Major derailment @ Spuyten Duyvil

Tommy Meehan wrote:I don't have time to look it up right now but I think the incident referred to involved the Chicago South Shore & South Bend. There was an incident in 1985 where they were single-tracking due to a bridge project. I think a dispatcher involved did 'lap' two opposing trains and they hit head-on. Presumably this individual was then allowed to work as an engineer and apparently was involved in another collision.

You are correct. According to the NTSB report for the second accident: "The engineer's record also shows that he was promoted to train dispatcher in November 1979. He was the train dispatcher on duty with the Chicago, South Shore and South Bend Railroad, the predecessor of the NICTD, when a head-on collision occurred in January 1985. He was relieved of duty on the day of the accident and was restored to service in February 1985, because, according to the NICTD superintendent, the Chicago, South Shore and South Bend Railroad did not find him at fault in that accident. After its investigation of the accident, the Safety Board determined that the dispatcher had not acted responsibly when he failed to coordinate the movement of the two trains properly."

The engineer was promoted to engineer in June 1978 and to dispatcher in November 1979. Facts as reported by the NTSB.

It didn't work out too well from the way it's described (if the engineer really was at fault in the second incident) but should officials have known that in advance? Hindsight is always 20/20.

The NTSB found the engineer to be at fault in the second incident. Actually they found both engineers at fault, but the former dispatcher was the one who ran the red signal when he should have stopped as soon as he saw what he believed to be a "dark" signal - which was more clearly seen as red before he ran the signal.

Hindsight is 20/20 ... the former dispatcher had other violations in the three years leading up to the fatal error. It is a shame he was in a position to make further mistakes.

Those of us outside the industry, who are very interested in the industry, need to temper our comments and not be too sure we always interpret things the right way.

That needs to go both ways. Obviously being inside the industry does not make one an instant expert on everything. While I do not expect an apology, it is clear what I wrote about the dispatcher being demoted to engineer (and the conductor-engineer-dispatcher career chain) was and remains factual. As reported by the NTSB.

Perhaps on Metro-North an engineer would not be on a career path to dispatcher. In any case I would not expect a person involved in a fatal incident to go UP a career path as a result. The speculation by others that he may be allowed to go down the career ladder and maintain a job with the railroad is not something I would support. I have not seen a reason why that didn't seem to be emotionally triggered - feel sorry for the engineer that happened to be at the controls when his train happened to enter a corner well over the timetable speed. I don't see why there is such a push to save this particular person's career.

Perhaps if someone could answer in a non-condescending way others might understand.

Being inside the industry give me knowledge and experience which you don't have. I only speak of what I know and make corrections where needed based on what I know. Just because an NTSB report states one such case does not mean it's a natural progression to go from Engineer to Dispatcher. It is not. And I will say it again all Locomotive Engineers earn a federal license so tell me how many Train Dispatchers in the country are CFR Part 240 qualified which if you do not understand are the only persons who can run trains.

justalurker66 wrote: Perhaps if someone could answer in a non-condescending way others might understand.

Before I started working for MNR and was just a poster on these forums, an employee who also posts here told me "you'll never know what it's like to work here until you do." Now that I'm on the other side, find that statement more true than I realized, even having several friends in the industry before. That's probably true of most specialty jobs(pilot, truck driver, newscaster, etc). But it's something you can't fully understand until it's your life, not a hobby or interest, but when it's your job it takes on a different meaning and loses much of the glamor that historically and incorrect characterizes the job in peoples' minds.

That needs to go both ways. Obviously being inside the industry does not make one an instant expert on everything. While I do not expect an apology, it is clear what I wrote about the dispatcher being demoted to engineer (and the conductor-engineer-dispatcher career chain) was and remains factual. As reported by the NTSB.

Perhaps on Metro-North an engineer would not be on a career path to dispatcher. In any case I would not expect a person involved in a fatal incident to go UP a career path as a result. The speculation by others that he may be allowed to go down the career ladder and maintain a job with the railroad is not something I would support. I have not seen a reason why that didn't seem to be emotionally triggered - feel sorry for the engineer that happened to be at the controls when his train happened to enter a corner well over the timetable speed. I don't see why there is such a push to save this particular person's career.

