 |
Responding Part II
Author: Holly Gibson
Date: 02-20-2009 - 04:06
Comments by OPRRMS in italics
Comments by Holly Gibson in regular font
Would it be safe to say that this wreck may have been prevented if a second person was looking out the front of the train along with the impaired engineer?
No one will never know.
I would say that the chances of this wreck being prevented would have been MUCH, MUCH better if a second set of eyes and ears had been on the head end observing what signal was displayed at CP Topanga. Metrolink's management (or legal department) apparently is on the same page as I am on this issue. How else would you explain their scrambling to place a second person in the cabs of their trains since the Chatsworth wreck?
I would submit that a better question is, would the collision still have happened if the cab car had been equipped with Cab Signals?
I think that's a fair question. Personally, I think cab signals may have made all the difference. With cab signals, the engineer can glance up on the control console at any time and see what type of signal he's running on. That's a definite advantage. And of course, a scenario employing cab signals AND an assistant engineer up in the cab would have been even safer. But, those things cost money, and Metrolink is a master at considering cost-benefit analysis. Obviously, they've tended to lean toward the cost vs. benefit(s) that costs them the least. And now they're going to pay for it BIG TIME. The $200 million that's going to be doled out to the survivors and relatives of the deceased (assuming the $200 million ceiling cap isn't exceeded) would have paid the wages of an awful lot of assistant engineers in an awful lot of cabs on an awful lot of their trains for an awful lot of years.
Like Chatsworth, would it be safe to say that this wreck was another result of lonesome cab operation?
Again, no one will never know. Collisions happen regardless of how many people are in the cab.
Well, we seem to be re-hashing the same arguments here over and over. I am a firm believer that, through simple mathematics, the CHANCES OF this wreck being avoided would have been better if TWO sets of eyes and ears had been on the head end rather than ONE. The mathematical formula is: 2 > 1
Yes, I'm aware that collisions have happened when two people have been in the cab of a locomotive. I never have stated that it's a miraculous "cure-all."
Likewise, I've never seen any data that shows collisions are more frequent in "lonesome cab" situations, but if you have something to that effect I'd be pleased to read it.
I'm not sure if such documentation has been collected. I DO know this: If we asked representatives from the UTU or the BLE, they would have a certain type of data, and if we asked representatives from the railroads or the Association of American Railroads, they would have entirely different data.
So, who do you believe?
Are you a "union man" or are you a "management man"?
Comments by Holly Gibson in regular font
Would it be safe to say that this wreck may have been prevented if a second person was looking out the front of the train along with the impaired engineer?
No one will never know.
I would say that the chances of this wreck being prevented would have been MUCH, MUCH better if a second set of eyes and ears had been on the head end observing what signal was displayed at CP Topanga. Metrolink's management (or legal department) apparently is on the same page as I am on this issue. How else would you explain their scrambling to place a second person in the cabs of their trains since the Chatsworth wreck?
I would submit that a better question is, would the collision still have happened if the cab car had been equipped with Cab Signals?
I think that's a fair question. Personally, I think cab signals may have made all the difference. With cab signals, the engineer can glance up on the control console at any time and see what type of signal he's running on. That's a definite advantage. And of course, a scenario employing cab signals AND an assistant engineer up in the cab would have been even safer. But, those things cost money, and Metrolink is a master at considering cost-benefit analysis. Obviously, they've tended to lean toward the cost vs. benefit(s) that costs them the least. And now they're going to pay for it BIG TIME. The $200 million that's going to be doled out to the survivors and relatives of the deceased (assuming the $200 million ceiling cap isn't exceeded) would have paid the wages of an awful lot of assistant engineers in an awful lot of cabs on an awful lot of their trains for an awful lot of years.
Like Chatsworth, would it be safe to say that this wreck was another result of lonesome cab operation?
Again, no one will never know. Collisions happen regardless of how many people are in the cab.
Well, we seem to be re-hashing the same arguments here over and over. I am a firm believer that, through simple mathematics, the CHANCES OF this wreck being avoided would have been better if TWO sets of eyes and ears had been on the head end rather than ONE. The mathematical formula is: 2 > 1
Yes, I'm aware that collisions have happened when two people have been in the cab of a locomotive. I never have stated that it's a miraculous "cure-all."
Likewise, I've never seen any data that shows collisions are more frequent in "lonesome cab" situations, but if you have something to that effect I'd be pleased to read it.
I'm not sure if such documentation has been collected. I DO know this: If we asked representatives from the UTU or the BLE, they would have a certain type of data, and if we asked representatives from the railroads or the Association of American Railroads, they would have entirely different data.
So, who do you believe?
Are you a "union man" or are you a "management man"?
