National Public Radio had a very short item this morning saying that three railroad employees had been criminally charged in the Lac Magentic wreck.No other details were given. Has anyone else heard of this
The engineman will be hung out to dry for following procedure as instructed. The fact that this was inherently unsafe is the responsibility of management…
No facts stated here, just inflammatory opinion.
It is obvious why the engineer is being charged. I have no idea why the other two are being charged. They might have some type of linkage to the decisions made in discharging the train securement responsibility.
Questions for the engineer:
-
Did the engineer perform the push-pull test to verify securement?
-
If the engineer performed the push-pull test, did the test indicate securement?
-
If the engineer did not perform the push-pull test, why didn’t he?
-
Was the engineer told by his supervisors to omit the push-pull test?
-
Had the engineer ever before been told by his supervisors to omit a push-pull test?
-
Was there a typical procedure for securing eastbound trains at Nantes?
-
If so, what was it?
I don’t know why the others are being charged either. I am certain that it has nothing to do train securement that night.
Now… keep in mind all of the involved are friends of mine. Be careful with opinions that defame these people.
Euclid , while I cannot tell what I know (sorry), I can tell you if you are wrong. I think the TSB report will be out soon.
How can you be certain of that?
Because I can be certain.
Is Canada a place for ‘show trials’? Appears they believe in ‘show arrests’.
Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.
–Mark Twain–
Okay, but since I cannot be certain, I will continue with my assumption that those other two people may have played a role in the decision making process pertaining to the securement of the train. We have been told that the engineer disagreed with his supervisor about the supervisor’s decision to leave the engine with the broken piston running during the tie-up that night. In this latest news, we are told that the engineer wanted to return to the engine after the report of it being on fire, but his supervisor told him not to because the engineer had to resume work in the morning. So this raises the question in my mind of whether there was not enough time available to properly secure the train, leading to a decision to rely on set air brakes for securement.
Your assumption is wrong , try another scenario.
Randy Stahl is obviously enjoying his 15 minutes on this forum hugely.
He should be reminded, however, that he is not the traffic cop for the discussion here, even if he does know all kinds of things that (sorry) he is not at liberty to tell.
Randy,
Well, if my assumption is wrong, that means that the neither of the other two people besides the engineer played any role in the decision making process pertaining to the securement of the train. Note that I was not assuming than any of those three people were guilty.
So here is another scenario: The engineer broke the rule on securement and therefore is solely responsible. However, the other two were charged simply to see if any responsibility may be attributed to them.
And here is another scenario: None of the three people charged are responsible for the mishap because the decisions pertaining to securing the train were made entirely by some person or persons other than the three people who were charged.
And one more scenario: MM&A had an official securement policy which erroneously excluded a push-pull test for verification, and only required a certain number of handbrakes to be set.
And one last scenario: MM&A had a faulty securement policy which erroneously excluded a push-pull test for verification, called for some attempt at setting handbrakes, and relied on the air brakes to hold the train in case the handbrakes were insufficient. How else can you account for blaming the fire department for causing the runaway by releasing the air brakes? Is that not an admission to believing that the air brakes were essential to the securement? It most certainly is.
And your reminding me because you are the traffic cop here ?
Oh … try 15 plus YEARS on the forum.
So we not only have a railroad professional pulling rank because he either knows things he either cannot or will not share with the rest of us or he does not know any more than any one else. We also have the same person pulling rank because of forum seniority. Hate to tell you this, Mr. Stahl, but that is not regarded as sufficient justification for your attempts at silencing others on here. The rest of us may know nothing or a lot, but we all have equal voices on these forums.
I would opine that the dispatcher is being charged because he was the dispatcher on duty.
I would presume that the other fellow was the engineer’s supervisor. To that end, he would likely be held as responsible for ensuring the engineer’s compliance with established rules and procedures. For that matter, that’s probably the case with the dispatcher.
I’m sure that their supposed/alleged complicity in the incident will be outlined in a court of law.
The prosecution will be looking to prove that all involved failed to follow rules and procedures. The defense will be showing that they did. Then there’s the “interference” by the fire department. And the end result will get big play for emotional reasons.
Many experts will be called by both sides.
The phrase “if only” will be used many, many times by the prosecution.
I’m with Randy on this one.
So why didn’t they arrest the firefighters, too?
Hell if we’re going to have a circus, let’s make sure it has all 3 rings.
Larry pretty much nailed it .
Pulling rank is irrelevant. I will protect the people that have impacted by this event from malicious and untrue attacks . My justification is human compassion and dignity.
You need thicker skin dude, your nearly transparent.