I'm locking this thread before things get really out of hand...as they have appeared to be.
In the meantime....wait until the report comes out and try to think of other things to discuss....please.
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
Murray Norm48327 I move this topic be closed until the TSB's final report has been published. I second this motion and ask that this topic be closed.
Norm48327 I move this topic be closed until the TSB's final report has been published.
I move this topic be closed until the TSB's final report has been published.
I second this motion and ask that this topic be closed.
I vote in the affirmative. I would amend the motion to include any future threads on the topic, until the report has been published.
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...
daveklepper I definitely stand corrected. It has not been proved that the engineer did not set suffient handbrakes, only that there were too few when the train ran away. What I should have posted was "If the engineer did not set a sufficient number of handbrakes....." Even then, the prime responsibility may not be his. Some, yes, but not the prime responsibility, given that another train was found on a main line with grade without sufficient number of handbrakes according to the applicable rule, although it had not (yet?) run away. Again, note "may." I apologize for needing the correction and thank those who pointed out the need. I think I was actually the first on the forum to point out that there had been two major attempted terrorist attacks on the Canadian railroads that had been foiled by Canadian security people. For all we know, there may still be an investigation going on in that direction, and of course it would not be made public since secrecy will help the investigation's success.
I definitely stand corrected. It has not been proved that the engineer did not set suffient handbrakes, only that there were too few when the train ran away. What I should have posted was "If the engineer did not set a sufficient number of handbrakes....."
Even then, the prime responsibility may not be his. Some, yes, but not the prime responsibility, given that another train was found on a main line with grade without sufficient number of handbrakes according to the applicable rule, although it had not (yet?) run away. Again, note "may."
I apologize for needing the correction and thank those who pointed out the need.
I think I was actually the first on the forum to point out that there had been two major attempted terrorist attacks on the Canadian railroads that had been foiled by Canadian security people. For all we know, there may still be an investigation going on in that direction, and of course it would not be made public since secrecy will help the investigation's success.
I agree with all of your points. As I mentioned, I believe that there are five possible causes for the wreck. One of them is some unknown person(s) releasing the handbrakes after the train was left at Nantes. I know the authorities have ruled out "terrorism," and maybe they intend that to mean any tampering for any motive. But if you don't know the cause, how can you rule out a plausible cause?
I would not conclude that the crew that tied up that second oil train failed to set sufficient handbrakes. There is no evidence of that unless that train was under 24-hour 100% surveillance.
The motive to tamper with that train would be as strong or stronger than the motive to tamper with the first train.
Norm
edblysard In the largest perspective of the news, at least half the general public believes that the political philosophy of deregulation is wrong because it cuts corners in safety; and they believe that the MM&A wreck proves it. Happy Labor Day. Where did you get the figure of “at least half of the general population” and how in the world do you tie deregulation into anything to do with safety? Can you cite a source for both figures and the statement? Deregulation had nothing to do whatsoever with crew size, it dealt with the ability to set competitive prices.
Where did you get the figure of “at least half of the general population” and how in the world do you tie deregulation into anything to do with safety?
Can you cite a source for both figures and the statement?
Deregulation had nothing to do whatsoever with crew size, it dealt with the ability to set competitive prices.
