dehusman NTSB "This type of situation could be addressed by better crewmember training that focuses on preventative strategies for situations that could divert crewmember attention." Euclid Notice that they say nothing about a crewmember taking responsibility by doing something to prevent their attention from being diverted. Instead, they say the remedy is to prevent situations that could divert a crewmember’s attention. Nope. What they are saying is that the railroad should develop preventative strategies for helping the crew members remained focused when a distracting situation arises, they are not saying that the railroad should eliminate distractions (prevent situations), it would be impossible to eliminate potential distracting situations. The railroad cannot prevent something happening to another train (a distracting situation). The railroad wants the train crew to be aware of the situation and take appropriate action (it may be required for safety). What the railroad doesn't want it the crew to become so focused on the exception that they lose track of the normal (they need to remain "situationally aware"). This is not an uncommon event. I have heard many investigations of crews going past red signals or blowing through speed restrictions or running into something because they were focused on another "situation" and lost track of the normal operation. A crew is job briefing a Form B and misses an approach signal, so can't get stopped before passing a red. Other industries have the same thing, an aircrew is so busy troubleshooting a minor failure they fail to maintain speed or altitude. A bus driver get distracted by a problem in the passenger compartment and veres out of his lane. It sounds so simple but is really difficult to do.
NTSB "This type of situation could be addressed by better crewmember training that focuses on preventative strategies for situations that could divert crewmember attention."
Euclid Notice that they say nothing about a crewmember taking responsibility by doing something to prevent their attention from being diverted. Instead, they say the remedy is to prevent situations that could divert a crewmember’s attention.
Nope. What they are saying is that the railroad should develop preventative strategies for helping the crew members remained focused when a distracting situation arises, they are not saying that the railroad should eliminate distractions (prevent situations), it would be impossible to eliminate potential distracting situations. The railroad cannot prevent something happening to another train (a distracting situation). The railroad wants the train crew to be aware of the situation and take appropriate action (it may be required for safety). What the railroad doesn't want it the crew to become so focused on the exception that they lose track of the normal (they need to remain "situationally aware").
This is not an uncommon event. I have heard many investigations of crews going past red signals or blowing through speed restrictions or running into something because they were focused on another "situation" and lost track of the normal operation. A crew is job briefing a Form B and misses an approach signal, so can't get stopped before passing a red. Other industries have the same thing, an aircrew is so busy troubleshooting a minor failure they fail to maintain speed or altitude. A bus driver get distracted by a problem in the passenger compartment and veres out of his lane.
It sounds so simple but is really difficult to do.
I think you are confounding very different situations and behaviors. The accidents you attempt to show as similar to the Philadelphia one are quite different in time span - yours momentary, Philly more prolonged. Prolonged inattention is not a function of a short-lived distraction. I think Bastian's behaviors reflect a more chronic problem which finally caught up with him and led to a tragedy.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
schlimm Euclid So if the public was not so "feeble minded," what exactly is it that they would understand about the role of the engineer in the Amtrak wreck? Who knows? However, my thoughts in points 2-4 (only point 1 was noted by others) were these: 2. Shooting the messenger (Schanoes) because some do not like his opinion that the train's engineer has a major portion of blame (percentage of contributory negligence)** seems pretty lame. 3. As radio communications are a normal part of the engineer's job description, that hardly qualifies as an unusual distraction for an unimpaired person. 4. If the engineer had a clinical attention disorder sufficient to impair his job performance, he had a duty to report that diagnosis. AFAIK, he did not. ** Blame in the form of percentage of contibutory negligence is levied every day in civil suits and I believe negligence is in manslaughter trials.. Deliberate intent is not part of that equation. If a surgeon is distracted and accidentally nicks your aorta, causing your death, you can bet your family would sue and collect, and not because the surgeon deliberately did that act (some form of murder).
Euclid So if the public was not so "feeble minded," what exactly is it that they would understand about the role of the engineer in the Amtrak wreck?
So if the public was not so "feeble minded," what exactly is it that they would understand about the role of the engineer in the Amtrak wreck?
Who knows?
However, my thoughts in points 2-4 (only point 1 was noted by others) were these:
2. Shooting the messenger (Schanoes) because some do not like his opinion that the train's engineer has a major portion of blame (percentage of contributory negligence)** seems pretty lame.
3. As radio communications are a normal part of the engineer's job description, that hardly qualifies as an unusual distraction for an unimpaired person.
4. If the engineer had a clinical attention disorder sufficient to impair his job performance, he had a duty to report that diagnosis. AFAIK, he did not.
