We can pontificate on this incident all we want and throw blame around like water out of a bucket. Until we come up with the technology to 'download' the thoughts the dead were experiencing immediately prior to their death we are just wasting bits and bytes.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Euclid The NTSB does not say that the employees were required to obtain protection to walk on the Amtrak tracks. They do say that per General Safety Rule 10, the operating crews were not prohibited from walking either on or near the Amtrak tracks. Rule 10 only requires employees to “Stop and look in both directions before making any of the following movements: - Fouling or crossing a track…” So the CSX employees were fouling a track and they were required to look both ways before fouling. However, if they did that, the rule would allow them to maintain fouling while walking on the track for an indefinite distance without further looking. What is missing from Rule 10 in this case is a requirement to look back at specified intervals during the continuous fouling associated with a long walk on the track, in line with it. So it is true that Rule 10 does not prohibit employees from walking on a track lengthwise with it, however the rule also does not provide any procedure for employees to walk lengthwise on the track, as the CSX employees were doing. Rule 10 does require employees to be alert while on or near tracks, but a fully alert person could still be blindsided by a train if it sneaks up on them from behind and its horn warning is merged with the horn warning of a second train approaching from their front, on a track that they are not fouling. Therefore, without a means to seek protection on the Amtrak property; and without a requirement to do so; and with no rule telling them not to walk on the Amtrak track— there was nothing in the rules governing the action of the two employees in walking lengthwise on the Amtrak track. This leaves the obvious question: If the two conductors were not doing anything wrong, how could the cause of their deaths be their fault as the NTSB determines with their Probable Cause in their report? The apparent reason for a lack of CSX rules covering this situation is that it occurred off of CSX property. So the only stipulation that would come into play here would be the trespass laws that would have prohibited the two CSX employees from walking on the Amtrak Track. I must assume that the NTSB does not want to address this issue in their report on the accident. In my opinion, NTSB does not want to venture into the consideration that the actual cause of this accident was trespassing on Amtrak property, even though it is hard find a reason otherwise. So, in my opinion, that is why they offered this muddy account in which they state what was not required, and what they wish were required; and then blame the cause on something that was not required. Perhaps this is the first train fatality caused by trespass in which that critical fact is not mentioned.
The NTSB does not say that the employees were required to obtain protection to walk on the Amtrak tracks. They do say that per General Safety Rule 10, the operating crews were not prohibited from walking either on or near the Amtrak tracks.
Rule 10 only requires employees to “Stop and look in both directions before making any of the following movements: - Fouling or crossing a track…”
So the CSX employees were fouling a track and they were required to look both ways before fouling. However, if they did that, the rule would allow them to maintain fouling while walking on the track for an indefinite distance without further looking. What is missing from Rule 10 in this case is a requirement to look back at specified intervals during the continuous fouling associated with a long walk on the track, in line with it.
So it is true that Rule 10 does not prohibit employees from walking on a track lengthwise with it, however the rule also does not provide any procedure for employees to walk lengthwise on the track, as the CSX employees were doing. Rule 10 does require employees to be alert while on or near tracks, but a fully alert person could still be blindsided by a train if it sneaks up on them from behind and its horn warning is merged with the horn warning of a second train approaching from their front, on a track that they are not fouling.
Therefore, without a means to seek protection on the Amtrak property; and without a requirement to do so; and with no rule telling them not to walk on the Amtrak track— there was nothing in the rules governing the action of the two employees in walking lengthwise on the Amtrak track.
This leaves the obvious question: If the two conductors were not doing anything wrong, how could the cause of their deaths be their fault as the NTSB determines with their Probable Cause in their report?
The apparent reason for a lack of CSX rules covering this situation is that it occurred off of CSX property. So the only stipulation that would come into play here would be the trespass laws that would have prohibited the two CSX employees from walking on the Amtrak Track. I must assume that the NTSB does not want to address this issue in their report on the accident.
