RMEThey explained it, too: Remember the next guy was supposed to take over the train at about 7:00 (replacing the handle conveniently left on the seat for him)? If the automatic brake had been applied, he'd have to do an air test to ensure everything released properly - granted, one man could leave the independent applied to hold the train and check that the manually-applied brakes released cleanly when taken off, but since the train was left unattended there's still the need to walk the length of the consist twice. How many hours of useful on-duty time would that consume, especially coming back up a 2% grade in those weather conditions?
What test? If an engine is left running, the train was never off air. Unless Canada has very different brake rules.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
zugmann RME They explained it, too: Remember the next guy was supposed to take over the train at about 7:00 (replacing the handle conveniently left on the seat for him)? If the automatic brake had been applied, he'd have to do an air test to ensure everything released properly - granted, one man could leave the independent applied to hold the train and check that the manually-applied brakes released cleanly when taken off, but since the train was left unattended there's still the need to walk the length of the consist twice. How many hours of useful on-duty time would that consume, especially coming back up a 2% grade in those weather conditions? What test? If an engine is left running, the train was never off air. Just need to do a continuity test (which one would do even if the train was left with the automatic released - or at least I would hope one would).
RME They explained it, too: Remember the next guy was supposed to take over the train at about 7:00 (replacing the handle conveniently left on the seat for him)? If the automatic brake had been applied, he'd have to do an air test to ensure everything released properly - granted, one man could leave the independent applied to hold the train and check that the manually-applied brakes released cleanly when taken off, but since the train was left unattended there's still the need to walk the length of the consist twice. How many hours of useful on-duty time would that consume, especially coming back up a 2% grade in those weather conditions?
What test? If an engine is left running, the train was never off air. Just need to do a continuity test (which one would do even if the train was left with the automatic released - or at least I would hope one would).
Thems the rules in Canada too, but the train would also need a roll-by inspection, which could be performed by the Engineer on the next opposing train when they met.
Today the rules have been changed, and in addition to 2 crew members being required on any train handling dangerous goods (CROR General Rule M) a pull-by inspection must be performed at every crew change point on any train handling certain dangerous goods by qualified employees watching from the ground while the train pulls by slowly (not exceeding 15 MPH). This is a Canadian requirement, the U.S. may be different.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
SD70M-2DudeThems the rules in Canada too, but the train would also need a roll-by inspection, which could be performed by the Engineer on the next opposing train when they met.
Thanks. I edited my post because I briefly forgot that we were talking about Canada, and I have no clue what their rules were/are.
CMStPnP dakotafred I don't think the rails are "pushing" one-man so much as resisting having two-man set in Washington stone that will be next to impossible, politically, to relax in the future. Actually, BNSF is pushing for one person crews outside of any regulation being proposed yet.
dakotafred I don't think the rails are "pushing" one-man so much as resisting having two-man set in Washington stone that will be next to impossible, politically, to relax in the future.
I don't think the rails are "pushing" one-man so much as resisting having two-man set in Washington stone that will be next to impossible, politically, to relax in the future.
Actually, BNSF is pushing for one person crews outside of any regulation being proposed yet.
As I recall, they proposed it for a single division on a trial basis, but it flunked a vote of the train crews.
SD70M-2Dude Euclid If the engineer of the train that ran away into Lac Megantic was too tired to comply with the securement rules, he should have told his supervisor that he could not complete the job and had them send out another man. There was no excuse for failing to secure the train. Not how it works out here in the real world. Crews do just that all the time where I work, and the Company almost always ignores it and tells them to keep working. The old "do it now, grieve it later" line. I'm sure you are familiar with that one.
Euclid If the engineer of the train that ran away into Lac Megantic was too tired to comply with the securement rules, he should have told his supervisor that he could not complete the job and had them send out another man. There was no excuse for failing to secure the train.
If the engineer of the train that ran away into Lac Megantic was too tired to comply with the securement rules, he should have told his supervisor that he could not complete the job and had them send out another man. There was no excuse for failing to secure the train.
Not how it works out here in the real world. Crews do just that all the time where I work, and the Company almost always ignores it and tells them to keep working.
The old "do it now, grieve it later" line. I'm sure you are familiar with that one.
