On-Board Chiefs Returning

[mucomix]

I may be wrong but I see a conductor on Amtrak trains as a holdover from a day gone by. In the day of mixed freight/PAX common carrier I can see the roll of the conductor keeping track of car movement.

In this day of operation I want a PAX/costumer service type of interaction. I would say the day of the “conductor” is a fixture of the past. And from what I have seen it is about a 50/50 mix half of the conductors are personable people type people the other half need to ride a coal train.

 

[haolerider]

I may be wrong but I see a conductor on Amtrak trains as a holdover from a day gone by. In the day of mixed freight/PAX common carrier I can see the roll of the conductor keeping track of car movement.
In this day of operation I want a PAX/costumer service type of interaction. I would say the day of the “conductor” is a fixture of the past. And from what I have seen it is about a 50/50 mix half of the conductors are personable people type people the other half need to ride a coal train.

VIA saw the same thing several years ago and moved the conductor to the engine and replaced them with Customer Service oriented employees. The Customer Service person collects tickets and supervises movement on and off the trains and then performs customer oriented work with the passengers. It give a much better impression, produces better passenger satisfaction and is a success. If amtrak were to try this it would be a major battle with the unions; however the results would be a positive movement upward.

 

[Mark]

I may be wrong but I see a conductor on Amtrak trains as a holdover from a day gone by. In the day of mixed freight/PAX common carrier I can see the roll of the conductor keeping track of car movement.
In this day of operation I want a PAX/costumer service type of interaction. I would say the day of the “conductor” is a fixture of the past. And from what I have seen it is about a 50/50 mix half of the conductors are personable people type people the other half need to ride a coal train.

VIA saw the same thing several years ago and moved the conductor to the engine and replaced them with Customer Service oriented employees. The Customer Service person collects tickets and supervises movement on and off the trains and then performs customer oriented work with the passengers. It give a much better impression, produces better passenger satisfaction and is a success. If amtrak were to try this it would be a major battle with the unions; however the results would be a positive movement upward.

Well, that's only part of the story. Its a little more complicated than that. Via, forever under the gun to reduce costs even more so than Amtrak, made an under the table deal with the BLET, (which represents most of the Locomotive Engineers in both the US and Canada), not to replace or move the Conductors to the head end but simply eliminate the position altogether:

"In 1997, before it was absorbed into the Teamsters, the BLE played pied piper to conductors on Canada’s VIA Rail, which is Canada’s intercity rail passenger operator. The BLE promised that if UTU-represented conductors signed A-Cards and voted to be represented by the BLE, the BLE would provide them with craft autonomy and protect those conductors’ jobs. The conductors signed the A-Cards and voted for BLE representation. Once the BLE had control of UTU contracts, the BLE signed an engineer-only agreement with VIA Rail. Hundreds of conductors lost their jobs, their health care insurance and their retirement benefits. Families of conductors were devastated. The Canadian Industrial Relations Board and the Canada Supreme Court agreed that the BLE “breached its statutory duty of fair representation.” What did the BLE say in its own defense? Its senior Canadian officer said under oath– his hand on a Bible -- that BLE promises were merely “campaign rhetoric" intended to gain the confidence of UTU conductors. The BLE’s senior Canadian officer said, under oath, that the BLE “cannot be held accountable for what was said during a campaign, and there can be no reasonable expectation on the part of UTU members that they would obtain all that had been promised.”

"In September 1997, VIA Rail moved to combine the crafts of conductor and locomotive engineer into a single craft and bargaining unit of “operating engineer.” VIA Rail said it recognized and understood its responsibility to train all affected employees so that they might meet the qualifications of the new single craft. VIA Rail promised to treat all employees equally. However, the BLET and VIA Rail later negotiated a very different result. The result of this contract was that all conductor positions at VIA Rail were immediately

eliminated with the concurrence of the BLET."

