[quote user="243129"]
charlie hebdo 243129 charlie hebdo No surprises there. How about you give your thoughts on the issue? My thoughts are the same as they were long ago. There were multiple factors (as in most events) but the largest was the lack of acumen or common sense by a supposedly senior conductor in walking on a busy, high-speed track. So are mine. Acumen? Common sense? Wouldn't that be part of the vetting process when they're interviewed for the job?
243129 charlie hebdo No surprises there. How about you give your thoughts on the issue? My thoughts are the same as they were long ago. There were multiple factors (as in most events) but the largest was the lack of acumen or common sense by a supposedly senior conductor in walking on a busy, high-speed track.
charlie hebdo No surprises there. How about you give your thoughts on the issue?
No surprises there.
My thoughts are the same as they were long ago. There were multiple factors (as in most events) but the largest was the lack of acumen or common sense by a supposedly senior conductor in walking on a busy, high-speed track.
So are mine. Acumen? Common sense? Wouldn't that be part of the vetting process when they're interviewed for the job?
Whatever one calls these cognitive processes (I'd add judgment) they should be vetted at some point late in the screening/interiew/hiring process. I say late because I think it would be wise to formalize this aspect of vetting because it is so important. A brief exam such as the Mini-Mental Status Exam or Cognistat would help in this process. There can be a rulebook 500 pages long (a problem in itself) but that is not as valuable as a guy who can and will think about consequences accurately.
Oh I understand the difference between fouling track and just being too close for safety. In a sense of rules and common sense, I believe that both should be outlawed unless the affected people are granted protection that prohibits the passage of trains while these zones are worked in.
But what I am hearing here reminds me of the old link and pin coupler. Remember to always be alert when using the coupler. Always expect the coupler to close on your fingers. Always expect the coupler to bypass thus allowing the cars to crush you between the dead blocks. And never forget to always take the safe course.
charlie hebdo I say late because I think it would be wise to formalize this aspect of vetting because it is so important. A brief exam such as the Mini-Mental Status Exam or Cognistat would help in this process. There can be a rulebook 500 pages long (a problem in itself) but that is not as valuable as a guy who can and will think about consequences accurately.
Joe, listen to this advice carefully. Note that it's relevant both to railroad training and to 'union training'. It might be interesting to see detail changes that might be included in a 'rail-specific' version of such a test, which would involve close collaboration between Joe's "old head" railroaders and cognitive psychologists...
Overmod charlie hebdo I say late because I think it would be wise to formalize this aspect of vetting because it is so important. A brief exam such as the Mini-Mental Status Exam or Cognistat would help in this process. There can be a rulebook 500 pages long (a problem in itself) but that is not as valuable as a guy who can and will think about consequences accurately. Joe, listen to this advice carefully. Note that it's relevant both to railroad training and to 'union training'. It might be interesting to see detail changes that might be included in a 'rail-specific' version of such a test, which would involve close collaboration between Joe's "old head" railroaders and cognitive psychologists...
Clinical neuropsychologists would be more likely than cognitive because of familiarity with using tests in the 'real'world, not a lab.
EuclidI believe that both should be outlawed unless the affected people are granted protection that prohibits the passage of trains while these zones are worked in.
It remains to be seen if NTSB is smart enough to recognize the idea of T&E red-zome protection, and can implement it in some 'rules-based' form that doesn't degenerate into a paper-pushing excuse for piling up discipline and brownies.
I still wouldn't 'equate' the two situations because effective 'protection' for one can be radically different from the other. The 'safe course' for actual fouling can be little less than full restricted speed, while 'red zone' could be fixed speed-range reduction. While I'm normally against multiplying rules, I think it makes very good sense to distinguish the two senses of 'encroachment', develop a specific method of calling and confirming each, and setting a firm understanding for what engineers should do when protection is in force.
Of course, the problem is that working in the 'red zone' or actually in the foul still requires constant vigilance ... which is the thing the default 'safe course' requires in the first place. New rules can only reduce the danger -- in fact might increase it in some ways if they lull attentiveness.
