Euclid From the report: What does this mean? “The operating crews were not prohibited from walking either on or near the Amtrak tracks.”
From the report:
What does this mean?
“The operating crews were not prohibited from walking either on or near the Amtrak tracks.”
That there was no rule or other directive stating that the operating crews were not to walk on the Amtrak ROW.
On the other hand, there's nothing that says they are required to, either. Prudence would dictate that they did not, or if they did, that they would exercise due regard toward the possibility of traffic, in either direction (which is a rule).
Just because you can do something doesn't mean you have to...
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...
Lithonia Operator What it means is that report writers feel the need to write stuff.
What it means is that report writers feel the need to write stuff.
"Stuff" like what? Please elaborate.
tree68 Euclid From the report: What does this mean? “The operating crews were not prohibited from walking either on or near the Amtrak tracks.” That there was no rule or other directive stating that the operating crews were not to walk on the Amtrak ROW. On the other hand, there's nothing that says they are required to, either. Prudence would dictate that they did not, or if they did, that they would exercise due regard toward the possibility of traffic, in either direction (which is a rule). Just because you can do something doesn't mean you have to...
To the individual - EVERY RULE is optional - following or violating rules have consequences.
Piling rule upon rule for a individual that, for whatever the reason, is not going to comply with the base rule is a waste of paper and ink (or bits, bytes and storage space).
In this incident, the most elemental of rules was not complied with - the safe course was not taken.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Additionally, I would opine that there was no rule or other directive in place because up until now, none was needed. Crews abided by the existing rules and that was sufficient.
tree68 Additionally, I would opine that there was no rule or other directive in place because up until now, none was needed. Crews abided by the existing rules and that was sufficient.
They were trained and supervised inadequately, they were inexperienced and exhibited zero common sense and it cost them their lives. CSX bears a portion of the blame also.
Is it accurate to conclude that this statement by the NTSB means that the operating crews were not prohibited from walking either on or near the Amtrak tracks without protection?
EuclidIs it accurate to conclude that this statement by the NTSB means that the operating crews were not prohibited from walking either on or near the Amtrak tracks without protection?
Only that operating crews were not prohibited from walking either on or near the Amtrak tracks.
243129They were trained and supervised inadequately, they were inexperienced and exhibited zero common sense and it cost them their lives. CSX bears a portion of the blame also.
In that respect only, I'll agree that CSX gets part of the blame.
tree68 Euclid Is it accurate to conclude that this statement by the NTSB means that the operating crews were not prohibited from walking either on or near the Amtrak tracks without protection? No. Only that operating crews were not prohibited from walking either on or near the Amtrak tracks.
Euclid Is it accurate to conclude that this statement by the NTSB means that the operating crews were not prohibited from walking either on or near the Amtrak tracks without protection?
No.
Why do you assume that the NTSB statement also includes the condition that protection was required in order for their statement to be true. They did not say that.
And earlier, you agreed that protection was only an option and not a requirement.
tree68 243129 They were trained and supervised inadequately, they were inexperienced and exhibited zero common sense and it cost them their lives. CSX bears a portion of the blame also. In that respect only, I'll agree that CSX gets part of the blame.
243129 They were trained and supervised inadequately, they were inexperienced and exhibited zero common sense and it cost them their lives. CSX bears a portion of the blame also.
You do not think they were trained and supervised inadequately or that they were inexperienced?
EuclidWhy do you assume that the NTSB statement also includes the condition that protection was required in order for their statement to be true.
I don't.
EuclidThey did not say that.
And neither did I. Don't put words in my mouth. You seem to be the one that's hung up on that. NTSB only said that there was no prohibition against the crews walking on the Amtrak ROW. Had they intended to include "without protection," they would have.
I would tend to believe that said statement was laying the groundwork for their later recommendation of mandatory protection.
EuclidAnd earlier, you agreed that protection was only an option and not a requirement.
Actually, I think that's the consensus here, as far as this particular incident goes.
tree68 Euclid Why do you assume that the NTSB statement also includes the condition that protection was required in order for their statement to be true. I don't. Euclid They did not say that. And neither did I. Don't put words in my mouth. You seem to be the one that's hung up on that. NTSB only said that there was no prohibition against the crews walking on the Amtrak ROW. Had they intended to include "without protection," they would have. I would tend to believe that said statement was laying the groundwork for their later recommendation of mandatory protection. Euclid And earlier, you agreed that protection was only an option and not a requirement. Actually, I think that's the consensus here, as far as this particular incident goes.
