[PRCo] Re: training motormen

[Edward H. Lybarger]

And our eyes and brains can glaze over trying to analyze all this.  Sorry,
but I don't think this level of detail is at all necessary for a 2-mile
demonstration railway with one signalled grade crossing.  But you could run
it by Windle to see what he thinks.

-----Original Message-----
From: pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org
[mailto:pittsburgh-railways-bounce at lists.dementia.org]On Behalf Of Fred
Schneider
Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 8:12 PM
To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
Subject: [PRCo] Re: training motormen


How many failed may be a lot easier to answer than how many were simply
marginal.

Rolling back on hills might only be a problem with a 1700 because the brake
release was virtually instantaneous ... because they were released using
(electric) solenoids in the drum brake actuator, and because electricity
travels
at 186,000 miles per second, the act of moving an actuator rod a very small
fraction of an inch is going to take place one hell of a lot faster than a
man
can move his foot from the brake pedal to the power pedal.  (I think that
Jim
Holland would testify that San Francisco Municipal Railway motormen favored
all
electric cars with front door interlocks on the brakes ... it allowed the
motorman to put the foot on the accelerator, press it down, then close the
front
door, which in turn released the brakes and allowed the motoring contactors
to
close and apply power to the motors ..... no slippage.

I doubt that it was ever a problem on an air car because it takes time for
the
air to evacuate a brake cylinder.  And with an air-brake car, with one hand
used
to work the brake valve and the other to operate the motor controller, you
simply time the release to be almost off when you pull power.

I remember some bus drivers here in Lancaster (back in the days of straight
shift ACF Brill buses), that would start on a hill by fully depressing the
air
brake pedal.  That increased the brake pressure in the cylinders and
required
more time to release the air.  It gave them enough time to move the foot to
the
throttle, depress it, and let the clutch out before the bus rolled backward.

But, as well we know, that is only one of hundreds of reasons why you might
not
wish to keep an operator.

How long were training classes ... maybe we could find that in the trade
magazines of the period or in ATA or AERA reports.  However, I think a week
of
class room and practice operating was probably pretty close to the norm to
get a
man or woman trained to the point you could put them on the streets under
close
supervision.  After that you had however long it took with a regular
operator to
familiarize them with the routes that operated out of the division or
carbarn to
which they were being assigned.  I would imagine that one shift on each line
was
probably more or less normal.  Therefore, a city man working out of Millvale
could probably wrap up his training in another five days (routes, 1, 2, 3,
4,
5).  A Keating man needed to cover 6, 7, 8, 9, 10-15, 13 and 21 ... might
take a
week and a half until you could put him on the extra board.  A man at
McKeesport
Carbarn, who might work Wilmerding, 56, 68, 98 might do it in four days.
With
this in mind, perhaps two weeks from start to finish.  The route training
was
done so that the operator knows what streets are involved, where the fare
zones
boundaries are, perhaps where traffic generators are, and any decent mentor
operator will point out the problem areas.

By the way, the Baltimore Streetcar Museum training, when I started, was ten
consecutive Saturday mornings from 9 until noon, and then five days as a
conductor (we actually made change on the car 15 years ago) and then another
five days as a motorman.  After that you were on your own.  I think Dick
Lloyd
patterned that on his experiences with Baltimore Transit Company.

We should also consider that PRC was probably training relatively young men.
It
is a hell of a lot easier to train a 25-year old than a super-annuated
railfan.
First of all, the 25 year old has never run the car, he knows nothing about
it,
and he probably understands that he knows nothing, and the mind works faster
than it will at any time in his wife.   That makes training easy.   Some of
these older railfans may think they know more than they do (moi included).

Were operators watched after their initial training?  Certainly.  For a
variety
of reasons.  Often people totally unknown were hired to ride the cars to
make
sure that all the fares were being registered and turned in.  That same
problem
happens today.

Operators were also watched by regular supervisors.  That puzzled me because
I
would certainly drive more carefully if I knew an inspector was on boarded.
A
member of the Miami, Florida training cadre explained to me (in 1957) that
all
drivers will start out being more conservative when they are being observed,
but
it was his experience that after 15 minutes most lapsed into their normal
unsafe
patterns.  Therefore, using existing supervision to police them was
effective.
He could make a round trip with most drivers and find out what they are
doing
wrong.

Also, I would suspect that the interval between accidents and complaints /
commendations from the public can also be used to determine which men /
women
they needed to watch more closely.  If Joe's revenue was higher than
average, he
received letters of commendation once in while and no hate mail, and he
hadn't
been involved in a chargeable accident in 27 years, why would you want to
waste
time riding with him.  You are still supervising him but perhaps in a more
cost
effective way than putting a man on the vehicle..

Have I ever seen supervisors on a car or bus?  Yes.  I remember a mentor
driver
sitting across from a regular driver on a C bus in Philadelphia.

How long did it take to teach someone how to run a trolley.  I'll revert
back to
something John Swindler said ... he worked his way through college by
dodging L
columns in Chicago.  He said it took several weeks to make a bus driver.
But
six months to make a bus operator.  The latter, in John's find, was someone
who
could maintain a schedule day after day with seeming no effort.  He was the
man
who knew that you pulled into a stop with the butt end of the coach hanging
out
in traffic ... you opened the front door for one passenger, simultaneously
hit
the left turn signal, closed the door as her left food was on the stop, and
pulled away from the curve ... the rear of the bus all the while protecting
you
from traffic sweeping around the bus that would be holding you up at the
next
traffic light.  Thank about it.  There are a lot of things that make a good
operator which you cannot teach in classes because they are not politically
correct.

Did I answer you Dennis?

Let's see what Herb B. wants to add.

fws

"Dennis F. Cramer" wrote:

>     Having the opportunity to briefly chat with Fred Schneider on Saturday
> at the PTM festivities, he brought up the subject of how long would it
take
> to train operators to run a route such as Fineview.  He then answered his
> own question with the reply that it probably took no longer than any other
> route, because the operators grew up dealing with hills.
>
>     To further expand the thought, most of us who grew up around here also
> learned to drive a standard transmission dealing with the hills and were
> relatively successful.  However, I still find drivers drifting backwards
on
> hills to get going again as they try to engage the transmission.
>
>     Just as we have successful automobile drivers today and those whom are
> not so successful, I too feel that PRCo had their fare share of guys who
> could not successfully handle a car on a hill.  How many operators failed
to
> pass training?  We will probably never know, but there had to be those who
> could not do the task.
>
>      Every so often at PTM, we come across a student operator who just
never
> gets the feel for operating a car and never makes it to the point of being
> successful.  We train about 5 to 10 new operators a year.  Most of them
make
> it, but there is a small percentage who do not.  I assume then, Pittsburgh
> Railways had the same problems.  I also assume they had operators who
could
> pass the training, but still got themselves into situations they could not
> get out of due to a limited skill level.
>
> Some questions that may never be answered:
>
> How long was motorman training?
>
> Did that time period change over the years?
>
> What percentage failed the training?
>
> What percentage passed, but then put their passengers at risk because of
> limited ability?
>
> Was there special training for certain routes?
>
> Were operators routinely observed by supervisors as to their abilities?
>
> How many motormen were fired due to a lack of ability?
>
> When did the union come to Pittsburgh Railways and how many poor operators
> did they protect?
>
> Just some rambling thoughts to get the list going again.  Have a great
> summer!
>
> Dennis F. Cramer--Teacher-Trombonist-Historian-Conductor
> www.geocities.com/armconband