gabe I am not sure I can hold the deputy at fault in any way shape or form. Presumably, the individual he talked to at CN was not the janitor. I would like to think that anyone who works for a railroad and is informed that there is a wash out somewhere in the system would consider it information that needs acted on. In other words: (1) if the sheriff should have flagged the tracks, lit flares, etc., I think the first person it should have occurred for him to do that would be the person he talked to at CN; (2) more importantly, if I call CN, tell them there is a condition on their tracks capable of derailing their train, and they say "OK, thanks," I think it safe to assume that the problem is being handled. The thing that really gets me on this one is that it you would think from the nature of the calls that CN should have known it was near a rail crossing, where motorists are often want to congregate for an oncoming train. That having been said, I am still withholding judgment. But, I suspect CN is going to have a real legal problem--if not a PR problem.
I am not sure I can hold the deputy at fault in any way shape or form.
Presumably, the individual he talked to at CN was not the janitor. I would like to think that anyone who works for a railroad and is informed that there is a wash out somewhere in the system would consider it information that needs acted on.
In other words: (1) if the sheriff should have flagged the tracks, lit flares, etc., I think the first person it should have occurred for him to do that would be the person he talked to at CN; (2) more importantly, if I call CN, tell them there is a condition on their tracks capable of derailing their train, and they say "OK, thanks," I think it safe to assume that the problem is being handled.
The thing that really gets me on this one is that it you would think from the nature of the calls that CN should have known it was near a rail crossing, where motorists are often want to congregate for an oncoming train.
That having been said, I am still withholding judgment. But, I suspect CN is going to have a real legal problem--if not a PR problem.
I agree that CN could be in a world of hurt, here.
Also agree that the sheriff's dept probably has all their CYA paperwork in order.
I STILL think that the officer is morally obligated to go flag the track the best way he knows how and to enlist whatever help he can get if, in his judgment, there is real, imminent danger of a derailment. At least until he knows CN is on the job.
He has even more of an obligation than a general citizen because he is a public safety officer
He is most certainly allowed on private property because of the imminent danger and his role w.r.t. public safety. Fire depts don't need permission to put out your house fire! Police don't need permission to go onto somebody's yard to stop a mugging.
The dept is too busy? Doing what? Traffic tickets? Serving papers? Compared to preventing a derailment?
The moral standard here is "WWKSD". There is not much risk of anybody at the sheriff's dept getting anything named after them....
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
MP173Too bad the sheriff's deputy wasnt Kate Shelley.
First, nobody has all the facts and will not for some time in the distant future. That said, in the meantime let's use some common sense here. If several citizens were concerned enough about it to call 911, the least the sheriff's department could have done is made it a priority call and dispatched someone to the scene. The consequences of a washout were clear to the callers. They should have been to the dispatch operator, as well. These were not calls about a loud party or barking dogs.
John Timm
On the other hand -
I understand it was still daylight when this happened, correct [Q]
Also, that we can't be sure the signals had gone to red / STOP due to the high water across the rail conditions [Q]
So the tracks and adjoining terrain and properties and conditions should have been visible, correct [Q]
Do you think the loco crew knew it was - or had been - raining, either there or in the area [Q]
Do you think the loco crew had the windshield wipers on [Q]
Maybe on 'fast' speed, too [Q]
Do you think the loco crew saw that there it was pretty wet out there [Q]
Do you think the loco crew saw that there was standing water in the area [Q]
Do you think the loco crew saw that the rails were covered with water [Q]
Do you think that a loco crew from that area might have prior experience with washouts - such as from breached beaver dams [Q]
How comfortable do you think the loco crew should have been, after they saw that the rails were covered with water - which means like 7 to 8 inches above the ties, and 2 to 3 feet above the subgrade [Q]
What about the risk of damage to the traction motors from water getting into them [Q]
Do you think the loco crew should have proceeded 'full speed ahead' into a situation where their tracks were not visible due to water [Q]
Is that what you would do with your own vehicle [Q]
Wouldn't you have at least tapped on the brakes or slowed down a little, to like a moderate speed [Q]
So what do you think about the reports that the brakes were not applied from the locomotive, and may have gone on only when the derailment started [Q]
Would you have maybe 'walked the train through' the standing water area [Q]
No, I'm not trying to hang this on the train crew - I'm just saying / asking that a lot more aspects of this need to be looked into as to who was performing reasonably in light of what they knew and when, and maybe had the 'last clear chance' to avoid this disaster.