In my opinion, NTSB does not want to venture into the consideration that the actual cause of this accident was trespassing on Amtrak property, even though it is hard find a reason otherwise. So, in my opinion, that is why they offered this muddy account in which they state what was not required, and what they wish were required; and then blame the cause on something that was not required. Perhaps this is the first train fatality caused by trespass in which that critical fact is not mentioned.
If they are on Amtrak property then they are governed by Amtrak rules and procedures which requires 'foul time'. The Amtrak dispatcher must be notified of their intentions and grant them foul time to inspect their train. However it was not necessary for them to walk on a live track, all they had to do was go to the other side of their consist where the was no 'live' track as their train snaked through the crossover and occupied both CSX #1 and CSX#2 main lines. As I previously stated poor judgement, inexperience and inadequate training on the conductor's part cost both of them their lives.
BaltACD We can pontificate on this incident all we want and throw blame around like water out of a bucket. Until we come up with the technology to 'download' the thoughts the dead were experiencing immediately prior to their death we are just wasting bits and bytes.
What would your opinion be as to the cause of their demise and the contradiction in the NTSB report?
243129If they are on Amtrak property then they are governed by Amtrak rules and procedures which requires 'foul time'. The Amtrak dispatcher must be notified of their intentions and grant them foul time to inspect their train. However it was not necessary for them to walk on a live track,...
So, as I understand it the two CSX employees were breaking an Amtrak rule by being on the Amtrak track without foul time. Were they also trespassing by being on the Amtrak track without foul time? Or looking at it another way, say they entered Amtrak property without foul time, but did not foul the track, would they have been trespassing in that case?
243129You have contributed nothing on topic other than Dr.Phil like observations, semantic distortions and 'tutorials'. If you have nothing to contribute to the contradiction in the NTSB report please do not clog up my thread with your attempts to derail. FYI Dave Klepper contributed nothing on topic only a petulant criticism of the way it is presented. I welcome all opinions and observations of the topic presented. If you have nothing to offer on topic you are not welcome.
Contrary to your presumptuous opinion, you are not the self-appointed owner of this or any other thread on any of these forums. You have also repeatedly violated the forums' norms of civility, though you likely do not think they apply to you.
charlie hebdo 243129 You have contributed nothing on topic other than Dr.Phil like observations, semantic distortions and 'tutorials'. If you have nothing to contribute to the contradiction in the NTSB report please do not clog up my thread with your attempts to derail. FYI Dave Klepper contributed nothing on topic only a petulant criticism of the way it is presented. I welcome all opinions and observations of the topic presented. If you have nothing to offer on topic you are not welcome. Contrary to your presumptuous opinion, you are not the self-appointed owner of this or any other thread on any of these forums. You have also repeatedly violated the forums' norms of civility, though you likely do not think they apply to you.
243129 You have contributed nothing on topic other than Dr.Phil like observations, semantic distortions and 'tutorials'. If you have nothing to contribute to the contradiction in the NTSB report please do not clog up my thread with your attempts to derail. FYI Dave Klepper contributed nothing on topic only a petulant criticism of the way it is presented. I welcome all opinions and observations of the topic presented. If you have nothing to offer on topic you are not welcome.
I am reactive not proactive.
Now what part of this statement don't you get?
If you have nothing to offer on topic you are not welcome.
Euclid 243129 If they are on Amtrak property then they are governed by Amtrak rules and procedures which requires 'foul time'. The Amtrak dispatcher must be notified of their intentions and grant them foul time to inspect their train. However it was not necessary for them to walk on a live track,... So, as I understand it the two CSX employees were breaking an Amtrak rule by being on the Amtrak track without foul time. Were they also trespassing by being on the Amtrak track without foul time? Or looking at it another way, say they entered Amtrak property without foul time, but did not foul the track, would they have been trespassing in that case?
243129 If they are on Amtrak property then they are governed by Amtrak rules and procedures which requires 'foul time'. The Amtrak dispatcher must be notified of their intentions and grant them foul time to inspect their train. However it was not necessary for them to walk on a live track,...
