I really wonder how this statement
Due to the cuts made by E Hunter Harrison in staffing, and operations do you think that could have contributed to this disaster.
and this procedure
I understand if the CSX folks actually bothered to follow their own procedures regarding documentation of switch position state with time of each change recorded in SPAFs (Switch Position Awareness Form) and reporting those with acknowledgement readout to the Dispatcher, then all of exactly what happened at what time is a matter of record that NTSB would have access to, and we will know sooner or later. if not, well, someone will have hell to pay for. As I understand it the SPAFs are for each individual switch, thus more or less eliminating switch identity based confusions - if the procedures are followed that is.
interact. Leaving the accident aside, the workforce has been cut down, people have been reassigned and are under the gun to do more with less. They want performance and movement. This isn't a CSX or Amtrak problem. It is labor problem.
Without addressing this incident, and I'm not making excuses but I've always had a problem with part of the switch awareness form as I think it can lead to unnecessary pressure, particularly being rushed. Here is the part i never liked (which is admittedly my problem, not the railroads):
608.9 When hand-operated switches are used in Track Warrant Control non-signal territory (TWC-D), the
train dispatcher must use the train dispatcher radio to confirm:
1. Location of the switch(es) operated,
2. Switch(es) were restored and locked in normal position,
3. Time switch(es) were initially reversed,
4. Time switch(es) were restored and locked in normal position,
5. Name of the employee who operated the switch(es), and
6. The Switch Position Awareness Form (SPAF) was initialed by both the conductor and
locomotive operator.
Now, I just want you to consider this scenario. You're the conductor and you're shoving a draft of 75 cars into a siding. As such, you are riding the point of the movement. You make an agreement with your engineer to stop and line the switch for the main and report clear. He stops and tells you he did this...but you're 75 cars away and the dispatcher wants the track. Do you them to standby while you walk up 75 cars (which would take a considerable amount of time) to verify that your crew member actually threw the switch before initialing the Awareness form or trust them?
Conversely, you're the engineer and you stop at a hand thrown switch. You drop your conductor off and he lines the movement. You now pull a 9000 ft freight train off the main. The conductor stops you, reports the switch locked and lined for the main and report clear. You both begin working towards each other while you secure the train. The conductor hands you the awareness form and wants you to initial it. Meanwhile the dispatcher wants the main. Again, I know we all speak of safety and trust but verify. However, how patient will everyone be when you delay a hotshot because it took 40 minutes for you to walk a mile and half to verify what was allegedly done?
I'm not a fan of signing something I didn't personally witness but in the current rush rush environment, I really wonder if pressure is put on the crews.