The discussion astonishes me. It sounds to me as if there never had been published a TSB Canada Investigation Report. It was linked before: http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/rail/2013/r13d0054/r13d0054.asp#3.0
There is no question for me that Mr. harding was the only person who could have secured the train securely.
Under Findings the report shows a number of shortcomings in MMA's safety environment. If the court considers them as mitigating we'll see.Regards, Volker
tdmidgettdmidget wrote the following post 4 minutes ago: And you have absolutely none that he wasn't worried. Apparently there some short memories here. This was not his first trip. He had years of experience. He had previously been reprimanded for securing with air.
Why do I need evidence that Harding was not worried about his securement of the train? I have never said he was not worried about it. I don't know whether he was worried or not. You have said he was worried about his securement.
I had never heard that Harding was previously reprimanded for securing trains with air. Can you provide your source for that information? That would be interesting to see.
And you have absolutely none that he wasn't worried. Apparently there some short memories here. This was not his first trip. He had years of experience. He had previously been reprimanded for securing with air. He knew he had to do the push-pull and he certainly did not work as an engineer that long and not know how to do it. He cheated and he killed 47 people.
tdmidget tdmidget wrote the following post an hour ago: Welcome to the Bucky and Dave Yes, But show. Dispatchers do not need to know squat about securing trains. Not their job. Neither does the custodian in the office, not his job. There's no way that anyone other than Harding is to blame.
You make the following accusations:
He cheated with the independent brake.
Yes he had reservations in the cab. But they weren't about the engine burning . They were because he cheated and he knew it.
If he had 20 hand brakes tight as Hell and the cab driver comments about the engine he would like say " Let the POS burn. Then maybe we'll get something decent.
If he had adequate hand brakes set and the dispatcher calls and says the fire dept shut it down he wouldn't say " Do I need to go back out there?"
But he cheated and he was worried.
Maybe he thought the trackwalker would know enough to cover for him.
Maybe he was a slacker and willing to gamble on it.
In any case he gambled and Lac Megantic lost.
Cheat: A person who behaves dishonestly in order to gain an advantage.
That requires intent and you have absolutely no proof of what Harding’s intent was. He might have believed he was following the rules. You have no evidence whatsoever that Harding was worried about his securement failing as a result of the engine fire.
[/quote]
tdmidgettdmidget wrote the following post an hour ago: Welcome to the Bucky and Dave Yes, But show. Dispatchers do not need to know squat about securing trains. Not their job. Neither does the custodian in the office, not his job. There's no way that anyone other than Harding is to blame.
daveklepper And again, if the locomotive had been in good shape, with sufficient fuel and oil, the shoddy "securement" would have worked like usual.
And again, if the locomotive had been in good shape, with sufficient fuel and oil, the shoddy "securement" would have worked like usual.
I believe you'll find someone on this forum with first hand knowledge who will tell you that the locomotive had sufficient fuel and oil before the incident. Besides - when someone presses the "stop" button, it doesn't make any difference how much fuel is in the tank. The engine is going to quit.
Yet to be determined to our knowledge is whether the inadequate securement was company culture or personal culture on the part of Harding. There is every possibility that "it worked before," so Harding had no qualms about using the same method this time. He may very well have been somewhat proud that his shortcut had previously secured the train and saved him some steps.
OTOH, that he wasn't afraid that the next crew would discover his shortcut and report it speaks to a wider problem. Whether that was a company policy, or one developed separately by the engineers is also unknown to us at that time.
The fact remains: Harding did not adequately secure the train. As has been noted, he was the only one who could.
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...
I am not aruging with you about that. But apparenlty what he did was normal for MM&A.
On all the railroads where I worked or had friends, securing a train meant what I am now defining as safely securing a train. Handbrakes alone for the push-pull test.
On the MM&A the definition seems to have been: "The train wasn't moving when I left it and there should be no change in conditions when the new crew arrives."
Am I right in recalling that he had the engine brake on when he performed the push-pull test?
Johnny
Saturnaliathe rules of train tie-down simply don't change?
Alex,
Do they or don't they? Perhaps company procedure would dictate a set number of brakes regardless of whether the train in on a grade or in a bowl on the main or a siding. Obviously a train in a dip is not as likely to run away as is one on a grade, and I think the engineer or conductor would be aware of the possibilities and do the tie down as he saw fit for the situation at hand. That said, I am not advocating shortcuts but am of the opinion that if the conductor can assure his train is secure while unattended (after the push/pull test) he has exercised his best judgement.
