Overmod Larry, rule 132 involves danger to trains (e.g. from hitting equipment or track out of alignment from being worked on) and involves stopping the train to protect it, rather than stopping to protect employees.
Larry, rule 132 involves danger to trains (e.g. from hitting equipment or track out of alignment from being worked on) and involves stopping the train to protect it, rather than stopping to protect employees.
And that is an example of how having codified behavior may not work out so well.
tree68 Euclid But if you believe that rule already exists, show it to us. There is a complex rule about how protection is to be executed, but it says nothing about it being required in a case such as the Ivy City accident. Show us the rule that requires it. NORAC: 132. Protection for the Safe Passage of Trains Trains must be fully protected against any known condition that may interfere with their safe passage. a. Protection When Fouling or Working on a Track If work on or adjacent to a track will create a condition interfering with the safe passage of trains, that work must not be attempted without permission of the employee in charge of the track. On tracks where ABS, DCS, or Interlocking rules are in effect, the Dispatcher (or Operator when authorized by the Dispatcher) must assure that protection against trains in both directions has been provided as follows: 1. If the work involves on-track equipment or will disturb the track or catenary structure so that it would be unsafe for Normal Speed, Form D line 4 or Form D line 5 must be issued. 2. If the work will not disturb the track or catenary structure, the Dispatcher may verbally authorize Foul Time in accordance with Rule 140. Form D line 4, Form D line 5, and Foul Time may be issued only to employees who are qualified on the operating rules and the physical characteristics of the territory involved. Form D line 13 may be issued in lieu of Form D line 4 when the information necessary to clearly delineate the limits of the affected track area will not physically fit on line 4. When Form D line 13 is used in this manner, the instructions it contains must be formatted as though issued on Form D line 4. b. Protection in Unforeseen Conditions If an event occurs or conditions are found that may interfere with the safe passage of trains and no protection has been provided, employees must immediately attempt to stop trains by radio communication to trains and the Dispatcher. They must provide flag protection in both directions as prescribed by Rule 130, paragraph (b), “Flag Protection Against Trains on Adjacent Tracks.” Flag protection must be maintained until the unsafe condition has been corrected, or until employees are assured by the Dispatcher or Operator that other protection has been provided.
Euclid But if you believe that rule already exists, show it to us. There is a complex rule about how protection is to be executed, but it says nothing about it being required in a case such as the Ivy City accident. Show us the rule that requires it.
NORAC:
132. Protection for the Safe Passage of Trains
Trains must be fully protected against any known condition that may interfere with their safe passage.
a. Protection When Fouling or Working on a Track If work on or adjacent to a track will create a condition interfering with the safe passage of trains, that work must not be attempted without permission of the employee in charge of the track. On tracks where ABS, DCS, or Interlocking rules are in effect, the Dispatcher (or Operator when authorized by the Dispatcher) must assure that protection against trains in both directions has been provided as follows:
1. If the work involves on-track equipment or will disturb the track or catenary structure so that it would be unsafe for Normal Speed, Form D line 4 or Form D line 5 must be issued.
2. If the work will not disturb the track or catenary structure, the Dispatcher may verbally authorize Foul Time in accordance with Rule 140. Form D line 4, Form D line 5, and Foul Time may be issued only to employees who are qualified on the operating rules and the physical characteristics of the territory involved. Form D line 13 may be issued in lieu of Form D line 4 when the information necessary to clearly delineate the limits of the affected track area will not physically fit on line
4. When Form D line 13 is used in this manner, the instructions it contains must be formatted as though issued on Form D line 4.
b. Protection in Unforeseen Conditions If an event occurs or conditions are found that may interfere with the safe passage of trains and no protection has been provided, employees must immediately attempt to stop trains by radio communication to trains and the Dispatcher. They must provide flag protection in both directions as prescribed by Rule 130, paragraph (b), “Flag Protection Against Trains on Adjacent Tracks.” Flag protection must be maintained until the unsafe condition has been corrected, or until employees are assured by the Dispatcher or Operator that other protection has been provided.
I asked you to show us the rule that would have required the two conductors to have had protection to be on or near the Amtrak track at Ivy City. You have responded by posting a rule that calls for protection of trains as they pass through track work operations in which a train might strike equipment working on the track.
The rule that I asked you to provide would be a rule that protects people from trains as the people are inspecting trains that are stopped due to issues such as inspections for mechanical problems.
