RailRoadFan.com

http://www.argus-press.com/news_local/a ... 002e0.html SALLY YORK, Argus-Press Staff Writer |

VERNON TWP. — An internal Canadian National Railway memorandum dated one month before a train derailed Jan. 6 suggests the engineer assigned to work on the engine that crashed near Durand was a trainee, though a CN official vehemently denies the engineer was unqualified.

In a memo obtained through an anonymous source by The Argus-Press dated Dec. 7, Flint Trainmaster John Clark of CN Railway wrote: “Need Chris Garske and Chris Smith put on assignments as engineer trainees. Both I believe are not qualified outside of Pontiac yard.”

Chris Garske of Swartz Creek was the engineer on the train that derailed 12 rail cars near Pittsburg and Reed roads in Vernon Township, leaking hydrochloric acid and triggering the evacuation of 66 area residents.

CN Railway Spokesman Patrick Waldron refused to answer questions about the incident, citing an ongoing investigation, but he made the following statement:

“Any suggestion that the crew members involved in the Jan. 6 incident were not qualified to operate the train is mistaken and simply not true,” Waldron said Tuesday. “All CN crew members are qualified for their duties and are familiar with the territories on which they operate. That would include the two members who operated the train on Jan. 6.”

Both Garske and conductor Daniel Widger of Waterford are under investigation by CN Railway in connection with the derailment, according to a Jan. 10 letter on CN Railway letterhead obtained by The Argus-Press.

The letter, titled “Notice of Investigation,” identifies Garske and Widger by name and work position, and reads in part:

“The investigation is being held to develop the facts and to determine your responsibility, if any, and whether you violated any Company rules, regulations and/or polices in connection with an incident that occurred at approximately 1815 hours, Jan. 6, 2011, at or near Mileage 251.9 on the Flint Subdivision related to the derailment and damage of 12 rail cars and track damage and also for allegedly blocking Pittsburg Road, Mileage 251.73, Flint Subdivision in excess of 10 minutes.”

In the Jan. 10 letter, Garske and Widger are ordered to attend a formal hearing, at which they may call witnesses on their behalf, in the Grand Trunk Western Railroad Company administration building in Pontiac this month.

The Federal Railroad Administration is conducting its own investigation into the incident, FRA spokesperson Marquese Lewis said Tuesday. Previously, FRA officials said their investigation could take up to a year.

Garske, who worked for years as a conductor until he was promoted to engineer, is a member of United Transportation Union Local 1709. Local 1709 General Chairperson Jason Reineke declined comment Tuesday, saying he was not familiar with the details of the Jan. 6 train derailment.

The train had two crew members and was heading from Battle Creek to a CN Railway yard in Flat Rock when the cars derailed, Waldron previously told The Argus-Press. One of the derailed cars leaked hydrochloric acid, which can damage lungs, eyes, skin and other organs.

No serious injuries were sustained, and displaced residents along Reed and Pittsburg roads were allowed to return to their homes the day after the accident. The cleanup process, which included transferring hydrochloric acid from the punctured rail car to a tanker truck, took about four days.

Certainly they are interesting memo's but I have to wonder what happened in the nearly 1 month between the first memo and the accident.

I am not familiar with the CN rules for being qualified to operate on a section of the railroad, but if he was already qualified as an engineer how long would it have taken to be qualified on that section of the railroad.

I think the hearing is itself a somewhat normal procedure anything there is an investigation into a major incident.

I like how it says one of the rules that they violated was blocking a road for more than 10 minutes...

I missed this story when it happened. What was determined as the cause of the derailment?

I would be somewhat certain the engineer was certificated but was new to the territory he was travelling, and was under supervision while doing so.

Thus far, no cause fot the derailment has been set forth. It may have been a defective wheel or ice in the flangeway. I refuse to speculate before the NTSB issues a final report.

Norm wrote:I would be somewhat certain the engineer was certificated but was new to the territory he was travelling, and was under supervision while doing so.

Thus far, no cause fot the derailment has been set forth. It may have been a defective wheel or ice in the flangeway. I refuse to speculate before the NTSB issues a final report.

That is just speculation that the engineer was not qualified, there has been no official statement stating that. As the article states the engineer had recently been promoted to that position. I do not know how qualification exactly works for CN but I think if he was qualified as a conductor he would still retain his qualification as an engineer.

Norm wrote:I would be somewhat certain the engineer was certificated but was new to the territory he was travelling, and was under supervision while doing so.

Certified but not qualified. They make it sound like the man was not capable of running a train. The general public doesn't understand that a licensed engineer with plenty of experience is not qualified to run all over the United States, but usually only a handful of short territories or so. What probably was the case is he got bumped out of his home terminal and had to settle in Flat Rock or where ever. If he was only qualified around Pontiac as an engineer, then he'd need to take a few trips with a pilot on his "new" route, which is what is being talked about in the press release. Usually, in that case, you only get a pilot for a handful of trips or so.

The article states that this finding occured a MONTH before the derailment. Well that's plenty of time to get a few familiarzation trips in and get comfortable. He's not learning how to run a train...he's learning the territory. So, while at the time of the "finding", he may have been a trainee...he was NOT a trainee any more at the time of the derailment. The article states there was only two onboard the train; conductor and engineer. He didn't need supervision, he had already been qualified otherwise there would've been an engineer pilot on the train as well.

