Ulrichrail moving more oil
Russell
The explanation that shutting down the running engine caused the brakes to release appears to by chiseled into a granite monument as a fundamental truth of life. It must be part of over 1000 newspaper articles by now. Everybody is reciting it with faith and conviction.
Everybody, that is, except Burkhardt who originally introduced the explanation, but has now abandoned it in favor of throwing the engineer under the bus.
The following two quote sets are Burkhardt first explaining the loss of air brakes due to the engine shutdown before he started blaming the engineer for not setting hand brakes. The second quote is from an expert refuting what Burkhardt said.
QUOTE #1
Ed Burkhardt, chair of Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railways, has said the engineer followed proper procedures, setting the main air brake system and several hand brakes before he left. A locomotive unit was left running to maintain the brake system, said Burkhardt.
“Everything was as it should have been,” he said.
Burkhardt said the fire department turned off the engine to fight the blaze, which caused the brakes to fail about an hour later. The train began its death hurtle then downhill into town. Thirteen people are confirmed dead and as many as 50 still missing.
“It’s shutting the engine off that did this,” said Burkhardt.
QUOTE #2
Experts are baffled as to how that could have happened.
Wally Kirkpatrick, manager of rules and operations with RTC Rail Solutions, said safety rules dictate a train being left anywhere should be put in a “full service” brake.
That means decreasing the pressure in the air brake system, which applies the brakes.
“The only way these brakes are going to release is if the pressure goes up,” said Kirkpatrick, who has 38 years of experience. “This is the fail-safe thing about a train.”
“How the train got away in this situation is really beyond me.”
Some links from CTV News:
Sadly, the death toll has now climbed to 24
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/death-toll-in-lac-megantic-train-disaster-rises-to-24-elderly-victim-id-d-1.1362568
A mostly favourable portrait of the Engineer
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/portrait-emerges-of-train-engineer-linked-to-quebec-derailment-disaster-1.1363792
Moody's is predicting increase in costs for shipping oil by rail
http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/quebec-train-disaster-to-raise-costs-for-shipping-oil-by-rail-moody-s-1.1363377
Bruce
So shovel the coal, let this rattler roll.
"A Train is a Place Going Somewhere" CP Rail Public Timetable
"O. S. Irricana"
. . . __ . ______
BigJimWhy don't you wait until the TSB has done its job and reported their findings before you go and make bigger fools of yourselves?
Because speculation is so much fun...
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...
Schuylkill and Susquehanna I've got some updates on MMA from huffingtonpost.com and huffingtonpost.ca. The engineer who was responsible for the train that derailed was involved in another incident not quite a year ago. On August 3, 2012, engineer Tom Harding operated a train that derailed in a Canadian National yard in...
I've got some updates on MMA from huffingtonpost.com and huffingtonpost.ca.
The engineer who was responsible for the train that derailed was involved in another incident not quite a year ago. On August 3, 2012, engineer Tom Harding operated a train that derailed in a Canadian National yard in...
I can see you leading the lynch mob now!
ring...ring...ring...Call Office
Mark me off sick...SLAM!!!
.
Maybe I missed it, but:
Who - or how - was the fire department notified of the 1st fire on one of the locomotives of the parked train ?
Is that location near homes or some other place where residents would or have objected to locomotives idling all night long ?
- Paul North.
Paul_D_North_JrWho - or how - was the fire department notified of the 1st fire on one of the locomotives of the parked train ?
The cab driver who picked up the engineer noticed heavy smoke coming from the engine, and asked the engineer about it. Apparently there were oil droplets in the smoke landing on the taxicab. The engineer did not seem too concerned, but shortly after, someone noticed a small fire and called the fire department. They showed up with 12 men and put the fire out with a fire extinguisher. They also shut down that engine, which was the only one running. The shutdown was a normal procedure that the fire department were trained to do. Ed Burkhardt blamed the runaway on the fire department, saying that when the shut down that engine, it caused the train's brakes to release.
