Dyslexia is not an insult. It is a diagnostic category.
Being on the "Amtrak side" of their train does not equate with walking on the ties of Amtrak's track.
tree68 Euclid So I am surprised that anyone would blame the two victims while giving CSX a free pass. It is said that the rulebook is written in blood. If there had ever been a situation like this, with crew members walking on a ROW they had no business walking on, and then getting caught (in this case, killed), there would have been a rule. In the meantime, the existing rules seem to have worked in the past. Rules are of no use if people don't abide by them.
Euclid So I am surprised that anyone would blame the two victims while giving CSX a free pass.
It is said that the rulebook is written in blood. If there had ever been a situation like this, with crew members walking on a ROW they had no business walking on, and then getting caught (in this case, killed), there would have been a rule.
In the meantime, the existing rules seem to have worked in the past. Rules are of no use if people don't abide by them.
I can't say that they broke no rule, but I am talking about proportionality. For a company that smothers empolyees with rules and hides in the weeds to catch them violating a rule. And with all these rules being about safety; it seems odd that they would send employees into such a dangerous situation without the well established concept of protection.
You keep saying the employees had no business being there. While the employees may have broken a rule by lapsing into ten seconds of distraction as two opposing trains laid on the horn; they had every right to be there if you mean walking on the Amtrak track. It was not prohibited. The NTSB said nothing about an issue of trespass. You can say it was not avisable due to the danger, but how do you get to impose that on others as your personal opinion? It is only a rule that would make it wrong to be there in the only terms that count.
I disagree with your analogy about walking down the middle of a busy highway. That does not compare at all with what the two employees were doing. And it makes no difference whether the CSX engineer could not understand why they walked on the Amtrak track.
And also remember that we are talking about this accident and the general practice in the past and the future. That practice includes the possible need to inspect both sides of the train. How do employees do that if they have no right to be on the Amtrak side?
Those trainmen were only 25 and 20 years old.
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...
charlie hebdo Dyslexia is not an insult. It is a diagnostic category.
So charlie show me where I was wrong. You and BaltACD have been confronted for proof of your claims and you have not (cannot) provide it.
Prove me dyslexic.
There is no way I can read this great disagreement being waged here and understand what is at issue. Too much quoted text, and too little explanation. We need to see the big picture.
In any case, there is a rule that thoroughly covers foul time or protection that keeps trains away from people working on the ground.
However the rule does not require any use of foul time. There is no requirement to use foul time in what might be considered dangerous situations in which foul time might seem necessary. It is only an option. Read the rule. It says nothing about a requirement to use it.
So even if this foul time rule applies to both Amtrak and CSX, it does not require either company to grant foul time for any situations. It only governs how foul time works if it is granted.
See quote from NTSB report below in blue, in which the NTSB describes foul time (or "protection" as they call it), how it may be used, and how the NTSB wishes it will be used in the most confusing narrative imaginable. They seem to be saying that the readily available process for foul time is not normally used for cases like Ivy City.
But they say that it could be used as such; as if it has never been used that way before.
Also, apparently this communication that NTSB says “could be used” is something that would work between two different companies such as CSX and Amtrak. They say that is readily available, which suggests that the problem of communicating it between two different companies is not a problem at all.
But still this protection is not mandatory. So NTSB concludes with their recommendation that it be made mandatory. Quote from the report:
“However, there are circumstances when the operating employees cannot safely walk away from the other railroad’s tracks. In these situations, when the crew is fouling the other railroad’s adjacent track, they would need protection.
A current process is readily available to provide this protection. For example, a train dispatcher will communicate with another train dispatcher from a different railroad if a derailed train has obstructed an adjacent railroad’s track. This derailment would be an emergency and has the possibility of contributing to an additional collision and derailment.
The NTSB believes that this same communication could be used to protect employees that find it necessary to occupy the other railroad’s active tracks.