We have this happen in Villa Grove on UP all the time. Villa Grove is one of the least-desired terminals to work on the St. Louis Service Unit. Therefore, when they cut jobs in St. Louis, Salem, Ste. Genevieve, Bloomington, Dexter, and so on, the trickle down effect lands guys that may usually run St. Louis to Jefferson City in Villa Grove working north and they need pilots for a handful of trips to get qualified on the territory. Now I don't know the exact details of the Durand derailment nor do I know the engineer personally, so I'm not sure how comfortable he was with the territory or if that even had anything to do with the derailment.

The media has NO idea how the railroad works and because of it, they make false accusations and base a story off of it. Great case of making a story out of nothing, literally.

GTWChris wrote:I do not know how qualification exactly works for CN but I think if he was qualified as a conductor he would still retain his qualification as an engineer.-Chris

That really doesn't make any sense. Conductors are promoted to engineer...not the other way around. If he's a qualified engineer bumped back to conductor for a prolonged period of time, he'd still need to be reacquainted with the territory, grades, speed restrictions, etc upon being promoted back to engineer. Just because a person is qualified on a line as a conductor doesn't mean thety are qualified on that same line as an engineer and vice versa. The two jobs are very different.

Mr. Tops wrote: The media has NO idea how the railroad works and because of it, they make false accusations and base a story off of it. Great case of making a story out of nothing, literally.

Is there a possibility that the derailment would have occurred regardless of who was running the train?

J T wrote:

Mr. Tops wrote: The media has NO idea how the railroad works and because of it, they make false accusations and base a story off of it. Great case of making a story out of nothing, literally.

Is there a possibility that the derailment would have occurred regardless of who was running the train?

Absolutely. Not all derailments are human error factors. May have been a bearing failure or broken rail, etc. On the flip side, it may have resulted from severe slack action as they engineer may not have realized he was approaching wye in Durand to head for Flat Rock. The NTSB has yet to determine the cause and the media continues to speculate and come up with their uneducated notions.

J T wrote:

Mr. Tops wrote: The media has NO idea how the railroad works and because of it, they make false accusations and base a story off of it. Great case of making a story out of nothing, literally.

Is there a possibility that the derailment would have occurred regardless of who was running the train?

The crew left the train on mainline as they took a cut of cars into the Durand Yard. Once they finished their work they hooked back up to the rest of the train and began to move. The train moved forward for at least 1000 feet before going into emergency. The conductor walked the train and found the derailment, there were two isolated derailed sections of train. One of the sections was just a couple cars off the tracks, none of which overturned, this most likely occurred when the train went into emergency. The other derailed section was the larger one with 8-10 cars off the track and with the dangerous chemical cars overturned. The larger section derailed just past a curved section of track. Both sections of derailed cars were at least 60 cars behind the locomotives.

"That is just speculation that the engineer was not qualified, there has been no official statement stating that. As the article states the engineer had recently been promoted to that position. I do not know how qualification exactly works for CN but I think if he was qualified as a conductor he would still retain his qualification as an engineer."

Chris,

Do you believe everything you read in the newspaper is correct? I don't.

I like how it says one of the rules that they violated was blocking a road for more than 10 minutes...

When the hearings start, they get out the rule book.

It sounds to like the CN is looking for someone to throw under the bus.

slwapprslw wrote:It sounds to like the CN is looking for someone to throw under the bus.

Doesn't anyone want to find a scapegoat to make "problems" go away?

slwapprslw wrote:It sounds to like the CN is looking for someone to throw under the bus.

My guess is they found *something* that would implicated what the engineer did caused, or contributed to, the derailment. In derailments like this there is a giant finger pointing contest between mechanical (cars), engineering (track), and Transportation (Conductor and Engineer) as to who is at fault in something like this. Track blames mechanical and transportation, transportation blames engineering and mechanical, and mechanical blames engineering and transportation. Whomever has a shred of guilt, usually takes responsibility. In something like this, you don't want your department having to take responsibility.

I have no idea what happened, but from the sounds of it, might have tried pulling the train before the air was fully restored, and pulled some cars off the rails. There again, only hearsay, and I'm sure someone will give us a version of the truth.

Must echo again that newspapers have no understanding of how the railroad works, and from an 'insider' those 'memos' are nothing more than saying "This guy needs to get qualified on this territory." But, truth doesn't sell papers, and they need to make it 'interesting' to readers.

Practice Safe CSX

Doktor No wrote: I've found that after they print a story its time to move on to the next story....Mom Kills Child With Noodle....

MQT buys all CSX track in Michigan

hoborich wrote:

I like how it says one of the rules that they violated was blocking a road for more than 10 minutes...

When the hearings start, they get out the rule book.

As silly as it sounds, they (CN) have to find somebody guilty of something so the crew doesn't get paid for time lost attending the investigation. A derailment in two places in the train gives the suggestion of possible severe slack action. Could be from the engineer's actions or, of course, caused by an outside event such as an undesired emergency brake application.

It seems not to matter to the railroad if they p*** off the employees even more by not paying them for the investigation for an incident they did not cause. Just seems the companies do not want happy employees or even slightly contented ones.

Ex local chairman