I do not conclude that the engineer was too tired to set sufficient brakes. That was suggested by the O.P. He may have been too tired, but it seemed to me that he was convinced that he had adequately secured the train.
But suppose he was too tired. What was the proper remedy? The company will not send someone else to set brakes, and the engineer can't do it. So what is the solution?
Euclid SD70M-2Dude Euclid If the engineer of the train that ran away into Lac Megantic was too tired to comply with the securement rules, he should have told his supervisor that he could not complete the job and had them send out another man. There was no excuse for failing to secure the train. Not how it works out here in the real world. Crews do just that all the time where I work, and the Company almost always ignores it and tells them to keep working. The old "do it now, grieve it later" line. I'm sure you are familiar with that one. I do not conclude that the engineer was too tired to set sufficient brakes. That was suggested by the O.P. He may have been too tired, but it seemed to me that he was convinced that he had adequately secured the train. But suppose he was too tired. What was the proper remedy? The company will not send someone else to set brakes, and the engineer can't do it. So what is the solution?
He had not exceeded the Hours of Service regulations. There is no such thing as 'too tired' as a excuse for not performing your duties properly.
The ONLY possible 'excuse' is for him was to have 'called a relief' account physical disability that would prevent him from properly performing his duties. In that case he would have been expected to stay with the train until his relief could be called and transported to the location and he would have been transported to his home terminal.
His real problem is, he did not understand the actual requirements of securing a train and thus did not properly secure his train. Case Closed.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
dakotafred CMStPnP dakotafred I don't think the rails are "pushing" one-man so much as resisting having two-man set in Washington stone that will be next to impossible, politically, to relax in the future. Actually, BNSF is pushing for one person crews outside of any regulation being proposed yet. As I recall, they proposed it for a single division on a trial basis, but it flunked a vote of the train crews.
That contract would have also eliminated the requirement of switchmen (helper not the foreman) and brakeman on locals and trains that did a certain amount of enroute work events. In return there was a signing bonus and "lifetime" protection of all employed at the time it became effective. I think some, I know I would be, were dubious of the promise of lifetime protection. To often after a few years those former promises kind of go by the wayside.
Jeff
Single person crews have been on the radar of the class 1s for quite a while. If Romney had won they would have gone for it in the next contract after his election. Instead they went after more give-backs on health insurance. Even before there was a time when they tried a tactic to open the crew consist agreement.
Had they been able to go to one person crews 10 or 15 years ago, they would've fought tooth and nail against PTC. You can also be sure that when the issue (single person crews) comes up in contract talks, the railroads will push for it everywhere. Not just PTC equipped lines.
CMStPnP Euclid The engineer demonstrated a lack of knowledge or lazy carelessness in the way he attempted to secure his train. Depending on the comunications, some of this carelessness and ignorance may have been affirmed by the engineer's supervisors as well. Interesting on how being tired does not figure into your calculations of this accident as the Engineer specifically said he was trying to get to bed to get some sleep. No mention of fatigue......just he was reckless or lazy.
Euclid The engineer demonstrated a lack of knowledge or lazy carelessness in the way he attempted to secure his train. Depending on the comunications, some of this carelessness and ignorance may have been affirmed by the engineer's supervisors as well.
Interesting on how being tired does not figure into your calculations of this accident as the Engineer specifically said he was trying to get to bed to get some sleep. No mention of fatigue......just he was reckless or lazy.
I do not recall anything in the TSB report indicated that the engineer failed to secure the train because he said he was too tired or was in too much of a hurry to get to bed and get some sleep. Can you tell me where you got that information about the engineer saying that? In any case, as others have pointed out, fatique would not be an excuse if the engineer had claimed it.
The engineer apparently did not understand the securement rule as indicated by the fact that he set too few hand brakes and made up for the deficiency by setting the independent brakes. That is two violations. Then he made a push-pull test that did hold, except that the test is supposed to be made with only hand brakes applied. He made the test with the independent air brakes applied, so even though the train did not move, the test was invalid. The later leaking off of the independent brakes lead to the runaway, therefore indicating that his push-pull test would have failed and indicated that the train was not secured had he made the proper test. That was his third violation. I recall another issue about failing to account for the effect of a QRB valve, but I would have to refresh my memory about that.