- Paul North.
A few years ago I was a conductor on a westbound manifest. The dispatcher called us at Glidden, Iowa (MP251) about a yellow container that had a door open and the contents were spilling out. The dispatcher told us that a person at Grand Jct (MP225) had called the emergency number and reported it.
Although that may not be as serious as a washout, the information took at least 30 minutes to get to us.
We stopped and I didn't find a container spilling it's load. What I found was a flat car with sheet steel that had shifted and needed to be set out. After doing that and reporting to the dispatcher, he asked again about the container. I told him we don't have any cars loaded with containers and no box cars losing their contents, but the flat car we set out was yellow. This shows how reported information can be distorted thru channels.
I never found out, but I knew a guy who was a retired railroader (not with CNW or UP) who lived in Grand Jct at the time. I think it might have been him who reported it using the posted hot line. I'm sure he reported exactly what I found, but the operator at the emergency number may not have understood him. We have to remember that not everyone who works for the railroad works or has an extensive knowledge about trains. I'm not trying to absolve CN, 20 minutes seems excessive with something that seems simple enough to understand. Everyone now is in C-Y-A mode so before passing judgement, maybe we need to know more information.
I agree the deputies could've tried to flag the train, but that they didn't try to doesn't hold them responsible.
Jeff
MP173 I just noticed the "Current Issue" advertisment at the top of the page...."Hunter's Way". ed
I just noticed the "Current Issue" advertisment at the top of the page...."Hunter's Way".
ed
I am glad I am not the only one who noticed that and saw the terrible irony. Were I the plaintiffs' attorney on that case, that would probably be Exhibit 1.
Of course, we do not know what happened, and we should suspend judgment. But, if the above-cited mantra of you don't stop a train on CN had ANYTHING whatsoever to do with the accident, Hunter's Way will be paving the way to quite a sizeable punitive damages judgment.
Gabe
Paul_D_North_JrAlso, that we can't be sure the signals had gone to red / STOP due to the high water across the rail conditions [Q]
Paul —
ETT shows ABS on either side of Rockford and CTC through the city. With the speed the train was traveling, my presumption was that the crew was operating on a clear signal of some kind. It's entirely plausible that you can have a washed-out right-of-way but have clear signals. As long as the rails remain intact and unbroken, the system won't sense an outage, and a washed-out sub-grade doesn't mean the rails get broken. To our signaling experts: Would water above rail level cause the signals to drop? My assumption is that it would, as the water would short out the rails and act as a shunt, but I wouldn't want to say that with any degree of certainty.
Anybody on here work in law enforcement? Some interesting points made about the responsibility of the sheriff's department, and I'd be curious to hear from somebody with a background in that.
Best,
A.K. Cummings Paul_D_North_Jr Also, that we can't be sure the signals had gone to red / STOP due to the high water across the rail conditions [Q] [snip] To our signaling experts: Would water above rail level cause the signals to drop? My assumption is that it would, as the water would short out the rails and act as a shunt, but I wouldn't want to say that with any degree of certainty. [snip]
Paul_D_North_Jr Also, that we can't be sure the signals had gone to red / STOP due to the high water across the rail conditions [Q]
[snip] To our signaling experts: Would water above rail level cause the signals to drop? My assumption is that it would, as the water would short out the rails and act as a shunt, but I wouldn't want to say that with any degree of certainty. [snip]
[EDITED] On the other thread about this wreck - 'Re: Tank cars blow up in Illinois derailment, 1 killed', now at the bottom of Page 2 of the Forum's index, at http://cs.trains.com/trccs/forums/t/155696.aspx?PageIndex=2 - beaulieu said [on 06-21-2009, at 11;24 AM] -
'As long as the rails remain connected to each other the circuit is complete, the water isn't a good enough jumper to short the circuit and turn the signals red.'
