https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/cp-railway-tsb-lawsuit-threat-investigator-field-fatal-derailment-1.6070183
Both the TSB and RCMP investigations are still ongoing.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
Odd that the lead investigator would speak to the media independently of his employer, the TSB.
UlrichOdd that the lead investigator would speak to the media independently of his employer, the TSB.
Employees of regulatory agencies that are not the designated spokesperson for the agency are not speaking for the agency and are subject to discipline when they do. This is not limited to TSB but any organization in any country.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Yeah, you could see the news reporters badgering CP Rail CEO Creel about this even in the United States it made the news of course because if it bleeds it leads. Anyways, he did not look too happy at the time about it and he even walked away from the group of reporters prematurely in anger. They were not just asking about this accident either but this is the one that triggered the interest of the news media to start the ambush reporting.
I understand that there is an alleged cover-up of the cause of this disaster. What is it that would have been covered up? I understand the train arrived and the engineer made an emergency application that stopped the train. I don’t know what action was taken as the train was standing there, but I understand that it stood there for possibly up to 3 hours. Then the relief crew boarded the train to continue, but the emergency application released on its own and the train rolled away.
There were comments about the car brake cylinder packing being either worn from long usage and/or being too cold, so it was rendered unable to retain the cylinder pressure. After the wreck, I would have expected the TSB to inspect every car cylinder packing component, and also to have refrigerated sample cylinders to check the effect of the cold temperatures on the cylinder packing. If they had done that, I conclude that they may have learned that the emergency application leaked off due to unreliable cylinder packing.
This would raise the question of how long the rules permitted the train to be held on the grade by the emergency application alone. From what I recall of our discussions here, that question was never answered. A general premise is that air alone is not reliable for train securement because it can leak off on an unpredictable basis.
In any case, why wouldn’t the TSB investigation have been allowed to just run its course, and if it found evidence of negligence, then make the charge of negligence and release the evidence that supports the charge? Or why not just investigate to find the cause and let others decide if there was negligence?
Ulrich Odd that the lead investigator would speak to the media independently of his employer, the TSB.
Odd that the TSB would not trust their own investigator's expert opinion that a criminal investigation was warranted.
Crawford obviously felt that becoming a public whistleblower was the only way to achieve this end.
Euclid I understand that there is an alleged cover-up of the cause of this disaster. What is it that would have been covered up? I understand the train arrived and the engineer made an emergency application that stopped the train. I don’t know what action was taken as the train was standing there, but I understand that it stood there for possibly up to 3 hours. Then the relief crew boarded the train to continue, but the emergency application released on its own and the train rolled away. There were comments about the car brake cylinder packing being either worn from long usage and/or being too cold, so it was rendered unable to retain the cylinder pressure. After the wreck, I would have expected the TSB to inspect every car cylinder packing component, and also to have refrigerated sample cylinders to check the effect of the cold temperatures on the cylinder packing. If they had done that, I conclude that they may have learned that the emergency application leaked off due to unreliable cylinder packing. This would raise the question of how long the rules permitted the train to be held on the grade by the emergency application alone. From what I recall of our discussions here, that question was never answered. A general premise is that air alone is not reliable for train securement because it can leak off on an unpredictable basis. In any case, why wouldn’t the TSB investigation have been allowed to just run its course, and if it found evidence of negligence, then make the charge of negligence and release the evidence that supports the charge? Or why not just investigate to find the cause and let others decide if there was negligence?
The original crew would not have had to put the train in emergency if the brakes were operating properly. While some of the actions after that point are indeed questionable, I suspect any potentially criminally negligent decisions were made well before this train arrived at Kicking Horse Pass.
