Euclid The fact that I paraphrased your comments rather than directly quoting you does not change your meaning.
The fact that I paraphrased your comments rather than directly quoting you does not change your meaning.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
I belive you've quoted me accurately, and I stand by what I said. Notwithstanding your phoney-baloney interpretations of what I said. Sorry I can't continue this discussion this morning. I have to go trim my toenails.
ACY CRIMANEE ! Good thing this computer doesn't have a feature that allows me to scream into your ear. If you were educated in this country, you should understand English! If you weren't, then maybe some nuance has escaped your grasp. Did I ever say the engineer was too tired? Reread my posts of 7/24/14 at 5:49 and 6:22 PM. You will find the following terms used there: From all accounts... Evidently Might Perhaps Maybe Does that tell you that I'm certain what happened up in Quebec? I wasn't there. Neither were you. Neither was his boss, and certainly neither was the second man in the cab. Because the man was working alone. And Euclid, when did I say the Lac Megantic engineer should be excused? I didn't. I did suggest that the Supervisors have some responsibility if they keep themselves willfully ignorant of the realities of their employees' work environment. Call it a moral responsibility, if you like. Whether they can or will be called to account by the legal system, is a question I don't claim to be qualified to answer.
CRIMANEE ! Good thing this computer doesn't have a feature that allows me to scream into your ear.
If you were educated in this country, you should understand English! If you weren't, then maybe some nuance has escaped your grasp.
Did I ever say the engineer was too tired? Reread my posts of 7/24/14 at 5:49 and 6:22 PM. You will find the following terms used there:
From all accounts...
Evidently
Might
Perhaps
Maybe
Does that tell you that I'm certain what happened up in Quebec? I wasn't there. Neither were you. Neither was his boss, and certainly neither was the second man in the cab. Because the man was working alone.
And Euclid, when did I say the Lac Megantic engineer should be excused? I didn't. I did suggest that the Supervisors have some responsibility if they keep themselves willfully ignorant of the realities of their employees' work environment. Call it a moral responsibility, if you like. Whether they can or will be called to account by the legal system, is a question I don't claim to be qualified to answer.
You said that a tired man cannot be expected to set all the handbrakes, and his supervisors should know that. Therefore they are at fault and the tired man is not. I said that if a man is too tired, he has an obligation to tell his supervisors that, rather than just walk away from the job. If he tells his supervisors and then walks away, the supervisors have the responsibility to get the train secured. You said that if he tells his supervisors he is too tired to work, they will discipline him. Ed confirmed that point, and you thanked Ed for backing you up. So fine, the engineer gets to walk away from the securement responsibility and burn up the town because he is too tired, and it is the mean railroad’s fault because they will discipline him if he tells them that he is too tired to secure the train. So it is the fault of the mean railroad for making the engineer work alone.
Quoting exactly:
YOU SAID:
“You say they [the engineer’s supervisors] had no reason to expect a problem. Human beings get tired. Human managers should know that, and should understand that one tired person at the end of a long and lonely shift might be tired, and perhaps not as sharp and alert as we would like. Long hours and one-man crews are seen as efficient, but maybe they should more properly be seen as red flags.”
I SAID:
“…no supervisor is responsible for making sure that an employee does not fail to do his job because he might be tired after long hours on duty.
If the MM&A engineer was too tired or lacked the time to secure the train, he should have told his supervisors, so they could arrange help or relief.”
“........and while they're arranging help or relief, they would probably also organize a disciplinary hearing. In this industry, it's always the guy at the bottom of the food chain. Nobody at the top takes the heat if they can push it to someone lower on the totem pole.”
Excerpt from the Montreal Gazette, July 23, 2014
There was a strange kind of silence outside Lac-Mégantic’s temporary courthouse on a warm afternoon in May as three employees of the now defunct MMA — Thomas Harding, Jean Demaître and Richard Labrie — arrived to be arraigned on 47 charges of criminal negligence arising from their actions or failure to act on the night of the deadly derailment. Charges were also filed against MMA itself — just two days before final transfer of the bankrupt company’s assets to Central Maine Quebec. Yet relatives and friends of the victims took little satisfaction that justice would be served by prosecuting three low-level employees while MMA’s abrasive founder, Ed Burkhardt, walks free.