So I conclude that the engineer was careless or lazy. I am not sure which. It may have been a combination. There was a failure to follow the rules. Perhaps there was a failure to learn the rules or failure on the part of management to teach and test on the rules. There may have been a culture of carlessness and cutting corners.
Euclid So I conclude that the engineer was careless or lazy. I am not sure which. It may have been a combination. There was a failure to follow the rules. Perhaps there was a failure to learn the rules or failure on the part of management to teach and test on the rules. There may have been a culture of carlessness and cutting corners.
Or ill-informed or fatigued, which impairs your decision-making abilities. Most accidents, this one included are not caused by malicious intent on the part of a crew member, which you are implying. I am starting to tire of your disrespect for our craft across multiple threads on the forum.
As for Tom Harding, yes he is at fault for not setting enough handbrakes and not performing a proper push-pull test. That has been well established. But as I noted in an earlier post he was not the only Engineer on MMA to not put enough handbrakes on unattended trains. The others did not run away because their air brakes held. Harding has lost his job and been put through a huge amount of public scrutiny in addtion to living with the knowledge that HIS train ran away and killed all those people. Those other Engineers are still working there (unless they have been laid off or quit) despite committing the same rule violation Harding did.
And 3 years after being charged with criminal negligence Mr. Harding's trial still has not started. A few days ago his lawyer announced a few days ago that he will attempt to have the case dismissed due to the delays.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/tom-harding-lac-megantic-stay-request-unreasonable-delay-1.3873875
BaltACD Euclid SD70M-2Dude Euclid If the engineer of the train that ran away into Lac Megantic was too tired to comply with the securement rules, he should have told his supervisor that he could not complete the job and had them send out another man. There was no excuse for failing to secure the train. Not how it works out here in the real world. Crews do just that all the time where I work, and the Company almost always ignores it and tells them to keep working. The old "do it now, grieve it later" line. I'm sure you are familiar with that one. I do not conclude that the engineer was too tired to set sufficient brakes. That was suggested by the O.P. He may have been too tired, but it seemed to me that he was convinced that he had adequately secured the train. But suppose he was too tired. What was the proper remedy? The company will not send someone else to set brakes, and the engineer can't do it. So what is the solution? He had not exceeded the Hours of Service regulations. There is no such thing as 'too tired' as a excuse for not performing your duties properly. The ONLY possible 'excuse' is for him was to have 'called a relief' account physical disability that would prevent him from properly performing his duties. In that case he would have been expected to stay with the train until his relief could be called and transported to the location and he would have been transported to his home terminal. His real problem is, he did not understand the actual requirements of securing a train and thus did not properly secure his train. Case Closed.
On CN we have an Article in our Collective Agreement that allows us to give notice to the RTC (Train Dispatcher) that we intend to book rest after being on duty for 10 hours; that is that we will be too tired to continue work after that point. Upon receiving that notice the Company is to arrange for us to be taken off the train and taken to a place of rest, either our objective terminal (if another crew is being called to take over) or accomodations en route (if we are to continue to work that train after our rest is over). That is what I was referring to in my earlier post.
The Company's response in most cases is to ignore this request and order us to continue working, thus violating the Agreement. There is a financial penalty to be paid if we work over our hours by a certain amount of time (the Union did not ask for that, it was imposed by an Arbitrator) but that does not make it ok to order people to continue working even when they have told you they are tired.
Having said that I agree with Balt that no matter how tired you are you still have to perform your duties properly as ordered by the Company and in accordance with the rules, that is until your Federal Hours of Service are up. The train is to be secured before then, and you can't move after that point.
