From: ahk@chinet.com   
      
   dpeltier@my-deja.com wrote:   
   >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.   
      
   >I'm willing to say that whether or not he complied with the rules is a fair   
   >question, given how little we know.   
      
   The engineer has stated how many brakes were applied manually; this isn't   
   in dispute. It wasn't as many as required by company policy or as many   
   required to hold the consist without air brakes..   
      
   >Whether any lack of compliance constitutes criminal behavior is a second   
   >question to be answered.   
      
   It was reasonable for the engineer to believe that there wouldn't be   
   a catastrophic release of the air brakes, so there's no criminal   
   negligence here.   
      
   >But here's my point again: the answers to these questions have NOTHING TO   
   >DO with the question of why the air brakes did not hold the train. Any   
   >criminal behavior the engineer took part in happened before he went to   
   >the hotel. . . .   
      
   He still had to return in time to check that the consist was being held;   
   the brakes wouldn't hold forever, given the insufficient number of manually   
   set brakes. So it's his behavior throughout the incident.   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)