The rules that you cite do not apply to that situation. The protection that you insist was lacking at Ivy City was not needed to protect the trains from striking the employees on the ground. Trains don’t need protection from that. The protection that you insist was lacking would have protected the people on the ground from being struck by passing trains. That issue has nothing to do with the rules you have cited.
So again, I ask you to provide the rule that would have required the two conductors to have had protection to be on or near the Amtrak track at Ivy City.
EuclidSo again, I ask you to provide the rule that would have required the two conductors to have had protection to be on or near the Amtrak track at Ivy City.
Trains cannot pass safely if the tracks are being fouled. The tracks were being fouled. The crew was thus required to get foul time.
If you're looking for a rule that says that CSX crews, when fouling Amtrak tracks at Ivy City, must ask for foul time, you're not going to find it.
And just because the rule doesn't read the way you think it should doesn't mean it doesnt exist.
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...
tree68 Euclid So again, I ask you to provide the rule that would have required the two conductors to have had protection to be on or near the Amtrak track at Ivy City. Trains cannot pass safely if the tracks are being fouled. The tracks were being fouled. The crew was thus required to get foul time. If you're looking for a rule that says that CSX crews, when fouling Amtrak tracks at Ivy City, must ask for foul time, you're not going to find it. And just because the rule doesn't read the way you think it should doesn't mean it doesnt exist.
Euclid So again, I ask you to provide the rule that would have required the two conductors to have had protection to be on or near the Amtrak track at Ivy City.
A rule that required the two Ivy City victims to have foul time does not exist. And it has nothing do with me reading interpretations into or out of any rules.
The rules you cited are explicitly to grant foul time for track work in order to protect against the hazard of equipment on the track or track being worked on in a way that might derail a train if it passed through the area. The rule is for the protection of trains.
The issue at Ivy City is that foul time would have protected the people on the ground rather than protecting the train. Trains do not need to be protected from people on the ground. If they did, foul time would have to be granted to every vehicle, every person, and every trespasser intending to cross the track.
Even you say: If you're looking for a rule that says that CSX crews, when fouling Amtrak tracks at Ivy City, must ask for foul time, you're not going to find it.
But that has been my exact point. There is no rule that says when CSX crews are fouling Amtrak tracks at Ivy City, they must ask for foul time or have been granted foul time.
And yet, you also argue that the employees at Ivy City were required to have foul time. So which way is it? What is it that stipulates that employees at Ivy City were required to have foul time, other than your opinion???
EuclidAnd yet, you also argue that the employees at Ivy City were required to have foul time. So which way is it? What is it that stipulates that employees at Ivy City were required to have foul time, other than your opinion???
This is (IMO) one of the downsides of every railroad having their own rulebook.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
EuclidWhat is it that stipulates that employees at Ivy City were required to have foul time, other than your opinion???
The fact that two employees did not protect themselves with the tools available are dead. Period.
They, and they alone are responsible for their fate. They could have asked for foul time, they could have simply stayed off Amtrak's track. They could have ensured that they were aware of their surroundings.
They did none of those and paid the price.
It's really that simple.
No rule can compensate for any of those shortcomings if the participants don't choose to follow them.
tree68 Euclid What is it that stipulates that employees at Ivy City were required to have foul time, other than your opinion??? The fact that two employees did not protect themselves with the tools available are dead. Period.
Euclid What is it that stipulates that employees at Ivy City were required to have foul time, other than your opinion???
Really? The fact that they are dead proves they were required to have foul time?
So, you are saying that it was okay for the two employees to walk on the Amtrak track without foul time if they did not get killed. But since they did get killed, they violated a requirement that prohibited them from walking on the track without foul time.
So the requirement for foul time depends on whether you would live or die without it??
Euclid tree68 Euclid What is it that stipulates that employees at Ivy City were required to have foul time, other than your opinion??? The fact that two employees did not protect themselves with the tools available are dead. Period. Really? The fact that they are dead proves they were required to have foul time? So, you are saying that it was okay for the two employees to walk on the Amtrak track without foul time if they did not get killed. But since they did get killed, they violated a requirement that prohibited them from walking on the track without foul time. So the requirement for foul time depends on whether you would live or die without it??
Major logical fallacy. Perhaps you need a course in logic?
charlie hebdoMajor logical fallacy. Perhaps you need a course in logic?
Perhaps you should explain what you mean.
