 |
Re: Synopsis from NTSB
Author: OPRRMS
Date: 06-19-2013 - 12:55
ron Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In the article UP claims the eyesight theory is
> speculation. Of course that would make the RR less
> culpable. Maybe the train crew just dosed off or
> is that too simple an explanation.
Caveat emptor.
It's always wise never to read too much into the NTSB's reports. The agency has its own agenda, and tends to skew it's "findings" to support its own theories. That's why it accepts testimony from friendly witnesses and "experts," but not from those with opposing views. This was clearly evident in the infamous Ricky Gates case, and more recently in the 2006 RCL fatality on the UP at Watsonville Jct. and the Donner Pass railgrinder runaway.
Some things to keep in mind about the Goodwell collision:
<> There were two men in the cab. Even if the engineer's eyesight issues rendered him completely blind, the conductor was sitting right there across the cab from him. Why didn't he take any action?
<> The engineer's eyesight issues had been known to the railroad since at least 2009. Why, on this particular trip, did it suddenly become a problem? He'd made hundreds of other trips between 2009 and 2012, all successfully. What was different this day?
<> Even if both crew members misread the last three signals, it would be pretty hard for someone who was alert and attentive not to notice the headlight of an opposing train on track that's tangent for miles and miles.
But the NTSB says it's all about the engineer's known eyesight issues and the carriers' failure to deal with them. Oh, and if PTC had been there, this wouldn't have happened. PTC is an extremely expensive, unproved application. The collision might've been prevented had a simple ATS system been in place, which is relatively cheap and historically proven, instead of PTC.
-------------------------------------------------------
> In the article UP claims the eyesight theory is
> speculation. Of course that would make the RR less
> culpable. Maybe the train crew just dosed off or
> is that too simple an explanation.
Caveat emptor.
It's always wise never to read too much into the NTSB's reports. The agency has its own agenda, and tends to skew it's "findings" to support its own theories. That's why it accepts testimony from friendly witnesses and "experts," but not from those with opposing views. This was clearly evident in the infamous Ricky Gates case, and more recently in the 2006 RCL fatality on the UP at Watsonville Jct. and the Donner Pass railgrinder runaway.
Some things to keep in mind about the Goodwell collision:
<> There were two men in the cab. Even if the engineer's eyesight issues rendered him completely blind, the conductor was sitting right there across the cab from him. Why didn't he take any action?
<> The engineer's eyesight issues had been known to the railroad since at least 2009. Why, on this particular trip, did it suddenly become a problem? He'd made hundreds of other trips between 2009 and 2012, all successfully. What was different this day?
<> Even if both crew members misread the last three signals, it would be pretty hard for someone who was alert and attentive not to notice the headlight of an opposing train on track that's tangent for miles and miles.
But the NTSB says it's all about the engineer's known eyesight issues and the carriers' failure to deal with them. Oh, and if PTC had been there, this wouldn't have happened. PTC is an extremely expensive, unproved application. The collision might've been prevented had a simple ATS system been in place, which is relatively cheap and historically proven, instead of PTC.
