My son is contemplating the possibility of a career as a railroad engineer – not the on the engine sort, but the civil (well, more or less civil…) sort. Could anyone comment on what sort of college training/engineering degree would be appropriate? Opportunities in the field? Would be most appreciated!
Thanks!
Jamie Hall
BS Civil Engineering. Join one of the management training programs that the railroads have…
Dave H.
I will leave it to others to suggest a school or two with courses in the Civil Engineering program that would be helpful for someone wanting to get into a railroad’s engineering department.
I am told by those who are working in that field that no CE with railroad experience is on the unemployment line. Further, I am told that the UP expects to lose over half their engineering department to retirements in the next few years. Other railroads and engineering firms may be in the same situation. Suggests to me that a CE degree with courses in some of the specifics related to railroading is something worth pursuing
MC must be busy–but I’ve often heard him suggest that you really need to be a railroad-oriented civil engineer. None of these jack-of-all-trades (or -of-all-modes) guys will know what needs to be known.
This is a great opportunity if you wish diversity of geography, personal contacts with exceiting experiences, opportunity for creativity, and as you gain ‘whiskers’, personal respect.
After 35 years I would do it all again, perhaps with a few days thrown out.
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign is rebuilding its railway engineering program under Chris Barkin. UIUC at one time had its own department of railway engineering. UIUC has the best railway library in the world. Any good civil program will do, but it would be better if it had railway electives. Coupled with the education, it’s important to do internships at a large engineering firm with a railway practice, or with a Class I freight railroad.
Many freshly-minted graduates go straight to railway consulting and do well and build good careers. Working for a Class I freight railroad, however, gives insights into the culture and thinking of railways that cannot be made up in an entire consulting career. The experience working for a railway is like an instant credit check: it provides credibility, access, trust, and relationships in an industry that is 100% based on relationships. I have never walked into a room with a new group of railroaders when I wasn’t asked within the first minute, “What’s your railroad background?” And I ask the same of them. There is no one I have ever met in railroad management that I didn’t know someone in common, and usually fairly well.
There is no one with practical railway engineering experience looking for a job. The industry for all practical purposes did not hire anyone between 1975 and 1995, and between my generation and the next lies two decades with hardly a soul in it. Rapid advancement in responsibility, salary, and authority is easily accomplished because the seniority roster is so thin. In addition the business is booming because railways are the least sensitive form of transportation to energy prices by far.
I’d recommend getting the B.S. civil, unless he/she wants to go into rolling stock – if so mechanical or electrical. It is still possible to rise to the top at a railway engineering department with
I had an idea that there might be some good opportunities! Thanks, guys – I’m passing this all along to my son…
And keep the comments coming!
Jamie
You don’t need a “railroad” BSCE degree. Structural, soils, environmental will do.
Important thing is to demonstrate committment. How you paid your way through college may be as important as anything else. Railroads look for leadership skills. They look for good communications skills. Taking some economics or budgeting or business management courses can’t hurt. Project management courses would be good. A lot of railroad engineering is coordinating large maintenance projects, so project planning and coordination is critical.
Another option is Electrical engineering and go in through the signal department.
Dave H.
Signal engineering, which I have done, is regarded as a little bit weird at the Class Is, a subset way farther away from the core competency, track, than structures. Not to say that someone can’t rise through it and go into other departments, but there’s a higher risk of being stuck there. If signaling is the passion, great – there’s an immense shortage and people with engineering degrees, PEs, AND practical experience in signaling will never lack for a high-paying job at a consulting firm. But it will be a bit harder in my experience to move into operating, marketing, or finance, which is eventually necessary to advance beyond the engineering department.
There’s an old saying in railroading that there are three languages that no one else at the railroad understands: signal, air-brake, and operating rules. I’ve learned one well, one just enough to get by without embarassing myself, and the third not at all.
RWM
I have interviewed many new engineers for non-railroad related jobs and have found the points that dehusman makes very important. I always look for people who are not afraid to get their hands dirty.
dd
Maybe you meant “signal” engineering (or analysis, design, or maintenance, etc.) - but otherwise -
Isn’t it interesting that the other kind of railroad engineer - the kind that operates the locomotives, usually without a college degree - not only has to understand, but also is responsible for correctly applying and complying with all 3 of these subjects - air brakes, operating rules, and signals !
I think I could have written that more clearly.
“Signal engineering” is the philosophy, design, and maintenance, not just of the signal system but in its interaction with the operating rules, track arrangement, and geography. In the individual details signal engineering is deceptively simple, but the details interact in complex and headache-causing ways. I’ve spent too many weekends and nights unraveling a design error that only became apparent in the check at the very end of the design process, and backing the error all the way back through the design to find where the error occurred is difficult, and when it appears it’s usually a number transposition or a transcription error on something like a distance between two engineering stations. Then the design has to be pushed forward again from that point, and all of the changes rippled outward into the line maps, aspect charts, and circuit diagrams, and on every sheet where that information appears (which might well be over 500!), and no new errors introduced. It’s absolutely no fun.
Signal aspec
IMHO Signal engineers, as RWM describes them, are crazy. If they weren’t when they took the job, they will be, soon.[:)]
Both Jeaton and Railway Man seem to be saying that in the hungry years of the 1970’s and 1980’s the railroads let their engineering departments hollow out by failure to replace departing staff. To the extent new projects came along, much of the work that traditionally would have been performed by that department would be farmed out to outside consultants as a cheaper alternative.