Therefore, to eliminate the hazard of unknown traffic on adjacent tracks of other railroads, the NTSB recommends that CSX and Amtrak prohibit employees from fouling adjacent tracks of another railroad unless the employees are provided protection from trains and/or equipment on the adjacent tracks by means of communication between the two railroads.”
charlie hebdo 243129 charlie hebdo It's clearly there as I explained. The inability to infer answers from the context is a form of dyslexia, specifically reading comprehension. Try reading what he said in several posts. So show me exactly where CSX rules are mentioned in Balt's response to tree 68. You cannot that is why you did not. BTW. Just because you seem to have dyslexia and thus can't follow discussions and have manners typical of PC employees, giving orders to other members is out of line. Ditto with insults. Maybe that worked for you with junior crew members on Amtrak, but not on here.
243129 charlie hebdo It's clearly there as I explained. The inability to infer answers from the context is a form of dyslexia, specifically reading comprehension. Try reading what he said in several posts. So show me exactly where CSX rules are mentioned in Balt's response to tree 68. You cannot that is why you did not.
charlie hebdo It's clearly there as I explained. The inability to infer answers from the context is a form of dyslexia, specifically reading comprehension. Try reading what he said in several posts.
So show me exactly where CSX rules are mentioned in Balt's response to tree 68. You cannot that is why you did not.
BTW. Just because you seem to have dyslexia and thus can't follow discussions and have manners typical of PC employees, giving orders to other members is out of line. Ditto with insults. Maybe that worked for you with junior crew members on Amtrak, but not on here.
So you can't show me where I'm wrong eh charlie? I'm not surprised. "Insults"?? It seems that you are the one launching insults. Calling me dyslexic for instance.
243129 243129 243129 BaltACD tree68 NORAC already has a rule in place that would apply in this situation: V. Fouling Tracks Fouling a track may be necessary in the performance of railroad work. Employees must expect the movement of trains, locomotives, or other on-track equipment at any time, on any track, in either direction. Employees must maintain a vigilant lookout for and detect the approach of a train, locomotive or other railroad equipment moving in either direction. Proper safeguards for the job classification needing protection must be in place before fouling any track. Direct copy and paste from NORAC, 11th Edition. I have no reason to doubt that CSX has the same, or a very similar, rule. Amtrak uses NORAC. In addition, there are specific rules about fouling track: 140. Foul Time Foul Time may be issued only by the Dispatcher. A. Action Required Prior to Issuance Before issuing or authorizing Foul Time, the Dispatcher must determine that no trains or other on-track equipment have been authorized to occupy the track segment to be fouled. In signaled territory, the Dispatcher must ensure that Stop Signals have been displayed and blocking devices applied to controls of switches and signals leading to the affected track. When trains are to be held at a TBS where blocking devices cannot be applied, the Dispatcher must issue Form D line 13 instructing the Operator to hold trains clear of the affected track. B. Permission to Foul Permission to foul the track must include the following information: 1. Title and name of employee receiving foul time 2. Track designation 3. Track limits (between/at) 4. Time limits The receiving employee must repeat this permission and the Dispatcher must then confirm it before the Foul Time becomes effective. C. Releasing Foul Time Once protection has been provided, it must be maintained until the employee who was granted the foul time has released the foul time. The employee who was granted Foul Time must not release the Foul Time until they have ensured that all fouling activity under their authority has been cleared. The release must include the employee's title and name, and the track designation and limits being released. This information must be repeated by the Dispatcher, and confirmed by the employee releasing the foul time before blocking devices are removed. NORAC 11th Edition – February 1, 2018 To my knowledge - those rules are taught to MofW personnel, not T&E personnel. Not saying that it shouldn't be taught to T&E - just that it is not. "Just that it is not" seems to indicate that you purport to have knowledge of Amtrak rules. You do not and you have disappointed your cheerleader. You say "those rules" which are in direct reference tree 68's post which contains the NORAC 11th Edition – February 1, 2018 rules and you are now trying to say that you are referring to B&O rules??? Nice try at damage control. Show me where CSX rules are mentioned in tree 68's post that you responded to. What does me attending or having attended CSX rules have to do with anything? I had no reason to and have not purported to be knowledgeable of them as you did with NORAC.
