From: cfmpublic@ns.sympatico.ca
On Sat, 12 Jul 2014 05:44:16 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
wrote:
>dpeltier@my-deja.com wrote:
>>John Albert wrote:
>
>>>The questions remain -- who moved the air brake handle, and why?
>
>>>But again, this doesn't "fit the narrative" that the authorities
>>>(prosecutors) want to use to prosecute the employees. So -- at least for
>>>now, there is no "report", so that this information can be kept surpressed.
>
>>John, I don't think any of us have seen or heard what the prosecutors'
>>theory of the case is, but the question of happened to the automatic brakes
>>seems totally irrelevant to me. The train was required to have a sufficient
>>number of handbrakes set to hold the train without air, and it did not.
>>Seems to me the criminal case - at least for the engineer - will be all
>>about determining whose fault that was, and whether it rises to the level
>>of criminal recklessness. What happened with the automatic brakes should
>>have been totally irrelevant, if handbrakes had been set as required. . . .
>
>That's a tort; that's not criminally negligent conduct. Failure to set
>a sufficient number of brakes by policy means that the railroad is on
>the hook for losses, but it's not a criminal act. Now, if the engineer
>had failed to set any brakes, that would be criminal negligence.
Does it make sense in these days of 1 and 2 person crews located only
in the cab, to have the only way of guaranteeing a train is held the
setting of hand brakes? Rail rights of way are not garden paths. The
major problem may have been the conflict between hours of service
rules and the need to have a locomotive trained person (conductor,
engineer, trainmaster, etc.) inspect the train after the fire
department arrived.
Clark Morris
--- SoupGate/W32 v1.03
* Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)
|