[edited for clarity]
SD70M-2Dude Euclid So I conclude that the engineer was careless or lazy. I am not sure which. It may have been a combination. There was a failure to follow the rules. Perhaps there was a failure to learn the rules or failure on the part of management to teach and test on the rules. There may have been a culture of carlessness and cutting corners.
jeffhergert dakotafred CMStPnP dakotafred I don't think the rails are "pushing" one-man so much as resisting having two-man set in Washington stone that will be next to impossible, politically, to relax in the future. Actually, BNSF is pushing for one person crews outside of any regulation being proposed yet. As I recall, they proposed it for a single division on a trial basis, but it flunked a vote of the train crews. It was on a large portion of the BNSF, most of the former BN side. Even though the railroads have mergered, union contracts and territories are still in effect from the old days. (On another site, they were talking about the NKP districts that are now NS.) The funny thing it was the Smart/UTU originated the idea. That contract would have also eliminated the requirement of switchmen (helper not the foreman) and brakeman on locals and trains that did a certain amount of enroute work events. In return there was a signing bonus and "lifetime" protection of all employed at the time it became effective. I think some, I know I would be, were dubious of the promise of lifetime protection. To often after a few years those former promises kind of go by the wayside. Jeff
It was on a large portion of the BNSF, most of the former BN side. Even though the railroads have mergered, union contracts and territories are still in effect from the old days. (On another site, they were talking about the NKP districts that are now NS.) The funny thing it was the Smart/UTU originated the idea.
I stand corrected. And I agree that "lifetime" promises can be fudged, including by bankruptcy protection. (Admittedly, a long shot with BNSF.)
I failed to note that one person crews on the BNSF was to be in PTC territory with an equipped train. That being said. if a train left it's terminal on a (for example) 250 mile run and the PTC failed 10 miles into it, they wouldn't be required to call a conductor to continue the rest of the 240 miles. The engineer would be on his/her own.
Even if they didn't get one person crews, they could still eliminate a lot of jobs.
I don't think they would need to use bankruptcy to remove lifetime protection. Just wait a few years and bring up the issue in contract talks. Take a hard line position that the the lifetime provisions are hurting the company* and wait until the issue goes all the way to a Presidential Emergency Board. (During a business friendly Presidency.) Have the PEB issue it's contract proposal that includes removing the protection. Then if the union refuses to accept, have congress vote to impose it upon both parties. (Again it's better if congress is also business friendly.)
*When negotiating contracts they always seem to plead how impoverished they are. Nevermind that they may have just crowed about how profitable they are to the general public.
Euclid SD70M-2Dude Euclid So I conclude that the engineer was careless or lazy. I am not sure which. It may have been a combination. There was a failure to follow the rules. Perhaps there was a failure to learn the rules or failure on the part of management to teach and test on the rules. There may have been a culture of carlessness and cutting corners.
One form of disrespect is listening to a professional or expert explain something in their field and then deciding to disregard that explanation because it was not the answer you wanted, or you with no experience think you know better than the professionals. Remember the "Derailing Train by Dumping Air at Grade Crossings" and "Suicide causes derailment" threads? I was not the only one offended by some of your comments there either. I remember other times in the past when I have done a double take at other stuff you have wrote, but I have neither the time nor the interest in your past posts to dig them up right now.
And to get back on topic the world is not a black & white place, and accidents are caused by a chain of failures; stopping any one of them would prevent the whole thing. For example the RSC device (alerter) on a locomotive is normally wired to the battery knife switch in such a way that it initiates a penalty brake application when the knife switch is opened. The lead locomotive at Lac-Megantic was not wired in this manner, and when the knife switch was opened (proper procedure after shutting the engine down) the automatic brake stayed released.
SD70M-2Dude Euclid SD70M-2Dude Euclid So I conclude that the engineer was careless or lazy. I am not sure which. It may have been a combination. There was a failure to follow the rules. Perhaps there was a failure to learn the rules or failure on the part of management to teach and test on the rules. There may have been a culture of carlessness and cutting corners. One form of disrespect is listening to a professional or expert explain something in their field and then deciding to disregard that explanation because it was not the answer you wanted, or you with no experience think you know better than the professionals. Remember the "Derailing Train by Dumping Air at Grade Crossings" and "Suicide causes derailment" threads? I was not the only one offended by some of your comments there either. I remember other times in the past when I have done a double take at other stuff you have wrote, but I have neither the time nor the interest in your past posts to dig them up right now. And to get back on topic the world is not a black & white place, and accidents are caused by a chain of failures; stopping any one of them would prevent the whole thing. For example the RSC device (alerter) on a locomotive is normally wired to the battery knife switch in such a way that it initiates a penalty brake application when the knife switch is opened. The lead locomotive at Lac-Megantic was not wired in this manner, and when the knife switch was opened (proper procedure after shutting the engine down) the automatic brake stayed released.
