Poor hiring, vetting, supervision and training procedures.......

3605 views
98 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 11,251 posts
Posted by Overmod on Tuesday, November 5, 2019 4:01 PM

charlie hebdo
Not the stage script or screenplay, but rather the autobiographical novel by Day.

There is nothing in the book about the comment.  I looked before posting!

Pay ($14.95) links in here for the script: 

But that's the movie script ... and we already know how the line goes in that.

  • Member since
    September 2017
  • 3,136 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Tuesday, November 5, 2019 10:45 AM

Not the stage script or screenplay, but rather the autobiographical novel by Day.

http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks06/0608341h.html

 

Pay ($14.95) links in here for the script: 

https://scripts-onscreen.com/tag/life-with-father-script/

 

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 11,251 posts
Posted by Overmod on Monday, November 4, 2019 9:50 PM

Victrola1
"There's been another wreck on the New Haven." 

Well, at the very least, you ought to include the "Jiminy!" as in the movie.

I find to my horror that I can't locate any copy of the original Lindsay & Crouse play; even Samuel French is 'adjourned sine die' on available copies.  Perhaps miningman can sic Mike on finding it.  It's certainly in the postwar movie!  The line as I recall delivering it was a kind of exasperated "Another wreck on the New Haven" as Clarence was engaging in his as-yet-unbaptized morning-paper ritual.

If I remember correctly (it has been a very long time since I performed in it - not quite a half-century but you can see it from here), when they changed the period from 'the 1890s' as in the original book to circa 1913, it put things squarely in the Mellen disaster years.  I do think you can squarely put responsibility on Mellen and Morgan for setting things up for this sort of thing to happen...

It probably says volumes that a play written in and for audiences in the late 1930s would still find ready audience reaction from including this no-doubt-evocative (and memorable!) tidbit.

  • Member since
    September 2017
  • 3,136 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Monday, November 4, 2019 1:51 PM

"What goes around comes around."

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • 1,458 posts
Posted by Victrola1 on Monday, November 4, 2019 11:10 AM

"There's been another wreck on the New Haven." 

The phrase became another way of saying, what's new. 

We apply these insights to an historical case study of the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad during the years 1911 through 1914. During these years the New Haven experienced a burst of train wrecks. Sensational reporting of these accidents, along with increasingly shrill government investigations, coincided with ongoing exposés of the company's questionable financial practices and turned the New Haven into a pariah company, stigmatizing and forcing out its management.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/social-science-history/article/another-wreck-on-the-new-haven-accidents-risk-perception-and-the-stigmatization-of-the-new-york-new-haven-hartford-railroad-19111914/24F42628E011A95B9BD5A93BB520A1DE  

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 11,251 posts
Posted by Overmod on Sunday, November 3, 2019 3:51 PM

rdamon
I thought at first you were referring to our fellow poster who owns a cat. :)

She only thinks she owns a cat.  In reality cats are like wands in the Harry Potter stories -- they choose you.  Much more worthwhile that way, too.

If someone has a copy of Acrobat that allows editing of documents, they can extract the image from the report and work with it.  I only have DC, and while I can get a nominally "free" trial of the editing functions, it then defaults to something like $19.95 per month 'subscription' ... and we all know what happens with these "free" trials when you try to cancel them.

I suspect the image once extracted will be simple to enlarge, crop and put up on a Web service; I think it is fair use to use the adapted content for our purpose here.

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 11,251 posts
Posted by Overmod on Sunday, November 3, 2019 3:45 PM

rdamon
I thought at first you were referring to our fellow poster who owns a cat. :)

She only thinks she owns a cat.  In reality cats are like wands in the Harry Potter stories -- they choose you.  Much more worthwhile that way, too.

  • Member since
    July 2008
  • 1,424 posts
Posted by rdamon on Sunday, November 3, 2019 3:29 PM

I thought at first your were refering to our fellow poster who owns a cat. :)

I lifted the photo from the report.  Hunting down some larger originals should be possible ..  will take a look.

 

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 11,251 posts
Posted by Overmod on Sunday, November 3, 2019 2:28 PM

rdamon
I had to look twice at your "Shadow of the Cat" comment

It was 'shadow of the cat bridge' (shorthand for catenary support bridge) but the phrase probably broke across the line return.  That's what happens when I try to be salty...

Note the difference in the angle of this shadow between the two pictures - that will allow calculation of the time difference between the two, and perhaps a check on when each was taken.