(Most of the 'issues' with link and pin are solved with the Bishop coupling knife ... but as you noted, not the issue of bypassed drawheads. For that you need something that can be effectively positioned and worked from outside the foul zone between cars ... and if the Bishop knife is only for sissies you can imagine how a combination of scythe and brakestick would be received...)
All the protections in the world are defeated by those who decide, for whatever their reasons, not to use it.
As long as the final decision is in the hands of the individual - his will, will prevail.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
charlie hebdoClinical neuropsychologists would be more likely than cognitive because of familiarity with using tests in the 'real'world, not a lab.
Thank you.
BaltACD All the protections in the world are defeated by those who decide, for whatever their reasons, not to use it. As long as the final decision is in the hands of the individual - his will, will prevail.
All the protections in the world are not defeated by a person who decides not to use protection. The only protection that is defeated is the protection that the person decided not to use. For everyone else, the protections continue.
There are safety rules and guards all over the place. Most people comply with them because they realize the danger that the rules address; and because they don’t want to get fired for not following the rules. Also, many of the rules inform people of the danger that they might not realize without that information. So I don’t understand your point which seems to be that all rules are worthless because some people will ignore them. Most people will follow the rules, and the rules will prevent injuries and save lives. What’s wrong with that?
Euclid BaltACD All the protections in the world are defeated by those who decide, for whatever their reasons, not to use it. As long as the final decision is in the hands of the individual - his will, will prevail. All the protections in the world are not defeated by a person who decides not to use protection. The only protection that is defeated is the protection that the person decided not to use. For everyone else, the protections continue. There are safety rules and guards all over the place. Most people comply with them because they realize the danger that the rules address; and because they don’t want to get fired for not following the rules. Also, many of the rules inform people of the danger that they might not realize without that information. So I don’t understand your point which seems to be that all rules are worthless because some people will ignore them. Most people will follow the rules, and the rules will prevent injuries and save lives. What’s wrong with that?
The point being, the deceased did 'what THEY thought was the right thing under the circumstance that THEY viewed at the time THEY viewed them'. They were wrong.
BaltACD Euclid BaltACD All the protections in the world are defeated by those who decide, for whatever their reasons, not to use it. As long as the final decision is in the hands of the individual - his will, will prevail. All the protections in the world are NOT defeated by a person who decides not to use protection. The only protection that is defeated is the protection that the person decided not to use. For everyone else, the protections continue. There are safety rules and guards all over the place. Most people comply with them because they realize the danger that the rules address; and because they don’t want to get fired for not following the rules. Also, many of the rules inform people of the danger that they might not realize without that information. So I don’t understand your point which seems to be that all rules are worthless because some people will ignore them. Most people will follow the rules, and the rules will prevent injuries and save lives. What’s wrong with that? The point being, the deceased did 'what THEY thought was the right thing under the circumstance that THEY viewed at the time THEY viewed them'. They were wrong.
Euclid BaltACD All the protections in the world are defeated by those who decide, for whatever their reasons, not to use it. As long as the final decision is in the hands of the individual - his will, will prevail. All the protections in the world are NOT defeated by a person who decides not to use protection. The only protection that is defeated is the protection that the person decided not to use. For everyone else, the protections continue. There are safety rules and guards all over the place. Most people comply with them because they realize the danger that the rules address; and because they don’t want to get fired for not following the rules. Also, many of the rules inform people of the danger that they might not realize without that information. So I don’t understand your point which seems to be that all rules are worthless because some people will ignore them. Most people will follow the rules, and the rules will prevent injuries and save lives. What’s wrong with that?
All the protections in the world are NOT defeated by a person who decides not to use protection. The only protection that is defeated is the protection that the person decided not to use. For everyone else, the protections continue.
Well sure, that can happen. I thought your were finding a flaw with rules when you started by saying, "All the protections in the world are defeated by..."
Now had the two conductors been governed by a rule requiring them to obtain protection, I feel confident that they would have done so, and it would have saved their lives.
