 |
Re: Save time "and" more trains? But, really back to the accident....
Author: BOB2
Date: 12-22-2017 - 22:04
It's about benefits as an investment, this project allows for more trains "and" travel time/operating savings, as it does both. And, both have a cost benefit ratio, and they are both excellent objectives, with real pay offs.
It isn't really a question of walk "or" chew gum, is it?
Most folks would expect that you could at least try to do both. The project was designed to do both..... More trains is okay, right? But, that time and cost savings, for operators (aka taxpayers?) and the passengers, are somehow not a good thing....? Why exactly?
I am more interested in the lack of information about the use of dynamic braking, and a report that may indicate that they may have been using some kind of "braking", but had not plugged it. But, may have, in the reported comment, purportedly by the hogger, about speed, 6 seconds before the final "oh crap" moment, only then realized that they were going a little fast........
I suspect these trains handle pretty well, so I'd have expected to already have initiated an application, or widened back on dynamics, and started my speed reduction way before I was 6 seconds away, at 78 mph, from a 30 mph. restriction. The latest very limited update from the NTSB raises more questions than it really answers.
Although distraction is one reason for losing situational awareness. Another is handling the train at that speed, you initiate an action, you expect a result, nothing happens, and you've traveled a good ways already, before you notices that it ain't doing what you want it to do...... Without immediate action to correct or remedy the situation, you will very quickly also run out of time to take effective action to bring that train speed down, and you are past the "oh crap" point of no return.
When things don't respond as expected, or when you are confronted with a "new reality", there is often a time lag, or "delay" in assessing that new "reality". This is not unlike what happened to "Sully" and his copilot, over NY.... Unlike Sully, there was no time to recover, and only a freeway, and not a river, to "land" it on.......
I am kind of impressed with the crashworthiness of the new Siemens engine though, it's likely totaled, but the crew in it actually survived that.....
More information on train operating/mechanical status, use of braking, dynamics, and what events occurred in the cab leading up to the point of "no return", are still lacking in any detail .... As I said earlier, I think that the interviews are also going to be real interesting on this one.
Distraction is certainly on the table.....but we really know almost nothing real about how they were operating, the events and actions taken "upstream" from the point of the derailment, or of any information on how the equipment and systems were performing.
It isn't really a question of walk "or" chew gum, is it?
Most folks would expect that you could at least try to do both. The project was designed to do both..... More trains is okay, right? But, that time and cost savings, for operators (aka taxpayers?) and the passengers, are somehow not a good thing....? Why exactly?
I am more interested in the lack of information about the use of dynamic braking, and a report that may indicate that they may have been using some kind of "braking", but had not plugged it. But, may have, in the reported comment, purportedly by the hogger, about speed, 6 seconds before the final "oh crap" moment, only then realized that they were going a little fast........
I suspect these trains handle pretty well, so I'd have expected to already have initiated an application, or widened back on dynamics, and started my speed reduction way before I was 6 seconds away, at 78 mph, from a 30 mph. restriction. The latest very limited update from the NTSB raises more questions than it really answers.
Although distraction is one reason for losing situational awareness. Another is handling the train at that speed, you initiate an action, you expect a result, nothing happens, and you've traveled a good ways already, before you notices that it ain't doing what you want it to do...... Without immediate action to correct or remedy the situation, you will very quickly also run out of time to take effective action to bring that train speed down, and you are past the "oh crap" point of no return.
When things don't respond as expected, or when you are confronted with a "new reality", there is often a time lag, or "delay" in assessing that new "reality". This is not unlike what happened to "Sully" and his copilot, over NY.... Unlike Sully, there was no time to recover, and only a freeway, and not a river, to "land" it on.......
I am kind of impressed with the crashworthiness of the new Siemens engine though, it's likely totaled, but the crew in it actually survived that.....
More information on train operating/mechanical status, use of braking, dynamics, and what events occurred in the cab leading up to the point of "no return", are still lacking in any detail .... As I said earlier, I think that the interviews are also going to be real interesting on this one.
Distraction is certainly on the table.....but we really know almost nothing real about how they were operating, the events and actions taken "upstream" from the point of the derailment, or of any information on how the equipment and systems were performing.