Schuylkill and Susquehanna Mr. Burkhardt, CEO of Rail World Inc. and the MM&A made a serious blunder after he arrived in Quebec. The business language of Quebec is French, and Mr. Burkhardt talked in English, and did not bring any translators. This naturally caused outrage in Quebec, and even the Prime Minister was upset about this. I would think that someone on Mr. Burkhardt's staff or one of his lawyers, etc. would have known that he should have spoken in French or had a translator with him. Perhaps he never got told, or it never made it up the chain of command. S&S
Mr. Burkhardt, CEO of Rail World Inc. and the MM&A made a serious blunder after he arrived in Quebec. The business language of Quebec is French, and Mr. Burkhardt talked in English, and did not bring any translators. This naturally caused outrage in Quebec, and even the Prime Minister was upset about this.
I would think that someone on Mr. Burkhardt's staff or one of his lawyers, etc. would have known that he should have spoken in French or had a translator with him. Perhaps he never got told, or it never made it up the chain of command.
S&S
Bucyrus BroadwayLion Falcon48but I believe that modern locos have a pressure maintaining feature, which would result in maintaining a reduced pressure in the train line even though the brakes are set ( These were not "modern" locomotives. They may not have been so equipped. According to explanations here by our air brake experts, the pressure maintaining feature would not have played a role in this incident if the brakes were properly set. If they were properly set, the train line would be 100% exhausted and open to atmosphere. The brake cylinders would have been fully presurized and holding the brakes fully applied. Therefore, it would be impossible for the brakes to release due to a slow and unintended pressurization of the train line. Being open to atmosphere, the train line could not possibly be pressurized. So the only way the brakes could release on their own, would be for the pressuized cylinders to leak off, or for someone to walk the train and pull all the bleed rods. If the cylinders were to simply leak off, it would not have happend in just a matter of an hour or so. Most likely, it would have taken several days minimum.
BroadwayLion Falcon48but I believe that modern locos have a pressure maintaining feature, which would result in maintaining a reduced pressure in the train line even though the brakes are set ( These were not "modern" locomotives. They may not have been so equipped.
Falcon48but I believe that modern locos have a pressure maintaining feature, which would result in maintaining a reduced pressure in the train line even though the brakes are set (
These were not "modern" locomotives. They may not have been so equipped.
According to explanations here by our air brake experts, the pressure maintaining feature would not have played a role in this incident if the brakes were properly set. If they were properly set, the train line would be 100% exhausted and open to atmosphere. The brake cylinders would have been fully presurized and holding the brakes fully applied.
Therefore, it would be impossible for the brakes to release due to a slow and unintended pressurization of the train line. Being open to atmosphere, the train line could not possibly be pressurized.
So the only way the brakes could release on their own, would be for the pressuized cylinders to leak off, or for someone to walk the train and pull all the bleed rods. If the cylinders were to simply leak off, it would not have happend in just a matter of an hour or so. Most likely, it would have taken several days minimum.
On the other hand, if the runaway occured only an "hour or so" after the engine was shut down, I don't see how the loco shut down has anything to do with the accident. As you say, the air would not have bled off in such a short period. So the only way the air brakes would have come off is if they were deliberately released (by someone releasing the brake valve in the loco or pulling the bleed valves) or released by some kind of malfunction in the brake system that increased train line pressure a couple of pounds. In either case, the loco shutdown wouldn't have been the cause, and the brake release would have occurred even if the loco had beeen left running.
As I mentioned in an earler post, in the U.S., FRA regulations prohibit a railroad from depending on air brakes to hold unattended equipment on a grade (49 CFR 232.103(n)). Clearly, FRA believes there is a danger of the air brakes unintentionally releasing on an unattended train, or they wouldn't have adopted such a prohibition.
A remote possibility :----- Let us examine the loco consist.. It is my understanding that the loco consist had 5 or 6 locos and a home built RCO caboose. ???
