Drunken CSX engineer and CSX [are] at fault

3568 views
93 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    September 2017
  • 3,729 posts
Drunken CSX engineer and CSX [are] at fault
Posted by charlie hebdo on Tuesday, September 15, 2020 9:52 PM

https://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2020/09/15-ntsb-engineer-in-2019-csx-collision-in-ohio-was-intoxicated

It was two subjects with the verb understood, not a compound sentence,   but I have added "are" for clarity.  Thanks,  Paul of Covington! 

 

  • Member since
    September 2017
  • 3,729 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Tuesday, September 15, 2020 9:55 PM

Poor alcohol testing program but some worry about a veteran who is treated with a dog? 

  • Member since
    December 2017
  • From: I've been everywhere, man
  • 2,799 posts
Posted by SD70Dude on Tuesday, September 15, 2020 10:12 PM

If it makes you feel any better, Hunter Harrison would have treated the service dog the same way he treated the drug and alcohol testing program.

Greetings from Alberta

-an Articulate Malcontent

  • Member since
    September 2017
  • 3,729 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Tuesday, September 15, 2020 10:29 PM

Hunter Harrison was a jerk. 

  • Member since
    February 2005
  • From: Vancouver Island, BC
  • 22,272 posts
Posted by selector on Wednesday, September 16, 2020 3:05 AM

A very successful jerk...

  • Member since
    February 2003
  • From: Guelph, Ontario
  • 3,982 posts
Posted by Ulrich on Wednesday, September 16, 2020 6:44 AM

The engineer was a jerk for putting the lives of others in danger. Sure, the drug and alcohol baby sitting mechanism wasn't as robust and effective as it should be.. and we can always blame positive train control and how CSX should not have allowed the train to proceed in restricted mode. But ultimately it was the engineer's responsibility to show up for work free of drugs and sober..too much to ask? 

  • Member since
    September 2017
  • 3,729 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Wednesday, September 16, 2020 7:24 AM

selector

A very successful jerk...

 

Is success only measured by operating ratio?   Is a dysfunctional transportation mode's boss that loses customers by the droves a success? 

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 6,532 posts
Posted by Euclid on Wednesday, September 16, 2020 7:44 AM

So Harrison pulled the plug on safety, and nobody realized it until this collision?

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 19,369 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Wednesday, September 16, 2020 8:20 AM

Euclid
So Harrison pulled the plug on safety, and nobody realized it until this collision?

It was realized every time a directive came out of his office that cancelled prior practices and procedures.  That being said, of Officers, it was EHH's way or the highway.  Don't do it Hunter's way and you are now unemployed.

Fish rot from the head.  Hunter was rotting the day he assumed control of CSX.

Suspect the Engineer was 'Hunter's kind of guy' - show up drunk and keep on drinking - but he showed up.  Safety was just a word with no meaning to EHH.

  • Member since
    February 2003
  • From: Guelph, Ontario
  • 3,982 posts
Posted by Ulrich on Wednesday, September 16, 2020 8:42 AM

At CP Hunter did fire an engineer who was involved in a similar incident.. engineer was high. CP was ordered to give the engineer his job back after completing a drug rehab program.. Hunter defied the government.. "not putting this person at the controls of a locomotive" or words to that affect. Like him or not, I don't think this is Hunter's fault.. Likely what will happen now (thanks to this engineer).. positive train control will become further restrictive.. the drug and alcohol testing will become more robust,frequent, and pervasive.. and maybe an inward facing camera or six to make sure that the person at the controls is doing his/her job properly. and you can thank this engineer for that because through his irresponsible actions he pointed out the need for more controls.

  • Member since
    August 2004
  • From: The 17th hole at TPC
  • 1,817 posts
Posted by n012944 on Wednesday, September 16, 2020 9:16 AM

Charlie hebdo

 

CSX was at fault?  Did CSX made drinking a requirement of the job? I worked through EHH's time, and somehow I made it to work sober every day.  It is sad that personal responsibility ranks so low for not only Charlie, but the NTSB as well.

Also, when the accident happened, EHH had been dead for almost as long as he had been with CSX.

  • Member since
    August 2019
  • 120 posts
Posted by Psychot on Wednesday, September 16, 2020 9:22 AM

Strange that the conductor didn't notice the engineer was intoxicated.

  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: S.E. South Dakota
  • 12,734 posts
Posted by Murphy Siding on Wednesday, September 16, 2020 9:23 AM

From the linked article:
"...the safety board said the engineer would have been significantly impaired, may have been drinking on the job, and likely had a blood alcohol level of between 0.2% and 0.3% at the time of the collision. He no longer works for CSX, a railroad spokeswoman says.

