Nor from me, and it worsens daily.
I would like to encourage posters to put information into their postings and not just URLs. Often, it takes no more time to type what the information is than it does to accurately duplicate the URL, and it certainly saves the readers’ time.
-
If you follow the instruction what is “wrong” is blatantly obvious.
-
“Gage”? Although technically correct it is rarely used. I go with it being an error that the user got ‘lucky’ with. I have never seen that form used in any official reports previously.
You do not have the time to follow these precise instructions?
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.
Perhaps I should have typed the full nine pages for your reference and highlighted the contradictions so as to save you some time.
I was trying to help you. Using standard manners of presentation is as important in certain arenas as proper training and instruction is in your former career. “When in Rome…” if you want the NTSB to respond. Snippy replies to people (as you just did to Dave) is guaranteed to get you nowhere. Your choice.
I feel that my presentation was stated clearly.
The NTSB did respond. I spoke wth a railroad accident investigator via telephone.
What you refer to as a “snippy”(your slant) reply is merely a response to a niggling request.
.
[quote user=“243129”]
243129 wrote the following post 1 hours ago: charlie hebdo I was trying to help you. Using standard manners of presentation is as important in certain arenas as proper training and instruction is in your former career. I feel that my presentation was stated clearly.
Self-insulated from a mild suggestion.
charlie hebdo “When in Rome…” if you want the NTSB to respond. The NTSB did respond. I spoke wth a railroad accident investigator via telephone.
"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. "
As you said, no action taken, i.e., you spoke with a railroad accident investigator, but that is not responding.
charlie hebdo Snippy replies to people (as you just did to Dave) is guaranteed to get you nowhere.
daveklepper
I would like to encourage posters to put information into their postings and not just URLs. Often, it takes no more time to type what the information is than it does to accurately duplicate the URL, and it certainly saves the readers’ time.
[quote user=“charlie hebdo”]
243129
243129 wrote the following post 1 hours ago: charlie hebdo I was trying to help you. Using standard manners of presentation is as important in certain arenas as proper training and instruction is in your former career. I feel that my presentation was stated clearly.Self-insulated from a mild suggestion.
charlie hebdo “When in Rome…” if you want the NTSB to respond. The NTSB did respond. I spoke wth a railroad accident investigator via telephone.
"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. "
As you said, no action taken, i.e., you spoke with a railroad accident investigator, but that is not responding.
charlie hebdo Snippy replies to people (as you just did to Dave) is guaranteed to get you nowhere.
daveklepper
I would like to encourage posters to put information into their postings and not just URLs. Often, it takes no more time to type what the information is than it does to accuratel
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 th
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.
[quote user=“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
What would your opinion be as to the cause of their demise and the contradiction in the NTSB report?
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?
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.
In the strict sense of the word I guess you could say that they were trespassing in the instances you present.
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.
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.
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.