The RCO would have main resivoir pressure on it thru the main reservoir air hose that goes to all locos. The firemen shut down the lead (?) loco. If for some reason the RCO commanded a increase in brake pipe pressure would not the air brakes released ? That might have happened because of a mechanical failure, an electronic failure, design mistake, or even a stray radio signal ??
When an RCO is in line with the consist are there the same protocols in place for it to be considered as an in trail unit as regular locos. Does the Engineer when using RCO have to mount the caboose and throw some switch(s) ?? This RCO by my understanding is a home built unit ?
Also maybre one of the other locos units could have commanded a release.
IMHO --- the position and control settings of every unit needs close scrutiny and especially the RCO.
Because of Kerry's impending visit, I felt it necessary to visit the Manchester Guardian website this morning. But I was immediately distracted by the following column:
Three days after a train carrying crude oil derailed and exploded in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, the rural town resembles a scene of desolation. Its downtown is a charred sacrifice zone. 50 people are likely dead, making the train's toll one of the worst disasters in recent Canadian history.
In the explosion's aftermath, politicians and media pundits have wagged their finger about the indecency of "politicising" the event, of grappling with deeper explanations. We can mourn, but not scrutinise. In April, prime minister Stephen Harper even coined an awkward expression – "committing sociology" – to deride the search for root causes about horrifying events, in the wake of an unrelated, alleged bombing attempt.
But to simply call the Lac-Mégantic explosion a "tragedy" and to stop there, is to make it seem like an accident that occurred solely because of human error or technical oversight. It risks missing how we might assign broader culpability. And we owe it to the people who died to understand the reasons why such a disaster occurred, and how it might be prevented in the future.
So here's my bit of unwelcome sociology: the explosion in Lac-Mégantic is not merely a tragedy. It is a corporate crime scene.
The deeper evidence about this event won't be found in the train's black box, or by questioning the one engineer who left the train before it loosened and careened unmanned into the heart of this tiny town. For that you'll have to look at how Lac-Mégantic was hit by a perfect storm of greed, deregulation and an extreme energy rush driving companies to ever greater gambles with the environment and human life.
The crude carried on the rail-line of US-based company Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway – "fracked" shale oil from North Dakota – would not have passed through Lac-Mégantic five years ago. That's because it's part of a boom in dirty, unconventional energy, as fossil fuel companies seek to supplant the depletion of easy oil and gas with new sources – sources that are harder to find, nastier to extract, and more complicated to ship.
Like the Alberta tar sands, or the shale deposits of the United States, these energy sources are so destructive and carbon-intensive that leading scientists have made a straightforward judgment: to avert runaway climate change, they need to be kept in the ground. It's a sad irony that Quebec is one of the few places to currently ban the "fracking" used to extract the Dakotan oil that devastated Lac-Mégantic.
But fossil fuel companies, spurred by record profits, have deployed a full-spectrum strategy to exploit and carry this oil to market. That's one of the reasons for a massive, reckless increase in the amount of oil shipped by rail. In 2009, companies shipped a mere 500 carloads of crude oil by rail in Canada; this year, it will be 140,000.
Oil-by-rail has also proved a form of insurance against companies' worst nightmare: a burgeoning, continent-wide movement to block pipelines from the Alberta tar sands. A group of Canadian businessmen ispursuing the construction of a 2,400-kilometre rail line that could ship 5m barrels of tar sands oil from Alberta to Alaska. Companies are also trucking it and entertaining the idea of barging it down waterways. This is the creed of the new energy era: by any means necessary.
The recklessness of these corporations is no accident. Under the reign of neoliberalism over the last 30 years, governments in Canada and elsewhere have freed them from environmental, labour and safety standards and oversight, while opening up increasingly more of the public sphere for private profit-seeking.
The railway in Canada has hardly been exempt. Up until the mid 1980s, the industry, publicly-run, was under serious regulation. By the time the Thatcherite Progressive Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney was finished with his reforms, it was deregulated, and companies had rewritten the safety rules. That launched an era of cost-cutting, massive lay-offs, and speed-ups on the job, and eventually, the full privatization of companies and rail-lines.
