Maybe instead of more testing have crew blow into a breathalyzer prior to starting their shift, and at regular thirty minute intervals throughout their shift. At least that would take care of the alcohol part of it. Pre employment and random testing leaves alot to be desired as there's always the possibility that some people will never be selected from a random selection pool.
Ulrich Maybe instead of more testing have crew blow into a breathalyzer prior to starting their shift, and at regular thirty minute intervals throughout their shift. At least that would take care of the alcohol part of it. Pre employment and random testing leaves alot to be desired as there's always the possibility that some people will never be selected from a random selection pool.
That idea is good as a supplemental measure. Random spot checking remains the gold standard.
n012944 charlie hebdo And just to clarify for n01---. I never said that engineer was not responsible. The title to the thread you started. "Drunken CSX engineer and CSX at fault" You never said anything about the engineer being responsible for his actions. Just a click bait thread title, and trying to somehow link this to the UP employee trying to bing his thearpy dog to work.
charlie hebdo And just to clarify for n01---. I never said that engineer was not responsible.
And just to clarify for n01---. I never said that engineer was not responsible.
The title to the thread you started.
You never said anything about the engineer being responsible for his actions. Just a click bait thread title, and trying to somehow link this to the UP employee trying to bing his thearpy dog to work.
The key word is "and" which I hope you understand. The rest of your statement is nonsense. However. I don't expect you to appreciate the irony of the objections here to a flat rejection of that veteran's request.
charlie hebdo n012944 charlie hebdo And just to clarify for n01---. I never said that engineer was not responsible. The title to the thread you started. "Drunken CSX engineer and CSX at fault" You never said anything about the engineer being responsible for his actions. Just a click bait thread title, and trying to somehow link this to the UP employee trying to bing his thearpy dog to work. The key word is "and" which I hope you understand. The rest of your statement is nonsense. However. I don't expect you to appreciate the irony of the objections here to a flat rejection of that veteran's request.
Oh, called out so you must resorting to talking down to me? Shocked I am, just shocked.
An "expensive model collector"
The chemical company I retired from performed random testing at the plant sites on a fairly regular basis. I went one period of about six to nine months where my name seemed to be drawn every time they were testing. In fact, after I had been transferred out of the plant to a corporate office, I returned to the plant site to pack up my office for the move and while doing that, the phone rang and sure enough, my name had been drawn again. The plant HR guy was very apologetic but, rules were rules so off to pee in a cup I went.
I figured "what the heck" and stopped and bought a lottery ticket on my way home then.
Curt
tree68 BaltACD CSX Testing - for what it is worth. 18 years in Jacksonville - never tested (1990-2008)8 years in Baltimore - tested 3 times (2008-2016) I get tested more than that as a volunteer... And several tests per year was common when I was USAF and working for the Army. Whilst stationed at Vandenberg AFB I got tested (random selection) three times in about a month...
BaltACD CSX Testing - for what it is worth. 18 years in Jacksonville - never tested (1990-2008)8 years in Baltimore - tested 3 times (2008-2016)
CSX Testing - for what it is worth.
18 years in Jacksonville - never tested (1990-2008)8 years in Baltimore - tested 3 times (2008-2016)
I get tested more than that as a volunteer...
And several tests per year was common when I was USAF and working for the Army. Whilst stationed at Vandenberg AFB I got tested (random selection) three times in about a month...
A known negative results in less paperwork.
Did the conductor know and not say anything?
rdamonA known negative results in less paperwork. Did the conductor know and not say anything?
A outside company sends their representative to perform the testing - company and testee get notified of the results. The company performing the testing has the same amount of paperwork no matter the results.
Hate to say it - I have been around individuals that were more dangerous sober than they were blowing above the legal limit - no matter what that limit was.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
This Engineer was quite obviously drunk at work and may have been consuming additional alcohol. That's on him, not CSX, and certainly not Hunter Harrison, which is not what I intended to imply. I was simply referencing the NTSB's statements in their report to make a joke along with Schlimm's line about the dog.
I think it is quite possible that the Conductor did not notice the Engineer's state, many alcoholics are quite good at hiding themselves. Perhaps the Engineer consumed additional alcohol in the cab after the Conductor went outside to do their switching.
It is equally possible that the Conductor noticed the Engineer's state and decided not to report it, hoping that they would get through the trip and he would not have to live with the consequences of having gotten a co-worker fired.
We don't have random workplace drug testing in Canada, yet. There is a long running court battle between oil giant Suncor and their unions over this issue at one of the Fort McMurray area oilsands plants, and while it has not been completely resolved yet I think random drug testing will eventually be legalized here, in some way, shape or form.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
n012944Oh, called out so you must resorting to talking down to me? Shocked I am, just shocked.
I really didn't see where anyone is excusing the engineer. From the article:
"The probable cause of the Aug. 12 collision, the board found, was the engineer’s alcohol impairment. A contributing factor: The design of the positive train control system, which does not prevent collisions when it is set in the restricted mode that permits switching moves."
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
jeffhergertEither use that or a soft cut out when making switching (picking up and/or setting out cars) moves off the main track.
We can't even THINK of making a soft cut out without offical permission. That's what restricted mode is for, but it sounds like they want to severely restrict (heh) when you can use restricted mode.
PTC just was not designed for switching moves. It's an A-> B system for road/passenger trains. Very little thought was given for trains that have to do railroadey stuff in between. But my personal opinion is very little thought was given to many apsects of it.
SD70DudeIt is equally possible that the Conductor noticed the Engineer's state and decided not to report it, hoping that they would get through the trip and he would not have to live with the consequences of having gotten a co-worker fired.
I suspect this is what happened. Nobody likes a rat, even if "ratting" is the correct and responsible thing to do. The conductor would have to live with his co-workers. He'd also have to worry about reprisal from the engineer; maybe he's someone prone to get violent.
I once was in a situation when something really wrong happened (luckily, very luckily, without serious consequences) on the railroad because of shared errors by at least three guys. I lied to help cover it up. I never even considered reporting it. I liked most of the railroaders, and most of the management types were complete jerks.
Of course, in my case it was "no harm, no foul."
Nobody likes being a "narc" and that is why effective random testing is necessary.
zugmann jeffhergert Either use that or a soft cut out when making switching (picking up and/or setting out cars) moves off the main track. PTC just was not designed for switching moves. It's an A-> B system for road/passenger trains. Very little thought was given for trains that have to do railroadey stuff in between. But my personal opinion is very little thought was given to many apsects of it.
jeffhergert Either use that or a soft cut out when making switching (picking up and/or setting out cars) moves off the main track.
What is meant by the term "soft cut"?
charlie hebdoNobody likes being a "narc" and that is why effective random testing is necessary.
That is also why 'Red Block' was developed - so fellow employees didn't have to be a Narc and turn the offender into the company. While Red Block is company suppored - Red Block records are not to be made available to the company. Never having to resort to Red Block for myself or for any employees I was responsible for - I don't know how accurate my prior statement about 'available' is in fact.
How did Red Block work? What did it do to employees turned in?
charlie hebdoHow did Red Block work? What did it do to employees turned in?
In crew rooms and all other On Duty points there was a poster posted with a number to be call for a Red Block coordinator. Once the Red Block coordinator was notified - they would inform the employee of the actions to take to 'Mark Off Red Block' with the responsible party (in the case of T&E employees that would be the Crew Callers). The Red Block coordinator would then contact a substance abuse councilor with the appropriate information concerning the employee.
From the company's viewpoint - they WOULD NOT persue disciplinary actions against a employee that marked off Red Block. Needless to say the employees work record would contain the occurrence of the Red Block mark off.
I have no idea of what if any further actions would take place between the Red Block coordinator, the substance abuse councilor and the employee.
In many cases the Red Block coordinators were employees that had overcome their own substance demons in the past and could knowledgably communicate with the employee in need of the Red Block mark off.
CMStPnP CMStPnP has it right. When I was a teenager, had older relatives who I was around somewhat regularly who were rarely sober past noon, or even at noon. Not that I was the greatest observer, but I could never be sure when they were drinking. When one of them was in a good mood, it was a pretty safe bet he was drinking, but that was the only indication I ever had. Between the three of them (my father wasn't one of the three), they emptied enough good heavy-gauge plastic whiskey bottles for my father to cut them in half and put them over the tops of many, many wooden fence posts. My father just asked them to throw their empties over a particular stretch of fence next to the dirt road they regularly traveled, and they did. Psychot Strange that the conductor didn't notice the engineer was intoxicated. So with some people it is not like a Foster Brooks act. They are very good at hiding intoxication and you cannot really tell the difference between sober and drunk. Plus his percentages were below .10 which makes concealment easier. You have to be falling down drunken stupor with a professional alcholic usually before people notice and usually professional alcholics do not take it that far. Roughly the same with some habitual cocaine users. Had cocaine users in the Army in the 1980's and aside from the overdose in caffine jitteriness and bloodshot eyes (you had to be close). You really could not tell they were on drugs. That is why random and unannounced testing programs in the Army are used...........and it seemed every single time they had one conducted across a Bn of 500 men..........they netted a few drug users each time. They had them at least once a quarter.
CMStPnP has it right. When I was a teenager, had older relatives who I was around somewhat regularly who were rarely sober past noon, or even at noon. Not that I was the greatest observer, but I could never be sure when they were drinking. When one of them was in a good mood, it was a pretty safe bet he was drinking, but that was the only indication I ever had. Between the three of them (my father wasn't one of the three), they emptied enough good heavy-gauge plastic whiskey bottles for my father to cut them in half and put them over the tops of many, many wooden fence posts. My father just asked them to throw their empties over a particular stretch of fence next to the dirt road they regularly traveled, and they did.
Psychot Strange that the conductor didn't notice the engineer was intoxicated.
Strange that the conductor didn't notice the engineer was intoxicated.
So with some people it is not like a Foster Brooks act. They are very good at hiding intoxication and you cannot really tell the difference between sober and drunk. Plus his percentages were below .10 which makes concealment easier. You have to be falling down drunken stupor with a professional alcholic usually before people notice and usually professional alcholics do not take it that far. Roughly the same with some habitual cocaine users. Had cocaine users in the Army in the 1980's and aside from the overdose in caffine jitteriness and bloodshot eyes (you had to be close). You really could not tell they were on drugs. That is why random and unannounced testing programs in the Army are used...........and it seemed every single time they had one conducted across a Bn of 500 men..........they netted a few drug users each time. They had them at least once a quarter.
This is pretty off-topic but ...
SALfan, were the plastic bottles used to keep rain off the grain ends, and therefore prolong the life of the fence posts?
BaltACD charlie hebdo How did Red Block work? What did it do to employees turned in? In crew rooms and all other On Duty points there was a poster posted with a number to be call for a Red Block coordinator. Once the Red Block coordinator was notified - they would inform the employee of the actions to take to 'Mark Off Red Block' with the responsible party (in the case of T&E employees that would be the Crew Callers). The Red Block coordinator would then contact a substance abuse councilor with the appropriate information concerning the employee. From the company's viewpoint - they WOULD NOT persue disciplinary actions against a employee that marked off Red Block. Needless to say the employees work record would contain the occurrence of the Red Block mark off. I have no idea of what if any further actions would take place between the Red Block coordinator, the substance abuse councilor and the employee. In many cases the Red Block coordinators were employees that had overcome their own substance demons in the past and could knowledgably communicate with the employee in need of the Red Block mark off.
charlie hebdo How did Red Block work? What did it do to employees turned in?
Thanks. I recall the degree of confidentiality required by certified substance abuse counselors is high, but I am not so sure about EAP coordinators. It's a treatment area with a pretty low success rate (recovering).
Did union contracts keep out some drug testing? Me was in unions 30 yrs,3 diff
SD70DudeThis Engineer was quite obviously drunk at work and may have been consuming additional alcohol. That's on him, not CSX, and certainly not Hunter Harrison, which is not what I intended to imply. I was simply referencing the NTSB's statements in their report to make a joke along with Schlimm's line about the dog. I think it is quite possible that the Conductor did not notice the Engineer's state, many alcoholics are quite good at hiding themselves. Perhaps the Engineer consumed additional alcohol in the cab after the Conductor went outside to do their switching. It is equally possible that the Conductor noticed the Engineer's state and decided not to report it, hoping that they would get through the trip and he would not have to live with the consequences of having gotten a co-worker fired. We don't have random workplace drug testing in Canada, yet. There is a long running court battle between oil giant Suncor and their unions over this issue at one of the Fort McMurray area oilsands plants, and while it has not been completely resolved yet I think random drug testing will eventually be legalized here, in some way, shape or form.
Back when I was in college, I had a job working on lighting and film projection at one of the auditoriums. The man in charge was a former Pullman Conductor. Campus was "DRY". Yeh. I watched him drink multiple tumblers of vodka and could not detect any change in his mood, actions or anything. And I was looking. My dad had had issues with alcohol and I was not one who drank. While on one of my work sections with the PRR, I had gone to dinner with the brass and they drank. When we left the restaurant, I was concerned and somewhat fearful of asking but I did ask if it was acceptable for me to drive the company car back to the motel. Fortunatly, they agreed. When I came to Chicago to start work, I went to a bar and had two (2) beers. I felt like my brain was floating inside my skull. Didn't like that feeling and have never been drunk. I like being able to think. Never have understood why some want to get "wasted" to the point they can't remember what they did.
So I can believe the conductor did not know his engineer was under the influence. But was he awake? How could not have seen the stop signal that his engineer did not brake for? He is obligated to be alert and responsible. I have not seen his statement as to what he saw and did or did not do.
I'm also curious about what the conductor was doing. If someone knows how to find such things, could you post a link to the NTSB report?
Apparently you read this as a compound sentence: two statements anded together. I never saw it that way. I saw one statement with two subjects anded together. The engineer and CSX both at fault.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
adkrr64 zugmann jeffhergert Either use that or a soft cut out when making switching (picking up and/or setting out cars) moves off the main track. PTC just was not designed for switching moves. It's an A-> B system for road/passenger trains. Very little thought was given for trains that have to do railroadey stuff in between. But my personal opinion is very little thought was given to many apsects of it. What is meant by the term "soft cut"?
I second the question.
Electroliner 1935 So I can believe the conductor did not know his engineer was under the influence. But was he awake? How could not have seen the stop signal that his engineer did not brake for? He is obligated to be alert and responsible. I have not seen his statement as to what he saw and did or did not do.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
The actual NTSB preliminary report is RRD19FR010, and the PDF is available here:
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/RRD19FR010-preliminary.pdf
The board meeting on September 15th associated with the Carey accident, complete with links and archive access, has this page:
https://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/Pages/2020-RRD19FR010-BMG.aspx
And here is the docket with testimony and materials.
A "hard" cut out of the PTC is throwing three toggle switches, which are sealed, to the cut out position. This disconnects completely the PTC system. It's only done when instructed, usually because the system failure is bad enough that it won't let the engineer recover from a penalty brake application after all other remedies have failed.
A "soft" cut out disengages the enforcement but doesn't lose the trip information programmed in when the engineer first initialized PTC. The restricted speed option does the same, but retains enforcement of restricted speed only. At first, a soft cut out was the only option available when making switching moves.
When re-engaging PTC from either disengaged mode requires the engineer to review the initial trip information and edit any changes before PTC can be engaged.
The trip information is: train type, engines, their status and their position in the train, loads, empties, trailing tonnage, length, number of axles, and equipment speed. All this is needed for the system to calculate braking distances.
Jeff
Thanks, Jeff. I kept thinking it had something to do with switching a cut of cars, but I see it's a different kind of switch.
My husband was in a safety sensative job for years. At one carrier he always was the one that got popped it seemed for the random drug tests at least once a quarter. Why they knew he could pass them. While certain other drivers that he knew could not have passed one where given free passes to keep right on driving. He flat out remembers one night in NV. He and another driver stopped at Wendover to get a bite to eat lose a few bucks at the casino there and sleep then move on in the morning for CA for their delivery that next day. Well the driver that he was running across NV was hammering Gentleman Jack's finest all night long at the table. Yet the next morning less than 6 hours later coming back to his truck was ready to drive almost 600 miles to make his deliver that next morning. That was until my husband called the safety department and turned this other driver in for his actions. To say that driver lost his job was an understatement. Luckily my husband had a trainee with him that could take the truck over and following my husband make the delivery on time. However it still looked bad for the carrier that a driver got nailed for a DUI. It is called failure to speak up when you know someone has a problem. Sorry but especially when your in control of 15K tons and haul some of the most toxic stuff on rails if your coworkers have a problem SPEAK UP and either get them the help they need or get them off these trains before another accident like this happens. This is what the second time a railroad employee has done stupid crap like this in just over 30 years. First we had the Chase MD crash now this one.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.