Ed,
Further developing my earlier reply to your comments about deregulation, here is an article that sums up the viewpoint of many Canadians regarding the MM&A wreck. As I mentioned in my earlier reply this seems to be the view of about half of Canada. I don’t have the numbers, but it strikes me as a very fundamental tug of war between the free market and regulation; and typically tugs of war end up with half on one side and half on the other side. We are having the same tug of war in the U.S. (In my opinion). Note that the issue of deregulation is being applied to crew size as well as many other issues, and not just referring to rate regulation. In fact, I would say that this current blaming of deregulation in Canada has nothing to do with rates. It is all about health and safety:
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/maude-barlow/lac-megantic_b_3660794.html
From the article:
A collision of water, oil, and transport deregulation in Lac-MéganticHow easy it would be to lay the blame for the tragedy in Lac-Mégantic on the engineer who ran the train. But the real responsibility lies with the governments on both sides of the border who have deregulated their transport sectors, gutted freshwater protections and promoted the spectacular growth and transport of new and unsustainable fossil fuels. Starting back in the 1970s, the US government deregulated rail transport, allowing deep staff reductions, the removal of brakemen from trains and lower safety standards for shipping hazardous materials. Canadian governments followed suit and allowed the railways to self-regulate safety standards and continue to ship oil in the older, accident-prone tanker cars of the kind that crashed into Lac-Mégantic.Just last year, Transport Canada gave Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railways the green light to run each train with just one engineer, which explains how one man came to be in charge of 72 cars and five locomotives carrying combustible energy through inhabited communities.The Harper government, meanwhile, has gutted environmental regulation and freshwater protection in order to speed up the development of the Alberta tar sands.Its victims include the Fisheries Act, the Navigable Waters Protection Act and the whole environmental assessment process. Ninety-nine percent of all lakes and rivers in Canada, including Lac-Mégantic, are no longer protected from pipelines carrying bitumen or fracked oils near, around or under them.
Norm and Bucrus: Cannot boh of you agree that:
1. The basic cause of the accident was that the engineer did not set a sufficient number of handbakes
2. The engineer may not have the major blame for the fact that he did not set asufficient number of handbrakes becuase he was following the orders of someone who in turn may hve been just following company policy,
daveklepper I am only recounting what I read on "The Tortous Tatler" blog recommended by Fred Frrailey which I receive regularly. Don't some diesel electrics have separately applied handbrakes for each of the two trucks? That is what I assumed from his statement.
I am only recounting what I read on "The Tortous Tatler" blog recommended by Fred Frrailey which I receive regularly. Don't some diesel electrics have separately applied handbrakes for each of the two trucks? That is what I assumed from his statement.
None that I've ever seen. Granted I've never seen every diesel electric, but considering the MMA's roster...
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
daveklepperAnother MM&A oil train was found parked on a main line elsewhere, unattended, and with only the locamotive handbrakes applied an zero handbrakes on the tankcars themselves. Three units, six handbrakes!
Getting back to a topic here,
How does one figure 6 handbrakes from 3 engines? All engines I have seen have one handbrake per. I know sometimes MMA used RCO cabooses, and a lot of them have 2 handbrakes (one each end) so that would give 5 if they were applied. Can't figure out the math.
No I can’t cite specific numbers. When I say half the population, I am speaking only as my estimate extrapolated from news articles and the many comments following them. They speak of deregulation as being the cause of the MM&A wreck. I understand your point about deregulation being about rates, but people speaking out in Canada are tying deregulation to the one-man crew which is being widely blamed for the wreck. I do not know if that is properly referred to a regulation, but my sense is that when speaking of regulation and deregulation, it goes much further than just railroad rates. I would think that it goes to everything the Federal government says you can and cannot do. In this country, regulation gets into light bulbs and water faucets.
Now we’re cooking with gas, hot kitchens can be fun too.
By the way, I edited my post to reflect that you were not the original poster for this thread, as that would be AgentKid.
And while, way out there on the edge of the real world, Tom Hardin might by some slim chance be vindicated in some small manner, his career as a railroader is most certainly done.
I doubt he will ever step foot on any railroad property for any reason other than to give depositions and offer evidence.
It makes no difference if he did everything right, or everything wrong for that matter, his position as “the crewman” on the train has sealed his fate.
