Learning From Mistakes on the Real Trains Forum

The rulebooks the railroads use are written in blood.

A few years ago, UP 844 was in Houston.  The railroad brought its portable in trailer locomotive simulator.  10 car ttain with SD70MSC as power.  Lot harder to run than I expected.  And I got the Portland Sub, along I84, betwen the Steel Bridge and I205.  Flat woth some curves. Because of the train weight, and steel wheel to steel rail, trains do not behave like a car.

I have had Operation Lifesaver training.  The 15 mins. I had in the right seat reinforced that training.  And give those in thevcab real trspect.

@Dominic Mazoch posted:

And here is a catch.  In the US, one operating a train is an ENGINEER.  In the UK, that person is a DRIVER. 

It's not a "catch."

We don't call the trunk of a car the "boot." We don't call the hood a "bonnet." We don't call the bathroom a "Loo." We don't call hair bangs "fringe."

We don’t call a drinking fountain a bubbler, wait we do.

@Dominic Mazoch posted:

And here is a catch.  In the US, one operating a train is an ENGINEER.  In the UK, that person is a DRIVER.  One  has to be correct in the country or even railroad one is talking about

@smd4 posted:

It's not a "catch."

We don't call the trunk of a car the "boot." We don't call the hood a "bonnet." We don't call the bathroom a "Loo." We don't call hair bangs "fringe."

I think Dominic has a valid point.  This forum isn't restricted to US citizens and different countries refer to things differently.

@Rich Melvin posted:

It is not about, "...getting upset over placement of a hyphen..." It is a matter of a specific term being right or wrong.

I am reminded of an old and very funny episode of "Married With Children" where Al Bundy has a medical problem. In a hilarious scene, the doctors misread the instructions. Instead of giving Al a "circular incision" they gave him a "circumcision." I'm sure you will agree those are two very different things, caused by the use of an incorrect term.

If things like this don't concern you;  if you don't care about using the wrong terms when describing something, that's fine. But don't come here and beat up on those of us who try to educate you and the others who come to this forum about the CORRECT terms to use in the railroad industry.

@Rich Melvin posted:

In all seriousness now, why do some of you get so bent out of shape if someone corrects a grammatical error or a spelling error? Here again, something is either right or it's not. Why do you considered that to be "policing"?

When we publish OGR magazine and the books that we publish, we strive to make sure our publications conform to the Chicago Manual of Style, which is the "Bible" of the publishing industry. We spend a lot of money hiring experts on the manual to proof all of our writing, to be sure it's in compliance. Why do we do that? Because we know that if our publications conform to that standard, we know they are RIGHT and CORRECT. That is important to every publishing professional, and should be important to everyone.

If striving to be correct in the use of railroad terms and grammar is now suddenly wrong, then we are all in big trouble.

I'm all for using the correct terminology and form in writing, but things are rarely as black and white as people make them out to be.  For example, there are several style manuals used throughout the publishing industry besides CMS, and still others within academia and periodicals.

I also welcome corrections to mistakes in my posts, but some here have suggested that corrections be the policy and I think that is probably a bridge too far, IMHO.  Additionally, I do think when correcting someone, politeness and tact are important.

You catch more flies with honey.

@rplst8 posted:

I think Dominic has a valid point.  This forum isn't restricted to US citizens and different countries refer to things differently.

I have no problem with folks across the pond referring to "drivers." However, the fact remains that this forum is made up predominately of participants from the US, focusing predominately on US railroading.  If you want to talk about engine drivers, I'm sure you can find a suitable British railroading forum.

@smd4 posted:

I have no problem with folks across the pond referring to "drivers." However, the fact remains that this forum is made up predominately of participants from the US, focusing predominately on US railroading.  If you want to talk about engine drivers, I'm sure you can find a suitable British railroading forum.

There are Brits interested in U.S. railroading, if they happen to slip into their "native tongue" and call an engineer a driver, I don't see an issue.  Just like when they call a road truck a lorrie and railcar truck a bogie.  No reason to tell them to go elsewhere.

Rusty

@rplst8 posted:

I'm all for using the correct terminology and form in writing, but things are rarely as black and white as people make them out to be.

I think is indeed "as black and white as people make it out to." when it comes to CORRECT locomotive model designations!

