http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/suburbs/glenview/ct-met-derailment-version-20120718,0,2991695.story
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
The latest news perspective of the U.P. changing the timeline is curious. The implication is that the company is “changing their story,” which is often held up as a sign of guilt.
Apparently the original “timeline” was that the track was to be inspected twice on 7/4 by the inspectors directly responsible for it. And perhaps the “timeline” would have had one of those inspections already taken place before the train arrived at 1:30 PM. And perhaps, the track problem had already become apparent by the time of that first inspection, so it would have been properly discovered, and the train notified to stop short of the danger. Or perhaps both inspections would have occurred after 1:30 PM, so it would not have prevented the disaster.
But so what? Whatever the original “timeline” was, what is the significance of it being changed? It is beside the point.
Regardless of when inspections were scheduled, the 600-pound gorilla in the room is the fact that U.P. did discover the dangerous problem hours before the train arrived. And this discovery allowed more than enough time for U.P. to take action on the problem and prevent the train disaster that occurred at 1:30 PM. However, U.P. failed to act on the problem and prevent the disaster, so the disaster did occur at 1:30 PM.
And what makes this all the more ironic is that the company was aware of the abnormally hot weather, and its associated risk of sun kinks, and their ability to derail trains. And in response to this peril, the company had placed people on alert to make an extra effort to detect possible development of sun kinks before they could cause a disaster. And yet when a sun kink was actually discovered and reported, no action was taken.
The U.P. spokesman glosses over this negligence by telling us that the signal maintainer did exactly what he was supposed to do, as if that were the issue. And apparently, the newspaper does not even see the 600-pound gorilla.
rdamon "Union Pacific Vice President of Engineering David Connell told dozens of Glenview and Northbrook residents at an informal meeting Monday that the employee, a signalman, did not think it was of big enough concern to order the freight train to stop. Instead, the employee, who was not qualified to judge the safety of the track, called in an off-duty inspector, but the derailment occurred before the expert arrived."
"Union Pacific Vice President of Engineering David Connell told dozens of Glenview and Northbrook residents at an informal meeting Monday that the employee, a signalman, did not think it was of big enough concern to order the freight train to stop. Instead, the employee, who was not qualified to judge the safety of the track, called in an off-duty inspector, but the derailment occurred before the expert arrived."
Nowhere does anyone say that a sun-kink was reported. It may be what was there, but that's all we have. The maintainer erred by thinking it wasn't enough to stop traffic. Had he taken the safe course (which must be done, according to rules, in case of doubt), this probably wouldn't have happened. Now we don't know what he did see. He saw, as I said before, "something."
And we still don't know what the locomotive's camera saw (agreed that the angle might not have permitted seeing anything...but we haven't heard that nothing was seen, either).
So it's probably time to let the investigation proceed, the suits get settled, the new bridge get built, and move on. Don'tcha think?
Carl
Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)
CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)
CShaveRR So it's probably time to let the investigation proceed, the suits get settled, the new bridge get built, and move on. Don'tcha think?
Nah, we'll solve it right here!
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
We always called the "first responders" to an incident the "uh-oh squad."Guess we'll have to change that to "Ruh-Roh"!
CShaveRR rdamon: "Union Pacific Vice President of Engineering David Connell told dozens of Glenview and Northbrook residents at an informal meeting Monday that the employee, a signalman, did not think it was of big enough concern to order the freight train to stop. Instead, the employee, who was not qualified to judge the safety of the track, called in an off-duty inspector, but the derailment occurred before the expert arrived." Nowhere does anyone say that a sun-kink was reported.
rdamon: "Union Pacific Vice President of Engineering David Connell told dozens of Glenview and Northbrook residents at an informal meeting Monday that the employee, a signalman, did not think it was of big enough concern to order the freight train to stop. Instead, the employee, who was not qualified to judge the safety of the track, called in an off-duty inspector, but the derailment occurred before the expert arrived."
Nowhere does anyone say that a sun-kink was reported.
That is a good point. Nobody knows what the signal maintainer saw, or how he described what he saw when he reported it to the track inspector. He might have reported a few loose spikes to the track inspector for all we know. And at that time, there may have been no visible evidence of a sun kink.
However, the report says the signal maintainer saw something that did not look right. And he was concerned enough about it to call the track inspector, describe the problem to him, and tell him he “did not think it was of big enough concern to order the freight train to stop.”
Clearly that indicates the “something that did not look right about the track” observed and reported by the signal maintainer was something that at least raised the question of whether or not the train should be ordered to stop before reaching that “something that did not look right about the track.”
If the signal maintainer did not want to take on the responsibility of stopping the train because he lacked the expertise on track, I wonder why he would have volunteered that he did not think the problem was a big enough concern to stop the train. Apparently the track inspector accepted that appraisal from the unqualified signal maintainer because he (the track inspector) never went out to check for himself prior to the arrival of the train that they had discussed stopping because of the track problem.
