Nobody's perfect. On the other hand, with us all being sinners in some more or less important respects, why bandy the issue about? What I think we should be doing is concentrating, in a thread with appropriate title, about the specifics of the accident itself, not the way the NTSB (mis)reported it. Now that we have the specific interview transcripts, we 'could' shift the discussion directly onto an analysis of what they contain (or import) and, in a wider sense, whether the NTSB either 'gets it' or is likely to generate any meaningful or even useful recommendations from the incident.
Personally, most of the "importance" opens and closes pretty quickly if the two conductors were, in fact, walking in the gauge of a known-active 125mph mainline with their backs to traffic, as the engineer of 66 (who witnessed the actual impact) testified. I'd pull on that snake's tail as far as I could to figure out how or why anyone, railroader or not, confining circumstances or not, could be in that place if they had even a shred of common sense, exhausted tired and disgruntled or not. And make my 'recommendations' starting from that.
In other news, this from Progressive Railroading this morning. Anything familiar about the language in the headline?
charlie hebdo Overmod May I not-so-humbly suggest that the initial premise of this thread -- the contradiction in language in the NTSB report -- has not only been addressed, but it and multiple other horses have been thoroughly beaten past the point of death. I suggest that it is time to close this particular thread, whether or not anyone has a formal 'last word' on some of the diatribe. 1. "Professional" or not, no one is as perfect as Joe claims he was. What makes his assertions even more dubious are his labeling all other railroaders as unprofessional, "poorly trained, vetted and supervised" or mere desk jockeys. 2. He is incapable of admitting to error of any sort. I have dragged this thread on far too long, seeking (paraphrased) as the late Joseph N. Welch once did, "At long last, have you left no sense of decency [substitute humility]?" Mea culpa.
Overmod May I not-so-humbly suggest that the initial premise of this thread -- the contradiction in language in the NTSB report -- has not only been addressed, but it and multiple other horses have been thoroughly beaten past the point of death. I suggest that it is time to close this particular thread, whether or not anyone has a formal 'last word' on some of the diatribe.
1. "Professional" or not, no one is as perfect as Joe claims he was. What makes his assertions even more dubious are his labeling all other railroaders as unprofessional, "poorly trained, vetted and supervised" or mere desk jockeys.
2. He is incapable of admitting to error of any sort. I have dragged this thread on far too long, seeking (paraphrased) as the late Joseph N. Welch once did, "At long last, have you left no sense of decency [substitute humility]?"
Mea culpa.
Sayonara Chuck
OvermodMay I not-so-humbly suggest that the initial premise of this thread -- the contradiction in language in the NTSB report -- has not only been addressed, but it and multiple other horses have been thoroughly beaten past the point of death. I suggest that it is time to close this particular thread, whether or not anyone has a formal 'last word' on some of the diatribe.
[quote user="charlie hebdo"]
[quote user=243129]No. Just a highly-trained, veteran professional.[/quote]
BTW, a railroad engineer (driver) is not strictly speaking one of the traditional professions.[/quote]
It's in the sense normally expressed by the false dichotomy between 'professional' and 'amateur', but extended to competence and particularly what is meant by the phrase 'professional discipline' rather than whether one is paid to do something.
There is NO doubt that in this particular case, Joe was a professional railroader, and I think he was as good a one, in the sense he means, as he states. Most of his argument hinges on the applicability of that kind of 'professional' wisdom to assessing, perhaps well before formal hiring, candidates to do the jobs he did, to backstop HR in picking the right 'coachability' as well as characteristics brought to the hire, in developing ongoing generations of honestly 'professional' railroaders.
May I not-so-humbly suggest that the initial premise of this thread -- the contradiction in language in the NTSB report -- has not only been addressed, but it and multiple other horses have been thoroughly beaten past the point of death. I suggest that it is time to close this particular thread, whether or not anyone has a formal 'last word' on some of the diatribe.
charlie hebdo No. Just a highly-trained, veteran professional. BTW, a railroad engineer (driver) is not strictly speaking one of the traditional professions. But these days?
No. Just a highly-trained, veteran professional.
BTW, a railroad engineer (driver) is not strictly speaking one of the traditional professions. But these days?
