Chase, Maryland 1/4/87

Jtgshu wrote:However, I think there should be a little more training with conductors in the act of running trains, and the engineer's position.

I don't know about commuter agencies at all -- but the freight railroads are all headed toward a time when both members of all crews will be certified engineers. A person is hired as a brakeman/switchman, gets promoted to conductor, and eventually goes to engineer school. The timing of all of this depends on the need. Craft separation for train & engine people is a thing of the past.

It makes sense to me!

Back in the day (prior to certification), I had certain conductors that I trusted to run my train if I were sitting right there to watch what they did.

But the law's the law, after all.

Jtgshu wrote:Im all for the licencing and formal training of engineers as we have it today, and I don't have a problem getting random drug tested (happens quite frequently to me actually, compared to others at my RR - usually at least once a year, sometimes twice)

However, I think there should be a little more training with conductors in the act of running trains, and the engineer's position. At NJT, an engineer can be a conductor, but a conductor can't act as an engineer (in emergency situations). I think there should be a brief course on teh basics of handling the train for the conductor, so if something were to happen to the engineer, or the engineer got sick or a significant reverse move had to be made, the conductor could just take over the controls adn actually sort of be able to run the train in a decent manner. Although I didn't work for the railroad before teh Chase wreck, Ive been told many stories, and in those times, something like the above would happen, becuase there wouldn't be the fear of major reprocussions, and the crew did what htey had to do to get the train from A to B, adn no "licencing" and "unauthorized running of the train" took place. Think about how many FRA violations that would be today!!!!

With respect to this, much of what you post on these forums I agree with
but on the subject of others running a train or engine, I DO NOT.
On almost every railroad, a conductor or even a trainperson for that
matter has an opportunity to either cross craft to engineer or take a
promotion depending on agreements.
On many of the freight railroads as was pointed out, a recently hired
conductor has no other choice, he/she must go to engineer's school as
their time comes in seniority order.
Other than the examples mentioned above, I believe in total separation of
the two crafts. I did not and would not want to have to deal with the
public any more than I did in passenger service and I certainally would not
want to handle the company's money under any circumstances.
It seems to me that Metro-North expressed an interest in sending engineers to "revenue class" in case of shortages of train people. I do not
recall ANY engineer showing interest.
In most cases, train people are train people because they would prefer for
one reason or another to be that and engineers are engineers because
they too prefer to be engineers.
God forbit, a conductor or other un-licensed person operating a locomotive
or train were to be involved in an accident of any kind, the lawsuits would
fly all over the place and the consequences could change one's life for all
time.
There is a major amount of responsibility in all positions on a train whether they handle locomotives, trains,hand signals, doors, money or whatever and I personally do not think they should be mixed on any of the major railroads. Small railroads and short lines are probably a different story but CSX, NS and Conrail did not and do not fit that situation.
Noel Weaver

I know it is a major deal of responsibilty running the train, there is also a tremendous amount of responsibilty being the conductor of the train as well. I know that many freight RR's have conductors who are qualified engineers, and that is a progression in the hiring phase. Doesn't Amtrak now have a similar agreement as well with its trainmen, that engineer school is part of the training phase and a progression of your career???? But I don't think any commuter railroads have a similar agreement.

But my point is as a conductor on a commuter railroad (NJT), one where dozens of trains are running every hour, where one train gets delayed, many get delayed, where time really is of the essence, especially on the High Line into NYP, where if you miss your slot while they are single trackign into NYP, that means a wait of sometimes over a half hour!!!

NJT offers a program of entering the engineer's class and craft, but they are two completely seperate crafts, and that is fine. But if the motor or engine is pushing, and craps out, or if the engineer looses his controls from the cab car, or if a reverse move has to be made for a significant distance, why not train the conductor in what to do, how to routine 6 (reset) the motor, which in the new ALP46's the F end controls have to be cut in, train me in how to fix it and operate it, and the engineer doesnt' have to walk back 6, 8, 10 cars to try something, then walk all the way back to the head end to see if it worked, if not, walk all the way back again, all the while, the clock is ticking. If the conductor had at least a little training in troubleshooting and knowing what is supposed to happen and not, the problem might be fixed sooner. This is not to say that I and other conductors and trainmen don't watch like a hawk and try to learn from the engineers (and do routine 6's and the like).

