Maybe this testimony will be coming, but this is what I would like to know about the knowledge and intentions of the people in the trial:
Did the engineer know the proper procedure for securing the train?
If he did, why didn't he follow it?
Was he given any instructions by his supervisors about how to secure the train?
An interesting point in the testimony is that engineer was not told about the engine problem even though at least one other person knew about it. However, the engineer certainly knew of the problem when he tied up the train for the night at Nantes. It was reported that the engineer told his supervisor(s) about the problem, and at least implied that he advised his supervisor(s) that he wanted to shut down the engine before leaving it. It was reported that the supervisor(s) told him to leave the engine running.
In court, I would like to hear the engineer explain whether after shutting down the engine, he would have started another engine to pump air, if he had been permitted to shut it down the engine with the problem.
If he answered yes to that question, I would like to hear him state whether he was told that the faulty engine had been shut down by the fire department, as I understand that he had conversations about the fire with his supervisor(s)
Testimony details events leading up to fatal 2013 oil train wreck
http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2017/10/25-lac-megantic-trial-enters-fourth-week
Brian Schmidt, Editor, Classic Trains magazine
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.