For example, there are several style manuals used throughout the publishing industry besides CMS, and still others within academia and periodicals.

But,,,,,,,,,,,,,,do those apply to railroad locomotive terminology?

I also welcome corrections to mistakes in my posts, but some here have suggested that corrections be the policy and I think that is probably a bridge too far, IMHO.  Additionally, I do think when correcting someone, politeness and tact are important.

OK, but just how can a simple correction be impolite?

You catch more flies with honey.

I'll definitely disagree with THAT!  From experience in our back yard, poop attracts a LOT more flies. But then I'm not one to "catch flies" anyway.

Similar to Rich Melvin’s reference book.

Here is the stylebook that I keep on my desk. “The Associated Press Stylebook 2019” More than 2,5 million copies sold. This is the best-selling reference book for more than 30 years, essential for journalists, students, editors and writers in all professions.

My first job for AP was in 1972 as a photographer. The editor sent us out to cover a story as a team. A writer and myself as the photographer. At this stage in my life I am still a photojournalist.

Gary

@rplst8 posted:

I'm all for using the correct terminology and form in writing, but things are rarely as black and white as people make them out to be.  For example, there are several style manuals used throughout the publishing industry besides CMS, and still others within academia and periodicals.

I also welcome corrections to mistakes in my posts, but some here have suggested that corrections be the policy and I think that is probably a bridge too far, IMHO.  Additionally, I do think when correcting someone, politeness and tact are important.

You catch more flies with honey.

If you don’t know the terminology, ..it’s simple, …ASK…..the point of this thread is that people DON’T ask, and post something on this forum that’s false or blatantly so far off course that it brings nothing to the table,…..a lot of it comes from BS they read on the internet, and all of the sudden they’re an armchair railroader,…if you post something wrong, it’s going to be contradicted,…..you want to avoid your “feelings” being hurt, KNOW what your posting, or ASK for clarification,……these cats on this forum lived, ate, and breathed this stuff,….y’all post some nonsense you found on the internet or some book,….with no knowledge if it’s fact or fiction,….that’s the point they’re trying to convey,…….this is where you come to get ACCURATE information from first hand accounts,….not something someone found from the resources of their arm chair!..

Pat

@Hot Water posted:

 

You catch more flies with honey.

I'll definitely disagree with THAT!  From experience in our back yard, poop attracts a LOT more flies. But then I'm not one to "catch flies" anyway.

Oh lord, hot coffee almost went through my nose when I read that.  Ain't it the truth though!

I would think it not too much of a stretch, to respect those enough who have walked the walk, and who many of us go to for the correct info, to put the effort into using the correct terminology and designations.

It's rather telling that even some have said the respect Number 90 but not HW or Rich, but in turn don't respect what Number 90 is asking for here.

@TexasSP posted:

Oh lord, hot coffee almost went through my nose when I read that.  Ain't it the truth though!

I would think it not too much of a stretch, to respect those enough who have walked the walk, and who many of us go to for the correct info, to put the effort into using the correct terminology and designations.

It's rather telling that even some have said the respect Number 90 but not HW or Rich, but in turn don't respect what Number 90 is asking for here.

THANK YOU SIR!!!!!!     Definitely the POST OF THE DAY!!!

Look at Canada.  They use a different rule book, use different terms for some things and positions, have different union agreements, and is regulated by Transport Canada.

So, the best bet for all is to use the proper terms for each system and nation

And each railroad has/had its own terms.  Santa Fe, for example, called its "subdivisions" "districts".  And #90, the ATSF used a different term for CTC?

BTW, the title of this is REAL TRAINS.  No country or railroad/railway linked to it.  Yet.

Does anyone keep in touch with Al Krug (OGR forum member Wyhog)?

His posts would contain detailed explanations regarding the technical aspects of railroading

He would explain concepts in a easy to comprehend manner

These posts were the gold standard of prototype railroad knowledge

@Hot Water posted:

 

You catch more flies with honey.

I'll definitely disagree with THAT!  From experience in our back yard, poop attracts a LOT more flies. But then I'm not one to "catch flies" anyway.

Apparently you don't understand the metaphor. 

Whatever, be polite, don't be polite.  Who cares anyway.

@TexasSP posted:

Oh lord, hot coffee almost went through my nose when I read that.  Ain't it the truth though!