The engineer’s blood alcohol level was 0.11% when tested six hours after the wreck, the board said. In all but one state, a driver of a motor vehicle is considered legally intoxicated at 0.08%..."

       I thought that .20% was falling down drunk and .30% was passed out/ near death from alcohol poisoning? This appears to be be someone with some longterm experience with alcohol abuse. I'm curious why the other person in the cab didn't catch on tho the engineer's behavior.

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Equestria
  • 8,071 posts
Posted by zugmann on Wednesday, September 16, 2020 10:17 AM

n012944
CSX was at fault?  Did CSX made drinking a requirement of the job? I worked through EHH's time, and somehow I made it to work sober every day.  It is sad that personal responsibility ranks so low for not only Charlie, but the NTSB as well. Also, when the accident happened, EHH had been dead for almost as long as he had been with CSX.

From the short article:

 

The FRA told the NTSB that deficiencies in CSX’s drug and alcohol testing program were traced in part to then-CEO E. Hunter Harrison’s implementation of Precision Scheduled Railroading, which resulted in a 22% reduction in the railroad’s employment levels, including among the field-level operations personnel who were supposed to administer the tests.

 

 The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer or any other railroad, company, or person.

  • Member since
    June 2009
  • From: Dallas, TX
  • 4,770 posts
Posted by CMStPnP on Wednesday, September 16, 2020 10:34 AM

Psychot

Strange that the conductor didn't notice the engineer was intoxicated.

So with some people it is not like a Foster Brooks act.    They are very good at hiding intoxication  and you cannot really tell the difference between sober and drunk.    Plus his percentages were below .10 which makes concealment easier.    You have to be falling down drunken stupor with a professional alcholic usually before people notice and usually professional alcholics do not take it that far.   Roughly the same with some habitual cocaine users.   Had cocaine users in the Army in the 1980's and aside from the overdose in caffine jitteriness and bloodshot eyes (you had to be close).    You really could not tell they were on drugs.   That is why random and unannounced testing programs in the Army are used...........and it seemed every single time they had one conducted across a Bn of 500 men..........they netted a few drug users each time.     They had them at least once a quarter.

  • Member since
    February 2003
  • From: Guelph, Ontario
  • 3,982 posts
Posted by Ulrich on Wednesday, September 16, 2020 10:40 AM

zugmann

 

 
n012944
CSX was at fault?  Did CSX made drinking a requirement of the job? I worked through EHH's time, and somehow I made it to work sober every day.  It is sad that personal responsibility ranks so low for not only Charlie, but the NTSB as well. Also, when the accident happened, EHH had been dead for almost as long as he had been with CSX.

 

From the short article:

 

The FRA told the NTSB that deficiencies in CSX’s drug and alcohol testing program were traced in part to then-CEO E. Hunter Harrison’s implementation of Precision Scheduled Railroading, which resulted in a 22% reduction in the railroad’s employment levels, including among the field-level operations personnel who were supposed to administer the tests.

 

 

 

Likel those deficiencies now corrected or will be shortly. Sadly every employee who came to work clean and sober will now have to put up with more screening as well.. 

  • Member since
    August 2004
  • From: The 17th hole at TPC
  • 1,817 posts
Posted by n012944 on Wednesday, September 16, 2020 10:46 AM

zugmann

 

 
n012944
CSX was at fault?  Did CSX made drinking a requirement of the job? I worked through EHH's time, and somehow I made it to work sober every day.  It is sad that personal responsibility ranks so low for not only Charlie, but the NTSB as well. Also, when the accident happened, EHH had been dead for almost as long as he had been with CSX.

 

From the short article:

 

The FRA told the NTSB that deficiencies in CSX’s drug and alcohol testing program were traced in part to then-CEO E. Hunter Harrison’s implementation of Precision Scheduled Railroading, which resulted in a 22% reduction in the railroad’s employment levels, including among the field-level operations personnel who were supposed to administer the tests.

 

 

https://lmgtfy.com/?q=personal+responsibility

 

The engineer in question had not been tested in 5 years at the time of the accident. EHH had been CEO for 9 months, and dead another 8 months before the accident.

  • Member since
    August 2004
  • From: The 17th hole at TPC
  • 1,817 posts
Posted by n012944 on Wednesday, September 16, 2020 10:48 AM

CMStPnP

 

 
Psychot

Strange that the conductor didn't notice the engineer was intoxicated.

 

    Plus his percentages were below .10 which makes concealment easier.     

