posted
I have been reading these posts since I learned of the tragedy. Like most everyone in this forum, my heart and prayers go out for the victims. Thank you for all of the information posted here.
Posts: 446 | From: Phoenix, Arizona | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's a quick video where you can "meet" Conductor Lee. The pictures that have been in the media might not jog your memory, but for those who have ridden the Zephyr in recent years, you might remember her once you've seen this video. I remember her very clearly:
He shouldn't have been behind the wheel in the first place. Unfortunately, I have experience with these types of people...one of them ruined my career and caused great pain in my life.
Posts: 2355 | From: Pleasanton, CA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stephen W: I find this extract from the LA Times extremely disconcerting:
"Amtrak has had 36 accidents at grade crossings from January through March of this year, resulting in 11 deaths, according to the Federal Railroad Administration's safety office. In the five-year period ending in 2010, the passenger train service was involved in crashes that took the lives of 309 people, an average of 62 per year. Amtrak's media relations officials did not return calls Saturday for comment."
This sort of stuff is simply sensationalism. I don't know how close this is to the real number, but best I remember traffic deaths in this country are about 40,000 per year. There is also nothing here to say how much of this is road related idiocy and how much if any is Amtrak's fault. Look at the article as primarily a way to cover a piece of blank paper with some words.
quote:Incidentally, I find it strange, taking a look at a selection of Sunday newspapers throughout various States, that I could find few, if any, reports of this dreadful accident. Does this reflect a general lack of interest in an event that happens outwith a newspaper's State or is it that, because of the statistics mentioned above, it is viewed as almost commonplace?
I am relieved if coverage of out of area railway accidents are being considered more as local news. In general, a railroad related accident gets far wider coverage than a road related accident resulting in equivalent disaster and disruption. This sort of stuff leads to the percention that road is as safe as or safer than rail, which is definitely not the case.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Amtrak has had 36 accidents at grade crossings from January through March of this year, resulting in 11 deaths, according to the Federal Railroad Administration's safety office. In the five-year period ending in 2010, the passenger train service was involved in crashes that took the lives of 309 people, an average of 62 per year. Amtrak's media relations officials did not return calls Saturday for comment."
Using the above statistic regarding train/grade crossings of 11 deaths in the first quarter of this year, it could average out to be approximately 44 per year of the 62 averaged for the last five years? How many of those deaths would have occurred had the motorist involved in the grade crossing (deaths) accidents obeyed the law and not violated crossing gate warnings? What would the per annum death rate then be?
Posts: 497 | From: Clarksburg, West Virginia | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
And so the lawsuits start, despite lack of probable cause: Link. Quite a small amount claimed but one wonders whether it would be put on ice until the investigation has at least published initial findings?
Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
One very safe assumption is that John Davis Trucking Co's insurance limits are "blown". What I find astounding is that a trucking company with 48 state interstate authority is required only to have ($500K) public liability coverage - and that is all many of 'em carry (you couldn't 'get me near" the wheel of any vehicle if that was all the coverage in force). It is possible that to hold intRAstate authority, higher coverage limits prevail, but somehow Nevada is the kind of place where such is less likely the case.
So, just one more "who's got the deep pockets, fault notwithstanding, ponies up".
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think not, GBN. The employee was working for the company on their clock. If what happened was the responsibility of him taking drugs/alcohol, the company has a leadership/discipline problem (think Rule G). OTOH, if the truck had a mechanical problem, the company did not have solid maintenance procedures.
The circumstantial evidence already on the table is enough; the trucking company has some explaining to do ... in a court of law.
Posts: 1404 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would imagine that one area that will be explored in court will revolve around whether or not the trucking company bothers to check the driving records of prospective employees.
-------------------- David Pressley
Advocating for passenger trains since 1973!
Climbing toward 5,000 posts like the Southwest Chief ascending Raton Pass. Cautiously, not nearly as fast as in the old days, and hoping to avoid premature reroutes. Posts: 4203 | From: Western North Carolina | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by PullmanCo: I think not, GBN....
Wholly correct, Mr. Pullman, as well as every thought you immediately expressed - if all parties had equally deep pockets.
But they don't.
I hate to think how many trucking companies out there have only the coverage prescribed by law - and "last time I checked", $500K is all an interstate trucking company was required to have. I knew from a trucking company client (I had three at one time in my practice), he only carried what he had to. I guess I once sort of implied "is that morally right?'...."Gilbert, when you go into court (or just conference) the two lawyers will ask "how much coverage'....(say) $500K,,,,'let's shake hands and be donw with it".
Guarantee you I'm not driving around with only $500K.
Finally, regarding Mr. Presley's immediate thought, not only are backgrounds properly investigated before saying "your hired', but also the effectiveness of on-going safety instructional meetings? The "big boys"...the JB Hunts....Swifts....Covenants...out there in the trucking world all do a good job - they can't affort NOT to....the littles? Well, their insurance companies all sell "canned" programs, but who knows how many are really taken to heart.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
To clarify, there is 'checking previous driving records - wink-wink' and then there is actually 'checking previous driving records'.