23 17 46 11
edblysard In any debate, there is of course an opposing position, and dissention is to be expected. The postings that were removed were neither insulting nor rude, but simply a way some posters chose to express their disagreement with the original assumption of the thread starter, and to have fun at the same time. Nothing was there that was not completely civil, nor were the jokes “inane”, unless you didn’t understand the joke and the symbolism….of course, calling something you dislike or don’t grasp as “inane” is also simply expressing a personal opinion. Any position opened to debate, especially one that expresses an opinion should be able to withstand something as simple as a joke, if that position is based on established and cited facts and the person defending that position is prepared with those facts, instead of supposition and guesses. When presenting an opinion in a public forum, one should make it quite clear that what you are expressing is just that, your opinion, but if you present your opinion as if it carried the weight of established and cited facts, one should be prepared to be challenged to produce evidence, none of which seems to have appeared here. Simply crying foul, and complaining about being picked on, is hardly a good way to support ones position, and if that position is so weak that a few one line jokes can erode its foundation and makes the poster and his defenders feel threatened, then maybe the original position is not quite as defendable as the poster wishes. In simpler words, if ya cant stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
In any debate, there is of course an opposing position, and dissention is to be expected.
The postings that were removed were neither insulting nor rude, but simply a way some posters chose to express their disagreement with the original assumption of the thread starter, and to have fun at the same time.
Nothing was there that was not completely civil, nor were the jokes “inane”, unless you didn’t understand the joke and the symbolism….of course, calling something you dislike or don’t grasp as “inane” is also simply expressing a personal opinion.
Any position opened to debate, especially one that expresses an opinion should be able to withstand something as simple as a joke, if that position is based on established and cited facts and the person defending that position is prepared with those facts, instead of supposition and guesses.
When presenting an opinion in a public forum, one should make it quite clear that what you are expressing is just that, your opinion, but if you present your opinion as if it carried the weight of established and cited facts, one should be prepared to be challenged to produce evidence, none of which seems to have appeared here.
Simply crying foul, and complaining about being picked on, is hardly a good way to support ones position, and if that position is so weak that a few one line jokes can erode its foundation and makes the poster and his defenders feel threatened, then maybe the original position is not quite as defendable as the poster wishes.
In simpler words, if ya cant stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
I have no objection to dissention. I have made many statements which I have said were my opinion, but I think it goes without saying on the forum. I have also supplied many links to references. I had nothing to do with the moderator’s decision to remove that last round of posts in the other thread. And I don’t feel that anything has threatened my position or eroded the foundation of any part of my last three threads. Actually, I kind of like a hot kitchen.
I do not expect the engineer to be held totally at fault. I would not be surprised to see him totally vindicated.
The Tattler is usually reliable, and if the general public had access to a second petroliiumm train, again it is evedence of a lack of a Safety Culture, regardlwss of what it may not prove about the first train.
My participation iin this thread is mainly to make the point that there is no way the engineer can be held totally responsible. That is the main point I wished to make and still do. As for Ed Burkhardt, the higher the rank the greater the responsibility.
RRKenI suggest a poll. Anyone who does not like multiple threads please pet your armadillo at 02:45 am next Saturday. I now return you to insanity.
I now return you to insanity.
By the time Staggers became law, most Class One roads had gone to a 3 man crew, engineer, conductor and brakeman, and most had two man crews, engineer and conductor on their unit and long haul trains.
The MM&A is a open shop railroad, so of course, the organized labor unions in Canada have, and will continue to use this accident as a means to either unionize the MM&A or kill it in its current form.
I am surprised that the TSB and the unions have not pointed out that some of the First AId kits on the MM&A are out of Band-Aids.
If that means getting in bed with the Canadian government, which is itself very “labor” friendly, then so be it, the more the merrier it seems.
Unless you worked at the MM&A, no one here really knows if there was or is a safety culture present, but I can offer up this fact.
Parked since July 6th, the train at Vachon didn’t move, even after vandals had some “fun” on it.
That fact is not contested, but it is also rarely mentioned in all the suppositions, suppositories and jiffy lube statements made here and in the press…the train did not move.
And lastly, from the video in the first linked report…there appears to be only one single locomotive in the consist at Vachon, so where is the five handbrake number coming from, unless the footage in the video is stock footage and not of that particular train, which leads one to wonder why they choose to show something other than the actual train they are reporting on, or they have failed in their journalistic duties and don’t have the facts correct, and are simply repeating what they are fed in sound bites.
