 |
Re: Metrolink Safety Panel report [link]
Author: OPRRMS
Date: 01-11-2009 - 19:47
John Bruce Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ok, I've read the report. One thing to keep in
> mind is that it says pretty much zilch about the
> CP Topanga collision -- it's just an overall
> review of all Metrolink safety policies and
> procedures.
That's correct. I though that's what you wanted.
> If you didn't know it was initiated
> as a result of Chatsworth, you really couldn't
> tell it from the report!
Yeah. So?
> It's also worth pointing
> out that it's written in such a politically
> correct tone that it's almost impossible to deduce
> that the panel sees anything at all wrong with
> anything.
I didn't have any problem understanding it, and I'm one of those stupid railroad employees John Kneiling used to write about in Trains back in the Sixties and Seventies.
> However, a major point is "liquidated damages".
> As far as I can tell, the panel is saying that the
> contract with Connex (identified as OCSP
> "operations contract service provider" or some
> such thing, just so you can't easily tell what's
> going on) has a provision that on one hand
> provides for severe monetary penalties for
> violation, but on the other hand requires Connex
> to self report on violations!
As it should be.
> The panel says this could sorta-kinda be a
> problem, because it gives Connex a big incentive
> not to find safety violations. Duh. But the
> whole report drones on in a way that you really
> have a hard time understanding this.
Please show me where in the report it says that Connex failed to report any violations. You can't, because it doesn't. Rather, the panel states there might be a perception such a thing could happen [page 36, last paragraph]. They didn't find that Connex wasn't reporting (or covering up) violations. They didn't find that Connex was testing T&E employees in accordance with FRA requirements.
> But this makes me wonder if this was a reason
> Connex might not have acted on the reports of
> Sanchez texting, as alleged by the victims'
> attorney.
I've addressed this point in another post.
> OPRRMS, I don't see how this gives
> Metrolink or Connex any kind of green light, and
> in fact it basically says there was a big problem
> in how Connex's contract set up an incentive for
> Connex not to find safety violations.
Then you should probably go back and read it again. The panel found no "smoking gun." They didn't find that if Metrolink or Veolia had done things differently, Chatsworth would've never happened. The report suggests some changes and enhancements to Metrolink's entire safety culture, but nowhere does it say the panel found any violations.
Maybe you're not clear on the requirements and procedures for Efficiency Testing, how it's done, and who's responsible for it. 49 CFR 217 (you can Google it) would be a good place to start. After you've read it, I'll be happy to answer any questions you have.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ok, I've read the report. One thing to keep in
> mind is that it says pretty much zilch about the
> CP Topanga collision -- it's just an overall
> review of all Metrolink safety policies and
> procedures.
That's correct. I though that's what you wanted.
> If you didn't know it was initiated
> as a result of Chatsworth, you really couldn't
> tell it from the report!
Yeah. So?
> It's also worth pointing
> out that it's written in such a politically
> correct tone that it's almost impossible to deduce
> that the panel sees anything at all wrong with
> anything.
I didn't have any problem understanding it, and I'm one of those stupid railroad employees John Kneiling used to write about in Trains back in the Sixties and Seventies.
> However, a major point is "liquidated damages".
> As far as I can tell, the panel is saying that the
> contract with Connex (identified as OCSP
> "operations contract service provider" or some
> such thing, just so you can't easily tell what's
> going on) has a provision that on one hand
> provides for severe monetary penalties for
> violation, but on the other hand requires Connex
> to self report on violations!
As it should be.
> The panel says this could sorta-kinda be a
> problem, because it gives Connex a big incentive
> not to find safety violations. Duh. But the
> whole report drones on in a way that you really
> have a hard time understanding this.
Please show me where in the report it says that Connex failed to report any violations. You can't, because it doesn't. Rather, the panel states there might be a perception such a thing could happen [page 36, last paragraph]. They didn't find that Connex wasn't reporting (or covering up) violations. They didn't find that Connex was testing T&E employees in accordance with FRA requirements.
> But this makes me wonder if this was a reason
> Connex might not have acted on the reports of
> Sanchez texting, as alleged by the victims'
> attorney.
I've addressed this point in another post.
> OPRRMS, I don't see how this gives
> Metrolink or Connex any kind of green light, and
> in fact it basically says there was a big problem
> in how Connex's contract set up an incentive for
> Connex not to find safety violations.
Then you should probably go back and read it again. The panel found no "smoking gun." They didn't find that if Metrolink or Veolia had done things differently, Chatsworth would've never happened. The report suggests some changes and enhancements to Metrolink's entire safety culture, but nowhere does it say the panel found any violations.
Maybe you're not clear on the requirements and procedures for Efficiency Testing, how it's done, and who's responsible for it. 49 CFR 217 (you can Google it) would be a good place to start. After you've read it, I'll be happy to answer any questions you have.