I would think it not too much of a stretch, to respect those enough who have walked the walk, and who many of us go to for the correct info, to put the effort into using the correct terminology and designations.

It's rather telling that even some have said the respect Number 90 but not HW or Rich, but in turn don't respect what Number 90 is asking for here.

I'm not sure if you are referring to me or not, but I didn't ask anyone to respect or not respect anyone.  I just pointed out that corrections are welcome, social pleasantries go a long way to winning people over (especially online where you can't read peoples expressions or tone), and that not everything is black and white, especially WRT to grammar, for which there are several different style manuals in ongoing use.

In almost 200 years of railroading, as we know it, specificity rules or people die.  The old saw that states that the Operating Rules are written in blood is a very true statement.  We have all learned the hard way and can only try to pass our knowledge along to succeeding generations in the hope that they won't have to make the same mistakes.

I would recommend that anyone interested in railroading buy a "post war" Book of Operating Rules; there are lots of them on eBay at very reasonable prices.  One published by your favorite road or by virtually any main line "steam road" will do.  After some preliminaries, each version begins with DEFINITIONS, very specific definitions which may read like Greek to the uninitiated but keep studying and see how the pieces fit together.

Many have made studying, teaching and writing Operating Rules a life's work but their work is not in vain.  One of my favorite examples is the definition of a TRAIN -

"An engine or more than one engine coupled, with or without cars, displaying markers."

Enjoy!

@Rapid Transit Holmes posted:

I would recommend that anyone interested in railroading buy a "post war" Book of Operating Rules; there are lots of them on eBay at very reasonable prices.  One published by your favorite road or by virtually any main line "steam road" will do.  After some preliminaries, each version begins with DEFINITIONS, very specific definitions which may read like Greek to the uninitiated but keep studying and see how the pieces fit together.

Yet, many times, people need to be shown specific examples of the rules in order to fully understand them.

PS - And after all of this, no one has yet deleted the dash in the Horseshoe Curve GP-9!!! 😉

@Big Jim posted:

Yet, many times, people need to be shown specific examples of the rules in order to fully understand them.

PS - And after all of this, no one has yet deleted the dash in the Horseshoe Curve GP-9!!! 😉

Absolutely.  However, study of the rules creates a framework for experience.  Experience without a framework is just random events we can only hope to survive.

Maybe the hyphen is purely ornamental, like the locomotive.

I have had Operation Lifesaver training.  The 15 mins. I had in the right seat reinforced that training.  And give those in thevcab real trspect.

If the same level of correctness can't be applied to proofreading a post before you hit the "Post Reply" button (and this representation is not the only consistently guilty party - "Oh well, my spell checker didn't catch it.") (BTW, a spell checker isn't going to catch the difference between "road" and "rode") then I hardly think it's proper for some to go on and on about a dash.  You've made your point, it sticks in your craw, move on.

As far as the last few posts and "rules", "safety" and "death", there is no rule book requiring the omission of THE dash nor will death result from adding it.  The "rules" you're speaking about are in no way related to the correctness that's being discussed in this particular topic.

I guess the point I and the rest of the minority here are trying to make is that the same individual(s?) that rail on about the correctness of RR terminology, especially when it comes to THE dash, is the one that is quickest to dismiss when his own flaws are pointed out, frequently posts responses even when he doesn't know the answer, to my knowledge is not a moderator on this forum yet frequently answers questions specifically addressed to the moderators, and rarely answers in the positive - including, to my knowledge, never even adding a "like" -  so much so that the couple times I've seen a "nice job" from him it really stood out to me.  No, I'm not talking about the OP, for whom I have a great deal of respect.

Sad to me, really, because the most egregious of those individuals, the one who is most likely to post an acerbic or caustic response, was someone who I thought I looked up to because of all his contributions to "REAL" railroading.

I read this particular forum because I hope to learn from it and to add to the little bit of knowledge I have.  Also to share where I can.  As the OP has requested, I will do my best to read responses with corrective information in a positive light.  With that request being honored, I think it's only fair to ask that those doing the "correcting" (again, not the OP) try to do so in a positive manner as well.

It is unfortunate to see the complete break down of civil conversation on this thread and in social media in general.  I sometimes truly think we are a doomed society and civilization will end at on an Oxford comma in an online post on some random website. 

