JACKSONVILLE, Fla. – CSX Transportation, whose train accident and employee injury record has been deteriorating for five years, has hired a consulting firm to assess its safety programs and aims to hire a chief safety operating officer...
http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2018/05/25-csx-hires-consultant-to-improve-safety
Brian Schmidt, Editor, Classic Trains magazine
Only goes to PROVE just how safety clueless the EHH cadre have been in wrecking the safety culture that was in place until EHH's arrival.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Consult: a contraction of con (as in deceive) and insult (as in offend). That would make a consultant a __________.
Article says:
"CSX announced that DEKRA, an international safety consulting firm, will perform a comprehensive assessment to help the railroad improve safety for employees, customers, and communities in which it operates."
Who the heck is DEKRA, and what do they know about modern US railroad practice?
- PDN.
They'll do their studies, write their reports and recommendations, then the carrier will toss it all in a file cabinet never to see the light of day. Seen this played over a few times.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
Yeah my husband has seen what those so called consulting company experts can do when brought into a couple carriers he drove for. One stated that the trucks were going to fast downhill and recommendations including removing engine brakes along with other ideas were needed to force the driver's to go slower down the mountains that they ran through. Not one word about being 80k lbs on a 7 percent grade with bad brakes to begin with was said. The other carrier that hired one was told that his driver's ran to hard and needed to be restricted on speed from 65 mph to 55 mph. They were thrown out of the office and according to my husband the owner of the company refused to pay them anything at all.
Paul_D_North_JrArticle says: "CSX announced that DEKRA, an international safety consulting firm, will perform a comprehensive assessment to help the railroad improve safety for employees, customers, and communities in which it operates." Who the heck is DEKRA, and what do they know about modern US railroad practice? - PDN.
DEKRA is a European vehicle inspection company founded in Berlin, Germany in 1925 as Deutscher Kraftfahrzeug-Überwachungs-Verein.
I have seen their advertising in conjunction with Formula 1 racing over the years as sponors on various cars.
I suspect the cadre of former CSX officials that EHH terminated could reimplement the Safety Culture that was in place on CSX until EHH arrived with the orders 'Safety be damned'.
BaltACDDEKRA is a European vehicle inspection company founded in Berlin, Germany in 1925 as Deutscher Kraftfahrzeug-Überwachungs-Verein.
You are right, DEKRA started as vehicle inspection company. They have since then spread into inspection and certification of all kinds of industrial issues: https://www.dekra-na.com/en/business
When I first read DEKRA in the Newswire I had the same thoughts. Why DEKRA and do they have railroading experience?
On the other hand perhaps it is necessary that someone from the outside looks at railroad safety from time to time.Regards, Volker
CSX’s falling safety record began years before Harrison arrived. How did Harrison cause that?
http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2018/02/12-csx-transportation-safety-record-comes-under-scrutiny-as-accident-injury-rates-rise
“Steven Ditmeyer, a former FRA official, says the increased rates are significant. It appears likely that CSX workers didn’t follow rules and procedures to ensure that the switch was properly lined before the Silver Star wreck, Ditmeyer says. “I view it as a legacy of Hunter Harrison,” he says.”
He might not have started the decline but he for sure did nothing to stop it. Remember some of the rule changes? 3-point protection prohibited as well as nap breaks, brake sticks, while getting on an off moving equipment got allowed.
So EHH is not guilt-free.Regards, Volker
Can someone provide data that shows the accident increases related to EHH changes in policies related to nap breaks, brake sticks, eliminating 3-point protection and allowing getting on and off moving equipment? Surely this statistical evidence must be available.
Brian Schmidt JACKSONVILLE, Fla. – CSX Transportation, whose train accident and employee injury record has been deteriorating for five years, has hired a consulting firm to assess its safety programs and aims to hire a chief safety operating officer... http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2018/05/25-csx-hires-consultant-to-improve-safety
Gee, EHH was so powerful he caused the exemplary CSX safety record to deteriorate several years before he arrived? Oh, I suppose the CSX officials anticipated what would happen and they got a head start? And he will continue to wreck CSX from the grave?
Euclid Can someone provide data that shows the accident increases related to EHH changes in policies related to nap breaks, brake sticks, eliminating 3-point protection and allowing getting on and off moving equipment? Surely this statistical evidence must be available.
