selector I did say that...and did so assuming Harding had not been told of the shut-down. I have to display my ignorance here now as I have not spent a great deal of time reading up on the case, to my regret. I assumed he must not have been told because it would have been unconscionable to have known the consist was dependent on the compressors of that one unit and not done anything about it....UNLESS he was told by his 'manager' not to bother, that everything was okay, which I thought had been the case. What did I get wrong? I will take the heat.....
I did say that...and did so assuming Harding had not been told of the shut-down. I have to display my ignorance here now as I have not spent a great deal of time reading up on the case, to my regret. I assumed he must not have been told because it would have been unconscionable to have known the consist was dependent on the compressors of that one unit and not done anything about it....UNLESS he was told by his 'manager' not to bother, that everything was okay, which I thought had been the case.
What did I get wrong? I will take the heat.....
Crandell,
Okay, I now understand the basis of your conclusion. I did not mean to sound overly critical.
First of all, regarding your condition that would vindicate Harding: “UNLESS he was told by his 'manager' not to bother, that everything was okay, which I thought had been the case.” That was basically what Harding was told, but it does not let him off the hook as I will explain as follows:
Here is my understanding of how this happened. After the locomotive fire was extinguished, but before the train ran away, Harding was having a phone conversation with his supervisor who was the dispatcher or RTC. I base my conclusions on the published transcript and audio recording of that phone conversation.
In the conversation, RTC told Harding what had happened since Harding had left the train at Nantes. He told Harding that the lead locomotive had caught fire and that the fire department shut down the engine of the locomotive and extinguished the fire. Harding sounded somewhat surprised, but he did say that the engine had been running poorly, so he knew there was some kind of trouble. In the conversation both men repeated, acknowledged, and reaffirmed several times that the engine had caught fire, and that the engine had been shut down. It sounded to me as though they were both mulling over the consequences of these facts, but neither person mentioned what they were thinking.
In this conversation, Harding did ask RTC if he (Harding) should go back and start another engine, and RTC told him no, and that they would deal with that in the morning.
However, at this point nor at anywhere else in the conversation did Harding tell RTC that the lack of any running engine meant that no air compressor was working; and so no compressed air was available to offset possible air leakage from the brake system; and that this could result in the release of the air brakes, thus allowing the train to roll away. And RTC never asked about this or brought up the subject.
To me, this is the biggest mystery of all. Why didn’t Harding mention this highly critical point? I can understand RTC never bringing it up because it may not have occurred to him. But Harding had to know, and it seems impossible that he would have forgotten it or missed it somehow. Even if Harding did not know how many handbrakes were required, he had to know that the loss of compressed air replenishment could easily allow the train to run away. But apparently, Harding simply deferred to the higher authority of RTC to wait until morning to deal with the train.
However, I have to conclude that RTC had no idea of the danger of the train running away that was posed by the lack of a running engine. I believe that if Harding had told RTC about the risk of a runaway if they waited until morning, RTC and Harding would have both got into their cars, driven back to the site at Nantes, and taken steps to re-secure the train.
The one apparent explanation is that when Harding volunteered to go back to start another engine and RTC said no, Harding washed his hands of the matter and let it reside with RTC who had assumed responsibility by telling Harding they would wait until morning. Yet Harding had to know the risk, and he had to know that RTC had taken responsibility without knowing the risk. If this is what happened, I think the implications for Harding are incriminating to say the least.
.
selector..UNLESS he was told by his 'manager' not to bother, that everything was okay, which I thought had been the case.
That was my understanding as well.
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...
Norm48327 Euclid But you then say you would regard Harding to be guilty if when he learned the engine had been shut down, he did not return to start it up again. Euclid But you then say you would regard Harding to be guilty if when he learned the engine had been shut down, he did not return to start it up again. Which side are you on? Your thoughts appear to change by the hour. Please stop twisting things. He was only guilty of not following rules and not guilty of violatiting any law. Under American law he would be prevented double jeapoardy. Not sure about Canadian law.
Euclid But you then say you would regard Harding to be guilty if when he learned the engine had been shut down, he did not return to start it up again.
But you then say you would regard Harding to be guilty if when he learned the engine had been shut down, he did not return to start it up again.
Which side are you on? Your thoughts appear to change by the hour.
Please stop twisting things. He was only guilty of not following rules and not guilty of violatiting any law. Under American law he would be prevented double jeapoardy. Not sure about Canadian law.
I am not on either side. I don't care. I am only interested in the process and reasoning being used by the court and others here to take sides.