Yes, I remember those two threads. A topic came up regarding engineers approaching a likely collision at grade crossings and withholding an emergency application until after the collision occurred for a couple of different reasons.
One reason was that they felt the company might hold them responsible for delaying the train if the vehicle just happened to clear in time. Then with no collision, there would be no way to prove that dumping the air was necessary.
This evolved into another reason which was that dumping the air might derail the train; and particularly if there were hazmat on the train, the derailment might kill more bystanders than would be killed if the crossing collision played out.
I have never heard of either one of these reasons to withhold emergency braking, but I am particularly interested in this reason about the application derailing the train. I am not a locomotive engineer, but I can assure you that if I were, I would never withhold an emergency application that was truly called for because of a worry about derailing the train. That is my position on the matter. I am not talking about just considering the possibility of a derailment. Everybody does that. The point in question is actually choosing to not make an emergency application that is called for. I think that doing that would be incredibly unwise, and also impossible to calculate no matter how much seat time one has. I would not be surprised if it has never been done. People might say they would do it, but saying you would do it is not the same as doing it.
If you read those threads, you will see that there was no clear consensus that all the professionals were right and I would not accept their judgement. People can complain about that all they want, but it is fiction. There was only one person who said he would withhold the emergency application if he believed it would cause a derailment that would pose a greater risk to life than hitting the vehicle.
As I recall, you even seemed to agree with my position.
BaltACD said he was not an engineer, but he believed it is not proper to take the risk of an emergency application unless you are certain that it will do some good. Zugmann told him that you cannot second guess such a fine point as to whether the emergency application will do some good. From that I had the impression that he was taking my position.
Big Jim weighed in with a fit of rage about how I never listen to the experts, and then told me about slack running in from making an emergency application. He did not say whether his worry about slack run in would cause him to refrain from making an emergency application when a crossing collision seems likely.
Dave Husman, a railroader as far as I know, said this:
“I would agree that the answer to the question whether an engineer involved in a grade crossing accident would ever not put the train in emergency due to the risk of derailing the train is probably a "no", but not because they don't consider it, but because the engineer's immediate concern is the safety of the people in the vehicle. There is a high probability that if a train hits a car the occupants will be injured or killed, there is a very, very low probability that the train will derail. No engineer I have ever met wanted to go home second guessing himself that if he had only plugged the train those kids might have lived. No engineer wants to be on a witness stand when the plaintiff's lawyer asks them if he could have plugged the train.”
Dave’s comment perfectly matches my view on the matter. And almost down to the very wording, it matches what the FRA rep told me when he called after I sent a written inquiry on the topic.
It also matches what I was told by an Operation Lifesaver rep with experience as an engineer and training engineers. He told me a story about one engineer who did withhold an emergency application because he was worried that loads near the hind end would derail his train. He did hit the vehicle and ended up in court. I don’t know how much good an emergency application would have done, but not making one showed the court that he did not do everything possible to mitigate the collision. He told me that the company paid out a large settlement because of the engineer’s decision.
Above, you said this:
“One form of disrespect is listening to a professional or expert explain something in their field and then deciding to disregard that explanation because it was not the answer you wanted, or you with no experience think you know better than the professionals.”
Norm always says exactly the same thing about me. He must have clued you in back channel. Always the oblique blanket accusation with nothing specific that I can address in my defense. Neither you nor Norm has any idea what my background of experience is. I am under no obligation to accept someone else’s point of view here. But I have certainly listened to what everyone offered. I have never insulted anyone. If someone gets their pants in a bunch just because I disagree with them, that is a problem of their own making.
My question in that second thread was a yes or no question. I said up front, that my answer to the question was no. Others also answered no. The FRA and OL answered no. One person answered yes. Some others brought up something else and did not answer the question. Do you think I should change my answer from no to yes?
You raise an interesting point about that knife switch.
BaltACDHe had not exceeded the Hours of Service regulations. There is no such thing as 'too tired' as a excuse for not performing your duties properly.