Why Euclid, why on earth use statistics? Folks here believe they are all lies, same as accounting and research data.
With the elimination of the Harriman Safety Award after 2012, the carriers seem to be wanting to hide the issues from the public. Hard facts are hard to come by - unless you are in the Claims organization and know what is being paid out in injury settlements.
charlie hebdo Gee, EHH was so powerful he caused the exemplary CSX safety record to deteriorate several years before he arrived? Oh, I suppose the CSX officials anticipated what would happen and they got a head start? And he will continue to wreck CSX from the grave?
I am sure EHH will continue from the grave. He will cause people to leave switches unlocked just to make sure CSX remembers how bad he was.
BaltACD With the elimination of the Harriman Safety Award after 2012, the carriers seem to be wanting to hide the issues from the public. Hard facts are hard to come by - unless you are in the Claims organization and know what is being paid out in injury settlements.
EuclidCan someone provide data that shows the accident increases related to EHH changes in policies related to nap breaks, brake sticks, eliminating 3-point protection and allowing getting on and off moving equipment? Surely this statistical evidence must be available.
Isn't really reported/recorded that way. https://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/OfficeofSafety/publicsite/query/reportalblecas.aspx
zugmann Euclid Can someone provide data that shows the accident increases related to EHH changes in policies related to nap breaks, brake sticks, eliminating 3-point protection and allowing getting on and off moving equipment? Surely this statistical evidence must be available. Isn't really reported/recorded that way. https://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/OfficeofSafety/publicsite/query/reportalblecas.aspx
Well if those safety measures are not analyzed statistically, how does anybody know that they are worthwhile? When they decided that trainmen should not be getting on and off moving equipment, the proponents of the idea must cited some type on analysis proving that the change would be worthwhile. For an awful long time, people had concluded that getting on and off moving equipment was the right thing to do because it saved time.
EuclidI am sure EHH will continue from the grave.
That actually fits nicely with my contention that he wasn't really running things in the first place. Mantle Ridge was (and is).
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
EuclidWhen they decided that trainmen should not be getting on and off moving equipment, the proponents of the idea must cited some type on analysis proving that the change would be worthwhile.
Ask those that changed the rules. I don't know their motives. We were once forbidden,a nd now are allowed under certain circumstances. I don't know why the change of heart. I don't really care, either.
We have a piece of railroad that is 15mph. Used to be 30mph. Why the change? Becuase some superintnedent wanted it 15 because you have a signal (end of your paper limits) coming up in 2 miles. But yet other similar track arrangements don't have speed restrictions imposed like that. It was just his idea and since he had the power - he implemented it. Stands to this date, despite numerous attempts by local management to revert it to 30. There aren't always data or stats to support decisions. Sometimes it's just what they feel like.
EuclidWell if those safety measures are not analyzed statistically, how does anybody know that they are worthwhile?
That's simple - there's not a rule in any of the rulebooks that wasn't written in blood. Not getting on and off moving equipment is/was a rule because people get hurt doing so.
I'm pretty sure every railroad rulebook on the continent contains three-step or an equivalent. Except CSX. Why do all those other railroads feel the need for the rule? Because someone moved a train when someone was in between or under a train.
One might ask why EHH didn't can the rule at any of the other railroads he ran.
I believe getting on/off moving equipment went away for a couple of reasons. It wasn't so much because of trainmen/switchmen getting injured doing so, but the cumulative wear and tear on joints over a career of doing so. Also with the illimination of brakemen, older conductors are doing the physical work that the (usually) younger men would've done. (This is a generalization, there are older men who are more fit than younger men.) The cost of knee/hip replacements, that the railroad can be liable for adds up.
Under the right conditioins, I believe getting on/off moving equipment is just as safe or safer than standing equipment. Out on the main where the ballast is sloped with about 2 feet from the ground to the step, no. In a yard or other slow speed areas, yes. At 15mph or more, no. 5 mph or under, yes. The trouble is, even where it normally would be safe to do so, there can be a temporary condition that makes it unsafe. Inclement weather for example. And you'll have those who don't know the difference or want to push the limit. It's easier to prohibit the activity than to allow it with restrictions.