Trust me; it is really hard to tie five handbrakes on a single locomotive!
The postings that were removed were neither insulting nor rude, but simply a way some posters chose to express their disagreement and to have fun at the same time.
Keep in mind Bucyrus didn’t start this thread, he simply hijacked it,
Deep Purple’s “Smoke on the Water” rules!
It was actually three threads. But there may be more, considering all the interest.
Murray Murphy Siding schlimm Silly wabbits. Trix are for kids. Or for people who can only indulge in inanity to get a thread locked to silence Bucyrus. Why not try acting like adults? Ignore him. I understand what you're saying. You're a bystander here. Let me ask you a question. This is one of about 6 threads about the exact same thing. Each of those threads has included a smothering by the exact same poster, saying the exact same things over and over, in what appears to be almost a vendetta against a railroad president. In one of those threads, we were told in no uncertain terms, that the words meant what the words meant. There was no way to interpret them any other way. Now, on this thread, the exact same poster who made that proclamation, wants the rule to apply differently this time, to his, and his only, viewpoint. On the last thread, several forum members were rash enough to challenge the infallible viewpoint, and had their posts taken down by the moderator, being told not to mention that the Emperor was not wearing any clothes. So instead of a discussion, we get a one way cascade of words, with no one allowed to question them. As a bystander, does that seem right to you? Bravo Murphy Siding! Very well said!!!!!!! Enough with the multiple threads already.
Murphy Siding schlimm Silly wabbits. Trix are for kids. Or for people who can only indulge in inanity to get a thread locked to silence Bucyrus. Why not try acting like adults? Ignore him. I understand what you're saying. You're a bystander here. Let me ask you a question. This is one of about 6 threads about the exact same thing. Each of those threads has included a smothering by the exact same poster, saying the exact same things over and over, in what appears to be almost a vendetta against a railroad president. In one of those threads, we were told in no uncertain terms, that the words meant what the words meant. There was no way to interpret them any other way. Now, on this thread, the exact same poster who made that proclamation, wants the rule to apply differently this time, to his, and his only, viewpoint. On the last thread, several forum members were rash enough to challenge the infallible viewpoint, and had their posts taken down by the moderator, being told not to mention that the Emperor was not wearing any clothes. So instead of a discussion, we get a one way cascade of words, with no one allowed to question them. As a bystander, does that seem right to you?
schlimm Silly wabbits. Trix are for kids. Or for people who can only indulge in inanity to get a thread locked to silence Bucyrus. Why not try acting like adults? Ignore him.
Silly wabbits. Trix are for kids. Or for people who can only indulge in inanity to get a thread locked to silence Bucyrus. Why not try acting like adults? Ignore him.
Bravo Murphy Siding!
Very well said!!!!!!!
Enough with the multiple threads already.
Again, if you all dislike these multiple threads, why not simply ignore them, whoever the poster is? I think you would find the threads would quickly become monologues, which would die from lack of attention. All you accomplish by whining and posting inanities is to look silly and to reinforce the behavior you claim to dislike. In a sense, you are as responsible for the six or so threads as Bucyrus is. And now to return to a bystander role and sanity.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Murphy Siding Murray Murphy Siding Bucyrus It is obvious to me that quoted expert, Dan Christie, is pushing an agenda on behalf of organized labor. Can't be. It already been proven on this forum that the words mean exactly what they say. So, unless he said he was pushing an agenda, he wasn't pushing an agenda Yes but....what if he was pushing an agenda? I'm sorry. You know the rules. The words only mean what they mean. They are prohibited from meaning anything they don't mean. That's clearly the way it is, unless it's a different way.
Murray Murphy Siding Bucyrus It is obvious to me that quoted expert, Dan Christie, is pushing an agenda on behalf of organized labor. Can't be. It already been proven on this forum that the words mean exactly what they say. So, unless he said he was pushing an agenda, he wasn't pushing an agenda Yes but....what if he was pushing an agenda?
