hobgoblin little minds. There are a lot of right ways to do just about anything, as you've discovered. Or, depending on your Sergeant, my way, his way and the Army's way for just 3 off the top of his head. Of course, he thought his way was right. Anyhow......

Pragmatism seems a generally safe and rational course of action. No point not doing anything because you don't have the exact product you want when you have something else that will work that you can use. Your analogy: cosmolene isn't cheap and plentiful and lasts a very long time, but grease is cheap and readily available and hangs in for a decent while even though it isn't as robust as cosmolene. So, Cosmolene is probably overkill for the weekely protective coating and grease is fine. Yearly, cosmolene is better but if you don't have it grease every few months will do as well. In neither case will arguing about it instead of doing either be of any value at all.

I think one of the greatest benefits of the ARM / TRAIN annual conventions is getting names, faces and contact information and sharing war stories. I am very happy to be able to call somebody who mentioned solving a problem I didn't know I had until today to get some valuable input, even if it is "Don't try what i did, it didn't work!"

I'm generally not fond of people who refuse to share good information to everybody's benefit. A couple decades ago, one contractor had a copy of the Baldwin S&P book and made his subcontractors sign a nondisclosure agreement concerning its contents as if it were his proprietary information. We're not like the computer and cell phone competitors - we don't compete with each other for our markets, we as an industry compete with other providers of different kinds of entertainment and tourism for the mass market, and any of us who provide such an ugly experience that their visitors are turned off to all railroad museums and tourist railroads have lost that source of business for us all. We need to be both helpful and critical to build on our collective strength.

dave

I feel that every operation could stand to learn from another. Where this has been lacking, at least what I've observed, is that so few people ever see or learn more than what is right in front of them.

For example, most of your operating crew at so and so museum is proud of their equipment, but they are likely volunteers or very low paid. They are also generally much older and don't have the desire to see the next museum two states up because they don't have the finances to do it. The same is true with the younger volunteers. If they are spending the majority of their free weekends coming down and being involved, while class occupies the rest of the week, they don't have time or money to see how others do it either. This is obviously not true of every individual, but I have met so many that fall into that category.

On top of all that, so many people are so proud of what they know. Even if it's not intentionally arrogant, this whole niche industry is saturated with that approach. And why not? I would say that most every person that chooses to be involved with steam or vintage railroading does it because they want to. A lot of people waited decades for retirement before they could "live the dream". So you are going to have some folks that once they learn how to get it over the road, are just going to quit learning. The equivalent of a weeks firing trips is all they may ever learn. I feel that happens for a couple of reasons.

First, if your operation only runs a train 10 times a year, you cannot possibly expect your crews to become masterful of the job. Did you learn how to ride a bike by trying it only 10 times a year?

Second, some of the people that are doing the training also came from that same environment. Years can go by doing just enough to make it run, and over time the general attitude of "knowing what I'm doing" just ingrains itself as fact.

On the other side of the spectrum, you have the full time jobs. A much more competent attitude, but bad habits get so cemented in place that they are far more difficult to overcome. There are a lot more people that have no interest in railroading on this side of the field. So once they know how to make the engine go, there is usually no way to get them to want to learn beyond that. After all if the culture isn't handed down, why should they?

If the culture of what we do and why we do it and why this engine is still around were as much a part of the training at the get go as sexual harassment or diversity training are, this could likely be eliminated. But, if the company doesn't understand the detrimental effects over time that this causes, it won't be corrected. You or I or all of us will have to figure out a way to illustrate on a broad scale to all sorts of people the value of what we are doing, and in a way that answers the generic question, "What's the bottom line?"

So we have some major shortfalls on both sides. And for different but real world reasons. I do not think that any museum or tourist line really feels as if they are competing with each other, not deep down anyway. This camaraderie should be taken to an advantage.

There needs to be a generalized, overall training and heritage program that covers all of us. In some ways this already exists with TRAIN/ARM and even the rules of the FRA. But the white collars and blue collars need to all sit down and figure out their goals, and not just at the yearly operating exam. It's not enough. The weakest link in this whole chain will affect every one of us.