Glad you brought that up because one thing I learned in the Army is there is no such thing as a rule or regulation that covers all possible scenarios.....which means significant grey area for the crew member and railroad to bridge in some cases. The specific case of railroad rules came up in the recent Hoboken Crash where lack of railroad testing of sleep apnea could have been a cause for the accident. Given that some railway crews are morbidly obeese with widely varying schedules (hence are sleep apnea suspects), lets apply that to the Canadian accident...
Say this guy had undiagnosed Sleep Apnea in which case he would not know how tired he was when he accepted the shift but it would hit him near the end of the shift or even mid-shift depending on how severe it is.....seems your railroad rules are not flexible enough to handle that case. I got to tell you from the call transcripts in the accident report really does not seem like the dispatcher was an understanding or trusting type (in fact the dispatcher comes across as kind of an a-hole). Anyways, the fact he left the train around 11:00 p.m. then got into a cab and was asleep in his hotel room by the first of many calls from the dispatcher starting at 1 or 1:30 a.m. and lasting through the early morning hours gives me pause for suspicion about that railroads practice during a crewmans rest period. Also, in interviews to the press the Engineer stated he was tired and wanted to get to his hotel to get some rest. Which I think is an explanation that seems reasonable. Good luck convincing to a courtroom that he has to stand around his train attempting to convince a doubtful dispatcher that he needs a relief crewman due to a disability (really? how 19th Century).....I think that might be met with a lot of raised eyebrows. Just me guessing though. Certainly I would love to present in a courtroom where that was attempted. I think the first thought is going to be, where were the other employees in ready status nearby in case a crewman needed relief and the answer is going to come back....one person crew. He has to wait potentially a few hours more. Oh boy.
BTW, a lot of people are walking this earth not knowing they have sleep apnea and can just zonk out or slump over uncontrollably then a few seconds or up to minutes later regain consciousness in a highly disoriented state (sounds like that almost fits with the recent NEC Amtrak derailment). Anyways, it costs on average $5000 for a sleep study and medically they have to be repeated with each 10-15% loss or gain in weight. So obviously the railways are going to fight any requirement to test for that BUT on the other hand, you cannot expect an employee to know that they have the affliction, especially if they spend a lot of time sleeping alone in hotel rooms. So what could be cheaper than Sleep Apnea testing......a second crew member maybe?
Euclid Norm always says exactly the same thing about me. He must have clued you in back channel. Always the oblique blanket accusation with nothing specific that I can address in my defense. Neither you nor Norm has any idea what my background of experience is. I am under no obligation to accept someone else’s point of view here. But I have certainly listened to what everyone offered. I have never insulted anyone. If someone gets their pants in a bunch just because I disagree with them, that is a problem of their own making.
Or maybe I am Norm in disguise...
Seriously though, I have no doubt that you are an educated professional of some sort who is likely very accomplished in your field, whatever that may be. You write extensively and very well, however repetitive and self-conversing on occasion, which tells me you have a brain in your head (maybe too much of one for your own good on occasion). I am also not interested in "Bucky-bashing" as some have called it; I just think that you need to open your mind a little bit and try a bit better to imagine yourself in the place of those on the ground (I'll make an educated guess that you're a couple levels up in your organization), and understand that not everything has a yes/no or black/white answer, hence my point about accidents being at the end of a chain of critical events; and specifically that the (lack of) handbrakes were not the only failing at Lac-Megantic.
Euclid My question in that second thread was a yes or no question. I said up front, that my answer to the question was no. Others also answered no. The FRA and OL answered no. One person answered yes. Some others brought up something else and did not answer the question. Do you think I should change my answer from no to yes?
The only thing I remember is that it is not a question that can easily be answered by yes or no because there are too many grey areas and variables, a point which you did (do?) not seem to understand. One of those is the modern advent of black boxes, downloads and recordings which I listed as my rationale for putting the train into emergency, but I noted that I think that is an unfortunate fact of modern life we have to deal with, and in reality it may not be the best thing to do (note the fuel truck example). The only way to tell what was the right thing to do is to use the famous 20/20 hindsight. And with that I will end my part in this discussion as the horse is starting to rot and smell over on the other threads, no need for me to bring it over here anymore.
Euclid You raise an interesting point about that knife switch.
