BandA wrote:So, according to the rules, the operator at the front of the train is supposed to control the brakes. But that was not possible due to them being disabled. The rear operator obviously was unaware that the radio was out. Even though he should have been aware, I don't think the rear operator was negligent or if so only a little. This whole thing was supposed to be under supervision; Was the front operator in touch with central dispatch/supervisor, who should have been listening to the conversation.
No, no, NO! The person at the throttle has NO business moving an inch, nor continuing to move if he/she is not CERTAIN they have communication. This forum does not number the posts, sadly, but read farther above and I have explained at least twice that there are specific rules to ENSURE safe operation and to PREVENT this sort of thing. It may well be that halting other traffic would have been prudent but the failure to stop within authorized limits is 100% on the person controlling the move. Can't see hand signals? STOP! Can't raise your point man on the radio? STOP! Have not heard from that person in a given distance? STOP!
The point about some central dispatch should have been listening is totally lacking in reality. If the person at the controls did not stop for his own crew, if he reportedly shoved by 3 stop signals, what would some person at a desk far from the scene DO? The train crew are trained, tested and expected to be able to make such a move on their own, apparently with a "Train Service Supervisor" involved which reportedly was the case - the supervisor is said to be the one making the move.
Even though he should have been aware, I don't think the rear operator was negligent or if so only a little.
Is that like being a little bit pregnant? None of us are in a position to state negligence in legal terms. But the person at the controls - who reportedly WAS A SUPERVISOR - according to the report we have above shoved a considerable distance without communication, past stop signals and was still shoving when the collision occurred.
Again, halting traffic in hindsight would have been a good thing. But every day, on many railroads all over the country, a train on one track is halted at a red signal while another train is crossed over to or from that track ahead of it. It's not unusual, it's not unsafe, but it is incumbent on everyone doing their job properly. If the Gothamist report is accurate, the fault seems to be with the operation of the disabled train. If actual facts are different from that report, let's see where that takes us.