It's the catch-22 of the 24 / 7 *information* age we now live in. When something like this happens, the players invovled, in this case UP, get caught between a rock and a hard place. What they'd like to say publicly, is "Let's wait until a thorough investigation is done, so we have a good idea of what happened, and why". If they try this angle, the wagging tounges will have nothing to report, so they'll insist that there's got to be some sort of cover up or conspiracy afoot. If they release any information at all. they have to live by the media rule that anything they say from the get-go is the Gospel truth. Anything said later, that doubts, contadicts, or clarifies earlier statements is held up as being a cover-up of the truth, or spin by the guilty parties. It's no wonder, that most Americans don't feel they're getting the truth from the government or the media, when most reporting sounds like a newsperson asking some official if he has stopped beating his wife.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Looks to me that the UP has simply corrected the record in a responsible manner once they became aware. They have been pretty open in their provision of information, as any corporation would attempt to do when there was an accident of that sort in the community they pass through. Not difficult to recognize the actual motivation for the common sense decency the UP has tried for here.
I don’t see the so-called change of story as placing any suspicion on U.P., if that is what the Tribune intended to imply. And U.P. does seem to have gone the extra mile to reach out and provide explanations for the tragedy. I am surprised at how much information they released even when it was still speculation on their part.
I am really amazed that they offered and held a public meeting for the affected residents. But, then I am disappointed at how little of substance was developed in that meeting. I don’t know if the substance was lacking, or if it was there, but not understood or reported by the media.
Actually, I see two stories here. One is the way U.P. is responding and the other is the way the Chicago Tribune is reporting on it.
My only issue with the U.P. coverage is their seeming dismissal of the possibility that anyone was at fault in the details of the signal maintainer discovering a track anomaly that he could not evaluate, and his consequent transferal of that discovery to an inspector who was qualified to evaluate the problem; and then the failure of that inspector to act on the problem.
How in the world U.P. could have held a public meeting without it resulting in any meaningful probing for answers about this reporting-and-failure-to-act detail is just beyond my comprehension.
All we have gotten on this detail is U.P. blowing smoke about how it was handled in the perfectly normal and proper manner. This explanation could not be more obviously disingenuous.
Spokesman, Davis said that it was handled just like it would have been had the signal maintainer discovered a truck high-centered (stuck) on a grade crossing. Davis said that the signal maintainer would have reported it to the proper authorities in the company, and they would have stopped all trains approaching the crossing. Really? The 7/4 derailment was handled just like that?
And equally astounding is the fact that the Chicago Tribune apparently accepts that bogus analogy without any question. And yet they turn around and focus on the “changing of the timeline” detail as though that were an incriminating issue.
schlimm Looks to me that the UP has simply corrected the record in a responsible manner once they became aware. They have been pretty open in their provision of information, as any corporation would attempt to do when there was an accident of that sort in the community they pass through. Not difficult to recognize the actual motivation for the common sense decency the UP has tried for here.
diningcarBottom line: No one posting here has enough information to make a judgement about how and on what time line this accident occured.
The timeline information has been given to us by U.P.
There is a big difference between Evidence tampering (which seems to be what Knight did) and correcting statements made to the media before all the evidence is in. Granted if U,P. is found to be tampering with records, then you are right, but at this point the only "records" are statements made to, and "interpreted by",, the media by some of the people involved and those statements are subject to "rumorization" and "embellisment" by the media and "WE" here on this forum.
It is interesting to "speculate" but one must remember to take all the "speculation" with a grain of salt... 'WE" are not privy to the real evidence and cannot draw conclusions from the rumors and speculations.
Calling attention to a Possibility is one thing... condemning the parties involved from the possibilities is in error.
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
Bucyrus [snipped =- PDN] And equally astounding is the fact that the Chicago Tribune apparently accepts that bogus analogy without any question. And yet they turn around and focus on the “changing of the timeline” detail as though that were an incriminating issue.
- Paul North.
I just re-read the story concerning the public meeting. I fail to see the bias some posters here seem to see in the story. If anything, it appears to be pretty fair, using many quotes from the UP spokesperson. Unless someone was in attendance and is aware of omitted information or slanted reporting, it just seems to be more assumptions and conclusions based on a pattern of antagonism toward the legal profession and a bias concerning the media. Some reporting is highly inaccurate and biased, some not. To fault the reporter for his lack of technical knowledge seems amiss. He has to depend on the technical knowledge of the spokesperson over which he has no control.
I don’t see any bias or sensationalism in the newspaper stories. But, I see a comment from U.P. spokesman, Davis that strikes me as incredibly disingenuous, and I see the newspaper not calling him on it. But, I would not attribute that to bias.
~~~ zug, a very good idea to resolve the situation right here.
Cannonball
Y6bs evergreen in my mind
Bucyrus I don’t see any bias or sensationalism in the newspaper stories. But, I see a comment from U.P. spokesman, Davis that strikes me as incredibly disingenuous, and I see the newspaper not calling him on it. But, I would not attribute that to bias.
CShaveRR We always called the "first responders" to an incident the "uh-oh squad."Guess we'll have to change that to "Ruh-Roh"!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.