Life is all about making decisions about what to do when faced with situations that have never been presented to you in your experience before the situation happens. When the situation happens you have to make a decision on a plan of action or inaction. The realtity is that no rule book or law book can prepare everyone for every situation that they may encounter. It is up to each individual to judge every NEW situation and make the correct action plan based on their understanding of their history of similar but different situations.
In this case the decisions made by the Conductor and Trainee were not the appropriate decisions for them to safely live to an old age. What their reasoning and thought process were when faced with this situation we will never know. We do know that their action plan ended their lives.
Is there anyone among us that have not had a Oh S..T moment when we made a decision and paid a heavy price when our plan of action was in fact the wrong action plan.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
EuclidReally? The fact that they are dead proves they were required to have foul time?
No - the fact that they are dead proves they didn't use the tools available to them. Foul time was just one of those tools.
So, you are saying that it was okay for the two employees to walk on the Amtrak track without foul time if they did not get killed.
But since they did get killed, they violated a requirement that prohibited them from walking on the track without foul time.
Flip that around - you may live or die depending on whether you obtain foul time.
That does raise a question that we can never answer - perhaps they figured that since they would be on Amtrak's track for a short period, they didn't figure there was an issue.
Clearly, there was.
Euclid charlie hebdo Major logical fallacy. Perhaps you need a course in logic? Perhaps you should explain what you mean.
charlie hebdo Major logical fallacy. Perhaps you need a course in logic?
Why? You seem unable to understand and accept simple sentences and concepts.
243129It certainly does matter whether she applied the brakes before or after impact. Milliseconds matter and not applying the brakes in emergency took those milliseconds away from the victims.
They were dead whether she applied the brakes or not. The train was doing over 75 mph when she could have first seen the men. The ability to see them was affected by the effect of #66's headlight. If she had for some reason, put the train in emergency as soon as she could see them the brakes would have still been just starting to slow the train when impact occurred. And I hope you will not use your frequent response of How do you know that.
charlie hebdo Euclid charlie hebdo Major logical fallacy. Perhaps you need a course in logic? Perhaps you should explain what you mean. Why? You seem unable to understand and accept simple sentences and concepts.
QUOTE:
Posted by Electroliner 1935 on Tuesday, June 25, 2019 3:21 PM
243129 It certainly does matter whether she applied the brakes before or after impact. Milliseconds matter and not applying the brakes in emergency took those milliseconds away from the victims.
REPLY TO QUOTE:
I can explain this. It is not sufficient to conclude that just because the train could not have stopped time, there was no point in dumping the air prior to impact.
The point of braking prior to imapct is that starting braking early begins slowing the train, and that deceleration lenthens the time interval leading up to impact. The longer the time interval, the more time the two conductors would have had to possbly become aware of the train coming up behind them. In this case, they did not become aware in time to evade impact, but it would have only taken a split second for them to do that. So every extra split second that is made available is infinitely valuable for its potential to provide time for the potential victim to somehow become aware of the danger and evade the impact.
Granted, it would not have made much difference in adding more time to the approach in this accident, but that is the principle of braking as early as possible. Still this is a judgment call because people are often on the track and the move off in time. So each case has to be read for what is likely to happen, and discretion applied.
However, in this case, the behavior of the two conductors would have given a very strong read that they did not realize the train was behind them and were therefore very unlikely to have an intention to move just in time.
Some other forums I go to have a beating-dead-horse emoji. We need one.
Also, NEWS FLASH, we have a troll here. It will always have the last word. Don't feed it.
Lithonia OperatorSome other forums I go to have a beating-dead-horse emoji. We need one.
Don't get 'em started. Several years ago we had threads where I got tired of seeing cartoon pictures of a dead horse getting beaten. It got to the point where the attackers were more annoying than their target.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
tree68hey, and they alone are responsible for their fate.
I'm no so sure about that anymore. After reading Charlie Hebdo's comment about two people, in some instances, being easier to mislead than one.....the surviving family members of the conductor trainee will likely have a claim against CSX.
The trainee's inferior status to the CSX employee training him would give him some reasonable expectation that the teacher being provided to him by his employer is competent..so there may well be a "contributory" level of failure there.
CSX being the deep pocket that it is, I'd be shocked if someone doesn't pursue that angle.