The Liberal government completed the job by turning over what regulation remained to rail companies themselves. A report issued in 2007 by a safety group spelled out the result: Canada's rail system was a disaster in the waiting.
It's little wonder, then, that today's oil and rail barons have cut corners with ease. They've been using old rail cars to ship oil, despite the fact that regulators warned the federal government they were unsafe, as far back as 20 years ago. A more recent report by a federal agencyreminded the government that the cars could be "subject to damage and catastrophic loss of hazardous materials." All were ignored. To top it off, the federal government gave the go-ahead last year to Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway to operate with just one engineer aboard their trains.
All of which means it will not suffice to find out if a brake malfunctioned the night of the disaster, or limit ourselves to pointing at the failings of lax regulation. The debate should be about the need for another kind of brake, over the mad pursuit of infinite resources, and the unshackling of reckless corporations, on a finite and fragile planet.
Canada's political class will not be pleased by the lessons to be drawn. The government needs to get back into the business of heavily regulating corporations – through incentives, through taxes, and through sanctions. And this will involve not just grappling with the dangers of the transport of oil – which will remain unsafe, whether by rail or by pipeline – but starting a rapid transition away from an extreme energy economy entirely. That will not happen as the result of any government inquiry, but a noisy social movement that puts it on the public agenda.
That's why the most fitting response to Lac-Mégantic actually happened two weeks ago, by US residents 100 miles across the border in Fairfield, Maine. They were arrested blockading a train carrying the same fracked oil from the same oilfields of Northern Dakota, to the same refinery in New Brunswick, Canada. Their message was about ending our reliance on oil, not soon but now. For those who never knew the victims of Lac-Mégantic, there could be no better way to honour them.
• Follow Martin on Twitter: @Martin_Lukacs
I don't agree with the columnist either. This is likely nothing more than a tragic accident. Someone somewhere or perhaps several mistakes by several people caused this to happen. I really don't believe there was any criminal intent by anyone. Hopefully the investigation clearly identifies what went wrong so that changes can be made and safe guards put into place. Punishing Tom Harding, the locomotive engineer, would be pointless...his life is already in ruins and I don't believe he meant for any of this to happen.
Schuylkill and Susquehanna I've got some updates on MMA from huffingtonpost.com and huffingtonpost.ca. The engineer who was responsible for the train that derailed was involved in another incident not quite a year ago. On August 3, 2012, engineer Tom Harding operated a train that derailed in a Canadian National yard in Ste-Hyacinthe, Quebec. The CN spokesman wanted to make it very clear that Mr. Harding was a MMA employee at the time. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/07/11/tom-harding-lac-megantic-explosion_n_3581552.html?utm_hp_ref=canada-business
The engineer who was responsible for the train that derailed was involved in another incident not quite a year ago. On August 3, 2012, engineer Tom Harding operated a train that derailed in a Canadian National yard in Ste-Hyacinthe, Quebec. The CN spokesman wanted to make it very clear that Mr. Harding was a MMA employee at the time. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/07/11/tom-harding-lac-megantic-explosion_n_3581552.html?utm_hp_ref=canada-business
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy Siding Schuylkill and Susquehanna I've got some updates on MMA from huffingtonpost.com and huffingtonpost.ca. The engineer who was responsible for the train that derailed was involved in another incident not quite a year ago. On August 3, 2012, engineer Tom Harding operated a train that derailed in a Canadian National yard in Ste-Hyacinthe, Quebec. The CN spokesman wanted to make it very clear that Mr. Harding was a MMA employee at the time. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/07/11/tom-harding-lac-megantic-explosion_n_3581552.html?utm_hp_ref=canada-business You don't say. An engineer was *involved in another incident.....train derailed...in yard..." What are the odds of that? How does that little bit of juicy gossip from an online blather website add anything to this discussion?
