Pleased to see that I'm slowly dragging the List's spelling back to the
Queen's English. How about "through" and "plough" next?
Rupert
----- Original Message -----
From: <liljo@o...>
To: <BRHSlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2001 6:54 PM
Subject: [BRHSlist] Re: ON THE SPOT
> --- In BRHSlist@y..., PSHedgpeth@a... wrote:
> > Speaking of three man crews. How about 4 man crews as in "full
> crew law
> > states". On the Rock Island it was Arkansas.
> >
> > A train crew consisted of engineer, fireman, three brakemen and a
> conductor.
>
>
> my understanding of a full crew law in a state was a crew of 5,
> meaning an engineer, head and rear brakemen, a conductor and a
> fireman. firemen were terminated on may 7, 1964.... "Persuant to
> paragraph c(2), Part C, Section II, of the Award of Arbitration Board
> No. 282, established by Joint Resolution of Congress under Public Law
> 88-180, which was made on November 26, 1963, firemen with less than
> two years service as of January 25, 1964, may be seperated from
> Carrier's payrolls and have employement and seniority rights
> terminated....." believe reading back then that this could affect
> *up to* 25,000 jobs nationwide, this including men with more than two
> years service but not ten years. men with more than ten years or more
> they had to keep.
>
> taking the burlington west from chicago... illinois, iowa, nebraska
> were not full crew states. colorado was. also, but not involving the
> burlington, oregon was a full crew state. know there were more.
> some states passed full crew laws just before (maybe 3-6 months)
> arbitration board 282 went into effect.
>
> have never heard of three brakemen, but probably existed somewhere.
> no arkansas remarks here <grin>
>
>
> > Just as an aside,if memory serves, when the multi unit diesel
> consists came
> > into being in the late 30's early 40's the organizations wanted an
> engineer
> > and fireman on each unit. The compromise was that the fireman
> stayed long
> > after he had anything like something necessary to do. The
> exception was
> > passenger trains with steam generator units. These took up a great
> deal of
> > the fireman's time as it seems they malfunctioned for often than
> they worked
> > correctly. They were far from automatic.
>
> from what was told by older engineer's, the unions, should say union,
> fireman's union, (ble never tried for anything except for the dollar
> and a half, and they probably didn't ask for that) when the ft's came
> started negotiations to have a fireman on every unit, believe even
> threatened a labour (for our nz friends) dispute. so a 4 unit ft
> consist would of had 1 engineer and 4 fireman. of course calmer heads
> prevailed. probably used as a bargining point, have a foggy memory of
> being told that only one fireman on diesel road units and burlington
> would not try to get rid of firemen until a later date or drop their
> attempt to get rid of them at that time. (think they might of been
> trying to get rid of firemen on yard engines) this fireman thing went
> on for 20 years
>
> when firemen were terminated did not effect passenger firemen,
> passenger fireman at that time was considered as a co-engineer, for
> saftey. although he did have his boilers and engines to tend to. how
> long this practice was continued? today if run is 4 hrs? no asst
> engineer is needed?
>
>
> > Among other things I have been wrong about was my thinking that the
> fireman
> > and the hotbox would be with us forever.
>
>
> even though you didn't have a fireman at least back then you could
> still drag a blazer out onto the bridge at burlington <grin>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > Pete Hedgpeth
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
|