Murphy SidingYou do a disservice by editing Jeff's quote to suit your needs.
Well then, perhaps you can explain to me how you read it.
Zug and Jeff: When you were hired or promoted to engineer, did you get some sort of psychological evaluation for personality traits?
Is the SPAF used only for mainline switches? Surely crews in yards aren't doing this.
As for critical switches, I wonder if requiring a photo of the switch in the normal position would be practical. Maybe not realistic in rain or snow. But it seems like a really basic, rugged but cheap camera could be developed for such use. And it could be required for the conductor to radio in real time, "I have photographed the switch in its normal position."
Do mainline switches always have a switch stand marker, and an ID #? There would be a need to establish that the photo was of the pertinent switch.
In any event, I like what Larry said about having to announce it on the radio.
Does the FRA have absolute power to mandate rules?
Murphy Siding I guess I missed a detail. What is SPAF?
I guess I missed a detail. What is SPAF?
Switch Position Awarness Form. A written record of the use and restoration of hand throw switches in non-signalled territory. It can be an actual form, or like we use, entries made on a conductor's trip/signal report log.
Jeff
zugmann If anything, I think it's just a combination of traits that you have to collect and know when to use. When to be patient, when to not. When to follow rules to a T and when to think creatively on your feet. When to play nice, and when to be an arrogant individual (many of us I think have that last one down). I doubt we'll ever get to the point of being able to pee in a cup and know.
If anything, I think it's just a combination of traits that you have to collect and know when to use. When to be patient, when to not. When to follow rules to a T and when to think creatively on your feet. When to play nice, and when to be an arrogant individual (many of us I think have that last one down). I doubt we'll ever get to the point of being able to pee in a cup and know.
Well said.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
charlie hebdo ...because new hires are not conscientious enough to follow simple procedures carefully,...
Heck, there are those that feel that way about the up-and-coming generations even outside the railroad world.
How does one vet an 18 year old who may have never held a job before? They may go through training and ace every test, and go through OJT with glowing reports from their trainers, only to show that dangerous flaw months, or even years, down the road.
Are there tests available that measure a new hire's likelihood of failing to restore a switch?
Life happens, too. Spousal issues, kids, mortgages, etc and so on, can distract a perfectly conscientious employee from a key action with bad consequences.
One can only hope that such potential problems have been engineered out of happening (hence, the SPAF), but we all know the old adages about people finding a way around anything that's supposed to be foolproof.
Perhaps in this case, our practice of announcing that the switch has been restored on-the-air, with the engineer acknowledging same on-the-air might have resulted in an earlier recognition that the switch had not, in fact, been restored. Or not.
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...
RRers come from all sorts of walks of life. From high school dropouts, to military, to people with advanced degrees and everything in between. Men, women, every race imaginable. People fresh out of high school, and those that hired at 60 after several career. People who are railfans, and those that barely knew what a train was. People who could write doctoral dissertaions, and those that could barely spell their name.
I've worked with just about every type. I've yet to see a common theme to what makes someone a good RRer. Peope you wouldn't think would be good have been some of the best. Others that you think would be perfect quit or were fired in quick order.
I don't think there is a "RRer gene" that we can test for. It's such a different lifestyle/occupation than so many others, I don't think that someone can claim that they have a secret forumla. If they did, they would already be a millionaire selling that formula to the various roads.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
It's unfortunate that there can't be a discussion about this without defensive sarcasm and acrimony. If Jeff is even half serious, statements like his are what will lead to automated systems with the excuse of safety because new hires are not conscientious enough to follow simple procedures carefully, even though the pay is good. Isn't that the inevitable result?
243129 jeffhergert Yes, we need to weed out those who might have a failure, possibly many years, in the future. You won't be hiring very many. Heck, you won't be hiring anyone - ever. With an attitude such as yours, your acumen could come into question.
jeffhergert Yes, we need to weed out those who might have a failure, possibly many years, in the future. You won't be hiring very many. Heck, you won't be hiring anyone - ever.
With an attitude such as yours, your acumen could come into question.
You're right, Euclid. I misread the report re where the engineer was. Thanks.
tree68 Lithonia Operator No, the SPAF didn't prevent this particular accident. But who knows how many accidents it HAS prevented. Cayce in no way shows that the SPAF is a bad idea. All it shows is that if people don't use a system in the way it was intended, it cannot provide that extra measure of safety. The SPAF may have helped prevent disaster in many other cases; it seems like a good idea to me. And it wasn't my intention to illustrate that the SPAF is a bad idea.