Also, what if the engineer were to become sick and ill (this has happened to me before).....My train had to sit for nearly an hour in Newark Penn station while we waiting for a relief crew to come. I, the conductor, should have been able, in this case under the watchful eyes of the engineer who would have been right there, been able to take my train to our final stop, NYP. Thats what I mean by extreme situations

Don't get me wrong, I don't mean for engineers to pick up punches, and conductors to get MU handles but rather, in extreme situations, I should be able to control MY train (as a Conductor is in charge of the train) so as a crew, we can get the train going to a safe or final location, without a delay to the passegners, the crew (us) and other other crews and passengers who may be waiting for the equipment.

Andyt293 wrote:I know this is going to set off a firestorm but here goes.

What 's wrong with random drug testing?

random drug testing is a severe intrusion of one's privacy

drug testing in and of itself cannot show if the person is under the influence at the time or not

Just FYI marijuana (which this engineer was accused of being under the influence of) can stay detectable in the system for up to 30 days through standard urine or blood tests

heroin and opium have similiar gestation periods

cocaine and other drugs can only be detectable for a few days after use

none of these toxicology tests can make the distinction if the person is under the influence at THAT TIME or not.

UNLIKE a blood/alcohol test which can pinpoint the persons BAL at that time

I know marijuana and other drugs are illegal and no one should drive or operate heavy machinery (IE: locomotives, busses, etc) under the influence.

BUT

It is no companies business to punish recreational drug users who do not use these drugs at work.

It is such a hypocracy for company executives to use (and abuse) alcohol at company functions and during business trips, not to mention HEAVY habitual drinking after hours, yet punish someone else for smoking a joint on the weekend.

It is VERY hypocritical and I see it all the time.

Only ignorance is keeping these arcane practices in effect.

What is worse? someone who drinks one's self into a coma and pickles their liver or someone who does the same with drugs??

The difference is one has a lobby (IE: Budweiser) and one does not (drugs).

I know flames will ensue, but I feel very strongly about this. And I have not done any drugs in going on 10 years and rarely drink anymore.

crazy_nip wrote:random drug testing is a severe intrusion of one's privacy

Yeah, well, if you're minding carts at Wal-Mart, OK.

Personally, I like to know that the pilot flying the plane I'm on isn't a "recreational" user, whether she/he is under the "influence" at the time of take-off or not.

If you have a job that holds responsibility for public safety, you trade off some of that right of privacy for the priviledges of the occupation. Companies that provide these jobs have a responsibility, too.

One can rant all one wants -- that's not going to change -- even if one is elected in '08.

I like the way libertarians think their rights are the only ones that are worth mentioning.

Liberty has a balancing component that's often ignored these days.

It's responsibility.

LCJ wrote:

crazy_nip wrote:random drug testing is a severe intrusion of one's privacy

Personally, I like to know that the pilot flying the plane I'm on isn't a "recreational" user, whether she/he is under the "influence" at the time of take-off or not.
[/b]

but it is ok for them to be a chronic alcoholic??

sounds pretty hypocritical

back in the 70's and 80's pilots had a reputation for being big into cocaine and speed, and alcohol before that. I dont seem to remember planes falling out of the sky...

however wasnt there a pair of pilots just last year arrested when they showed up for work drunk??

pick your poision, its a pretty hypocritical position to take

If you have a job that holds responsibility for public safety, you trade off some of that right of privacy for the priviledges of the occupation. Companies that provide these jobs have a responsibility, too.

I disagree. There are plenty of junkie/alcoholic police officers, doctors, etc.


.

One can rant all one wants -- that's not going to change -- even if one is elected in '08.

I like the way libertarians think their rights are the only ones that are worth mentioning.

Liberty has a balancing component that's often ignored these days.

It's responsibility.

talk about a rant...

I dont know where you are going with that, but I do agree that responsibility plays a key role

whether it be smoking pot, snorting lines of coke or drinking alcohol

ALL can be done responsibly

If you do not believe that, you are a hypocrite. And an ignorant one at that...

