Major derailment @ Spuyten Duyvil

DutchRailnut wrote:absenteeism or sexual conduct or harassment are willful acts.
Mr Rockefeller did NOT do any willful acts to cause the accident.

I'm all for second chances. There is no way he went to work intending to derail. However, I have seen people involved in egregious rule violations keep their jobs while people that have had minor infractions lose their jobs, largely based upon politics. Granted, this is not on Metro-North, which I hope treats its employees fairly. In most cases, the people that were terminated were reinstated when they were able to convince the PLB that the discipline was excessive based upon the the discipline of others. Even recently, someone who was in trouble mentioned that they shouldn't get any more time than the crew that...and I quote "invaded SEPTA territory."

My only point is if the gentleman gets a chance at taking another position, that is very nice...and I hope that such offers are made to other employees as well. While it was a willful act, the actions of the engineer that was reading the newspaper did NOT cause the death of any passengers. I've never seen a report that stated he sped, blew restrictions or failed to stop when and where necessary. In the spirit of forgiveness, unity and second chances, should he not be able to get another job in the company? Would he have "resigned" if he was offered a non safety position? He has experience and can easily stand in front of the crews and teach from the lesson he learned, making him a good candidate for rules examiner. Perhaps he received such offers and it wasn't noted. I've seen this show before(although in a different venue) so it will be interesting to see how it plays out.

ThirdRail7 wrote:I'm all for second chances...

I worked in a factory where I was part of the investigation team that looked at accidents and operator errors. As the BIg Boss (the CEO) used to tell us, we have to give people second chances, otherwise we're expecting perfection and that's not realistic. Occasionally it doesn't work out, true, once in a great great while you might get a spectacularly bad result like CSS&SB got, but in the vast majority of times it does work out and work pretty well. People do learn from their mistakes.

I know a couple of the guys at GCT who used to work with Rockefeller in the terminal and they would welcome him back in a minute.

Were he to be given another chance, guarantee you one thing ... he will NEVER fall asleep on the job again.

However, another good question is, with the kind of PTSD he almost assuredly has from this accident, would he even be able to do so?

A lot of those guys who "find other jobs" within the railroad probably have a very similar issue ... you don't just walk away from something like this, and jump right back in the saddle.

I believe Sullenberger, after landing in the Hudson, took quite a few months before he flew again. And he did nothing wrong.

Some of his flight attendants have never returned to work.

EM2000 wrote:
[[ As I have already said going from Locomotive Engineer to Train Dispatcher is not moving up in the career path. ]]

Actually, I've seen it go the other way a few times:
That is, dispatchers who have shucked the console for an engineman's job...

Once again, the statement attributed to the engineer was "zoned out", which some may say is not the same as falling asleep.

litz wrote:I believe Sullenberger, after landing in the Hudson, took quite a few months before he flew again. And he did nothing wrong. Some of his flight attendants have never returned to work.

Does anyone know the status of the conductor involved? I know she was pretty badly hurt. I believe she sustained an eye injury too. I hadn't ridden 8808 in quite a while but I did occasionally ride from Tarrytown. There was one woman who worked that train quite a bit. Her dad was a retired locomotive engineer. Hope it wasn't her. Whoever it was I hope they make a full and speedy recovery and are able to return to work (if that's what she wants).

What does the RR offer personnel who do not wish to go back to train service after a major incident?

ThirdRail7 wrote:I'm all for second chances. There is no way he went to work intending to derail. However, I have seen people involved in egregious rule violations keep their jobs while people that have had minor infractions lose their jobs, largely based upon politics. Granted, this is not on Metro-North, which I hope treats its employees fairly. In most cases, the people that were terminated were reinstated when they were able to convince the PLB that the discipline was excessive based upon the the discipline of others. Even recently, someone who was in trouble mentioned that they shouldn't get any more time than the crew that...and I quote "invaded SEPTA territory."

Unfortunately I think politics are going to be in play here. This was not just a fatal wreck, but a very-- well, I hate to say "photogenic" but it certainly *looked* dramatic in pictures with the rolling stock splayed down the embankment, and it happened at a very visible location: you could see it from the Henry Hudson Bridge, Inwood Hill Park and who knows how many buildings on the Bronx and Manhattan sides of the river. And it happened in a city that is home to probably a dozen national media organizations (ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, NY Times, Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, Hearst, Time-Warner, etc.) and is furthermore the home turf of one of the most vocal and media-loving politicians in DC (Schumer). I'm not sure the railroad would be able to get away with quietly keeping him on staff.

Now I'm not saying that's right or just; it's just that I suspect "that's the way it is."

Tommy Meehan wrote:
Does anyone know the status of the conductor involved? I know she was pretty badly hurt. I believe she sustained an eye injury too. I hadn't ridden 8808 in quite a while but I did occasionally ride from Tarrytown. There was one woman who worked that train quite a bit. Her dad was a retired locomotive engineer. Hope it wasn't her. Whoever it was I hope they make a full and speedy recovery and are able to return to work (if that's what she wants).

I haven't heard that any recent updates to here condition other than that fact that she has a long recovery ahead of her. Whether she will be able to come back to work as a conductor would be up in the air as the FRA has strict medical standards. I think she is the person you describe. If you do some digging with Google there is at least one media website with her picture.

truck6018 wrote:I haven't heard that any recent updates to here condition other than that fact that she has a long recovery ahead of her. Whether she will be able to come back to work as a conductor would be up in the air as the FRA has strict medical standards...