I guess I overlooked this part of your post. Go both ways? I do this for a living. Do you? You are some buff who does not know anything outside of Trains magazine or what your buddies on the job tell you. Don't try and tell me what I know. As I have already said going from Locomotive Engineer to Train Dispatcher is not moving up in the career path. The example you provided is a rare case. It could happen, it's just not a natural progression no matter the RR. And what would be the issue with this Engineer holding a job in a non safety sensitive position? Would he cause harm cleaning a train? What is it to you anyway? What does your opinion have to do with anything related in the RR industry? Why there is a push? Because unlike whatever pencil pushing JOB you hold, this is a brotherhood where we look out for our own. Something you obviously know nothing about.

Gilbert B Norman wrote:Mr. Third Rail, your immediate point is of course noted. However, we should note that on your home turf, the Corridor, there are so many trains that couplets can be 'advertised' on which a crew can get over the road 'home and back' on continuous time i.e. no rest or respite under Hours of Service. The job Mr. Weaver described on the Stamford Local would appear to have required a 'respite' (short rest) at Stamford.

But then, maybe it didn't; lest we forget 12 hours today was 16 when Mr. Weaver first marked up.

For the record, there is not one crew base on the NEC that doesn't have a job with a respite in it.

EM2000 wrote:

That needs to go both ways. Obviously being inside the industry does not make one an instant expert on everything. While I do not expect an apology, it is clear what I wrote about the dispatcher being demoted to engineer (and the conductor-engineer-dispatcher career chain) was and remains factual. As reported by the NTSB.

Perhaps on Metro-North an engineer would not be on a career path to dispatcher. In any case I would not expect a person involved in a fatal incident to go UP a career path as a result. The speculation by others that he may be allowed to go down the career ladder and maintain a job with the railroad is not something I would support. I have not seen a reason why that didn't seem to be emotionally triggered - feel sorry for the engineer that happened to be at the controls when his train happened to enter a corner well over the timetable speed. I don't see why there is such a push to save this particular person's career.

I guess I overlooked this part of your post. Go both ways? I do this for a living. Do you? You are some buff who does not know anything outside of Trains magazine or what your buddies on the job tell you. Don't try and tell me what I know. As I have already said going from Locomotive Engineer to Train Dispatcher is not moving up in the career path. The example you provided is a rare case. It could happen, it's just not a natural progression no matter the RR. And what would be the issue with this Engineer holding a job in a non safety sensitive position? Would he cause harm cleaning a train? What is it to you anyway? What does your opinion have to do with anything related in the RR industry? Why there is a push? Because unlike whatever pencil pushing JOB you hold, this is a brotherhood where we look out for our own. Something you obviously know nothing about.

I can respect this, but let's take it another direction.

What do you tell other people that have been fired for things that didn't result in someone dying? How can you maintain consistency when this kind of "trump" card is out there?

Manager: You're fired for attendance policy violations.
Employee: I may have missed time, but it didn't result in us being the focus of a probe.

Manager: You're fired for sexual harassment.
Employee: Yes, but I didn't kill anyone. Why am I fired and he's not?

etc etc

I'm not trying to pick a fight, but I've seen these kinds of scenarios before.

RearOfSignal wrote:...That's probably true of most specialty jobs(pilot, truck driver, newscaster, etc). But it's something you can't fully understand until it's your life, not a hobby or interest, but when it's your job it takes on a different meaning..

Very true and exactly what I was referring to. I don't work for a railroad -- I was once hired by the LIRR as a brakeman but by the time they formally hired me I was working elsewhere and declined to report -- and I understand, no matter what you do it looks different on the inside. I've always known had I reported to the LIRR and began working in train service everyday I would quickly have realized: This is the way it is? And I'm sorry I didn't have that experience but when you're hired it becomes a job. A lot of issues you never think about as a fan suddenly become very important.