Now, however, the the discussion seems to indicate that trend is being reversed or at least arrested. If I am summarizing what has been said correctly, what factors have changed? Obviously, one factor might be that the railroads are now more able financially to bear the burden of maintaining abilities in house, but is there something else at work here?
No seem about it. Railroads were a dying industry from circa 1960 to 1980. The long, steady, and brutal decline in demand for traditional railroad services resulted in a huge excess of mileage, equipment, labor, and management. When I graduated high school in the mid-1970s and let it be known I wanted to work for a railroad, my parents were dismayed to put it mildly, because they didn’t see any future in it. At the time they were correct, there wasn’t.
Farming out of projects to consultants actually didn’t begin to occur in significant amounts until the very late 1990s. Until that time the railroad engineering, finance, and other departments had plenty of staff to handle the work. At that time, however, the volume of work began to exceed the availability of the staffs. Simultaneously, the ranks were aging rapidly and retirements began en masse. Also simultaneously, investors’ demands for ROIs meant that railroads couldn’t embark on large-scale hiring programs for professional and technical staff, so the consulting work volume began to escalate steadily.
At this point in time, the railroads are quite lean in the professional and technical staff, and a majority of the people that remain have seniority dates in the early 1970s or 1960s and are on the verge of retirement. It’s an interesting question whether railroads will embark on a hiring spree, and there are differences of opinion and different strategies, at least on paper. The primary risk of hiring staff is that a company carries risk that demand for their services will decline. While no one thinks railroads are at much risk of another decline like the 1960-1970 era, why bother taking it when there are plenty of other firms willing to take it for you?
Whether railroads rehire dwindling professional and technical staff, or leave it to consulting firms, i
…As an outsider with RR engineering interests…this thread has had a real interesting run here…
What was the typical career path for those who are nearing retirement? Did they start with jobs in the field or did those with engineering degrees find starting spots in the home office engineering department?
[quote user=“Railway Man”]
No seem about it. Railroads were a dying industry from circa 1960 to 1980. The long, steady, and brutal decline in demand for traditional railroad services resulted in a huge excess of mileage, equipment, labor, and management. When I graduated high school in the mid-1970s and let it be known I wanted to work for a railroad, my parents were dismayed to put it mildly, because they didn’t see any future in it. At the time they were correct, there wasn’t.
Farming out of projects to consultants actually didn’t begin to occur in significant amounts until the very late 1990s. Until that time the railroad engineering, finance, and other departments had plenty of staff to handle the work. At that time, however, the volume of work began to exceed the availability of the staffs. Simultaneously, the ranks were aging rapidly and retirements began en masse. Also simultaneously, investors’ demands for ROIs meant that railroads couldn’t embark on large-scale hiring programs for professional and technical staff, so the consulting work volume began to escalate steadily.
At this point in time, the railroads are quite lean in the professional and technical staff, and a majority of the people that remain have seniority dates in the early 1970s or 1960s and are on the verge of retirement. It’s an interesting question whether railroads will embark on a hiring spree, and there are differences of opinion and different strategies, at least on paper. The primary risk of hiring staff is that a company carries risk that demand for their services will decline. While no one thinks railroads are at much risk of another decline like the 1960-1970 era, why bother taking it when there are plenty of other firms willing to take it for you?
Whether railroads rehire dwindling professional and technical staff, or leav
I agree Quentin… I’ve been reading this thread with great interest and enthusiasm, probably because I’ve been working in surveying for so long, much of it on and around railroad right-of-ways, mostly CSX. I’m a Survey Party Chief by trade.
About seven years ago I was working for a local, private consulting engineering firm who was contracted to survey the entire length of the South Florida Rail Corridor from West Palm Beach to Miami (CSX trackage) for a proposed double-tracking project. I worked on this project six days a week for almost two years under some of the most brutal conditions I’ve ever experienced. Before anybody could work within the r/w we had to attend a 16 hour “railroad flagman” course given by CSX. Anyone who didn’t hold a flagman card was not permitted to work on the project. I can honestly say that during that time I spent most of my working hours “standing down” trains as instructed by a CSX official responsible for that section of track we were working in and whom we were in constant radio contact with. If it weren’t for all the train traffic we could’ve easily completed our work in less than one year. Needless to say I got to see a lot of trains while at work which easily made up for the lousy work conditions.
Around five years ago, after that job ended, I went to work for the contractor to do construction layout for that double tracking project, about 72 route miles worth. The contractor was a joint venture of three companies… Herzog Contracting Corp., a unit of Herzog Transit Services, Granite Construction Co., and the Washington Group. The name of the joint venture was called “Tri-County Rail Constructors”. We (the survey dept.) laid out the tracks, frogs, switches and signals from one end o
Railroads that hire outside consultants based on price instead of the qualifications of the people who will manage, lead, and provide technical decisions are often disappointed in the work product. If it’s a qualified firm with qualified people that intend to be working for railroads 20 years from now, in my experience they will always make good on a bad product. A surprising number of large and complex projects have been recently awarded to firms with no experience at all, and no experienced personnel at all, in the job at hand. They were less expensive, however.
But that’s just my opinion and experience.
RWM