# LIRR Engineer Accused Of Allowing Passenger To Operate Train



## tp49 (Jul 18, 2009)

The below article appeared in yesterday's Newsday and can be found in its entirety here.



> The man in the suit, after spending nearly 45 minutes inside the engineer's cab of a morning-rush hour Long Island Rail Road train, emerged and said jokingly to a fellow rider, "How'd I do?" said the MTA Police's key witness in the ongoing investigation of charges that a passenger operated the train.
> The witness, who was on the rush-hour train Friday morning and spoke under the condition of anonymity, nervously recalled what he saw on July 2, which sparked him to call police shortly after stepping off the train at the Hunterspoint Avenue station in Long Island City.


There is a follow up article today as the Nassau County DA's office has now initiated a criminal probe. This article can be found here.

I think the current Nassau DA is a buffoon and I'm also not a fan of Newsday and their lack of quality journalism; however, if the allegations prove true they are both right. If an inexperienced passenger was operating the train and something went wrong there was a great potential for a disaster and during rush hour no less. It was also reported in the article that at one point while the train was in operation the engineer actually left the cab.

On another forum I lurk many are attacking the newspaper for reporting this amid the paper's history of being critical of the LIRR. Others are attacking that the article reports there was only one witness. They argue that because one witness saw it, doesn't make it true. However, it doesn't make it false either. I can guarantee the engineer in question will have a hearing as the LIRR will move to terminate him. At the hearing he will have an opportunity to confront the witness. If the engineer is brought up on criminal charges he will be affirded the same right. Thus, the "but there was only one witness" argument is invalid.

As a former LIRR commuter this disturbs me a great deal. If it is true then the lives of many people were unnecessarily put at risk and for what, so someone could fulfill their fantasy of operating a train? I hope in the end that both the LIRR's and the DA's investigation uncover what happened and if appropriate criminal charges are sought.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 20, 2009)

tp49 said:


> The below article appeared in yesterday's Newsday and can be found in its entirety here.
> 
> 
> > The man in the suit, after spending nearly 45 minutes inside the engineer's cab of a morning-rush hour Long Island Rail Road train, emerged and said jokingly to a fellow rider, "How'd I do?" said the MTA Police's key witness in the ongoing investigation of charges that a passenger operated the train.
> ...


I betcha, with absolutely no reason whatsoever, that this will end up being a case of braggadocio and an engineer inappropriately letting a passenger into the cab.


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Jul 26, 2009)

we assuming it was a pax. it could have also been a engineer in training given he was in a suit. we don't know who the guy was untill we hear the engineers side of the story.


----------



## DET63 (Aug 10, 2009)

amtrakwolverine said:


> we assuming it was a pax. it could have also been a engineer in training given he was in a suit. we don't know who the guy was untill we hear the engineers side of the story.


If it was someone in training presumably the railroad would have been aware and made a public announcement to that effect, no?


----------



## tp49 (Aug 11, 2009)

DET63 said:


> amtrakwolverine said:
> 
> 
> > we assuming it was a pax. it could have also been a engineer in training given he was in a suit. we don't know who the guy was untill we hear the engineers side of the story.
> ...


No, the rr wouldn't have made an announcement.

More to the story has come out. Been a bit busy. The engineer and the passenger were both arrested and charged with misdemeanor reckless endangerment. The story is here along with the requisite posturing of the Nassau County DA.


----------



## battalion51 (Aug 11, 2009)

There are student Engineers and people qualifying all the time, and typically the traveling public never knows it, which is the way it should be. I mean the trained traveler can tell the difference sometimes, but you really have to know what to look and feel for.


----------



## DET63 (Aug 13, 2009)

So it's better for the traveling public not to know that the extra person in the control cab is an engineer/motorman/train operator-in-training as opposed to a foamer/friend/family member who shouldn't be there?


