ALL:
A double fatality Engineer Department occurred near Edgemont, SD on the former CBQ. Has any one heard of a possible cause?
I was Roadmaster’s Clerk at Northtown in the late 1980’s. The Track and Signal people are a great bunch of people. This double fatality hits home for me as a retired clerk.
Ed Burns
Got my attention as a former roadmaster. Not saying much beyond they were on the Track Department side, one 58 (truck driver) and the other 35 (foreman). Happened while cleaning a switch.
NTSB and FRA are into it deep.
Details are far too sketchy to comment beyond something sounds not quite right. (may be the oft discussed clueless newsworkers again)
[sigh][sigh][sigh]
Bummed here.
On another site, some BNSF people are saying there is a curve near the switch that was being cleaned. They were cleaning out the switch under Look Out Protection and there was a train on the adjacent track which restricted view of the men and approaching train that struck them.
Jeff
Looks to be just north of the US-18 overpass on the north side of town. Broad curve coming through town from the south, as Jeff mentioned. Depressing news, for sure.
‘Look Out Protection’ is virtually no protection at all.
If the sight distance was wrong, there was no positive protection and there should not have been any work. (still too many disconnects and too many pieces of the story not there yet - we were all talking yesterday about the Florida confined spaces tragedy and how even a fireman failed a basic rule, this is way deeper … I wonder if the old systemic issue of too little dispatcher coverage over too much territory comes into play again)
Was this double track with the two people cleaning a switch on one track and a train running past them on the other track?
CTC two main tracks at a yard entry. Main track boarded speeds change 20 MPH in this area. Far too much is unclear as are the mitigating circumstances. Lots of variables.
Yes, he did, as did the rest of his company (ie, engine or truck). I doubt he arrived at the scene alone (although that hasn’t really be reported one way or another). Confined space is nothing to be trifled with - this type of incident has happened too many times before.
With the incident in question here, the DS thing could be a factor, as could be “we’ve always done it this way before without any problems,” and variations thereof.
We’ll know when the final report comes out.
I’m coming at the DS issue from the point of the overstretched DS not dealing with the M/W people because he’s too busy moving trains and he doesn’t want to deal with track and time for multiple people trying to clean switches and signal maintainers trying to freeze up frozen electric locks and switch machines. No matter what’s being said, their is still a defacto caste system out there driven by operating financial pressures above the DS.
MC,
If the DS would not give them track (foul) time they should have told him the switch would be available in the spring when it thawed.
Just my two cents.
50/50 whether or not that will work, depends on who the Dispatcher is and the size of his/her ego. I’ve heard Engineering guys get snapped at over the radio and told they’ll never get track time again. The guys often don’t mind that as it means they can sit in the warm truck and wait instead of trudging out into the cold.
The DS usually comes around later when he realizes that he actually needs whatever it is the guys were trying to fix [banghead].
And my condolences to the families of the 2 dead men, no one should ever have to endure something like this. Another reminder of how important watching your back is.
SD70M-Dude - In the end, the roadmaster has ultimate control of the track or the switch and can take either out of service. If he cannot assess the problem or safely inspect, FRA or TransportCanada has the roadmaster’s back. It’s been quite an issue over the past 20 years. Usually calmer heads prevail before the trump card is shown. Stressed-out DS behaviour seems to be on the uptick again and thus the comment. The last big go-round had M/W adding more inspectors and shortening territories to smooth things out - This time might be the Operating Department’s turn to add a few people (DS) and shrink the DS territories. The “we-run-trains” beancounters, in the end, created a self-destuctive policy in terms of downsizing manpower labor costs to the point that the rubber band breaks.
Regardless, the accident’s outcome stinks and never should have happened. Let FRA and NTSB do their work.
Before I retired, shrinking Dispatcher territories was not an active thought in the minds of the Brain Trust - adding territory to desks was in the offing.
That being said, in our office, if you didn’t give and protect MofW when they asked for it you had serious explaining to do to the higher ups. MofW Superviors had the Superintendent of Train Operations number on speed dial if they didn’t get what they wanted, when they wanted it. In our operation, MofW either got proper authority or stayed off the track. SAFETY is too important to cut corners.
Mudchicken - You are right, once Engineering plays that trump card it’s lights out. Instantly. Most of the conversations I overhear (the ones I referred to) involve MOW employees below the level of roadmaster, but once they get the boss involved the earth literally moves. Dispatchers grumble and complain and trains may start stacking up behind a work block but they can’t run without track and switches to do it on.
And I heartily agree with your comment about the beancounters and downsizing.