** Blame in the form of percentage of contibutory negligence is levied every day in civil suits and I believe negligence is in manslaughter trials.. Deliberate intent is not part of that equation. If a surgeon is distracted and accidentally nicks your aorta, causing your death, you can bet your family would sue and collect, and not because the surgeon deliberately did that act (some form of murder).
Norm48327 ...........I am simply one of the masses with a high school education of the fifties ...........
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Norm48327 schlimm That public you seem to despise is what a democracy is all about. I don't despise any of them. I was simply making an observation that many of them on three sides , right, left, and somewhere in between are, by choice of what they watch, read, or listen to are poorly informed, misled, and possibly short enough on education to not comprehend what they're reading or hearing. They make a choice, and show a preferance for, being entertained rather than being educated and are easily led down the path. The hate on both sides of the aisle is repugnant to me and I hope against hope it will soon stop. No degrees follow my name but I think I have good insight into the behaviour of people. I am simply one of the masses with a high school education of the fifties that would now be the equivalent of a BA given that our education system has become a complete failure. A PHD friend from the University Of Idaho thought I had a degree when we first began corresponding. I would hazard a guess that her opinion gave kudos to the teachers of my era. I did a few classes at a junior college but dropped them when I discovered they were only a review of what I had already learned. Let's maintain the peace between us. Civil discourse is welcome.
schlimm That public you seem to despise is what a democracy is all about.
I don't despise any of them. I was simply making an observation that many of them on three sides , right, left, and somewhere in between are, by choice of what they watch, read, or listen to are poorly informed, misled, and possibly short enough on education to not comprehend what they're reading or hearing. They make a choice, and show a preferance for, being entertained rather than being educated and are easily led down the path. The hate on both sides of the aisle is repugnant to me and I hope against hope it will soon stop.
No degrees follow my name but I think I have good insight into the behaviour of people. I am simply one of the masses with a high school education of the fifties that would now be the equivalent of a BA given that our education system has become a complete failure. A PHD friend from the University Of Idaho thought I had a degree when we first began corresponding. I would hazard a guess that her opinion gave kudos to the teachers of my era. I did a few classes at a junior college but dropped them when I discovered they were only a review of what I had already learned.
Let's maintain the peace between us. Civil discourse is welcome.
Civil discourse does not bar my disagreement with your comment. I said you seem to despise the public because you referred to it as having "feeble minds." As the term "feeble minded" used to be employed as a pejorative to the cognitively challenged (formerly retarded) I am sure you can see why I would draw my conclusion. Hopefully it was unintended.
I do not agree with your opinion on public education, except that current products are often less facile in broad, integrative analysis of written material.
Are you Canadian? (your orthography: "behaviour") Not that there's anything wrong with that!
schlimm An indictment still needs to be obtained.
An indictment still needs to be obtained.
Not unless he’s charged with “a capital or otherwise infamous crime.” Pretty sure the charges filed fall below the threshold.
Fifth Amendment: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
https://courts.phila.gov/news/pic/CR-1705129509/index.asp
https://www.attorneygeneral.gov/Media_and_Resources/Press_Releases/Press_Release/?pid=3381
EuclidAll the public wants to know is how they can feel reasonably safe on a train that can suddenly kill them just because one person has a momentary lapse of attention.
True enough. We already know what happens when a dump truck driver has a momentary lapse of attention.
Or a signalman.
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...
schlimmThat public you seem to despise is what a democracy is all about.
Norm
oltmanndIt was not a branch but a controlled siding/3rd track that ended at the south end of the two track bridge/viaduct over the Gunpowder River. It's still there. It is still electrified, but the wires over Bayview Yard (Baltimore) are now gone.
Yeah, I'm familiar with Gunpow. I was thinking they were coming back from Chase power plant for some reason.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
Norm48327 schlimm Bostian was charged, not yet indicted. Nor convicted except in the feeble minds of the public.
schlimm Bostian was charged, not yet indicted.
Nor convicted except in the feeble minds of the public.
This is the first wreck that I have heard of in which an investigation finds the cause to be an innocent lapse of attention unrelated to a medical cause, drug use, or lack of rest.
An indictment still needs to be obtained. I have no idea of what the charge should be: maybe contributory negligence leading to manslaughter.
That public you seem to despise is what a democracy is all about.