Thanks Murphy,
Yard derailments are like having a flat tire on your car…it isn’t a matter of if, but a matter of when.
Note the CN spokesman failed to say what caused the “yard derailment”, which of course could have been a striped rail joint, gapped switch point, knuckle bypass, all the stuff that happens on a daily basis in yards.
If having a yard derailment is a qualifier of a railroader’s safety, then I am an absolute danger/disaster waiting to happen, because I have “been involved” in 6 of them in 16 years, 3 of which happened in a span of one month, and of those 3, two happened in the same place on consecutive days.
I ought to be fired!
23 17 46 11
Yeah come on Ed...keep it on the tracks!
It is aggravating how quickly both the news media and a few members of this forum are to place blame on the engineer.
While not an engineer, I am a qualified conductor, and the following is what I would have expected to happen.
The engineer would have pulled the train into the siding with all the slack stretched, to prevent any sloshers from later upsetting the train; their action can cause some “slack walk”.
Now, any of the event recorders will have the following information, and this info will confirm or repudiate his account.
After stopping, the event recorders will show the train line brake application and the independent application…a suitable interlude of time will occur if he went back and tie the number of hand brakes he stated he tied….at this point, the event recorders will show the release of the train brakes and the independent brake, and they will show if the locomotive moved, even a small movement of say, a foot.
If the FRED is a telementry equipped FRED, the event recorders will show any movement of the rear of the train.
Again, a suitable amount of time will expire while the engineer waits to see if anything moves, then the recorders will show him doing a train brake application in accordance with his railroads rules, the independent brake being set, the locomotive being place into isolate.
If, during the subsequent engine fire, the FD moved any of the control surfaces on the lead unit, the event recorder will also have that information.
Assuming they didn’t move anything, if anyone had at a later time done so, (saboteur or vandal) that too will show up on the recorder.
By two account published in the local and national media, the engineer returned to his train after the runaway, and using his locomotives, he pulled several cars, (no specific number was given) away from the fire.
If that is true, then I would expect the Canadian version of the NTSB would find much less than the 11 handbrakes originally tied, as the engineer would have walked the head cut popping hand brakes till he got to a point that either his own prudence or the heat from the fire prevented him from going further, at that point, he would have looked for a coupling that had enough slack to allow him to “pull the pin” and reaching in, closing the anglecock on the car, walk back to his locomotives, pull the cut away to a distance he felt was safe, tie a few hand brakes to hold that cut in place, and cut his engines away, moving them to an even farther distance to ensure they were not damaged.
If this was the case, or any scenario close to it, the event recorders will show the corresponding movement of the locomotives.
I can tell you that when that engineer walked out of his hotel room, he realized two things, first, he had to go there and see if he could help, as odd as it sounds, we think of these things as “our train” and he would have felt some responsibility….two, he also knew at that moment he was one fired SOB, and most likely all the blame would at some point be laid at his feet, it is standard company procedure to divert as much liability as possible away from the company and its operating practices and onto any crew member or outside force as can be accomplished.
I would in fact, find it rare that the engineer didn’t tie more than the required number of hand brakes, this exact scenario is every railroaders worst nightmare, a runaway that was his fault.
Until the event recorders information is made public, then blaming the engineer, without the facts, is simply scapegoating at its worst.
And by the way, the eco nut columnist ought to give up his plastic glasses and lenses, his plastic computer and key board, his cell phone, the Styrofoam cup his double twist latte came in, the “hair product” his applied to get that perfect “tousled look”, the plastic comb he failed to apply to that look, and the polyester blend hoodie and sneakers he is wearing before he demands oil stop moving!
This looks like would have happened if the movie Unstopable and the CSX crazy 8s incedent in Toledo OH did not have a happy ending
Ed, would you please stop being so rational? It spoils the mood.
Outstanding analysis and commentary Ed. Beats anything I've read in the press by a country mile..
What mood?
Oh yeah, the "shoot now, shoot later, and if anybody moves, shoot some more, then ask a few questions?"