Jeff
jeffhergert It's easier to prohibit the activity than to allow it with restrictions.
It's funny, becuase that's what my carrier did. (allowed it with restrictions - and those are mostly the ones you pointed out).
Hiring consultants is what you do when you get rid of your own subject matter experts.
A railroad manger these days has the primary task of safety observation testing mandated by the FRA. A seventh grader can memorize the rulebooks and do this testing. A subject matter expert is not really needed.
RS
tree68 Euclid Well if those safety measures are not analyzed statistically, how does anybody know that they are worthwhile? That's simple - there's not a rule in any of the rulebooks that wasn't written in blood. Not getting on and off moving equipment is/was a rule because people get hurt doing so. I'm pretty sure every railroad rulebook on the continent contains three-step or an equivalent. Except CSX. Why do all those other railroads feel the need for the rule? Because someone moved a train when someone was in between or under a train. One might ask why EHH didn't can the rule at any of the other railroads he ran.
Euclid Well if those safety measures are not analyzed statistically, how does anybody know that they are worthwhile?
There are pros and cons to every rule, as we saw with the rules that did and did not exist affecting the Cayce collision. Proposed new safety rules are always met with, "If we did that, we could not run a railroad." I recall being mildly surprised when I first heard of prohibiting getting on or off moving equipment, as it always struck me as being essential with the nature of trains. And unlike a lot of new rules, it did not come with a solution to accomplish the advantage that getting on or off moving equipment provided.
So I suspect that there are mountains of statistical data on that rule change showing every aspect imaginable, including the effect of various speeds, joint damage over time, loss of footing due to rain, ice, and snow, immediate strains and sprains, fouling posts and switch stands, and tripping on supplies left too close to the track.
So there must be a lot of analysis to determine how much blood requires a new rule to be written. This would certainly be a polarizing issue since it pits the interests of labor against those of the company. EHH must have been willing to revisit those previously settled rules and decide that they were not worth what they accomplished.
He must have thought the prohibition against getting on or off moving equipment was overkill. After all, it was accepted practice since the beginning of the industry, and it was a skill that most people who practiced it seemed to take pride in.
Issues such as this one tend to encounter various forms of institutionalized internal inertia. Finding the right balance between the wise old heads and a fresh perspective should be the goal.
Randy Stahl Hiring consultants is what you do when you get rid of your own subject matter experts. A railroad manger these days has the primary task of safety observation testing mandated by the FRA. A seventh grader can memorize the rulebooks and do this testing. A subject matter expert is not really needed. RS
Anyone can memorize the rule book, but how about applying the rules?
Quiz. Here's the GCOR Restricted Speed rule.
6.27 Movement at Restricted Speed - When required to move at restricted speed, movement must be made at a speed that allows stopping within half the range of vision short of:
• Train.
• Engine.
• Railroad car.
• Men or equipment fouling the track.
• Stop signal. or
• Derail or switch lined improperly.
When a train or engine is required to move at restricted speed, the crew must keep a lookout for broken rail and not exceed 20 MPH. Comply with these requirements until the leading wheels reach a point where movement at restricted speed is no longer required.
You're on a train and went past a signal requiring Restricted Speed at MP 99.75 and are running at Restricted Speed. At MP 100 you see a red flag between the rails at MP 101. Where do you stop at? (Once stopped, you'll attempt to contact the employee in charge of the flag and be governed by his/her instructions.)
A. Do you immediately work yourself down to a stop?
B. Do you stop at MP 100.5? Half way from where the flag became visible and it's location.
C. Do you stop at MP 100.99 short of the red flag?
D. Any of the above would be acceptable by the rule.
PS. Bonus question. Once released by the employee in charge to proceed, how do you proceed to the next signal at MP 102? The signal system in use is CTC.
I'm not a railroader but I would say that A is the correct answer. Once I've been released, I would continue at restricted speed until I reached a signal that authorized a higher speed.
So back to the original post. Is it the contention here that CSX safety practices cannot benefit from an impartial examination by external experts?
charlie hebdoSo back to the original post. Is it the contention here that CSX safety practices cannot benefit from an impartial examination by external experts?
When you have fired and released all the 'internal experts' as impediments to efficiency - any expert will do in a pinch as PR whitewash.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.