Murphy Siding Bucyrus It is obvious to me that quoted expert, Dan Christie, is pushing an agenda on behalf of organized labor. Can't be. It already been proven on this forum that the words mean exactly what they say. So, unless he said he was pushing an agenda, he wasn't pushing an agenda
Bucyrus It is obvious to me that quoted expert, Dan Christie, is pushing an agenda on behalf of organized labor.
It is obvious to me that quoted expert, Dan Christie, is pushing an agenda on behalf of organized labor.
Yes but....what if he was pushing an agenda?
That’s your idea of words having a meaning? Words have meanings. It is not complicated.
cx500 Murray Yes but...even by acknowledging that rules are rules, except in Wisconsin where it is void where prohibited by law, can one in fact push an agenda? Actually one should push an agenda only in opinionated speculation. One should never "in fact" push an agenda - it rarely works! Sorry - couldn't resist. John
Murray Yes but...even by acknowledging that rules are rules, except in Wisconsin where it is void where prohibited by law, can one in fact push an agenda?
Yes but...even by acknowledging that rules are rules, except in Wisconsin where it is void where prohibited by law, can one in fact push an agenda?
Actually one should push an agenda only in opinionated speculation. One should never "in fact" push an agenda - it rarely works!
Sorry - couldn't resist.
John
You should only push an agenda if you have someone there to put it in gear and pop the clutch....
How can anyone have a civil discussion when some posters here do nothing but produce their own series of mind-numbing OVERLY-LONG monologues fill with over generalizations hypothetical questions and incorrect presumptive answers which are completely devoid of good and solid analytic conclusions?
Bucyrus Quote user Murphy Siding: "On the last thread, several forum members were rash enough to challenge the infallible viewpoint, and had their posts taken down by the moderator, being told not to mention that the Emperor was not wearing any clothes. So instead of a discussion, we get a one way cascade of words, with no one allowed to question them." Norm48327I guess dissenting opinions are no longer acceptable to the emperor. Nobody has been prevented or discouraged from challenging or questioning anyone. What was taken down was not challenges, questions, dissenting opinions, or any part of civil conversation.
Quote user Murphy Siding:
"On the last thread, several forum members were rash enough to challenge the infallible viewpoint, and had their posts taken down by the moderator, being told not to mention that the Emperor was not wearing any clothes. So instead of a discussion, we get a one way cascade of words, with no one allowed to question them."
Norm48327I guess dissenting opinions are no longer acceptable to the emperor.
Nobody has been prevented or discouraged from challenging or questioning anyone. What was taken down was not challenges, questions, dissenting opinions, or any part of civil conversation.
I beg to differ with you and/or others hiding 'neath their mother's skirt that pushed the "Panic Button".
.
I guess dissenting opinions are no longer acceptable to the emperor.
BaltACD edblysard I think he is pushing the agenda of doing away with one man crews…the hoodwink here is that on crews with a conductor and an engineer, the engineer ties down the locomotive(s), and the conductor ties down the cars, so it is still one man tying down the “experts” 20 cars. If it is taking him 3-5 minutes per hand brake, perhaps the expert needs to return to brakeman's school, as his time in the engineers seat has stunted his physical abilities.
edblysard I think he is pushing the agenda of doing away with one man crews…the hoodwink here is that on crews with a conductor and an engineer, the engineer ties down the locomotive(s), and the conductor ties down the cars, so it is still one man tying down the “experts” 20 cars.
I think he is pushing the agenda of doing away with one man crews…the hoodwink here is that on crews with a conductor and an engineer, the engineer ties down the locomotive(s), and the conductor ties down the cars, so it is still one man tying down the “experts” 20 cars.
If it is taking him 3-5 minutes per hand brake, perhaps the expert needs to return to brakeman's school, as his time in the engineers seat has stunted his physical abilities.
If it takes him 3 to 5 minutes per brake, he's probably on overtime.
Jeff
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.