243129 243129 BaltACD tree68 NORAC already has a rule in place that would apply in this situation: V. Fouling Tracks Fouling a track may be necessary in the performance of railroad work. Employees must expect the movement of trains, locomotives, or other on-track equipment at any time, on any track, in either direction. Employees must maintain a vigilant lookout for and detect the approach of a train, locomotive or other railroad equipment moving in either direction. Proper safeguards for the job classification needing protection must be in place before fouling any track. Direct copy and paste from NORAC, 11th Edition. I have no reason to doubt that CSX has the same, or a very similar, rule. Amtrak uses NORAC. In addition, there are specific rules about fouling track: 140. Foul Time Foul Time may be issued only by the Dispatcher. A. Action Required Prior to Issuance Before issuing or authorizing Foul Time, the Dispatcher must determine that no trains or other on-track equipment have been authorized to occupy the track segment to be fouled. In signaled territory, the Dispatcher must ensure that Stop Signals have been displayed and blocking devices applied to controls of switches and signals leading to the affected track. When trains are to be held at a TBS where blocking devices cannot be applied, the Dispatcher must issue Form D line 13 instructing the Operator to hold trains clear of the affected track. B. Permission to Foul Permission to foul the track must include the following information: 1. Title and name of employee receiving foul time 2. Track designation 3. Track limits (between/at) 4. Time limits The receiving employee must repeat this permission and the Dispatcher must then confirm it before the Foul Time becomes effective. C. Releasing Foul Time Once protection has been provided, it must be maintained until the employee who was granted the foul time has released the foul time. The employee who was granted Foul Time must not release the Foul Time until they have ensured that all fouling activity under their authority has been cleared. The release must include the employee's title and name, and the track designation and limits being released. This information must be repeated by the Dispatcher, and confirmed by the employee releasing the foul time before blocking devices are removed. NORAC 11th Edition – February 1, 2018 To my knowledge - those rules are taught to MofW personnel, not T&E personnel. Not saying that it shouldn't be taught to T&E - just that it is not. "Just that it is not" seems to indicate that you purport to have knowledge of Amtrak rules. You do not and you have disappointed your cheerleader. You say "those rules" which are in direct reference tree 68's post which contains the NORAC 11th Edition – February 1, 2018 rules and you are now trying to say that you are referring to B&O rules??? Nice try at damage control.
243129 BaltACD tree68 NORAC already has a rule in place that would apply in this situation: V. Fouling Tracks Fouling a track may be necessary in the performance of railroad work. Employees must expect the movement of trains, locomotives, or other on-track equipment at any time, on any track, in either direction. Employees must maintain a vigilant lookout for and detect the approach of a train, locomotive or other railroad equipment moving in either direction. Proper safeguards for the job classification needing protection must be in place before fouling any track. Direct copy and paste from NORAC, 11th Edition. I have no reason to doubt that CSX has the same, or a very similar, rule. Amtrak uses NORAC. In addition, there are specific rules about fouling track: 140. Foul Time Foul Time may be issued only by the Dispatcher. A. Action Required Prior to Issuance Before issuing or authorizing Foul Time, the Dispatcher must determine that no trains or other on-track equipment have been authorized to occupy the track segment to be fouled. In signaled territory, the Dispatcher must ensure that Stop Signals have been displayed and blocking devices applied to controls of switches and signals leading to the affected track. When trains are to be held at a TBS where blocking devices cannot be applied, the Dispatcher must issue Form D line 13 instructing the Operator to hold trains clear of the affected track. B. Permission to Foul Permission to foul the track must include the following information: 1. Title and name of employee receiving foul time 2. Track designation 3. Track limits (between/at) 4. Time limits The receiving employee must repeat this permission and the Dispatcher must then confirm it before the Foul Time becomes effective. C. Releasing Foul Time Once protection has been provided, it must be maintained until the employee who was granted the foul time has released the foul time. The employee who was granted Foul Time must not release the Foul Time until they have ensured that all fouling activity under their authority has been cleared. The release must include the employee's title and name, and the track designation and limits being released. This information must be repeated by the Dispatcher, and confirmed by the employee releasing the foul time before blocking devices are removed. NORAC 11th Edition – February 1, 2018 To my knowledge - those rules are taught to MofW personnel, not T&E personnel. Not saying that it shouldn't be taught to T&E - just that it is not. "Just that it is not" seems to indicate that you purport to have knowledge of Amtrak rules. You do not and you have disappointed your cheerleader.
