Stirring the fire causes clinkers. You just keep the earthy material suspended in the fire, which will fuse once again after slicing or stirring. That stuff that doesn't burn is meant for the ash pan.

That is true in most cases but in some cases the only way to keep the fire burning is to stir it to keep air flowing. This is by no means "Normal" procedure but there are cases where it is the only solution.

Seems like when ever you have the coal figured out, you start burning something completely different! Every operating day is unique, which is why steam locomotives are not operated by robots.

I agree with some of the above statements.......
I believe that fuel can be an issue......been there, done that.
Seen many mechanical issues that were due only to poor maintenance as well.
The main issue though, is poor training, more than " not knowing what they're doing".
Its a problem that is common in smaller short lines as well.....we have often created a "safety" image without realizing that safety comes from proper training, not a requirement for crews to wear safety glasses, ear plugs and a yellow vest, etc.

It is better to stop the move to rebuild air or steam, rather than risk disaster.......
Both issues, probably, come from poor training and a lack of experience. I learned not to vary steam pressure more than 10 psi.......and, early on, had to stop more than once to rebuild pressure. I also learned that even with a modern brake (26), you can run out of air......usually after 3-4 quick sets......Some of these things I had to learn on my own, because "training" consisted of simply being told "don't do this/that" with no mention of "this is how/why that works"........
After a decade of railroading, I've run a wide variety of equipment from alcos to GP7's to SD70's, some steam too......in mountains, hills and flat country, on freight and passenger trains...... I can't count how many thousands of dollars might have been saved if I or people I worked with, had been better trained to handle the various aspects of our jobs.

*ROLLS ON FLOOR LAUGHING* What? Are you kidding?

Of course we are. At any museum I've ever dealt with, established practice trumps common sense, ANY DAY OF THE WEEK. If you deal with the perpetrators of the established practice, then it's ALL about the big fat egos. If you deal with the subordinates, it's all about fear of offending the big fat egos. Or, if the safety originators moved on, then it's all about "Cargo Cult Safety" -- we don't understand why we're doing this, we don't understand the relationship between our actions and safe practice, but it's long-established practice and it has already been thought out and can't be thought out again or we might get it wrong!

Look no farther than the Gettysburg Railroad accident report for a bit of each. They never had a true understanding of how/why you clear a sight glass, so the reading was faulty. Boom.


Heck yes. Talk to any "non-general-system" museum about the FRA and what they require, and you will get a lot of e-peen and cargo cult that is, as one scientist rated a student's answer, "not even wrong".

Museums shall remain nameless, I've seen plenty enough of them that even if you befall this practice, don't think I'm calling out you.

- The museum that quotes chapter and verse out of the regs, insisting that a silly way to do things is required, but DOESN'T quote verse 3, "Applicability", which exempts them fully.

- The museum that removes a rail section to make sure they are not part of the general system. Wow, haven't read the regs, have we?

- The museum that spends 10 minutes doing bizarre and convoluted air tests... but doesn't do a simple standing apply and release test when they change consists.

And I want to give special attention to that last one. It is the textbook example of how to go wrong.

You know what's wrong with the ignorant comment you originally quoted. He has made perfect the enemy of the good. He has made elegant the enemy of successful.

The textbook example is making safety the enemy of safe. Safety is not cowbell. Stacking on safety regs and practices actually makes the problem WORSE.

That's the bizarre and convoluted air tests. Certainly they test things not quite covered in the ordinary tests... but these things are of diminishing value for safety, not nearly as informative as the basic tests. The serious danger is that in actual practice, shortcuts get taken, and the convoluted test becomes a replacement for the simple one. Logic is, the more elaborate test must be more encompassing. The greens all watch this and their first impression is that the elaborate procedure doesn't make a lot of sense. But they're greens, and surely their seniors must be right, and wouldn't bother with this if it wasn't important. So they suppress any urge to think it through and really question. Boom, we're at the Gettysburg sight glass.

If you make things too complicated, confusion sets in, and you have lost control of safety in any real way. KISS. Bring it back to simple. You can't expect weekenders to do every solitary thing the professionals do, so whittle carefully and thoughtfully and take the time to do that.

Back to the original post and comment, volunteers SHOULDN'T be maestro engineers. They should be competent and safe engineers.


It's ALL about culture. That's why I fully expect some museums to have wildly different safety cultures than others. The only universal thing is imperfection: the real question is HOW that imperfection shows up, and whether it creates a serious hazard, or a negligible hazard.

At one museum, the "imperfection" is serious damage to equipment during non-revenue moves. At another, it's late trains due to confusion or overcaution, and frustrated volunteers.