In the strict sense of the word I guess you could say that they were trespassing in the instances you present.
243129 charlie hebdo 243129 You have contributed nothing on topic other than Dr.Phil like observations, semantic distortions and 'tutorials'. If you have nothing to contribute to the contradiction in the NTSB report please do not clog up my thread with your attempts to derail. FYI Dave Klepper contributed nothing on topic only a petulant criticism of the way it is presented. I welcome all opinions and observations of the topic presented. If you have nothing to offer on topic you are not welcome. Contrary to your presumptuous opinion, you are not the self-appointed owner of this or any other thread on any of these forums. You have also repeatedly violated the forums' norms of civility, though you likely do not think they apply to you. I am reactive not proactive. Now what part of this statement don't you get? If you have nothing to offer on topic you are not welcome.
I'm having visions of pots and kettles...
FYI, those on phones (especially with limited data) may have difficulty following links.
And so this fits your definition of offering something on-topic, it doesn't matter whose track you are on, or who you work for, walking foul of the track without proper protection is a rule violation.
I hate to speak ill of the dead, but everyone (even the general public) should instinctively know the hazards presented by walking on or near the track.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
243129I am reactive not proactive.
Offensive.On topic, the CSX employees appear to have erred by trespassing and should have known better. Unless some startling new information is uncovered, which is highly unlikely, that will be the final decision. What to recommend? Don't trespass without gaining permission from the line in question.
SD70DudeAnd so this fits your definition of offering something on-topic, it doesn't matter whose track you are on, or who you work for, walking foul of the track without proper protection is a rule violation. I hate to speak ill of the dead, but everyone (even the general public) should instinctively know the hazards presented by walking on or near the track.
The NTSB report on this accident will not open when I tried a couple times just now. But from my notes from the earlier thread, I find the report says this about whether walking on the Amtrak track was a rules violation. They said this:
The operating crews were not prohibited from walking either on or near the Amtrak tracks.
Nothing else they say refutes or qualifies that, but they do make several other comments about the this point. But overall, the way they structure these comments, and spread them out in a way that muddies up the context, it makes it very difficult to understand just what their conclusion is regarding the two CSX employees walking off of CSX property and onto Amtrak property and into the foul zone of an Amtrak mainline. But overall, according to their report, there was nothing that the employees did wrong.
NTSB accident report that is the subject of this thread: https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/RAB1901.pdf
The question of whether CSX employees were trespassing by walking on Amtrak tracks is not addressed by the NTSB. That unanswered question resides somewhere within the disjointed and ambiguous coverage of the topic of the two CSX conductors walking in the Amtrak track instead of CSX property. But, it seems to me that the fact of trespass (if true) would override all of this other mumbo-jumbo that NTSB offers to explain what governed the right or wrong of the employees occupying the Amtrak mainline.
That explanation consists of the following points made by the NTSB that are related to CSX employees being Amtrak property in the following quotes. From the NTSB accident report, the following comments are quoted in red and my comments in response to those quotes are in blue:
“The operating crews were not prohibited from walking either on or near the Amtrak tracks.”
Apparently this statement has unstated conditions attached to it because there are several conditions under which it would have been wrong for crews to be walking on or near the Amtrak tracks. Saying that “…crews were not prohibited… is absolute in its meaning. It means that there are no conditional exceptions. Yet there are exceptions, which I will state further into this. So the sentence is incredibly misleading.
Walking “on” the Amtrak tracks is a clearly described action. Walking “near” the Amtrak tracks is not clear because “near” is not quantified, and is subject to individual interpretation. What they should have written is “…Walking within the foul zone of tracks.” A person can walk in the track foul zone without actually walking on the track. Maybe that is what they mean by walking “near” the tracks.
“The NTSB believes that the crew should have been prohibited from walking near the live tracks of the other railroad.”
Again the word “near” is ambiguous, and they left out the word “on”. Yet obviously, the NTSB’s statement must include the primary action of walking on the track.