The picture you provided is valuable because it was taken after the derailment -- is it possible to blow it up at high resolution to comparable scale and crop to the same approximate frame as the earlier picture, so we can compare them directly?

  • Member since
    July 2008
  • 1,424 posts
Posted by rdamon on Sunday, November 3, 2019 11:27 AM

It looks like there is some deflection on the left hand side that is hard to see from this angle.

I had to look twice at your "Shadow of the Cat" comment Confused

 

Other shot

 

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 11,251 posts
Posted by Overmod on Sunday, November 3, 2019 11:08 AM

BaltACD
The left hand rail does not demonstrate the bend of the right hand rail.

It's there if you look more carefully, especially around the shadow of the cat bridge.  It would be highly difficult to get that significant a gauge anomaly purely out of the spring clips holding the rail (which I see no evidence of) other than through breakage and physical separation of the concrete ties (again, which I see no real evidence of).

Somewhat more concerning is that the kink appears to extend back to the point of disappearance at the bottom of the photograph, so this picture may not show 'all of it'.  Do we know how long before the 'accident' this picture was taken?

The mode of buckling combined with the speed with which it was reported to have worsened clearly indicates to me that the track wouldn't have remained in service long after it was restricted to 10mph.

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 18,544 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Sunday, November 3, 2019 9:22 AM

243129
 
BaltACD 
243129
 hy of being taken out of service.

<p>A bend in Metro North's track can be seen prior to the May 18 derailment near Rye N.Y. that injured 14 passengers and two crew members.</p>

  

Wide guage is certainly worthy of being taken O/S. 

This was not.

The left hand rail does not demonstrate the bend of the right hand rail.

  • Member since
    May 2015
  • 1,534 posts
Posted by 243129 on Sunday, November 3, 2019 9:09 AM

BaltACD

 

 
243129
 

Worthy of being taken out of service.

<p>A bend in Metro North's track can be seen prior to the May 18 derailment near Rye N.Y. that injured 14 passengers and two crew members.</p>

 

 

Wide guage is certainly worthy of being taken O/S.

 

This was not.

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 18,544 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Sunday, November 3, 2019 8:03 AM

243129
 

Worthy of being taken out of service.

<p>A bend in Metro North's track can be seen prior to the May 18 derailment near Rye N.Y. that injured 14 passengers and two crew members.</p>

 

Wide guage is certainly worthy of being taken O/S.

  • Member since
    May 2015
  • 1,534 posts
Posted by 243129 on Sunday, November 3, 2019 7:56 AM

Pre installation picture.

BaltACD

Worthy of being taken out of service - 

 

Worthy of being taken out of service.

<p>A bend in Metro North's track can be seen prior to the May 18 derailment near Rye N.Y. that injured 14 passengers and two crew members.</p>

  • Member since
    May 2015
  • 1,534 posts
Posted by 243129 on Sunday, November 3, 2019 7:53 AM

n012944
A dispatcher still has the ability to line into an out of service track. If the acumen of todays railroader is as bad as you try to pass it off as, taking a track out of service is not the fool proof answer.

A properly vetted, trained and supervised dispatcher would be less likely to let that occur. Refer to thread title.

n012944
Well, it was you that felt the need to use quotation marks around the word railroaders when talking about the current generation of employees. If you do not like confrontational postings, don't post them.

Do you work for a railroad? What is your craft? I use those quotation marks because I have experienced the results of Amtrak and Metro North's hiring, vetting and training procedures. It is not the individuals' fault it is the fault of the companies. Their procedures have contributed to the recent rash of tragedies.

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 11,251 posts
Posted by Overmod on Sunday, November 3, 2019 6:16 AM

n012944
A dispatcher still has the ability to line into an out of service track.  If the acumen of todays railroader is as bad as you try to pass it off as, taking a track out of service is not the fool proof answer.

But there is a key difference.  When a track is taken out of service, multiple people become involved: crossover switches locked, dispatcher advised ... no single point of failure through lack of attention is as likely as the overspeed in this accident.  And there are few common-mode errors that would allow a train to zip into a now-closed track that was the subject of a prior electronically-transmitted slow order, though a facing-point switch (from track 3 it could be nothing but) supposedly lined against it but 'left open through inattention' as at Cayce, at unrestricted speed, without someone, perhaps a fair number of someones, noticing and taking action 'in time'.

Had even the PTC overlay showing civil on cab signals been operating, there would have been a secondary reminder, perhaps even enforcement, backing up the line C the engineer was said to have been given.  It's possible that the whole relevant system under PTC wouldn't have caught it ... but it would have been far less likely with the multiple 'reinforcements'.

