NTSB Railroad accident brief contains contradiction

[Euclid]

 

From Merriam Webster:

 

Gage:

 

less common spelling of gauge

 

1a : a measurement (as of linear dimension) according to some standard or system: such as

(1) : the distance between the rails of a railroad

[Euclid]

That most definitely is a descrepancy.  After impact, the employees were no longer walking near the tracks.  So, seeing them walking near the tracks had to have occurred prior to impact.  So making the emergency application "upon seeing them walking near the tracks" (as the NTSB says) clearly means the emergency application was made prior to impact.  Yet they also say that the emergency application was made after the impact.

So which was it?  And related to that, would either action be considered acceptable? 

[Overmod]

Personally, I don't see a major semantic 'smoking gun' here, just a lapse of what might be called 'continuity' in the screenplay sense.

Joe in particular will understand -- perhaps firsthand and more than once -- what is involved when an engineer sees a trespasser that will be unavoidably hit.  In this case, the engineer reported that she put the train in emergency 'before the impact' - this is surely correct.  It would have taken time for the brakes to apply fully, which wouldn't have happened (or registered on the event recorder) until after the impact.  I would expect that the received call of 'Emergency!' didn't occur until afterward, either.  The "latter" timeline is someone relating events in sequence, not the engineer relating experience.

And the use of 'gage' for civil aspects of railroad construction has a long and very well-established history, part of which I think dates back to the simplified-spelling craze so beloved of Theodore Roosevelt.  To this day I still use 'loading gage' to refer to clearance measure to distinguish it from gauges as instruments of measurement, or guages as an egregious misspelling by the ignorant.  (I note also the evolved meanings of "engaged" in the engineering sense, which I think derives from the hand-in-hand etymology, but has to my knowledge never had the 'u' in its spelling)

As an amusing aside, I never use any spelling but 'gauge' for the nominal distance between the rails (as in 'standard gauge' or 'standing in the gauge') but use 'gage' for the measurements out to clearance and plate limits.

[243129]

Euclid

I typically see poor writing in NTSB accident reports. Sometimes their writing can be interpreted in two different ways with different meanings.

That would lead one to question the credibility of the NTSB would it not?

Euclid

I have called them in the past on a few occasions and the person who answered could not offer an explanation, but assured me that an investigator could provide the answer and that one would definitely call me back. None ever called.

I spoke with a NTSB Railroad Investigator and nothing has been done to address/rectify my observation.

Euclid

As to the word "gage," that is a legitimate alternate spelling of the word "gauge." I always spell it "gage" because I see no reason to include the "u". Both forms are widely used.

Gage is the spelling of an obsolescent word meaning a pledge, a challenge, etc. Gauge is the spelling to use when you measure measurement, estimate, or standard.

Euclid

But regarding this accident, I too have questions about the details, and would be very interested in what contradictions you are referring to in the report. I think I see one of them which is a reference to the employees walking near the track, but I am not sure if you are referring to that. I think I have read that report 30-40 times in the course of a recent thread about it in the general forum. It is a difficult read besides any direct contradictions it may have. General topic focus is broken up and scattered around rather than being kept together where the information can flow in sequence

Page four,paragraph one, second to last sentence states:

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.

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.

[Euclid]

I typically see poor writing in NTSB accident reports.  Sometimes their writing can be interpreted in two different ways with different meanings.  I have called them in the past on a few occasions and the person who answered could not offer an explanation, but assured me that an investigator could provide the answer and that one would definitely call me back.  None ever called. 

As to the word "gage," that is a legitimate alternate spelling of the word "gauge." I always spell it "gage" because I see no reason to include the "u".  Both forms are widely used.

But regarding this accident, I too have questions about the details, and would be very interested in what contradictions you are referring to in the report.  I think I see one of them which is a reference to the employees walking near the track, but I am not sure if you are referring to that.  I think I have read that report 30-40 times in the course of a recent thread about it in the general forum.  It is a difficult read besides any direct contradictions it may have.  General topic focus is broken up and scattered around rather than being kept together where the information can flow in sequence. 

I think they put a lot of effort in how the writing conveys implication while being oh so careful to say just enough, but not too much.  It feels manipulative. 

I have unaswered questions left over from that last discussion thread, so I am interested in this thread and especially how the NTSB writing affects the report.

[243129]

 

charlie hebdo

 

 

243129

I call your attention to page four, paragraph one, third to the last sentence of NTSB report RAB-1901. Secondly I call your attention to page six, paragraph six, the last sentence. There is also a misspelling/misuse of the word gauge on page four.

 

 

A comment:
It is more effective not just to cite the paragraph or sentences in question, but rather to indicate specifically what it is you feel is deficient beyond the  typographical error on page four.

 

An answer:

You cannot see the contradiction? You would like me to point it out for you? How did you determine that the error on page four was typographical not misuse or misspelling?

[charlie hebdo]

243129

I call your attention to page four, paragraph one, third to the last sentence of NTSB report RAB-1901. Secondly I call your attention to page six, paragraph six, the last sentence. There is also a misspelling/misuse of the word gauge on page four.

A comment:
It is more effective not just to cite the paragraph or sentences in question, but rather to indicate specifically what it is you feel is deficient beyond the  typographical error on page four.

[243129]

A major contradiction in the NTSB report of June 27, 2017 concerning the deaths of two CSX employees who were hit by an Amtrak train at Ivy City has been reported (by me) over two weeks ago. I spoke directly via telephone  with a railroad accident investigator to apprise the NTSB of the glaring contradiction. No action has yet been taken. I find this disturbing as the contradiction is most critical in the recommendation process which will be compromised if this contradiction is not addressed.

I call your attention to page four, paragraph one, third to the last sentence of NTSB report RAB-1901.

Secondly I call your attention to page six, paragraph six, the last sentence.

There is also a misspelling/misuse of the word gauge on page four.

https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/RAB1901.pdf