Jump to content

MER Cover Up


HelmutX

Recommended Posts

The fact that MER refused FOI is indicative of a cover up. I know 2 individuals who were on that tram. They both thought the driver was going too fast at the time and the injured woman was the wife/partner of the driver and was sitting up at the front (not sure if that is normally acceptable). These individuals assisted at the scene and were never thanked for their help nor were they ever asked for a witness statement even though the police took all their details.

And, to state that the wheels were worn below the allowable limit is indicative of the standards we are expected to accept. All accidents are a result of multiple little things. Going too fast, worn wheels, poor maintenance and a driver that was trying to be a Capt. Francesco Schettino.

And no one will be held accountable.

  • Like 6
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given the similar findings concerning maintenance failures in respect of the 2017 runaway SMR tram and now these new revelations, surely some questions need to be asked about exactly what has been going on in the the whole maintenance regime on the moving vehicles of the tram network?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Minister Thomas of the Department of Infrastructure has remained silent on this topic. If it was housing and community board matter, a matter relating to the roads or the airport runway closure then be prepared for in depth interview on the NPM. Railway Health and Safety must be bottom of the pile in terms of priorities. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, 2112 said:

Minister Thomas of the Department of Infrastructure has remained silent on this topic. If it was housing and community board matter, a matter relating to the roads or the airport runway closure then be prepared for in depth interview on the NPM. Railway Health and Safety must be bottom of the pile in terms of priorities. 

question is does he actually know ,or even care whats going on in his department , time the DOI was broken down  , its far too big ,and attention to important detail has been lost ,

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

You must have seen the Risk Assessment.

What Risk Assesment? The one that allowed them to look at the tyre and said "She'll be reet"

On the road the driver is responsible for the condtion of the vehicle, in the air pilots do a visual check of the aircraft so how come the driver, and a very senior and experienced railway engineer allegedly, wasn't liable for taking a vehicle out in that condition?

And if the person injured wasn't an employee and was seated in the passenger compartment would they have sustained the injuries?  

IIRC these units have GPS for geolocating features for an audio app to co-ordinate pre-recorded speil about views etc.I wonder if that same sytem can be used to independently show the actual speed (and any braking or acceleration in the leadup) as opposed to a recollection of a driver who has a vested interest in shaving a few mph from their recall and the impression of witnesses uinfamilair with the normal/safe speeds.

And there seems to be no more news on the electrocution incidents either.

It seems it is going to take an actual fatality to get any meaningful change there, if then. Sadly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, CallMeCurious said:

IIRC these units have GPS for geolocating features for an audio app to co-ordinate pre-recorded speil about views etc.I wonder if that same sytem can be used to independently show the actual speed (and any braking or acceleration in the leadup) as opposed to a recollection of a driver who has a vested interest in shaving a few mph from their recall and the impression of witnesses uinfamilair with the normal/safe speeds.

They have that ability already.  According to the actual report:

image.png.ff304165272724e9680d9d8dd4f3c56d.png

(Usual idiotic government problem with reports in image-only format).  But of course that's the average speed for a section of line and not the maximum within that - and it doesn't assess whether that's the appropriate speed for that particular point on the track.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CallMeCurious said:

On the road the driver is responsible for the condtion of the vehicle, in the air pilots do a visual check of the aircraft so how come the driver, and a very senior and experienced railway engineer allegedly, wasn't liable for taking a vehicle out in that condition?

It reportedly used to take a year (or it might have been two 🤔 ) to repaint a tram so it's not like they're not laid up for long enough to allow time for such inspections...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Non-Believer said:

It reportedly used to take a year (or it might have been two 🤔 ) to repaint a tram so it's not like they're not laid up for long enough to allow time for such inspections...

Maybe we shouldn't restore any that are damaged in accidents. Then natural attrition would wind it down or they might actually look after what they have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, piebaps said:

Speed wasn't a factor. It didn't cause the derailment and it didn't make it worse - according to the report.

image.png.e8ebe4a97b8f2374f1499a0812b50bb9.png

The report that was full of redactions to protect the innocent...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, piebaps said:

Speed wasn't a factor. It didn't cause the derailment and it didn't make it worse - according to the report.

That may be so, but there are other factors to consider in that report. The first is that the author's name has been redacted - I find that incredible. The second is the assertion that the driver had 40 years' experience driving trams - the implication is that he had a permanent full-time job driving trams for 40 years, which is clearly not true.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to the article on IOM Today the derailment happened at 18.40.  On checking the current timetable you should not be passing Ballajora (over a mile south) until 18.43. presumably the car was running ahead of schedule which may suggest going faster than necessary if this was the case.

I also find in surprising in that article that when the brakes became rough the motorman did not immediately stop and visually check running gear, I would have done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...