  • Member since
    August 2004
  • From: The 17th hole at TPC
  • 1,761 posts
Posted by n012944 on Sunday, November 3, 2019 4:58 AM

243129

 

 
n012944
Had the train complied with the slow order, the derailment and injuries would not have happened.

 

Yes, this is so. However they did not and that is the point in the title of this thread.

 

A dispatcher still has the ability to line into an out of service track.  If the acumen of todays railroader is as bad as you try to pass it off as, taking a track out of service is not the fool proof answer.

243129
n012944
I guess you knew back then that your craft could not be trusted to operate withen the rules.

 

I shall ignore your confrontational postings........for now.

 

Well, it was you that felt the need to use quotation marks around the word railroaders when talking about the current generation of employees.  If you do not like confrontational postings, don't post them.

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 16,151 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Sunday, November 3, 2019 1:46 AM

N01:    I am giving you an explanation.  That does not mean that the decision was necessarily the right one.   I think, in retrospect, that supervision should have been sent to the area immediately, with the necesary flags, so the safety would not depend on the entineer's memory alone.  Or the stations bypssed with pasengers acommodated on trains in the opposite direction plus the necessary transfers, something that has been almost a routine on Metro North and the subways in reaction to problems for a long time.  In other words, I do agree with you.

But note, the same thinking applies to the Silver Star CSX wreck and the signal system de-activated well before PTS activation.

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 11,251 posts
Posted by Overmod on Saturday, November 2, 2019 11:51 PM

243129
Who is "Charlie"

The expression is from an old Star-Kist tuna commercial.  Charlie was their spokesperson, a tough old bird (for a fish) who for some unaccountable reason wanted to show up in Star-Kist tuna cans and used considerable ingenuity to try to get there ... to be caught trying every time and told "Sorry, Charlie...only the best-tasting tuna get to be Star-Kist".

One of the best commercial puns of all time came when GAS, which made an audio amplifier called Ampzilla, decided to increase their appeal by adding an FM receiver that would plug in.  Of course... they had to call it 'Charlie', because that wasn't the full name of the product, but you had to supply the three dreadful added syllables yourself.

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 18,544 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Saturday, November 2, 2019 11:33 PM

Worthy of being taken out of service - 

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 11,251 posts
Posted by Overmod on Saturday, November 2, 2019 4:40 PM

243129
A track condition as severe as the one pictured in the NTSB report should require trains passing over the area to be visually monitored('walked' through the area) by MW personnel had they chosen not to remove the track from service.

In case anyone misses the salient point of this observation: when you have a track buckle of undetermined origin, that has progressed to "10mph severity", the chance of its buckling further under a train is almost certainly substantial.  That does imply that the 'safe course' would involve not only continuous monitoring by direct track inspection, but immediate communication between that track inspector and the crew(s) of any trains traversing the defect.

I don't have to be a track inspector myself to see the value of that, and the danger of assuming a slow order by itself is sufficient for that kind of situation.

Note that this raises a very real possibility that the track inspector may call for the track to be 'taken out of service' with the train halfway across the defect, if he sees the track move further.  And I think he assuredly would ... regardless of the number of passengers on the affected train ... if he thought the situation had become truly unsafe.

Again, this does not affect the current situation, in which it wouldn't have mattered if the defect had been monitored on-site or not.  The likelihood of any defect flagged as 10mph to be successfully negotiated by a 55mph MU train is vanishingly slight whether the defect moved further or not.  And it's the 55mph, not the appropriateness of the controlled speed, that's the issue here.

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 11,251 posts
Posted by Overmod on Saturday, November 2, 2019 4:37 PM

.

Doubled.

  • Member since
    May 2015
  • 1,534 posts
Posted by 243129 on Saturday, November 2, 2019 4:10 PM

BaltACD
Sorry Charlie - you and 'your boys' don't or won't comply with speed restrictions.

Who is "Charlie" and how do you deduce that Charlie and his boys won't comply with speed restrictions?

BaltACD
Those behind the throttle always think they know more about the operation of a railroad than those that don't - until they get themselves promoted into positions that give them a wider view of all the issues involved in any decision that has to be made.

Let's get this straight we are talking about poor vetting, poor hiring, poor training and poor supervision procedures which no doubt contributed to this derailment. Now if you wish to be confrontational as your and no12944 posts suggest I am perfectly willing to engage.