Give credit where credit is due- Not just to Via Rail Canada but the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, (BLET), for selling out the Conductor craft under false pretenses.

"OTTAWA – The Canadian Supreme Court has rejected an appeal by the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET), thus affirming a lower court ruling that the

BLET “breached its statutory duty of fair representation in negotiating three items of a collective bargaining agreement” with VIA Rail. All avenues of appeal have now been exhausted by the BLET. Thus, the BLET, now a division of the Teamsters Union, must pay as much as C$230,000 each to as many as 230 former UTU-represented former VIA Rail conductors – a potential liability in the tens of millions of dollars."

Was that a smart move by Via Rail Canada and the BLET? I think not and apparently neither did the Canadian government.

Engineers, Conductors and Assistant Conductors are essential to the safe operation of any train. Particularly those traveling over freight owned lines. Amtrak trains routinely have to shove back into stations or sidings on various routes. I've experienced several times instances where Conductors "walked the train" because a wayside detector tripped. As a passenger, every minute that I don't have to wait for somebody to walk back from the head end to do something is time saved. I agree Amtrak conductors could be considerably more customer service oriented but if something goes wrong you are going to want those people on board.

 

[gaspeamtrak]

Right on!!!

I may be wrong but I see a conductor on Amtrak trains as a holdover from a day gone by. In the day of mixed freight/PAX common carrier I can see the roll of the conductor keeping track of car movement.
In this day of operation I want a PAX/costumer service type of interaction. I would say the day of the “conductor” is a fixture of the past. And from what I have seen it is about a 50/50 mix half of the conductors are personable people type people the other half need to ride a coal train.

VIA saw the same thing several years ago and moved the conductor to the engine and replaced them with Customer Service oriented employees. The Customer Service person collects tickets and supervises movement on and off the trains and then performs customer oriented work with the passengers. It give a much better impression, produces better passenger satisfaction and is a success. If amtrak were to try this it would be a major battle with the unions; however the results would be a positive movement upward.

Well, that's only part of the story. Its a little more complicated than that. Via, forever under the gun to reduce costs even more so than Amtrak, made an under the table deal with the BLET, (which represents most of the Locomotive Engineers in both the US and Canada), not to replace or move the Conductors to the head end but simply eliminate the position altogether:

"In 1997, before it was absorbed into the Teamsters, the BLE played pied piper to conductors on Canada’s VIA Rail, which is Canada’s intercity rail passenger operator. The BLE promised that if UTU-represented conductors signed A-Cards and voted to be represented by the BLE, the BLE would provide them with craft autonomy and protect those conductors’ jobs. The conductors signed the A-Cards and voted for BLE representation. Once the BLE had control of UTU contracts, the BLE signed an engineer-only agreement with VIA Rail. Hundreds of conductors lost their jobs, their health care insurance and their retirement benefits. Families of conductors were devastated. The Canadian Industrial Relations Board and the Canada Supreme Court agreed that the BLE “breached its statutory duty of fair representation.” What did the BLE say in its own defense? Its senior Canadian officer said under oath– his hand on a Bible -- that BLE promises were merely “campaign rhetoric" intended to gain the confidence of UTU conductors. The BLE’s senior Canadian officer said, under oath, that the BLE “cannot be held accountable for what was said during a campaign, and there can be no reasonable expectation on the part of UTU members that they would obtain all that had been promised.”

"In September 1997, VIA Rail moved to combine the crafts of conductor and locomotive engineer into a single craft and bargaining unit of “operating engineer.” VIA Rail said it recognized and understood its responsibility to train all affected employees so that they might meet the qualifications of the new single craft. VIA Rail promised to treat all employees equally. However, the BLET and VIA Rail later negotiated a very different result. The result of this contract was that all conductor positions at VIA Rail were immediately

eliminated with the concurrence of the BLET."

Give credit where credit is due- Not just to Via Rail Canada but the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, (BLET), for selling out the Conductor craft under false pretenses.