Back on topic now, the TSB also noted that at the time there were no regulations governing the installation and wiring of alerters, so the setup found in MMA 002's lead locomotive was legal, however stupid. I am unaware of any rule being changed to require the proper wiring, so that setup may still be legal today.
CMStPnP BTW, a lot of people are walking this earth not knowing they have sleep apnea and can just zonk out or slump over uncontrollably then a few seconds or up to minutes later regain consciousness in a highly disoriented state (sounds like that almost fits with the recent NEC Amtrak derailment). Anyways, it costs on average $5000 for a sleep study and medically they have to be repeated with each 10-15% loss or gain in weight. So obviously the railways are going to fight any requirement to test for that BUT on the other hand, you cannot expect an employee to know that they have the affliction, especially if they spend a lot of time sleeping alone in hotel rooms. So what could be cheaper than Sleep Apnea testing......a second crew member maybe?
Several of my co-workers have sleep apnea, they bring their mask with them to work for sleeping at the away-from-home terminal. I believe they do have to go for regular medical checkups (same for other chronic conditions like diabetes etc) but apart from that work just like any other employee.
This of course is in a work environment with at minimum 2 people on every crew.
SD70M-2Dude CMStPnP BTW, a lot of people are walking this earth not knowing they have sleep apnea and can just zonk out or slump over uncontrollably then a few seconds or up to minutes later regain consciousness in a highly disoriented state (sounds like that almost fits with the recent NEC Amtrak derailment). Anyways, it costs on average $5000 for a sleep study and medically they have to be repeated with each 10-15% loss or gain in weight. So obviously the railways are going to fight any requirement to test for that BUT on the other hand, you cannot expect an employee to know that they have the affliction, especially if they spend a lot of time sleeping alone in hotel rooms. So what could be cheaper than Sleep Apnea testing......a second crew member maybe? Several of my co-workers have sleep apnea, they bring their mask with them to work for sleeping at the away-from-home terminal. I believe they do have to go for regular medical checkups (same for other chronic conditions like diabetes etc) but apart from that work just like any other employee. This of course is in a work environment with at minimum 2 people on every crew.
To my mind, Sleep Apnea is somewhat of a red herring in the discussion. Yes it interferes with getting fully restorative sleep.
The real cause of issues in the transportation enviornment would be Narcolepsy. Going to sleep for seconds to minutes - without notice and without warning. Could this be the cause of Amtrak 188 or the Hoboken incident?
While Sleep Apnea and Narcolepsy may go hand in hand - in many cases they may not and testing for Sleep Apnea most likely won't expose Narcolepsy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcolepsy
EuclidNorm always says exactly the same thing about me. He must have clued you in back channel. Always the oblique blanket accusation with nothing specific that I can address in my defense. Neither you nor Norm has any idea what my background of experience is. I am under no obligation to accept someone else’s point of view here. But I have certainly listened to what everyone offered. I have never insulted anyone. If someone gets their pants in a bunch just because I disagree with them, that is a problem of their own making.
Nope! No conspiracy, but your continuing refusal to answer any questions regarding your experience does leave people wondering about your qualifications. If you DO have experience, why not honestly tell people what that may be? If you don't, why not admit that? Your constant refusals lead others to believe you are blowing smoke and being less than truthful.Your behavior is consistent with that I see in some young instructor pilots who THINK they have all the answers and are passing a lot of misinformation to their students.
Norm
Norm48327 Euclid Norm always says exactly the same thing about me. He must have clued you in back channel. Always the oblique blanket accusation with nothing specific that I can address in my defense. Neither you nor Norm has any idea what my background of experience is. I am under no obligation to accept someone else’s point of view here. But I have certainly listened to what everyone offered. I have never insulted anyone. If someone gets their pants in a bunch just because I disagree with them, that is a problem of their own making. Nope! No conspiracy, but your continuing refusal to answer any questions regarding your experience does leave people wondering about your qualifications. If you DO have experience, why not honestly tell people what that may be? If you don't, why not admit that? Your constant refusals lead others to believe you are blowing smoke and being less than truthful.Your behavior is consistent with that I see in some young instructor pilots who THINK they have all the answers and are passing a lot of misinformation to their students.
