 |
Re: Metrolink Safety Panel - View from Outside
Author: OPRRMS
Date: 01-11-2009 - 20:07
John Bruce Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Actually, it seems to me that everything I've
> observed has been supported by the Metrolink final
> report. Its major point is that neither Connex
> nor Metrolink conducted sufficient safety testing
> prior to the Chatsworth accident.
Please indicate where it says that.
> It says, among
> other things, that the Long Island and NJ Transit
> have found that increased testing means fewer
> safety violations.
Yes, it does say that . . . on those two, specific carriers.
> This has been my question from
> the start: where were the supervisors?
Oh. I wasn't aware that that was your question. OK, so have now you read up on the testing requirements and procedures, like I suggested in another post? And you now have a clear understanding on who is responsible for doing such testing, right? And you also read in the report that the panel did not find an indication of any failure to test, right?
> Another big conclusion was that Metrolink's
> contract set up conditions where Connex had an
> incentive not to do testing, since "liquidated
> damages" meant that every safety violation
> discovered had to be reported and also resulted in
> a financial penalty.
Please show me in the report where it says that Connex failed to do testing.
> This would explain why
> Connex did nothing despite alleged reports from
> employees (and a supervisor) that Sanchez was
> texting.
Answered in another post.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Actually, it seems to me that everything I've
> observed has been supported by the Metrolink final
> report. Its major point is that neither Connex
> nor Metrolink conducted sufficient safety testing
> prior to the Chatsworth accident.
Please indicate where it says that.
> It says, among
> other things, that the Long Island and NJ Transit
> have found that increased testing means fewer
> safety violations.
Yes, it does say that . . . on those two, specific carriers.
> This has been my question from
> the start: where were the supervisors?
Oh. I wasn't aware that that was your question. OK, so have now you read up on the testing requirements and procedures, like I suggested in another post? And you now have a clear understanding on who is responsible for doing such testing, right? And you also read in the report that the panel did not find an indication of any failure to test, right?
> Another big conclusion was that Metrolink's
> contract set up conditions where Connex had an
> incentive not to do testing, since "liquidated
> damages" meant that every safety violation
> discovered had to be reported and also resulted in
> a financial penalty.
Please show me in the report where it says that Connex failed to do testing.
> This would explain why
> Connex did nothing despite alleged reports from
> employees (and a supervisor) that Sanchez was
> texting.
Answered in another post.
