5017 had a properly functioning crew alert system.
Overmod SD70M-2Dude Being in the caboose, the freight train's Conductor survived the wreck and was subsequently fired by CN for his role in the disaster. But over a year later he was awarded his job back at arbitration. Ah, but he was not; the Arbitrator being very specific that he would not work as a conductor again. And the case is very different for Smith than is the case for Harding: Smith was only technically in control of the train, the head-end crew being the people taking the 'action' (or, in this case, likely inaction) that caused the collision. I would be interested to know the course of Smith's career with CN after his rehire, and whether further action of the watching Administrator proved to be necessary.
SD70M-2Dude Being in the caboose, the freight train's Conductor survived the wreck and was subsequently fired by CN for his role in the disaster. But over a year later he was awarded his job back at arbitration.
Ah, but he was not; the Arbitrator being very specific that he would not work as a conductor again. And the case is very different for Smith than is the case for Harding: Smith was only technically in control of the train, the head-end crew being the people taking the 'action' (or, in this case, likely inaction) that caused the collision. I would be interested to know the course of Smith's career with CN after his rehire, and whether further action of the watching Administrator proved to be necessary.
"Position within the bargaining unit other than Conductor" could also mean the very similar job of Brakeman. My main point was that the arbitrator saw fit to return Smith to employment with CN in train service.
And I am not sure how long it took, but Smith eventually became a Conductor again. Several of my older co-workers were formerly based in Jasper, and they worked with Smith some time after he got his job back. They were quite specific about saying he was a Conductor by that point.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
daveklepperSo I think no matter how much blame is shifted to MM&A, and/or to the other defendents, the fact remains that Harding remains responsible. But the shifting should produce a great ameliaration of the sentence. Which is as it should be, in my opinion.
That is what I am expecting too. A great ameliaration of the sentence. The court will find that Harding is responsible for the disaster, but that he shares that responsiblity with a large number of other factors that the court will say contributed to the cause of the disaster.
Euclid daveklepper So I think no matter how much blame is shifted to MM&A, and/or to the other defendents, the fact remains that Harding remains responsible. But the shifting should produce a great ameliaration of the sentence. Which is as it should be, in my opinion. That is what I am expecting too. A great ameliaration of the sentence. The court will find that Harding is responsible for the disaster, but that he shares that responsiblity with a large number of other factors that the court will say contributed to the cause of the disaster.
daveklepper So I think no matter how much blame is shifted to MM&A, and/or to the other defendents, the fact remains that Harding remains responsible. But the shifting should produce a great ameliaration of the sentence. Which is as it should be, in my opinion.
I am expecting a similar result as well.
Fm CBC.ca on Dec 5th: "Earlier in the trial, former MMA locomotive engineer François Daigle testified he'd driven the ill-fated lead locomotive 5017 on July 4 — two days before it was involved in the derailment.
Daigle told the court he'd reported mechanical problems to Demaître, his boss, and sent a fax to the Derby maintenance shop to alert them to the issue."
Dumb Question: What happened to the records of this fax? Any digital fax machine keeps records of what was sent and received, correct? I read a few follow-up articles, none of which addressed the fax question.
We got the fax at Derby, after the wreck. No one was working on July 4th through the 7th ( Thursday-Sunday). Returned to work Monday the 8th
Randy Stahl We got the fax at Derby, after the wreck. No one was working on July 4th through the 7th ( Thursday-Sunday). Returned to work Monday the 8th
Thanks for the clarification, Randy.
Randy StahlWe got the fax at Derby, after the wreck.
Out of curiosity: what did Daigle report as symptoms in that fax?
Locomotive was hunting in notch 8
Randy Stahl Locomotive was hunting in notch 8
OK, I have seen some reciprocating aircraft engines do that when the prop governor not properly set up It is not within the limits of our certificare to make adjustments to prop governors to adjust them other than limiting engine RPM. I presume your limitations would fall into the same category but perhaps with more leeway.
Eveything you have posted leads me to believe you know your trade both in repairing and operating locomotives. I can, unlike others, find no reason to question your abilities or motivation to keep power running safely and giving it the best performance possible given that locomotives you had to work with on MMA were not in the best of condition when they came on line. I feel you gave the court your best information.
Attempts to discredit you and others who had incidental involvement irk me no end. You did the best you could given the circumstances.
Norm
Often hunting is from a misadjusted or dirty compensating needle valve in the governor.
I showed my people here how to properly adjust them.
Sometimes hunting is caused by burned or blown airbox O rings.
In any case its not usually anything serious.
I didn't think the MMA engines were bad engines. We were constantly working to improve them but they were good solid machines to begin with. The C30-7 is a tough locomotive.
I do not know of anyone here who had attempted to discredit Randy. If it seems that way to anyone, perhaps there has been a misunderstanding.
Some further information about "defending the MM&A." At this point, it would not be possible to do so. The government took possession of the MM&A's assests, because it clearly violated the law, and it did not contest the decision. The assests are now operated by the QC&M. So, essentially, they admitted their guilt. So did a Canadian oil producer for not properly labeling loads as hazardous, and who paid a huge fine. So even before the trial began, the guilt is shared. The money the Government received has largely been used to recompence vicitims and victims' families.