IMO, Harding may have been well justified ignoring the HOS law but it appears he was ordered to stop work prior to making certain his train was secure enough to hold on a 1% grade.
Will the trial be unbiased and fair? The answer is unknown until the end. Surely the Quebecois want him hung from the highest yard arm. 47 people died in the aftermath and I'm certain emotions still run high in favor of finding him guilty. A change of venue to perhaps Alberta would most likely provide jurors who have less knowledge of the accident than those in Quebec.
Only time will tell what the outcome will be.
Norm
Welcome to the Bucky and Dave Yes, But show.
Dispatchers do not need to know squat about securing trains. Not their job. Neither does the custodian in the office, not his job.
There's no way that anyone other than Harding is to blame. He was, you may recall the only one there. If he had not cheated on this securement with the independent brake it would not matter how it's done any where else. It would not matter what rules or formulae might say. When it moved he would have had to set more hand brakes until it was secure.
But he didn't. He cheated with the independent brake. Yes he had reservations in the cab. But they weren't about the engine burning . They were because he cheated and he knew it. If he had 20 hand brakes tight as Hell and the cab driver comments about the engine he would like say " Let the POS burn. Then maybe we'll get something decent. If he had adequate hand brakes set and the dispatcher calls and says the fire dept shut it down he wouldn't say " Do I need to go back out there?" or words to that effect. He'd say "I told ya. Why are you waking me?" But he cheated and he was worried. Maybe he thought the trackwalker would know enough to cover for him. Maybe he was a slacker and willing to gamble on it. In any case he gambled and Lac Megantic lost.
Johnny, please reread my post. He had been repremanded for automatic air much earlier and must have been instructed on precisely the tactic he used. (Except possibln nine instead of seven handbrakes.)
The train was not safely secured. But it was secured as long as the locomotive operated. This seems to have been their normal procedure at this location!
But, he did not use automatic air; he used the straight air brakes on the engine, and, using the handbrakes on the engines, he did not use enough brakes on the cars in the train--he did not secure the trains
1. I make no comment and have no opinion on the !-man 2-man issue as it affects this law case. Check back, and you will see that.
2. It is entirely possible that if he had spoken about procedures learned on railroads he worked for in earlier times, he may have received the answer:
"We do things differently on the MM&A."
Which in other ways they did. Like where the train was parked.
3. Substantiating this point of view, it is my understanding that the procedure of securing this train was a normal procedure. That he had done the same thing before, and that other crews did. The only difference the produced the tradgedy was the defective locomotive. (If the firemen had not shut down the locomotive, low oil would have, since most of the oil had gone up in smoke.)
4. The Dispatcher, to whom Harding reported, appears to have been equally ignorant of the proper procedure to secure a train on a grade.
5. It is my understanding that, earlier, Harding had been punished because he had secured a train with automatic air. When he was punished apparently he was not instructed as to the proper procedure but instructed on the MM&A common procedure.
daveklepper Any judge takes into account "Mitigating Circumstances" in passing sentence. If Harding did not recieve proper training, and was never even given an opportunity to know what the law required, this would be a major mitigation in passing sentence.
Any judge takes into account "Mitigating Circumstances" in passing sentence. If Harding did not recieve proper training, and was never even given an opportunity to know what the law required, this would be a major mitigation in passing sentence.
How could this supposed lack of training be a mitigating circumstance, when no additional training in proper train tie-down procedure is needed when shifting to single-man crews because the rules of train tie-down simply don't change?
Perhaps never in his career did he not recieve proper training or he might have been otherwise ignorant of the rulebook, but this isn't a "greenhorn" engineer, so I find this line of reasoning to be quite stretched, to be honest.
Mud churners!
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
It may turn out that the real culprit is the "Hours of Service" Law, which is (was?) not specific enough in allowing violations of that law in matters of safety. The Dispatcher may not have considered a locomotive emitting huge amouts of smoke with intergral oil drops as a sufficient safety issue, which is certainly was -- if only because the oil level in the engine would go low and shut the engine down. And neither the Dispatcher nor Tom Harding may have received adequate instruction on brakes, air and hand, and correct security arrangements.