Thanks I did find some information. It wasn't the woman I was thinking of, however, I do recognize the conductor. I rode with her many many times, going back many years. I think I saw her on the Harlem Line more than the Hudson. She was a very nice person, always with a smile, seemed very capable. A real class act.

The train's assistant conductor suffered an eye injury and a broken collarbone, Bottalico said.

What a shame. The lady in question just seems like the last person in the world you'd expect to have something like this happen to. She always seemed like she was someone who was pretty resilient so I really hope she makes a full recovery. The eye injury sounds a little scary. I've had a detached retina and eye damage can be tough to treat.

Now I feel terrible all over again. I'm really shocked.

^^Often times when we hear of "injuries" instead of "fatalities" we tend to feel relieved that there weren't more or any deaths. And then you hear stories such as the ones described and it makes you wonder who are the "lucky ones"; the Boston Marathon bombings are another example. A very small number of deaths (3 to be exact), but scores of serious (and in a number of cases life-altering) injuries.

We're splitting hairs or words here:

EM2000 wrote:In order to even be "demoted" one would have to have an Engineers license.

Patrick Boylan wrote:Could you please give more info about what you mean when you say "engineers license"?
I'm pretty sure the Federal Railroad Administration, or similar government body, has regulations about what it takes for one to be an engineer, and railroads have their own rules that can go on top of the government's rules, but this is the first I've heard it called a license.

Tommy Meehan wrote:Google "locomotive engineer license" and this is from what should be the first link that comes up:

Effective January 1, 1992, the Federal Railroad Administration issued extensive certification and licensing requirements for locomotive engineers. Engineers in the U.S. must be certified pursuant to the provisions of Part 240 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (49CFR Part 240). Under 49CFR Part 240 each railroad must have in place an FRA approved certification program. An individual railroad's certification program must meet minimum federal safety requirements for the eligibility, training, testing, certification and monitoring of its locomotive engineers. In this regard, certification eligibility is based on:

• * Prior safety conduct as a railroad employee and motor vehicle operator
  * Compliance with substance abuse disorder and alcohol/drug regulations
  * Vision and hearing acuity standards
  * Knowledge testing of operating rules and scheduled retesting
  * Performance skills testing/train handling

It's from the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers website That seems like a pretty decent source!

The word "licensing" only comes from a "pretty decent" Brotherhood or Union source, it is not used in the more authoratative Federal Regulation! As even the Brotherhood source hints, Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 240 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2013-t ... art240.pdf only requires a "Certificate". Where the word "License" does occur there, it refers to a driver's or medical professional's document.
As Patrick hints, there is a weasel clause that could permit the word "License" to appear on the Certificate.

§ 240.223 Criteria for the certificate.
(a) As a minimum, each certificate issued in compliance with this part shall:
(1) Identify the railroad or parent company that is issuing it;
(2) Indicate that the railroad, acting in conformity with this part, has determined that the person to whom it is
being issued has been determined to be qualified to operate a locomotive;
(3) Identify the person to whom it is being issued (including the person’s name, date of birth and employee identification number, and either a physical description or photograph of the person);
(4) Identify any conditions or limitations, including the class of service or conditions to ameliorate vision or
hearing acuity deficiencies, that restrict the person’s operational authority;
(5) Show the date of its issuance;
(6) Be signed by a supervisor of locomotive engineers or other individual designated in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section;
(7) Show the date of the person’s last operational monitoring event as required by § 240.129(c) and § 240.303(b), unless that information is reflected on supplementary documents which the locomotive engineer has in his or her possession when operating a locomotive;
and
(8) Be of sufficiently small size to permit being carried in an ordinary pocket wallet.
....
(c) Nothing in paragraph (a) of this section shall prohibit any railroad from including additional information
on the certificate or supplementing the certificate through other documents.

What are you talking about? License or Certificate call it whatever you want but it is referred to as both. One who holds one meets certain CFR's. One can't run a train without a license and one can't fly a plane without one either.

It certainly sounds like the difficulty of getting such a license/certificate is up to the issuing railroad. More of a formality than getting a license from an outside source such as the DOT. If the railroad wants an individual to operate a train they give that individual the level of instruction the railroad feels is necessary then issue the license/certificate to say the railroad did its part. The exact standards are set by the issuer.

And where do you base that from? Your own experience obtaining a Locomotive Engineers license from various RR's? Yeah sure. Re read my post Locomotive Engineers are CFR part 240 qualified. The "difficulty" is not up to the RR. There is a standard set. Becoming a Locomotive Engineer anywhere is extremely difficult. A formality? One must go through the same process to get their Locomotive Engineers license as they would their Pilots license, so again, what are you talking about? The RR submits it's Locomotive Engineer training course to the FRA for approval. Not what the RR feel's is sufficient. I remind you again, in order to obtain an Engineer's license certain CFR's must be met so there is a standard in process and training. The RR does not send any individual they want to run trains through the program. This is not a 5 hour course to get your drivers license. The RR will not just take anyone for this position. People with similar backgrounds of responsibility are desired. Cops, Pilots, Air Traffic Controllers, Etc. Justalurker, maybe by now you should realize to stay out of shop talk, you just don't know what you are talking about.