Above, you quote me entirely out of context so my meaning is completely lost. My point in that post was about Crandell seemingly being on both sides. I was asking him to explain how he could side with the jury's not guilty verdict, and yet say he would regard Harding to be guility if he was told about the engine shut down and failed to go back to remedy the situation.
Crandell: Harding had four secific opportunities to excersise his specific responsibilites that every locomotive engineer has, regardless of safety culture or lack thereof, to insure that no disaster would occure:
1. Securing the train in accordance with The Law, Rule 112.
2. Shutting down a defective locomitive and replacing it with a good one in the consists without bothering suervision as simply the prudent thing to do.
3. Asking the taxi driver to wait while performing the above after the taxi driver pointed out the oil from the locomotive on the taxi windshield.
4. Returning to the train and securing it properly after being notified that there had been a fire and that the locomotive was shut down.
Every locomotive engineer that I have ever known knew he was responsible for the safety of his train and took that responsibility very seriously. None would have simply followed orders as Harding did.
Norm
selectorMaybe it's because of my background in motivational psych, organizational psych, leadership studies, and ethics that has me siding rather convincedly with the jury. For me, Harding would be guilty if: ...When he learned the engine had been shut down, he did not return and start it up again.
...When he learned the engine had been shut down, he did not return and start it up again.
I don’t understand what you are saying. You say you side with the jury in finding Harding not guilty. But you then say you would regard Harding to be guilty if when he learned the engine had been shut down, he did not return to start it up again.
Well he did learn the engine had been shut down and did not return to start it up again. So why then do you side with the jury in finding him not guilty?
Mr. Walsh said this:
“The Crown’s expert witness Stephen Callaghan has stated quite clearly that leaving your air brakes on and relying on them was generalized in the industry prior to the tragedy and it was a way of functioning.”
The quote by Mr. Walsh citing what Mr. Callaghan said is self-evident in that it intended to mitigate the negligence of Mr. Harding in failing to properly secure his train. However, I cannot draw any conclusions about the truth of what Mr. Callaghan said because I don’t know what he said. All I know is that Mr. Walsh has characterized as to what Mr. Callaghan said.
What is obvious, however, is the conclusion Mr. Walsh draws from what Mr. Callaghan said; and that conclusion is not accurate. In modern times, at least, it has never been acceptable to rely or depend on air brakes to secure a train on grades such as the one between Nantes and Lac Megantic.
However Mr. Callaghan’s point, as characterized by Mr. Walsh, contains nothing that ties it to the runaway. It is only a generalized statement that, prior to the accident, leaving air brakes on was normal practice. However, the statement does not specify for what purpose the air brakes are left on or under what circumstances. For instance, engineers left their brakes on and relied on them when descending grades or when standing on sidings with the crew remaining onboard.
The point contains nothing that ties it to train securement. If the point were made in relation to the runaway from Nantes, the point would be false due to the steepness of that particular grade. It was never acceptable to secure a train with air brakes at Nantes, either before or after the disaster.
So while, Mr. Callaghan’s point is 100% true as far as it goes, it is irrelevant to the Lac Megantic runaway. It has no connection with what Harding did in securing the train at Nantes.
Craandell, you have reinforced my point-of-view. And again I say guilty but with extreme extenuating circumstances. Not to be put in jail to begin with let alone returned to jail. You are defining a locomotive engineer as a flunky who follows orders. That simply is not true. The engineer in the end has responsibility for the safety of his train. Many engineers I knew had tales of a dispatcher giving an order, and then their explaining to the dispatcher why they would not follow it and why it must be changed. Fortunately for everyone concerned, the dispatcher then understood the situaiton and made the necessary modification.
What would you do if you saw red over red and the dispatcher said the signal is not functioning properly, proceed At Track Speed to the next signal? (Not that I would espect any dispatcher to say that!)
If an engineer is only a flunky, than driverless trains with automation make sense. But it does not make sense because a human being who can be resonsible is important. But not one who just follows orders.
edblysardI don't understand why you guys even bother to try anymore....
Ed,
IMO the indefenseable have nothing worthy of posting other than "fake news". Just make up sonmething to keep the story going and viewers entertained seems to be the mantra of the day. It's a reflection on the mentality of their viewers.
That said, I try to read both sides of the story before I draw conclusions. Neither side of the media is totally trustworthy.
Harding's apology in French, and in English at link.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/tom-harding-megantic-trial-statement-1.4498223
At some point, we were discussing Harding’s vast amount of experience as an engineer on MM&A and other lines prior. The point was that Harding should know full well how to secure a train. But there is another point related to his experience that needs to be explained.
