Derailment at Jamaica, hourly service

Bluebelly, the Engineer you are mentioning did not get "egg on his face" because he didn't platform the train the way the Conductor wanted, he got it because the Engineer's boss, the Road Foreman, ordered him to spot it regardless of the Special Instructions, and he still refused to comply. He was insubordinate to a Road Foreman(his boss) and carrying on like a knucklehead. He was so worried about complying with the Special Instructions that he violated the rules concerning proper employee conduct and submission to an officer of the Company(the Road Foreman), which is far more serious. And what he was charged with.

The Railroad's policy regarding a rules or procedures dispute between a Condr and Engr is that if they cannot agree, the Chief Train Dispatcher or higher has the final say. Having done that and still not complying is the offence. Being insubordinate to a Condr is not an offence to an Engr because he is not subordinate to him so there is no such charge.

If you disagree with what I'm saying, I encourage you to call the Rules Dept. They set policy, not the unions, the Training Dept. or employees.

Hello Blue and Camphor,

In an effort to extoll accuracy at the request of BlueB, I'll add a touch of detail to the incident that BlueB. cites.

The engineer, working as a motorman on the Port Washington Branch insisted in stopping his train at the car markers as specified in the Special Instructions. As is quite customary, the conductor desired a different stopping pattern to better load his train/distribute his passengers/accommodate closed cars, etc.

The engineer agreed to comply with the conductor's valid, reasonable and customary request. However, upon arrival at the subject station, the engineer in a fete of rightousness surpassed only by his stupidity, pulled two cars off the platform -- an action quite contrary to what he agreed to in his briefing with the conductor.

The ensuing controversary spilled onto the radio waves with some unprofessional and illegal adjectives exchanged.

This was the first day.

A recurrance on the second day with another conductor resulted in a direct order being issued to the engineer by an engine service supervisor, the Road Foreman of Engines, after a meeting of the minds and apparent agreement on how the train will be stopped.

But this didn't quench Engineer's mission.

In disregard and insubordination of the most valid order from the Road Foreman, Engineer again heard a different voice telling him where to stop.

He hasn't worked as an engineer since that summer day.

So, as we see, BlueB, there's a bit more to the story than simply "not platforming the train as the Condr wanted," as you stated. If simply a case of disagreement between a pontificating Conductor and an obstinate Engineer, which from time to time occurs, a mature discussion and coffee would probably, and usually does, bring about understanding before either jacka-- looses any money.

Clem

Liquid and Clem I did not say the Engr was punished for being insubordinate to the Conductor.Liquid, in some of your post's in the past you made it sound like the conductor has absolutly no say in the operation of the train. And if the C & E disagree regarding the operation it will always be the Conductor who is wrong or as you put it "ends up with egg on his face". My point is that is not completely accurate, as Clem said:
"The conductor is responsible for matters concerning his passengers, such as the train's spotting, cars open to passengers, revenue collection, etc "
In this instance the Condr and Engr disagreed on how the train was to be spotted. The dispute went upstairs the result: a Road Forman obviously felt the Cndr was right and not overstepping his bounds because he ordered the Engr to spot the train as the Condr wanted. Otherwise the Road Forman would have told the Engr to platform the train per the SI regardless of what the Condr wants, and the Condr would have gotten in trouble for asking an engineer vary from the prescribed stopping paterns. So in this case it was the Engr who was wrong and was he who ended up with "egg on his face." Unfortunately the Engr decide to disobey the Road Forman's order leading to more serious action.
Like I said I don't want to start a pissing contest I am just pointing out that the Cndr does have some say and that regarding disagrements between Condrs and Engr's about how a train is to operate,depending on the circumstances either one of them (or both) can end up with "egg one their face." Fortunatly such cases a rare .

We were responding to "La-Qwanda" and what she asked. The nonsense she was told is something we Engineers hear all the time from SOME of you and if you were in our shoes, you don't want to hear that. What she was told was wrong, an outright lie, and very demeaning and I am going to respond to that.

Re-read my post Blue. When a Condr acts like he is the Engineers boss does things like "ordering" him, tries to send him home, acts like he has the final say in application of rules or anything a real boss CAN do, he does end up with the egg. In no way am I implying that Condrs are always wrong..that would be as silly as La-Qwanda.

Some of your past posts in this forum describing our jobs would imply that WE had no say in anything nor any responsibility for the train or applying rules and procedures and that was flat wrong. That would be confusing us with a Collector. Think about all your past posts and you know what I'm talking about. We also now know from your past posts, that moving over to Engine Service is a lateral move not a promotion.

Liquidcamphor wrote: In no way am I implying that Condrs are always wrong..that would be as silly as La-Qwanda. .

Ok well that is the impression you seem to give. Thank you for the clarifaction.

Liquidcamphor wrote:
Some of your past posts in this forum describing our jobs would imply that WE had no say in anything nor any responsibility for the train or applying rules and procedures and that was flat wrong. That would be confusing us with a Collector. Think about all your past posts and you know what I'm talking about. We also now know from your past posts, that moving over to Engine Service is a lateral move not a promotion.

ummm..no, with all due respect you mistakenly attributed something some one else said to me. I have never said or implied anything like that. Anytime I have ever desicribed our jobs or the reliationship betwwen C & E, I have always described it as between equals. They share equal resposibilty for the train and applying the rules.You correctly pointed out that I have said the move from Condr to Engr is lateral , not a promotion. It is. Qualified Condrs and Engineers are equals, so a move from one to the other is lateral.If I felt the Engr is subordinate th the Condr then I would have described it as a demotion, not a lateral move. Just to clarify, the move from Ass't Condr to Engr is a promotion as is the move from A/C to Condr. The move to Condr to Engr, is lateral. If you care to spend the time click on the link below which will pull up all my prior posts. You can look for the post or posts you described above. But you'll be wasting your time because it is not there. And just to make sure I don't ...if you pardon the term... end up with egg on my face I just read through all of my past posts, and like I said it is not there, cause I never said it.
http://64.78.30.219/forums/search.php?s ... d5f7fbda3d[/quote]

Blue, read your posts under "Asst. Conductors"

Liquidcamphor wrote:Blue, read your posts under "Asst. Conductors"

I did. The only reference I made to Engrs was when asked upward mobility after qualifying. I commented a few people I hired on with moved to Engine Service and that such a move is lateral. Well it is. And I didn't deny saying it. A lateral move is when a person moves from one job to another equal job. Condrs and Engrs are equals, so moving from one to the other is a lateral move.
However what I am objecting to is

Liquidcamphor wrote:Some of your past posts in this forum describing our jobs would imply that WE had no say in anything nor any responsibility for the train or applying rules and procedures"

In this you are absolutly flat out wrong. I have never said or implied anything like that ... ever.