ATTRIBUTES THAT MAKE A GOOD ENGINEER.
The locomotive engine which reaches nearest perfection, is one which performs the greatest amount of work at the least cost for fuel, lubricants, wear and tear of machinery, and of the track traversed: the nearest approach to perfection in an engineer, is the man who can work the engine so as to develop its best capabilities at the least cost. Poets are said to be born, not made. The same may be said of engineers. One man may have charge of an engine for only a few months, and yet exhibit thorough knowledge of his business, displaying sagacity resembling instinct concerning the treatment necessary to secure the best performance from his engine: another man, who appears equally intelligent in matters not pertaining to the locomotive, never develops a thorough understanding of the machine.
HOW ENGINEERING KNOWLEDGE AND SKILL ARE ACQUIRED.
A man who possesses the natural gifts necessary for the making of a good engineer, will advance more rapidly in acquiring mastery of the business than does one whom Nature intended for a ditcher. But there is no royal road to the knowledge requisite for making a first-class engineer. The capability of handling an engine can be acquired by a few months’ practice. Opening the throttle, and moving the reverse lever, require but scanty skill; there is no great accomplishment in being able to pack a gland, or tighten up a loose nut; but the magazine of practical knowledge, which enables an engineer to meet every emergency with calmness and promptitude, is obtained only by years of experience on the footboard, and by assiduous observation while there.
PUBLIC INTEREST IN LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS.
Ever since the incipiency of the railroad system, a close interest has been manifested by the general public in the character and capabilities of locomotive engineers. This is natural, for no other class of men hold the safe-keeping of so much life and property in their hands.
IGNORANCE VERSUS KNOWLEDGE.
Two leading pioneers of railway progress in Europe took diametrically opposite views of the intellectual qualities best calculated to make a good engineer. George Stephenson preferred intelligent men, well educated and read up in mechanical and physical science; Brunel recommended illiterate men for taking charge of engines, on the novel hypothesis, that, having nothing else in their heads, there would be abundant room for the acquirement of knowledge respecting their work. In every test of skill, the intelligent men proved victors.