Frankly, I'm a little surprised by that, but since I don't have good knowledge of this subject otherwise, I am in the unfortunate position of just having to accept that statement as true - which it may well be - until someone else comes forth with a different, contrary, or better explanation, etc. That's why I made sure to include that possibly exculpatory statement.
For those of you wondering why the sheriff didn't flag the train down, might I suggest that the storms that had just passed through more than likely caused much more damage than just washing out the tracks; so if the cops called the railroad, and the railroad acknowledged the information, then perhaps the cop had other disasters to deal with instead of waiting around for a train that might or might not come.
I am astounded by the suggestion that the train was travelling at track speed through all that weather and that the brakes were not even applied until it went into emergency. If true, then the train crew showed very poor judgement operating that way. With storms of that intensity, most anything can happen (trees fall on tracks, power lines fall on tracks, etc.), and the crew should have been operating at a controlled speed; if not restricted speed, then at least reduced speed (IMHO).
I would say that the "fertilizer is about to hit the ventilator".
There was an unusual grade crossing crash back in the 1990s in central Florida, which highlights the question of the police taking action to flag a train. An Amtrak train hit a power peaking generator on a flatbed trailer that was hung up on a grade crossing. This was a very special, oversize and extra heavy truckload being escorted by the State Patrol as well as several others. When the trailer hung up they called the SCL and asked them if any trains were in the area. A dispatcher told them that there was an Amtrak train close, but it was still over 15 minutes away.
Meanwhile lots of people were furiously working with jacks and blocking to get the trailer dislodged from the crossing. Despite having several patrol cars that could have easily gotten down the line in both directions, they made no attempt to flag trains. Instead, they stayed at the crossing with everybody hoping that the problem could be solved before the train arrived. In about ten minutes, the train swung around a nearby curve at full speed and plowed into the generator dead center.
zardozI am astounded by the suggestion that the train was travelling at track speed through all that weather and that the brakes were not even applied until it went into emergency. If true, then the train crew showed very poor judgement operating that way.
The accounts I found said the train was doing 38 and accelerating, which still shows less than stellar judgment, given the reported weather at the time.
As for the deputy - I couldn't find anything to indicate that there was more than one patrol on the scene, and I'm sure he figured he'd done what he could by initiating the call(s).
Properly flagging the reported washout would require someone a mile or more away in both directions (given the reported track speed), since it appears that no one knew which direction a train might be arriving in. One patrol - two flags - and as has been mentioned, other patrols may well have been occupied with other storm-related responses.
Even if he had gone to the crossings east and west of the problem area, all he could have done at one was drop a flare - and that assumes that he understands the significance of a lit flare to a railroader, which he may not.
I get the feeling there may not be a single smoking gun here - this incident was a combination of a number of things that could/should have been done better. F'rinstance - did the 9-1-1 center call CN before or after the patrol arrived on the scene? How much more time was lost waiting for the patrol to arrive at the scene and verify the problem?
Larry 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...
Well, we're now focusing on a couple of incidents where the police notified the railroad, but the appropriate action apparently wasn't taken.
To be fair, I wonder how often - and how quickly - the 'right' action is taken, and promptly - but so we never hear about it [Q]
Or, are we only seeing the few and rare failures [Q] Yes, I know, 100 per cent infallibility on this [and many other things] is certainly the desired goal. But if these are the exceptions that prove the rule, then maybe we just have to accept that as being the irreducible minimum of failures, and move on.
On the other hand, if the typical time lag from call to police to DS notification of train crew is consistently in the 15 to 30 minute range as seems to be indicated by the accounts above, then maybe another strategy is needed. Perhaps the cops and county EMS personnel need to be told that's the reality of the situation, so if you think something needs to be done sooner, then be prepared to do it yourself.