"OTTAWA – The Canadian Supreme Court has rejected an appeal by the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET), thus affirming a lower court ruling that the

BLET “breached its statutory duty of fair representation in negotiating three items of a collective bargaining agreement” with VIA Rail. All avenues of appeal have now been exhausted by the BLET. Thus, the BLET, now a division of the Teamsters Union, must pay as much as C$230,000 each to as many as 230 former UTU-represented former VIA Rail conductors – a potential liability in the tens of millions of dollars."

Was that a smart move by Via Rail Canada and the BLET? I think not and apparently neither did the Canadian government.

Engineers, Conductors and Assistant Conductors are essential to the safe operation of any train. Particularly those traveling over freight owned lines. Amtrak trains routinely have to shove back into stations or sidings on various routes. I've experienced several times instances where Conductors "walked the train" because a wayside detector tripped. As a passenger, every minute that I don't have to wait for somebody to walk back from the head end to do something is time saved. I agree Amtrak conductors could be considerably more customer service oriented but if something goes wrong you are going to want those people on board.

 

[railiner]

In the olden days, the dining car crew was managed by the dining car steward (sometimes 4 cooks and 6 waiters in a 48 seat car!), the sleeping car attendants were managed by the Pullman Conductor (also any Pullman operated parlor and lounge car attendants), the chair car attendants, and any other specialty categories (stewardness-nurse, barber, train secretery, by the train conductor (who was ultimately in charge of all on the train, including engineer, fireman, brakemen, flagmen, baggagemen, RPO clerks, etc.Top feature trains like the old CZ or the Twentieth Century Limited had huge crews, as compared to trains of today.

In Amtraks history, in the early years, all of the employees onboard were still employed by the railroads that previously ran the train. Amtrak soon placed "Passenger Service Representatives" to ride and report to HQ on the operations of their assigned train, and to act as a liasson between Amtrak and the passengers. A short time later, Amtrak took over the employment of the service employees, but not the train and engine crews. Although the Conductors were still in charge of the service employees, as time passed many were not experienced in managing them, having previously been in freight service. Amtrak found a need to have one of their own on board to directly manage the service crews

and insure a uniform corporate level of service and hence the Chief of Onboard Service positions were created for the long distance routes.

To continue..... in 1976, five years after Amtrak began operations, the bankrupt Penn Central and other northeast railroads were taken over by the government created Conrail.

Conrail conveyed the Northeast Corridor to Amtrak, (and portions to some states). However Conrail continued to provide train and engine crews as well as other operations and maintenance employees. Little by little, Amtrak (and Metro North, and etc). began to directly employ the employees, including the train and engine crews.

Later on Amtrak started to take over the train and engine crews on Amtrak trains operated over host freight railroads. The position of Chief of Onboard Services was created before this national takeover of train and engine crews.

One of the things that resulted from this was train crews covering much greater distances than before. Instead of changing every 150 to 250 or so miles, they were now traveling sometimes up to 400 or 500 miles. this provided better "continuity".

It is my opinion, that Conductors should be all that is necessary to manage the relatively few remaining on board service employees. the conductors should be sent to crew bases for extensive initial training, and then perhaps annual recurrent training. Customer service, and leadership skills should be taught, and lack of same not tolerated by Amrak.

 

[EB_OBS]

In the olden days, the dining car crew was managed by the dining car steward (sometimes 4 cooks and 6 waiters in a 48 seat car!), the sleeping car attendants were managed by the Pullman Conductor (also any Pullman operated parlor and lounge car attendants), the chair car attendants, and any other specialty categories (stewardness-nurse, barber, train secretery, by the train conductor (who was ultimately in charge of all on the train, including engineer, fireman, brakemen, flagmen, baggagemen, RPO clerks, etc.Top feature trains like the old CZ or the Twentieth Century Limited had huge crews, as compared to trains of today.