http://www.montrealgazette.com/M%C3%A9gantic+long+road+recovery/9981810/story.html
http://tomhardingdefensefund.com/
edblysard No, there is no “seems to” in what I wrote. I am saying is that, had there been two men on the job, the odds go up that one or the other may decide the number of brakes set, even if it was the “normal” for that train, was not sufficient, or one of them may have decided to do a pull test, or that it may have been, had it been a two man crew, that ten/ twenty brakes each would become the norm, or any number of variables. You read what you wish to in my post, twisting people’s words around to imply something they didn’t seems to be your forte. Never said the engineer was lazy, nor did I say or imply he left caution to the wind…I did say he followed what seems to be the normal established procedure with that train…and I did say management seems to have not checked that procedure with a field safety test, as they are required to.. Of course, you feel free to be obtuse if that furthers your purpose.
No, there is no “seems to” in what I wrote.
I am saying is that, had there been two men on the job, the odds go up that one or the other may decide the number of brakes set, even if it was the “normal” for that train, was not sufficient, or one of them may have decided to do a pull test, or that it may have been, had it been a two man crew, that ten/ twenty brakes each would become the norm, or any number of variables.
You read what you wish to in my post, twisting people’s words around to imply something they didn’t seems to be your forte.
Never said the engineer was lazy, nor did I say or imply he left caution to the wind…I did say he followed what seems to be the normal established procedure with that train…and I did say management seems to have not checked that procedure with a field safety test, as they are required to..
Of course, you feel free to be obtuse if that furthers your purpose.
"add in the fact that if you’re working with someone, they expect you to follow the rules and do it right because you have their life and livelihood in your hands, and you expect the same from him, and you both are going to check each other as you go."
"There is a tremendous amount of trust between engineers and conductors... and that trust is not betrayed lightly or out of laziness, you kill your friends that way."
OK. glad you cleared that up. But those were YOUR words, not mine. I asked a question of you, but YOU choose out of your defensiveness to insult the person who asked you.
" twisting people’s words around to imply something they didn’t seems to be your forte." But you sure imply things which you then deny.
"you feel free to be obtuse" Oh, my!!
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
RRKen schlimm You seem to be saying that by splitting the workload of setting handbrakes, they would have done the job properly? Do you actually mean that, because you are also strongly suggesting that the engineer was lazy and following the rules because there was no one to check up on him? And that since there would be no one else on the train who trusted him with life and livelihood, he left caution to the wind? Please clarify.
schlimm You seem to be saying that by splitting the workload of setting handbrakes, they would have done the job properly? Do you actually mean that, because you are also strongly suggesting that the engineer was lazy and following the rules because there was no one to check up on him? And that since there would be no one else on the train who trusted him with life and livelihood, he left caution to the wind? Please clarify.
You seem to be saying that by splitting the workload of setting handbrakes, they would have done the job properly? Do you actually mean that, because you are also strongly suggesting that the engineer was lazy and following the rules because there was no one to check up on him? And that since there would be no one else on the train who trusted him with life and livelihood, he left caution to the wind? Please clarify.
Johnny
23 17 46 11
schlimm If you had read the thread, you would know that it was ACY who said the engineer was too tired, not a non-railroader. Or do you consider ACY a non-railroader now? As you know, we don't know anything, are ignorant and not entitled to voice an opinion.
At least an opinion with some basis, and not upon a whim. ACY has experience. You, not so much.
schlimm As you know, we don't know anything, are ignorant.
As you know, we don't know anything, are ignorant.
Admitting your shortcomings is part of the first steps Professor.
RRKen Murray ACY Ed --- Thanks for backing me up on the tiredness/disciplinary action issue. It's an important factor that is conveniently ignored by an awful lot of folks who aren't in the industry. Tom Ignorant folks who don't understand the railroad industry....on this forum??? That's unpossible!!!! Very possible, just ask the Perfessor.
Murray ACY Ed --- Thanks for backing me up on the tiredness/disciplinary action issue. It's an important factor that is conveniently ignored by an awful lot of folks who aren't in the industry. Tom Ignorant folks who don't understand the railroad industry....on this forum??? That's unpossible!!!!
ACY Ed --- Thanks for backing me up on the tiredness/disciplinary action issue. It's an important factor that is conveniently ignored by an awful lot of folks who aren't in the industry. Tom
Ed ---
Thanks for backing me up on the tiredness/disciplinary action issue. It's an important factor that is conveniently ignored by an awful lot of folks who aren't in the industry.