BaltACD tree68 NORAC already has a rule in place that would apply in this situation: V. Fouling Tracks Fouling a track may be necessary in the performance of railroad work. Employees must expect the movement of trains, locomotives, or other on-track equipment at any time, on any track, in either direction. Employees must maintain a vigilant lookout for and detect the approach of a train, locomotive or other railroad equipment moving in either direction. Proper safeguards for the job classification needing protection must be in place before fouling any track. Direct copy and paste from NORAC, 11th Edition. I have no reason to doubt that CSX has the same, or a very similar, rule. Amtrak uses NORAC. In addition, there are specific rules about fouling track: 140. Foul Time Foul Time may be issued only by the Dispatcher. A. Action Required Prior to Issuance Before issuing or authorizing Foul Time, the Dispatcher must determine that no trains or other on-track equipment have been authorized to occupy the track segment to be fouled. In signaled territory, the Dispatcher must ensure that Stop Signals have been displayed and blocking devices applied to controls of switches and signals leading to the affected track. When trains are to be held at a TBS where blocking devices cannot be applied, the Dispatcher must issue Form D line 13 instructing the Operator to hold trains clear of the affected track. B. Permission to Foul Permission to foul the track must include the following information: 1. Title and name of employee receiving foul time 2. Track designation 3. Track limits (between/at) 4. Time limits The receiving employee must repeat this permission and the Dispatcher must then confirm it before the Foul Time becomes effective. C. Releasing Foul Time Once protection has been provided, it must be maintained until the employee who was granted the foul time has released the foul time. The employee who was granted Foul Time must not release the Foul Time until they have ensured that all fouling activity under their authority has been cleared. The release must include the employee's title and name, and the track designation and limits being released. This information must be repeated by the Dispatcher, and confirmed by the employee releasing the foul time before blocking devices are removed. NORAC 11th Edition – February 1, 2018 To my knowledge - those rules are taught to MofW personnel, not T&E personnel. Not saying that it shouldn't be taught to T&E - just that it is not.
tree68 NORAC already has a rule in place that would apply in this situation: V. Fouling Tracks Fouling a track may be necessary in the performance of railroad work. Employees must expect the movement of trains, locomotives, or other on-track equipment at any time, on any track, in either direction. Employees must maintain a vigilant lookout for and detect the approach of a train, locomotive or other railroad equipment moving in either direction. Proper safeguards for the job classification needing protection must be in place before fouling any track. Direct copy and paste from NORAC, 11th Edition. I have no reason to doubt that CSX has the same, or a very similar, rule. Amtrak uses NORAC. In addition, there are specific rules about fouling track: 140. Foul Time Foul Time may be issued only by the Dispatcher. A. Action Required Prior to Issuance Before issuing or authorizing Foul Time, the Dispatcher must determine that no trains or other on-track equipment have been authorized to occupy the track segment to be fouled. In signaled territory, the Dispatcher must ensure that Stop Signals have been displayed and blocking devices applied to controls of switches and signals leading to the affected track. When trains are to be held at a TBS where blocking devices cannot be applied, the Dispatcher must issue Form D line 13 instructing the Operator to hold trains clear of the affected track. B. Permission to Foul Permission to foul the track must include the following information: 1. Title and name of employee receiving foul time 2. Track designation 3. Track limits (between/at) 4. Time limits The receiving employee must repeat this permission and the Dispatcher must then confirm it before the Foul Time becomes effective. C. Releasing Foul Time Once protection has been provided, it must be maintained until the employee who was granted the foul time has released the foul time. The employee who was granted Foul Time must not release the Foul Time until they have ensured that all fouling activity under their authority has been cleared. The release must include the employee's title and name, and the track designation and limits being released. This information must be repeated by the Dispatcher, and confirmed by the employee releasing the foul time before blocking devices are removed. NORAC 11th Edition – February 1, 2018
V. Fouling Tracks Fouling a track may be necessary in the performance of railroad work. Employees must expect the movement of trains, locomotives, or other on-track equipment at any time, on any track, in either direction. Employees must maintain a vigilant lookout for and detect the approach of a train, locomotive or other railroad equipment moving in either direction. Proper safeguards for the job classification needing protection must be in place before fouling any track.