In Amtraks history, in the early years, all of the employees onboard were still employed by the railroads that previously ran the train. Amtrak soon placed "Passenger Service Representatives" to ride and report to HQ on the operations of their assigned train, and to act as a liasson between Amtrak and the passengers. A short time later, Amtrak took over the employment of the service employees, but not the train and engine crews. Although the Conductors were still in charge of the service employees, as time passed many were not experienced in managing them, having previously been in freight service. Amtrak found a need to have one of their own on board to directly manage the service crews

and insure a uniform corporate level of service and hence the Chief of Onboard Service positions were created for the long distance routes.

To continue..... in 1976, five years after Amtrak began operations, the bankrupt Penn Central and other northeast railroads were taken over by the government created Conrail.

Conrail conveyed the Northeast Corridor to Amtrak, (and portions to some states). However Conrail continued to provide train and engine crews as well as other operations and maintenance employees. Little by little, Amtrak (and Metro North, and etc). began to directly employ the employees, including the train and engine crews.

Later on Amtrak started to take over the train and engine crews on Amtrak trains operated over host freight railroads. The position of Chief of Onboard Services was created before this national takeover of train and engine crews.

One of the things that resulted from this was train crews covering much greater distances than before. Instead of changing every 150 to 250 or so miles, they were now traveling sometimes up to 400 or 500 miles. this provided better "continuity".

It is my opinion, that Conductors should be all that is necessary to manage the relatively few remaining on board service employees. the conductors should be sent to crew bases for extensive initial training, and then perhaps annual recurrent training. Customer service, and leadership skills should be taught, and lack of same not tolerated by Amrak.

Just a thought, on my train in particular, the Empire Builder, there aren't just a few On Board Service employees. There are 14-16 OBS crew members during peak season. There are upwards of 500 passengers on this train at any given moment between Seattle, Minneapolis-St Paul and Chicago. There are many many situations on the train which the conductor does not have the time to deal with and still do his primary job of ensuring the safe movement of the train. Between the conductor and the assistant conductor there are a lot of responsibilities and having an OBS Chief on-board should add to the passenger's travel experience and at all times they should be available to assist the crew to perform their jobs. Many aspects of working on the train have suffered IMO from not having more active supervision on-board regularly. I hope to see that improve.

 

[AlanB]

I agree that on many trains dealing with customer issues would simply overwhelm the conductor, not to mention that frankly he/she shouldn't be having their attention diverted from more important matters like is the engineer still doing 79 when he just passed a signal indicating 30 MPH operation.

The big issue remains, finding Chiefs who actually get out and do their jobs as opposed to hiding all day in the Trans/Dorm and only appearing for meals. Additionally, the OBS actually need the power to actually do something to fix the issues with the customer's when they come up. That means being not only able, but willing to write up crew members who fail to do their jobs, but also to give out a comped meal to a passenger when need be, or some other form of compensation.

I'm not saying that they should be able to write blank checks either. or give out huge vouchers. But maybe vouchers of say $25 for something minor. Or as an example, although I'll admit I still don't know if he did this via his authority or if he just took the money out of his own pocket, but years ago what should have been a double spot by the Silver Palm at the Hialeah station turned into a single spot.

And because the engineer was waiting for the conductor to stop him, the train moved very slowly up the platform, with me following it as far as I could gradually watching my sleeper go beyond where I could go. That necessitated me running back to the coach section in the blazing Miami heat, only to have to walk through 2 coaches, 1 cafe, and 1 dining car carrying my luggage and laptop to get to my sleeper.

The Chief came by shortly after to apologize for the mistake and to explain what happened. Later that night, he saw me in the dining car having dinner and drinking a bottle of wine. He comped that bottle of wine for me as a way of apologizing for the mishap. And I won't deny that as a rather new rider to Amtrak, that was probably only my second LD trip, it went a long way to making me remember that trip more positively. He was one of 2 really great Chief's that I met over the years. But other's I never even saw, and that must be avoided too.

