Back in the post-Dieselization days, many states had “Full-Crew Laws”, New York, among them. They required a 6-man crew on freight trains. The crewmen were: 1. Engineer: Duties obvious. 2. Fireman: Duties? Extra eyes, perhaps. 3. Head-end Brakeman: He threw the switch into the siding. 4. Rear-end Brakeman: He closed the switch. 5. Conductor: He did the paperwork. 6. Flagman: He protected the rear of the train in case of unforseen stoppage, even in CTC or ABS territory. I have seen “Trainmen” on passenger trains. What were their duties? Did they have them on freights, too? Some passenger trains also had Pullman conductors, and assistants, in addition to the regular crew. I guess that guaranteed the equitable (honest) division of fare money. Nowadays, the two-man crew is normal, adding a brakeman if much switching is going to be involved, en route.
Amazing, wasn’t it? But way back, all those folks had something real to do. Times changed; work rules changed (or sometimes state legislation) much more slowly. At least in some cases the “Trainmen” on passenger trains functioned much like Assistant Conductors. The Conductor, as always, having ultimate responsibility for operating the train on schedule and to orders, and the trainmen helping (a lot on a crowded run) in collecting fares and all that. The Pullman people were, before the breakup of Pullman, completely independent of the railroad and took care of the Pullmans and their passengers – they were Pullman, not railroad, employees.
My duties as a trainman on the Adirondack are analagous to a freight brakeman, plus the assistant conductor thing. Since we do runarounds on both ends of our trips, I usually get to make the break, direct the loco to the other end of the train (throwing and restoring switches in the process), and making the hitch.
Since I don’t think there were any head-end brakemen on passenger runs “back in the day,” (corrections welcomed), I’d imagine that anyplace that there was such work to be done and there wasn’t a local ground crew to handle it, they did it.
On the Rock Island the BRT agreement called for a second brakeman on any passenger train of six cars or more. That is reason Quad Cities and Peoria Rockets operated with five cars or less the last few years.
Indiana full crew law called for third brakeman (freight) over 69 cars.
North Dakota was third man over 40 cars and brakemen were “Grandfathered” when law repealed.
Application of the Indiana law permitted trains to operate the mile between the station at Vincinnes and the Wabash River, which was the Illinois state line, without the 3rd brakeman…sometimes it is amazing how laws and ‘comfort’ get applied.
Most of the trains I rode in the South had a three man train crew: conductor and two brakemen. The rearend brakeman wore a uniform and asisted the conductor–and flagged when necessary. The frontend brakeman did not have to wear a uniform, and took care of the checked baggage. There may have been some baggagemen whose sole responsibilty was checked baggage.
Johnny, that was my experience as well. Where I grew up, one crew went south on the local freight and came back north on a passenger run. The conductor and one of the brakemen, at least, got into uniforms for the return trip. I’m pretty sure said brakeman was the “trainman”. Not sure whether the other brakeman rode in the cab or handled baggage. He was in the cab the time I rode with one engineer on his very last run (he was glad to allow me into the cab when he couldn’t be dismissed for it).
What an unbelievable simplification of the range of duties / responsibilites of the crew! In the days before radio, all moves had to be done with hand signals. Sometimes every crewman was needed to relay signals due to train length and track curvature.
Agreed
Does the term “on-the-job training” mean anything to you?
In addition to “throwing the switch”, he handled head-end train problems enroute, such as hotboxes, sticky brakes, and separations requiring replacement of knuckles and/or chaining drawbars.
Same as #3, except that he handles the rear-end of the train.
In addition to “doing the paperwork” which, in the ‘old days’, was quite cumbersome, as the conductor had a waybill for every car in his train. He sometimes assisted the brakemen when needed (depending on his personality); he also had to arrange the work to be done enroute regarding set-outs and pick-ups.
Agreed.
I never worked on a 6-man crew, but there were certainly many times where all 5 crewmen were utilized; granted, it wasn’t every trip where all 5 would be used, but it was often enough. Don’t forget, these were the days of brass journals and no radios.
Now, with radio communication, roller bearings, and modern power, there is barely enough work for 2 people, unless it is a switch
[:O] Early on in my railroad-related career, I was politely and pre-cautiously advised - in advance of any such circumstance, fortunately - that in railroad circles this particular ‘F-word’ was much worse than the other one, and could be considered to be ‘fightin’ words’. So if I knew what was good and better for me, not to use it, or at least not in ‘mixed’ company with union members.