Before the train ran away, Harding was having a phone conversation with his supervisor. The supervisor told Harding that the fire department had shut down the one running engine. How could someone with a lot of experience just let that go by and not react to the fact that it was fairly likely that the loss of air pumping would cause the air brakes to release? Harding must not have realized that danger. How could anybody miss it? How could Harding with all his years of experience possibly miss it?
daveklepper Again, rule 112 is a civil rule. It has the power of a law because it was/is promulgated by the Canadian Government. It is not a compapany rule, and I do not understand why people keep repeating this idea. The Crown's failure to prove the case is its failure, and the jury misunderstood the nature of the rule violation. Again, Gulty with extreme extenuating circumstances would have been correct.
Again, rule 112 is a civil rule. It has the power of a law because it was/is promulgated by the Canadian Government. It is not a compapany rule, and I do not understand why people keep repeating this idea. The Crown's failure to prove the case is its failure, and the jury misunderstood the nature of the rule violation.
Again, Gulty with extreme extenuating circumstances would have been correct.
Dave, I understand your point, and it's a good one...or at least, it has both 'face validity' and logical validity. To me.
Maybe it's because of my background in motivational psych, organizational psych, leadership studies, and ethics that has me siding rather convincedly with the jury. I place a huge ton of weight on the leadership in a troubled organization as much as if they were untroubled and doing fabulously. The leaders set the tone and the culture. They establish and enforce adherence to norms, conventions, values, and policies that make the workplace what it is, warts and all. Where safety is a concern, it should be the leaders that notice and take steps for a remedy. I understand that these things take time and happen by degrees, but in the absence of their taking steps to have outsiders come in and critically analyse the operation from time to time, the leaders are left with the bag where it should be...solidly within their grasp.
For me, Harding would be guilty if:
He did not set the number of brakes per his last instruction or convention;
He did not leave the engine running, against established practices, policy, and /or instruction; and
When he learned the engine had been shut down, he did not return and start it up again.
He did what he was told to do, and then slept soundly, as he had done 100 times previously.
-Crandell
edblysard Murphy Siding selector This is becoming circuitous and almost personal. Correct on both accounts. In the interest of fairness, this is a thread started by euclid. It should be his prerogative to be as circuitous as he is comfortable with. I suppose as long as he understands what he means he’s accomplished his task. I don't understand why you guys even bother to try anymore....
Murphy Siding selector This is becoming circuitous and almost personal. Correct on both accounts. In the interest of fairness, this is a thread started by euclid. It should be his prerogative to be as circuitous as he is comfortable with. I suppose as long as he understands what he means he’s accomplished his task.
selector This is becoming circuitous and almost personal.
This is becoming circuitous and almost personal.
Correct on both accounts. In the interest of fairness, this is a thread started by euclid. It should be his prerogative to be as circuitous as he is comfortable with. I suppose as long as he understands what he means he’s accomplished his task.
I don't understand why you guys even bother to try anymore....
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
23 17 46 11
Well, there at least two sides to every story and the truth may lie somewhere in between. Cops are trained to dig out the facts rather then rely on "he said/she said".
That said, I do not dislike anyone on this forum. I only ask that they post factual information related to the subject at hand and not intentionally rearranging words to fit their personal agenda. Where it gets sticky is when one poster who appears to be protected for whatever reason keeps disagreeing with others and constantly changing his posts to fit his agenda.
Euclid ..................In any case I was accused here of blaming the accident on Burkhardt, which of course, I was not doing. I was accusing Burkhardt for prematurely blaming Harding. Nevertheless, I was bitterly and widely accused of throwing Burkhardt under the bus by many here who were throwing Harding under the bus. Those people succeeded in getting the thread locked when they could not get me to join them in throwing Harding under the bus. Here is that infamous thread: http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/111/t/219868.aspx?page=1 I see it has picked up over 10,000 more views since being locked.
..................In any case I was accused here of blaming the accident on Burkhardt, which of course, I was not doing. I was accusing Burkhardt for prematurely blaming Harding. Nevertheless, I was bitterly and widely accused of throwing Burkhardt under the bus by many here who were throwing Harding under the bus. Those people succeeded in getting the thread locked when they could not get me to join them in throwing Harding under the bus.
Here is that infamous thread: http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/111/t/219868.aspx?page=1
I see it has picked up over 10,000 more views since being locked.
selectorThis is becoming circuitous...
It usually does. "Yes, but..."