Convicted One tree68 They, and they alone are responsible for their fate. I'm no so sure about that anymore. After reading Charlie Hebdo's cooment about two people, in some instances, being easier to mislead than one.....the surviving family members of the conductor trainee will likely have a claim against CSX. The trainee's inferior status to the CSX employee training him would give him some reasonable expectation that the teacher being provided to him by his employer is competent..so there may well be a "contributory" level of failure there. CSX being the deep pocket that it is, I'd be shocked if someone doesn't pursue that angle.
tree68 They, and they alone are responsible for their fate.
I'm no so sure about that anymore. After reading Charlie Hebdo's cooment about two people, in some instances, being easier to mislead than one.....the surviving family members of the conductor trainee will likely have a claim against CSX.
Actually, I agree with that. A running thought I've had is that they were, f'rinstance, discussing yesterday's game, or something like that.
But it remains that they were masters of their fate at that moment, and no one else.
Paul of Covington It got to the point where the attackers were more annoying than their target.
Absolutely the truth!!
Overmod BaltACD IF protection were requested by the employees on the ground through the CSX Train Dispatcher - the Amtrak K Tower Operator would have been contacted - what procedures the K Tower Operator would use in establishing and granting protection with the Amtrak Train Dispatcher are unknown to me. After K Tower would advise that protection has been provided the CSX crew on the ground would be notified. How long it would take to move through that chain of communications is always problematical. It's so much fun to watch how procedures designed for MOW utterly fail when even considered for T&E. Consider this accident. A likely tired, grumpy pair of conductors walk up the side of their train, until close to the head end where space to the adjacent track (a track known to belong to a different, and high-speed railroad) gets tight. Let's see what would be involved here. Conductors stop, get on the radio to their tower. They request 'foul time'. Exactly what does this consist of? someone will have to specify a precise window of time for the protection to be active. That will certainly be more than the few minutes to walk the rest of the way up to the cab ... or request 3-step to cross to the other side and continue there. Now we relay this over to Amtrak, who then has to contact all the trains that will be operating within the foul time, and do ... what? As I recall one of Amtrak's principles was to avoid traffic on the track 'adjacent' to potential fouling, at least for maintenance purposes. So something would have had to be done with 175 to take it off that track before it reached the location in question, which in practice would have almost certainly meant Amtrak telling the K operator that foul time would not be granted until all the traffic had been correctly routed ... something that I doubt would be easily and quickly arranged in a few minutes without stopping trains or throwing them without warning down to full restricted speed. I can picture some of the blue language that would 'eventuate' if the K operator explained exactly why 'emergency' foul time (e.g., not prescheduled hours or days ahead of time) was being requested. This is the best possible case; there may be actual procedures that are different but none that would be properly effective with any greater speed. Meanwhile, our hypothetical conductors, who remember are already fed up with procedures, are expected to ... what? Wait in that 4' or so until someone gets back to them on the radio? Look forward to being called on the carpet for delaying Amtrak traffic, perhaps seriously, for... tell me again what the nominal safety reason for this was?
BaltACD IF protection were requested by the employees on the ground through the CSX Train Dispatcher - the Amtrak K Tower Operator would have been contacted - what procedures the K Tower Operator would use in establishing and granting protection with the Amtrak Train Dispatcher are unknown to me. After K Tower would advise that protection has been provided the CSX crew on the ground would be notified. How long it would take to move through that chain of communications is always problematical.
It's so much fun to watch how procedures designed for MOW utterly fail when even considered for T&E.
Consider this accident. A likely tired, grumpy pair of conductors walk up the side of their train, until close to the head end where space to the adjacent track (a track known to belong to a different, and high-speed railroad) gets tight. Let's see what would be involved here.
Conductors stop, get on the radio to their tower. They request 'foul time'. Exactly what does this consist of? someone will have to specify a precise window of time for the protection to be active. That will certainly be more than the few minutes to walk the rest of the way up to the cab ... or request 3-step to cross to the other side and continue there. Now we relay this over to Amtrak, who then has to contact all the trains that will be operating within the foul time, and do ... what? As I recall one of Amtrak's principles was to avoid traffic on the track 'adjacent' to potential fouling, at least for maintenance purposes. So something would have had to be done with 175 to take it off that track before it reached the location in question, which in practice would have almost certainly meant Amtrak telling the K operator that foul time would not be granted until all the traffic had been correctly routed ... something that I doubt would be easily and quickly arranged in a few minutes without stopping trains or throwing them without warning down to full restricted speed. I can picture some of the blue language that would 'eventuate' if the K operator explained exactly why 'emergency' foul time (e.g., not prescheduled hours or days ahead of time) was being requested.