“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.”
The first sentence is poorly written. What is should say is this: “However, there are circumstances when the operating employees cannot walk without being within or dangerously near the foul zone of another railroad company’s track.” The second sentence says that the CSX employees were required to be under protection under a current process that is readily available to provide this protection. This is one of the exceptions to the first NTSB sentence I quoted above. Employees are definitely prohibited from walking on or “near” the Amtrak tracks.
“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.”
In their paragraph prior to this one, they say that employees MUST obtain formal protection in order to foul the adjacent tracks of another railroad company. Yet in the next paragraph directly above, they say they believe this type of protection COULD be used to protect employees if they occupy the adjacent track of another railroad company.
********************************************************
“The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of the accident was the CSX Transportation train Q137 crew’s decision to walk near an active track without protection.”
There is stunning ambiguity in these NTSB statements. The first statement seems to mean that CSX railroad employees are free to walk on the property of another railroad and do so without protection.
However, in the third statement, the NTSB says that if CSX employees are choose to walk on the property of another railroad; and if that walking fouls the track of the other railroad, it requires protection under an established procedure that is readily available.
So the first statement makes it sound like the CSX employees did not need protection and therefore did nothing wrong. Yet the third statement says that the CSX employees did require protection while fouling the Amtrak line; and therefore, they broke the rule by walking on the Amtrak track within its foul zone.
The fifth statement seems to confirm that the CSX broke the rule because it says that the CSX employees’ decision to walk near an active track without protection caused the accident.
HOWEVER: The fourth statement makes it sound like the seeking of protection related to fouling the Amtrak track was not and is not an option, so NTSB recommends that it be make an option. This seems to conflict with their third statement in which they seem to say that seeking status of protection was an option. So which way is it? Well, if it was not an option, does that therefore mean that the CSX employees were not breaking any rule because their first statement above says, “The operating crews were not prohibited from walking either on or near the Amtrak tracks.”?
If they were not prohibited from walking within or dangerously near the foul zone of the Amtrak tracks, how can their decision to do so be the probable cause of the accident?
I made this statement/observation previously and I firmly believe that for the reasons stated two lives were lost.
If they are on Amtrak property then they are governed by Amtrak rules and procedures which requires 'foul time'. The Amtrak dispatcher must be notified of their intentions and grant them foul time to inspect their train. However it was not necessary for them to walk on a live track, all they had to do was go to the other side of their consist where there was no 'live' track as their train snaked through the crossover and occupied both CSX #1 and CSX#2 main lines. As I previously stated poor judgement, inexperience and inadequate training on the conductor's part cost both of them their lives.
I would like the aforementioned contradiction clarified as to when the engineer on #175 applied the brake into the emergency position. Applying the brake to emergency after impact is unconscionable.
243129 I made this statement/observation previously and I firmly believe that for the reasons stated two lives were lost. If they are on Amtrak property then they are governed by Amtrak rules and procedures which requires 'foul time'. The Amtrak dispatcher must be notified of their intentions and grant them foul time to inspect their train. However it was not necessary for them to walk on a live track, all they had to do was go to the other side of their consist where there was no 'live' track as their train snaked through the crossover and occupied both CSX #1 and CSX#2 main lines. As I previously stated poor judgement, inexperience and inadequate training on the conductor's part cost both of them their lives. I would like the aforementioned contradiction clarified as to when the engineer on #175 applied the brake into the emergency position. Applying the brake to emergency after impact is unconscionable.
Could it be that the CSX rules have no place stating if employees have to walk on another RR's ROW they must get permission? Find that ulikely but ? ? ? ?
blue streak 1Could it be that the CSX rules have no place stating if employees have to walk on another RR's ROW they must get permission? Find that ulikely but ? ? ? ?
There are operating agreements in which one company's employees may enter the property of the company with which they have the agreement. I don't know if that was the case in this accident, but the NTSB has not mentioned it if there was some type of agreement. And in such an agreement, there would likely be a provision to ask for protection from fouling track.