Lithonia Operator No, the SPAF didn't prevent this particular accident. But who knows how many accidents it HAS prevented. Cayce in no way shows that the SPAF is a bad idea. All it shows is that if people don't use a system in the way it was intended, it cannot provide that extra measure of safety. The SPAF may have helped prevent disaster in many other cases; it seems like a good idea to me.
No, the SPAF didn't prevent this particular accident. But who knows how many accidents it HAS prevented.
Cayce in no way shows that the SPAF is a bad idea. All it shows is that if people don't use a system in the way it was intended, it cannot provide that extra measure of safety.
The SPAF may have helped prevent disaster in many other cases; it seems like a good idea to me.
And it wasn't my intention to illustrate that the SPAF is a bad idea.
jeffhergertYes, we need to weed out those who might have a failure, possibly many years, in the future. You won't be hiring very many. Heck, you won't be hiring anyone - ever.
BaltACD If Joe were vetting himself - he would not get hired.
If Joe were vetting himself - he would not get hired.
You cannot help yourself can you?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
243129 charlie hebdo . So I would make job-specific vetting much more vigorous. Agreed! However, and I speak of Amtrak, the personnel to assess a candidate's acumen for railroad operations has been squandered by the arrogance of the company. If they are at all interested in a safe operation they must 'swallow' their arrogance and call upon experienced operations employees to vet prospective operations candidates.
charlie hebdo . So I would make job-specific vetting much more vigorous.
Agreed! However, and I speak of Amtrak, the personnel to assess a candidate's acumen for railroad operations has been squandered by the arrogance of the company. If they are at all interested in a safe operation they must 'swallow' their arrogance and call upon experienced operations employees to vet prospective operations candidates.
Yes, we need to weed out those who might have a failure, possibly many years, in the future. You won't be hiring very many. Heck, you won't be hiring anyone - ever.
But I've already had the feeling that no one in this day and age would meet the standards some want to set. Actually, in a way I understand this. Generally speaking, the attitude of many in the work force is different than it once was. At all age levels and in those fairly new and those who have a lot of time in.
charlie hebdo. So I would make job-specific vetting much more vigorous.
Overmod Let's not forget the other 'elephant in the room' - the Government's emergency requirement that the switch locking be officially documented and 'signed off on' in writing, to eliminate precisely this kind of problem. We had the discussion, so I won't repeat it here. But there's an actionable Federal offense involved in the train of actions which left that switch improperly lined... and fat lot of good their fancy procedure accomplished.
Let's not forget the other 'elephant in the room' - the Government's emergency requirement that the switch locking be officially documented and 'signed off on' in writing, to eliminate precisely this kind of problem.
We had the discussion, so I won't repeat it here. But there's an actionable Federal offense involved in the train of actions which left that switch improperly lined... and fat lot of good their fancy procedure accomplished.
As they say, "can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear." Training and supervision help, but a rulebook(s) thicker than a dictionary won't overcome an individual's shortcomings, in this case a lack of conscientiousness and overconfidence. So I would make job-specific vetting much more vigorous.
I believe codifying almost everything is probably counterproductive.
OvermodLet's not forget the other 'elephant in the room' - the Government's emergency requirement that the switch locking be officially documented and 'signed off on' in writing, to eliminate precisely this kind of problem.
We run on dark territory. When we give track back to the DS, one of the questions we have to answer is if all switches in main track territory are normal.
We used to sign off a SPAF (switch position awareness form), but dropped that requirement several years ago. Even then, we didn't sign it off until we were back at the station, ten miles from the switches in question.
If they gave the track back to the DS, and said they had restored the switch, they have a problem. Even more so if they had actually signed off on a SPAF, which CSX still uses, last I knew.
Lithonia Operator But I think the report says that the engineer jumped off of the engine and ran to safety. And that the conductor ran from the cab to point futher back on the engine. So I'm not clear on what happened. Except that the conductor screwed up really bad. He was "sure" about something which was not true.
But I think the report says that the engineer jumped off of the engine and ran to safety. And that the conductor ran from the cab to point futher back on the engine.
So I'm not clear on what happened. Except that the conductor screwed up really bad. He was "sure" about something which was not true.