Which is not to say that there have not been some learned and earnest discussions over the positions, practices, and duties such as those discussed above, and that the euphemisms ‘overmanning’ and/ or ‘excess personnel’, etc. haven’t been used instead, even by members of the respective Brotherhoods. But not that word. It’s about as volatile as ‘scab’, and others of like kind. Great for annoying and enraging others, but does about zero for mutual respect, understanding, and effective communication between opposing viewpoints. See above posts for confirmation of that inflammatory effect on attitudes, etc. [sigh]
[2c]A little history.Many times no one can remember why a particular staffing issue comes up.
I’ll throw my 2 cents worth on a staffing/ featherbedding issue that happens in New York City that contractors complain about.
In NY it is a union requirement that the construction elevators be manned at any time there are personal working on the job site on any floor other than the street level. Now in any non union city there is no such requirement. (I’ll sight Kansas City as an example)
In KC if there is a crew working late usually they will walk down the stairs from a high rise contruction project, if no one is manning the elevators or someone will leave an elevator car on the floor where the crew is working. and the crew can use it to get out of the building under construction. (depending on circumstances)
In NYC as long as any work is being done on the site on any other floor other than the street level the elevators must be manned according to union rules(Not city or state). Even if it is only 1 person who is working.
What a lot of people do not understand is the reason why this came about. About 1910 or 1915 in a project a work was injured & trapped or pinned in a site during the evening hours. During the couse of the evening he bleed to death from his injuries. From what I remember about what I read on this incident the worker cried for help, and his cries were heard by others in the area, It was not til morning when other workers arrived for work that the deceased was found.
The trade guilds were VERY incensed by the reaction of the site owners response and demanded that in future all job sites would have a minimum of 2 persons on site.
Many times times these requlations come about because of the trade off between cost/benefit does not calculate the human element of what workers or management considers safe practices. Then thro
So it is with firefighting today - it’s called “two in - two out” and requires that if there are interior operations going on, there must be a crew standing by outside to come to their aid if something happens. Said crew should have training in such rescue operations, and their sole function is to serve as that rescue crew - they don’t fight fire.
That’s a nationwide thing.
In fact, it’s held that in order to properly mount an interior attack at a fire, one needs some 15 firefighters, to cover all of the necessary functions. That’s why you’ll see as many apparatus as you do showing up at the scene of a reported fire.
The problem with the term “featherbedding” is that it’s pretty much been derogetory since day one.
Automation, in effect, invented the term “featherbedding”, for better or for worse. And of course it held for jobs and instustried beyond railroading. But the fireman in the diesel cab was the most conspicuos of situations. No, there was no more need to shovel coal, draw water, check this, check that, thus management felt it was time to elimenate the left hand seat. The side of a second set of eyes, other needs of diesels enroute, and solitary boredom of a single cab occupant did not carry to the bottom line as far as management was concerned. The unions had contracts, the unions had dues paying members, the unions had this and more to defend. So you had bitter fighting between the two parties. And although I would like to take the side of safety with a second set of eyes and “company” for the other cab member, signaling, radio, and other technologies have limeted that arguement. Other factors boiling down to two man crews and no cabooses, infact, supports the “four eyes for safety and two heads for company” factor. There were managers so close to retirement back then that they turned away to let future generations fight the fight (both railroad and union management that is) or let it play out in time (which is really what happened. The fact is that technology did elimenate the need for certain jobs or at least honed down the resposiblities to where consolidation of some jobs was eaily and economically accomplished. It the long run, and from this long distance of time, featherbedding was highly overblown by management then and under played by the unions. When negative economics pinched in on both turfs they learned to talk rather than fight so that new work rules that are both safe and economical have evolved. (As for my personal feelings, I do feel more comfortable with at least one pair or more eyes in control as long as they are free of abusive substances, well rested-fatigue free, and properly trained and sup
Since your question regarding “Trainmen” has not been directly answered, here it is:
The term trainman is a generic term for anyone in “train service” i.e., anyone not in “engine service”. The hat badge that you obviously saw was simply an identifier for a brakeman or flagman working on a passenger train. The Conductor wore a different hat badge identifying him to all concerned as the Conductor.