 

[EB_OBS]

The previous iteration of the OBS Chief program ceased to exist some time before I came to AMTRAK. I've heard quite a bit from fellow employees about the good ones and the bad ones. I happen to know personally several who are considered, by fellow co-workers, to be some of the best there were. Having spoken to them and to my new boss I do believe that not only were there some bad chiefs but there were also quite a few bad or oblivious and disconnected train managers thus the chiefs weren't getting the proper supervision or support in order to be successful themselves. Hopefully this time will be different.

 

[Steve4031]

Some of the old OBS chiefs moved to other positions. When I was on 48 going to NYP last January, I met one that I had on the 49 several years ago. I remembered her name, and voice. I was in the diner/lounge car, heard the voice, and called out her name. Surprisingly, she remembered me too. Her crew provided the best service I ever had on the Lake Shore Limited.

 

[rail_rider]

I traveled on the CZ this past August and had an excellent sleeper attendant and asked him if there was someone on board so I could compliment him. He directed me to a fellow who he said was his boss. This individual gave me his card which indicated that he was "Manager, On Board Service". Is this the same position as the COB?

 

[had8ley]

I traveled on the CZ this past August and had an excellent sleeper attendant and asked him if there was someone on board so I could compliment him. He directed me to a fellow who he said was his boss. This individual gave me his card which indicated that he was "Manager, On Board Service". Is this the same position as the COB?

No, I don't believe so. You were very fortunate to meet the person responsible for the proper performance by OBS personnel from a fixed land base (probably Chicago.) The reason I say lucky is that it is extremely hard to find managers that ride as often as they need to. This was also why the COB program went down the tubes~ there never was a cat on board who went away so the mice could play. He/she (the Mgr's. On Board Services) never showed up to check on the Chief's who were supposed to be checking on the Indians. The entire Chief thing is a boondoogle UNLESS Amtrak is trying to cram the VIA Rail program where there is no conductor; the second engineer handles switches and unloads baggage. Then the Chief collects tickets and has to come out of hiding.

 

[AlanB]

I traveled on the CZ this past August and had an excellent sleeper attendant and asked him if there was someone on board so I could compliment him. He directed me to a fellow who he said was his boss. This individual gave me his card which indicated that he was "Manager, On Board Service". Is this the same position as the COB?

No, I don't believe so. You were very fortunate to meet the person responsible for the proper performance by OBS personnel from a fixed land base (probably Chicago.) The reason I say lucky is that it is extremely hard to find managers that ride as often as they need to. This was also why the COB program went down the tubes~ there never was a cat on board who went away so the mice could play. He/she (the Mgr's. On Board Services) never showed up to check on the Chief's who were supposed to be checking on the Indians. The entire Chief thing is a boondoogle UNLESS Amtrak is trying to cram the VIA Rail program where there is no conductor; the second engineer handles switches and unloads baggage. Then the Chief collects tickets and has to come out of hiding.

Jay, first please remember that Amtrak isn't trying to do anything by bringing back the COB. They're being forced to do this because of a legal victory by the unions; this isn't Amtrak's choice.

Second, I'm sure you know as well as I that even when the boss does show up, those who never do their jobs suddenly seem full of energy and perform their duties with great alacrity. Five minutes after the boss is out of sight, they go right back to their lazy ways confident that their brother's won't rat them out.

What Amtrak really needs here is a team of 5 or 6 observers who are given rooms on regular runs, not in the Trans/Dorm, whose identities remain unknown to the crew. It would be their jobs to observe the COB, the COB's boss, and the crew in general and report back.

Once the bad ones learn that they will get written up, they'll either shape up or end up being shown the door and the cream will rise to the top.

 

[AAARGH!]