I wish to clarify my position. I do not believe that Harding should go back to jail. But I also blieve that the "Not-Guilty" verdict is bad for Canadian Law, for Railroad Safety in general, and for the impression of the Public about the railroad industry.
1. Harding broke the law. 112 is law, not just a rule of any particular railroad but issued by the Canadian Government.
2. A locomotive engineer historically has responsibility for the safety of his train, it effects on the public and any passengers and other crew-members.
Not only did Harding break the law, but also did not shut down the defective locmotive and replace it with a good operating one. Every single locomotive (or mu-train) engineer that I have ever known would have done that without first contacting any supervisor. Oil on the windshield of the cab should have been the final indication that such action was necessary. If the fire had not broen out, the locomotive would have shut down anyway because of low oil.
I have stated all along that Harding should have been judged guilty but with the extenuating circumstances of a lack of safety culture and training that led to his innaction, with sentence commuted to time already served awaiting trial.
That responsibility must be retained for North American railroading in general. A lomotive engineer is not a flunky following orders but a highly skilled technician who is directly responsibile for safety. The not-guilty verdict tends to remove that responsibility and that is why I think it should be appealed.
Bucky"We're all?" Perhaps all of you have an axe to grind, and that makes you hear it the same way.
Murphy SidingYeah! That's the ticket! No one understands you so it must be everyone else's fault.
Old saying: "If it seems like everyone around you is the problem, maybe they aren't the problem at all."
Euclid Murphy Siding With all due respect, if we're all hearing it the same way and it's not the way you think you're broadcasting it, perhaps you're not explaining yourself well enough. You appear to be saying that the prosecution screwed up because they’re not as astute as you are. They’re professional attorneys and you’re….not. "We're all?" Perhaps all of you have an axe to grind, and that makes you hear it the same way.
Murphy Siding With all due respect, if we're all hearing it the same way and it's not the way you think you're broadcasting it, perhaps you're not explaining yourself well enough. You appear to be saying that the prosecution screwed up because they’re not as astute as you are. They’re professional attorneys and you’re….not.
"We're all?" Perhaps all of you have an axe to grind, and that makes you hear it the same way.
EuclidMaybe the prosecutors screwed up.
And maybe the case they had available to present wasn't sufficient to assure a conviction on the charges brought. And that's the case they had to prove.
Murphy Siding charlie hebdo Apparently lost sight of in the minutiae of Euclid's infinite discussion is this: much of an entire town was destroyed and a large number of its residents lost their lives through no fault of their own. The penny pinching, safety last railroad declared bankruptcy and walked away. Prosecutors took pity on Harding, etc., and let them walk, too. Who's taking responsibility? Somewhere up above I thought I read that the company was going to face a trial as well. I presume that means the officers of the company and the managers involved in the incident. I don't know if it's fair to say that the prosecutors took pity on Harding, etc. That's kind of walking down the euclid path. Wouldn't prosecutors want to prosecute?
charlie hebdo Apparently lost sight of in the minutiae of Euclid's infinite discussion is this: much of an entire town was destroyed and a large number of its residents lost their lives through no fault of their own. The penny pinching, safety last railroad declared bankruptcy and walked away. Prosecutors took pity on Harding, etc., and let them walk, too. Who's taking responsibility?
Apparently lost sight of in the minutiae of Euclid's infinite discussion is this: much of an entire town was destroyed and a large number of its residents lost their lives through no fault of their own. The penny pinching, safety last railroad declared bankruptcy and walked away. Prosecutors took pity on Harding, etc., and let them walk, too. Who's taking responsibility?
Somewhere up above I thought I read that the company was going to face a trial as well. I presume that means the officers of the company and the managers involved in the incident. I don't know if it's fair to say that the prosecutors took pity on Harding, etc. That's kind of walking down the euclid path. Wouldn't prosecutors want to prosecute?
Murphy SidingWith all due respect, if we're all hearing it the same way and it's not the way you think you're broadcasting it, perhaps you're not explaining yourself well enough. You appear to be saying that the prosecution screwed up because they’re not as astute as you are. They’re professional attorneys and you’re….not.
BaltACD Euclid First of all, I am not second guessing the jury in this case even though you are the third person here to accuse me of that. My questions go to the misrepresentation of technical details that was presented to the jury. Why didn't the Crown call upon you as their Expert Witness to explain things to the jury?
Euclid First of all, I am not second guessing the jury in this case even though you are the third person here to accuse me of that. My questions go to the misrepresentation of technical details that was presented to the jury.
Why didn't the Crown call upon you as their Expert Witness to explain things to the jury?
Johnny
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.