I wound up working in an industry (two of them actually) that is often subject to public scrutiny. However the general public has little real understanding of some of the issues. Some people will listen if you try and explain. Other people won't. They are locked into this illusion that they pretty much know just about all there is to know. The company I worked for was occasionally the subject of community complaints about some of our practices. We got some bad publicity. However, the situation was much different than the community imagined it to be. That made it very hard to answer some of their concerns.

So I am sympathetic to people in the rail industry who get fed up with outsiders playing expert. I'm sure it can be pretty tough to take at times. I just wanted to add, I appreciate the guys (and gals) who stick with it on this forum (and others like it) and are willing to grin-and-bear-it and continue the great conversations we have here. Thanks!

Edited - D'oh!

ThirdRail7 wrote: I can respect this, but let's take it another direction.

What do you tell other people that have been fired for things that didn't result in someone dying? How can you maintain consistency when this kind of "trump" card is out there?

Manager: You're fired for attendance policy violations.
Employee: I may have missed time, but it didn't result in us being the focus of a probe.

Manager: You're fired for sexual harassment.
Employee: Yes, but I didn't kill anyone. Why am I fired and he's not?

etc etc

I'm not trying to pick a fight, but I've seen these kinds of scenarios before.

In the healthcare industry, where (as in the railroad industry) people's lives depend upon consistantly following established procedures, we have a process called "Just Culture". In a nutshell, it boils down to a standard process followed every time something goes wrong, regardless of outcome. Did you do something intentionally that hurt someone? You're gone. If not, did you know the process? Did you follow the process? Was there a valid reason why you did not follow the process (sometimes there is, but falling asleep isn't one of them) ? If there was, ok. We learn from it. We get smarter and change the process. If not, you're in trouble.

Under Just Culture, a nurse who gives you the wrong medications would get the same discipline regardless if you have a reaction to the error or not. It is the willful disregard of process that employees are accountible for, not outcomes. From what I've read, railroads seem to follow the same general philosophy.

absenteeism or sexual conduct or harassment are willful acts.
Mr Rockefeller did NOT do any willful acts to cause the accident.

EM2000 wrote:Go both ways? I do this for a living. Do you?

Irrelevant. I was the one who posted a fact in this thread and you were the one who claimed it was not true. I proved my fact. Working in the industry may allow you to share your experiences on the railroads where you work/worked and hopefully gives you a better understanding of the rules and operations. But your employment does not make you right.

EM2000 wrote:Don't try and tell me what I know.

That is one of the parts that absolutely needs to go both ways. Mutual respect. I know of what I spoke.

EM2000 wrote:Because unlike whatever pencil pushing JOB you hold, this is a brotherhood where we look out for our own. Something you obviously know nothing about.

So there is no other union in the country, just the brotherhood of locomotive engineers. No police unions or firefighter unions. No autoworker unions. And perhaps that is the answer that regulators and legislators should keep in mind: It is a brotherhood that protects their own. regardless of the cost?

Is this like cops that don't rat out or arrest other cops because they don't want to harm a fellow officer's career? That is not a good standard.

Personally I like the answer that focuses on the monetary and time investment that the railroad has put in to the individual ... but if they are no longer able to do the job they were trained for that is a wash - and we're back to charity. Not a bad thing, but call it as it is.

DutchRailnut wrote:absenteeism or sexual conduct or harassment are willful acts.
Mr Rockefeller did NOT do any willful acts to cause the accident.

I don't know that. You don't know that. At some point the NTSB will give us their official opinion.

justalurker66 wrote:..I was the one who posted a fact in this thread and you were the one who claimed it was not true...

Not exactly.

Anyone who has been around the railroad industry knows that dispatcher and locomotive engineer are not allied crafts. You're citing that this was stated in an NTSB report. I looked, you're right, it was. This is from page 14 of the NTSB report RAR 85-13, concerning an accident on the CSS&SB at Gary Indiana on Jan. 21, 1985. It's in a section headed, "Training."



The mistake you're making here is, this relates to the Chicago South Shore & South Bend, not to all railroads. Plus I don't believe the use of the word "promoted" carries the meaning that you're thinking it does. It doesn't mean -- even on the South Shore -- if you're a good conductor or engineer you'll be promoted to dispatcher. It means when job openings for dispatcher come up conductors or engineers may apply. The NTSB used the word promoted and you're taking that literally. They could just as easily have used the word "transfer."