But I would be surprised if employees of one company could legally just enter the property of another company for some unusual need or convenience. I am not convinced that the company being entered would grant protection for such a random use. They might not even grant permission to enter their property on just an informal, one-time basis. I also do not know of any special status possessed by railroad employees that grants them blanket permission to enter the property of another railroad company.
If such a trespass did occur, I doubt anyone would make an issue out of it if the trespassers were employees of another nearby railroad company, and offered a decent reason for entering the property of another railroad without permission.
But these elements rise to a much higher level of importance in this case because the two CSX employees entered the property of another railroad company and were killed by a train run by that company when they were on that company’s property. So obviously, these unusual facts are a big part of this story.
Amtrak rules are in effect on Amtrak property. CSX rules are in effect on CSX property.
243129https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/RAB1901.pdf
He's right, you know. Here is the actual language from the first section of the report:
She then saw two people in reflective vests walking single file on the end of the crossties outside the gage of the track (between Amtrak main track 3 and CSX main track 2). She blew the horn continuously for 15 to 20 seconds. This action automatically initiated the bell to be sounded and activated the auxiliary lights. Moments later, as the train was traveling at a reduced speed of about 74 mph to comply with the restrictive signal, it struck the two CSX employees. After the impact, at 11:18 p.m., the engineer placed the train into emergency braking, announced emergency three times on the radio, and called the Amtrak dispatch center via the radio. After her train came to a complete stop, she called her conductor to come to the head end of the train.
This, if at all accurate, is worse than what we've been discussing -- let's look at it a moment. The NTSB is saying the engineer of 175 (1) saw the employees on the ends of the ties; (2) sounded the horn from 15 to 20 seconds; (3) came into contact with the employees 'moments later' even than that, at 74mph restricted speed; and only then, :"after the impact at 11:18pm" placed the train in emergency braking.
How far could she have seen them? 15 seconds at 74mph is a lot of feet. Meanwhile, "according to the event recorder and the engineer interview, the Amtrak engineer responded immediately and applied emergency braking upon seeing the CSX employees walking near the tracks".
So indeed -- which is it? This may depend on something that has not been discussed yet: 'proof' of the exact time of impact, perhaps from onboard camera, to compare with the brake application time on the event recorder. This seems obvious, but NTSB is instead oblivious to resolving their own contradiction. And I believe their own accident investigation 'collateral' contains all the material needed to resolve the issue.
OvermodThis, if at all accurate, is worse than what we've been discussing --
It is certainly a descrepancy that needs an explanation, but what do you mean when you say it is worse that what we have been discussing? It seems to me that it is exactly what we have been discussing.
Overmod 243129 https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/RAB1901.pdf He's right, you know. Here is the actual language from the first section of the report: She then saw two people in reflective vests walking single file on the end of the crossties outside the gage of the track (between Amtrak main track 3 and CSX main track 2). She blew the horn continuously for 15 to 20 seconds. This action automatically initiated the bell to be sounded and activated the auxiliary lights. Moments later, as the train was traveling at a reduced speed of about 74 mph to comply with the restrictive signal, it struck the two CSX employees. After the impact, at 11:18 p.m., the engineer placed the train into emergency braking, announced emergency three times on the radio, and called the Amtrak dispatch center via the radio. After her train came to a complete stop, she called her conductor to come to the head end of the train. This, if at all accurate, is worse than what we've been discussing -- let's look at it a moment. The NTSB is saying the engineer of 175 (1) saw the employees on the ends of the ties; (2) sounded the horn from 15 to 20 seconds; (3) came into contact with the employees 'moments later' even than that, at 74mph restricted speed; and only then, :"after the impact at 11:18pm" placed the train in emergency braking. How far could she have seen them? 15 seconds at 74mph is a lot of feet. Meanwhile, "according to the event recorder and the engineer interview, the Amtrak engineer responded immediately and applied emergency braking upon seeing the CSX employees walking near the tracks". So indeed -- which is it? This may depend on something that has not been discussed yet: 'proof' of the exact time of impact, perhaps from onboard camera, to compare with the brake application time on the event recorder. This seems obvious, but NTSB is instead oblivious to resolving their own contradiction. And I believe their own accident investigation 'collateral' contains all the material needed to resolve the issue.