That mood?
csxns Ulrichrail moving more oilI believe the Pipeline is going to be built.
There are no pipelines to the east coast refineries.
They used to get North Sea Oil by ship. Switching to Bakken Oil by rail was done for a reason, most likely because of price. Getting that pipeline built will be a nightmare compared to the XL pipeline, and yet the oil must continue to flow. Expect it to travel by rail, and NOW BE THE TIME to double down on rail transport.
ROAR
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
Ed,
I appreciate your comments about the likely scenario details of the brake release and engineer’s subsequent response. However, I do not think it is fair for you to say that the “forum membership” is blaming the engineer. If there were such an issue with people blaming the engineer in a way that you think is unjustified, the person or persons doing that should be signaled out directly and taken to task for it. The “forum membership” never speaks with a single voice on anything. In fact, that is our only unifying characteristic.
As to the point you make about criticizing the engineer, I would have to go back and check, but I don’t recall anybody criticizing the engineer. That post on the previous page by forum member, Schuylkill and Susquehanna was just extracted from news accounts detailing the entire record of the engineer. Other such accounts detail the entire record of the MM&A Ry regarding derailments and accidents. The does seem like pertinent information to pick up in the coverage of this derailment.
Even in the news coverage, I do not find acrimony directed toward the engineer. Apparently he lives in Lac-Megantic, and is popular and well liked. They are quick to recognize and commend him for his heroism in pulling some cars out of the flaming wreck to prevent them from exploding.
The one and only person who seems to have plunged a knife into the engineer’s back and is twisting it is MM&A president, Ed Burkhardt.
For my own part in this discussion, I have been defending the engineer against the charges by Mr. Burkhardt on the basis that Mr. Burkhardt has only offered as evidence that he feels the engineer did not set enough brakes. Mr. Burkhardt says that his feeling has to be true because the train would not have run away if the engineer had set enough brakes.
Yet earlier, Mr. Burkhardt defended the engineer, saying, “The engineer was not the last person to touch that train.” Earlier, Mr. Burkhardt blamed the whole thing on the fire department. He also said that he has “evidence of tampering with the train.” Whatever he meant by that, a failure to set hand brakes cannot be considered to be “tampering.”
I do not know what role the engineer or the fire department played in the cause of this catastrophe, but I have nothing but contempt for Mr. Burkhardt. I think he has acted like a spoiled child who is desperate to avoid blame that he shoots from the hip to place blame wherever the greatest opportunity lies at the moment.
BroadwayLion csxns Ulrichrail moving more oilI believe the Pipeline is going to be built. There are no pipelines to the east coast refineries. They used to get North Sea Oil by ship. Switching to Bakken Oil by rail was done for a reason, most likely because of price. Getting that pipeline built will be a nightmare compared to the XL pipeline, and yet the oil must continue to flow. Expect it to travel by rail, and NOW BE THE TIME to double down on rail transport. ROAR
No pipelines to the east coast yet, and as far as I'm aware none in the planning stages. Perhaps trans-loading the oil on to ships from a suitable Great Lakes port for furtherance to Saint John is a possibility. Pipelines are obviously less flexible than rail and pose risks of their own. So far I haven't seen much discussion on shipping...its as if rail and pipeline are the only two ways to ship oil.
edblysard - I've been appreciating your perspective on this matter.
It seems the national media has lost all interest in this event.