Direct copy and paste from NORAC, 11th Edition.
I have no reason to doubt that CSX has the same, or a very similar, rule. Amtrak uses NORAC.
In addition, there are specific rules about fouling track:
140. Foul Time Foul Time may be issued only by the Dispatcher.
A. Action Required Prior to Issuance Before issuing or authorizing Foul Time, the Dispatcher must determine that no trains or other on-track equipment have been authorized to occupy the track segment to be fouled. In signaled territory, the Dispatcher must ensure that Stop Signals have been displayed and blocking devices applied to controls of switches and signals leading to the affected track. When trains are to be held at a TBS where blocking devices cannot be applied, the Dispatcher must issue Form D line 13 instructing the Operator to hold trains clear of the affected track.
B. Permission to Foul Permission to foul the track must include the following information:
1. Title and name of employee receiving foul time
2. Track designation
3. Track limits (between/at)
4. Time limits
The receiving employee must repeat this permission and the Dispatcher must then confirm it before the Foul Time becomes effective.
C. Releasing Foul Time Once protection has been provided, it must be maintained until the employee who was granted the foul time has released the foul time. The employee who was granted Foul Time must not release the Foul Time until they have ensured that all fouling activity under their authority has been cleared. The release must include the employee's title and name, and the track designation and limits being released. This information must be repeated by the Dispatcher, and confirmed by the employee releasing the foul time before blocking devices are removed.
NORAC 11th Edition – February 1, 2018
To my knowledge - those rules are taught to MofW personnel, not T&E personnel. Not saying that it shouldn't be taught to T&E - just that it is not.
"Just that it is not" seems to indicate that you purport to have knowledge of Amtrak rules. You do not and you have disappointed your cheerleader.
You say "those rules" which are in direct reference tree 68's post which contains the NORAC 11th Edition – February 1, 2018 rules and you are now trying to say that you are referring to B&O rules??? Nice try at damage control.
Show me where CSX rules are mentioned in tree 68's post that you responded to.
What does me attending or having attended CSX rules have to do with anything? I had no reason to and have not purported to be knowledgeable of them as you did with NORAC.
Here ya go BaltACD it's all here show me where I'm wrong.
BaltACD 243129 charlie hebdo It's clearly there as I explained. The inability to infer answers from the context is a form of dyslexia, specifically reading comprehension. Try reading what he said in several posts. So show me exactly where CSX rules are mentioned in Balt's response to tree 68. You cannot that is why you did not. I have NEVER mentioned Amtrak Rules. I don't have a Amtrak Rule Book and have never attended a Amtrak Rules Class. Any assertion that I have intimated Amtrak procedures are totally between 243129's ears from a lack of reading comprehension.
I have NEVER mentioned Amtrak Rules. I don't have a Amtrak Rule Book and have never attended a Amtrak Rules Class. Any assertion that I have intimated Amtrak procedures are totally between 243129's ears from a lack of reading comprehension.
You responded to tree68's post concerning NORAC did you not?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
deleted
charlie hebdoIt's clearly there as I explained. The inability to infer answers from the context is a form of dyslexia, specifically reading comprehension. Try reading what he said in several posts.
243129 charlie hebdo Jeez, to paraphrase a classic film, what a failure in communication we've got! It's reasonably clear to a person with even average reading comprehension skills (which include contextual meaning) that BaltACD is referring solely to CSX rules and practices, not Amtrak's. OK then show me where he is referring "solely to CSX rules" in BaltACD's response to tree 68's post.
charlie hebdo Jeez, to paraphrase a classic film, what a failure in communication we've got! It's reasonably clear to a person with even average reading comprehension skills (which include contextual meaning) that BaltACD is referring solely to CSX rules and practices, not Amtrak's.