This incident took place on a railroad of which I have firsthand knowledge of the territory and operations. Unlike you and your amigo I post on what I know from experience not on assumptions and generalities.

A track condition as severe as the one pictured in the NTSB report should require trains passing over the area to be visually monitored('walked' through the area) by MW personnel had they chosen not to remove the track from service.

  • Member since
    May 2015
  • 1,534 posts
Posted by 243129 on Saturday, November 2, 2019 3:49 PM

n012944
Had the train complied with the slow order, the derailment and injuries would not have happened.

Yes, this is so. However they did not and that is the point in the title of this thread.

n012944
I guess you knew back then that your craft could not be trusted to operate withen the rules.

I shall ignore your confrontational postings........for now.

 

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 11,251 posts
Posted by Overmod on Saturday, November 2, 2019 3:49 PM

n012944
No I can't, because I believe it to be incorrect.  The track inspector is putting his name on the restricting.  He/she should not care if the passengers are "inconvinced" as his/her concern should be safety.

I think we've had many discussions about organizations 'balancing' safety against other, perhaps more loudly asserted concerns.  It seemed implicit in the progression of concern over the 'track defect' that its severity was well understood; going from a 30 or 40mph slow order to a 10mph slow order on a 70mph railroad is a dramatic indication that a progressive situation is in effect; keeping the track in service is an observation that the substantial performance, organizational, and 'customer' concerns over taking it out of service are perceived as more severe than the default 'safest course'.

I think it is probable that the track would, in fact, have been taken out of service rather shortly after the 10mph slow order was issued.  What we can say is that the track inspector thought the track defect was 'safe enough to be traversed at 10mph until further notice' -- and I see little to contradict such an assessment, made at that time with appropriate concern "for other stakeholders" as we could euphemistically put it.

I'm not a track inspector, and I doubt n012944 is, so our opinion that the track 'should' have been closed rather than dramatically slow-ordered in that particular circumstance is worth comparatively little, other than to note somewhat obviously that there would have been no possibility of a wreck at any speed once the track had been closed.  My own personal opinion based on a knowledge of the mechanics of lateral track buckling would be to take the track out of service as soon as rapid progression had been observed.  But I don't have to worry about ERs from Metro-North, either.  And I don't think we 'should' add the particular track inspector to the ranks of the improperly hired, vetted, and supervised for making the choice as he did.  The real blame resides, as it did originally, on the type of person who could find themself ignoring a safety-critical warning with a trainload of passengers ... not dissimilar to the guy on 501 in Washington sinking the ship on its maiden voyage.  

  • Member since
    August 2004
  • From: The 17th hole at TPC
  • 1,761 posts
Posted by n012944 on Saturday, November 2, 2019 11:44 AM

daveklepper

Familiar with the territory and can resolve the argument.

I belive the New Haven was similar to the Boston and Maine, and yes, definitely, the track would have been taken out of service.

But in this case it would have meant bypassing a number of local stations, inconveniencing both those waiting on the platforms and those on the train bound for those stations.  That is obviously the reason the track was not taken out of service; but, instead, safety was to be provided by a slow order.

Can you accept that explanaition?

 

 

No I can't, because I believe it to be incorrect.  The track inspector is putting his name on the restricting.  He/she should not care if the passengers are "inconvinced" as his/her concern should be safety.  

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 16,151 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Saturday, November 2, 2019 11:39 AM

Familiar with the territory and can resolve the argument.

I belive the New Haven was similar to the Boston and Maine, and yes, definitely, the track would have been taken out of service.

But in this case it would have meant bypassing a number of local stations, inconveniencing both those waiting on the platforms and those on the train bound for those stations.  That is obviously the reason the track was not taken out of service; but, instead, safety was to be provided by a slow order.

Can you accept that explanaition?

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 18,544 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Saturday, November 2, 2019 11:31 AM

243129
 
n012944 
243129

Track #3 should have been removed from service not speed restricted. 

So you have expertise as a track inspector now?

No I have expertise as a railroad engineer and when I see an unsafe condition that could be injurious to personnel and passengers I advocate the safe course should be taken. Had the track been removed from service the derailment and injuries would not have happened. Did you happen to look at the pictures?

Sorry Charlie - you and 'your boys' don't or won't comply with speed restrictions.

Those behind the throttle always think they know more about the operation of a railroad than those that don't - until they get themselves promoted into positions that give them a wider view of all the issues involved in any decision that has to be made.

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