Anyway, even if CSS&SB has a policy of selecting dispatchers from the ranks of conductors and engineers, that doesn't mean every railroad -- or even most railroads -- do it that way.

As has been stated here very clearly, they don't.

Took the words out of my mouth Tommy Meehan.

Apples and Oranges!!! Don't forget the Chicago, South Shore and South Bend was at one time an interurban and rules over the years for interurbans, rapid transit lines and trolley lines have been considerably different from the rules for a major line haul railroad. I have a couple of rulebooks for the New York City Transit Authority and without trying to pull them out right now I think it is done there but that is not Metro-North. It is not a trend in the railroad industry overall. I know a few guys on Conrail who were train dispatchers and very good ones at that who decided to transfer to engine service through hiring out as a trainman back in the 1990's. I think you could see this done on a regional railroad but not on a class one railroad and not retaining rights in both crafts unless you were not able to work in one craft (either one in this case) due to lack of enough seniority to hold any job or any extra list.
Noel Weaver

Tommy Meehan wrote:

justalurker66 wrote:..I was the one who posted a fact in this thread and you were the one who claimed it was not true...

Not exactly.

My comment related to the one case ... a dispatcher who was sent back down his career ladder to being an engineer. I in no way stated that every railroad on the planet nor in North America nor in the US nor in Indiana uses the exact same career paths. My statement was that a dispatcher who was held responsible by the NTSB for a serious accident that injured 79 passengers, 6 crew members and 2 off-duty crew employees was given a second chance and ended up being held responsible by the NTSB for a fatal accident that killed 7 and injured 95.

It was and remains a truthful illustrative example about the risks of giving a person a second chance.

Tommy Meehan wrote:Anyway, even if CSS&SB has a policy of selecting dispatchers from the ranks of conductors and engineers, that doesn't mean every railroad -- or even most railroads -- do it that way.

I didn't say it was a global rule. That is YOUR mistake. I said that a dispatcher who caused a serious accident was given a second chance and ended up causing a fatal accident. Not a good outcome. (Caused as determined by the NTSB, who I understand has authority in determining the cause and responsibility for accidents.)

You can fight until the thread is locked over the use of the word "demoted" or the "promotion" to dispatcher ... it was the wisdom of the second chance that I was speaking to.

justalurker66 wrote:...My statement was that a dispatcher who was held responsible by the NTSB for a serious accident that injured 79 passengers, 6 crew members and 2 off-duty crew employees was given a second chance and ended up being held responsible by the NTSB for a fatal accident that killed 7 and injured 95...

Just for the record the NTSB did not find that the dispatcher you refer to was solely to blame for the CSSS&SB collision. There were other factors as well as stated in this excerpt from the NTSB report:



I'm not trying to fight with you. I am trying to shed a little additional light on statements you made. I realize we're drifting here, but you cited an earlier incident as relevant but without giving any details. People did ask so I'm sure I'm not the only one who became curious about this.

Tommy Meehan wrote:Just for the record the NTSB did not find that the dispatcher you refer to was solely to blame for the CSSS&SB collision.

Did I SAY solely to blame? No.

You have the report ... I have both reports. The NTSB is tasked with finding the cause for each incident. While they often mention contributing factors (such as the opposing train failing to immediately brake in the second NICTD incident) it was the NTSB, not I, that attributed responsibility.

We were discussing the wisdom of giving a person involved in an incident a second chance. I correctly stated what you have supported through your quotes that the person I was speaking about was promoted to dispatcher and lost that position after the first incident where the NTSB found him responsible. Someone got their panties in a wad over the word "demoted". I'd rather people got upset that a "second chance" led to seven fatalities.

(The career path is actually irrelevant. In my opinion giving the engineer at Spuyten Duyvil a "second chance" in any position where he can affect the safety of operations is a questionable decision - regardless of if it is part of the normal career path. Giving him some other job on the railroad where he cannot affect safety - such as cleaning stations - is just charity. Not a bad thing - but call it what it is.)