Euclid Why do you assume that the NTSB statement also includes the condition that protection was required in order for their statement to be true.
Euclid They did not say that.
Euclid And earlier, you agreed that protection was only an option and not a requirement.
Okay, I am sorry. I made that question confusing by the double negative. My conclusion about the NTSB’s statement is this:
Operating crews were permitted to walk either on or near the Amtrak tracks.
Because NTSB did not include any condition of requiring protection, their statement is meant to be true without a condition requiring protection.
So basically, the employees were permitted to walk on the Amtrak track, and to do so without having protection.
I am just trying to separate what was permitted from what would have been advisable.
EuclidSo basically, the employees were permitted to walk on the Amtrak track, and to do so without having protection.
The NTSB didn't say that, either. They said the employees were not prohibited from walking on the Amtrak ROW. Nothing more, nothing less.
When I was working in the pre EHH days of CSX - the S word was supreme.
The S word = Safety. If personnel stated that a particular action was not SAFE - then actions were taken to do what was necessary to have the action undertaken in a safe manner. In the pre-EHH days, no company official wanted to have one of their employees injured if the employee had declared a work process 'unsafe' and the official had demanded the action be undertaken by the employee anyway; such a action would be a quick way to start collecting Railroad Retirement Unemployment for that official.
I understand the pre-EHH observance of the S word was eliminated in the post-EHH world of CSX.
Is this incident a coincidence of the post-EHH view of safety on CSX?
I don't see why someone would say they were not prohibited if the were prohibited under certain conditions. The question is not about the just the words, but what the words mean. Not prohibited means just that; nothing more, nothing less.
Euclid I don't see why someone would say they were not prohibited if they were prohibited under certain conditions.
I don't see why someone would say they were not prohibited if they were prohibited under certain conditions.
Were the conditions under which they would be prohibited spelled out in the NTSB report, other than in the recommendations?
tree68 Euclid I don't see why someone would say they were not prohibited if they were prohibited under certain conditions. Were the conditions under which they would be prohibited spelled out in the NTSB report, other than in the recommendations?
I did not see conditions under which they would be prohibited from walking on Amtrak track spelled out. They seem to be saying that protection was not required and they want it to be required. So they recommended that it be required.
EuclidThey seem to be saying that protection was not required and they want it to be required. So they recommended that it be required.
Give the man a cigar!
tree68 Euclid They seem to be saying that protection was not required and they want it to be required. So they recommended that it be required. Give the man a cigar!
Euclid They seem to be saying that protection was not required and they want it to be required. So they recommended that it be required.
Why? It is certainly not a new position or conclusion on my part.
zardoz Plus, it's likely that the Engineer did not feel as though it was necessary to play 'lookout' for his experienced Conductor
You did this stuff for a living, so tell me. If you had been the senior conductor, in this exact same scenario.....what would you do?
Aren't there rules that prohibit crawling under the train, or climbing over a coupler unless the train has been secured? I'm not sure of that, but I have a faint memory that there might be a fairly elaborate proceedure involved.
(assuming there is no car nearby with an end platform spanning the car's width.)
Convicted One zardoz Plus, it's likely that the Engineer did not feel as though it was necessary to play 'lookout' for his experienced Conductor You did this stuff for a living, so tell me. If you had been the senior conductor, in this exact same scenario.....what would you do? Aren't there rules that prohibit crawling under the train, or climbing over a coupler unless the train has been secured? I'm not sure of that, but I have a faint memory that there might be a fairly elaborate proceedure involved. (assuming there is no car nearby with an end platform spanning the car's width.)
If I recall correctly, after the original stop, the Conductor walked one side of the train (Engineers I believe) the Trainee walked the other side.
I did not read that a cut was ever made behind the car that was going to be set off on CSX #2 Main after the train was crossed over from #1 to #2 to facilitate the set off. That being said, the Conductor somehow crossed from the Engineer side of the train to the Fireman's side of the train before the Conductor and Trainee began walking from their location 'back in the train' to the locomotives. Whatever protection the Conductor used to make his crossover from the Engineers side of the train to the Firemans side could have been used for both the Conductor and Trainee to cross to the Engineers side to complete their return to the locomotives.
In the pre-EHH days, personnel on the ground would make a radio request of th engineer for 'Three Step' protection - Locomotive Brake applied, Reverser centered, Battery field Switch Open to make a move 'into' or over the train or cut of cars (tie air hoses, cross from side to side etc.). My understanding is that EHH and his operating methods eliminated Three Step protection.
