Paul_D_North_Jrschlimm [snipped - PDN] . . . Via Marathon organizers say Norfolk Southern gave them "absolute assurances" that trains would be suspended from 7 a.m. to 10 a.m. as has happened in past years. . . . 3 hours is an awfully long time to completely shut down a major rail facility.
The point is that was the NS arrangement for the past 9 years, which worked fine and was supposed to be this year as well until someone, likely at NS, screwed up.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm Paul_D_North_Jr schlimm [snipped - PDN] . . . Via Marathon organizers say Norfolk Southern gave them "absolute assurances" that trains would be suspended from 7 a.m. to 10 a.m. as has happened in past years. . . . 3 hours is an awfully long time to completely shut down a major rail facility. The point is that was the NS arrangement for the past 9 years, which worked fine and was supposed to be this year as well until someone, likely at NS, screwed up.
Paul_D_North_Jr schlimm [snipped - PDN] . . . Via Marathon organizers say Norfolk Southern gave them "absolute assurances" that trains would be suspended from 7 a.m. to 10 a.m. as has happened in past years. . . . 3 hours is an awfully long time to completely shut down a major rail facility.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy Siding schlimm Paul_D_North_Jr schlimm [snipped - PDN] . . . Via Marathon organizers say Norfolk Southern gave them "absolute assurances" that trains would be suspended from 7 a.m. to 10 a.m. as has happened in past years. . . . 3 hours is an awfully long time to completely shut down a major rail facility. The point is that was the NS arrangement for the past 9 years, which worked fine and was supposed to be this year as well until someone, likely at NS, screwed up. Given the information, why are you thinking it likely that NS is the party that screwed up?
Given the information, why are you thinking it likely that NS is the party that screwed up?
The race organizers say they received assurances from NS.
The NS suggests that the assurances came from the wrong people in the NS organization; so it sounds like NS did give assurances.
Why aren't you?
They contacted the NS 10 years for permission. The first 9 it went fine. This year the word did not get through to that locomotive crew. Logically it was probably a fault of internal communication in NS.
schlimm Paul_D_North_Jr schlimm [snipped - PDN] . . . Via Marathon organizers say Norfolk Southern gave them "absolute assurances" that trains would be suspended from 7 a.m. to 10 a.m. as has happened in past years. . . . 3 hours is an awfully long time to completely shut down a major rail facility.
I think the railroad should make sure that nobody in their organization grants operational clearance to an event without proper approval within the railroad organization. In the comments by the NS spokesman, I sense that he is blaming the race organizers for not contacting the correct people within NS.
However, if the race organizers contact somebody at NS that gives them authorization, how are the race organizers supposed to know that the person they spoke to was unqualified to give the authorization?
I would note, that if I were seeking such authorization, I would get it in writing. The news did not make that point clear. Verbal authorization would be equally valid, but hard to prove.
schlimm Murphy Siding schlimm Paul_D_North_Jr schlimm [snipped - PDN] . . . Via Marathon organizers say Norfolk Southern gave them "absolute assurances" that trains would be suspended from 7 a.m. to 10 a.m. as has happened in past years. . . . 3 hours is an awfully long time to completely shut down a major rail facility. The point is that was the NS arrangement for the past 9 years, which worked fine and was supposed to be this year as well until someone, likely at NS, screwed up. Given the information, why are you thinking it likely that NS is the party that screwed up? Why aren't you? They contacted the NS 10 years for permission. The first 9 it went fine. This year the word did not get through to that locomotive crew. Logically it was probably a fault of internal communication in NS.
EuclidI think the railroad should make sure that nobody in their organization grants operational clearance to an event without proper approval within the railroad organization. In the comments by the NS spokesman, I sense that he is blaming the race organizers for not contacting the correct people within NS. However, if the race organizers contact somebody at NS that gives them authorization, how are the race organizers supposed to know that the person they spoke to was unqualified to give the authorization? I would note, that if I were seeking such authorization, I would get it in writing. The news did not make that point clear. Verbal authorization would be equally valid, but hard to prove.
I asked a PFC in the Army if I could take the M1a1 tank home - he said go ahead.
I talked to the Army and they said take it.
_______________________________________________________________
When it comes to getting 'permission' to do something; make sure you are dealing with someone that actually has the authority to make it happen, and get the understanding in writing. As a matter of reality, I suspect virtually ALL of the parties involved have changed over the period of 10 years - especially railroad personnel which has probably had signifigant turnover since last years event.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACDI asked a PFC in the Army if I could take the M1a1 tank home - he said go ahead. I talked to the Army and they said take it.