"The engineer’s blood alcohol level was 0.11% when tested six hours after the wreck"

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Equestria
  • 8,071 posts
Posted by zugmann on Wednesday, September 16, 2020 10:49 AM

n012944
The engineer in question had not been tested in 5 years at the time of the accident. EHH had been CEO for 9 months, and dead another 8 months before the accident.

I'm guessing that's why it said IN PART?

 

Nobody is arguing that the engineer is repsonsible.  But NTSB looks at all contributory factors.  Anyone want to discuss restricted mode in PTC? 

 The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer or any other railroad, company, or person.

  • Member since
    January 2019
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 5,337 posts
Posted by Flintlock76 on Wednesday, September 16, 2020 11:04 AM

CMStPnP
So with some people it is not like a Foster Brooks act.    They are very good at hiding intoxication 

And if he was drinking vodka which has no odor the engineer wouldn't have  "booze breath"  which would have tipped off the conductor that something was very wrong. 

"Booze breath" has given away airline pilots who violated the "Twelve hours between  the bottle and the throttle" rule.  

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 21,322 posts
Posted by tree68 on Wednesday, September 16, 2020 12:01 PM

CMStPnP
So with some people it is not like a Foster Brooks act.    They are very good at hiding intoxication  and you cannot really tell the difference between sober and drunk. 

I believe the term is "high functioning alcoholics."  It's funny - there was just a letter in "Dear Abby" about this, minus the railroading.  

Sometimes it seems that people like this function better when intoxicated.  Doesn't mean they do, only that it seems like it.

LarryWhistling
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...

  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: S.E. South Dakota
  • 12,734 posts
Posted by Murphy Siding on Wednesday, September 16, 2020 12:05 PM

n012944
 
CMStPnP

 

 
Psychot

Strange that the conductor didn't notice the engineer was intoxicated.

 

    Plus his percentages were below .10 which makes concealment easier.     

 

 

"The engineer’s blood alcohol level was 0.11% when tested six hours after the wreck"

 

and " the safety board said the engineer would have been significantly impaired, may have been drinking on the job, and likely had a blood alcohol level of between 0.2% and 0.3% at the time of the collision."

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: S.E. South Dakota
  • 12,734 posts
Posted by Murphy Siding on Wednesday, September 16, 2020 12:17 PM

n012944
 
zugmann

 

 
n012944
CSX was at fault?  Did CSX made drinking a requirement of the job? I worked through EHH's time, and somehow I made it to work sober every day.  It is sad that personal responsibility ranks so low for not only Charlie, but the NTSB as well. Also, when the accident happened, EHH had been dead for almost as long as he had been with CSX.

 

From the short article:

 

The FRA told the NTSB that deficiencies in CSX’s drug and alcohol testing program were traced in part to then-CEO E. Hunter Harrison’s implementation of Precision Scheduled Railroading, which resulted in a 22% reduction in the railroad’s employment levels, including among the field-level operations personnel who were supposed to administer the tests.

 

 

 

 

https://lmgtfy.com/?q=personal+responsibility

 

The engineer in question had not been tested in 5 years at the time of the accident. EHH had been CEO for 9 months, and dead another 8 months before the accident.

 

I agree that people should take personal responsibility for their actions.  What I don't understand is why CSX, which has so much to lose if one of their employees shirks that resposibility, didn't have a more comprehensive random testing program.

      From the linked article: "The engineer who was impaired in the Carey wreck had not been tested for alcohol use in the previous five years, or for drug use in the prior 10 years, the NTSB said."

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

  • Member since
    September 2017
  • 3,729 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Wednesday, September 16, 2020 12:17 PM

Murphy Siding

From the linked article:
"...the safety board said the engineer would have been significantly impaired, may have been drinking on the job, and likely had a blood alcohol level of between 0.2% and 0.3% at the time of the collision. He no longer works for CSX, a railroad spokeswoman says.

The engineer’s blood alcohol level was 0.11% when tested six hours after the wreck, the board said. In all but one state, a driver of a motor vehicle is considered legally intoxicated at 0.08%..."

       I thought that .20% was falling down drunk and .30% was passed out/ near death from alcohol poisoning? This appears to be be someone with some longterm experience with alcohol abuse. I'm curious why the other person in the cab didn't catch on tho the engineer's behavior.

 

Good question.  I remember an encounter early in my career in an ER with a small woman who was very belligerant and still coordinated that she managed to cold cock an orderly when a blood draw was attempted. It turned out her level was 0.36. Long term alcoholics often do not present with the usual features of inebriation. 