This reminds me of something I've been told about wilderness rescues - figure an additional 1 hour for response and evacuation, for each 1/4 mile that you're away from a roadway. So if you're really back in the brush or up the creek, you'd better 'Be Prepared' to take care of yourself, in a lot of different ways. [Kind of like that guy a couple years ago who self-amputated his hand with a pocketknife after it was pinned by a falling boulder for a couple of days and he couldn't extricate it by himself, or similar . . . ]
tree68 zardozI am astounded by the suggestion that the train was travelling at track speed through all that weather and that the brakes were not even applied until it went into emergency. If true, then the train crew showed very poor judgement operating that way. The accounts I found said the train was doing 38 and accelerating, which still shows less than stellar judgment, given the reported weather at the time. [snip] I get the feeling there may not be a single smoking gun here - this incident was a combination of a number of things that could/should have been done better. [snip]
[snip] I get the feeling there may not be a single smoking gun here - this incident was a combination of a number of things that could/should have been done better. [snip]
From the Rockford Register Star article that was linked in the post by Bucyrus at 10;37 AM today [06-24-2009]. Note that the person saying this was an NTSB Board Member of the investigation team, not an uninformed layperson;
'The train was traveling 34 mph at the time of the accident, well below the 50 mph speed limit, according to information retrieved from the train’s data system. Because the train was leaving an urban area, it was accelerating, said Robert Sumwalt, one of the NTSB’s five board members and one of 15 NTSB staff members in town for the investigation.The emergency brake went off at 8:36 p.m., but wasn’t deployed by the train’s engineer, Sumwalt said. While he wouldn’t confirm what set it off, he said the brake can be set off by train cars separating from each other.' [emphasis added - PDN]
Paul_D_North_JrOn the other hand, if the typical time lag from call to police to DS notification of train crew is consistently in the 15 to 30 minute range as seems to be indicated by the accounts above, then maybe another strategy is needed.
Years ago I noticed something along the (then) WC mainline that required the attention of a railroad professional. When I called the posted number, my call went directly to the dispatcher (I recognized his voice from the scanner). Within 2 minutes the dispatcher was on the radio informing the appropriate personnel (I heard the radio call myself). 2 minutes--not 15 to 30!! And the reason for the call was not nearly as serious as a washout.
Of course, that was on the WC, not the CN.
zardozWhen I called the posted number, my call went directly to the dispatcher
WC was a relatively small "local" railroad. As I pointed out earlier, CSX calls go to Jax - to the railroad police, I believe. While I think I've heard the Jax power desk talking directly to a crew here in NNY, I suspect that any information of the type we're discussing has to be relayed from Jax to the Selkirk DS handling the NY line in question. That's all gonna take time.
Bucyrus henry6 Law enforcement official on private property? Doubt it for several reasons. First, it would be tresspassing and also not of thier juristiction. Secondly, liability...to and from the railroad and to and from the enforcment agency's authority. Third, there probably was a lot more that the law enforcement agency had on its hands. I can’t imagine that any of these points would or should prevent the police from taking action in an emergency. Suppose the police were there at the crossing concluding that the washout was serious enough to threaten a train, and a train suddenly appeared on the horizon. What should they do in that case? If it were me in that case, and if I had a fusee in my car, there is no question about what I would do if I saw a train approaching from a significant distance. And I would not worry about trespassing.
henry6 Law enforcement official on private property? Doubt it for several reasons. First, it would be tresspassing and also not of thier juristiction. Secondly, liability...to and from the railroad and to and from the enforcment agency's authority. Third, there probably was a lot more that the law enforcement agency had on its hands.
Law enforcement official on private property? Doubt it for several reasons. First, it would be tresspassing and also not of thier juristiction. Secondly, liability...to and from the railroad and to and from the enforcment agency's authority. Third, there probably was a lot more that the law enforcement agency had on its hands.
I am basing my statement on a conversation I had with a police department that would not take action when a crossing gate was down and there was no train. His reason was that should something happen to the public because of the police action the police and the municipality would be at risk. Therefore no action was less r4isky than some safety action (like stopping people from going around the gates!)
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
I listen in on the scanner regularly and hear the dispatchers often report to trains something to the effect that
"it has been reported that...., please proceed with caution....etc"
The entire timeline of when the 911 call was made, when the patrolman inspected it, when the call was made to CN, and the time of the accident will be very interesting to sort out.