The TSB recovered the tail end cars that did not derail and subjected them to various tests:
https://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/securite-safety/rail/2019/r19c0015/r19c0015-617-05-19-20190411.html
The negligence is that air brake maintenance and tests are often neglected, in violation of the applicable regulations. CP is not alone in this regard and it has been happening for years, sometimes resulting in incidents that receive TSB investigations.
http://tsb.gc.ca/eng/enquetes-investigations/rail/2018/R18E0007/R18E0007.html
http://tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/rail/2011/r11q0056/r11q0056.html
The decisions to cut back on maintenance and rush air tests do not happen in a vacuum. Someone actively makes those decisions.
SD70Dude Ulrich Odd that the lead investigator would speak to the media independently of his employer, the TSB. Odd that the TSB would not trust their own investigator's expert opinion that a criminal investigation was warranted. Crawford obviously felt that becoming a public whistleblower was the only way to achieve this end.
Investigators are supposed to investigate. He was premature in his conclusions, and presumably his "superiors" at the TSB are his superiors for a reason.. i.e. their expertise is at least on par with his. His bosses disagreed with his conclusions.. possibly for good reason. Criminal negligence is a high bar to meet.. by running to the media under the guise of whistleblower protection so early on he impuned and blindsided his employer, compromised the investigation, and turned it into the circle jerk it is now.
TSB probably uses the same approach toward perceived impartiality as the NTSB uses here: making clear that no material in or from an investigation can be used as evidence in any court proceeding. For Crawford to invoke criminal investigation is a violation of that principle.
What he should have done, if he felt so strongly that criminal action was a factor (and ongoing) and that his concerns were not perceived as 'significant enough' going through channels available to him ... which itself seems a little peculiar ... eould be to recuse himself as lead investigator, and possibly resign from any responsible position in the TSB, and then go to the media with his story, make the virtue signal that he resigned out of conscience, use the bully pulpit of his previous responsibility and credentials, etc.
Then see if the powers-that-be put him in a good career afterward based on his civic commitment to justice and safety...
OvermodTSB probably uses the same approach toward perceived impartiality as the NTSB uses here: making clear that no material in or from an investigation can be used as evidence in any court proceeding. For Crawford to invoke criminal investigation is a violation of that principle.
Why wouldn't the safety board investigators be legally trained in the proper collection, preservation and securing of evidence, for possible referal for futher criminal investigation if appropriate, and to serve as expert witnesses if called? That does not preclude initial impartiality.
SD70DudeCrawford obviously felt that becoming a public whistleblower was the only way to achieve this end.
That is my thought also. Too many regulators get too cozy with those they are tasked to independently investigate. And as is presented, CP roared and the TSB caved making the case that they were intimidated.
Electroliner 1935 That is my thought also. Too many regulators get too cozy with those they are tasked to independently investigate. And as is presented, CP roared and the TSB caved making the case that they were intimidated.
That is the strange part. How can a private company possibly intimidate a Government bureaucracy? How can an accident investigation bureaucracy do its job if the investigated party can prevent that on the grounds that it will damage their reputation?
EuclidHow can a private company possibly intimidate a Government bureaucracy?
Overmod Euclid How can a private company possibly intimidate a Government bureaucracy? Perhaps when the Government bureaucracy demonstrably violates its own claim of impartiality and neutrality in investigation?
Euclid How can a private company possibly intimidate a Government bureaucracy?
Perhaps when the Government bureaucracy demonstrably violates its own claim of impartiality and neutrality in investigation?
Well, CP may have a legitimate grievance, but what I mean is that I don't see how a private company can have the leverage to intimidate a Government bureaucracy.
But to your other point: Does a call for investigation of negligence violate a claim of impartiality? Maybe it does, but I don't know how the needle is threaded. The NTSB makes a similar claim of something to the effect of not placing blame, but rather, finding probable cause. The difference seems a bit unclear to me.
In any case, what would be the actual leverage that the CP could exercize against TSB by threatening them with legal action? What is the actual force of such legal action that would cause TSB to back down?
EuclidWell, CP may have a legitimate grievance, but what I mean is that I don't see how a private company can have the leverage to intimidate a Government bureaucracy.
