Page:NTSB - Railroad Accident Report - Derailment on May 25, 1989.djvu/68

 The conductor held an active State of California driver's permit. According to the SCDMV, the conductor had no history of having received a summons or conviction. The NDR contained no information on revocations or suspensions regarding the conductor's driving privileges.

The conductor had been employed by the SP for 17 years at the time of the accident. He had held the position of brakeman until April 15, 1975, when he was promoted to the position of conductor.

The head-end brakeman of Extra 7551 East had been off duty during the 48 hours preceding the accident. The brakeman's wife reported the following information about the brakeman: He spent the time during the days conducting personal business and engaged in activities with his family. On Thursday, May 11, he awoke about 9:30 a.m. having received about 10 1/2 hours of sleep, and spent the day at home. He reported for duty at Bakersfield at 9:00 p.m. that evening. He had been eating regular meals, had been receiving his normal amount of rest, and "was not fatigued" when he departed home on the evening of May 11. He did not smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol, or use illicit substances, and she had not noticed any recent changes in her husband's lifestyle.

The head-end brakeman had been employed with the SP for more than 17 years at the time of the accident. He was promoted to the position of brakeman on November 27, 1971. The helper engineer had been off duty since 11:00 p.m., May 9, having completed at that time an approximate 10-hour tour of duty. He stated that on May 10, he attended a union meeting in the morning and for the remainder of the day engaged in personal activities. According to his testimony, on Thursday, May 11, he awoke around 10:00 a.m., having received about 8 hours of sleep. He spent the day performing personal business and retired that evening about 11:30 p.m., at which time he received a call from the crew dispatcher for a 1:30 a.m. duty call. He reported to the West Colton yard and then rode in a company van for the l/2-hour trip to the Dike siding where he was to relieve the on-duty helper engineer.

The helper engineer reported that there had been no recent changes in his lifestyle, that he does not use illicit substances, and that he had not consumed any alcohol during the days preceding the accident.

The helper engineer stated that he had eaten regular meals during the days preceding the accident and that he normally receives 6 to 8 hours of sleep daily. In his initial statements to Safety Board investigators, he stated that when he received the call for duty on the evening of May 11, he had not received his proper rest and "was tired." He elaborated by stating that he was not tired when he first reported for duty but that he was not "in tip top condition the whole trip." When questioned if he had fallen asleep during the trip, the helper engineer replied, "I don't think so." The engineer further stated that he had expected to receive a call for duty because he had called the crew dispatcher's office several times that day, but believed that he would receive the call for duty later in the night or early the following morning. During the Safety Board's public hearing, he