Why are we not openly and actively discussing combustion theory or water treatment at all levels? Sure that gets discussed here, but lets get everyone involved. That I feel is a loss of history in itself. A good way to start would be to make an all around circular that found it's way into every shop office and locker room for everyone to see, not just those of us here who choose to look further, but those we all have worked with that don't.

Kelly, This topic is very similar to a discussion you and I had not too long ago. Your comment of the golden age of steam and how everything worked "perectly" can be related to today's railroading. Of course a Class 1 carrier is going to do many things differently than the 100 mile short line and the 20 mile short line will do things differently than either one of the previous. Even with their big shiny new engines flying down the tracks at 60 miles an hour, the big guys still cuss and swear about the locomotives just as much as they did when they were steam powered.

When talking about younger or newer volunteers, I think the answer is, of course this is just my opinion, find a group and stick with it. Jumping from organization to organization may not only cause confusion for the volunteer, but also for the other groups. If Johnny is here this weekend and helped with this or that (call them group a), he is learning. Leaving the next time to go an help another group (call them group b) can be like slap in the face to the other group. Why did he leave now and will he come back? Johnny went to help the other group (b) because something "cool" was going on. So you are left with group a missing some help and group b with a volunteer who only shows up when neat things are happening. How would you feel if Johnny only came around during fun times while you are left with the rest of the hard work?

There is no set way to do things, just the way that works for both you and your equipment. There are a lot of "experts" out there, but only YOU can be an expert on your locomotive if you take the time to make it your own.

Travis

I agree completely. As we've said, "ownership" can be as much a sense and recognition of responsibility as it can be actually holding the title, but to me this isn't as much about a "specific locomotive" or "engine," as it is about boilers, running gear, air pumps, fireboxes, water pumps, etc.



Here's the issue that really drives my original post, though it's not so much a refusal of information sharing but a deriding of other practices over nothing but subjective personal preference instead of more objective guidelines.

Consistency, to me, is key to educating new people. On the flipside of Travis' point, I've learned more and at a greater frequency by being able to work with others who were welcoming and forthcoming enough with experiences when engines were hot or not and shops were busy or deserted, but I've also seen plenty of frustrated volunteers who just want to know a sure-fire, consistent way to do something on an engine (their engine) or how to deal with mechanical issues on the road and in the shop.

A conversation yesterday with a former coworker on practices we learned while being employed full time on the same railroad brought the desire for more consistency, better explained/shared methods and more into greater focus for me.

I think that this is one of the imperfect genes that we have all inherited in some way or another. Maybe someone isn't being subjective on purpose, but instead they just haven't seen or understand the other side of the argument.



I really enjoy reading RYPN when the topics cover old standard practices, how someone was able to win over the local township on repainting the rusty park engine, or ways we can improve mechanical performance. A lot of information is held back because of the fear of criticism from others. If we can collectively get past that, then the road to consistency and understanding and a much greater knowledge to perform our duties will be in the making.

I'l be honest...I am a sponge for learning even more about handling steam locomotives and getting them over the road, and I've been running them off and on for twenty years. You can never learn too much, and having served as DSLE and SLE, there are times when people just do not "get it", and others who understand why you do a, b, or c. The pool of old heads is decreasing every day, and if you have one in your midst, or you have access to someone who has the experience...listen to them, and add your collective experience to theirs, and vice versa. The advice of elders has helped me more than once.

May I point out that the experience and wisdom necessary to come up with a cohesive training program is, in great measure, already present on this board?
It's a good idea, it really does need to be done, and you all can do it. I can't contribute much unless somebody needs stuff researched, but those of you who have operated these magnificent critters really should compare notes and set it down for general use.

I would also point out that steam people tend to be big personalities and somewhat hard-headed, because getting an engine ON the road--let alone over it--is not an exercise for the timid and soft-spoken. Agreeing to disagree might be a good way to settle differences like the grease/cosmoline debate and many others that come up. Even a flat "We can't find any clear reason to prefer one approach over the other, but one or the other must be done" will work.