This is the best possible case; there may be actual procedures that are different but none that would be properly effective with any greater speed. Meanwhile, our hypothetical conductors, who remember are already fed up with procedures, are expected to ... what? Wait in that 4' or so until someone gets back to them on the radio? Look forward to being called on the carpet for delaying Amtrak traffic, perhaps seriously, for... tell me again what the nominal safety reason for this was?
If an employee were to ask for this protection, would they be guaranteed to receive it?
EuclidIf an employee were to ask for this protection, would they be guaranteed to receive it?
This is a fair question, and Balt likely knows the answer better than I do.
I personally don't think Amtrak would deny the conductors 'protection' if they asked: on the other hand they might let CSX know they'd be 'on the hook' for damages associated with delays, stoppages, etc. since the request is for unnecessary access. I think in all likelihood there would have been a quick conference on the radio, with the 'upshot' being that the conductors quietly crossed to the opposite side of the train to prevent the "difficulties" involved with issuing formal protection.
As I noted, there will also be delays, not as long as the 4 hours Balt was discussing but certainly not sooner than passage of 175 and perhaps 66, before the track in question could be guaranteed traffic-free: Amtrak is not going to require traffic on that part of the NEC to stop completely unless there is a real emergency, not to suit the convenience of a couple of disgruntled people who want an easier walk for a few car lengths, so I'd expect them to say 'we'll provide protection but don't foul UNTIL we tell you you can.'
If we are discussing a 'safest' course here, it might be deemed necessary to put any track adjacent to a known-stopped train out of service until the stoppage is remedied (and all crew are safely aboard or out of danger). This would not involve much that couldn't be formalized between dispatchers -- the question then becoming who pays for the inconvenience to operations?
Personally, I'm tempted to agree with Joe that what's essentially necessary here is a behavior-based program run by the unions for the benefit of the rank and file, which would inculcate the right kinds of situational awareness at all times, regardless of frustration or weather or immortal youth, as a precondition of working on the railroad. Most everything else railroad organizations might do through 'rules' is at best a Band-Aid on necessary personal responsibility.
Overmod Euclid If an employee were to ask for this protection, would they be guaranteed to receive it? This is a fair question, and Balt likely knows the answer better than I do. I personally don't think Amtrak would deny the conductors 'protection' if they asked: on the other hand they might let CSX know they'd be 'on the hook' for damages associated with delays, stoppages, etc. since the request is for unnecessary access. I think in all likelihood there would have been a quick conference on the radio, with the 'upshot' being that the conductors quietly crossed to the opposite side of the train to prevent the "difficulties" involved with issuing formal protection. As I noted, there will also be delays, not as long as the 4 hours Balt was discussing but certainly not sooner than passage of 175 and perhaps 66, before the track in question could be guaranteed traffic-free: Amtrak is not going to require traffic on that part of the NEC to stop completely unless there is a real emergency, not to suit the convenience of a couple of disgruntled people who want an easier walk for a few car lengths, so I'd expect them to say 'we'll provide protection but don't foul UNTIL we tell you you can.' If we are discussing a 'safest' course here, it might be deemed necessary to put any track adjacent to a known-stopped train out of service until the stoppage is remedied (and all crew are safely aboard or out of danger). This would not involve much that couldn't be formalized between dispatchers -- the question then becoming who pays for the inconvenience to operations? Personally, I'm tempted to agree with Joe that what's essentially necessary here is a behavior-based program run by the unions for the benefit of the rank and file, which would inculcate the right kinds of situational awareness at all times, regardless of frustration or weather or immortal youth, as a precondition of working on the railroad. Most everything else railroad organizations might do through 'rules' is at best a Band-Aid on necessary personal responsibility.
Euclid If an employee were to ask for this protection, would they be guaranteed to receive it?
If protection was asked for it would be granted - that being said - they may been told that they will have to wait for the passage of one or more trains which will be identified to them. Dispatchers/Control Point Operators can only provide protection by withholding signals and/or track authority from trains. Trains that are already by the 'Protecting Control Point' will continue to operate, trains that have Track Warrant Authority through the area of track will continue to operate.
