Storymania - Chatsworth Journal: Observations About The Metrolink111 Crash On September 12 2008 by Shelley J Alongi

Chatsworth Journal: Observations About The Metrolink111 Crash On September 12 2008
Shelley J Alongi

Here are my latest observations about the information to proceed from the Chatsworth train accident on September 12, 2008. I’ve been writing my opinions about the accident in my series entitled “Metrolink111” which also chronicles my trips to the Fullerton train station. I owe my fascination with trains now to Rob sanchez the Metrolink engineer. Anyone who reads my essays will see that is obvious. I’ve been accused on his online memorial page of being obsessed with him That is true. It’s the way I’m wired. So rather than bore all my colleagues with conversation a bout the accident I thought I’d write it all down and let those interested read it.

It occurs to me that the opinions or questions I’m about to ask in this essay anyway have not been addressed by the media. So here goes.

Today I listened to the BLET and the UTU talk about their positions on the safety violations which have been exposed in the Chatsworth accident. The overall concerns of the accident as addressed by the NTSB in their questioning of Metrolink and Union Pacific and efficiency testing crews so far is these four rule violations: (1) use of cell phone by Metrolink engineer and UP conductor, (2) drug violations and the way they are reported, (3) allowing unauthorized persons in the locomotive as exhibited by the Metrolink engineer, and (4) the calling of signals. It strikes me in listening to all these people talk about their safety records and their efficiency statistics that everyone thinks they’re doing all the right things. There is random drug testing, random efficiency testing for the use of cell phones by train crews, they monitor engineers for the calling of signals. They haven’t talked much about what they’re doing to ensure that unauthorized persons do not enter the locomotive cab during the train operation. The Brotherhood of Locomotive engineers and trainmen, the United Transportation Union, the personnel from Metrolink all seem to express this idea that they’re all doing the right thing, and they all support Emergency Order 26 which bans the use of personal cell phones and electronic devices by train crews while on duty. I thought that was a rule in the first place? Rule 1.10 isn’t it called? Well, it seems that inspite of all of their wonderful efficiency testing and random choosing for tests Rob Sanchez the Metrolink engineer and the Union pacific conductor who wasn’t a regular crewmember on the LOF65 the Leesdale Local (the freight train that was hit by Rob’s Metrolink 111 on September 12, 2008 at 4:22.23 pm just outside of Santa Susanna’s pass, just below Stony Point Park, were both caught using their cell phones on their respective trains. The text messages sent by the Metrolink engineer, the person I’m endeavoring to memorialize with a plaque because I want to, was caught red-handed letting teenage rail fans be in the locomotive and then there was a plan for the teenager to run the locomotive. Kathryn O’Leary Higgins keeps referring to the fact that the person was going to operate the train.

Ok. Not good. This man who everyone admired and spoke highly of was caught red-handed breaking company policy. I know that. I still want to make a memorial plaque for him.

By the same token the Union Pacific conductor sent and received 41 text messages that day and while he wasn’t directly responsible for the accident, it seems he was in violation of rule 1.10. If there is a great record of efficiency testing and random drug testing, why were two people on two separate trains that happened to meet tragically on that day both breaking the rules? Well, unless we ask the two people involved and one we can’t ask, I suppose we’ll never know. So here’s my opinion on that. It seems everyone else is offering one even though they don’t know any of the parties involved, so I’ll do the same thing. I’ve already done that in many of my Metrolink essays, but this Chatsworth accident keeps haunting me and I’m completely obsessed with it, so I’m going to devote this whole essay to my opinions about why they could break the rules.