I come here to learn and to share what I have learned.  I don't pretend to be correct all the time and I don't mind being corrected.  What I have learned from this post is that to many people spend their time trying to be right over being simply civil to each other.  If we were having this conversation in person, it would be an entirely different one.

Tom, you are truly a gentleman and a scholar and I thank you for your post.  You are completely correct in my opinion that we should not be offended if we are corrected.

Jack, I know from our conversations that you too are a gentleman as well as a scholar.  Most people who haven't had the pleasure of speaking with you will never come to appreciate your warmth and sincerity because they only see a small part of who you truly are in these pages.  You have never hesitated to help me when I was challenged on a railroad related topic and I truly thank you for that.

Having written this, I will take my leave of this particular thread because it has turned in ways the OP never intended and that is sad. 

NOTE.... All safety rules are written in someone's blood.

I try to put input on what I know in layman’s terms from working on the railroad for a little over 30 year now , 28 being an Engineer.

I can’t get as technical as say Hotwater , but from what knowledge I have while sitting in the loco seat.

And I’ll be the first to say this . I’m sure there’s people out there that have vast knowledge from books or even reading on the internet about railroading , but to discuss or argue with those who have hands on makes us in the field … well crossed .

I can’t argue with someone who is an accountant , because I’m not one . Sure Turbo Tax or other similar services have given me greater knowledge than I previously had , but it such as heck never gave me more experience or learned knowledge as one who went to school and woks in the particular job.

And it doesn’t bother me or get under my skin when someone refers to a railroad related topic just because they don’t know , but some on here have . That’s just silly.
Everyone has to learn somewhere .

Just as most of us on the OGR forums are , we’re hobbyist trying to learn from one another and mainly “ have fun “ .

@mackb4 posted:

And I’ll be the first to say this . I’m sure there’s people out there that have vast knowledge from books or even reading on the internet about railroading , but to discuss or argue with those who have hands on makes us in the field … well crossed .

I can’t argue with someone who is an accountant , because I’m not one . Sure Turbo Tax or other similar services have given me greater knowledge than I previously had , but it such as heck never gave me more experience or learned knowledge as one who went to school and woks in the particular job.

You've made some great points.  Though it's interesting that when the roles are reversed, I've seen the same lack of respect for other's non-railroad professions on this site.  This is not directed at you, but just in general.  Granted the topic wasn't railroading, but it was a "hobby-adjacent" topic related to computer software.

And it doesn’t bother me or get under my skin when someone refers to a railroad related topic just because they don’t know , but some on here have . That’s just silly.
Everyone has to learn somewhere .

Just as most of us on the OGR forums are , we’re hobbyist trying to learn from one another and mainly “ have fun “ .

I couldn't agree more with the above.

One of the best things is first hand knowledge. People who think they know always tell you to do it "this way" and there is no way that will work. When you do it the way it is supposed to be done, they criticize you to no end. So you tell them, "okay hotshot, show me how it's done." Pretty soon they end up saying they were wrong(if they do try at all) and shrink away as fast as they came.

At my last job this was so apparent in what the assemblers did. Engineers would tell them they were doing it wrong, they needed to do it this way(some engineers anyway). Bob are one assembler took one of these engineers aside and showed him how it worked and why it wouldn't work his way. Let's just say that the engineer laid an egg and had to go back to the drawing board. This got better from then on for certain things that Bob built, but some engineers would remain in the dark even when shown what it took to do some of the work.

@Dominic Mazoch posted:

ORG cannot be accused of WORD CRIMES.  (YT the song.)

Can you imagine if Weird Al (the creator of said song) did something about train enthusiasts or model railroaders (how about "Foamers", sung to the tune of the Kinks "Lola"? *lol*)

@Dave NYC Hudson PRR K4 posted:

One of the best things is first hand knowledge. People who think they know always tell you to do it "this way" and there is no way that will work. When you do it the way it is supposed to be done, they criticize you to no end. So you tell them, "okay hotshot, show me how it's done." Pretty soon they end up saying they were wrong(if they do try at all) and shrink away as fast as they came.

