BRHSLIST
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Traffic Split

To: BRHSlist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Traffic Split
From: wulrich@a...
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 17:05:14 -0000
In-reply-to: <85.905918a.27f8449c@a...>
User-agent: eGroups-EW/0.82
--- In BRHSlist@y..., amtrak347@a... wrote:
> "Must Fills" (all passenger trains were required to have a fireman 
and 
> hostler assignments) plus "Veto" positions (I believe determined by 
a 
> percentage of the number of engineer assignments on a division) 
would 
> determine the number of firemen that could be severed from 
service. I forgot 
> to mention that the LaCrosse Division fireman's roster was not 
affected by 
> Award 282 account Wisconsin being a "full crew" state until the 
early to 
> mid-70's. Chicago Division severed firemen with 8 years or less 
seniority 
> because they had so many passenger, hostling and "veto" jobs.
> Bob
> 


veto positions is the correct term, haven't heard that in many years, 
just called them all must fills ( did not bother to call passenger 
turns must fills as nothing changed) 10 percent of freight pool turns 
/road jobs and 10 percent of switch engine jobs were must fills on 
division worked on, would assume this system wide. if freight pool 
had 10 or less turns had one must fill, 11 or more pool turns then 
had two must fills. after severed off was a clerk 65-68 so that is 
where some recollections come from. memories of a 2/10 coming with no 
firemen at all in town at away terminal. called roadforman said 'you 
have a problem' he made a decision, a few timeslips, think every 
rested pool fireman got paid. no extra list as freight pool was it 
after 282. forgot wisconsin was a full crew state. colorado was too. 
was going to go to work there during sugar beet time. how many more 
on the burlington system? 

appears division where i worked kept a lot of men, compared to 
divisions and other roads you mention, as only firemen with less than 
2 years were severed. believe the term you used "could be severed 
from service" expresses the intent of the law, but did they sever 
them. wonder how it worked, did div supt and rf of e have anything to 
do with it, or did o.w. gibson the mastermechanic make the decisions? 
was a certain per cent of job elimination a goal and once that was 
reached they stopped cutting? surely there was more planning than 
this, age of engineers going to retire, etc. (oh, thats right this is 
a railroad, isn't this where the term 'hell of a way to run a 
railroad' came from) saw local greever / legislative rep last year on 
vacation, had a nice conversation but subject of 282 didn't come up, 
just some talk of memories of s engine trips. 

warren


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>