What Amtrak really needs here is a team of 5 or 6 observers who are given rooms on regular runs, not in the Trans/Dorm, whose identities remain unknown to the crew. It would be their jobs to observe the COB, the COB's boss, and the crew in general and report back.
Once the bad ones learn that they will get written up, they'll either shape up or end up being shown the door and the cream will rise to the top.

Alan, it sounds like you are suggesting a 'secret rider' program. I for one think this would be a tremendous idea if it is taken seriously by Amtrak and changes are made as a result (including promoting those who provide excellent service and punishing/retraining those who don't).

I would love to be a part of that program.

I would think they would need to shuffle the secret riders so they are not discovered (known) by the crews. Or, perhaps, have some online rail discussion board provide many qualified riders from which Amtrak can choose. Of course there would need to be a rigorous inspection / reporting paradigm, but qualified volunteers could handle it in my opinion.

 

[rail_rider]

I traveled on the CZ this past August and had an excellent sleeper attendant and asked him if there was someone on board so I could compliment him. He directed me to a fellow who he said was his boss. This individual gave me his card which indicated that he was "Manager, On Board Service". Is this the same position as the COB?

No, I don't believe so. You were very fortunate to meet the person responsible for the proper performance by OBS personnel from a fixed land base (probably Chicago.) The reason I say lucky is that it is extremely hard to find managers that ride as often as they need to. This was also why the COB program went down the tubes~ there never was a cat on board who went away so the mice could play. He/she (the Mgr's. On Board Services) never showed up to check on the Chief's who were supposed to be checking on the Indians. The entire Chief thing is a boondoogle UNLESS Amtrak is trying to cram the VIA Rail program where there is no conductor; the second engineer handles switches and unloads baggage. Then the Chief collects tickets and has to come out of hiding.

Jay, first please remember that Amtrak isn't trying to do anything by bringing back the COB. They're being forced to do this because of a legal victory by the unions; this isn't Amtrak's choice.

Second, I'm sure you know as well as I that even when the boss does show up, those who never do their jobs suddenly seem full of energy and perform their duties with great alacrity. Five minutes after the boss is out of sight, they go right back to their lazy ways confident that their brother's won't rat them out.

What Amtrak really needs here is a team of 5 or 6 observers who are given rooms on regular runs, not in the Trans/Dorm, whose identities remain unknown to the crew. It would be their jobs to observe the COB, the COB's boss, and the crew in general and report back.

Once the bad ones learn that they will get written up, they'll either shape up or end up being shown the door and the cream will rise to the top.

Alan, I agree with you about having secret riders who could travel unannounced to the staff. In retail we used secret shoppers all the time & it gave a insight to what the customer experienced when shopping. The Manager On Board that I ran into in August on the CZ was based out of Denver and he told me he rode back and forth a couple of times a month. He was very visable as I saw him all through the train. I was in a sleeper and he came trough at least three times. He spent a good 15 minutes talking with me about my various experiences on the CZ. I got a good feeling after talking with him.

 

[oldtimer]

I traveled on the CZ this past August and had an excellent sleeper attendant and asked him if there was someone on board so I could compliment him. He directed me to a fellow who he said was his boss. This individual gave me his card which indicated that he was "Manager, On Board Service". Is this the same position as the COB?

No, I don't believe so. You were very fortunate to meet the person responsible for the proper performance by OBS personnel from a fixed land base (probably Chicago.) The reason I say lucky is that it is extremely hard to find managers that ride as often as they need to. This was also why the COB program went down the tubes~ there never was a cat on board who went away so the mice could play. He/she (the Mgr's. On Board Services) never showed up to check on the Chief's who were supposed to be checking on the Indians. The entire Chief thing is a boondoogle UNLESS Amtrak is trying to cram the VIA Rail program where there is no conductor; the second engineer handles switches and unloads baggage. Then the Chief collects tickets and has to come out of hiding.