At my last job this was so apparent in what the assemblers did. Engineers would tell them they were doing it wrong, they needed to do it this way(some engineers anyway). Bob are one assembler took one of these engineers aside and showed him how it worked and why it wouldn't work his way. Let's just say that the engineer laid an egg and had to go back to the drawing board. This got better from then on for certain things that Bob built, but some engineers would remain in the dark even when shown what it took to do some of the work.

It is interesting , what you are describing is the basis for lean production and the so called 'Japanese Method'. Unfortunately in US manufacturing and the like until it became critical the people building the stuff were often told by management and engineers to keep their eyes on their job, etc. I remember reading and interview with the head of Sony back in the early 70's, when they started making TV sets in San Diego (I seem to remember), and he made an interesting comment. He said that the people working here were willing to speak up when things were wrong, but were often told basically to shut up and turn that screw or whatever, and given the chance gave great feedback on the issues and such of the assembly line, he said they actually had trouble with that in Japan , it was a kind of reverse bias, that the line workers there looked at an engineer as educated, much more than them, so what could they tell them? Whereas the American Line worker (and this is pretty close to what the Sony guy said) was "that pimple headed twit, what the heck does he know, he designs it, doesn't build it" *lol*.

It is kind of like the military, when a newly minted Lieutenant is assigned to command some unit (prob a platoon I would guess), first thing their commanding officer tells them is to a)get in the graces with the senior sergeant and b)listen to him when he tells you something you tell him is 'stupid, sir' *smile*. 

@Rich Melvin posted:

In all seriousness now, why do some of you get so bent out of shape if someone corrects a grammatical error or a spelling error? Here again, something is either right or it's not. Why do you considered that to be "policing"?

.........

If striving to be correct in the use of railroad terms and grammar is now suddenly wrong, then we are all in big trouble.

It's never about the actual correction.  It's the manner it which the correction is given.  In the written form such as message boards like the OGR forum and text messages there is no voice inflection, there is no body language, only what is presented in letters and numbers.  As you are well aware the font and color have as much to do with the reader's interpretation of the response as the message trying to be conveyed.

The corrections often come off as not just as "gruff," but flat out condescending.  There are a small number of regulars on this forum that do not get corrected or called out when communicating in a fashion that would not be allowed by others.  It gets aggravating.  I have specifically avoided this sub forum often simply because of drawn out past conversations over the exact right term or the colloquially accepted railroading term. 

I respect knowledge, experience, and the willingness to share.  However, transfer of knowledge on a message board such as this that is performed in a tact-less or brute force manner simply turns people off.    This is a sub-page of the O Gauge Railroading forum and as such and I would imagine the base of the membership are toy and model train enthusiasts.  This is not a workplace or viewed as much by the majority of the users here, ( I so I would presume).  "Wise old men" communicating respectfully will always be more appreciated than "gruff old men" with a proverbial large wrench in their hand.  There is simply no need for that form of communication in this forum.

@bigkid posted:

It is interesting , what you are describing is the basis for lean production and the so called 'Japanese Method'. Unfortunately in US manufacturing and the like until it became critical the people building the stuff were often told by management and engineers to keep their eyes on their job, etc. I remember reading and interview with the head of Sony back in the early 70's, when they started making TV sets in San Diego (I seem to remember), and he made an interesting comment. He said that the people working here were willing to speak up when things were wrong, but were often told basically to shut up and turn that screw or whatever, and given the chance gave great feedback on the issues and such of the assembly line, he said they actually had trouble with that in Japan , it was a kind of reverse bias, that the line workers there looked at an engineer as educated, much more than them, so what could they tell them? Whereas the American Line worker (and this is pretty close to what the Sony guy said) was "that pimple headed twit, what the heck does he know, he designs it, doesn't build it" *lol*.

Neither of these extremes are desirable outcomes.  Worshiping at the alter of "engineering" and disallowing implementation, assembly, and/or users to provide comment on what's being produced is a fools errand.  In the same way, assuming the assembly line worker is always right is a mistake too.  Good design processes have feedback loops that allow them to not only improve the product, but also improve the process that makes the product.  There are lots of standards bodies that work on problems like this (e.g. ISO, SEI, ITU, IEEE, SAE).

Many industries, especially legacy ones, rely on a sort of "machismo" where might makes right, or punitive measures are how people learn.  This sort of thing works until is doesn't.