OK then show me where he is referring "solely to CSX rules" in BaltACD's response to tree 68's post.
It's clearly there as I explained. The inability to infer answers from the context is a form of dyslexia, specifically reading comprehension. Try reading what he said in several posts.
charlie hebdoJeez, to paraphrase a classic film, what a failure in communication we've got! It's reasonably clear to a person with even average reading comprehension skills (which include contextual meaning) that BaltACD is referring solely to CSX rules and practices, not Amtrak's.
OK then show me where he is referring "solely to CSX rules" in BaltACD's response to tree 68's post. See my above post for reference.
EuclidBut CSX should have known about the monstrous consequences and made protection mandatory just like all the other mandatory rules they have covering every little tidbit about safety.
Hey, how about this one "If you are an engineer who has fellow crewmen out on the ground, and you are stopped next to another railroads main line, then don't go into the bathroom until your crew are safely back on board"?
Seems like an extra pair of eyes might have been useful in this incident (hindsight I'll admit)
tree68 Euclid Yet they were obviously distracted and did not realize it. If they were distracted, they should have stepped off the ROW to a safe place, never mind any trains that might be approaching.
Euclid
Yet they were obviously distracted and did not realize it.
If they were distracted, they should have stepped off the ROW to a safe place, never mind any trains that might be approaching.
I don't think they realized they were distracted. That is the nature of distraction. It is like that guy who tipped over the Amrak train in Philadephia because he lost situational awareness. If he would have realized he had lost it, with that realization, he would have gained it back.
These two conductors got caught by something they had never anticipated in this convergence of two trains sounding like one train. Is that negligence? I suppose it is if you expect no mistakes. But everybody makes little mistakes all day long. It is just that they don't have the monstrous consequences of this little mistake. But CSX should have known about the monstrous consequences and made protection mandatory just like all the other mandatory rules they have covering every little tidbit about safety. If a little mistake is known to have such dire consequences, a better form of prevention is needed. That is common sense. So I am surprised that anyone would blame the two victims while giving CSX a free pass.
EuclidI don't think you can conclude that the two people were someplace they should not have been. The report makes it crystal clear that they were not prohibited from walking on that track.
You're not prohibited from walking down the middle of a busy highway (unless it's a freeway, in which case it is prohibited) during rush hour, either, but prudence dictates that you not do it.
Regardless of whether it was prohibited by a rule, walking on a high-speed railroad ROW shows a lack of that same prudence. Hence the conclusion that they should not have been where they were.
Had they taken the safe course (which is a rule) and stayed off that ROW, we would not be having this discussion. Not being alert to the possibility of a train in either direction just piles on top of that.
Euclid Yet they were obviously distracted and did not realize it.
EuclidThe only point I question about their behavior is their decision to remain walking on the Amtrak track as #66 passed. Most people would back off that track and move as close as possible to the CSX train.
You're right - most people would - and in the process probably would have seen the other train approaching.
Their deaths are a terrible loss - but if they had abided by existing rules, they'd still be alive.
The rule requiring protection would probably produce one good result - if a crew was planning to do something that required them to obtain foul time but could get by without having to get it - they wouldn't do it in the first place.
tree68 But that still doesn't change the fact that the only piece missing is coordination between the two railroads if employees of one will foul the track of the other. Someone still has to initiate the request for said protection. And that's got to be the crew. The dispatcher has no idea if such protection is needed. And even their own engineer couldn't understand why they were where they were, as noted in the report. In the end, two people were someplace they should not have been, and were not sufficiently aware of their surroundings. There is nothing in the report that says anything different. We'll never know why they took that route, nor why they didn't look both ways.
But that still doesn't change the fact that the only piece missing is coordination between the two railroads if employees of one will foul the track of the other.
Someone still has to initiate the request for said protection. And that's got to be the crew. The dispatcher has no idea if such protection is needed. And even their own engineer couldn't understand why they were where they were, as noted in the report.
In the end, two people were someplace they should not have been, and were not sufficiently aware of their surroundings. There is nothing in the report that says anything different. We'll never know why they took that route, nor why they didn't look both ways.