This is a bit ironic because the TSB itself loves to find and mention various violations of paper rules to spice up their 'finding of fact' in no few of the reports I've read.
But to your other point: Does a call for investigation of negligence violate a claim of impartiality?
One of the points behind the NTSB's very pointed reason for impartiality is that plaintiff's bar just loves latching onto reports that further their 'take' ... very specifically, as reported in the CBC story itself.
There is plenty of time to assert and prove criminality when the various cases go to trial. Contaminating evidence by making prejudicial statements ... perhaps needlessly prejudicial statements ... has been trouble in court proceedings many times, and I expect it will prove so here.
A place the difference becomes particularly obvious is the report on an accident with multiple contributing causes -- Lac Megantic being a classic example. It is relatively easy to describe the series of events leading up to the accident. It is even possible to assign them relative weight or significance... or, indeed, to note when some are circumstantial rather than 'proximate causes'. In the sense that these reports call for action or make recommendations, they can be said to assign responsibility.
But you will NOT find them say things like 'Harding was to blame' or 'the fire department caused this by shutting the engine off'. And where we other criticize them is when they start 'inching toward full service' to assign more of the 'blame' a particular way, or carefully away from certain groups or people.
That's not to say an investigator can't make particular causes look like blame. Never was I prouder of Mr. Feynman than when he chilled the O-ring and broke it right there on the table. Much of the rest of the nonsense unwound itself from there without his needing to 'blame' anybody...
The NTSB makes a similar claim of something to the effect of not placing blame, but rather, finding probable cause. The difference seems a bit unclear to me.
The difference is really simple. Detectives are finders of fact. Courts are finders of fault or blame. There is no place for opinions, or bias, or personal hobbyhorses like Bella's obsession with magical PTC, in an analytical investigation.
I might add that even without creative use of rhetoric -- often a Government-agency SOP much like invocarion of the threat of strict scrutiny to secure compliance -- it would be abundantly clear by the time the report is put up if something criminally illegal had been observed; there is no need for prejudicial language to call attention to it. Lawyers will serve up all the prejudice that is needed, and likely a great deal more.
In any case, what would be the actual leverage that the CP could exercise against TSB by threatening them with legal action?
What is the actual force of such legal action that would cause TSB to back down?
Overmod Euclid What is the actual force of such legal action that would cause TSB to back down? Even the threat in today's cancel culture might be enough...
Euclid
Even the threat in today's cancel culture might be enough...
I think Government bureaucracies may be exempt from the cancel culture, and possibly even part of it. In any case, I would be satisfied if rail accidents were investigated merely to find cause and not criminal negligence. Cause is self-evident if you look hard enough. But it seems that the issue motivating this so-called whistle blowing was a feeling that CP was making evidence inaccessible to the investigation. And the worry was that the disaster would be blamed on CP employees rather than management.
Regarding cause, it seems like it was most directly related to the emergency application being relied on to secure the train on the grade. I don’t recall anyone questioning whether that was permitted. It has been said that they did not supplement the emergency application with handbrakes, but they did set retainers. What was their purpose of setting retainers?
I was thinking that the purpose was to supplement the emergency application by setting retainers rather than setting handbrakes, but maybe that assumption was incorrect. Perhaps the setting of retainers was intended leave them set as a precaution during the continuation of the run after leaving Field.
Euclid Overmod Euclid What is the actual force of such legal action that would cause TSB to back down? Even the threat in today's cancel culture might be enough... I think Government bureaucracies may be exempt from the cancel culture, and possibly even part of it. In any case, I would be satisfied if rail accidents were investigated merely to find cause and not criminal negligence. Cause is self-evident if you look hard enough. But it seems that the issue motivating this so-called whistle blowing was a feeling that CP was making evidence inaccessible to the investigation. And the worry was that the disaster would be blamed on CP employees rather than management. Regarding cause, it seems like it was most directly related to the emergency application being relied on to secure the train on the grade. I don’t recall anyone questioning whether that was permitted. It has been said that they did not supplement the emergency application with handbrakes, but they did set retainers. What was their purpose of setting retainers? I was thinking that the purpose was to supplement the emergency application by setting retainers rather than setting handbrakes, but maybe that assumption was incorrect. Perhaps the setting of retainers was intended leave them set as a precaution during the continuation of the run after leaving Field.