Euclid BaltACD Euclid BaltACD All the protections in the world are defeated by those who decide, for whatever their reasons, not to use it. As long as the final decision is in the hands of the individual - his will, will prevail. All the protections in the world are not defeated by a person who decides not to use protection. The only protection that is defeated is the protection that the person decided not to use. For everyone else, the protections continue. There are safety rules and guards all over the place. Most people comply with them because they realize the danger that the rules address; and because they don’t want to get fired for not following the rules. Also, many of the rules inform people of the danger that they might not realize without that information. So I don’t understand your point which seems to be that all rules are worthless because some people will ignore them. Most people will follow the rules, and the rules will prevent injuries and save lives. What’s wrong with that? The point being, the deceased did 'what THEY thought was the right thing under the circumstance that THEY viewed at the time THEY viewed them'. They were wrong. Well sure, that can happen. I thought your were finding a flaw with rules when you started by saying, "All the protections in the world are defeated by..." Now had the two conductors been governed by a rule requiring them to obtain protection, I feel confident that they would have done so, and it would have saved their lives.
BaltACD Euclid BaltACD All the protections in the world are defeated by those who decide, for whatever their reasons, not to use it. As long as the final decision is in the hands of the individual - his will, will prevail. All the protections in the world are not defeated by a person who decides not to use protection. The only protection that is defeated is the protection that the person decided not to use. For everyone else, the protections continue. There are safety rules and guards all over the place. Most people comply with them because they realize the danger that the rules address; and because they don’t want to get fired for not following the rules. Also, many of the rules inform people of the danger that they might not realize without that information. So I don’t understand your point which seems to be that all rules are worthless because some people will ignore them. Most people will follow the rules, and the rules will prevent injuries and save lives. What’s wrong with that? The point being, the deceased did 'what THEY thought was the right thing under the circumstance that THEY viewed at the time THEY viewed them'. They were wrong.
Until we can download their final thought train we will never know. They may have pondered a number of actions supported by the rules that were in effect at the time - and then they said 'F it'. You don't know, I don't know and we will never know.
BaltACD Euclid BaltACD Euclid BaltACD All the protections in the world are defeated by those who decide, for whatever their reasons, not to use it. As long as the final decision is in the hands of the individual - his will, will prevail. All the protections in the world are NOT defeated by a person who decides not to use protection. The only protection that is defeated is the protection that the person decided not to use. For everyone else, the protections continue. There are safety rules and guards all over the place. Most people comply with them because they realize the danger that the rules address; and because they don’t want to get fired for not following the rules. Also, many of the rules inform people of the danger that they might not realize without that information. So I don’t understand your point which seems to be that all rules are worthless because some people will ignore them. Most people will follow the rules, and the rules will prevent injuries and save lives. What’s wrong with that? The point being, the deceased did 'what THEY thought was the right thing under the circumstance that THEY viewed at the time THEY viewed them'. They were wrong. Well sure, that can happen. I thought your were finding a flaw with rules when you started by saying, "All the protections in the world are defeated by..." Now had the two conductors been governed by a rule requiring them to obtain protection, I feel confident that they would have done so, and it would have saved their lives. Until we can download their final thought train we will never know. They may have pondered a number of actions supported by the rules that were in effect at the time - and then they said 'F it'. You don't know, I don't know and we will never know.
Euclid BaltACD Euclid BaltACD All the protections in the world are defeated by those who decide, for whatever their reasons, not to use it. As long as the final decision is in the hands of the individual - his will, will prevail. All the protections in the world are NOT defeated by a person who decides not to use protection. The only protection that is defeated is the protection that the person decided not to use. For everyone else, the protections continue. There are safety rules and guards all over the place. Most people comply with them because they realize the danger that the rules address; and because they don’t want to get fired for not following the rules. Also, many of the rules inform people of the danger that they might not realize without that information. So I don’t understand your point which seems to be that all rules are worthless because some people will ignore them. Most people will follow the rules, and the rules will prevent injuries and save lives. What’s wrong with that? The point being, the deceased did 'what THEY thought was the right thing under the circumstance that THEY viewed at the time THEY viewed them'. They were wrong. Well sure, that can happen. I thought your were finding a flaw with rules when you started by saying, "All the protections in the world are defeated by..." Now had the two conductors been governed by a rule requiring them to obtain protection, I feel confident that they would have done so, and it would have saved their lives.