243129 https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/RAB1901.pdf
Although I will probably be accused of making a molehill out of a mountain, I think it was just sloppy writing and we should trust the event recorder.
charlie hebdo I think it was just sloppy writing and we should trust the event recorder.
"sloppy writing" should not be tolerated from a government agency such as the NTSB.
I highly doubt that the event recorder is capable of 'sensing' an impact with an animal or human.
243129 charlie hebdo I think it was just sloppy writing and we should trust the event recorder. "sloppy writing" should not be tolerated from a government agency such as the NTSB. I highly doubt that the event recorder is capable of 'sensing' an impact with an animal or human.
Your own quote shows that sensing impact on a human is irrelevant. Yes, it's a sloppy piece of writing, which likely will be proofed and corrected. Your frivolous, erroneous comment on 'gage' makes it likely they will not respond to you beyond the initial phone conversation.
"Page six, paragraph six, last sentence:
According to the event recorder and the engineer interview,the Amtrak engineer responded immediately and applied emergency braking upon seeing the CSX employees walking near the tracks."
A lot of the problem was the fact that the two Amtrak trains were blowing horns approaching the impact point. The victims had their backs to the train that struck them. They possibly assumed the only Amtrak train coming was the one they could see, as it would be difficult to realize the horns' blowing was coming from two trains, not just the one they could see on Amtrak track 2. Of course, they were unwise to be walking on an active track without obtaining clearance in advance, whether violating a rule or trespassing or not.
[from the preliminary report] "There were four parallel tracks (two CSX and two Amtrak) where the employees were struck. CSX freight train Q13727 was stopped on CSX track 2. The middle track was Amtrak track 3 where Amtrak train 175 was traveling in the same direction as the freight train. The track on the far right was Amtrak track 2 where Amtrak train 66 was traveling in the opposite direction of the freight train at the time the employees were struck. According to each Amtrak engineer, they started sounding their horns when they observed the employees on the track...After inspecting the second car reported by the mechanical department, the conductor and conductor trainee started walking back to the locomotive. The rear of their train was on track 1 and the front of their train was on track 2. As they approached the front of the locomotive, the walking space between CSX track 2 and Amtrak track 3 narrowed. They were struck by Amtrak train 175 that was traveling about 73 mph on Amtrak’s track 3."
charlie hebdoA lot of the problem was the fact that the two Amtrak trains were blowing horns approaching the impact point. The victims had their backs to the train that struck them. They possibly assumed the only Amtrak train coming was the one they could see, as it would be difficult to realize the horns' blowing was coming from two trains, not just the one they could see on Amtrak track 2. Of course, they were unwise to be walking on an active track without obtaining clearance in advance, whether violating a rule or trespassing or not.
I have read of or been told about several accounts of this type of accident. I suspect it has occurred hundreds of times throughout history. It is a peculiar and unique hazard associated with double track. It is something that the victim does not anticipate because they take their hearing and vision for granted and believe they will always warn them.
I have never seen a rule that specifically warns of this danger. Rules typically warn to expect train or rolling stock movement on any track, in either direction, at any time. But the problem with this unique hazard is that an person thinks he/she is expecting movement in any direction at any time, but does not realize they are deprived of the necessary sensory perception to detect an approaching train. While it is true that approaching trains can be surprisingly quiet, this type of accident I am referring to has a different cause.
A person is walking on one track of a double track railroad. They are facing in just one direction, and may never look back if they believe they will always hear any train approaching from behind. Suddenly they see a train approaching from their front on the track they are walking on. So without looking back, they step over to the other track to clear the train they see approaching from their front.
