BaltACD tree68 As also noted, the dispatcher may or may not hold a piece of this. Everything I have heard through 'back channels' say that the Dispatcher performed all the required functions to the letter of the Rule Book and common sense.
tree68 As also noted, the dispatcher may or may not hold a piece of this.
Everything I have heard through 'back channels' say that the Dispatcher performed all the required functions to the letter of the Rule Book and common sense.
I heard that the CSX dispatcher got the 'switch is normal and locked" from someone in the yard office, not the conductor. The person quoted a news article in the Jax paper. I haven't been able to find that. Not good if true...
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Yes, the photo is backwards.
Euclid Euclid I think the point of the article is to open the door to the public interest of forcing an Amtrak host railroad to pay the damages sustained in an Amtrak wreck if the wreck is caused by the host railroad. This could be driven by lawyers who want to take on this cause. The time may be right for the proposal because this Cayce wreck appears likely to have been caused by CSX. The most convincing argument to persuade the public to support the cause is the safety of the traveling public. Lawyers will argue that if CSX knew that they had to pay for damages in an Amtrak wreck that CSX caused, they would be more careful in the operations surrounding and governing the Amtrak train. In the case of No. 91, maybe CSX would have spiked the switches or imposed restricted speed if they thought that was cheaper than taking the financial risk for damages if the train were wrecked because of a CSX mistake. I think this sums up the point I have been making as I said above: http://cs.trains.com/trn/b/observation-tower/archive/2018/02/14/is-justice-served-by-no-fault-contracts.aspx
Euclid I think the point of the article is to open the door to the public interest of forcing an Amtrak host railroad to pay the damages sustained in an Amtrak wreck if the wreck is caused by the host railroad. This could be driven by lawyers who want to take on this cause. The time may be right for the proposal because this Cayce wreck appears likely to have been caused by CSX. The most convincing argument to persuade the public to support the cause is the safety of the traveling public. Lawyers will argue that if CSX knew that they had to pay for damages in an Amtrak wreck that CSX caused, they would be more careful in the operations surrounding and governing the Amtrak train. In the case of No. 91, maybe CSX would have spiked the switches or imposed restricted speed if they thought that was cheaper than taking the financial risk for damages if the train were wrecked because of a CSX mistake.
Lawyers will argue that if CSX knew that they had to pay for damages in an Amtrak wreck that CSX caused, they would be more careful in the operations surrounding and governing the Amtrak train. In the case of No. 91, maybe CSX would have spiked the switches or imposed restricted speed if they thought that was cheaper than taking the financial risk for damages if the train were wrecked because of a CSX mistake.
I think this sums up the point I have been making as I said above:
http://cs.trains.com/trn/b/observation-tower/archive/2018/02/14/is-justice-served-by-no-fault-contracts.aspx
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
BaltACD tree68 As also noted, the dispatcher may or may not hold a piece of this.
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 hope this turns out to be true. I have always held dispatchers in very high regard. This is an awful situation however it happened, but it would comfort me some to know there was no mistake by the dispatcher.
Still in training.
tree68As also noted, the dispatcher may or may not hold a piece of this.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
EuclidThe quote you attibute to me above was not stated by me. {snip} I think we are only left with the conclusion that the switch was locked and lined into the siding.
I usually don't screw up quotes like that - you're right. It was Randy.
As I recall, that the switch was lined and locked for the siding has been established as fact.
As you note, the question is by whom. That has also been discussed, and the conclusion of that discussion narrows it down to two people, barring "outside interference."
As also noted, the dispatcher may or may not hold a piece of this.
tree68 Euclid "The Cayce wreck was cause by two CSX employees." And another poster suggested it was three. Outside parties such as vandals and signal department employees notwithstanding, all three have been mentioned during the discussion.
Euclid "The Cayce wreck was cause by two CSX employees."
And another poster suggested it was three.
Outside parties such as vandals and signal department employees notwithstanding, all three have been mentioned during the discussion.
The quote you attibute to me above was not stated by me. It was stated by Randy. It sounds like a statement of fact, so I asked Randy what role those two people played.
I was not sure which two people Randy was referring to and he did not say. So I thought I would start by asking what role the two people played.
I think we are only left with the conclusion that the switch was locked and lined into the siding.
Only two people had the ability to handle that switch. Both crew members are responsible for making sure switches are normal before releasing thier authority.
I'd like to see thier names published because I don't want either of them working around me.
23 17 46 11
Euclid"The Cayce wreck was cause by two CSX employees."
tree68 Euclid What roles did they play? I think that's been pretty well established.
Euclid What roles did they play?
I think that's been pretty well established.
I did not know that anything had been established as to who caused the disaster. I recall that speculation has narrowed it down to one of two people.
My question you quoted above was regarding Randy's comment. Notice that he includes two people as being the cause, rather than the cause being one of two people. He said this:
"The Cayce wreck was cause by two CSX employees."
Paul of CovingtonNow I'm confused. I thought we had established that the "guest" road always paid.