The only rule that applied was to be alert for trains. Protection would have kept the trains away from them. I am confident that if protection was required by a rule, they would have complied.
If they only had #175 coming up behind them, and no #66 coming at them; and then if they did not get out of the way, I would say yes we would need to know their thoughts to understand why on earth they did not move out of the way. But under the actual circumstances of the two trains, I think what happened is perfectly understandable without knowing what they were thinking.
Let's face it folks, until we all agree that the two crewmen were totally blameless in their own deaths, and that the fault rests solely with CSX (and to some extent Amtrak), Bucky will not be satisfied.
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...
Larry, I believe you are a real prophet.
Johnny
Euclid As I mentioned on the previous page, I want to isolate the actual rules broken by the two victims; as opposed to various opinions about how advisable their activities were. So, I have established that there was no rule, special instruction, or any type of company edict that prohibited the two employees walking on the Amtrak track. Also, there was no rule, special instruction, or any type of company edict that required the two employees to have protection while walking on the Amtrak track. Their actual rules violation is addressed in the CSX Safe Way rules, which can be found at this link: https://www.dot.ny.gov/main/business-center/designbuildproject/repository/CSXT_Safeway_2012_07-01.pdf Refer to these quotes from the CSX Safe Way rules: GS-10. On or About Tracks When working on or about tracks: • Apply the appropriate protection (3 –Step, Roadway Worker, Blue Signal, etc.) for your job classification where required. • Be alert for and keep clear of the movement of cars, locomotives, or equipment at any time, in either direction, on any track. • Do not cross within 25 feet of the end of standing cars, equipment, or locomotives, except when proper protection is provided. • Stand at least: - 30 feet or more from a switch or derail associated with the route of passing equipment, when practical. - 10 feet or more from a switch or derail being traversed by equipment during switching operations when practical. • Stop and look in both directions before making any of the following movements: - Fouling or crossing a track. - Moving from under or between equipment. - Getting on or off equipment. - Operating a switch. • You may cross more than one track without stopping at each track if you determine it is safe to do so. The only rule that the two employees violated was the one I highlighted in red: Be alert for and keep clear of the movement of cars, locomotives, or equipment at any time, in either direction, on any track. We know that they violated that rule during the last ten seconds of their lives. That is the extent of their rules violation that we know of.
As I mentioned on the previous page, I want to isolate the actual rules broken by the two victims; as opposed to various opinions about how advisable their activities were.
So, I have established that there was no rule, special instruction, or any type of company edict that prohibited the two employees walking on the Amtrak track.
Also, there was no rule, special instruction, or any type of company edict that required the two employees to have protection while walking on the Amtrak track.
Their actual rules violation is addressed in the CSX Safe Way rules, which can be found at this link:
https://www.dot.ny.gov/main/business-center/designbuildproject/repository/CSXT_Safeway_2012_07-01.pdf
Refer to these quotes from the CSX Safe Way rules:
GS-10. On or About Tracks
When working on or about tracks:
• Apply the appropriate protection (3 –Step, Roadway Worker, Blue
Signal, etc.) for your job classification where required.
• Be alert for and keep clear of the movement of cars, locomotives, or
equipment at any time, in either direction, on any track.
• Do not cross within 25 feet of the end of standing cars, equipment, or
locomotives, except when proper protection is provided.
• Stand at least:
- 30 feet or more from a switch or derail associated with the route of
passing equipment, when practical.
- 10 feet or more from a switch or derail being traversed by
equipment during switching operations when practical.
• Stop and look in both directions before making any of the following
movements:
- Fouling or crossing a track.
- Moving from under or between equipment.
- Getting on or off equipment.
- Operating a switch.
• You may cross more than one track without stopping at each track if you
determine it is safe to do so.
The only rule that the two employees violated was the one I highlighted in red:
Be alert for and keep clear of the movement of cars, locomotives, or equipment at any time, in either direction, on any track.
We know that they violated that rule during the last ten seconds of their lives.
That is the extent of their rules violation that we know of.
The above quote is what I actually said and believe to be true.