Remember I’m a novice rail fan so I may not be a credible source though I may ask a lot of questions. The first thing that strikes me about the hearing is that everyone involved in the hearing seems to either know each other or they have been working in the railroad industry forever. There’s nothing wrong with that in itself, it’s simply an observation. The second thing that strikes me is that the various representatives when they talk about their respective fields do not seem to be very well prepared or know exactly how to answer questions. Are these people briefed ahead of time? The man who was the efficiency test expert didn’t have some specific information pertaining to Rob Sanchez, the Metrolink engineer. He did not have the number of times he had been tested for calling signals and the number of times he had missed them. There’s a whole other thing about the signals there between chatsworth and the tunnel but we’ll deal with that later in another essay. Returning to the subject of Rob Sanchez, he was described as an above average engineer quite “capable of handling his train.” I thought the description of the engineer was interesting. I’ve always found Rob Sanchez interesting but I wondered why rick Dahl the man who testified about the efficiency testing described Rob Sanchez as capable of handling his own train. He described Rob’s conductor as a “gentle person” who probably didn’t write citations when he should have, but he only said that Rob Sanchez was capable of handling his train. Maybe I’m reading more into that than needs to be read, that’s always a possibility, but I thought it was an interesting description. He’s been described as positive, upbeat, a loner, happy, having a sparkle in his eye, a careful driver, and now as someone who was capable of handling his train. Well for one I’m glad he was at least capable of handling it, because I may have been on it at some time, though I doubt it.

Okay, so anyway bak to the subject at hand. Here is the big question. Why were two people caught breaking rules if the efficiency testing was so great? No one, perhaps even more importantly, seems to think that any improvements are necessary. The UTU and the BLET think they’re all doing the right thing. The efficiency tests are working why change now? Um, because two people on two trains that met on the same track under the supervision of two different railroads broke the rules? Yep, that could be why;.

I know I’ll be finishing up listening to the different panels in the March 3 and 4 hearing, and I’ll have more to say.

But here are some final observations about why they could break the rules. Let’s take the names, and the faces and Rob’s picture out of it. I do have his picture on my wall in the office. I can’t helpe but think that even as he did break those rules and if he did miss a signal because he was text messaging, then here is my take on how he could do that based on something that has been expressed over and over again in the Chatsworth hearing. Simply put, the reason the people can break the rules is because it’s difficult to monitor cell phone use in a locomotive, if someone in the locomotive sees a supervisor coming they can put away the cell phone. If someone wants to break the rules there’s not much Metrolink or UP can do about it. That sounds like a cop out. It also sounds like they’re not saying something that might be implicitly expressed. Maybe what it all really comes down to, Katharyn OLeary Higgins, is personal responsibility. I as the engineer have to know in my own head that it is against company policy to use a cell phone while operating a moving train. I have to know that it is against company policy to text message my friend or even my enemies or smoke marijuana or let someone in the cab when there’s a policy against that, to. It’s up to me to obey the rule. Big Brother can’t be watching me all the time with an inward or forward facing camera or a voice recorder. The reason Rob sanchez could break the rules is because he knew he could get away with it. Like your mother always said, rules are there for a reason. And like someone else said in the Bible, what is said in secret could be shouted from the housetops. It sounds like that’s what’s happening here even if that particular quote is taken out of context.

So can people really break the rules if they want to? Of course they can. And can we do anything about it? Sure. We can put a supervisor on every train everyday. We can put a voice recorder and camera in a locomotive. And here’s another question! Why does BLET so oppose the placement of a voice recorder in the locomotive? It is industry standard to put voice recorders in airplanes and ships. Why not trains? Because says the BLET, it invades the privacy of people in the locomotive. What do people talk about in a locomotive anyway? What are they afraid they’ll find? Someone cussing out the union?

Since when is what you do in a locomotive private? If you’re on the clock it’s not private. That’s what I think. If I’m on the job I better be at my best, my first interest needs to be the people on my train, not my own personal private matters. If I’m going to do something private in the locomotive, maybe I need to be at home. Now there’s where privacy is first priority, not in the locomotive of a moving train. If it will save the lives of twenty-five people, including the engineer who might think they can get away with breaking the rules, then privacy needs to be abandoned. When that engineer or conductor clocks out, their privacy returns.

And what is so important that it has to be talked about on a cell phone on a moving train? I have no idea.

That’s my take so far. We’ll see what else I think. I’m sure I’ll think more.
And still after all is said and done I still feel bad for that metrolink engineer. If you want to know more about that, read “metrolink111: What Does that Face Look Like.”