I'm just going to say that if one is employed in the transportation industry (as I am), we have a responsibility to the general public to be sober. In my opinion, a person who uses recreational drugs--even if they are NOT under the influence when on duty--have a better chance of making a catastrophic error. Same as alcohol. Let's say "Henry" goes on a bender over his weekend and drinks a case of beer over 36 hours and goes back to work 18 hours or so after the last beer. Think he may be more susceptible to error? I do. Think I would want him flying my plane?? Or driving my kids to school?? No way.......I am responsible for 70 kids every day. I am sober 24/7/365

To the best of my knowledge, there is a Federal Law on the books which
prohibits any operating employee of a railroad from using illegal drugs
whether on duty or off duty. Thanks to Ricky Gates, it is also a Federal
requirement that the railroads administer random drug tests.
I'll tell you what, I would not want to be running on a single track CTC
controlled line such as the River Line between Selkirk and North Jersey
and have some ripped crew come out of a siding and through a stop signal
and a switch out into my face. Maybe I would suffer a major injury or
even death just because some crew thinks it is proper to do an illegal
drug then run a freight train.
I know what I am talking about on this one as I once was traveling north
on the above line when a southbound came through the signal at CP-7 and
right out into my path. I was lucky, I had a very heavy train going up
hill and not too fast so I was able to put the train into emergency and stop
just short of him. The engineer never ran a train again on the road but I
could have been killed.
You have to be "heads up" and alert at all times and to all things going on
around you, I do not think this is possible when you have been doing drugs or been drinking either for that matter.
I do not like random testing anymore than anyone else does but the likes
of Ricky Gates has brought this upon everybody operating a train these
days.
What more can I say.
Noel Weaver

charlie6017 wrote:In my opinion, a person who uses recreational drugs--even if they are NOT under the influence when on duty--have a better chance of making a catastrophic error. Same as alcohol. Let's say "Henry" goes on a bender over his weekend and drinks a case of beer over 36 hours and goes back to work 18 hours or so after the last beer. Think he may be more susceptible to error? I do. Think I would want him flying my plane??

I disagree with your basic premise, but thank you for at least being consistant

You have to be responsible when using any drug or alcohol (IE: allow time off to sober up).

However, there is no test available (to my knowledge) which will tell you if someone "binged" over the weekend or not. Just to tell if there is currently alcohol in the system.

Drug tests are the complete opposite. They stay in the system for days and weeks after use.

That is why drug testing in inherently unfair.

That is my point. I am not trying to defend drug or alochol use while on duty or anything, just pointing out the inequities.

In my working days, nothing was worse than a trip from Selkirk to Buffalo
lasting ten or eleven hours and upon going into the office, being collared
by a Road Foreman or Trainmaster stating that everybody was being
tested and it was time to "Pee in the bottle". This after eleven hours on
the road, tired, hungry and dirty and knowing that I would be back on
duty in maybe eight to ten hours to do it all over again.
I did not like it but I realized the necessity of it anyway.
Thanks Ricky Gates whereever you are. That name will linger in my mind
until the day I die. I hope he is still locked up.
Noel Weaver

Actually, I think he's out, as of a year or so ago.

So Gates is out in public again? What job is he doing? I wouldn't want that guy operating my Conrail HO units! To put in my 2 cents on the new post-Gates rules; I would have to say that I am in favor of the random drug testing. I can see that it does violate one's privacy and can be annoying and exhuasting after a 10-hour shift, but we are talking about transportation here. Thank you for all the follow-ups everyone!

crazy_nip wrote:

You have to be responsible when using any drug or alcohol (IE: allow time off to sober up).

However, there is no test available (to my knowledge) which will tell you if someone "binged" over the weekend or not. Just to tell if there is currently alcohol in the system.

Drug tests are the complete opposite. They stay in the system for days and weeks after use.

That is why drug testing in inherently unfair.

That is my point. I am not trying to defend drug or alochol use while on duty or anything, just pointing out the inequities.

I understand what you are saying and perhaps it's just because of the legalities of alcohol and hard drugs being illegal. Personally, we all know alcohol and illegal drugs can have the same deadly effect. I agree with what you say about responsible usage, too. I have only used alcohol in the past and never used drugs.

Yeah, I'm all for drug testing when it comes to public transprtation operators. I remember that crash myself, I was 11 years old at the time, and now since that, they have been doing drug tests as mentioned.

As Charlie6017 mentioned, school bus operators also get tested for illegal substances, which I support, and if anyone test positive for such, I recommend immediate removal from duty, no and's if's or but's.

Does anyone know more about Cromwell, and what his condition was at the time of the accident?