She who has no signature! cinscocom-tmw
A train blocking a crossing during a marathon has certainly happened before...in fact, it happened to the Boston Marathon back in 1907 where it runs through Framingham, MA. Just after the leading pack of runners ran by, a freight crossed the route (probably the NH's line from Lowell to New Bedford). It blocked the trailing runners, and gave the leading pack an insurmountable lead.
That rail line is still active today, and the Boston Marathon still crosses it. In the 99 years since, never again has a train crossed the Boston Marathon route during the race. And that covers NH, PC, CR and now CSX. So at least the BAA learned how to make sure the railroad didn't cross the race route.
BaltACDWhen it comes to getting 'permission' to do something; make sure you are dealing with someone that actually has the authority to make it happen, and get the understanding in writing. As a matter of reality, I suspect virtually ALL of the parties involved have changed over the period of 10 years - especially railroad personnel which has probably had signifigant turnover since last years event.
I would not consider the fact that assurances have been given for several years in the past. I would get the assurance in writing, and that's all. If it is on the company letterhead, it is their problem if the wrong person in their company gave me the assurance.
Paul3So at least the BAA learned how to make sure the railroad didn't cross the race route.
I take it you're saying the incident made them the black sheep of Northeastern railroading?
Euclid BaltACD When it comes to getting 'permission' to do something; make sure you are dealing with someone that actually has the authority to make it happen, and get the understanding in writing. As a matter of reality, I suspect virtually ALL of the parties involved have changed over the period of 10 years - especially railroad personnel which has probably had signifigant turnover since last years event. I would not consider the fact that assurances have been given for several years in the past. I would get the assurance in writing, and that's all. If it is on the company letterhead, it is their problem if the wrong person in their company gave me the assurance.
BaltACD When it comes to getting 'permission' to do something; make sure you are dealing with someone that actually has the authority to make it happen, and get the understanding in writing. As a matter of reality, I suspect virtually ALL of the parties involved have changed over the period of 10 years - especially railroad personnel which has probably had signifigant turnover since last years event.
Murphy SidingBecause I'm not reading anything that says it was clearly either party at fault at this time. Just because this is the 10th year doesn't mean that everything was done correctly by either or both parties. Over the 10 years the people involved may have changed and perhaps some proceedures have changed. "I thought you called?" "No- I thought you called." I can see where that scenario could have happened with either or both parties involved. I don't see anything yet that pins it on one or the other.
The marathon folks say they had "absolute assurances" from the NS. And the successful history is relevant. Why is that challenged? Why do you totally change the story to an Abbott and Costello scenario?
schlimm Murphy Siding Because I'm not reading anything that says it was clearly either party at fault at this time. Just because this is the 10th year doesn't mean that everything was done correctly by either or both parties. Over the 10 years the people involved may have changed and perhaps some proceedures have changed. "I thought you called?" "No- I thought you called." I can see where that scenario could have happened with either or both parties involved. I don't see anything yet that pins it on one or the other. The marathon folks say they had "absolute assurances" from the NS. And the successful history is relevant. Why is that challenged? Why do you totally change the story to an Abbott and Costello scenario?
Murphy Siding Because I'm not reading anything that says it was clearly either party at fault at this time. Just because this is the 10th year doesn't mean that everything was done correctly by either or both parties. Over the 10 years the people involved may have changed and perhaps some proceedures have changed. "I thought you called?" "No- I thought you called." I can see where that scenario could have happened with either or both parties involved. I don't see anything yet that pins it on one or the other.
It is possible the error was made by the marathon organizers, yes. But given the nine year history of the organizers making clear, correct arrangements with NS, it is more probable that the NS erred.
The movie accident is a red herring.
schlimm It is possible the error was made by the marathon organizers, yes. But given the nine year history of the organizers making clear, correct arrangements with NS, it is more probable that the NS erred. The movie accident is a red herring.
Nothing new under the sun department...
http://archive.boston.com/marathon/history/1907.shtml
“Passing along to Natick about a dozen of the runners had crossed the railroad track when along came a freight train. Down went the gates, and when the rest of the bunch came along they had to keep running in circles for nearly a minute until the train passed.”
Murphy SidingHeck- maybe I can just use beuclidian logic and consider your maybe as being a yes.
Make mine Bayesian!
The Tour de France is the major sports event in France from year-to-year. I believe it was four years ago that a train crossed in front of many riders, splitting the field. Several riders went around the barrier, incurring penalties from the Race Director.
If I recall, they had to fudge some times, and maybe even held up the advanced riders ahead of the train in order to try to make the race fair. It wasn't very fair in the end, but...poop happens.
When's train time? .........
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.