Here is a link to an interesting article about the crash between Amtrak's Silver Star and parked CSX train this past February.
https://www.thestate.com/news/business/national-business/article214607160.html
Sounds like NTSB was really grilling the CSX people about their safety program. Or lack there of.
railfanjohnHere is a link to an interesting article about the crash between Amtrak's Silver Star and parked CSX train this past February. https://www.thestate.com/news/business/national-business/article214607160.html Sounds like NTSB was really grilling the CSX people about their safety program. Or lack there of.
While we aren't given a transcript of the 'grilling', from the way the article stated the responses it sounds something like the questioning and responses from the Nuremburg Trials after WW II.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
From the article: ".....Meadows said Tuesday that CSX has made several safety changes since the crash, including requiring employees that change track switches to verbally confirm changes with other crewmembers." I thought that was already a procedure on CSX?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
What about the conductor who said he re-lined the switch, but didn't? Anybody grill him and ask him why?
Euclid What about the conductor who said he re-lined the switch, but didn't? Anybody grill him and ask him why?
Johnny
EuclidWhat about the conductor who said he re-lined the switch, but didn't? Anybody grill him and ask him why?
I suspect this 'expedition' by the NTSB was to investigate CSX field level Supervision and their 'marching orders' as it pertained to safety.
With the arrival of EHH and his implementation of 'Precision Scheduled Railroading' virtually ALL CSX field level management on all divisions was replaced in the 11 months from EHH's day 1 to the date of the incident.
The Conductor was wrong in his actions. NTSB is trying to find out what management policies and actions could have contributed to the Conductor being SO WRONG in his actions. No matter what the Conductor says, his testimony can be taken with a grain of salt.
BaltACDThe Conductor was wrong in his actions. NTSB is trying to find out what management policies and actions could have contributed to the Conductor being SO WRONG in his actions. No matter what the Conductor says, his testimony can be taken with a grain of salt.
I found that part of the article a little confusing. At first reading, it sounded like Sumwalt was tryint to find out about policies that affected the conductor's incorrect actions. But I later concluded that it was Sumwalt listening to a CSX official who was describing how new policies perhaps played a part in causing the accident.
It is fine for the NTSB and CSX to go dancing around in all that deep naval gazing about what went wrong at the philosophical level of management. But the conductor failed to restore the switch and yet certified that he had restored it. It is his story that I would like to hear. If somebody else made him do it, fine. We can look at that too. But I want to hear his explanation. Why do I get the feeling that NTSB feels we can't handle what the conductor said?
Euclid BaltACD The Conductor was wrong in his actions. NTSB is trying to find out what management policies and actions could have contributed to the Conductor being SO WRONG in his actions. No matter what the Conductor says, his testimony can be taken with a grain of salt. I found that part of the article a little confusing. At first reading, it sounded like Sumwalt was tryint to find out about policies that affected the conductor's incorrect actions. But I later concluded that it was Sumwalt listening to a CSX official who was describing how new policies perhaps played a part in causing the accident. It is fine for the NTSB and CSX to go dancing around in all that deep naval gazing about what went wrong at the philosophical level of management. But the conductor failed to restore the switch and yet certified that he had restored it. It is his story that I would like to hear. If somebody else made him do it, fine. We can look at that too. But I want to hear his explanation. Why do I get the feeling that NTSB feels we can't handle what the conductor said?
BaltACD The Conductor was wrong in his actions. NTSB is trying to find out what management policies and actions could have contributed to the Conductor being SO WRONG in his actions. No matter what the Conductor says, his testimony can be taken with a grain of salt.
Condr. F'd up. CSX field level management didn't have the safety aspects of railroading among their performance review elements and weren't working toward attaining rules compliance and safety.
If you don't have rules compliance and safety being a large part of your performance review you are being told by senior management that safety and rules compliance don't matter.
Any real railroader can tell you each of the 1/2 dozen or so excuses the Conductor would offer and the logic he would supply to justify or cover up his failures.
ALL:
It seems like the CSX is trying to cover their butts over EHH's mistakes and it is too bad the EHH is not alive to answer those questions. Balt has a good perspective of the havoc that EHH made into CSX's operations.
Ed Burns
Retired Class 1.
BaltACD Euclid BaltACD The Conductor was wrong in his actions. NTSB is trying to find out what management policies and actions could have contributed to the Conductor being SO WRONG in his actions. No matter what the Conductor says, his testimony can be taken with a grain of salt. I found that part of the article a little confusing. At first reading, it sounded like Sumwalt was tryint to find out about policies that affected the conductor's incorrect actions. But I later concluded that it was Sumwalt listening to a CSX official who was describing how new policies perhaps played a part in causing the accident. It is fine for the NTSB and CSX to go dancing around in all that deep naval gazing about what went wrong at the philosophical level of management. But the conductor failed to restore the switch and yet certified that he had restored it. It is his story that I would like to hear. If somebody else made him do it, fine. We can look at that too. But I want to hear his explanation. Why do I get the feeling that NTSB feels we can't handle what the conductor said? Condr. F'd up. CSX field level management didn't have the safety aspects of railroading among their performance review elements and weren't working toward attaining rules compliance and safety. If you don't have rules compliance and safety being a large part of your performance review you are being told by senior management that safety and rules compliance don't matter. Any real railroader can tell you each of the 1/2 dozen or so excuses the Conductor would offer and the logic he would supply to justify or cover up his failures.
CSX Excecutives are CSX Employees, they may set policy but they are employees nevertheless.
BaltACD CSX field level management didn't have the safety aspects of railroading among their performance review elements and weren't working toward attaining rules compliance and safety. If you don't have rules compliance and safety being a large part of your performance review you are being told by senior management that safety and rules compliance don't matter.
Are you saying that if safety concerns aren't part of the performance review, employees don't attempt to follow safe practices regardless of "rules"?
charlie hebdoAre you saying that if safety concerns aren't part of the performance review, employees don't attempt to follow safe practices regardless of "rules"?
Kinda like speed limits - we've all been on roads where the posted speed limit is more like the bare minimum...
You focus on the performance factors you get graded on...
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...
charlie hebdo BaltACD CSX field level management didn't have the safety aspects of railroading among their performance review elements and weren't working toward attaining rules compliance and safety. If you don't have rules compliance and safety being a large part of your performance review you are being told by senior management that safety and rules compliance don't matter. Are you saying that if safety concerns aren't part of the performance review, employees don't attempt to follow safe practices regardless of "rules"?
As much as rank and file decry 'weed weasels', they are necessary and the aspects of safety and rules compliance they test for set the tone of how the rank and file perform their duties.
Don't stress safety in compliance testing and the rank and file perform more unsafe acts. Don't stress rules compliance and more and more rules get violated. Rank and File employees are human beings and like all human beings will try to 'get away' with everything possible - especially if they feel field management is not looking.
BaltACDAs much as rank and file decry 'weed weasels', they are necessary and the aspects of safety and rules compliance they test for set the tone of how the rank and file perform their duties.
Just don't always equate the terms "rules" and "safety".
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
In preperation for the two day hearing NTSB opened a docket containing among others factual reports from different NTSB groups regarding this accident.
Docket: https://t.co/E48qUFYYSq
The factual reports are on pages 2 and 3.Regards, Volker
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.