Photograph:
The caption for this photograph is, “Northern Pacific switchman or brakeman giving switching signal with lighted lantern.” Does anybody have any comment on what they see happening in this photograph?
I’d say it’s a posed safety training photo - illustrating one of the several reasons why the guy should not be leaning so far out from the car, esp. at night - because:
-
The brakeman is looking directly at the camera, instead of ahead as he should be. If this photo was for any other purpose, I suspect it would have been suppressed;
-
The lantern is lighted in daylight - no purpose for that otherwise;
3) His extended forearm is making contact with the sharp-ish edge of the switch target (ouch !);
4) The switch target does not have a flag or banner in the other direction - perpendicular to the motion of the car - so the presence of the sharp edge of the target would not be readily visible at night by lantern light.
I don’t see anything else notable about this photo, such as the car, the track, snow cover, switch stand or mechanism, etc.
- Paul North.
I guess its going to stay a mystery as it says im not allowed to see it.
I am mystified as to why you are not allowed to see it.
Without looking at any other comments, I wonder why a lantern is being used in broad daylight…? Wouldn’t it just be hand signals…
The long coat is also not safe for a trainman or switchman…definitely a posed “don’t do this” photo.
I am pretty sure that, as Paul notes, this is a posed picture in a collection of “this is why we say don’t give signals this way” for either the railroad or a professional publication. Given that he is facing the uncoupled end, I would wonder who he would actually be signaling. Without belaboring the lint-picking details, I think the sole point of the picture has been made adequately by the picture.
What is actually an interesting question is the methods and means of training railroad employees a hundred years ago, or nearly so. I suspect that by that time, there was some organized effort in that direction, rather than just throwing the newly hired out onto the yard and hoping they learned something from the old heads before they got killed or maimed or put a bunch of equipment on the ground.
Of course, that is only a suspicion, so it would be interesting to hear some historical insight from those more aware of how this was handled in the early part of the 20th century.
He is riding a shove, giving signals to the engineer behind him shoving the train (today there is a rule requiring you to face the direction of movement)…as is noted, this is a safety photo posed to teach new hires to be aware of close clearences and objects near or close to the tracks.
The target on the stand is a common one even today…from the tracks/train it would appear as no target, lined for normal movement, and if the target was visable from the train, it would indicate lined for diverging.
Did anyone notice his left foot is on the journal box…
Good catch - sharp eye, there ! [tup] I can see where that would lead to a pretty serious balance / secure footing problem if that truck hits a low joint or swivels away from the trainman, such as entering a left-hand turnout (switch) away from the camera in the apparent direction of forward motion (to the right). Also, even without that, notice that his feet are then spread out more horizontally, which would tend to roll him so that he is facing upwards, not ahead.
Makes this seem even more like a safety quiz - “How many safety problems can you find in this photo ?”
- Paul North.
Obviously it is a staged photo. Not only is the lantern being used in daylight, but the photo also appears to have been “retouched” to make the lantern brighter than it would have looked in daylight. The fact that the guy is looking at the photographer suggests a demonstration. Actually, I was thinking that it was used to demonstrate a hazard the unions wanted the railroad company to eliminate. Or a maybe it was hazard that had already caused an injury, and the photograph has been made to document the circumstances for a court case.
However, I had not noticed his foot being on the journal box, as Ed has pointed out, and that would swing the probability toward being a safety demonstration. Although, then it seems a bit strange to have one safety violation being so obvious and the other almost hidden when it could have been depicted just as obviously as the clearance issue. The hidden nature of the foot on the journal box does suggest a “see how many violations you can spot” type of photo, but I can’t spot anymore than the two. Nevertheless, the foot on the journal box would seen to rule out a grievance against the company because it would undermine their case of demonstrating negligence on the part of the company for the clearance issue.
Isn’t that Sgt Schultz?
Phil
I would tend to suspect that the coat is something commonly worn at the time. Not something we would allow today, but he’s not wearing hi-viz stuff either…
Historical perspective may be important for the foot on the journal box, too. I’ve seen worse presented as normal practice. Not to mention that if this was a posed shot, he may have found it uncomfortable posing for a period of time with both feet in the stirrup. The foot on the journal may have been an accident.
For that matter, we don’t know if that’s really a trainman in the picture. Could have been the photographer’s assistant…
I’m for the picture illustrating the dangers of close clearances.
Larry,
You make interesting points about the journal box. Also, I have seen lots of old photos showing trainmen wearing coats like the one on the photo.
It seems that the point of the photo is to illustrate a safety issue of clearance, and the question boils down to this: Who is intended to be instructed by the photo? There are two possibilities:
Obviously the photo is posed.
LOL!!!
It sure looks like him, albiet in younger, thinner days. [(-D]
He seems to know about as much as Sergeant Schultz usually admitted to.
Is he looking at the photographer, or at the wrist that’s about to receive a whack?
Were I riding, I would have been up a rung higher, clearing the switch stand and making for a more comfortable (for me) arm-to-foot distance. Nowadays one would have to be a contortionist to get the trailing foot onto the truck while having the leading foot in the stirrup and stretching out like that. (No, I haven’t tried it, and am not about to!).
How about the date on the car? “New 11-12”?