Bucyrus Ed, I appreciate your comments about the likely scenario details of the brake release and engineer’s subsequent response. However, I do not think it is fair for you to say that the “forum membership” is blaming the engineer. If there were such an issue with people blaming the engineer in a way that you think is unjustified, the person or persons doing that should be signaled out directly and taken to task for it. The “forum membership” never speaks with a single voice on anything. In fact, that is our only unifying characteristic. As to the point you make about criticizing the engineer, I would have to go back and check, but I don’t recall anybody criticizing the engineer. That post on the previous page by forum member, Schuylkill and Susquehanna was just extracted from news accounts detailing the entire record of the engineer. Other such accounts detail the entire record of the MM&A Ry regarding derailments and accidents. The does seem like pertinent information to pick up in the coverage of this derailment. Even in the news coverage, I do not find acrimony directed toward the engineer. Apparently he lives in Lac-Megantic, and is popular and well liked. They are quick to recognize and commend him for his heroism in pulling some cars out of the flaming wreck to prevent them from exploding. The one and only person who seems to have plunged a knife into the engineer’s back and is twisting it is MM&A president, Ed Burkhardt. For my own part in this discussion, I have been defending the engineer against the charges by Mr. Burkhardt on the basis that Mr. Burkhardt has only offered as evidence that he feels the engineer did not set enough brakes. Mr. Burkhardt says that his feeling has to be true because the train would not have run away if the engineer had set enough brakes. Yet earlier, Mr. Burkhardt defended the engineer, saying, “The engineer was not the last person to touch that train.” Earlier, Mr. Burkhardt blamed the whole thing on the fire department. He also said that he has “evidence of tampering with the train.” Whatever he meant by that, a failure to set hand brakes cannot be considered to be “tampering.” I do not know what role the engineer or the fire department played in the cause of this catastrophe, but I have nothing but contempt for Mr. Burkhardt. I think he has acted like a spoiled child who is desperate to avoid blame that he shoots from the hip to place blame wherever the greatest opportunity lies at the moment.
To redirect the discussion, why is it necessary for the CEO to visit a disaster site? What does it provide other than:
Directing local effort to hosting the CEO
An opportunity to vent irrational anger
Good press, etc.?
I would guess that Mr. Burkhardt couldn't get in there and perform many investigative functions and his visit was just to show the flag.
I can't imagine the resources redirected when the President decides to visit a disaster site!
Yes, Fifedog, Ed has stated the matter quite well. And, I do not recall seeing anything about it yesterday, except on the Trains forums.
Incidentally, I do not recall seeing so many posts in less than a week on any other matter.
And, when we are familiar with the editorial stance of various publications, we should not be surprised to read such opinions as that expressed in Dave Klepper's quotation of a certain English newspaper. I appreciate the comment as to what the holders of the anti-oil position should do. Just looking around my kitchen-dining-living room ( I live on the lower level of the house my daughter and I bought), I see more items that have come from petroleum than I can easily count.
Johnny
petitnjwhy is it necessary for the CEO to visit a disaster site? What does it provide other than: An opportunity to vent irrational anger...?
An opportunity to vent irrational anger...?
So, your town gets destroyed and fifty friends get killed; and if you are angry about it, that is irrational?
However, I do not think it is fair for you to say that the “forum membership” is blaming the engineer. If there were such an issue with people blaming the engineer in a way that you think is unjustified, the person or persons doing that should be signaled out directly and taken to task for it.
Bucyrus,There is no need to single them out. They know who they are. And, it is not just about blaming the engineer. Their choice to ignore any and all attempts at education, and continue with their mob-rule posts speaks for itself.
petitnj To redirect the discussion, why is it necessary for the CEO to visit a disaster site? What does it provide other than: Directing local effort to hosting the CEO An opportunity to vent irrational anger Good press, etc.? I would guess that Mr. Burkhardt couldn't get in there and perform many investigative functions and his visit was just to show the flag. I can't imagine the resources redirected when the President decides to visit a disaster site!
Sometimes the optics and what is said or not said are important. Having him there early would show more respect to those folks who suffered losses. If we were all machines with no feelings then yes indeed... simply send the emergency response people in to clean and get back to work. People who discount the emotions, however, do themselves a great disservice. How a company or the leader of that company reacts can have a big impact on the final cost. A CEO who is shown to be responsive and caring may engender some sympathy in the courts and in the court of public opinion (which is important also if you've got rails running through towns). It's easy to be an arm chair quarterback however... none of us are in Ed Burkhardt's situation, and with the pressure on who knows really how we would respond.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.