The Manager, On Board Service was the position that the National Mediation Board ruled belonged to the Chief of On Board Service, a union represented position. The National Mediation Board then ruled that the Managers would be replaced by a Chief on a one for one basis. Thus not every long distance train will have a Chief, as in the past.

Until all unions involved come to agreement with Amtrak the Via Rail situation will not happen on Amtrak.

From my years of experience I think that many Chiefs did their job and quite a few were excellent, but as in any group there were the bad ones. Amtrak has a discipline procedure to eliminate the bad ones. Yes I know that many here will say that the union gets the bad apples back. The union has the obligation to represent anyone under discipline investigation. Amtrak is the prosecutor, judge,jury and executioner in all cases until they get to the NMB level. When the NMB overturns an Amtrak discipline decision it is because somewhere in the procedure Amtrak made a mistake. So when a bad apple gets their job back it is not the unions fault but it is Amtrak's error.

So if a Chief is bad and constantly gets away with it Amtrak needs to do its job, but it must dot it's i's and cross it's t's!

:unsure: :unsure: :unsure:

 

[Bob Dylan]

Well since Im retired, and can tolerate riding trains long distances LOL, Ill volunteer for this position, just comp my

sleeper and meals, Ill do a first rate job for no pay, Im sure there are a few others on this forum who could be forced to do this also, the traveler is eliminated because every OBS in America knows him!!! :lol:

 

[Neil_M]

What Amtrak really needs here is a team of 5 or 6 observers who are given rooms on regular runs, not in the Trans/Dorm, whose identities remain unknown to the crew. It would be their jobs to observe the COB, the COB's boss, and the crew in general and report back.
Once the bad ones learn that they will get written up, they'll either shape up or end up being shown the door and the cream will rise to the top.

We have those on our trains, it does help as having an 'outside' pair of eyes often sees things that those on the inside either don't think important or just cant be bothered to report.

It would also maybe make the weaker on train team members raise their game as you never know who you are dealing with.

Surprised Amtrak doesn't have them already.

 

[DesertRat]

Well....I guess I'm the only one who thought this was about chefs...? :blink: I was all for that until I re-read the topic title.

Interesting stuff anyway...

 

[had8ley]

I traveled on the CZ this past August and had an excellent sleeper attendant and asked him if there was someone on board so I could compliment him. He directed me to a fellow who he said was his boss. This individual gave me his card which indicated that he was "Manager, On Board Service". Is this the same position as the COB?

No, I don't believe so. You were very fortunate to meet the person responsible for the proper performance by OBS personnel from a fixed land base (probably Chicago.) The reason I say lucky is that it is extremely hard to find managers that ride as often as they need to. This was also why the COB program went down the tubes~ there never was a cat on board who went away so the mice could play. He/she (the Mgr's. On Board Services) never showed up to check on the Chief's who were supposed to be checking on the Indians. The entire Chief thing is a boondoogle UNLESS Amtrak is trying to cram the VIA Rail program where there is no conductor; the second engineer handles switches and unloads baggage. Then the Chief collects tickets and has to come out of hiding.

Jay, first please remember that Amtrak isn't trying to do anything by bringing back the COB. They're being forced to do this because of a legal victory by the unions; this isn't Amtrak's choice.

Second, I'm sure you know as well as I that even when the boss does show up, those who never do their jobs suddenly seem full of energy and perform their duties with great alacrity. Five minutes after the boss is out of sight, they go right back to their lazy ways confident that their brother's won't rat them out.

What Amtrak really needs here is a team of 5 or 6 observers who are given rooms on regular runs, not in the Trans/Dorm, whose identities remain unknown to the crew. It would be their jobs to observe the COB, the COB's boss, and the crew in general and report back.

Once the bad ones learn that they will get written up, they'll either shape up or end up being shown the door and the cream will rise to the top.

