No, there is no “seems to” in what I wrote.
I am saying is that, had there been two men on the job, the odds go up that one or the other may decide the number of brakes set, even if it was the “normal” for that train, was not sufficient, or one of them may have decided to do a pull test, or that it may have been, had it been a two man crew, that ten/ twenty brakes each would become the norm, or any number of variables.
You read what you wish to in my post, twisting people’s words around to imply something they didn’t seems to be your forte.
Never said the engineer was lazy, nor did I say or imply he left caution to the wind…I did say he followed what seems to be the normal established procedure with that train…and I did say management seems to have not checked that procedure with a field safety test, as they are required to..
Of course, you feel free to be obtuse if that furthers your purpose.
23 17 46 11
RRKen schlimm You seem to be saying that by splitting the workload of setting handbrakes, they would have done the job properly? Do you actually mean that, because you are also strongly suggesting that the engineer was lazy and following the rules because there was no one to check up on him? And that since there would be no one else on the train who trusted him with life and livelihood, he left caution to the wind? Please clarify.
schlimm You seem to be saying that by splitting the workload of setting handbrakes, they would have done the job properly? Do you actually mean that, because you are also strongly suggesting that the engineer was lazy and following the rules because there was no one to check up on him? And that since there would be no one else on the train who trusted him with life and livelihood, he left caution to the wind? Please clarify.
You seem to be saying that by splitting the workload of setting handbrakes, they would have done the job properly? Do you actually mean that, because you are also strongly suggesting that the engineer was lazy and following the rules because there was no one to check up on him? And that since there would be no one else on the train who trusted him with life and livelihood, he left caution to the wind? Please clarify.
Johnny
edblysard No, there is no “seems to” in what I wrote. I am saying is that, had there been two men on the job, the odds go up that one or the other may decide the number of brakes set, even if it was the “normal” for that train, was not sufficient, or one of them may have decided to do a pull test, or that it may have been, had it been a two man crew, that ten/ twenty brakes each would become the norm, or any number of variables. You read what you wish to in my post, twisting people’s words around to imply something they didn’t seems to be your forte. Never said the engineer was lazy, nor did I say or imply he left caution to the wind…I did say he followed what seems to be the normal established procedure with that train…and I did say management seems to have not checked that procedure with a field safety test, as they are required to.. Of course, you feel free to be obtuse if that furthers your purpose.
"add in the fact that if you’re working with someone, they expect you to follow the rules and do it right because you have their life and livelihood in your hands, and you expect the same from him, and you both are going to check each other as you go."
"There is a tremendous amount of trust between engineers and conductors... and that trust is not betrayed lightly or out of laziness, you kill your friends that way."
OK. glad you cleared that up. But those were YOUR words, not mine. I asked a question of you, but YOU choose out of your defensiveness to insult the person who asked you.
" twisting people’s words around to imply something they didn’t seems to be your forte." But you sure imply things which you then deny.
"you feel free to be obtuse" Oh, my!!
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
CRIMANEE ! Good thing this computer doesn't have a feature that allows me to scream into your ear.
If you were educated in this country, you should understand English! If you weren't, then maybe some nuance has escaped your grasp.
Did I ever say the engineer was too tired? Reread my posts of 7/24/14 at 5:49 and 6:22 PM. You will find the following terms used there:
From all accounts...
Evidently
Might
Perhaps
Maybe
Does that tell you that I'm certain what happened up in Quebec? I wasn't there. Neither were you. Neither was his boss, and certainly neither was the second man in the cab. Because the man was working alone.
And Euclid, when did I say the Lac Megantic engineer should be excused? I didn't. I did suggest that the Supervisors have some responsibility if they keep themselves willfully ignorant of the realities of their employees' work environment. Call it a moral responsibility, if you like. Whether they can or will be called to account by the legal system, is a question I don't claim to be qualified to answer.
Excerpt from the Montreal Gazette, July 23, 2014
There was a strange kind of silence outside Lac-Mégantic’s temporary courthouse on a warm afternoon in May as three employees of the now defunct MMA — Thomas Harding, Jean Demaître and Richard Labrie — arrived to be arraigned on 47 charges of criminal negligence arising from their actions or failure to act on the night of the deadly derailment. Charges were also filed against MMA itself — just two days before final transfer of the bankrupt company’s assets to Central Maine Quebec. Yet relatives and friends of the victims took little satisfaction that justice would be served by prosecuting three low-level employees while MMA’s abrasive founder, Ed Burkhardt, walks free.
http://www.montrealgazette.com/M%C3%A9gantic+long+road+recovery/9981810/story.html
http://tomhardingdefensefund.com/
ACY CRIMANEE ! Good thing this computer doesn't have a feature that allows me to scream into your ear. If you were educated in this country, you should understand English! If you weren't, then maybe some nuance has escaped your grasp. Did I ever say the engineer was too tired? Reread my posts of 7/24/14 at 5:49 and 6:22 PM. You will find the following terms used there: From all accounts... Evidently Might Perhaps Maybe Does that tell you that I'm certain what happened up in Quebec? I wasn't there. Neither were you. Neither was his boss, and certainly neither was the second man in the cab. Because the man was working alone. And Euclid, when did I say the Lac Megantic engineer should be excused? I didn't. I did suggest that the Supervisors have some responsibility if they keep themselves willfully ignorant of the realities of their employees' work environment. Call it a moral responsibility, if you like. Whether they can or will be called to account by the legal system, is a question I don't claim to be qualified to answer.
The fact that I paraphrased your comments rather than directly quoting you does not change your meaning.
