Leo...You've got me stumped on the "runaway" term...Don't reveal the answer
for a day or two...maybe I'll (or somebody else) will think of something.
I wanted to ask a question and make a comment on your stories.
You referred to a "short arm crew"..that's a familiar term, but one I hadn't
heard for many years.
Refresh and/or correct my memory as to when a "short arm crew" could be
used...Here's what I remember.
1. Passenger trains of 5 cars or less required only one brakeman.
2. Certain branch line freight or mixed trains who didn't operate on the
"main line" could operate with only one brakeman...I can't recall any specific
instances of this one, but I do remember when I worked the Hastings
(NE)-Huntley local in 1956...the job worked Hastings-Huntley and return (all
branch
line) on Monday Wednesday and Friday. On Tuesday and Thursday the run was
from
Hastings to Sutton, NE (main line) and then the Lushton (north) and Clay
Center (south) branches then returning to Hastings on the mainline. I
remember
hearing the conductor say that if "we didn't run on the main line on Tuesday
and Thursday we would only have one brakeman". We did use for power the 9769
motor car and thus didn't have a fireman, but always had two brakemen.
Also when Jim Christen and I were riding the branch lines in the early
1950's...we always started our trips at Corning, MO and rode the Tarkio Valley
branch to Villisca. This job always had two brakemen even though there was no
mainline work involved..Also the other branch lines in Iowa and Nebraska we
rode always had two brakemen. It was the same in the late 50's when I was
braking on the Lincoln and Wymore Divisions that all branch line trains had a
"full crew".
Can you enlighten me on this.
As to your comments on Rule G violations I would have to agree that it's
probably safer now with a virtual No Tolerance policy from what I understand.
In the old days it seemed like the regular punishment for Rule G was
dismissal, but if your nose was kept clean you got back in a year...Second
time was
usually permanent.
Since I worked for a relatively short time I didn't get a chance to work
with all of the "alkies", but heard plenty of stories of guys working who were
more or less permanently under the influence, but the rest of the crew covered
for them as did the trainman in the Oregon Work Train case.....Seems like
Rule N would have been in play in that case rather than Rule G since there was
no drinking while on duty or subject to duty...Wasn't it Rule N that covered
"handling personal affairs in such a way as to not bring dishonor on the
company". This would cover..things like getting your wages garnisheed, not
paying your bills, annoying your neighbor etc.
I'm getting ready for bed pretty soon now...maybe I'll have a dream or
vision in the night as to the alternate use of "runaway"
Keep the stories coming.
Pete
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CBQ/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CBQ/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:CBQ-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:CBQ-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
CBQ-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|