Alan;

As usual you are absolutely correct. I was not aware that the Chiefs had a suit against Amtrak as they are in a different union that I am. Also, it probably has been over 5 or 6 years since Amtrak yanked them off the trains. I'm guessing they're part of the TCU~ but that's a wild guess. I'm not so sure this is a victory for either side. There were numerous L/D trips where the only way we even knew we had a chief was watching him de-train ahead of the pax. My reason for suggesting that Amtrak might take advantage of this situation is our union (BLE-T) president was arrested for taking $20,000 in bribes from a FELA attorney last week. He is the third prez in a row to get into a legal tangle and will probably have to resign. This might give Amtrak some leverage in putting two up front and two (Cond and A/C) less in back. I doubt there are many days that Amtrak hasn't looked at this scenario.

 

[Upstate]

What Amtrak really needs here is a team of 5 or 6 observers who are given rooms on regular runs, not in the Trans/Dorm, whose identities remain unknown to the crew. It would be their jobs to observe the COB, the COB's boss, and the crew in general and report back.

I agree but also they need to not just be given rooms, but also spend time in coach. Making sure the coach is clean, reporting when passengers are treated like cattle, and looking for overzealous attendants, ect.

 

[AAARGH!]

What Amtrak really needs here is a team of 5 or 6 observers who are given rooms on regular runs, not in the Trans/Dorm, whose identities remain unknown to the crew. It would be their jobs to observe the COB, the COB's boss, and the crew in general and report back.

I agree but also they need to not just be given rooms, but also spend time in coach. Making sure the coach is clean, reporting when passengers are treated like cattle, and looking for overzealous attendants, ect.

Agreed.

 

[wayman]

This might give Amtrak some leverage in putting two up front and two (Cond and A/C) less in back. I doubt there are many days that Amtrak hasn't looked at this scenario.

What would the rationale be for eliminating the A/C position? I mean, I understand that it would save Amtrak money, but I don't see why it's reasonable to think that one new person -- COB -- could assume the duties of about 1 1/2 people -- the parts of the C's job that pertain to passengers, and the A/C's job if he is eliminated.

Also, as others have said, under the current agreement the new COB's replace the old MOB's one-for-one, and there weren't enough MOB's to have one per train-set. There's no way Amtrak could move the Conductor to the head-end systematically if there isn't a COB on every train... so there would have to be an expansion of the COB program before that could happen, I should think. I don't see how it could be an immediate change, even if there's a current political situation that might give Amtrak leverage against the BLE-T union.

 

[had8ley]

The A/C's most obvious job is working baggage which VIA gave to the second engineer. Eliminating both trainmen would not be hard to do and get by. There's just one huge hurdle as mentioned in other posts~ The UNIONS ! BTW, I just came back from picking up some tix at a manned station and was told Amtrak has been interviewing for On Board Chiefs for a month or better.

 

[sunchaser]

What Amtrak really needs here is a team of 5 or 6 observers who are given rooms on regular runs, not in the Trans/Dorm, whose identities remain unknown to the crew. It would be their jobs to observe the COB, the COB's boss, and the crew in general and report back.

I agree but also they need to not just be given rooms, but also spend time in coach. Making sure the coach is clean, reporting when passengers are treated like cattle, and looking for overzealous attendants, ect.

Agreed.

I think there was an OBS on the California Zephyr & Coast Starlight(s) in July-there were several gentlemen in full suits heading back & forth from the the TransDorms.

How can you identify them? Do they wear name tags? I did not see any interactions but a glance & small smile our direction as they walked by the bedroom, so I thought maybe they were low level Amtrak execs.

 

[had8ley]

This might give Amtrak some leverage in putting two up front and two (Cond and A/C) less in back. I doubt there are many days that Amtrak hasn't looked at this scenario.

What would the rationale be for eliminating the A/C position?

VIA Rail has been doing it for some time now. From people who have ridden up north I'm told the Chief is one of the hardest working people on the crew; helping in the diner and lounges and one was even seen helping a SCA make up beds when there was a mid-route turn over of rooms in addition to lifting tickets.