Retainers are not a substitute for hand brakes. Not securing the train with hand brakes after the emergency application is a man failure issue.
The crew that experienced the emergency application set the trap that killed the second crew by not securing the train with hand brakes.
Electroliner 1935 SD70Dude Crawford obviously felt that becoming a public whistleblower was the only way to achieve this end. That is my thought also. Too many regulators get too cozy with those they are tasked to independently investigate. And as is presented, CP roared and the TSB caved making the case that they were intimidated.
SD70Dude Crawford obviously felt that becoming a public whistleblower was the only way to achieve this end.
It is also worth noting that the only current TSB board member with any sort of railroad background is a former CP exec.
http://tsb.gc.ca/eng/qui-about/bureau-board.html
I agree with Ian Naish's assessment in the CBC article I originally posted, the TSB is supposed to be legally impartial and a safety investigator publicly calling for a criminal investigation violates that.
But it is the RCMP who conducts any criminal investigation and determines what is or isn't criminally negligent, not the TSB. I don't see how alerting the police and letting them make their own decision violates anything.
The RCMP have now been conducting a criminal investigation into CP and this incident for over a year six months now. If there really was absolutely nothing to go on they would have ended their investigation by now.
SD70DudeI don't see how alerting the police and letting them make their own decision violates anything.
I believe the now-ongoing RCMP investigation into the current matter started nearly a year later.
BaltACD Euclid Overmod Euclid What is the actual force of such legal action that would cause TSB to back down? Even the threat in today's cancel culture might be enough... I think Government bureaucracies may be exempt from the cancel culture, and possibly even part of it. In any case, I would be satisfied if rail accidents were investigated merely to find cause and not criminal negligence. Cause is self-evident if you look hard enough. But it seems that the issue motivating this so-called whistle blowing was a feeling that CP was making evidence inaccessible to the investigation. And the worry was that the disaster would be blamed on CP employees rather than management. Regarding cause, it seems like it was most directly related to the emergency application being relied on to secure the train on the grade. I don’t recall anyone questioning whether that was permitted. It has been said that they did not supplement the emergency application with handbrakes, but they did set retainers. What was their purpose of setting retainers? I was thinking that the purpose was to supplement the emergency application by setting retainers rather than setting handbrakes, but maybe that assumption was incorrect. Perhaps the setting of retainers was intended leave them set as a precaution during the continuation of the run after leaving Field. Retainers are not a substitute for hand brakes. Not securing the train with hand brakes after the emergency application is a man failure issue. The crew that experienced the emergency application set the trap that killed the second crew by not securing the train with hand brakes.
The relieving crew knew that the train was not secured by handbrakes. It is not clear that the crew that made the emergency application was obligated to secure the train with handbrakes. What if they were out of time? I had the impression that the plan to not set handbrakes upon stopping was agreed upon and approved. Later when the second crew was on board, others were setting the handbrakes to allow the air brakes to be released for re-starting the train. As I said, I do not know if the reason for setting retainers was meant to be a substitute for setting handbrakes. It is just that they set retainers and did not set handbrakes when the train was standing with an emergency application holding it.
Maybe this has been answered before, but it is not clear to me why they were allowed to hold the train on the grade with only an emergency application for several hours.
For a train experiencing trouble holding its speed down on such a grade, and thus stopping by use of an emergency application on that grade, what do the rules require?
Overmod I believe the now-ongoing RCMP investigation into the current matter started nearly a year later.
You're correct, I had gotten the dates confused. The police investigation started in December 2020.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.