Re: The more we know non-Update
Author: Dr Zarkoff
Date: 01-01-2018 - 11:54
> Thus, it is alleged that none of the qualifying engineers were getting the undivided attention needed to memorize the route without distraction.
It's the other way around. An individual qualifying on a route GIVES attention to the process of learning the route. Besides, until this post/news article all the information about that second person in the cab has been that he/she was a trainman, not an engine service person.
As some other rails have commented, while the necessity and/or desirability of having an Amtrak RFE in the cab for this particular train is valid, it's on shaky ground because of being based on the assumption that said RFE would be thoroughly experienced in the craft of locomotive engineer and the particular route the train was taking. All I can say at this juncture is that Atk, in its mania for generating statistical data to include in reports for submission to the regulatory authorities (including Congress) and its "I'm in charge and you're not" mind-set, has debased the position to the point of being a clerical, paper shuffling job in which really experienced individuals no longer have much of any interest in applying for.
> Technically the speed limit is 79.999999999999....
No, technically a speed limit of 79 mph is 79.0 mph.
It's impossible for any human (or electronic cruise cruise control) to maintain a precise speed because of minor undulations in the track gradient, etc. so an addition 2-3 mph is allowed before the overspeed kicks in. This is a principle which dates back decades, long before the FRA was even created.
All in all, that article and this whole thread are just summer reruns.