They were trying to telepathically contact Bucky as they walked. Attempt was not successful.
tree68 Let's face it folks, until we all agree that the two crewmen were totally blameless in their own deaths, and that the fault rests solely with CSX (and to some extent Amtrak), Bucky will not be satisfied.
I concur. Time to stop feeding his internal dialogue.
In reviewing the interview with the CSX engineer, it seems clear that the two conductors were inspecting both sides of the train at the time it was stopped at the accident site. They were not just walking forward after riding the cars up from the first location the train had stopped earlier.
So at that second location at which the train stopped, the two conductors got off, one on each side, and the train pulled past them as they inspected it. Then after their inspection, they walked forward together on the Amtrak side.
The engineer does state that he was surprised that they walked up together on the Amtrak side, considering the heightened danger posed by Amtrak. Also, the engineer could not have known whether they were walking in the clear of the Amtrak track or if they were walking in the Amtrak foul zone. So apparently, the engineer felt that the Amtrak side was too dangerous to walk on, even if in the clear of the Amtrak foul zone.
The engineer also says that when they first got off the engine to start the inspection, the trainee conductor got off on the non-Amtrak side and the senior conductor got off on the Amtrak side. The engineer stated that, at the time they got off the engine, he thought that the senior conductor chose to get off on the most dangerous side (because of nearness to Amtrak) because he had more experience to deal with that heightened danger.
So, what this information indicates is that the engineer feels that the Amtrak side was too dangerous to walk on, but not too dangerous to perform the required inspection work on. How can that be reconciled? It seems to me that if it is too risky to walk there, it is too risky to work there.
Overall, the engineer did have a clear understanding that the one or both conductors would be performing inspection work on the Amtrak side of the CXS train, but he did not determine that protection should have been requested and obtained.
If protection was required, or even just available, but not required, it seems natural that the engineer and conductors would have requested it, given the engineer’s interview comments about how they used an informal type of 3-step protection for fouling the CSX train in such activity as releasing handbrakes. They had a discussion about how they would use a system that basically performed 3-step protection without the actual formal 3-step protection being available on CSX.
Too bad you could not understand what you read Bucky.
Just checked in to see how the horse was doing.
Not well, it would seem.
In the engineer’s interview, he explains things as though they might be possible reasons for the two conductors not walking back on the north side of the track, which he deems to be safer than the south side because the south side abuts the dangerous Amtrak track.
He said he was not expecting them to walk on that south side due to the heightened danger. He also said that he never said anything to warn them not to walk on the south side. They he gave an example of what he might have said as a warning to them.
He also said that walking on the south side would have required protection, and that he was not sure if protection could have been obtained; and that he did not know how to go about the process of obtaining protection. However, because he assumed they would be walking on the north side, it also assumed that protection would not be necessary.
In this same line of discussion about why the two conductors walked on the dangerous south side, the engineer refers to there being a ditch on the north side of the CSX tracks, which is the non-Amtrak side, but he seems to stop short of what he intended to say. He said there was a ditch and ballast, and then he stopped as though he had more to say about it but did not say it.
However, by connecting the two issues of a ditch and ballast; it seems to me that his point was that ballast was steeply sloped downward, away from the track and that it continued downward into the lower elevations leading down into the ditch. In other words, the ballast was a difficult walking surface because it sloped downward. Then instead of the down-sloping ballast ending shortly and reaching a level roadbed, it continued sloping until the level walking surface was the bottom of a ditch.
Then, in covering this same subject matter for subsequent interviewer, the engineer refers to there being a ditch filled with water on the north side of the track.
It seems to me that the point of first mentioning the ditch and the ballast, and then adding that the ditch was filled with water, is this point: The two conductors did not walk on the north side because the steep ballast sloping down into a ditch filled with water would have been difficult, treacherous, and unpleasant to walk on. It apparently was steeply sloped, loose rock ballast from the side of the CSX train down to a water-filled ditch. It seems to me that this could very well explain why the two conductors chose to walk on the Amtrak side rather than fight this very difficult terrain of the north side.
Also, this water-filled ditch and steep ballast is not at all apparent in the two photos of the head end of the CSX train viewed looking at it near head-on. In those photos, the ground on the north side of the train is wide and flat with a service road on it. Apparently, those features end before reaching back to the location where the conductors decided to walk on south side.