Liability in a civil tort case is not at issue, as the matter is settled by the Amtrak/host agreement.
The question is responsibilities for what occurred with a view towards prevention, as Joe McMahon and others have said.
charlie hebdoI think that your example gives even more weight to the need for better vetting - hire people who rate high on conscientiousness, even if they are as dull as ditch water. Thorough training on procedures and frequent checks, i.e. real supervision, not some pro forma yearly ritual.
Amen.
BaltACDTotal man failure incident by the switcher crew; no excuses for their failures. I have no idea how or how much the liability issues will be adjudicated; I doubt that it will be in CSX's favor. In the US anybody can sue anybody else for any reason they can think of - whether it will ever make it to Court is another matter entirely.
So I think we mentioned this issue during the discussion on Amtrak using TRE tracks in Dallas. The agreement Amtrak has with the freight railroads is that no matter who is really at fault for the accident.......Amtrak assumes complete liability for the accident and the frieght railroad is immune from any lawsuits from Amtrak passengers. Is this not the case? I even think Congress put a lawsuit cap per passenger as well in this policy so that the entire Amtrak budget wasn't wiped out due to one Amtrak disaster in a year.
I think potentially Amtrak could sue CSX for damage recovery.....maybe? However, the passengers on the train that suffered injury could not and had to file their lawsuits against Amtrak. I thought that was the standard Amtrak liability agreement concerning accidents that involved passenger injury or death.
charlie hebdo Overmod Euclid I can tell you that if I was the conductor, and my engineer had expressed the degree of doubt that this engineer did, I would have walked down to the switch to check it myself. If I remember correctly, one of the two of them was actually in the process of doing just that when Amtrak came through the switch and they scattered.
Overmod Euclid I can tell you that if I was the conductor, and my engineer had expressed the degree of doubt that this engineer did, I would have walked down to the switch to check it myself. If I remember correctly, one of the two of them was actually in the process of doing just that when Amtrak came through the switch and they scattered.
Euclid I can tell you that if I was the conductor, and my engineer had expressed the degree of doubt that this engineer did, I would have walked down to the switch to check it myself.
If I remember correctly, one of the two of them was actually in the process of doing just that when Amtrak came through the switch and they scattered.
The engineer was on his way to check the switch after telling the conductor that he (engineer) did not see the conductor line the switch back to the mainline. And he felt he would have seen it if it actually happened. So there was a disagreement between the conductor and the engineer as to the position of the switch.
This seems to have developed over some brief time. Then as the Amtrak train was imminent, this disagreement heightened to the point where the engineer told the conductor that he would go and check the switch for himself. But that is where time ran out
Overmod Euclid I can tell you that if I was the conductor, and my engineer had expressed the degree of doubt that this engineer did, I would have walked down to the switch to check it myself. If I remember correctly, one of the two of them was actually in the process of doing just that when Amtrak came through the switch and they scattered. I think I may have commented on this back in one of the interminable threads about Cayce in the first few months after the accident. If you need proof of wacky 'training' -- the idea of leaving the switch open as a convenience for the next crew, whether or not it poses a hazard to SOP operations on the main should the signal system go down ... for a wide and often unpredictable number of the reasons parts of signal systems can go down ... is all the real example you need. To me this would be like the 21st-century equivalent of rejection of the Bishop coupling knife just to 'prove something' to your buddies.
If I remember correctly, one of the two of them was actually in the process of doing just that when Amtrak came through the switch and they scattered. I think I may have commented on this back in one of the interminable threads about Cayce in the first few months after the accident.
If you need proof of wacky 'training' -- the idea of leaving the switch open as a convenience for the next crew, whether or not it poses a hazard to SOP operations on the main should the signal system go down ... for a wide and often unpredictable number of the reasons parts of signal systems can go down ... is all the real example you need. To me this would be like the 21st-century equivalent of rejection of the Bishop coupling knife just to 'prove something' to your buddies.
I think that your example gives even more weight to the need for better vetting - hire people who rate high on conscientiousness, even if they are as dull as ditch water. Thorough training on procedures and frequent checks, i.e. real supervision, not some pro forma yearly ritual.
This is why we announce, on the air, that such-and-such switch is reversed/normal. Every member of the crew with a radio is now aware of the action.
Some regard it as unnecessary, but with our volunteer crews, some of whom only work a few times a year, it's a nice safeguard.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.