Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
My first thought was that the MM&A took a risk by ignoring a substantial fire hazard, but, as I explained in my first post, I think that is an incorrect assumption because it appears that there was no fire hazard.  But nevertheless, the MM&A did choose to let a distressed, excessively smoking locomotive run all night, posing a considerable nuisance to the residents and a visibility danger to drivers on the highway.  There appears to be no obvious reason why they chose this problematic course of action when it would have been just as easy to shut down the troubled locomotive and use another one.  Again, this suggests an arbitrary decision to abruptly end the day’s work at Nantes; as does the apparent failure to complete the job of setting sufficient handbrakes.      Furthermore, we know that the decision to let the smoking locomotive run, to the detriment of the surroundings, was a decision made by MM&A management, and disagreed with by the locomotive engineer.  Was the decision to not set sufficient handbrakes also a decision made by MM&A management?
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