Tom
Ignorant folks who don't understand the railroad industry....on this forum???
That's unpossible!!!!
Very possible, just ask the Perfessor.
edblysard Uhhh, one guy ties ten hand brakes, the other guys ties ten and so forth and so on, lots faster than one guy doing it all..add in the fact that if you’re working with someone, they expect you to follow the rules and do it right because you have their life and livelihood in your hands, and you expect the same from him, and you both are going to check each other as you go. There is a tremendous amount of trust between engineers and conductors, there has to be to get anything done, and that trust is not betrayed lightly or out of laziness, you kill your friends that way.
Uhhh, one guy ties ten hand brakes, the other guys ties ten and so forth and so on, lots faster than one guy doing it all..add in the fact that if you’re working with someone, they expect you to follow the rules and do it right because you have their life and livelihood in your hands, and you expect the same from him, and you both are going to check each other as you go.
There is a tremendous amount of trust between engineers and conductors, there has to be to get anything done, and that trust is not betrayed lightly or out of laziness, you kill your friends that way.
Not intending to regurgitate anything, but the topic of Lac Megantic being caused by the lack of a two person crew has come up repeatedly in this thread, the other one called Goodbye Conductors, and a third one in Fred Frailey’s blog. The point has always been that the Lac Megantic runaway was caused by not having a second man on the crew. I think that is complete nonsense.
The point about being too tired was introduced not by me, but by poster, ACY contending that the engineer should be excused for failing to secure the train because he was too tired. He continued by saying that the engineer’s supervisors should be held responsible for the runaway because they should know better than to expect a tired man to secure a train. My point in responding to that was that if he was too tired, he had the obligation to tell his supervisor that he failed to secure the train because he was too tired. You don’t get to just walk away from it because you are too tired.
Certainly it is less work for two men to set the handbrakes than for one man. But a lack of a second man does not excuse the Lac Megantic negligence.
schlimm Aside from splitting hairs and regurgitating the "securing train" issue, no one has shown how a 2nd onboard crewman, tired or not, would have prevented the runaway.
Aside from splitting hairs and regurgitating the "securing train" issue, no one has shown how a 2nd onboard crewman, tired or not, would have prevented the runaway.
Well, one man didn't work. Since the trains can't run themselves yet, have to go to at least 2 people. Or maybe one man and a dog?
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
Well,
You and I and every other railroader knows once the train sheet is in your hands, you work until
A: The work is finished.
B: you run out of time on the hours of service, or
C: A relief crew takes the train from you.
There is no “Too tired”, even if you are.
The first thing we were told on the first day of training was, “Never report for duty late or drunk.”
The second thing we were told was “you can expect to be out here for 12 hours, each and every day, so plan your personal life accordingly”
Murphy Siding Come on bucyrus. Are we going to re fight this battle on every thread?
Come on bucyrus. Are we going to re fight this battle on every thread?
Yes. Yes we are.
edblysardAnd, for the record, I don’t think he intentionally failed to secure the train, even though that appears to be the root cause, I think he simply followed the established practice as he had been shown, and management never checked to see if that practice was safe or sufficient.
I believe that is true. I don’t think the engineer intentionally failed to secure the train. I believe that he was following a practice that had proven successful in the past, and was habitually repeated with success to the point where it was never questioned as being inadequate.
I do not know whether the engineer alone developed this methodology or if it was developed by other engineers as well, or even requested by MM&A supervisors and management. I believe that the securement method relied on air brakes to hold the train, and some handbrakes were added just to make sure, and to concede to the requirement to set a minimum number of handbrakes. If this was the case, I assume that the saving of time and money played a part in the motivation for the rationalization for such a compromise in proper securement.
If this is what happened, the careless securement routine must have become extremely comfortable, or else it would have been obvious to the engineer and any others who happened to know about it that the shutdown of the engine would have set the stage for a high probability of disaster. So I suspect that company culture and peer pressure reinforced the complacency.
Yes......but......
The following is an opinion, full of assumptions and educated guesses….
First, I think the engineer tied up the train in the manner it had always been secured, based on this assumption, I would also opine that the management never checked the securement of the train, which they should have done, FRA requires every employee to undergo several safety test per month, and depending on the number of employees a carrier has, they require a given amount of safety tests per month covering the entire carrier.
No one ever told him he was doing it incorrectly.
