A careful perusal of Forney’s Catechism of the Locomotive will teach the young engineer valuable lessons about his engine which can be daily substantiated by practice. In nearly every instance, reading such a work acts as a stimulant to the perceptive faculties of an engineer. An explanation of a point helps to throw new light on something that was hazy, but now appears perfectly clear. An assertion made that a man does not agree with provokes thought, and thought leads to investigation. A writer may continually present matters at variance with the views of a reader, and yet be the means of imparting valuable knowledge. When an engineer wishes to gain a thorough knowledge of the valve-motion,—and most of us pride ourselves on what we know about this subject,—he may go in for a systematic study of Auchincloss on Link and Valve Motions. Here he will obtain information that can never be reached by mere practice with the actual motion; yet access to, and observation of, the working-motion, will engrave the principles upon his memory so that they can never be forgotten. Porter on the Indicator is a good source from whence accurate knowledge respecting the expansive working of steam can be obtained. Many other springs of knowledge flow clear and free. What is needed is the inclination to receive and the determination to obtain. When a man is searching honestly for information upon mechanical subjects, he will quickly find means of gratifying his desire.
CHAPTER II.
HOW LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS ARE MADE.
RELIABLE MEN NEEDED TO RUN LOCOMOTIVES.
Locomotive engine running is one of the most modern of trades, consequently its acquirement has not been controlled by the exact methods associated with ancient guild apprenticeships. Nevertheless, graduates to this business do not take charge of the iron horse without the full meed of experience and skill requisite for performing their duties successfully. The man who runs a locomotive engine on our crowded railroads has so much valuable property, directly and indirectly, under his care, so much of life and limb depending upon his skill and ability, that railroad companies are not likely to intrust the position to those with a suspicion of incompetency resting upon them.
EARLY METHODS OF MAKING LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS.
The prevailing methods of raising locomotive engineers have been evolved from experience with the kind of men best adapted to fill the position. In the early days of the railroad world, when such men as George Stephenson, Horatio Allen, John B. Jervis, Ross Winans, and other pioneer engineers, demonstrated the successful operation of the locomotive, they usually turned over the care of their engines to the men who had assisted in constructing the machines, or in putting them together. This was the best that could be done at the time; and the men selected generally proved competent for the trust reposed in them; but it gave rise to a belief that no man could run a locomotive successfully unless he were a machinist. The possession of mechanical skill necessary for making repairs was considered the best recommendation for an engineer. Under this system, all that a machinist was required to do,—so that he could graduate as a full-fledged engineer,—was to practice moving engines round in the yard for a few days, when he was reported ready for the road. Akin to this sentiment was that which recommended youths of natural mechanical ability for the position of locomotive engineer without subjecting them to any previous special training. Graduates from mechanical institutes were deemed capable of running an engine as soon as they were perfectly certain about how to start and stop the machine. The late Alexander L. Holley used to relate an anecdote of this kind of an engineer. During a severe winter storm, the train Holley was traveling on got firmly stalled in a snow-bank. In its struggles with the frozen elements, the engine got short of water; and Holley found the engineer trying to fill the boiler by shoveling snow down the smoke-stack!
PRACTICE OF RAISING ENGINEERS FROM MACHINISTS AND TECHNICAL-SCHOOL GRADUATES NOT FOUND SATISFACTORY.
But it came to pass that more light in the matter of engine-running dawned upon the minds of railroad managers. They discovered that expertness in effecting repairs on locomotives was not so essential in an engineer as was the less pretentious ability of working the engine so that the train would be pulled over the road safely and on time: they perceived but scanty merit in inherited mechanical genius which did not inspire a youth with sagacity enough to see that certain destruction would befall the heating-surface when he attempted to run without water in the boiler. Experience demonstrated, that, to manage an engine on the road so that its best work should be developed at the least cost, certain traits of skill and training were necessary, which were altogether different from the culture that made a man smart at constructing or repairing machinery. It was found that one man might be a good machinist, and yet make no kind of a decent runner; a second man would be equally expert in both capacities; while a third man, who never could do a respectable job with tools, developed into an excellent engineer. One of the best millwrights I ever knew, a man who achieved considerable celebrity for skill in his craft, became a fireman with the ambition of becoming a locomotive runner. He fired acceptably for two years, then was promoted, but quickly found that he could not run an engine, and acknowledged that to be the case by returning to the left side. He was too nervous, and lacked confidence in himself. Overweening egotism is not an attractive feature in a man’s character; but, every thing else being equal, it is the self-confident man that makes the successful engineer.