A perfect storm of events created this tragedy. Poor vetting ,poor training , poor supervision, and lack of common sense coupled with inexperience and bad decisions on the parts of the CSX crew and Amtrak 175 engineer. CSX and Amtrak also bear responsibility for this tragedy
243129 A perfect storm of events created this tragedy. Poor vetting ,poor training , poor supervision, and lack of common sense coupled with inexperience and bad decisions on the parts of the CSX crew and Amtrak 175 engineer. CSX and Amtrak also bear responsibility for this tragedy
I think that sums it up perfectly.
It was indeed a perfect storm, in the sense that necessary ingredients needed to come together at the same time, and that being relatively unlikely. The main set of ingredients was the simultaneous convergence of two trains at the precise location of two people who were not wary enough to expect that. Then, the first train they saw absorbed all their attention and none was left to at least accidentally notice the second train at the same time that it was becoming more obvious as it drew closer.
Had #66 not arrived at the site the same moment as #175, I don’t believe there was a chance that the two victims would have been struck. Also, had the two Amtrak engineers not “laid on the horn” over the final approach, there is a very good chance that the two victims would have realized that there were two trains approaching instead of one. The distraction affecting the two victims might have been obvious to any alert engineer who spots people who fail to move while seeming oblivious to an approaching train.
The last thing that should be done is for both engineers to lay on the horn; as if the problem is that the horn is not loud enough to get the attention of the people on the track. The horns were loud enough to be heard a mile away. Obviously the two conductors heard both horns loud and clear. But the laying on the horn by both engineers for the entire 10-15 seconds of their approach guaranteed that the two victims would here the two horns as being one. And as they attributed this to only #66, their attention became riveted on that train as they perhaps wondered why the unusually long horn blast. Drawing their attention to #66 diminished the possibility that they would suddenly perceive that #175 was sneaking up behind them.
The proper horn signal in this type of emergency is a series of short horn blasts. This would have made it much more likely for the victims to be able to notice that there were two horns at work. With a series of short blasts, it would not be possible for the two signals to perfectly match their timing. If the horn signals failed match timing, it would have been more noticeable that there were two horns instead of one. That would be the most beneficial horn warning effect. It is exactly opposite of the effect of both engineers “laying on the horn.”
Nevertheless, both engineers laid on the horn as though they believed more horn is better. Actually, if the engineer of #66 never blew the horn, I am certain that the two conductors would have realized the horn they were hearing was behind them. So they would have gotten out of the way.
And to think - the simple expedient of not walking on the ends of the ties of a 95 MPH mainline (with their backs to the current of traffic) would have prevented it.
tree68 And to think - the simple expedient of not walking on the ends of the ties of a 95 MPH mainline (with their backs to the current of traffic) would have prevented it.
Yup.
I must say that I am quite impressed. This thread is now 15 pages long, and not one mention of the Darwin award. Some of you are finding compassion in old age, perhaps?
Convicted One I must say that I am quite impressed. This thread is now 15 pages long, and not one mention of the Darwin award. Some of you are finding compassion in old age, perhaps?
There are many Darwin Awards to be handed out. Let us start with the NTSB and their contradictory report which I called to their attention to and they have not corrected.
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/RAB1901.pdf
I call your attention to page four, paragraph one, third to the last sentence of NTSB report RAB-1901.
Secondly I call your attention to page six, paragraph six, the last sentence.
What did the engineer of Amtrak #175 do wrong?
243129Let us start with the NTSB and their contradictory report which I called to their attention to and they have not corrected. https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/RAB1901.pdf
Link: https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/RAB1901.pdf
Quotes cited for clarity.
Page 4, paragraph one: "After the impact, at 11:18 p.m., the engineer placed the train into emergency braking, announced emergency three times on the radio, and called the Amtrak dispatch center via the radio."
Page 6, paragraph six: "On the day of the accident, she [engineer of train #175] departed New York Penn Station at 8:06 p.m. According to the event recorder and the engineer interview, the Amtrak engineer responded immediately and applied emergency braking upon seeing the CSX employees walking near the tracks."
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.