Login
or
Register
Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
General Discussion
»
MM&A President Burkhardt Blaming Oil Train Engineer
Edit post
Edit your reply below.
Post Body
Enter your post below.
<p>[quote user="schlimm"][quote user="Bucyrus"]When the top guy demonstrates that degree of misunderstanding of train securement, it tells me that there is a good chance that something is wrong with their train securement rules.[/quote]</p> <p>Or perhaps Burkhardt knew that his operators don't reliably set nearly enough handbrakes when leaving a train unattended and their clock is up.[/quote]</p> <p><span style="font-family:verdana,geneva;font-size:small;">That too could be the case. That is, that Burkhardt might have known that his people took short cuts against the rules, and then he looked the other way. But if that is what happened, the blame would still fall on the engineer if it could be proven that the engineer did not set enough handbrakes; and if nobody could prove that Burkhardt knew about the transgression. </span></p> <p><span style="font-family:verdana,geneva;font-size:small;">However, if that were the case, Burkhardt is cooking his own goose by saying that the train ran away because the shutdown engine caused the air brakes to release. Therefore, it seems to me that he would not say that if he realized how damaging it is to his position, which is that the engineer is at fault. </span></p> <p><span style="font-family:verdana,geneva;font-size:small;">Now just because Burkhardt is saying that a running locomotive is needed to aid in securing a train does not mean that his rules also say that. It very well could be that the rules are correct, and Burkhardt is simply unwittingly talking about the need for a running locomotive to prevent the train from rolling.</span></p> <p><span style="font-family:verdana,geneva;font-size:small;">But it also could be that his rules do say that a running locomotive is part of the securement protocol, and that he is speaking in terms of those rules. Indeed, one would expect the company president to be speaking about the runaway cause in the context of the company rules intended to prevent runaways. </span></p> <p><span style="font-family:verdana,geneva;font-size:small;">So I think Burkhardt is in a very strange position. He started out blaming the fire department, and then switched to blaming the engineer. But in a way, he seems like he is still blaming the fire department in addition to blaming the engineer. </span></p> <p><span style="font-family:verdana,geneva;font-size:small;">By blaming the fire department, it must follow that the air brakes mattered. He says they did matter. If the air brakes mattered then it weekens his case against the engineer and a lack of handbrakes. So he is undermining his case against the engineer by adhering to his case against the fire department. </span></p>
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
Update Reply
Join our Community!
Our community is
FREE
to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.
Login »
Register »
Search the Community
Newsletter Sign-Up
By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our
privacy policy
More great sites from Kalmbach Media
Terms Of Use
|
Privacy Policy
|
Copyright Policy