What they don’t realize is that a second train is approaching behind at the same moment. So they step out of the path of the first train and into the path of the second train. Both engineers are likely to be blowing the horn to warn them, but they perceive the horn signals coming only from the train they see. Likewise the train noise alone fails to warn them because both trains are making noise and the victim does not realize he is hearing two trains instead of just the one he sees.
This type of accident requires the perfect timing of two trains converging on a walker simultaneously, but it is also a very well hidden danger that catches the victim off guard.
Here is an account of the same concept, except on a single track, and resulting in a head-on collision between two trains.
From Railroad Gazette monthly record of train accidents:
June 1890
23rd, on New York, New Haven & Hartford, at South Lyme, Conn., butting collision between two gravel trains. The engine of one of the trains was pushing the caboose. One laborer was killed and three injured. It appears that the conductors of these trains made meeting points verbally upon their own responsibility, which a coroner’s verdict says was “without the knowledge of the railroad company.” The coroner’s verdict also says that each engineer on approaching the curve where the collision occurred blew a long blast of the whistle, and that very likely these signals were simultaneous, so that neither heard the whistle of the other.
In the accident we are discussing, it is unclear as to whether the two CSX employees had a right to be walking on the Amtrak track. But in walking on that track, it was absolutely necessary to protect themselves by turning and looking backward at a very frequent interval of say every ten seconds. And they must not forget even just once. Only one of them had to do that, but it would have been wise for both of them to be doing that as insurance against forgetting to look back. Of course, this repeatedly looking back would be a tedious chore, so the prudent thing to do would be simply not walk in the foul zone of the track. But they did walk in the foul zone and they did not look back frequently enough, or at all.
charlie hebdoAlthough I will probably be accused of making a molehill out of a mountain, I think it was just sloppy writing and we should trust the event recorder.
Now, I concur with this statement completely, and (subject to review of any timeline recorded by the onboard cameras and cross-referencing) I trust the event recorder's data to be as reported.
But I'm not prepared to give the person or persons committing the 'sloppy writing' at NTSB a no-harm no-foul break to go back and 'edit away their statement' on this. NTSB has been preparing this report very carefully for months, and as a number of people have previously claimed on various threads concerning their activity, are supposedly very professional both in what they investigate and how they report the result of their investigation.
What they have claimed is, I think, very significant if it is at all true: that the engineer of Amtrak 175 delayed significantly in making a brake application responsive to the presence of workers fouling her track. That is not something that 'counts' as some little misstatement, and I can easily see counsel for the two CSX conductors gleefully jumping on it and starting to quote part of the Midnight Rider case in their civil briefs. Sure, a review of the source material NTSB used may produce a preponderance of evidence saying the emergency was applied before impact -- but the damage has been done. And I cannot believe it is either casual or accidental, let alone merely 'sloppy'.
In other news, Sumwalt has specifically requested a response from Anderson regarding the findings on this incident. If I were Anderson I would have something rather blistering to say on this particular point.
In other news, Sumwalt has specifically requested a response from Anderson regarding the findings on this incident. If I were Anderson I would have something rather blistering to say on this particular point; I will be highly interested to see what he does say; in fact, I'd like to see Joe send Anderson a courteous personal note calling his attention directly to this.
OvermodWhat they have claimed is, I think, very significant if it is at all true: that the engineer of Amtrak 175 delayed significantly in making a brake application responsive to the presence of workers fouling her track. That is not something that 'counts' as some little misstatement, and I can easily see counsel for the two CSX conductors gleefully jumping on it and starting to quote part of the Midnight Rider case in their civil briefs. Sure, a review of the source material NTSB used may produce a preponderance of evidence saying the emergency was applied before impact -- but the damage has been done. And I cannot believe it is either casual or accidental, let alone merely 'sloppy'.
