BY JANE HARRIS

HOBOKEN, New Jersey - On February 9 a head-on train collision killed both engineers and a passenger, as well as injuring 162 passengers. The collision has given the green light to the media and NJ Transit, a commuter railroad, to scapegoat locomotive engineers rather than unsafe practices as the real danger to public safety.

The New York Times ran a nearly page-long article July 22 beginning on the front page of the Metro Report section headlined, "Few Engineers Commit Bulk of Rail Errors - Data on Commuter Lines Show Lax Monitoring." For their article, the Times obtained the records of all locomotive engineers in the metropolitan area.

Beginning a half hour after the February accident occurred, there has been an attempt to smear the eastbound train engineer, John DeCurtis. While the National Transportation Safety Board has yet to issue a report, that agency, as well as company officials and major news media, repeat DeCurtis's guilt

Only the worker's union, the United Transportation Union, has pointed out that DeCurtis - far from being asleep - stayed in the control car when he could have escaped. DeCurtis was in fact trying to reverse the engine's motors to save lives.

The day after the Times news article, their lead editorial, "A Few Bad Engineers," put the challenge to area railroads to fire engineers like DeCurtis. "At a time when the transportation industry is pondering hard choices in deciding how much money and passenger convenience to sacrifice in the name of safety, the commuter rail lines are being given a modest but important challenge," editorialized the Times.

A week later, New Jersey Transit officials responded, saying that while they hadn't disclosed it, they set a policy April 3 whereby any engineer cited more than once for running a red signal will be automatically fired. Many engineers here conclude that the company did not want engineers to know this before voting on their contract, which provides no job protection should this type of firing occur.

The Times, which interviewed no rank-and-file engineers for its lengthy piece, could have learned a lot by bothering to talk to a few. For one thing, when a railroad company claims an engineer ran through a red signal, it holds a trial and then is the judge, jury, and executioner. The idea that the signal system may be faulty, the rail conditions hazardous (fall leaves can create a treacherous greasy film that makes braking very difficult at times), or that the equipment is poorly maintained are all beside the point.

If the Times had chosen to review its own coverage, it could have pointed to the fact that NJ Transit has decided not to speed up the installation of automatic braking systems in the Hoboken division. They are scheduled to appear in 2005! It could have pointed to the horrendous 14 and 1/2 hour night split shift DeCurtis had worked when he was asked to make an extra run.

One engineer pointed out that all the helicopters that came to rescue the passengers were piloted by not one, but two people. The firemen, or assistant engineers, who used to be assigned to every engine, never should have been taken away. One new engineer here said, "Even criminals get three strikes. We only get two."

Jane Harris is a locomotive engineer at NJ Transit and a member of the United Transportation Union.  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home