Not knowing the Amtrak Control Points - I am guessing, had the CSX employees asked for protection on Amtrak they would have been told - "After 175 Eng 6xx goes South and after 66 Engine 6xx goes North we will block off for your protection. Contact us after you view 66 and 175 past your location."
The communication chain for this request would most likely have been - Conductor (on a Handset) to CSX Engineer on the engine radio to CSX Dispatcher to K Tower Operator to Amtrak Dispatcher and then back down the chain.
Once and for all. If your train was adjacent to a foreign railroad's main line where trains passed in excess of 100MPH and you were required to inspect both sides of your train would you not want some form of protection while you accomplish that task? Common sense would dictate that you afford yourself some sort of protection which is readily available from Amtrak, in this case, in the form of foul time or a 'hold' on said track. None of this took place. The conductor had five years on the job and the trainee was a new hire. Did CSX have a procedure in place for inspecting BOTH sides of a train when one side is adjacent to a foreign railroad ? As I have stated previously the root causes for this tragedy are poor vetting, poor training and poor supervision and in this case you had the unknowing 'teaching' the unknowing. The two employees are 'victims' of CSX's hiring, training and supervisory procedures.
Electroliner 1935They were dead whether she applied the brakes or not.
How do you know that?
So you are traveling in your auto and someone steps in front of you you will not bother to jam on the brake because you are going to hit them anyway?
You do not think it possible that by affording the subject a millisecond that they could possibly escape?
You are traveling 75+ MPH southbound, freight train to your right, northbound train to your left, two pedestrians on your track and you hesitate to apply the brakes in emergency? GMAFB.
243129Did CSX have a procedure in place for inspecting BOTH sides of a train when one side is adjacent to a foreign railroad ?
If I read the report correctly, I don't believe that the CSX train was occupying either the crossover, nor the main closest to the Amtrak main, when the inspection began. So, if you have an entire main that your own railroad controls between the train to be inspected, and the foreign main....would you request protection on the foreign line on that basis?
And, supposing you did, and the foreign line responded that it would be considerable time before they could comply, what do you do? Sit however long is required BEFORE begining the inspection of your own train?
Convicted OneIf I read the report correctly, I don't believe that the CSX train was occupying either the crossover, nor the main closest to the Amtrak main, when the inspection began.
You did not read the report correctly.Read it again and then we can discuss it.
Convicted OneAnd, supposing you did, and the foreign line responded that it would be considerable time before they could comply, what do you do? Sit however long is required BEFORE begining the inspection of your own train?
Yes.
243129 Convicted One If I read the report correctly, I don't believe that the CSX train was occupying either the crossover, nor the main closest to the Amtrak main, when the inspection began. You did not read the report correctly.Read it again and then we can discuss it.
Convicted One If I read the report correctly, I don't believe that the CSX train was occupying either the crossover, nor the main closest to the Amtrak main, when the inspection began.
When the train was initially stopped for inspection it was ALL on CSX #1 Main track - the track furtherest from Amtrak. Crew was instructed by CSX Mechanical personnel in Jacksonville that the car they had been instructed to inspect, MUST be set out. After consultation with the Dispatcher and others involved in the decision, it was decided that the car would be SET OUT on CSX #2 Main track, the track adjacent to Amtrak. Train was lined by the Train Dispatcher through the crossovers at Control Point F Tower from #1 Main to #2 Main with the Conductor and trainee staying on CSX property East of F Tower to make the cut beind the car that was going to be set out. Before the cut was made, CSX Mechanical changed their instructions and said the car could continue to the next terminal on the train's route (Brunswick, MD). With the change in plans, the Conductor and Trainee began their walk back to the locomotives.
girarddepot If the Wall St. Jourtnal is tobe believed, there is a serious problem with street drug use among Amtrak employees. In the case of these fatalities, small amounts of cocaine were found on one and cocaine plus meth on the other--not enough to be high but enough to impair judgement and reaction time. In any case, it's still a tragedy to have serious injury or loss of life.
If the Wall St. Jourtnal is tobe believed, there is a serious problem with street drug use among Amtrak employees. In the case of these fatalities, small amounts of cocaine were found on one and cocaine plus meth on the other--not enough to be high but enough to impair judgement and reaction time. In any case, it's still a tragedy to have serious injury or loss of life.
Just so I am sure I understand you:
Are you saying that those drugs were found in the systems of the two CSX employees who were killed at Ivy City?
I am confused, as you began by commenting on drug issues at Amtrak.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.