Steven D. Johnson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> See, this is what I suspected the instant I read
> about the lading particulars. This kind of
> nonsense violates public and investor trust by NOT
> following: collective-bargaining labor agreements
> that should have provided fully trained personell,
> crew consist standards, TRAINING, public safety,
> GCOR/MWOR rules compliance, company policy for
> averting at-risk behavior and other notions, but
> completely disregards COMMON SENSE gained through
> MENTORING and professional/personal EXPERIENCE.

The UP using MOW crew and a brandt truck has been going on for years. At least 6, because I was a pilot on one in 2004. So it is clear that the unions have accepted this practice. And how do we know that the truck driver has any less experience than any engineer working the same territory?
>
> Anything to keep the 'crew starts' to a minimum, I
> guess. They are REALLY lucky no one was hurt,
> killed, and a major incident- like the contractor
> controlled equipment sailing away into a Key Train
> or Amtrak- did not occour.
>
> Finally, I submit that only a FOOL would couple up
> to the combined tonnage of the equipment involved,
> and begin moving it around with anything less than
> the control of a Automatic Brake Valve, much less
> a donkey engine, given the TERRAIN and LACK OF
> ADEQUATELY TRAINED manpower involved.
>
The truck involved has all of the same brake equipment as a diesel locomotive.

> Pionts to ponder: if it became 'unhitched', then
> they CONTRACTOR must not have verified that the
> pin fell. Did they stretch it after making the
> joint?

It became "unhitched" because the truck flew off the tracks at the first sharp turn!
>
> Why wasn't this equpiment physically restricted to
> Other Than Main Track by portable derails, locked
> out switches, or other protective devices?
>
this equipment is protected by track and time like every other piece of MOW machinery. Again, the issue isn't who didn't follow the rules, but why they weren't followed.

> Why was the CONTRACTOR handling this equipment
> without the airbrakes cut-in? Sure, there may be a
> rule that says that's not actually required, yet
> there is a rule in Chapter 1 that clearly
> indicates the taking of the SAFEST COURSE.

That is the question. A simple violation of the rules that could have had catastrophic results. It is irrelevant which craft failed to follow them.

-Kyle