May your flanges always stay BETWEEN the rails
BaltACDTo my mind, Sleep Apnea is somewhat of a red herring in the discussion. Yes it interferes with getting fully restorative sleep. The real cause of issues in the transportation enviornment would be Narcolepsy. Going to sleep for seconds to minutes - without notice and without warning. Could this be the cause of Amtrak 188 or the Hoboken incident? While Sleep Apnea and Narcolepsy may go hand in hand - in many cases they may not and testing for Sleep Apnea most likely won't expose Narcolepsy.
Ideally, screening or testing for both should be conducted. But based on prevalence rates, sleep apnea is far more likely a problem.
Narcolepsy prevalence rate = 0.05% adults.
Sleep apnea = 3-7% adult males; 2-5% adult females
Since obstructive sleep apnea is the most common form and obesity (BMI > 30) is the main risk factor, folks in that classification should be checked routinely.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Norm: You are wasting your time. Facts and logic are not operational in Euclidia.
It's mashochism schlimm. Feels good to keep bashing my head against the wall.
SD70M-2Dude Euclid Norm always says exactly the same thing about me. He must have clued you in back channel. Always the oblique blanket accusation with nothing specific that I can address in my defense. Neither you nor Norm has any idea what my background of experience is. I am under no obligation to accept someone else’s point of view here. But I have certainly listened to what everyone offered. I have never insulted anyone. If someone gets their pants in a bunch just because I disagree with them, that is a problem of their own making.
BaltACDThe real cause of issues in the transportation enviornment would be Narcolepsy. Going to sleep for seconds to minutes - without notice and without warning. Could this be the cause of Amtrak 188 or the Hoboken incident?
Narcolepsy, and to a lesser extent TIAs or even hypoglycemia, are far more severe in their ability to produce quickly emergent disasters when suffered at the throttle.
The apparent problem with sleep apnea is that it further compromises the amount of 'effective sleep' that its sufferers experience, and this does not so much make its victims 'more tired all the time' (as if sleep were cumulative) as it increases some effects of fatigue that are then exacerbated by things like railroad call scheduling, shift work, and other imbecilities that don't take proper account of circadian issues. I'm sure Rockefeller thought he was relatively fine, if tired, up to the moment he 'zoned out' ... but this particular instance happened at just the wrong time.
I still find it utterly inexplicable that some form of automatic train stop, or even effective-overspeed alerter, was not provided in that cab for that specific curve. I think it fairly clear that, in this particular case, even a brief distinctive audible warning would have prevented (or significantly mitigated the effects of) the accident.
Euclids logic concerning the Lac Megantic wreck is sound.
I wonder, at what point does one consider an employee trained? Most of the MMA Canadian employees where trained and qualified engineers from the Canadian Pacific. The MMA did not train them ( although they were all tested and recertified periodically). Did they need to? Any arguement stating that training was not up to par would condemn all employees as unqualified. The narrative of untrained or undertrained employees is false.
The crew alerters were (and sometimes still are) wired directly to the batteries, not to the load side of the knife switch. People seem to forget that the alerters are made for a MANNED train, not an unmanned runaway train. The method of wiring the alerter is irrelavant.
Canadian rules were specific about leaving an unattended train with the automatic air released, MMA crews were tested on this and if an unattended train was found with a brake application the employee was written up. This rule has nothing to do with preserving the airtest on the train as Canadian rules allow a train off air to sit for 48 hours without retesting.
That said, I have operated heavy trains as a single man on the MMA and did not feel unsafe or afraid. I know my limitations and if I needed help I would make that quite clear.
One thing that has changed since the wreck is the fact that I no longer trust my employees to do thier job.
SD70M-2DudeSeveral of my co-workers have sleep apnea, they bring their mask with them to work for sleeping at the away-from-home terminal. I believe they do have to go for regular medical checkups (same for other chronic conditions like diabetes etc) but apart from that work just like any other employee. This of course is in a work environment with at minimum 2 people on every crew.
I think they can live a normal life with a CPAP machine but ask them what life was like before they were diagnosed and how much time probably elapsed before they realized they even had the affliction.
Norm48327 It's mashochism schlimm. Feels good to keep bashing my head against the wall.
Is this the same "Norm" that roosts at the Cheer's Bar sucking down brews and throwing out caustic comments every so often?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.