BaltACD My understanding is that EHH and his operating methods eliminated Three Step protection.
I haven't heard much radio traffic on CSX in a while, but I think it may be back.
tree68 BaltACD My understanding is that EHH and his operating methods eliminated Three Step protection. I haven't heard much radio traffic on CSX in a while, but I think it may be back.
It may be back - but it was gone when the Ivy City incident happened.
Why did EHH do away with the three-step protection?
Lithonia Operator Why did EHH do away with the three-step protection?
zardoz ..... Plus, it's likely that the Engineer did not feel as though it was necessary to play 'lookout' for his experienced Conductor--
..... Plus, it's likely that the Engineer did not feel as though it was necessary to play 'lookout' for his experienced Conductor--
Again, I speak s a layman. This sitution appears to be unusual in that the conductors were asked to inspect a train along side 95 mph tracks of another railroad in which trains are moving fast enough to kick up ballast (according to the engineer). Whereever I have worked, we would have each other's backs regardless of our official title, duty, etc. I know I've been in situations in which one of us (including me) was about to do something stupid and a collegue would catch it.
I agree with the sentiment that the ultimate responsibility falls on the conductors, but I see nothing wrong with the idea of the engineer acting as a spotter to make sure the guys on the ground are aware of oncoming traffic.
it has been mentioned in this thread that the safest course of action should be taken. Regardless of the mistake(s) made by the conductors, would it not have been safer if the engineer was calling out traffic to the conductors?
BaltACDIf I recall correctly, after the original stop, the Conductor walked one side of the train (Engineers I believe) the Trainee walked the other side. I did not read that a cut was ever made behind the car that was going to be set off on CSX #2 Main after the train was crossed over from #1 to #2 to facilitate the set off. That being said, the Conductor somehow crossed from the Engineer side of the train to the Fireman's side of the train before the Conductor and Trainee began walking from their location 'back in the train' to the locomotives. Whatever protection the Conductor used to make his crossover from the Engineers side of the train to the Firemans side could have been used for both the Conductor and Trainee to cross to the Engineers side to complete their return to the locomotives. In the pre-EHH days, personnel on the ground would make a radio request of th engineer for 'Three Step' protection - Locomotive Brake applied, Reverser centered, Battery field Switch Open to make a move 'into' or over the train or cut of cars (tie air hoses, cross from side to side etc.). My understanding is that EHH and his operating methods eliminated Three Step protection.
I appreciate your answer.
AnthonyV zardoz ..... Plus, it's likely that the Engineer did not feel as though it was necessary to play 'lookout' for his experienced Conductor-- Again, I speak s a layman. This sitution appears to be unusual in that the conductors were asked to inspect a train along side 95 mph tracks of another railroad in which trains are moving fast enough to kick up ballast (according to the engineer). Whereever I have worked, we would have each other's backs regardless of our official title, duty, etc. I know I've been in situations in which one of us (including me) was about to do something stupid and a collegue would catch it.
What you are overlooking - when the incident started the train was on CSX #1 track and separated from Amtrak by CSX #2 track. The Conductor & Trainee performed their inspection while the train was on CSX #1 track and their findings were relayed through the Engineer and Dispatcher to CSX Mechanical and the original plan was to set the offending car(s) out to CSX #2 track. The train was crossed over through Control Point F Tower from #1 to #2 track to make the setout. Before the setout was accomplished, the plan changed and the car(s) would not be set out. When this decision was relayed to the crew on the ground I doubt that the Engineer knew 'exactly' where his ground crew was - what he did know was that he WOULD NOT be moving the engines and train until his ground crew was back on the engine - as such it was a good time to answer natures call. In returning to the locomotives the ground crew would not be inspecting the train for defects, they would just be walking to get back to the locomotives.
Unless notified by the ground crew that they would be walking back to the locomotives on the Firemans side (Amtrak Side) of the train he would have no knowledge of which side of the train the ground crew would be walking and thus have any need to be a 'lookout' for them
Employees involved in Class 1 train and engine service are not normally directly 'in person' supervised on the performance of their duties - they are expected to perform their duties in conformance with Operating, Safety and Train Handling Rules without having a continual 'watchdog' on their back. The carriers do not have sufficient operating supervision to assign a 'watchdog' to each crew.
tree68I haven't heard much radio traffic on CSX in a while, but I think it may be back.
Sounds like even if the conductors had requested Three step protection, it would not have been immediately available.
Maybe I missed something, but I don't see what Three Step Protection has to do with this accident.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.