The fire could have alerted the right people to the bigger problem, the inaequate handbrake application --- if the right people had arrived on the scene.
daveklepper Euclid, I posted before that I am basically with you on this. Any judge takes into account "Mitigating Circumstances" in passing sentence. If Harding did not recieve proper training, and was never even given an opportunity to know what the law required, this would be a major mitigation in passing sentence. After the presumed (but not definite at this time) guilty verdict. He may even be judged not guilty, by the jury, if the guilt can very squarely be placed on one or two supervisors who were clearly not doing their jobs. In that case he is more victim than perpetrator. The trial will determine this. But don't be so quick to blame Burkhardt. He may have put his complete trust in one or two managers who may not have been thorougly honest in reporting conditions to him, and simply wished to maintain their position by maximizing income, even at the expense of safety. We know they did not much care about public relations, by letting the equipment look shabby. Yet shabbiness, as far as I remember, was not a charateristic of other Berhardt rail operations.
Euclid, I posted before that I am basically with you on this. Any judge takes into account "Mitigating Circumstances" in passing sentence. If Harding did not recieve proper training, and was never even given an opportunity to know what the law required, this would be a major mitigation in passing sentence. After the presumed (but not definite at this time) guilty verdict. He may even be judged not guilty, by the jury, if the guilt can very squarely be placed on one or two supervisors who were clearly not doing their jobs. In that case he is more victim than perpetrator. The trial will determine this.
But don't be so quick to blame Burkhardt. He may have put his complete trust in one or two managers who may not have been thorougly honest in reporting conditions to him, and simply wished to maintain their position by maximizing income, even at the expense of safety. We know they did not much care about public relations, by letting the equipment look shabby. Yet shabbiness, as far as I remember, was not a charateristic of other Berhardt rail operations.
Dave,
Just to clarify, in that 2013 thread where I criticized Burkhardt for blaming Harding for the wreck, I was most definitely not blaming Burkhardt for it. However many accused me of blaming the runaway on Burkhardt simply because I defended Harding from Burkhadt’s unproven blame of Harding. It was only a couple weeks after the disaster. I was not blaming anybody, and still am not blaming anybody. Not enough facts are publically known at this point to clearly indicate who was at fault.
Those who are so quick to blame the person with the brake wheel ought to consider the very points you have made above about “Mitigating Circumstances.” You have made excellent points in that regard. I would not predict where this trial is going. Even if Harding is convicted, I might have sympathy for his plight. It can be a fine line between criminal negligence and an honest mistake; even for those who never make mistakes.
Yes, but....
Saturnalia Euclid In this thread, I have taken no position on who should bear the blame for the Lac Megantic. But in your comment above, it sounds like you perceive me to be trying to take the blame off of Harding. Not literally, sure, but you've consistently attempted to muddy the waters to prevent any firm conclusion about anybody's blame, despite the clear, undeniable failure of the engineer to follow basic railroad rules. To me, your overt refusal to direct blame towards the engineer is unto itself decarling him not guilty, due to the obvious, known, indisputable facts of the case. Perhaps what you see as bringing up other points for discussion is being percieved by some of us as attempts to lessen our points about the engineer's guilt. Or at least, it sure seems that way.
Euclid In this thread, I have taken no position on who should bear the blame for the Lac Megantic. But in your comment above, it sounds like you perceive me to be trying to take the blame off of Harding.
In this thread, I have taken no position on who should bear the blame for the Lac Megantic. But in your comment above, it sounds like you perceive me to be trying to take the blame off of Harding.
Not literally, sure, but you've consistently attempted to muddy the waters to prevent any firm conclusion about anybody's blame, despite the clear, undeniable failure of the engineer to follow basic railroad rules. To me, your overt refusal to direct blame towards the engineer is unto itself decarling him not guilty, due to the obvious, known, indisputable facts of the case.
Perhaps what you see as bringing up other points for discussion is being percieved by some of us as attempts to lessen our points about the engineer's guilt. Or at least, it sure seems that way.
Well it may seem that way to you and others here, but I don’t see why you consider that to be a problem. What you believe about the certainty of Harding’s guilt is your right, and you have the right to say so here or anywhere else in public. But you don’t have the right to force me to believe the same thing. And besides, neither one of us can change the way this trial will play out. So if you believe it will go against Harding, what difference does it make that I consider the possibility that it won’t? It does not diminish your position.
