Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
Here again is the NTSB report of their investigation of this accident:  <o:p></o:p> <a target="_blank" href="http://www.unlikelypcrr.com/page6/Welcome_files/PC_AccidentReportNTSB_ClevelandDrawbridge_Mar1975.pdf" title="http://www.unlikelypcrr.com/page6/Welcome_files/PC_AccidentReportNTSB_ClevelandDrawbridge_Mar1975.pdf">Here's the report</a><o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p> I believe that this investigation was simply unable to explain the fundamental cause of this accident, and therefore, they did their best to cobble together an explanation anyway.  They offered the obvious and undisputable conclusion that the engineer failed to respond to wayside signals.  In many past collisions, that has been the fundamental cause without any way to explain why the engineer failed to heed signals.  But, in this accident, the investigators went further and speculated as to why the engineer failed to respond to the signals.       <o:p></o:p> It seems as though the investigation has simply added the operator’s verbal highball to the cause because the it was a rules violation, and it seemed to be a piece that fit the puzzle.  But does it really fit?   <o:p></o:p> While it appears to fit as far as it goes, it still leaves a major element unexplained.  That is the fact that the engineer did not apply the brakes once he was within visual range of the home signal.  At the speed of around 33 mph, the engineer had about two minutes to react between the point where he could first see the home signal and the point where he hit the counterweight.  That would have probably been enough time to stop.  And if he could not stop, he and the fireman could have easily gotten off the moving train before impact.  <o:p></o:p> The investigation blames the operator for giving the engineer verbal assurance that the route would be lined up for him.  That was indeed a rules violation.  But the investigation seems to place more emphasis on blaming the operator for taking the route away after telling the engineer he had given him the route, and taking the route away without telling the engineer he had done so.  That, however, was not a rules violation.  No matter what the operator told the engineer about having the route, there is no excuse for the engineer relying on that verbal assurance and thus ignoring the wayside signals.       <o:p></o:p> Every engineer knows that even when he has a route lined up through an interlocking plant, he has to watch for, and expect that route to be taken away by a change in signal indication.  And every engineer knows that he is not permitted to ignore a signal once it is perceived to be giving a clear indication.   <o:p></o:p> In order for the operator’s verbal highball message to have even played a role in the cause of this wreck, the following would have had to happen:  <o:p></o:p> Upon hearing from the operator that the route was lined up, the engineer completely suspended his forward attention at minimum for the time it took from the home signal coming within visual range until the time of hitting the counterweight.   <o:p></o:p> No engineer is going to do that just because they are told that the route has been lined for them.    <o:p></o:p> Therefore, this is the only explanation that I can imagine that would be directly related to the operator’s message playing a role in the wreck:  <o:p></o:p> When the train was four minutes from the bridge, the operator told the engineer that the route was lined for the train, and the engineer acknowledged.  Because of that assurance of a lined route, before the home signal came into visual range, the engineer lost conscious free will, and remained in that condition until striking the counterweight.  He either suffered a medical emergency, fell asleep, or was hypnotized by the operator’s message.  At the same time, the fireman was also lacking conscious free will for some unknown reason.  <o:p></o:p> The only possible connection I can see between the operator’s verbal highball and the crew’s lack of conscious free will would be that the operator’s verbal highball put the engineer and fireman into a hypnotic trance.  How likely is that?  <o:p></o:p> So overall, the investigation was willing to include the minor rules violation of the operator’s verbal highball as part of the cause without any actual proof.  And yet, oddly enough, they were unwilling include, as partial cause, the fact that both the engineer and fireman had consumed alcohol while on duty prior to the accident.  And yet, that too was a rules violation; arguably a far more serious rules violation than the operator’s verbal highball.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag