SMETHPORT - The engineer of the Norfolk Southern train that derailed near Gardeau last year will apparently stand trial on charges of reckless endangerment and risking a catastrophe after Magisterial District Judge Bill Todd ruled Monday that the Commonwealth had shown a prima fascia case against him.
Michael Siefert, 45, formerly of Buffalo N.Y., did not testify at the preliminary hearing before Todd, but Trooper Gary Stuckey of the Pennsylvania State Police read portions of testimony Siefert had given in a hearing when he was fired by Norfolk Southern Railroad.
In that testimony, Siefert admitted that he was operating the southbound train during the early morning of June 30, 2006, when it crested Keating Summit at about 10 miles per hour, but that the next thing he was aware of was the conductor repeatedly shouting his name and realizing that the train was out of control and speeding down the steep grade at more than 70 miles per hour.
"I'm still trying to figure out what happened," that testimony read.
At that hearing, Siefert also admitted the train was not being operated according to Norfolk Southern rules, which stipulated a 15 mph speed in the area and that the subsequent derailment was a result of that failure to follow procedure.
Asked at the railroad hearing if he had fallen asleep, he replied "I don't think so," and that his eyes were open but Steve Rogers, the conductor, "kept yelling my name."
Rather than "dumping the train" or engaging the emergency braking devices, he decide the "ride it out," something that had been done with a supervisor and other railroad officials on board when he did his training run on that piece of track in 2000, he said.
After the hearing, Siefert said that a sudden application of the brakes would have caused the rear of the train to overtake the front and that he made a conscious decision to try to ride it out.
The same railroad official who was now accusing him of causing the wreck was on the train during Siefert's training run, the engineer said, and made the same decision.
The only difference and "The reason we're here now is that the train derailed."
A similar statement was in the testimony presented in court, and McKean County District Attorney John Pavlock countered it by saying "Just because you've done something before, doesn't mean it is right to do it again."
Defense Attorney Paul Maliza of Emporium told the court that the conductors also had the authority and means to activate the brakes and asked why he was not charged - "Two people were operating that train; the conductor had equal responsibility."
Pavlock replied that the investigation is continuing and further charges are possible.
Most of the hearing consisted of Stuckey on the stand entering into evidence various testimony and conclusions of a dismissal hearing and of a hearing by the Federal Railroad Agency, as well as results of toxicology tests done after the wreck when Siefert was taken to Olean (N.Y.) General Hospital. Stuckey affirmed that those involved in the testing and the hearings would be available to testify at a trial and that the blood and urine samples were preserved and available.
While the samples showed some evidence of morphine, it was unclear whether Siefert had taken some prescription drug containing the substance or whether the positive sample was the result of illegal drugs.
Maliza argued that all the prosecution had was a statement by a doctor that the drugs "may likely have been a contributing factor," in how Siefert acted or reacted.
He also asked why Siefert's license to operate a train had not been revoked, to which Pavlock replied that any federal action was separate from what the state criminal charges.
Even without the drug tests, "The speed (of the train) itself is enough (to substantiate) the charges."
The only other witness to testify was Pennsylvania Waterways Conservation Officer Robert Mader, who described the scene when he arrived several hours after the crash.
Mader testified that the stream into which sodium hydroxide poured from four derailed tankers was a Class A Trout Stream and said that all aquatic life in the stream had been destroyed, with fish and other organisms affected as far as 30 miles farther down into the Sinnemahoning River. He showed pictures of the scene and the stream with the brown sodium hydroxide in it.
Siefert's testimony at his dismissal and FRA hearing said nothing about possible drug use, but the engineer did tell those boards that he had been under great stress, with his life "pretty well messed up" because his wife of 23 years had left him, without apparent cause. Siefert said he had gone down that hill 150-200 times before last year's derailment.
Sad case with no easy answers. Still, I would be very surprised if he did any jail time. Not excusing this man's culpability, but there are burglers and rapists that still receive token sentences or wrist slaps.
"I like my Pullman Standards & Budds in Stainless Steel flavors, thank you!"
"An engineer at the controls of a train that derailed, polluting a pristine McKean County trout stream, told his employer he didn't think he had fallen asleep but remembered the conductor yelling his name as the train sped down a steep grade at more than 70 mph, a state trooper testified.
"Reading from portions of testimony Michael Seifert gave at a hearing when he was fired from Norfolk Southern Railway, Trooper Gary Stuckey said Mr. Seifert admitted to operating the train June 30 when it crested a summit at about 10 mph."
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07108/778821-85.stm
Dave
kenneo wrote:The State of Pennsylvania, NS and the FRA are trying to make an example of the man to "scare" engineers and conductors to operate fully within the rules. Has to do with the high visibility of recent derailments (and collisions). They have to be seen as doing their jobs. This poor guy got caught in the middle and is going to be one of those examples. Really sucks to be him if he fell victim to a medical problem.
I couldn't disagree with more. We have a responsibilty to operate that train safely, he didn't do that. I work with guy's who'll come in sicker then hell, but they won't lay off less they miss a buck or two (that's why I carry Lysol in my grip so I can spray down the control stand).
So he go to jail, no, but losing his job, yeah I agree with that.
cordon wrote:I wonder what the conductor was doing during the time that the train was accelerating from 10 MPH to 70 MPH? Something is missing here.
I noted the same thing. Something is missing here. The conductor didn't notice anything wrong as they accelerated? His whole response was to yell at the engineer? Where was he?
Playing Devil's advocate here...
Do you know how to stop a train doing 70mph down hill?
How many conductors have run a locomotive, other than the few times the engineer takes a wiz and the conductor sits in for him while he is in the toilet?
Plug the train?
How many conductors out there know how to set up the dynamic brakes?
Anyone got a clue how this particular was out together, and how it would handle...what were the braking characteristics?
Or try and do a brake reduction...just a service reduction, or a full application?
Maybe the conductor was asleep too, and only woke up when the train got a rocking...
23 17 46 11
csmincemoyer wrote: Rather than "dumping the train" or engaging the emergency braking devices, he decide the "ride it out," something that had been done with a supervisor and other railroad officials on board when he did his training run on that piece of track in 2000, he said. The same railroad official who was now accusing him of causing the wreck was on the train during Siefert's training run, the engineer said, and made the same decision. The only difference and "The reason we're here now is that the train derailed."
I don't understand this part. On this training run when the officials were on board and supervising, did they go down the hill as a real runaway? Or were they demonstrating what happens if a train gets away from you? Why was this done during the training run?
ALSO: The engineer said he was reluctanct to dump the air for fear of causing a derailment as the slack ran in, so he decided to try to ride it out. What was the probability that the head end would have left the track on a curve at the speed they were going in that location? If that were likely, it seems it would have been better to dump the air and take a chance on a derailment in the train rather than to ride the engine into the ditch.
edblysard wrote:How many conductors out there know how to set up the dynamic brakes?
I thought the whole point of 2-person crew was to provide this kind of backup in case engineer gets ill etc. So conductors really don't know how to operate a train and what to do in emergencies? Then why not just hire general laborers as conductors and pay them minimum wage?
Hi dima I am a locomotive engineer for the BNSF in Illinois the conductor has not recievied training on how to use the automatic brake the only thing that they have on their side of the cab is the emergency valve, the conductors do not understand on how to control the train, now I know their are some that do undrestand train control they are most often set back engineers or old head conductors that knows the route they operate. In a condition like this everyone is playing monday morning quarterback, Ed is right on the money with his commet.
Rodney
Rodney Beck wrote: In a condition like this everyone is playing monday morning quarterback...
In a condition like this everyone is playing monday morning quarterback...
I agree that there is no point in second guessing what happened, especially unless there is a much more detailed account of the incident than what is presented here.
The engineer defends his action based on a previous trip with the same kind of speed violation that was apparently sanctioned by a supervisor.
However, the engineer admits that he was going 10 mph, and the next thing he knew, he was going 70 mph. That perception would seem to have no conceivable explanation other than a shift in his consciousness.
Rodney Beck wrote:Hi dima I am a locomotive engineer for the BNSF in Illinois the conductor has not recievied training on how to use the automatic brake the only thing that they have on their side of the cab is the emergency valve, the conductors do not understand on how to control the train, now I know their are some that do undrestand train control they are most often set back engineers or old head conductors that knows the route they operate. In a condition like this everyone is playing monday morning quarterback, Ed is right on the money with his commet.Rodney
Thanks Rodney! I really had no idea. Is this stuff so hard that conductors can't be trained to handle it in case engineer becomes ill, or needs to go the the bathroom for 5 minutes.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.