From: ahk@chinet.com   
      
   John Albert  wrote:   
   >On 7/12/14 1:36 AM, dpeltier@my-deja.com wrote:   
      
   >>ohn, 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.   
      
   >The train did not move because of something the engineman   
   >didn't do.   
      
   >It moved because of something else that happened after he   
   >left the scene.   
      
   >I will guess (as I'm not privy to the special instructions,   
   >either written or verbal, that were generally given to   
   >engineman who tied down the train at that location) that the   
   >instructions for the Nantes tie-down were to apply all   
   >locomotive hand brakes and a certain number of car brakes.   
      
   >I will also guess that the engineman complied with these   
   >instructions. He may have miscounted a car brake or two.   
      
   Is that why the other two men were indicted, because they gave orders   
   contradicting company policy on the number of manual brakes to apply?   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)