If you have nothing other than petulant remarks to offer why don't you just go away? You are embarrassing yourself.
charlie hebdoMore likely someone who has something to hide or is simply disingenuous. Or even a guy suffering from reaction formation, like an Elmer Gantry type.
Your snarky assertions are those of one still stinging from previous b____ slappings.
243129 charlie hebdo 243129 I made no mistakes. Mr. Perfect. A true rarity. No just a well trained professional.
charlie hebdo 243129 I made no mistakes. Mr. Perfect. A true rarity.
243129 I made no mistakes.
Mr. Perfect. A true rarity.
No just a well trained professional.
More likely someone who has something to hide or is simply disingenuous. Or even a guy suffering from reaction formation, like an Elmer Gantry type.
EuclidWhat would the rule say?
Use common sense.
matthewsaggie Not mentioned in all of this is that this track layout (equivalent of 4 mains) has existed since the completion of Union Station in 1908. B&O and PRR and successors shared this same r/w for 100+ years and no one killed before as far as we know and a situation that everyone was so used to no one considered it such a danger to write a special rule over. Now there will be a rule.
Not mentioned in all of this is that this track layout (equivalent of 4 mains) has existed since the completion of Union Station in 1908. B&O and PRR and successors shared this same r/w for 100+ years and no one killed before as far as we know and a situation that everyone was so used to no one considered it such a danger to write a special rule over. Now there will be a rule.
What would the rule say?
This is for you Chuck!
BaltACD Or more precisely, through BLIND DUMB LUCK you survived your mistakes,
No not "BLIND DUMB LUCK", I was mentored by professionals. Mistakes that I did make were inconsequential, minimized and correctable due to the aforementioned mentoring.
charlie hebdoYou dodged the question. It's not about your regrets. It's what you did or did not do. Since those were all fatal, were they investigated? What were the determinations of boards of inquiry (whatever name they were called then)? Or are you actually claiming you never made a mistake in all those years?
Unlike you I dodge nothing. They were all investigated(of course) and it was determined that I took every action to mitigate the situation. I made no mistakes.
EuclidWhether fouling the track or not, the clearance is too little for being there as a train passes at 125 mph. So what was the safer alternative? What if their inspection required them to be on that side? There was only one safe alternative, and that was to insist that CXS arrange for formal protection with Amtrak. The NTSB says that was not a procedure that was in place to use. If so, the only safe alternative would have been to the two conductors to refuse to inspect the train unless CSX moved it to a safe location. Is there a better alternative?
Euclid, On this I agree with you. After going to Google/maps and looking at the area, there is NO safe way to inspect a CSX train from the AMTRAK side other than by having a protection zone created by AMTRAK. The space between the CSX and AMTRAK tracks is not sufficient. If CSX rules call for the train to be inspected on that side of the train, then CSX is (should be) responsible for providing a safe means to do it and needs to resolve how. An inter-company agreement needs to exist to provide for this. And it could happen that an AMTRAK train with a problem might need similar protection from CSX. Heaven help them if a breakdown on an Acela should happen at a similar location.
243129 BaltACD And only by the grace of God You invoke God into this??? Enough said.
BaltACD And only by the grace of God
You invoke God into this??? Enough said.
We will take God out if it - by the grace of Satan you survived all your mistakes. Or more precisely, through BLIND DUMB LUCK you survived your mistakes, and being 25 you made tons of mistakes.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
243129 charlie hebdo 243129 We will never know for sure but any chance of affording those two individuals seconds to escape by retarding the speed was negated by the failure of the engineer to apply the brakes in emergency UNTIL AFTER IMPACT! You said earlier that you had 5 fatal accidents. Did you always take the appropriate action in the cab to mitigate or prevent? I most certainly did and I have no regrets for any of my actions. I learned my job from professionals and I learned it well.
charlie hebdo 243129 We will never know for sure but any chance of affording those two individuals seconds to escape by retarding the speed was negated by the failure of the engineer to apply the brakes in emergency UNTIL AFTER IMPACT! You said earlier that you had 5 fatal accidents. Did you always take the appropriate action in the cab to mitigate or prevent?