I'm inclined to agree with you that this will end up in court (what doesn't?). But it seems to me that the preponderance of evidence in the various NTSB reports is that the engineer on 175 (also the one on the meeting Amtrak train) blew the horn as soon as she saw the two CSX workers on track 3 and applied brakes.
charlie hebdo Your own quote shows that sensing impact on a human is irrelevant.
Did you not say "we should trust the event recorder"? The event recorder is most likely not sophisticated enough to show a light impact thereby rendering it irrelevant. I was pointing out the irrelevancy to YOU but it seems to have sailed right on by you.
The statements attributed to the engineer are contradictory.
charlie hebdoYour frivolous, erroneous comment on 'gage' makes it likely they will not respond to you beyond the initial phone conversation.
Hardly "frivolous, erroneous" given your own observation of "sloppy writing" by the NTSB it is most likely that word "gauge" was spelled phonetically by the transcriber who blundered into an obscure, little used and obsolete spelling of the word.
243129 charlie hebdo Your frivolous, erroneous comment on 'gage' makes it likely they will not respond to you beyond the initial phone conversation. Hardly "frivolous, erroneous" given your own observation of "sloppy writing" by the NTSB it is most likely that word "gauge" was spelled phonetically by the transcriber who blundered into an obscure, little used and obsolete spelling of the word.
charlie hebdo Your frivolous, erroneous comment on 'gage' makes it likely they will not respond to you beyond the initial phone conversation.
You are so desperate to always be right you cannot even comprehend what you read. Several others pointed out your error with regard to gage. You are a rude know-it-all and it is not surprising that nobody in authority pays any attention to you, even when, like a broken clock, when you are correct.
This from the NTSB report:
Around Amtrak MP 133.7 the engineer received an approach limited signal.3 She saw northbound Amtrak train P66 approaching her train on Amtrak main track 2 and dimmed the auxiliary lights.4 She then saw two people in reflective vests walking single file on the end of the crossties outside the gage of the track (between Amtrak main track 3 and CSX main track 2). She blew the horn continuously for 15 to 20 seconds. This action automatically initiated the bell to be sounded and activated the auxiliary lights. Moments later, as the train was traveling at a reduced speed of about 74 mph to comply with the restrictive signal, it struck the two CSX employees. After the impact, at 11:18 p.m., the engineer placed the train into emergency braking, announced emergency three times on the radio, and called the Amtrak dispatch center via the radio. After her train came to a complete stop, she called her conductor to come to the head end of the train. The crew inspected their train and waited for officials to arrive.
"She blew the horn continuously for 15 to 20 seconds" and she saw the situation unfolding in front of her and she did not place the brake in emergency? If she was blowing the horn for 15 or 20 seconds at 74 mph she had 2200+ feet to react.
The NTSB has done a terrible job of investigating this tragedy. The action or nonaction of the engineer on train 175 and the contradictory statements attributed to her should be subjected to intense scrutiny .
charlie hebdo 243129 charlie hebdo Your frivolous, erroneous comment on 'gage' makes it likely they will not respond to you beyond the initial phone conversation. Hardly "frivolous, erroneous" given your own observation of "sloppy writing" by the NTSB it is most likely that word "gauge" was spelled phonetically by the transcriber who blundered into an obscure, little used and obsolete spelling of the word. You are so desperate to always be right you cannot even comprehend what you read. Several others pointed out your error with regard to gage. You are a rude know-it-all and it is not surprising that nobody in authority pays any attention to you, even when, like a broken clock, when you are correct.
You cannot help yourself can you?
OK kids, play time is over, let's get back to work...
No, wait: the plot may be thickening in an unexpected manner.
I provided a link to the NTSB public docket for this incident, which as of the time of posting included the actual text of source material such as engineer interviews. I did not have a chance to review this when I posted it, but noted that, in my opinion, either the 'correct' language of the engineer's testimony will be available or it will be clearer to tell whether "interpretation" of what she said has been misconstrued in some way.
When I returned several hours later, the link to the docket material was inaccessible. I can draw no conclusion other than NTSB has become aware of a problem, and is either taking action or engaging in covering up.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.