So, a trainman could be a conductor or brakeman or flagman, as they were all in train service. Those in engine service were hostlers, engineers and firemen (who on many roads worked hoslter positions as well). Some hostlers were actually part of the Mechanical Department on some roads, as well.
“Simplification”, yet you agree with me? 1 - Engineer: agreed. 2 - Fireman: Featherbedding = OJT? The conductors do that now. 3 & 4: what if the train had an odd number of cars? Where do you split the diff? 5 - Conductor: why did “personality” come into play, only if he wasn’t related to the brakeman? Was that in the union rules? 6 - Flagman: you agree. Diesels, and radios,have obviated these old jobs. The conductor gets a nice view and can be in charge of the microwave. Computers and trackside readers give him the wheel report. Q: when a conductor is selected for an engineer position, does he have to change unions? Still would like to know if theire were “Trainmen” on freights.
Trainman could be generic for anyone who works aboard a train, usually used by non railroaders. Railroaders are usually more specific. Also, especially on commuter railroads, Trainman was a specific post in some cases or general post in others. In both freight and pasenger service there was the engine crew: Engineer, Fireman, and Head Brakeman or Brakemen (freight service, pre airbrakes needed to go over tops of cars to set hand brakes). Aboard a train: Conductor, Flagman, Rear Brakeman (men), Head Brakeman (passenger service), perhaps Trainman and Collector. Again remember, each railroad had different operating procedures and even jobs with same titles may have had different responsiblities. I do have a Trainman’s hat badage from the Lackawanna and remember seeing Collector and Brakeman badges in addition to Conductor. But that was the Lackawanna which doesn’t mean it was the same on the Erie, the Burlington or the Southern. But members of the press would identify everyone as “trainman” and every old lady would call them "conductor:.
I dug out a copy of the 1968 edition Uniform Code of Operating Rules. Here’s a couple of snippets:
From Rule 107, "Conductors are responsible for the position of switches used by them and their trainmen.
from Rul"e 204, “One additional copy of all train orders and clearances will be delivered to the engineer, and a copy to the rear trainman.”
Notice it doesn’t say brakeman or rear brakeman, or flagman. They are all covered under the general term trainman. It also applies equally to freight or passenger service.
As 4merroad4man said, using trainmen to mean anyone in train service would include the conductor. So yes, freight trains did, and still do have trainmen, depending on the specific context being used. Maybe you could say, for most railroads anyway, all conductors are traimen, but not all trainmen are conductors.
Now a days you don’t have to change union affiliation when going from train to engine service. We have trainmen who are members of the BLET and engineers who are UTU. The only thing is that where I am, the BLET holds the contract for enginemen and the UTU holds it for trainmen. If you are an engr who is in the UTU, you don’t get to vote on contract issues. A condr in the BLET has no say on UTU matters.
At the risk of starting a brouhaha[:-,] and being acused of highjacking the thread,[oX)]
I think the thread is going far-a- field from the original topic title of “Featherbedding.”[2c]
“Featherbedding” as a term had its roots in the railroad industry of the 1950’s and 1960’s. It was originally a very perjorative term that was applied; as previously noted in this thread to Locomotive Firemen(absolutely a necessarly job on a steam locomotive. But beyond an extra set of eyes in some movements on a diesel engine very little was required of the job to run the locomotive.
The job function in a diesel locomotive fireman had moved from absolutely necessary in a steam engine to a position mandated by union contract–job protection, etc on diesels. Thus, the perjorative term of featherbed job was applied to it. Verbally, it went from a noun to describe a featherbed job , to an adjective and/or a verb to describe a job (to) featherbed,featherbeding or featherbedder).
In many cases outside the railroad industry) to describe a mandated job per a contractual obligation (i.e.construction industry job protected by a contract, crane operator where there was no lifting to be required.) As the term became used to describe various jobs ‘easy’ to ‘no effort needed’. Featherbedding became institutionalized in the language, and is used by many to describe job or situations of minimal effort.
And when the railroads began to litigate the removal of Cabooses from train service, many stories in newspapers and magazines referred to the cabooses crew as “featherbedders”. Again, the perjorative was used to gain sympathy for their removal. [2c]