It is just possible that Tom Harding could be judged innocent, if he convinces the Jury in his statements and prevails in cross-examination by the Prosecutor, of the following:
1. That he was essentially ordered to use quick and expedient securing instead of proper, rule-book, safe securing.
2. That he was ordered to leave the train instead of staying with it.
3. That he was ordered not to return to the train but to remain at the holel at the time he was informed of the fire.
Note the word "ordered." Not recommended, suggested, encouraged, permitted, but ordered.
He will have a tough job convincing, but perhaps he can. Even then, the Jury may decide there are times orders must be disobayed in the interest of safety.
To clarify a point, when I refer to the need to defend MM&A, I do not mean taking them to court, and prosecuting them, and thus causing them to defend against prosecution.
The defense of MM&A that I am talking about would be mounted by the prosecution of Harding. Here is how it would work: When an expert witness gives technical testimony about a suppose MM&A safety defect which is said to contribute to the cause of the wreck, that removes blame from Harding and adds blame to the MM&A.
So, to balance that back out, you would have another technical expert rebut the technical information of the first technical expert by showing that the said safety defect did not exist or played no role. This would amount to simply defending against the transfer of blame from Harding to the MM&A.
The role of rebutting the transfer of blame form Harding to the MM&A should be carried out by expert witness Steven Callaghan, but he is testifying on both sides of the issue, and there is nobody rebutting his transferring blame to the MM&A. I find it strange that Callaghan’s testimony about one-man crews would be allowed in the trial. Obviously the court must consider it relevant to the defense of Harding.
This is a criminal case, not a commercial case. Do you think that the government prosecuter wants to maximize Harding's sentence? Do you think he would be terribly unhappy if Harding was able to prove innocence and be set free? These are all people interested in dispensing justice, and interested in al facts in the case. You are not watching a tennis match.
It is not strange at all. Everyone is interested in justice. IS THAT CLEAR ENOUGH!!!!
What you are also forgetting is that all involved know perfectly well that none of the defendents INTENDED for the tragedy to occur. So THEY ARE ALSO VICTIMS OF THE TRAJEDY!!!!!!!
And again, even before the trial began: THE GUILT IS SHARED!!!!
daveklepperThis is a criminal case, not a commercial case. Do you think that the government prosecuter wants to maximize Harding's sentence? Do you think he would be terribly unhappy if Harding was able to prove innocence and be set free? These are all people interested in dispensing justice, and interested in al facts in the case. You are not watching a tennis match. It is not strange at all. Everyone is interested in justice. IS THAT CLEAR ENOUGH!!!!
When it gets to court it is no longer about justice for either side - it is about winning their position - nothing more and nothing less.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
WRONG
The Prosecutor is a public servent and will have the best interest of the total community in mind. This is not a spectator sport. Maybe you and Euclid would like it to be, but it isn't. Maybe you should transport yourself timewise to Rome just BC and watch gladiators tear each other apart.
Go and discuss this with a Canadian lawyer friend.
.
daveklepperDo you think that the government prosecuter wants to maximize Harding's sentence? Do you think he would be terribly unhappy if Harding was able to prove innocence and be set free? These are all people interested in dispensing justice, and interested in al facts in the case.
I think the government prosecutor would want the court to hear both sides of the story, and then decide. Anyone dispensing justice would want that. That is all I am trying to convey.
daveklepperAnd again, even before the trial began: THE GUILT IS SHARED!!!!
Then why have a trial?
To apportion the shared blame as justly and carefully as possible, with people testifying under oath to insure accuray as far as possible and to reach a verdict for each of the defendents with the information presented allowing the judge to render sentencing as fairly as possible.
This cannot be done without various people confronting each other. A technical report from interviews does not permit those interviewed to be cross-examined by lawyers for those being blamed. A courtroom does that.
The purpose, in a word, is Justice.
Regarding "both sides of the story." The "story" is not the extent to technical defects of a particular locmotive or whether there was a safety culture at MM&A. Those facts are pretty well established. The prosecution has a near air-tight case in the case of Tom Harding. He simply did not secure the train properly; and regardless of what he heard from supervisors or anyone else, that was his responsibility. The court will hear from him "his side of the case." The technical information that has been presented by all witnesses provides background for his side of the case. None of it is extraneous to the EXISTING DECISION that MM&A did not have a Safety-First Culture.
I also ask you to talk to a Canadian lawyer friend before posting on this again. You and Euclid are criticizing a Canadian trial procedure. May I suggest that you check my statements about what the trial is about and what the purpose of the Prosecutor is with a Canadian lawyer before you post again?
daveklepperThe prosecution has a near air-tight case in the case of Tom Harding. He simply did not secure the train properly;...
Regarding the near air-tight case that you say the prosecutor has against Harding; what does the allegation that MM&A did not adequately prepare for one-man crew operation have to do with that near air-tight case against Harding?