I say I am not defending Harding’s actions. You seem to accept that, but you say I am muddying the waters. Harding’s defense in court will also muddy the waters. And a whole lot of Labor-based activism is also vigorously defending Harding and placing the blame squarely on MM&A management. Have you seen any of that? Surprisingly, the prosecution’s expert witness, after clarifying that Harding had failed to secure the train, turned around and moved toward excusing Harding because the company had made him operate without a second man and did not adequately prepare for one-man operation.
Bear in mind that this is not railroad investigation 101. This is a criminal trial with a possible life in prison sentence for Harding. I think it is an extremely interesting case from the way the accident happened up until now with the trial. Why shouldn’t we discuss it from every angle?
blue streak 1IMHO there is an old addage in law " ignorance of the law is no excuse " Applied here Ignorance of the rules is no excuse. Everyone should be held accountable. The engineer, dispatcher, maintenance, on up the line to the CEO. If training is insufficient blame the CEO but that does not excuse anyone. You have to learn the rules whatever position you are in even if the rules cover sections not experienced before. Isn't that apprenticeship ? That is what you get when "upper" management does not have the proper experience !
Sorry - there was only one employee to be able to operate the brake wheels, Mr. Harding.
Cases can be made for other prosecutions and/or civil suits. Harding's failure to SECURE it train is the only CAUSE of the incident. The Safety Culture or the lack thereof is fodder for other court cases. Harding's defense team is trying every trick in the book, and probably some they are making up on the fly, in their attempt to shift blame to others who did not set foot on the track structure in the time frame necessary to secure the train and thereby muddy the waters of responsibility.
IMHO there is an old addage in law " ignorance of the law is no excuse " Applied here Ignorance of the rules is no excuse. Everyone should be held accountable. The engineer, dispatcher, maintenance, on up the line to the CEO. If training is insufficient blame the CEO but that does not excuse anyone. You have to learn the rules whatever position you are in even if the rules cover sections not experienced before. Isn't that apprenticeship ? That is what you get when "upper" management does not have the proper experience !
There was only one individual that had the opportunity and responsibility to SECURE the train and prevent the incident.
All other 'arguments' are noise and muddy water.
If you want to try MM&A, charge them and bring them to court. Want to try Burkhardt, charge him and bring him to court.
tree68 daveklepper I wish to enter on Euclid's behalf. Entering such data as a general cut-corners environment, or lack of training, or not specific preparation for one-man operation, probably would not affect a verdict. But in any courtroom case, mitigating factors can reduce the severaty of the sentence. Alas, it's been a long-running under-theme in many of Bucky's threads that regardless of a preponderance of evidence that someone was at fault in a given incident, it really wasn't their fault. Someone (or something) else set them up for the fall - they were really an unwitting victim... At this point he has yet to be proved right.
daveklepper I wish to enter on Euclid's behalf. Entering such data as a general cut-corners environment, or lack of training, or not specific preparation for one-man operation, probably would not affect a verdict. But in any courtroom case, mitigating factors can reduce the severaty of the sentence.
I wish to enter on Euclid's behalf. Entering such data as a general cut-corners environment, or lack of training, or not specific preparation for one-man operation, probably would not affect a verdict. But in any courtroom case, mitigating factors can reduce the severaty of the sentence.
Alas, it's been a long-running under-theme in many of Bucky's threads that regardless of a preponderance of evidence that someone was at fault in a given incident, it really wasn't their fault. Someone (or something) else set them up for the fall - they were really an unwitting victim...
At this point he has yet to be proved right.
There has been no such long-running theme in my threads, as you contend. Although I have occasionally taken positions that are unpopular here, such as questioning the safety of a grade crossing on a 70 mph highway. My position on that was also taken by a prominent locomotive engineer who courageously speaks out on such matters. So, I am not sure how you are keeping score in your tally that shows I have never been proven right, as you say.
In this thread, I have taken no position on who should bear the blame for the Lac Megantic. But in your comment above, it sounds like you perceive me to be trying to take the blame off of Harding. Obviously you have no idea what I actually said.
A few posts back, my point was a response directed to those who have admonished us to not discuss any possible direction this trial could take other than a conviction of one or more of the three people charged. As such, my point was not about the guilt or innocence of those charged. It was about this forum and the topic of this thread, which is the trial itself. And since the trial includes defending the people charged, it also includes diverting the blame away from them. Therefore all of that is legitimately a part of this thread. That was my point. But you have completely missed it your long-running mission to discredit me.