Now, whether he knew he was not securing the train properly or if he believed he was, the lack of testing and checking by management plays a role in this…not that blame or fault is removed from him, but it can be spread out some.
I seriously doubt you will ever hear a T&E employee tell management they are too tired to complete their work, and if they did, the next words they would hear from management is ,”that’s ok, your out of service for 30 days pending an investigation, so you will have plenty of free time to rest up”.
We are expected to report for duty rested and ready to complete our duty time work, up to 12 hours.
Telling management you are too tired to finish just isn’t an option.
As for him hitting the hours of service before he could secure the train, if that was the case, the rules require him to remain on the train until such time as a relief crew arrives, by rule he can’t leave, even if he hogged out, until one of the following has occurred…either the train is properly secured, (which I assume he thought it was) or a relief crew arrived and takes possession and control of the train.
Based on that, and the fact he did leave, I can only assume he though the train was secure…he had called in the bad order locomotive, and from statements already made, had been instructed to leave it as it was, that someone was on the way to check it, so again, I am pretty sure he was under the assumption that things were going as usual.
There are so many events in the time line of all of that that any one single incident or action, performed at a different time or in a different manner would have drastically altered the outcome…had the firemen not shut down the unit, had the carrier sent say, Randy instead of a Mow guy out to check, had management checked the securement beforehand, had the engineer tied a few more hand brakes…the list goes on, but from my point of view, there is no one single event that caused this, but rather a series of events that coincidentally lined up to cause it.
And, for the record, I don’t think he intentionally failed to secure the train, even though that appears to be the root cause, I think he simply followed the established practice as he had been shown, and management never checked to see if that practice was safe or sufficient.
Euclid ACY Euclid --- ........and while they're arranging help or relief, they would probably also organize a disciplinary hearing. In this industry, it's always the guy at the bottom of the food chain. Nobody at the top takes the heat if they can push it to someone lower on the totem pole. I understand your point, but I would not conclude that the engineer would be disciplined for saying that he was too tired to secure the train. What is the alternative? Certainly he cannot walk away from it, leaving it unsecured, and not tell anybody. The issue may have been not that he was too tired, but rather, that he was out of time. Certainly his supervisors would have known if that were the case. If it was, that puts the onus on them, and not on the engineer. So for the engineer, I don’t see how being tired or lacking a second man on the crew can be an excuse for not securing the train. I can see two scenarios: 1) The engineer failed to properly secure the train and told nobody so. 2) The engineer failed to properly secure the train and told his supervisors so.
ACY Euclid --- ........and while they're arranging help or relief, they would probably also organize a disciplinary hearing. In this industry, it's always the guy at the bottom of the food chain. Nobody at the top takes the heat if they can push it to someone lower on the totem pole.
Euclid ---
........and while they're arranging help or relief, they would probably also organize a disciplinary hearing. In this industry, it's always the guy at the bottom of the food chain. Nobody at the top takes the heat if they can push it to someone lower on the totem pole.
I understand your point, but I would not conclude that the engineer would be disciplined for saying that he was too tired to secure the train. What is the alternative? Certainly he cannot walk away from it, leaving it unsecured, and not tell anybody.
The issue may have been not that he was too tired, but rather, that he was out of time. Certainly his supervisors would have known if that were the case. If it was, that puts the onus on them, and not on the engineer.
So for the engineer, I don’t see how being tired or lacking a second man on the crew can be an excuse for not securing the train. I can see two scenarios:
1) The engineer failed to properly secure the train and told nobody so.
2) The engineer failed to properly secure the train and told his supervisors so.
You forgot #3
Engineer 'secured' train in the manner he had successfully used multiple times in the past - without understanding that the train was not 'actually secured' when the operation of the locomotive was stopped by the fire department.
I have read that 7 hand brakes had been tied on the train, if so, a effort was made to secure the train. The effort wasn't successful.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Euclid Murphy Siding Come on bucyrus. Are we going to re fight this battle on every thread? It is a point that needs continuous clarification. I understand what Larry is saying and agree with his point that the train would not have run away if the air brakes did not release. However, on this forum and in others, people often continue to blame the runaway on the firemen shutting down the engine. I correct that every time I see it.
It is a point that needs continuous clarification. I understand what Larry is saying and agree with his point that the train would not have run away if the air brakes did not release. However, on this forum and in others, people often continue to blame the runaway on the firemen shutting down the engine. I correct that every time I see it.
We would never have noticed.
Norm
.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.