243129 We will never know for sure but any chance of affording those two individuals seconds to escape by retarding the speed was negated by the failure of the engineer to apply the brakes in emergency UNTIL AFTER IMPACT!
You said earlier that you had 5 fatal accidents. Did you always take the appropriate action in the cab to mitigate or prevent?
I most certainly did and I have no regrets for any of my actions. I learned my job from professionals and I learned it well.
You dodged the question. It's not about your regrets. It's what you did or did not do. Since those were all fatal, were they investigated? What were the determinations of boards of inquiry (whatever name they were called then)?
Or are you actually claiming you never made a mistake in all those years?
BaltACDAnd only by the grace of God
243129 BaltACD 243129 BaltACD Training only goes so far - at some point the employee has to think and act upon the situation that is presenting itself in accordance with HIS best judgement applying the principles that he has been presented and had 'forced' into him by his training, This is why vetting is important in the hiring process. The Conductor would have passed your Vetting process - He was white and the son of a 20+ year railroader and had been working for a subsidary of the company for about 3 years before getting hired into Train Service. He also had a clear crimanal record and passed the drug test. His behavior, inspecting his train from a live track when there was a safer alternative, indicates he did not possess the acumen for the position nor was he trained properly for the position of conductor.
BaltACD 243129 BaltACD Training only goes so far - at some point the employee has to think and act upon the situation that is presenting itself in accordance with HIS best judgement applying the principles that he has been presented and had 'forced' into him by his training, This is why vetting is important in the hiring process. The Conductor would have passed your Vetting process - He was white and the son of a 20+ year railroader and had been working for a subsidary of the company for about 3 years before getting hired into Train Service. He also had a clear crimanal record and passed the drug test.
243129 BaltACD Training only goes so far - at some point the employee has to think and act upon the situation that is presenting itself in accordance with HIS best judgement applying the principles that he has been presented and had 'forced' into him by his training, This is why vetting is important in the hiring process.
BaltACD Training only goes so far - at some point the employee has to think and act upon the situation that is presenting itself in accordance with HIS best judgement applying the principles that he has been presented and had 'forced' into him by his training,
This is why vetting is important in the hiring process.
The Conductor would have passed your Vetting process - He was white and the son of a 20+ year railroader and had been working for a subsidary of the company for about 3 years before getting hired into Train Service. He also had a clear crimanal record and passed the drug test.
His behavior, inspecting his train from a live track when there was a safer alternative, indicates he did not possess the acumen for the position nor was he trained properly for the position of conductor.
And only by the grace of God did you avoid your screw ups and live past 25. 25 year olds don't have the same thought processes as 80 year olds. When God's grace permits, one learns from their mistakes. God graced you because as sure as you were once 25 you made hundreds of mistakes that could have ended it all. ALL 25 year olds DO!
243129 BaltACD Nothing 175's engineer could have done beyond NOT BEING AT THAT LOCATION AT THAT TIME would have prevented the outcome that happened. You do not know that. We will never know for sure but any chance of affording those two individuals seconds to escape by retarding the speed was negated by the failure of the engineer to apply the brakes in emergency UNTIL AFTER IMPACT!
BaltACD Nothing 175's engineer could have done beyond NOT BEING AT THAT LOCATION AT THAT TIME would have prevented the outcome that happened.
You do not know that. We will never know for sure but any chance of affording those two individuals seconds to escape by retarding the speed was negated by the failure of the engineer to apply the brakes in emergency UNTIL AFTER IMPACT!
I agree. It seems like some people are forgetting that the point of making the emergency application without waiting until after impact is NOT to slow the train slightly for the ojective of striking the person with less force. Of course the reduced force would still be way more than enough to kill the person.
Instead, the purpose is to reap the benefit of an increment of extra time before impact. There is no guarantee that the person is going to remain unaware of the approahching train right up to impact. Just a thought entering their mind could cause them to turn and see the train coming up on them. They could do that and leap out of the way in less than 1/2 second.
Therefore, just the slightest lengthening of the train approach time is of infinite value in providing even the smallest increment of extra time availble for the person to inadvertently discover the danger.
Well said, Balt.
Johnny
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.