Look at the dates. The 'guest road always paid' was in common usage half a century ago, between relative railroad 'equals'.
The Amtrak 'secret agreement' considerably postdates (Don Oltmann can give you precise date and circumstances) the original agreement established when the 'quasi-public' NRPC was formed in 1971. It has the no-fault characteristics described.
As also noted, if other specific roads have established their own written agreements, those would be binding over the AAR principle. And it's unlikely we are going to know the details in those.
It seems as if it’s possible that three CSX employees are involved: two on the train crew, plus the dispatcher. We don’t know yet what happened. It will likely be a long time before we do.
GraniteRailroaderThis is starting to feel like Firehouse eh, Tree?
Yep.
tree68 I think that's been pretty well established.
This is starting to feel like Firehouse eh, Tree?
This space reserved for SpaceMouse's future presidential candidacy advertisements
EuclidWhat roles did they play?
Randy Stahl The Cayce wreck was cause by two CSX employees.
The Cayce wreck was cause by two CSX employees.
What roles did they play?
Thanks, Jeff - all sounds correct (it came back to me that the CB&Q train was the Ak-Sar-Ben). There was also an article in Trains shortly afterward in the mid-1960's titled "The Accident that Couldn't Happen" by Robert B. Shaw, as I recall.
- PDN.
Paul of Covington oltmannd That's the deal they have. Each road pays for it's own regardless of fault. Sort of like "no-fault" auto insurance. Now I'm confused. I thought we had established that the "guest" road always paid.
oltmannd That's the deal they have. Each road pays for it's own regardless of fault. Sort of like "no-fault" auto insurance.
Now I'm confused. I thought we had established that the "guest" road always paid.
Everyone takes care of their own. An Amtrak train hits a CSX train on CSX territiory and Amtrak pays for the their people and equipment. CSX pays for their people, equipment and plant.
NS derails on the corridor and an Amtrak train hit it, NS pays for their people and equipment, Amtrak pays for their people equipment and plant.
That's my understanding, anyway.
It's also why most mainline steam excursions operate as Amtrak specials on the host road.
Railroad liability and indemnity clauses have kept generations of lawyers fully employed - a internet forum will not bring clarity.
oltmanndThat's the deal they have. Each road pays for it's own regardless of fault. Sort of like "no-fault" auto insurance.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
LithoniaOperator oltmannd LithoniaOperator oltmannd The flip side is if Amtrak were to cause a wreck with a massively bad result, say a chlorine car breach in a city, Amtrak would not have to pay. oltmannd, why is that? I am confused. That's the deal they have. Each road pays for it's own regardless of fault. Sort of like "no-fault" auto insurance. But if Amtrak caused it, wouldn't any harm to the general public be Amtrak's responsibility. I think you are saying that the host railroad would have to pay for damage to its own equipment, physical plant, and foreign-road freight cars and cargo in its care at the time. But if trackside non-railroad property and non-railroad individuals were harmed, wouldn't that be Amtrak's problem? Not challenging you. I am just clueless about this subject.
oltmannd LithoniaOperator oltmannd The flip side is if Amtrak were to cause a wreck with a massively bad result, say a chlorine car breach in a city, Amtrak would not have to pay. oltmannd, why is that? I am confused. That's the deal they have. Each road pays for it's own regardless of fault. Sort of like "no-fault" auto insurance.
LithoniaOperator oltmannd The flip side is if Amtrak were to cause a wreck with a massively bad result, say a chlorine car breach in a city, Amtrak would not have to pay. oltmannd, why is that? I am confused.
oltmannd The flip side is if Amtrak were to cause a wreck with a massively bad result, say a chlorine car breach in a city, Amtrak would not have to pay.
The flip side is if Amtrak were to cause a wreck with a massively bad result, say a chlorine car breach in a city, Amtrak would not have to pay.
oltmannd, why is that? I am confused.
That's the deal they have. Each road pays for it's own regardless of fault. Sort of like "no-fault" auto insurance.
But if Amtrak caused it, wouldn't any harm to the general public be Amtrak's responsibility. I think you are saying that the host railroad would have to pay for damage to its own equipment, physical plant, and foreign-road freight cars and cargo in its care at the time.
But if trackside non-railroad property and non-railroad individuals were harmed, wouldn't that be Amtrak's problem?
Not challenging you. I am just clueless about this subject.
Good questions. I don't really know. I imagine if the damage was from the host road's equipment, the host road would be on the hook. If they are the one hauling the chlorine car, then it's on them.
I do wonder how all this would hold up in a civil suit, though. Would the "no fault" deal hold up?
I think the point is that Amtrak pays for their own liability if they cause a wreck, and they also pay for the host railroad's liability if the host railroad causes a wreck. The point of the article flows from this Amtrak collision in South Carolina. The point made is that even if CSX caused the collision by their own negligence, Amtrak still pays for the damages to Amtrak such as loss of equipment and the death and injury to the passengers and crew.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.