Euclid daveklepper The prosecution has a near air-tight case in the case of Tom Harding. He simply did not secure the train properly;... Regarding the near air-tight case that you say the prosecutor has against Harding; what does the allegation that MM&A did not adequately prepare for one-man crew operation have to do with that near air-tight case against Harding?
daveklepper The prosecution has a near air-tight case in the case of Tom Harding. He simply did not secure the train properly;...
Maybe mitigating circumstances. Any railroad operator should know how to tie down a train, and is has nothing to do with one man versus two, at all. As long as the MMA taught him the rule and provided him with a rulebook, he is on the hook. And I'm pretty sure they did both of those things, or we'd have heard about it.
I know you hate the idea that Harding is being taken out as a "Scapegoat" here, but over a dozen pages into this thread, the facts haven't changed, and Harding didn't follow the rules. And nothing you propose will ever change that.
But I'm sure that won't stop you from trying some more.
Harding has been a railroader since 1980 so he wasn't a 'newbie' being taught only the MM&A way - good, bad or indifferent.
Saturnalia Euclid daveklepper The prosecution has a near air-tight case in the case of Tom Harding. He simply did not secure the train properly;... Regarding the near air-tight case that you say the prosecutor has against Harding; what does the allegation that MM&A did not adequately prepare for one-man crew operation have to do with that near air-tight case against Harding? Maybe mitigating circumstances. Any railroad operator should know how to tie down a train, and is has nothing to do with one man versus two, at all. As long as the MMA taught him the rule and provided him with a rulebook, he is on the hook. And I'm pretty sure they did both of those things, or we'd have heard about it. I know you hate the idea that Harding is being taken out as a "Scapegoat" here, but over a dozen pages into this thread, the facts haven't changed, and Harding didn't follow the rules. And nothing you propose will ever change that. But I'm sure that won't stop you from trying some more.
You are seeing something that you want to see when you see me making excuses for Harding. When you read my comments, please set aside your preconceived idea and understand what I am saying. Just like you conclude, my point above about one-man crews is they are no excuse for Harding. I agree with you. We are not on opposite sides.
If I say things about how Harding might get off easy, it does not mean that I am wishing for that outcome. I am only analysing how things might go. I know that a lot of people speculate only according to their wished-for outcome, as though that will make it come true. I don't do that. In this particular case, I could not care less what the court decides. But I am very interested in the the process that leads to that decision. That is all.
EuclidI find it strange that Callaghan’s testimony about one-man crews would be allowed in the trial.
Nothing strange about it, if the Crown (or the defense) wanted to reinforce some kind of contributory negligence on MM&A for having done 'nothing except add mirrors' or whatever Callaghan said. Goes hand in hand with MM&A 'disabling' or 'miswiring' a 'safety valve'.
The thng is, here it is Saturday and some posters still seem blissfully unaware that there HAS been testimony regarding far more preparation for one-man operation, and about the purpose and safety of the OSVs, and I have the impression the jury understands what the correct picture on both points, much more favorable to MM&A, actually was.
I would be interested to see the degree to which Callaghan's testimony might qualify as perjured, particularly as he claimed the status of an expert witness on operational details he described falsely and prejudicially.
Again, just to put wind-up the what the purpose of a trial in a criminal case is, in the USA as well as in Canada, and in Israel too, imagine this situation:
The Prosecutor believes he has an airtight case against the Defendent, with motive and method quite clear.
The ONLY defense the Defendent has produced is that he was somewhere else at the time of the crime. But he has no witnesses to that fact.
The prosecutor gets the idea that to be where the defendent claims he was, he had to go and come along a shopping street where numerous stores have survailance cameras. He goes there, finds a store owner who is willing to sell him a tape from the time period, on the basis that he needs to evaluate the purchase of his own survailance setup, and when he analyzes the tape in his lab, he finds that indeed the defendent was there.
He would then go to the judge, the defendent would be freed, and a new police investigation would try to determine who the guilty party(ies) was (were). No prosecutor would destroy or hide the tape just so "his side would win."
Now in the USA, courts are just slightly different. Harding would be tried separately from the other two defendents, since their interests are in conflict. And if Harding had a really good case, his case would not come to trial. There would be plea bargaining, where he would admit his guilt and accept a light sentence and then turn State's Witness against the other two on trial. That is if he had a really good case, that he was ORDERED, not just permitted or recommended or allowed or whatever, but OREDERED, COMMANDED, like a private following the orders of his Sargeant or Leutenant. But note again that he is still guilty because following orders does not excuse breaking the Law.
But the Canadian, or at least the Quebec, system is different, following French instead of English practice, and the trial is a combined one. (USA law is in fact derivitive of English law.)
Dave- Regarding the Napoleonic Law vs English Common Law, we have already been through that. I thought the same thing but I was incorrect, as are you. The French Law only pertains to Civil matters not Criminal matters. Even in Quebec criminal matters fall under the Common Law( British) based system. That is a Constitutional matter.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.