You said that a tired man cannot be expected to set all the handbrakes, and his supervisors should know that. Therefore they are at fault and the tired man is not. I said that if a man is too tired, he has an obligation to tell his supervisors that, rather than just walk away from the job. If he tells his supervisors and then walks away, the supervisors have the responsibility to get the train secured. You said that if he tells his supervisors he is too tired to work, they will discipline him. Ed confirmed that point, and you thanked Ed for backing you up. So fine, the engineer gets to walk away from the securement responsibility and burn up the town because he is too tired, and it is the mean railroad’s fault because they will discipline him if he tells them that he is too tired to secure the train. So it is the fault of the mean railroad for making the engineer work alone.
Quoting exactly:
YOU SAID:
“You say they [the engineer’s supervisors] had no reason to expect a problem. Human beings get tired. Human managers should know that, and should understand that one tired person at the end of a long and lonely shift might be tired, and perhaps not as sharp and alert as we would like. Long hours and one-man crews are seen as efficient, but maybe they should more properly be seen as red flags.”
I SAID:
“…no supervisor is responsible for making sure that an employee does not fail to do his job because he might be tired after long hours on duty.
If the MM&A engineer was too tired or lacked the time to secure the train, he should have told his supervisors, so they could arrange help or relief.”
“........and while they're arranging help or relief, they would probably also organize a disciplinary hearing. In this industry, it's always the guy at the bottom of the food chain. Nobody at the top takes the heat if they can push it to someone lower on the totem pole.”
I belive you've quoted me accurately, and I stand by what I said. Notwithstanding your phoney-baloney interpretations of what I said. Sorry I can't continue this discussion this morning. I have to go trim my toenails.
Euclid The fact that I paraphrased your comments rather than directly quoting you does not change your meaning.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy Siding Wouldn't it be simpler to just let others posters say what they mean, without you having to say what you think they mean?
Wouldn't it be simpler to just let others posters say what they mean, without you having to say what you think they mean?
So what you mean is that you would like some chocolate ice cream on your pancakes as you change flat tires?
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
Yes....but...
Murray Yes....but...
butt... but
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD Murray Yes....but... butt... but
Roast Butt, it's what for dinner tomorrow.
Murphy Siding Euclid The fact that I paraphrased your comments rather than directly quoting you does not change your meaning. Wouldn't it be simpler to just let others posters say what they mean, without you having to say what you think they mean?
Well I don't care if Mars is the red planet, if I want to patch tires, I'll just stop eating.
I prefer both.
EuclidI prefer both.
Which means you only prefer one.
It sees to me that the railroaders are not in a position of expertise when it concerns language. Maybe we are to defer to your wisdom about railroading but when you make a declarative statement. It is subject to examination. Euclid did not alter the meaning of what ACY said.
zugmann EuclidI prefer both. Which means you only prefer one.
No it does not mean that.
Euclid zugmann EuclidI prefer both. Which means you only prefer one. No it does not mean that.
Yes, but!
As Murphy Siding says, it might be simpler to just let people say what they say without interpreting them by paraphrasing them, but often people write in a way where their meaning is unclear. Sometimes people will even paraphrase themselves to clarify their meaning.
Take this quote from ACY replying to me, for instance:
Earlier ACY had begun this exchange by a speculating a two-part reason for the Lac Megantic runaway. The first part was that the engineer was tired because he was working solo, and that may have caused him to not set enough brakes. Clearly he is referring to the on-going discussion of changing from two-man crews to one-man crews.
But in his second part, he extended the blame to the engineer’s supervisors because they should have known that a man working solo would be tired. Therefore poster ACY asserts that the supervisors should have checked to make sure the engineer has secured the train. And since they did not check that, they are partly at fault. So the engineer was too tired to do his job, and that is not totally his fault because he was tired; and the supervisors should have known he was too tired, and made sure the engineer’s job got done. And since they didn’t, they are at fault for the failure of the engineer.
I said that the engineer had no right to walk away from his responsibility without telling his supervisors. Poster ACY said the engineer had no choice because his supervisors would have disciplined the engineer for claiming that he was too tired to perform his responsibility. In this torturous logic, poster ACY blamed the company for putting him in a bind by requiring him to work solo.
Which means yes it does.
Deleted.
I'm not getting into yet another one of Bucky's oil train story time posts.
zugmann Deleted. I'm not getting into yet another one of Bucky's oil train story time posts.
In response to your original comment asking how we got stuck on Lac Megantic:
We got stuck on it because in three different threads about changing to one-man crews, people have numerous time asserted that Lac Megantic is an example of the problem with one-man crews. I say that is nonsense.
Another thing people alway say is that disasters are the result of many things going wrong at the same time. I think that has been stretched too far.
However, I do hold out the possibility that the Lac Megantic disaster was the fault of the company culture of a compromised train securement policy. So I would not be surprised if the trial discovers that and largely vindicates the engineer.
I don't care. I didn't even read your last post.
I think you did read it.
Not the one you made before this one? Not beyond the first sentence.
When I said I didn't read it, I meant I didn't read it. If I read it, I wouldn't have said I didn't read it. that's how it works.
schlimm It sees to me that the railroaders are not in a position of expertise when it concerns language. Maybe we are to defer to your wisdom about railroading but when you make a declarative statement. It is subject to examination. Euclid did not alter the meaning of what ACY said.
And like a bad toenail fungus, Schlimm shows up again.
zugmann Not the one you made before this one? Not beyond the first sentence. When I said I didn't read it, I meant I didn't read it. If I read it, I wouldn't have said I didn't read it. that's how it works.
I read his sentence 'till I didn't read it.
Murray And like a bad toenail fungus, Schlimm shows up again.
Not like State Farm I take it?
Yes.....but....
Murray zugmann Deleted. I'm not getting into yet another one of Bucky's oil train story time posts. Yes.....but....
Pork Butt?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.