Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
I read the report, but I cannot say I absorbed every word of it, so perhaps I am missing something.   But from what I gather, some questions and observations come to mind.  <o:p></o:p> The report concludes that part of the cause was that the interlocking operator for the drawbridge issued a verbal instruction that undermined the engineer’s reliance on wayside signals.  <o:p></o:p> While they apparently did establish as fact that the operator issued the verbal instruction, I see no proof that this undermined the engineer’s reliance on the wayside signals.  All that the evidence shows is that the engineer failed to heed the wayside signals.  There is no way to prove that this failure to heed the signals resulted from the operator’s verbal highball.   <o:p></o:p> The fact that the route was not lined for the train would have given the engineer a red home signal.  Yet the engineer did not apply the brakes in approach to the home signal even though he had plenty of time to do so.   <o:p></o:p> Even by the time the engineer and fireman were able to see the lowered counterweight, they had plenty of time to jump off of the locomotive.  Yet they did not jump.   <o:p></o:p> These two unexplainable facts suggest that the reason the engineer failed to heed the wayside signals was broader than the fact that the operator had issued a verbal highball.  To go further, I would conclude that those two facts suggest that the verbal highball issued by the operator did not play a part in the crash.  <o:p></o:p> If the operator’s verbal highball were the cause, the scenario would have been that the engineer would have approached too fast to stop for the red home signal.  But certainly, he would have made every attempt to stop for it once he saw it.  The result would have been that the train slid past the red home signal and hit the counterweight.  A head end crew that was familiar with the bridge, when approaching unable to stop, with the bridge lined against them—such a crew would almost certainly have jumped off because they would have been aware of the insurmountable risk of staying on the locomotive.   <o:p></o:p> One possible cause that would perfectly explain why the engineer did not brake and did not jump would be that he was asleep.  There is no way to know if he was or not, but if he was, that would explain the accident details.  <o:p></o:p> Page 15, first paragraph of the report, the last sentence says: “In any event, the radio conversation caused the engineer to disregard the visual wayside indications.”   <o:p></o:p> I do not see any proof of that statement.  While it is true that a verbal highball such as the one issued by the operator would have been capable of causing an engineer to disregard the wayside signals; I see no conclusive evidence that indicates that was the case with the OV-8 wreck.  At best, it is circumstantial evidence.  And moreover, the fact that additional cause would be needed to explain the circumstances of the accident moves toward the improbability of more than one fatal error occurring coincidentally to cause an accident.   <o:p></o:p> So, I believe the conclusion of the report is based on flawed logic.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag