Re: Fwd: [CBQ] Re: Boyer speed recorders

["John D. Mitchell, Jr." <cbqrr47@yahoo.com>]

That happened even years ago, in train service. There were many more brakemen than conductors. A lot of brakemen never got "set up" (at least to the point they could hold a regular conductor's job). That wasn't a problem in engine service. Engineers and firemen were "even". But I remember 40 year brakemen. Of course, many had "chucked their rights".

--- On Sat, 11/24/12, dhartman@mchsi.com <dhartman@mchsi.com> wrote:

From: dhartman@mchsi.com <dhartman@mchsi.com>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [CBQ] Re: Boyer speed recorders
To: "CBQ yahoo" <CBQ@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Saturday, November 24, 2012, 8:39 PM

 

I've seen this perspective in other fields. The problem is, so-called "better" jobs are fewer in number than the "feeder" jobs. Moving "up" is climbing a pyramid and there isn't room - at any level - for all who want up.

A lot of climbers get stuck in a spot that might be worse than they left. Is being a Trainmaster "better" than being a Dispatcher? Schedule, pay, daily satisfaction?

And, despite the work schedule, travel, etc there have been few things as fun/challenging/self fulfilling as running an engine. Wouldn't have traded that for any "up" or "better" job on the RR

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

---

From: "Larry Sallee" <lwsallee2@gmail.com>

Sender: CBQ@yahoogroups.com

Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 00:13:04 -0000

To: <CBQ@yahoogroups.com>

ReplyTo: CBQ@yahoogroups.com

Subject: Fwd: [CBQ] Re: Boyer speed recorders

 

In a conversation with one of the company officers regarding the increasing automation of the dispatchers jobs some years ago, and whether the computers could do a better job of dispatching than a real person, he made the comment that while they might never do as well as the better dispatchers, they would likely outperform the lesser ones, and in any event, it would be more predictable in all cases.

With many of the new hires coming into the job with no prior railroad experience, perhaps predictability trumps efficiency. It seemed to me that by the time I left, dispatching was no longer a career, but just one step to a "better" job. If a guy is only going to spend a couple years at most dispatching and then move on, there's little opportunity to become a "better" dispatcher.

Larry Sallee

--- In CBQ@yahoogroups.com, "Karl" <qrailroadman@...> wrote:
>
> THAT is a point WELL made Doug !!!! The automaton "works" MOST of the time. If, however, the predetermined sequence of operations changes abruptly and the robot has not been so conditioned, well ????
>
> Both human AND robotic control mechanisms can coexist, however, we must recognize this and allow each to function in their own, most efficacious manner. Thinkin' on yur feet is still a valuable attribute !!!!
>
> Karl, the q guy.
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> --- In CBQ@yahoogroups.com, dhartman@ wrote:
> >
> > I've nothing against technology. I appreciated all the advancements that came along to make my work life easier.
> >
> > However, I wonder at what point a "line too far" is crossed. At what point does reliance on technology supress the necessary process of human learning and creativity? And creativity IS a necessary component of learning.
> >
> > Was there too much "cowboy" before? Probably. But a certain amount of latitude is vital to really ensuring humans aren't just rote operators who then cannot adjust to situations.
> >
> > In my post-RR life I sat in a lot of airline cockpits and saw way too much reliance on the computers and autopilot. This culture has unintended consequences - such as the Air France crash in the South Atlantic (when the pilots didn't apply basic piloting skills) and Colgan Air at Buffalo.
> >
> > If someone doesn't know how to do Karl's "smoke em down the westbound, kid" then chances are they might not be able to safely adjust to an unexpected situation.
> >
> > Doug
> > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: William Barber <clipperw@>
> > Sender: CBQ@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2012 09:52:34
> > To: <CBQ@yahoogroups.com>
> > Reply-To: CBQ@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: Fwd: [CBQ] Re: Boyer speed recorders
> >
> > Douglas,
> >
> > Technology on locomotives to improve operating efficiency is nothing new. In "Classic Trains" "Steam Glory 3", issued this month, (good issue, by the way), there is an extensive article about the steam locomotive valve pilot whose development goes back to 1919. It was a device applied to many steam locomotives (none on the Q as far as I know), that was designed to assist the engineer in in setting the steam admission valve cut off to achieve the best valve setting at a given speed. The intent was to achieve maximum locomotive output while efficiently using both fuel and steam. Even then, managements recognized that not all locomotive engineers were created equal. Really, locomotive development from day one has been an effort to incorporate the latest technology to improve efficiency and, consequently, the bottom line.
> >
> > Bill Barber
> > Gravois Mills, MO
> >
> > On Nov 24, 2012, at 5:37 AM, CBQ@yahoogroups.com wrote:
> >
> > > Re: Fwd: [CBQ] Re: Boyer speed recorders
> > > Fri Nov 23, 2012 3:08 pm (PST) . Posted by:"dhartman@" douglas_p_hartmanThanks. I guess I kind of knew that. Leo's probably correct in his airline analogy. Better for efficiency, investment, etc. But losing a lot, also (and I know you're smiling, Karl).
> > >
> > > Does anyone know how tight they keep things - how much slack they cut engineers on running?
> >
>

__._,_.___

Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___