In 20 years of dealing with the public on issues such as this....the biggest problem is determining where HERE is. In general, the public layman relates locations in references to local landmarks (Wal-Mart, Golden Arches, gas station etc.) Police tend to relate locations to what Hundred Block of a street the occurrence is at. Railroads relate locations to the milepost of the affected line. Throw all three of these forms of location reference together and you end up with the real problem of everyone coming to agreement to where HERE is. Throw in the additional complexity that you may have separate railroads having parallel tracks in the same area, along with the same railroad having parallel tracks in an area that are parts of different sub-divisions that are controlled by different dispatchers and you ramp up the problem of defining where HERE is.
With the advent of placing the AAR crossing designation at road crossings, the amount of time it takes to define where HERE is has been significantly decreased, to the extent that the person(s) communicating with the railroad provide the correct number.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
A). A law enforecment officer is not, and should not be expected to be, qualified as a professional railroader and make professional railroader decsions (which direction do you go find a train? how do you get the attention properly?). I've heard some look at a virtually abandoned siding and declare they now knew why trains couldn't stay on the track at the speeds they travel!
B). Once I saw a railroad accident occur while on my way to work (early 70's). It took about 15 minutes for me to arrive at work...a commercial radio station. I called the nearest railroad yard office (I knew most everybody there) and they were just recieving word of the derailment despite train radios and trackside phones!
As one who lives in Rockford, IL and has been able to listen to the reports on the local radio station (WNTA 1330 AM) it seems that there was some confusion as to who was called and when they were called. Winnebago County Sheriff Dick Meyers was on the station this past week (maybe it was Monday or Tuesday--I forget) and he originally said that the squad was dispatched and saw the 'washout' and communicated this with the Winnebago County 911 call center. The Call Center then called "the railroad", but this turned out to be the Union Pacific--their branchline from Belvidere over to Rockford runs parallel to the CN mainline just to the north by a couple hundred feet. The Union Pacific told them they needed to call the other railroad, the Canadian National. From what Sheriff Meyers said, the Union Pacific provided them with the number to call the Canadian National. The Call Center then called the CN to inform them of the problem. See the problem here....tick, tick, tick. So maybe the original call to 'the railroad' was placed 21 minutes before, but the call to the CN--how long 20, 15, 10, 5 minutes?
It didn't sound like the deputy on the scene called the number plastered on the side of the CN equipment bungalow--it sounded like the call was something that took a while to get done, since at first they called the wrong railroad.
The sheriff also said that the deputy videotaped the washout with his dashboard camera. But I don't see how if the tracks were actually 'washed out' that two locomotives and more than 50 cars made it across safely before the derailment.
The sheriff also got a bit defensive when someone called it to ask why they didn't block off the road toward the crossing if they weren't sure that the train traffic was stopped. In their defense though, the rain storm that likely caused the washout dropped more than 3.25 inches of rain on Rockford in just over an hour on Friday between 6 and 7:30 p.m. and the derailment happened at 8:35 or so and the local law enforcement authorities were dealing with flooded intersections and traffic lights out of order during the time.
Just going to have to sit back and wait for the NTSB report to be completed.
Lance
Here's a story I found on the BLET website:http://www.ble.org/pr/news/headline.asp?id=26634
The Sheriff says they contacted both CN and UP so that answers that question, but what number did they call? Quoting the Sheriff:
“I don’t know anything about trains. I don’t know anything about stopping trains,” Meyers said. “All I know is they had 21 minutes from the first time our office called them until the derailment.We have radio communications in our squads. If they have radio communications, then I’d think 21 minutes would be ample time to notify the train and get it to stop.”
I wonder, since the Sheriff mentioned contacting both roads:-Which did they contact first?-How long was the deputy on the phone to each RR with whatever numbers s/he called?-Was the time of the first call the start of the 21 minute "window"?
Pure speculation here...but say they called UP first and were on hold for 3-5 min, talked with person for 1-2 min and then hung up. Repeat situation with CN...that could cut the window in half.