The main piece missing is the fact that protection is not required. I am not sure if there are also organizational issues that are missing pieces. That seems quite unclear in the way the report is written. I think you are right that it would have to be the crew that asks for the protection if it is to be granted. But first you need a rule making it mandadory to have protection, and clearly that does not yet exist. That is why the NTSB recommends it. I don't think you can conclude that the two people were someplace they should not have been. The report makes it crystal clear that they were not prohibited from walking on that track.
The employees did apparently violate the rule to watch for trains during the 10 seconds during the approach of #175. Yet they were obviously distracted and did not realize it. If they realized they were distracted, they would have made themselves undistracted.
The only point I question about their behavior is their decision to remain walking on the Amtrak track as #66 passed. Most people would back off that track and move as close as possible to the CSX train.
I see the problem - you had earlier provided what you thought should be a procedure involving standing well away from the active track. You then mistyped "exiting" instead of "existing," leading me to link the two.
tree68 Euclid It is right there in the NTSB report. They refer to an existing procedure to provide protection as an option, and the conclude by advising that the exiting procedure be made mandatory. NTSB Report Recommendation As a result of its investigation, the National Transportation Safety Board makes the following new safety recommendation: To CSX Transportation and the National Railroad Passenger Corporation: Prohibit employees from fouling adjacent tracks of another railroad unless the employees are provided protection from trains and/or equipment on the adjacent tracks by means of communication between the two railroads. (R-19-006 I see nothing about an exiting procedure. They say they shouldn't be there in the first place. And this still would require the employees to notify the dispatcher that they are fouling the adjacent tracks.
Euclid It is right there in the NTSB report. They refer to an existing procedure to provide protection as an option, and the conclude by advising that the exiting procedure be made mandatory.
It is right there in the NTSB report. They refer to an existing procedure to provide protection as an option, and the conclude by advising that the exiting procedure be made mandatory.
NTSB Report Recommendation As a result of its investigation, the National Transportation Safety Board makes the following new safety recommendation: To CSX Transportation and the National Railroad Passenger Corporation: Prohibit employees from fouling adjacent tracks of another railroad unless the employees are provided protection from trains and/or equipment on the adjacent tracks by means of communication between the two railroads. (R-19-006
Recommendation
As a result of its investigation, the National Transportation Safety Board makes the following new safety recommendation:
To CSX Transportation and the National Railroad Passenger Corporation: Prohibit employees from fouling adjacent tracks of another railroad unless the employees are provided protection from trains and/or equipment on the adjacent tracks by means of communication between the two railroads. (R-19-006
I see nothing about an exiting procedure. They say they shouldn't be there in the first place.
And this still would require the employees to notify the dispatcher that they are fouling the adjacent tracks.
Look at this part of the report (in blue). It is on the last page just before their “Recommendation”. I have broken it up a little and added bold in places. In the first paragraph, NTSB implies that the crew was not prohibited from walking on the track by saying they believed crews should be prohibited from that. Earlier, also they did affirm that crews were not prohibited from walking on the track.
In the second paragraph, they say they would need protection. This seems inconsistent with what they have said about not being prohibited. I can only conclude that they mean they would “need” protection to be adequately safe, but not “need” it in terms of needed to satisfy a mandated requirement or rule. But at this point, it is hard to be sure. If they are referring to needing to follow an existing rule requiring protection, it seems inconsistent with what they said earlier in the report.
The third paragraph outlines the protection that is available. That is the “existing procedure” I referred to.
But, if it were required (under that definition of “need”), why would the last paragraph recommend that CSX and Amtrak prohibit employees from fouling a track without protection? That fact that they recommend protection clearly means that it is not now required. So, their overall report conclusion is that protection be changed from an option to a requirement. From the report
The engineer mentioned that he did not understand why the conductors had stayed on the side of the train closest to the Amtrak tracks. The conductors could have safely crossed over their train and walked well away from the live Amtrak tracks. The NTSB believes that the crew should have been prohibited from walking near the live tracks of the other railroad.
