re 1 - Frederick Winslow Taylor

- try being a train driver.

From an academic perspective, the expert in expertise is K. A. Ericsson.  He has a complete Cambridge Handbook on the topic:

Ericsson, K. A., Charness, N., Feltovich, P. J., & Hoffman, R. R. (Eds.). (2006). The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance. Cambridge University Press.

In it you will find the formal definition of expertise as based on deliberate practice which differentiates expertise from more general experience. From the literature, there are five such requirements of practice, each necessary, and combined all sufficient to qualify as the deliberate practice upon which lies the foundation of expertise. These include:

1. A greater objective that motivates performance improvement. This requirement is critical because deliberate practice in itself is not inherently motivating (Ericsson et al., 1993a). As such, individuals must identify some larger instrumental objective for their practice in order to motivate themselves to engage in it, day in and day out. 

2. The tasks to be practiced must be understandable after brief instruction. More complex tasks must be decomposed into component pieces in order to be completely understood so that the patterns which enable rapid and accurate recall of the solution, or application of the solution to a new problem can be properly organized and stored (Ericsson et al., 1993a). 

3. Individuals should receive immediate feedback on performance (Trowbridge & Cason, 1932). Feedback is critical, because people experiment with new methods and refine existing methods when presented with negative feedback (Chase & Ericsson, 1981) (VanLehn, 1991), a process that continuously upgrades the sophisticated pattern recognition and matching systems that are developed by experts.

4. Repeatedly perform the same or similar tasks. This requirement returns us to where we started, which is that practice does make perfect. But practice, and especially deliberate practice requires time, energy and focus. The dedication and motivation to repeatedly perform the same task is one of the key distinctions that separates experts from people with mere experience (Ericsson et al., 1993a). 

5. The design of the task must account for knowledge and limitations of the individual. A pitcher that performs well against right-handed batters, but not against left-handers must practice deliberately practice pitching to left-handed batters in order to advance to an expert level where he can perform well against any comer. While design of deliberate practice tasks are ideally facilitated by an instructor (Baltes & Kliegl, 1992), the literature is quick to point out that the alternative of self-directed learning activities can be equally powerful for individuals with the creativity to develop new challenges for themselves and the discipline to overcome them (Glaser & Bassok, 1989) (Wagner, 1991). As novices navigate the trajectory toward expertise, finding existing challenging lessons or knowledgeable instructors becomes increasingly difficult, and Glaser (1996) highlights how this transition is often accompanied by an individual’s increasing control over their own learning.

Practice under these five characteristics can be described as “deliberate practice”, and increases performance within a domain (Gibson, 1969) (Ericsson et al., 1993a). But it takes time. Research in the area has converged on the “10-year rule” (Chase & Simon, 1973). While not hard and fast, the “10-year rule” suggests that it takes a minimum of 10 years of deliberate practice for a novice to ascend to the rank of expert.  

Alas practice is a HUGE puzzle - there is a huge difference between practice as slavish rule-following and practice as a creative art form.  Thus 'definitions' of practice miss its creative dimensions.  When Tara Lipinsky, for instance, watches a skater she can see stuff going on that completely elude even the most competent amateur.  That's why great performers sometimes make for great coaches.  But not all great performers can separate themselves from what they can see enough to advise others to do more than mimic - which does not make for a great coach.

Ericsson & Co, being academics and not performers, are trying to systematize practice - because that is where the academic rewards lie.  Which misses the point of practice as our principal exploratory medium - whether on the field, in the lab, or at the keyboard.  Those who think of practice as the pursuit of the one best way (to allude to Taylor again) miss the point that practice is (a) not general, it is particular and context contingent, and (b) it is the exploration of the practitioner's particular possibilities in that particular context.  

Thus Lipinsky did not try to skate like Michelle Kwan - but probed the limits of her own capabilities.  

Practice's most important dimension is as invention beyond any science. Simon (and Chase & Simon) were NOT presuming 10 years of 'practice' necessarily leads to expertise.  With the notion of 'chunking' they pointed out that it probably took about 10 years of hard work to reach the level of being able to experiment and reach the practitioner's limits.

You're looking for a job analysis of a locomotive engineer (train driver). O*net is a U.S. government sponsored site describing skills and expertise needed for each job. I think this is what you are looking for:

http://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/53-4011.00