----------



## battalion51 (Aug 14, 2009)

Some people get nervous when they're told that there's a trainee moving them. I know in a certain location that the destination boards on buses will carry an alternate name on the destination board rather than the actual destination. Employees know the driver is a trainee, but the riders have no idea. I'm not excusing the supposed actions by the Engineer, but justifying not running around advertising that there's a trainee on board. Most people don't even bother to look in the cab (or have the angle to see) how many people are on the head end. The only time you should really inform the public about testing of employees is if there's a delay incurred, for example with a banner test.


----------



## DET63 (Aug 14, 2009)

But once the presence of the extra person in the cab has become public knowledge (and presumably after the trip has ended anyway), what harm does it do to reassure the public that a trainee, as opposed to a joy-rider or unauthorized guest, was operating the train—if indeed that was the case?


----------



## tp49 (Aug 14, 2009)

DET63 said:


> But once the presence of the extra person in the cab has become public knowledge (and presumably after the trip has ended anyway), what harm does it do to reassure the public that a trainee, as opposed to a joy-rider or unauthorized guest, was operating the train—if indeed that was the case?


Generally you never see the morotman/engineer on an LIRR train. They start the run at the terminal then run the train to the end of the line. Unlike Amtrak or a freight that operates over long distances the longest LIRR run is around 115-120 miles so they do not switch or change trains until the end of the line.

Once an LIRR train gets to the terminal, in this case Hunters Point Avenue, there is a mad rush to get off. People do not linger on the train as they are trying to get to work on time. Announcements after the trip has ended are not going to be heard

In this case, the person was not a trainee but a civilian. I'm going to wait until the criminal action plays out before commenting on the engineer's conduct. However, right now it doesn't look good for him.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Aug 14, 2009)

battalion51 said:


> There are student Engineers and people qualifying all the time, and typically the traveling public never knows it, which is the way it should be. I mean the trained traveler can tell the difference sometimes, but you really have to know what to look and feel for.


Trainees are one thing, civilians allowed to operate a loaded passenger train is a whole other matter. This is the first time I've heard of criminal charges being pressed in matters like, it just emphasizes the seriousness of the situation.


----------



## DET63 (Aug 15, 2009)

tp49 said:


> DET63 said:
> 
> 
> > But once the presence of the extra person in the cab has become public knowledge (and presumably after the trip has ended anyway), what harm does it do to reassure the public that a trainee, as opposed to a joy-rider or unauthorized guest, was operating the train—if indeed that was the case?
> ...


Yes, but I'm talking about an event that happened some time after the trip has ended. Someone saw what appeared to be an unauthorized person operating the train. If that someone then made an issue of the presence of the apparently unauthorized person in the cab, then I wouldn't see any harm in the railroad reassuring the public that it was in fact a trainee working while being closely supervised. Now, if, as appears to be the case here, it was truly an unauthorized individual in the cab, then my point becomes moot.


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Aug 16, 2009)

If I as Engineeer let another employee operate my train, its easy verifiable by me or the railroad.

If I let a fellow engineer operate he/she would not stand by sillently while these accusations were made.

If person was a trainee, the training dept or trainee would have a signoff sheet stating that trainee operated train such and such.

Since both engineer and civilian have been arrested the entire discussion is moot anyway.


----------



## MattW (Sep 12, 2009)

Looks like the employee has been terminated:

http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/ny-en...dly-136561.html

What I find interesting, is it's an Atlanta paper that ran this...


----------



## AlanB (Sep 12, 2009)

While I'll admit that I haven't gone looking at the NY papers, I can't imagine that it wasn't seeing as how it made the nightly news reports and radio reports.


----------



## tp49 (Sep 13, 2009)

Newsday on Long Island ran the story on Friday. I didn't post anything because I'm laptopless and using my blackberry which is more limited in what it can do as opposed to my laptop.


----------



## zoltan (Sep 13, 2009)

I'm saying only four words regarding the engineer of this train: Innocent until proven guilty.

I'll suspend judgement until after the outcome in the courts.


----------