Then there is making a prudent hiring decision based on what checking those previous driving records determined.
A fly-by-night firm carrying only the minimum prescribed coverage is more likely to be subscribing to the 'wink-wink' version.... as with the firm who employed a driver with a long history of faking his log book who then fell asleep at the wheel and plowed into the back of a traffic jam killing five other motorists near us last fall.
-------------------- David Pressley
Advocating for passenger trains since 1973!
Climbing toward 5,000 posts like the Southwest Chief ascending Raton Pass. Cautiously, not nearly as fast as in the old days, and hoping to avoid premature reroutes. Posts: 4203 | From: Western North Carolina | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obviously, John Davis Trucking's insurance is "blown'. Anyone care to place their bets that they have a higher limit than required under Nevada law?
Possibly Amtrak's strategy here is to be first in line to file suit and beat other claimants to the starting gate. Since Amtrak is liable for damages sustained by any passengeror employee, this action will minimize any possibllity that an injured party will be double indemnified.
Even though the two Superliners lost will never be replaced, lest we forget they were leased - and the leesor expects to be made whole for the loss.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now I know I am not crazy. Even though I initially read this was the first accident at this crossing, the article provided by rr4me says there was another Amtrak incident recently at this crossing. I remember viewing this crossing on the Google map thing after the first incident, and thinking "How could anyone not see a train here?'.
It would be interesting to know if the first incident involved the same trucking firm. Too bad they can't be required to build an overpass, or at least some 15mph turns on the approach. It would make me feel safer riding through Nevada again.
Posts: 1572 | From: St. Paul, MN | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
At this time, Mr. Ainsworth's site has been updated to reflect out of service status of equipment involved with this incident (it appears that it will be identified as "Trinity"), however, his site does not yet reflect that the heavily damaged cars, 39013 and 34033, will be struck from the roster.
Quite likely, the remains of these cars will be held as evidence for the inevitable array of litigation arising from the incident; at what point in time must the leesors ("I once heard" that AIG subsidiary, ILFC, was one of such, but have no documentation at hand to substantiate) be paid for the loss of their equipment is an "I don't know".
Anyone?
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
It's not clear if it was the baggage car door to the transdorm or the transdorm door to the baggage car that was locked. In either case, off the top of my head I'd think that it would be good sense to lock one of those doors so that night-riding light-fingers couldn't enter the car to steal things.
Or maybe I'm wrong.
Posts: 2236 | From: Evanston, Ill. and Ontonagon, Mich. | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
It's not clear if it was the baggage car door to the transdorm or the transdorm door to the baggage car that was locked. In either case, off the top of my head I'd think that it would be good sense to lock one of those doors so that night-riding light-fingers couldn't enter the car to steal things.
Or maybe I'm wrong.
Does it form part of an escape route though? (I've never been in a transition sleeper so I've no idea)
-------------------- Geoff M. Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amtrak was unquestionably wise to get their suit against the trucking company first in line. Amtrak is of course liable to both its employees and passengers. Getting first in line minimizes the possibility that some injured party will get double indemnity, although be it assured some will try.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I were an injured party in this mishap, I would file against any and all entities who might have any liability at all, and let the courts figure it out.
This will probably end up as some kind of "joint and several liability" case, with the trucking company bearing the brunt of the costs.
Don't be surprised if you read about claims against the truck manufacturer and the submanufacturer who supplied the truck's brakes.
Disclaimer: I'm not an attorney, and I don't play one on TV.
Posts: 1530 | From: Ocala, FL | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
From this non-lawyer (but a CPA; which means I have worked in a legal environment), Mike is likely correct; injured parties will go after any and all - maybe even the brake system's subcontractor CEO's Labrador Retriever - he wanted to be walked too late, caused the CEO to lose focus (honest folks, when I was in Labor Relations I was actually looking at tripe like that).
Presumably Amtrak lawyers will argue that "hey, were liable to our passengers, employees, and equipment lessors; the trucking company's insurance is blown - they're going to petition for bankruptcy so there will be nothing left there (if there ever was to begin with), and hence we should be the sole loss-payee."
However, any such proceedings will likely be private; "out of court' kind of stuff.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Here is the document in its entirety relating to Crescent City and passenger accountability. For ready reference, the Executive Summary adequately addresses the issue:
If there ever were an incident at which difficult to assess fault against Amtrak, it has to be Trinity. It appears that parties attempting to assess blame against Amtrak are overlooking that some passengers could well have walked away from the incident, and quite unhurt. They seem to hold that after an aircraft incident, involving a hull loss, that everyone ends up accounted for - ususlly deceased.
However, but recognizing that I have no documentation at hand to support, I'd dare say that aircraft incidents in which the hull has maintained integrity, somewhere passengers have gone unaccounted.
All told, until the NTSB releases the Railroad Accident Report (RAR); cheap shot (IMHO).
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gilbert, I agree with you. In the first article that you've referenced, I believe I read that 2 people are unaccounted for? Obviously, awkward for AMTRAK, but from the Executive Summary of the Cresent City incident that you've cited:
"Although having an accurate passenger manifest can be useful, the development and implementation costs associated with such a system would likely be substantial and there is no significant safety benefit in having an accurate passenger manifest immediately available at the accident scene."
