John Albert  wrote:   
   > On 7/12/14 1:07 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:   
   >> If the facts of the investigation fail to support indictments against   
   >> the three men, it's unethical that they're sitting on this report. If   
   >> the fact do support the indictments, it's unethical that the report   
   >> wasn't released so there's public confidence in the prosecution and   
   >> so the defendants may prepare a proper defense.   
      
   Don't know much about Canadian courts, but in the US the report would not   
   be admissible at trial anyhow. Both sides would probably be find ways to   
   get hold of most of the evidence that was uncovered by the safety board   
   proceedings (just subpoena the witnesses and investigators as needed). The   
   jury is supposed to draw their own conclusions from the evidence, not   
   follow the reasoning of the safety board.   
      
   > As a career railroader (now retired) I really don't have much faith in   
   > the "official reports" issued by outfits like the NTSB (or Canadian TSB).   
   > Too much "politics" going on behind the scene, and not enough "real world   
   > experience" insofar as railroading is concerned.   
   >   
   > Some of their "recommendations" are ridiculous, from a practical and   
   economic viewpoint.   
      
   Agree. But as I understand it, NTSB at least is set up so that board   
   members with ties to an industry are excluded from investigations involving   
   that industry. So board members from the railroad industry vote on reports   
   involving airplane crashes but not train crashes, etc. The advantage is   
   that you get fresh, unbiased perspectives. The disadvantage is - well,   
   exactly what you say.   
      
   > There's no excuse for the delay in the TSB report.   
   > There's nothing very complicated to figure out.   
      
   Not sure I agree:   
   - How many brakes were applied? (May require extensive forensics in this   
   case.)   
   - Any reason to believe any were defective, and if so, were the proper   
   inspection procedures in place and / or executed?   
   - Were the rules for how many brakes to use ineffective? Or were they not   
   followed? If they were not followed, why not? Was there a widespread   
   problem and if so what were the railroad and the regulators doing to cause   
   or prevent it?   
      
   Plus some critical questions about how the cars leaked, how the leaks led   
   to explosions, etc., how well the emergency response did or didn't work,   
   etc.   
      
   And that's just the analysis. Then they have to make recommendations, which   
   would require answering questions like:   
   - Are there industry-wide problems that need to be addressed through   
   changes regulations or different enforcement?   
   - Would various types of enhanced tank cars have helped reduce the damage?   
   - What if anything should be done to improve emergency response to such   
   accidents?   
   - Is the current system for hazmat routing appropriate for this new   
   commodity flow?   
      
   So yeah, it takes a while to put together the report.   
      
   The NTSB sometimes issues a known-facts-only preliminary report. Don't know   
   about TSB Canada, but in my opinion these are pretty worthless from the   
   point of view of the agency's mission, which is to make recommendations to   
   improve safety.   
      
   Dan   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)