However, there are circumstances when the operating employees cannot safely walk away from the other railroad’s tracks. In these situations, when the crew is fouling the other railroad’s adjacent track, they would need protection.9
A current process is readily available to provide this protection. For example, a train dispatcher will communicate with another train dispatcher from a different railroad if a derailed train has obstructed an adjacent railroad’s track. This derailment would be an emergency and has the possibility of contributing to an additional collision and derailment. The NTSB believes that this same communication could be used to protect employees that find it necessary to occupy the other railroad’s active tracks.
Therefore, to eliminate the hazard of unknown traffic on adjacent tracks of other railroads, the NTSB recommends that CSX and Amtrak prohibit employees from fouling adjacent tracks of another railroad unless the employees are provided protection from trains and/or equipment on the adjacent tracks by means of communication between the two railroads.
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/RAB1901.pdf
BaltACD 243129 It is quite obvious that you have no knowledge of what Amtrak teaches and you did claim to have said knowledge as is evidenced in your reply to tree 68 which I shall post below. You are reading things that were never stated - I am stating my experience - experience dating from the B&O in 1965 and the successor corporate identities of the same. Amtrak has never been a B&O descendent organization, despite haing selected some B&O equipment when they formed and equipped Amtrak. From Amtrak's accident record it appears that a number of Amtrak employee showed up for their 'Rules Classes' in body only, their mind was somewhere else.
243129 It is quite obvious that you have no knowledge of what Amtrak teaches and you did claim to have said knowledge as is evidenced in your reply to tree 68 which I shall post below.
It is quite obvious that you have no knowledge of what Amtrak teaches and you did claim to have said knowledge as is evidenced in your reply to tree 68 which I shall post below.
You are reading things that were never stated - I am stating my experience - experience dating from the B&O in 1965 and the successor corporate identities of the same. Amtrak has never been a B&O descendent organization, despite haing selected some B&O equipment when they formed and equipped Amtrak. From Amtrak's accident record it appears that a number of Amtrak employee showed up for their 'Rules Classes' in body only, their mind was somewhere else.
Jeez, to paraphrase a classic film, what a failure in communication we've got! It's reasonably clear to a person with even average reading comprehension skills (which include contextual meaning) that BaltACD is referring solely to CSX rules and practices, not Amtrak's.
In many places, two railroads have adjacent tracks.
Honest Question: how often does it occur that one road will order their trains to proceed slowly because a train on the other road is being inspected?
Does that routinely happen? (I am just not sure that this is practical.) I have no idea how often the situation comes up.
Are other (non-CSX) freight railroads routinely getting Amtrak (or other freight roads) to proceed slowly or stop because of train inspections? It's just something I'd never thought about before. I was a clerk/operator for a couple of years. But I never worked in train service, unfortunately; I wanted to, but they weren't hiring for that then.
Euclidbut to conclude that a person will not follow a rule because he basically a bad person is way too judgmental
Nowhere did I even remotely suggest that they were bad people. Not only may they have been exemplary human beings, they may also have been extemely safe railroaders ordinarily. But in this case, in one fateful moment, for whatever reason, they (or the conductor, and the trainee went along against his better judgement) made a bad decision.
It's very sad.
If I had fallen between the cars at Atlanta Yard and gotten killed, it would have been solely my own fault. What I did - cutting across moving cuts - was perhaps more dangerous, statistically, than what those guys did. But I made the decision to do so for my own convenience or, even, simple reckless fun. A rule did not prevent me from doing so when no one was looking (which was usually the case).
Unfortunately, good people make bad decisions every day. Those CSX men may both have been better, smarter people than I am. But their tragic lack of vigilance happened to coincide with a very unlikely set of circumstances. They were victims of really bad luck.
tree68 Euclid The real rule that is needed is the rule requiring formal protection for people working on the ground in close proximity to live track. That rule already exists.
Euclid The real rule that is needed is the rule requiring formal protection for people working on the ground in close proximity to live track.
That rule already exists.
There is a rule about how protection is granted, but no rule requiring it to be granted. The use of protection is only an option, and not a mandate.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.