Doesn't this statement give AMTRAK some kind of relief?
Tom
Posts: 518 | From: Maynard, MA, USA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again Mr. Black, all I can note is cheap shot by media; hopefully wiser heads will prevail between now and release of the Trinity RAR and recognize that a train is not an "encapsulated" environment such as an aircraft.
It is not beyond reason that a passenger, say, going to Reno, simply said "enough of this...', went out to the highway and hitched a ride or cell phoned people who were meeting the passenger anyway. The last concern of this passenger is Amtrak's potential liabilities and a need for "#5(22); all present or accounted for, SIR".
Related, it seemed like 2009 was my personal "year of the hotel evacuation", as I was involved with two incidents of such (Marriott Courtyard, Maitland FL and Hyatt Regency, Greenwich CT). There was no roll call; staff simply searched each room to determine if anyone was still there. When hotel management was satisfied the property was clear and the Fire Chief released the premises, it was "all clear'.
Thankfully during the forty or so nights I have spent in hotels since those incidents, none further have occurred.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The "all clear" call is something that is part of the nationalized ICS, or Incident Command System. There is pre-determined phraseology, and one of those phrases is the term, "All Clear". For example, if there is a residential fire alarm in the middle of the night, and PD happens to arrive before FD (which is normal, since the patrol cars are already out on the road, but the fire trucks are in quarters and the crew in bed asleep), the police officer will check with the resident(s) and ask, "Is everybody out of the house and accounted for?". That person will usually say something like, "Yes, I live alone" (or whatever response is appropriate). The officer can then talk on the radio and tell the dispatcher that they have an "All Clear". This information will be passed along to the Captain of the first responding engine when they pull out of the barn.
ICS began back in the 1980's (I want to say 1982?) and was quickly adapted nationwide as "the" system that is used at any large or potentially large incident. There are job titles that can be used (or not used, depending on the size of the incident) so that other departments responding in will understand it as everyone will be speaking the same language. Right around the time period that ICS was introduced, many departments also went to "clear text" language on the radio. Clear text eliminates all codes so that when other department come in for major incidents, everyone is speaking the same language. This is not the case with police departments, however. For example, "meet the officer" on the California 10 code system is "10-87", but with CHP on the 11 code system, it is "1198". Officer needs assistance/emergency on the 10 code system is Code 20, and on the CHP 11 code system it is 1199. It gets very confusing for both dispatchers and cops when crossing borders. I once had to work patrol in Fremont (not the city where I was employed) so that their officers could attend a funeral of one of their officers killed in the line of duty. Fremont PD's dispatchers remained the dispatchers because that is where the 911 calls come into. Anyway, we all had to use clear text for the day because our codes didn't even come close to their codes. It was a very interesting day, driving around looking at street signs constantly to figure out where I was. Slowly but surely, I am starting to see police departments switching to clear text as well. Personally, I prefer codes, but that's only because I've been speaking in code since 1980 and it seems natural after all this time.
Posts: 2355 | From: Pleasanton, CA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Henry Kisor: Now the trucking company is suing Amtrak:
[link]
Warning to those with little patience for pop-ups and badly designed websites with major CPU resource usage: don't click that link. It didn't work on an iPhone earlier either, it was that badly designed.
Anyway, no offense Mr. Kisor. So the trucking company claims that UP *and* Amtrak failed to give their drivers enough warning of approaching trains? All I can think is that it's some sort of legal delay tactic than a serious attempt to absolve themselves of any blame... surely?
-------------------- Geoff M. Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It loaded fine on my Mac Mini and my iPad 2. I'm puzzled. Salon.com is a major U.S. news website. Why do its pages not appear on iPhones?
Posts: 2236 | From: Evanston, Ill. and Ontonagon, Mich. | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
Stop by my website: Streamliner Schedules - Historic timetables of the great trains of the past! Posts: 413 | From: Houston, Texas | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
I originally tried the link on Firefox and a video popped up. Upon closing an advert popped-up instead (pop-up blockers don't block when you "click"). Jerky scrolling.
Tried today with Safari, IE9, and Chrome. Though only Chrome showed the video pop-up, all had varying degrees of jerky scrolling.
On the iPhone the site tries to redirect itself to mobile.salon.com and eventually ended in a blank screen.
-------------------- Geoff M. Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The NTSB has released its preliminary report for this accident. Five recommendations are made to the FRA and three of them would affect Amtrak:
quote:9. Develop side impact crashworthiness standards (including performance validation) for passenger railcars that provide a measurable improvement compared to the current regulation for minimizing encroachment to and loss of railcar occupant survival space. 10. Once the side impact crashworthiness standards are developed in Safety Recommendation 9, revise 49 Code of Federal Regulations 238.217, “Side Structure,” to require that new passenger railcars be built to these standards. 11. Require that passenger railcar doors be designed to prevent fire and smoke from traveling between railcars.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