Dan
Answering a couple of questions posted earlier--
The CN Iowa Division is ABS (Automatic block signals) controlled via track warrants on this stretch through Rockford. This eastbound train had two locos and 114 cars, about 74 or so were ethanol loads. So he had a healthy train. Coming east there are a series of upgrade pulls leaving Rockford. They cross the Rock River downtown and then are headed upgrade to Alpine Road (road goes overhead). There is a block signal just east of Alpine Road--I guess we can assume that it was green. Going east of Alpine the tracks are straight and then make a gentle left turn where they come up to the Mulford Road crossing. The distance from the curve to Mulford Road is only about a quarter mile--if that. The derailment occurred at Mulford Road. The Mulford Road crossing is in a valley and the eastbound train would have been pulling as it worked uphill toward Perryville, the next crossing east.
When I turned on the scanner after the derailment on Friday night, the engineer reported back to the CN RTC that he was moving about 30 mph (newsreports said the black box recorded 36 at the time of the derailment--trackspeed is 50) in run 6 with no air set when he felt two tugs on the train and the air dumped. Like I said earlier, more than 50 cars made it over the site before the train derailed.
Even if there would have been a sheriff sitting at the crossing with a lit fusee, the crew probably would not have been able to stop the train in time to avoid going over the crossing. They might have still derailed, or the tracks might have washed out under the train anyway. It probably would not have been as bad as it was.
The crew of the train was reporting high water along the tracks coming east from Rockford as the train derailed according to the reports in the newspaper. They didn't say that they had water over the tracks though.
That low spot at the Mulford Road crossing is well known though as a spot where the tracks tend to get undermined when it rains heavily--it has happend before at that location.
CNW 6000 Here's a story I found on the BLET website:http://www.ble.org/pr/news/headline.asp?id=26634 The Sheriff says they contacted both CN and UP so that answers that question, but what number did they call? Quoting the Sheriff:“I don’t know anything about trains. I don’t know anything about stopping trains,” Meyers said. “All I know is they had 21 minutes from the first time our office called them until the derailment.We have radio communications in our squads. If they have radio communications, then I’d think 21 minutes would be ample time to notify the train and get it to stop.” I wonder, since the Sheriff mentioned contacting both roads:-Which did they contact first?-How long was the deputy on the phone to each RR with whatever numbers s/he called?-Was the time of the first call the start of the 21 minute "window"? Pure speculation here...but say they called UP first and were on hold for 3-5 min, talked with person for 1-2 min and then hung up. Repeat situation with CN...that could cut the window in half.
He admits he doesn't know anything about trains or stopping them? And he is the Sheriff? At a time when more and more dangerous stuff is moving by rail, he had better learn in a hurry.
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)
CShaveRRDan, I'll take issue with your speculation about being on hold for three to five minutes with UP personnel. They are pretty good with that automated system of theirs at getting the proper people to respond to the call, and quickly.
I have called CN's system (from the New York Ave. crossing in Oshkosh here) when gates were down intermittently. I was on hold a shade over 4 minutes in that case. I can't speak to UP's system.
CShaveRRI'm curious: the sheriff sees a bad track condition on CN and calls UP? The lines are parallel, but he didn't know which was which? And didn't know which was the busier of the two lines going through town? Yes, a lot more railroad awareness is needed!
Question for RR folks:Would a neighboring road, in this case UP to CN, contact the other road if they receive calls such as washed out track in situations like this?
First, there is absolutely no reason any law enforcement officer should be a qualified engineer or anything else but a qualified law enforcement officer! GOD he has to be enough other things in that role why add that or anyother professional expertise (Chemist? Heavy equipment operator? Hairdresser? Lawyer? Social Worker? Interpreter? Psychologist? Psychiatrist? MD? I mean, come on!).
Second, I've heard police cars call in to have the dispatcher contact "the railroad" or to name the wrong railroad. Plus they do not keep up with property swaps, name changes, and responsiblity changes within the railroads...the local media doesn't, the public doesn't, there's virtually neither reason or opportunity for the police to.
