Amtrak Engine School Failure Rate

Does anyone know what the failure rate for people going through Amtrak's Engine school is?

A friend of mine who went through the program last year told me that out of 12 only 4 graduated. He was already a class I engineer and said that program is pretty tough.

Wow! I had heard it was tough but only a 33% success rate (for that class anyway)? Yikes!

I wonder where people go wrong or get hung up on?

It requires a reasonable amount of studying, but the topics covered are a little outrageous, in my opinion.

The mechanical section got most of the guys that failed in my class and a class that a good friend of mine went through this past summer. It is extremely in depth, to the point of a diesel shop mechanic course rather than an advanced locomotive engineers guide. It was quite the opposite from the freight training I went through which, though it was great for troubleshooting, didn't dive too extensively into the nuts and bolts of the locomotive. Everything we needed to know, nothing we didn't. Amtrak's mechanical stuff I personally thought it was too much, but gained what I could, nonetheless. I have forgotten most of it now, anyway...

The air brake course I thought was pretty good and no one failed as a result of it. I had GREAT air brake training on freight and carried most of it over to Amtrak - if anything, it was a good refresher.

The rules portion was fine. Generally, the instructor settled on a rule book that everyone was going to use after class (some guys had one, others had 4 or 5) anad based the teaching as a class of that. If you had more than that one, you studied it on your own. Same with signals.

EDIT: It should be noted that the passing average for the class was raised to 90% from 85%. Signal exams require 100%, aspect and indication written word for word out of the special instructions or rulebook applicable.

MikeEspee wrote:It requires a reasonable amount of studying, but the topics covered are a little outrageous, in my opinion.

It is extremely in depth, to the point of a diesel shop mechanic course rather than an advanced locomotive engineers guide.

That's what I heard... It makes no sense to concentrate so much on mechanical! Every engineer should know where to check for lube and coolant levels, and basic resets.... It's not like you are going to change out the air compressor or re-wire the main generator. The main focus should be on train handling and practical application of rules. That's what gets most engineers fired!
I remember when I went through engine service @ BNSF, mechanical portion (100 questions) was open book. The instructor told us: We expect you to learn how to handle these trains, not fix them! There is an entire department of people who are trained and qualified to make the necessary repairs.

Basic troubleshooting, yes. I'm all for it - practical knowledge, instead of needless clutter. But it seems like the focus is more on the in depth mechanical aspects of the equipment rather than trouble shooting your way out of a jam and applying rules to daily situations and knowledge of train handling. The general concensus between instructors was that you would learn rules and train handling out in the field, which is very true, but more than we got in class would've been okay - more focus on that rather than fuel filters would've been great!

Amtrak Loco U sounds old school like the days when I did my training on the C&O in 1981. They spent most of the time training as if you were going to fire on a steam locomotive every aspect of the locomotive. Which surprisingly back then did help some but actual retention levels were around 15%. With todays locomotives why the heck do you need to know all that crap. Something shuts down try an reset the computer. CSX they don't teach them much except operating rules & signals very little on the locomotive. I had trainees that couldn't swap out a radio, HTD or do a calender day inspection properly something they should of been taught.

Ditto COEN77! I have gotten on engines with signed off cards. When I actually went through them, it looked like Stevie Wonder could have done a better job.
Before I went on the railroad, my uncle (also an engineer) said that it is wise to learn more that is required. I had that ambition anyway, but I watched ans asked machinists and electricians what they look for in troubleshooting a problem. This has helped when I was 100 miles from the nearest shop, with a heavy train, and a dead unit. One day the FRA mechanical inspector was inspecting the power and cars in the yard. While he was looking over the engine, I followed him, and asked him to explain his pet peeves, and what he looks for.
On the topic of the post, I think that an in depth mechanical knowledge is important. Even if you don't know to fix it, you will be able to describe the problem. This may lead to a simple fix, which he can walk you through.

Just curious: does Amtrak work the same way as freight in the way the conductors move up to engineer? If so, is this also like freight whereby if you go to school for engineer and don't pass, they let you go. You are not able to go back to being a conductor. If that's the case, that 33% retention rate/passing rate would be an absolute killer. That'd be one way to get rid of senor guys and bring in new blood (LOL).

I didnt find it that hard...material wise. I think the hardest part was the rate they throw everything at you....its alot to take in during the short time your there. I managed a 98.5% and just as everyone else here mentioned....have prob forgotten 80% of it!! Im not a mechanic!!! lol My class was prob just about all from the south, and we'd study on our own a few hours everynight, and then get drunk right after!! lol...no kidding...no one in my class failed and the lowest avg was like a 93 I think? The corridor and Chicago classes ahead of us were a totally diff story.

drewg350 wrote:Just curious: does Amtrak work the same way as freight in the way the conductors move up to engineer? If so, is this also like freight whereby if you go to school for engineer and don't pass, they let you go. You are not able to go back to being a conductor. If that's the case, that 33% retention rate/passing rate would be an absolute killer. That'd be one way to get rid of senor guys and bring in new blood (LOL).

Huh? You're not even on a railroad yet. I will state one thing those so-called senior guys have forgotten more than you'll ever know.

Nothing is a simple fix on these units, no matter how proficient YOU may be... It's not a straight SD40 where you can bang on the fuel pump with a hammer to get it running, anymore. And before bumping out to the Corridor to get spoiled, I used 5 different host railroad rulebooks and 7 sets of special instructions and signals DAILY. THAT is worth your brain power.

MikeEspee wrote:Nothing is a simple fix on these units, no matter how proficient YOU may be... It's not a straight SD40 where you can bang on the fuel pump with a hammer to get it running, anymore. And before bumping out to the Corridor to get spoiled, I used 5 different host railroad rulebooks and 7 sets of special instructions and signals DAILY. THAT is worth your brain power.

I went to lunch last week with some fellow retirees talking about old times. Years ago a fuse was your best friend. We use to prop it against the low water/low oil buttons to try and keep the loco running. If it was low water there were hoses about every 20 miles. Low govenor oil we would just drain some off other locomotives to add if it not showing in sight glass better to have them all low but still showing some in the sight glass. Back then if you got a set of GP40-2 you were in Hoghead heaven. lol

Locomotive engineers should have an in depth knowledge of how a locomotive works. OK, well maybe you don't have to know how many ft. lbs. of torques is needed on the head bolts but you should be able to identify all of the components and give their function. Earn that engineer's certificate! (BTW I was a certified engineer, and before doing that I've worked on EMD and Alco diesels at a rail museum so the mechanical portion of the training was a breeze.)

COEN: "Huh? You're not even on a railroad yet. I will state one thing those so-called senior guys have forgotten more than you'll ever know."

What's that mean. I don't believe I know ANYTHING about the RR. Never said I did. I just asked if Amtrak works the same way as freight going from a conductor to engineer. On both my CSX and NS applications for conductor it states the following:

"Presently conductor trainees are required to accept mandatory promotion to locomotive engineer and attend Locomotive Engineer Training. This can occur at any point after 1 year of train service experience."

We were told if you are promoted to engineer and sent to training, if you fail, you CANNOT go back to being a conductor. You are terminated. So I don't understand how my question offended you. Did I say or ask something wrong?