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.
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.
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?
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.
That would lead one to question the credibility of the NTSB would it not?
I spoke with a NTSB Railroad Investigator and nothing has been done to address/rectify my observation.
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.
Page four,paragraph one, second to last sentence states:
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.
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?
Why do you assume that? This has been discussed at great length before regarding impacts including vehicle impacts. One school of thought is that the engineer should make an emergency application up seeing that impact may be immenent.
Another school says that there is no point in making an emergency application prior to immenent impact because the emergency application will not slow the train in that short of a distance, and the fouling person or vehicle may clear at the last second, thus subjecting the train to stopping uncessarily.
I call ed the FRA and asked them which was the proper course.
Hint to Euclid, who has built whole threads out of this discrepancy or things like it: What is the difference between ‘application’ in the sense of ‘pulling the little handle’ and ‘application’ in the sense of the shoes setting up on the discs and treads … after what may be up to several seconds … to begin physically stopping the train.
Impact happened between those two.
(Note: does anyone know if the current event recorders measure the signal coming off the locomotive brake-valve handle or just the resulting pressure changes in the physical brake system?)
For the love of God, Montresor – it was a PASSENGER train. There is no controversy over prompt emergency with typical Amtrak NEC consists. If she said she put the lever past full blended into emergency, why should I call her a liar?
I also think that much of the ‘reason’ for applying the brake in these situations is more ‘moral’ than actually expected to be effective. It shows you were attentive and caring of human life, and like ‘notching the barograph’ in a sailplane it shows on the record that you acted knowledgeably at a time that matters. The ‘large money damages’ in the Midnight Rider case were related to the complete lack of brake application. She reacted appropriately to the perceived danger by applying the brakes, whether it was as ultimately pointless doing so as hitting the emergency button at Cayce was.
The difference between pulling the handle and the shoes applying pressure is beside the point. The point is that NTSB is talking only about the engineer pulling the handle in both statements, and in those two statements, it gives conflicting information as to when the handle was pulled.
The NTSB has gone to some effort to clarify the actions of the engineer, and has apparently not carefully checked what they have written. I am not criticizing the engineer, but the point of her actions is critical to the report as the NTSB confirms with their carefully worded statements. I am criticizing the NTSB.
Not very professional for a national investigative agency wouldn’t you say?
The emergency application should register instantly.
“Latter” timeline:
According to the event recorder and the engineerinterview, the Amtrak engineer responded immediately and applied emergency braking uponseeing the CSX employees walking near the tracks
The CSX train had both CSX main tracks 2 & 1 occupied as they were making a crossover move. Why the conductor and trainee were inspecting the train from a live track when they could have done so from the CSX main #1 side smacks of poor judgement due to inexperience and inadequate training.
I was simply pointing out that it is customary when criticizing another’s work to not only cite the page and line numbers, but also elucidate what you believe to be wrong, in this case, a contradiction.
‘Gage’ can be an alternate spelling for ‘gauge’ (though used more in the UK). It can also be a typo. In either case, your pointing it out is based on error.