In another thread it was stated that a crew who had just been involved in a deadly crossing accident was asked by the Trainmaster to go out on a run directly after the incident. Somehow that sounds hard to believe but certainly worth investigating if true. As an outsider (interested railfan not FOAMER) looking in I would have assumed that there are rules that require crews to be taken out of service in such incidences.
In the thread it was also mentioned that the crew was asked if they needed medical attention. Again…as an outsider looking in…I would have assumed that a medical checkover would be mandatory as some injuries aren’t directly apparent. For example…a couple of years ago some friends and I were playing soccer… one of the players got kicked pretty hard in the side…but stated he was OKAY… Several hours later he dropped dead. Unknown to him the hit had busted a kidney, and it was later determined that he died of massive internal bleeding.
Getting back to the original point…crews should be required to be taken out of service (with full pay) following a serious accident to allow the crew to recover and to determine any fault, if any, on the part of the crew. The return to work date should be at the sole descretion of a doctor, the outcome of the investigation, and the crew members involved…the Trainmaster should have no say about it.
There are two sides to every issue. When I was 18 I was broadsided by a guy doing 80 mph in a 30 mph zone with my father riding shotgun in the car. We were rolled over twice and landed on the wheels. The force was so great it sheared the blades off the heater fan. Fortunately he hit us on the end of the front axle and other than whiplash we were ok. My father made me drive the car away from the accident to the dealer so I wouldn’t get gun shy. Sometimes getting back up on the horse that threw you is good medicine. Other times it is not. I can’t comment about this situation but I think if I was an engineer I would close my eyes before impact and not view what was left if it wasn’t my fault in the first place. Guilt feelings do nothing to help the healing process and only hinder it.
the Union Pacific has a policy that if a crew is involved in a critical incident that they be given a chande to talk to a peer councilor and given three days off. I have had friends that have had fatal crossing accident and they took advantage of this and for them it worked When I first hired out I had an Old Head tell me
"Kid its not a question of if you have a accident or derailment its a question of when it will happen " Larry
A buddy of mine who was a WC MOW foreman once told me about a southbound WC freight that hit a car load of teenagers who tried to beat it across a country grade-crossing, and all car occupants were killed. This must’ve been around ~1990 as I’m thinking back. He said it was prom night at around 1 AM. He got called-out to the scene to help with the track clean-up (including burying part of a brain that the coroner’s crew didn’t find down the tracks). I remember Steve saying that they had to call for a replacement crew to take the train south. As I recall, he said it was SOP in such cases, but he was a MOW guy and not a train crew member.
Where doesn’t it belong? I’m posting on a public forum. Maybe consider the post on its own merits…if you read SLOWLY you might see that it is in favor of protecting railworkers from abusive practices…
I know as an EMT if we are involved in a very hard call such as a Childs death or massive injuries in a car wreck or a suicide of some one we know we as a crew are made to see the departments head shrinker to clear us to return to work and it is determined by the shift supervisor if we must go into debriefing after a tough call, if we refuse we are sidelined without pay until we comply.
In the old days there wasn’t such a system in place and many EMTs suffered for this in delayed mental problems afterwards, it wasn’t manly back then to even show the slightest bit of emotion on a call or even after a call, I know of a few who are now sidelined after 20 or more years in the bloody streets with PTSD, it is too bad because we lost a lot of the old timers to such delayed mental trauma, sooner or later it will catch up too most.
Specific policies vary from RR to RR, but train crews involved in a “Critical Incident” must request the Officer on Scene mark them off Critical Incident. The request can not be refused.
This gives the employee three days paid leave and usually requires the employee to speak with a CI counselor. CI leave can be extended but only the first three days are paid. Employees not requesting CI leave, are still encouraged to speak with a CI counselor.
We don’t need rules that keep us away from work, with pay, until we are cleared, as you suggest (and if we’re found to be at fault, do they take the pay away from us then?).
In the first place, this 1989-style trainmaster who shot off a bad decision without going to the wreck…shouldn’t happen any more. We’ve been told not to do anything until somebody like a trainmaster shows up. Someone who’s on the scene will undoubtedly be far more sympathetic to a request for peer support and relief.
I would like to think that a management employee who places such a low regard on employee welfare would eventually be taken to task for such decisions. Crew should not have disobeyed orders, but should have gone over his head with a report. I wouldn’t want to be in the position of second-guessing an employee who says he’s in no shape to continue working.
Yes…if they are found at fault in an accident involving a loss of life their employment would no doubt be terminated and their pay would end…that makes sense…no? In light of this incident and based on what others have stated…why wouldn’t you want rules that clearly spell out the procedures? Procedures that would prevent a trainmaster from even asking for you to go back to work without an investigation or a checkup on your condition? Procedures that would require that you get checked out by a doctor instead of relying on self diagnosis?
Bad decision…that’s an understatement…lets be clear that we’re talking about something that happened in 1989 and not 1889. But what do I know…I don’t work for a railroad I work in trucking.
Mind you: I’m NOT trying to inflame anyone here (I know unions are a touchy subject)…
Could union agreements be in play in such situations? What I mean is, could the contracts negotiated between the railroad and the unions cover such matters?
You would think so and that that bridge would have been crossed 100 years ago. Employees being asked to work after a serious accident sounds more like English coal mines in the 1790s than railroading in the 1980s.
The posting was by a BLE member remembering an incident he was involved in back around 1992 (see thread “Engineers Story”.). The point he was trying to make is how it still haunts him today. But in the message he also goes into great detail noting that his trainmaster neither came to the scene nor would allow him and the rest of his crew off making them bring the train to terminal. A lot has changed since then. The TM would have to be on site and the train crew, management on duty, even the dispatchers, would be replaced and drug and substance tested. Counselling is now provided for those who wish following such an incident (some cases mandatory). The posting was to show that the train crew also suffers in a grade crossing or tresspasing incident and that railroads (and their unions) have come to grips with a problem and are working things out. Each incident is different. So is each individual and the way they handle things.
Unless the rules have changed recently, the railroads definitely do NOT want nor require D&A testing post-incident, unless probable cause is established.