I think one of the finest examples of American quality processes is/was in the Commercial Aviation sector.  It's true that we've had our fair share of major airline/aircraft/manufacture incidents here in the US and worldwide, but traveling by air is two to three orders of magnitude safer than driving in an automobile on American highways.  One of the defining characteristics of that industry is checks and balances. 

OK...it seems that this thread is drifting away from the subject of the topic ... so, is there really a need to continue it?  A couple of thousand folks have looked at the thread so I am leaning toward just closing it since both sides have made their points.  I let it go a little longer and if it doesn't get back on track, I'll just shut the door and call it done.

@bigkid posted:

It is interesting , what you are describing is the basis for lean production and the so called 'Japanese Method'. Unfortunately in US manufacturing and the like until it became critical the people building the stuff were often told by management and engineers to keep their eyes on their job, etc.

There was an incentive program where I worked from 1976-1999 (Please pardon the hyphen) that anyone could participate in.  You documented your idea on a suggestion form and submitted it.  It was evaluated by the plant staff and you received a documented answer.  If your suggestion yielded cost savings anywhere in the plant, you would receive 25% of the first twelve months savings, and a reduced percentage in the following two years.

It did not matter if the engineer was Japanese or laid eggs.  More than a few people retired off of that IBM program.

My next company was the largest contract manufacturer in the world.  They had a quarterly profit sharing program.  The payout was based on: scrap costs; on time product delivery; customer satisfaction surveys; and quality.  At times those payments were more than 15 percent of your base pay.  As a result, employees in all areas were highly motivated to reduce scrap, get quality parts in stock on time, meet shipping commitments, insure high quality,  etc. and put the customer first.  Since it was based on your base pay, there was some incentive to be at work and do a good job.  The more hours you worked increased your bonus.  If you had poor quality you were costing everybody some money.  The engineers were motivated to incorporate as many process improvements as possible.  They got the bonuses like everyone else.

There were quarterly improvement teams using a cross section of the factory led by a member of senior mgmt that would spend two weeks analyzing a different area of the plant for possible improvements. The team members were different every quarter.  This covered all areas of the plant from HR-finance-asm line- truck dock.  With senior staff leading the discovery and the reviews there were few taboos or obstacles to any suggestions.   All that mattered was quality, process, IE, and profit.  All discoveries were documented and shared across the world with the other factories as best practices.  This saved other plants from having to find similar solutions.

It's misleading to characterize all manufacturers and methods under one umbrella. 

In my opinion, the toy train industry is not especially focused on quality, customer satisfaction, and on time delivery.

@aussteve posted:

There was an incentive program where I worked from 1976-1999 (Please pardon the hyphen) that anyone could participate in.  You documented your idea on a suggestion form and submitted it.  It was evaluated by the plant staff and you received a documented answer.  If your suggestion yielded cost savings anywhere in the plant, you would receive 25% of the first twelve months savings, and a reduced percentage in the following two years.

It did not matter if the engineer was Japanese or laid eggs.  More than a few people retired off of that IBM program.

My next company was the largest contract manufacturer in the world.  They had a quarterly profit sharing program.  The payout was based on: scrap costs; on time product delivery; customer satisfaction surveys; and quality.  At times those payments were more than 15 percent of your base pay.  As a result, employees in all areas were highly motivated to reduce scrap, get quality parts in stock on time, meet shipping commitments, insure high quality,  etc. and put the customer first.  Since it was based on your base pay, there was some incentive to be at work and do a good job.  The more hours you worked increased your bonus.  If you had poor quality you were costing everybody some money.  The engineers were motivated to incorporate as many process improvements as possible.  They got the bonuses like everyone else.

There were quarterly improvement teams using a cross section of the factory led by a member of senior mgmt that would spend two weeks analyzing a different area of the plant for possible improvements. The team members were different every quarter.  This covered all areas of the plant from HR-finance-asm line- truck dock.  With senior staff leading the discovery and the reviews there were few taboos or obstacles to any suggestions.   All that mattered was quality, process, IE, and profit.  All discoveries were documented and shared across the world with the other factories as best practices.  This saved other plants from having to find similar solutions.

It's misleading to characterize all manufacturers and methods under one umbrella.

In my opinion, the toy train industry is not especially focused on quality, customer satisfaction, and on time delivery.

So I guess you didn't read my post above ... OK, topic closed.