 |
Re: Where Berg got his 79.99999 speed limit from.
Author: Dr Zarkoff
Date: 01-03-2018 - 18:37
> So what do we know as fact.
> 1. Train derailed at 78 MPH
Has the NTSB said this? If not, then it's not a "fact" yet.
> 2. Crew did not notice or react to the reduced speed board 2 miles before the restriction
Disingenuous because because a slow down commonly starts a considerable distance after passing it, and there's no way for the event recorder to note a crew's reactions upon seeing/passing the board.
> 3. Crew were not using electronic devices before the incident
Correct
> 4. Crew noted an overspeed condition which set the brakes
Crew noted overspeed condition, but it, the condition, didn't set the brakes; the train's leaving the track triggered and emergency application when the train line parted.
> 5. Train did not hit any object
Correct
6. Engineer was qualified on the equipment and route
Correct.
>This should not lead to speculation about the cause of the incident. However, the we know some other facts which may have contributed.
Ahh but it does, hence this thread's rehash of real and imagined events.
> 1. Line opened on a set date by a public offical, based upon a construction schedule and perhaps an election schedule??
Irrelevant
> 2. Some crew training took place in advance of the opening (quality and amount of training not withstanding)
> 3. Crew was operating late due to earlier congestion on the line
Has no bearing on the situation
> 4. Engineer was conducting training on the first revenue trip over the line
The presences of a trainman in the cab isn't a case of the engineer conducting "training", however, a student E or an E not qualified on the route being in the cab does.
> 5. PTC was not operating (not that it matters, PTC may have eliminated or reduced the impact of the accident)
Debatable. Never forget that in spite of all the hype about it, PTC isn't a cure-all.
> 6. Conductor was not aware of the trains position or of the need to reduce speed
This is a much more widespread problem than you would have us believe.
> 1. Train derailed at 78 MPH
Has the NTSB said this? If not, then it's not a "fact" yet.
> 2. Crew did not notice or react to the reduced speed board 2 miles before the restriction
Disingenuous because because a slow down commonly starts a considerable distance after passing it, and there's no way for the event recorder to note a crew's reactions upon seeing/passing the board.
> 3. Crew were not using electronic devices before the incident
Correct
> 4. Crew noted an overspeed condition which set the brakes
Crew noted overspeed condition, but it, the condition, didn't set the brakes; the train's leaving the track triggered and emergency application when the train line parted.
> 5. Train did not hit any object
Correct
6. Engineer was qualified on the equipment and route
Correct.
>This should not lead to speculation about the cause of the incident. However, the we know some other facts which may have contributed.
Ahh but it does, hence this thread's rehash of real and imagined events.
> 1. Line opened on a set date by a public offical, based upon a construction schedule and perhaps an election schedule??
Irrelevant
> 2. Some crew training took place in advance of the opening (quality and amount of training not withstanding)
> 3. Crew was operating late due to earlier congestion on the line
Has no bearing on the situation
> 4. Engineer was conducting training on the first revenue trip over the line
The presences of a trainman in the cab isn't a case of the engineer conducting "training", however, a student E or an E not qualified on the route being in the cab does.
> 5. PTC was not operating (not that it matters, PTC may have eliminated or reduced the impact of the accident)
Debatable. Never forget that in spite of all the hype about it, PTC isn't a cure-all.
> 6. Conductor was not aware of the trains position or of the need to reduce speed
This is a much more widespread problem than you would have us believe.
