 |
Re: Railroad "Investigator" Comments-Target Audience.....
Author: tundraboomer
Date: 12-24-2017 - 10:49
BOB2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> These folks certainly had a lot more training on
> the bypass, including in the cab familiarization
> runs, on this route. This is more than I ever got
> on some of the grades I've operated on, like
> Cajon, back when it was still "dark" territory,
> with 8,000 tons of lumber behind me.
Oh stop. You also used to be able to fit your rule book, timetable, and time book in the back pocket of your bibs. So f-ing what? That was then, this is now. Railroading is a different world now. Some things today are easier but overall it's a lot more complicated because there is a lot more to remember (not just rules, regs, but also procedurally).
Between GCOR, your AB&TH book, timetables, general orders, hazmat, ops circs, yard maps, track charts, fog charts, and all the other job aids I am supposed to carry now, I can't even fit them in my grip if I also want to bring a lantern and a change of clothes. Not to mention our certification being on the line now.
Does that excuse anyone for failing? No. But I've been in plenty of situations in recent years where I felt like the training I received for the task in front of me was insufficient. Sometimes even non-existent. I've even confronted management about it, often to no avail, and dragged my union leadership into it, which sometimes helps, sometimes not.
The points this "investigator" bring up may very well have some validity to them and may show a defective safety culture where employees had no say in how they were trained, and whether or not they felt qualified. At the end of the day most accidents of this type are not caused by one thing or a single failure. They are almost always the result of some sort of "perfect storm" in which multiple deficiencies or failures lead to the conditions that precipitated the accident. This "investigator" is simply pointing out that there may be something underlying that created the environment for failure of the engineer. There often is. That does not excuse the engineer. But if there is a systemic issue, it needs to be addressed to prevent another disaster from occurring. It's not an unreasonable scenario to question and investigate.
-------------------------------------------------------
> These folks certainly had a lot more training on
> the bypass, including in the cab familiarization
> runs, on this route. This is more than I ever got
> on some of the grades I've operated on, like
> Cajon, back when it was still "dark" territory,
> with 8,000 tons of lumber behind me.
Oh stop. You also used to be able to fit your rule book, timetable, and time book in the back pocket of your bibs. So f-ing what? That was then, this is now. Railroading is a different world now. Some things today are easier but overall it's a lot more complicated because there is a lot more to remember (not just rules, regs, but also procedurally).
Between GCOR, your AB&TH book, timetables, general orders, hazmat, ops circs, yard maps, track charts, fog charts, and all the other job aids I am supposed to carry now, I can't even fit them in my grip if I also want to bring a lantern and a change of clothes. Not to mention our certification being on the line now.
Does that excuse anyone for failing? No. But I've been in plenty of situations in recent years where I felt like the training I received for the task in front of me was insufficient. Sometimes even non-existent. I've even confronted management about it, often to no avail, and dragged my union leadership into it, which sometimes helps, sometimes not.
The points this "investigator" bring up may very well have some validity to them and may show a defective safety culture where employees had no say in how they were trained, and whether or not they felt qualified. At the end of the day most accidents of this type are not caused by one thing or a single failure. They are almost always the result of some sort of "perfect storm" in which multiple deficiencies or failures lead to the conditions that precipitated the accident. This "investigator" is simply pointing out that there may be something underlying that created the environment for failure of the engineer. There often is. That does not excuse the engineer. But if there is a systemic issue, it needs to be addressed to prevent another disaster from occurring. It's not an unreasonable scenario to question and investigate.