Our ligitious society today cannot concieve of any happening being 'accidental. Every accident must be prosecuted even when there was no known or demonstrated intent, no extenuating reckless factors involved and no economic benefit for the party involved. Something happend so we must make a criminal out of the perpertrator.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
zugmann Of course the split rail was already there... but removed. Took effort to remove it. Was the branch they came off of ever electrified?
Of course the split rail was already there... but removed. Took effort to remove it. Was the branch they came off of ever electrified?
It was not a branch but a controlled siding/3rd track that ended at the south end of the two track bridge/viaduct over the Gunpowder River. It's still there. It is still electrified, but the wires over Bayview Yard (Baltimore) are now gone.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Eddie Sand So in the wake of Mr. Bostian's indidctment
So in the wake of Mr. Bostian's indidctment
Bostian was charged, not yet indicted.
Grand juries indict. The Philadelphia D.A. could’ve had a grand jury decide whether Bostian should be charged with a crime, but apparently decided on his own that he should not be. That would’ve been the end of it, except for the last-minute private complaint accepted by the judge.
http://www.metro.us/news/local-news/philadelphia/amtrak-engineer-dodges-charges-building-collapse-contractor-got-30
schlimmBostian was charged, not yet indicted.
I saw info that the previous arrangement was that the 'merging' track continued straight to a stub ending near the Gunpowder River bridge; and that access to the main was essentially through a left-hand cross-over a little ways before the end of the stub track. The cross-over was 'open' only when the signal indication permitted the move; if not, then the train would continue straight ahead on the stub (only). You can see where the 3rd track used to continue ahead to the NE on the SE side of the 2-track main, from in front of the substation at these coords:
N 39.37759 W 76.35595 about 1/4 mile to about here by the bridge: N 39.38032 W 76.35371
- PDN.
oltmannd...or if Conrail had taken rule G just a bit more seriously.
Certainly no reflection on anyone here, and I wasn't running back then, but I've gotten the impression over time that such transgressions were less than uncommon at the time.
Eddie SandThe "branch" involved was a third main line track; the three-track line narrows to two tracks for a bridge over the Gunpowder River. It's highly unlikely that the track wasn't electrified.
Weren't they coming out of the one power plant? I forget the details.
Edited. Looks like they were coming out of Bayview. Never mind, my mistake.
zugmann Paul_D_North_Jr Ricky Gates was the engineer; was Cromwell the brakeman ? (Rear-End Collision of Amtrak Passenger Train 94, The Colonial and Consolidated Rail Corporation Freight Train ENS-121, on the Northeast Corridor - Jan. 4, 1987) - PDN. And just think how everything would have been different if they hadn't removed the split point derail at the interlocking prior...
Paul_D_North_Jr Ricky Gates was the engineer; was Cromwell the brakeman ? (Rear-End Collision of Amtrak Passenger Train 94, The Colonial and Consolidated Rail Corporation Freight Train ENS-121, on the Northeast Corridor - Jan. 4, 1987) - PDN.
Ricky Gates was the engineer; was Cromwell the brakeman ?
(Rear-End Collision of Amtrak Passenger Train 94, The Colonial and Consolidated Rail Corporation Freight Train ENS-121, on the Northeast Corridor - Jan. 4, 1987)
And just think how everything would have been different if they hadn't removed the split point derail at the interlocking prior...
...or if Conrail hadn't dropped running electrics (they had speed control)
...or if Conrail had put speed control on the diesels rerunning on the NEC
...or if Conrail at least had trains stop on the cab signal system (it would just whistle for a long time... no penalty brake)
...or if Conrail had taken rule G just a bit more seriously.
etc.
Eddie SandSo in the wake of Mr. Bostian's indidctment by an undoubtedly politically-conscious prosecutor, we face either a plea-bargain or the spectacle of a trial.
Paul_D_North_Jr Ricky Gates was the engineer; was Cromwell the brakeman ?
Yes.
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/02/17/us/engineer-in-amtrak-crash-guilty-of-manslaughter-in-plea-bargain.html
Eddie Sand Gates and Cromwell
Gates and Cromwell
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/RAR8801.aspx
So in the wake of Mr. Bostian's indidctment by an undoubtedly politically-conscious prosecutor, we face either a plea-bargain or the spectacle of a trial. And a review of the previous comments on general-interest sites demonstrates that a depressing proportion of the public is (1) woefullly ignorant of rail technology, (2) always looking for a scapegoat, and (3) unwilling to differentiate between the post-accident conduct of Mr. Bostian and that of those two turkeys Gates and Cromwell.
As usual, those of us who seek to better inform an uncaring public will have our work cut out for us.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.