I once had a thread called something like “Burkhardt Blaming the Engineer.” In that thread, I defended Harding against Burkhardt who was publically proclaiming that the Lac Megantic disaster was all Harding’s fault just a couple weeks after the disaster. A few days before that, Burkhardt publically blamed the fire department for causing the runaway by shutting down the one engine that was maintaining an application of the locomotive brakes. He referred to the actions of the firemen as “tampering” with the locomotive. Yes, I strongly criticized that. Wouldn’t you?
In that thread, there was a widespread, hostile reaction to my position in defending Harding and criticizing Burkhardt for being too quick to blame people for what has ultimately been charged as a very serious crime. It was amazing how many here wanted to throw Harding under the bus to prevent any criticism of Burkhardt. They eventually succeeded in getting the thread locked by mobbing the thread with snotty and frivolous comments. A moderator felt that the only way to end the disturbance was to lock the thread, thus appeasing those who could just could not stand things being said that they disagreed with.
In this matter none of us have been proven right or wrong. I don't know whats going to happen.
I'm currently in Sherbrooke Quebec
Saturnalia Euclid I did not say that MM&A management is now being charged. By my saying they are now part of the trial, I mean that the expert witness had introduced the idea that the lack of preparedness for one-man crew operation on the part of management is being put forth as an excuse on behalf of Harding. My larger point is that all of these secondary factors relating to the question of Harding's guilt or innnocense are a legitimate part of this thread discussion. Going from a two-man crew to a one-man crew DOES NOT, in ANY WAY, change train tie-down rules. So why is this reduction to a one-man crew relevant in this case? Sure, maybe a second man would have spotted Harding's error, but that's irrelevant to the argument that him not testing correctly was a result of the crew size reduction, because he should have known and followed the same set of rules regardless of if he was solo or had the whole freaking company piled into the cab. Unless you can show that the use (or transition to) single-man crews actively participated in the cause of this event, then it is totally irrelevant. The only thing a second guy can do is correct things you fail to do, and as I said, it isn't like train tie-down procedures changed when they made Harding go solo. This disaster could just as easily have happened with a two-man crew performing the same flawed procedure. The only reason this is even being brought up is to create a scapegoat in order to argue for Harding's full or partial innocence, when, for the millionth time, he didn't follow the rules he was responsible for.
Euclid I did not say that MM&A management is now being charged. By my saying they are now part of the trial, I mean that the expert witness had introduced the idea that the lack of preparedness for one-man crew operation on the part of management is being put forth as an excuse on behalf of Harding. My larger point is that all of these secondary factors relating to the question of Harding's guilt or innnocense are a legitimate part of this thread discussion.
I did not say that MM&A management is now being charged. By my saying they are now part of the trial, I mean that the expert witness had introduced the idea that the lack of preparedness for one-man crew operation on the part of management is being put forth as an excuse on behalf of Harding. My larger point is that all of these secondary factors relating to the question of Harding's guilt or innnocense are a legitimate part of this thread discussion.
Going from a two-man crew to a one-man crew DOES NOT, in ANY WAY, change train tie-down rules. So why is this reduction to a one-man crew relevant in this case?
Sure, maybe a second man would have spotted Harding's error, but that's irrelevant to the argument that him not testing correctly was a result of the crew size reduction, because he should have known and followed the same set of rules regardless of if he was solo or had the whole freaking company piled into the cab.
Unless you can show that the use (or transition to) single-man crews actively participated in the cause of this event, then it is totally irrelevant. The only thing a second guy can do is correct things you fail to do, and as I said, it isn't like train tie-down procedures changed when they made Harding go solo.
This disaster could just as easily have happened with a two-man crew performing the same flawed procedure.
The only reason this is even being brought up is to create a scapegoat in order to argue for Harding's full or partial innocence, when, for the millionth time, he didn't follow the rules he was responsible for.
Well you and some others don't need to say it a million times because everybody here agrees with your point. And nobody here, including myself, has ever said going from a two man crew to a one man crew is relevant in this case. But, as you point out, it is being dragged into the case in an attempt to make it relevant to the case.
The only point I have been making is that because it is being dragged into the case, along with any other possible excuse for Harding, it is relevant to this discussion. You yourself are discussing it here by saying that there are no excuses for harding, and the crew size change should not be brought into the case.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.