And the deeper we go here, the more I am afraid that CN is going to be falsely hung on the timeline. It gets clearer and clearer that the timeline is fuzzy, the contact sequences are fuzzy, the information given to which railroad when becomes a question, we don't know what else was going on on either of the railroads elsewhere nor what else the Sheriff's department had going on. It appears that there was a period of bad weather, the Sheriff and other local officials had their hands full, perhaps so did the railroads. If the Sheriff or a 911 operator called the train dispatcher directly with complete clear and concise information, then two, three minutes tops, would be a reasonable response expectation. But we hear that the wrong railroad was called first and that CN had to call back for some kind of clarification. Time was ticking away; that's all. Happenstances and event sequences did not work in the favor of avoiding a tragedy. Not the Sheriff, not the 911 Operator, not either of the railroads, can be "blamed" for the derailment based on the time line of 21 minutes.
henry6First, there is absolutely no reason any law enforcement officer should be a qualified engineer or anything else but a qualified law enforcement officer! GOD he has to be enough other things in that role why add that or anyother professional expertise (Chemist? Heavy equipment operator? Hairdresser? Lawyer? Social Worker? Interpreter? Psychologist? Psychiatrist? MD? I mean, come on!). Second, I've heard police cars call in to have the dispatcher contact "the railroad" or to name the wrong railroad. Plus they do not keep up with property swaps, name changes, and responsiblity changes within the railroads...the local media doesn't, the public doesn't, there's virtually neither reason or opportunity for the police to. And the deeper we go here, the more I am afraid that CN is going to be falsely hung on the timeline. It gets clearer and clearer that the timeline is fuzzy, the contact sequences are fuzzy, the information given to which railroad when becomes a question, we don't know what else was going on on either of the railroads elsewhere nor what else the Sheriff's department had going on. It appears that there was a period of bad weather, the Sheriff and other local officials had their hands full, perhaps so did the railroads. If the Sheriff or a 911 operator called the train dispatcher directly with complete clear and concise information, then two, three minutes tops, would be a reasonable response expectation. But we hear that the wrong railroad was called first and that CN had to call back for some kind of clarification. Time was ticking away; that's all. Happenstances and event sequences did not work in the favor of avoiding a tragedy. Not the Sheriff, not the 911 Operator, not either of the railroads, can be "blamed" for the derailment based on the time line of 21 minutes.
On UP, it is drop what you are doing and stop movements. RMCC is set up to route information to Corridor Managers for handling, and call outs. RMCC has listings of crossings in a data base so that any sort of description is matched up with actually mile posts and or FRA crossing inventory numbers.
When I call in crossing failures, usually the turn around time is about 10 minutes. That means, after I hang up with the crossing hotline, the DS is handing out XH orders.
Twenty One minutes is more than enough time.
RRKen Twenty One minutes is more than enough time.
Not for CN. I'm thinking they called the CN Police, a Montreal number. The CN police would then try to get through to the RTC/DS centre. It's not exactly easy to get a hold of the dispatcher, I've sat on hold with the RTC for an hour while she was busy dispatching on 7 different subdivisions and that was after spending 40 minutes trying to navigate through the RTC phone menu.
henry6 Bucyrus henry6 Law enforcement official on private property? Doubt it for several reasons. First, it would be tresspassing and also not of thier juristiction. Secondly, liability...to and from the railroad and to and from the enforcment agency's authority. Third, there probably was a lot more that the law enforcement agency had on its hands. I can’t imagine that any of these points would or should prevent the police from taking action in an emergency. Suppose the police were there at the crossing concluding that the washout was serious enough to threaten a train, and a train suddenly appeared on the horizon. What should they do in that case? If it were me in that case, and if I had a fusee in my car, there is no question about what I would do if I saw a train approaching from a significant distance. And I would not worry about trespassing. I am basing my statement on a conversation I had with a police department that would not take action when a crossing gate was down and there was no train. His reason was that should something happen to the public because of the police action the police and the municipality would be at risk. Therefore no action was less r4isky than some safety action (like stopping people from going around the gates!)
I can understand an officer not wanting to flag people around falsely lowered gates. I don’t know if it would create a liability risk, but he might think it would. However, refusing to flag people around the falsely lowered gates would not constitute a safety hazard.
But, in your last sentence, are you saying that he refused to do anything to prevent people from driving around the falsely lowered gates? That would be very wrong on his part. If he were there witnessing people driving around the falsely lowered gates, and no police officer is flagging them to do so, then he should stop those people and ticket them. That would be his job.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.