And just to clarify for n01---. I never said that engineer was not responsible.  But CSX's program was seriously failing,  even more so after EHH's regime. In case you don't realize it,  many accidents are caused by multiple factors. This is one of those situations.  People, including drivers, engineers, pilots and ship captains will drink to excess and try to get away with it.  That's why a good randomized screening program is needed,  especially for those in hazardous situations. 

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 19,369 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Wednesday, September 16, 2020 12:37 PM

CSX Testing - for what it is worth.

18 years in Jacksonville - never tested (1990-2008)
8 years in Baltimore - tested 3 times (2008-2016)

  • Member since
    August 2004
  • From: The 17th hole at TPC
  • 1,817 posts
Posted by n012944 on Wednesday, September 16, 2020 1:14 PM

charlie hebdo

 

And just to clarify for n01---. I never said that engineer was not responsible.

 

The title to the thread you started.  

"Drunken CSX engineer and CSX at fault"

 You never said anything about the engineer being responsible for his actions.  Just a click bait thread title, and trying to somehow link this to the UP employee trying to bing his thearpy dog to work.

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 21,322 posts
Posted by tree68 on Wednesday, September 16, 2020 1:30 PM

BaltACD

CSX Testing - for what it is worth.

18 years in Jacksonville - never tested (1990-2008)
8 years in Baltimore - tested 3 times (2008-2016)

I get tested more than that as a volunteer...

And several tests per year was common when I was USAF and working for the Army.   Whilst stationed at Vandenberg AFB I got tested (random selection) three times in about a month...

LarryWhistling
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...

  • Member since
    March 2003
  • From: Central Iowa
  • 5,537 posts
Posted by jeffhergert on Wednesday, September 16, 2020 1:53 PM

zugmann

 

 
n012944
The engineer in question had not been tested in 5 years at the time of the accident. EHH had been CEO for 9 months, and dead another 8 months before the accident.

 

I'm guessing that's why it said IN PART?

 

Nobody is arguing that the engineer is repsonsible.  But NTSB looks at all contributory factors.  Anyone want to discuss restricted mode in PTC? 

 

Either use that or a soft cut out when making switching (picking up and/or setting out cars) moves off the main track.

There are going to be times when PTC enforcement is going to have to be disabled or overridden to allow moves to be made.  One hundred percent protection, one hundred percent of the time is not always going to be possible.  Those that want to remove the human element can't, or won't, accept that.

Jeff 

  • Member since
    April 2007
  • 3,211 posts
Posted by Convicted One on Wednesday, September 16, 2020 2:07 PM

n012944
 Just a click bait thread title, and trying to somehow link this to the UP employee trying to bing his thearpy dog to work.

Perhaps the engineer might come back and sue, arguing that the alcohol is necessary to cope with the stress of working in a hostile, PSR environment?  

  • Member since
    March 2003
  • From: Central Iowa
  • 5,537 posts
Posted by jeffhergert on Wednesday, September 16, 2020 2:22 PM

I haven't had a random test in quite a while.  Now, I'll probably have one just because we're discussing them.

For us, there are two types of randoms done on the normal (one who isn't subject to more stringent random testing because of a 'second chance' after a violation) employee. 

The first is just a breathalyzer test.  It's done when going on duty.  They don't do a lot of them, I've never had one done in almost 22 years.  While a manager is usually present when testing is done, I don't know that they actually administer the test.  They contract out for the other kind of full testing, breath test and whiz quiz, so I would think the contract collector would do these also.  They would want to make sure the testing was done correctly with no disputable issues. 

The other test is full random test.  Starts with a breathalyzer test, then collecting a specimen that is sent to lab.  (The whiz quiz)  The breathalyzer print out is sent with the specimen.  

Usually, random testing of both kinds is done either by train/job identification.  That is, whomever is working that job gets tested.  I've seen in that case where the outbound just gets the breath test, the inbound the full blown whiz quiz/breath test.  The other way is just by a one or two hour window.  Anyone on an arriving train or going on duty within the time window gets tested.

I've had the random testing done many times.  It seems like you get tested a few times within a short period of time and then go a long time before getting tested.  They used to call a few miles out from the terminal and say to see the manager on duty before tying up and drink some water.  Then they couldn't say drink some water.  Then they didn't say anything until you were actually stopped for the crew change.  Once nothing was said until we arrived at the yard office.  Specifically, not until after I had placed my rule book bag in my locker and went to the restroom.  As I was coming out the conductor said we going to be randomed.  We weren't tested after all, our arrival was outside of the testing window.

Jeff

 

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy